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 14th October 2018, 06:59 PM   #1641
Fixit
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 103
A few interesting things emerging from the Judgement. Firstly, Miller (the IHC practitioner) had explained to the Court at trial that traces of unknown DNA may have come into contact with the shirt from someone sneezing. Later the Court refers to the 'vast' [para 343] distance between where the shirts spots were in order to indicate that there was no accidental contamination of either spot by Christine. The Court dismisses evidence of intruders in the house because of its belief that CNS is proven to be on the shirt, of course no one can now say that CNS is human and it's link to Christine by way of her DNA being found on the shirt has many scientific papers in support of 'spousal' DNA exchange. However suspect male DNA under both deceased persons nails the Court felt was of no moment, nor the lights being on at the house around 11pm shortly after the computer was turned off and at a time a neighbour noticed a sliding door open. The Court also attributed the 'savagery' of the attack to ML despite there is not a single instance of him having ever been violent, being prosecuted for violence, or police called to the address as the result of domestic disturbances.
Fixit 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 15th October 2018, 01:14 AM   #1642
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,274
From the judgement

The post-mortem evidence indicated
that there was food in both Mrs Lundy’s and Amber’s stomachs of a type that is not
available at McDonald’s, and therefore likely to have been consumed at a time
considerably later than around 6 pm.

I think this is a false statement, the evidence was solely from Christine's stomach, non MacDonald fries in a state where they had just been eaten. Photo graph here

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.co...194602#p194602
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 20th October 2018, 12:12 AM   #1643
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,274
interesting aspect of the first trial
Page 1170, Van der Kolk cross examines Mark.

Well Mr Lundy Amber seemed to be a creature of routine according to all your family members, that's right isn't it?

Yes

And well behaved in that regard?

Very.

And well-disciplined, self-disciplined, in fact?

Yes.

.................................
So the crown estab lished in 2002 she was very well behaved, but in 2015 had to be eating at midnight so stomach contents lined up with a 3am death.

Last edited by Samson; 20th October 2018 at 12:13 AM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 12:17 AM   #1644
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,274
When two strange events concurr we can consider statistical clustering, and allow the possibility.

Here we have the cluster

1. Amber ate at midnight which she never did before on ananmestic evidence.
2. Amber got murdered at 3 am ditto.

The appeal court have used false information to sustain this clustering, and this will be demonstrated in future proceedings.
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 18th November 2018, 12:54 PM   #1645
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,274
People ask what happened in the Lundy murders, and this testimony from the 2002 trial illuminates

Prosecutor Butler cross examines the business partner who has name suppression to this day.

“Come to the 29th of August 2000 – did u hv a visitor that day in relation to the root stock?
Yes 1 did,

And can u tell us something abt that mtg?
The supplier came to our property and was 5 little agitated that he hednt bn paid for hi root stock, at which stage I informed him that paymt
for the root stock was not due until the 20th of Sept as per the S & P agreement.

I believe he was under some financial pressure himself and he proceeded to take product out of our chiller unit that was not his.

Did u do anythg when he started to do that?
Yes I did, the man was considerably taller and heavier than myself and I felt intimidated so I made a call to the local Police stn
and they sent out two constables.

Did u let Mark Lundy know this had happd, or try to?
In the afternoon I rang the Lundy residence, and was talking to Christine, and mentioned to her what had happd, because I wanted to find out
how Mr Bland’s enquiries had bn going.

Did Christine say anythg to u abt the whereabouts of Mark Lundy?
Yes she did, she mentioned to me that Mark was in Wgtn on business and would not be home until the next day.”

From this exchange we learn two things.

1. There was financial stress all around.

2, If this guy didn’t know Mark was out of town then essentially no one but his wife knew.

Later that evening Christine and Amber were tragically killed by someone looking for Mark, in an endeavour to persuade him to pay up the invoice to this business partner, who kept allaying his many creditors with this golden 550k invoice, just the right figure to supply rootstock for a 120 acre vineyard planting, but not yet due

This looks like a narrative that makes sense. The idea that you kill your family in the hope you commit the perfect crime, and collect a woefully insufficient 250k insurance to salvage the enterprise makes, well, no sense at all.

