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 14th November 2016, 02:44 AM   #1521
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,277
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Utter bull.

Your ideas of money trails are pure fantasy. You've claimed it forever, yet you've come up with no evidence whatsoever. The money/deal did not ever exist. The numbers you're trying to sell have no basis in any reality.

Why do you push this ridiculous red herring?
John Meyer was selling rootstock to Mark Lundy.
In New Zealand he has permanent name suppression, and he is dead RIP april 2015, I have a screen shot I purchased of his obituary.
This is an American forum, so name suppression is defunct.

His brother was Peter Meyer, who is alive and lives in Hawkes Bay as I understand.

Peter Meyer sold a house for 170k a few weeks following the killings.
The cv was 252k.
The transaction was done through a Palmerston North Lawyer who was the go to guy.

Anything else you want to know Atheist?
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 14th November 2016, 04:10 AM   #1522
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,793
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
John Meyer was selling rootstock to Mark Lundy.
In New Zealand he has permanent name suppression, and he is dead RIP april 2015, I have a screen shot I purchased of his obituary.
This is an American forum, so name suppression is defunct.

His brother was Peter Meyer, who is alive and lives in Hawkes Bay as I understand.

Peter Meyer sold a house for 170k a few weeks following the killings.
The cv was 252k.
The transaction was done through a Palmerston North Lawyer who was the go to guy.

Anything else you want to know Atheist?
Thank you

A lot
__________________
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 14th November 2016, 04:03 PM   #1523
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,753
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
John Meyer was selling rootstock to Mark Lundy.
In New Zealand he has permanent name suppression, and he is dead RIP april 2015, I have a screen shot I purchased of his obituary.
This is an American forum, so name suppression is defunct.

His brother was Peter Meyer, who is alive and lives in Hawkes Bay as I understand.

Peter Meyer sold a house for 170k a few weeks following the killings.
The cv was 252k.
The transaction was done through a Palmerston North Lawyer who was the go to guy.

Anything else you want to know Atheist?
No, because none of that is new or relevant.

Where is the evidence of the alleged monumental debt?

Why would anyone think murder of his wife would encourage payment?

Two tings you might want to check into:

1 If you knew anything about house prices, selling under CV was almost exclusively the case at that time.

2 You can be charged with breaching name suppression on an overseas forum. I'd amend that post toot sweet if I were you.
__________________
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 14th November 2016, 07:07 PM   #1524
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,368
Can you clarify

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Where is the evidence of the alleged monumental debt?
I am not following you. I thought that it was common knowledge that Mr. Lundy was looking at a possible bankruptcy if he did not come up with money for the vineyard. That having been said, I don't buy into the notion that this was a motive for Mr. Lundy to murder his wife, on several grounds.
EDT
Have you read Steve Braunias' book? IIRC he discusses this a bit.
__________________
“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; 14th November 2016 at 07:38 PM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2016, 08:18 PM   #1525
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,753
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
I am not following you. I thought that it was common knowledge that Mr. Lundy was looking at a possible bankruptcy if he did not come up with money for the vineyard. That having been said, I don't buy into the notion that this was a motive for Mr. Lundy to murder his wife, on several grounds.
EDT
Have you read Steve Braunias' book? IIRC he discusses this a bit.
I'm pretty sure Samson is talking about a much larger, mythical, debt, with the murders being done a means of frightening Lundy into paying.

Not a bit of which makes sense, because he didn't have money to start with, so there's no extortion possible.

The known debt isn't reason for anything. Christ, Mainzeal went down for millions and nobody even got punched in the face.

I get a bit disappointed at that kind of crap because it's such an obvious red herring when there are so many hard facts to go on with.
__________________
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 14th November 2016, 08:47 PM   #1526
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,277
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
No, because none of that is new or relevant.

Where is the evidence of the alleged monumental debt?

Why would anyone think murder of his wife would encourage payment?

Two tings you might want to check into:

1 If you knew anything about house prices, selling under CV was almost exclusively the case at that time.

2 You can be charged with breaching name suppression on an overseas forum. I'd amend that post toot sweet if I were you.
I would be happy to be charged.
That would move the rocks for the sunlight to get to.
My experiences on kiwiblog make me want to make something happen in the case.

