Mark Lundy

These cases are suggested by forum members for research and information. Injustice Anywhere has not reviewed the details of each case and does not necessarily endorse any claims made within this section. Cases we currently advocate for can be viewed in the "Injustice Anywhere Featured Cases" section, located in the board index.
Forum rules
These cases are suggested by forum members for research and information. Injustice Anywhere has not reviewed the details of each case and does not necessarily endorse any claims made within this section. Cases we currently advocate for can be viewed in the "Injustice Anywhere Featured Cases" section, located in the board index.

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:40 pm

kiwiburner wrote:For reasons unknown, Braunias is the only NZ journalist capable of writing about the Lundy case in a way that doesn’t just involve blandly repeating the Crown submissions. The reporting on the appeal was such shit. Is the Braunias article the only NZ MSM article that mentions the clutched hairs. Wow!


Maybe not the only one, but he has brought to life potential attackers in the Lundy home who left DNA, foot and fingerprints - a big frustration for those that wanted the arguments centered around all aspects of the murder scene.
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:53 pm

Mediocrates wrote:SO, still no answer from Samson as to how CL's DNA could have remained on ML's shirt AFTER "ironing" it ...

(irons are generally run at temps over 200C and DNA undergoes complete thermal degradation at temps over 190C)

I've also got 3 more questions for the kiwis:

1) what is known about the "creditors" that were going to help out ML as he struggled with debts?

2) what rules out the possibility that ML did the 'murder trip' after midnight (i.e., after he was done with his prostitute), returning to his motel in the early morning hours?

3) is NZ really the kind of place where women and children get their faces and heads chopped to pieces by strangers over some cheap jewelry?

The strangers were there for a reason.
Private investigations have been exhaustive, doing the work normally undertaken by the police.
There is a money trail that explains the crime, at the centre of which is that Mark Lundy was promising to buy land and vine cuttings with money he did not have. People were employed to encourage him to pay for the cuttings, he was in Petone, so his wife saw it as a home invasion and reacted badly. She was silenced.
If you give it some thought, this adds up to means motive and opportunity, and explains why Mark had not a trace of blood near him.
There was a blood and gore covered jewelry box, the size of a shoe box, removed from the scene and never seen again despite the exhaustive scene search.
There was a clean rectangle of surface with blood all around, visible. This box could only be taken away in a vehicle. Whose vehicle?
Marks vehicle was well tested and negative for blood.

The appeal court judges asked for a photograph of the surface and blood outline. Maybe one of them is an aspiring Sherlock Holmes.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:43 pm

Christina might have transferred DNA by touching the shirt or breathing on it as she was folding it. If the lab had done a substrate control, it might have helped their case. However, the biggest hurdle for the prosecution's case is the presence of animal DNA.

Amber's stomach contents make a 2:30 AM murder scenario an absurdity.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:13 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:Christina might have transferred DNA by touching the shirt or breathing on it as she was folding it. If the lab had done a substrate control, it might have helped their case. However, the biggest hurdle for the prosecution's case is the presence of animal DNA.

Amber's stomach contents make a 2:30 AM murder scenario an absurdity.


Wienkleman was focused on that.
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby charlie_wilkes » Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:16 pm

Has the appellate court given a time frame for their decision?
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 2031
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Mediocrates » Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:25 pm

Samson wrote:
Mediocrates wrote:SO, still no answer from Samson as to how CL's DNA could have remained on ML's shirt AFTER "ironing" it ...

(irons are generally run at temps over 200C and DNA undergoes complete thermal degradation at temps over 190C)

I've also got 3 more questions for the kiwis:

1) what is known about the "creditors" that were going to help out ML as he struggled with debts?

2) what rules out the possibility that ML did the 'murder trip' after midnight (i.e., after he was done with his prostitute), returning to his motel in the early morning hours?

3) is NZ really the kind of place where women and children get their faces and heads chopped to pieces by strangers over some cheap jewelry?

The strangers were there for a reason.
Private investigations have been exhaustive, doing the work normally undertaken by the police.
There is a money trail that explains the crime, at the centre of which is that Mark Lundy was promising to buy land and vine cuttings with money he did not have. People were employed to encourage him to pay for the cuttings, he was in Petone, so his wife saw it as a home invasion and reacted badly. She was silenced.
If you give it some thought, this adds up to means motive and opportunity, and explains why Mark had not a trace of blood near him.
There was a blood and gore covered jewelry box, the size of a shoe box, removed from the scene and never seen again despite the exhaustive scene search.
There was a clean rectangle of surface with blood all around, visible. This box could only be taken away in a vehicle. Whose vehicle?
Marks vehicle was well tested and negative for blood.

The appeal court judges asked for a photograph of the surface and blood outline. Maybe one of them is an aspiring Sherlock Holmes.


This really is an interesting case.

Reminds me a little of Scott Peterson's defense in that one theory of the case would have us believe that a low-rent burglar was willing to butcher a defenseless woman and her child over some relatively cheap property.

And that's not much different than another theory that would have us believe a loan shark was willing to butcher a defenseless woman and her child over an unpaid debt.

If it really was the latter, why isn't ML coughing up the details about his "creditors", or having his team investigate them before trial? (he's got nothing left to lose -they've already killed his family and he's in prison, taking all the blame - a shank from another inmate would be a welcome relief at that point, so why not talk in the hope it will free you before the shank finds you?)

Who are these "creditors"? (I'm assuming it's not a chartered bank)

(One has to bear in mind that it is exceedingly rare for white women under the age of 40 to be killed by a stranger, whereas it is not at all uncommon for them to be murdered by a spouse.)
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:39 pm

charlie_wilkes wrote:Has the appellate court given a time frame for their decision?

They will at least have to wait for more data from Professor Bustin. I think it will be some time, but I am not sure.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Mediocrates » Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:07 pm

The wheels of justice turn very, very slowly. I doubt there will be a decision in 2017. While we wait for 2018, who can give us some of the details on ML's (allegedly) homicidal "creditors"?
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:17 pm

charlie_wilkes wrote:Has the appellate court given a time frame for their decision?

Best facts in Galushka link.
November for Bustin, 10 pages
December for crown response 10 pages
February suggested for decision
Submissions next on retrial if convictions quashed.
I expect further submissions responding to crown also, as Eaton had only 20 minutes to wrap up after a day and a half of Morgan's bare faced lies, where he restated witness X, disproved, paint flakes and tool from locked garage, disproved, bangle on floor of car with no forensic traces, see above, Johansen doing legitimate driving tests to validate petrol in first trial, bullshit, no notebooks, and so on.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby charlie_wilkes » Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:53 pm

Mediocrates wrote:
Samson wrote:
Mediocrates wrote:SO, still no answer from Samson as to how CL's DNA could have remained on ML's shirt AFTER "ironing" it ...

(irons are generally run at temps over 200C and DNA undergoes complete thermal degradation at temps over 190C)

I've also got 3 more questions for the kiwis:

1) what is known about the "creditors" that were going to help out ML as he struggled with debts?

2) what rules out the possibility that ML did the 'murder trip' after midnight (i.e., after he was done with his prostitute), returning to his motel in the early morning hours?

3) is NZ really the kind of place where women and children get their faces and heads chopped to pieces by strangers over some cheap jewelry?

The strangers were there for a reason.
Private investigations have been exhaustive, doing the work normally undertaken by the police.
There is a money trail that explains the crime, at the centre of which is that Mark Lundy was promising to buy land and vine cuttings with money he did not have. People were employed to encourage him to pay for the cuttings, he was in Petone, so his wife saw it as a home invasion and reacted badly. She was silenced.
If you give it some thought, this adds up to means motive and opportunity, and explains why Mark had not a trace of blood near him.
There was a blood and gore covered jewelry box, the size of a shoe box, removed from the scene and never seen again despite the exhaustive scene search.
There was a clean rectangle of surface with blood all around, visible. This box could only be taken away in a vehicle. Whose vehicle?
Marks vehicle was well tested and negative for blood.

The appeal court judges asked for a photograph of the surface and blood outline. Maybe one of them is an aspiring Sherlock Holmes.


This really is an interesting case.

Reminds me a little of Scott Peterson's defense in that one theory of the case would have us believe that a low-rent burglar was willing to butcher a defenseless woman and her child over some relatively cheap property.

And that's not much different than another theory that would have us believe a loan shark was willing to butcher a defenseless woman and her child over an unpaid debt.

If it really was the latter, why isn't ML coughing up the details about his "creditors", or having his team investigate them before trial? (he's got nothing left to lose -they've already killed his family and he's in prison, taking all the blame - a shank from another inmate would be a welcome relief at that point, so why not talk in the hope it will free you before the shank finds you?)


That's actually a good question. Smart monkey. Keep jabbing the keyboard. You might get a sonnet eventually, or at least something that rhymes.

I don't know why Lundy hasn't put two and two together. He owed money to people who threatened his business associate the day his family got killed, and the business associate went on a mad scramble to raise funds after the murders took place. In my world, that's a clue.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 2031
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby kiwiburner » Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:58 am

Mediocrates wrote:The wheels of justice turn very, very slowly. I doubt there will be a decision in 2017. While we wait for 2018, who can give us some of the details on ML's (allegedly) homicidal "creditors"?


:coke:
kiwiburner
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:12 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:49 pm

charlie_wilkes wrote:Has the appellate court given a time frame for their decision?


2 dates so far.

Defence reporting on Bustin results 10th December, Crown to respond 10th November. Both submission to deal with the proviso under S385 of the Crimes Act which accepts that if the Court are given a submission that the Crown case is strong enough without the mRNA material, that the Court may either reject the appeal or uphold it. In other words the Crown have presented that the don't need the mRNA and that it didn't play a major role in the Jury's decision. JE describes that as being the result of Morgan getting tied up in knots over the mRNA to the point of claiming that it had no impact on the Jury. All of this is very unusual and gives rise to one explanation that the Court have fixed on the crime scene, TOD, petrol, IHC (novel science generally) as weak in the Crown case - Morgan contends otherwise with the confidence of a prosecutor who gets away with bullcrap in front of a Jury but has no such leeway in this appeal court in particular. Lastly, although not necessarily in any order of the required submissions - the submission from both sides as to whether a retrial should follow any decision to quash the convictions. All of this is taking some time to absorb here, with some seeing it as a trick or similar. I feel the trend of the appeal the questions asked by the Court the general quality of the defence submission and in particular my favourite for months that the crime scene was stolen by unending debate on science, or as JE put it the science should have been sorted by the experts and not be expected that the Jury could sort it out (on this was reference to the Judge giving the Jury a handout to help them 'understand' mRNA.)

We don't know if extra material goes in with the submissions other that what is stated here. I don't think so, others not sure. As for what happens after the Crown submissions are received I don't know if there is another hearing because haven't been told or it may be up in the air depending on the Court. The Court could simply give a judgement of their decision with no more verbal submissions or hearings, or they could call for another sitting. Despite being a veteran of this type of thing I am confident.
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:51 pm

Samson wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:Has the appellate court given a time frame for their decision?

Best facts in Galushka link.
November for Bustin, 10 pages
December for crown response 10 pages
February suggested for decision
Submissions next on retrial if convictions quashed.
I expect further submissions responding to crown also, as Eaton had only 20 minutes to wrap up after a day and a half of Morgan's bare faced lies, where he restated witness X, disproved, paint flakes and tool from locked garage, disproved, bangle on floor of car with no forensic traces, see above, Johansen doing legitimate driving tests to validate petrol in first trial, bullshit, no notebooks, and so on.


Guess work.
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:59 am

This intriguing case may challenge the judiciary. Helen Winkelmann is the youngest member of the panel by near a decade, and may accordingly be tasked with writing the decision. We do know our new prime minister is a good acquaintance of the extreme left leaning Steve Braunias, who has access to the closest of source material.
A criminal case review commission has been announced, judging by the English and Scottish exemplars, no particular optimism of better process is a corollary.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby kiwiburner » Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:29 am

Haha, I wouldn’t quite call Braunias “extreme left” — he is just an ardent observer of people and a wordsmith. He often ended up in arguments with the PC Wellington set on twitter (especially women in the union movement hate him) leading him to abandon the Internet.

I have a question about the case. Morgan referred in the appeal to a flurry of phone calls between Christine and Mark on the day before the killings and suggested this was part of a heated argument. Crown theory appears now to be that Mark snapped as a result of this argument and made the sudden decision to kill his family, which of course makes the extensive preparations/forensic cleanup Mark apparently did even more illogical.

But where is the evidence supporting this claim regarding the flurry of phone calls and argument? And who gave it? If Mark was examined on it when he took the stand at the null 2002 trial, what did he say?
kiwiburner
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:12 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:45 am

kiwiburner wrote:Haha, I wouldn’t quite call Braunias “extreme left” — he is just an ardent observer of people and a wordsmith. He often ended up in arguments with the PC Wellington set on twitter (especially women in the union movement hate him) leading him to abandon the Internet.

I have a question about the case. Morgan referred in the appeal to a flurry of phone calls between Christine and Mark on the day before the killings and suggested this was part of a heated argument. Crown theory appears now to be that Mark snapped as a result of this argument and made the sudden decision to kill his family, which of course makes the extensive preparations/forensic cleanup Mark apparently did even more illogical.

But where is the evidence supporting this claim regarding the flurry of phone calls and argument? And who gave it? If Mark was examined on it when he took the stand at the null 2002 trial, what did he say?

kiwiburner, I watched the proceedings closely, but could not take notes.
Morgan is the most dangerous of operands, he recited the 2015 crown case verbatim, which in my view is the grossest of perjury, because the bangle, the paint flecks, the tool from the locked garage, the petrol, the testimony of witness X were all disproved. Flurries of phone calls never happened and mean nothing.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby kiwiburner » Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:09 pm

Samson wrote:kiwiburner, I watched the proceedings closely, but could not take notes.
Morgan is the most dangerous of operands, he recited the 2015 crown case verbatim, which in my view is the grossest of perjury, because the bangle, the paint flecks, the tool from the locked garage, the petrol, the testimony of witness X were all disproved. Flurries of phone calls never happened and mean nothing.


I would certainly agree that Morgan's reheating of the Witness X snitch evidence was desperate and dangerous, but I doubt Morgan is so stupid or pig-headed to give evidence from the bar on something that is not and has never been in evidence.

For him to raise the "flurry of argumentative phone calls" thing it'd have to be somewhere in the 2015 retrial evidence. Mark didn't testify, Christine couldn't have, so it's either phone records or hearsay evidence... I just want to know from whom.

(I seriously do not believe Morgan would expect to get away with making it up in front of 3 CoA judges and JE. If he did, then that should form part of the appellant's closing submissions.)
kiwiburner
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:12 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Annella » Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:39 pm

Samson wrote:
kiwiburner wrote:Haha, I wouldn’t quite call Braunias “extreme left” — he is just an ardent observer of people and a wordsmith. He often ended up in arguments with the PC Wellington set on twitter (especially women in the union movement hate him) leading him to abandon the Internet.

I have a question about the case. Morgan referred in the appeal to a flurry of phone calls between Christine and Mark on the day before the killings and suggested this was part of a heated argument. Crown theory appears now to be that Mark snapped as a result of this argument and made the sudden decision to kill his family, which of course makes the extensive preparations/forensic cleanup Mark apparently did even more illogical.

But where is the evidence supporting this claim regarding the flurry of phone calls and argument? And who gave it? If Mark was examined on it when he took the stand at the null 2002 trial, what did he say?

kiwiburner, I watched the proceedings closely, but could not take notes.
Morgan is the most dangerous of operands, he recited the 2015 crown case verbatim, which in my view is the grossest of perjury, because the bangle, the paint flecks, the tool from the locked garage, the petrol, the testimony of witness X were all disproved. Flurries of phone calls never happened and mean nothing.


Samson...shades of the Amanda Knox case again. Nencini especially. Disgusting state of affairs. How the HELL do we get to fix this? Maybe this new Govt will be up for looking at certain aspects of how our Justice system works, and I am delighted to see they are looking to reimburse Teina Pora for cost of inflation.
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1437
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Fri Oct 27, 2017 4:53 am

Annella wrote:
Samson wrote:
kiwiburner wrote:Haha, I wouldn’t quite call Braunias “extreme left” — he is just an ardent observer of people and a wordsmith. He often ended up in arguments with the PC Wellington set on twitter (especially women in the union movement hate him) leading him to abandon the Internet.

I have a question about the case. Morgan referred in the appeal to a flurry of phone calls between Christine and Mark on the day before the killings and suggested this was part of a heated argument. Crown theory appears now to be that Mark snapped as a result of this argument and made the sudden decision to kill his family, which of course makes the extensive preparations/forensic cleanup Mark apparently did even more illogical.

