NOSTALGIA-NZ: Dr Pang please tell the truth.

For those that may which to read, there follows part of the cross examination of Pang at the re-trial giving evidence as to why he as able to give a TOD in the first trial accurately at 7.15 in the evening, being approximately an hour after it is presumed Christine and Amber ate a Mcdonald's meal, only to say in the retrial that he was able to 'extend' that time to 3am in the morning. Of course because of Lundy's inability to be in 2 places at once if he were the killer the times of death couldn't have been during a time it was known he was in Wellington spending time with a prostitute. One could say that Pang's change of times was conveniently helpful to the Crown essentially dropping 1 case and replacing it with another at short notice.

Anyway I suggest for those that read it, that another irony is Pang writing to TVNZ after a documentary made by Bryan Bruce in 2010 estimating that the times of death in the Lundy case were at 2am and Pang's strong denial of that.

My opinion is that Pang's evidence was so compromised beyond his autopsy finding that it shouldn't have been put to the Jury, and is a large part of the reason Lundy was reconvicted when the evidence points to his innocence. This case may not be a popular cause but don't close your mind to the real facts. A dodgy and changing time of death, firm for a dozen years then dropped, a dodgy tiny spot on a shirt 'analysed' by an American Doctor in an unauthorised for forensic purposes laboratory who gave evidence that he would have been prohibited to give in a USA Court because of lack accreditation, qualification, a safe forensic audited path way, lack of providence on a parallel test he made on his own work in the same unauthorised lab. Dodgy with a capital of D, 2 Ds helpful for the comment dumb and dumber. Don't be fooled. Remember this case involves a man who for a dozen years was said to have when dressed as woman to have been seen running from the murders in the early evening.

Q. You are familiar aren't you with schedule 4, the Code of Conduct for

10 Expert Witnesses?

A. No, sorry.

Q. You're not? Well perhaps I’d better show you a copy.

A. Okay, yeah.

Q. Thank you Mr Crier.

15 WITNESS REFERRED TO CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EXPERT

WITNESSES

Q. Paragraph 1 you'll see Dr Pang, “An expert witness has an overriding

duty to assist the Court impartially on relevant matters within the experts

area of expertise.” “2; an expert witness is not an advocate for the party

20 who engages the witness.” Basically, Dr Pang, that means you're not

here to just bat for one side. You've got a duty to the Court to be

impartial?> snip

20 Q. Okay, now can we start again and can I have an answer to my question.

The learned Judge a moment ago established from you that there was a

difference between your position back then, at trial one, and your

position now and you accepted that that was so. Now I want to know

when it was that you changed your mind. Now, first of all, before you

25 answer that, do you understand the question?

A. I, I would think so, yes, yeah.

Q. All right, well can I have an answer please?

A. The answer to that is I gave an estimate at the previous trial and the

present knowing the limitation of estimating the time of death with

30 gastric contents would rather state the only certain time I knew and that

death could have occurred is between the 14 hour bracket.

Q. Dr Pang, let us try again. When did you change your mind? You told

the learned Judge you had changed your position?

A. Yes.

2125

Q v M LUNDY – CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)

Q. I want to know when it was that you changed your position?

A. I would think that’s after the Privy Council judgment which you clarify

and emphasise the limitation which I already mentioned at the first trial.

Q. Well you would agree with me wouldn’t you that there is nowhere in any

of the material before the Privy Council that suggested 5 that it might take

some 14 hours and still someone has a full stomach. That’s right isn't

it?

1500

A. They are just, because it's a biological process there are a lot of

10 variables. In a normal subject it is unlikely but it is giving an estimate

without know all the variables affecting any individuals. So for the

majority of individuals that is correct but there is a minority, maybe even

a significant minority when the situation could be different. So to give an

answer that is certain I could only stay within the normal time of that

15 14 hour bracket but that's different from giving an estimate which I

already said will be imprecise because it's a biological process, it's

subject to variables and I would defer to a physiologist, a

gastroenterology to define that range and the limit at the last trial. I did

not attempt to give a range or a time bracket myself because it wasn't

20 my area of expertise.

