|
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. |
13th February 2015, 03:38 PM | #81 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I got the KAK worm in an email round about that time or maybe the previous year. It didn't infect my computer though. I don't think I had any virus protection as such, but Compuserve's antiquated email protocols neutralised it by treating it as a text file! I only knew about it because the sender of the email (which was from a list) followed it up with a bunch of screaming "don't open that email!" hysterics. (Later, when I tried to move the email filing cabinet to a new computer, the virus protection went bananas. I had to open the email archive and delete that one (and copies) before I could transfer the fcabinet.dat file. Which is apropos of nothing really, except that because it didn't get past Compuserve, I can't tell you first-hand what it did to the computer. Didn't the computer expert say the registry file problem was something different from the KAK worm? |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
13th February 2015, 04:08 PM | #82 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
|
13th February 2015, 04:21 PM | #83 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
It's just food. Fish and chips and so on, done up the way they cook it.
|
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
13th February 2015, 04:25 PM | #84 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
I wouldn't call McDonald's food by any stretch of the imagination. It is fake processed food loaded with preservatives
|
13th February 2015, 04:29 PM | #85 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,311
|
the order of the registry files
"However, a police computer expert at Lundy's trial in 2002 said there was evidence that the file registry in the computer was disordered which suggested the time on the machine was tampered with.
Maarten Kleintjes demonstrated to the jury how it was possible to tamper with the computer and manipulate the 'shut down' time on the clock that was undetectable - giving Lundy an alibi. He also said it was "far-fetched" that a computer virus could disorder the registry files. He did not know of such a virus, and found no sign of a virus on the Lundy computer." Link1 "But a computer expert hired for the Privy Council appeal said there were several ways files could become disordered, including a virus. Forensic examiner Michael Chappell discovered that the virus-checking program on the Lundy computer was out of date and it was infected with a virus known as a KAK worm. He traced it back to an infected email six weeks before the killings in August 2000 and when he deleted the virus, the registry files returned to their correct order." Link2 I am not sure but I think that the registry files and the time of shut down are two relatively separate issues. I don't know the significance of the registry files, but I think it is interesting how different the two viewpoints above are. |
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) |
|
13th February 2015, 04:33 PM | #86 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,112
|
Which means that more than half aren't. In other words it means nothing.
But even if 90% of the time it was the husband, the prosecution still have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. If percentages were proof then we wouldn't even need a trial. "90.5% of murderers are men - the accused is a man - Guilty!" |
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
13th February 2015, 04:50 PM | #87 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Well, exactly. I was actually disputing that it was reasonable to jump straight at the husband. By far the majority of these partner-murders are abusive relationships, anger management problems, revenge murders and so on. Cold-blooded murder for financial gain is way off-piste unless the relationship is already toxic beyond redemption. And I see no evidence this one was.
Oh yeah he had an alcohol problem and he had visited prostitutes occasionally. Let's be realistic, that's not exactly rare, and not necessarily a marker for a relationship toxic beyond redemption. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
13th February 2015, 05:21 PM | #88 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,112
|
One view is that someone shut the computer down well before 10.52pm, therefore the time must have been tampered with. IOW - twist the evidence to fit the narrative, no matter it really tells us.
The other 'viewpoint' (ie. fact) is that there was no tampering. |
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
14th February 2015, 05:25 AM | #89 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
This for some strange reason reminds me of the Monty Python question.
Who can honestly say they have not at some time set fire to a large public building? Or in this case, who can honestly say they have purchased a MacDonalds meal and then not had the discipline to admire it for a couple of hours as an aesthetic experience before consuming it? If that is too silly I apologise, because it will seem a strange post. |
14th February 2015, 03:22 PM | #90 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
|
I question how carefully the autopsy was done. It seems the pathologist noted the presence of undigested food in the stomach, but may not have examined the intestinal contents carefully to determine if gastric emptying had begun.