But where is the evidence supporting this claim regarding the flurry of phone calls and argument? And who gave it? If Mark was examined on it when he took the stand at the null 2002 trial, what did he say?

kiwiburner, I watched the proceedings closely, but could not take notes.
Morgan is the most dangerous of operands, he recited the 2015 crown case verbatim, which in my view is the grossest of perjury, because the bangle, the paint flecks, the tool from the locked garage, the petrol, the testimony of witness X were all disproved. Flurries of phone calls never happened and mean nothing.


Samson...shades of the Amanda Knox case again. Nencini especially. Disgusting state of affairs. How the HELL do we get to fix this? Maybe this new Govt will be up for looking at certain aspects of how our Justice system works, and I am delighted to see they are looking to reimburse Teina Pora for cost of inflation.

On this forum we can be bold, so:
Steve Braunias mc'd a lunch in Hamilton.
In the audience were Greg O'Connor, Jacinda Ardern and a guy from Kumeu.
Steve said, If any of you still believe Mark Lundy is guilty I want you to change your fucking minds. Steve seems to be an authentic friend of Ardern.

This case is going to be sorted, hard to see the precise sequence, but the writing is on the wall. Helen Winkelmann will not sign off a crock of abject shit. In my opinion.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Annella » Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:26 pm

On this forum we can be bold, so:
Steve Braunias mc'd a lunch in Hamilton.
In the audience were Greg O'Connor, Jacinda Ardern and a guy from Kumeu.
Steve said, If any of you still believe Mark Lundy is guilty I want you to change your fucking minds. Steve seems to be an authentic friend of Ardern.

This case is going to be sorted, hard to see the precise sequence, but the writing is on the wall. Helen Winkelmann will not sign off a crock of abject shit. In my opinion.



Well THAT'S a start!! :clap:
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1437
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:02 am

Annella wrote:
On this forum we can be bold, so:
Steve Braunias mc'd a lunch in Hamilton.
In the audience were Greg O'Connor, Jacinda Ardern and a guy from Kumeu.
Steve said, If any of you still believe Mark Lundy is guilty I want you to change your fucking minds. Steve seems to be an authentic friend of Ardern.

This case is going to be sorted, hard to see the precise sequence, but the writing is on the wall. Helen Winkelmann will not sign off a crock of abject shit. In my opinion.



Well THAT'S a start!! :clap:

Yes it is.
I am interested in a concept, it goes portrait of a judge as a young woman.
After James Joyce.

I do not believe for a heartbeat Helen Winkelmann considers that Mark did the crime. Mike White considers her an ally I am told.
What happens next?
Philip Morgan goes deep into territory of pure evil, it is not far fetched to say this. He repeated falsified evidence to these judges without shame. He completely abandons any pretence he has a duty to the court to tell the truth.
I hope he reads this.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Annella » Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:39 pm

Morgan would do well to read this...... http://www.philly.com/philly/news/crime ... &mobi=true
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1437
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:18 am

Braunius nailed Morgan well in an article I read a few weeks back, good in front of a Jury where he was not asked questions - poor when questioned by inquiring Judges.

A prosecutor who repeats the Crown case is not committing perjury, is not under oath. Morgan slipped into mantras just like he had done at the retrial - however his problem was already evident judging by the questions from the bench and he had nothing to pull from his bag of tricks. He survived on bull crap at the retrial. My belief is that he should have pulled back months ago, the fact that he didn't appears to no longer mean there is still a place on the bench for him as there would have been in decades past. It's out with the old and in with the new, critical examination of the evidence.
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:32 am

I have made a "Lundy Map" feel free to correct any mistakes or add anything to it.


lundymap.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

paint chips

Postby Chris_Halkides » Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:00 pm

Mike White on the paint chips in a 2009 North and South article:
"But in 16 of these 18 samples, the scientist noted there was contamination and the chemical match wasn’t described or provided to the defense."
"How would so many fragments come off a weapon? ESR tested Lundy’s painted tools in normal use and by knocking them against a hard surface and no flakes came off."
From a 2015 North and South article by Mike White:
"While light-blue and orange paint flakes supposedly matching paint on Lundy’s tools were found on Christine’s body, where did the many dark-blue paint flakes come from, as well as the two-tone blue flake found near Amber – none of which matched anything on Lundy’s property?"

The color was matched by eye (which to my way of thinking is subjective and prone to confirmation bias), not by microspectrophotometry IIUC. From his textbook Criminalistics, Richard Saferstein wrote (pp. 190-191), "Now, with the use of a microspectrophotometer, not only can the color of materials be compared visually but, at the same time, an absorption spectrum can be plotted for each item under examination to display the exact wavelengths at which it absorbs in the visible light spectrum. Occasionally colors that appear similar by visual examination show significant differences in their absorption spectra."
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Bruce Fischer » Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:23 pm

We need to feature this case in 2018. Who can provide an up to date case overview for the website and Spring Newsletter? Do we have a core group here who are willing to keep the website up to date so that we can properly inform the public?
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: paint chips

Postby David1819 » Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:47 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:Mike White on the paint chips in a 2009 North and South article:
"But in 16 of these 18 samples, the scientist noted there was contamination and the chemical match wasn’t described or provided to the defense."
"How would so many fragments come off a weapon? ESR tested Lundy’s painted tools in normal use and by knocking them against a hard surface and no flakes came off."
From a 2015 North and South article by Mike White:
"While light-blue and orange paint flakes supposedly matching paint on Lundy’s tools were found on Christine’s body, where did the many dark-blue paint flakes come from, as well as the two-tone blue flake found near Amber – none of which matched anything on Lundy’s property?"

The color was matched by eye (which to my way of thinking is subjective and prone to confirmation bias), not by microspectrophotometry IIUC. From his textbook Criminalistics, Richard Saferstein wrote (pp. 190-191), "Now, with the use of a microspectrophotometer, not only can the color of materials be compared visually but, at the same time, an absorption spectrum can be plotted for each item under examination to display the exact wavelengths at which it absorbs in the visible light spectrum. Occasionally colors that appear similar by visual examination show significant differences in their absorption spectra."



The paint was examined by ESR scientist Sally Coulson. “These fragments could not be excluded as coming from the pale blue paint from the tools based on their colour and chemical and elemental compositions,” To make matters worse these fragments where embedded in the victims bone fragments.

Why are bits of his tools embeded in wifes bones and why are parts of his wifes brains on his shirt?

https://streamable.com/9p0em

Unless you want to postulate that Mark Lundy just so happened to purchase meat of such poor quality it was contaminated with CNS from the animal. Only to then not cook the meat properly the CNS remains raw. Then it spills on his shirt exactly where his wifes DNA is found. All while an unknown assailant who happens to have a weapon painted with the same two paint colours as his tools. Breaks into his house and kills the family on a night he happens to be out. But it is not all bad news. The life insurance payout could help payoff and his deeply in debt vineyard project and rejuvenate optimism in its already disgruntled investors and creditors. .. Please :roll eyes:
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: paint chips

Postby Samson » Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:47 am

David1819 wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:Mike White on the paint chips in a 2009 North and South article:
"But in 16 of these 18 samples, the scientist noted there was contamination and the chemical match wasn’t described or provided to the defense."
"How would so many fragments come off a weapon? ESR tested Lundy’s painted tools in normal use and by knocking them against a hard surface and no flakes came off."
From a 2015 North and South article by Mike White:
"While light-blue and orange paint flakes supposedly matching paint on Lundy’s tools were found on Christine’s body, where did the many dark-blue paint flakes come from, as well as the two-tone blue flake found near Amber – none of which matched anything on Lundy’s property?"

The color was matched by eye (which to my way of thinking is subjective and prone to confirmation bias), not by microspectrophotometry IIUC. From his textbook Criminalistics, Richard Saferstein wrote (pp. 190-191), "Now, with the use of a microspectrophotometer, not only can the color of materials be compared visually but, at the same time, an absorption spectrum can be plotted for each item under examination to display the exact wavelengths at which it absorbs in the visible light spectrum. Occasionally colors that appear similar by visual examination show significant differences in their absorption spectra."



The paint was examined by ESR scientist Sally Coulson. “These fragments could not be excluded as coming from the pale blue paint from the tools based on their colour and chemical and elemental compositions,” To make matters worse these fragments where embedded in the victims bone fragments.

Why are bits of his tools embeded in wifes bones and why are parts of his wifes brains on his shirt?

https://streamable.com/9p0em

Unless you want to postulate that Mark Lundy just so happened to purchase meat of such poor quality it was contaminated with CNS from the animal. Only to then not cook the meat properly the CNS remains raw. Then it spills on his shirt exactly where his wifes DNA is found. All while an unknown assailant who happens to have a weapon painted with the same two paint colours as his tools. Breaks into his house and kills the family on a night he happens to be out. But it is not all bad news. The life insurance payout could help payoff and his deeply in debt vineyard project and rejuvenate optimism in its already disgruntled investors and creditors. .. Please :roll eyes:

You are stating the crown case. The paint is known to not match in either colour or chemical composition, this is applied science. In the first trial Cou;son used the term indistinguishable, which was a purely visual analysis.
The dna was separate from the embedded material. Helen Winkelmann was told this by Morgan at the appeal, here is a precise transcript

WMN Can I ask 2 questions did the elution for each spot produce dna...
MGN yes...
WMN and was the dab slide or paraffin block taken from the shirt tested for dna? Were the remnants tested for dna?

MGN It didn't work. There were a number of methodologies looked at but we only used those relevant to the case.

WMN. Did they produce any dna readings from those samples?

MGN From the tisue in the fabric blocks themselves, answer no.

WMN And the tissue on the dab slides?

MGN The tissue on the dab slides was too degraded to do anything with at all.

I hope that helps David, the concensus that includes the attorney, the appellant and others close to the case is his appeal will succeed, and this should be reported about february. However seeing decisions like Brendan Dassey reminds us of the naked brutality of the state and its minions.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:56 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:We need to feature this case in 2018. Who can provide an up to date case overview for the website and Spring Newsletter? Do we have a core group here who are willing to keep the website up to date so that we can properly inform the public?

There is plenty of work going on, I have been converting the important parts of the first trial (2002) to a format we can quote from.
The motive is a proven failure, and it is quite certain the killings were the result of money not being paid soon enough to suit some crooked creditors, I will post more of this material as it is formatted. The first trial is the best source for correct information.

It is noteworthy that judge Helen Winkelmann in the recent appeal was obviously disbelieving when Morgan said Amber ate till midnight. Here is an interesting aspect of the first trial
Page 1170, Van der Kolk cross examines Mark.

Well Mr Lundy Amber seemed to be a creature of routine according to all your family members, that's right isn't it?

Yes

And well behaved in that regard?

Very.

And well-disciplined, self-disciplined, in fact?

Yes.

.................................
So the crown estab lished in 2002 she was very well behaved, but in 2015 had to be eating at midnight so stomach contents lined up with a 3am death.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:44 am

Mike White wrote, "Of 47 fragments examined by ESR, the environmental science and research institute, nine orange and nine light-blue flecks are described as “indistinguishable” from samples taken from three tools and two paint tins in the garage. This was defined as meaning the paint was the same colour and chemical composition. But in 16 of these 18 samples, the scientist noted there was contamination and the chemical match wasn’t described or provided to the defence."

In another article Mike White wrote, "Police claimed microscopic paint flakes found on Christine’s body matched paint on Lundy’s tools and in his garage. But police could never show which tool might have been the murder weapon. They pointed to a tomahawk, but the only one found among Lundy’s possessions wasn’t painted." He continued, "While light-blue and orange paint flakes supposedly matching paint on Lundy’s tools were found on Christine’s body, where did the many dark-blue paint flakes come from, as well as the two-tone blue flake found near Amber – none of which matched anything on Lundy’s property?"

Based on these passages, here are some questions to ponder:

Which one of Lundy's tools does the Crown think was used?
Where did the other paint flakes come from?
Why couldn't the forensic workers test chemical composition of the paint? If they thought that the paint chips were contaminated, then why couldn't they clean them. If they were contaminated, then would the contaminating substance affect the visual appearance?
Why didn't the forensic workers use microspectrophotometry on the paint?
Did the forensic workers do anything to avoid their analysis being subjective or falling prey to confirmation bias?*
Especially given the problems noted above, what does "could not be excluded" actually mean?

With respect to the DNA, they should have performed substrate controls. In addition, the presence of animal DNA in one of the stains substantially weakens the inference that might be drawn from Christine's DNA.

With respect to the protein markers used by Dr. Miller, most were not specific for brain/CNS tissue. GFAP and S100 occur in peripheral nervous tissue. S100 is found in salivary glands, and GFAP has been found in mouse bone marrow and spleen, to give some examples. GFAP has been found in ground beef. Synaptophysin is similar. The protein that had the greatest specificity, NeuN, was negative in Dr. Miller's testing.

EDT
*Some forensic analyses have been shown to be capable of being biased by extraneous information. More information available upon request.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:43 am

Chris_Halkides wrote:Mike White wrote, "Of 47 fragments examined by ESR, the environmental science and research institute, nine orange and nine light-blue flecks are described as “indistinguishable” from samples taken from three tools and two paint tins in the garage. This was defined as meaning the paint was the same colour and chemical composition. But in 16 of these 18 samples, the scientist noted there was contamination and the chemical match wasn’t described or provided to the defence."

In another article Mike White wrote, "Police claimed microscopic paint flakes found on Christine’s body matched paint on Lundy’s tools and in his garage. But police could never show which tool might have been the murder weapon. They pointed to a tomahawk, but the only one found among Lundy’s possessions wasn’t painted." He continued, "While light-blue and orange paint flakes supposedly matching paint on Lundy’s tools were found on Christine’s body, where did the many dark-blue paint flakes come from, as well as the two-tone blue flake found near Amber – none of which matched anything on Lundy’s property?"

Based on these passages, here are some questions to ponder:

Which one of Lundy's tools does the Crown think was used?
Where did the other paint flakes come from?
Why couldn't they forensic workers test chemical composition of the paint?
Why didn't the forensic workers use microspectrophotometry on the paint?
Did the forensic workers do anything to avoid their analysis being subjective or falling prey to confirmation bias?
Especially given the problems noted above, what does "could not be excluded" actually mean?

With respect to the DNA, they should have performed substrate controls. In addition, the presence of animal DNA in one of the stains substantially weakens the inference that might be drawn from Christine's DNA.

With respect to the protein markers used by Dr. Miller, most were not specific for brain/CNS tissue. GFAP and S100 occur in peripheral nervous tissue. S100 is found in salivary glands, and GFAP has been found in mouse bone marrow and spleen, to give some examples. GFAP has been found in ground beef. Synaptophysin is similar. The protein that had the greatest specificity, NeuN, was negative in Dr. Miller's testing.



"The shirt had been kept for examination, and when they got around to it 59 days after the crime, they found three spots of blood. One was on the upper-front of the left-hand side of the shirt and a second on the upper-left sleeve. Both tested positive for Christine’s DNA. The third on the lower-right side of the shirt contained Amber’s DNA."

"I explained to the journalist that the murderer would have taken care to wear protective overalls, anticipating that blood, at the very least, might get onto their clothing. That would explain why the shirt was essentially clean. But if a right-handed murderer were wearing a pair of one-piece denim overalls of the type worn by council rubbish collectors or hospital porters, the first thing they would so, after undoing the fastenings from the top to the bottom, is put their right thumb under the left lapel and peel the sleeve over the shoulder and along the left arm. If there were a small fragment of brain tissue on the right thumb, one would inevitably have to touch it to the shirt over the left breast and then on the left shoulder as the overalls were pulled off. The touch would be light and glancing rather than a firm and vigorous rub. What’s more, the right thumb is precisely the place I would predict a right-handed axe-murderer to pick up a piece of brain. And taking off his overalls is precisely the way in which he would spread the tissue thinly enough to ensure quick drying and long term preservation"


"Mark Lundy’s tools were all painted in a distinctive orange and blue. There was a full set of tools in his garden shed, but no axe. Lundy maintained that he didn’t own an axe — an assertion contradicted by several of his acquaintances."


"‘In the case of the tissue on the shirt,’ I said, ‘the brain was sort of mummified onto the shirt. This was a process not unlike that which happens when an insect splatters over a car windscreen. The insect’s tissue gets smeared thinly, the wind dries it and it becomes preserved there. It’ll still be there months later if it isn’t scrubbed off and it will stay surprisingly recognisable.’ ‘So if drying was the method of preservation, how quickly did that have to happen?’ Ben asked. ‘I could see the brain architecture very clearly,’ I replied. ‘It wasn’t quite up to the significance of your tests for the tissue found on the accused’s shirt?’ Ben asked. ‘The brain tissue must have been smeared on the shirt pretty much at the time of death,’ I replied firmly. ‘Certainly within 30 minutes of it.’ ‘What do you say to the suggestion that the tissue found its way onto the shirt 18 hours after the time of death?’ ‘It’s not credible,’ I said. ‘The piece of brain we were looking at was far too small to have sat around for 18 hours.’"

