Did Mark Lundy murder his wife and child?

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

"n contrast to the civil standard, the criminal standard of proof – beyond reasonable doubt – is more rigid and is generally strictly adhered to throughout common law jurisdictions. Neither the standard itself nor the evidence required to meet it is said to fluctuate. This is because of the inherent seriousness of criminal matters and the need to protect the accused, and in particular the need to protect innocent persons from conviction.272 While it is referred to as the criminal standard, proof beyond reasonable doubt is also required in proceedings for civil contempt, because there is a risk of imprisonment273 and for orders under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 declaring that a child or young person is in need of care or protection on the grounds that he or she has committed an offence.274" link and link2

Of course different juries probably interpret what is meant by "beyond reasonable doubt" in different ways.

I fear that too many juries interpret "beyond a reasonable doubt" as not having much meaning at all.

There is a case in the US similar to the Lundy case where a guy was convicted of murder, despite the fact that he had an alibi in a town 2 hours away before and after, but there was a short time window. And when I say "alibi" I mean things like, "he was getting ticketed by the police at the time." And for the short time window, it would have required averaging 120 mph with basically no time at the murder site. But the murder site (a hotel room) was littered with empty beer cans, indicative of a party, with extensive damage to the room.

But he was convicted because a jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. They were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he could have averaged 120 mph through the back roads of Texas. Not got to 120, but averaged. Both ways.

How could anyone reasonably be convinced that someone averaged 120 mph on two separate trips?

It's perfectily reasonable to doubt that happened.

I think the problem is in the sentance I wrote above:

"They were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he could have averaged 120 mph through the back roads of Texas"

The problem is that they don't recognize the implication of their verdict. If he did it, then he must have done that. "He averaged 120 mph" is implicit in the verdict "he did it." So if you say that you are convinced "he did it" beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must be convinced that he averaged 120 mph beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think juries make that connection.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I fear that too many juries interpret "beyond a reasonable doubt" as not having much meaning at all.

There is a case in the US similar to the Lundy case where a guy was convicted of murder, despite the fact that he had an alibi in a town 2 hours away before and after, but there was a short time window. And when I say "alibi" I mean things like, "he was getting ticketed by the police at the time." And for the short time window, it would have required averaging 120 mph with basically no time at the murder site. But the murder site (a hotel room) was littered with empty beer cans, indicative of a party, with extensive damage to the room.

But he was convicted because a jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. They were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he could have averaged 120 mph through the back roads of Texas. Not got to 120, but averaged. Both ways.

How could anyone reasonably be convinced that someone averaged 120 mph on two separate trips?

It's perfectily reasonable to doubt that happened.

I think the problem is in the sentance I wrote above:

"They were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he could have averaged 120 mph through the back roads of Texas"

The problem is that they don't recognize the implication of their verdict. If he did it, then he must have done that. "He averaged 120 mph" is implicit in the verdict "he did it." So if you say that you are convinced "he did it" beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must be convinced that he averaged 120 mph beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think juries make that connection.

Exactly what happened to Lundy twice.
Trial one:
If he could not average 120km per hour through 5 sets of traffic lights on way to the crime find him not guilty.
Trial two:
If he could not drive the distance in a straight six 4 liter automatic transmission Ford averaging 8.3 liters per 100 km (something like 36 mpg I think) stop deliberating and return a not guilty verdict.

I will explain presently how New Zealand's elite judges supported the second guilty verdict at the appeal then the supreme courts.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

So no evidence.

Yes, there is evidence, but since posting names would constitute contempt of court, your comment is pathetic.

Neither I nor samson will expose ourselves to a jail sentence to satisfy some guy JAQing off on the internet.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

See comment #1835

So the foreperson of the jury was 'the' niece of 'the' publisher of the local newspaper, which means the jury was corrupt? How did she manage it? Pay off all the other jurors with enough untraceable cash to make sure they kept quiet? Threaten to expose their dirty secrets, or kill their families if they didn't vote guilty?

Or were they all in on it from the start? After all if the local newspaper can be 'heavily invested in Lundy's guilt' a lot of the locals might be too.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Yes, there is evidence, but since posting names would constitute contempt of court, your comment is pathetic.

Neither I nor samson will expose ourselves to a jail sentence to satisfy some guy JAQing off on the internet.

"I have evidence, but I can't tell you about it or they'll throw me in prison" - every conspiracy theorist ever. Pathetic.

I wasn't asking you to name names or 'out' anyone. I just want something a bit more believable than "'secret' evidence that I can't reveal for 'reasons'". You can make up psedonyms and put them in a 'what if' account with places and details changed so no 'contempt of court' details are revealed. It won't bother me since I am not interested in getting involved in the actual case.

But hey, perhaps the police in your country are so corrupt that they have newpapers, juries, even entire towns and cities in their pocket. Perhaps you have real evidence of high level corruption that should be brought to the attention of the authorities, but are too scared to get involved because 'they' will get you. If so then I am sorry for your plight.

