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 2nd March 2015, 01:26 AM   #321
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
Even if you unplug it from the wall socket, capacitors ensure that the PC still has time to write the power-down time to the logs.
Bollocks. Have a think about it - to write to the log, you need the disk powered up, and to send the data to the disk you need to power the CPU, which means the motherboard and memory need to be powered as well. A few capacitors aren't going to be able to supply enough current to do that. Why do you think there are inventions like the UPS and the battery-backed write cache?

Besides, I just tried it on my modern PC, and you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
The computer may have powered down after a power surge. It might have been shut down manually. It might even have been instructed to shut down remotely.

There simply isn't enough information to conclude anything about the computer shut down time and what it means.

If we had confirmation that the shut-down was a properly controlled, user-initiated shut-down, we can at least narrow the possibilities, but the information we have to hand so far can tell us nothing about whom or what caused the computer to turn off.
There's never been any suggestion that the shutdown was anything but an orderly, user-initiated shutdown - the only thing in dispute is the Crown saying that it didn't actually happen at 10.52pm because you can *potentially* alter the date/time without leaving any trace to fake it. Of course, the Crown has no evidence of this, it's just a possibility. And Lundy is no computer whiz, and where's the mysterious floppy disk with the date/time control panel they suggested? Probably with the full body protection suit, the tomahawk, the jewellery box and the jerry can, dumped in the bush between PN and Petone. There might be a blonde wig and a tracksuit there as well.

Whoever shut the computer down, IMO, either had to be Christine Lundy or the killer(s) - I think the simplest, most obvious answer is that Christine Lundy did.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 2nd March 2015 at 01:28 AM.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2015, 02:52 AM   #322
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,079
Agree Atheist. At least he served some time.
__________________
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 2nd March 2015, 02:56 AM   #323
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,079
Smartcooky. When I saw him I thought he was guilty before he became a suspect
__________________
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 2nd March 2015, 03:16 AM   #324
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,485
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Bollocks. Have a think about it - to write to the log, you need the disk powered up, and to send the data to the disk you need to power the CPU, which means the motherboard and memory need to be powered as well. A few capacitors aren't going to be able to supply enough current to do that. Why do you think there are inventions like the UPS and the battery-backed write cache?

Besides, I just tried it on my modern PC, and you're wrong.
Please do not pontificate on things about which you clearly know nothing.

Quote:
A shutdown that is not initiated by a user is considered a "sudden" or "unexpected" shutdown. A sudden shutdown can occur when there is a power outage or a system failure. The first user with Administrator privileges who logs back into the computer after an sudden shutdown is presented with a dialog box where the reason for the shutdown can be indicated. You can choose from the following options when tracking the reason for a sudden or shutdown:

System failure: Stop error

Power failure: Cord unplugged

Power failure: Environment

Other failure: System unresponsive
In addition to these reasons, Shutdown Event Tracker provides a Problem ID box that you can use to record a unique identifier that corresponds to your trouble ticket system, and a Comment box where you can comment more fully on the reason for the sudden shutdown. You must fill in this text box when you choose Other.
That's a standard feature of Windows XP. I await your apology.

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
There's never been any suggestion that the shutdown was anything but an orderly, user-initiated shutdown
Unless you have a quote, specifically noting that the shutdown was user-initiated, you are merely assuming. Skeptic much?

ETA: Just because you've not been able to find a shutdown log for an unplanned power outage on your PC, does not imply they aren't stored - only that your technical abilities are insufficient to locate it.

Last edited by Octavo; 2nd March 2015 at 03:20 AM.
Octavo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2015, 03:20 AM   #325
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Whoever shut the computer down, IMO, either had to be Christine Lundy or the killer(s) - I think the simplest, most obvious answer is that Christine Lundy did.
So she must have been killed after 10.52pm. It makes sense that the killers would wait until lights out so they could approach under cover of darkness. Unfortunately this theory is contradicted by TOD evidence.

Conclusion: stomach contents are not always as reliable a measure of TOD as we think.

The alternative is that the murders took place at around 7pm, then the killers hung around until 11pm to make it look like everything was normal. But why would they do that? To give Lundy an alibi!

So here's my conspiracy theory: Lundy did it, but he had two accomplices - one to make the bogus phone call from Petone, and another to stay at the house 'keeping up appearances' while he drove back to the motel at a leisurely pace. And they all would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for TOD contradicting their narrative.