The Cause of Death – Cynric Temple-Camp
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:24 am

Mike White wrote, "Pathologist James Pang determined the weapon used to kill Christine and Amber was possibly a tomahawk, and this became accepted fact.
If so, though, how would paint flakes be so imbedded in the victims’ wounds – who would paint their tomahawk’s blade? Police eventually recovered a tomahawk from among Lundy’s possessions. It wasn’t marked with paint, and nor did it test positive for blood."

The person or persons who did this crime had to be covered by gore (one knows this because of a shadow effect on the wall). Yet the this tomahawk (which I take to be equivalent to an axe) was not painted, nor did it have any blood. If Lundy had done this crime, wouldn't he have disposed of all of his clothing and the murder weapon, as opposed to only some of his clothing? Could he have cleaned up so well that no elements of the crime were found in his car or on the putative murder weapon. The only thing anyone can point to are one or two stains on his shirt. That's quite an impressive clean-up for a first time murderer.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:34 am

Simply dipping a burger into hydrochloric acid does not accurately model the behavior of the stomach. By mechanical action and by enzymes, the stomach produces chyme, and the particle size at the end of this process is no larger than 2 mm (reference available upon request), implying that recognizable food particles are no longer present. Colorado State has a discussion with a helpful graph. If Pang's description of Amber's stomach content is correct (that it was similar to Christine's) then Amber could not have eaten any later than 11 PM, probably more like 1 AM. This is risible. For further information on the uses and misuses of stomach or duodenum contents and TOD, you can also read the 2013 paper I cited in this blog entry: http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/ ... imate.html
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:Mike White wrote, "Pathologist James Pang determined the weapon used to kill Christine and Amber was possibly a tomahawk, and this became accepted fact.
If so, though, how would paint flakes be so imbedded in the victims’ wounds – who would paint their tomahawk’s blade? Police eventually recovered a tomahawk from among Lundy’s possessions. It wasn’t marked with paint, and nor did it test positive for blood."

The person or persons who did this crime had to be covered by gore (one knows this because of a shadow effect on the wall). Yet the this tomahawk (which I take to be equivalent to an axe) was not painted, nor did it have any blood. If Lundy had done this crime, wouldn't he have disposed of all of his clothing and the murder weapon, as opposed to only some of his clothing? Could he have cleaned up so well that no elements of the crime were found in his car or on the putative murder weapon. The only thing anyone can point to are one or two stains on his shirt. That's quite an impressive clean-up for a first time murderer.


Not really.

Commit the crimes wearing overalls. Remove the overalls and shoes ect along with the murder weapon into a secure bag. Throw the bag off the bridge into the otaki river on the journey back to wellington.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:42 am

David1819 wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:Mike White wrote, "Pathologist James Pang determined the weapon used to kill Christine and Amber was possibly a tomahawk, and this became accepted fact.
If so, though, how would paint flakes be so imbedded in the victims’ wounds – who would paint their tomahawk’s blade? Police eventually recovered a tomahawk from among Lundy’s possessions. It wasn’t marked with paint, and nor did it test positive for blood."

The person or persons who did this crime had to be covered by gore (one knows this because of a shadow effect on the wall). Yet the this tomahawk (which I take to be equivalent to an axe) was not painted, nor did it have any blood. If Lundy had done this crime, wouldn't he have disposed of all of his clothing and the murder weapon, as opposed to only some of his clothing? Could he have cleaned up so well that no elements of the crime were found in his car or on the putative murder weapon. The only thing anyone can point to are one or two stains on his shirt. That's quite an impressive clean-up for a first time murderer.


Not really.

Commit the crimes wearing overalls. Remove the overalls and shoes ect along with the murder weapon into a secure bag. Throw the bag off the bridge into the otaki river on the journey back to wellington.

Go to Bamber and remind yourself about plans that have no chance of success David. Where did JB discard the crime paraphernalia?
Oh wait, he didn't lol
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:43 am

Samson wrote:
David1819 wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:Mike White wrote, "Pathologist James Pang determined the weapon used to kill Christine and Amber was possibly a tomahawk, and this became accepted fact.
If so, though, how would paint flakes be so imbedded in the victims’ wounds – who would paint their tomahawk’s blade? Police eventually recovered a tomahawk from among Lundy’s possessions. It wasn’t marked with paint, and nor did it test positive for blood."

The person or persons who did this crime had to be covered by gore (one knows this because of a shadow effect on the wall). Yet the this tomahawk (which I take to be equivalent to an axe) was not painted, nor did it have any blood. If Lundy had done this crime, wouldn't he have disposed of all of his clothing and the murder weapon, as opposed to only some of his clothing? Could he have cleaned up so well that no elements of the crime were found in his car or on the putative murder weapon. The only thing anyone can point to are one or two stains on his shirt. That's quite an impressive clean-up for a first time murderer.


Not really.

Commit the crimes wearing overalls. Remove the overalls and shoes ect along with the murder weapon into a secure bag. Throw the bag off the bridge into the otaki river on the journey back to wellington.

Go to Bamber and remind yourself about plans that have no chance of success David. Where did JB discard the crime paraphernalia?
Oh wait, he didn't lol


You are saying its not possible to hack someone with an axe, then throw away your outer layer of clothing and axe away? lmao
They never found OJ Simpsons knife! does that make him innocent? NO

As for Jeremy Bamber I think its an insult to compare the two cases.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:02 pm

David1819 wrote:
Samson wrote:
David1819 wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:Mike White wrote, "Pathologist James Pang determined the weapon used to kill Christine and Amber was possibly a tomahawk, and this became accepted fact.
If so, though, how would paint flakes be so imbedded in the victims’ wounds – who would paint their tomahawk’s blade? Police eventually recovered a tomahawk from among Lundy’s possessions. It wasn’t marked with paint, and nor did it test positive for blood."

The person or persons who did this crime had to be covered by gore (one knows this because of a shadow effect on the wall). Yet the this tomahawk (which I take to be equivalent to an axe) was not painted, nor did it have any blood. If Lundy had done this crime, wouldn't he have disposed of all of his clothing and the murder weapon, as opposed to only some of his clothing? Could he have cleaned up so well that no elements of the crime were found in his car or on the putative murder weapon. The only thing anyone can point to are one or two stains on his shirt. That's quite an impressive clean-up for a first time murderer.


Not really.

Commit the crimes wearing overalls. Remove the overalls and shoes ect along with the murder weapon into a secure bag. Throw the bag off the bridge into the otaki river on the journey back to wellington.

Go to Bamber and remind yourself about plans that have no chance of success David. Where did JB discard the crime paraphernalia?
Oh wait, he didn't lol


You are saying its not possible to hack someone with an axe, then throw away your outer layer of clothing and axe away? lmao
They never found OJ Simpsons knife! does that make him innocent? NO

As for Jeremy Bamber I think its an insult to compare the two cases.

Now we are making progress.
There are many parallels between Bamber and Lundy. For example they both involved allegedly careful preplanning, but with no hope of success in the real world. Police create a parallel universe where anything is possible. It fools most of the people, the politicians and the judiciary, we are seeing this played out in real time in both cases as they proceed through similar appeal processes.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:44 pm

David1819 wrote:You are saying its not possible to hack someone with an axe, then throw away your outer layer of clothing and axe away? lmao

Does this means that you are abandoning Lundy's tomahawk as the putative murder weapon? Why not throw away the shirt at the same time?

"Furthermore, there was animal DNA found in the stains on the polo shirt the Crown says contains Christine's tissue." Link1

The presence of animal DNA means that one cannot blithely claim that Christine's DNA has anything to do with the stain. This is a variation of what Professor Peter Gill calls the association fallacy in his book, Misleading DNA Evidence. Moreover, DNA from Christine could have come from touching the shirt or breathing upon the shirt (breathing can leave detectable DNA at a distance of roughly two feet). It would have been helpful had the the lab had performed substrate controls. Link2
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:16 am

Chris_Halkides wrote:
David1819 wrote:You are saying its not possible to hack someone with an axe, then throw away your outer layer of clothing and axe away? lmao

Does this means that you are abandoning Lundy's tomahawk as the putative murder weapon? Why not throw away the shirt at the same time?
[/url]


A tomahawk is a type of axe. Why not throw the shirt away? Because he didnt know that he cominated it when he removed his overalls.


Chris_Halkides wrote:
David1819 wrote:"Furthermore, there was animal DNA found in the stains on the polo shirt the Crown says contains Christine's tissue." Link1

The presence of animal DNA means that one cannot blithely claim that Christine's DNA has anything to do with the stain. This is a variation of what Professor Peter Gill calls the association fallacy in his book, Misleading DNA Evidence. Moreover, DNA from Christine could have come from touching the shirt or breathing upon the shirt (breathing can leave detectable DNA at a distance of roughly two feet). It would have been helpful had the the lab had performed substrate controls. Link2



According to Cynric Temple-Camp, The way the brain tissue was smeared into the fabric, It had to have got there in no less than 30 minutes from the point it was exposed. Otherwise such a small part of CNS would not stick. He was also able to identify cells and blood vessels.

"We're not talking about any old piece of central nervous system tissue, we're talking about fresh tissue," said Mr Morgan, which was embedded in the fabric of the shirt Lundy was wearing on the night his wife's brain was opened.
DNA testing showed the tissue belonged to Christine Lundy, said Mr Morgan. It was one billion billion times more likely to belong to her than any other person in New Zealand.

Not just a little bit, or a trace, but a "high-quality, high-quantity" sample, which suggested the DNA came from blood or tissue from Christine Lundy.
"Put aside all the other evidence for a moment. It's brain tissue and Christine Lundy. Not an animal. There is no other rational explanation other than he is the killer."


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11423070
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:50 am

Samson wrote:
David1819 wrote:
Samson wrote:
David1819 wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:Mike White wrote, "Pathologist James Pang determined the weapon used to kill Christine and Amber was possibly a tomahawk, and this became accepted fact.
If so, though, how would paint flakes be so imbedded in the victims’ wounds – who would paint their tomahawk’s blade? Police eventually recovered a tomahawk from among Lundy’s possessions. It wasn’t marked with paint, and nor did it test positive for blood."

The person or persons who did this crime had to be covered by gore (one knows this because of a shadow effect on the wall). Yet the this tomahawk (which I take to be equivalent to an axe) was not painted, nor did it have any blood. If Lundy had done this crime, wouldn't he have disposed of all of his clothing and the murder weapon, as opposed to only some of his clothing? Could he have cleaned up so well that no elements of the crime were found in his car or on the putative murder weapon. The only thing anyone can point to are one or two stains on his shirt. That's quite an impressive clean-up for a first time murderer.


Not really.

Commit the crimes wearing overalls. Remove the overalls and shoes ect along with the murder weapon into a secure bag. Throw the bag off the bridge into the otaki river on the journey back to wellington.

Go to Bamber and remind yourself about plans that have no chance of success David. Where did JB discard the crime paraphernalia?
Oh wait, he didn't lol


You are saying its not possible to hack someone with an axe, then throw away your outer layer of clothing and axe away? lmao
They never found OJ Simpsons knife! does that make him innocent? NO

As for Jeremy Bamber I think its an insult to compare the two cases.

Now we are making progress.
There are many parallels between Bamber and Lundy. For example they both involved allegedly careful preplanning, but with no hope of success in the real world. Police create a parallel universe where anything is possible. It fools most of the people, the politicians and the judiciary, we are seeing this played out in real time in both cases as they proceed through similar appeal processes.


In the Bamber case the murder weapon was found in the arms of his mentally ill sister with her prints on the weapon, while in a house locked from the inside.

In the Lundy case the paint embedded in the victims bones along with all the other circumstances enables any reasonably person to draw the conclusion that the murder weapon came from a shed that Mark Lundy possessed keys to.

Furthermore Mark Lundy's plan was not a success. He never planned on killing Amber. Because she woke from the noise and entered her parents room she was able to identify him. Faced with a certain conviction and a daughter that would feel nothing but revulsion and hatred towards him. He was compelled to dispose of the witness. Hence why Amber was found in doorway/hall leading to the main bedroom.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:01 am

David you keep repeating the crown case and ignoring the evidence. Attempts to extract dna from the tissue failed, but the elution was analysed further and this showed traces consistent with the NZ food chain. If indeed it was fresh brain smeared into the shirt fibers that Miller analysed, it would be expected to find Christine's dna and neurons. All analysis revealed neither.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:00 am

Samson wrote:David you keep repeating the crown case and ignoring the evidence. Attempts to extract dna from the tissue failed, but the elution was analysed further and this showed traces consistent with the NZ food chain. If indeed it was fresh brain smeared into the shirt fibers that Miller analysed, it would be expected to find Christine's dna and neurons. All analysis revealed neither.


I am not ignoring any evidence. You are.

"There was one completely new piece of evidence. Dr Laetitia Sijen from the Netherlands Forensic Institute found human messengerRibonucleic acid (RNA) in the brain tissue.So that made it incontrovertible. It was brain, it was human, and the DNA testing said it came from Christine."
Cynric Temple-Camp.

What Lundy supporters do is take each piece of evidence in isolation and try to cast doubt on it. Oblivious to the fact that all those pieces mesh together into a very damning picture.

The ending of Temple-Camp books sums it up rather accurately.

"Another appeal will surely follow and his supporters remain staunchly behind him. No recent evidence presented in court has changed their minds. And nothing ever will. No level of proof can ever be high enough, and for them, there will never be any evidence that cannot be dismissed as falsification or conspiracy."
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:11 pm

David1819,

At the beginning of 2014 here is howthe case against Mr. Lundy stood. The Privy Council’s 2013 judgment had shown that the centerpiece of the prosecution’s case, Miller’s ITC work, was very problematic. The police and prosecution team could have taken this opportunity to ask themselves whether they had identified the wrong man. Instead they jettisoned Lundy as Formula One driver, computer wizard and drag runner. That was not entirely a bad thing, but when then did they tacitly admitted that (to the degree that the first jury believed this rubbish) Lundy had been wrongly convicted. Then they repeated the fundamental error of the ITC work, which is to invent a new forensic technique without peer review, namely an attempt to not just identify but to quantitate mRNA in an attempt to show that the questioned material was brain or CNS tissue.

They never should have been allowed to present such evidence in court. But they were allowed, and the defense had to spend resources to rebut it. The defense witnesses at the retrial were Marielle Vennemann and Stephen Bustin. Professor Vennemann has published review articles in internationally known forensic journals in the area of presumptive and confirmatory tests. Professor Bustin published an article on the quantitation of nucleic acids that has been cited in over three thousand other articles or other scholarly works. He has written a book that is called the bible of quantitative PCR (polymerase chain reaction). He previously debunked one study, which involved the false detection of RNA, something that was part of the autism/vaccine controversy. No one in the world is more qualified to judge studies that quantitate of DNA or RNA than he is.

Both of them called the mRNA studies by the Dutch group unfit for purpose, and Professor Bustin said that he would be very reluctant to accept it for publication. The word of either of these two scientists should be enough to settle the matter, and the fact that both of them were so unequivocal is that much more powerful. However, let’s examine a few of the problems of the mRNA work on its own.

One, the Dutch team ignored a (-)reverse transcriptase control experiment that turned out positive. Reverse transcriptase is the enzyme that makes a DNA copy from a piece of RNA. If one leaves it out and gets a positive result, it indicates that one is detecting DNA, not RNA, and the difference between detecting one versus the other in this application is critical. DNA is present in almost all cell types, whereas only quantitative measurement of mRNA levels would be useful in identifying a body fluid or tissue type.

Two, the Dutch forensic workers used 10 microliters of template for certain experiments but only two microliters for their (-)reverse transcriptase control. This is a fundamental design flaw.

Three, they counted their experiment for OPALIN as a positive result, even though their positive control for OPALIN was negative. As Professor Bustin pointed out, once your positive control doesn’t return a positive result, everything else is irrelevant.

Four, they claimed a positive result in seven out of twelve trials. They said that batting just over .500 was good enough to show the presence of brain or CNS tissue. They never provided an objective rationale for this number.

The largest elephant in the room, perhaps, is the age of the sample, roughly fourteen years between the crime and the testing. Postmortem degradation of mRNA is something that can be detected over days. Yet for the Dutch lab’s experiments to be valid, the rates have to be both uniform and so slow as to leave detectable amounts not fourteen days later but fourteen years. No biochemist whom I have told about this result finds it plausible. I did a simple calculation based on some data from Ronald Breaker’s work on the rates of transphosphorylations. I estimated that the RNA should be 90% degraded in a year. Although some of my assumptions are open to challenge, I deliberately ignored enzymatic degradation of RNA and only attempted to estimate spontaneous decay. The presence of nuclease enzymes would only speed things up further.