Message to the authorities, please charge me with breach of name suppression.
Lol
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 14th November 2016, 08:59 PM   #1527
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,277
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I'm pretty sure Samson is talking about a much larger, mythical, debt, with the murders being done a means of frightening Lundy into paying.

Not a bit of which makes sense, because he didn't have money to start with, so there's no extortion possible.

The known debt isn't reason for anything. Christ, Mainzeal went down for millions and nobody even got punched in the face.

I get a bit disappointed at that kind of crap because it's such an obvious red herring when there are so many hard facts to go on with.
Atheist, there was a crime and a motive.
The gold standard in exonerations is to solve the crime. David 1819 just said it on IA. So what? you might say, but the fact is Lundy did not do this crime, as you agree, so someone else with a motive did.
The police are given a huge leave pass, as they have been even as far back as Thomas. Spend $9 to see Mike White's resume of cold cases, including H and J Crewe, and the unforgivable resolution. History will describe these cases correctly, but meanwhile we must get Lundy out of jail.

Last edited by Samson; 14th November 2016 at 10:05 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2016, 10:29 PM   #1528
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,483
Mod WarningPlease don't accuse each other of crimes. It's not civil and may also violate Rules 1 and 3. Thank you.
Posted By:Loss Leader
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader 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 14th November 2016, 10:45 PM   #1529
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,277
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Mod WarningPlease don't accuse each other of crimes. It's not civil and may also violate Rules 1 and 3. Thank you.
Posted By:Loss Leader
There is a misinterpretation of the conversation. The Atheist is not accusing me of any crime.
I am not accusing him of a crime.
I am stating that a crime happened in New Zealand, and an innocent man is in jail after being twice convicted of that crime. There are people at large who know exactly who committed this crime, and they must be investigated in pursuit of public safety.
There is astonishing apathy in New Zealand about the murders of Christine and Amber Lundy, and Scott Guy.
There is no mystery about the nature of the organisations behind these crimes, and why they happened.

ETA I forgot Atheist did suggest it is unlawful to breach name suppression on a foreign forum.
This actually was an issue earlier in the thread, when there was a discussion concerning a jury member. I still have a record of extensive correspondence with the mod team, and the posts that may have been deemed to breach New Zealand law were returned to the forum from deep storage. It is certainly an interesting legal issue.
Maybe a good thread subject, do a handful of readers pose a legal issue? Will any police team waste time on this type of thing?

Last edited by Samson; 14th November 2016 at 11:00 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2016, 11:05 PM   #1530
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,277
The late John Meyer was called Meyer by Simon France in his summing up, and of course this is easily available to the public. It is a very uncommon name.
He is pivotal in solving the crime, in doggy deep. No one doubts this, as surely as OJ Simpson is implicated in his wife's death.
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 15th November 2016, 12:05 AM   #1531
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,953
Samson.

It is not illegal for a foreign website to name a person who has name suppression order in New Zealand.

It IS illegal for a person in New Zealand to name a person who has name suppression in New Zealand (ask Cameron Slater, he got into a world of trouble for breaching NSO's even though the WOBH servers are located in Texas USA)

You should ask the mods to edit those posts (yours and those who quoted them). I report your post and asked the mods to do so. Loss Leader got the wrong end of the stick and thought I was accusing you of a crime, when I was actually trying to protect you from proceution.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 15th November 2016 at 12:09 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 15th November 2016, 12:11 AM   #1532
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,277
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Samson.

It is not illegal for a foreign website to name a person who has name suppression order in New Zealand.

It IS illegal for a person in New Zealand to name a person who has name suppression in New Zealand (ask Cameron Slater, he got into a world of trouble for breaching NSO's even though the WOBF servers are located in Texas USA)

You should ask the mods to edit those posts (yours and those who quoted them). I report your post and asked the mods to do so. Loss Leader got the wrong end of the stick and thought I was accusing you of a crime, when I was actually trying to protect you from proceution.
Smartcooky, I am now in possession of sufficient facts to welcome a prosecution by New Zealand authorities for breaching name suppression edicts. This is exactly how Arthur Taylor is achieving results.
This Lundy case is a purullent abcess and should be lanced by all means available.
However I appreciate your counsel, because normally it would be far from my mind to be involved, yet I am getting personally angry after being ridiculed on Kiwiblog for stating plain facts.
The system is being protected by the execrable combination of Amy Adams, Judith Collins and John Key.
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 15th November 2016, 12:16 AM   #1533
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,793
No one is going to bother convicting either of you.

