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.
Showing posts with label Mark Lundy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Lundy. Show all posts
Saturday, September 7, 2019
Sunday, June 30, 2019
Lundy case hugely misunderstood.
Mark Lundy's case is due back in the Supreme Court later this year. The submissions by Jonathan Eaton QC and his team are a masterclass. From carefully reading them it is apparent how poorly the NZ courts have understood the case.
From the outset some of the public believe that Mark had his wife Christine's brain or spinal matter on his search. However it has never been proven that what was on the shirt sleeve was brain or spinal matter, let alone being human. No need to repeat the dodgy science used in the case which remains mired in controversy despite the Courts apparently apprehending otherwise.
What is less well known is that of the 2 marks, on the shirt Mark had voluntarily told the police he had worn earlier in the day on the night of the murders, all that was left for testing was a dab slide taken from the shirt sleeve. Internationally that dab slide was said to hold material that could not be tested. Consequently it was sent to an American who did not test the slide material because of its condition but instead tested 2 pieces of material cut out from the area around the small stains which were about the size of a pinhead.
That wasn't the reason for the trip of course and it has taken many years for it to become known that the area tested was already said to have been 'consumed' in unsuccessful earlier testing in NZ. I think everyone accepts that an empty glass contains no liquid - the empty glass in this case somehow became full again, something never heard by either of the Lundy Jury's.
What was said to have been taken from the empty shirt spots was material later fixed in paraffin which under 'testing,' not designed or approved for that purpose, was said to have located brain material. In a test 14 years later that material would be found to be from the animal food chain, cow, beef or pork. To overcome that somehow the Crown found a 'expert' who was able to say the material was human by the margin of 58% to 42% with an unknown success or failure rate. That evidence, heard by the Jury at Mark's retrial, allowed the prosecutor to say 'no man should have his wife's brain on his shirt.' Post trial that evidence was ruled inadmissible.
However the Court of Appeal said that didn't matter and they exercised the proviso which the Law says can be done so when guilt is inevitable. Unfortunately that test was changed by the COA to one of beyond reasonable doubt - a world first in British, Australia and New Zealand Courts, It is difficult to understand how the Court could make such a mistake and first look, that might have been deliberate to keep the controversial case under a lid.
Later it can be seen why that decision is important, and to do that we have to again go back to the paraffin blocks said to contain material which NZ scientists said had been consumed. Those paraffin blocks were tested for Christine's DNA but it was not found. However the NZ COA, not deterred by that made another major 'mistake', because elsewhere on the shirt was found Christine's DNA, just as would happen with any male's shirt from his partner and vice versa. However it needed to have been within the spot where the animal DNA was found, to have been directly associated with Christine as being her own - within the biological material not near it.
So let's go over that again, 2 small spots completely inconsistent with blood splash that left the silhouette of Christine's killer on the wall. A silhouette for which there is precious little information. I have not heard of any reconstruction of that silhouette for which it might have been determined the size of the offender, a relatively easy process but not something it is known that investigators looked into. Nevertheless the 2 small spots were consumed in testing by NZ scientists who found nothing incriminating within them, however the spots go along with the shirt to America and hello there is something there again, and the slide taken from those spots also in America is not tested despite that the material on it is visible upon it under microscope.
From the outset some of the public believe that Mark had his wife Christine's brain or spinal matter on his search. However it has never been proven that what was on the shirt sleeve was brain or spinal matter, let alone being human. No need to repeat the dodgy science used in the case which remains mired in controversy despite the Courts apparently apprehending otherwise.
What is less well known is that of the 2 marks, on the shirt Mark had voluntarily told the police he had worn earlier in the day on the night of the murders, all that was left for testing was a dab slide taken from the shirt sleeve. Internationally that dab slide was said to hold material that could not be tested. Consequently it was sent to an American who did not test the slide material because of its condition but instead tested 2 pieces of material cut out from the area around the small stains which were about the size of a pinhead.