Until now I have wished to avoid saying anything negative about Dr. Temple-Camp, but the passage you wrote indicates that Dr. Temple-Camp did not look into the RNA issue in the slightest. If he had, he would not have written a bunch of drivel about conspiracy theories. Two, he has fallen into the vulgar error of maligning his intellectual opponents, as opposed to answering their arguments. In so doing, he has impoverished the debate.

One final note. In the interests of time, I did not provide links for this comment. You can find links for almost everything I discussed in my previous comments in this thread and in the Lundy thread at the International Skeptics Forum. Please let me know if you need help in this regard.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Fri Jan 12, 2018 10:55 am

Chris_Halkides wrote:David1819,

At the beginning of 2014 here is howthe case against Mr. Lundy stood. The Privy Council’s 2013 judgment had shown that the centerpiece of the prosecution’s case, Miller’s ITC work, was very problematic. The police and prosecution team could have taken this opportunity to ask themselves whether they had identified the wrong man. Instead they jettisoned Lundy as Formula One driver, computer wizard and drag runner. That was not entirely a bad thing, but when then did they tacitly admitted that (to the degree that the first jury believed this rubbish) Lundy had been wrongly convicted. Then they repeated the fundamental error of the ITC work, which is to invent a new forensic technique without peer review, namely an attempt to not just identify but to quantitate mRNA in an attempt to show that the questioned material was brain or CNS tissue.

They never should have been allowed to present such evidence in court. But they were allowed, and the defense had to spend resources to rebut it. The defense witnesses at the retrial were Marielle Vennemann and Stephen Bustin. Professor Vennemann has published review articles in internationally known forensic journals in the area of presumptive and confirmatory tests. Professor Bustin published an article on the quantitation of nucleic acids that has been cited in over three thousand other articles or other scholarly works. He has written a book that is called the bible of quantitative PCR (polymerase chain reaction). He previously debunked one study, which involved the false detection of RNA, something that was part of the autism/vaccine controversy. No one in the world is more qualified to judge studies that quantitate of DNA or RNA than he is.

Both of them called the mRNA studies by the Dutch group unfit for purpose, and Professor Bustin said that he would be very reluctant to accept it for publication. The word of either of these two scientists should be enough to settle the matter, and the fact that both of them were so unequivocal is that much more powerful. However, let’s examine a few of the problems of the mRNA work on its own.

One, the Dutch team ignored a (-)reverse transcriptase control experiment that turned out positive. Reverse transcriptase is the enzyme that makes a DNA copy from a piece of RNA. If one leaves it out and gets a positive result, it indicates that one is detecting DNA, not RNA, and the difference between detecting one versus the other in this application is critical. DNA is present in almost all cell types, whereas only quantitative measurement of mRNA levels would be useful in identifying a body fluid or tissue type.

Two, the Dutch forensic workers used 10 microliters of template for certain experiments but only two microliters for their (-)reverse transcriptase control. This is a fundamental design flaw.

Three, they counted their experiment for OPALIN as a positive result, even though their positive control for OPALIN was negative. As Professor Bustin pointed out, once your positive control doesn’t return a positive result, everything else is irrelevant.

Four, they claimed a positive result in seven out of twelve trials. They said that batting just over .500 was good enough to show the presence of brain or CNS tissue. They never provided an objective rationale for this number.

The largest elephant in the room, perhaps, is the age of the sample, roughly fourteen years between the crime and the testing. Postmortem degradation of mRNA is something that can be detected over days. Yet for the Dutch lab’s experiments to be valid, the rates have to be both uniform and so slow as to leave detectable amounts not fourteen days later but fourteen years. No biochemist whom I have told about this result finds it plausible. I did a simple calculation based on some data from Ronald Breaker’s work on the rates of transphosphorylations. I estimated that the RNA should be 90% degraded in a year. Although some of my assumptions are open to challenge, I deliberately ignored enzymatic degradation of RNA and only attempted to estimate spontaneous decay. The presence of nuclease enzymes would only speed things up further.

Until now I have wished to avoid saying anything negative about Dr. Temple-Camp, but the passage you wrote indicates that Dr. Temple-Camp did not look into the RNA issue in the slightest. If he had, he would not have written a bunch of drivel about conspiracy theories. Two, he has fallen into the vulgar error of maligning his intellectual opponents, as opposed to answering their arguments. In so doing, he has impoverished the debate.

One final note. In the interests of time, I did not provide links for this comment. You can find links for almost everything I discussed in my previous comments in this thread and in the Lundy thread at the International Skeptics Forum. Please let me know if you need help in this regard.



Just because the tests on the brain tissue do not meet Bustin and Vennermans exemplary academic ideals does not mean the results of those test are wrong. There is nothing wrong with presenting such evidence in court as long as the jury get to hear the Bustin and Vennerman's counter opinion and that they did.

Once again you are isolating evidence into a very narrow passage. As Dr. Temple-Camp pointed out, the brain tissue of that size could not have emdedded itself into the fabric at any time greater than 30 minutes post mortem. Because it would have dried/crumbled and not stuck. This corroborates the DNA and RNA results on the brain tissue also. Because as far as I know Mark Lundy has never claimed to have slaughtered a live animal with that shirt on. Dr. Temple-Camp further pointed out that the size of brain tissue is rather fortuante because had it been larger Mark Lundy would have noticed it and discarded the shirt.

Then you have the two colour of paint matching his tools. Kept in a locked shed that he possesed keys to. Found embeded in the victims bone fragments. This also corroborates the findings of the Dutch scientists. Then on top of that, Lundy denied ever owning an axe yet multiple people that knew him claimed otherwise.

‘It has been said that circumstantial evidence is to be considered as a chain, and each piece of evidence as a link in the chain, but that is not so, for then, if any one link broke, the chain would fall. It is more like the case of a rope composed of several cords. One strand of the cord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite of sufficient strength.’
Regina v Exall And Others:
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:13 pm

David1819 wrote:A tomahawk is a type of axe. Why not throw the shirt away? Because he didnt know that he cominated it when he removed his overalls.

SNIP

According to Cynric Temple-Camp, The way the brain tissue was smeared into the fabric, It had to have got there in no less than 30 minutes from the point it was exposed. Otherwise such a small part of CNS would not stick. He was also able to identify cells and blood vessels.

"We're not talking about any old piece of central nervous system tissue, we're talking about fresh tissue," said Mr Morgan, which was embedded in the fabric of the shirt Lundy was wearing on the night his wife's brain was opened.
DNA testing showed the tissue belonged to Christine Lundy, said Mr Morgan. It was one billion billion times more likely to belong to her than any other person in New Zealand.

Not just a little bit, or a trace, but a "high-quality, high-quantity" sample, which suggested the DNA came from blood or tissue from Christine Lundy.
"Put aside all the other evidence for a moment. It's brain tissue and Christine Lundy. Not an animal. There is no other rational explanation other than he is the killer."


1. There was a tomahawk found on Lundy's property. You must have missed this quote above, which is from Mike White: "Police eventually recovered a tomahawk from among Lundy’s possessions. It wasn’t marked with paint, and nor did it test positive for blood." So if you want to postulate that Lundy threw away the murder weapon (and that the murder weapon was the source of paint), then it has to be a different weapon from the one that was recovered.

2. When one performs ITC it is typically done on tissue samples fixed with formalin (formaldehyde in water, with a low concentration of methanol). "Formaldehyde reacts with primary amines to form Schiff bases, with amides to form hydroxymethyl compounds. Hydroxymethyl groups condense with another amide moiety to form methyl daimides. Alcoholic hydroxyl forms acetals while sulfhydro groups form sulfhydral acetal analogues with formaldehyde.[6]" Link In other words there is covalent modification of the proteins. Some protocols call for a particular period of time for this process to occur. It is important to remember that particular chemical groups within certain proteins are the antigenic determinants for the antibody work that Dr. Miller performed.

Temple-Camp would have us believe that tissue flying through the air then being pseudo-fixed by air drying on the shirt fabric for two months is somehow equivalent to formalin fixation. This is very difficult to swallow for a number of reasons. One is that the proteins which are formalin-fixed are chemically nonidentical to those that are not (see above), although sometimes the covalent changes can be reversed when the formalin is removed. Another reason is that the process of air drying may lead to denaturation of the proteins. Denaturation will hide some antigenic determinants and expose others.

From the Privy Council's judgment: "She [Professor Whitwell] disagreed with Dr Temple-Camp about the level of preservation of the tissue. In her opinion the state of preservation was extremely poor and a diagnosis of its exact nature was impossible." They continued, "She [Whitwell] pointed out that in his original statement Dr Temple-Camp had said that the specimen that he observed on the ESR slide was poorly preserved. In his final statement for trial (which is dated 15 February 2002) he appeared to have changed his view. On this occasion he said that the specimen was “adequately preserved”....She said that the presence of DNA from one’s wife or child or even blood flakes, if the parties live together as a family, is not only not unusual, it was common place." [see point 3 below]

The Privy Council also wrote, "Dr Temple-Camp also provided an affidavit on behalf of the respondent. He considered that the fact that Dr Miller was able to perform histological and immunohistochemical examination on the specimen from Mr Lundy’s shirt confirmed that the tissue must have been fixed. Otherwise, he believed, tissue degradation would have rendered the specimen unrecognisable. But this argument is somewhat circular." And "There has not been direct evidence on the point so far and it may be that the precise mechanism of the vaunted air-drying cannot be specified."

Nor was Professor Whitwell the only person to express doubts about the IHC. Again from the Privy Council: "The specimens displayed, in Professor Sheard’s opinion, a widely varying staining pattern. In some cases nerve specific antibodies stained negative control samples and antibodies to non-neural proteins were found to stain control nerve tissue. In light of this Professor Sheard concluded that it was not possible to use the experiment to reach a reliable conclusion as to the nature of the material taken from Mr Lundy’s shirt. Moreover, he considered that the photographs which had been presented by Dr Miller created an inaccurate representation of the outcome of his experiment because they failed to illustrate the marked variation in results." And: "Professor Sheard referred to research by Fountoulakis and others on ‘Post-mortem changes in the level of brain proteins’ which, he suggested, showed that brain proteins are subject to progressive degradation after they are removed from the body. The report suggested that glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), one of the markers crucial to Dr Miller’s identification of the specimen, was undetectable after 72 hours."

Again from the Privy Council: "On the question of the variability of the staining on the various slides, Professor Sheard suggested that this was important because where a specimen is partly stained dark and partly not, one has to ask why this should be so. It is necessary to question whether the darkened area is an artefact. If this is the case and the unstained area represents the correct result, diagnosis of the specimen as CNS tissue cannot be made. In this context, Professor Sheard suggested that the claim that smearing of the material on the shirt fabric had caused compression of the nuclei was “fanciful”."

3. It is unscientific to make claims about the origin of DNA (primary versus secondary transfer, or which tissue or fluid gave rise to it) on the basis of its quality or quantity without literature support. In this case, it is probably even more tenuous. It is my understanding (which could be mistaken) that the tests for animal DNA were done later than the tests for human DNA, and only after two water extractions of the stain. Both the extraction and the length of time would tend to reduce the amount of animal DNA.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:19 pm

David1819 wrote:
Just because the tests on the brain tissue do not meet Bustin and Vennermans exemplary academic ideals does not mean the results of those test are wrong. There is nothing wrong with presenting such evidence in court as long as the jury get to hear the Bustin and Vennerman's counter opinion and that they did.


The problems with your position are two-fold. One, you are in effect claiming that forensics should be held to a lower standard than academic science. This despite the fact that a man's life and reputation are at stake, among other considerations. Two is that a jury presumably consists of a cross section of society, and no particular scientific knowledge or acumen is a prerequisite for the job. How can a jury reasonably be expected to sort through these issues when trained scientists cannot do so without considerable investment of time? This is Lindy Chamberlain all over again, where the jury found Ms. Joy Kuhl more credible than Professor Barry Boettcher, despite her errors of knowledge and lack of documentation of her results.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:28 pm

David1819 wrote:
Samson wrote:David you keep repeating the crown case and ignoring the evidence. Attempts to extract dna from the tissue failed, but the elution was analysed further and this showed traces consistent with the NZ food chain. If indeed it was fresh brain smeared into the shirt fibers that Miller analysed, it would be expected to find Christine's dna and neurons. All analysis revealed neither.


I am not ignoring any evidence. You are.

"There was one completely new piece of evidence. Dr Laetitia Sijen from the Netherlands Forensic Institute found human messengerRibonucleic acid (RNA) in the brain tissue.So that made it incontrovertible. It was brain, it was human, and the DNA testing said it came from Christine."
Cynric Temple-Camp.

What Lundy supporters do is take each piece of evidence in isolation and try to cast doubt on it. Oblivious to the fact that all those pieces mesh together into a very damning picture.

The ending of Temple-Camp books sums it up rather accurately.

"Another appeal will surely follow and his supporters remain staunchly behind him. No recent evidence presented in court has changed their minds. And nothing ever will. No level of proof can ever be high enough, and for them, there will never be any evidence that cannot be dismissed as falsification or conspiracy."

Letitia Sijens was the missing link David.
The appeal court ruling is due soon. There will be a very full discussion of her work vs Steve Bustin. I have read all the submissions as they were batted back and forth, and Bustin had the last word.
You should be unsurprised to realise the science of the shirt spot could not be more closely paralleled by the science of your Bamber silencer. I have no idea why you continue to parrot the crown case, every element has axiomatically been disproved. Meaning if Lundy is innocent every datapoint the crown use is wrong. I think that can be considered axiomatic.

Philip Morgan as prosecutor cited all the other evidence to say he could do without Sijens. The appeal court judges kept asking how he could know the jury would have found guilt without Sijens.
"All the other evidence" was repeatedly cited by Amanda Knox prosecutors to say we don't need the knife or the bra clasp. That is a case you can study to see how it works. Indeed that is how this board all began, go to the start of the Knox thread.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:39 pm

The Lundy case will reverberate I think Chris would agree.

Rod Miller designed a test with immunohistochemistry to claim the spot was central nervous system tissue and write a paper. The test has never been repeated anywhere in the world in 17 years, and the paper has been cited just twice by scientists. Once by Miller and once by a NZ scientist who helped convict Lundy.
Letitia Sijens designed a test with mRNA to claim the tissue was human origin. The test has not been repeated, and Steve Bustin showed she contradicted the paper she wrote at a conference (check) or something like that.

Therefore Mark Lundy has been subjected to two bespoke tests to keep him in jail. Vested interests are huge, great case to follow going forward.

eta I see Chris covered in far more detail
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Paint chips

Postby Chris_Halkides » Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:53 am

Link “Sutherland and another scientist visually compared the fragments to samples of paint taken from one of Mark Lundy's spanners. The fragments looked the same as the samples, he said.”

Did the people doing this comparison have proven (documented) proficiency in comparing paint by visual comparison? It is known from experiments in other areas of forensics, that forensic technicians can be influenced by “domain irrelevant” information. Why didn’t they use microspectrophotometry, which is a more discerning technique, according to the textbook I cited? The issue of the chemical composition is a little murky, but from the quotes I have provided, we know that some information concerning chemical composition was not provided for the defense and that one ESR employee indicated contamination in sixteen of the eighteen paint chips. That suggests either than chemical composition tests were not run for these sixteen chips, or that they were run and were dissimilar to paint from Lundy’s tools.

But an even bigger problem for the prosecution is that there were forty-seven total fragments. That means that twenty-nine paint fragments did not even visually match any of Lundy’s paint. In an article in North and South from which I have previously quoted, Mike White asked, “While light-blue and orange paint flakes supposedly matching paint on Lundy’s tools were found on Christine’s body, where did the many dark-blue paint flakes come from, as well as the two-tone blue flake found near Amber – none of which matched anything on Lundy’s property?” If these twenty-nine flakes came from somewhere else, then how can we be certain of the origin of the eighteen flakes?
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby David1819 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:
1. There was a tomahawk found on Lundy's property. You must have missed this quote above, which is from Mike White: "Police eventually recovered a tomahawk from among Lundy’s possessions. It wasn’t marked with paint, and nor did it test positive for blood." So if you want to postulate that Lundy threw away the murder weapon (and that the murder weapon was the source of paint), then it has to be a different weapon from the one that was recovered.

2. When one performs ITC it is typically done on tissue samples fixed with formalin (formaldehyde in water, with a low concentration of methanol). "Formaldehyde reacts with primary amines to form Schiff bases, with amides to form hydroxymethyl compounds. Hydroxymethyl groups condense with another amide moiety to form methyl daimides. Alcoholic hydroxyl forms acetals while sulfhydro groups form sulfhydral acetal analogues with formaldehyde.[6]" Link In other words there is covalent modification of the proteins. Some protocols call for a particular period of time for this process to occur. It is important to remember that particular chemical groups within certain proteins are the antigenic determinants for the antibody work that Dr. Miller performed.

