PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Lundy was tried and jailed in 2002, but the convictions were quashed and a retrial ordered by the Privy Council in 2013."
He was convicted again after the retrial in 2015 and the Court of Appeal upheld those convictions in 2018.
Lundy did get a win out of the Court of Appeal though, as it
ruled science used to find stains on a shirt of his likely contained
human brain or spinal cord tissue should not have been put before the
jury.
But it upheld the convictions on the basis of the stains containing
brain or spinal cord tissue, also known as CNS tissue, and Christine
Lundy's DNA, meaning it was her brain on her husband's shirt.
Much of the Supreme Court appeal was heard on Tuesday, with Eaton saying Lundy's retrial was unfair because of that science ruling by the Court of Appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Supreme Court reserves decision in Mark Lundy's final appeal," by reporter Jono Galuszka, published by stuff.co on August 28, 2019.
PHOTO CAPTION: "Mark
Lundy, most of the way through a 20-year non-parole sentence for
murdering his wife and daughter, makes a final appeal at Supreme Court."
GIST: "Mark Lundy's final appeal against convictions for murdering his family has ended, with the Supreme Court reserving its decision.
Lundy has not travelled from prison to the Supreme Court in Wellington
to hear the appeal against his convictions for murdering his wife
Christine and their 7-year-old daughter Amber in August 2000.
Thursday will mark 19 years since the pair were hacked to death in
their Palmerston North home with a weapon believed to be a tomahawk.
Lundy was tried and jailed in 2002, but the convictions were quashed and a retrial ordered by the Privy Council in 2013.
Lundy did get a win out of the Court of Appeal though, as it
ruled science used to find stains on a shirt of his likely contained
human brain or spinal cord tissue should not have been put before the
jury.
But it upheld the convictions on the basis of the stains containing
brain or spinal cord tissue, also known as CNS tissue, and Christine
Lundy's DNA, meaning it was her brain on her husband's shirt.
Much of the Supreme Court appeal was heard on Tuesday, with Eaton saying Lundy's retrial was unfair because of that science ruling by the Court of Appeal.
The CNS evidence was disputed and the Court of Appeal interpreted it incorrectly, he said. LUNDY'S GUILT 'INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION' – CROWN:
Crown prosecutor Philip Morgan, QC, told the Supreme Court hearing on
Wednesday the CNS and DNA combination created the "inescapable
conclusion" it was Christine Lundy's brain.
The only ways it could get there were by police contamination or Lundy
being the killer and there was no evidence to show the former, Morgan
said.
But there was evidence beyond the science used to find the CNS and DNA to prove Lundy's guilt, Morgan said.
Jonathan Eaton, QC, told the Supreme Court Mark Lundy's name is synonymous with bad science and wildly changing Crown cases.
The way Christine Lundy was attacked, when likely asleep in her bed,
showed it was not a random burglary but a crime committed by someone who
knew her.
The scene also suggested the murders were planned, because the floor,
walls, ceiling, furniture and curtains in Christine Lundy's room were
covered in "biological material", Morgan said.
"Once the killer got out [of the bedroom] and dealt with Amber Lundy, there was no sign from there of movement from that spot.
"It's really quite a formidable achievement."
He must have worn other clothing, with the CNS and DNA getting on his shirt while he cleaned up, Morgan said. LUNDY WANTS THIRD JURY TRIAL:
Defence lawyer Jonathan Eaton, QC, said much of the circumstantial evidence was disputed.
There were nine types of paint found at the house that did not match Lundy's tools, which were only painted on the handles.
The way Christine Lundy was attacked was not typical of a domestic violence case, Eaton said.
His biggest point was the jury hearing scientific evidence that was later ruled out.
The Crown fought hard to have that evidence in the retrial, with the
Court of Appeal describing it as significant and key to the case.
To cast it aside but still find Lundy guilty was unjust, especially as
his first trial also contained scientific evidence later ruled
inadmissable, Eaton said.
"All Mr Lundy says is: 'After 19 years, can I not have a trial where
I'm not confronted by the Crown putting before the jury unreliable
expert opinion?""
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/115333961/mark-lundys-supreme-court-appeal-continues-crown-says-guilty-verdicts-are-correctPUBLISHER'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;
