Wednesday, November 29, 2017

The Scott Watson case hairs don't stack up and never will.

There has been much talk about the '2-hairs' in the Scott Watson case this week. I was encouraged to read on a blog a person saying that he didn't know it took 3 months to find the 2-hairs. Fact is most people don't, and the media generally mistakenly report the 2-hairs as being found on Scott's yacht, but they weren't. They were found in a lab 3 months after the couple's disappearance.

Scott's boat was pulled out of the water on January 11th 1998 after it was seized under a High Court warrant to look for 'bodies, body parts and forensic evidence'. The first searches were by police, it would be fair to say that each officer that went aboard the sloop would have been looking for any signs of evidence. Police were very interested in the sails in the forward department because of claims the bodies had been wrapped in sails and sunk in the Cook Strait. First things first, they found no bodies, no body parts and the sails were intact. Before we go further it must be remembered that a High Court Judge had been told there was evidence supporting the warrant, in 20 years there has not been a single clue or explanation as to what evidence existed to make the claim about bodies and body parts. I think after all this time we can say it was made up.

Soon after, at least 3 ESR staff searched the sloop, found hairs, and blood which were collected. They searched for fingerprints and recovered all they found including a scrubbing brush. The woman who found the hairs and blood inside the cabin identified the positions of the finds and noted them. None of those hairs were identified as being from Ben or Olivia, nor was the blood. The hairs in the brush also did not belong to the couple. So we come to the tiger blanket off the bed which was collected and taken away with clothing and other items of interest.

Over a year later The Crown would say that Scott had thoroughly cleaned down his yacht to hide traces of the couple, the lie to this of course was the blood and hairs, also the scrubbing brush, but the biggest indication of the lie was a further year later after Scott had been charged when, on a request from the defence, the Crown revealed that there had been 390 hairs found on the blanket - it's not certain how they reached that figure because a big mistake in this case was that nobody apparently remembered to count possible evidentiary hairs except from the 1st search of the sloop by the 3 ESR staff.

Sometime in January 2 ESR staff had the blanket released to them to take off all the hairs individually and place them in 2 plastic bags. Common sense tells us that those staff, like the earlier ESR staff aboard the sloop would have looked for long blond hairs because hardly a person in NZ would not have known that the missing Olivia had long blond hair. So now we are at least 2 or 3 police searches of sloop, and at least 2 or 3 ESR searches for hairs on the sloop. We have 2 more in the removal of hairs from the blanket - 2 staff, 2 searches. The 2 bags were then put the storage facility before being released to the ESR 'hair expert' Sue Vintiner, who searched the 2 bags in January and collected 11 hairs 'mostly with roots.' Hair roots are necessary for DNA analysis, she found that none of the hairs belonged to Ben or Olivia. In a memo she recorded this fact and said the case was a 'hard' one and that none of the hairs were Ben or Olivia's, so another unsuccessful search and this time by the celebrated 'expert.'

All of this is tricky enough. We have a warrant to look for bodies and body parts, none are found, however blood and hairs are found and none belong to the couple. When the cabin was searched the most obvious place was to search the bed and the blanket for that is where the alleged killings and rape must have silently taken place, with a couple apparently co-operating in their own deaths by remaining so silent that people on 2 other boats rafted up to Scott's sloop never heard a word or a scream. We have a blanket with 390 hairs on it after the sloop was cleaned down of evidence - I'd welcome anyone to explain that, cleaning down paint, leaving spots of blood, hairs and a blanket with 390 hairs on it. No sign of the 2-hairs yet and we're into March.

Switch your mind to the Thomas case, the Bain case and that of Lundy. Everything searched and nothing found - then suddenly a new search of the Crewe garden in the Thomas case and a cartridge found weeks after a full grid searches and sifting had found nothing. Then to Bain, Stephens room carefully gridded and checked for 2 days and then on the 3rd night of the inquiry a detective not tasked with the job going into the house after hours searching Stephen's room and suddenly finding a glass lens. Exhausting. Lundy, his shirt clean as a whistle, never put into the custody of the exhibits officer but instead kept in the 'safe' of the officer in charge, weeks later when the case is in deep trouble suddenly 2 small spots found on the shirt which are argued about until today and are currently the subject of appeal. Meanwhile between Bain and Lundy, its March of 1998 and Ms Vintiner decides to check the 2 bags again in the third month after the inquiry began, this day there is a someone in the Lab with her who is not from ESR or police, Vintiner also contrary to ESR accreditation rules has sample hairs believed to be that of Oliva taken from the Hope household, - also on a 2nd search for long blond hairs. Ms Vintiner searches the bags again like every other search since January finds nothing. But she doesn't give up just because she is finding the case 'hard' so she searches again and hello, not one long blond hair but 2! Whatever could have happened, but don't worry she is a 'hair comparison' expert. She could presumably walk past you in the supermarket note the colour of your hair and pick it off a table mixed with 100s of other hairs months later.

