ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amy Adams , Ellie France , Mark Lundy , murder cases , New Zealand cases

Reply
Old 31st March 2015, 07:39 PM   #521
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
A window of 14 hours doesn't just indicate incompetence - one must wonder whether he actually examined the body at all!
He was shown up to be wrong in the first trial, so he's decided to be completely non-committal in this one to avoid criticism. A window of 14 hours is technically valid, but only if you accept ludicrous meal times, say 5 a.m.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Or perhaps he was taught by Steven Hayne:
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 08:23 PM   #522
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,486
Well, well, well.

Bad news for all the amateur sleuths not that he has been found guilty AGAIN.

Maybe it was necessary to be in court and hear all of the evidence first hand to make an informed decision.

All I can say is I'm pleased to see the NZ justice system finally receive a little vindication and Lundy spending the next decade inside.

Or more, if he does admit it. Parole boards don't like prisoners who don't admit their guilt - ask Peter Ellis and he wasn't even guilty.

Quote of the day from court reporters: "Lundy stood with his mouth open at the guilty verdicts"
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 08:44 PM   #523
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Disgusting.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 09:36 PM   #524
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,663
The jury must have consisted of 12 dumb people with attention span issues. How can they ignore exculpatory evidence?

The only thing I am certain about is that there is one or more persons at large tonight laughing their backsides off that they have, once again, gotten away with murder.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 10:21 PM   #525
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,215
It seems there's work to be done. Who is that guy with name suppression?
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 10:45 PM   #526
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,486
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
Disgusting.
Killing a beautiful nine year old girl with a tomahawk?

I agree entirely.

20 years is too little.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 10:49 PM   #527
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,486
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The jury must have consisted of 12 dumb people with attention span issues. How can they ignore exculpatory evidence?

The only thing I am certain about is that there is one or more persons at large tonight laughing their backsides off that they have, once again, gotten away with murder.
Irony: after bemoaning other people's certainty for the entire thread, being certain it wasn't Lundy, despite a trial where the defence tried every tactic possible, including the revolting suggestion Christine's brother did it. There is clearly no exculpatory evidence, so I doubt the jury ignored it.

Their view just did not concur with yours. One point I see today is that Christine was well-known for re-heating McDonald's. Not as rare as the pro-Lundy team thought, perhaps?

Given that you were not on the jury and did not view the evidence first hand, I'm impressed with your grasp of the situation, though.

Just curious - are you a member of the soon-to-be-disbanded and forgotten forever F.A.C.T?
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 10:52 PM   #528
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The jury must have consisted of 12 dumb people with attention span issues. How can they ignore exculpatory evidence?
Even ONE piece of evidence - the stomach contents - should have been enough to raise reasonable doubt. It absolutely baffles me, they've simply ignored it. If I walked up to any of those 12 people and asked them to explain how they could have had full stomachs at 2:15 am, I'd probably get blank looks and dribbling.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The only thing I am certain about is that there is one or more persons at large tonight laughing their backsides off that they have, once again, gotten away with murder.
The other thing I am certain of is to never get caught up in the NZ justice system if you can help it. Between the Clouseau-like police work and the 12 Stooges you'll get on a jury, you haven't got a chance.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 10:54 PM   #529
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,486
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It seems there's work to be done. Who is that guy with name suppression?
Work to be done?

None at all, I'd say. The guilty party is back to jail tonight for another decade or more, unless he finally comes clean.

Mind you, as Mark Twain [roughly] said well over a century ago: the more guilt there is, the more likely someone will defend the guilty party.

Gosh, first National getting slaughtered, now Lundy found guilty - I'm beginning to think we've turned the corner. Now, if we can just deny Baino any money while slipping Teina Pora a couple of mio I'll be happy.

Oh yeah, and Peter Ellis. Seven years for being a gay daycare worker.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 10:56 PM   #530
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,486
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Even ONE piece of evidence - the stomach contents - should have been enough to raise reasonable doubt. It absolutely baffles me, they've simply ignored it. If I walked up to any of those 12 people and asked them to explain how they could have had full stomachs at 2:15 am, I'd probably get blank looks and dribbling.
You may have missed the bit about Christine's propensity to re-heat Maccas.

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
The other thing I am certain of is to never get caught up in the NZ justice system if you can help it. Between the Clouseau-like police work and the 12 Stooges you'll get on a jury, you haven't got a chance.
Funny, I was assured they get it right 99.9% of the time.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 10:57 PM   #531
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
There is clearly no exculpatory evidence, so I doubt the jury ignored it.