It's NZ
__________________
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 15th November 2016, 12:26 AM   #1534
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,277
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
No one is going to bother convicting either of you.

It's NZ
You are exactly correct, indeed it is strategically sensible for the police and politicians to sacrifice an unpopular individual in the interests of avoiding public anxiety.
My concern is for the unpopular individual though. I find myself holding contemptuous views of the pragmatists, and will try to expose their crimes of omission, that can not be differentiated in the perfectly moral world from crimes of comission.

Last edited by Samson; 15th November 2016 at 12:27 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 15th November 2016, 12:30 AM   #1535
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The late John Meyer was called Meyer by Simon France in his summing up, and of course this is easily available to the public. It is a very uncommon name.
He is pivotal in solving the crime, in doggy deep. No one doubts this, as surely as OJ Simpson is implicated in his wife's death.
You would have to question why he was granted name suppression in the first place. Did he ask for it because he was afraid for his own safety?

It also seems strange he was mentioned in the summing up, if he had permanent name suppression (again I cannot understand why) then despite being dead presumably he shouldn't be allowed to be named.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 15th November 2016 at 12:32 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 15th November 2016, 12:33 AM   #1536
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,793
I've gone off even commenting on this case.

Don't know enough about it and tbh (Yes I am lazy) don't really care.

There is 6 zillion facts about it and I still just see fat dude faking It at funeral.

If he is actually innocent. Sorry. But thems the breaks
__________________
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 15th November 2016, 12:44 AM   #1537
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,277
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
You would have to question why he was granted name suppression in the first place. Did he ask for it because he was afraid for his own safety?

It also seems strange he was mentioned in the summing up, if he had permanent name suppression (again I cannot understand why) then despite being dead presumably he shouldn't be allowed to be named.
The problem in this case is that New Zealand law is protecting the guilty parties, as I suspect you suspect.
Why should this be so?
This is a massive issue of public safety, we can only imagine that Scott Guy may have perished because there was comfort gained from the successful though unintended killings of Christine and Amber Lundy.
The perpetrators were not investigated between the two trials. Alibis for 7 15 pm were never checked for 11pm onwards, this is all available on discovery of police diaries.
Those with alibis in early evening should have all been reinvestigated by the defence team. That is a pipe dream, but that is how Steven Avery will be freed, Brendan Dassey is already on the brink of release.
Charlie Wilkes suggested sending a fearless American agent to investigate.
He is right, any agent would hunt down Peter Meyer, and ask why he sold his house in a hurry, and why he did that to bail out his brother John Meyer.
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 15th November 2016, 12:48 AM   #1538
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,953
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
No one is going to bother convicting either of you.

It's NZ
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
You are exactly correct, indeed it is strategically sensible for the police and politicians to sacrifice an unpopular individual in the interests of avoiding public anxiety.
My concern is for the unpopular individual though. I find myself holding contemptuous views of the pragmatists, and will try to expose their crimes of omission, that can not be differentiated in the perfectly moral world from crimes of comission.
A few years ago, on a UK Rugby League discussion forum, I named a former Canberra Raiders and New Zealand Kiwis Rugby League player who was being prosecuted for fraud. At the time, he was subject to an NSO, but I knew what was happening because I friend of mine was a neighbor of his and he told me. I thought I was safe because the forum was based in the UK.

WRONG! Within 24 hours, I received a phone call from the Nelson police. They told me they had contacted the forum owners to have the name removed, and they warned me that if I breached the NSO again, that would be contempt of court, and they would put me straight in the slammer!
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
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 15th November 2016, 12:51 AM   #1539
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,277
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
A few years ago, on a UK Rugby League discussion forum, I named a former Canberra Raiders and New Zealand Kiwis Rugby League player who was being prosecuted for fraud. At the time, he was subject to an NSO, but I knew what was happening because I friend of mine was a neighbor of his and he told me. I thought I was safe because the forum was based in the UK.