Temple-Camp would have us believe that tissue flying through the air then being pseudo-fixed by air drying on the shirt fabric for two months is somehow equivalent to formalin fixation. This is very difficult to swallow for a number of reasons. One is that the proteins which are formalin-fixed are chemically nonidentical to those that are not (see above), although sometimes the covalent changes can be reversed when the formalin is removed. Another reason is that the process of air drying may lead to denaturation of the proteins. Denaturation will hide some antigenic determinants and expose others.

From the Privy Council's judgment: "She [Professor Whitwell] disagreed with Dr Temple-Camp about the level of preservation of the tissue. In her opinion the state of preservation was extremely poor and a diagnosis of its exact nature was impossible." They continued, "She [Whitwell] pointed out that in his original statement Dr Temple-Camp had said that the specimen that he observed on the ESR slide was poorly preserved. In his final statement for trial (which is dated 15 February 2002) he appeared to have changed his view. On this occasion he said that the specimen was “adequately preserved”....She said that the presence of DNA from one’s wife or child or even blood flakes, if the parties live together as a family, is not only not unusual, it was common place." [see point 3 below]

The Privy Council also wrote, "Dr Temple-Camp also provided an affidavit on behalf of the respondent. He considered that the fact that Dr Miller was able to perform histological and immunohistochemical examination on the specimen from Mr Lundy’s shirt confirmed that the tissue must have been fixed. Otherwise, he believed, tissue degradation would have rendered the specimen unrecognisable. But this argument is somewhat circular." And "There has not been direct evidence on the point so far and it may be that the precise mechanism of the vaunted air-drying cannot be specified."

Nor was Professor Whitwell the only person to express doubts about the IHC. Again from the Privy Council: "The specimens displayed, in Professor Sheard’s opinion, a widely varying staining pattern. In some cases nerve specific antibodies stained negative control samples and antibodies to non-neural proteins were found to stain control nerve tissue. In light of this Professor Sheard concluded that it was not possible to use the experiment to reach a reliable conclusion as to the nature of the material taken from Mr Lundy’s shirt. Moreover, he considered that the photographs which had been presented by Dr Miller created an inaccurate representation of the outcome of his experiment because they failed to illustrate the marked variation in results." And: "Professor Sheard referred to research by Fountoulakis and others on ‘Post-mortem changes in the level of brain proteins’ which, he suggested, showed that brain proteins are subject to progressive degradation after they are removed from the body. The report suggested that glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), one of the markers crucial to Dr Miller’s identification of the specimen, was undetectable after 72 hours."

Again from the Privy Council: "On the question of the variability of the staining on the various slides, Professor Sheard suggested that this was important because where a specimen is partly stained dark and partly not, one has to ask why this should be so. It is necessary to question whether the darkened area is an artefact. If this is the case and the unstained area represents the correct result, diagnosis of the specimen as CNS tissue cannot be made. In this context, Professor Sheard suggested that the claim that smearing of the material on the shirt fabric had caused compression of the nuclei was “fanciful”."

3. It is unscientific to make claims about the origin of DNA (primary versus secondary transfer, or which tissue or fluid gave rise to it) on the basis of its quality or quantity without literature support. In this case, it is probably even more tenuous. It is my understanding (which could be mistaken) that the tests for animal DNA were done later than the tests for human DNA, and only after two water extractions of the stain. Both the extraction and the length of time would tend to reduce the amount of animal DNA.


I appreciate the effort. But as far as I am concerned brain tissue was found on Mark Lundys shirt. The exact shirt he had in his possession the night his wife's skull was hacked open. The defence does not contest this fact. The only difference is they claim the brain tissue came from a lamb chop. Dr Temple-Camp laughed when he heard the suggestion.

I don't know much about the complex and disputed science behind the brain tissue in this case. To me Lundy left a large enough piece of brain on his shirt to end up where he should be. In your case its small enough to create doubts. But anyway I shall post two parts of Temple-Camps book regarding the discovery of CNS and the preservation of it to help you with further research on the matter.

Here is the bit about the discovery of the CNS.

"We moved to sit at the multi-headed microscope in the lab. There were three pathologists present, as well as two registrars, and they all had a look at the slide. We all reached the same conclusion. ‘We don’t have to rely on Aunt Minnie,’ I told Ross. ‘We can see cells, including a cellular, tubular structure, which is a small blood vessel. That tells us we’re looking at deep tissue, deeper than the surface of the skin.’

‘What about spit?’ asked Ross. ‘Or snot from the nose? Could it be from that?’

‘No,’ I said. ‘You’ll never find blood vessels in spit, snot, urine or any other body fluids. They have to come from deep tissue. And the cells are all oval with what we call spindle-shaped nuclei. The nuclei are bland in appearance, which means they’ve had much of their cellular material stripped away. But the background between these cells has a subtle, fibrillary look. It doesn’t really fit with anything other than brain tissue. I mean, it’s not muscle or thyroid gland or pancreas or spleen or liver. I could go on and on. It’s a long list, but I really don’t think that this tissue can be anything other than brain.’

The others murmured in a agreement.
Ross sat in silence for a very long time, thinking.
Finally he spoke. ‘Can you prove it?’
‘Prove that it’s brain?’
He nodded.
We all looked at each other and one after another we shook our heads.
‘No,’ I said. ‘Not with our resources here. This is the only slide, I suppose?’
Ross nodded.
‘I thought so. There’s not much on it, either. I suppose special stains could be tried,
but it would be difficult. Particularly if you are looking for the level of proof you need for
a murder case.’"



And here he writes about the preservation and how it got there.

‘The critical answer lies in the remarkable preservation of the tissue in Professor Miller’s preparation,’ I replied, and went on to explain that pathologists use a technique called ‘fixation’ to preserve human tissue. As soon as any tissue is removed from the body it is effectively dead and begins to rot — the same process that happens when a person dies and the body decomposes. We stop this decay by fixing the tissue, usually with a preservative chemical named formalin. But other chemicals can be used as well, even common table salt. ‘I presume the tissue on the shirt wasn’t preserved by chemical means,’ Ben said. ‘Do you mind telling the court how it was preserved?’ ‘By drying.’ Drying out tissue works fine as a preservative, too. We use it every day in hospitals for tissue needle biopsies — where a kind of core sample of tissue is taken by inserting a hollow needle into a suspect area. We — not just pathologists — also use drying to make and preserve dried fruit and meat. Mummies in the desert were fixed by desiccating them in the dry air. ‘In the case of the tissue on the shirt,’ I said, ‘the brain was sort of mummified onto the shirt. This was a process not unlike that which happens when an insect splatters over a car windscreen. The insect’s tissue gets smeared thinly, the wind dries it and it becomes preserved there. It’ll still be there months later if it isn’t scrubbed off and it will stay surprisingly recognisable.’ ‘So if drying was the method of preservation, how quickly did that have to happen?’ Ben asked. ‘I could see the brain architecture very clearly,’ I replied. ‘It wasn’t quite up to the significance of your tests for the tissue found on the accused’s shirt?’ Ben asked. ‘The brain tissue must have been smeared on the shirt pretty much at the time of death,’ I replied firmly. ‘Certainly within 30 minutes of it.’


Hope this helps if you have not already read it. I don't wish to copy and paste any more of his book. So I recommend you buy a copy if you can.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Paint chips

Postby Samson » Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:27 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:Link “Sutherland and another scientist visually compared the fragments to samples of paint taken from one of Mark Lundy's spanners. The fragments looked the same as the samples, he said.”

Did the people doing this comparison have proven (documented) proficiency in comparing paint by visual comparison? It is known from experiments in other areas of forensics, that forensic technicians can be influenced by “domain irrelevant” information. Why didn’t they use microspectrophotometry, which is a more discerning technique, according to the textbook I cited? The issue of the chemical composition is a little murky, but from the quotes I have provided, we know that some information concerning chemical composition was not provided for the defense and that one ESR employee indicated contamination in sixteen of the eighteen paint chips. That suggests either than chemical composition tests were not run for these sixteen chips, or that they were run and were dissimilar to paint from Lundy’s tools.

But an even bigger problem for the prosecution is that there were forty-seven total fragments. That means that twenty-nine paint fragments did not even visually match any of Lundy’s paint. In an article in North and South from which I have previously quoted, Mike White asked, “While light-blue and orange paint flakes supposedly matching paint on Lundy’s tools were found on Christine’s body, where did the many dark-blue paint flakes come from, as well as the two-tone blue flake found near Amber – none of which matched anything on Lundy’s property?” If these twenty-nine flakes came from somewhere else, then how can we be certain of the origin of the eighteen flakes?

We are told the paint flecks found are of a composition used exclusively for painting leather or musical instruments, I will get the chemical description shortly. The implication is clear, the possibilty of painting leather clothing insignias. The paint did not come from Mark's garage. David must get this clear and move onto other evidence.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:34 pm

David1819 wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:
1. There was a tomahawk found on Lundy's property. You must have missed this quote above, which is from Mike White: "Police eventually recovered a tomahawk from among Lundy’s possessions. It wasn’t marked with paint, and nor did it test positive for blood." So if you want to postulate that Lundy threw away the murder weapon (and that the murder weapon was the source of paint), then it has to be a different weapon from the one that was recovered.

2. When one performs ITC it is typically done on tissue samples fixed with formalin (formaldehyde in water, with a low concentration of methanol). "Formaldehyde reacts with primary amines to form Schiff bases, with amides to form hydroxymethyl compounds. Hydroxymethyl groups condense with another amide moiety to form methyl daimides. Alcoholic hydroxyl forms acetals while sulfhydro groups form sulfhydral acetal analogues with formaldehyde.[6]" Link In other words there is covalent modification of the proteins. Some protocols call for a particular period of time for this process to occur. It is important to remember that particular chemical groups within certain proteins are the antigenic determinants for the antibody work that Dr. Miller performed.

Temple-Camp would have us believe that tissue flying through the air then being pseudo-fixed by air drying on the shirt fabric for two months is somehow equivalent to formalin fixation. This is very difficult to swallow for a number of reasons. One is that the proteins which are formalin-fixed are chemically nonidentical to those that are not (see above), although sometimes the covalent changes can be reversed when the formalin is removed. Another reason is that the process of air drying may lead to denaturation of the proteins. Denaturation will hide some antigenic determinants and expose others.

From the Privy Council's judgment: "She [Professor Whitwell] disagreed with Dr Temple-Camp about the level of preservation of the tissue. In her opinion the state of preservation was extremely poor and a diagnosis of its exact nature was impossible." They continued, "She [Whitwell] pointed out that in his original statement Dr Temple-Camp had said that the specimen that he observed on the ESR slide was poorly preserved. In his final statement for trial (which is dated 15 February 2002) he appeared to have changed his view. On this occasion he said that the specimen was “adequately preserved”....She said that the presence of DNA from one’s wife or child or even blood flakes, if the parties live together as a family, is not only not unusual, it was common place." [see point 3 below]

The Privy Council also wrote, "Dr Temple-Camp also provided an affidavit on behalf of the respondent. He considered that the fact that Dr Miller was able to perform histological and immunohistochemical examination on the specimen from Mr Lundy’s shirt confirmed that the tissue must have been fixed. Otherwise, he believed, tissue degradation would have rendered the specimen unrecognisable. But this argument is somewhat circular." And "There has not been direct evidence on the point so far and it may be that the precise mechanism of the vaunted air-drying cannot be specified."

Nor was Professor Whitwell the only person to express doubts about the IHC. Again from the Privy Council: "The specimens displayed, in Professor Sheard’s opinion, a widely varying staining pattern. In some cases nerve specific antibodies stained negative control samples and antibodies to non-neural proteins were found to stain control nerve tissue. In light of this Professor Sheard concluded that it was not possible to use the experiment to reach a reliable conclusion as to the nature of the material taken from Mr Lundy’s shirt. Moreover, he considered that the photographs which had been presented by Dr Miller created an inaccurate representation of the outcome of his experiment because they failed to illustrate the marked variation in results." And: "Professor Sheard referred to research by Fountoulakis and others on ‘Post-mortem changes in the level of brain proteins’ which, he suggested, showed that brain proteins are subject to progressive degradation after they are removed from the body. The report suggested that glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), one of the markers crucial to Dr Miller’s identification of the specimen, was undetectable after 72 hours."

Again from the Privy Council: "On the question of the variability of the staining on the various slides, Professor Sheard suggested that this was important because where a specimen is partly stained dark and partly not, one has to ask why this should be so. It is necessary to question whether the darkened area is an artefact. If this is the case and the unstained area represents the correct result, diagnosis of the specimen as CNS tissue cannot be made. In this context, Professor Sheard suggested that the claim that smearing of the material on the shirt fabric had caused compression of the nuclei was “fanciful”."

3. It is unscientific to make claims about the origin of DNA (primary versus secondary transfer, or which tissue or fluid gave rise to it) on the basis of its quality or quantity without literature support. In this case, it is probably even more tenuous. It is my understanding (which could be mistaken) that the tests for animal DNA were done later than the tests for human DNA, and only after two water extractions of the stain. Both the extraction and the length of time would tend to reduce the amount of animal DNA.


I appreciate the effort. But as far as I am concerned brain tissue was found on Mark Lundys shirt. The exact shirt he had in his possession the night his wife's skull was hacked open. The defence does not contest this fact. The only difference is they claim the brain tissue came from a lamb chop. Dr Temple-Camp laughed when he heard the suggestion.

I don't know much about the complex and disputed science behind the brain tissue in this case. To me Lundy left a large enough piece of brain on his shirt to end up where he should be. In your case its small enough to create doubts. But anyway I shall post two parts of Temple-Camps book regarding the discovery of CNS and the preservation of it to help you with further research on the matter.

Here is the bit about the discovery of the CNS.

"We moved to sit at the multi-headed microscope in the lab. There were three pathologists present, as well as two registrars, and they all had a look at the slide. We all reached the same conclusion. ‘We don’t have to rely on Aunt Minnie,’ I told Ross. ‘We can see cells, including a cellular, tubular structure, which is a small blood vessel. That tells us we’re looking at deep tissue, deeper than the surface of the skin.’

‘What about spit?’ asked Ross. ‘Or snot from the nose? Could it be from that?’

‘No,’ I said. ‘You’ll never find blood vessels in spit, snot, urine or any other body fluids. They have to come from deep tissue. And the cells are all oval with what we call spindle-shaped nuclei. The nuclei are bland in appearance, which means they’ve had much of their cellular material stripped away. But the background between these cells has a subtle, fibrillary look. It doesn’t really fit with anything other than brain tissue. I mean, it’s not muscle or thyroid gland or pancreas or spleen or liver. I could go on and on. It’s a long list, but I really don’t think that this tissue can be anything other than brain.’

The others murmured in a agreement.
Ross sat in silence for a very long time, thinking.
Finally he spoke. ‘Can you prove it?’
‘Prove that it’s brain?’
He nodded.
We all looked at each other and one after another we shook our heads.
‘No,’ I said. ‘Not with our resources here. This is the only slide, I suppose?’
Ross nodded.
‘I thought so. There’s not much on it, either. I suppose special stains could be tried,
but it would be difficult. Particularly if you are looking for the level of proof you need for
a murder case.’"



And here he writes about the preservation and how it got there.

‘The critical answer lies in the remarkable preservation of the tissue in Professor Miller’s preparation,’ I replied, and went on to explain that pathologists use a technique called ‘fixation’ to preserve human tissue. As soon as any tissue is removed from the body it is effectively dead and begins to rot — the same process that happens when a person dies and the body decomposes. We stop this decay by fixing the tissue, usually with a preservative chemical named formalin. But other chemicals can be used as well, even common table salt. ‘I presume the tissue on the shirt wasn’t preserved by chemical means,’ Ben said. ‘Do you mind telling the court how it was preserved?’ ‘By drying.’ Drying out tissue works fine as a preservative, too. We use it every day in hospitals for tissue needle biopsies — where a kind of core sample of tissue is taken by inserting a hollow needle into a suspect area. We — not just pathologists — also use drying to make and preserve dried fruit and meat. Mummies in the desert were fixed by desiccating them in the dry air. ‘In the case of the tissue on the shirt,’ I said, ‘the brain was sort of mummified onto the shirt. This was a process not unlike that which happens when an insect splatters over a car windscreen. The insect’s tissue gets smeared thinly, the wind dries it and it becomes preserved there. It’ll still be there months later if it isn’t scrubbed off and it will stay surprisingly recognisable.’ ‘So if drying was the method of preservation, how quickly did that have to happen?’ Ben asked. ‘I could see the brain architecture very clearly,’ I replied. ‘It wasn’t quite up to the significance of your tests for the tissue found on the accused’s shirt?’ Ben asked. ‘The brain tissue must have been smeared on the shirt pretty much at the time of death,’ I replied firmly. ‘Certainly within 30 minutes of it.’


Hope this helps if you have not already read it. I don't wish to copy and paste any more of his book. So I recommend you buy a copy if you can.