The only remaining question is the identities the co-conspirators. Did 'psychic' Margaret Dance actually see Lundy running away in a blonde wig, or did she rat on him to deflect suspicion away from herself? (she admitted to being in the vicinity at the time...)
__________________
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 2nd March 2015, 03:21 AM   #326
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,660
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Smartcooky. When I saw him I thought he was guilty before he became a suspect
So you decided he's guilty with absolutely NO evidence.

Christ I hope no poor bastard gets you on their jury!
__________________
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 2nd March 2015, 04:17 AM   #327
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
Please do not pontificate on things about which you clearly know nothing.
I've been working in IT for 32 years, and was using computers back in the late 70s - maybe before you were born. I'd hope I know a thing or two about it. Capacitors, indeed.

Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
That's a standard feature of Windows XP. I await your apology.
Oh for god's sake. You get that when you start back up precisely *because* it couldn't write anything back to the disk - it's found files that weren't closed properly and the file systems on your drives will be dirty. Good grief.

You should read *all* of the Microsoft documentation you're googling:

https://www.microsoft.com/resources/....mspx?mfr=true

Quote:
Sudden shutdowns
A shutdown that is not user-initiated is considered a "sudden" or "unexpected" shutdown. For example, a power outage or a system failure can cause a sudden shutdown. Sudden shutdowns do not allow Windows to perform all of the normal procedures during the shutdown sequence, including collecting information about the shutdown reason. Therefore, if a sudden shutdown occurs, you will be prompted to enter a shutdown reason upon restarting.
I await your apology.

Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
Unless you have a quote, specifically noting that the shutdown was user-initiated, you are merely assuming. Skeptic much?
Read points 41, 43 and 44 of the Privy Council Judgement, in particular the description of Maarten Kleintjes demonstration of how the date/time could have been manipulated. It includes a manual shutdown after the clock has been changed - that was part of the Crown's case!

Quote:
In the course of his police interviews the appellant had suggested that the time that his wife had gone to bed on the evening of 29 August could probably be deduced from the time at which the computer had been switched off because it had been her practice (and his) to turn off the computer just before going to bed “because we always check for emails at night”. Mr Kleintjes was asked to comment on this evidence. He observed that the shut down time of 10.52pm could not be relied on as the time at which it was actually closed down. He said, “Through manipulation of the computer clock, an impression can be created that a computer was shut down at any arbitrary time and date. All this without leaving a trace.” Finally, Mr Kleintjes explained that, after having created a fictitious shut-down time and having actually shut down the computer, it was possible to go into set-up mode and turn the clock back to real time.
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 2nd March 2015, 04:27 AM   #328
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,485
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
I've been working in IT for 32 years, and was using computers back in the late 70s - maybe before you were born. I'd hope I know a thing or two about it. Capacitors, indeed.

Oh for god's sake. You get that when you start back up precisely *because* it couldn't write anything back to the disk - it's found files that weren't closed properly and the file systems on your drives will be dirty. Good grief.

You should read *all* of the Microsoft documentation you're googling:
Once again, you are obviously not as well informed as you think. The comment box allows you to indicate WHY the PC shut down. However, the exact time of the shut down IS written to the event log.

http://superuser.com/questions/47969...erly-shut-down

and

http://serverfault.com/questions/415...ure-in-windows



"In IT for 32 years" indeed.

Last edited by Octavo; 2nd March 2015 at 04:31 AM.
Octavo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2015, 04:27 AM   #329
lonepinealex
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 817
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Smartcooky. When I saw him I thought he was guilty before he became a suspect

Blimey. And you're prepared to admit to that on a sceptics' forum!
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 2nd March 2015, 04:30 AM   #330
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
So here's my conspiracy theory: Lundy did it, but he had two accomplices - one to make the bogus phone call from Petone, and another to stay at the house 'keeping up appearances' while he drove back to the motel at a leisurely pace. And they all would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for TOD contradicting their narrative.

The only remaining question is the identities the co-conspirators. Did 'psychic' Margaret Dance actually see Lundy running away in a blonde wig, or did she rat on him to deflect suspicion away from herself? (she admitted to being in the vicinity at the time...)
IMO the problem with any accomplice theory is what did the accomplices have to gain? Lundy had no money to offer them. I can't think they'd hack two people to death and risk 20 years in jail just because Lundy was a friend. Even the supposed $20,000 in jewellery is worthless because it's contents would be too hot to ever sell.
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 2nd March 2015, 04:33 AM   #331
lonepinealex
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 817
It is lazy to address the evidence that suggests Lundy couldn't have done it by just going, "meh, he must have had an accomplice". We need evidence for that, too.


ETA: "I know Lundy is guilty therefore accomplice" does not count as evidence.

