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 2nd April 2015, 04:54 PM   #601
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
Which papers did he read?

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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.
12:48PM: Pang said he could only be certain that the victims died between the last time they were seen alive and when they were found dead - despite noting during his post-mortem they likely died within an hour of eating.

He said he had read a large amount of material since then, including reports from professors and doctors from Wales, England, Canada and New Zealand.

"In 2002 [at Lundy's first trial] I gave an estimate which, I accept, was subject to a large number of variables.

"It is not possible to be precise.

"At present, the only thing I can say with certainty is Christine Lundy and Amber Lundy died between when they were last known to be alive to the time the bodies were discovered." 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, 05:29 PM   #602
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,217
Greg Newbold

I read Greg's book, The Big Huey a long time ago. He was successful in coming back from a five year lag for peddling the drug heroin, and becoming a reasonably high profile criminologist. He weighs in here without expressing a view. This makes him a moderate in the climate here.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11427007
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, 06:10 PM   #603
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,665
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Try accepting that the evidence was sufficient to convince all twelve jurors that there was no alternative to Lundy being the murderer.
In fact, 24 jurors decided he was guilty. Of course, 24 jurors also decided "that there was no alternative to Arthur Thomas being the murderer".... and they were all wrong!

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I would really be interested to know why you're so determined to be on his side?
1. Because failure to establish an accurate time of death creates reasonable doubt.

2. Because the failure of the Police to adequately investigate other suspects once they got a hard-on for Lundy creates reasonable doubt.

3. Because the forensics are so controversial and so hotly contested, with numerous forensic scientists vehemently disagreeing with each other, that it creates reasonable doubt.

4. Because the only forensic evidence at all was two tiny spots discovered months later on a shirt (when Lundy ought to have been plastered with evidence) created reasonable doubt.

5. Because the evidence and theory of the crime was so blatantly shonky and incorrect in the first trial, that he ought to have been found not guilty then, and he would not have been able to have been retried.

6. Because the fact that the jury asked to see the video of Lundy at Christine and Amber's funeral again suggests that they placed significant weight on it. What a person does and how they behave at their family's funeral is not evidence.

7. Finally, because I am a firm believer in Sir William Blackstone's formulation ... "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I would really be interested to know why you're so determined to be on his side?
I'm not on anyone's side. Either he did it, or he didn't. Its a 50/50 call...I just don't think he did it.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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.
I only have a limited time so I cannot study every case. This one interested me because of the time constraints around the time the crime was committed, and the complete opposite natures of the possible theories of the crime. On the one hand meticulous planning if it was Lundy, on the other hand, random brutality if it was a stranger.

Another that interest me is Scott Watson. I'm convinced they have the wrong man in jail for that one.

Others you mention;

The Kahuis: The wall of silence made it extremely difficult to investigate. If everyone involved in a case like this refuses to talk to or co-operate with Police, there isn't a lot they can do to bring the case to a conclusion.

The Crewe Murders: Very interesting but old hat. We don't know who murdered the Crewes, and I doubt we'll ever know, but we do know it wasn't Arthur Allan Thomas

Mona Blades: Disappeared 40 years ago, no body, no trial to discuss. Would you like to start a thread.

Others you haven't mentioned..

Unsolved
Jennifer Beard
Kirsty Bentley
Kirsa Jensen
Tracy Ann Patient

Possible wrongful convictions
Urban Höglin and Heidi Paakkonen (David Wayne Tamihere)
Gene and Eugene Thomas (John Barlow)

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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.
I'm one of the 25% of New Zealanders who think Ellis is of dubious character. He may not have been guilty of everything he was charged with, but there was something untoward going on at that Creche. Put it this way, I think his innocence is not the slam dunk that David Doherty's was!!
__________________
#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!

Last edited by smartcooky; 2nd April 2015 at 07:09 PM.
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, 06:17 PM   #604
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,217
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
In fact, 24 jurors decided he was guilty. Of course, 36 jurors also decided "that there was no alternative to Arthur Thomas being the murderer".... and they were all wrong!



1. Because failure to establish an accurate time of death creates reasonable doubt.

2. Because the failure of the Police to adequately investigate other suspects once they got a hard-on for Lundy creates reasonable doubt.

3. Because the forensics are so controversial and so hotly contested, with numerous forensic scientists vehemently disagreeing with each other, that it creates reasonable doubt.

4. Because the only forensic evidence at all was two tiny spots discovered months later on a shirt (when Lundy ought to have been plastered with evidence) created reasonable doubt.

5. Because the evidence and theory of the crime was so blatantly shonky and incorrect in the first trial, that he ought to have been found not guilty then, and he would not have been able to have been retried.

6. Because the fact that the jury asked to see the video of Lundy at Christine and Amber's funeral again suggests that they placed significant weight on it. What a person does and how they behave at their family's funeral is not evidence.

7. Finally, because I am a firm believer in Sir William Blackstone's formulation ... "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"



I'm not on anyone's side. Either he did it, or he didn't. Its a 50/50 call...I just don't think he did it.



I only have a limited time so I cannot study every case. This one interested me because of the time constraints around the time the crime was committed, and the complete opposite natures of the possible theories of the crime. On the one hand meticulous planning if it was Lundy, on the other hand, random brutality if it was a stranger.

Another that interest me is Scott Watson. I'm convinced they have the wrong man in jail for that one.