Their view just did not concur with yours. One point I see today is that Christine was well-known for re-heating McDonald's.
And sitting down to eat it with Amber at 12:30 am was commonplace as well, I suppose
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 11:01 PM   #532
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,486
Are you sure it wasn't?

Excellent use of emoticon in place of evidence or argument, by the way.

Being a parent, I know there are times - especially when mummy or daddy is away - that kids of Amber's age wake up lonely. The whole family smacks of comfort eating, so it's not that great a stretch to see it happening.

Nowhere near as great a stretch as some random killer using Mark Lundy's axe to chop up a couple of chicks he'd never seen in his life, while preserving the crime scene, anyway.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 11:14 PM   #533
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
You may have missed the bit about Christine's propensity to re-heat Maccas.
Another "fact" that's all window dressing and no substance - it's only meaningful if the reheating was done at a time when it supports the stomach contents evidence. Both Christine and Amber would have had to be chowing down on their reheated Maccas at half past midnight. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Funny, I was assured they get it right 99.9% of the time.
By a policeman?
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 11:17 PM   #534
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,486
See, I'd taken so little interest in the case that I never even realised Mark Lundy's own brother was confident he did it, issuing a statement after the verdict:

Quote:
"For the past few months we have had to relive the moment we were told a despicable human being took the lives of our much cherished sister-in-law Christine, and our beautiful niece, Amber," he said.

"This has been an emotional roller coaster for us and while today brings some form of closure, the loss of our loved ones will always remain with us.

"We want to thank the police, particularly those who have worked tirelessly on the investigation from the outset.

"The work they have done has been sterling and we are grateful for their efforts as well as the support they have given us.
Link

I think Mark Lundy's brother might know Mark a bit better than amateur sleuths, and I'm not seeing any equivocation there.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 11:20 PM   #535
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,486
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Another "fact" that's all window dressing and no substance - it's only meaningful if the reheating was done at a time when it supports the stomach contents evidence. Both Christine and Amber would have had to be chowing down on their reheated Maccas at half past midnight. Does that sound reasonable to you?
I just said exactly that - it's not even slightly unreasonable. Do you have kids? If so, have you or the other parent been away and the kid has woken up looking for mummy or daddy?

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
By a policeman?
No, by John Key and people in this thread.

Cops will actually tell you the courts only get it right about 80% of the time because of all the guilty parties who get off. (in their eyes)
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 11:31 PM   #536
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I just said exactly that - it's not even slightly unreasonable. Do you have kids?
Yes, I do - and the idea is completely silly, that a kid would forego McDonalds at 6:45pm and not eat it. What happened then, did Christine keep it on the off chance Amber would wake up lonely at 12:30 am? They bought one chicken burger, one filet-o-fish burger, nine McNuggets, one large fries, one medium fries and two apple pies. What could have been left over to reheat at 12:30 am, leaving their stomachs full at 2:15 am?

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 31st March 2015 at 11:33 PM.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 12:45 AM   #537
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,215
Just a reminder of the best description of the autopsy I have seen. It should be studied pretty damn carefully.

32. Dr Pang carried out the autopsies on both bodies. Amber's beginning at 7 30pm on 29th and that of Christine at 9am the following morning. He found that both stomachs were "quite full" and he was able to identify the stomach contents as a meal such as would be purchased from the fast food restaurant from which Mrs Lundy and her daughter had obtained the takeaway the evening before. He described the duodenum in both bodies as empty which he took to be a further indication that the digestive process had not started.

Armed with this, there is no need to be a specialist. Judge France has failed in his duty by not making this front and center of the summing up. When he failed to do so, I feared the worst.
But this autopsy report says quite full. And HardCheese has listed the dinner, the burgers are small, particularly the fillet'o'fish, which is tasty but rather expensive.

Amber has school tomorrow, normal bedtime 7 30 and lights out 8 30, and a happy child. (Any reports of sleep issues?) She is a large child who made a special phone call to get Mark's permission, so was hungry by definition. Some women will not allow food to be consumed in cars, so maybe it was taken home, kept warm in the oven while other activities intervened before eating. It appears she ate a burger 4 mcnugets, a small fries, and they are small, and an apple pie.
I will not buy that some of this was kept (unlikely) and eaten at midnight. It is great to have two autopsies to line up the stomach evidence.

