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 23rd February 2015, 11:45 PM   #161
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,676
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I'm struggling to understand why him getting petrol is an issue. Lots of petrol stations around
Almost all of the petrol stations between Petone & Palmie have forecourt video and Lundy's car doesn't appear on any of them. The ones that don't are small affairs that do very little business. When questioned by the Police, no-one working at any of them recalls serving Lundy on the night in question.

-----

I think it is also important to understand just how misleading it is to talk about "average speeds" on a journey like this. Lundy is supposed to have averaged 117 km/h to Palmy, committed the crimes, cleaned up and driven back to Petone averaging of 120 km/h. This doesn't sound very difficult but it is nigh on impossible, and I'll explain why, and how the jury were grossly mislead by the Crown Prosecutor.

Lundy was definitely in Petone at 5:30 PM, and again at 8.28 PM (both confirmed by phone calls) That leaves him a window of 2hr 58 min (178 min) to drive from Petone to Palmy, commit the crimes, clean up and drive back to Petone, a total distance of 300 km. We need to subtract some time to do everything other than driving....

- running (or rather hobbling) from where he parked his car some distance away, to his house
- killing his wife & child
- cleaning himself up thoroughly to remove all trace of blood from his body
- resetting the computer to shut down at a later time
- hobbling back to his car

This would conservatively be 45min to complete all that, leaving him 133 minutes for the drive time on the both legs of the trip.

To travel 300km in 133 min gives an overall average speed of about 135 km/hr. However, this doesn't take into account the parts of the journey which MUST be traveled at much lower speeds. There are a number of traffic lights at both ends of the journey, several major 50 km/hr zones where such excessive speeds would have been very noticeable, and a large number of bends and corners on the open road that simply could not be taken at this speed, and finally, that stretch of road contains several "Speed Camera Zones" which in those days were marked with a road sign. There is simply no way that he could take a risk of being snapped by a hidden speed camera or the game would have been up, so he would be forced to rigidly stick to the speed limit in those zones.

I estimate that about 1/3 of the journey would have been done at an average of about 80 km/hr. The upshot of this is that that he would need to have to have spent a greater proportion of his journey at much higher speeds in order to maintain his average speed at 135 km/hr. This is a mathematical phenomenon known as the "subcontrary mean"

http://www.quora.com/How-does-the-ha...rary-mean-work

Now here is where it gets interesting. If Lundy traveled a conservative 1/3 of 300km at an average of 80 km/hr then this 100 km of the journey would take 75 minutes. His total drive time allowed was 133 minutes so we subtract the 75 minutes, leaving him 58 minutes to drive the remaining 200 km... he would need to average 207 km/hr....for almost an hour. If anyone tried to do that during the rush hour, even if he was lucky enough to not be seen by the police, people with mobile phones would have been calling *555 to report him. Its little wonder that the Police were unable to duplicate this feat themselves, even with the skilled drivers they have at their disposal.

The aspect of the subcontrary mean ought to have been explained to the Jury.. it wasn't, so the jury was effectively mislead by the Crown.
__________________
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 24th February 2015, 12:20 AM   #162
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Almost all of the petrol stations between Petone & Palmie have forecourt video and Lundy's car doesn't appear on any of them. The ones that don't are small affairs that do very little business. When questioned by the Police, no-one working at any of them recalls serving Lundy on the night in question.

-----

I think it is also important to understand just how misleading it is to talk about "average speeds" on a journey like this. Lundy is supposed to have averaged 117 km/h to Palmy, committed the crimes, cleaned up and driven back to Petone averaging of 120 km/h. This doesn't sound very difficult but it is nigh on impossible, and I'll explain why, and how the jury were grossly mislead by the Crown Prosecutor.

Lundy was definitely in Petone at 5:30 PM, and again at 8.28 PM (both confirmed by phone calls) That leaves him a window of 2hr 58 min (178 min) to drive from Petone to Palmy, commit the crimes, clean up and drive back to Petone, a total distance of 300 km. We need to subtract some time to do everything other than driving....