Q. You told us a few moments ago that what changed your mind caused

you to change your position is what occurred before the Privy Council,

yes?

A. That's correct, yes.

25 Q. The affidavit of Professor Knight you've been asked about, that was

before the Privy Council, yes?

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. And you read the contents of that, yes?

A. Yes.

30 Q. And that he, according to him, normal healthy adult from time of eating

to emptying, having an empty stomach after a normal meal, three to four

hours and then he stretches it to six as a limit, that's what

Professor Knight says, yes?

A. Yes.

2126

Q v M LUNDY – CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)

Q. So that can't have changed your mind about one to 14 hours delay, can

it?

A. Not on that basis, no.

Q. Professor Paul Ciclitira, his affidavit put the limit of about just six or just

over six hours eating to empty 5 stomach, do you agree?

A. Yes.

Q. Can't have been his affidavit that made you change your mind, could it?

A. No.

Q. Professor Diamant? Paragraph 196 I think it is of Truscott he refers to,

10 referred to in Bernard Knight’s affidavit. He again postulates two to

three hours eating to emptying in a normal adult but would be pushed to

six hours. That's right, isn't it?

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. So that can't have changed your mind to one to 14, could it?

15 A. No.

Q. Tell me, who asked you to change your mind?

A. I’d – please, can I refer you to that affidavit that I gave for the

Privy Council?

Q. In that affidavit you did not suggest one to 14 hours or anything even

20 approaching it?

A. No but I quoted a paragraph from Professor Knight which he stated, “In

the majority of individuals emptying of the stomach with an average

meal is within three to four hours and is up to six hours for a heavy

meal,” which is in fact the evidence I gave at the, the first trial about,

25 specifically talking about an anaesthetic but he also added a paragraph,

“That even though the greater majority of individuals there’s a minority

when this limit, the time limit would not apply and this could be even a

significant minority and therefore we cannot place an estimate on such

shifting sand as stomach contents.” And that he say, the thing I follow

30 on to be on the safe side was to not even estimate but if you ask me

about the time that is certain that is a time bracket of 14 hours. So I

have not been talked into changing my mind by anyone.

1505

2127

Q v M LUNDY – CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)

Q. Okay. We know, of course – tell me this, just continuing as to the timing

of your change of position. You say it was after the Privy Council.

A. Just about the time.

Q. Sorry, just about that time?

5 A. Yes, yes.

Q. Well I’ll tell you what, did you ring up London when the revelation

dropped in your mind and said, “Look, hey, I got it really wrong in the

first trial”? Did you contact anyone?

A. No I have not been in touch with anyone in London.

10 Q. Well what about the police or Crown law, did you go to them and say,

“Look, I’m dreadfully sorry but having reflected on the, what the

Privy Council have said, I think I got it wrong.” Did you?

A. No I’ve not been in touch with anyone concerning this case.

Q. Well tell me, see we know and the Judge – the jury will find out in due

15 course, we didn't know until mid-January of this year that the

prosecution changed their theory about when the time of death was. It

used to be early.

A. Mhm.

Q. First trial.

20 A. Yes.

Q. And then it became late, second trial?

A. Yes, mmm.

Q. Now your – you've changed as well and what I want to know is whether

that’s a coincidence or not?

25 A. It is not a coincident. I could refer you to a printout I got from a east

Midland forensic pathology unit which I came across at the time of

preparing my affidavit for the Privy Council and this applies to forensic

pathology in general. If I may just read out a relevant paragraph. Just,

“Although a number of investigative tools are available to the pathologist

30 to assist in the consideration of this question, that is the time since

death, it must be borne in mind that no matter which tool is used the

opinion proffered is only an estimation. All that can be said, with any

certainty, is that the deceased died sometime between the last time that

they were seen alive and the time they were discovered.” And on the

2128

Q v M LUNDY – CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)

basis of this I would say it’s not therefore safe to give any estimate of

time to be, which may be misinterpreted as a time of any accuracy or

certainty. So it is not following the prosecution’s case which I am not

party to determine a time, changing of time from 7 o'clock to early

morning. There was – 5 I have no party in that area.