But you have to know that while you (and I) are theoretically anonymous in this forum, 'they' would have no problem figuring out who you are simply by reading your posts. So that means 'they' may already know that you know stuff they don't want getting out. So there's no reason you can't tell us about it too (with the 'contempt of court' details redacted of course). Just don't make any more slip-ups like revealing that 'the' niece of 'the' local newspaper publisher is corrupt. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to figure out who that person is - which could get you into a lot of trouble (unless it's all BS).

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by Samson

Exactly what happened to Lundy twice.
Trial one:
If he could not average 120km per hour through 5 sets of traffic lights on way to the crime find him not guilty.
Trial two:
If he could not drive the distance in a straight six 4 liter automatic transmission Ford averaging 8.3 liters per 100 km (something like 36 mpg I think) stop deliberating and return a not guilty verdict.

I will explain presently how New Zealand's elite judges supported the second guilty verdict at the appeal then the supreme courts.

8.3 l/100km is 34 miles per Imperial gallon, 28 miles per Queen Anne (aka US) gallon.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

How could anyone reasonably be convinced that someone averaged 120 mph on two separate trips?

It's perfectily reasonable to doubt that happened.

I think the problem is in the sentance I wrote above:

"They were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he could have averaged 120 mph through the back roads of Texas"

The 'problem' with that sentence is that many people have a wrong impression of what 'averaged 120 mph' means. Many cars can do well over 120 mph on a flat road, and many people regularly drive well over the speed limit so such a high speed doesn't seem unreasonable. But even otherwise intelligent people don't understand simple math. They think that cruising at 120 mph is the same as having an average speed of 120 mph, when in fact every slowdown or stop is time you can't get back by going faster. If your average speed was 120 mph, your top speed was probably much faster - and impossible.

And they are also poor judges of character. They think that someone who is trying to commit the 'perfect' crime will drive like a madman to create an alibi, when in reality (s)he is more likely to drive normally to avoid attention. A murderer who devises a plan requiring them to drive like a madman is not a mastermind, but an idiot.

But in Lundy's case it was only 120 kph, which many people drive at regularly. Many people also think that if they drive at 120 kph they will get to their destination proportionally faster, since they don't factor in the slower portions that drag down the average. So to jurors in New Zealand, being told that someone did an average of 120 kph on a long trip is not hard to believe - since they travel at similar speeds all the time!

Quote:

I fear that too many juries interpret "beyond a reasonable doubt" as not having much meaning at all.

having been on a few juries I can say that people simply interpret "beyond a reasonable doubt" differently to what logic would dictate. Because people are driven by emotions, not logic. They are convinced not when the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but when it makes them feel that the accused is guilty. That could be anything from 'He looks guilty to me, now what evidence do we have to support my feelings?' to 'He looked so innocent, but now that his fiendish plans have been revealed I see the monster behind the mask!".

Or it can go the other way. Jurors are often willing to give someone the 'benefit of the doubt' for spurious reasons that seem perfectly rational to them, when in fact they don't make sense. In the last case I was on the woman got way with brandishing a firearm due to a 5 second gap between being videoed saying "I'm going to shoot that bitch!' and the supposed incident. But a lot can happen in 5 seconds, right? I mean, what if the victim was lying and she didn't actually do it? That's 'reasonable' doubt.

[Chris_Halkides]

In the original iteration of the case, Mr. Lundy would have had to drive at that speed during rush hour. IIRC the police could not duplicate the time using a Nissan Skyline.

[Rolfe]

It's a fair point though. People often don't realise how slow an average speed usually is unless you're on a clear motorway for the entire journey. My car has an average speed readout that I don't look at very often, but when I do it's usually surprising how slow it is. We think about our top speed and imagine the average is only a bit slower than that, when it's usually a lot slower.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

It's a fair point though. People often don't realise how slow an average speed usually is unless you're on a clear motorway for the entire journey. My car has an average speed readout that I don't look at very often, but when I do it's usually surprising how slow it is. We think about our top speed and imagine the average is only a bit slower than that, when it's usually a lot slower.

Stopping has a huge impact on the average speed. Because if you stop, it means you slowcdown first, and then stop. And when you stop, that is an amount of time where you make no advance at all. That really affects things disproportionately, because not only have you not advanced and therefore added time, you still havevto cover that distance.

[Samson]

The drive he did do was when he had been advised of the tragedy. He averaged about 90 or 96 km/ hour, I forget which. On this drive he discovered there was a speed limiter at 160 km/hour. He also got stuck behind a truck for a period. The police for the purpose of the first trial, and to show he could drive fast, lopped 15 minutes off his actual time, and said he managed to average 104, but this is way short of the 120 they said he did the previous evening in commission of the crime.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Samson

The drive he did do was when he had been advised of the tragedy. He averaged about 90 or 96 km/ hour, I forget which. On this drive he discovered there was a speed limiter at 160 km/hour. He also got stuck behind a truck for a period. The police for the purpose of the first trial, and to show he could drive fast, lopped 15 minutes off his actual time, .

