Mark Lundy's recent appeal to the Supreme Court remains under deliberation. For anyone objective who attended the hearing there must be more doubt about Lundy's guilt than ever before. The 2 main points of the Appeal were whether the retrial had been unfair and secondly if the Proviso should have been exercised after certain scientific evidence was thrown out by the Court of Appeal (COA). The Proviso permits that notwithstanding that a trial may have been a Miscarriage of Justice, the court may decide to exercise the proviso of letting the verdict stand on the basis of 'inevitable guilt.'
The COA were satisfied that no miscarriage had taken place because of the association of Christine Lundy's DNA on Lundy's shirt near the contested spot of alleged human central nervous tissue (CNS.) In fact witnesses for both the Crown and defence had told the retrial Jury that the quantity or quality of DNA didn't not tell a specific story such as the COA held true. In fact a minor amount of DNA might indicate guilt whilst a large amount may not, the same issue goes to 'quality.' Unusual to say the least that the COA had not noted that witness evidence or indeed researched the matter themselves. Had they done so it seems they would have ordered a new trial for Mark Lundy.
The other point about a 'fair trial' putting endless legal argument aside is whether or not having heard evidence that the alleged CNS was more likely than not human had influenced the Jury. It would be naive to think it had not, it crossed the last bridge linking Christine's DNA, CNS, human = murder.
The Supreme Court (SC) heard that the 'spot' did not contain Christine's DNA - a big problem for the Crown producing major doubt. For animal DNA to be found instead in the wash from the fabric surrounding the spot complicated 'guilt' even more. The SC heard of purchases of meat by Mark in the days before the killings. It also heard that there was no way of telling how long the spots had been on the shirt. Jonathan Eaton said that the weak signals of animal food chain DNA may have resulted from fatty tissue contact. In my opinion the weak signal is consistent with being the minority of DNA whilst Christine consistent with that of being the spouse. There were no animals in the Lundy household let alone animals considered part of the food chain.
That aside a lot of misinformation was remedied. Not in order here a few of things. Mark Lundy's tools were not used in the murders and the paint on the tools did not match the paint found on Christine. Furthermore Jonathan Eaton pointed out that there is not necessarily a connection between the attacker and the paint flakes because none were found on Amber. Furthermore he said that no one paints the blade on their tools an obvious point possibly not considered before. Phillip Morgan for the Crown had told the Court on day 2 that a witness Tupai was all over the place in his evidence and not sure the date when he saw the lights on a ranch slider open at the Lundy home at 11pm. The next morning he corrected that for the Court saying that the light on claim was confirmed by Tupai's phone bill but that he'd seen the lights on consecutive nights. Later Jonathan Eaton told the Court that it was recognized from the evidence that Christine was security conscious and it was unlikely she would have a door left open at 11pm. He followed that up by pointing out that at 11pm there was no doubt that Lundy was in Wellington.
Jonathan Eaton politely pushed over Morgan's 'theory' that because there was no sign of offenders moving about in the house that it must have therefore been Lundy - hardly logical at all. He also asked about the fingernail DNA of 2 male strangers found on the mother and daughter's hands, the untested 21 hairs found in Christine's hands along with the 40 fibres none of which matched Lundy's shirt or clothing, the lack of blood in his car and so on and the stupidity about the jewellery box being taken into ML's car covered in blood.
So the law was interesting regarding what a fair trial is, and when the proviso might fairly be used. Overall, it's hard to argue that ML has ever had a fair trial - there has always controversial or hidden evidence. However the best thing to emerge was the real narrative as to why Mark Lundy looks completely innocent - including that when the Crown tried to prove their 2 trip theory and fuel consumption they relied on manufacturer's fuel consumption specs. Which reminds me that the COA would not consider fuel consumption figures arising from tests on a race track, saying that a race track and street roads don't compare - clearly the COA had not read the details in the file that Mark was clocked at speeds of 140 to 180 ks per hour on his madcap home to his family managing to average 100ks per hour.
The truth is seeping out.
No comments:
Post a Comment