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 3rd March 2015, 01:57 PM   #361
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 424
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
And in any case, where did this clean up take place?

If it was Lundy, he must have cleaned up before he got back into his car because there were no traces blood on him, his clothes, his shoes, his ring, his watch, his glasses, on or in his hair, his car, or his car keys. He could not have cleaned himself up in his own bathroom, because the police removed the sink and shower traps and found no traces of blood.

There was also no blood in his Petone motel room
What about this theory:

1. Lundy drives to PN with a full body protection suit and a large plastic garbage bag. (Although where/how one even buys a full body protection suit, and without raising a flag saying "look at me, I'm a serial killer", I'm not sure. )

2. He takes the garbage bag into the house with him and puts it somewhere where it won't get anything on it (in a cupboard maybe)

3. He puts on the full body suit, kills his wife and daughter.

4. He removes the suit (inside the house?) and carefully puts it in the garbage bag.

5. He walks out of the house and puts the bag in his car

There are still problems though:

a. How does brain matter get from the outside of the full body suit to the shirt? You step out of the suit, there's no way it would get smeared on the shirt

b. How does he dispose of the bag containing the body suit? Nothing was ever found

c. Why would he keep the polo shirt? I guess the answer to that might be it would be very suspicious if he was identified by the prostitute (or someone else) as having worn the polo shirt on the 29th but had somehow lost it on the 30th.

d. The odds of no blood or tissue contaminating him or his possessions must still be astronomically low. Outside of the isolated (IMO, suspiciously isolated) instance of the brain matter, not even a microscopic drop is found.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 3rd March 2015 at 02:04 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 3rd March 2015, 02:25 PM   #362
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by lonepinealex View Post
But this clean up thing is entirely your supposition, based on a possibly erroneous idea of what the crime scene looked like.
Yeah, right.

I think my statements on the blood are well-backed by evidence presented in court. This took all of one Google search and was the first result. I quote:

blood was spread up the length of the wall behind Christine Lundy's head, and on the ceiling.

blood was found 3.8 metres* away from Amber's body down the hallway

Two small blood stains were found in the toilet - one near the light switch, the other to the left of the doorway

*12 feet for 'Murricans

Link

You've already seen the evidence from court that blood was splattered so bad behind the perpetrator that there was a space on the curtains showing where the attacker was.

The perpetrator was unquestionably splattered with blood to the extent that he would have had it on ever part of his body & clothing, from hair to bootlaces.

The perpetrator would have had blood

Originally Posted by lonepinealex View Post
Even if this murder was premeditated, that doesn't rule out someone other than Lundy doing it. Lundy stayed at the motel for one night every fortnight - it wouldn't be difficult for someone to work out the routine and know when he was away.
That is fairyland stuff. To even contemplate an outsider, you'd need to provide a compelling motive and no such thing exists. Not even in the fantasyland that the Lundy "Truth" campaign has.

Great name - they share a lot with 911 "Truth".
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2015, 02:30 PM   #363
lonepinealex
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 817
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Yeah, right.

I think my statements on the blood are well-backed by evidence presented in court. This took all of one Google search and was the first result. I quote:

blood was spread up the length of the wall behind Christine Lundy's head, and on the ceiling.

blood was found 3.8 metres* away from Amber's body down the hallway

Two small blood stains were found in the toilet - one near the light switch, the other to the left of the doorway

*12 feet for 'Murricans

Link

You've already seen the evidence from court that blood was splattered so bad behind the perpetrator that there was a space on the curtains showing where the attacker was.

The perpetrator was unquestionably splattered with blood to the extent that he would have had it on ever part of his body & clothing, from hair to bootlaces.

The perpetrator would have had blood



That is fairyland stuff. To even contemplate an outsider, you'd need to provide a compelling motive and no such thing exists. Not even in the fantasyland that the Lundy "Truth" campaign has.

Great name - they share a lot with 911 "Truth".

Why is it fairyland stuff? Because of the violence? But earlier in the thread you were quite willing to shove the whole thing onto an accomplice, faced with the impossibility of Lundy's journey.

If there was an accomplice, why would they act with such violence?


And again, nothing you've posted indicates in any concrete sense that the murderer was soaked in blood. But I think we've exhausted that avenue - we'll never agree without the pics.
lonepinealex 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 2015, 04:53 PM   #364
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,696
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
To even contemplate an outsider, you'd need to provide a compelling motive
Whereas Lundy's 'motive' is that he was the husband.

It's the same mistake the police made. "The husband almost certainly did it, and we know he did it because 1. It's always the husband, and 2. a stranger would not have acted with such violence. Now we just have to think of a plausible motive and gather enough scraps of evidence to convict him!".

There are plenty of possible motives that another perpetrator might have, but without knowing who did it we cannot know the most likely one. A burglar might kill to avoid being caught, a spurned lover out of spite, a psycho just for the thrill of it.