Q. Okay.

A. And I did not know of the change in time until I’d read that in the media.

Q. Okay, well –

THE COURT:

10 Q. Can I just be clear here. As I’ve understood it your one to 14 is;

one hour is gastric juices to kick in, 14 is the length of time that elapsed

between the two periods when someone, or the last period when

someone spoke to Mrs Lundy and when she was, her body was

discovered?

15 A. Except Your Honour, is the more between zero to 14 hours.

Q. Zero to 14 hours?

A. Yes.

Q. So the evidence that Mr Hislop is putting to you about what, are they

gastroenterologists or –

20 MR HISLOP QC

Both, a mixture of both.

THE COURT:

Q. – are saying, are you disputing that?

A. Sorry, I –

25 Q. If they say, based on this case it couldn’t be more than six hours after

food was eaten, are you disputing that as an expert or not?

A. I’m not disputing that, I think it should apply to the majority of individuals.

CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUES: MR HISLOP QC

Q. So you would accept in the majority of individuals it takes, at the

30 outside, about six hours for the stomach to go from full to empty?

2129

Q v M LUNDY – CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. And to be fair on you that’s a view that you've held for quite a long time

isn't it?

A. That's correct, yes.

5 1510

Q. Because I think it was in November, 30th of November 2010 you were in

correspondence with TVNZ about a certain TV programme and you

were complaining because you thought that the broadcaster had been

unfair and misleading?

10 A. That's correct yes.

Q. Okay. And the crucial issue in the, in that complaint of yours – and what

I’m going to do is put a copy of it for – I’ve got a copy of it here and we

have a copy for the Crown. We’ve got a copy for the Court.

Your Honour it may assist the jury because there is a little bit of material

15 that they have a copy to follow through. You will recall that the

broadcaster, a Mr Bruce was opining a time of death about 2.00 am in

the morning –

A. That’s correct, yes.

Q. – that was his hypothesis?

20 A. That's correct yes.

Q. And it’s right, isn’t it, that you were essentially saying in your complaint

that you didn’t accept that as a hypothesis at all, do you agree, you were

disagreeing with him?

A. That's correct yes.

25 Q. And I think you set out the reasons why you disagreed with him and you

said, “Yes,” and this is page 5, if you want to follow, of your letter of the

30th of November 2010 and it’s almost half way down the page, the last

sentence of the second paragraph on that page and you're explaining,

“Yet at post-mortem the stomachs were full of food, it was photographed

30 as undigested,” and that’s what you were talking about Christine and

Amber Lundy, do you agree?

A. I beg your pardon, what page?

Q. I’m sorry, page 5.

A. Yes.

2130

Q v M LUNDY – CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)

Q. And it’s the second paragraph and it’s the last sentence of that

paragraph.

A. Sorry...

Q. “Yet at post-mortem the stomachs were full and food was photographed

as undigested.” 5 Then you go on, “So –

THE COURT ADDRESSES MR HISLOP QC – PAUSE (15:14:00)

THE COURT:

Q. So count in five pages from the front Dr Pang.

A. Yes.

10 Q. And you should have a page that starts, “There are however significant

problems,” is the first line.

A. Yes thank you Your Honour.

Q. Got that – then go down, the second paragraph is, “Mr Bruce,” and the

third is, “A routine day”?

15 A. Yes.

Q. Okay, just about “routine day” you're being read the last two sentences,

“Yet at post-mortem...”?

A. Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUES: MR HISLOP QC

20 Q. “Yet at post-mortem the stomachs were full and food was photographed

as undigested.” So Mr Bruce’s assertion of 2.00 am or 3.00 am does

not work, do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were basing that assertion on that the six hour outside limit

25 from eating to stomach empty, yes?