- running (or rather hobbling) from where he parked his car some distance away, to his house
- killing his wife & child
- cleaning himself up thoroughly to remove all trace of blood from his body
- resetting the computer to shut down at a later time
- hobbling back to his car

This would conservatively be 45min to complete all that, leaving him 133 minutes for the drive time on the both legs of the trip.

To travel 300km in 133 min gives an overall average speed of about 135 km/hr. However, this doesn't take into account the parts of the journey which MUST be traveled at much lower speeds. There are a number of traffic lights at both ends of the journey, several major 50 km/hr zones where such excessive speeds would have been very noticeable, and a large number of bends and corners on the open road that simply could not be taken at this speed, and finally, that stretch of road contains several "Speed Camera Zones" which in those days were marked with a road sign. There is simply no way that he could take a risk of being snapped by a hidden speed camera or the game would have been up, so he would be forced to rigidly stick to the speed limit in those zones.

I estimate that about 1/3 of the journey would have been done at an average of about 80 km/hr. The upshot of this is that that he would need to have to have spent a greater proportion of his journey at much higher speeds in order to maintain his average speed at 135 km/hr. This is a mathematical phenomenon known as the "subcontrary mean"

http://www.quora.com/How-does-the-ha...rary-mean-work

Now here is where it gets interesting. If Lundy traveled a conservative 1/3 of 300km at an average of 80 km/hr then this 100 km of the journey would take 75 minutes. His total drive time allowed was 133 minutes so we subtract the 75 minutes, leaving him 58 minutes to drive the remaining 200 km... he would need to average 207 km/hr....for almost an hour. If anyone tried to do that during the rush hour, even if he was lucky enough to not be seen by the police, people with mobile phones would have been calling *555 to report him. Its little wonder that the Police were unable to duplicate this feat themselves, even with the skilled drivers they have at their disposal.

The aspect of the subcontrary mean ought to have been explained to the Jury.. it wasn't, so the jury was effectively mislead by the Crown.
The solution is obvious, spend another 3 million dollars on a more implausible case. I hope you feel you are getting value from these people, because don't forget they prosecuted a totally impossible case for Ewen MacDonald not a year or two ago.
I have been checking other cases without quite appreciating the absurdity of behaviour in my own back yard.
This is all unbelievable.
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 24th February 2015, 12:56 AM   #163
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The solution is obvious, spend another 3 million dollars on a more implausible case. I hope you feel you are getting value from these people, because don't forget they prosecuted a totally impossible case for Ewen MacDonald not a year or two ago.
I have been checking other cases without quite appreciating the absurdity of behaviour in my own back yard.
This is all unbelievable.
Mate, it's only going to get worse. Now that the police have changed their entire case, if Lundy is found not guilty - and I think there's a better than fair chance of that happening - he's a shoo-in to get millions in compensation for wrongful conviction.
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 24th February 2015, 01:22 AM   #164
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Mate, it's only going to get worse. Now that the police have changed their entire case, if Lundy is found not guilty - and I think there's a better than fair chance of that happening - he's a shoo-in to get millions in compensation for wrongful conviction.
Hard Cheese, analysis here is good. I discovered this forum by accident, through the Amanda Knox case, and I have realised that there are serial problems in prosecutorial foolishness and misconduct globally. Check some other cases here, and wade in, the forum loves new contributors.
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 24th February 2015, 01:30 AM   #165
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,086
personally think Lundy is as innocent as Bain
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz 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 24th February 2015, 01:36 AM   #166
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
personally think Lundy is as innocent as Bain
Which should be clarified with a venn diagram.
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 24th February 2015, 01:38 AM   #167
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
personally think Lundy is as innocent as Bain
This time we agree 100%.

The only question is which one gets the bigger payout. Malcolm Rewa must be crying in his beer; meanwhile Teina Pora is still guilty despite actually being innocent.

