Supreme Court Fails In Lundy Case,

Today the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of Mark Lundy against the convictions for the deaths of his wife Christine and daughter Amber. In 140 paragraphs the Court either did not grasp the science of the case or chose to use support evidence which was not convincing.

The link to the decision can be found here: https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/mark-edward-lundy-v-r-1/?searchterm=Lundy

It's a long read but I will summarise the main details and in some instances cite the paragraph.

Essentially the Court agrees with the Crown that material said to Central Nervous System (CNS) found in 2 spots on Lundy's was that of his wife. Not because the CNS tested for Christine's DNA but rather the shirt material around it did so. The Defence explained this by pointing out the error of only sampling shirt material around the spots (which although microscopice - the Court referred to as 'lumps'). No reason was offered why the lumps were not observed for some 54 days and why the shirt was never kept within the forensic safety chain afforded to all other exhibits. Instead the shirt was left in the safe of the Officer in Charge Grantham - who said he did not want Lundy to find out about it. He never explained how Lundy would have found out about it and what he could have possibly done anyway - such nonsense put this debacle of Justice afloat.

There is a scientific term for false appreciation of DNA called the DNA association fallacy which would apply if a shirt such as Lundy's was only tested in 2 spots rather than multiple spots to compare amounts of DNA found at each spot. In other words, in this case to show that Christine's DNA was only in the area of the spots and not elsewhere on the shirt. There is numerous scientific data on this which shows before a declaration can be made that DNA is in 'association' for example to only 2 spots on a shirt and not the shirt in entirety, other areas on the shirt must also be tested. Other papers describe the ready and common circumstance of spousal DNA found on partners clothing even after going through the wash. Apart from that the main point is that no DNA was found within the alleged CNS but rather in an elution wash used on the 2 shirt cut-outs, so no exclusion of DNA being over the entire shirt from co-habitation or transfer. Exclusion is a word you will read here again later. The Court framed that there was an inference that 'DNA evidence justified that the tissue was from Mrs Lundy's brain'. (para 10)

The Court referred to Lundy's first Trial where Defence conceded it was Christine's brain but that it was there by contamination because of the narrow time scope available to ML to have driven to his home in Palmerston North from Wellington, commit the murders, clean up and return. Note here that the Crown case has been fluid throughout - notably an exact time of death (TOD) in Trial 1 became an 'open' TOD at the retrial as being anytime between when mother and daughter were last seen alive until their bodies were discovered - some fifteen hours later. (para 15)

The Privy Council decision on this case some 60 odd pages from memory and exhaustive in it's detail was mentioned in only 1 para in the SC Judgement (para 17.) It's worth mentioning here that NZ Courts are yet to have acknowledged a Miscarriage of Justice in any of the major controversial murder convictions overturned in the last 40 years or so. Thomas was a Royal Pardon, Bain, Lundy and Pora all needed to go outside the Country to the Privy Council for remedy. Of those only Lundy has not been finally exonerated, along with Scott Watson whose case was rejected by the Privy Council but which was being prepared to return there when the late Greg King passed away. That case like that of Lundy's has significant issues with the science used, with both Lundy and Watson cases having at least 1 common ESR scientist who in both cases offered that word 'exclusion.'

(Para 18) records that Justice Kos at a hearing on the admissibility of a Junk Science mRNA noted that all witnesses agreed that the stained fabric agreed that the stained fabric (from the shirt) contained CNS tissue.  A lot different than all witnesses agreeing that stained fabric contained CNS tissue from Christine Lundy.

In (Para 90) The Court rejects that Christine may have sneezed mucus DNA onto exactly the same 2 places, Rather than explain the ridiculousness of the idea of 'onto exactly the same 2 spots' watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnafrAtfMzE.

In the same para the Courts speaks about the CNS being fresh enough to smear on a shirt without a probable and provable explanation why it was not deteriorated on contact with air as all other CNS found in the crime scene was. The following para (91) also on the shirt, confirms the soundness of the forensic safety chain without mentioning Grantham keeping the shirt outside the forensic safety chain, and not surrendering it to the exhibits officer who would evidence to say that in all his years in the police force that had never happened before. Remember Grantham was concerned that Lundy 'not find out about the shirt' - that he blinking well owned and told police he had been wearing.

Here comes that word 'excluded' in para (97); "Paint on tools found in the garage could not be excluded as coming from the same source as the orange paint on one of the fragments found on the bedroom and 4 of those taken from Mrs Lundy's body." Just this week an American Lydell Grant was freed pending a fresh examination of the case by a Texas District Attorney after retesting of Lydell's DNA which had been deemed to be unable to be 'excluded' as that being found under a murder victim's fingernails was retested by the Texas Innocence Project and found not only not to belong to Lydell,  but to match a known felon. "Not excluded" apparent in both the Lundy and Watson cases is fake and misleading evidence.

As for painted tools I think even children know that a mechanic's or dad's tools may have paint on the handles but never on the striking edge of a hammer or the blade of an axe.

Para (104) is an important para which displays illogical reasoning by the Court. "Killer must have been covered in blood and brain tissue left outside the master bedroom and the doorway and hall where Amber's body was found, suggesting that the killer shed exterior clothing before leaving the house." When in fact the killer or killers (remembering there was fingernail DNA found under both victims nails as in the case of Lydell Grant above) DNA of 2 unknown males was found under the nails of both Amber and Christine. The Court of Appeal offered that could have resulted from the pair shaking hands. Simply shake another person's hand to discover fingernails do not contact the other persons hands when shaking. That DNA came from persons police have never found, there is no evidence that police ever checked for matches on their data base or asked any of the 100 or so suspects to provide DNA. We have to ask why not. Just as we have to ask why Grantham, the man who hid the shirt, took back 21 hairs found in Christine's hands and 'lost them.'

In Para (126) where explaining an open ranch slider door noticed by a neighbour at the Lundy house around 11am shortly after Christine turned off her computer was of no moment: "It is more likely that Mrs Lundy had not yet shut the door before going to bed." That is she left the door open in the middle of winter, her husband away, until 11am at night with her young daughter sleeping alone in another room at a time where there had been recent burglaries in the neighbourhood.

Para (132) discusses motive. This where Mark, cold and calculating, takes advantage of Christine increasing their insurance cover from 200,000 to $500,000 and kills her and Amber. Good in theory but the increase had not taken effect on the 30th of August when the murders happened. And the alleged financial strife the couple were in needed to settled for $300,000. Other evidence would show that had the sale collapsed the vendor may well have sold at a better price, something that was later achieved

Para (134) excludes other offenders. That is despite the 2 unknown men not being found, or the donor of unknown fingerprints and footprints being located, the palm hairs ever being tested before they got 'lost.' And no DNA tests attempted from the fingerprints to match the DNA from the nails - or indeed the palm hairs conveniently lost.

Note that in Watson 2 hairs were found after around 6 searches. In Lundy hairs were found immediately and then lost - something can't be excluded from that.

Cheers.