Sunday, May 8, 2016

Part of the Lundy con

The Lundy case has been 1 big con after the other. The critical time of death (tod) being no exception. Remember the Privy Council were not convinced by the time of death in their Judgement, an accurate time to quarter of an hour according to the pathlogist Dr Pang as being 7.15pm. Dr Pang didn't bother to take core temperature readings from the body and threw out photos of the stomach contents because he claimed they were of poor quality. He had no right to throw out those photos and it should have fallen upon the trial Judge France to comment adversely on that fact before the Jury. I haven't found any adverse comment from France on the matter and it is the reason why ever since the Thomas case, including Bain and others where the prosecution throw out evidence they get away with it. Even apparently photos said to be no good can be re-instated by photography experts but the Crown apparently didn't try they simply threw them out. The public might never know what those photos actually revealed, but the public will know that Pang could have taken more photos and that the camera he used only malfunctioned not once but twice in critical autopsy photos of both deceased stomach contents. Not once but twice the camera failed. Proof of that alleged failure? absolutely nothing that I am aware of. Proof opposing that, the photo that follows at the very bottom of this blog of 'chips' taken from the stomach of Christine Lundy, a photo that tells a far different story than which Pang and the Crown wanted the Jury to believe but which should be in the public forum so that people will understand how much of a sham the Lundy retrial appears to be.

Christine brought a McDonald's meal for she and her daughter at 5.38 pm. So approximate, but fairly accurate eating time would have been within 40 mins or so, giving a completion of eating the meal around 6.30pm. In the first trial Pang said time of death was 7.15 pm, firm on that. By the time of the retrial, well - in fact only 2 weeks before the retrial Pang, via the Crown, changed that time to be somewhere between 7.15 and 3am or so the next morning. So from specific time to general time, with the defence really given no time to prepare for the change - unfair, late notice, that ought to be appealed on its own basis, also for various other reasons some of which will be included here. The family computer which the Bain 'expert' computer witness Martin Kleintjies had claimed had been manipulated by Lundy as to it's turn off time at the first trial, resulted at the second trial in Kleintjies having his foot firmly in his mouth but it looks like the agreed, non 'manipulated' turn off time was 10.52pm. Just a reminder here 'experts' were changing their evidence at the retrial to suit a new Crown theory, one that didn't have the difficulty of the high speed car trip - but actually greater difficulties as time since the re-trial has shown. This point cannot be taken too lightly - in the Lundy case time of death, computer turn off times have already proved to have been manipulated by the Crown.

Included below is a forensic science paper in which stomach contents of a 100 deceased persons whose times of eating a last meal were known. It has some photos which readers may not wish to look at but the test itself spells out big trouble for the Lundy re-conviction.

I have used the figures from that paper to prepare the following details that narrow the time of death of Christine at least further than Pang was willing do at the retrial, such was the pressure on him to fit in with a new scenario. Following the paper is a photo 'unverified' by source but nevertheless of proven reliability of a single photo that did survive the throwing out of evidence. In the photo are shown chips taken from Christine's stomach which are identifiable. Cross referencing the forensic paper details the chips fit into Category 1 on that paper - identifiable food pre full or partial digestion (partial being not unidentifiable by category, ie that is meat, bread etc) and full leaving an empty stomach. Why 1 photo was kept and others discarded I can't accurately explain. I suspect because when people manipulate evidence to mislead, ie is change or hide things they move into difficult territory where the manipulator must be very smart and think of all the likely consequences or flaws in the manipulation - this could be one.

Some statistics from a paper which co-related examined stomach contents of a 100 deceased persons whose time of last eating before death was recorded in order to compare them with a exhibit of a photo of chips removed from the stomach of Christine Lundy:

If Christine ate around 6 to 6,30 the approximate time of death (tod) according to the recognizable chips was

6.30 to 8.30            @ 84%
8.30  to 10.30         @ 10.53%
10.30 to 12.30         @ 5.62%

And obviously after 12.30am zero percent. This is taken from category 1 (identifiable food found in the stomach.) The computer turn off time, because we don't know who turned it off is not critical, but at 10.45 That allowed a 5.62% chance that Christine turned it off, and a 0 percent chance that anybody else turned the computer off at anytime after 12.30.

Approaching these statistics from Lundy having an alibi until 1pm when the prostitute left his motel. Approximately half an hour (at the maximum time on the statistics) after Christine's stomach would have been entirely empty then he could not have killed her. Taken from the paper this assertion has greater weight for a jury than the Crown's case that the stomach contents at 7pm would be no different at 3am the next morning. There will be other papers to support this. Even the Crown's own witnesses have supported it, certainly in the first trial tom was closer to 6.30 to 8.30pm as was computer turn off time of 10.52 pm fitting in 5.63% probability of time of death judged by completness and recognition of stomach contents. As to the later probability of 5.63% tom death being 10.30pm to 12.30pm that figure increases to a 10.53% probability if Christine ate just 28 minutes after the estimated time of 6.30 pm - perhaps indicating that she may have finished off part of the shared meal after Amber had finished her meal.

The real point is, however, that there was no chance that if Christine had not turned off the computer at the time the computer showed, or even one of the bewildered Bain 'computer expert' Kleintjies estimates - that the killer was about to strike in less than 90 minutes (12.30am) when Lundy was still in Wellington according to the evidence of a Crown witness. That stretched estimate sits at the very outer limit but past that point the stomach contents of Christine would have been digested and the more likely tod being at least an hour earlier.

Read the paper yourself, look at the photo and decide if you have been conned or not.

Think about the prosecutors mantra in his closing address 'no man is entitled to have his wife's brain material on his shirt.' Without canvassing completely that issue, just remember the Crown witness who said the speck showed faint traces of animal central nervous system material and think of your own mantra. Perhaps, 'no deceased person should have fully formed chips in their stomachs 8 hour after eating.' At that rate what you eat for breakfast will be still formed in your stomach at dinner time and you wont be hungry.


  1. Who says they are McDonalds chips?

  2. Not me. But McDonald's was her last known meal. It's hardly likely that she went out leaving Amber at home asleep and bought chips from somewhere else, although no doubt the Crown will try to change things their theory for a third time.

  3. Replying to anonymous I think the testimony matters here: From 2001 trial.
    Dr Pang you told us you examined as you routinely do the stomach contents of both Christine and Amber.... 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 yes. [10]. Page 125 that shows food particles taken from the stomach of Christine Lundy ....That's correct yes. And to the right of the photograph is what part of the meal do you say....Potato chips And to the left they appear to be what.....Some [15] fragment of fish..... Yes.
    This photograph of Nostalgia's is the only survivor I am aware of. It must serve for both a 7 15pm death and a 3 am death for both victims. The tooth fairy is watching over....

  4. This is far worse that I thought Samson. Do you have Pang's evidence on this issue in 2015?

  5. I think my most recent post on your blog was to suggest Lundy's use of an escort, as an alibi, seemed limprobable to me.
    And the police description of "blood up the wall and onto the ceiling" above Christine's bed made me question how the killer(s) could have cleaned up enough to get back into a car without leaving a messful of evidence.
    So my opinion is that the 2 men and 1 woman seen by the housekeeper days earlier, were the killers, and that they didn't worry about cleaning up, or about leaving evidence in their vehicle.
    I also read one opinion by a NZ lady scientist who questioned why not one blood cell was found in the sample tested by Dr. Rodney I was guessing that the 'cerebro spinal fluid' was from an animal source, thoroughly, rinsed, and possibly added to a steak pie, eaten sometime by Lundy...but that's just my guess.
    I was also thinking, wouldn't a murderer at least have enough sense to burn the shirt(and all the clothes) worn during the murders?

  6. Hey Lee. I don't know about using an escort as an improbable alibi. It would probably be overthinking the details of the crime, not consistent with the improbability of leaving a motel in Wellington and entering his own home and committing horrible murders, then returning to the motel unseen.I'm not sure folks are disturbed enough about men hiring prostitutes that it would blind them to the other facts of this case that show Lundy is innocent.

    The blood is a big one as you point out. All that blood and cleaning up and 1 spot on a shirt that could be animal blood is very doubtful. I've seen a demonstration of a person removing overalls and where their hands would go to 'mush' in tiny, unclear samples which Miller discovered without blood or neurons present. I see what you mean by thoroughly 'rinsed' but didn't when first reading. Lundy must be the most efficient rinser in history. He rinsed out both blood and neurons from a speck on his shirt. The dumbest as well, instead of just taking the shirt off and throwing it away he treated the tiny speak to reduce it to having no blood and neurons so that anyone checking out his shirt would think he been bbquing.

  7. Here is an attempt to show people what is going on with judge France and the process

    First Pang says this

    James Shing Hung Pang states:
    My full name is James Shing Hung Pang
    I am a duly qualified and registered medical practitioner and pathologist.
    I have been asked by Detective Sergeant GRANTHAM to consider a time of death for Christine and Amber LUNDY Upon reviewing my post mortem reports for both Christine and Amber, I am able to say that from my examination of the stomach contents of both Christine and Amber, digestion had not commenced.
    The stomach contents showed no signs of digestion and no obvious smells of gastric juices.
    From these observations I can say that it appears both Christine and Amber ate their meals at about the same time.
    I would also say that because digestion had not commenced, I would estimate the time of death as being within an hour of eating.

    This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. It has been made by me knowing that I could be prosecuted for making a statement known by me to be false and intended by me to mislead.

    Dated at PALMERSTON NORTH this 10th day of JULY 2001. (signed James Pang)

    Then Judge Simon France extracts this conclusion 14 years later

    Q. He means Dr Pang said the only thing he would say is that she died sometime between when she was last seen alive and when her body was discovered?
    A. Well that would seem to be self-evident.
    Q. But certainly the outer limits, isn't it? I mean what Dr Pang was saying is I don't, I'm not willing as an expert to try and put a time on it within that period?

    How can we regard this as anything but a witch hunt when the judge encourages acceptance of this irreconcileably conflicted evidence? I hope there is a way of getting the COA to consider this nonsense in the context of a man's whole life.