Great system.
__________________
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 24th February 2015, 01:52 AM   #168
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Even if one thinks Lundy had a motive and could have made this frantic drive and pulled this off somehow, there is not one shred of credible evidence he did so. The whole case comes down to conjecture - he's the logical suspect, so it must have been him, and who cares if there's no good evidence and one must strain credulity to make it even remotely possible.
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 24th February 2015, 02:28 AM   #169
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
This time we agree 100%.

The only question is which one gets the bigger payout. Malcolm Rewa must be crying in his beer; meanwhile Teina Pora is still guilty despite actually being innocent.

Great system.
The Atheist, you might start a thread directly on Teina Pora, I have my share running. If you don't I will but it is the most egregious miscarriage imaginable.
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 24th February 2015, 02:48 AM   #170
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,086
Atheist I agree with Teina, but the two others push my limits of sympathy

there are a certain set of twins I have mentioned before I have more interest in investigating
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz 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 24th February 2015, 02:55 AM   #171
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,772
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
Even if one thinks Lundy had a motive and could have made this frantic drive and pulled this off somehow, there is not one shred of credible evidence he did so. The whole case comes down to conjecture - he's the logical suspect, so it must have been him, and who cares if there's no good evidence and one must strain credulity to make it even remotely possible.

That just about says it all. Except, he's only the "logical" suspect if you make certain assumptions which I don't think are actually valid.
__________________
"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 24th February 2015, 03:00 AM   #172
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
Even if one thinks Lundy had a motive and could have made this frantic drive and pulled this off somehow, there is not one shred of credible evidence he did so. The whole case comes down to conjecture - he's the logical suspect, so it must have been him, and who cares if there's no good evidence and one must strain credulity to make it even remotely possible.
And few New Zealanders care. Mark my words, none of them can extrapolate this case to a scenario where they are impacted.
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 24th February 2015, 04:05 AM   #173
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,772
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Yes, I am quite sure Mark Lundy killed his wife & child, but it seems to me our pathetic excuse for a police force screwed up again.

I've never followed the evidence closely, because I haven't needed to - I'm neither a policeman or a lawyer in the case. The case is revolting and I never watch TV news anyway. If Lundy didn't do it, an accomplice did. The idea of a stranger doing it is 100% fantasy.

And no, I am not giving reasons why I am certain in my view, because I'm not here to convince anyone. As always, what people think is immaterial to me. I only ever mentioned Lundy in passing regarding compensation and saw my name being used in vain.

This is a highly irrational, indeed a faith-based position.

You're sure Lundy is guilty, for reasons you're not going to explain, although you haven't followed the evidence. Definitely faith-based.

Those of us who are looking at the evidence are entirely open to the possibility that he may be guilty, but simply cannot see any practical possibility of his having committed the crime. He appears to have an alibi. If there is a way to break this alibi it is not apparent at the moment.

And yet, if this was the work of an accomplice, allowing Lundy to establish an alibi, the alibi simply isn't good enough. The very fact that he was convicted ten years ago testifies to that. Nobody who was aware that an accomplice was murdering his wife and child that evening would have made so few telephone calls, been seen by so few people, or even moved his car from its conspicuous parking spot. I mean, who calculates, well I can leave a gap of 2 hours unaccounted for because surely nobody would imagine I could have got back and done the deed in that time? He'd have made sure someone saw him, just in case.

So is this a claim of clairvoyance, or what? I thought they rejected the first witness who claimed to be clairvoyant.
__________________
"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 24th February 2015, 11:50 AM   #174
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,676
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
And yet, if this was the work of an accomplice, allowing Lundy to establish an alibi, the alibi simply isn't good enough. The very fact that he was convicted ten years ago testifies to that. Nobody who was aware that an accomplice was murdering his wife and child that evening would have made so few telephone calls, been seen by so few people, or even moved his car from its conspicuous parking spot. I mean, who calculates, well I can leave a gap of 2 hours unaccounted for because surely nobody would imagine I could have got back and done the deed in that time? He'd have made sure someone saw him, just in case..