The woman and the child were both quite obese. They may have snacked through the evening, slowing the digestion of their 6 pm meal. Indeed there is some evidence of that. I doubt this murder happened at 7 pm, but it need not have happened at 11 pm either. The killer might have been watching the place. He waited until the kid was asleep and the woman was in bed, reading or watching TV. Then he got in somehow, blitzed the woman, and killed the child who was awakened by the disturbance. If he knew these people, and knew Lundy was out of town, he might have remained at the crime scene for some time, knowing he would not be interrupted. He might have searched the house, looking for something in particular. He might have taken time to look through the computer before shutting it down. This is all speculation, but it is plausible speculation IMO. Crime scene photos could tell us a lot. |
14th February 2015, 03:51 PM | #91 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
As far as I know, no activity was recorded on the computer after about six. The experts say someone could have been looking at the screen but no files were opened. It was as if someone just walked up to it shortly before eleven and switched it off.
|
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
14th February 2015, 07:01 PM | #92 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
The key to this is WHO would do that? I guess that's where my cynicism comes in. Real life isn't like the movies. The odds of someone doing this and killing them the way they did is ridiculously low. IOW if you planned this then why not bring a gun? Why stand there blugeoning a woman in over kill and then doing the same to the child? I mean serial killers do do this sort of thing, but why these two people? So if we have someone who knows he is out of town then he knows the family is going to be alone and then bring a gun and shoot them. It just doesn't make any sense. And again, why Christine's blood on the window? If the burglar broke in, what reason would he have to go back to the window? He'd just go out a door. So that's why it seems staged IMO. |
14th February 2015, 08:18 PM | #93 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
|
It makes sense to me as a planned and premeditated murder. The MO is classic, especially with a woman and child. Many killers avoid using a gun in a quiet residential area.
These people were killed for a reason, but we don't know what it was. Lundy is a good suspect, but the narrative required to break his alibi does not fly. I could consider the possibility that he contracted the murder, but not that he did it himself. He couldn't have pulled it off the way they say he did. |
15th February 2015, 01:00 AM | #94 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
Charlie, I have a theory that may work, though I hate to accuse an innocent man.
Mark Lundy attempted to increase an insurance policy, but this was refused. If that attempt had been successful he would have bided his time. However his finances were in such dire straights that he decided to proceed directly. He procured, say 10k in cash, found an agent, gave him a house key and a tomahawk with the instruction to enter silently and despatch his wife, silently, who was denying him sex. He loved his daughter, and imagined a golden future with just her. The alibi was goldilox, not too obvious, a little bit contrary, carefully crafted. In the morning the dutiful concerned husband did the necessary thing, and called his brother in law, who was able to report only a disastrous variation, the child woke during the silent entry and silent despatch. The contractor fulfilled the balance of the contract, staged the break in, before disappearing from mortal view. The defence accusing the brother in law is the last desparate ploy, though they are unaware of the dastardly crime. This is me being Sherlock Holmes and Father Brown. I hope I can be shot down in flames, because provisionally, I have infinite empathy for someone who lost loved ones and liberty. Shades of another case.... |
15th February 2015, 01:36 AM | #95 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
|
It's possible, and I'm tempted to believe it, because this crime seems to be cold and well executed.
But, I'd need to see evidence. I think Lundy could and would have covered himself with a better alibi. I think the child may have been incidental to the motive, but was not an unintended victim. My best guess is either that Lundy, or possibly the woman herself, owed money to a truly bad actor, or else the woman knew something that posed a danger to the killer. |
15th February 2015, 01:57 AM | #96 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,305
|
|
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong. Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!! |
|
15th February 2015, 02:10 AM | #97 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
I drew attention to the watching detective, and the presumed unseen change of gait, some time before before arrest. This would be reasonably consistent with a man who knew he did not commit the act. He could be very confident that the forensics could never connect him. Note that this was achieved by design a profile as in the Meredith Kercher dna on the knife, by a totally discredited operand.
He could act at the funeral, act forever, the perfect crime. But the daughter awoke. What I am looking for now is a theory that fits the evidence better, there probably is one, I hope so. |
15th February 2015, 02:31 AM | #98 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,305
|
Firstly, that would surely depend on the visibility of the door from the road. If you chose a particular window to use because it would be difficult or impossible for anyone to witness the break in, why would you possibly blow it by using the door.
Secondly, what type of door locks did the Lundys have? If you broke into my house by coming in the window then unless you knew where I kept the house key, or got it off me, the only way you could get out again would be out of a window, because we have deadlocks on the front and back doors and we don't leave the keys in the locks at night. |
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong. Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!! |
|
15th February 2015, 02:38 AM | #99 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
|
15th February 2015, 02:46 AM | #100 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,305
|
|
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong. Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!! |
|
15th February 2015, 03:04 AM | #101 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
Yes but the crime is more than that. I posted a scenario that ties all elements, but could inculpate a victim of family homicide.
