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 1st April 2015, 02:57 PM   #561
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Or 20 seconds in the microwave.

I find it amusing that you find such a simple theory - they had a midnight snack
Come on, a full stomach for both of them is not a "midnight snack". Would you let your kids have a full meal at 12:30 am? Fish, meat, fries, and potato chips?

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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.
Yet the police found a half-cut banana on the cutting board in the kitchen. So she cleaned up some things, but left the old banana there to rot?

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 1st April 2015 at 02:58 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, 03:01 PM   #562
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
DNA underneath fingernails

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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 Atheist,

Hmm...Perhaps I do not understand your point. It is the prosecution who brushed off the DNA underneath the fingernails as unremarkable. My point is that it is unusual enough to ponder. I am not saying it definitely came from the killer, only that it raises some doubt. YMMV

"Earlier investigations of the background incidence of foreign DNA under fingernails by the FSS found reportable mixed DNA profiles on 6% of the general public [6] rising to 17% among co-habiting individuals. In the majority of cases from co-habiting individuals, the foreign DNA was attributable to the donor's partner [7], thereby demonstrating a low, partial and potentially traceable background level. The aim of this final phase of the investigation was (a) to establish whether female DNA was always transferred to the male's fingernails following an act of digital vaginal penetration and (b) to determine the period during which female DNA persisted under the male's fingernails at detectable and informative levels." Forensic Science International: Genetics Volume 5, Issue 5, November 2011, Pages 479–483.

Here is some material from another study (citation at bottom of second paragraph): "Additionally it is important to note that of individuals who cohabited non-intimately, their household members were excluded as the source of the foreign DNA profiles detected, which suggests that sharing a household environment and common household items is not likely to result in the transfer of DNA beneath the fingernails and that it is unlikely that casual contact, for example a handshake, will result in foreign DNA under the fingernails."

6. Conclusion
"The goal of this article was to provide the forensic community with data to use in forming opinions of the significance DNA fingernail evidence. There is an increased prevalence of foreign DNA detected under fingernails in casework where the case history includes the assertion that close contact between the perpetrator and victim may have occurred. The low incidence of foreign DNA in a sampling from the general population along with the low incidence after deliberate scratching suggests that more than just casual contact is required for fingernails to acquire and retain foreign DNA and that it generally will not persist for long periods." Forensic Science International: Genetics Volume 6, Issue 2, March 2012, Pages 236–243.
__________________
“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 03:03 PM.
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, 03:12 PM   #563
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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.
His wife's DNA on his shirt is incriminating evidence? Give me a break. She lived with him, eh? Maybe she did his laundry. Read about the Phantom of Heilbronn here. Treat yourself to some actual knowledge of forensics.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Number 3 - the petrol. Lundy cannot account for almost 500 km of travel. Handily enough to get from Petone to Palmy.
That is all the kind of crap evidence that gets into a trial when the cops zero in on a suspect but can't find good evidence. It sounds vaguely incriminating but proves nothing.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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.
OK, if this makes sense, why did the first trial center around a precise TOD in the early evening, with a witness who claims she saw him running from the crime scene wearing a wig? That's what the first jury convicted on, right?

Let's face it: neither you nor the prosecutor has the first clue what you think happened. Which is typical in cases where the bias is overwhelming, but the evidence doesn't prove anything.
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, 03:28 PM   #564
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,508
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
The Atheist,

What do you think was the TOD?
No idea. How would you or I or anyone else have a clue? Knowing the time of death would require knowledge of when Christine served the food.
__________________
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, 03:35 PM   #565
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,508
Marplots, I found the Tom Sawyer quote.

It's in the aftermath of Injun Joe's death (chapter 34) Twain inserts one of his morality lessons that he scatters through the book.

Quote:
The funeral stopped the further growth of one thing - the petition to the Governor for Injun Joe's pardon.
...

Injun Joe was believed to have killed five citizens of the village, but what of that? If he had been Satan himself, there would have been plenty of weaklings ready to scribble their names to a pardon-petition, and drip a tear on it from their permanently impaired and leaky waterworks.
It took me a long, long time to understand how that works, but I've known for a while now that it is 100% correct. Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh? They all have one thing in common: supporters.