No surprises there, don't bat a eyelid. Not even for the next details. Until March 1998 and through all those searches the longest hair found was 7.5 cms. But wait, the 2 blond hairs that were never photographed or videod in situ were 25 and 15 cm long, twice and three times longer than any other hairs found. Before moving to the next point it should be noted that both times hairs were taken from the Hope household they were not counted so even if the hair expert had been surprised at the sudden find she couldn't count the Hope household hairs, find 2 missing and say 'silly me.'

There is a tonne of other evidence to show that the 2-hair evidence is decidedly weak despite that a previous Minister of Justice said the case against Scott was 'held together' by the 2 hairs. The strongest might be that 'hair comparison' methods our local 'expert' used were found to have to have resulted in 95% of those convicted by the American FBI using 'hair comparison' methods in the 20 years to 2015 being exonerated. Yes, 95%. In New Zealand, as it is in Britain, experts witnesses duty is to the Court, they are not there for the defence or Crown but as an expert to the Court. If as science methods change or faults are identified in processes, the experts are required to inform the Court of any cases they may have worked on where faulty process has been identified. I can tell you today neither Ms Vintiner or the New Zealand ESR have put their hands up, but have kept silent, deadly quiet.

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Liam Ashley's death, 11 years later.

Liam Ashley was 17 years old in 2006 when he took his parents car without permission. Apparently at the stage he was playing up a bit, nothing too serious according to his parents at the time who considered that laying a complaint with the police could be just the good shake up the young teen needed. Liam was arrested and his parents declined to support his bail so he was remanded in custody. I recall reading later that his parents considered a small stint on remand in Auckland's old Mount Eden prison would straighten him out. Shortly after he was strangled and stomped in the prison escort van by 29 year old George Baker who would say he thought the young boy was a 'nark.' The day after, Liam's life support was turned off in Auckland Hospital.

George Baker was classified as a dangerous prisoner with mental health issues who more than likely in a less rigid of the appraisal between mad and bad would have been in a mental health institution and no where near the youngster said to be 'gentle and kind.' How the young boy could apparently be a nark, the term for an informer, at the age of 17 and without any criminal background is another indication of the mental health of George Baker who was sentenced to life with a minimum parole period of 18 years after pleading guilty. Understandably the public concern was high and the Minister of Corrections Damien O Conner was under attack by the opposition shadow Minister Simon Power.

The escort vehicle was not a Corrections van but a contractor's secure van operated by Chubb Security. In 2007 Chubb expressed the desire to give up the contract no doubt because they broke the rules and put a large dangerous adult offender with a small teenager first offender. It was with that situation in mind that I read a letter from the Howard League of Penal Reform (Wellington) dated 16th October 2017 regarding Chubb operating transport for woman offenders between Auckland and Wellington. The letter sets out that the minimum trip time is 12 hours during which there is only one toilet break and no food or water short of a packed breakfast. The prisoners cannot stand (lack of headroom) and are given no chance to alight and walk around to stretch their legs, most are low security and from the description given the conditions are deliberately cramped for financial reasons. 60 cm of bench space per prisoner, inadequate leg space, steel interior, with only small grills for ventilation, they are generally handcuffed. The accommodation has been described as steel cages, without windows. These for women with minimum security ratings that allow them freedom to work outside in prison grounds. Women also prepared to undertake a rehabilitation course to be better mothers and better citizens.

These trips indeed follow rehabilitation programmes the women have completed at Arohata Prison, Wellington before being returned to the Auckland Women's Prison. The Howard League letter discloses a 2006 Ombudsman report which includes a quote from Corrections as saying;

'There is no formal national policy on the provision of food, water and rest breaks or for providing opportunities for prisoners to stretch their legs. Most prisoner transport will consist of relatively short journeys and would not necessitate the need for rest breaks for food and water.'

In 2007 the Chief Ombudsman, John Belgrave, described Corrections 'prisoner transport polices as inhumane.'

I think it is fairly clear that New Zealand Justice changes are generally reactive and most often follow some exposure or 'whipping up' of public outrage. A good example for that is any debate on sentencing where the 'outraged' always have a specific case that they can quote to show the prisons are soft, sentences too short and so on despite their being no correlation for that which is objective rather than subjective. New Zealand is not good at standing back and being objective about such things and anything to do with imprisonment is soon politicized from both sides of the spectrum, generally favouring the outraged who are not in anyway personally involved.

