Saturday, June 22, 2013

Mark Lundy: New Zealand; Sister is hopeful her brother's murder conviction will be quashed by the British Privy Council; Her husband is angry to discover that police withheld a document from the defence in which a neuropathologist said Lundy should not be convicted on the forensic evidence he had viewed. Otago Daily News.

STORY: "Sister 'very hopeful' over Lundy appeal," published by the Otago Daily Times on June 21, 2013.

GIST: "Mark Lundy's sister is ''very hopeful'' the Privy Council will quash her brother's murder convictions and order a new trial - while her husband has revealed their anger over how police failed to disclose a document which was important to his defence. Caryl Jones and her husband David flew from New Zealand to attend the three-day hearing at the Privy Council in London for her brother's final attempt to clear his name. She has always believed he was innocent, and after the hearing finished overnight she paid tribute yesterday to those who had helped to crusade to free Mark Lundy, including lawyers David Hislop QC and Malcolm Birdling as well as Geoff Levick, who bought the case to their attention......... Mr Jones was also pleased with how the appeal went, but said he was surprised and angry to discover the police had failed to disclose a document which the defence lawyers said was a ''revelation'' to the case. According to the document - which was not disclosed to defence lawyers at Lundy's original trial - the neuropathologist, Dr Heng Teoh, said Lundy should not be convicted on the forensic evidence he had viewed. ''It's taken 12 and a-half years to find out something that should have been disclosed back in 2001. And it wasn't. "So we are a little angry about that - it could have changed the whole outlook of how all the evidence was presented," Mr Jones said.........The Law Lords could order a retrial or send the case back to the Court of Appeal, which could hear the conflicting evidence over the disputed brain tissue evidence and then decide whether a new trial should be held. The appeal hinged on a number of key planks submitted by Mr Hislop including:
- The failure of police to disclose a document to defence lawyers.
- The validity of science used to identify matter on Lundy's shirt as brain tissue.
- The examination of stomach contents to determine the time of death.
- The examination of a computer's shutdown time which led to allegations Lundy tampered with the machine to create an alibi.
- The failure of the judge to properly direct the jury about evidence of the sole eyewitness."

The entire story can be found at:


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.