Now we can add Mark Lundy to the list.
__________________
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, 03:40 PM   #566
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
let's try to get onto the same page

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
No idea. How would you or I or anyone else have a clue? Knowing the time of death would require knowledge of when Christine served the food.
The Atheist,

OK, how about a relative time of death: (time of food being served + x), where x is some number in minutes or hours?
__________________
“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, 04:16 PM   #567
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,218
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
No idea. How would you or I or anyone else have a clue? Knowing the time of death would require knowledge of when Christine served the food.
Actually the escort left just before one, and I think he was in the motel office before 7 30am. The prosecution said he drove very carefully, to not attract attention, which google maps gives as 1 hour 52 each way, so he was presumably engaged in the alleged process for more than four hours. Therefore at least four of 6 and a half hours were used up. This gives a range of possible times of 3 am to 5 30am according to the crown. Presumably they prefer the earlier part of the range.

I sent an email to a few presenters on radio live with as much detail as I could explaining the gastro evidence, but they have ignored them and declaring him certainly guilty. I am listening to Willie Jackson and Ali Mau right now talking as though no contrary evidence exists, despite the email I sent.

Welcome to the pattern.

Last edited by Samson; 1st April 2015 at 04:18 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, 05:12 PM   #568
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,508
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
The Atheist,

OK, how about a relative time of death: (time of food being served + x), where x is some number in minutes or hours?
Again, I have no idea. I'm not a scientist, and since the actual scientists cannot pinpoint a specific time, why would you ask me?

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Actually the escort left just before one, and I think he was in the motel office before 7 30am. The prosecution said he drove very carefully, to not attract attention, which google maps gives as 1 hour 52 each way,...
Google Maps as evidence, that's a new one.

Hour and a half, easy. Wouldn't break the speed limit at that time of day, so you need to add an hour onto the time he had available.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I sent an email to a few presenters on radio live with as much detail as I could explaining the gastro evidence, but they have ignored them and declaring him certainly guilty. I am listening to Willie Jackson and Ali Mau right now talking as though no contrary evidence exists, despite the email I sent.

Welcome to the pattern.
You're kidding here, right? God, I hope so, but I have this gnawing feeling that you aren't.

You're upset because some talkback radio with an audience of 12 isn't reading emails from an unknown supporter of Mark Lundy?

Why on earth would they have any interest in what you have to say? If your input is that valuable why were you not appearing for the defence?
__________________
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, 05:52 PM   #569
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,218
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Again, I have no idea. I'm not a scientist, and since the actual scientists cannot pinpoint a specific time, why would you ask me?



Google Maps as evidence, that's a new one.

Hour and a half, easy. Wouldn't break the speed limit at that time of day, so you need to add an hour onto the time he had available.



You're kidding here, right? God, I hope so, but I have this gnawing feeling that you aren't.

You're upset because some talkback radio with an audience of 12 isn't reading emails from an unknown supporter of Mark Lundy?

Why on earth would they have any interest in what you have to say? If your input is that valuable why were you not appearing for the defence?
I emailed them because the show was asking listeners if they think him guilty or innocent, and I don't ring in to these shows. I have been listening from interest, and you are in a strong majority with your views. No one raises the questions Chris Charlie and H Cheese and I are raising, but are all trusting the jury to get it right after 8 weeks. I have made many specific posts on the process, and I think that it is probably a typical jury, completely unable to note the most key piece of evidence because the judge failed to highlight it in his summing up. The overwhelming view is he is guilty because he is a lousy actor, and was getting it quite wrong in his attempts to appear devastated after he had killed his family.
I am no expert, but I imagine it is difficult to know how to behave whether innocent or guilty if you know you are the prime suspect.

Hint, the internet can make you an expert on gastric emptying, particularly the wildly impossible parameters. At the moment we have a meal purchased at 5 38pm and still identifiable at 3 in the morning, 9 hours later.
This is completely impossible in a good sized sample of two autopsies.

Last edited by Samson; 1st April 2015 at 05:55 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, 06:04 PM   #570
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,491
****** missed another one! I wanted to get in a prediction before the verdict was announced both here and the Knox thread but...oh well.

I thought the jury would find him guilty again. I don't live in Kiwiland so it's hard to tell just from reading the rather thin daily articles about the case but I felt the Defense didn't really counter successfully the brain tissue evidence. All sides agreed that it was brain tissue of some kind. The Defense should have brought out a meat pie expert and found out what percentage of a meat pie contains brain tissue instead it was more about the possible contamination which is harder to convince a jury of, IMHO. Also, he's been in for 13 years now and if they're wrong he's out in 7. So it's all good.

Anyway, I'm 3 and 1. Correct about Pistorius, wrong about Dewani, correct about Knox and Lundy.
Elagabalus 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, 06:13 PM   #571
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
DNA on the shirt and contamination; stomach contents

"There was also DNA from an unknown person found that did not belong to Mrs Lundy, Amber or Lundy. She said it could have been placed on the shirt by contamination after she tested the shirt in 2001." link The evidentiary value of Christine's DNA on Mark's shirt is even weaker than I first thought, if that is possible. So what were the jury thinking about? From a link upthread, "The jury, or however many members of the jury, requested to see the video again because they wanted to look at the way Lundy behaved." Facepalm.