The theory that Lundy did it for the insurance money doesn't fit with the 'violence' of the killings, and he wasn't in as dire financial straits as the Prosecution made out. So either he did it partly out of hatred for his wife and daughter (for which there is no evidence), or he is a psychopath (also no evidence), or he had some other unknown motive. If the motive is unknown then it could just as easily have been a stranger.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 3rd March 2015 at 04:55 PM.
Roger Ramjets 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 2015, 06:03 PM   #365
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,246
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
What about this theory:

1. Lundy drives to PN with a full body protection suit and a large plastic garbage bag. (Although where/how one even buys a full body protection suit, and without raising a flag saying "look at me, I'm a serial killer", I'm not sure. )

How about a pair of disposable paper overalls, clean-room booties, rubber medical gloves and a paper dust mask



Cheap and easy to get from any NZ Safety shop without raising eyebrows.

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
2. He takes the garbage bag into the house with him and puts it somewhere where it won't get anything on it (in a cupboard maybe)

3. He puts on the full body suit, kills his wife and daughter.

4. He removes the suit (inside the house?) and carefully puts it in the garbage bag.

5. He walks out of the house and puts the bag in his car

There are still problems though:

a. How does brain matter get from the outside of the full body suit to the shirt? You step out of the suit, there's no way it would get smeared on the shirt

Somehow, he has to unzip or unvelcro the overalls (type dependent) presumably with the rubber gloves still on, so he would have to be very careful not to smear any trace from his gloved hand onto whatever he was wearing inside.

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
b. How does he dispose of the bag containing the body suit? Nothing was ever found

A rubbish bag containing a pair of paper overalls, booties, medical rubber gloves and a face mask would roll up into something no bigger than a rugby ball. Roll it up together with a large rock or a brick using duct tape (making sure that he carefully punctured the bag to ensure it fills with water) and dump it off one of the bridges I mentioned earlier, into the Manawatu or Otaki River. Alternatively on his way home the next day, take a detour through the Manawatu Gorge and throw it off anywhere!

Another way to dispose of it might be to go out in the wee small hours into the Manawatu Gorge and burn the bag on the roadside. At 3 to 4 am you could be the only car in the Gorge for long enough to burn the bag without being caught. On a quiet still night you will hear a car coming for miles.

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
c. Why would he keep the polo shirt? I guess the answer to that might be it would be very suspicious if he was identified by the prostitute (or someone else) as having worn the polo shirt on the 29th but had somehow lost it on the 30th.

Yep. Why would he not wear some really old clothes under whatever he was covered with and dispose of them all

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
d. The odds of no blood or tissue contaminating him or his possessions must still be astronomically low. Outside of the isolated (IMO, suspiciously isolated) instance of the brain matter, not even a microscopic drop is found.

I agree. However none of this gets around...

a. The impossibility of the crazy drive in rush hour which (if Lundy did commit the crime), we MUST believe because of TOD.

b. The impossibility of the later TOD due to stomach contents.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 3rd March 2015 at 06:28 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2015, 07:07 PM   #366
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
The theory that Lundy did it for the insurance money doesn't fit with the 'violence' of the killings, and he wasn't in as dire financial straits as the Prosecution made out.
Fits perfectly with the plan to throw the trail off himself.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2015, 07:16 PM   #367
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,762
Hi guys,

I am an impartial jury member who knows nothing about this case.

As I have no idea about this case I wonder if a person who thinks he is guilty would like to summarize the case for the prosecution, and a person who thinks he is innocent would like to summarize the case for his defence?

Then I, impartial jury person who knows nothing about this case, will return my verdict.



Is it obnoxious to parachute into a thread like this and make such a request?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba 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 2015, 08:03 PM   #368
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,920
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Hi guys,

I am an impartial jury member who knows nothing about this case.

As I have no idea about this case I wonder if a person who thinks he is guilty would like to summarize the case for the prosecution, and a person who thinks he is innocent would like to summarize the case for his defence?

Then I, impartial jury person who knows nothing about this case, will return my verdict.



Is it obnoxious to parachute into a thread like this and make such a request?
No, it is a challenge plenty here will enjoy. To be continued....
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 2015, 08:22 PM   #369
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
I was watching a medical detective program where eye witnesses reported seeing a white male in a white truck abducting a number of women (raping and murdering)

The police assumed that the person they were looking for was a white male based on the eye witness testimony and the fact that most serial killers are white.

Turned out that the serial killer was a black male. We cannot convict based on probabilities - we need better evidence than that.
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox 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 2015, 10:32 PM   #370
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
May I add that now that Teina Pora is free I hope Lundy gets a huge payout when he gets found not guilty, because Teina should get double for being in jail for twice the time.

Also, he is actually innocent and can claim an entire league career that could have been.

Nothing less that $10 mio will do.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2015, 10:52 PM   #371
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 424
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
How about a pair of disposable paper overalls, clean-room booties, rubber medical gloves and a paper dust mask
Cheap and easy to get from any NZ Safety shop without raising eyebrows.
Sounds reasonable, but very risky. He'd have to pay cash, and hope that no-one remembered him buying those items after seeing him on TV, and hope that the shop didn't have CCTV. I wonder if the police ever seriously considered him buying protective clothing and followed up this lead - visiting stores that sold that kind of thing? I think they would have had to, and you can only conclude that they didn't find any evidence of it.