Others you mention;

The Kahuis: The wall of silence made it extremely difficult to investigate. If everyone involved in a case like this refuses to talk to or co-operate with Police, there isn't a lot they can do to bring the case to a conclusion.

The Crewe Murders: Very interesting but old hat. We don't know who murdered the Crewes, and I doubt we'll ever know, but we do know it wasn't Arthur Allan Thomas

Mona Blades: Disappeared 40 years ago, no body, no trial to discuss. Would you like to start a thread.

Others you haven't mentioned..

Unsolved
Jennifer Beard
Kirsty Bentley
Kirsa Jensen
Tracy Ann Patient

Possible wrongful convictions
Urban Höglin and Heidi Paakkonen (David Wayne Tamihere)Gene and Eugene Thomas (John Barlow)



I'm one of the 25% of New Zealanders who think Ellis is of dubious character. He may not have been guilty of everything he was charged with, but there was something untoward going on at that Creche. Put it this way, I think his innocence is not the slam dunk that David Doherty's was!!
David (Wayne) Tamihere. Parenthesis in case he is innocent.

Criminals are supposed to be dumb, but why did he drive around in the victims' car waiting to be caught, and then claim Some Other Dude Did It?
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, 07:14 PM   #605
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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.
Hmm, so it seems random axe attacks aren't such a great stretch after all. From today's Herald:

Quote:
Two Korean men on a night fishing trip north of Auckland were attacked with an axe and robbed. The "nasty and unprovoked" assault at Ti Point Wharf in Leigh in the early hours of Wednesday left one of victims in hospital with serious injuries to his face.
(...)
"This was a nasty, unprovoked attack on two men who were simply enjoying a night out fishing.
"The first victim received serious facial injuries, including a fractured cheek and jaw, as well as a head wound and cuts to his hands and his upper legs. He is likely to require ongoing specialist treatment for the damage to his face."
The second victim had cuts and bruises to his facial area and a possible fractured hand, Mr Shewry said.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11427504
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, 08:28 PM   #606
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,556
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I'm one of the 25% of New Zealanders who think Ellis is of dubious character. He may not have been guilty of everything he was charged with, but there was something untoward going on at that Creche. Put it this way, I think his innocence is not the slam dunk that David Doherty's was!!
...out of all the cases you just talked about: the Peter Ellis case is the one where I have absolutely 100% no doubt that Ellis is innocent. And if you apply the same reasoning to the Ellis case that you apply to the Lundy case there is absolutely no way you could walk away with any other conclusion. Even the other prisoners didn't treat Ellis like a sex offender because he wasn't one. He had the opportunity to get out of jail early on parole as long as he admitted guilt: and he didn't do it. There was nothing untoward going on at that creche at all.
banquetbear 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, 10:15 PM   #607
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,665
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...out of all the cases you just talked about: the Peter Ellis case is the one where I have absolutely 100% no doubt that Ellis is innocent. And if you apply the same reasoning to the Ellis case that you apply to the Lundy case there is absolutely no way you could walk away with any other conclusion. Even the other prisoners didn't treat Ellis like a sex offender because he wasn't one. He had the opportunity to get out of jail early on parole as long as he admitted guilt: and he didn't do it. There was nothing untoward going on at that creche at all.

Ok, maybe I haven't looked into properly, but then it wasn't a murder or a mystery disappearance so it didn't really spark my interest all that much.
__________________
#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 3rd April 2015, 07:08 AM   #608
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
prime suspect and tunnel vision

"The officer in charge of the first trial, Inspector Ross Grantham agrees a neuropathologist told him the Lundy laboratory slide he was shown was badly degenerated. The doctor had said he did not think Lundy should be convicted of murder on the strength of the cells on the slide. Lundy's lawyers did not know of the conversation until June 2013." link

"4:04pm: Police had investigated the murders with Mark Lundy as the prime suspect from day one, Hislop said.

The officer in charge of suspects during the first investigation, detective inspector Stephen Kelly, said Lundy was on the suspect list and police worked towards trying to get him off it.

But Hislop said a communication between Kelly and Lundy showed differently.

In it, Kelly said police had worked from day one knowing Lundy committed the murders, Hislop said.
That raised issues of integrity." link

"Defence witness Professor Stephen Bustin said he was reluctant to accept the results of a Dutch expert that a substance on Mr Lundy's polo shirt was brain.
The Professor of Molecular Medicine at Anglia Ruskin University in Britain gave jurors a slide show which step by step rejected evidence from prosecution witness Dr Laetitia Sijen, head of research and development in the human biological traces team of the Netherlands Forensic Institute, who had used a newly developed RNA "brain plex" to conclude the substance on the shirt was brain.
Prof Bustin said the test Dr Sijen used was invalid for many reasons, including that the positive control sample from "a freshly cut slice of brain tissue" produced only negative results in three tests; what was known to be brain tissue did not show up as such.
"That alone, in my opinion, invalidates this assay [test]," he said.
"No scientific journal would publish this data because it is invalid."
However, Prof Bustin also told the jury that "in biology, things aren't black and white ... so don't hold me to any particular thing I'm saying"." link

This raises some questions about the objectivity of the person presenting the tests as evidence that brain is present.
__________________
“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; 3rd April 2015 at 07:15 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 3rd April 2015, 10:22 AM   #609
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,498
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.
In case you forgot, I was answering your criticism about there being 2 or 3 idiots on every jury. I was pointing out that there are 9 or 10 others, and you also seem to have missed the bit where I noted I am not in favour of jury trials at all.