Simply making an EFTPOS purchase at a supermarket at around 7:30 PM would have been enough... time stamp on receipt and surveillance camera footage
__________________
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 24th February 2015, 03:47 PM   #175
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Atheist I agree with Teina, but the two others push my limits of sympathy

there are a certain set of twins I have mentioned before I have more interest in investigating
Oh yes, the Kahui twins. Another superb example of NZ Police guesswork masquerading as prosecution. Mind you, when you have 10 witnesses, all of whom refuse to say a word, it's probably hard to find the 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 24th February 2015, 03:53 PM   #176
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
This is a highly irrational, indeed a faith-based position.

You're sure Lundy is guilty, for reasons you're not going to explain, although you haven't followed the evidence. Definitely faith-based.

Those of us who are looking at the evidence are entirely open to the possibility that he may be guilty, but simply cannot see any practical possibility of his having committed the crime.
I'm wondering whose posting is really based on faith, because it has nothing to with my position.

Ever read Sherlock Holmes? When you eliminate the impossible, no matter how improbable the alternative will be the truth.

You "cannot see any practical possibility of him committing the crime", based on incomplete and flawed evidence.

Nice work.
__________________
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 24th February 2015, 04:06 PM   #177
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,772
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I've never followed the evidence closely, ....

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
.... incomplete and flawed evidence.

Some discrepancy here, surely.
__________________
"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 24th February 2015, 04:13 PM   #178
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
Even if one thinks Lundy had a motive and could have made this frantic drive and pulled this off somehow, there is not one shred of credible evidence he did so. The whole case comes down to conjecture - he's the logical suspect, so it must have been him, and who cares if there's no good evidence and one must strain credulity to make it even remotely possible.
How much incredulity would it take for Lundy to have had an accomplice make a conference call from Petone for him?

How much incredulity would it take for an accomplice to have made the Petone call at 5:43 pm? That gives Lundy a further 45 minutes, easily sufficient time.

How much incredulity would it take to have Christine and Amber stay up late and eat leftover McDonalds at 10 or 11 pm?

There are an enormous number of variables.
__________________
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 24th February 2015, 04:42 PM   #179
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,772
And that's what we're discussing in this thread, believe it or not. The difference seems to be that the rest of the posters here have open minds, and don't approach the debate already certain they know the answer.
__________________
"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 24th February 2015, 05:02 PM   #180
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
How much incredulity would it take for Lundy to have had an accomplice make a conference call from Petone for him?

How much incredulity would it take for an accomplice to have made the Petone call at 5:43 pm? That gives Lundy a further 45 minutes, easily sufficient time.

How much incredulity would it take to have Christine and Amber stay up late and eat leftover McDonalds at 10 or 11 pm?

There are an enormous number of variables.
You are free to speculate about accomplices and leftover food, so as to protect your belief, but speculation is not 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 24th February 2015, 05:47 PM   #181
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
You are free to speculate about accomplices and leftover food, so as to protect your belief, but speculation is not evidence.
Changing your argument now?

You said: "one must strain credulity to make it even remotely possible"

To which I gave some highly non-incredulous means of it being entirely possible.
__________________
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 24th February 2015, 07:16 PM   #182
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,676
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
How much incredulity would it take for Lundy to have had an accomplice make a conference call from Petone for him?
Evidence?

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
How much incredulity would it take for an accomplice to have made the Petone call at 5:43 pm? That gives Lundy a further 45 minutes, easily sufficient time.
Evidence?

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
How much incredulity would it take to have Christine and Amber stay up late and eat leftover McDonalds at 10 or 11 pm?
1. Evidence?

2. Have your ever eaten cold/rewarmed Maccas?

3. How hard would it be to persuade a 7 year old to wait four hours for Maccas.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
There are an enormous number of variables.
Yes there are. There are also glaring inconsistencies in the crown case.