One reaction following Liam's death was against the mentally disturbed George Baker, such are the complexities of the man that I recall him writing (or it may have been by video) to the Court to support his appeal by saying that he had spoken to his mum and they agreed that 18 years was too long. Another was Chubb saying they would walk away from their contract, probably a less than subtle threat to Corrections. Possibly the most recent has been the escape of the prisoner to Brazil from a home leave visit, this resulted in all prisoners having home leaves stopped (some apparently recently beginning again after some 2 years) all work outside prisons was also stopped in some South Island prisons for minimum security prisoners which is apparently still in place. Think of the maths for that. Around 10,000 prisoners is the current prison population. 1 escapes 9,999 suffer for that. Consider the message as being similar to men and boys taken away from their villages in Europe or the Middle East because of a single event against the powers that be, or because of their ethnicity, never to be seen alive again.

A person sent to prison is encouraged to take part in reform programmes in the belief that they can improve themselves, gain assistance for psychological or behavioral problems they may help gain an early release and lead to an improved life for themselves, children or future children. All sounds good. This is the system extolling the benefits of prisoners taking a good look at themselves, looking to take responsibility for themselves and ultimately benefit society by not breaking the law, instead working and being productive in some way. Then 1 escapes, and 9,999 get clonked with the hammer one way or another, reduced chances to visit family toward the end of their sentences, to work outside the prison or eventually work on parole but not because they did something wrong but rather because a person they don't even know did something wrong, got caught and was re-imprisoned. So what actually is the lesson?

It appears to go like this, you've broken the law and at anytime in the future you can be held responsible for something that you didn't do or did not know about. There is something missing here obviously. I'd called it fortitude. When Simon Power put pressure on Damien O'Connor there was a fair chance neither man knew that Chubb would put Liam at the mercy of the madman Charlie Baker, in fact would have been horrified at the thought, presumably think that it could possibly never happen as did the public. However, a battle waged - perfectly understandable in the political spectrum of the time. However is it understandable now? With a prison population of over 10,000 and a solid effort being made to 'command' the re-offending problem by the current and past Government will the politicians continue to wave the big stick as to who is tough on crime and who is not? More than likely, assuming that it will let's go back to the van and being 'reactive.'

What happens if that van catches on fire, does the door open automatically? Is there even an emergency exit as is required on a bus or a plane.

What happens if the vehicle crashes, goes off the road into deep water?

What happens if the vehicle breaks down in an isolated area, say the desert road?

What happens if the steel cage is kicked to touch and the women are moved in Transit van or similar, even a people mover? So that stops can be made, a chance to walk around for both the staff and those in their custody - will the sky fall in? Will the women fail to appreciate that if just 1 of them does something wrong 9,999 others will be punished in some way.

Liam was described as 'gentle and kind'. I wonder what he would have said about this had he not be locked in a cage with a man twice his size who imagined he was something that he was not,  who didn't see just a  frightened young man being given what was hoped to have been a lesson not to drive the family car without permission and instead felt sorry and protective of him.






Friday, November 3, 2017

There's something about Witness C

There was a lot missing at the sentencing of Witness C at the Auckland High Court on 8 counts of perjury. I am not sure what I really expected. The police and Crown have done a lot to protect their informers over many years. The argument has always been that secret witnesses are a last resort, but vital to prosecutions. For the first time the New Zealand public may generally be disturbed that such witnesses may lie, but also lie extravagant detail, and consider the result as the absolute failure of the system to take any interest in the truth. When did the truth first appear to emerge in this case after David Tamihere had been convicted of the murders of the Swedish hitchhikers Urban Hoglin and Heidi Paakkonen?

When Urban's body was found buried in bush the 'stolen' watch was still on his wrist, his mortal injuries far different than what witness C had said of his being bashed to death and dumped at sea. Somehow the New Zealand Court of Appeal, despite this fresh evidence that went to the heart of the case, said that the Tamihere convictions built around the Hoglin watch being found in the Tamihere home where it was said to have been gifted to David's son, were 'safe,' At some point during the perjury sentencing Richard Francois, appearing for the 'prosecution,' dismissed the Court of Appeal of that era disdainfully. I was surprised that in the Auckland High Court I would hear the words I often repeat myself about the Court that failed to recognize the Miscarriages of Justices embodied in many cases through that 'era' starting with Tamihere, David Bain, Teina Pora, Scott Watson and Mark Lundy - a Court which filled the gaps for ailing prosecutions, painted over the cracks and administered, heartless, injustice. They were assassins disguised in black gowns forming a medieval Court who could look into the minds of Jurors, defendants and the lawyers themselves always to protect the prosecution. The Court that was never disturbed that Pora, not yet 16, had been held incommunicado, cultivated by the promise of money, lied to, then ignored the big gaps in his story and the inducements he was offered and kept in prison for 2 decades without a single recrimination for Rutherford, the 'tough' nosed South Auckland cop who ignored the real culprit and 'lone wolf' rapist and long time informer Malcolm Rewa, choosing a youth instead that couldn't describe the victim in his 'confession' and didn't know where she lived.