No problem; I am completely used to people ignoring what I say and instead going with what they wish I'd said.

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
What child eats her main meal at this hour after going to bed around 8 PM or so?
Amusing.

A completely closed-minded approach. You cannot even admit the possibility of a midnight snack, despite knowing that it happens.

Originally Posted by lonepinealex View Post
Wut. Doesn't this example mean you are wrong to draw conclusions about guilt because you hate fat people?
Wrong on both counts, sorry, but again it all goes back to reading what I wrote.

I don't even dislike fat people, let alone hate them and his size has nothing to do with what I think about Lundy.

The point I was making is that fat defendants are much less sympathetic than not fat ones. You might not realise how most people view severely obese people - maybe you should take some time to find out.

Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
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.
Yeah, lots of people around suburban Palmy at 2 am.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
1. Because failure to establish an accurate time of death creates reasonable doubt.
No, they were dead alright.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
2. Because the failure of the Police to adequately investigate other suspects once they got a hard-on for Lundy creates reasonable doubt.
Most excellent oxymoron of the year and it's only April. The cops are dumb, and too dumb to investigate others (which is also untrue) but if they didn't focus on the prime suspect they would somehow have caught the real murderer, a man who was so prepared and clever he left not one single clue.

Neither of those first two create any doubt at all.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
3. Because the forensics are so controversial and so hotly contested, with numerous forensic scientists vehemently disagreeing with each other, that it creates reasonable doubt.
No question there is doubt on the forensic evidence, but it doesn't create doubt about the case, only that one piece of evidence.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
4. Because the only forensic evidence at all was two tiny spots discovered months later on a shirt (when Lundy ought to have been plastered with evidence) created reasonable doubt.
Same as above.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
5. Because the evidence and theory of the crime was so blatantly shonky and incorrect in the first trial, that he ought to have been found not guilty then, and he would not have been able to have been retried.
Haha! I know! The supporters must be double-gutted at that.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
6. Because the fact that the jury asked to see the video of Lundy at Christine and Amber's funeral again suggests that they placed significant weight on it. What a person does and how they behave at their family's funeral is not evidence.
Brilliant!

I can absolutely assure you it was evidence, because it has been allowed at trials and wasn't even the subject of an appeal. It is every bit as much evidence as the weapon would be if it were ever found.

I love the way you are prepared to ignore vital evidence because it doesn't suit your position. Seriously, you should step back and read what you're saying.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
7. Finally, because I am a firm believer in Sir William Blackstone's formulation ... "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
There you go, we found something in common at last - I am a firm believer in it myself and have it permanently and prominently displayed on my website.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I'm not on anyone's side. Either he did it, or he didn't. Its a 50/50 call...I just don't think he did it.
Maybe if you saw all the evidence instead of a cherry-oicked selection you might see it better than 50/50.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I only have a limited time so I cannot study every case.
Begs the question of why you study any, but I guess everyone has a hobby.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I'm one of the 25% of New Zealanders who think Ellis is of dubious character. He may not have been guilty of everything he was charged with, but there was something untoward going on at that Creche. Put it this way, I think his innocence is not the slam dunk that David Doherty's was!!
Wow.

I am impressed. You support Lundy and think Ellis is not necessarily guilty. Are you a deliberate contrarian? I ask, because David Doherty was a bagatelle compared to how innocent Ellis is. I agree his character is dubious, though - a gay guy working in a creche? How sick is that? Clearly a pedo - there isn't any other reason a gay would work with littlies.

I love that attitude - thanks for playing.

Still, at least it is certain proof that every word you type can be taken with less than a grain of salt. You know nothing at all about Ellis, yet think he is of "dubious" character.

Jesus H Christ.

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Hmm, so it seems random axe attacks aren't such a great stretch after all. From today's Herald:
And that one has so many things in common with the Lundy case! How old were the perps? Maybe it's them?

Meanwhile, in the real world, that has as much relevance as a parking ticket. The fact that an axe might have been used is ancillary to the attack. Axes and other implements get used all the time in violent crimes. Machetes are popular, too.

Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...out of all the cases you just talked about: the Peter Ellis case is the one where I have absolutely 100% no doubt that Ellis is innocent. And if you apply the same reasoning to the Ellis case that you apply to the Lundy case there is absolutely no way you could walk away with any other conclusion.
While I applaud your comments on Peter Ellis, what happened there is only relevant to Lundy in terms of public and possible jurist distaste for the defendant. Ellis was on trial in Chch - couldn't have picked a worse place - at a time when you could hand-pick a jury almost guaranteed to be thoroughly anti-gay: any white male over 50 would do. I must try to find out what the make-up of his jury was.

In the case of Ellis, there was not a single piece of evidence against him aside from the clear fantasies implanted by some revolting "psychologist".

Lundy has some problems on the evidence front. Not least is a simple explanation for 500 km of travel.
__________________
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 3rd April 2015, 11:14 AM   #610
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
conjecture

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
In case you forgot, I was answering your criticism about there being 2 or 3 idiots on every jury. I was pointing out that there are 9 or 10 others, and you also seem to have missed the bit where I noted I am not in favour of jury trials at all.

No problem; I am completely used to people ignoring what I say and instead going with what they wish I'd said.



