PUBLISHER'S NOTE: "The seven-week retrial included evidence from Dutch scientist Dr Laetitia Sijen, who used a technique called RNA to conclude 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, linking Lundy to the crime scene. The Court of Appeal ruled this evidence should never have been allowed at the retrial, because it was scientifically invalid, but still dismissed Lundy's appeal. In seeking permission for the Supreme Court to hear the case, Lundy's legal team said 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."
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
--------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Mark Lundy's bid to overturn murder convictions gets Supreme Court airing," by reporter Jimmy Ellingham, published by 'Stuff.co' on April 23, 2019.
PHOTO CAPTION: Mark Lundy's legal team is seeking permission from the Supreme Court for it to hear his appeal against his murder convictions.
GIST: "Mark
Lundy's bid for the highest court in New Zealand to hear his appeal
against his convictions for murdering his wife and daughter is
taking another step forward.
A hearing is scheduled in the Supreme Court in Wellington on Thursday
next week as Lundy's legal team seeks permission for the court to
consider the appeal.
The short hearing next week is before two judges, rather than a full panel of five.
Lundy's legal team is arguing 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. The seven-week retrial included evidence from Dutch scientist
Dr Laetitia Sijen, who used a technique called RNA to conclude 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, linking Lundy to the
crime scene.
The Court of Appeal ruled this evidence should never have been allowed
at the retrial, because it was scientifically invalid, but still
dismissed Lundy's appeal. In seeking permission for the Supreme Court to hear the case, Lundy's
legal team said 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.
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 earlier convictions were overturned by the Privy Council, before the Crown presented a much-changed case at his retrial.
Lundy is serving a life sentence in jail, with a minimum non-parole period of 20 years."
The entire story can be ready at:
The entire story can be ready at:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/112203454/mark-lundys-bid-to-overturn-murder-convictions-gets-supreme-court-airing
Read Wikipedia entry at the link below: "
The jury deliberated for seven hours before finding Lundy guilty of the murder of his wife and child.[16] He was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years.
Lundy's brother Craig, who gave evidence at the trial, publicly stated that he believed Lundy was guilty, while his sister and brother-in-law claimed his innocence.[23]Appeals: Court of Appeal: Lundy unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal in 2002,[24] and the appeal resulted in his non-parole period being increased from 17 years to 20 years.[2] 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 trial: In 2015 Lundy was tried a second time. The Crown case was led by Philip Morgan QC. The defence was led by David Hislop QC. In the second trial the Crown changed a key aspect of their submissions, arguing that Lundy drove up to Palmerston North in the middle of the night to commit the murders (after rather than before he was with the prostitute).[28] No other suspects were investigated. The jury deliberated for over sixteen hours after which, on 1 April, Lundy was again found guilty.[29]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.""
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