► There is the DNA of two unknown male individuals under the fingernails of BOTH Christine and Amber. Unknown means they are not blood relatives.

► There is also the eye-witness account of David Stanley who works at the Petone Working’s Men’s Club. On the night that Lundy was meant to be murdering his wife and child, Mr Stanley says he saw Mark Lundy sitting on the foreshore in Petone reading a book at and after dusk (exactly what Lundy claimed he was doing at that time). Evening civil twilight (i.e. sunset) in Petone on August 29, 2000 was 5:53 pm. (Lundy was supposed by the Police to have already left for Palmerston North 23 minutes earlier, further cutting the available drive time to less than 110 minutes)

If we do what you suggest, which is to throw out the rules of evidence and convict people through sheer guesswork, e.g. an accomplice making a conference call from Petone for him, an accomplice committing the crime, a hitman committing the crime, lawnmower petrol in the car, etc., all without a single shred of evidence, we could just about convict anyone of any crime.
__________________
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; 24th February 2015 at 07:48 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 24th February 2015, 07:39 PM   #183
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Changing your argument now?

You said: "one must strain credulity to make it even remotely possible"

To which I gave some highly non-incredulous means of it being entirely possible.
Heh.

You're a slippery one, aren't you?

BEFORE I said "one must strain credulity to make it even remotely possible" I said "the whole case comes down to conjecture." And that indeed is my main point.

So, no, I'm not changing my argument.
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 24th February 2015, 08:42 PM   #184
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
► There is also the eye-witness account of David Stanley who works at the Petone Working’s Men’s Club. On the night that Lundy was meant to be murdering his wife and child, Mr Stanley says he saw Mark Lundy sitting on the foreshore in Petone reading a book at and after dusk (exactly what Lundy claimed he was doing at that time). Evening civil twilight (i.e. sunset) in Petone on August 29, 2000 was 5:53 pm. (Lundy was supposed by the Police to have already left for Palmerston North 23 minutes earlier, further cutting the available drive time to less than 110 minutes)
This evidence was presented in Lundy's rejected 2002 appeal. Stanley said he saw Lundy reading in his car between 6:30 - 7:00 pm and he was still there half an hour after he finished his walk along the beach. So it appears to give Lundy a clear alibi for the high-speed murder trip. Stanley's testimony was discounted, and when you read the reasoning given by Justice Tipping I guarantee you will either shake your head sadly or laugh out loud:

Quote:
The Court of Appeal's three judges said new evidence from a Petone man
who said he had seen Lundy reading on the foreshore, confirming in
part Lundy's own evidence, could not reasonably have made any
difference to the verdict.

The witness, David Stanley, could not be specific about the date or
time and understandably had not come forward earlier, the court said.

"As evidence of alibi, Mr Stanley's evidence actually amounted to
comparatively little," the judges said.

Delivering their judgment, Justice Tipping said, given Lundy's careful
planning, he could have been at the foreshore on another occasion in
the hope someone might remember seeing him but be unsure of the date.
Really??? This is what passes for critical thinking from a judge? Ironic, given what the Court of Appeal said about the brain tissue in their summary:

Quote:
Brain matter from Mrs Lundy was found on a polo shirt in Lundy's car.
The Court of Appeal said a defence suggestion that a member of the
police team could have accidentally transferred brain matter on to the
shirt, was "fanciful".
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 24th February 2015, 08:43 PM   #185
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Evidence?
Check what I was responding to and you might notice I wasn't suggesting there was any evidence for any of those.

It's quite important to read what is actually written rather what you want to read.

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
Heh.

You're a slippery one, aren't you?

BEFORE I said "one must strain credulity to make it even remotely possible" I said "the whole case comes down to conjecture." And that indeed is my main point.

So, no, I'm not changing my argument.
Ok, then don't try to change my points into something they didn't say.

I deliberately paraphrased your "strain credulity" to make it even more obvious that's what I was responding to.

