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 12th February 2015, 04:06 PM   #41
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,610
Actually, leaving aside the so-called brain tissue for a minute, the bit of the evidence that interests me at the moment is the DNA of two people who were not Mark Lundy, under the fingernails of both Christine and Amber.

Maybe they had money troubles. Maybe he drank. But you know what? Not everybody who has money troubles or drinks a bit too much murders his wife and little daughter. I'm not seeing evidence so far that Mark Lundy was the special sort of lowlife who might do that.

One of my favourite Dick Francis novels is Hot Money, about a dysfunctional family where someone is repeatedly trying to murder the father. The father is absolutely loaded, and also into serial monogamy. Hence an assorted arrangement of offspring of a wide range of ages. He is pretty tight with the purse strings, on the principle that his children shouldn't lie on feather beds. Several of them have money troubles. The suspicion is that one of the offspring is trying to bump off the old man for the inheritance.

The detective is the trusted son, who has an unbreakable alibi for various reasons. He goes round all his half-siblings, trying to figure out which one is into patricide for fun and profit. Lots of motive, if it's money you think it's all about.

[Spoiler alert, which I'm not going to tag, don't read on if you don't want to know the ending of a 25-year-old thriller.]

It wasn't about money. One sister felt so alienated after having to leave the family home after her mother's divorce, and after a number of attempts to move back in to look after Daddy had failed, she decided to destroy everything. If she couldn't have it, another family wasn't going to have it either. Her older half-brother moving back in to protect their father was the last straw. It's a clever psychological thriller, because all the signs are there except you're so busy looking for the financial motive you don't notice that Serena is going quietly bonkers under the influence of terminal jealousy.

At the end, the author points out some more, in the words of the protagonist. He goes over the private lives of his other half-siblings, and realises he was looking at families coping with their predicaments, one way or another. Someone was pawning jewellery. Someone was looking for a new job. Someone actually didn't care at all because she was comfortable on very little, and was mainly upset because she had lost her creative writing muse. These weren't people who had the slightest intention of murdering their father for his money, even though he was loaded and they were pretty strapped for cash.

Everyone seems to be assuming that Mark Lundy must be the one who did it because there were apparently money worries and there was a life insurance policy. But loads of people who have money worries that would be solved by the death of a spouse, don't murder the spouse. And you know what, it's possible for someone who has money worries and a life insurance policy, to be coincidentally in the position where his wife is murdered by someone else.

Is everyone imagining that Mark is the cash-strapped golf club manager son who just might have snuck out of his house one evening, when in fact that son was trying to borrow enough money to tide him over? And the murders were done for some completely different reason?
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 12th February 2015 at 04:08 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2015, 04:38 PM   #42
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,203
pot porri

The DNA under the fingernails is not easy to ignore. Nonself, non-spouse DNA is uncommon in that location, according to Peter Gill's book. If both Christine and Amber have it, that is strong evidence.

Dr. Miller (the guy from Texas) seems very self-confident: "I can say with 100% certainty that the tissue on Mr. Lundy's shirt was central nervous system tissue. Not 99.999 per cent certainty - 100 per cent. Any appropriately trained pathologist or other scientist who examined the evidence that I did and reviewed the immunostains that I performed would come to the same conclusion that I did. If they did not, they are either incompetent, hopelessly naive or unwilling to believe the truth."" Link.

The evidence against Christine's brother Glenn Weggerly is not detailed enough (at least in this report) to say as much as one might like: "His [Lundy's] lawyer questioned Weggery [the brother] extensively today.

Hislop said police had found a chemical reaction to the presence of blood in the boot of Weggery's car. Weggery said he had no idea what caused it.

Weggery said he knew nothing about police finding blood with his sister and niece's DNA in his bathroom. Hislop said there was an 83 per cent match with Christine Lundy and an 88 per cent match with Amber."

Is the chemical reaction merely a presumptive test? What is an 83% match or an 88% match? It might mean that Christine and 17% of the population are included as donors, but without clarification, even that cannot be said with certainty.
__________________
“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 12th February 2015, 04:50 PM   #43
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,610
This Miller guy is an arrogant jerk. Found by the prosecution after extensive shopping around had revealed only professional people who told them the answer they wanted wasn't possible to get. If he really made that statement, his evidence should be disregarded.