WRONG! Within 24 hours, I received a phone call from the Nelson police. They told me they had contacted the forum owners to have the name removed, and they warned me that if I breached the NSO again, that would be contempt of court, and they would put me straight in the slammer!
Aha, a good lesson.
Interestingly, I would be tempted to attract that reaction from our very brave police.
They have so much to fear in the Lundy case there would be winners and losers.
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 15th November 2016, 01:27 AM   #1540
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Aha, a good lesson.
Interestingly, I would be tempted to attract that reaction from our very brave police.
They have so much to fear in the Lundy case there would be winners and losers.
Unfortunately, I suspect there would be next to zero interest in prosecuting you - they have their bunny in the lock up and there is no need to risk rocking the boat.
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 15th November 2016, 01:28 AM   #1541
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,753
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
No one is going to bother convicting either of you.

It's NZ
Mate, that is not how it works.

Take a look at the Gable Tostee thread - supporters of vearious people are everywhere and if you type something that Google finds, it will get back.

Check out the legal proceedings against the two blokes who fell for that on the Bain case, got sued and bankrupted.

People get very blase or are very naive about the real-world consequences of words on the internet.

Like this:

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
It IS illegal for a person in New Zealand to name a person who has name suppression in New Zealand (ask Cameron Slater, he got into a world of trouble for breaching NSO's even though the WOBH servers are located in Texas USA)

You should ask the mods to edit those posts (yours and those who quoted them). I report your post and asked the mods to do so.
Bingo.

Sammy, me old china, while I admire your motives in sticking your head above the parapet and claim you'd welcome prosecution, why invite the trouble? The pricks can break you in half and spit you out. The pigs recently broke every rule in the book with a lawyer up here who was wrongfully arrested. Being a lawyer, he was able to take a case against them himself and got a whopping four grand. A lot less than it would cost you to hire a lawyer.

Trust me, the hassle just is not worth it.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Loss Leader got the wrong end of the stick and thought I was accusing you of a crime, when I was actually trying to protect you from proceution.
Ah, I can just see his eyes lighting up seeing a report and my name...

Pity he didn't read for context.

As you say, I was trying to do Samson a favour.

I enjoyed the irony of his/her response, though.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
A few years ago, on a UK Rugby League discussion forum, I named a former Canberra Raiders and New Zealand Kiwis Rugby League player who was being prosecuted for fraud. At the time, he was subject to an NSO, but I knew what was happening because I friend of mine was a neighbor of his and he told me. I thought I was safe because the forum was based in the UK.

WRONG! Within 24 hours, I received a phone call from the Nelson police. They told me they had contacted the forum owners to have the name removed, and they warned me that if I breached the NSO again, that would be contempt of court, and they would put me straight in the slammer!
You weren't the first and you won't be the last.

Even if it never gets to court, they can make your life a misery. And very good point on contempt of court - judges will sign that up straight away.

Pity they don't take breaking all the other laws so seriously.
__________________
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 15th November 2016, 01:37 AM   #1542
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,793
Actually that was a dim post even from me
__________________
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

Last edited by cullennz; 15th November 2016 at 02:49 AM.
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 15th November 2016, 01:49 AM   #1543
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,277
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Unfortunately, I suspect there would be next to zero interest in prosecuting you - they have their bunny in the lock up and there is no need to risk rocking the boat.
I am sure you are right. I think the file we have read has enough to scare the crap out of the drongos in Palmy.
I would genuinely enjoy a phone call and would not feel any need to retain a lawyer.
I know enough to speak for myself.
Bring it on...

Unfortunately it will take more prodding than this nether forum can deliver.
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 15th November 2016, 10:54 AM   #1544
Fixit
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
There is a misinterpretation of the conversation. The Atheist is not accusing me of any crime.
I am not accusing him of a crime.
I am stating that a crime happened in New Zealand, and an innocent man is in jail after being twice convicted of that crime. There are people at large who know exactly who committed this crime, and they must be investigated in pursuit of public safety.
There is astonishing apathy in New Zealand about the murders of Christine and Amber Lundy, and Scott Guy.
There is no mystery about the nature of the organisations behind these crimes, and why they happened.

ETA I forgot Atheist did suggest it is unlawful to breach name suppression on a foreign forum.
This actually was an issue earlier in the thread, when there was a discussion concerning a jury member. I still have a record of extensive correspondence with the mod team, and the posts that may have been deemed to breach New Zealand law were returned to the forum from deep storage. It is certainly an interesting legal issue.
Maybe a good thread subject, do a handful of readers pose a legal issue? Will any police team waste time on this type of thing?
If they get a complaint they will. You don't want to get caught up in crap based on ideas that you can't prove.