That wasn't the reason for the trip of course and it has taken many years for it to become known that the area tested was already said to have been 'consumed' in unsuccessful earlier testing in NZ. I think everyone accepts that an empty glass contains no liquid - the empty glass in this case somehow became full again, something never heard by either of the Lundy Jury's.
What was said to have been taken from the empty shirt spots was material later fixed in paraffin which under 'testing,' not designed or approved for that purpose, was said to have located brain material. In a test 14 years later that material would be found to be from the animal food chain, cow, beef or pork. To overcome that somehow the Crown found a 'expert' who was able to say the material was human by the margin of 58% to 42% with an unknown success or failure rate. That evidence, heard by the Jury at Mark's retrial, allowed the prosecutor to say 'no man should have his wife's brain on his shirt.' Post trial that evidence was ruled inadmissible.
However the Court of Appeal said that didn't matter and they exercised the proviso which the Law says can be done so when guilt is inevitable. Unfortunately that test was changed by the COA to one of beyond reasonable doubt - a world first in British, Australia and New Zealand Courts, It is difficult to understand how the Court could make such a mistake and first look, that might have been deliberate to keep the controversial case under a lid.
Later it can be seen why that decision is important, and to do that we have to again go back to the paraffin blocks said to contain material which NZ scientists said had been consumed. Those paraffin blocks were tested for Christine's DNA but it was not found. However the NZ COA, not deterred by that made another major 'mistake', because elsewhere on the shirt was found Christine's DNA, just as would happen with any male's shirt from his partner and vice versa. However it needed to have been within the spot where the animal DNA was found, to have been directly associated with Christine as being her own - within the biological material not near it.
So let's go over that again, 2 small spots completely inconsistent with blood splash that left the silhouette of Christine's killer on the wall. A silhouette for which there is precious little information. I have not heard of any reconstruction of that silhouette for which it might have been determined the size of the offender, a relatively easy process but not something it is known that investigators looked into. Nevertheless the 2 small spots were consumed in testing by NZ scientists who found nothing incriminating within them, however the spots go along with the shirt to America and hello there is something there again, and the slide taken from those spots also in America is not tested despite that the material on it is visible upon it under microscope.
Monday, May 27, 2019
The Lundy fingernail DNA and what it means.
The following was sent by an overseas expert interested in the Lundy case.
"During the four-plus decades Bush spent in prison or on parole as a sex offender, Suffolk County prosecutors resisted his attempts to re-adjudicate his case, even after a 2006 DNA test found that another man’s tissue, and not his, was under the victim’s fingernails."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/05/22/keith-bush-innocent-prosecutors-move-vacate-1976-murder-conviction/3756361002/?fbclid=IwAR3PybcUPdQUIo8dQW9rDsD6Dry3odOsjYaOpuRa8AmDBeGwsRYAulFuid4
Sometimes these apparently complex cases have been made that way in order to gain a conviction. The more evidence and the more experts the Crown call is often designed to get a weak case over the line. In Lundy there has been the constantly changing Crown case as more evidence has been revealed helpful to Mark Lundy. The imposter evidence mRNA is now gone, and in its place is left the most damning evidence against Mark Lundy as being material on his shirt from the food chain. So again what do we do but look back at the crime scene, and find fingernail from 2 men lodged under the nails of both Christine and Amber and they fought to escape. Fingernail DNA that was never investigated.
"During the four-plus decades Bush spent in prison or on parole as a sex offender, Suffolk County prosecutors resisted his attempts to re-adjudicate his case, even after a 2006 DNA test found that another man’s tissue, and not his, was under the victim’s fingernails."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/05/22/keith-bush-innocent-prosecutors-move-vacate-1976-murder-conviction/3756361002/?fbclid=IwAR3PybcUPdQUIo8dQW9rDsD6Dry3odOsjYaOpuRa8AmDBeGwsRYAulFuid4
Sometimes these apparently complex cases have been made that way in order to gain a conviction. The more evidence and the more experts the Crown call is often designed to get a weak case over the line. In Lundy there has been the constantly changing Crown case as more evidence has been revealed helpful to Mark Lundy. The imposter evidence mRNA is now gone, and in its place is left the most damning evidence against Mark Lundy as being material on his shirt from the food chain. So again what do we do but look back at the crime scene, and find fingernail from 2 men lodged under the nails of both Christine and Amber and they fought to escape. Fingernail DNA that was never investigated.