Last edited by lonepinealex; 2nd March 2015 at 04:35 AM.
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 2nd March 2015, 05:24 AM   #332
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
Once again, you are obviously not as well informed as you think. The comment box allows you to indicate WHY the PC shut down. However, the exact time of the shut down IS written to the event log.
No it's not. An event is written *after* the system restarts. You're not even reading what you're Googling.

Kernel-General Event 13 is only written on a clean shutdown, and Kernel-General 12 on startup. Read down to the bottom of the URL you posted.

And Kernel-Power event 41:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2028504

Quote:
The kernel power event ID 41 error occurs when the computer is shut down, or it restarts unexpectedly. When a computer that is running Windows starts, a check is performed to determine whether the computer was shut down cleanly. If the computer was not shut down cleanly, a Kernel Power Event 41 message is generated.
Don't take my word for it or Microsoft's word for it. Pull the plug on a Windows box, wait half an hour and start it up again. See if an event is logged at the time you unplugged it. See when kernel-power event 41 is written.

I've just done it on a server. I can send you a screenshot if you want a hint.
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 2nd March 2015, 05:30 AM   #333
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,485
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
No it's not. An event is written *after* the system restarts. You're not even reading what you're Googling.

Kernel-General Event 13 is only written on a clean shutdown, and Kernel-General 12 on startup. Read down to the bottom of the URL you posted.

And Kernel-Power event 41:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2028504
Ok, since you're obviously spoiling for a fight here, I'm not going to bother responding except to point out your incredibly dishonest tactic of shifting the goal-posts to WHEN the event is written, rather than the fact that the event IS written. The event that is written contains the exact time and date that the computer was shut down.

Last edited by Octavo; 2nd March 2015 at 05:32 AM.
Octavo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2015, 06:12 AM   #334
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
Ok, since you're obviously spoiling for a fight here, I'm not going to bother responding except to point out your incredibly dishonest tactic of shifting the goal-posts to WHEN the event is written,
LOL. You seem to have forgotten it was you who said

Quote:
Even if you unplug it from the wall socket, capacitors ensure that the PC still has time to write the power-down time to the logs.
Which is bollocks. It doesn't. Capacitors don't provide power to do this.

YOU specified WHEN it was written, and you were wrong, and I'm telling you when it actually is written.

Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
rather than the fact that the event IS written. The event that is written contains the exact time and date that the computer was shut down.
More bollocks. An event is written alright. *After* you restart the computer, not when you've pulled the plug like you said. The event that is written after restart does not contain the power off time. It tells you nothing about when the plug was pulled.

As I said, feel free to try it for yourself if you don't believe me. And that will be my last word on the subject, this thread has already been derailed far too much.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 2nd March 2015 at 06:15 AM.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2015, 06:47 AM   #335
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,227
It's a worm! No, it's a virus!

Can we definitely rule out the KAK virus (worm?) as the cause of the computer shutdown? Computer forensics is not my strong point.
__________________
“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 2nd March 2015, 11:47 AM   #336
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,660
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Read points 41, 43 and 44 of the Privy Council Judgement, in particular the description of Maarten Kleintjes demonstration of how the date/time could have been manipulated. It includes a manual shutdown after the clock has been changed - that was part of the Crown's case!
Quote:
In the course of his police interviews the appellant had suggested that the time that his wife had gone to bed on the evening of 29 August could probably be deduced from the time at which the computer had been switched off because it had been her practice (and his) to turn off the computer just before going to bed “because we always check for emails at night”. Mr Kleintjes was asked to comment on this evidence. He observed that the shut down time of 10.52pm could not be relied on as the time at which it was actually closed down. He said, “Through manipulation of the computer clock, an impression can be created that a computer was shut down at any arbitrary time and date. All this without leaving a trace.” Finally, Mr Kleintjes explained that, after having created a fictitious shut-down time and having actually shut down the computer, it was possible to go into set-up mode and turn the clock back to real time.

And I have a problem with that theory too

If you manipulated the clock time by winding it forward from, say 7:15 to 10:52 and then shut it down normally, when it starts up again, the clock would still be wrong ( 3 hours 37 min fast)

If you decide to get around this by starting up the computer, adjusting the clock back to the correct time and then switching off at the wall, there will be a record of this start up in the Event Log a minute or two after the 10:52 shutdown time.
__________________
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; 2nd March 2015 at 11:49 AM.
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 2nd March 2015, 12:13 PM   #337
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,660
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
Ok, since you're obviously spoiling for a fight here, I'm not going to bother responding except to point out your incredibly dishonest tactic of shifting the goal-posts to WHEN the event is written, rather than the fact that the event IS written. The event that is written contains the exact time and date that the computer was shut down.