A. That's correct, yes.

1515

Q. And you go on and you start to provide reasons, other reasons why

you're right and Mr Bruce has got it wrong. You say, “A routine

30 day-to-day situation can help us understand the time gastric emptying

takes. I gave evidence on this point at Court although Mr Bruce did not

2131

Q v M LUNDY – CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)

make any mention of it in his programme. This is that when patients

require a general anaesthetic for surgery to prevent aspiration of

stomach contents which can cause morbidity and even fatality, patients

are asked to fast, nil by mouth for a minimum of six hours.” As an

example, an information sheet from the Royal 5 Free Hospital and I think

you included that in your letter and you quote, “Having nothing to eat for

a minimum of six hours before surgery in this way we can assure that

your stomach is empty of all food.” And then you go on, “This is also

pointed out in the text book edited by Jason Payne James and Others,”

10 an you've referred to that in an appendix to your letter, referred to the

above, “In normal individuals prior to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy a

six hour nil per mouth period ensures that initially every stomach is

empty irrespective of precise food type and that often a four hour period

will ensure that the stomach is empty.” Now is that something that you

15 have obtained from that text you refer to?

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. And you go on, “Doctors accept six hours is enough to empty one’s

stomach for general anaesthetic and surgery in day-to-day hospital

practices. Using the same six hour rule we can expect Christine and

20 Amber’s stomachs to be empty by or before midnight (six hours after

eating at 6.00 pm) empty enough to be safe for surgery. And you go in,

“And probably earlier at 10.00 pm if we apply Dr Knight’s two to four

hours for most people and often a four hour period will ensure the

stomach is empty.” And this is you quoting from this textbook that your

25 referring the Chief Executive to the TVNZ to, is that right?

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. And then you say, “The demonstration of significant stomach contents at

Christine and Amber’s post-mortem therefore makes Mr Bruce’s

assertion of death at 2.00 am or even 3.00 am quite wrong.” Do you

30 agree that's what you were saying then?

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. And do you agree, are you saying that that is still right today?

A. That is correct for the majority of individuals.

2132

Q v M LUNDY – CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)

Q. And then you go on, “Therefore the thesis of Mr Bruce’s presentation

and assertion that murders occurred at 2.00 am is inaccurate, it is

misleading to the viewers,” yes?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And you go on at the last page of that 5 letter, “Mr Bruce’s solution which

is that the murders took place at 2.00 am simply does not work,” yes?

A. Yes, correct, yes.

Q. And that was your view then and that's your view now, is that right?

A. That's my view now for the majority of individuals.

10 Q. Among the reports that you doubtless have read is a report of the

12th of February 2015 from a Professor Horowitz. Have you seen that

report?

A. No I haven't.

MR HISLOP QC ADDRESSES THE COURT – EARLY ADJOURNMENT

15 COURT ADJOURNS: 3.19 PM

2133

Q v M LUNDY – CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)

COURT RESUMES: 3.41 PM

CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUES: MR HISLOP QC

Q. Dr Pang, over the short adjournment have you had an opportunity to

look at the report dated the 12th of 5 February of this year by

Professor Michael Horowitz?

A. Yes I have.

Q. You would agree wouldn’t you that he is very well respected in this

particular area?

10 A. Yes, correct, yes.

Q. You will see that it’s his view that your observations that no gastric

emptying had commenced was really the crucial point in the case of

Christine and Amber Lundy?

A. That's correct, yes.

15 Q. And indeed I think that was, in fairness to you, your position for a very

long time, yes?

A. It was my position beforehand, that is still my position now.

Q. And because Professor Horowitz says that generally trying to determine

time of death by gastric contents is by and large unreliable. That’s his

20 first premise isn't it?

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. But he says, doesn’t he, that this case presents a circumstance where it

can be reliable if you were accurate in your findings that the digestive

process had not started, do you agree?