Thursday, May 23, 2019
Has the worm finally turned in Lundy?
The Lundy case has been pressured by misconceived subjective reasoning dwelt upon by the press as well as 'science' made deliberately complex while a crime scene was ignored - always the most important part of solving a crime. Think of the funeral scene, Lundy's weight etc, they all prove guilt, right? But if the science and other evidence is not complex why does in continue to be found legally wanting? One of the reasons is the decision by the Crown to go outside established forensic science and never return. It beggars belief that the Court has continued to allow that. A 'novel science' does not remain 'novel' for 19 years, it is either accepted by mainstream forensic science or is rejected. It may be safe now to say that is true.
In Mark Lundy's first trial it was accepted that the novel science IHC, if correct in its diagnosis, was as the result of contamination or planting. In the retrial it was accepted that if correct in its diagnosis, that the material believed to brain (or central nervous system CNS), then it was animal.
Here is the recent defence and prosecution oral submissions to the Supreme Court on Mark's leave to appeal application:
https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/the-courts/supreme-court/case-summaries/case-information-2018/Trans5LundyvQueen.pdf
I think it is an excellent analysis by Jonathan Eaton QC, and one that continues to unfold as the case is broken into past the IHC. Follows here is a brief analysis of the submission which is interesting to read in full.
Eaton says that in Trial 1 that the shirt material was assumed to be human CNS (brain or spinal matter.) And what supported that were the following 'facts.'
1. Lundy seen by Mrs Dance running from the vicinity of his house dressed as a woman in the early evening.
2. The fast drive from Wellington and back to make a 7.30 Time of Death of Amber and Christine possible.
3. The 'manipulated' Lundy computer, altered by the cunning Mark Lundy preparing for his record breaking drive back to Wellington on which he was never seen.
All considered as being reasonable inferences of guilt by the Court of Appeal (COA) when Lundy appealed the verdict of his 1st trial.
Eaton says those now abandoned 'facts' give context to the Lundy case about drawing inference from expert advice which is disputed. He then points out that after Lundy's success at the Privy Council that the Crown sensed a gap, a void between the DNA found on the shirt near the alleged CNS. This refers to the fact that while DNA belonging to Christine was found on Lundy's shirt near the CNS, none was found within the CNS itself. This information is problematic 18 years or so after the Lundy crimes. It is now understood that clothing of one family member or spouse is likely to have the DNA of other family members on it, that DNA can survive the wash and so on. There is also something now understood to be the 'association fallacy,' that is that because DNA is found in association with body tissue or fluids it may not be linked. For example both might have arrived at different times. So finding Christine's DNA inside the alleged CNS was important and the Crown realised that.
What the Crown did was to set out to show was that the DNA was both human and female, a slam dunk if you like. Fair enough, but they failed. Firstly they used a test called FISH (Fluorescent in situ hybridisation) which didn't give the wanted result. Secondly, and to the Crown's credit, they went to NZ Environmental Scientific Research (ESR), who could also not confirm that the DNA was female or human. I say credit to the Crown because ESR is a forensic science facility. Next the Crown decided that they had the elution (wash from the shirt material taken from where the alleged CNS was) saved which it sent to California and got the result they didn't want - an analysis that it was animal CNS, a mixture of beef, cow and pork.
Eaton would say that all these measures indicated that the Crown fully appreciated the 'gap' in its case - the effort to prove the shirt material was human and female.
The next thing that happened was not dwelt upon by Jonathan Eaton in a way that the reader might appreciate immediately but is a picture that emerges from the Lundy case. The Crown having been outside the 'forensic safety chain,' and indeed an accredited 'forensic science', returned to another and just as 'novel' science mRNA to say that the material was more probably human that animal. Thought about carefully, the Crown having failed to find relief for its obsession that Lundy was guilty trudged back into the unknown and unproven world of 'novel' science and the Court allowed that despite that the defence fought tooth and nail against the mRNA, while the Crown did the same in its defence.
