PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "His seven-week retrial, which heard from about 140 witnesses, included evidence from Dutch scientist Dr Laetitia Sijen. Using a technique called RNA, Sijen concluded it was 58 per cent probable that tissue in a stain on a polo shirt found in Lundy's car was human brain or spinal cord. The Court of Appeal found this evidence should never have been allowed at the retrial, because it was scientifically invalid, but still dismissed Lundy's appeal. The Supreme Court application notice says the Court of Appeal ruling failed to take into account the "illegitimate and unfair bolstering effect" of the evidence, and the unfairness of Lundy having to respond to inadmissible evidence. At both of Lundy's trials, the Crown has presented evidence from Texan pathologist Dr Rodney Miller, who, using a technique called immunohistochemistry, identified tissue on Lundy's shirt as brain matter. Christine Lundy's DNA was also found on the shirt. The application notice says it is in the public interest for the Supreme Court to consider "whether evidence such as the IHC evidence, that has not received mainstream scientific acceptance in a forensic setting, meets the standard of scientific validity required for such evidence to be substantially helpful and therefore admissible ..." It (the application notice) describes IHC's "novel use" in the trial."
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHOTO CAPTION: "The
Court of Appeal's been told the public's perception of Mark Lundy was
something which had never been adequately dealt with at his retrial.
PHOTO CAPTION: "The Court of Appeal ruled Dr Laetitia Sijen's RNA evidence was inadmissible."
GIST: "Mark
Lundy's bid to overturn his convictions for murdering his wife and
daughter argues the Court of Appeal was wrong when it ruled no
miscarriage of justice took place at his retrial, which included crucial
scientific evidence that shouldn't have been allowed.
Lundy's legal team also says the jury at his retrial should have received a warning about placing too much importance on his demeanour, according to a "notice of application" seeking permission for a Supreme Court hearing.
The six-page document, released to Stuff, outlines the reasons Lundy's lawyers say New Zealand's highest court should hear his case, after his appeal to the Court of Appeal was last year dismissed.
Lundy, 60, was convicted for a second time in 2015 of killing wife Christine, 38, and daughter Amber, 9, in their Palmerston North home in a frenzied attack in the early hours of an August 2000 morning. Lundy says he was away on business in Wellington at the time.
Lundy's legal team also says the jury at his retrial should have received a warning about placing too much importance on his demeanour, according to a "notice of application" seeking permission for a Supreme Court hearing.
The six-page document, released to Stuff, outlines the reasons Lundy's lawyers say New Zealand's highest court should hear his case, after his appeal to the Court of Appeal was last year dismissed.
Lundy, 60, was convicted for a second time in 2015 of killing wife Christine, 38, and daughter Amber, 9, in their Palmerston North home in a frenzied attack in the early hours of an August 2000 morning. Lundy says he was away on business in Wellington at the time.
His seven-week retrial, which heard from about 140 witnesses, included
evidence from Dutch scientist Dr Laetitia Sijen. Using a technique
called RNA, Sijen concluded it was 58 per cent probable that tissue in a
stain on a polo shirt found in Lundy's car was human brain or spinal
cord.
The Court of Appeal found this evidence should never have been allowed at the retrial, because it was scientifically invalid, but still dismissed Lundy's appeal.
The Supreme Court application notice says the Court of Appeal ruling failed to take into account the "illegitimate and unfair bolstering effect" of the evidence, and the unfairness of Lundy having to respond to inadmissible evidence.