The Lundy chapters in his book are a hoax. However, one point worth making is this. If there is such perfectly preserved material, and it is CNS tissue, and this is a big if, the conclusion can only be that it came from the food chain, where industrial grade preservatives are essential for long shelf life. Mark Lundy is credited by Temple Camp with achieving air drying and thus fixing of brain, which remarkably he testifies is extremely difficult even in controlled laboratory conditions.
Mark Lundy keeps adding to his own CV :::thumbs up::: .

Here is the good Doctor testifying in 2002, verbatim,

technique that they should do. Notwithstanding the fact
that they know that and they prep and preserve the tissue
immediately, many of the cases we get show some damage due
to air drying anyway, so it is a difficult technique for
surgeons, even trained surgeon, to do.
(lol)....

The damage that you say to the cytoplasm and the membrane
and in turn the nucleus, how long does that take before it
commences?

It is extremely quick. The authorities in
the textbooks say it occurs seconds after leaving the
body. My experience has been that it certainly occurs in
seconds to minutes after leaving the body.

And we are talking about preservation essentially aren't
we, that is the issue here ?

The issue is preservation.

And does it then matter how much or how little tissue is
present, as far as preservation is concerned ?

it does. If you are using the type of preservation, the air
drying type of preservation, then it does matter. If you
have a small amount of tissue that is spread very thinly
it then dries very quickly and that gives you very good
preservation. If you have a thick amount of tissue then
the inside remains moist, the outside dries, and you lose
that preservation because the inside cells breakdown and
they very quickly become not recognisable. So a small
amount of tissue is easier to fix using the air drying
method than a large amount.

Then just for clarity, when referring to air drying, is
that just contact or exposure to the ambient air?

That is exposure to air at room temperature.

Doesn't need the application of any artificial source or
wind cm: anything like that?

Usualy we advise the surgeons to wave it in the air to help dry it .

Incidentally David, Temple Camp did not testify at the 2015 trial, yet he adores the limelight.
Can you suggest why not??
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Paint chips

Postby David1819 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:30 pm

Samson wrote:We are told the paint flecks found are of a composition used exclusively for painting leather or musical instruments, I will get the chemical description shortly. The implication is clear, the possibilty of painting leather clothing insignias. The paint did not come from Mark's garage. David must get this clear and move onto other evidence.


Since the paint was recovered from inside the victims bone fragments. You want me to believe that the "real killer" burst into the Lundy home and killed them with a bright blue and orange musical instrument the same color as his tools? LMAO

In ISOLATION you cannot say the paint came from Marks Garage. Its the same paint but that paint product is distributed all over the world. In isolation the paint could have come from ANYONE in world who purchased the same two colour's of dulux super enamel paint to colour their would be murder weapon. But take it out of Isolation and bring all the other circumstances into the equation. The inference can be drawn that the murder weapon was one of Mark Lundy's tools.

The only way they can establish the precise origin of paint is by matching the layers of paint or by fiting the chipped paint that fits to a possible source like a jigsaw.
Like in the Bamber case for example.The paint on the silencer had multiple layers of white, black, blue and red paint, the exact same layers in the same order as the paint above the aga cooker. There is a general rule of how many layers you need to match to be virtualy 100% certain its the source. I cannot remember how many layers I believe it is eight.

So back to Lundy. In order to believe Lundy innocent you have several options.

A - The 'real killer' purchased the same two products to paint his would be murder weapon.

or

B - Lundy did not leave all his tools inside the shed. He left some inside the home and the 'real killer' used one of them.

or

C- Lundy sold his color painted hatched axe to a local tradesman as he no longer needed it. Unaware that the buyer is the future killer of his wife and child.


I do not believe any of these. But option B and C make life much easier for you. For argument sake if it could be proven that lundy sold one of his hatched/axe type tools to a local tradesman who happened to have a history of burglary, drug addition with complete disregard for otherpeople. Then thats the kind of "Alternative suspect" evidence I need to reconsider. But non of this has come to light and all evidence points to one person, Mark Lundy. And there is only one rational explanation for that. And that is he is the killer.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Paint chips

Postby Samson » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:25 pm

David1819 wrote:
Samson wrote:We are told the paint flecks found are of a composition used exclusively for painting leather or musical instruments, I will get the chemical description shortly. The implication is clear, the possibilty of painting leather clothing insignias. The paint did not come from Mark's garage. David must get this clear and move onto other evidence.


Since the paint was recovered from inside the victims bone fragments. You want me to believe that the "real killer" burst into the Lundy home and killed them with a bright blue and orange musical instrument the same color as his tools? LMAO

In ISOLATION you cannot say the paint came from Marks Garage. Its the same paint but that paint product is distributed all over the world. In isolation the paint could have come from ANYONE in world who purchased the same two colour's of dulux super enamel paint to colour their would be murder weapon. But take it out of Isolation and bring all the other circumstances into the equation. The inference can be drawn that the murder weapon was one of Mark Lundy's tools.

The only way they can establish the precise origin of paint is by matching the layers of paint or by fiting the chipped paint that fits to a possible source like a jigsaw.
Like in the Bamber case for example.The paint on the silencer had multiple layers of white, black, blue and red paint, the exact same layers in the same order as the paint above the aga cooker. There is a general rule of how many layers you need to match to be virtualy 100% certain its the source. I cannot remember how many layers I believe it is eight.

So back to Lundy. In order to believe Lundy innocent you have several options.

A - The 'real killer' purchased the same two products to paint his would be murder weapon.

or

B - Lundy did not leave all his tools inside the shed. He left some inside the home and the 'real killer' used one of them.

or

C- Lundy sold his color painted hatched axe to a local tradesman as he no longer needed it. Unaware that the buyer is the future killer of his wife and child.


I do not believe any of these. But option B and C make life much easier for you. For argument sake if it could be proven that lundy sold one of his hatched/axe type tools to a local tradesman who happened to have a history of burglary, drug addition with complete disregard for otherpeople. Then thats the kind of "Alternative suspect" evidence I need to reconsider. But non of this has come to light and all evidence points to one person, Mark Lundy. And there is only one rational explanation for that. And that is he is the killer.

Here is a transcript from the first trial.

""........the Saturday in Palmerston North after the deaths, that had been
arranged prior to the deaths as far as I am aware.

And did you play some part in arranging that mtg as well?

The initial mtg I didn’t play any part in it at all, after the
deaths of Christine and Amber I said to Mark that I would meet with
Ernest Bland when he came to Palmerston North rather than Mark
because of the state he was in.

Come to the 29th of August 2000 - did you have a visitor that day
in relation to the root stock?

Yes 1 did,

And can you tell us something abt that mtg?

The supplier came to our property and was a little agitated that
he hadnt been paid for his root stock, at which stage I informed him that paymt
for the root stock was not due until the 20th of Sept as per the S & P agreement.

I believe he was under some financial pressure himself and he
proceeded to take product out of our chiller unit that was not his.

Did u do anythg when he started to do that?

Yes I did, the man was considerably taller and heavier than
myself and I felt intimidated so I made a call to the local Police stn
and they sent out two constables.

Did u let Mark Lundy know this had happd, or try to?

In the afternoon I rang the Lundy residence, and was talking to Christine,
and mentioned to her what had happd, because I wanted to find out
how Mr Bland's enquiries had bn going.

Did Christine say anythg to u abt the whereabouts of Mark Lundy?

Yes she did, she mentioned to me that Mark was in Wgtn on business and
would not be home until the next day.

In yr dealings with Mark Lundy about the vineyard and the
companies, had u also dealt with Christine Lundy?

Yes.

Would you say she had a wrkg knowledge of the plans and the operation of the
company?

If I wanted to know anythg about Saluvino, the best person
to ask was Christine, she had all the info at her fingertips.

Did she have that info as a result of running their business, the office for their business?
Yes.
And a skill with computers and IT?
Christine was a vary organised person with finances.

Did you try to contact Mark Lundy after u finished talking to Christine?
I had contacted Mark in the evening and it was after 7pm
and I did that on my cell phone because I had a plan which gave me...........................................""

Now David read the above carefully. This guy, who currently has name suppressionand died after the 2015 trial, has a brother who came with a cheque for 16k which this guy left with in the early afternoon, and this cheque bounced. What we need to know is if he went for a special answer, and knew the same day there was no money.

12 hours later Christine and Amber Lundy were killed.

Two weeks later this brother sold a piece of land for 40% less than valuation (252k, sold for 170k)to a Hawkes Bay solicitor known for his ability to meet emergency cash demands.

This starts to look like a case of follow the money. The guy that started raiding the cooler was interviewed only by phone by the police in the course of the murder inquiry.

So
1. He is desperate for money
2. The cheque bounces
3. There is a double homicide that looks like a p crazed gang hit rather than a husband dressed in a full biohazard suit who just used an escort for an alibi that was useless.

Was it a pure coincidence that Lundy's business partner was subjected to this aggravation?
Also bear in mind that this partner told the guy raiding the fridge that the root cuttings were for Lundy as end user, and that he could not pay till Lundy paid. The full debt to the root guy was 70k, the partner had given Lundy an invoice for 500k plus GST, due 20th September.
All the above is well documented, and much of it not contested by the crown, but indeed not heard in a court of law.

Personally I am interested if there was a special answer that was denied the same day, and before the killings.
Do you see a shoal of red herrings or a fine set of dogs balls?
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:34 am

Here is the definitive paint treatise. The origin of some of the paint flakes in the Lundy household and Christine's skull were thus:

"The paint is nitrocellulose-based. NC was one of the first synthetic clear lacquers (varnish) after shellac and kauri-resin based lacquers. If you want a clear glossy finish on eg a guitar, you would use NC. NC was also used to paint cars from about 1920-1950 but then replaced. For some reason, NC is still used on musical instruments - my son works in a guitar factory in Melbourne and they use NC. I don't know exactly why NC is used on leather, but it is. It has good water/weather resistance and good scratch resistance but so do other coatings. It is probably something to do with the adhesion to leather - the solvents used with NC specifically may be the best also for leather adhesion. Just guessing. When pigmented it is of course not clear. Google nitrocellulose coatings for leather and you can read about the range of products but little about why they are used."

David just as you research the true facts in Bamber, dedicated people research the true facts in Lundy, and I apologise for the term true facts, but it seems to have utility when we discuss these cases.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:06 am

Link "I have to say I still hope RNA, one day, will help a lot," she [Professor Vennemann] said. "I still think it has great potential in answering forensic questions. "Right now, there are so many limitations and so many things we don't know about RNA ... that I think, right now, we need a lot more basic research into RNA in forensic samples before we can safely use it in forensic case work." Those limitations and unknowns included why there were largely different levels of RNA between different tests of the same sample, she said.

The following passages are from an article by Mike White, entitled "Lundy's Last Chance?" "In a sworn affidavit she [Professor Helen Whitwell] states: “This is a minute fragment of tissue which probably represents cellular material [human or
animal], however the nature of this cannot be determined further… it is not possible to diagnose this as brain tissue.” Regarding Miller’s tests, Whitwell was even harsher. “In my opinion, it is impossible to make any rational sense of the immunocytochemistry stains. I have very serious concerns about a sample which is so minute, first examined some 59 days following the deaths of the deceaseds.”

Kevin Gatter, professor of pathology at Oxford University, reviewed Miller’s work and the reports of Whitwell and Sheard. A pathologist since 1980, a specialist in IHC for more than 30 years and author of more than 450 refereed papers and three books on this and associated topics, Gatter reinforced that IHC “is known to be potentially inconsistent and unreliable, so must be performed and interpreted with skill and rigour” – something others have highlighted given Miller’s novel approach. “The experimental protocols and control material used to evaluate the unknown specimen in the instant case do not provide the necessary data to permit meaningful interpretation of the experimental results,” wrote Gatter in an affidavit. “In these circumstances it is not possible to use the experiment to reach a reliable conclusion as to the identity of the material on the Lundy shirt."

Professor Sheard has used IHC as a primary research tool since 1990. Mike White quoted him: “It is not possible to use this experiment to reach a reliable conclusion as to the identity of the material on the Lundy shirt.” IMO the academic or professional credentials of these three individuals, all of whom were quoted in the Privy Council's judgment, are at least as strong as those of the prosecution's witnesses. With respect to the mRNA work in the second trial, the defense routed the prosecution, both in terms of credentials and the scientific force of their arguments.

Does Dr. Temple-Camp acknowledge any of these serious scientific disagreements? Apparently not, which one reason that I said that he impoverished the debate. Instead, Dr. Temple-Camp dismissed Lundy's supports as essentially conspiracy theorists. This is worse than utter nonsense. Does Dr. Temple-Camp think that Professor Whitwell and Professor Vennemann are charlatans? Does he think that Professor Bustin failed to debunk the sloppy experiments that purported to show the presence of a particular virus in biopsies of autistic individuals? Who knows more about immunohistochemistry, Temple-Camp or Heard? As I have previously documented, Dr. Temple-Camp changed his opinion on the state of preservation of the tissue and also used circular reasoning with respect to Miller's work. These are both data points that suggest Dr. Temple-Camp has let his views on Lundy's factual guilty or innocence color his professional judgment, something that could also be said of Joy Kuhl in the Lindy Chamberlain case, among others. The proper attitude of a forensic scientist is for his or her testimony to be the voice of the data, not of the prosecution or defense. Neither Dr. Miller nor Dr. Temple-Camp is anywhere near this ideal.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:05 pm

"There were four different paints - acrylic, alkyd, NC-modified alkyd, and NC. I have a feeling there was another one but without searching I can't be sure. All were particles found in and around wounds and bedding."

So if we look at this in simple evidentiary terms, all these paints would have to match the tool samples for the crown case to hold water. I am assembling more information including the relevant testimony by Sally coulson in both trials. Her evidence varied greatly. It can't be overstated the importance when we see David being so impressed with this evidence he repeats it over and over. David, are you prepared to concede this yet?
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:27 pm

Here is a more complete transcript of the appeal hearing re the dna and how it relates to the shirt "alleged cns" spots.

Morgan: And the mRNA evidence which is simply a part of the evidence was one of the strands upon which the crown relied to negate the suggestion and it was nothing more than a suggestion that it might be central nervous system tissue from the foodchain.

snip

I have listed 12 features of the crown case and the first three are this very [point

26.1 CNS tissue found in two spots on the shirt he was wearing 26.2 The spots were subject to chemical testing suggesting the probable presence of blood in the stains, I should just add there that the neuropathologists said that we could see blood, we could see blood vessels and 26.3 the pieces of fabric with that central nervous system tissue on them were subjected to dna analysis and the outcome was a strong finding in terms of the quantity and quality of the dna of the deceased CL went well beyond a trace and was the sort of reaction that suggested blood or tissue.

snip

and this blood 26 2 was a test carried out by Sutherland at an early stage before he cut them out of the fabric and sent them off to ESR

Winkmn so 26 2 is on the small areas of fabric

MGN Yes

Asher: Yes this topic is one we need elucidation from you so we have the dna lifted in what has been described as quite considerable quantities . We also know the defence argument is that is not unusual in husband wife situation.And it seems it is not suggested that the scientific evidence shows the dna comes directly from the tissue that has been identified as CNS tissue. That's obviously a very important mssing link.

MGN Thats the science, the science does not establish that a CNS cell was a cell from Christine Lundy by means of dna analysis, that is accepted
. The question of course is how do you get on this tiny little bit of fabric CNS tissue that has been smeared into the fabric? Its the only tissue that the neuropathologists can see, it must have been applied when it was fresh, because its such a small quantity it crumbles and you can't smear it in, and then the little piece of material, in fact its two pieces of material which sort of adds to the weight, one above the bicep and one on the front of the shirt are eluted into a beaker soak, and this according to ESR removes about 20% of the biological material in the stain, and the only dna is CL, and this is the inference, this is an inference case. There is a passage in KOS where he makes the very point Asher has just made, the science can't do this, its a matter of inference.

WMN Can I ask 2 questions did the elution for each spot produce dna...yes... and was the dab slide or paraffin block taken from the shirt tested for dna? Were the remnants tested for dna?

MGN It didn't work. There were a number of methodologies looked at but we only used those relevant to the case.

WMN. Did they produce any dna readings from those samples?

MGN From the tisue in the fabric blocks themselves answer no.

WMN And the tissue on the dab slides?

MGN The tissue on the dab slides was too degraded to do anything with at all.

...............................................................

This shows two judges clarifying for themselves, and compelling Morgan to clarify, that the CNS tissue has no dna from Christine. That is why they used the mRNA to try to show it was human. Of course if her dna was in the tissue there would be no need to attempt to show human origin. Since the hearing was mainly focussed on establishing fundamental disagreement between Bustin Venneman and Sijens on the validity of the mRNA and the consequent preoccupation with the question

Would the jury have convicted with out the mRNA?