To this strong unlikelihood must be added the murder itself, 12 30 after a litre of rum, some very specialised equipment to carry and discard covered in gore, which left no forensic trace, and an early 7 30 start (the battery purchase). Note there is no feasible sleep in the whole period, unless the 4 30 to 7 30 window is employed. There will be blood in his hair to wash. Is there any evidence of that?

Last edited by Samson; 1st April 2015 at 12:48 AM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 01:00 AM   #538
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,029
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
the idea is completely silly,
But it must be the truth, because otherwise an innocent man has had his family and freedom taken from him by a murderer who got away with it and may kill again.

Who could bear to live in a world where such injustice abounds? Not me, which is why I have decided that whatever the State says must be true. Please stop trying to sow doubt in my mind - this thread should be closed so we don't have to think about it anymore.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 01:10 AM   #539
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,215
Referring to the autopsy again.

32. Dr Pang carried out the autopsies on both bodies. Amber's beginning at 7 30pm on 29th and that of Christine at 9am the following morning. He found that both stomachs were "quite full" and he was able to identify the stomach contents as a meal such as would be purchased from the fast food restaurant from which Mrs Lundy and her daughter had obtained the takeaway the evening before. He described the duodenum in both bodies as empty which he took to be a further indication that the digestive process had not started.

Looking at this again, it seems an exceedingly strong likelihood that both meals were eaten at the same time to deliver identical autopsy descriptions. The very idea that they both did identical things twice is quite ridiculous, when the meals could so easily be consumed in one sitting. The likelihood of this occurring at midnight is a hopeless wish by the prosecution.
Sean Plunket was advocating Lundy do a whole life sentence from scratch if found guilty, to discourage others from repeated appeals, so I sent him an email including text from one of Charlie's declarative posts, citing him as an impartial American analyst. He went a bit silent after that, but said he thought he would go down. I will listen to Sean on radio live tomorrow morning to see if sending detailed analysis gave him pause.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 02:02 AM   #540
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Irony: after bemoaning other people's certainty for the entire thread, being certain it wasn't Lundy, despite a trial where the defence tried every tactic possible, including the revolting suggestion Christine's brother did it. There is clearly no exculpatory evidence, so I doubt the jury ignored it.
Well, he's got an alibi, backed by documentation and multiple witnesses, that puts him in a distant city on the night of the murders. If that's not exculpatory, I don't know what is. But the alibi is not entirely unbreakable, if one is determined to break it by whatever stretch of probability is required.

On the other hand, I don't see any incriminating evidence that can be possibly considered reliable, much less conclusive. Your argument for guilt is that it could only be Lundy, and he acted guilty. That is not evidence, but the conjecture of someone who hasn't followed enough murder investigations to know better.

At any rate, NZ is no worse than the US. David Camm was also convicted of murdering his family by two different juries, despite having eleven alibi witnesses who said he was elsewhere at the time of the murders. It's amazing what comes out of a courtroom sometimes. I don't like it. I need meaningful evidence to form a conclusion about guilt or innocence.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 02:45 AM   #541
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Sean Plunket was advocating Lundy do a whole life sentence from scratch if found guilty, to discourage others from repeated appeals,
He's an idiot. If the police hadn't lifted their case from Alice in Wonderland, maybe Lundy wouldn't have had any grounds to appeal.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 03:10 AM   #542
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Did Mark Lundy murder his wife and child?

The original OP question. Now answered in the affirmative. Nice to have some resolution.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 03:51 AM   #543
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,215
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Did Mark Lundy murder his wife and child?

The original OP question. Now answered in the affirmative. Nice to have some resolution.
Did Amanda Knox murder her roommate? Answered, yes she did. Nencini settled that. Nicely resolved.

On a serious note, I am trying to get into the mind of a guilty Lundy.
This killing was planned for the date, and he probably dreamed it up when the insurance salesman did his job and suggested the Lundys up their cover, which is income for the salesman.
On the morning of the planned killing he visits a regular sink bench customer, and discusses how he has increased the insurance cover of him and his wife.
This is what happened. Of course the insurance is on his mind, and people discuss things on their minds, but I am struggling to see why under these very special circumstances he would reveal his motive for a planned crime.