At both of Lundy's trials, the Crown has presented evidence from Texan pathologist Dr Rodney Miller, who, using a technique called immunohistochemistry, identified tissue on Lundy's shirt as brain matter. Christine Lundy's DNA was also found on the shirt.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/111031156/mark-lundys-retrial-undermined-by-illegitimate-and-unfair-crown-evidence
-----------------------------------------------------------
Read Wikipedia entry at the link below: "Christine Marie Lundy, 38, and her 7-year-old daughter Amber Grace Lundy were murdered in Palmerston North, New Zealand, on 29 August 2000. Mark Edward Lundy (then aged 43), Christine's husband and Amber's father, was arrested and charged with the murders in February 2001.[1] In 2002 he was convicted of the murders after a six-week trial and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. He appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeal; the appeal was rejected and the court increased his non-parole period to 20 years.[2] In June 2013 Lundy took his case to the Privy Council in Britain.[3] In October 2013 the Privy Council quashed the convictions and ordered a re-trial.[4] In April 2015, at the end of the retrial, Lundy was again found guilty.[5] Lundy continued to claim he is innocent and in 2017 took his case to the Court of Appeal a second time. On 9 October 2018 the Court of Appeal released its decision to dismiss the appeal. Defence case: "The defence called three witnesses including Lundy himself, who emphatically denied killing his wife and daughter. A key defence argument was that Lundy could not possibly have made the round trip from Wellington to Palmerston North and back in three hours,[22] pointing out that Lundy's phone records prove that his phone was in Petone at 5:43 pm and at 8:48 pm. Regarding the brain tissue evidence, the defence noted that there was blood and tissue splattered everywhere including on the walls, the bed and the floor around the bodies but "his car, glasses, wedding ring, shoes and other clothes were all tested for blood or other tissue and absolutely nothing was found";[18] they said contamination could account for the tissue found on Lundy's shirt." Privy Council: "In November 2012, Lundy applied to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council seeking permission to appeal his murder convictions. The appeal was based on three issues: the time of death, the time of shutdown of Christine's computer, and the presence of brain tissue on Lundy's shirt.[25] The hearing before the Privy Council (including Chief Justice of New Zealand Dame Sian Elias) began on 17 June 2013, with possible decisions being to reject the appeal, thus affirming Lundy's convictions and sentence; to overturn the convictions and order a new trial; or to send the case back to the Court of Appeal in New Zealand for determination.[25] The Privy Council reserved its decision after the three day hearing.[3] On 4 October 2013, the Privy Council upheld Lundy's appeal against his double murder convictions and quashed them, ordering a retrial. It concluded that Lundy's convictions were "unsafe" in light of new evidence that had been presented.[26][27] Mark Lundy was released from prison under probation orders on 5 October 2013 pending a second trial." Second appeal: "In October 2017, Lundy appealed his second conviction at the Court of Appeal in Wellington.[30] Lundy was represented in the Court of Appeal by Jonathan Eaton QC, Julie-Anne Kincade, Jack Oliver-Hood and Helen Coutts.[30] The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in October 2018. It ruled that the Crown evidence about RNA (the alleged presence of brain tissue on Lundy's shirt and similar to DNA) in the retrial was inadmissible but decided the appeal should be dismissed "on the basis that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred."[31]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lundy_murders
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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: http://www.thestar.com/topic/c
The Court of Appeal found this evidence should never have been allowed at the retrial, because it was scientifically invalid, but still dismissed Lundy's appeal.
The Supreme Court application notice says the Court of Appeal ruling failed to take into account the "illegitimate and unfair bolstering effect" of the evidence, and the unfairness of Lundy having to respond to inadmissible evidence.
At both of Lundy's trials, the Crown has presented evidence from Texan pathologist Dr Rodney Miller, who, using a technique called immunohistochemistry, identified tissue on Lundy's shirt as brain matter. Christine Lundy's DNA was also found on the shirt.
The application notice says it is in the public interest for the
Supreme Court to consider "whether evidence such as the IHC evidence,
that has not received mainstream scientific acceptance in a forensic
setting, meets the standard of scientific validity required for such
evidence to be substantially helpful and therefore admissible ..." It
describes IHC's "novel use" in the trial.
Lundy's lawyers also say the retrial judge should have given the jury a
warning to not undertake "demeanour reasoning by reference to an event
that takes place outside of the trial", in Lundy's case, "infamous"
television coverage of him overcome with emotion at his wife and
daughter's funeral
Lundy's lead defence lawyer Jonathan Eaton, QC, said full submissions
were filed in February. The Crown had until last week to file its reply.