NOT if the computer is turned off by switching off at the wall. NOTHING is written anywhere. When you switch off at the wall, the 5 VDC, 3.3 VDC, and the 12 VDC all disappear immediately, and when that happens, everything in RAM disappears and the HDD runs down.

The closest you can get to a switch off time is the last thing what was written to the HDD before the switch was thrown. That could anything from a few seconds to a few hours beforehand. You could conceivably have a time stamp on the page file if a lot of memory was being used at the time it was switched off.


Also, keep in mind at this is August 2000 - Windows XP wasn't released yet, so the Lundy's computer was most likely either Win 98, Win ME or Win2K
__________________
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; 2nd March 2015 at 12:19 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 2nd March 2015, 12:15 PM   #338
TomB
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 475
I have handled IT for our lab since 98. I don't think shutdown event tracker was available in 2000. The only time I recall seeing it, actually, it with server OSs starting with Windows Server 2003.

As for the clock issue in general. There is an internal clock on the motherboard that is maintained by a battery. I think it is the CMOS battery. This clock runs continuously. If you reset the clock to be three hours ahead so that it says the computer shut down at 11:00 pm when it's really 8:00 pm, when you turn the computer on in the morning at 8:00 the time will say 11:00am.

We had several older computers at the end of the 90s whose batteries were questionable, so I had a program that ran at startup which connected to a time server and set the clock. Of course, for this to happen you would have to be connected to the internet. Otherwise, the clock won't reset.

My point is that the computer's clock would be inaccurate the next day exactly the same as it was when it was shut down the night before. Altering the time on a computer clock to make it look like it was shut down later doesn't work. Unless the examiner was an idiot and never checked the system clock on the actual computer.

Now, if there was a power flash, one of two things will happen, depending on the computer and the length of the flash. Either the computer will just turn off, or it will restart. It sort of depends upon the type of switch the computer has. Older computers had hard switches on the power supply. These will reboot if the power is interrupted.

Newer computers with ATX power supplies have a soft switch which routes through the motherboard and allows the OS to turn the power off. These don't necessarily automatically reboot, so a power outage would likely result in the computer being in the off state. ATX was introduced in 1995, but I'm not sure when it was common.

If the power supply was an old AT style, the computer had to be physically turned off. You remember the screen from Windows 95: "It is now safe to turn off your computer?"

If it was an ATX motherboard/power supply, it's a bit more complicated:
1) It could be powered off by a person.
2) It could be powered off by the computer after inactivity (not sure if this was available back then).
3) It could be powered off by a power interruption (Non-normal shutdown).
4) It could be powered off by power interruption with a battery backup (Normal shutdown).


Honestly, I don't remember back that far, so details are fuzzy. It's impossible to say anything definitive without knowing what kind of computer it was. It could have been an iMac or even an old Amiga. (I still had an Amiga 3000 back then.)
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2015, 01:02 PM   #339
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
... Nigel Latta giving the viewer special insight into the mind of Mark Lundy.
Nigel Latta? Are you kidding?

Nigel Latta is a worm who rose to fame on the back of his working with the totally legit psychics* on Sensing Murder.

*After scientific investigation by said Nigel Latta.

Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Smartcooky. When I saw him I thought he was guilty before he became a suspect
Haha!

When I very first heard about it, I said to my Mrs, better check the husband.

Odds of being murdered in a home invasion: < 1%

Odds of being murdered by one's [male] partner: 86%

As George Orwell wrote when his character George Bowling was considering topping his wife, the cops always look at the husband first.

For the obvious reason that it almost always is!

Not evidence against Lundy, but understandable why he was the cops' #1 suspect from the start.

Originally Posted by lonepinealex View Post
It is lazy to address the evidence that suggests Lundy couldn't have done it by just going, "meh, he must have had an accomplice". We need evidence for that, too.
As I keep saying, that evidence doesn't exist, chiefly because it was never looked for.
_____________________

Just back to the blood for a sec.

A quote emailed to me this morning from NZ Herald from one of their reporters who is in court and saw the video of the house shown to the jury, The house still with bodies in situ at that time.

"Everything was shadows and blood"

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11410582
__________________
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 2nd March 2015, 01:12 PM   #340
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If you decide to get around this by starting up the computer, adjusting the clock back to the correct time and then switching off at the wall, there will be a record of this start up in the Event Log a minute or two after the 10:52 shutdown time.
You can enter BOIS Setup and change the Real Time Clock settings before Windows starts up, then it won't detect the change. However the Lundy computer was apparently one of those which did not have BOIS setup in ROM, and so needed to be booted with a special BOIS setup disk in order to change the settings. Did Lundy have the technical knowledge required? More importantly, why would he do it?