We're all good now, though, which is lovely.
__________________
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 24th February 2015, 09:11 PM   #186
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,676
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
This evidence was presented in Lundy's rejected 2002 appeal. Stanley said he saw Lundy reading in his car between 6:30 - 7:00 pm and he was still there half an hour after he finished his walk along the beach. So it appears to give Lundy a clear alibi for the high-speed murder trip. Stanley's testimony was discounted, and when you read the reasoning given by Justice Tipping I guarantee you will either shake your head sadly or laugh out loud:
Staggering!!

I guess being a high court judge doesn't make him immune from being stupid. However it is not surprising to me given the comment made by the judge in the David Dougherty rape case (which you no doubt will be familiar with). Justice Ellison directed the jury "that the DNA evidence points both toward Dougherty and away from him" I mean, hello?? How do idiots like that ever get to serve on the bench!?
__________________
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 24th February 2015, 09:13 PM   #187
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
This evidence was presented in Lundy's rejected 2002 appeal. Stanley said he saw Lundy reading in his car between 6:30 - 7:00 pm and he was still there half an hour after he finished his walk along the beach. So it appears to give Lundy a clear alibi for the high-speed murder trip. Stanley's testimony was discounted, and when you read the reasoning given by Justice Tipping I guarantee you will either shake your head sadly or laugh out loud:



Really??? This is what passes for critical thinking from a judge? Ironic, given what the Court of Appeal said about the brain tissue in their summary:

Aha justice Tipping. His father taught me at primary school, just trying to remember what. He was a wing commander, so, winko Tipping.
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 24th February 2015, 09:53 PM   #188
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Staggering!!

I guess being a high court judge doesn't make him immune from being stupid. However it is not surprising to me given the comment made by the judge in the David Dougherty rape case (which you no doubt will be familiar with). Justice Ellison directed the jury "that the DNA evidence points both toward Dougherty and away from him" I mean, hello?? How do idiots like that ever get to serve on the bench!?
My guess is the only kind of people that make it to the rank of high court judge are old codgers who have lost all their marbles.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 24th February 2015 at 09:56 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 25th February 2015, 09:15 AM   #189
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,227
forms of potatoes

Maybe a New Zealander can help me out. In what form does McDonald's serve potatoes in your country? One thing that was a little unclear to me from reading about the autopsy. Was it "chips" that they saw, or was it french fries? If they observed potato chips, then this might have been from a later snack.
__________________
“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 25th February 2015, 09:32 AM   #190
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,772
Chips is chips, although I believe ignorant Yankees refer to them as "French fries". Once they're in your stomach, they're potato.
__________________
"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 25th February 2015, 09:38 AM   #191
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,227
A rose by any other name

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Chips is chips, although I believe ignorant Yankees refer to them as "French fries". Once they're in your stomach, they're potato.
Ignorant Yanks refer to them as "Freedom Fries." By potato chip, I meant a very thin wafer of potato (less than a millimeter in thickness, I would guess). To me "fish and chips" means a somewhat more thickly sliced potato. By fries, I meant oblong pieces of fries several inches long, often with a square profile when sliced perpendicular to the long axis.

What I was trying to get at was the question of whether or not what the pathologist found was what McDonald's sold or something else.
__________________
“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; 25th February 2015 at 10:32 AM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2015, 09:41 AM   #192
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,772
Crisps. I don't think McDonald's sell crisps. But it wasn't crisps that were found in the stomachs, it was potato, as one would expect with chips that were being digested.
__________________
"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 25th February 2015, 10:41 AM   #193
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Maybe a New Zealander can help me out. In what form does McDonald's serve potatoes in your country? One thing that was a little unclear to me from reading about the autopsy. Was it "chips" that they saw, or was it french fries? If they observed potato chips, then this might have been from a later snack.
French fries always, about 1/4 inch square by a couple inches long. They are called chips. Flat crisps from sealed packets are also often called chips, but what was consumed here was almost certainly only french fries. Since it was a drive through, it's possible they were not consumed immediately in the vehicle, but taken home, though hard to see what delay would work for Christine to turn the lights out, unless they were put in oven to warm up, and another activity intervened before eating.
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 25th February 2015, 11:55 AM   #194
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,676
There is a difference between "Chips" and "McDonalds Fries"

Chips, as in the type you usually get in "fish and chips", are potatoes sliced into sticks which are then either deep fried or baked. It is customary to prepare them and then cook them within a short time frame.