Yeah, they tried to show that he could do it faster, but still they didn't make it in the time required for the time line.

You would think that, if they wanted to show that it was possible for him to make the drive, they should just show it, not say, "hey, we came within 10 minutes of what he needed to do."

(once, btw. He needed to do it twice)

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Yeah, they tried to show that he could do it faster, but still they didn't make it in the time required for the time line.

You would think the police, who enforce the speed limits and have wide experience at driving fast, would understand better than anyone the impossibility of it. Or perhaps the ones who tried did it to point out this fact - and were ignored.

In the end though pushing this lie proved to be the right course of action, because it helped get them the conviction they wanted. Someone must have thought (correctly) that the jury would buy it. A good prosecutor (or defender) knows that facts and logic aren't important - what matters is what the jury perceives to be facts and logic.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

You would think the police, who enforce the speed limits and have wide experience at driving fast, would understand better than anyone the impossibility of it. Or perhaps the ones who tried did it to point out this fact - and were ignored.

In the end though pushing this lie proved to be the right course of action, because it helped get them the conviction they wanted. Someone must have thought (correctly) that the jury would buy it. A good prosecutor (or defender) knows that facts and logic aren't important - what matters is what the jury perceives to be facts and logic.

Yes a brilliant strategy.
First trial judge Tony Ellis had a BA mastering in mathematics and of course knew Lundy never did the drive but heh.
The jury is the oracle.

[Samson]

Then he sentenced who he knew to be an innocent man to the least statutory sentence of 13 years.
The police got that to 17 years, and when Tipping violated all science a few months later he raised this to 20 years. John Pike was the successful prosecutor at appeal.

[Samson]

Fresh on the appeal bench was Susan Glazebrooke. Silent then and aquiescing to the travesty she sits now as a supreme court judge.

[Samson]

The supreme court judges who aquiesce to this travesty are thus:
Helen Winkelmann chief justice.
Mark O'Reagan
Susan Glazebrooke.
Willie Young.
Terence Arnold.
Joe Williams.

Forest Miller wrote the decision as a ring in from the apoeal court as Glazebrooke Ellie France and Winkelmann recused themselves due to prior involvement.

Ellie France is the wife of Simon France who was the second trial judge, and she wrote a vast dissenting judgement in the pre second trial consideration allowing the mRNA analysis of the shirt stain be admissible.

She is also a supreme court judge so stands as untainted by the travesty.

[Samson]

Mark Cooper wrote the decision denying the 2nd trial appeal.
The appeal was in october 2017 at the time the election of Ardern to prime minister was being determined. Ardern was till then justice spokesperson for the labour party. She had launched a 300 page book Steve Braunias had written, 100 pages of which were concerned with this case. "Scene of the crime". Covers Rolf Harris and a few other of broad interest. On Amazon of course.

Mark Cooper Helen Winkellman and Raynor Asher were required to hear a range of issues, notably a transcript of the 3 day hearing (I attended all of this) had Helen Winkelmann being assured by the prosecutor Philip Morgan that dna did not link the shirt spot to Christine Lundy.

Later the evidence of Robertson demonstrating a race car consumes exactly 3 times the petrol a carefully driven car does was central.
Mark Cooper solved this 3 trips vs 1 trip problem by creating an appendix of not adduced evidence.

Disgusting and criminal.

[Samson]

To be clear this was a case where the subject car did either 3 trips of identical distance, or one trip.
The science showed that there were no 3 trips and the one trip accorded with the tests done by Robertson at Wigram.
At the hearing defence councel Jonathan Eaton was asked if the research was conducted on the open road.
Eaton said no, and I still remember that judge Asher leaning back with a kind of " You are thus toast" demeanour.

[Samson]

Imagine the police allowing an open road trial!! to show that were all lying like Dover Sole.

[Monza]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

The 'problem' with that sentence is that many people have a wrong impression of what 'averaged 120 mph' means.

You are absolutely correct. There is a well known math problem that illustrates this well.

A car laps a one-mile long track averaging 60mph. How fast does it need to go on the second lap to average 120mph for the entire two lap run?

The answer is it’s impossible. You could drive the second lap averaging 500mph and still not be anywhere near fast enough. To average 120mph over the two-mile run, you’d have to complete the two laps in one minute. But you already took one minute to run the first mile, by averaging 60mph. You can’t do the second lap in 0 seconds.

[Samson]

Mark appears for Parole in August.
By that date there may be developments in the case.

[Samson]

The NZ criminal cases review commission is a political accident that exists only due to benefit fraud by a Green MP. I think this is chaos theory in play. Were it not for this happenstance, Mark Lundy would not have QCs and private investigators funded by the NZ taxpayer deconstructing this judicial catastrophe.