Don't know what they mean about these DNA matches. We may not find out as Weggerty isn't on trial.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2015, 05:18 PM   #44
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Dr. Miller (the guy from Texas) seems very self-confident: "I can say with 100% certainty that the tissue on Mr. Lundy's shirt was central nervous system tissue. Not 99.999 per cent certainty - 100 per cent. Any appropriately trained pathologist or other scientist who examined the evidence that I did and reviewed the immunostains that I performed would come to the same conclusion that I did. If they did not, they are either incompetent, hopelessly naive or unwilling to believe the truth."" Link.
If the finding is so rock solid and unambiguous, the prosecutor should have no problem finding other scientists who will say so in an affidavit or on the witness stand.

Last edited by Charlie Wilkes; 12th February 2015 at 05:21 PM.
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 February 2015, 05:19 PM   #45
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,610
Good luck with that.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2015, 10:12 PM   #46
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,920
Here we go with the behavioural analysis.

"Lundy joked with his brother Craig Lundy, four days after the deaths of his wife and daughter, about using a prostitute as an "alibi"
* Lundy told his brother he had used prostitutes on four previous occasions and his wife had not had sex with him for three months"

Link: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news...ectid=11401444


What can be read into this?
It is beyond my field of expertise.
As in the Kercher case, I imagine guilty parties will be circumspect in their words and actions after the crime, yet is there a double bluff going on. Obviously not with Knox /Sollecito, so "inappropriate" behaviour rests better with a conclusion of innocence?

Last edited by Samson; 12th February 2015 at 10:13 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2015, 02:00 AM   #47
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
This is a case where having the crime scene photos could really tell us a lot.

I'm satisfied the murders took place early in the evening, shortly after the mother and daughter ate their dinner from McDonalds. That seems solid.

Either it was a personal cause homicide, or it was a home invasion/burglary gone wrong. I'm leaning toward the former, but I don't think it was Lundy. His alibi is too good. I don't think it was someone hired by Lundy, or else he'd have covered himself with an alibi that was not a hooker.
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 13th February 2015, 02:26 AM   #48
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,920
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
This is a case where having the crime scene photos could really tell us a lot.

I'm satisfied the murders took place early in the evening, shortly after the mother and daughter ate their dinner from McDonalds. That seems solid.

Either it was a personal cause homicide, or it was a home invasion/burglary gone wrong. I'm leaning toward the former, but I don't think it was Lundy. His alibi is too good. I don't think it was someone hired by Lundy, or else he'd have covered himself with an alibi that was not a hooker.
The digestive evidence is good, but why was Christine Lundy in bed uncharacteristically early? Crime scene photos would be good, they must be available, but in this new world my access is no better than anyone here. People in NZ may respond to international query, I hope it can be solved.
It is a real Perry Mason moment to accuse the brother surely.

ETA, how do you perceive the NZ process when you can so easily discount the early morning prosecution theory? Are you surprised, or is it so familiar that you expect it?

Last edited by Samson; 13th February 2015 at 02:30 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 13th February 2015, 03:01 AM   #49
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,610
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Here we go with the behavioural analysis.

"Lundy joked with his brother Craig Lundy, four days after the deaths of his wife and daughter, about using a prostitute as an "alibi"
* Lundy told his brother he had used prostitutes on four previous occasions and his wife had not had sex with him for three months"

Link: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news...ectid=11401444

What can be read into this?
It is beyond my field of expertise.
As in the Kercher case, I imagine guilty parties will be circumspect in their words and actions after the crime, yet is there a double bluff going on. Obviously not with Knox /Sollecito, so "inappropriate" behaviour rests better with a conclusion of innocence?

I don't think anything can be read into it. People can behave in the most startlingly inappropriate ways when in shock or under stress. If you've got actual concrete evidence implicating someone, it's reasonable to look at their behaviour and see how it ties in. But without any evidence, it's just muck-raking and smearing.

This isn't like the behavioural/circumstantial case against Gilroy, where the behaviour could be specifically interpreted as executing a cunning plan to dispose of the body. This is cartwheels and hip-wiggling and eating pizza.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2015, 03:07 AM   #50
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,610
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
This is a case where having the crime scene photos could really tell us a lot.

I'm satisfied the murders took place early in the evening, shortly after the mother and daughter ate their dinner from McDonalds. That seems solid.

Either it was a personal cause homicide, or it was a home invasion/burglary gone wrong. I'm leaning toward the former, but I don't think it was Lundy. His alibi is too good. I don't think it was someone hired by Lundy, or else he'd have covered himself with an alibi that was not a hooker.

