Thursday, February 12, 2015

What is going on with the Lundy case?

I don't know about other observers but the Lundy retrial is distorting out of perspective. On day one defence counsel revealed that test of material taken from under the nails of the deceased Christine and Amber Lundy indicated dna from two other persons, probably male. Those tests, as unbelievable that it may seem, were only conducted last year - thank goodness those samples had not been dumped as in the Thomas and Bain cases. Whether Mark Lundy is guilty or not all the evidence pertinent to the case must be considered, the dna evidence is highly pertinent. On day 2 when Christine's brother, Glenn Weggery, was cross examined by defence counsel lead David Hislop QC, more dna evidence emerges in the form of Weggery, who found the bodies. The dna, of a probability in the 70 to 80% region, as that of belonging to the 2 deceased was found in his car boot and his bathroom. There of course may be an innocent explanation for that but Glenn was unable to provide that explanation. Draw a parallel to the downgraded dna found on Mark Lundy's top, argued to have been planted in the first trial, and a successful point on appeal and the case takes new shape - even putting aside the scrapings taken from under the nails of Christine and Amber.

On day 3 the Crown called retired police computer expert, Maarten Kleintjes, who gave essentially new evidence that a computer found in the house showed no signs of having been manipulated, whereas in the last trial he said it had - inference that Lundy had interfered with the computer in order to fit his alibi. Now that the Crown have a 'new' time scenario Kleintjes appears to have had 2nd thoughts. Some readers will remember that Kleintjes evidence in the Bain case was an important reason in having David Bains convictions overturned and will most likely be an important reason why David Bain will be paid compensation. Furthermore, Kleinjtnes did not clone a lap top found in the house despite police notes showing that he was asked to do so. He couldn't 'recall' being asked, even though he was a member of the police and there specifically as a computer expert. Hislop put it to him that he, Kleintjes, had found evidence on the lap top, which didn't fit the Crown case.

The Crown say the Lundy marriage was a bad one, while the late mother of Christine and late father of Mark say it was a happy marriage and that Mark was devoted to the bright, charming, 7 year old Amber. There is sinister talk about a new insurance policy and of course the public will soon hear from the prison inmate who will claim that Mark told him why he had to kill Amber. This case is looking like an attempt to scrape a barrel that has already been scraped clean of any evidence that supported the last Crown case, let alone the new one that appears to have been invented in the last 2 years and which contradicts the first to the point that some 'experts' from the first trial are now irrelevant to the Crown cause whereas formerly they were key components.

This case is very disquieting now. Suddenly for some observers, in a trial which has polled opinions as high as 70% guilty against Lundy, there will be some concern, even alarm that the 'system' fights to save face rather than impartially present all the relevant evidence and provide no investment or opinion one way or the other. The Lundy case demonstrates in graphic detail how in NZ the Crown may get it wrong, deliberately hide facts or evidence, even plant evidence and be allowed to 'give it another go.'

No comments:

Post a Comment