By the time the case got to the COA and the appeal against the conviction, the Crown were saying, as you will read, 'oh the mRNA wasn't needed.' I could say that is like a boxer claiming that he/she never landed a punch in an unsuccessful 12 round title defence after failing to knock an opponent down they claimed to be running away. The Supreme Court were getting more information about the Lundy case than what a NZ Court had before, an accurate narrative that spanned almost 2 decades with many changes in the position of the Crown. As Eaton said Mrs Dance was gone, as was the time of death, the computer manipulation and the madcap drive.
1thing the Court was interested in was the 'pure' CNS the Crown claimed to be on Lundy's shirt. Eaton pointed out that 'pure' CNS did not have skin flakes in it that might have been dandruff, and that a dab slide taken from the same shirt spot in New Zealand was said to necrotic or decayed, whilst the Crown claimed same material on the shirt was pure. For me the difference between the NZ dab slide and the alleged CNS is pivotal to this case. Not only is it illogical that 2 things from the same origin can be biologically different in presentation but that NZ forensic experts had essentially told the Crown the evidence was unreliable at best so the Crown went on a world wide search for someone to confirm what it subjectively 'believed.' The same place the Crown returned to when all those they approached from the forensic science community said they couldn't help - the Crown cheated again, so important was it that they were right and modern forensic science was wrong.
If there is a moral to this fallacy of the truth - the Lundy convictions, then the answer is easy: junk science is junk science whether it is the Scott Watson case or the equally bad Mark Lundy case.
In the 2nd Lundy trial the trial claimed a 'parallel' test where the testers who were not forensic scientists (again) and when given brain to test and told what it was, later came up with the 'remarkable' conclusion that it was brain.
Cheers.
In Mark Lundy's first trial it was accepted that the novel science IHC, if correct in its diagnosis, was as the result of contamination or planting. In the retrial it was accepted that if correct in its diagnosis, that the material believed to brain (or central nervous system CNS), then it was animal.
Here is the recent defence and prosecution oral submissions to the Supreme Court on Mark's leave to appeal application:
https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/the-courts/supreme-court/case-summaries/case-information-2018/Trans5LundyvQueen.pdf
I think it is an excellent analysis by Jonathan Eaton QC, and one that continues to unfold as the case is broken into past the IHC. Follows here is a brief analysis of the submission which is interesting to read in full.
Eaton says that in Trial 1 that the shirt material was assumed to be human CNS (brain or spinal matter.) And what supported that were the following 'facts.'
1. Lundy seen by Mrs Dance running from the vicinity of his house dressed as a woman in the early evening.
2. The fast drive from Wellington and back to make a 7.30 Time of Death of Amber and Christine possible.
3. The 'manipulated' Lundy computer, altered by the cunning Mark Lundy preparing for his record breaking drive back to Wellington on which he was never seen.
All considered as being reasonable inferences of guilt by the Court of Appeal (COA) when Lundy appealed the verdict of his 1st trial.
Eaton says those now abandoned 'facts' give context to the Lundy case about drawing inference from expert advice which is disputed. He then points out that after Lundy's success at the Privy Council that the Crown sensed a gap, a void between the DNA found on the shirt near the alleged CNS. This refers to the fact that while DNA belonging to Christine was found on Lundy's shirt near the CNS, none was found within the CNS itself. This information is problematic 18 years or so after the Lundy crimes. It is now understood that clothing of one family member or spouse is likely to have the DNA of other family members on it, that DNA can survive the wash and so on. There is also something now understood to be the 'association fallacy,' that is that because DNA is found in association with body tissue or fluids it may not be linked. For example both might have arrived at different times. So finding Christine's DNA inside the alleged CNS was important and the Crown realised that.