I'm wondering why everyone seems to be jumping to the conclusion that Lundy is even a likely suspect here. Is this just the cui bono thing? But the benefit was presumably merely money. The murders destroyed his home and family life. It takes a special sort of pond life to prefer money over his wife and child. Is there any evidence Lundy was that sort of pond life?
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2015, 03:15 AM   #51
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,610
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The digestive evidence is good, but why was Christine Lundy in bed uncharacteristically early? Crime scene photos would be good, they must be available, but in this new world my access is no better than anyone here. People in NZ may respond to international query, I hope it can be solved.
It is a real Perry Mason moment to accuse the brother surely.

ETA, how do you perceive the NZ process when you can so easily discount the early morning prosecution theory? Are you surprised, or is it so familiar that you expect it?

The conflict between the digestive evidence and Christine being in bed is the bit I don't get. Were she and Amber in their night-clothes?

The murders could have been later than the original estimate, but not that much. If they ate about six, then I'd say they were dead by nine. That could certainly be consistent with Amber being in bed and in her night-clothes, but not Christine surely? Unless she had a really, really early night?

I'm judging the NZ process by the English process, which it is obviously an offshoot of. And like so many other jurisdictions, one someone is convicted and the conviction is challenged, it's not about truth or justice, it's about saving face. Even if you have to produce a completely different theory of the crime. They think they can just say "stomach contents not reliable" and then shift the death to whenever they want. Just like Knox and Sollecito. But they're not that unreliable.

It has occasionally happened that someone has been so categorically proved to be innocent that they back down, but not often. Even with Stefan Kiszko, where they did back down, the original prosecutor continued to insist the man was guilty.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2015, 04:19 AM   #52
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I'm wondering why everyone seems to be jumping to the conclusion that Lundy is even a likely suspect here. Is this just the cui bono thing? But the benefit was presumably merely money. The murders destroyed his home and family life. It takes a special sort of pond life to prefer money over his wife and child. Is there any evidence Lundy was that sort of pond life?
Heh. I'm thinking of a grizzled homicide detective standing on a foggy pier in his trenchcoat, asking the age-old question:.

"Does the body have a husband?"

The husband is always a suspect when a woman is murdered. A great deal of the time, he is a guilty as hell suspect, even if he seems to be an upstanding citizen. John List was a Sunday school teacher who killed his wife, children and elderly mother before going on the lam for many years. Lundy, in contrast, was an alcoholic who consorted with hookers. He needed to be cleared, for sure. But they kept him in the frame even after his story checked out, because they had no one else to pin the murders on.
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 13th February 2015, 04:20 AM   #53
lonepinealex
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 817
How is anyone sure that it was an uncharacteristically early bedtime?
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 13th February 2015, 04:24 AM   #54
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The digestive evidence is good, but why was Christine Lundy in bed uncharacteristically early? Crime scene photos would be good, they must be available, but in this new world my access is no better than anyone here. People in NZ may respond to international query, I hope it can be solved.
It is a real Perry Mason moment to accuse the brother surely.

ETA, how do you perceive the NZ process when you can so easily discount the early morning prosecution theory? Are you surprised, or is it so familiar that you expect it?
The latter. Evolving and increasingly far-fetched theories are par for the course when the authorities latch onto a case that doesn't fly. I actually have a text file with a synopsis of the Norfolk Four case already typed up, and it illustrates the point nicely:

Suspect 1 (Danial Williams) confessed, naming no accomplices. But the crime scene DNA didn't match Williams.

Suspect 2 (Joseph Dick) confessed, naming Williams as his accomplice. But the crime scene DNA didn't match Dick.

Suspect 3 (Eric Wilson) confessed, naming Williams and Dick as his accomplices. But the crime scene DNA didn't match Wilson.

Suspect 4 (Derek Tice) confessed, naming Williams, Dick, and Wilson as his accomplices. But the crime scene DNA didn't match Tice.

The cops and the prosecutor rolled with it all, dragging more and more guys in and changing their theory every time Detective Ford got one of them to sign a phony confession.

