Sunday, February 22, 2015

The Crown case against Mark Lundy limps into week 3.

First of all a correction. It does appear that Mark Lundy may have individually marked his own tools with orange paint. Many engineers and those working in heavy industrial workshops mark their tools in this way, but still a surprise that a kitchen bench seller would do the same.

From all reports the Lundy trial is not generating much interest, has not really to this point captivated a wide following. Perhaps the reason for that is not only have the Crown dramatically reversed away from their earlier version of what they claimed they how the murder happened in the 1st trial, yet that they are still presenting the same evidence, at least in part for the murders to have now taken place at a different time. There was always going to be trouble with this, locking a man up by saying he committed a crime in a particular way and then backing away from that claim. In some respects I'm surprised the Court have allowed this to happen. Though in a country where appeals are often successful because a witness has been found to have misled a Jury, hidden or even planted evidence not only do no charges follow, but the individuals, if police or professional witnesses - give evidence again at a retrial. Hiding evidence, or misleading the Court is an offence which is not routinely pursued in NZ - hence the public disquiet, even after nearly a quarter of  a century, with the Thomas case.

But the real reason for the lack of interest is that the public, at least until recently and probably even now, have thought that Mark Lundy was guilty. Suddenly the retrial is upon us and evidence is lacking. The motive might be that the Lundy's were under financial pressure according to the Crown yet they call witnesses to that end who say under cross examination that the prospects of the business were good and improving. The wine venture on which the Crown seem to hedge their money came and went anyway as things in business usually do. A police search of Lundy's car reveals a necklace that nobody knows the owner of, a sceptic would say that it was deliberately left there to curry indignation against Lundy for perhaps having an affair, or entertaining a prostitute other than the one he hired the night he stayed in Wellington. But what does it all add up to total, nothing it seems at this point.

Which leads me to wonder if The Crown are holding the testimony of the prison inmate as their ultimate proof. A man who will say that Lundy told him that 'he had' to kill his daughter Amber because the daughter happened along on the murder of her mother. Being sceptical again, and not just about a prison stoolie singing for their supper, the last card in any weak prosecution case - but didn't the Crown earlier claim that Lundy was dressed in a disguise, one in which he was seen running away from the family home. The Crown have said that Christine and Amber were killed by something similar to an axe or tomahawk, yet there is no evidence yet that Lundy had either of those things. In fact one witness gave evidence saying that Lundy borrowed her axe to open the packing on his sink orders. Will the stoolie conveniently be able to fill the gaps on that part of the mystery as well? Will a Jury who have already heard evidence that Mark Lundy was a doting father, be able to accept that a prison inmate with some psychotic disorder is to be believed rather than grandparents who witnessed the relationship between father and daughter - I'm having to say at this stage I don't think so. Subject to the Crown having some startling new analysis of dna earlier said to be too downgraded to reliably test, a fact hidden from the first Jury - the case looks in deep trouble. Whose dna was under Amber and Christine's finger nails. How did their dna end up in the boot of Christine's brother and also his bathroom? Doubt everywhere here, while it appears the Crown simply whistle.


  1. The Crown knows it has no case, but as with the Bain case called for a retrial to avoid paying compensation and admitting he had been fitted.

  2. Unfortunately it's beginning to look that way. The Crown must have known they were never going to succeed with the Bain retrial, and it may be the same case here. A problem down the track is going to be Pora, if he is found not guilty, most people will accept that Rewa is the perpetrator, that Pora was never at the house and is completely innocent. More to come on this I think, the Compensation 'system' is a mockery and I think there could be action arguing that it is a breach of the HRA.

  3. You seriously think that Lundy didn't do it? If he didn't .. Who did? Who had motive?

  4. There is a lack of evidence against him and the retrial has shown that there was misrepresentation in the first trial of computer usage in order to prove time of death, nonsense about stomach contents, a since discarded time sequence, a eye witness now proven to have been 'mistaken' at best and so it goes on. It's not the defence job to say who committed the crimes, or to establish motive. On the other hand there is dna evidence indicating a picture far different from that which the Crown have advanced.