As for the potential results from Taylor's prosecution if he wins it will not be the drama you predict. The most will be concessions about how things have since been changed and such situations won't happen again. The real interest will be if it can be used to open up other cases with doubtful convictions.

I'd suggest you be cautious about feelings of bravery felt behind your computer, why invite trouble you don't need - wait for the result and see what may come of it.
Fixit 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 15th November 2016, 11:07 AM   #1545
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,277
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
If they get a complaint they will. You don't want to get caught up in crap based on ideas that you can't prove.

As for the potential results from Taylor's prosecution if he wins it will not be the drama you predict. The most will be concessions about how things have since been changed and such situations won't happen again. The real interest will be if it can be used to open up other cases with doubtful convictions.

I'd suggest you be cautious about feelings of bravery felt behind your computer, why invite trouble you don't need - wait for the result and see what may come of it.
As Hard Cheese has pointed out, the last thing the New Zealand police want is an investigation of any matter in the Lundy case.
There is an unsolved crime, and if there was a member of their force with the fortitude to take on the system as Tim MacKinnel did with Teina Pora, the case would be solved.
There is a widely acknowledged truth that an alternative and sensible crime theory is a crucial component in exonerations. It worked for the West Memphis three, the Norfolk Four. It might have worked for David Tamihere
It would work for Mark Lundy.
The most common question I encounter is if it wasn't Mark Lundy, then who was it? Why don't we find out?
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 15th November 2016, 03:48 PM   #1546
Fixit
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
As Hard Cheese has pointed out, the last thing the New Zealand police want is an investigation of any matter in the Lundy case.
There is an unsolved crime, and if there was a member of their force with the fortitude to take on the system as Tim MacKinnel did with Teina Pora, the case would be solved.
There is a widely acknowledged truth that an alternative and sensible crime theory is a crucial component in exonerations. It worked for the West Memphis three, the Norfolk Four. It might have worked for David Tamihere
It would work for Mark Lundy.
The most common question I encounter is if it wasn't Mark Lundy, then who was it? Why don't we find out?
You and I might think there is an unsolved crime in the Lundy case, however, the police most certainly don't. 'Widely held truths', that's an exaggeration, most people move on when the Jury return a verdict. Few cases fall into the catagory of ongoing public concern. The Lundy case is not one of those that has resulted in much public concern, posturing about 'solving' the crime usually fits into the men white coats territory. As does saying the because a trial Judge mentioned a suppressed name accidentally in a closing address that anyone thereafter can break the suppression order.
Fixit 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 15th November 2016, 04:44 PM   #1547
GlennCashQC
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Post #1503 We are continually discussing new evidence, fresh evidence, and there is a strong view that the stomach contents and time of death will not be considered again by the appeal court as they have had their chance.
This is of course a completely unacceptable notion to the reasonable man.

Does this prove in itself that courts are unreasonable, or irrational, or that the law is an ass?
No it proves jurors are not so bright. Attorneys generally wont predict a trial outcome because plebian jurors are unpredictable.
GlennCashQC 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 15th November 2016, 04:55 PM   #1548
GlennCashQC
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
I've gone off even commenting on this case.

Don't know enough about it and tbh (Yes I am lazy) don't really care.

There is 6 zillion facts about it and I still just see fat dude faking It at funeral.

If he is actually innocent. Sorry. But thems the breaks
We'll do the same for you, should you ever find yourself in a Lundy-like predicament. As you say, "thems the breaks"
GlennCashQC 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 15th November 2016, 05:01 PM   #1549
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,793
Your problem there is I don't believe you.

You come across as too good a person and know you would still help me

)
__________________
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

Last edited by cullennz; 15th November 2016 at 05:09 PM.
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 15th November 2016, 07:08 PM   #1550
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,368
a quick summary

There are at least two pieces of evidence to indicate that the police suspected Lundy from Day 1. I question how honestly and thoroughly they investigated other people under those circumstances. In addition, at some point they locked onto a TOD of roughly 7 PM. Therefore, when they were clearing suspects on the basis of alibis, it was hogwash.