Eventually, the guy who did it, who was in prison for something else, told someone who passed it on to the police. His DNA matched the crime scene samples. So he became an accomplice too, even though he didn't know any of the other guys...
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 13th February 2015, 04:26 AM   #55
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by lonepinealex View Post
How is anyone sure that it was an uncharacteristically early bedtime?
We need crime scene photos. Maybe Samson can contact a Lundy supporter who has them.
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 13th February 2015, 06:42 AM   #56
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,920
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
We need crime scene photos. Maybe Samson can contact a Lundy supporter who has them.
I will make enquiries, but I have no contacts, the best analyst is probably the man that wrote the MacDonald book in the other thread,

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/simo...review-5586602

I need to work harder to be really helpfull in these matters.

Here he is

http://www.lundytruth.co.nz/files/LU...S-Original.pdf

Last edited by Samson; 13th February 2015 at 06:44 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 13th February 2015, 06:59 AM   #57
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,203
not sure about her state of dress

Originally Posted by lonepinealex View Post
How is anyone sure that it was an uncharacteristically early bedtime?
lonepinealex,

I recall reading that Lundy's wife usually went to bed around 11, but I may be mistaken, and I don't have a link handy. However, maybe she felt tired after eating. Was she wearing nightclothes?
__________________
“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 13th February 2015, 07:09 AM   #58
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,610
It was mentioned in the press report that she was very regular in her habits and usually went to bed about 11. I don't know what she was wearing when she was killed. This would seem to be important.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2015, 07:28 AM   #59
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,920
I just read that North and South article linked above. They debunk the 7 pm TOD to explain her being in bed, the computer turn off and the lights seen on, in order to eliminte the drive home and back theory, which is nevertheless precluded by all logistical plausibility. The autopsy probably shows the 2 to 4 hour TOD of partial stomach emptying, meaning 8 to 10 pm, leaving the prostitute as a complete alibi.
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 13th February 2015, 08:03 AM   #60
lonepinealex
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 817
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
lonepinealex,

I recall reading that Lundy's wife usually went to bed around 11, but I may be mistaken, and I don't have a link handy. However, maybe she felt tired after eating. Was she wearing nightclothes?

Right, but this wasn't a normal night, her husband was away - people often follow a different routine when their other halves are not at home, and Lundy may not have known that (I assume the information about her usual bedtime came from him).

Did she have a TV in her bedroom? Maybe she decided to have a lazy evening - take-away for dinner, straight into pyjamas and a quiet night in front of the telly.

Does anyone know what her usual behaviour was when Lundy was away with work?
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 13th February 2015, 08:38 AM   #61
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,203
virus and computer shut-down

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I just read that North and South article linked above. They debunk the 7 pm TOD to explain her being in bed, the computer turn off and the lights seen on, in order to eliminte the drive home and back theory, which is nevertheless precluded by all logistical plausibility. The autopsy probably shows the 2 to 4 hour TOD of partial stomach emptying, meaning 8 to 10 pm, leaving the prostitute as a complete alibi.
Samson,

Is it possible that the virus shut down the computer? I seem to recall reading something to suggest this. IMO 10 PM is pushing it, given the empty duodenum. I would say 7-9 PM is the most likely window in time. Witness testimony about the lights is something that I would not personally weight too heavily.
__________________
“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 13th February 2015, 12:41 PM   #62
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,920
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Samson,

Is it possible that the virus shut down the computer? I seem to recall reading something to suggest this. IMO 10 PM is pushing it, given the empty duodenum. I would say 7-9 PM is the most likely window in time. Witness testimony about the lights is something that I would not personally weight too heavily.
Empty duodenum! Was it as totally empty as in the Kercher case? If so I like lonepine's early turn in idea, well argued. I have also been wondering why the child did not flee, and get cornered somewhere. But that is an aside. As for the computer I just don't know. The puzzling thing is the lights and computer activity replicate a "normal" evening, but the digestive evidence tells a different story...

ETA here is the link to the whole North and South endeavour, with the various articles. I have not read them all recently, but it is work like Injustice Anywhere.

http://www.lundytruth.co.nz/north---south.html

Last edited by Samson; 13th February 2015 at 12:55 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2015, 01:10 PM   #63
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
how hard is it to fake a phone call? the person on the other end of the phone would likely just assume it was the intended party. A phone call is not a solid alibi IMO
truethat 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 13th February 2015, 01:27 PM   #64
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,610
I've speculated earlier about the reliability of the phone call to the business associate. He'd have had to get someone else to make the call using his phone, at the hotel. And either take a risk that the recipient of the call wouldn't realise it wasn't him (possible but you'd need to get someone whose voice was quite similar - as we have no visual recognition on the phone we're more than usually attuned to recognise a voice), or the recipient was in on it too.