Stomach and duodenum contents can't give exact times, but they can provide ranges. Let's talk about stomach contents first:

Abstract
The time of death estimation plays important role in solving both criminal and civil cases. The inspection of the gastric contents must be part of every postmortem examination because if the time of taking last meal is known, the approximate time of death can be made out indirectly. The rate of gastric emptying varies in man from 2.5 to 6 hours. The length of time required to empty the stomach is variable as it depends upon a host of factors like nature and consistency of food, motility of stomach, contents, environment, emotional/psychological factors and residual variations. The aim of this study is to determine approximate time of death by examination of gastric contents in deceased body brought to mortuary at Civil Hospital Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Present study was conducted on total 100 deceased persons (70 males and 30 females) whose time of death and time of last meal were known. Gastric contents were examined and divided in three categories; semi-digested identifiable food particles, semi-digested un-identifiable food particles, empty stomach. These findings were compared with time interval between last meal and time of death. In present study the identifiable semi-digested food particle were found more commonly in those persons who died 0-2 hours after last meal, un-identifiable semi-digested food particle were found more commonly in those persons who died 2-6 hours after last meal and empty stomach were found more commonly in those persons who died more than 6 hours after last meal. From present study we conclude that indirect estimation of time since death can be possible from examination of gastric content but due to variability of gastric emptying in different individuals we can’t exactly define time since death.

Patel V, Silajiya D, Shah K, Menat A, Tandel M, Raloti S. ESTIMATION OF TIME SINCE DEATH BY GASTRIC CONTENTS. IJCRR. 2013; 5(11): 125-129.
(International Journal of Current Research and Review)


"Stomach Contents:
The ME can often use the contents of the victims stomach to help determine time of death. After a meal, the stomach empties itself in approximately 4 to 6 hours, depending on the type and amount of food ingested. If a victim stomach contains largely undigested food material, then the death likely occurred within an hour or two of the meal. If the stomach is empty, the death likely occurred more than six hours after eating. Additionally, if the small intestine is also empty, death probably occurred some 12 hours or more after the last meal." link


"Various ingested food materials remain within the stomach for variable periods of time, depending on the nature and size of the meal. It has been determined through extensive research that under ordinary circumstances the stomach empties its contents four to 6 hours after a meal. If the stomach, at autopsy, is found to be filled with food, and digestion of the contents not extensive, it is reasonable to assume that death followed shortly after the meal. If the stomach is entirely empty, death probably took place at least 4 to 6 hours after the last meal. If the small intestine is also empty, the probability is that death took place at least 12 or more hours after the last meal. In certain cases the medical examiner will be able to determine the type of food, which still remains in the stomach, if matched with the last known meal. This can help establish a time period." 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 06:50 PM.
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, 06:52 PM   #572
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Again, I have no idea. I'm not a scientist, and since the actual scientists cannot pinpoint a specific time, why would you ask me?
But the prosecution said Lundy killed them around 2 am. I didn't hear any evidence from a scientist to verify the 2 am figure (except for Pang's wild 14 hour window) - undoubtedly because it is clearly at odds with the stomach contents at the autopsy. So one would have to conclude the prosecution just made the TOD up to fit the suspect.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Google Maps as evidence, that's a new one.

Hour and a half, easy. Wouldn't break the speed limit at that time of day, so you need to add an hour onto the time he had available.
Google Maps *should* be used as evidence, it will be more accurate than government maps. They get all their base data from traditional mapping sources, they're then continuously updated and hand corrected against satellite imagery and data from the cars that provide Street View.

The Google Maps driving time is 1 hr 56 from the Petone Foreshore Motel to Karamea Crescent, that's with no traffic and obeying all the speed signs. Remember, he had 1/2 bottle of scotch under his belt for this supposed trip, and he couldn't afford to get stopped - particularly on the way back.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 1st April 2015 at 07:01 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, 07:02 PM   #573
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,508
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
The Google Maps driving time is 1 hr 56 from the Petone Foreshore Motel to Karamea Crescent, that's with no traffic and obeying all the speed signs. Remember, he had just had 1/2 bottle of scotch under his belt for this supposed trip, and he couldn't afford to get stopped - particularly on the way back.
Just because Google Maps says it takes 1:56 doesn't make it right.