The idea that Mr. Lundy committed this crime suffers from several problems. He had no reasonable financial motive. He has an alibi for some of the time. He might not have had enough petrol to make the trip. He would have had to execute a near-perfect cleanup, yet somehow miss a couple of small stains (why not throw out the shirt with everything else he would have had to discard?). The evidence that the stains are really related to the crime has been hotly contested, but even if had not been, I am strongly of the opinion that one should not be convicted of murder on the basis of tests that have never previously been performed in a forensic context. Mr. Lundy would have had to have put on a show of normalcy the next day, despite having had almost no sleep. There is no murder weapon. There is however, DNA underneath Christine's fingernails. As I have argued previously, foreign DNA beneath one's fingernails is uncommon and does not persist very long.

Maybe he was acting at his funeral (though I don't happen to think so). But even if he were, that wouldn't make him guilty.
__________________
“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 15th November 2016, 07:12 PM   #1551
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by GlennCashQC View Post
No it proves jurors are not so bright. Attorneys generally wont predict a trial outcome because plebian jurors are unpredictable.
What assumptions are made about the intelligence of a jury? I take it - none, so how responsible was it for Judge Kos to permit the messenger RNA evidence (which was very complex, and hotly debated by scientific experts from both sides) to be put in front of a potentially not-very-bright jury? I guess they are allowed to ask questions about the evidence, but surely there must come a point where some are not grasping the basic concepts of what is being presented.

If attorneys aren't prepared to make predictions of plebeian juries, why do judges seem to place so much faith in their abilities - at least in this case?
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 16th November 2016, 12:57 AM   #1552
Fixit
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
There are at least two pieces of evidence to indicate that the police suspected Lundy from Day 1. I question how honestly and thoroughly they investigated other people under those circumstances. In addition, at some point they locked onto a TOD of roughly 7 PM. Therefore, when they were clearing suspects on the basis of alibis, it was hogwash.

The idea that Mr. Lundy committed this crime suffers from several problems. He had no reasonable financial motive. He has an alibi for some of the time. He might not have had enough petrol to make the trip. He would have had to execute a near-perfect cleanup, yet somehow miss a couple of small stains (why not throw out the shirt with everything else he would have had to discard?). The evidence that the stains are really related to the crime has been hotly contested, but even if had not been, I am strongly of the opinion that one should not be convicted of murder on the basis of tests that have never previously been performed in a forensic context. Mr. Lundy would have had to have put on a show of normalcy the next day, despite having had almost no sleep. There is no murder weapon. There is however, DNA underneath Christine's fingernails. As I have argued previously, foreign DNA beneath one's fingernails is uncommon and does not persist very long.

Maybe he was acting at his funeral (though I don't happen to think so). But even if he were, that wouldn't make him guilty.
I think from the time he revealed his alibi police knew that had a good chance of gaining a conviction, evidence of his being framed would have to be the woman who claimed to have seen a fat lady running away from the vicinity of his house in the first, but when the tod's were altered she was no longer required. I think there is an issue of double jeopardy with his second trial along with the scientific shortfalls you have pointed out previously.
Fixit 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 16th November 2016, 01:06 AM   #1553
Fixit
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
What assumptions are made about the intelligence of a jury? I take it - none, so how responsible was it for Judge Kos to permit the messenger RNA evidence (which was very complex, and hotly debated by scientific experts from both sides) to be put in front of a potentially not-very-bright jury? I guess they are allowed to ask questions about the evidence, but surely there must come a point where some are not grasping the basic concepts of what is being presented.

If attorneys aren't prepared to make predictions of plebeian juries, why do judges seem to place so much faith in their abilities - at least in this case?
I don't think it was necessarily anything to do with a particular Jury not being able to follow the RNA evidence, it was the inability of the defence to understand that any Jury would struggle with it. Reading the questions Hislop advanced he appeared to have mastered understanding RNA, almost as though he flaunted his ability to do so - the result was he forgot that the Jury had not studied the subject and needed basic touch stones in order to reject Miller's evidence. That he was not permitted to undertake the tests in his own country for forensic purposes would likely resonate more with a Jury than complicated scientific argument. Additionally, he should have been on his feet objected every time the prosecutor told the jury that 'no man has the right to have his wife's brain' matter on his shirt. The Jury would have picked that up quicker as being incorrect than a long closing running through points that had, most likely, never been understood anyway.
Fixit 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 16th November 2016, 01:24 AM   #1554
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,753
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
There are at least two pieces of evidence to indicate that the police suspected Lundy from Day 1. I question how honestly and thoroughly they investigated other people under those circumstances.
The answer to that is clearly "very little".