Remember this latest appeal has been dismissed on one ground only, the testimony from the 2015 trial that PURE CNS tissue (not brain or Christine’s) is on the shirt. This is a false scientific finding that is being shredded
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 March 2019, 03:12 AM   #1646
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,274
The crown are supposed to have responded by friday to a devastating attack on the appeal court judges by Jonathan Eaton for the defence, in his submissions to the supreme court seeking leave to appeal.
This is last chance saloon for New Zealand before the case returns to the privy council and international condemnation of our courts.

Jacinda Ardern has appointed one of these judges to the position of chief justice, after she has declared she is certain that Mark Lundy is guilty.
Helen Winkelmann holds no such belief.

Last edited by Samson; 2nd March 2019 at 03:19 AM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 09:28 PM   #1647
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The crown are supposed to have responded by friday to a devastating attack on the appeal court judges by Jonathan Eaton for the defence, in his submissions to the supreme court seeking leave to appeal.
This is last chance saloon for New Zealand before the case returns to the privy council and international condemnation of our courts.

Jacinda Ardern has appointed one of these judges to the position of chief justice, after she has declared she is certain that Mark Lundy is guilty.
Helen Winkelmann holds no such belief.
Jacinda Arden wouldn't know if her backside was on fire, so that's no surprise.

So the defence can appeal to the Privy Council again? Is this because the Privy Council quashed his first conviction...meaning Lundy's chain of appeal is effectively reset back to zero? And because he was convicted before they prevented people appealing to the Privy Council, that he can still do so?
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 4th March 2019, 11:32 AM   #1648
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,274
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Jacinda Arden wouldn't know if her backside was on fire, so that's no surprise.

So the defence can appeal to the Privy Council again? Is this because the Privy Council quashed his first conviction...meaning Lundy's chain of appeal is effectively reset back to zero? And because he was convicted before they prevented people appealing to the Privy Council, that he can still do so?
I think that he should try and get the case back to the privy council if the supreme court tries to close the case down by dismissing leave to appeal.
I would be arguing that if the case brought in 2015 had been brought in 2002 before the supreme court took over the privy council role, the course of history would have changed in ways that can't be known.
The current theory seems to be there was a fresh indictment brought in 2015 and the privy council can not help, but the case is such a disaster for science and reason, any argument must be worth trying. Your notion seems as good as any when I reread 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 4th March 2019, 12:34 PM   #1649
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,725
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Jacinda Arden wouldn't know if her backside was on fire, so that's no surprise.
That's a pretty feeble comment. Jacinda wasn't even leader of the Labour Party until six weeks before the election and to expect her to be up with knowledge on the judiciary is absurd.

If you want to blame anyone, look to the Minister of Justice, whose advice she no doubt acted on.
__________________
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 5th March 2019, 01:48 AM   #1650
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
That's a pretty feeble comment. Jacinda wasn't even leader of the Labour Party until six weeks before the election and to expect her to be up with knowledge on the judiciary is absurd.
It would be hard to find a politician so hopelessly uninformed as her, even amongst such a stellar group of clowns as her government.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
If you want to blame anyone, look to the Minister of Justice, whose advice she no doubt acted on.
Ha. Is that the same guy responsible for tipping $36 million into re-entering Pike River and so far been nowhere?
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 5th March 2019, 02:17 AM   #1651
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I think that he should try and get the case back to the privy council if the supreme court tries to close the case down by dismissing leave to appeal.
I would be arguing that if the case brought in 2015 had been brought in 2002 before the supreme court took over the privy council role, the course of history would have changed in ways that can't be known.
The current theory seems to be there was a fresh indictment brought in 2015 and the privy council can not help, but the case is such a disaster for science and reason, any argument must be worth trying. Your notion seems as good as any when I reread it.
Putting my internet lawyer's hat on, it seems like he could still go back to the Privy Council again