Their distance is certainly correct at 147 km, but it does not take 2 hours to drive that trip on a clear road. I've driven it dozens of times and an hour and a half is plenty when there's no traffic. Easy.

But don't take facts that don't suit your theory into account.
__________________
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, 07:04 PM   #574
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,508
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
No one raises the questions Chris Charlie and H Cheese and I are raising, but are all trusting the jury to get it right after 8 weeks.
Maybe they see no reason to give airtime to views that are both amateur and offering theories even the defence team didn't think up in their wild flights of fancy.
__________________
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, 07:08 PM   #575
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Just because Google Maps says it takes 1:56 doesn't make it right.

Their distance is certainly correct at 147 km, but it does not take 2 hours to drive that trip on a clear road. I've driven it dozens of times and an hour and a half is plenty when there's no traffic. Easy.
I'm sure you did, but were you maintaining the speed limit all the way?
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, 07:09 PM   #576
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,508
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
The Defense should have brought out a meat pie expert and found out what percentage of a meat pie contains brain tissue instead it was more about the possible contamination which is harder to convince a jury of, IMHO.
Brain in meat pie = nil.

Contamination of edible meats by brain/CNS tissue = nil.

Abbatoirs take great pains not to mix their nervous tissue with their meat, and there are MPI inspectors there during the entire process watching them.

Also, NZ regulations disallow the use of brains as meat products and the only offal you'll ever find in a pie is kidney.
__________________
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, 07:10 PM   #577
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
one step at a time

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Again, I have no idea. I'm not a scientist, and since the actual scientists cannot pinpoint a specific time, why would you ask me?
Now that I have provided some references to stomach contents, there is no barrier to your using this information to estimate a relative time of death.
__________________
“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, 07:40 PM   #578
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Brain in meat pie = nil.

Contamination of edible meats by brain/CNS tissue = nil.

Abbatoirs take great pains not to mix their nervous tissue with their meat, and there are MPI inspectors there during the entire process watching them.

Also, NZ regulations disallow the use of brains as meat products and the only offal you'll ever find in a pie is kidney.
NZ regulations don't disallow the use of mechanically recovered meat in edible meats, not even in imported products. Do you know which (if any) takeaway foods you buy contain MRM? It seems precipitous to just state "nil" - unless you have some industry background and you can categorically say it's not used.

Quote:
Since tissues from the central nervous system were not a feature of the British diet, it remained unclear how humans had become exposed until ‘mechanically recovered meat’ came under the spotlight. Mechanically recovered meat is recovered from bones (such as the vertebral column) of cattle by high pressure techniques. The resulting product, a meat paste, was commonly used in burgers, sausages, pies, baby food and similar processed products.
Spinal cord was removed before vertebral columns were processed to harvest this meat, but each segment of the backbone includes two dorsal root ganglia. These were being collected along with the meat paste, and therefore as much as 2% of the resulting product could be central nervous system tissue. That is, a 100 gram sausage might contain two grams of infectious material, and the infectious oral dose of BSE for a sheep had been shown to be only 0.5 grams. It is now considered probable that it was the dorsal root ganglia in mechanically recovered meat that exposed British consumers to BSE infectivity in their diet

http://www.foodsafety.govt.nz/elibra...c_Evidence.pdf
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, 08:28 PM   #579
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,508
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Now that I have provided some references to stomach contents, there is no barrier to your using this information to estimate a relative time of death.
How many times does it need to be said? There is no way a time can be established because nobody has any idea when the food was consumed.

Instead of asking unanswerable questions, why not offer your own reasoning when you think the murders occurred.

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
NZ regulations don't disallow the use of mechanically recovered meat in edible meats, not even in imported products. Do you know which (if any) takeaway foods you buy contain MRM? It seems precipitous to just state "nil" - unless you have some industry background and you can categorically say it's not used.
The page you refer to is broken, but anyway, it refers to a page on BSE, which goes back to the '90s.

Offal can be used, but must be labelled as such.

Since people aren't keen on eating brain pies, offal isn't used. I can't say categorically it never happens because anyone could add it, but it's not a usual part of anyone's diet without their knowledge. Who knows, maybe brain pies are big in Palmy?
__________________
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, 08:57 PM   #580
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
The page you refer to is broken, but anyway, it refers to a page on BSE, which goes back to the '90s.
Sure, but CNS tissue in food was the probable carrier for BSE. BSE is irrelevant here in NZ, but the quote from the PDF just shows the process of mechanically separating meat can introduce CNS into food products.

http://www.foodsafety.govt.nz/elibra...c_Evidence.pdf

I take your point, you can't just go around sticking brains into a pie. But since there is no regulation around mechanically recovered meat, who knows how much trace CNS gets to the consumer? If it's cheap to produce, it's probably attractive to products at the low end of the market.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 1st April 2015 at 09:06 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, 10:00 PM   #581
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,347
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
I'm sure you did, but were you maintaining the speed limit all the way?
No, I can say that with certainty. The Open Road limit here is 100 Km/h.