Morgan downplayed its importance to being just one strand of a strong circumstantial case, but the judges kept asking how can we know, which is the correct question.
No dna in the substance.
Chistine Lundy, pork, sheep, and pig dna in the elution.
Therefore no means for the jury left to infer the "cns" must be the victim's brain. Case closed ?

This was the venue for the crown to put forward the best case compiled over 17 years, and the case was untenable on this vital evidence and time of death. The judges drew these virtual concessions from Morgan.

Mark Lundy has good cause to be optimistic, his defence team are optimistic.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Paint chips

Postby David1819 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:11 pm

Samson wrote:Here is a transcript from the first trial.

""........the Saturday in Palmerston North after the deaths, that had been
arranged prior to the deaths as far as I am aware.

And did you play some part in arranging that mtg as well?

The initial mtg I didn’t play any part in it at all, after the
deaths of Christine and Amber I said to Mark that I would meet with
Ernest Bland when he came to Palmerston North rather than Mark
because of the state he was in.

Come to the 29th of August 2000 - did you have a visitor that day
in relation to the root stock?

Yes 1 did,

And can you tell us something abt that mtg?

The supplier came to our property and was a little agitated that
he hadnt been paid for his root stock, at which stage I informed him that paymt
for the root stock was not due until the 20th of Sept as per the S & P agreement.

I believe he was under some financial pressure himself and he
proceeded to take product out of our chiller unit that was not his.

Did u do anythg when he started to do that?

Yes I did, the man was considerably taller and heavier than
myself and I felt intimidated so I made a call to the local Police stn
and they sent out two constables.

Did u let Mark Lundy know this had happd, or try to?

In the afternoon I rang the Lundy residence, and was talking to Christine,
and mentioned to her what had happd, because I wanted to find out
how Mr Bland's enquiries had bn going.

Did Christine say anythg to u abt the whereabouts of Mark Lundy?

Yes she did, she mentioned to me that Mark was in Wgtn on business and
would not be home until the next day.

In yr dealings with Mark Lundy about the vineyard and the
companies, had u also dealt with Christine Lundy?

Yes.

Would you say she had a wrkg knowledge of the plans and the operation of the
company?

If I wanted to know anythg about Saluvino, the best person
to ask was Christine, she had all the info at her fingertips.

Did she have that info as a result of running their business, the office for their business?
Yes.
And a skill with computers and IT?
Christine was a vary organised person with finances.

Did you try to contact Mark Lundy after u finished talking to Christine?
I had contacted Mark in the evening and it was after 7pm
and I did that on my cell phone because I had a plan which gave me...........................................""

Now David read the above carefully. This guy, who currently has name suppressionand died after the 2015 trial, has a brother who came with a cheque for 16k which this guy left with in the early afternoon, and this cheque bounced. What we need to know is if he went for a special answer, and knew the same day there was no money.

12 hours later Christine and Amber Lundy were killed.

Two weeks later this brother sold a piece of land for 40% less than valuation (252k, sold for 170k)to a Hawkes Bay solicitor known for his ability to meet emergency cash demands.

This starts to look like a case of follow the money. The guy that started raiding the cooler was interviewed only by phone by the police in the course of the murder inquiry.

So
1. He is desperate for money
2. The cheque bounces
3. There is a double homicide that looks like a p crazed gang hit rather than a husband dressed in a full biohazard suit who just used an escort for an alibi that was useless.

Was it a pure coincidence that Lundy's business partner was subjected to this aggravation?
Also bear in mind that this partner told the guy raiding the fridge that the root cuttings were for Lundy as end user, and that he could not pay till Lundy paid. The full debt to the root guy was 70k, the partner had given Lundy an invoice for 500k plus GST, due 20th September.
All the above is well documented, and much of it not contested by the crown, but indeed not heard in a court of law.

Personally I am interested if there was a special answer that was denied the same day, and before the killings.
Do you see a shoal of red herrings or a fine set of dogs balls?


I see a shoal of red herrings.

Mark Lundy has bright blue and organge tools, does this other guy? probably not.

Mark Lundy has bits of brian tissue on a shirt he had on the night his wifes head was choped open. Does this other guy? probably not.

Mark Lundy has bits of brian tissue on his shirt precisely where a right handed axe attacker would end up placing his bloody brain covered thumb in order to remove some overalls. Does this other guy? probably not.

Mark Lundy could be easily identified as the killer by Amber thus would need to be eliminated. Could Amber have identified this other guy? Yes - No - Maybe

Mark Lundy has a $500,000 life insurance policy on Christine. does this other guy have such motive? No.

Mark Lundy was about to be charged $100,000 penalty interest for not paying debts. does this other guy? probably not.



I have put together a theory. Mark Lundy sells his color painted hatchet/Axe many many month before the murders, so long he forgets about it. Unbeknown to Mark the new owner of the axe has a history of meth or heroin addiction. As months go by he soon relapses in to addiction and starts to commit burglary to fund his addiction, Taking the axe with him for his own protection. One night he attempts to rob the Lundy home and it all goes pear shaped. Meanwhile Mark is in Wellington feasting on beef pies contaminated with CNS from the animal, And bits of that gets on his shirt precisely where a right handed axe attacker would end up placing his bloody brain covered thumb in order to remove some overalls. Also that same area is also innocently contaminated with his Wife's blood and DNA thus distorting the tests on the brain tissue so it appears more human rather than cow. All this happens at a time when the family finances happen to leave a misleading motive towards him.

In a Nutshell this is the kind of thing that must have happened in order for Lundy to be innocent. But sorry I don't believe it for one second. Its not reasonable. It may be possible but what are the odds? If it is true Mark Lundy is not only extremely unlucky for all those building blocks of the crowns case to fall in place he also paradoxically very fortunate not to have been home that night otherwise it wont just be his Wife's brains over the wall.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Paint chips

Postby Samson » Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:55 pm

David1819 wrote:
Samson wrote:Here is a transcript from the first trial.

""........the Saturday in Palmerston North after the deaths, that had been
arranged prior to the deaths as far as I am aware.

And did you play some part in arranging that mtg as well?

The initial mtg I didn’t play any part in it at all, after the
deaths of Christine and Amber I said to Mark that I would meet with
Ernest Bland when he came to Palmerston North rather than Mark
because of the state he was in.

Come to the 29th of August 2000 - did you have a visitor that day
in relation to the root stock?

Yes 1 did,

And can you tell us something abt that mtg?

The supplier came to our property and was a little agitated that
he hadnt been paid for his root stock, at which stage I informed him that paymt
for the root stock was not due until the 20th of Sept as per the S & P agreement.

I believe he was under some financial pressure himself and he
proceeded to take product out of our chiller unit that was not his.

Did u do anythg when he started to do that?

Yes I did, the man was considerably taller and heavier than
myself and I felt intimidated so I made a call to the local Police stn
and they sent out two constables.

Did u let Mark Lundy know this had happd, or try to?

In the afternoon I rang the Lundy residence, and was talking to Christine,
and mentioned to her what had happd, because I wanted to find out
how Mr Bland's enquiries had bn going.

Did Christine say anythg to u abt the whereabouts of Mark Lundy?

Yes she did, she mentioned to me that Mark was in Wgtn on business and
would not be home until the next day.

In yr dealings with Mark Lundy about the vineyard and the
companies, had u also dealt with Christine Lundy?

Yes.

Would you say she had a wrkg knowledge of the plans and the operation of the
company?

If I wanted to know anythg about Saluvino, the best person
to ask was Christine, she had all the info at her fingertips.

Did she have that info as a result of running their business, the office for their business?
Yes.
And a skill with computers and IT?
Christine was a vary organised person with finances.

Did you try to contact Mark Lundy after u finished talking to Christine?
I had contacted Mark in the evening and it was after 7pm
and I did that on my cell phone because I had a plan which gave me...........................................""

Now David read the above carefully. This guy, who currently has name suppressionand died after the 2015 trial, has a brother who came with a cheque for 16k which this guy left with in the early afternoon, and this cheque bounced. What we need to know is if he went for a special answer, and knew the same day there was no money.

12 hours later Christine and Amber Lundy were killed.

Two weeks later this brother sold a piece of land for 40% less than valuation (252k, sold for 170k)to a Hawkes Bay solicitor known for his ability to meet emergency cash demands.

This starts to look like a case of follow the money. The guy that started raiding the cooler was interviewed only by phone by the police in the course of the murder inquiry.

So
1. He is desperate for money
2. The cheque bounces
3. There is a double homicide that looks like a p crazed gang hit rather than a husband dressed in a full biohazard suit who just used an escort for an alibi that was useless.

Was it a pure coincidence that Lundy's business partner was subjected to this aggravation?
Also bear in mind that this partner told the guy raiding the fridge that the root cuttings were for Lundy as end user, and that he could not pay till Lundy paid. The full debt to the root guy was 70k, the partner had given Lundy an invoice for 500k plus GST, due 20th September.
All the above is well documented, and much of it not contested by the crown, but indeed not heard in a court of law.

Personally I am interested if there was a special answer that was denied the same day, and before the killings.
Do you see a shoal of red herrings or a fine set of dogs balls?


I see a shoal of red herrings.

Mark Lundy has bright blue and organge tools, does this other guy? probably not.

Mark Lundy has bits of brian tissue on a shirt he had on the night his wifes head was choped open. Does this other guy? probably not.

Mark Lundy has bits of brian tissue on his shirt precisely where a right handed axe attacker would end up placing his bloody brain covered thumb in order to remove some overalls. Does this other guy? probably not.

Mark Lundy could be easily identified as the killer by Amber thus would need to be eliminated. Could Amber have identified this other guy? Yes - No - Maybe

Mark Lundy has a $500,000 life insurance policy on Christine. does this other guy have such motive? No.

Mark Lundy was about to be charged $100,000 penalty interest for not paying debts. does this other guy? probably not.



I have put together a theory. Mark Lundy sells his color painted hatchet/Axe many many month before the murders, so long he forgets about it. Unbeknown to Mark the new owner of the axe has a history of meth or heroin addiction. As months go by he soon relapses in to addiction and starts to commit burglary to fund his addiction, Taking the axe with him for his own protection. One night he attempts to rob the Lundy home and it all goes pear shaped. Meanwhile Mark is in Wellington feasting on beef pies contaminated with CNS from the animal, And bits of that gets on his shirt precisely where a right handed axe attacker would end up placing his bloody brain covered thumb in order to remove some overalls. Also that same area is also innocently contaminated with his Wife's blood and DNA thus distorting the tests on the brain tissue so it appears more human rather than cow. All this happens at a time when the family finances happen to leave a misleading motive towards him.

In a Nutshell this is the kind of thing that must have happened in order for Lundy to be innocent. But sorry I don't believe it for one second. Its not reasonable. It may be possible but what are the odds? If it is true Mark Lundy is not only extremely unlucky for all those building blocks of the crowns case to fall in place he also paradoxically very fortunate not to have been home that night otherwise it wont just be his Wife's brains over the wall.

David:
I have sadly arrived at the jesus wept phase of this discussion. I am more than accustomed with other people, but never dreamed you would be so obtuse. I suggest you concentrate on Bamber, he needs help with his appeal.

Ok I finished reading your post. Mark Lundy is a typical small business owner who must hold bfigures and solve problems all day every day. I we nt to the extent of checking with his power of attorney if he was fully aware the policy was still 200k, and he was.

200k or 500k would drag nothing back from the brink. You might reflect yourself whether a tuesday morning deadline for settling is helped by killing your wife in the early hours of that day, with the attendant issues of police scrutiny, insurance scrutiny and so on.
Anyway, he did not do this crime. Please reply in detail to my brain post above next.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby kiwiburner » Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:52 am

I have put together a theory. Mark Lundy sells his color painted hatchet/Axe many many month before the murders, so long he forgets about it. Unbeknown to Mark the new owner of the axe has a history of meth or heroin addiction. As months go by he soon relapses in to addiction and starts to commit burglary to fund his addiction, Taking the axe with him for his own protection. One night he attempts to rob the Lundy home and it all goes pear shaped. Meanwhile Mark is in Wellington feasting on beef pies contaminated with CNS from the animal, And bits of that gets on his shirt precisely where a right handed axe attacker would end up placing his bloody brain covered thumb in order to remove some overalls. Also that same area is also innocently contaminated with his Wife's blood and DNA thus distorting the tests on the brain tissue so it appears more human rather than cow. All this happens at a time when the family finances happen to leave a misleading motive towards him.


Oh David...::doh:: It's no longer politically correct to say, but this is called "going full retard". You'd rather concoct ludicrous strawmen based off long-discredited assertions/risible alternative theories (never put forward by the defence) than engage with the science or, I dunno, the standard of proof in criminal proceedings. The onus is not on Lundy or his defence team to investigate and prove who the murderer was. Sadly, the NZ Police failed in their duty to do so.

Anyway, don't feel bad, lots of people much more capable than you, including Morgan and Dr. Temple-Camp, have gone full retard before you. This case has that effect on people because it was an awful crime, and the thought that someone has carried it out and got off scot-free, is more horrifying than simply blocking your ears to the gaping holes in the police case.

Whoever did do it, well, I hope for their sake that they have since perished. It wouldn't be a very happy memory to carry on your conscience.
kiwiburner
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:12 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:56 am

It is my understanding that the life insurance increase had not yet kicked in, nor would it have been enough to cover the shortfall. It is also my understanding that the land in question sold for more than Lundy was going to pay for it. If that is true, then the sellers were probably happy that Lundy couldn't consummate the deal. Nor is bankruptcy the end of the world; IIRC you can keep your house, according to New Zealand law. So the supposed motive doesn't actually make any sense. In order for the prosecution's case to work, Mr. Lundy would have had to travel at night, execute a near-perfect clean-up, dispose of an unknown murder weapon (his tomahawk was not painted), and act normal the next morning, all after consuming a great deal of alcohol (to be consistent with the testimony of the prostitute). Why he should kill is wife by bludgeoning and not a pillow is another head-scratcher. How his car (which in the previous incarnation of the prosecution's case had to be faster than a Nissan Skyline) now has to be more fuel efficient than a Prius (or there would not be enough petrol). Somehow, Amber's stomach contents (which were testified to being similar to Christine's) still show recognizable food at 2:30 AM (at least), meaning that she must have gone to bed then gotten up around 12:30 or so and had another meal. All of these improbabilities bedevil the prosecution's case before we even get to the forensic science of the paint chips and stains.

In order for us to accept the paint chips as evidence against Lundy, we have to posit the existence of one of Lundy's tools (not his Tomahawk, which was not painted) that was not found, ignore the fact that the paint was not examined by microspectrophotometry, and did not match chemically. But the deal breaker for me is that most of the paint chips did not even match by eyeball. Where did the rest of the paint come from, and once we acknowledge that there had to be another source of paint flecks (as we must), why couldn't all of the paint flecks have come from this other source?

As far as the mRNA goes, the prosecution's case full of additional improbabilities. In Principles of Biochemistry (a standard textbook), David Nelson and Michael Cox wrote, “The rates of degradation vary greatly for different eukaryotic genes. For a gene product that is needed only briefly, the half-life of its mRNA may be only minutes or even seconds. Gene products needed constantly by the cell may have mRNAs that are stable over many cell generations. The average half-life of the mRNAs of a vertebrate cell is bout 3 hours, with the pool of each type of mRNA turning over about 10 times per cell generation.” (bolding mine) The prosecution's case relies not just on being about the detect mRNA, but being able to quantitate mRNA, a much higher hurdle.

Here is a quote from the Privy Council's judgment. The person speaking is Detective Sgt. Ross Grantham:
[start quote]
In a report form of 10 January 2001 the detective sergeant had made the following entry about the ESR slide:
“Dr Pang … suggested a neuropathologist should be able to view the slide and be able to identify the cells by morphology, (appearance). He suggested a Dr Heng Teoh.
On Tuesday 9/1/2001 I met with Dr Teoh and he viewed the slide. He would only commit to saying the cells are tissue cells. He opined that the time lapse between the murders and the preparation of the slide, (some 58 days) was too long. The cells had degenerated badly."
[end quote]

The notion that the tissue was well preserved is at the very least open to serious challenge. The notes above were not disclosed to the defense at the first trial, which is one reason that the first trial was not fair. But let me emphasize a point I have alluded to previously. The police suspected Lundy from day 1, before any evidence had been accrued. They had every reason to believe that the tissue could not be identified, yet they were willing to travel thousands of miles to Dr. Miller's facilities. They spent who knows how much money on Miller's work. Then in 2014, with their entire case, either in doubt or in tatters, what do they do? Did they go back to square one and rethink the case? No, they employ a second test (quantitative mRNA), which if anything rests on assumptions that are more absurd than Miller's work rests upon. This is the second worst example of confirmation bias I have ever seen; only Russ Faria's case tops this one IMO, and let us hope that it forever remains the high-water mark of tunnel-vision.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:57 am

David1819,

Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) was one of the proteins that Miller used. Is GFAP found in ground beef in low levels?
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby kiwiburner » Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:33 am

Chris_Halkides wrote:It is my understanding that the life insurance increase had not yet kicked in, nor would it have been enough to cover the shortfall."
[end quote]


Correct. It's also the 2015 trial's evidence that the life insurance increase was not initiated by Mark or Christine, but by their insurance broker, as a matter of routine because of their worsening debt position.