What the Crown did was to set out to show was that the DNA was both human and female, a slam dunk if you like. Fair enough, but they failed. Firstly they used a test called FISH (Fluorescent in situ hybridisation) which didn't give the wanted result. Secondly, and to the Crown's credit, they went to NZ Environmental Scientific Research (ESR), who could also not confirm that the DNA was female or human. I say credit to the Crown because ESR is a forensic science facility. Next the Crown decided that they had the elution (wash from the shirt material taken from where the alleged CNS was) saved which it sent to California and got the result they didn't want - an analysis that it was animal CNS, a mixture of beef, cow and pork.
Eaton would say that all these measures indicated that the Crown fully appreciated the 'gap' in its case - the effort to prove the shirt material was human and female.
The next thing that happened was not dwelt upon by Jonathan Eaton in a way that the reader might appreciate immediately but is a picture that emerges from the Lundy case. The Crown having been outside the 'forensic safety chain,' and indeed an accredited 'forensic science', returned to another and just as 'novel' science mRNA to say that the material was more probably human that animal. Thought about carefully, the Crown having failed to find relief for its obsession that Lundy was guilty trudged back into the unknown and unproven world of 'novel' science and the Court allowed that despite that the defence fought tooth and nail against the mRNA, while the Crown did the same in its defence.
By the time the case got to the COA and the appeal against the conviction, the Crown were saying, as you will read, 'oh the mRNA wasn't needed.' I could say that is like a boxer claiming that he/she never landed a punch in an unsuccessful 12 round title defence after failing to knock an opponent down they claimed to be running away. The Supreme Court were getting more information about the Lundy case than what a NZ Court had before, an accurate narrative that spanned almost 2 decades with many changes in the position of the Crown. As Eaton said Mrs Dance was gone, as was the time of death, the computer manipulation and the madcap drive.
1thing the Court was interested in was the 'pure' CNS the Crown claimed to be on Lundy's shirt. Eaton pointed out that 'pure' CNS did not have skin flakes in it that might have been dandruff, and that a dab slide taken from the same shirt spot in New Zealand was said to necrotic or decayed, whilst the Crown claimed same material on the shirt was pure. For me the difference between the NZ dab slide and the alleged CNS is pivotal to this case. Not only is it illogical that 2 things from the same origin can be biologically different in presentation but that NZ forensic experts had essentially told the Crown the evidence was unreliable at best so the Crown went on a world wide search for someone to confirm what it subjectively 'believed.' The same place the Crown returned to when all those they approached from the forensic science community said they couldn't help - the Crown cheated again, so important was it that they were right and modern forensic science was wrong.
If there is a moral to this fallacy of the truth - the Lundy convictions, then the answer is easy: junk science is junk science whether it is the Scott Watson case or the equally bad Mark Lundy case.
In the 2nd Lundy trial the trial claimed a 'parallel' test where the testers who were not forensic scientists (again) and when given brain to test and told what it was, later came up with the 'remarkable' conclusion that it was brain.
Cheers.
Friday, September 1, 2017
Will the Lundy case finally crack this time?
I am aware that the final submissions are to be filed in the long running saga which is the Lundy case today. This case generally remains the most poorly understood convictions in New Zealand history. Most people have formed an opinion on the case despite all the concrete facts being unknown.
Rather than starting with the 'Lundy shirt' and all its controversy I'll start with the hidden and neglected parts of the case. As I've written before there is evidence of at least 2 strangers being in the home contemporaneously with the deaths of Christine and her 7 year old daughter Amber. This is known because the DNA of 2 unknown males was found under their nails. DNA in this location can more probably than not be attributed to scratching or grabbing at the clothing of an attacker. DNA of this type lasts a relatively short time if innocently picked up by contact with another person or DNA source, 6 hours is the maximum time until around only 5% of the DNA will remain as a person goes about normal tasks including, eating, dressing and washing the hands.