147Km in 1.5 hours is an average speed of 98km/h

Considering that large stretches of the road between the Motel and his home in Palmy were rated at 50km/h, it would be impossible to make the trip in an hour and half without speeding.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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, 10:43 PM   #582
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,508
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Considering that large stretches of the road between the Motel and his home in Palmy were rated at 50km/h, it would be impossible to make the trip in an hour and half without speeding.
Large stretches? Where? A few bits along Kapiti then 100 kmh all the way. I'm going to say 10% from memory.

And since police policy at the time was acknowledged as having a 10% margin, you could travel at 110 kmh without ever being pulled up.

15 kmh @ 50 = 18 minutes
142 @ 110 = 1 hour 13 minutes for 1 hour 31

I think that maths works.
__________________
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, 11:21 PM   #583
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,218
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
No, I can say that with certainty. The Open Road limit here is 100 Km/h.

147Km in 1.5 hours is an average speed of 98km/h

Considering that large stretches of the road between the Motel and his home in Palmy were rated at 50km/h, it would be impossible to make the trip in an hour and half without speeding.
Good to see you PhantomWolf.
Your views on the case would be of considerable interest.
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, 11:46 PM   #584
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Large stretches? Where? A few bits along Kapiti then 100 kmh all the way. I'm going to say 10% from memory.

And since police policy at the time was acknowledged as having a 10% margin, you could travel at 110 kmh without ever being pulled up.

15 kmh @ 50 = 18 minutes
142 @ 110 = 1 hour 13 minutes for 1 hour 31

I think that maths works.
132@110, but yes. The problem with the 10% margin is AFAIK it doesn't apply to speed cameras. I don't know how many would likely be along that route (if any) but it would be more of a plan-killer than getting caught by a cop. Getting pulled up on the way to PN, he's just a drink driver. Getting his picture taken at any time, he would have been toast.

Anyway, sticking to the speed limit puts you up at 1 hr 37 minutes at best. That's not taking into account red lights, getting held up by another car, roundabouts, or any times when you're actually doing less than 50 or 100/110. Since he can't go faster than the speed limit, the only thing possible is to take longer.

For reference, the best time the police could do it in their testing (leaving around 9 pm) was 1 hr 29 minutes. But that required speeds of up to 140 km/hr.

No matter, I think the drive time is just splitting hairs. The very earliest he could have been in PN realistically is probably close to 2:30 am. Allowing an hour for murder, miraculous cleanup and burglary faking, and a return journey of probably closer to 2 hours for a slight detour to chuck the tomahawk, jewellery box and full body protection suit in the river, by the time he's back in Petone its getting on 5:30 am. He's asking the motel manager for batteries at 7 am, that's cutting it a bit fine. Wouldn't the manager potentially be up and around at 5:30 am?

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 1st April 2015 at 11:52 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 2nd April 2015, 01:20 AM   #585
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,218
Thought experiment

Assuming Mark Lundy was found guilty of perpetrating this crime, would it be subject to the death penalty in American states that allow the death penalty?

I am reasonably sure this would be the case.

How would the facts be scrutinised by scientists?

Would he in fact be executed some time in the near/distant future?

Last edited by Samson; 2nd April 2015 at 01:22 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 2nd April 2015, 02:14 AM   #586
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Thought experiment

Assuming Mark Lundy was found guilty of perpetrating this crime, would it be subject to the death penalty in American states that allow the death penalty?

I am reasonably sure this would be the case.
Very probably. It would vary from state to state, but generally first-degree murder with one aggravating factor will get you there. It seems most states include "murder committed for pecuniary gain or pursuant to an agreement that the defendant would receive something of value" as an aggravating factor, so the prosecution would just have to prove the life insurance motive. Might be slightly tricky given that the $500K top up wasn't at Lundy's request, and he didn't really pursue it.

Many states have killing of a minor as an aggravating factor, so he could be done there as well, or the killing being judged cruel or heinous in nature, so there's another possibility.