Quote:
(from the Senior Courts Act 2016)

Privy Council may still determine appeals in certain existing proceedings

(1) The Privy Council may hear and determine, or continue to hear and determine,—
(a) an appeal against a final judgment of the Court of Appeal made before 1 January 2004, or made after 31 December 2003 in a proceeding whose hearing was completed before 1 January 2004, where—
(i) the matter in dispute on the appeal amounts to or is of the value of $5,000 or upwards; or
(ii) the appeal involves, directly or indirectly, some claim or question to or respecting property or some civil right amounting to or of the value of $5,000 or upwards; or
(b) an appeal arising out of a successful application to a New Zealand court (whether made before, on, or after 1 January 2004) for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against a decision of the Court of Appeal—
(i) made before 1 January 2004; or
(ii) made after 31 December 2003 in a proceeding whose hearing was completed before 1 January 2004; or
(c) an appeal arising out of a successful application to the Privy Council (whether made before, on, or after 1 January 2004) for special leave to appeal to it against a decision of the Court of Appeal—
(i) made before 1 January 2004; or
(ii) made after 31 December 2003 in a proceeding whose hearing was completed before 1 January 2004.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...ed8180d2b0.pdf

His loss in the first COA was in 2002, so it looks like (1)(b)(i) applies, as does (1)(c)(i)...I could easily be misinterpreting it though.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 5th March 2019 at 02:20 AM.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2019, 03:41 PM   #1652
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,725
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
.......
If you want to argue the respective merits of this government and the previous, feel free to bring it to the NZ thread, where it belongs.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=285511
__________________
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 6th March 2019, 12:02 AM   #1653
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
If you want to argue the respective merits of this government and the previous, feel free to bring it to the NZ thread, where it belongs.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=285511
I don't really. It was a reply in passing and nothing more. Anyway, that thread you linked to is as dead as a dodo.
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 6th March 2019, 03:48 AM   #1654
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,274
We should examine the statements of Dame Helen Winkelmann as embedded in the judgement.
She states she is certain of Mark Lundy's guilt and she is lying.
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 6th March 2019, 04:59 PM   #1655
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,725
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
We should examine the statements of Dame Helen Winkelmann as embedded in the judgement.
She states she is certain of Mark Lundy's guilt and she is lying.
Holy crap, I hope you've got top-notch security so that you can never be identified from your posts.

Accusing the Chief Justice of New Zealand of lying isn't something I'd recommend.
__________________
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 7th March 2019, 12:58 AM   #1656
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,274
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Holy crap, I hope you've got top-notch security so that you can never be identified from your posts.

Accusing the Chief Justice of New Zealand of lying isn't something I'd recommend.
Why?
Politicians are accused of lying continuously with complete abandon. Watch kiwiblog.
What is different about a lying chief justice??
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 7th March 2019, 02:38 AM   #1657
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,274
And here is the definition of careerism

Careerism | Definition of Careerism by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/careerism
Jan 14, 2019 - Definition of careerism. : the policy or practice of advancing one's career often at the cost of one's integrity.

I specifically accuse Helen Winkelmann of careerism and I have chain of proof.
I am confident I will not be pursued but will happily defend with the direct evidence. Most New Zealanders are being complicit in this extreme hoax.
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 7th March 2019, 01:00 PM   #1658
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,725
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Why?
Politicians are accused of lying continuously with complete abandon. Watch kiwiblog.
What is different about a lying chief justice??
Easy.

1 Politicians aren't protected by specific laws
2 Judges are, and calling one a liar can get you two years in prison: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/....html#LMS24833
__________________
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 7th March 2019, 02:32 PM   #1659
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,274
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Easy.