Informers have always been looked after, the authorities are seldom concerned about the truth when in comes to informers, they cover for them as they did in Tamihere and Watson where they said the informers evidence wasn't pivotal and that the prosecution would have still won without the tainted evidence. No explanation ever given, why if the evidence wasn't needed, the hazardous and highly prejudicial was given to the jury. A few days after 'C's' hearing I appreciated that it was right to tell the High Court of the shortcomings of the Court of Appeals in many different Miscarriages of Justice. The Court is after all meant to be a place of truth, a place where the 'truth' as offered by secret witnesses should be viewed as unnecessary and dangerous as case after New Zealand case has shown. So it was an appropriate truth at the sentencing of C in the Auckland High Court that the Court was reminded how the Justice system had been abused by police using secret witness for decades, confident that the Court would back them up. 98 years of false imprisonment on just the names mentioned above when added to Arthur Thomas's 9 years.

I am not sure of what had drawn me to the Court though it would appear to be for the chance to look at C. The once barrel chested Ngapuhi with the velvet tongue was reduced by age, pulling an audience, apparently comfortable and aloof. Hard to read, nothing indicating any sort of remorse for his relationship with the late policeman John Hughes who had helped C get early parole for a double murder only only for him to re-offend and spend longer in prison on his recall than he did for his original sentence. It was spoken about in the Court of C having continued to be 'active' in offering perjured evidence to apparently willing police, there are hints that he had been an informer for over 4 decades. He obviously treated it as a full time job.

Behind him and to his left was David Tamihere a man with an easy smile and also weathered by many years in prison thanks to C's evidence that the Appeal Court would later say wasn't needed. How blind could a Court be to think that 'confessions' that when heard by the Jury causing some to cry - could not have mattered to them. At one stage Tamihere said to a woman sitting close to me that he didn't care what sentence C got but that it was the convictions for perjury that mattered as surely they do. On that Wednesday morning on the grounds where NZ's first Parliament had stood the country moved a little closer to coming of age where the institutions of Justice themselves saw their own covered lack of skepticism exposed to the light by 8 convictions against the heart of Justice.

Around 10 kilometers away in Maximum security Arthur Taylor waited for the outcome of his successful prosecution, a minimum security prisoner held in maximum security, the same prison where both Tamihere and C had spent years and years, the bleak place from where the 'story' 'Henry went last night' was penned, the fresh faced young south islander who took his life there during one short period where  8 or 9 men hanged themselves and a protest began that Arthur would eventually join and become locked in a battle for prisoner's and their families rights. Arthur has won many battles in the Courts, to this point in time none have been more significant than the exposure of the Court of Appeal of 2 decades or so ago and the police confident of 'getting away' with bringing perjurers to Court to gain convictions. Not a single police officer has ever been prosecuted, not in Thomas, Tamihere, Bain, Watson or Lundy. The Courts don't bother to comment and police just keep going paying the mealy mouthed with money, goods or a quicker chance of freedom. Freedom is an interesting word to use in a blog about C who stole an innocent man's freedom abetted by police.

Miscarriages of Justice have many of the same characteristics case by case, sure signs that are ignored, never raised by the Courts or the police. They appear to never looked for and memory of this is shut out when faced with another case that has the same characteristics. Now it is up to all of us to remember the perjury of C. Forget the man himself as the problem, and remember the police and Judges who were his enablers.

Saturday, September 2, 2017

Double Murder convictions rarely safe in New Zealand?

There is enough evidence to say that double murder convictions in New Zealand high profile cases are unsafe, not just because of yesterday's convictions of witness 'C' for eight counts of perjury he committed in the David Tamihere double murder convictions. The bad run started in Arthur Thomas's case from 1970. Arthur was twice convicted before being pardoned. At the Royal Commission which followed, police tried to bring in 2 secret witnesses who claimed Arthur had confessed, such was their obviously manufactured evidence that the Royal Commission showed them the door and commented adversely against their kind.