Also, I wonder how good Lundy's eyesight is without glasses? No blood was found on his glasses, they'd be outside the protective wear.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
A rubbish bag containing a pair of paper overalls, booties, medical rubber gloves and a face mask would roll up into something no bigger than a rugby ball. Roll it up together with a large rock or a brick using duct tape (making sure that he carefully punctured the bag to ensure it fills with water) and dump it off one of the bridges I mentioned earlier, into the Manawatu or Otaki River. Alternatively on his way home the next day, take a detour through the Manawatu Gorge and throw it off anywhere!
That makes sense, although it'd be a bit risky being seen, and he'd have to be quick if he was doing a mad dash on the 29th. I think doing a detour on the 30th can be ruled out, they have his movements tracked by cellphone on the way back to PN. They quoted his average speed for the journey during the first couple of days of the trial.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Yep. Why would he not wear some really old clothes under whatever he was covered with and dispose of them all.
Which drives a bus through the Crown's idea that Lundy had carefully planned the crime. Why would you commit two bloody murders wearing the same clothes you had been seen in the day before, and then keep them in your car? All he had to do was pick an old T-shirt and pants out of his wardrobe and dispose of them later. His wife would have been the only person who could have identified that he'd ever owned them, and she'd be dead.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I agree. However none of this gets around...

a. The impossibility of the crazy drive in rush hour which (if Lundy did commit the crime), we MUST believe because of TOD.
Based on the eyewitness on the Petone foreshore, the cellphone calls, the prostitute visit, the distance he would have had to travel, the prevailing traffic conditions, and the refuelling requirement, IMO Lundy has a watertight alibi until 2:20am on the 30th - the first moment that he could reasonably have arrived in PN.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
b. The impossibility of the later TOD due to stomach contents.
If the stomach contents rule out a TOD after 2:20am, then the only conclusion must be that Lundy didn't do it. I can't see any other way round it.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 3rd March 2015 at 10:53 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 6th March 2015, 12:18 PM   #372
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,920
The crime scene

He doesn't belong to his past, to the life he used to have. The court was shown a police video this week of the crime scene at Lundy's house at 30 Karamea Crescent. It was such an average New Zealand home, nothing flash, the bare suburban minimum. Pallets from his kitchen sink business were leaning in an untidy pile against the house. The back yard had a small scruffy lawn, a trailer, a sock on a clothesline.
The film moved inside the home. The kitchen was small, with blue cupboards. There was a coffee cup on a bench, an electric jug, three cans of Lion Brown. Amber's bed didn't seem as though it had been slept in. She lay on her front on the carpeted hallway. Christine's body was in her bed; it looked like it took up most of the bedroom, leaving the killer only a narrow space to stand by the side of the bed and start swinging his axe or some such weapon that killed Christine and chopped at the headboard.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11413157
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 2015, 03:21 PM   #373
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,203
Animal DNA

"Elizabeth Wictum, who was previously the director of veterinary laboratory forensics at the University of California, said she looked at three vials of DNA from New Zealand Institute of Environmental and Scientific Research. The samples were taken from smears on Mr Lundy's polo shirt.
Mrs Wictum said she found weak traces of pig, sheep and cattle DNA in the smears but also markers previously seen in human DNA tests." link

Another researcher tested for human neural tissue using RNA.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2015, 06:05 PM   #374
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,920
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
"Elizabeth Wictum, who was previously the director of veterinary laboratory forensics at the University of California, said she looked at three vials of DNA from New Zealand Institute of Environmental and Scientific Research. The samples were taken from smears on Mr Lundy's polo shirt.
Mrs Wictum said she found weak traces of pig, sheep and cattle DNA in the smears but also markers previously seen in human DNA tests." link

Another researcher tested for human neural tissue using RNA.
Rodney Miller just testified by video link.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11414928

The test showed the cell came from the central nervous system, but Dr Miller was unable to tell if it had come from the brain or the spinal cord.
"The immuno stains that I do now and did in 2001 are highly controlled and fundamentally sound," he said.
"I go the extra mile to make sure my immuno stains are correct."
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 2015, 12:56 AM   #375
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 424
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Rodney Miller just testified by video link.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11414928

The test showed the cell came from the central nervous system, but Dr Miller was unable to tell if it had come from the brain or the spinal cord.
"The immuno stains that I do now and did in 2001 are highly controlled and fundamentally sound," he said.
"I go the extra mile to make sure my immuno stains are correct."
Hmmm....well Drs. Duxson and Sheard didn't seem consider it fundamentally sound from the North/South article. Both were concerned about the lack of controls in his testing. e.g. par. 84 of the Privy Council judgement:

Quote:
In his second affidavit Professor Sheard conducted a frontal challenge to Dr Miller’s MCA. He suggested that this could not constitute a control. He pointed out that none of the tissues in the MCA had been subjected to any of the conditions experienced by the specimen from Mr Lundy’s shirt before they were embedded. In order to operate as an effective control, the embedded material would have to replicate what was claimed about the condition of the specimen removed from the shirt. The MCA should have been smeared, air-dried and left in the open for several months.
I notice Dr. Miller said he conducted a new test (2014) where he left fresh brain tissue in an envelope for 159 days and tested it afterwards. So clearly his 2001 tests *weren't* highly controlled - otherwise why did he feel the need to respond to the criticism and perform the additional control test? That seems to indicate that the criticisms were valid.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 11th March 2015 at 12:58 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 11th March 2015, 01:24 AM   #376
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,920
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Hmmm....well Drs. Duxson and Sheard didn't seem consider it fundamentally sound from the North/South article. Both were concerned about the lack of controls in his testing. e.g. par. 84 of the Privy Council judgement:



I notice Dr. Miller said he conducted a new test (2014) where he left fresh brain tissue in an envelope for 159 days and tested it afterwards. So clearly his 2001 tests *weren't* highly controlled - otherwise why did he feel the need to respond to the criticism and perform the additional control test? That seems to indicate that the criticisms were valid.
It seems we should separate the issues.
Was the Miller test valid, and get a correct result,
and if so, how could the tissue get to Lundy's shirt.

For New Zealanders, Arthur Thomas is the litmus test. Just in time delivery of incriminating evidence.

In fact I think in this case the tests are flawed, too non incriminating to be planted evidence. The defence can rest its case if it gets new gastro evidence, that eliminates as possible the proposed TOD when the autopsy report is validated.

Recognisable meal ingredients are long gone in 8 hours.
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 2015, 02:33 AM   #377
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 424
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It seems we should separate the issues.
Was the Miller test valid, and get a correct result,
The Privy Council Judgement document is interesting reading, in that they have laid out, in a reasonably understandable manner, argument and counter-argument from two groups of respected scientists over the validity of the tests. For a jury of laypeople, I don't see how they can be expected to make a judgement one way or the other, and how they could come to any conclusion other than reasonable doubt.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
and if so, how could the tissue get to Lundy's shirt.

For New Zealanders, Arthur Thomas is the litmus test. Just in time delivery of incriminating evidence.

In fact I think in this case the tests are flawed, too non incriminating to be planted evidence.
The problem is that the planter would have had no idea of the eventual difficulty of identification. One might reasonably think if you took a piece of Christine Lundy's brain and smeared it on the shirt, modern science and "DNA testing" would be able to easily identify that it came from her. The unscientific planter may have been quite convinced that that their actions would be guaranteed to be successful.

I'm not sure that this is a case of "intentional contamination", but there are 3 things that bother me about it:

1. Why did it take 59 days for the police to get around to examining the shirt and discovering the stains? I thought it was known that he had worn the polo shirt the day before. Wouldn't that be the first thing you'd check? Especially since it was found in the car he was alleged to have driven to murder his wife and daughter! Had they simply got to a point in the case where they "knew" they had their man but had no hard evidence?

2. The brain tissue is a remarkably isolated piece of evidence. I think it would be safe to say there was far more blood thrown around than CNS material during the murder, and sprayed blood, IMO, would be far more likely to have contaminated the perpetrator than brain matter. It beggars belief that not even a microscopic trace of blood, the most insignificant speck, was found anywhere on Lundy, his clothes, or transferred into his car. There is something suspicious about a single piece of brain tissue appearing in a pristine absence of blood that does not sit right with me.

3. Dr. Teoh's report on the brain tissue wasn't disclosed

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10891244

Quote:
Pathologists for the police thought the tissue was from the brain but suggested the evidence be reviewed by a neuro-pathologist Dr Heng Teoh, according to the document read out by Mr Hislop.

But Dr Teoh said the tissue - which was found 58 days after the murders in August 2000 - was too degenerated to successfully identify as brain tissue.

According to the document - which was not disclosed to the defence lawyers at the original trial - the neuropathologist said Lundy should not be convicted on the strength of the forensic evidence he viewed.

Mr Grantham also told his superior officer that the scientist's opinion gave the police an early "insight" into any potential defence for Lundy.
...
"Detective Sergeant Grantham was very alive to the value of this information to the defence. He chose to not disclose it," said Mr Hislop.

He said that Mr Grantham - now a detective inspector - later signed an affidavit that stated all "relevant documents" had been disclosed to the defence.

"On the face of it, that appears to be misleading. Or it's an oversight," Mr Hislop told the five members of the Privy Council, which include Dame Sian Elias, the Chief Justice of New Zealand.

He said the discovery of the advice from Dr Teoh, combined with the "misleading" statement from Mr Grantham, added weight to a suggestion at the original 2002 trial that police planted the brain tissue evidence.
As to accidental contamination, the defence hasn't put forward any scenarios for that that seem very plausible to me, but neither do I think it's impossible.