Last edited by Samson; 1st April 2015 at 04:01 AM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 03:55 AM   #544
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
alibi

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
Disgusting.
Exactly.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 03:57 AM   #545
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
two is better than one

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
You may have missed the bit about Christine's propensity to re-heat Maccas.
The daughter's stomach contents were more or less the same thing.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 04:00 AM   #546
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Did Amanda Knox murder her roommate? Answered, yes she did. Nencini settled that. Nicely resolved.
I'm unfamiliar with the Amanda Knox case. But if it's one of those deals like this: "Science got one wrong so everything else must be wrong," then, that's wrong.

Do they interview jurors after the trial in NZ? Curious to hear what they might have to say about the objections raised in this thread.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 04:24 AM   #547
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,215
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I'm unfamiliar with the Amanda Knox case. But if it's one of those deals like this: "Science got one wrong so everything else must be wrong," then, that's wrong.

Do they interview jurors after the trial in NZ? Curious to hear what they might have to say about the objections raised in this thread.
No, not commonly, but I would love the chance here. I have been obsessing on digestive evidence for a couple of years and when I heard they had relocated the time of death, along with these dual autopsies with the same configuration as Kercher, I confidently predicted to the same sorts of people who I declared Knox innocent to that acquittal was a sure thing, to be met with disbelief. This is disastrous for Lundy, just disappointing for me because I was expected to be the oracle again.

There are people still fighting this, they won't give up.
I am going over the before and after conversations and behaviour to see what illuminates.

Last edited by Samson; 1st April 2015 at 04:26 AM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 04:44 AM   #548
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,215
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Exactly.
Chris, what are your thoughts on
1. Just two spots of tissue on the shirt after the killing?
2. The forensic cleanness of the car, Lundy, etc in light of the type of killing and the time intervals allowed? For example would you think you could achieve it with your knowledge of processes and likely protective clothing needed?

I am not trying to lead an answer, more question how easy or difficult would it be to achieve.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 11:36 AM   #549
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,486
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Yes, I do - and the idea is completely silly, that a kid would forego McDonalds at 6:45pm and not eat it. What happened then, did Christine keep it on the off chance Amber would wake up lonely at 12:30 am? They bought one chicken burger, one filet-o-fish burger, nine McNuggets, one large fries, one medium fries and two apple pies. What could have been left over to reheat at 12:30 am, leaving their stomachs full at 2:15 am?
Except you're now being dishonest about what was found in their stomachs - not McD little skinny chips, but big, fat potato chips, old style.

That immediately makes the theory about McD rubbish and Christine could have put some chips in the oven or re-heated something from the fridge. Takes 20 minutes, and like I said, these are two clear comfort-eaters in play here.

I have to say that the fact that he has been found guilty, despite the best misinformation a $2M defence budget can by only slightly more pleasurable than the posturings of amateur sleuths who have decided he's innocent, based on christ knows what, because the evidence clearly is sufficient to find him guilty.

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
Well, he's got an alibi, backed by documentation and multiple witnesses, that puts him in a distant city on the night of the murders. If that's not exculpatory, I don't know what is. But the alibi is not entirely unbreakable, if one is determined to break it by whatever stretch of probability is required.
Since he has no alibi at all after the second phone call, that left him all night to do the deed. Not even slightly exculpatory.

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
On the other hand, I don't see any incriminating evidence that can be possibly considered reliable, much less conclusive. Your argument for guilt is that it could only be Lundy, and he acted guilty. That is not evidence, but the conjecture of someone who hasn't followed enough murder investigations to know better.
The guilty verdict wasn't based on conjecture, but evidence.

But hey, the ironic humour in you bemoaning my conjecture while bringing your own that Lundy is innocent is pretty damn fine.

Evidence?

Number 1 - the paint

Number 2 - the DNA on Lundy's shirt.

His shirt was so clean that the best forensic scientists in the world could not agree on what a substance on it was. The chances of Christine's having got there without him killing her are vanishingly small.

Number 3 - the petrol. Lundy cannot account for almost 500 km of travel. Handily enough to get from Petone to Palmy.

I'm sure the jury took a lot more than that in, but those three alone are sufficient to remove most of the doubt, so it's small step to remove the unreasonable doubts the defence tried to raise.

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
At any rate, NZ is no worse than the US. David Camm was also convicted of murdering his family by two different juries, despite having eleven alibi witnesses who said he was elsewhere at the time of the murders. It's amazing what comes out of a courtroom sometimes. I don't like it. I need meaningful evidence to form a conclusion about guilt or innocence.
I trust you never make a jury, then.