So I think, yes, very very likely he would be up for the death penalty.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
How would the facts be scrutinised by scientists?
Yeah, good question. I wouldn't want to see anyone put to death on the basis of CNS tissue tests that two sets of scientific experts cannot agree on, and I wouldn't want a jury of 12 random laypeople being asked to break that deadlock. If I were a jury member, I wouldn't be judging someone based on how they acted in a video if I was potentially deciding on their life.

Would you get more careful scrutiny of the evidence, and less of the experimental forensics (like we saw in this case)? You might end up with scientists, like Dr. Pang, being completely non-committal. Aside maybe from the gung-ho types like Rodney Miller, I'm sure they would be aware of the inherent uncertainties in biological forensics and perhaps be more reticent to provide definitive statements. It might lead to fewer murder convictions due to more "reasonable doubt" verdicts. Just speculating, mind you.

I think in the Lundy case it would have made no difference, the crucial evidence was the brain tissue on the shirt, and Dr Miller was extremely forthright in his testimony. I doubt having the death penalty over Lundy's head would have altered his approach (Dr. Duxson described him in the North-South interview as showing a "worrying degree of over-confidence”)

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 2nd April 2015 at 02:34 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 2nd April 2015, 02:33 AM   #587
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,678
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.
4) The jury was below average intelligence and simply were unable to understand the evidence - something I would not discount.

I have served on three juries in my lifetime, and in each case, I would say there were at least two or three members who had no business being there; too dumb to understand the evidence.
__________________
#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 2nd April 2015, 03:21 AM   #588
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
if at first you do not succeed

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
How many times does it need to be said? There is no way a time can be established because nobody has any idea when the food was consumed.
Hmmm...I asked you for a relative time of death, meaning how long after the last meal could the time of death have been, not the absolute time of death (separately perhaps we can work on the time of the last meal). My estimate is 3 hours maximum, but it is probably less, 1-2 hours. It is based on the stomach contents and also the lack of contents in the duodenum.

The notion that Lundy could imbibe that much whiskey, do the drive without getting pulled over, then do a near-perfect murder is difficult to contemplate.
__________________
“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; 2nd April 2015 at 03:47 AM.
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 2nd April 2015, 03:30 AM   #589
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
Miller's thoughts on the death penalty

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Would you get more careful scrutiny of the evidence, and less of the experimental forensics (like we saw in this case)? You might end up with scientists, like Dr. Pang, being completely non-committal. Aside maybe from the gung-ho types like Rodney Miller, I'm sure they would be aware of the inherent uncertainties in biological forensics and perhaps be more reticent to provide definitive statements. It might lead to fewer murder convictions due to more "reasonable doubt" verdicts. Just speculating, mind you.

I think in the Lundy case it would have made no difference, the crucial evidence was the brain tissue on the shirt, and Dr Miller was extremely forthright in his testimony. I doubt having the death penalty over Lundy's head would have altered his approach (Dr. Duxson described him in the North-South interview as showing a "worrying degree of over-confidence”)
Dr. Miller said that in Texas Lundy's penalty would have been different. I think that this quote is upthread. Miller is an MD, not a PhD, IIUC.
__________________
“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 2nd April 2015, 06:18 AM   #590
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
Hellmig and coworkers

"Results: The mean±SD of half gastric emptying time (T1/2) of a fluid test meal was determined to be 80.5±22.1 min and for Tlag to be 40.3±10.2 min. However, the T1/2 and Tlag of solid meals did not fit to normal distribution and thus median and percentiles were determined. The median time of T1/2 for solids was 127 min (25–75% percentiles: 112.0– 168.3 min) and 81.5 min for Tlag (25–75% percentiles: 65.5–102.0 min). No significant correlation was found between gastric emptying and age, sex or BMI." The paper is entitled, "Gastric emptying time of fluids and solids in healthy subjects determined by 13C breath tests: influence of age, sex and body mass index" doi:10.1111/j.1440-1746.2006.04449.x

The passage above is a portion of the abstract. These authors used the definition of Tlag that it was the point of fastest gastric emptying. In an earlier study by a different set of authors this occurred at about 20% of the stomach contents having been discharged.
__________________
“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 2nd April 2015, 08:00 AM   #591
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
family divided

Relatives of Christine Lundy, the Weggery family, released a statement on April 2 thanking friends and the wider community for support over the last fourteen and a half years, especially the "harrowing" last eight weeks.
SNIP
"To the members of the original investigation, Operation Winter, I would like to say that this backs up everything you did so long ago and well done, you got it right," the statement said."
Like the 7 PM TOD? On the other hand, "But sister Caryl Jones was at court with her husband and son supporting Lundy, hoping that her brother would be leaving court a free man." link
__________________
“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 2nd April 2015, 01:56 PM   #592
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,218
Steve Braunias writes this