If the alternative is that Lundy did do it, and that's how it got there, you then run back into all the other evidential problems with Lundy as the perpetrator.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The defence can rest its case if it gets new gastro evidence, that eliminates as possible the proposed TOD when the autopsy report is validated.
Agreed.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 11th March 2015 at 02:44 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 11th March 2015, 02:59 AM   #378
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,920
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
The Privy Council Judgement document is interesting reading, in that they have laid out, in a reasonably understandable manner, argument and counter-argument from two groups of respected scientists over the validity of the tests. For a jury of laypeople, I don't see how they can be expected to make a judgement one way or the other, and how they could come to any conclusion other than reasonable doubt.



The problem is that the planter would have had no idea of the eventual difficulty of identification. One might reasonably think if you took a piece of Christine Lundy's brain and smeared it on the shirt, modern science and "DNA testing" would be able to easily identify that it came from her. The unscientific planter may have been quite convinced that that their actions would be guaranteed to be successful.

I'm not sure that this is a case of "intentional contamination", but there are 3 things that bother me about it:

1. Why did it take 59 days for the police to get around to examining the shirt and discovering the stains? I thought it was known that he had worn the polo shirt the day before. Wouldn't that be the first thing you'd check? Especially since it was found in the car he was alleged to have driven to murder his wife and daughter! Had they simply got to a point in the case where they "knew" they had their man but had no hard evidence?

2. The brain tissue is a remarkably isolated piece of evidence. I think it would be safe to say there was far more blood thrown around than CNS material during the murder, and sprayed blood, IMO, would be far more likely to have contaminated the perpetrator than brain matter. It beggars belief that not even a microscopic trace of blood, the most insignificant speck, was found anywhere on Lundy, his clothes, or transferred into his car. There is something suspicious about a single piece of brain tissue appearing in a pristine absence of blood that does not sit right with me.

3. Dr. Teoh's report on the brain tissue wasn't disclosed

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10891244



As to accidental contamination, the defence hasn't put forward any scenarios for that that seem very plausible to me, but neither do I think it's impossible.

If the alternative is that Lundy did do it, and that's how it got there, you then run back into all the other evidential problems with Lundy as the perpetrator.



Agreed.
Interestingly, I just spoke to a lawyer who was genuinely amazed that anyone would question Lundy as perp. The witness that saw him and the brain tissue. No doubt you get a similar reaction. I agreed that for 13 years I thought/believed he was guilty.

Anyway, I like the trifecta of just in time incriminating evidence.

Chronologically

1. Arthur Thomas. The cartridge case.
2. Mark Lundy. The spinal/brain tissue.
3. Raffaele Sollecito. dna on a bra clasp hook.

In all cases, these items were sine qua non for conviction.

Lundy and Sollecito should find their fates about the same time.
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 2015, 12:05 PM   #379
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
As to accidental contamination, the defence hasn't put forward any scenarios for that that seem very plausible to me, but neither do I think it's impossible.

If the alternative is that Lundy did do it, and that's how it got there, you then run back into all the other evidential problems with Lundy as the perpetrator.
I doubt it was planted for the reasons you say; it's not good enough.

I think the police shopped for a consultant who would tell the story they wanted told. They are always out there, for a fee.

I have seen quite a few cases where some arcane lab test seems to "prove" a case that is otherwise implausible or unsupported. Even in cases where there is no real controversy, I sometimes hear of an oddball forensic result that no one can explain.

I go with the overall fact pattern rather than the anomaly. I am well satisfied that Lundy could not have physically committed these murders. As for whether he hired someone else to do it... well, that's a different premise that would require evidence, and it doesn't seem anyone has tried to develop such evidence.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 02:30 PM   #380
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,246
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
I think the police shopped for a consultant who would tell the story they wanted told. They are always out there, for a fee.
Yes, and its probably no co-incidence that they found one in Texas!!!

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
I have seen quite a few cases where some arcane lab test seems to "prove" a case that is otherwise implausible or unsupported. Even in cases where there is no real controversy, I sometimes hear of an oddball forensic result that no one can explain.
I agree.

When forensic scientist "A" says that a method HE invented, which he tested for the first time only a few days beforehand by using his chicken dinner, is conclusive, and a dozen other experienced forensics scientists, who use tried and true methods, say that the forensic scientist "A" is talking rubbish and his methods are little more than junk science, then you have to question the testimony of forensic scientist "A" don't you?
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 03:25 PM   #381
lonepinealex
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 817
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
I doubt it was planted for the reasons you say; it's not good enough.

I think the police shopped for a consultant who would tell the story they wanted told. They are always out there, for a fee.

I have seen quite a few cases where some arcane lab test seems to "prove" a case that is otherwise implausible or unsupported. Even in cases where there is no real controversy, I sometimes hear of an oddball forensic result that no one can explain.

I go with the overall fact pattern rather than the anomaly. I am well satisfied that Lundy could not have physically committed these murders. As for whether he hired someone else to do it... well, that's a different premise that would require evidence, and it doesn't seem anyone has tried to develop such evidence.