Amusing.

A completely closed-minded approach. You cannot even admit the possibility of a midnight snack, despite knowing that it happens.
The Atheist,

You may have misunderstood what I wrote; to the best of my recollection I have not said anything in this thread about the jury system in general. My point was that a thread such as this is a good vehicle to test the verdict. Using the verdict as evidence when it is the verdict itself that some of us are testing is not a convincing argument.

I don't deny the possibility of two late-night meals (one for Christine and one for Amber); I just think that they don't happen very frequently (what evidence is there from Mark or from people who babysat for the Lundy's?). Nor am I aware of any independent evidence of one. If (hypothetically) one needed to invoke such a late night meal in defense of an accused person, I might be tempted to say that while possible, it lies beyond a reasonable doubt. You have been unable or unwilling to put forward a time of death on your own. Now the best you can do is to offer a conjecture on a late-night meal and accuse others of being close minded. Oh, dear. One wonders whether the jury even considered the question of TOD, or did they just decide on the basis of demeanor. I am not sure I want to know the answer to that question.
__________________
“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 3rd April 2015, 11:23 AM   #611
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,217
I think the verdict was a gross injustice. I don't think he did it.

Said by Steve Braunius in this fascinating essay.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11427562
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 3rd April 2015, 11:33 AM   #612
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
tunnel vision colors everything

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I
Most excellent oxymoron of the year and it's only April. The cops are dumb, and too dumb to investigate others (which is also untrue) but if they didn't focus on the prime suspect they would somehow have caught the real murderer, a man who was so prepared and clever he left not one single clue.

Neither of those first two create any doubt at all.
The Atheist,

Despite their disingenuous protestations to the contrary, the cops thought Lundy did it from day one (see my recent comment upthread). That choice colors everything that they did. Information about who the cops believed did it can color forensic interpretations, for example. Roger Koppl's essay, "CSI for Real" is helpful: "Larry S. Miller demonstrates an excellent example of cognitive bias at play. He asked a group of 14 students trained in hair analysis, all of whom met the basic requirements for expert testimony on human hair identification in courts of law, to examine four cases each. For each student, two cases were presented the usual way: They were given two samples and told that one was from the crime scene and the other from the suspect. The other two cases were presented through a forensic line- up. The known sample from the imaginary crime scene was compared to five suspect-known hair samples. In all 56 cases, there were in reality no true matches. The first group of cases yielded an error rate of 30.8 percent; the second group an error rate of only 3.8 percent.12"
__________________
“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; 3rd April 2015 at 11:51 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 3rd April 2015, 11:41 AM   #613
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,217
After reading Steve Braunias I am convinced the New Zealand justice system has failed. A full transcript of his summing up is vital to find what he said, if anything, about the Time of Death.
I presume it is on the public record, will try to find it.
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 3rd April 2015, 02:28 PM   #614
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,217
Hislop:

"He has been trying to work out juries for 35 years and does not know how the Lundy jury in the High Court at Wellington came to its decision. He would like to run his ideas by the legal team though."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...-to-move-to-uk

He has returned to London and will not be involved in an appeal.

It seems crystal clear that the jurors decided they could have their day in the limelight as behavioural psychologists, and one was assigned the task to watch Lundy confirm what they already knew as they watched the video of him being told he was being arrested.
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 3rd April 2015, 05:36 PM   #615
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,498
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
The Atheist,

You may have misunderstood what I wrote; to the best of my recollection I have not said anything in this thread about the jury system in general.
I didn't think you made a general comment on juries, I was just maing sure you realised I did.

I said before that I thought Key's analysis that 99.9% of cases get the right verdict is nonsense, too.

There are lots of miscarriages of justice. I just don't see Lundy as one.

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
The Atheist,

Despite their disingenuous protestations to the contrary, the cops thought Lundy did it from day one (see my recent comment upthread).
Impossible for them not to think that. Check out the odds.
__________________
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 3rd April 2015, 05:54 PM   #616
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,498
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I think the verdict was a gross injustice. I don't think he did it.

Said by Steve Braunius in this fascinating essay.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11427562
Oh, nice work!

Especially chopping out a couple of important words at the beginning of the sentence you snipped to quote. The full sentence is: "Maybe it was absolutely correct but I think the verdict was a gross injustice. I don't think he did it."

You are so dishonest it doesn't surprise me a bit nobody takes you seriously.

The article is interesting, but hardly insightful, although a couple of goodies:

Lundy: "I'm a Christian, and I know I'll see my girls in heaven."

Braunias: And yet my reasoning comes from the same inexact and possibly meaningless place as the haters who think they can divine from Lundy's behaviour that he's a liar, an actor, a phoney.

Hislop: "He's too weak. Doesn't have the balls." [to kill Amber]

And final word to Braunias: Did he do that? I don't know.

Not all that convincing and certainly not the picture you tried to portray.
__________________
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 3rd April 2015, 06:12 PM   #617
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,217
Wink

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Oh, nice work!

Especially chopping out a couple of important words at the beginning of the sentence you snipped to quote. The full sentence is: "Maybe it was absolutely correct but I think the verdict was a gross injustice. I don't think he did it."

You are so dishonest it doesn't surprise me a bit nobody takes you seriously.

The article is interesting, but hardly insightful, although a couple of goodies:

Lundy: "I'm a Christian, and I know I'll see my girls in heaven."