A relatively at the time, young detective, John Hughes featured in the Thomas case where the primary evidence was a planted cartridge case, said to been fired in the Thomas rifle, but later discovered as not having been manufactured at the time of the deaths of Jeanette and Harvey Crewe. The country was told after Arthur's pardon that the Thomas case was a one off and couldn't happen again. But from that garden where the planted shell case was found something else grew, a police propensity by some officers to plant evidence. There were other cases, one being Ngamu where Hughes made a false confession attributed to Ngamu confirming his part in an armed robbery. When Hughes left the room Ngamu took the false confession out of the rubbish bin and managed to pass to his lawyer Barry Hart. Nothing happened by way of police discipline against Hughes, as nothing had happened with the planted Thomas shell case. Already, for those so inclined in the police, administrators would turn a blind eye to planted evidence and the Courts would be equally ambivalent.

Hughes was in charge of the disappearance of a young Swedish couple Urban Hoglin and Heidi Paakkonen, soon attention was drawn to David Tamihere, who would admit having stolen the couple's car. Quite quickly it would later emerge, 3 prison snitches would be helping out Hughes, one of them, 'C', would eventually say that his testimony was fabricated by yes, John Hughes. For this observer that was the signature of the 1970s corruption that began in the Thomas case. There may have been prison snitches before that time, but after the Thomas Royal Commission they became more prevalent like a disease inflicted on Justice in this country which the Courts were willing to ignore, and for which police would never be held responsible. By this time time snitches had 'handlers' who went into prison to gain help to fabricate false evidence. Snitches had become an extension of 'policing' in NZ.

One of the familiar characteristics of 'snitches' testimony was the lack of imagination, there appeared only one tactic, outlandish and sick 'confessions' by accused in cases where there was little other evidence, in which the 'snitches' would hold the weak case together with their reported confessions, often given by seasoned criminals who happened to be 'sickened' by the confessions to the point they contacted police. Most often the snitches would be particularly brutal criminals themselves, in at least 1 case, a snitch blaming a life long friend for the murder of a young Auckland housewife would go onto being convicted of a similar crime after the man he falsely accused of murder suicided in prison before he went to trial, that case has never been resolved - and the false accuser now serves life imprisonment for an identical crime to that he blamed long term friend for.

It was no surprise for this observer that when Scott Watson was eventually arrested for the 'Sounds murders' that secret witness were involved, 2 prison inmates and an anonymous couple who after changing their stories several times would accuse Scott of revealing that he was a violent women hater prepared to kill. The 2 prison witnesses for their part would reveal yes, of course, sordid details they alleged Watson revealed to them and for which they were overcome by outrage and reported it to 'police snitch handlers'. That their confessions were dissimilar never caused a batted eye lid in the Court system, as it had not in Tamihere. The only proceedings where such witnesses were tossed out was from the fiercely independent Thomas Royal Commission who had no truck with such bottom dwelling liars.

A few more years and we advance to the Mark Lundy retrial and find, with the case somewhat in trouble, a good old 'snitch' who claimed Mark Lundy confessed to him in a prison yard where Mark had never been held. So the idea that planted evidence and stoolies was moved on from in the 1970s was proved to be false once again. The Teina Pora case also had snitches as prime witnesses, showing that it doesn't require double homicides but rather high profile cases which police struggle to solve.

The reality is that 'snitches' don't solve cases, they become an obvious part of miscarriages of Justice that Courts and Governments continue to ignore. Justice does not benefit from lying prisoners or secret witnesses, a high majority of controversial cases show that plainly no more that the reminder given by the eight guilty counts in the private prosecution brought by Arthur Taylor which police refused to do themselves.

As a matter of interest, the Lundy appeal is next month and the highly suspect 'novel science' is going to be scrutinised as it has never before been. The key evidence against Mark Lundy is highly suspect and has no authenticated forensic basis, there is no other evidence against him that would result in a conviction and the story to be revealed, I am told, is a shocking revelation that brings no credit to the New Zealand Courts and prosecuting authorities.

I am also told that the Watson case is to be re-visited, not just because 1 of the secreted witnesses there 'recanted', 'reaffirmed' and then disappeared, well at least Kirsty McDonald QC couldn't find him after 4 years of searching around her office, and never asking police for help finding their 'contact.' But also because highly suspect forensic evidence in the case, upon which the Watson convictions barely hang is no longer strong enough in the modern forensic context to solely uphold the Watson convictions as Ms McDonald claimed in 2013 after mulling over the papers for 4 years and being paid over $400,000.