As noted above, Lundy had NO alibi for the murders.

It makes a lot more sense for him to carry out the murders in the small hours anyway. He must have been well known in his area, and if he's arriving in the evening a dog-walker or neighbour might see him.

I'm trying to get my head around why some of you in this thread are so determined that Lundy is innocent, in spite of his guilt, and even if you hadn't seen the evidence, you know exactly how he behaved post-murder and still support him.

Nice work.

Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Did Mark Lundy murder his wife and child?

The original OP question. Now answered in the affirmative. Nice to have some resolution.
Certainly is, and best of all, the correct resolution.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 12:24 PM   #550
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,486
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The likelihood of this occurring at midnight is a hopeless wish by the prosecution.
Yet not hopeless enough the best defence lawyers in the country couldn't sway the jury to see it that way.


Originally Posted by Samson View Post
There are people still fighting this, they won't give up.
Exellent idea.

Get a Gofundme campaign going. See how that goes and get back to me.

A better idea might be to stop the obsessing about now. The game's over and Lundy is in Rimutaka on suicide watch.

I'd have left him with his belt and some spare rope rather than a camera in case he gets too down about it all. He must be worse than gutted. Imagine going as far as losing 100kg to appear normal, then still getting banged up for the almost-perfect crime...
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 12:39 PM   #551
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,486
Today's Herald summing it up nicely:

__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 12:45 PM   #552
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,215
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Yet not hopeless enough the best defence lawyers in the country couldn't sway the jury to see it that way.




Exellent idea.

Get a Gofundme campaign going. See how that goes and get back to me.

A better idea might be to stop the obsessing about now. The game's over and Lundy is in Rimutaka on suicide watch.

I'd have left him with his belt and some spare rope rather than a camera in case he gets too down about it all. He must be worse than gutted. Imagine going as far as losing 100kg to appear normal, then still getting banged up for the almost-perfect crime...
The murder is allegedly planned. If you can give me an insight into the planner's mind in discussing his life insurance cover increase unprompted, with a customer, 12 hours before he committed a killing to get that life insurance I will be encouraged. IT puzzles me, because there is no reason to be surprised if he is innocent, but if he is guilty....
Is it a question of double bluff?
I personally can't reconcile it, give it some thought and come back to me.

Incidentally, there is one thing that convinces me, the stomach contents. There is a delay in digestion after eating fatty meals, but the stomach is still empty after 6 hours, not QUITE FULL in two subjects. Yep the people are baying like hounds, they've solved this one. The prime minister has spoken. Nice work.

Oh and forensic psychologist Nigel Latta says he planned to kill Amber as well so she didn't need to suffer without her mum, and he was going to start a new life on his vineyard with a 20 year old. Badlands.

Last edited by Samson; 1st April 2015 at 12:49 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 12:50 PM   #553
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Except you're now being dishonest about what was found in their stomachs - not McD little skinny chips, but big, fat potato chips, old style.
When Amber's stomach was opened at the autopsy, the contents were "possibly potato, maybe fish, maybe meat, no apparent vegetables", and was full. Yes, old style thick chips were found, but so were crinkle-cut potato chips. That doesn't fit with some kind of midnight snack. Where did the fish and the meat come from? Also reheated in 20 minutes I suppose.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
That immediately makes the theory about McD rubbish and Christine could have put some chips in the oven or re-heated something from the fridge. Takes 20 minutes, and like I said, these are two clear comfort-eaters in play here.
How could their stomachs be full with a few chips? They need to have eaten a full meal. Did the police find any evidence of a late night meal, used plates, cooking utensils? A bag of frozen chips in the fridge? I suppose your answer is they ate the whole bag and Christine did the washing up afterwards, at 1 am.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 12:56 PM   #554
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
I'm left trying to figure out why so much of this thread had him pegged as clearly innocent (or at least "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).

Here's what I've come up with to explain the disparity with the jury verdict.

1) The jury didn't see the same evidence we've been talking about - either they had more or less, but the difference led to a different conclusion.
2) The jury was exposed to pretty much the same evidence, but weighed it differently, and the difference in evaluation leads to the verdict they gave.
3) The jury was bloodthirsty - I discount this one.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 01:13 PM   #555
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,215
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I'm left trying to figure out why so much of this thread had him pegged as clearly innocent (or at least "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).

Here's what I've come up with to explain the disparity with the jury verdict.