Braunias: And yet my reasoning comes from the same inexact and possibly meaningless place as the haters who think they can divine from Lundy's behaviour that he's a liar, an actor, a phoney.

Hislop: "He's too weak. Doesn't have the balls." [to kill Amber]

And final word to Braunias: Did he do that? I don't know.

Not all that convincing and certainly not the picture you tried to portray.
Atheist, it is a stone cold certainty his case is trending to be a nightmare for the New Zealand government and judiciary. I believe things will move fast. John Key should have kept his mouth shut.
Apart from anything this story is the most read of any in New Zealand today, although judging by the intelligence on offer from "the people" I suspect they are too illiterate to read the whole thing.

ETA don't forget this is also a

fun friendly forum for grown ups

Last edited by Samson; 3rd April 2015 at 06:42 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 4th April 2015, 10:27 AM   #618
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Oh, nice work!

Especially chopping out a couple of important words at the beginning of the sentence you snipped to quote. The full sentence is: "Maybe it was absolutely correct but I think the verdict was a gross injustice. I don't think he did it."

You are so dishonest it doesn't surprise me a bit nobody takes you seriously.

The article is interesting, but hardly insightful, although a couple of goodies:

Lundy: "I'm a Christian, and I know I'll see my girls in heaven."

Braunias: And yet my reasoning comes from the same inexact and possibly meaningless place as the haters who think they can divine from Lundy's behaviour that he's a liar, an actor, a phoney.

Hislop: "He's too weak. Doesn't have the balls." [to kill Amber]

And final word to Braunias: Did he do that? I don't know.

Not all that convincing and certainly not the picture you tried to portray.
Yes, he's ambiguous. He divines innocence where others divine guilt, but he recognizes the fallibility of that approach.

He's a wise man. Demeanor evidence, which you find so compelling in this case, is woo. You might as well take a forked stick out into a field to decide where to drill your well.
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 4th April 2015, 11:15 AM   #619
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
Hislop summation: no murder weapon; questions motive

"10:57am: Mark Lundy did not own an axe, and the prosecution did not say what the tool he allegedly used to kill his family was, Hislop said.

In his closing address to the jury, he said no one had challenged evidence that Lundy always borrowed a tomahawk when he needed one."

AND

""She ran the business. She was the brains. She brought in the money.

"He was a sink salesman."

If Lundy went bankrupt, Christine Lundy would have employed him and kept the business running, Hislop said.

They had never missed mortgage payments, so the bank would not have sold the Lundys' house from under them, he said.

"Their life would not have changed.""
link
EDT
I read an article about the defense summation of the digestive evidence, and the article made it sound as if Mr. Hislop got it pretty much right. Too bad the jury was focused on divining clues from Mr. Lundy's behavior when he was accused.
__________________
“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; 4th April 2015 at 12:16 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 4th April 2015, 01:04 PM   #620
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,498
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Atheist, it is a stone cold certainty his case is trending to be a nightmare for the New Zealand government and judiciary. I believe things will move fast. John Key should have kept his mouth shut.
That is complete delusion.

While there are a few people upset by the verdict, they are in a vanishingly small minority.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Apart from anything this story is the most read of any in New Zealand today, although judging by the intelligence on offer from "the people" I suspect they are too illiterate to read the whole thing.
Nonsense.

Braunias takes great pains to say that he actually has no idea and I can't imagine anyone changing their minds because of that story. They might feel a little uneasy, but their revulsion at Lundy will ensure they don't ask too many questions of themselves.

There's actually a much better piece in the Herald today from Bryce Edwards:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11427914

Not about Lundy, but 100% relevant.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
ETA don't forget this is also a

fun friendly forum for grown ups
Please do explain what you mean by that, because I don't see you listed as a moderator and I have no idea what you're talking about.

In what way is my post not suitable for the purpose you state?
__________________
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 4th April 2015, 01:20 PM   #621
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,498
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
Yes, he's ambiguous. He divines innocence where others divine guilt, but he recognizes the fallibility of that approach.
Which makes a complete mockery of any claims that the article is either substantive or informative.

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
He's a wise man. Demeanor evidence, which you find so compelling in this case, is woo. You might as well take a forked stick out into a field to decide where to drill your well.
Yes, and interviews with police aren't evidence, either.

I have bad news for you on several fronts on this attack:

1 Nobody cares

2 It is not "demeanour" evidence - so nice try at down-selling it - it is behavioural evidence. Demeanour is internalised.

3 It is certainly evidential, because it is allowed in court, all the way to the Privy Council.

4 Calling something "woo" is not going to encourage people to take an interest in what you're saying, no matter how good the point.
__________________
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 4th April 2015, 01:23 PM   #622
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,217
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
That is complete delusion.

While there are a few people upset by the verdict, they are in a vanishingly small minority.



Nonsense.

Braunias takes great pains to say that he actually has no idea and I can't imagine anyone changing their minds because of that story. They might feel a little uneasy, but their revulsion at Lundy will ensure they don't ask too many questions of themselves.

There's actually a much better piece in the Herald today from Bryce Edwards:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11427914

Not about Lundy, but 100% relevant.



Please do explain what you mean by that, because I don't see you listed as a moderator and I have no idea what you're talking about.

In what way is my post not suitable for the purpose you state?
It was you saying

"You are so dishonest it doesn't surprise me a bit nobody takes you seriously."