This is getting remarkably risky, for something that would surely be better not involving anyone else at all. I also imagine the police probed the call quite seriously and if they didn't manage to falsify it then I suppose it was real. Presumably this will come up again in the retrial - or not if they're not alleging the earlier time of death this time? We'll see.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2015, 01:36 PM   #65
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,610
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
I don't think it was Lundy. His alibi is too good. I don't think it was someone hired by Lundy, or else he'd have covered himself with an alibi that was not a hooker.

Or maybe his alibi wasn't good enough to be a fake. Consider. If you're going to hire a hit-man, do you leave so many holes in your alibi? Do you have 2.5 hours unaccounted-for if you could have got there to commit the murders yourself in three? (Or whatever the timings were.)

The prostitute thing could have been quite clever. Oh how embarrassing, surely nobody would create a deliberate alibi that was going to be as embarrassing as that! But surely he would have taken care to be doing something for the rest of the evening where he was observed more frequently. Or made more frequent phone calls.

I mean, think about what happened! He hires a hit man, then leaves his own alibi so threadbare that he actually gets convicted for committing the crime himself, and spends 15 years in jail as a result? Alibi FAIL.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2015, 02:02 PM   #66
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,610
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
Heh. I'm thinking of a grizzled homicide detective standing on a foggy pier in his trenchcoat, asking the age-old question:.

"Does the body have a husband?"

The husband is always a suspect when a woman is murdered. A great deal of the time, he is a guilty as hell suspect, even if he seems to be an upstanding citizen. John List was a Sunday school teacher who killed his wife, children and elderly mother before going on the lam for many years. Lundy, in contrast, was an alcoholic who consorted with hookers. He needed to be cleared, for sure. But they kept him in the frame even after his story checked out, because they had no one else to pin the murders on.

Yes, and I see on twitter tonight that "nearly half the women murdered by men in the UK are killed by their current or former partner."

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/n...and-are-killed

But not usually in cold blood for money. Not if they're in a marriage that's ticking along OK, and they have a child they love, and then they kill the child too.

Destroying your family life, assuming it's on average tolerable, in an insurance scam, is the act of a very disturbed sort of pond life. I'm still not seeing evidence that Lundy was that sort of pond life. Men who kill their partners or exes usually do it for passion, out of anger. Not like this.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2015, 02:04 PM   #67
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
One of my hobbies is watching true crime shows where the cops figure out who did it because they made a stupid mistake. For every Ryan Ferguson there are tons of others who actually did it. And the one thing I've noticed is they never seem to understand that even with "reasonable doubt" they can get still get convicted. But in their effort to cover it up they don't cover all their bases they just try to create a reasonable doubt thinking "as long as there is reasonable doubt I'll get off."

Like I said how hard is it to sit on the phone and answer it? In a way you've made sure that person isn't going to come forward because it shows premeditation and involvement. Lundy could have called from his wife's phone (honey I can't find my phone can you call it) and then the other person picks up and has a conversation and that's covered. As far as the business contact, I doubt they were having deep meaningful conversations that required the alibi to come up with personal information.

But aside from all this, the thing that gives me pause is the wife's blood being on the entry window. Why would the criminal try to climb BACK out of the window after he had murdered them? It would be risky anyway.

And finally, (keep in mind I'm just reading up on this now) but from what I've seen in the murders that actually occur, it is very rare for a criminal to break into someone's home and kill the people in it because of a crime gone bad. The criminals usually know the people in some way.

So something about this whole thing seems off. If we're just going by travel having 6 hours to commit the crime is possible if he had an accomplice to answer the phone at the other location. If that's his only alibi it's very weak.
truethat 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 13th February 2015, 02:07 PM   #68
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,610
I said all that earlier in the thread. But the cops must have realised that, surely? I'd need to know what convinced the cops they couldn't break the phone call part of the alibi.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2015, 02:17 PM   #69
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
How do you prove that the person wasn't them? Again, the point I'm making is that the crime scene seems staged because of the blood on the window. Why would Christines blood be on the window? On top of that we have stolen jewelry box.

So we're to believe a "break in gone wrong" caused two thugs to viciously slaughter two people in the house with a small axe?