And if he did, when? If he did it before killing his wife and daughter then he risked alerting them to his presence. Yet the evidence shows the victims were not disturbed. If he did it after killing them then he risked leaving blood or DNA evidence on and around the computer (remember he was supposed to be covered head to toe with their blood and brains!).

Either way fiddling with the computer was an extra risk, so he must have had a good reason do do it. Did he really think the police wouldn't be able to determine TOD by other means? And what about the lights? Did he think nobody would notice when the house went dark unusually early? How could someone be so clever, and yet so dumb? The answer is - they wouldn't. It simply didn't happen that way, and the police were idiots if they thought it did.
__________________
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 2nd March 2015, 01:39 PM   #341
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
It's impossible to say anything definitive without knowing what kind of computer it was. It could have been an iMac or even an old Amiga.
It was infected with the KAK worm, so it must have been a PC running Windows 95 or 98 (or possibly NT, but unlikely since that OS was never popular on home computers).

Anyway whether the computer time could have been manipulated is irrelevant, since eye witness accounts contradict that narrative - and even the Prosecution has dropped it. The only thing it does show is that the police will interpret computer evidence to fit their own pet theories, and a jury may buy it no matter how ridiculous the scenario.

Don't expect your computer to provide an alibi - it could just as easily be twisted into evidence against you!
__________________
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 2nd March 2015, 01:49 PM   #342
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
"Everything was shadows and blood"
Quote:
Everything was shadows and blood, a dark room, a missing person - the murderer. Who did that? Who made that happen, who created that bleak scene so badly filmed, so horrifying? "If you think about it," said Leak, "the assailant is part of the scene."

She meant his body interrupted the various flights and parabolas of the blood, and indicated where he was standing, and the length of his weapon."
The length of his weapon? Oddly specific, that 'shadow'. But did the shadow's outline match Lundy's? Or perhaps The Shadow committed the crime!
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 2nd March 2015 at 01:51 PM.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2015, 02:01 PM   #343
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Did Lundy have the technical knowledge required? More importantly, why would he do it?
From all accounts he wasn't any kind of computer whiz, and even if he somehow researched it beforehand, he'd have to be pretty confident police computer forensics wouldn't pick up a trace of the time change. I imagine the theory is he wanted to make it look like his wife was alive at 10.52pm, and have the police think she was killed after that, because he knew he'd be in bed with a prostitute at midnight, giving him an alibi for a post 10.52 murder, but...

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Did he really think the police wouldn't be able to determine TOD by other means?
...exactly. Although ironically, the police did their best to make a complete hash out of the TOD. No body temperatures taken.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
The answer is - they wouldn't. It simply didn't happen that way, and the police were idiots if they thought it did.
Yep. It's too improbable, too much risk with no discernible reward.
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 2nd March 2015, 02:51 PM   #344
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
NOT if the computer is turned off by switching off at the wall. NOTHING is written anywhere. When you switch off at the wall, the 5 VDC, 3.3 VDC, and the 12 VDC all disappear immediately, and when that happens, everything in RAM disappears and the HDD runs down.

The closest you can get to a switch off time is the last thing what was written to the HDD before the switch was thrown. That could anything from a few seconds to a few hours beforehand. You could conceivably have a time stamp on the page file if a lot of memory was being used at the time it was switched off.


Also, keep in mind at this is August 2000 - Windows XP wasn't released yet, so the Lundy's computer was most likely either Win 98, Win ME or Win2K
I agree with this. I am far from expert, but I'm a semi-advanced user. In the event of a hard power interrupt to a desktop computer, I don't see how the system could record the shutdown time in a log file, because it wouldn't be able to write anything to the hard drive.

Also, my experience tells me a hard power interrupt would leave behind a temp file with a corrupted file table, and this would be obvious to a technician examining the hard drive, even if that person was not fully competent.

I think we would know if the power cord was yanked.
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 2nd March 2015, 02:55 PM   #345
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
You can enter BOIS Setup and change the Real Time Clock settings before Windows starts up, then it won't detect the change. However the Lundy computer was apparently one of those which did not have BOIS setup in ROM, and so needed to be booted with a special BOIS setup disk in order to change the settings. Did Lundy have the technical knowledge required? More importantly, why would he do it?