Indeed. And so far none of the proponents of the "accomplice" theory have explained how it fits with the "crime was so violent only Lundy could have done it" theory.
lonepinealex 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 2015, 07:10 PM   #382
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by lonepinealex View Post
Indeed. And so far none of the proponents of the "accomplice" theory have explained how it fits with the "crime was so violent only Lundy could have done it" theory.
People will do anything for money. I don't have a problem with an associate committing a murder of unbelievable brutality.

The scenario I have a problem with is some random person breaking into a random house in Palmy who then ends up committing the most brutal murder in our history.*


*excluding a couple of murders by the insane, which the perpetrator in the Lundy case was clearly not.
__________________
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 11th March 2015, 07:58 PM   #383
lonepinealex
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 817
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
People will do anything for money. I don't have a problem with an associate committing a murder of unbelievable brutality.

The scenario I have a problem with is some random person breaking into a random house in Palmy who then ends up committing the most brutal murder in our history.*


*excluding a couple of murders by the insane, which the perpetrator in the Lundy case was clearly not.

So the accomplice was paid to make it extra-violent? Why?
lonepinealex 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 2015, 08:01 PM   #384
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 424
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
People will do anything for money. I don't have a problem with an associate committing a murder of unbelievable brutality.

The scenario I have a problem with is some random person breaking into a random house in Palmy who then ends up committing the most brutal murder in our history.*
I tend to agree with you, but I'd never underestimate the power of people to do incomprehensibly awful things that you wouldn't expect. Like that case of the mother killing her own children (by drowning them in a car, I think it was) because they were "getting in the way" of her new relationship.
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 11th March 2015, 08:04 PM   #385
lonepinealex
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 817
I can't see any reason for the hypothetical accomplice to make it more violent than necessary to get the job done. It's the most brutal murder in NZ history and it's not even a crime of passion or insanity? That's a weak argument.
lonepinealex 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 2015, 10:40 PM   #386
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
The reason for the extreme brutality was to make it look like some P-crazed murder.

The problem, as I've already said, is that the P-crazed killer wouldn't be so careful not to leave any evidence or trail.

There are a couple of P-driven killings that come close, but they've been caught double-quick because they didn't cover their tracks.
__________________
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 11th March 2015, 11:18 PM   #387
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 424
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
The reason for the extreme brutality was to make it look like some P-crazed murder.
That makes sense, but what would the accomplice be getting out of it? Lundy had no money. The contents of the jewellery box? They could never sell it. A share of the life insurance? Perhaps, but the life insurance wasn't enough to cover Lundy's debts anyway, before sharing it with an accomplice. I'm sure the police would be watching his bank accounts once he got the insurance, how would he explain a big payment to a third party?
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 11th March 2015, 11:29 PM   #388
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
People will do anything for money. I don't have a problem with an associate committing a murder of unbelievable brutality.

The scenario I have a problem with is some random person breaking into a random house in Palmy who then ends up committing the most brutal murder in our history.*


*excluding a couple of murders by the insane, which the perpetrator in the Lundy case was clearly not.
You seem unwilling to go beyond a heuristic assessment. That is a key mistake that leads to wrongful convictions.

"Does the body have a husband?" Answer yes. "Then he did it."

That might be the right answer 80 percent of the time. Not 100 percent.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 11:36 PM   #389
lonepinealex
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 817
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
The reason for the extreme brutality was to make it look like some P-crazed murder.

The problem, as I've already said, is that the P-crazed killer wouldn't be so careful not to leave any evidence or trail.

There are a couple of P-driven killings that come close, but they've been caught double-quick because they didn't cover their tracks.

Who says there was no evidence or trail? You've agreed earlier in the thread that the investigation was botched.

Why would Lundy meticulously arrange for an accomplice to do it (and somehow persuade them to do it extremely violently and make sure there's no evidence, which is quite an ask, given that we're to believe his motive is that he was broke, so how's he paying this accomplice to do all this?) and then fail to have a rock solid alibi for the whole night?
lonepinealex 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 12th March 2015, 12:01 AM   #390
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,696
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Fits perfectly with the plan to throw the trail off himself.
Fits perfectly with the two accomplices and the DeLorean time machine too. The man is a criminal mastermind!

If only he hadn't ordered the chicken (how ironical to execute a perfect plan, then get nailed by a random bit of unrelated DNA...).
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets 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 12th March 2015, 12:18 AM   #391
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,920
On planet x a trial continues.
Three witnesses for the prosecution are quite sure that
Christine's dna, and/or brain tissue and/or spinal tissue is on the polo shirt that was recovered from the boot of Mark's car.
The New Zealand public will be nodding their heads, but meanwhile, the prosecution have abandoned an early evening frenzy of activity in favour of a plausible and well planned 2 to ? am execution. Yes, of course the evidence can be eliminated with good planning, body suits or whatever. But the best laid plans of mice men and gang aft agley (Rolfe will correct the spelling). One slip up, the polo shirt got stained with the irrefutable evidence. Mark Lundy almost got away with killing his wife at 2 30 am.