1 Politicians aren't protected by specific laws
2 Judges are, and calling one a liar can get you two years in prison: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/....html#LMS24833
The facts in the case are so stark that no one ever wants them to emerge for the public gaze. The facts prove Mark Lundy never left Petone until mid morning August 31 2000. You have said as much on your website because you came to understand the case. The question then arises whether anyone is correct when they have analysed the case with publicly available information as you have, and says they are certain of his guilt. To apply the proviso the law requires the judges to be sure of his guilt and to state it.
They did state this accordingly, to satisfy the terms of the proviso, but not to serve the far more noble cause of actual justice. This is the greatest miscarriage of justice in modern New Zealand history by several measures, including a crime free history of the defendant, factual innocence, and multiple instances where the police are shown to have made false statements, as shown in the notebooks in the possession of the defence.

And of course none of this is of any account because there is a need to tame the public, beat them into submission on pain of imprisonment according to legal niceties. Any legal action against a party who attempts to educate the public on all facets of this terrible sin against reason and science, would present an opportunity so far denied by a gutless New Zealand media to illuminate the case. This would be of no help to the supreme court and its position of respect in the community. Every current member is complicit in the case in some fashion, just one found the fortitude to write in the true interests of the defendant, and this is Ellie France, who essentially said the probative value of the mRNA evidence was so powerful that it should not be admitted unless it was proven science. This alone says the proviso should not have been applied by the appeal court, so why was it, if not to calm the New Zealand public? Does the life of Mark Lundy have any account in this process? The answer apparently is a resounding negative.
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 7th March 2019, 05:36 PM   #1660
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,725
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Does the life of Mark Lundy have any account in this process?
Nope, never has, nor should it.

Simply the facts.

The problem is, some of the facts seem to be like Trump's facts - not necessarily linked to the truth.

A classic case is the Appeal Court ruling the evidence of the stain on the shirt wasn't enough to sway the jury.

Yet the single sentence that was seen as convicting Lundy was the infamous: "No man should have his wife's brains on his shirt!"
__________________
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 7th March 2019, 08:30 PM   #1661
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,418
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Easy.

1 Politicians aren't protected by specific laws
2 Judges are, and calling one a liar can get you two years in prison: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/....html#LMS24833
This is only against untrue allegations, and in cases where it serves the public interest to charge. I seriously doubt that there is any case to be made against someone calling a Judge a liar on a backwater forum.
__________________

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

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:01 PM   #1662
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,274
I see the point of a law because judges, unlike politicians, are necessarily silent while in office, with no avenue of reply, therefore I unreservedly withdraw any suggestion of lying by Dame Winkelmann.

Instead I will present undisputed facts and transcripts to help better understand the grave problem I see New Zealand has ahead.
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 8th March 2019, 06:00 PM   #1663
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,725
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
This is only against untrue allegations,...
Yes, and the onus is on the defendant to prove the allegation, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
... and in cases where it serves the public interest to charge. I seriously doubt that there is any case to be made against someone calling a Judge a liar on a backwater forum.
There have been several instances of people being sued for defamation on internet forums, notably Joe Karam. Mind you, there was money involved in that, so Joe was always going to jump in, plus I've been threatened with being sued on a far smaller forum than this. And I mean threatened by an actual solicitor, not someone crying "I'll sue you!"

Judges do not like to be criticised, let alone defamed and it's not something I'd be trying.

Besides which, I seriously doubt she would lie. Be mistaken, make an error, sure - all judges have done that, some on several occasions, but I don't see any reason for her to lie.
__________________
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 8th March 2019, 09:12 PM   #1664
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Isn't that law just a specific restatement of defamation laws in general though? If I make an allegation against anyone, they're free to sue me for defamation and it's up to me to prove what I said is true. I wouldn't think calling a judge a liar was specific or defamatory enough - everyone lies at sometime in their life, so you could argue that a reasonable person would find that the accusation was probably true in the general sense.
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 9th March 2019, 07:47 PM   #1665
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,725
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Isn't that law just a specific restatement of defamation laws in general though?
Yes, but with one important difference: defamation is civil, defaming a judge is a criminal act.
__________________
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 9th March 2019, 11:46 PM   #1666
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,274
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Yes, but with one important difference: defamation is civil, defaming a judge is a criminal act.
Oh thank you for the heads up.
There is infinite consternation in the defence camp that the supreme court will close the case, therefore anyone who questions the infinite truth telling of the chief justice should be called to account.