1) The jury didn't see the same evidence we've been talking about - either they had more or less, but the difference led to a different conclusion.
2) The jury was exposed to pretty much the same evidence, but weighed it differently, and the difference in evaluation leads to the verdict they gave.
3) The jury was bloodthirsty - I discount this one.
The jury decided he was guilty after watching a video just before winding up deliberations, where the arresting detective was breaking the bad news.

Lundy's retrial began on February 8. Perhaps it truly finished on Tuesday, when the jury returned to the courtroom to view two film clips made by police. The end was nigh for Lundy at that exact moment; the mood in his legal defence team plummeted; they could see the writing on the wall, because of all the things the jury chose to re-examine, all the brilliant science of blood stains and stomach contents, what they actually wanted to watch was a police video made of Lundy apparently lying his head off.
Towards the end of the video - Lundy had come into the Palmerston North police station to be interviewed by Detective Steve Kelly - a dramatic thing happened. "The day has come," Kelly said. "We've got to do it."
Lundy was wearing shorts and a yellow T-shirt. The two men sat around a table. There was a clock on the wall. Kelly brought out a stack of photographs; they were taken of Christine and Amber, dead, covered in blood - their lives had ended in terror, at night, in Christine's bedroom, both of them slaughtered.
Lundy recoiled. He whimpered, groaned loudly, made strangled kind of screams. He covered his face. "Yuk," he said. He bowed his head. Was it the horror of a man who has seen how terribly his wife and daughter suffered? Or was it fairly pathetic acting, a lame attempt to mime the response expected of an innocent man?

The Lundys' former home in Palmerston North. Kelly got up and awkwardly rubbed Lundy's shoulders. Lundy said, "I hate you now" - and two of the jurors, who were actually watching Lundy in the dock, exchanged a wide smirk.
In fact one of the jurors spent the entire video watching Lundy in the dock. He didn't look at the video at all. At another point, the forewoman turned suddenly around to him, and they nodded, and smiled.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11426661

The jury comprises behavioural scientists. A pity they could ignore the stomach contents, because if they had started there, they would realise he may as well have been on the moon when they were murdered.

Last edited by Samson; 1st April 2015 at 01:17 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 01:17 PM   #556
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
the importance of substrate controls

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Number 2 - the DNA on Lundy's shirt.

His shirt was so clean that the best forensic scientists in the world could not agree on what a substance on it was. The chances of Christine's having got there without him killing her are vanishingly small.
A wife's DNA on her husband's shirt is well nigh meaningless. Did the forensic police do substrate controls on the stain? If not, then the attribution of DNA to a particular stain is not implicit, as Peel and Gill (2004) did experiments to demonstrate.

"Mr Morgan also pointed out that DNA from two unknown males found under Amber's nails was 'unremarkable', because they could have been picked up when the 7-year-old went to school that day." link Not so fast. Foreign DNA under fingernails is uncommon. IIRC it is seen about 5% of the time (Peter Gill's book discusses this).
EDT
From a summary of the defense's closing: "Separate tests on fabric from the polo shirt showed DNA hugely likely to be from Christine Lundy, but the defence argued the DNA was unrelated to the tissue and could have been from something as simple as Christine Lundy coughing or sneezing mucus on to the polo shirt." If this was indeed sub-source DNA, then I strongly concur. I read a study on DNA in clothing some time ago, and it sounds like a magnet for DNA.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 1st April 2015 at 02:44 PM. Reason: added the comment about Dr. Gill's book
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 01:31 PM   #557
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
RNA forensic questions

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Chris, what are your thoughts on
1. Just two spots of tissue on the shirt after the killing?
2. The forensic cleanness of the car, Lundy, etc in light of the type of killing and the time intervals allowed? For example would you think you could achieve it with your knowledge of processes and likely protective clothing needed?

I am not trying to lead an answer, more question how easy or difficult would it be to achieve.
I don't have a strong opinion yet, but I think it would be quite challenging. The prosecution should not get a free pass on this or any other aspect of the case IMO. How did Mr. Lundy effect a cleanup that was nearly perfect? They should also be able to reconcile a TOD with the stomach contents, etc.