Last edited by Samson; 12th March 2015 at 12:20 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 12th March 2015, 12:27 AM   #392
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,696
Originally Posted by lonepinealex View Post
Why would Lundy meticulously arrange for an accomplice to do it (and somehow persuade them to do it extremely violently and make sure there's no evidence, which is quite an ask, given that we're to believe his motive is that he was broke, so how's he paying this accomplice to do all this?) and then fail to have a rock solid alibi for the whole night?
That just shows how smart he is - having a rock solid alibi would be too suspicious (police: "no honest person has an alibi that airtight!") so he deliberately invented a shaky one.

The idea was for the police to investigate him and find evidence leading to the accomplice, then hunt him down only to find that he had already 'committed suicide' - case closed. Problem is Lundy was too smart, he didn't figure on the police being so incompetent!

Somewhere out there is a dead body waiting to be discovered - along with a bloody axe, jewelery box, full body protection suit and a blonde wig.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets 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 12th March 2015, 01:09 AM   #393
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 424
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The New Zealand public will be nodding their heads, but meanwhile, the prosecution have abandoned an early evening frenzy of activity in favour of a plausible and well planned 2 to ? am execution. Yes, of course the evidence can be eliminated with good planning, body suits or whatever. But the best laid plans of mice men and gang aft agley (Rolfe will correct the spelling). One slip up, the polo shirt got stained with the irrefutable evidence. Mark Lundy almost got away with killing his wife at 2 30 am.
So the prosecution will no doubt wheel in some bottom-of-the-barrel expert who will testify that it's possible for a full meal to be in the victim's stomach some 8 hours after they ate. How could they have got it so wrong from the first trial? Perhaps the defence could call on Dr. Pang to give evidence on their side that the death had to be around 7pm? The Crown could hardly discredit their own witness from the first trial!

What a circus
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 12th March 2015, 02:04 AM   #394
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
You seem unwilling to go beyond a heuristic assessment. That is a key mistake that leads to wrongful convictions.

"Does the body have a husband?" Answer yes. "Then he did it."

That might be the right answer 80 percent of the time. Not 100 percent.
Then propose any other reasonable scenario.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Fits perfectly with the two accomplices and the DeLorean time machine too. The man is a criminal mastermind!

If only he hadn't ordered the chicken (how ironical to execute a perfect plan, then get nailed by a random bit of unrelated DNA...).
No chance. 5 pm, there is no way you'd make 88 mph on State Highway 1.

Unless he had the later version, which flew!

Originally Posted by lonepinealex View Post
Who says there was no evidence or trail? You've agreed earlier in the thread that the investigation was botched.

Why would Lundy meticulously arrange for an accomplice to do it (and somehow persuade them to do it extremely violently and make sure there's no evidence, which is quite an ask, given that we're to believe his motive is that he was broke, so how's he paying this accomplice to do all this?) and then fail to have a rock solid alibi for the whole night?
He didn't fail to have a rock-solid alibi if you count the old fella who swears he saw Lundy on the Petone foreshore.
__________________
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 12th March 2015, 02:04 AM   #395
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,920
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
So the prosecution will no doubt wheel in some bottom-of-the-barrel expert who will testify that it's possible for a full meal to be in the victim's stomach some 8 hours after they ate. How could they have got it so wrong from the first trial? Perhaps the defence could call on Dr. Pang to give evidence on their side that the death had to be around 7pm? The Crown could hardly discredit their own witness from the first trial!

What a circus
Er yes ( also an Aucklander for reference of course 33% of us are )
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 12th March 2015, 02:55 AM   #396
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,246
If Lundy was the brilliant but evil, criminal genius that the police and prosecution have tried to paint him as, then he has made a pretty poor job of things.

If he had an accomplice do it, then he failed to make his early evening alibi cast iron. A simple telephone call home around 7pm would have done it. Why on earth would he not have arranged an alibi for the whole night (pay the hooker to stay longer, arrange a wake-up call for 6 am).

If he did do it himself (evening or early morning) why go to the extent of committing the murder in such a bloodthirsty, gory fashion. He would surely know that to increase his chances of getting get away with it, he would need to minimise the amount of forensic blood evidence, not maximize it? One good hammer-blow to the right part of the head will render the victim unconscious (you get the first blow for free so minimal blood spatter and no cast-off) ) then suffocate the victim with a gloved hand. Spend the time he otherwise would have spent cleaning up on staging it as a burglary gone wrong. And why for heavens sake keep the polo shirt!!!?
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 03:36 AM   #397
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,920
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If Lundy was the brilliant but evil, criminal genius that the police and prosecution have tried to paint him as, then he has made a pretty poor job of things.

If he had an accomplice do it, then he failed to make his early evening alibi cast iron. A simple telephone call home around 7pm would have done it. Why on earth would he not have arranged an alibi for the whole night (pay the hooker to stay longer, arrange a wake-up call for 6 am).