Justice as we know it in controversial cases in NZ, corrupt and sinking by the minute.

Friday, September 1, 2017

Will the Lundy case finally crack this time?

I am aware that the final submissions are to be filed in the long running saga which is the Lundy case today. This case generally remains the most poorly understood convictions in New Zealand history. Most people have formed an opinion on the case despite all the concrete facts being unknown.

Rather than starting with the 'Lundy shirt' and all its controversy I'll start with the hidden and neglected parts of the case. As I've written before there is evidence of at least 2 strangers being in the home contemporaneously with the deaths of Christine and her 7 year old daughter Amber. This is known because the DNA of 2 unknown males was found under their nails. DNA in this location can more probably than not be attributed to scratching or grabbing at the clothing of an attacker. DNA of this type lasts a relatively short time if innocently picked up by contact with another person or DNA source, 6 hours is the maximum time until around only 5% of the DNA will remain as a person goes about normal tasks including, eating, dressing and washing the hands.

There were signs of a break in of the Lundy home while Mark Lundy was in Wellington and his wife and daughter home in bed when they were attacked. The police blamed that break in on Lundy, saying it was staged to cover his tracks. It's quite normal unfortunately that someone being framed is blamed for anything unexplained. In the eyes of the Jury it can easily make sense that a guilty person would hide their trail. The problem in Lundy however, as it has emerged years later, is that unknown fingerprints and footprints were also found in the house. Now Mark Lundy, in fact nobody, can leave unknown footprints and particularly fingerprints at a crime scene unless they are the perpetrators. Moreover, nobody can put unknown male DNA and fabric fibres under the nails of a deceased person. So while Lundy was blamed for a mock break in, evidence was hidden that points to it have been a real break in by 2 offenders who left DNA, finger and footprints at the scene along with fibres from their clothing. Of course the paint found on the victims in the area of their wounds, that was said to have come from Mark Lundy's tools, has since also been disproved

This unexplained evidence is actually the key to Mark Lundy's innocence and as I write above it was hidden, eventually emerging piece by piece over time. Not everyone knows it was hidden and obscured in an argument over novel science that remains highly controversial and more than a little suspect. The 'science' took over, was reported on at length, conveniently helping obscure evidence that over time would emerge as far less obscure in understanding the Lundy case. It's time for that evidence to be dealt with. Police have never explained the fingernail DNA and fibres, the finger and footprints, the paint, they got away from doing so by hiding or masking the evidence and shouts of a prosecutor that 'no man has the right to have his wife's brain on his shirt.' That phrase appears to become destined as the most inappropriate part of a prosecutor's closing ever in a New Zealand case. The reason for that being that the validity of the novel science is under siege and no longer can have any support from a crime scene that indicates that Mark Lundy did not kill his wife and daughter.

I also suspect that the appeal submissions will question the validity of the Crown being given 2 bites at the cherry and effectively changing their own case dramatically when it was in deep trouble, given the chance to say 'forget that story, we have a new one.' However, the real story is not the 'new one' they dreamed up to try and salvage their case, but rather the one they hid from the public and Jury that relates to two men, their DNA, foot and fingerprints, paint from a weapon, that were never found. At the same time as our Courts were duped into accepting 'novel science' while the prosecution secreted away critical evidence alarm grew in the established forensic science community that IHC testing was being used in manner where it was not only unaccredited to be employed, but that it was being used far outside the clinical standards where its use was established to test for disease on known samples, not on random poorly degraded gunk that would be blasted with high doses of dilution until it displayed a 'colour' that the testers wanted. Yes, negative tests were ignored, dilution rates increased until the required colour showed, mix the cake with any colours until the right colour was found - not in the least forensic science, but going after a result to fit a theory.

I think now the Court will demand answers, that the public needs, forget about the cake mix and explain how the finger, footprints, fibres and stranger DNA found its way into the Lundy household after a break in and how it could possibly not be connected to the murders of Christine and Amber.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Mark Lundy and the hidden secret evidence.

I had the chance to read Mark Lundy letters published in ‘stuff’ news earlier in the week.

It brought home to me something extremely important in this case which I hope I can clearly distil.

The Lundy case has been taken over by an argument in science, ‘novel unproven science v accredited and regulated for forensic use science.’ Of course, there is no doubt over which science should be allowed by a conservative court for one reason - the crime scene into which strangers had entered. Something, I think Mark Lundy has described to perfection.

It is lost to the conservative mind that the science argument is down the list against the crime scene evidence, which conservatively, perhaps, not even being no 2 on the list, more forthrightly inadmissible.

