Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Mark Lundy: New Zealand: More light shed on Court of Appeals hitherto secret split decision to allow the jury to hear some of the evidence about biological tissue smeared on one of his shirts which Lundy had attempted to have ruled out as pseudo-science. Stuff.co.

STORY: "Mark Lundy pre-trial decision divided Court of Appeal judges," by reporter Kevin  Stent,  published by Stuff.co on April 16, 2015.

GIST: "The jury for Mark Lundy's murder trial should not have been asked to decide the legitimacy of some of the science used against him, the head of the Court of Appeal believed before the trial. In a decision that can only now be reported, the three members of the Court of Appeal were divided on Lundy's pre-trial claim that some of the scientific evidence against him should not be heard. The president of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ellen France, said a jury should not be asked to decide the legitimacy of the science, in cases where two "unquestioned experts" disagreed in the context of a criminal trial. It might be accepted in time, but it was too soon to say that, she said. But the other two judges said there was a "compelling" argument in favour of allowing the evidence to go to the jury. They said it was "far from pseudo-science and was sufficiently reliable to be worthy of consideration by the jury". On Wednesday the High Court lifted a suppression order that had kept secret the attempts Lundy made before his trial to rule out some of the evidence about biological tissue smeared on one of his shirts."

The entire story can be found at:


Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following 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:
I look forward to hearing from readers at:

Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;