And if he did, when? If he did it before killing his wife and daughter then he risked alerting them to his presence. Yet the evidence shows the victims were not disturbed. If he did it after killing them then he risked leaving blood or DNA evidence on and around the computer (remember he was supposed to be covered head to toe with their blood and brains!).

Either way fiddling with the computer was an extra risk, so he must have had a good reason do do it. Did he really think the police wouldn't be able to determine TOD by other means? And what about the lights? Did he think nobody would notice when the house went dark unusually early? How could someone be so clever, and yet so dumb? The answer is - they wouldn't. It simply didn't happen that way, and the police were idiots if they thought it did.
I think the police started with the same premise as Cullennz - they decided Lundy was guilty before they really investigated anything, and they proceeded to shoehorn the facts to fit that belief.

This is why so many innocent people get convicted, all over the world...
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 2nd March 2015, 03:02 PM   #346
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,227
I love a mystery

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
I think the police started with the same premise as Cullennz - they decided Lundy was guilty before they really investigated anything, and they proceeded to shoehorn the facts to fit that belief.

This is why so many innocent people get convicted, all over the world...
Michael Morton is a good case in point. I am going to have to revert to lurker status for a while, but good luck to everyone.
__________________
“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 2nd March 2015, 04:26 PM   #347
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
I think the police started with the same premise as Cullennz - they decided Lundy was guilty before they really investigated anything, and they proceeded to shoehorn the facts to fit that belief.

This is why so many innocent people get convicted, all over the world...
Hey, but look on the bright side it's an excellent argument in favour of the death penalty. He had his appeal and it failed - through some ridiculously poor judging, from what I understand about it - and he'd have been hung years ago if we still did that.

That would have been a much more satisfactory answer. I'd be very happy discussing his courtroom guilt if I didn't know that he would be a free man inside the next two weeks. (or however long the trial & jury take)

It's an interesting case.

Are there any other examples of the cops framing the right guy? It could be a world first.
__________________
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 2nd March 2015, 05:21 PM   #348
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,660
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Odds of being murdered in a home invasion: < 1%

Odds of being murdered by one's [male] partner: 86%
1. Juries don't convict defendants using statistics and odds

2. You have applicable sources and evidence to back up those numbers?
__________________
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 2nd March 2015, 07:11 PM   #349
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
1. Juries don't convict defendants using statistics and odds
This isn't the trial and I'm not on the jury. Which is good, because from what I know, I'd have to vote not guilty and that would really tick me off.

I'm using statistics and odds to calculate the likelihood of a husband killing as opposed to someone else doing it, and if I use a home invasion rate of 0.1% all murders, then a husband is 86,000 times more likely to commit his wife's murder than a home invader.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
2. You have applicable sources and evidence to back up those numbers?
Yes indeed - my apologies, I did mean to post them this morning and must have been interrupted.

Men killing spouse: http://areyouok.org.nz/family-violence/statistics/

Home invasion murders:

I can only come up with two over the past 20 years, and our murder rate is about 50 a year, so well under 1%. And one of those was a widow, so wouldn't count in the partner stats.

Extremely rare here.
__________________
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 2nd March 2015, 08:03 PM   #350
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,660
Random home invasion is not the only alternative.

Did you know that Christine had received at least one death threat?

Did you know that some of the suspects were known "P" addicts ("P" addicts are well know for committing extreme mindless violence, i.e. attacking Ambulance staff and Fireman while they are dealing with emergencies)

.
__________________
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 2nd March 2015, 11:21 PM   #351
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
This isn't the trial and I'm not on the jury. Which is good, because from what I know, I'd have to vote not guilty and that would really tick me off.

I'm using statistics and odds to calculate the likelihood of a husband killing as opposed to someone else doing it, and if I use a home invasion rate of 0.1% all murders, then a husband is 86,000 times more likely to commit his wife's murder than a home invader.



Yes indeed - my apologies, I did mean to post them this morning and must have been interrupted.

Men killing spouse: http://areyouok.org.nz/family-violence/statistics/

Home invasion murders:

I can only come up with two over the past 20 years, and our murder rate is about 50 a year, so well under 1%. And one of those was a widow, so wouldn't count in the partner stats.

Extremely rare here.
OK, point taken, but maybe this was a rare murder. Maybe that explains why the prosecution theory doesn't work, and why the case has attracted so much controversy.

I don't have precise numbers at my fingertips, but your statistical summary is generally valid. Something over 80 percent of murders are "personal cause homicides" where the perpetrator knows the victim and has a specific reason for wanting that person dead. Spousal homicide accounts for a large percentage of those cases.