No I am not a moderator, not even a volunteer fireman. I would prefer less having to second guess them. What I did was leave an intact sentence beginning with a capital letter as a heading, a sentence with fully intact meaning. Apart from his high praise for justice France's summing up, praise he tendered expecting a not guilty verdict, his coverage has been a pleasure.

My problem with the case stems from what was solved on this thread from the outset, many posts but this one from Rolfe is ideal.

I wish people would realise there's some solid ground between "absolutely precise" and "totally useless". The 1 hour 10 minutes thing sounds bonkers to me. Someone is arguing to a pre-determined conclusion, as you said. And smell? What, really? [citation needed] But if it was known they ate a meal at McDonald's about six, then it should surely be possible to distinguish between death an hour or two after that, and death six hours after that! And they had two bodies to look at, twice the data. Should have been easily possible to lay down some parameters.

An adult might eat again after a meal at six, but a seven-year-old child probably would have no more than a bedtime snack. If there were half-digested bits of Big Mac in there, he's innocent. This case is a complete car crash.


Why did justice France not have the vocationally driven sense to divine the critical importance of this and make it the centrepiece of his summing up, and instruct to acquit by default? Instead we have a pretty young thing as forewoman taking the solemn duty of the nation into her hands, and determining that because Lundy said I thought you were a good bloke but **** I hate you now when Lundy discovered he was being arrested for slaughtering his own girls, this proved the crown case. Shame.
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 4th April 2015, 01:25 PM   #623
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,498
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
I read an article about the defense summation of the digestive evidence, and the article made it sound as if Mr. Hislop got it pretty much right. Too bad the jury was focused on divining clues from Mr. Lundy's behavior when he was accused.
If the defence handled the evidence so well, and the failure is down to not answering Lundy's behaviour at the time of charging, why did they not put him on the stand to explain why he had acted that way?

If Lundy had been in shock, not knowing how to act, that would be reasonable and he could have explained that in person. I buy that as a possibility, which is why I raised the Fatty Arbuckle case - maybe, just maybe, if Lundy had taken the stand and been honest about everything, the jury might have focused on the evidence you feel failed.
__________________
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 4th April 2015, 01:35 PM   #624
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
Be pulled in no direction

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post

Impossible for them not to think that. Check out the odds.
A 2003 US study noted: "In the great majority of homicides, the woman had experienced violence at the hands of her partner in the past year." link

Of course he should have been on the list of possible suspects but not to the point where tunnel vision set in. The cops were not forthright about their focus (see above), and IMO they fell on the wrong side of this line: "As a forensic psychiatrist, my advice to authorities has always been this: Excluding a spouse because of an unconscious wish that marital bliss should always trump rage would be irrational. But focusing too much on a spouse because of an unconscious wish of any other kind would be equally irrational. Be pulled in no direction. See in every direction."
__________________
“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 4th April 2015, 01:42 PM   #625
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,217
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
If the defence handled the evidence so well, and the failure is down to not answering Lundy's behaviour at the time of charging, why did they not put him on the stand to explain why he had acted that way?

If Lundy had been in shock, not knowing how to act, that would be reasonable and he could have explained that in person. I buy that as a possibility, which is why I raised the Fatty Arbuckle case - maybe, just maybe, if Lundy had taken the stand and been honest about everything, the jury might have focused on the evidence you feel failed.
Rodney Hide has no doubt he is innocent, he might have a crack at that. I will try to track him down through my local MP, the mighty David Seymour.

Rodney is on radiolive right now. Maybe they will get to the Lundy case.
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 4th April 2015, 02:04 PM   #626
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,498
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It was you saying

"You are so dishonest it doesn't surprise me a bit nobody takes you seriously."

No I am not a moderator, not even a volunteer fireman. I would prefer less having to second guess them. What I did was leave an intact sentence beginning with a capital letter as a heading, a sentence with fully intact meaning.
Absolutely and unequivocally incorrect.

I even quoted the full sentence to show you. You may need to brush up on English, because the "I" at the start of your quote is NOT the start of a sentence, but using a proper noun correctly. The start of the sentence is signalled by the full stop before it, which is the entire sentence I quoted.

Go back and check - it's all there.

And quite why you think moderators would become involved for someone pointing out an incorrect post is well beyond me. You made a quote which wasn't correct and it's usually quite good form to fix that.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Instead we have a pretty young thing as forewoman taking the solemn duty of the nation into her hands, and determining that because Lundy said I thought you were a good bloke but **** I hate you now when Lundy discovered he was being arrested for slaughtering his own girls, this proved the crown case. Shame.
And you know that is the telling factor, exactly how?

And does the foreperson of the jury vote for everyone these days?

It seems to me you - and Braunias - are making exactly the errors you're accusing everyone else of: making assumptions. You are reading thoughts.
__________________
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 4th April 2015, 02:07 PM   #627
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
Or Sugar Ray Leonard, for that matter

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
If the defence handled the evidence so well, and the failure is down to not answering Lundy's behaviour at the time of charging, why did they not put him on the stand to explain why he had acted that way?