New Zealand the way I want 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 11th March 2019, 12:49 AM   #1667
Fixit
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Oh thank you for the heads up.
There is infinite consternation in the defence camp that the supreme court will close the case, therefore anyone who questions the infinite truth telling of the chief justice should be called to account.

New Zealand the way I want it!

I don't think you should link your fixation with Judges and what you believe they think to 'infinite consternation in the defence camp.' The defence had a victory the mRNA was thrown out.
Fixit 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 11th March 2019, 05:08 AM   #1668
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,364
among the worst cases of tunnel vision I have encountered

Yes the mRNA was thrown out, but it seems to me that no one stepped back a moment to look at the bigger picture. Here was the prosecution spending lots of money on a technique that had never been validated. In the wake of the 2013 Privy Council Judgment, should they not have gone back to square one and reinvestigate the murder with fresh eyes? This is one of many things that point to confirmation bias on the part of the police or prosecution.
__________________
“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; 11th March 2019 at 05:09 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 11th March 2019, 12:48 PM   #1669
Fixit
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Yes the mRNA was thrown out, but it seems to me that no one stepped back a moment to look at the bigger picture. Here was the prosecution spending lots of money on a technique that had never been validated. In the wake of the 2013 Privy Council Judgment, should they not have gone back to square one and reinvestigate the murder with fresh eyes? This is one of many things that point to confirmation bias on the part of the police or prosecution.
The COA searched for info on the 21 hairs and the trail went cold. Could anyone reasonably expect that the significance of hairs would have been overlooked by police if they were thought to be ML's? To me we've seen an effort to shore up the alleged strength of the IHC, rather than a sharp comparison between crime scene evidence pointing away from Lundy.
Fixit 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 6th May 2019, 01:00 AM   #1670
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,274
The supreme court are allowing the hearing of an appeal.
In my opinion this will lead to the release of an innocent man.
As always there are nuances but prime time TV are suggesting the appeal will be allowed,
The suggestion IHC can't be challenged may not be the rebuttal that is of immediate concern, and may help focus attention to the crime scene evidence.

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases...=2.70196931485

Last edited by Samson; 6th May 2019 at 01:06 AM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 02:05 AM   #1671
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
The COA searched for info on the 21 hairs and the trail went cold. Could anyone reasonably expect that the significance of hairs would have been overlooked by police if they were thought to be ML's? To me we've seen an effort to shore up the alleged strength of the IHC, rather than a sharp comparison between crime scene evidence pointing away from Lundy.
Were the 21 hairs ever tested by police, do you know? I can't recall hearing much about them. Did they all match one person, or were they from multiple persons? I assume they didn't match ML, as you say, the prosecution would have been shouting that from the rooftops.

It sounds like they were just handwaved by police, probably because they were a pesky interference to their story.
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 6th May 2019, 03:08 AM   #1672
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,274
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Were the 21 hairs ever tested by police, do you know? I can't recall hearing much about them. Did they all match one person, or were they from multiple persons? I assume they didn't match ML, as you say, the prosecution would have been shouting that from the rooftops.

It sounds like they were just handwaved by police, probably because they were a pesky interference to their story.
Hard Cheese:
The 21 hairs were never officialy tested.
Mark Lundy was jailed about march 2001
The hairs were delivered back to to OIC Grantham about june.
They have disappeared from public record.
All other catalogued hairs went to Susan Vintiner about December for testing but not those 21 hairs.
Mark Lundy says they were tested against his hairs and did not match.
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 8th May 2019, 01:12 AM   #1673
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Hard Cheese:
The 21 hairs were never officialy tested.
Mark Lundy was jailed about march 2001
The hairs were delivered back to to OIC Grantham about june.
They have disappeared from public record.
All other catalogued hairs went to Susan Vintiner about December for testing but not those 21 hairs.
Mark Lundy says they were tested against his hairs and did not match.
Either more sloppy police work, or the results weren't what they wanted and discarded. It beggars belief if they weren't tested - even for hair colour at the very least. I wonder if they've been retained or destroyed? It seems there are methods of extracting mitochondrial DNA profiles from hair shafts, this research tested 3 year old hair samples but they say they've done it for 100-300 year old samples