I suggest the following. Mark Lundy could not be physically involved, the thread has determined this.. He could very well have retained a hitman with a small untraceable deposit, for example salting away cash for a period prior. If he provided a key, it is extremely important this is not deduced, so the mandate is to stage a break in to the contractor. Can you refute my theory, I don't expect to have solved it so easily. |
15th February 2015, 04:21 AM | #102 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,305
|
I wasn't really trying to refute your theory, I was just pointing out that burglars/home invaders breaking via a window and exiting via the front door is not an absolute.
Also, the defence counsel have stated that in 2014, evidence was gathered that the DNA of two different men was under the fingernails of both Amber and Christine. Who are they and how did the DNA get there? |
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong. Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!! |
|
15th February 2015, 04:31 AM | #103 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
|
I would not look at demeanor evidence in this case, especially as reported by police who viewed him as a suspect.
I would look at significant changes in lifestyle, e.g., having a new woman on his arm right away, or suddenly being out on the town in the evening. It wouldn't prove anything, but it would deepen my suspicion, because it is typical of the man who thinks he has gotten away with killing his wife. I haven't heard about anything like that, and it seems like it would have been picked up by salivating reporters. I don't know what happened here. I doubt very much Lundy had anything to do with this crime. He may have been overextended financially, but he was not in dire straits with no way out. He was not a man about town, chafing at the constraints of marriage. He was a fat putz who brought a hooker to his motel room. I see this as a man whose family was of more use to him alive than dead. |
15th February 2015, 06:36 AM | #104 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I agree with Charlie. I don't think it's the right way to go about this to focus on Mark and spend all the effort in trying to shoehorn him into the crime. Most men who kill their wives do so in a rage, or because they're involved with someone else and for some reason divorce isn't a desirable option. Killing someone you basically love, for insurance money, isn't exactly a common event. (I don't think ordinary marital tiffs, or lack of a sex life, are necessarily evidence that a marriage of so many years was in serious trouble.)
I'm not ruling him out, but I don't think he's a slam-dunk suspect by any manner of means. I also think that unless that phone call can be shown to be a fake, he has an alibi right through to 2.30 am. I'm sure these murders happened before then. As I said before, I think that if he had hired a hit man to do it, his alibi would have been better. More people would have seen him, he would have made more phone calls, and he would have left his car stationary in a conspucuous place. He wouldn't have moved the car, and gone to the beach alone to read a book for an hour. I mean, he was convicted of carrying out the murders, because the police thought he had a big enough window to have got back and done it. How crazy is that, if he actually paid someone else to do it so that he could establish an alibi 100 miles away! |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
15th February 2015, 08:39 AM | #105 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
I was doing my best to cover the window tampering and other elements, and believe it is an internally consistent theory, but I agree strongly that the family unit appears too mutually dependant and generally normal to explain a murder, however I struggle to see any scenario where the death of the child was intended. But for some reason the wife's was designed to be a silent and mysterious death. The case seems quite unusual, and unfortunately this trial is doing no favours to anyone by pursuing an implausible narrative.
|
15th February 2015, 11:43 AM | #106 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,311
|
more on their financial situation would be helpful
IIRC Mark Lundy and his wife had purchased a vinyard or winery, and they had hefty interest payments. Is there any reason that they could not have sold their interest in the business?
|
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) |
|
15th February 2015, 11:45 AM | #107 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I understand they were "getting investors in". Sounds like an attempt to mitigate loss or spread risk.
|
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
15th February 2015, 07:32 PM | #108 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
|
This woman and her child are improbable victims for this type of murder, but the crime itself looks familiar. I associate this MO with organized crime - one or more thugs who have some reason to kill a specific person. They will break in and kill everyone in the house, children included, and often they will do so by bludgeoning them to death. Google "Wonderland murders" for a representative example.
It could also have been an amateur, like a relative or neighbor, who simply used that MO. Whoever it was, it was someone with a specific cause that we would have no trouble understanding, if we knew what it was. Either this woman (or her husband) crossed someone who did this to retaliate, or she knew something that made her dangerous, or she was in possession of something the killer(s) wanted but could not get any other way. |
15th February 2015, 11:27 PM | #109 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
Staged or real break in and who had keys matter here. My theory covers the bases, as it allows ingress without noise, but it seems to be getting no traction here. And I don't like it myself for the extreme outcome.