McDonald Fries are potato mash extruded into chip like shape. The are held often held in shape using a chemical bonding agent and then frozen until used, which can be several days or even weeks.
__________________
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 25th February 2015, 12:14 PM   #195
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,772
They're still going to look like potato in a half-digested state though.
__________________
"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 25th February 2015, 03:18 PM   #196
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,676
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
They're still going to look like potato in a half-digested state though.
It could do, although I would argue (with no evidence, sorry) that Maccas fries might digest a little more quickly, because they are essentially potato mash, while chips tend to be more solid potato.

I am unsure as to the effect that the bonding agent (dimethylpolysiloxane?) in extruded fries would have on digestion time. That is a question for coroner or a forensics expert.
__________________
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 25th February 2015, 03:55 PM   #197
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,730
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Ever read Sherlock Holmes? When you eliminate the impossible, no matter how improbable the alternative will be the truth.
The most improbable alternative will be the truth? Well that settles it then. Lundy wasn't driving his Falcon that night, he took the DeLorean!
__________________
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 25th February 2015, 04:17 PM   #198
lonepinealex
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 817
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I'm wondering whose posting is really based on faith, because it has nothing to with my position.

Ever read Sherlock Holmes? When you eliminate the impossible, no matter how improbable the alternative will be the truth.

You "cannot see any practical possibility of him committing the crime", based on incomplete and flawed evidence.

Nice work.

Why is it impossible that someone else did it?
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 25th February 2015, 04:51 PM   #199
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,227
Dimethylpolysiloxane; time of death

From the Washington Post:

"'Dimethylpolysiloxane: it's a long word. It's the longest word on this list. And I know it sounds scary, but it's actually an anti foaming agent,' Imahara says casually, as though anti foaming agents are the sort of things grandmothers use to make lasagna.

But nevermind about Dimethylpolysiloxane (which is actually a fairly innocuous additive that keeps oil from splashing). What's really problematic about this latest ad campaign is that it furthers the evidence that McDonald's doesn't get what its customers want."

I don't know whether or not it would affect the appearance of or rate of digestion of McDonald's french fries, and I suspect no one else does, either. It is simply knowledge that is too specialized for someone to have turned the question into a research study. I am not an expert in gastroenterology, but I do read papers on the subject from time to time.

More generally, I am still wavering on the actual TOD. I think that the computer might have been shut down by the virus and that the TOD was early. On the other hand, there was some witness testimony within the last week that suggested activity around 11. I am not sure what might account for the sound of breaking glass, but I am also not sure that it was related to the murder.

"* Tupe Tupai, a neighbour, saw a light on in the house and a security light outside going on the night of the murders. He noticed a sliding door was open at the back of the property and at one point heard the sound of breaking glass."

See also this link: "Tupe Tupai lived next door to the Lundys. About 11pm on August 29, 2000, he received a call from his father in Samoa and he stepped into the backyard to take the call. The area was lit up with the outside security lights from the Lundys' house and a light was also on inside the house.

That night the conservatory door was also part open when it was usually closed.

Tupai said he later heard a sound like smashing glass but he did not go outside and he did not know where the noise came from."
__________________
“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 25th February 2015, 10:40 PM   #200
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Regarding the blood silhouette that nobody had heard of:

Quote:
Evidence was given to the court yesterday of blood spattered on the curtains in Mrs Lundy's bedroom that could be seen at each end, but a void in the middle.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11408198
__________________
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 11:23 PM.
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.