Amber fell asleep at about 8pm. She always put on her pyjamas just after 7pm, was always in bed by 7.30pm. "She was the easiest child to babysit," Helen Weggery told police. Sometimes her parents read her a bedtime story, sometimes she read it to them.
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 2nd April 2015, 03:45 PM   #593
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
Lundy's interrogation

David Hislop said, "'What builder's tool do the prosecution say he used to murder his wife? A hammer? A screwdriver? A chisel? A plane? We waited and waited and there was no answer. The silence was deafening. The simplest of questions has never been answered by the prosecution.'" link

"Mr Lundy was formally cautioned at the start of the interview and, as it progressed, Mr Kelly told him he believed he was responsible for the killings before showing him photos of his dead wife and child.
Mr Lundy screamed and sobbed and told Mr Kelly he had thought he was a 'top bloke' but not any more.
'God I hate you now, I really do. *******. That really pisses me off.'"link

This puts a different light on the "God, I hate you" statement from what I had previously seen.
__________________
“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; 2nd April 2015 at 04:13 PM.
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 2nd April 2015, 03:56 PM   #594
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,508
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
132@110, but yes. The problem with the 10% margin is AFAIK it doesn't apply to speed cameras.
Either way, as a frequent traveller, he'd know where they were anyway.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Thought experiment

Assuming Mark Lundy was found guilty of perpetrating this crime, would it be subject to the death penalty in American states that allow the death penalty?

I am reasonably sure this would be the case.

How would the facts be scrutinised by scientists?

Would he in fact be executed some time in the near/distant future?
Absolute sitter for death row in states that have it.

I don't see why the judicial process would be any different. They'd be queueing to Roll on Two if we did it here.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
4) The jury was below average intelligence and simply were unable to understand the evidence - something I would not discount.

I have served on three juries in my lifetime, and in each case, I would say there were at least two or three members who had no business being there; too dumb to understand the evidence.
Except this is all 12. There wasn't a majority, it wasn't a hung jury, it was 12-nil. I have also served on three juries, and agree there were a couple on each I wouldn't trust to walk my dog (and I HATE dogs) but that there were also several highly intelligent and respectable people on each one.

I'd be the first person in the world to vote juries out, and the Bain case convinced me more than ever, but it's the system we have.

Seriously, you people need to get over this verdict.

You're sitting on the sidelines, you haven't seen the evidence, you weren't even at the trial; you have nothing to offer and you're de facto supporting one of the most - I think the most - vile murderers ever convicted in this country.

Try accepting that the evidence was sufficient to convince all twelve jurors that there was no alternative to Lundy being the murderer. The paint alone was enough.

One thing I find it quite fascinating. As far as Twain's quote goes, never mind Satan, Mark Lundy is the purest evil that can be had. Murdering a little girl is one thing, but one's own daughter. That takes some serious cojones, and to show such a callous response afterwards.

I would really be interested to know why you're so determined to be on his side? Do you investigate all major cases, and if not, why this one? Why not the Kahuis? The Crewes? Mona Blades? Plenty of other crimes to look at.

Do you push Peter Ellis' case this hard? There's a bloke could do with some support and is cast-iron guaranteed innocent of all charges.

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Hmmm...I asked you for a relative time of death, meaning how long after the last meal could the time of death have been, not the absolute time of death (separately perhaps we can work on the time of the last meal). My estimate is 3 hours maximum, but it is probably less, 1-2 hours. It is based on the stomach contents and also the lack of contents in the duodenum.

The notion that Lundy could imbibe that much whiskey, do the drive without getting pulled over, then do a near-perfect murder is difficult to contemplate.
Whiskey consumed on whose evidence is that? Wasn't it rum a few posts back?

As to the time of death - what of it? You want a time of death? I can tell you when it happened. Start from immediately after Lundy's latest alibi for the night and add 90 minutes + 10 to get ready and bingo, that's when Christine was first hit by a small axe.

Less than one minute after the first blow hit Christine, Amber was facing the same, dripping blade before her own father chopped her skull open.
__________________
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 2nd April 2015, 04:09 PM   #595
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,508
Although a funny thought does occur to me, based on Lundy being such a huge fat pig the first time through - it starts to read like the Fatty Arbuckle scenario?

In Arbuckle's first trial he took the stand and gave strong answers to a fabricated crime and got found guilty because he was so fat people wanted to believe he was a fiend, despite the evidence being blatantly wrong or made up.