I'd love to know their rationale for not putting Weggery through the third degree.

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Maybe he was acting at his funeral (though I don't happen to think so). But even if he were, that wouldn't make him guilty.
I'm sure he was acting. He switched it off like a tap.

That said, I'm comfortable with him being like that because he is a christian mutant for want of a better term. A huge, fat blubber of a man who didn't know how to feel, and may have just felt nothing.

Somewhere, he thought he should appear more grief-stricken and went overboard. Unfortunately, that was damning in almost everyone's eyes. Heck, I thought that myself.

Once you're there, there's little need to delve deep enough into the real evidence to realise they got the wrong bloke.
__________________
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 16th November 2016, 01:38 AM   #1555
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
I don't think it was necessarily anything to do with a particular Jury not being able to follow the RNA evidence, it was the inability of the defence to understand that any Jury would struggle with it. Reading the questions Hislop advanced he appeared to have mastered understanding RNA, almost as though he flaunted his ability to do so - the result was he forgot that the Jury had not studied the subject and needed basic touch stones in order to reject Miller's evidence. That he was not permitted to undertake the tests in his own country for forensic purposes would likely resonate more with a Jury than complicated scientific argument. Additionally, he should have been on his feet objected every time the prosecutor told the jury that 'no man has the right to have his wife's brain' matter on his shirt. The Jury would have picked that up quicker as being incorrect than a long closing running through points that had, most likely, never been understood anyway.
Agree 100%...the most fundamental thing for any public speaker - "understand your audience".
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 16th November 2016, 02:39 AM   #1556
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,277
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
The answer to that is clearly "very little".

I'd love to know their rationale for not putting Weggery through the third degree.



I'm sure he was acting. He switched it off like a tap.

That said, I'm comfortable with him being like that because he is a christian mutant for want of a better term. A huge, fat blubber of a man who didn't know how to feel, and may have just felt nothing.

Somewhere, he thought he should appear more grief-stricken and went overboard. Unfortunately, that was damning in almost everyone's eyes. Heck, I thought that myself.

Once you're there, there's little need to delve deep enough into the real evidence to realise they got the wrong bloke.
I struggle to see why you cling to the Weggery red herring. The padophilia accusation was from when he was 14 years old, so I doubt the term is relevant, and this was two or three decades on. He turned up to get his gst return from Christine and found them dead.
Hislop should have discussed the true crime narrative with people who knew close to exactly what happened, motive means and opportunity.
The jury would understand that.
Once again
1. Mark Lundy was in possession of an invoice for 550k for root stock to be planted on the Morrison block when purchased.
2. The writer of the invoice, with permanent name suppression, though now he is dead it might be timely to give Lundy a break and blow the case wide open, owed money all around town colloquially speaking, hundreds of thousands of dollars. At least one of these parties was extremely keen to be paid.
So in one 24 hour period there was an aggregation of circumstances leading to 3 events.

1. Morrison was to meet Lundy to discuss the deadline looming for settlement, he wanted to meet Lundy and hear from the horse's mouth when he would settle, or if there would be further excuses.
2. The father and son team who were charging the infamous name suppressed middleman 70k to supply him root cuttings that would be treated and sold to Lundy for 500k, turned up to demand that cash and the rootstock middleman's wife called the police as they arrived. The police turned up but were assured by the three men it was a settled commercial matter, and left, and never did paper work accordingly. Why not?
3. Meanwhile, probably another creditor of the rootstock middleman was looking to persuade Lundy to pay the middleman, so the middleman could pay them.
The rest is obvious, Lundy was in Petone, so it looked just like a home invasion to Christine, and she reacted accordingly.

Atheist, this is a crime theory steeped in common sense, why mock it. It also has the virtue of being close to what happened.

Hislop should have told this story or something like it.
What is wrong with the truth in a court of law?