Not making sense that a burglar would bust in and attempt to hack the person to death while I'm sure the mother and little girl screamed their heads off so that they could rob the house and then attempt to climb back out the window to escape.

Or let's say the intruder was a tough guy coming to send a message to Lundy, as has been put forth. Why the violence? When people say "things got out of hand" in a situation like this, then how does it make sense that the "tough guy" comes armed with a hatchet and not a gun?

Basically what I'm saying is that if you look at the clues that are laid about the house and try to make a story of it, it doesn't add up. Something's off. And that's probably why they started really looking at Lundy.

I know about false confessions and rush to judgment and mistakes etc. But I'm not seeing anything except a timeline that can't quite be figured out here.

Unless this was a brutal serial killer, it doesn't add up. Instead IMO the blood on the window and stolen jewlery box suggest to me that Lundy busted the window AFTER he killed his wife and daughter and then stole the jewlery box to make it look like a break in gone wrong.

Most times when non professional criminals stage a crime scene when you step back and think about how a professional criminal would act or a novice caught in the middle of a robbery gone wrong, it just doesn't jibe.

I'd be interested in hearing more about the case. But my feeling is that the cops know he did it but he created an alibi.


It's interesting how cases like this get busted. One of the more interesting cases where a man got sentenced for killing his fiance was an elaborate scam where he said they had been shot at the beach (he himself had been shot four times) and the reason they busted him is that the jury realitzed that if he had been shot four times and tried to drag her up the beach by the back of her pants the pants should have had his blood on it. They didn't.


This case reminds me of those kinds of cases.
truethat 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 13th February 2015, 02:37 PM   #70
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,610
I don't know what happened. I haven't got nearly as far as putting together a scenario where someone else did it. Though I note that the defence are alleging that Christine's brother was the murderer, not that it was a break-in gone wrong.

I'm just wary of the "we're sure he did it so we have to break his alibi" approach. Too many wrongful convictions down that road.

I think it's unlikely that Lundy hired a hit man, because his alibi wasn't good enough. So if he did it himself, it's necessary both to figure out the time of the deaths, and then figure out how he could possibly have got there. If the phone call thing isn't a set-up, then there's simply no time before about 2.30 in the morning he could have got there. And that's too late for the stomach contents any reasonable way you slice it.

I wonder if the prosecution aren't blundering again. The prostitute gave the time she left him as something like 00.38. Even at night, there's still a long drive to do, in the dark, no moon, in late winter. Time of year much like it is now in the northern hemisphere. If they're saying he carried out the murders after the prostitute left him, I think the implied time of death is simply later than can be made credible.

This is a very odd set-up. The stomach contents say early evening, the lights and the computer turn-off and the impression that Christine had already gone to bed say after eleven. Square that circle if you can.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2015, 02:46 PM   #71
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
How do you prove that the person wasn't them? Again, the point I'm making is that the crime scene seems staged because of the blood on the window. Why would Christines blood be on the window? On top of that we have stolen jewelry box.

So we're to believe a "break in gone wrong" caused two thugs to viciously slaughter two people in the house with a small axe?

Not making sense that a burglar would bust in and attempt to hack the person to death while I'm sure the mother and little girl screamed their heads off so that they could rob the house and then attempt to climb back out the window to escape.

Or let's say the intruder was a tough guy coming to send a message to Lundy, as has been put forth. Why the violence? When people say "things got out of hand" in a situation like this, then how does it make sense that the "tough guy" comes armed with a hatchet and not a gun?

Basically what I'm saying is that if you look at the clues that are laid about the house and try to make a story of it, it doesn't add up. Something's off. And that's probably why they started really looking at Lundy.

I know about false confessions and rush to judgment and mistakes etc. But I'm not seeing anything except a timeline that can't quite be figured out here.

Unless this was a brutal serial killer, it doesn't add up. Instead IMO the blood on the window and stolen jewlery box suggest to me that Lundy busted the window AFTER he killed his wife and daughter and then stole the jewlery box to make it look like a break in gone wrong.

Most times when non professional criminals stage a crime scene when you step back and think about how a professional criminal would act or a novice caught in the middle of a robbery gone wrong, it just doesn't jibe.

I'd be interested in hearing more about the case. But my feeling is that the cops know he did it but he created an alibi.