Meanwhile there is much more detail on finances today https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-st...on-wine-money/ Also "He said Christine was a light sleeper and had probably interrupted the thief. A box containing $20,000 of her jewellery had been stolen, he tells Mr Porter." Why the tomahawk for Lundy's theory, and $20,00 of jewellery will be detailed (and photographed) for insurance if it existed. |
16th February 2015, 12:27 AM | #110 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
|
This woman was lying on her bed when the killer bludgeoned her to death with an ax. Does that sound like a burglary gone wrong? It sounds to me like someone broke into the place to kill her, killed the child to silence a witness and make sure the crime would not be reported until morning, and then grabbed what valuables were at hand.
Lundy's financial dealings do not support the prosecution case. He was trying to put together a real estate deal, but he would not commit murder to collect life insurance to pay a contract fee. Come on. I think there's something we don't know about. It might be something Lundy didn't know about either, but his wife did. One possibility is that she found out about some kind of serious criminal activity. The killer(s) may have been successful, in that the secret died with her. |
16th February 2015, 12:42 AM | #111 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
|
Your theory is fine, but we don't have enough information to solve this crime. I think I generally know what type of homicide we are looking at, but I'm not sure. That is why I'd like to see the crime scene photos.
We do have enough information to see that the case against Lundy is garbled nonsense. If by some chance he really is guilty, too bad. It is better to acquit the guilty than convict the innocent. |
16th February 2015, 12:57 AM | #112 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
If he is guilty, "the people" in theory should honestly assess the threat he currently poses.
The threat to their relatives is unconscionable, if he is innnocent. If you can parse the intent in my statement which is intended to restate yours. Other cases come to mind. I emailed a query to a journalist, but they never respond, I will get on the phone to find more about the photos. |
17th February 2015, 12:45 AM | #113 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
Today's report
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11403069 I am about to spend a couple of hours with Chris Morrison's brother who just skyped me. He knows quite a lot about this, I will report later. |
17th February 2015, 02:07 AM | #114 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
|
|
17th February 2015, 02:17 AM | #115 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,305
|
"One parcel of land was owned by Chris Morrison, from Havelock North, who advertised he was a landowner from Havelock North through his excellent tan, his open-necked white shirt, and his urban cowboy boots. He told the court that the land was worth $700,000, and he asked Lundy for a 10 per cent deposit. "He preferred zero." They agreed on $10,000.
Lundy was supposed to pay the balance in February 2000. He missed that deadline and the one after that. Morrison: "I thought I'd better call him myself rather than hear second-hand his various excuses. I wanted to get to the bottom of it. He said there was no problem, apart from the excess of investors - he had such a surplus of them that he'd have to scale them back ... " He gave Lundy a final settlement date of August 30. The bodies of Christine and Amber were found that morning. Well, if he did do it for the insurance money, then he has to be thick, because life insurance doesn't work that way! The payout would be weeks, even months down the road. |
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong. Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!! |
|
17th February 2015, 02:52 AM | #116 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
|
17th February 2015, 03:19 AM | #117 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
|
It strikes me as very strange, though. He was trying to put together a consortium without any capital of his own. It is not a motive for him to murder his family. Instead it suggests the reckless ambition of a schemer, which can lead to fatal mishaps. But why the wife and kid instead of Lundy himself? What is the story with her? How did she spend her time while he was off peddling sinks and having his way with call girls? Did she too have an enterprising nature? Was she perhaps blackmailing someone?
|
17th February 2015, 03:27 AM | #118 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
Charlie, this is a straight yes or no question, have you eliminated the possibility that Lundy was physically involved in the deaths, or is there a stray possibility?...
Eta the last phrase confused my question, but I have personally eliminated the new prosecution theory as possible, so they may have too. Is it possible they have an unproveable contract killing theory and are engaging in a form of noble cause corruption? The stomach contents are a slam dunk refutation of post hooker deaths. |
17th February 2015, 05:09 AM | #119 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
|
I flatly reject the prosecution's claim that Lundy did this himself. It is impossible, from the facts we have to work with.
I doubt he contracted the murders either, but I can't say it's impossible. I am working under the assumption that someone had a specific cause to kill this woman, but we don't know what it was. Having said that, it is possible I am misreading the crime, and it was done by one or more home invaders who chose these victims at random. I doubt it, but I can't rule it out entirely. If the prosecution secretly believes Lundy contracted the killing, they should say so, instead of pushing a case they know is false. |
17th February 2015, 05:22 AM | #120 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,311
|
Christine was found undressed
Christine was not wearing any clothes when her body was found. This link also has some information on immunohistochemistry. I would like to know to what the antibodies were supposedly binding. If the prosecution's witness is to be believed, it would have to be an antigen common to both human and chicken neural tissue and yet not other tissue.
|
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|