Thursday, May 2, 2019

Mark Lundy: New Zealand..."Lundy a victim of 'junk science', lawyer says in bid for Supreme Court appeal," Stuff reports. "At his appeal hearing Lundy's lawyer Jonathan Eaton, QC, argued the jury heard scientific evidence that should not have been allowed."..."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."

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."