It's interesting how cases like this get busted. One of the more interesting cases where a man got sentenced for killing his fiance was an elaborate scam where he said they had been shot at the beach (he himself had been shot four times) and the reason they busted him is that the jury realitzed that if he had been shot four times and tried to drag her up the beach by the back of her pants the pants should have had his blood on it. They didn't.


This case reminds me of those kinds of cases.
I don't think Lundy could have done it in the allotted time frame without leaving real evidence or slipping up in some way. The police wouldn't be relying on phantom "brain tissue." They'd have something a lot better than what they are bringing to court, and they wouldn't have to change their basic theory after many years.

I doubt it was a home invasion/burglary with the victims as random targets, but I can't say for sure.

My best guess is that someone other than Lundy targeted these people for a specific reason. It wasn't random. The cops just didn't focus on the right suspect, and by now, it may be too late.
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 13th February 2015, 02:46 PM   #72
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,920
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I don't know what happened. I haven't got nearly as far as putting together a scenario where someone else did it. Though I note that the defence are alleging that Christine's brother was the murderer, not that it was a break-in gone wrong.

I'm just wary of the "we're sure he did it so we have to break his alibi" approach. Too many wrongful convictions down that road.

I think it's unlikely that Lundy hired a hit man, because his alibi wasn't good enough. So if he did it himself, it's necessary both to figure out the time of the deaths, and then figure out how he could possibly have got there. If the phone call thing isn't a set-up, then there's simply no time before about 2.30 in the morning he could have got there. And that's too late for the stomach contents any reasonable way you slice it.

I wonder if the prosecution aren't blundering again. The prostitute gave the time she left him as something like 00.38. Even at night, there's still a long drive to do, in the dark, no moon, in late winter. Time of year much like it is now in the northern hemisphere. If they're saying he carried out the murders after the prostitute left him, I think the implied time of death is simply later than can be made credible.

This is a very odd set-up. The stomach contents say early evening, the lights and the computer turn-off and the impression that Christine had already gone to bed say after eleven. Square that circle if you can.
It is disconcerting to see the prosecution leading the public up the garden path with an impossible time of death, worse than The Italian Job. Of course clouding this is the fact the Lundy innocence project has put effort into discrediting digestive evidence, but as you point out there are two bodies to dismiss utterly abnormal process. We need a simple Sherlock Holmes approach, and to know a lot more about the brother/brother inlaw.
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 13th February 2015, 02:46 PM   #73
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
I am curious about him checking into the hotel, do we have evidence or camera footage showing for sure that he checked in?


I am thinking along the lines that his alibi drove to the hotel and he stayed local until after the murders

Here's a link btw

http://www.lundytruth.co.nz/if-not-m...ellington.html
truethat 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 13th February 2015, 02:55 PM   #74
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I don't know what happened. I haven't got nearly as far as putting together a scenario where someone else did it. Though I note that the defence are alleging that Christine's brother was the murderer, not that it was a break-in gone wrong.

I'm just wary of the "we're sure he did it so we have to break his alibi" approach. Too many wrongful convictions down that road.

I think it's unlikely that Lundy hired a hit man, because his alibi wasn't good enough. So if he did it himself, it's necessary both to figure out the time of the deaths, and then figure out how he could possibly have got there. If the phone call thing isn't a set-up, then there's simply no time before about 2.30 in the morning he could have got there. And that's too late for the stomach contents any reasonable way you slice it.

I wonder if the prosecution aren't blundering again. The prostitute gave the time she left him as something like 00.38. Even at night, there's still a long drive to do, in the dark, no moon, in late winter. Time of year much like it is now in the northern hemisphere. If they're saying he carried out the murders after the prostitute left him, I think the implied time of death is simply later than can be made credible.

This is a very odd set-up. The stomach contents say early evening, the lights and the computer turn-off and the impression that Christine had already gone to bed say after eleven. Square that circle if you can.
I could square it. The people were getting ready for an early bedtime when they were murdered shortly after 7 pm. The killer came back after a couple of hours to turn off lights/computer, so no one who was up late would notice anything amiss.

I'm not sure this is right, but I don't see it as an insoluble problem by any means.

We would get this all figured out if we had the photos and the autopsy reports.
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 13th February 2015, 03:02 PM   #75
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,920
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
I could square it. The people were getting ready for an early bedtime when they were murdered shortly after 7 pm. The killer came back after a couple of hours to turn off lights/computer, so no one who was up late would notice anything amiss.

