Sunday, June 16, 2013

Bulletin: Mark Lundy: New Zealand; Privy Council appeal begins Monday in London: Court to consider validity of scientific evidence used to convict him of murdering his wife and daughter after brain tissue was allegedly found on his shirt. Hearing set down for three days. NZ Newswire.

STORY: "Lundy appeal begins in Privy Council," published by NZ Newswire on June 17, 2013.

GIST: "The validity of scientific evidence used to convict Mark Lundy of murdering his wife and daughter will come under the spotlight at the Privy Council in London. Lundy was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 20 years after a jury found him guilty of murdering his wife Christine and his seven-year-old daughter Amber in Palmerston North in 2000. He was granted permission to appeal his conviction in February. The Privy Council has set aside three days to hear the appeal, which begins on Monday. Lundy's lawyer, David Hislop QC, says the appeal will focus on scientific evidence used to convict his client after brain tissue was allegedly found on his shirt. He argues the science used to identify the tissue was flawed. Lundy has always maintained his innocence and after exhausting all avenues in New Zealand, his lawyers filed papers with the Privy Council last November.........Lundy has argued he couldn't have committed the killings, saying the police estimation that he drove from Wellington to Palmerston North and back to commit the murders in two hours 58 minutes in peak hour traffic was ridiculous."
The entire story can be found at:

See Newstalk story: "The crux of the argument lies with a scientific test used to identify matter on Lundy's shirt. The first of the three-day appeal has heard how at the time, a pathologist questioned the reliability of a DNA test in a conversation with a police officer - but those notes never made it to court. Correspondent Alexi O'Brien says Lundy's defence team spent most of the first day arguing how this key omission affected the trial. "Because the defence team didn't know about it, it denied Mr Lundy the right to a fair trial and that if they had had this evidence they would have potentially changed their line of questioning, the cross examination, possibly asked for some further testing to be done." Lawyer David Hislop says it's a long, complicated appeal. "You don't get slam dunks in front of the Privy Council. Nothing's easy up there. They are a very careful and discerning tribunal." Lawyers argue the scientific testing at the time was unreliable, and that the cells had degenerated. Lawyer David Hislop says their experts say they don't know for certain that the matter is brain tissue. "It's consistent with brain tissue but it's also consistent with any other animal tissue including food such as meat, chicken.""


Dear reader: Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following developments relating to this case;

I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site. 

The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to:

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.