Quote:

Obviously you'd have to be wary of applying untested science (not saying this is that) in the same way the Crown relied on mRNA, but it shows you the folly of destroying evidence, or not preserving it properly - you never know what techniques will eventually come around.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 8th May 2019 at 01:16 AM.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 03:31 AM   #1674
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,274
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Either more sloppy police work, or the results weren't what they wanted and discarded. It beggars belief if they weren't tested - even for hair colour at the very least. I wonder if they've been retained or destroyed? It seems there are methods of extracting mitochondrial DNA profiles from hair shafts, this research tested 3 year old hair samples but they say they've done it for 100-300 year old samples




Obviously you'd have to be wary of applying untested science (not saying this is that) in the same way the Crown relied on mRNA, but it shows you the folly of destroying evidence, or not preserving it properly - you never know what techniques will eventually come around.
The police applied to Mark's power of attorney to destroy all the evidence after the 2002 appeal was denied, and he said
NO
So the default position is Grantham has the hairs.
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 8th May 2019, 10:58 PM   #1675
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The police applied to Mark's power of attorney to destroy all the evidence after the 2002 appeal was denied, and he said
NO
So the default position is Grantham has the hairs.
That seems dodgy, why would the police ever request evidence to be destroyed? If they were so confident of their case, they should have no fear of it ever being overturned. I would have thought the truth was more important than being right


Anyway, it seems like a no-brainer to test the hairs - assuming it could be done with some level of confidence that the results would be accurate and not affected by contamination after nearly 20 years. I take it because it is mitochondrial DNA rather than implicate it would eliminate, i.e. the hairs not being from Amber (although they could be Glenn Weggery's I guess) and assuming the mtDNA doesn't match Mark's, I can't see a reasonable explanation for how the hair got there other than there must have been a third party (or parties) involved.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 8th May 2019 at 11:19 PM.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2019, 02:23 PM   #1676
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,172
If they're allowing another appeal, that's got to be good. It just seems so often that the more often an accused returns to court the more the system doubles down and seems determined not to let anything through that might suggest a mistake has been made.

I can't understand how anyone could have convicted in the first place with the impossible drive that was being proposed. Maybe your ordinary guy in the street doesn't understand just how fast you actually have to be going to maintain an average speed of 60 mph on an ordinary road that has traffic lights and speed limited sections, but policemen should know that.

We've been using the AA Routefinder a lot to break down David Gilroy's drive across Scotland in May 2010 when he disposed of his girlfriend's body that has still not been found. It's very realistic about driving times. It puts that round trip of Lundy's at 3 hours 46 minutes, and that's not even allowing any time to commit a couple of murders at the turning point.

I go quite fast. I've got a fast car. I know I can shave a bit off the AA journey times, especially on motorways where they kind of assume you're going to keep to the speed limit and lots of people don't. On a journey like Lundy's I'd think I could shave off 15 or 20 minutes. Half an hour would be in the realms of fantasy. He should never have been brought to court in the first place on that assumption.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 10th May 2019 at 02:24 PM.
Rolfe 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 10th May 2019, 06:43 PM   #1677
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,725
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I go quite fast. I've got a fast car. I know I can shave a bit off the AA journey times, especially on motorways where they kind of assume you're going to keep to the speed limit and lots of people don't. On a journey like Lundy's I'd think I could shave off 15 or 20 minutes. Half an hour would be in the realms of fantasy. He should never have been brought to court in the first place on that assumption.
I know that road extremely well, and the drive is fine - I could do that trip in enough time to kill a couple of people and return, given a clear road.