I'm not sure this is right, but I don't see it as an insoluble problem by any means.

We would get this all figured out if we had the photos and the autopsy reports.
I will try monday to find someone closer to the case for this stuff, but anyone can beat me to it if they are accustomed to tracking it down.
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 13th February 2015, 03:20 PM   #76
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,203
virus and lights

"Kelly said he had not heard of a virus on the Lundys' computer until he found it.

Named KAK, the virus' role was to "spread itself and be annoying", he said.

The virus would put a message on the screen at a certain date and time, and if the computer was on at the time it would then shut down.

Kelly said the virus had nothing to do with the disorder of registry files.

It was not surprising that any virus checks had not found the KAK virus, he said." link

I think that the virus turned off the computer, but I am not sure, based upon what I have read so far. On the night of the murder, there would have been no reason for a neighbor to take note of whether or not the lights were on at the Lundy residence (the murder was not discovered until the following day IIUC). Therefore, a person who claimed that the lights were on may have misremembered from another evening. Obviously, a photo of the lights on would be a different matter. It seems unlikely that the killer would have remained there the whole time, but I can't rule it out, either. When and where did Mr. Lundy purchase his liquor? That might flesh out his alibi, unless he brought it with him.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 13th February 2015 at 03:22 PM.
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 13th February 2015, 03:21 PM   #77
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,610
I would like to know more about where the bodies were. How "in bed" was Christine and was she wearing night-clothes? Was Amber in her night-clothes? Was her bed in a condition consistent with her having been in bed but got up to investigate a noise?

I just can't imagine anyone buying that stack of McDonald's food at quarter to six, then not eating it till much later. I mean, it's disgusting if you do that. You rush home and eat it before it cools down significantly.

I could push the time of death as late as nine though. That could maybe just about sneak in as a very early night for Christine. However, if she usually switched the computer off before going to bed, why wasn't it switched off before 10.30? A 10.30 switch-off is consistent with her usual bed-time of eleven.

I agree though, the lights and the computer switch-off don't mean the victims were still alive when these things happened. They had to neutralise them at the first trial though because Lundy was supposed to have scorched straight back as soon as the murders were done.

It's the stomach contents and Christine having already gone to bed that are anomalous, though not completely insuperable.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2015, 03:22 PM   #78
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,610
I'm surprised the virus checks didn't find the KAK worm. It sent my virus protection into conniptions.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2015, 03:29 PM   #79
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,203
registry files

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I'm surprised the virus checks didn't find the KAK worm. It sent my virus protection into conniptions.
"Forensic examiner Michael Chappell discovered that the virus-checking programme on the Lundy computer was out of date, and was in fact infected with a virus known as a KAK worm.

He traced it back to an infected email some six weeks prior to the killings in August 2000." link. The virus is also thought to have put the registry files out of whack.
__________________
“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 13th February 2015, 03:35 PM   #80
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,696
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
how does it make sense that the "tough guy" comes armed with a hatchet and not a gun?
It's New Zealand. Handguns are hard to get hold of and rarely used by criminals (restricted weapons are used in just 3 per cent of crime involving firearms). A hatchet is more convenient and easier to conceal than a rifle.

Here are some things that are firearms offences in NZ:-

- Using or possessing a firearm without either being licensed or under the immediate supervision of the holder of a firearms licence.
- Being in possession of a pistol, restricted weapon or MSSA without the required endorsement.
- Carrying or possessing a firearm without a lawful, proper and sufficient purpose.
- Carrying an imitation firearm without a lawful, proper and sufficient purpose.
- Pointing any firearm, whether loaded or not, at any person.
- Discharging a firearm in or near a house or public place so as to endanger, annoy or frighten any person.
- Being in charge of a firearm or airgun while under the influence of drink or drugs.
- Carrying a loaded firearm in any place to which members of the public have a right of access.
- Leaving a firearm in an unattended vehicle.
- Selling or supplying a firearm or ammunition to someone without a licence.
- Supplying a pistol, restricted weapon or MSSA to someone who does not have a permit to procure.
- Selling firearms or ammunition by mail order or internet sale without a written order signed by the purchaser and the Police.
- Importing a firearm or parts without first obtaining a permit to import from the Police.
- Failing to notify police of change of address for firearms licence.
- Failing to report injuries caused by firearms.

MSSA = Military Style Semi-Automatic weapon
__________________
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
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 05:54 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.