In the 3 days since Lundy was reconvicted a majority of opinion of his guilt still seems to be centred around his behaviour after the deaths of his wife and daughter, on the one hand he was able to resume work a few hours after their deaths with none of those he dealt with suspecting anything was wrong. On the other hand he behaved in a way that can be described as quite outlandish or more commonly describe as 'bad' or 'poor' acting after the deaths of Christine and Amber became known. Still, not hard scientific proof of his guilt or innocence either way.
Something worth reflecting upon is that in the first trial the jury, we now know, were sold a pup. The 'lundy 5 hundy' as it became known to describe the trip at break neck speed Lundy needed to make to have killed his family to fit with the now abandoned times of death the Crown earlier relied upon. It's worth considering that there might have also been a 'pup' in the second trial. That would have to be the argument that Lundy killed his 7 year old daughter because she woke during the attack on her mother. The source for that is of course the prison 'stoolie' whose credibility the Judge warned the Jury about in fine detail. Lets have a look at the claims by witness 'X' compared to the overall narrative forwarded by the Crown.
Lundy planned to kill his family, in particular to use an alibi of a prostitute in a city 150ks away from his home. Not a particularly thoughtful alibi most would agree, and certainly not one that would win approval from a Jury, even when warned, as this Lundy Jury was, to not judge Lundy on the fact that he used a prostitute. What did that require, well according to the Crown, it required Lundy not to appreciate, arguably naively, that nothing would happen on that 2 way trip which would bring him to the notice of others. He would also run the risk of leaving his car to be seen when he approached his home, or indeed parked his car there. Sharp planning and without risk or nonsense - remember this is a man who the Crown claimed went to great links to hide his crime. He apparently had no appreciation of the risk of being seen leaving the motel, entering his own home, having his car be seen, 'dropping' off evidence such as the murder weapon during all of this before returning to the motel unnoticed. Not seen leaving or returning from the motel, driving 600 ks and not seen entering or leaving his house - try putting yourself in that position and measure your confidence in such a plan. No tickets, no accidents, leaving a heavily populated area and returning unseen and on it goes.
Preferring not to rely on good or bad acting, I have difficult accepting that account. I have even greater difficulty that the man so carefully planning killing his loved ones chooses an axe. Yes, choosing an axe or something similar to hack his wife to death would not be considering the screams that were likely to bring attention from others, and in particular his daughter. For the case against Lundy to work on the basis that he was broke (there was plenty of evidence otherwise that he was simply operating a small business that was struggling, but getting along) and therefore needed to kill his wife - then why kill his daughter?
Because, the Crown say, 'X' said that Lundy gave that reason, conveniently helping the Crown explain away a chink its case. Rather than being satisfactory it simply raises more questions, questions that call out for more substantial proof. The axe was never found, no witnesses were ever produced to show Lundy owned an axe - in fact a neighbour loaned Lundy an axe when he needed to open up packaging of kitchen items for sale. No witness were produced to confirm any sightings of Lundy or his car that early morning. Reverting to the 'careful' planning again, it's difficult to believe that using an axe to kill somebody in a house where a child slept was careful. Lundy for example could have avoided blood splatter, noise and everything else by silently strangling Christine. Either Lundy was going to kill both Christine and Amber in a most brutal way or it has be accepted on the word of 'X' that Amber was accidentally woken during the commission of a careful plan that wasn't careful at all. The Crown cannot have it both ways, they now rely on a 'stoolie' who might well change his mind, or reveal that he stood to gain something for his evidence and lied. From the Judges summing up he was very careful to warn the Jury about 'X' but perhaps they were swept along by the way Lundy apparently 'acted' after the killings. Not immediately after, but when it is known he was told his wife and daughter were dead. For Lundy to drive that trip home knowing his wife and daughter were dead but needing to pretend that he was unaware of that would have been a test of fight or flight at the very least. Was the man who chose to use an axe absolutely sure he had not been seen, that he had not left incriminating evidence behind when he became the monster that slayed his wife and family but who could in a few short hours greet customers - I have doubts that are not overcome by what 'X' claims. Also, if Lundy was careful to act amiably and as if having all things together the morning after when meeting his customers, then why did that veneer reduce to transparent acting as it has been described. We are asked to believe he was smart, but then 'acted' stupidly. Surely a determined and cool planning assassin of his family would be astute enough not over 'egg' the mix that had already been 'finely' planned.
The first trial got sold on the 'Lundy 5 hundy' the second trial got sold the 'accidental awakening' of a child in a household of screams that then necessitated she be killed by her father, who in the earlier trial was said to have worn a disguise. Still not adding up as guilty beyond reasonable doubt.