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 29th December 2019, 09:21 PM   #1761
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,617
Ellingham opinion piece

Jimmy Ellingham wrote, "I didn't report on Lundy's retrial, but watched much of it from the public gallery. The best part of a week was spent on the technique and it was dense scientific argument any normal person, such as a juror, would surely struggle to make head nor tail of....Without being in the jury room, how do we know what importance members placed on the evidence? Given the handout from the judge, it's safe to assume it wasn't ignored and would surely have at least built on the immunohistochemistry and DNA evidence in the jury's considerations."
__________________
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)
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 29th December 2019, 10:35 PM   #1762
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 218
The Lundy shirt material was always outside the forensic safety chain.

All other alleged brain material gathered by ESR from the home was necrotic.

"We now learn of case notes confirming that all the stain material was consumed in testing in NZ (see Vintiner letter to Sutherland dated December 1st, 2000." And as below the ESR slides were necrotic - the reason why IHC was not attempted in NZ

Then from Morgan (COA) that the ESR Dab slides were degraded. Meaning that Dab Slides taken from the shirt before Miller's examination were degraded - but his were apparently not although there are brown marks in some of his lab photos of the slides showing degradation. Both the ESR and Miller slides are from the same source.

Miller gives evidence of tests smearing chicken brain on shirt material before the Lundy material arrives to emulate an air drying process - thin and even distribution on a shirt fabric. Whilst he gives evidence of this - he provides no proof.

Though it is claimed by various specialists that the Lundy questioned material is air dried, Miller fixes the shirt material after it is removed. A question if something is air-dried why would it need to be fixed in formalin or what difference would it make? If a practitioner is given sample brain from a donor body that is fixed does that specialist fix it again? Does fixed by air drying and fixed by formalin somehow give a different result?

Dako, FDA largest approved stain manufacturer says that 'air-dried' samples are not suitable to be used with their stains. They give specific instructions as to the maximum dilution rate all of which Miller exceeds, as well as ignores that the stains are not brain specific or to be used on 'air-dried' material. So positive results mean very little.

ML is somehow responsible for accidentally air drying the material on a moist and cold winter night. Besides that Dako says air-dried material is not suitable for IHC, all other literature shows the failure rate for attempting to air dry material within the lab is over 90%.

Morgan at SC admits that the IHC stain GFAP was not brain specific. The IHC submission not considered by the SC shows that all 4 stains were not brain specific - neither Jury heard that all 4 stains were not brain specific despite that Miller said they were. It's doubtful whether the Supreme Court knew the other 3 stains were not brain specific.

None of Christine's DNA found in the questioned material.

(Is there something else re Miller and either his slides or ESR slides in Texas? Can't think what will have to search again.)
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 30th December 2019, 01:34 AM   #1763
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 218
More info.


https://nostalgia-nz.blogspot.com/20...-to-texas.html
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 2nd January 2020, 06:42 PM   #1764
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,779
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
The Lundy shirt material was always outside the forensic safety chain.
I think this is as dead a duck as a duck could be dead - Lundy is serving his time, the end.

What's needed now is not so much overturning the verdict, but some thoughts and maybe even action on how he's going to cope back outside of prison.

He is forever tarred with the thought that he killed his wife & child, and in the most crazed and horrific manner. His name is known in every corner of NZ, and he's not going to able to do a Baino and shift to Aussie with a new name. Who the hell would employ him?

I doubt a GoFundMe would get much traction, as I'm fairly confident the average Kiwi's attitude toward Mark Lundy would have him somewhere between norovirus and cancer in negativity.

I also see a quick glance around the internet shows I'm not the only person who thinks Glen Weggery should have been on trial instead of Lundy. The cops found both victims' DNA at Weggery's house, he had the time and means to do it, and he also has a historical conviction for child sex offences, giving a plausible motive.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is online now   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 January 2020, 08:45 PM   #1765
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,625
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I think this is as dead a duck as a duck could be dead - Lundy is serving his time, the end.

What's needed now is not so much overturning the verdict, but some thoughts and maybe even action on how he's going to cope back outside of prison.

He is forever tarred with the thought that he killed his wife & child, and in the most crazed and horrific manner. His name is known in every corner of NZ, and he's not going to able to do a Baino and shift to Aussie with a new name. Who the hell would employ him?

I doubt a GoFundMe would get much traction, as I'm fairly confident the average Kiwi's attitude toward Mark Lundy would have him somewhere between norovirus and cancer in negativity.

I also see a quick glance around the internet shows I'm not the only person who thinks Glen Weggery should have been on trial instead of Lundy. The cops found both victims' DNA at Weggery's house, he had the time and means to do it, and he also has a historical conviction for child sex offences, giving a plausible motive.
Forget Glen Weggery.
Irrelevant.
And donít even suggest NZ is asleep with a crooked Supreme Court.
You know this guy is innocent and so do they.
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 January 2020, 01:35 AM   #1766
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I think this is as dead a duck as a duck could be dead - Lundy is serving his time, the end.

What's needed now is not so much overturning the verdict, but some thoughts and maybe even action on how he's going to cope back outside of prison.

He is forever tarred with the thought that he killed his wife & child, and in the most crazed and horrific manner. His name is known in every corner of NZ, and he's not going to able to do a Baino and shift to Aussie with a new name. Who the hell would employ him?

I doubt a GoFundMe would get much traction, as I'm fairly confident the average Kiwi's attitude toward Mark Lundy would have him somewhere between norovirus and cancer in negativity.