If he did do it himself (evening or early morning) why go to the extent of committing the murder in such a bloodthirsty, gory fashion. He would surely know that to increase his chances of getting get away with it, he would need to minimise the amount of forensic blood evidence, not maximize it? One good hammer-blow to the right part of the head will render the victim unconscious (you get the first blow for free so minimal blood spatter and no cast-off) ) then suffocate the victim with a gloved hand. Spend the time he otherwise would have spent cleaning up on staging it as a burglary gone wrong. And why for heavens sake keep the polo shirt!!!?
My notion is to take stock.
The thread has failed to find a Lundy physical involvement proponent.
Therefore, let us predict what the jury will determine

I predict they will spend 12 hours finding Mark not guilty.

If he is truly uninvolved in the crime, it seems reasonable to call him Mark.

Arthur Allan Thomas should now be Arthur Thomas after exoneration.
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 12th March 2015, 11:56 AM   #398
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Then propose any other reasonable scenario.
I will propose two broad scenarios.

One is that these murders were committed by a thrill killer, a depraved individual who chose the victims more or less at random.

The other is that the crime was a murder for cause. Somebody wanted Christine Lundy dead, for a specific reason we don't know about. He/they killed the little girl to silence a witness and prevent the crime from being reported immediately. In that case, what appears to be an anger-fueled attack is merely the result of using a particular type of weapon - silent but messy - to carry out an execution.

I lean toward the latter explanation. I wish we had crime scene photos to examine, because they could shed light on what type of crime this was.

You can wave this away, and imagine that your instinct is a sure guide, and I don't know what I'm talking about. I can only tell you that this is a subject area in which I really do know quite a bit. What I propose above is eminently plausible, with any number of real-world precedents.

This crime is in the news precisely because it seems to be the exceptional case, in which the heuristic model fails on the evidence. The case against Lundy does not work. Someone else must have done it. We don't know who or why. It's better to face that than to cling to a cookie-cutter answer that is wrong.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 12:09 PM   #399
lonepinealex
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 817
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post

He didn't fail to have a rock-solid alibi if you count the old fella who swears he saw Lundy on the Petone foreshore.

Oh come on. Lundy didn't even know about that guy until he came forward. What if he had not come forward? Wouldn't it have been far easier to stay in the hotel bar for half the night and spend longer with the prostitute?

And where did Lundy get the money to pay the accomplice who would perform this extraordinary murder and clean up? He was so broke he was driven to this desperate act, wasn't he? How did he pay the accomplice without leaving a money trail?
lonepinealex 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 12th March 2015, 01:54 PM   #400
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
My notion is to take stock.
The thread has failed to find a Lundy physical involvement proponent.
Therefore, let us predict what the jury will determine

I predict they will spend 12 hours finding Mark not guilty.
12 hours?

It took the Kahui jury three minutes. I'll give the Lundy jury ten.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
If he is truly uninvolved in the crime, it seems reasonable to call him Mark.

Arthur Allan Thomas should now be Arthur Thomas after exoneration.
Not guilty isn't innocent. He'd need to prove his innocence before I went within 500 feet of him.

Old AA Thomas is an interesting one. Being a Franklin kid in my early years I know a goodly number of Patumahoe & Pukekawa farmers who remain convinced Thomas was the murderer. How much is rural myth and how much is real I have no idea, but if you took a poll of residents who lived within 10 km at the time of the Crewe murders I reckon you'd find 60% think he did it.

We'll never know, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
I will propose two broad scenarios.

One is that these murders were committed by a thrill killer, a depraved individual who chose the victims more or less at random.
Yeah, I'll give you the billion-to-one shot. They come off roughly once in a billion chances.

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
The other is that the crime was a murder for cause. Somebody wanted Christine Lundy dead, for a specific reason we don't know about. He/they killed the little girl to silence a witness and prevent the crime from being reported immediately. In that case, what appears to be an anger-fueled attack is merely the result of using a particular type of weapon - silent but messy - to carry out an execution.
The other 999,999,999 chances say it was planned to look the way it did. There's just no getting around it. The only thing I can't tell you - nor can the pathologists - is how many blows landed post-mortem. A tomahawk should only require a couple of blows to be certain of death.

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
I lean toward the latter explanation. I wish we had crime scene photos to examine, because they could shed light on what type of crime this was.
Well, since you can't and I have, I'll tell you what you can do:

Get a large watermelon and stand it on a box at bed height 4 or 5 feet from a wall. Pin white paper over the wall. Attack watermelon with a tomahawk. Measure splatter after each pair of blows.

When the blows have left enough splatter for there to be an identifiable space where the splatter has landed on you instead of the wall, you're at the same place as the murder scene. Note how much has splattered on you during the process and see how difficult it is to get rid of it all while not covering everything else with it.

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
You can wave this away, and imagine that your instinct is a sure guide, and I don't know what I'm talking about. I can only tell you that this is a subject area in which I really do know quite a bit. What I propose above is eminently plausible, with any number of real-world precedents.
Ok, I'd like to see a precedent of a thrill-killer murder that matches the Lundy murders.
__________________
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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:23 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.