Mark Lundy like any man, knew his own home. He knew the signs of a break in but it was hidden from him and the Courts that there were also fingerprints and footprints left in the scene that were never traced, and which were highly unlikely to have been there after the home was cleaned by a very thorough contractor just before the tragedy.

When Dr Teoh’s letter was belatedly released by the Crown it was rightly seized upon as showing a miscarriage of Justice. However, the potential proof that unknown males had been the house, their DNA found under the nails of Christine and Amber has never been properly appreciated for its true meaning supported by the reasons it was hidden. If it were not hidden, Mark may not have been charged and was unlikely to have been convicted if he had been charged, due to the Jury having tangible evidence of other offenders to consider – the very reason the critical evidence was hidden. I think this must be taken to the COA along with all the new data showing how DNA gets under the fingernails and how long it may last.

I am 100% behind Mark on this. He was the man that lived in the home and knew it inside out, he was the grieving father who became the suspect as a matter of course. A course that when off target, away from actual evidence and into the darkness of deciphering highly ‘weak for purposes’ evidence in a case where fingerprints, footprints, a break in, and stranger DNA found under the deceased nails was secreted away.


Give him his chance for the truth to be heard in the right order, crime scene first.

Monday, August 7, 2017

Post from the Mark Lundy Support Group

NEWS RELEASE FROM ‘FACTUAL’, MARK LUNDY SUPPORT GROUP www.lundytruth.com
August 7th 2017