I also see a quick glance around the internet shows I'm not the only person who thinks Glen Weggery should have been on trial instead of Lundy. The cops found both victims' DNA at Weggery's house, he had the time and means to do it, and he also has a historical conviction for child sex offences, giving a plausible motive.
While I don't agree it is a dead duck. You are right about the other points and as it turns out ML is well prepared for release and has some staunch friends who have visited him throughout his imprisonment and known him all his life. He has not been idle in prison, and is in minimum security - a threat he is not.
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 4th January 2020, 02:04 AM   #1767
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,779
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Forget Glen Weggery.
Irrelevant.
A lot more relevant than this:

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
And donít even suggest NZ is asleep with a crooked Supreme Court.
You know this guy is innocent and so do they.
I wasn't talking about the court, and his court efforts are over.

Yes, I'm convinced of his innocence, but I'd say 90%+ of Kiwis think he's guilty, and that's the world he's going to have to inherit.

Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
While I don't agree it is a dead duck.
Wait & see, I guess, but I don't like his chances.

Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
You are right about the other points and as it turns out ML is well prepared for release and has some staunch friends who have visited him throughout his imprisonment and known him all his life.
Good to know.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is online now   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 January 2020, 01:43 PM   #1768
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,625
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
A lot more relevant than this:



I wasn't talking about the court, and his court efforts are over.

Yes, I'm convinced of his innocence, but I'd say 90%+ of Kiwis think he's guilty, and that's the world he's going to have to inherit.



Wait & see, I guess, but I don't like his chances.



Good to know.
You do know the Criminal cases review commission is now passed into law and awaits design and structure. Provisionally it comprises one third lawyers and two thirds non lawyers.
I wonder how the two thirds will view this from Forest Miller and the unanimous supreme court at para 134

................The defence also pointed to evidence of unidentified fingerprints and footprints at the scene, hairs in Mrs Lundyís hands, and unidentified male DNA in fingernail scrapings. The Court of Appeal found none of this evidence cogent, and we agree.

Here is one description of the term in law

Cogent means convincing; compelling action, appealing forcefully. For example, an argument in a court can said to be cogent if it is forceful, strongly appealing and to the point.

For example if there are scientists on the commission will they form the same view as the two highest NZ courts that fingerprints dna and stray hairs are irrelevant in a murder case?
I don't think so.
So there is plenty to work on with this new statute that can be submitted to by any Tom Dick or Harry who makes a sound and relevant case for consideration. Of course since we agree he is innocent and I and others know the science employed to convict is forensically unfounded, the common sense stuff like dna, fingerprints, and stray hairs which is forensically founded comes into sharp focus.
The enduring mystery will be how anyone, let alone a supreme court judge, could write the para 134 above with a straight face.
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 5th January 2020, 01:45 AM   #1769
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,779
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
You do know the Criminal cases review commission is now passed into law and awaits design and structure.
Presuming National doesn't throw it out upon being elected in November, I wouldn't hold out much hope.

Quote:
The CCRC will be an independent body to review convictions and sentences where there is a suspected miscarriage of justice.

It will be able to refer cases back to the appeal courts but will not determine guilt or innocence. It will replace the referral power currently exercised by the Governor-General under section 406 of the Crimes Act 1961.
First off, they have to suspect a miscarriage of justice, and there's no guarantee of that, and even if they do and find a miscarriage has likely occurred, the best they can do is send it back to Appeal Court.

And how do you think that will go? Given the career progression from Appeal to Supreme, I don't see any judges wanting to **** in their own nest by telling their superiors they were wrong.

The CRRC will be all about cases like Pora, where a clear miscarriage has occurred and they can throw their hands up in the air about it.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is online now   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 January 2020, 01:37 AM   #1770
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Presuming National doesn't throw it out upon being elected in November, I wouldn't hold out much hope.



First off, they have to suspect a miscarriage of justice, and there's no guarantee of that, and even if they do and find a miscarriage has likely occurred, the best they can do is send it back to Appeal Court.

And how do you think that will go? Given the career progression from Appeal to Supreme, I don't see any judges wanting to **** in their own nest by telling their superiors they were wrong.

The CRRC will be all about cases like Pora, where a clear miscarriage has occurred and they can throw their hands up in the air about it.
Actually the COA walked away from Pora because they couldn't see that it was a clear miscarriage. So by what you are saying if the CCRC sent Pora along for appeal it would have been dismissed. Furthermore, the COA would have already looked at it and dismissed it once already. The SC as well.
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 7th January 2020, 01:43 AM   #1771
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 218
Actually without checking. I don't think Pora went to SC as the case was able to be sent to the Privy Council for leave to appeal.
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 19th February 2020, 12:59 PM   #1772
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,625
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
Did the court have nothing to say about the improbably fast road trip he supposedly took in the middle of winter?
Some simple analysis

Slipped quietly into the Mark Lundy supreme court decision is the following sentence from para 122

"........If it made the secret return trip it likely
travelled 520 km on the Naenae tank and used 58 litres at an average rate of 11.15 litres
per 100 km."

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/asset...s/2019/lrj.pdf

This of course included known travel of sales trips around Wellington and to Johnsonville roundabout of 83 kilometers, and a known trip averaging 100 km/hr from the roundabout to the police cordon of 137 kms. The first of this the supreme court said used at least 12.5 liters / 100 kms and the second at least 16.44 liters/100 kms. Their figures.

This leaves 8.33 liters/100 kms for the secret 300 kms in a 4 liter straight 6 automatic Ford sedan on 91 unleaded, and not 11.15 for 520 kms at all.

Don't get in a private plane with these guys calculating fuel needs.

eta 34 mpg for the secret trip for Americans to contemplate and maybe purchase one of these remarkable vehicles.

Last edited by Samson; 19th February 2020 at 01:02 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
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 01:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.