Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Mark Lundy appeals to the Privy Council

It's become terribly fashionable to espouse the innocence of convicted murderers. The latest cause celebre is Mark Lundy. These particular fashion-followers are forking-out to take his case to the Privy Council in London and have even concocted a name for themselves, FACTUAL (For Amber and Christine - Truth Uncovered About Lundys). It's such a clever acronym, having thought of it they'd feel bound to proceed. Who'd want to waste it?

In the absence of religion, lots of substitute faiths take hold. Some believe in vast conspiracies, some in new-age health regimes, some in political ideologies (mine is individual freedom), and some in the wrongful conviction and detention of a particular criminal.

Some faiths are a search for truth; others are a denial. I'd put barking up the Mark-Lundy- is-innocent tree in the latter category. But if his supporters want to chuck their money away, that's their business.


FF said...

A few moments watching his 'performance' at the funerals confirmed to me the police had the right guy.
It was all about him, nothing for the victims.
Someone commented at the time that when a person is truly overcome with grief, it is the legs that go first. His were rock solid the whole time.
It is odd how we remember comments like that...pretty much forever.

Johnny said...

We keep repeating the same mistakes though.

Yes, it is a function of the Just World Hypothesis that we want to believe (for our own peace of mind) that police are usually right. And this belief each time is enough to allow us to speep well at night. But what the Just World Hypothesis does is disproportionately bias us to want to say that Lundy MUST be guilty, else I'm not safe from my own cops.

In New Zealand though, sadly cops keep on stretching the boundaries, to the point that anyone who doesn't go the Privy Council, who still retains a right to, would be irresponsible.

S.Beast said...

I've seen a couple of Mark Lundy headlines about this online but refuse to actually read the articles and thereby increase click through rates.

This man has had more than enough air time and the mainstream media allowing him any coverage at all only feeds his narcissistic personality.

@ Johnny, Thinking back to an episode of The Investigator (where I wanted to see innocence and volunteer to help him with his case btw) he looks pretty darn guilty to me.

Psycho Milt said...

Some people seem to feel happier with the thought that terrible murders are carried out by unidentified bogeymen - they can't face the prospect that an actual named, perfectly ordinary individual did it.

Anonymous said...

When the police tried to replicate his journey they couldn't do it in the time frame even with the lights and siren on.

And yet somehow he managed to do it in rush hour. I have been in that traffic and I'll never believe he could do it.


Lindsay Mitchell said...

He couldn't. But the time of the deaths was based on the pathologist's view about stomach contents ie digestion time, which varies according to a number of factors.

Paulus said...

In using the right to the Privy Council (which should never have been revoked unilaterally by that dreadful UN woman)first is required to get permission - not yet given, and secondly the Privy Council can only pronounce on a matter of Law - not evidence unless it is new and profound.
In this case I do not thinkmit will get to the Privy Council and/or will get refused as no compelling evidence appears to be in the public domain.

JD said... say he couldnt do it (the trip) and therefore must admit he was convicted on the basis of a flawed theory??

On that basis alone shouldn't he get a retrial??

I would also note time of death on the basis of stomach contents has been found to be most unreliable. Mr Pang (if i remember correctly) is the most incompetent pathologist of all time.

Rick said...

So true. That should be in the top 10 rules of news consumers.

"In the absence of religion, lots of substitute faiths take hold. Some believe in vast conspiracies, some in new-age health regimes, some in political ideologies (mine is individual freedom), and some in the wrongful conviction and detention of a particular criminal."

Lindsay Mitchell said...

JD, He was convicted on whatever the jury heard and saw. That he couldn't do the trip based on pathologist's stated time of death would point to his innocence. The jury didn't find him innocent.

Joanne said...

What is the penalty for bad acting these days? 20-ish years?

Anonymous said...

i was at the funeral and i know the case so when it comes back from engalnd with it being thrown out everyone who thinks he did it can eat there words, i know for a fact theres over 50 points of law that have been broken in the case and i know that the police are trying to change there case for when the retrial come so what does that tell you about the police, he was not acting he loved them both so much so before anyone believes the media maybe they should look in to it them selves instead of being stuck in a hole by the way he is my uncle

David said...

A suspect went free for years because at the "time of death" he had the perfect alibi. He was meeting with his parole supervisor. Years later, DNA tests established that he was the killer, and he was convicted (may have pleaded guilty) on that evidence. The origanal estimated "time of death" was wrong. He had killed a little girl on a Hawkes Bay beach.

S. Beast said...

Well hey, if he's your uncle...

Unknown said...

I find some of these comments pretty odd in simply saying that he obviously did it and you're an idiot if you don't believe it.
Yes - the jury decided on the evidence they saw and heard. But that evidence was fundamentally flawed. You've mentioned time of death based on stomach contents - the pathologist told the Court confidently that time of death was around 7pm. The Judge warned the jury that if it was after 7pm Mark Lundy could not have done it. The science behind placing the time of death at 7pm has been universally ridiculed, so has the computer evidence suggesting Lundy tampered with his computer, leaving aside that lights were on at 11pm (when Lundy was supposedly back in Wgtn) but off in the morning when the bodies were discovered.
So not only has the trip NEVER been recreated but he would have to have made the impossible journey, slaughtered his family, tampered with the computer, and calmly driven away at over 120kph without him or his vehicle ever being seen.
The most difficult piece of evidence was that the jury was told he had Christine's brain tissue on his shirt. That science has been absolutely universally ridiculed as being impossible to identify what the tissue was. That would be quite compelling for any jury.
If you aren't even going to look into the case I just find it terribly irresponsible to make such general misleading comments on it.
Alan Bell.

Rowan said...

I thought at the time that Lundy was innocent based on the 3 hour return trip, however more recently I have further looked at the case and also watched the Nigel Latta and Bryan Bruce episodes on ML and I now believe him to be guilty, the brain tissue and paint flakes seem pretty damning and he had a pretty strong motive as David said a Napier suspect walked free for 15 years by having the perfect 'alibi'
I think however if his conviction is squashed by the PC and a retrial ordered then he would probably be acquited on the basis of reasonable doubt but at the end of the day I still think he most probably the killer

Anonymous said...

In 2005, I was Jury Foreman at a Murder trial in the Auckland High Court. The trial lasted 3 weeks, followed by 36 hours of deliberation. What impressed me most about that experience, was the number of my fellow jurors who had made up their mind about the defendant's guilt or innocence, long before the trial was completed! The inevitable result was a "hung jury" followed by a retrial, some 4 months later. The ultimate verdict was one that I expected. What I had NOT expected was the fickleness and prejudice that 12 "ordinary New Zealanders" allowed to influence their ability to assess evidence - fairly and impartially. My experience (and naturally, you are free to differ in your opinion) is that all trials should be heard and assessed by a panel of judges - experts in Law and not influenced in their thinking by the colour of someone's skin, their age or any other demographic that activates a juror's personal values. There is only one requirement worth it's salt in a court-room: impartial, objective facts and responses - and not subjective, emotive reactions.