We have noted the release of a new book written by Dr Temple-Camp, some of the excerpts from it, and the rather lame and tame interview of the author on TV3. Lundy has an appeal set down to be heard in mid October and we are therefore limited as to what we can say, however some of what Temple-Camp has written and said cannot be left without comment.
T-C entitles his book “Cause of Death”.  His job is a medical diagnostic pathologist who assists in determining what sort of disease a person may have, particularly cancer. We are not aware of him being an expert in cause of death in a murder, and even in the Lundy case he was not the pathologist used, rather his underling Dr Pang. There is a vast difference between medicine and forensics (more later), and neither T-C nor Pang has forensics accreditation, as far as we are aware. T-C was not introduced to the court as having expertise in immunohistochemistry (the key science in the case), or forensics.
Astoundingly, T-C has made only little mention of the fact that the time of death was greatly changed between the first trial and the retrial. Christine and Amber had bought a McDonalds’ meal at about a quarter to six in the evening of August 29th 2000 and thus the last meal is accepted as having been eaten around 6pm. The police wanted to pin the murders and Lundy as the culprit on a time of death of 7pm, when he had no alibi. Pang duly obliged with a t.o.d. of an hour to an hour and a quarter of eating, i.e. 7-7:15pm and the first trial went ahead on that basis. The police even found an eye witness who saw “Lundy” running down the road in Palmerston North at just after 7pm. Det. Grantham said this witness was ‘positive”. The arrest interview with Lundy is crystal clear that Lundy was being arrested and charged for killing his wife and daughter at about 7pm. The foundational basis for the case, as it were. This evidence from Pang was strongly contradicted by several experts at the Privy Council and was one of the reasons why the conviction was quashed.
At the retrial, the Crown completely changed the t.o.d. from 7pm on August 29th to about 3am on August 30th. Pang, under oath both times, did not seem to have any problem changing his estimation from (a) with 60-75 minutes of eating, to (b) any time in the 15 hours between 6pm on the 29th and 9am on the 30th (when the bodies were found). The “positive” eye witness disappeared off the witness screen and was not called at the retrial. Neither was T-C.
T-C writes that “James (Pang) concluded that death had occurred about one hour after eating” and largely ignores the new Crown case, and the retrial. He follows the Crown line that Christine had herself a big meal in the early hours of the morning which explains her full stomach. We have heard of and even experienced teenagers doing that, but women in their 40’s? The fact that Amber also had a full stomach – identical to Christine, said Pang – means that she also got up out of bed at about 2am and ate a big meal. We don’t think so. The word ludicrous comes to mind.
One of the errors which we can address. T-C writes that “Lundy maintained that he didn’t own an axe – an assertion contradicted by several of his acquaintances’. Completely wrong, reversed in fact. Lundy never ever told anybody that he didn’t own an axe (tomahawk). He actually volunteered to the police that he owned a tomahawk and if he had previously “maintained” that he didn’t have one, surely the police would have commented on that? They didn’t. Lundy borrowed one from his mate over the road to cut some kindling because his own was part of his very old scouting stuff and was buried in his garage. Mark’s garage was described by witnesses as “totally full and messy” and contained “a conglomeration” of stuff. The police has Lundy’s tomahawk in their possession on December 14th, a couple of months before the arrest. They simply asked him why it was not painted like his carpentry tools, and he replied because it is not a builder’s tool.
We mentioned above that medical diagnosis and forensics are very, very different and would like to point out that not one of the “experts” who claimed Lundy had “brain tissue” on his shirt has any disclosed qualifications, certifications or accreditation to the world’s forensic science programmes, the most respected of which is ISO17025. The Privy Council was bothered by, and drew attention to this, - their full judgment can be accessed at 
http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/201341/Lundy%20judgment.pdf    
Note particularly para. 81  “ It is important not to assume that well established techniques which are traditionally deployed for the purpose of diagnosis can be transported, without modification or further verification, to the forensic arena where the use to which scientific evidence is put is quite different from that involved in making a clinical judgment. Put simply, evidence that can properly used to reach a confident medical verdict may not measure up to the more stringent requirements that arise in the setting of a criminal trial”.
A simple example. The science used by the medical pathologists in this case was immunohistochemistry (ihc) as they use it for cancer diagnosis. The cut-off point between negative/positive ihc on most cancer cells is 5%. (Some breast cancers are at 1%). If 5% of cells or more stain positive to a cancer, the answer given is that you are positive for cancer. The 95%  do not matter. Now imagine a forensic science, say fingerprints, and there are 100 features which need to be matched in order to nail the suspect. How do you think the expert would get on in court if he said 5 of the features were the same and 95 were not, therefore it is a “match”? Laughed out of court, right? Simply put, that’s the difference.
There are two papers available which set out in detail what has to be done with forensic sciences. The first is the 2016 report to (then) President Obama about ensuring Validity of forensic science methods, and the second is from the UK Forensic Science Regulator also concerning Validation. The links are below –
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf
From these documents you can see the very, very detailed process which has to be gone through to validate every step of the process for a forensic science to be used in court. You will note from the Obama report that immunohistochemistry is not listed as a forensic science. The National Academy of Sciences report from 2009 doesn’t list ihc as one either. We haven’t found anybody who mentions it.
So, what does T-C have to say? He writes in his book that he says to the police he uses the “Aunt Minnie” process of identification of the “brain” on Lundy’s shirt and says “You don’t have to go through the whole scientific rigmarole”. The links above, the plethora of top scientific and legal minds who have put it all together in the interests of ensuring justice and no miscarriages, and we have T-C saying the required specified care and detail is nothing but  “scientific rigmarole”.
If that is not enough, he goes on to say that this “Aunt Minnie” process uses “the lizard part of your brain, the ancient dinosaur bit that runs on automatic without any intelligent thought”.
The slide T-C examined (Exh. C3003/2) and told the police it was brain using the “Aunt Minnie” method, was also viewed by 5 neuropathologists, one PhD in physiology and one PhD in neuroanatomy – none could identify any brain cells, presumably using intelligent thought.  It seems from T-C’s book that he was very keen to give evidence and is proud of the Privy Council saying he “trenchantly asserted” stuff, as though that was a positive. We therefore do not understand why he gave evidence “under subpoena”. This is a legal/Latin term meaning under penalty, and basically means the witness is forced to turn up, or face punishment. The overall connotation is reluctance to testify, but there may be reasons we are not aware of.
As stated earlier, we are in the process of an appeal and are limited as to what we can say. We can comment on the following –
T-C writes (a) I heard the experts even managed to find evidence of brain tissue on the original dab slide using electron microscopy (b) DuPlessis confirmed that the whole argument about the lack of preservation was rubbish and a red herring.
He writes “So we were right there too. Doubly vindicated!”
This seems to be completely incorrect. DuPlessis (filed doc. 22/8/14) reports on electron microscopy “Material retrieved from the dab preparation (C3003/2 ) could not be recognised as any specific type of tissue. It consisted of non-descript amorphous debris……….” By standard microscopy, he said “ The overall appearances are consistent with degenerate/autolytic tissue……….certainly not confirmatory of cns tissue. I strongly disagree with the notion that some cells recognised within this material can be recognised as glial cells, the latter an opinion originally expressed by some of the pathologists previously examining this specimen” i.e. T-C.
Even the actual shirt stain, not the dab slide, under electron microscope – no glial cells, no axons and, as found by ihc, no neurons either. Funny “brain” this. There should be hundreds of thousands of neurons all with axons attached, and millions of glial cells.

We don’t necessarily see or understand “Aunt Minnie” but we have sure seen Mickey Mouse in more than a few places in this case.