David is likely aware of this, he would only need to look upthread. Engaging with the facts is a scary business. :facepalm:
kiwiburner
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:12 am

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Samson » Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:01 am

kiwiburner wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:It is my understanding that the life insurance increase had not yet kicked in, nor would it have been enough to cover the shortfall."
[end quote]


Correct. It's also the 2015 trial's evidence that the life insurance increase was not initiated by Mark or Christine, but by their insurance broker, as a matter of routine because of their worsening debt position.

David is likely aware of this, he would only need to look upthread. Engaging with the facts is a scary business. :facepalm:

kiwiburner:
The 2002 trial is definitive. Chris Morrison was to meet Mark the same morning the tragedy was discovered.
The deal was struck 12 months previously, settlement due 6 months previously.
Meanwhile the land value had risen so Morrison was far better to curtail the deal. He knew that as did Mark. Mark had not a leg to stand on, but this all shows the motive is a pile of compost. There was no motive, and everyone has had full comprehension for the last two decades.

David is a serious player in the Bamber debacle, he is a friend to logic and science and common sense, nothing surprises about mindset, I have no doubt he is curious about the true narrative.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Chris_Halkides » Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:26 am

From the Judgment of the Privy Council: "Dr Miller countered Professor Sheard’s comments about the variability in staining patterns on the tissue samples by saying that this was a commonly encountered phenomenon. He dismissed the professor’s concerns that some of the nerve related antibodies had stained non-nerve tissue. This was “an expected finding”. Dr Miller claimed that it “further validates the quality of the stain” but, significantly, he omitted to explain why that should be so." [bolding mine]

We don't have to speculate on whether or not there might be nonspecific binding of the antibodies. Dr. Miller acknowledged that it happened.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Paint chips

Postby kiwiburner » Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:02 am

Samson wrote: I we nt to the extent of checking with his power of attorney if he was fully aware the policy was still 200k, and he was.


Hi Samson (or anyone else who knows),

Understand you are in contact with a representative of Mark. Has the court given any indication of when/by when they expect to hand down their judgment? In terms of timetabling directions for further evidence from Bustin, etc., you mention that both Crown and defence have exercised all their rights of reply. Do the court expect to receive any further written submissions? I've never appeared in the CoA, but I presume some indication has been given around timeframe for rendering their decision? If so, are you able to share?
kiwiburner
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:12 am

Re: Paint chips

Postby Samson » Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:51 am

kiwiburner wrote:
Samson wrote: I we nt to the extent of checking with his power of attorney if he was fully aware the policy was still 200k, and he was.


Hi Samson (or anyone else who knows),

Understand you are in contact with a representative of Mark. Has the court given any indication of when/by when they expect to hand down their judgment? In terms of timetabling directions for further evidence from Bustin, etc., you mention that both Crown and defence have exercised all their rights of reply. Do the court expect to receive any further written submissions? I've never appeared in the CoA, but I presume some indication has been given around timeframe for rendering their decision? If so, are you able to share?

That is an interesting query, is there any time when the black box is sealed, and the issuance of a determination is unchangeable?
All requests for information by the appeal panel have now been furnished, but since this case is clearly very different, and may be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and because Helen Winkelmann at a minimum understands that Mark obviously did not kill his wife and child, when does the process become immutable?
There is so much to consider in the New Zealand food chain, and how you could potentially explain what the current defence will never concede, that CNS tissue might have been present, that these fine judicial minds should have a will to resolve the facts so they no longer are in scientific conflict.

The independence of the judiciary tells me that the time the comprehensive report leading to the decision is unknowable.
It will be a fascinating document for followers of this thread.
I am particularly fascinated by how they do the math(s) on the petrol.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Paint chips

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:04 pm

kiwiburner wrote:
Samson wrote: I we nt to the extent of checking with his power of attorney if he was fully aware the policy was still 200k, and he was.


Hi Samson (or anyone else who knows),

Understand you are in contact with a representative of Mark. Has the court given any indication of when/by when they expect to hand down their judgment? In terms of timetabling directions for further evidence from Bustin, etc., you mention that both Crown and defence have exercised all their rights of reply. Do the court expect to receive any further written submissions? I've never appeared in the CoA, but I presume some indication has been given around timeframe for rendering their decision? If so, are you able to share?


Samson is speaking in riddles again. We do not know when the appeal decision will come through. No further submissions expected. Even though if it were me and I would give that a go because some very good new stuff has come up which would give the Court a different angle to consider on the animal DNA, something simple that could be tied in with other known facts that indicate Mark's complete innocence IMO.
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Mark Lundy

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:21 pm

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cont ... al-justice

The link here provides the details of the crisis which British Forensic Science endures. It is of no small moment that British scientists employed by the Crown in the Lundy case were unaccredited for forensic science practice. They of course were brought in to support the unaccredited for forensic science, and since fled, Rodney Miller whose methodology was never used in a criminal before or since. Not least for the reason that IHC specialists recognise that IHC is not fit purpose, bad enough in itself but Miller used non specific antigens and went above recommended ratios by 1000s% until he got the readings he 'wanted.' Special word 'wanted' in forensic science, because forensic scientists don't desire results and are not biased toward an expected result. This is the inherent sickness and failure of the Lundy prosecution, that nearly 20 years later is still accepted despite never having a forensic safety chain in place, ever.
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Paint chips

Postby Nostalgia-NZ » Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:55 pm

David1819 wrote:
Samson wrote:Here is a transcript from the first trial.

""........the Saturday in Palmerston North after the deaths, that had been
arranged prior to the deaths as far as I am aware.

And did you play some part in arranging that mtg as well?

The initial mtg I didn’t play any part in it at all, after the
deaths of Christine and Amber I said to Mark that I would meet with
Ernest Bland when he came to Palmerston North rather than Mark
because of the state he was in.

Come to the 29th of August 2000 - did you have a visitor that day
in relation to the root stock?

Yes 1 did,

And can you tell us something abt that mtg?

The supplier came to our property and was a little agitated that
he hadnt been paid for his root stock, at which stage I informed him that paymt
for the root stock was not due until the 20th of Sept as per the S & P agreement.

I believe he was under some financial pressure himself and he
proceeded to take product out of our chiller unit that was not his.

Did u do anythg when he started to do that?

Yes I did, the man was considerably taller and heavier than
myself and I felt intimidated so I made a call to the local Police stn
and they sent out two constables.

Did u let Mark Lundy know this had happd, or try to?

In the afternoon I rang the Lundy residence, and was talking to Christine,
and mentioned to her what had happd, because I wanted to find out
how Mr Bland's enquiries had bn going.

Did Christine say anythg to u abt the whereabouts of Mark Lundy?

Yes she did, she mentioned to me that Mark was in Wgtn on business and
would not be home until the next day.

In yr dealings with Mark Lundy about the vineyard and the
companies, had u also dealt with Christine Lundy?

Yes.

Would you say she had a wrkg knowledge of the plans and the operation of the
company?

If I wanted to know anythg about Saluvino, the best person
to ask was Christine, she had all the info at her fingertips.

Did she have that info as a result of running their business, the office for their business?
Yes.
And a skill with computers and IT?
Christine was a vary organised person with finances.

Did you try to contact Mark Lundy after u finished talking to Christine?
I had contacted Mark in the evening and it was after 7pm
and I did that on my cell phone because I had a plan which gave me...........................................""

Now David read the above carefully. This guy, who currently has name suppressionand died after the 2015 trial, has a brother who came with a cheque for 16k which this guy left with in the early afternoon, and this cheque bounced. What we need to know is if he went for a special answer, and knew the same day there was no money.

12 hours later Christine and Amber Lundy were killed.

Two weeks later this brother sold a piece of land for 40% less than valuation (252k, sold for 170k)to a Hawkes Bay solicitor known for his ability to meet emergency cash demands.

This starts to look like a case of follow the money. The guy that started raiding the cooler was interviewed only by phone by the police in the course of the murder inquiry.

So
1. He is desperate for money
2. The cheque bounces
3. There is a double homicide that looks like a p crazed gang hit rather than a husband dressed in a full biohazard suit who just used an escort for an alibi that was useless.

Was it a pure coincidence that Lundy's business partner was subjected to this aggravation?
Also bear in mind that this partner told the guy raiding the fridge that the root cuttings were for Lundy as end user, and that he could not pay till Lundy paid. The full debt to the root guy was 70k, the partner had given Lundy an invoice for 500k plus GST, due 20th September.
All the above is well documented, and much of it not contested by the crown, but indeed not heard in a court of law.

Personally I am interested if there was a special answer that was denied the same day, and before the killings.
Do you see a shoal of red herrings or a fine set of dogs balls?


I see a shoal of red herrings.

Mark Lundy has bright blue and organge tools, does this other guy? probably not.

Mark Lundy has bits of brian tissue on a shirt he had on the night his wifes head was choped open. Does this other guy? probably not.

Mark Lundy has bits of brian tissue on his shirt precisely where a right handed axe attacker would end up placing his bloody brain covered thumb in order to remove some overalls. Does this other guy? probably not.

Mark Lundy could be easily identified as the killer by Amber thus would need to be eliminated. Could Amber have identified this other guy? Yes - No - Maybe

Mark Lundy has a $500,000 life insurance policy on Christine. does this other guy have such motive? No.

Mark Lundy was about to be charged $100,000 penalty interest for not paying debts. does this other guy? probably not.



I have put together a theory. Mark Lundy sells his color painted hatchet/Axe many many month before the murders, so long he forgets about it. Unbeknown to Mark the new owner of the axe has a history of meth or heroin addiction. As months go by he soon relapses in to addiction and starts to commit burglary to fund his addiction, Taking the axe with him for his own protection. One night he attempts to rob the Lundy home and it all goes pear shaped. Meanwhile Mark is in Wellington feasting on beef pies contaminated with CNS from the animal, And bits of that gets on his shirt precisely where a right handed axe attacker would end up placing his bloody brain covered thumb in order to remove some overalls. Also that same area is also innocently contaminated with his Wife's blood and DNA thus distorting the tests on the brain tissue so it appears more human rather than cow. All this happens at a time when the family finances happen to leave a misleading motive towards him.

In a Nutshell this is the kind of thing that must have happened in order for Lundy to be innocent. But sorry I don't believe it for one second. Its not reasonable. It may be possible but what are the odds? If it is true Mark Lundy is not only extremely unlucky for all those building blocks of the crowns case to fall in place he also paradoxically very fortunate not to have been home that night otherwise it wont just be his Wife's brains over the wall.


You're building blocks are about as stable as your facts and logic David, slam the front door and they all fall down ;-)
Nostalgia-NZ
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm

Re: Paint chips

Postby David1819 » Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:16 am

Nostalgia-NZ wrote:
David1819 wrote:I see a shoal of red herrings.

Mark Lundy has bright blue and organge tools, does this other guy? probably not.

Mark Lundy has bits of brian tissue on a shirt he had on the night his wifes head was choped open. Does this other guy? probably not.

Mark Lundy has bits of brian tissue on his shirt precisely where a right handed axe attacker would end up placing his bloody brain covered thumb in order to remove some overalls. Does this other guy? probably not.

Mark Lundy could be easily identified as the killer by Amber thus would need to be eliminated. Could Amber have identified this other guy? Yes - No - Maybe

Mark Lundy has a $500,000 life insurance policy on Christine. does this other guy have such motive? No.

Mark Lundy was about to be charged $100,000 penalty interest for not paying debts. does this other guy? probably not.



I have put together a theory. Mark Lundy sells his color painted hatchet/Axe many many month before the murders, so long he forgets about it. Unbeknown to Mark the new owner of the axe has a history of meth or heroin addiction. As months go by he soon relapses in to addiction and starts to commit burglary to fund his addiction, Taking the axe with him for his own protection. One night he attempts to rob the Lundy home and it all goes pear shaped. Meanwhile Mark is in Wellington feasting on beef pies contaminated with CNS from the animal, And bits of that gets on his shirt precisely where a right handed axe attacker would end up placing his bloody brain covered thumb in order to remove some overalls. Also that same area is also innocently contaminated with his Wife's blood and DNA thus distorting the tests on the brain tissue so it appears more human rather than cow. All this happens at a time when the family finances happen to leave a misleading motive towards him.

In a Nutshell this is the kind of thing that must have happened in order for Lundy to be innocent. But sorry I don't believe it for one second. Its not reasonable. It may be possible but what are the odds? If it is true Mark Lundy is not only extremely unlucky for all those building blocks of the crowns case to fall in place he also paradoxically very fortunate not to have been home that night otherwise it wont just be his Wife's brains over the wall.


You're building blocks are about as stable as your facts and logic David, slam the front door and they all fall down ;-)


Hardly. The only way to make them all fall down is to find the "real killer" and if they remain standing after that, we all know who the real killer is you have uncovered. ;-)

The only reason this case gets publicity is because the prosecution got their time of death wrong at the original trial. And accused Mark Lundy under a farcical time frame. This got the MOJ folks on the bandwagon. Notwithstanding the fact that despite hearing the ridiculously impractical time-frame, the original Jury were still able to fathom what the paint chippings in Christine's skull combined with the presence of brain tissue on the shirt Mark wore the night the victims skull was hacked open still lead them realise the defendant was guilty.

Prosecutors knew a re-trial would be a slam-dunk hence he got one. The likes of Brendan Dassey, Kevin Cooper and Jeremy Bamber wont get the privilege because the keyholders know their case would be laughed out the court room a second time round.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
David1819
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:02 pm

Re: Paint chips

Postby Samson » Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:36 pm

David1819 wrote:
Nostalgia-NZ wrote:
David1819 wrote:I see a shoal of red herrings.

Mark Lundy has bright blue and organge tools, does this other guy? probably not.

Mark Lundy has bits of brian tissue on a shirt he had on the night his wifes head was choped open. Does this other guy? probably not.

Mark Lundy has bits of brian tissue on his shirt precisely where a right handed axe attacker would end up placing his bloody brain covered thumb in order to remove some overalls. Does this other guy? probably not.

Mark Lundy could be easily identified as the killer by Amber thus would need to be eliminated. Could Amber have identified this other guy? Yes - No - Maybe

Mark Lundy has a $500,000 life insurance policy on Christine. does this other guy have such motive? No.

Mark Lundy was about to be charged $100,000 penalty interest for not paying debts. does this other guy? probably not.



I have put together a theory. Mark Lundy sells his color painted hatchet/Axe many many month before the murders, so long he forgets about it. Unbeknown to Mark the new owner of the axe has a history of meth or heroin addiction. As months go by he soon relapses in to addiction and starts to commit burglary to fund his addiction, Taking the axe with him for his own protection. One night he attempts to rob the Lundy home and it all goes pear shaped. Meanwhile Mark is in Wellington feasting on beef pies contaminated with CNS from the animal, And bits of that gets on his shirt precisely where a right handed axe attacker would end up placing his bloody brain covered thumb in order to remove some overalls. Also that same area is also innocently contaminated with his Wife's blood and DNA thus distorting the tests on the brain tissue so it appears more human rather than cow. All this happens at a time when the family finances happen to leave a misleading motive towards him.

In a Nutshell this is the kind of thing that must have happened in order for Lundy to be innocent. But sorry I don't believe it for one second. Its not reasonable. It may be possible but what are the odds? If it is true Mark Lundy is not only extremely unlucky for all those building blocks of the crowns case to fall in place he also paradoxically very fortunate not to have been home that night otherwise it wont just be his Wife's brains over the wall.


You're building blocks are about as stable as your facts and logic David, slam the front door and they all fall down ;-)


Hardly. The only way to make them all fall down is to find the "real killer" and if they remain standing after that, we all know who the real killer is you have uncovered. ;-)

The only reason this case gets publicity is because the prosecution got their time of death wrong at the original trial. And accused Mark Lundy under a farcical time frame. This got the MOJ folks on the bandwagon. Notwithstanding the fact that despite hearing the ridiculously impractical time-frame, the original Jury were still able to fathom what the paint chippings in Christine's skull combined with the presence of brain tissue on the shirt Mark wore the night the victims skull was hacked open still lead them realise the defendant was guilty.

Prosecutors knew a re-trial would be a slam-dunk hence he got one. The likes of Brendan Dassey, Kevin Cooper and Jeremy Bamber wont get the privilege because the keyholders know their case would be laughed out the court room a second time round.

David, you have youth on your side. You are dealing with the Bamber breakthrough evidence you know lots about, focus focus focus.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Previous

Return to Possible Wrongful Convictions: Member Submissions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests