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.