25 A. Yes, yes, that's correct.

Q. That's correct. And so, in essence he says, if Dr Pang’s right in his

observations, what he could and couldn’t see in the small intestine, if

he’s accurate then I can determine time of death in the order of about

tQ. You are familiar aren't you with schedule 4, the Code of Conduct for

10 Expert Witnesses?

A. No, sorry.

Q. You're not? Well perhaps I’d better show you a copy.

A. Okay, yeah.

Q. Thank you Mr Crier.

15 WITNESS REFERRED TO CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EXPERT

WITNESSES

Q. Paragraph 1 you'll see Dr Pang, “An expert witness has an overriding

duty to assist the Court impartially on relevant matters within the experts

area of expertise.” “2; an expert witness is not an advocate for the party

20 who engages the witness.” Basically, Dr Pang, that means you're not

here to just bat for one side. You've got a duty to the Court to be

impartial?

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. Right now let us, knowing that, let us look at the evidence that you gave

25 at trial and see where it takes us.

THE COURT ADDRESSES MR HISLOP QC – LAST TRIAL (14:38:06)

CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUES: MR HISLOP QC

Q. And so if you pick up in front of you the transcript please and let me take

you to a number of passages and we will see whether we can find your

30 rough estimate.

A. Yes.

Q. Page 802 at the top please. And it’s line 17.

2118

Q v M LUNDY – CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)

A. Mhm.

Q. I’ll take it back. The learned prosecutor said this at line 16, “I want to

come back to this after we’ve dealt with the post-mortem of Amber but

can you describe, in brief terms, the stomach contents as you saw

them?” And your answer was this, “The 5 stomach contained a large

meal consisting of potato chips and probably fish, which showed no

obvious signs of digestion and no obvious smell of gastric juices.” “And

doctor, do you confirm that this is a routine part of a post-mortem

examination to inspect the stomach contents?” “That's correct, yes.”

10 THE COURT ADDRESSES MR HISLOP QC – REFERENCE PAGE

(14:39:32)

CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUES: MR HISLOP QC

Q. And you agree that that’s an accurate reflection of what was asked of

you and the answers you gave, yes?

15 A. Yes that's correct.

1440

Q. And then can I take you to 823 please and you're still being asked

questions by the learned prosecutor. Now I'm going to have to take you

through most of this page. “Dr Pang, you told us you examined as you

20 routinely do, the stomach contents of both Christine and Amber?” Your

answer is, “That's correct, yes.” “And you found what you described as

a large meal in both stomachs, appeared to you to be fish and potato

chips?” “That's correct.” “Page 125 that shows food particles,” you've

been referred to a photograph, “taken from the stomach of

25 Christine Lundy?” “That's correct, yes.” “And to the right of the

photograph is what, is part of a meal, and you say, “Potato chips.” And

then it goes on, “And to the left they appear to be what?” And you say,

“Some fragment of fish.” Now I think we actually have a copy of the

contents of Christine Lundy’s stomach and I wonder if you could have a

30 look at it please. Does that look like the photograph that you're referring

to and that which was being put to you in trial one?

2119

Q v M LUNDY – CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)

WITNESS REFERRED TO PHOTOGRAPH OF STOMACH CONTENTS OF

CHRISTINE LUNDY

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. I wonder if that could be shown to the jury perhaps. We have a smaller

5 version.

THE COURT ADDRESSES MR HISLOP QC – JURY COPIES (14:42:39)

CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUES: MR HISLOP QC

Q. Now I think we agreed that was the photo that you were being referred

to, yes?

10 A. Yes, that's correct, yes.

Q. And there then follows questions about how large the meal was and you

say, “In these two post-mortems,” sorry, this is a question being put to

you. “In these two post-mortems both stomachs are quite full and

contained a large meal which were quite identifiable as to the contents,

15 especially potato chips and it's also distinctive in the fact that you could

not smell gastric juices?” And you say, “No, I could not smell gastric

juices.” And then it goes on, “In the absence of that smell did that cause

you to signal an opinion at the time?” “Yes, just a mixture that I was

correct in not detecting, not smelling any gastric juices of which has the

20 smell of vomit,” and it goes on about gastric juices. And then at 824 at

the bottom, “Now having observed that there was no presence, and

that's presence of anything in the duodenum or no smell of gastric

juices, did that assist you?” Line 28.

THE COURT:

25 Q. Just pause. Dr Pang have you got 824?

A. Yes.

Q. About four lines from the bottom.

CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUES: MR HISLOP QC

Q. I’ll put this to you again.

30 A. Yes, yes.

2120

Q v M LUNDY – CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)

Q. You're being asked about what you observed and the question is, “Now

having observed that there was no presence, and the presence is

referring to what’s in the duodenum or what wasn't in the duodenum, or

no smell of gastric juices, did that assist you, and the observation of the

state of the food particles in determining a time 5 of death?” And you

said, “Yes it does.”?

1445

A. Mhm.

Q. And then it follows at 825, “And before we go onto your determination,”

10 this is the learned prosecutor, “Is there any limitation that you put on an

assessment of the time of death in these circumstances?” And you say,

“In regard,” you, you ask the question, “In regard to stomach contents?”

The prosecutor goes, “Yes.” And you say, “Yes there are factors would

affected digestive process in gastric emptying.” And the prosecutor

15 says, “Pardon, just repeat that please?” “There are factors that can alter

a timing of gastric emptying and the digestive process.” And the learned

prosecutor asks you, “Can you very slowly take us through the factors

that affect gastric emptying?” And you say, “And the most important

one is stress; physical, mental, emotional stress, may alter the timing. It

20 would delay the emptying of the stomach as well as the digestive

process.” And you go on and the prosecutor asks, “Well and in the

circumstances such as Christine and Amber, is that a factor that affects

the stomach emptying process?” And you say, “It might have been a

factor but it would be fairly limited in that taking the wounds of Christine

25 and Amber sustained, taking both the wounds that Christine and Amber

sustained, yes, death would have followed very soon after those

wounds were inflicted.” Then the prosecutor says, “So death would

have been soon after that?” “Yes.” “To the extent that psychological,

emotional stress or physical stress would affect gastric emptying or

30 digestion, it would only be a matter of minutes to alter the timing, at

most a few minutes.” And then the prosecutor goes, “At most a few

minutes?” And you say, “That's right.” Now, you accept that’s what you

were telling the Court?

A. That's correct, yes.

2121

Q v M LUNDY – CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)

Q. And that was some of the limitations that you've told us about earlier,

when I asked you about the distinction between what you are saying

now and what you were saying then, do you agree?

A. This limitation is specifically related to the physical injuries sustained.

5 Q. Mmm.

A. And not to, necessarily to other factors.

Q. Well you seem to be saying there that the – any psychological or stress

related delay in emptying of the stomach in this – on the facts of this

case, is limited to a few minutes, that’s what you seem to be saying,

10 yes?

A. At – this is really to, specifically only to the physical injuries at the time

of the attack because death follow quite soon after the injuries.

Q. Can I take you then back to line 23 of the same page and we’ll read it

again.

15 THE COURT:

Just before you do, can you just again clarify please what you say the doctor

said in 2002 and what you say he’s saying differently today so, just we’ve lost

the context – too much reading kind of loses the context.

MR HISLOP QC

20 Sure. What the, what the doctor said back then was time of death, one hour

after eating the meal. He refused to be pressed to one hour 15. He said back

then there were a number of variables that affect gastric emptying including

stress and psychological features but he said that they were restricted to

matters of minutes. What he’s said today is that I can't tell between one and

25 14 hours because there's too many variables and we’ll get to how tight he was

on that in a moment. I’m sorry it’s taken so long.

1450

THE COURT:

Q. Well let's just get a general answer first. Doctor, do you accept that the

30 general thrust of your evidence in 2002 was that the time of death was

likely to be an hour after the meal was eaten?

2122

Q v M LUNDY – CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)

A. Yes an estimate at that time, yes.

Q. And do you accept that you are now not saying that?

A. That's correct, yes, Your Honour.

Q. So you accept that you have changed in that extent?

A. It's now I 5 would not give an estimate.

Q. Of the length of time after the meal was eaten?

A. That's correct.

CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUES: MR HISLOP QC

Q. Page 831 please, trial one transcript. 831 and it's line 24. The learned

10 prosecutor puts the following to you, “So you were left with determining

the time of death by reference to stomach contents?” And your answer

is, “That is correct, yes.” And the learned prosecutor, “And based on

your examination and your experience and your knowledge what do you

say was the time of death by reference to the consumption, that is the

15 ingestion of the meal?” And you say, “Taking into consideration all the

factors I would estimate it be one hour,” do you agree that’s what you

were saying then?