There were signs of a break in of the Lundy home while Mark Lundy was in Wellington and his wife and daughter home in bed when they were attacked. The police blamed that break in on Lundy, saying it was staged to cover his tracks. It's quite normal unfortunately that someone being framed is blamed for anything unexplained. In the eyes of the Jury it can easily make sense that a guilty person would hide their trail. The problem in Lundy however, as it has emerged years later, is that unknown fingerprints and footprints were also found in the house. Now Mark Lundy, in fact nobody, can leave unknown footprints and particularly fingerprints at a crime scene unless they are the perpetrators. Moreover, nobody can put unknown male DNA and fabric fibres under the nails of a deceased person. So while Lundy was blamed for a mock break in, evidence was hidden that points to it have been a real break in by 2 offenders who left DNA, finger and footprints at the scene along with fibres from their clothing. Of course the paint found on the victims in the area of their wounds, that was said to have come from Mark Lundy's tools, has since also been disproved
This unexplained evidence is actually the key to Mark Lundy's innocence and as I write above it was hidden, eventually emerging piece by piece over time. Not everyone knows it was hidden and obscured in an argument over novel science that remains highly controversial and more than a little suspect. The 'science' took over, was reported on at length, conveniently helping obscure evidence that over time would emerge as far less obscure in understanding the Lundy case. It's time for that evidence to be dealt with. Police have never explained the fingernail DNA and fibres, the finger and footprints, the paint, they got away from doing so by hiding or masking the evidence and shouts of a prosecutor that 'no man has the right to have his wife's brain on his shirt.' That phrase appears to become destined as the most inappropriate part of a prosecutor's closing ever in a New Zealand case. The reason for that being that the validity of the novel science is under siege and no longer can have any support from a crime scene that indicates that Mark Lundy did not kill his wife and daughter.
I also suspect that the appeal submissions will question the validity of the Crown being given 2 bites at the cherry and effectively changing their own case dramatically when it was in deep trouble, given the chance to say 'forget that story, we have a new one.' However, the real story is not the 'new one' they dreamed up to try and salvage their case, but rather the one they hid from the public and Jury that relates to two men, their DNA, foot and fingerprints, paint from a weapon, that were never found. At the same time as our Courts were duped into accepting 'novel science' while the prosecution secreted away critical evidence alarm grew in the established forensic science community that IHC testing was being used in manner where it was not only unaccredited to be employed, but that it was being used far outside the clinical standards where its use was established to test for disease on known samples, not on random poorly degraded gunk that would be blasted with high doses of dilution until it displayed a 'colour' that the testers wanted. Yes, negative tests were ignored, dilution rates increased until the required colour showed, mix the cake with any colours until the right colour was found - not in the least forensic science, but going after a result to fit a theory.
I think now the Court will demand answers, that the public needs, forget about the cake mix and explain how the finger, footprints, fibres and stranger DNA found its way into the Lundy household after a break in and how it could possibly not be connected to the murders of Christine and Amber.
Rather than starting with the 'Lundy shirt' and all its controversy I'll start with the hidden and neglected parts of the case. As I've written before there is evidence of at least 2 strangers being in the home contemporaneously with the deaths of Christine and her 7 year old daughter Amber. This is known because the DNA of 2 unknown males was found under their nails. DNA in this location can more probably than not be attributed to scratching or grabbing at the clothing of an attacker. DNA of this type lasts a relatively short time if innocently picked up by contact with another person or DNA source, 6 hours is the maximum time until around only 5% of the DNA will remain as a person goes about normal tasks including, eating, dressing and washing the hands.