In his second trial, the errors in the evidence were exploited and Arbuckle didn't take the stand as his lawyer felt he didn't need to - the trial was a slam-dunk; the prosecution evidence had been destroyed and he would be freed.

The jury took his non-appearance as guilt and convicted him before a fortunate third trial made the right decision and even went to the unique extent of apologising on behalf of the previous juries' errors.

I have to say I was surprised he didn't take the stand. He looks the part these days and has had a dozen years to practice.

People should learn more history.
__________________
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 2nd April 2015, 04:12 PM   #596
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
a whole lot of nothing

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Whiskey consumed on whose evidence is that? Wasn't it rum a few posts back?

As to the time of death - what of it? You want a time of death? I can tell you when it happened. Start from immediately after Lundy's latest alibi for the night and add 90 minutes + 10 to get ready and bingo, that's when Christine was first hit by a small axe.

Less than one minute after the first blow hit Christine, Amber was facing the same, dripping blade before her own father chopped her skull open.
I am not in the habit of letting other people, even twelve of them do my thinking for me. YMMV. The prostitute testified that it was rum; rum or whiskey doesn't change the argument. "The defence also asked her about a bottle of rum, which she remembered seeing in the room three-quarters empty. In a police interview she said Lundy "stunk of alcohol" but told the court today he did not seem drunk." link

90 minutes is dubious; he would need some time to prepare, and I am not sure that 90 minutes is enough to make the trip. But even if we accept it, that would make for a TOD of at least 2:30 IIUC. That puts the time of their last meal at 11:30 PM or probably later, perhaps 12:30-1 AM. What child eats her main meal at this hour after going to bed around 8 PM or so?
__________________
“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; 2nd April 2015 at 04:16 PM.
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 2nd April 2015, 04:24 PM   #597
lonepinealex
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 817
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Although a funny thought does occur to me, based on Lundy being such a huge fat pig the first time through - it starts to read like the Fatty Arbuckle scenario?

In Arbuckle's first trial he took the stand and gave strong answers to a fabricated crime and got found guilty because he was so fat people wanted to believe he was a fiend, despite the evidence being blatantly wrong or made up.

In his second trial, the errors in the evidence were exploited and Arbuckle didn't take the stand as his lawyer felt he didn't need to - the trial was a slam-dunk; the prosecution evidence had been destroyed and he would be freed.

The jury took his non-appearance as guilt and convicted him before a fortunate third trial made the right decision and even went to the unique extent of apologising on behalf of the previous juries' errors.

I have to say I was surprised he didn't take the stand. He looks the part these days and has had a dozen years to practice.

People should learn more history.

Wut. Doesn't this example mean you are wrong to draw conclusions about guilt because you hate fat people?
lonepinealex 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 2nd April 2015, 04:33 PM   #598
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,491
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
I am not in the habit of letting other people, even twelve of them do my thinking for me. YMMV. The prostitute testified that it was rum; rum or whiskey doesn't change the argument. "The defence also asked her about a bottle of rum, which she remembered seeing in the room three-quarters empty. In a police interview she said Lundy "stunk of alcohol" but told the court today he did not seem drunk." link

90 minutes is dubious; he would need some time to prepare, and I am not sure that 90 minutes is enough to make the trip. But even if we accept it, that would make for a TOD of at least 2:30 IIUC. That puts the time of their last meal at 11:30 PM or probably later, perhaps 12:30-1 AM. What child eats her main meal at this hour after going to bed around 8 PM or so?
Also, people are likely to note a car arriving or departing at odd times of the night especially when someone does something suspicious like parking 500 metres from his house and then coming back to the car a little while later and driving off. The same applies to when he takes off late at night from the hotel and then returns a few hours later.
Elagabalus 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 2nd April 2015, 04:35 PM   #599
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
Lindy and Azaria

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
People should learn more history.
Yes, like Lindy Chamberlain. What she did to poor Azaria was every bit as bad as what happened to Amber. And you could tell that she was a cold-blooded monster from her demeanor. Except that she was innocent. Or how about Patricia Stallings? She was convicted of poisoning her infant son with ethylene glycol, except...
__________________
“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; 2nd April 2015 at 04:38 PM.
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 2nd April 2015, 04:49 PM   #600
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,218
I would expect the testmony of James Pang to be an excellent ground for appeal.

Remember he said he had conducted further research since the last trial. Should that research be specified before his new testimony was admitted? Should there be citations? It seems a good field for legal research as appeals have limited grounds, and are notoriously difficult to make work in NZ.
The law department in Christchurch need to be consulted, they have an innocence project going with students I believe.

I am trying to find the links.
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
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 03:09 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.