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. And then the learned Judge at that time intervenes and he says, “One

20 hour after the ingestion?” And you say, “That is right Your Honour.”

Then your evidence proceeds, learned prosecutor, “Did you express

that view to the inquiry team at the conclusion of the post-mortem?” “I

did, yes.” “In each case?” “Yes, that is correct.” Then the learned

Judge, “So another way of putting it is that it takes about an hour for the

25 digestive gastric juices to flow?” And your answer was, “It would take

less than an hour.” So one hour’s the time bracket?” Your answer,

“Within an hour, within an hour, yes.” Do you agree that's the evidence

you gave back then?

A. Yes, that's correct.

30 Q. And at 838, and it's line 24, “Your opinion is that a death occurred within

one hour of Amber and Christine eating their meal?” And you say,

“That's correct.”

A. Yes.

2123

Q v M LUNDY – CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)

Q. And the learned prosecutor says, “So if Christine and Amber died at

10.30 pm you would say they ate at 9.30 pm?” “That would be correct.”

And the learned prosecutor, “When you say one hour do you accept that

there could be a margin of error in that?” And you say this, “Arriving at

the conclusion of one hour I've allowed for 5 the factors that may delay

gastric emptying.” Question, “Do you accept that there could be a

margin of error in your estimation of one hour?” And you say, “It will be,

it's possible to have a slight margin of error, as I said yesterday, if there

is a struggle or emotional upset there may be a delay in gastric

10 emptying but the extent of several minutes.” “So it could be an hour

10?” And you say, “Possible.” And by the way, this is

cross-examination not my learned friend the prosecutor. And then the

question is put to you by then defence counsel, “An hour and

15 minutes?” And you say, “Arriving at the conclusion of one hour I

15 would be quoting allowance for the margins or different factors.” “So

you could say the margins is more than an hour, maybe up to

10 minutes?” “It's possible, acceptable, but to stretch it beyond I don't

know how far you can stretch the limits of the factors because they

probably would require the expertise of a physiologist rather than a

20 pathologist.” And then it goes on, “So you are accepting that it could go

longer than an hour and a quarter in your opinion?” You say this, “My

opinion is that probably one hour would allow for the other factors in this

particular situation such as fatty food or some psychological upset, but

we can stretch it to one hour and 15. It is in, within my expertise to say

25 that.” So do you see you were saying, taking all the variables into

consideration, “I could stretch it to one hour 15 post eating,” that’s what

you were saying, do you agree?

1455

A. I was giving evidence as the pathologist but I would say the range is to

30 be defined by a gastroenterologist who I knew at the time would be

defining the range for me because I would say that I would not be quite

up to date with the latest information of the range. So the part I knew

would affect the delay is the delay following the physical injuries, those

few minutes refer specifically only to the few minutes after the

2124

Q v M LUNDY – CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)

sustaining, after sustaining injuries. So outside I would referred, defer to

the opinion of a gastroenterologist which I knew at the time would be

giving evidence.

Q. Dr Pang, what you said was this, “My opinion is that probably one hour

would allow for the other factors in this 5 particular situation, such as a

fatty meal, or some psychological upset, but we can stretch it to

one hour and 15 minutes. It is within my expertise to say that.”

A. Yeah, that part is, “within my expertise” is related to the wounds

because I would say the wou – that following those wounds they would

10 die within minutes.

Q. Dr Pang, in answer to His Honour’s questions a few moments ago you

accepted that you'd changed your position?

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. When did you change your position?

15 A. When I give the evidence the last time I said I was not giving evidence

as an expert in this area. The expert in the area will be the

gastroenterologist so I’m (inaudible 14:57:52), trying to define, to give a

limit of the factors I know, which is the physical injury following the

attack.