I did want to comment on another aspect of the case that bothered me, which was the RNA evidence, which was presented by Dr Laetitia Sijen. "One of the RNA makers used to find human brain on Mark Lundy's polo shirt should not have been used, because it did not test positive in control sample tests, Professor Stephen Bustin told the court...Bustin told the court that he used to be surprised scientists could work with RNA which was degraded and old." I am not an expert in forensic RNA analysis, but this second point is something that one teaches in introductory biochemistry. RNA is far more labile to mild alkaline hydrolysis than DNA is, owing to the hydroxyl group, -OH, on the 2' carbon of the ribose group in RNA (it is just a -H atom in DNA). Even DNA that is years old can be degraded, and forensic testing on cold cases sometimes turns up fresh DNA that comes from a contamination event, such as in the Gary Leiterman case. "I would be very reluctant to accept the results, because of so many fundamental flaws as to the techniques used." link
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 1st April 2015 at 02:40 PM. Reason: added some more information on the hydrolysis of RNA
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 02:41 PM   #558
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,486
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The murder is allegedly planned. If you can give me an insight into the planner's mind in discussing his life insurance cover increase unprompted, with a customer, 12 hours before he committed a killing to get that life insurance I will be encouraged. IT puzzles me, because there is no reason to be surprised if he is innocent, but if he is guilty....
Is it a question of double bluff?
I personally can't reconcile it, give it some thought and come back to me.
A low-grade salesman talking big, not realising his brain is in neutral. Loose lips sink ships etc.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Incidentally, there is one thing that convinces me, the stomach contents.
Me too. It convinces me the food was eaten later at night.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
... The prime minister has spoken. Nice work.

Oh and forensic psychologist Nigel Latta says he planned to kill Amber as well so she didn't need to suffer without her mum, and he was going to start a new life on his vineyard with a 20 year old. Badlands.
Well, if Nigel Latta and John Key agree with me, I might have to start second-guessing my own analysis.

If you were to pick the two Kiwis whose opinion I despise the most, they'd both be right up there.

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
When Amber's stomach was opened at the autopsy, the contents were "possibly potato, maybe fish, maybe meat, no apparent vegetables", and was full. Yes, old style thick chips were found, but so were crinkle-cut potato chips. That doesn't fit with some kind of midnight snack. Where did the fish and the meat come from? Also reheated in 20 minutes I suppose.
Or 20 seconds in the microwave.

I find it amusing that you find such a simple theory - they had a midnight snack - so hard to accept, yet are prepared to swallow any scenario that could show Lundy not doing it.

This is an excellent case in point:

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
How could their stomachs be full with a few chips? They need to have eaten a full meal. Did the police find any evidence of a late night meal, used plates, cooking utensils? A bag of frozen chips in the fridge? I suppose your answer is they ate the whole bag and Christine did the washing up afterwards, at 1 am.
I know that on the many occasions I've been awake with one or more children in the middle of the night I clean up afterwards so I don't have to first thing in the morning.

I can only presume this is a foreign concept to some people.

Chris has another most excellent example further down.

Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I'm left trying to figure out why so much of this thread had him pegged as clearly innocent (or at least "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).
Tom Sawyer. Injun Joe. I'll get a chapter number for you if I can find the book. Towards the end.

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Not so fast. Foreign DNA under fingernails is uncommon. IIRC it is seen about 5% of the time.
Such 5% probably being kids at school.

See, this is where the defence of Lundy becomes nonsensical in my view. A 9 yo with foreign DNA under her nails?

Did it come from kids playing together at school? Almost certainly.

So, instead consider the possibility that confronted with a blood-soaked man with an axe his hand dripping with her mother's blood, she is going to be able to grab the guy and scratch him before he splits her head in half.

Sounds legit.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 02:48 PM   #559
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
enquiring minds

The Atheist,

What do you think was the TOD?
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 02:55 PM   #560
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I'm left trying to figure out why so much of this thread had him pegged as clearly innocent (or at least "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).

Here's what I've come up with to explain the disparity with the jury verdict.

1) The jury didn't see the same evidence we've been talking about - either they had more or less, but the difference led to a different conclusion.
2) The jury was exposed to pretty much the same evidence, but weighed it differently, and the difference in evaluation leads to the verdict they gave.
3) The jury was bloodthirsty - I discount this one.
If I had to pick from your list, I'd say (2), but I think there's a (4), which is: the police say he did it, the prosecutor thinks he did it, and practically everyone else thinks he did it, because he seems like a seedy guy.

I have seen too many of these cases. People can look at the weakest scraps of evidence and convince themselves it proves a case, because they are biased against the defendant and intuitively believe he is guilty.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.