There were signs of a break in of the Lundy home while Mark Lundy was in Wellington and his wife and daughter home in bed when they were attacked. The police blamed that break in on Lundy, saying it was staged to cover his tracks. It's quite normal unfortunately that someone being framed is blamed for anything unexplained. In the eyes of the Jury it can easily make sense that a guilty person would hide their trail. The problem in Lundy however, as it has emerged years later, is that unknown fingerprints and footprints were also found in the house. Now Mark Lundy, in fact nobody, can leave unknown footprints and particularly fingerprints at a crime scene unless they are the perpetrators. Moreover, nobody can put unknown male DNA and fabric fibres under the nails of a deceased person. So while Lundy was blamed for a mock break in, evidence was hidden that points to it have been a real break in by 2 offenders who left DNA, finger and footprints at the scene along with fibres from their clothing. Of course the paint found on the victims in the area of their wounds, that was said to have come from Mark Lundy's tools, has since also been disproved
This unexplained evidence is actually the key to Mark Lundy's innocence and as I write above it was hidden, eventually emerging piece by piece over time. Not everyone knows it was hidden and obscured in an argument over novel science that remains highly controversial and more than a little suspect. The 'science' took over, was reported on at length, conveniently helping obscure evidence that over time would emerge as far less obscure in understanding the Lundy case. It's time for that evidence to be dealt with. Police have never explained the fingernail DNA and fibres, the finger and footprints, the paint, they got away from doing so by hiding or masking the evidence and shouts of a prosecutor that 'no man has the right to have his wife's brain on his shirt.' That phrase appears to become destined as the most inappropriate part of a prosecutor's closing ever in a New Zealand case. The reason for that being that the validity of the novel science is under siege and no longer can have any support from a crime scene that indicates that Mark Lundy did not kill his wife and daughter.
I also suspect that the appeal submissions will question the validity of the Crown being given 2 bites at the cherry and effectively changing their own case dramatically when it was in deep trouble, given the chance to say 'forget that story, we have a new one.' However, the real story is not the 'new one' they dreamed up to try and salvage their case, but rather the one they hid from the public and Jury that relates to two men, their DNA, foot and fingerprints, paint from a weapon, that were never found. At the same time as our Courts were duped into accepting 'novel science' while the prosecution secreted away critical evidence alarm grew in the established forensic science community that IHC testing was being used in manner where it was not only unaccredited to be employed, but that it was being used far outside the clinical standards where its use was established to test for disease on known samples, not on random poorly degraded gunk that would be blasted with high doses of dilution until it displayed a 'colour' that the testers wanted. Yes, negative tests were ignored, dilution rates increased until the required colour showed, mix the cake with any colours until the right colour was found - not in the least forensic science, but going after a result to fit a theory.
I think now the Court will demand answers, that the public needs, forget about the cake mix and explain how the finger, footprints, fibres and stranger DNA found its way into the Lundy household after a break in and how it could possibly not be connected to the murders of Christine and Amber.
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
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.
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
two hours. That’s what Professor Horowitz is saying?
30 A. That's correct, yes.
Q. And do you agree with that? Do you agree with that?
A. I’d agree that apply to the majority of individuals.
2134
Q v M LUNDY – CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)
Q. Yeah, okay, that’s fair. And he goes on, in his final
conclusion, “For
death to have occurred after 2.00 am in the morning the
meals could not
have been consumed any earlier than midnight, ie, more
than six hours
after their purchase.” Do you agree with that?
A. 5 Yes I agree with that, yes.
Q. On the topic of in the majority of cases, he makes the
point that because
we have two stomachs to consider in this case, somewhat
unusually, we
don’t have the normal difficulties with the differing
factors that might
attach to determining time of death, do you agree with
him?
10 1545
A. Yes, that was in fact the evidence I gave at the first
trial.wo hours. That’s what Professor Horowitz is saying?
30 A. That's correct, yes.
Q. And do you agree with that? Do you agree with that?
A. I’d agree that apply to the majority of individuals.
2134
Q v M LUNDY – CRI-2001-054-832244 (09 February 2015)
Q. Yeah, okay, that’s fair. And he goes on, in his final
conclusion, “For
death to have occurred after 2.00 am in the morning the
meals could not
have been consumed any earlier than midnight, ie, more
than six hours
after their purchase.” Do you agree with that?
A. 5 Yes I agree with that, yes.
Q. On the topic of in the majority of cases, he makes the
point that because
we have two stomachs to consider in this case, somewhat
unusually, we
don’t have the normal difficulties with the differing
factors that might
attach to determining time of death, do you agree with
him?
10 1545
A. Yes, that was in fact the evidence I gave at the first
trial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)