If Lundy had been in shock, not knowing how to act, that would be reasonable and he could have explained that in person. I buy that as a possibility, which is why I raised the Fatty Arbuckle case - maybe, just maybe, if Lundy had taken the stand and been honest about everything, the jury might have focused on the evidence you feel failed.
My recollection of several articles I read some time ago is that lawyers generally discourage clients from taking the stand, unless he or she is the only one who can give certain evidence. That might have been the situation here, but I offer two caveats. Whether one is the defendant or a witness being crossed examined by a prosecutor is a little bit easier than getting into the ring with Sugar Ray Robinson, but not by much. There is a huge disparity of experience and skill. I read an account of one wrongful conviction in which the defendant claimed to be at a prayer meeting/bible study at the time in question. The minister was called as a witness, and the prosecutor made him look like a complete idiot.

Two, for the jury to focus on Lundy's reaction when the police accused him is evidence that they are not thinking clearly, and there is no defense that can overcome that. Whether Lundy were innocent or guilty, he might have reacted as he did. Calling it what you will; it is evidence that deserves a weight of zero. Lundy may be the biggest jerk in the world, but the prosecution can't come up with a reasonable TOD which isn't refuted by his alibi.
__________________
“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 4th April 2015, 02:09 PM   #628
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,498
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Rodney Hide has no doubt he is innocent, he might have a crack at that.
Holy crap. I shudder to ask, but how old are you, roughly?

I ask because Rodney Hide has a history longer than my arm, and his honesty, integrity and public persona are not that flash. The way you put it you think he might be some use, so I wonder if you're aware of his past.

He's one of the people you wouldn't want in your corner at any cost.

Find an ex-All Black; that seems to work ok.

Beegee would be ideal and I can't imagine he's too busy these days - independent, a top bloke, has real gravitas for a rugby-head, and best of all is Samoan.
__________________
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 4th April 2015, 02:17 PM   #629
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,498
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
My recollection of several articles I read some time ago is that lawyers generally discourage clients from taking the stand, unless he or she is the only one who can give certain evidence.
And that was clearly the case. Nobody else could answer why he acted that way.

I'm surprised you can't see that and am absolutely astonished he wasn't called. I thought that had been the entire point of him trimming down and his looking so corporately presentable - putting him up as an honest bloke who could explain how he was so shocked he didn't know how to act so made it up on the fly.

He could have pulled out psych tests showing an inability to cope with strong emotion... Lots of good things could have resulted and not a single detrimental outcome.

If he's innocent.

If he's guilty, not such a good idea.

And I'd love to know, deep down, how much weight the jury put on that.


Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Two, for the jury to focus on Lundy's reaction when the police accused him is evidence that they are not thinking clearly, and there is no defense that can overcome that.
Yes there is, and I even gave the archetypal example.
__________________
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 4th April 2015, 02:27 PM   #630
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,217
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Absolutely and unequivocally incorrect.

I even quoted the full sentence to show you. You may need to brush up on English, because the "I" at the start of your quote is NOT the start of a sentence, but using a proper noun correctly. The start of the sentence is signalled by the full stop before it, which is the entire sentence I quoted.

Go back and check - it's all there.

And quite why you think moderators would become involved for someone pointing out an incorrect post is well beyond me. You made a quote which wasn't correct and it's usually quite good form to fix that.



And you know that is the telling factor, exactly how?

And does the foreperson of the jury vote for everyone these days?

It seems to me you - and Braunias - are making exactly the errors you're accusing everyone else of: making assumptions. You are reading thoughts.
Yes you are grammatically correct in your observations. I will consult a third party to see if I can be impartially seen to have been economical with the semantics and come back on it. I think I am in the clear.

You used the moderator term, actually I never do, never report etc. Sometimes I ask the odd question.

I get the strong impression that young minx had strong influence. I would love to know more.
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 4th April 2015, 02:35 PM   #631
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,217
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
......Lundy may be the biggest jerk in the world,.......
He seemed to become that after his family were killed, probably by someone else. Prior to that he had a wide circle of friends, hosting wine tastings and so on. If he is innocent, and his family had not been killed, we would never know about the prostitutes in whom he sought some comfort as a comparatively young man whose wife was on a few lay months from sex.

Now where have I seen fresh versions of people forged after a murder before?
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 4th April 2015, 02:47 PM   #632
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
Michael Peterson spousal case

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
And that was clearly the case. Nobody else could answer why he acted that way.

I'm surprised you can't see that and am absolutely astonished he wasn't called. I thought that had been the entire point of him trimming down and his looking so corporately presentable - putting him up as an honest bloke who could explain how he was so shocked he didn't know how to act so made it up on the fly.
Hmm... For starters, the jury asked to see the video again at the end of the trial--probably too late for Lundy to be called, but I am not familiar with the relevant law. Second, what I had in mind was evidence. For example, if Lundy had found the bodies that morning, that might qualify as a reason to put him on the stand. Putting him on the stand to explain his reactions? I am reminded of a saying to the effect that when you are explaining, you are losing, and that is before the prosecutor would cross examine.

With respect to Lundy's appearance, I am reminded of another spousal trial, that of Michael Peterson. IIRC his lawyers suggested that he trim his eyebrows (which were long and unruly). I think it was good advice, which is no compliment to Peterson's jury.

