PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The defence had argued the stains might contain
central nervous system
tissue from an animal, deposited from dropped food, and that Christine
Lundy's DNA could have come from her handling her husband's clothes, or
sneezing on them, for instance. It was also suggested that her tissue
could have been deposited on the
polo shirt because police mishandled exhibits in the case. But the most
disputed evidence suggested there was a 58 per cent chance the tissue
was human. One of the two Supreme Court judges, Justice William Young
said that
did not shut down the debate. There was still a 42 per cent chance that
it was not human. Eaton said the evidence that the stain contained brain
matter was also now challenged. It was new or "junk" science. He said
the Court of Appeal had made fundamental errors about what
scientific evidence could prove."
---------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Lundy a victim of 'junk science', lawyer says in bid for Supreme Court appeal," published by Stuff on May 2, 2019.
PHOTO CAPTION:
"At
his appeal hearing Lundy's lawyer Jonathan Eaton, QC, argued the jury
heard scientific evidence that should not have been allowed."
PHOTO CAPTION: "Mark Lundy is asking the Supreme Court to hear his appeal.
GIST: "Convicted double-murderer Mark Lundy was a guinea pig through the justice system with "novel and junk science", his lawyer says. Lundy wants the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Two judges of the court have reserved their decision on that application. Lundy's lawyer, Jonathan Eaton, QC, said the scientific evidence, an
advanced type of DNA analysis, was hotly contested, not used before or
since. No wonder Lundy said he had been a guinea pig through the criminal justice system with novel and junk science, he said. The evidence concerned tiny stains on Lundy's polo shirt, and whether
it was brain or spinal cord matter from his wife Christine Lundy.
The nearly 20-year saga over the murders of Palmerston North woman
Christine Lundy and her 7-year-old daughter Amber was before the Supreme
Court on Thursday. Eaton
said Lundy had not received a fair retrial because the jury heard
scientific evidence the Court of Appeal eventually found should not
have been allowed. The defence had argued the stains might contain
central nervous system
tissue from an animal, deposited from dropped food, and that Christine
Lundy's DNA could have come from her handling her husband's clothes, or
sneezing on them, for instance. It was also suggested that her tissue
could have been deposited on the
polo shirt because police mishandled exhibits in the case. But the most
disputed evidence suggested there was a 58 per cent chance the tissue
was human. One of the two Supreme Court judges, Justice William Young
said that
did not shut down the debate. There was still a 42 per cent chance that
it was not human. Eaton said the evidence that the stain contained brain
matter was also now challenged. It was new or "junk" science. He said
the Court of Appeal had made fundamental errors about what
scientific evidence could prove. The court's conclusion that there was
no room for any doubt that Lundy
was guilty, notwithstanding inadmissible scientific evidence being
before the jury, was a wrong use of a "proviso" for a court to uphold a
conviction based on a finding that no substantial miscarriage of justice
had actually occurred. It was never a case for the proviso to be
applied and the assessment of inevitable guilt was flawed, Eaton said.
For the Crown Philip Morgan, QC, said Eaton had overstated the effect
of the evidence about the probability the material on the polo shirt was
human. It was relied on at trial, but it was just one of the strands of
the prosecution case. The jury was told that if they accepted the
probability evidence, it
made the case stronger, but if the jury put it aside it was still the
combination of the brain tissue and DNA evidence that was the
cornerstone of the Crown's case. The probability evidence was not
particularly compelling so by the time
of the final addresses at the trial it was not that significant, Morgan
said. He conceded the scientific evidence became complex, but said the
judge
had given the jury a handout on the aspects that mattered.
The
case was not just about scientific evidence, Morgan said. Christine and
Amber Lundy were killed at the family home when Lundy was
supposed to be in Wellington on a business trip in August 2000. The
Crown alleged Lundy had returned home from Wellington overnight and
hacked his family to death with a weapon, probably an axe or tomahawk,
that has not been found. Lundy, who turned 60 in December, has twice
been found guilty of the murders, but continues to maintain his
innocence. He also continues to serve a life imprisonment sentence, with
a 20-year non-parole period. Getting a Supreme Court hearing is a
two-stage process. Before it hears an appeal, the court has to first
accept that it is
necessary in the interests of justice for the court to hear the appeal
because it involves a matter of general public importance or a
substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/112385310/convicted-doublemurderer-mark-lundy-seeks-supreme-court-appeal
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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