The problem is, Lundy was absurdly fat when it happened, and you'd need to be moving fast when you were on your feet, which he couldn't do. Also, he would have had to change in & out of protective clothing, which at his size, would have been extremely difficult.

It's just a case of the defence being too dumb in the first trial. They screwed it up completely and I can only assume nobody else will touch it, otherwise he wouldn't be with the same lawyer.
__________________
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 10th May 2019, 07:44 PM   #1678
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,274
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I know that road extremely well, and the drive is fine - I could do that trip in enough time to kill a couple of people and return, given a clear road.

The problem is, Lundy was absurdly fat when it happened, and you'd need to be moving fast when you were on your feet, which he couldn't do. Also, he would have had to change in & out of protective clothing, which at his size, would have been extremely difficult.

It's just a case of the defence being too dumb in the first trial. They screwed it up completely and I can only assume nobody else will touch it, otherwise he wouldn't be with the same lawyer.
The drive is not fine, it is impossible, Petone Palmerston North and back to Petone.
In fact an average of 120 km/hr was required for the return to quote the appeal court judge

"[19] The jury could reasonably have found that Mr Lundy made the journey from Petone to Palmerston North in about one and a half hours. That, on the distance of about 150km mentioned below would have involved an average speed of about 100kph. Mr Lundy could then have committed the murders and altered the computer and been returning to his car at about 7.12pm.His return journey could have been accomplished in the remaining one hour and 15 minutes. In the circumstances the jury could reasonably have concluded that he drove back to Petone at breakneck speed so as to make his absence as short as possible. The distance between the Lundy home in Palmerston North and the motel in Petone was measured at between 147 and 150km depending on the exact route. To drive that distance in 75 minutes involves an average speed of about 120kpm. The jury were, in our view, entitled to conclude that this was by no means an impossibility, particularly bearing in mind the circumstances in which the journey took place. "

Only a lawyer could make a statement that a jury were entitled to believe a false statement.

ETA there were 5 sets of traffic lights on that route at the time.

Last edited by Samson; 10th May 2019 at 08:26 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 11th May 2019, 04:32 AM   #1679
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,364
rush hour traffic

"According to the Crown, in two hours and 51 minutes, Lundy drove 150km from Petone to Palmerston North through rush-hour traffic, parked 500m from his house, hurried there, butchered his wife in her bed, cut down their child in the bedroom doorway, cleaned up, reset the computer, disposed of the murder weapon, ran back to the car in female disguise and drove the 150km back to Petone without attracting attention from a single speed camera, traffic cop or fellow driver - even though he would have had to hit speeds of at least 160kph to do it." Link

In other words Mark Lundy was an expert driver, a runner, and a computer expert all in one. Mike Behrens and Steve Winter were the lawyers at the first trial. David Hislop was the main lawyer at the second trial. Jonathan Eaton is the appeal lawyer. In other words there have been several legal teams. No legal team is perfect, but IMO the first jury should have acquitted on the basis of the impossibility of the drive.
__________________
“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; 11th May 2019 at 05:58 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 11th May 2019, 09:09 AM   #1680
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,172
I think there may be some cross-purposes about the drive we're talking about. The allegation I was referring to was the one with the 2 hours 51 minutes time window, which is so impossible as to be ludicrous. I don't think The Atheist could do that. But there was a later form of the indictment where they changed the alleged time of the murders to give him a wider window, which I understand was actually within the realms of the possible.

ETA: That's a great link, Chris. It brings out the importace of the time of day. I think you'd be pushed to do it in the middle of the night, though. Even if you only give him ten minutes for the murders and the computer hacking and running 1 km (no, even that's impossible), that means the drive has to be done in a minimum of an hour and ten minutes each way.

88 miles in an hour and 10 minutes is only possible on a motorway, or another long straight road without other traffic or traffic lights.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 11th May 2019 at 09:18 AM.
Rolfe 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 11:21 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.