This is a perfectly sound reason for suspecting the husband. But it's not a sound reason for police to persist in making a case against the husband, after it becomes clear he has a strong alibi that can only be broken with a far-fetched scenario, and they can't come up with meaningful evidence or even a convincing motive.

At that point, a reasonable person should admit, "this may be the exception instead of the rule."

Halides mentioned Michael Morton. In that case, the cops locked onto Morton as a suspect - simply because he was the victim's husband, and the husband is the prime suspect by default. They came up with a theory that was more or less believable and a few scraps of circumstantial evidence that suggested the theory might be true. That was enough for the jury in 1987

Now, 28 years later, everyone has conceded that Morton is innocent, because of DNA testing that was done many years after he was convicted. The DNA not only cleared Morton, it led to the real killer, Mark Norwood, who committed a similar murder about a year later.

This was one of those rare cases where a random home invader committed murder.

Police made the same mistake when David Camm's wife and children were murdered. Camm was a philanderer and a credible suspect - but he had what seemed like a bulletproof alibi. Police kept their focus on Camm even so. They constructed a theory that Camm might have slipped out to commit the murders without his alibi witnesses having noticed his absence. They sold that to a jury not once, but twice. But Camm was eventually exonerated.

In that case, like the Morton case, the killer turned out to be a home invader. His name is Charles Boney. Authorities collaborated with Boney and offered him a reduced sentence, so he would testify that he was Camm's hired killer. It was nuts! These guys did not know each other, and Boney was a serial predator, not a hit man.

With Lundy, we're looking at one of those cases where common sense, based on a general knowledge of crime statistics, leads to the wrong answer.
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 2nd March 2015, 11:59 PM   #352
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,007
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
OK, point taken, but maybe this was a rare murder. Maybe that explains why the prosecution theory doesn't work, and why the case has attracted so much controversy.

I don't have precise numbers at my fingertips, but your statistical summary is generally valid. Something over 80 percent of murders are "personal cause homicides" where the perpetrator knows the victim and has a specific reason for wanting that person dead. Spousal homicide accounts for a large percentage of those cases.

This is a perfectly sound reason for suspecting the husband. But it's not a sound reason for police to persist in making a case against the husband, after it becomes clear he has a strong alibi that can only be broken with a far-fetched scenario, and they can't come up with meaningful evidence or even a convincing motive.

At that point, a reasonable person should admit, "this may be the exception instead of the rule."

Halides mentioned Michael Morton. In that case, the cops locked onto Morton as a suspect - simply because he was the victim's husband, and the husband is the prime suspect by default. They came up with a theory that was more or less believable and a few scraps of circumstantial evidence that suggested the theory might be true. That was enough for the jury in 1987

Now, 28 years later, everyone has conceded that Morton is innocent, because of DNA testing that was done many years after he was convicted. The DNA not only cleared Morton, it led to the real killer, Mark Norwood, who committed a similar murder about a year later.

This was one of those rare cases where a random home invader committed murder.

Police made the same mistake when David Camm's wife and children were murdered. Camm was a philanderer and a credible suspect - but he had what seemed like a bulletproof alibi. Police kept their focus on Camm even so. They constructed a theory that Camm might have slipped out to commit the murders without his alibi witnesses having noticed his absence. They sold that to a jury not once, but twice. But Camm was eventually exonerated.

In that case, like the Morton case, the killer turned out to be a home invader. His name is Charles Boney. Authorities collaborated with Boney and offered him a reduced sentence, so he would testify that he was Camm's hired killer. It was nuts! These guys did not know each other, and Boney was a serial predator, not a hit man.

With Lundy, we're looking at one of those cases where common sense, based on a general knowledge of crime statistics, leads to the wrong answer.
Essentially you are suggesting a real life case of this being a plausible case for the exception proving the rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excepti...roves_the_rule

Early in the wiki this is stated

"The exception that proves the rule" is used when an exception to a generally accepted truth is discovered. This is an old fashioned use of the word 'prove', which means 'to test'. It does not mean it proves a rule is true, but that it tests the rule

The point is to emphasise unique events. The atheist is totally correct, this is a most irregular crime in the history of European colonised New Zealand, and I fell for the prosecution hook line and sinker 15 years ago.

Reading justice Tipping now reminds me of the Nencini fiction in the Italian job. At 10 pm tonight, the privy council will either declare Teina Pora innocent, or order a new trial. 2 hours from now.
20 years for a crime he had nothing to do with.

Last edited by Samson; 3rd March 2015 at 12:00 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 3rd March 2015, 12:36 AM   #353
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Random home invasion is not the only alternative.