Last edited by Samson; 16th November 2016 at 02:43 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 16th November 2016, 02:27 PM   #1557
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,753
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I struggle to see why you cling to the Weggery red herring. The padophilia accusation was from when he was 14 years old, so I doubt the term is relevant, and this was two or three decades on. He turned up to get his gst return from Christine and found them dead.
What on earth does time have to do with it? Most paedophiles don't change, and it can't be cured.

Are you basing the time frame on the fact that he hadn't been caught? I sincerely hope not, because the vast majority are never caught.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
..., motive means and opportunity.
Which potentially fits Weggery better than OJ's glove.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The jury would understand that.
Sure they would. Burning paedophiles is usually quite popular.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Atheist, this is a crime theory steeped in common sense, why mock it.
1 - it's absurd.
2 - it's a gigantic red herring.
3 - it distracts from finding the actual killer & freeing Lundy.
4 - it contains no common sense whatsoever. Completely irrational nonsense.
__________________
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 16th November 2016, 05:01 PM   #1558
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,277
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
What on earth does time have to do with it? Most paedophiles don't change, and it can't be cured.

Are you basing the time frame on the fact that he hadn't been caught? I sincerely hope not, because the vast majority are never caught.



Which potentially fits Weggery better than OJ's glove.



Sure they would. Burning paedophiles is usually quite popular.



1 - it's absurd.
2 - it's a gigantic red herring.
3 - it distracts from finding the actual killer & freeing Lundy.
4 - it contains no common sense whatsoever. Completely irrational nonsense.
It seems you assume I would make statements with no supporting evidence.

Why would I?

Only one sequence happens in a crime, usually there is a motive but it can be a random event of p crazed intruders.

However, the police did visit the grape cutting grower on the morning of the 29th.
That grower did phone Mark Lundy at 8 30pm later
That grower had invoiced Lundy for 550k.

And you suggested that despite these contentious financial matters Glenn Weggery came from left field and was the killer?

Weggery is a gullible fool to believe the false police solution, but he had no opportunity to conceal a crime, and the motive is absurd. There is no evidence at all that he was in trouble with Christine over improprieties with Amber, but maybe there is poetic justice in accusing him of a crime he didn't do. He accuses his brother in law of just that crime, he did not do it either.

Com'on Atheist get that Shakespeare head running and put this into a script.
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 17th November 2016, 01:46 AM   #1559
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,753
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
However, the police did visit the grape cutting grower on the morning of the 29th.
That grower did phone Mark Lundy at 8 30pm later
That grower had invoiced Lundy for 550k.
Anyone can write an invoice. I can't believe you're taking it seriously.

Clutching at straws.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
And you suggested that despite these contentious financial matters Glenn Weggery came from left field and was the killer?
Left field?

A known kiddy fiddler.
A little girl with hymen damage. (she sure wasn't a gymnast!)
A bloke with the means.
A bloke who found the bodies.

Yep, that's left field alright.

[quote=Samson;11592613]Weggery is a gullible fool to believe the false police solution, but he had no opportunity to conceal a crime... [quote]

Rubbish. He had all night.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
..., and the motive is absurd.
I'll wager a couple of chocolate fish a lot more people have been killed to cover sexual abuse than over a fake 1/2 mio debt!

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Com'on Atheist get that Shakespeare head running and put this into a script.
That's an insult. I've written many times he was the biggest con artist the English language has ever seen.
__________________
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 17th November 2016, 03:19 AM   #1560
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,277
[quote=The Atheist;11593035]Anyone can write an invoice. I can't believe you're taking it seriously.

Clutching at straws.



Left field?

A known kiddy fiddler.
A little girl with hymen damage. (she sure wasn't a gymnast!)
A bloke with the means.
A bloke who found the bodies.

Yep, that's left field alright.

[quote=Samson;11592613]Weggery is a gullible fool to believe the false police solution, but he had no opportunity to conceal a crime...
Quote:

Rubbish. He had all night.



I'll wager a couple of chocolate fish a lot more people have been killed to cover sexual abuse than over a fake 1/2 mio debt!



That's an insult. I've written many times he was the biggest con artist the English language has ever seen.
I thought you liked Shakespeare, but it has nothing to do with this case, so let's move on.

We have three suspects in your world.

1. Mark Lundy
2. Glen Weggerey
3. Persons unknown.

It is my contention that in the case of 1 or 2, a singular big data point would sink them. It is always the case.

It is 3 and you know it.
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
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 09:26 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.