The Supreme Court will now decide whether it will hear Lundy's appeal.
The case against Lundy was much changed at his 2015 retrial, meaning
some evidence presented at his 2002 trial was dropped. Notably, the
Crown changed the time of the killings from about 7pm until after
midnight.
The earlier time of death was fixed after pathologist James Pang
determined Christine and Amber Lundy died soon after eating dinner, but
meant Lundy would have had to travel from Wellington to Palmerston North
in peak-hour traffic, commit the murders, clean up and return to the
capital in about three hours.
Lundy is serving a life sentence in jail, with a 20-year minimum period.
He has been in custody since his arrest in early 2001, although he
spent about 18 months on bail after the Privy Council in 2013 overturned
his convictions and ordered the retrial."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/111031156/mark-lundys-retrial-undermined-by-illegitimate-and-unfair-crown-evidence
-----------------------------------------------------------
Read Wikipedia entry at the link below: "Christine Marie Lundy, 38, and her 7-year-old daughter Amber Grace Lundy were murdered in Palmerston North, New Zealand, on 29 August 2000. Mark Edward Lundy (then aged 43), Christine's husband and Amber's father, was arrested and charged with the murders in February 2001.[1] In 2002 he was convicted of the murders after a six-week trial and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. He appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeal; the appeal was rejected and the court increased his non-parole period to 20 years.[2] In June 2013 Lundy took his case to the Privy Council in Britain.[3] In October 2013 the Privy Council quashed the convictions and ordered a re-trial.[4] In April 2015, at the end of the retrial, Lundy was again found guilty.[5] Lundy continued to claim he is innocent and in 2017 took his case to the Court of Appeal a second time. On 9 October 2018 the Court of Appeal released its decision to dismiss the appeal. Defence case: "The defence called three witnesses including Lundy himself, who emphatically denied killing his wife and daughter. A key defence argument was that Lundy could not possibly have made the round trip from Wellington to Palmerston North and back in three hours,[22] pointing out that Lundy's phone records prove that his phone was in Petone at 5:43 pm and at 8:48 pm. Regarding the brain tissue evidence, the defence noted that there was blood and tissue splattered everywhere including on the walls, the bed and the floor around the bodies but "his car, glasses, wedding ring, shoes and other clothes were all tested for blood or other tissue and absolutely nothing was found";[18] they said contamination could account for the tissue found on Lundy's shirt." Privy Council: "In November 2012, Lundy applied to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council seeking permission to appeal his murder convictions. The appeal was based on three issues: the time of death, the time of shutdown of Christine's computer, and the presence of brain tissue on Lundy's shirt.[25] The hearing before the Privy Council (including Chief Justice of New Zealand Dame Sian Elias) began on 17 June 2013, with possible decisions being to reject the appeal, thus affirming Lundy's convictions and sentence; to overturn the convictions and order a new trial; or to send the case back to the Court of Appeal in New Zealand for determination.[25] The Privy Council reserved its decision after the three day hearing.[3] On 4 October 2013, the Privy Council upheld Lundy's appeal against his double murder convictions and quashed them, ordering a retrial. It concluded that Lundy's convictions were "unsafe" in light of new evidence that had been presented.[26][27] Mark Lundy was released from prison under probation orders on 5 October 2013 pending a second trial." Second appeal: "In October 2017, Lundy appealed his second conviction at the Court of Appeal in Wellington.[30] Lundy was represented in the Court of Appeal by Jonathan Eaton QC, Julie-Anne Kincade, Jack Oliver-Hood and Helen Coutts.[30] The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in October 2018. It ruled that the Crown evidence about RNA (the alleged presence of brain tissue on Lundy's shirt and similar to DNA) in the retrial was inadmissible but decided the appeal should be dismissed "on the basis that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred."[31]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lundy_murders
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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: http://www.thestar.com/topic/c