Did you know that Christine had received at least one death threat?

Did you know that some of the suspects were known "P" addicts ("P" addicts are well know for committing extreme mindless violence, i.e. attacking Ambulance staff and Fireman while they are dealing with emergencies)

.
Sure, P smokers are capable of that level of atrocity, but they sure as hell are not capable of cleaning themselves up afterwards.

The Tokoroa case is an excellent of a home invasion committed by a P addict. They caught him about the next day and he hadn't even washed his hands if I remember the case right.

Thinking is not their strong suit.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2015, 12:40 AM   #354
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
Halides mentioned Michael Morton. In that case, the cops locked onto Morton as a suspect - simply because he was the victim's husband, and the husband is the prime suspect by default. They came up with a theory that was more or less believable and a few scraps of circumstantial evidence that suggested the theory might be true. That was enough for the jury in 1987
Let's be honest and acknowledge the pigs in that case actively suppressed evidence that would have seen him freed before a trial was ever considered.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2015, 12:56 AM   #355
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Did you know that Christine had received at least one death threat?
Really? What is your source for that information? What was the nature of the threat, how was it delivered, and why did she receive a death threat?

That could be significant indeed.
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 3rd March 2015, 01:00 AM   #356
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Let's be honest and acknowledge the pigs in that case actively suppressed evidence that would have seen him freed before a trial was ever considered.
Certainly they failed to investigate leads that pointed to someone other than Morton, and they suppressed evidence that might have swayed a jury, had it been available to the defense.

I am doing my best to be honest, but I also want to be concise.
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 3rd March 2015, 02:55 AM   #357
lonepinealex
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 817
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Sure, P smokers are capable of that level of atrocity, but they sure as hell are not capable of cleaning themselves up afterwards.The Tokoroa case is an excellent of a home invasion committed by a P addict. They caught him about the next day and he hadn't even washed his hands if I remember the case right.

Thinking is not their strong suit.

But this clean up thing is entirely your supposition, based on a possibly erroneous idea of what the crime scene looked like.

I can't even imagine the physics involved that would result in a person and the curtains behind them being so comprehensively soaked in blood that they'd trail it out the door. That is your assertion, and your basis for the crime being premeditated, and I don't buy it. Not without photo evidence for this bloodbath. The sensationalist and vague writings of journos is not good enough.

Even if this murder was premeditated, that doesn't rule out someone other than Lundy doing it. Lundy stayed at the motel for one night every fortnight - it wouldn't be difficult for someone to work out the routine and know when he was away.
lonepinealex is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2015, 05:00 AM   #358
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,660
Originally Posted by lonepinealex View Post
But this clean up thing is entirely your supposition, based on a possibly erroneous idea of what the crime scene looked like.

I can't even imagine the physics involved that would result in a person and the curtains behind them being so comprehensively soaked in blood that they'd trail it out the door. That is your assertion, and your basis for the crime being premeditated, and I don't buy it. Not without photo evidence for this bloodbath. The sensationalist and vague writings of journos is not good enough.

Even if this murder was premeditated, that doesn't rule out someone other than Lundy doing it. Lundy stayed at the motel for one night every fortnight - it wouldn't be difficult for someone to work out the routine and know when he was away.
And in any case, where did this clean up take place?

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

There was also no blood in his Petone motel room
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 3rd March 2015 at 05:20 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2015, 05:20 AM   #359
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,660
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
Really? What is your source for that information? What was the nature of the threat, how was it delivered, and why did she receive a death threat?

That could be significant indeed.
There are only two sources, and I can only find one on the interwebz.

The first source was what I heard in a TV News report back when his appeal was first heard (2002?). It struck me odd at the time that we had never heard this before, and I continue to find it odd that this hasn't been mentioned by the mainstream media since.

The second source is here, which I feel is just a repeat of the first source

http://www.lundytruth.co.nz/if-not-m...ellington.html

It might be worth asking them to elaborate on the alleged threat.
__________________
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 3rd March 2015, 01:23 PM   #360
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
There are only two sources, and I can only find one on the interwebz.

The first source was what I heard in a TV News report back when his appeal was first heard (2002?). It struck me odd at the time that we had never heard this before, and I continue to find it odd that this hasn't been mentioned by the mainstream media since.

The second source is here, which I feel is just a repeat of the first source

http://www.lundytruth.co.nz/if-not-m...ellington.html

It might be worth asking them to elaborate on the alleged threat.
It surely would.

This comment underscores the degree to which we are hunting in the dark.

We really need the photos to try to answer the question, was this a maniac, or was it a hit?
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
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 07:27 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.