With respect to his behavior at Christine and Amber's funeral, Lundy said that he was surprised by his behavior, which he does not remember. After viewing the video, he said words to the effect, "I totally lost it." My advice to someone in this most unfortunate position: Don't be stoic; remember Lindy Chamberlain. Don't totally lose it; remember Mark Lundy. And try to forget that how you act might get you convicted for murder.
__________________
“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 4th April 2015, 02:55 PM   #633
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
never underestimate the power of the press

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
He seemed to become that after his family were killed, probably by someone else. Prior to that he had a wide circle of friends, hosting wine tastings and so on. If he is innocent, and his family had not been killed, we would never know about the prostitutes in whom he sought some comfort as a comparatively young man whose wife was on a few lay months from sex.

Now where have I seen fresh versions of people forged after a murder before?
The press can take a chronic overachiever (Evans), a boy scout-equivalent (Seligmann), and the jolly green giant (Finnerty), and turn them into the obviously guilty Duke lacrosse rapists. And if every man who sought the company of a woman of negotiable morals (as one Scotch Canadian memorably phrased it to me) commited murder, our prisons would be many times as full as they are now.
__________________
“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 4th April 2015, 03:04 PM   #634
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,498
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Yes you are grammatically correct in your observations. I will consult a third party to see if I can be impartially seen to have been economical with the semantics and come back on it. I think I am in the clear.
What on earth are you talking about?

The very word before the "I" you started with is "but". A small b but with no punctuation before or after it. It is clearly a conjunction and you wouldn't need an expert to know you were egregiously wrong at best.

I accept you didn't do it dishonestly, though.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I get the strong impression that young minx had strong influence. I would love to know more.
Got any pics? I watched exactly zero percent of it and couldn't have told you the gender of the foreperson.

I do understand the effect of young, attractive women on people.

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Putting him on the stand to explain his reactions? I am reminded of a saying to the effect that when you are explaining, you are losing, and that is before the prosecutor would cross examine.
And I remember the case of Fatty Arbuckle. You win some, you lose some. Better to try than not try.

Many other cliches.
__________________
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 4th April 2015, 03:21 PM   #635
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,217
A letter from jail April 2004

http://www.verify.co.nz/case-marklundy.php

(Analysis optional reading)
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 4th April 2015, 03:27 PM   #636
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,498
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
A letter from jail April 2004

http://www.verify.co.nz/case-marklundy.php

(Analysis optional reading)
Never mind the letter, the analysis is absolutely terrifying. When I add their analysis to the fact the principal is an expert in polygraph usage, I get a picture of a bunch of insane sadists on a mission.

Sheesh, why didn't the defence call those guys? They are barking mad.
__________________
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 4th April 2015, 03:30 PM   #637
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
Statement Analysis rears its ugly head

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
A letter from jail April 2004

http://www.verify.co.nz/case-marklundy.php

(Analysis optional reading)
This forensic language (Scan) analysis reminds me of Statement Analysis.TM Statement Analysis is without experimental support insofar as I have been able to determine. There might have even been a thread here about it. However, it does prove one thing: you can be clear in your denial of involvement in a crime, and someone will still come along and claim how your words mean the opposite of what they seem.
__________________
“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 4th April 2015, 03:36 PM   #638
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,217
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
What on earth are you talking about?

The very word before the "I" you started with is "but". A small b but with no punctuation before or after it. It is clearly a conjunction and you wouldn't need an expert to know you were egregiously wrong at best.

I accept you didn't do it dishonestly, though.



Got any pics? I watched exactly zero percent of it and couldn't have told you the gender of the foreperson.

I do understand the effect of young, attractive women on people.



And I remember the case of Fatty Arbuckle. You win some, you lose some. Better to try than not try.

Many other cliches.
I reckon the journalist may have been obliged to equivocate from a professional view point, considering the verdict. I can't know, but suspect the private citizen has decided.

No pics, but this

We do not know what he thought of them, but the jury was a surprising one.

Juries are supposed to be a cross-section of society, but are usually predominantly white and old.

This jury was a real pick-and-mix, covering almost every age bracket and major ethnicity.

Seven men and five women, tasked with deciding if Lundy was or was not guilty of killing his family in August 2000.

If people do not agree with the guilty verdicts, they cannot blame it on inattention from the jury. Many juries start nodding off after a few days, but the majority of Lundy's were attentive throughout.

They had a strong foreperson. She was young, but extremely focused.

They all gave the five lawyers in court equal attention, not obviously appearing to favour one over the other.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-stan...oad-to-justice

Question: Does sitting through a trial get a clearer picture? This was a continual meme on Knox, from people that sat through a year of it and got the wrong answer. But an hours internet study of material posted after the first trial but before the second on IIP was enough for me.
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 4th April 2015, 04:18 PM   #639
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,217
Nigel Latta audio

Nigel battles away, no doubt in good faith, and sounds like Michael from pmf dot net.

http://www.radiolive.co.nz/AUDIO-Nig...3/Default.aspx

He is very prominent on NZ TV.
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 4th April 2015, 04:29 PM   #640
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,361
thanks for two examples of it

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Nigel Latta audio

Nigel battles away, no doubt in good faith, and sounds like Michael from pmf dot net.

http://www.radiolive.co.nz/AUDIO-Nig...3/Default.aspx

He is very prominent on NZ TV.
This and the analysis of his letter are mostly woo. The psychologist is trying to be a forensic profiler. I'll grant that he saw the photos, but he is overinterpreting them. This may indeed be a personal cause homicide, but that doesn't rule out everyone but Lundy. His attempt to analyze Lundy from afar is risible.
__________________
“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; 4th April 2015 at 04:34 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
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 05:15 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.