QUOTE ONE OF THE DAY: "History tells us that it is the passage of time that often provides the opportunity to demonstrate the weaknesses and dangers in relying on what is otherwise said to be novel but reliable scientific opinion." (From release by Mark Lundy's lawyers).
-------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE TWO OF THE DAY: Lundy and his legal team and supporters are disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision.
"The prosecution of Mark Lundy has been something of a testing ground
for new or novel science never previously advanced in any court of law,"
the statement says.
"It is frustrating and very disappointing that Mark Lundy never had the
opportunity to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury who
where not exposed to bad science – scientific opinion that a jury should
not have heard."
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: Lundy has twice been convicted of the double murder, but the Supreme
Court's decision not to grant him a third trial is probably the end of
the line for the case in the court system.
The only other avenues for Lundy to pursue are a pardon from the Crown
through the royal prerogative of mercy, or taking the case to the
Criminal Cases Review Commission when it's established in mid-2020.
The lawyers' statement says the commission won't face the restraints of
the appeals process through the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
Lundy was again found guilty of the killings at a 2015 retrial, but his
lawyers unsuccessfully argued for a third trial because scientific
evidence subsequently ruled inadmissible by the Court of Appeal was
heard by the jury.
It related to testing of central nervous system tissue found on one of
Lundy's shirts, which also had traces of Christine's DNA.
At both the retrial and his original 2002 trial the Crown called what
has been described as "novel" scientific evidence about the tissue. The statement says Lundy's supporters, including forensic experts from
around the world, will continue to monitor international developments in
that area and "will not give up the fight on behalf of Mr Lundy".
-------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Mark Lundy's fight to clear his name isn't over despite Supreme Court blow," by reporters
, published by Stuff on December 22, 2019.
PHOTO CAPTION: " Mark Lundy, pictured at his retrial, could take his case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission when it's established in 2020."
GIST: "Mark Lundy's defence lawyers say the fight to clear his name will continue despite him running out of options.' The latest hammer blow to their cause was delivered by the Supreme Court in Wellington on Friday, which rejected Lundy's appeal against his convictions for murdering wife Christine and 7-year-old daughter Amber in their Palmerston North home in August 2000. "This is not the end of the road in Mr Lundy's fight to establish he has suffered a miscarriage of justice," say Lundy's lawyers Jonathan Eaton, QC, and Julie-Anne Kincade, QC, in a statement issued "on behalf of Mark Lundy".
The entire story can be read at:
PHOTO CAPTION: " Mark Lundy, pictured at his retrial, could take his case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission when it's established in 2020."
GIST: "Mark Lundy's defence lawyers say the fight to clear his name will continue despite him running out of options.' The latest hammer blow to their cause was delivered by the Supreme Court in Wellington on Friday, which rejected Lundy's appeal against his convictions for murdering wife Christine and 7-year-old daughter Amber in their Palmerston North home in August 2000. "This is not the end of the road in Mr Lundy's fight to establish he has suffered a miscarriage of justice," say Lundy's lawyers Jonathan Eaton, QC, and Julie-Anne Kincade, QC, in a statement issued "on behalf of Mark Lundy".
Lundy has twice been convicted of the double murder, but the Supreme
Court's decision not to grant him a third trial is probably the end of
the line for the case in the court system.
The only other avenues for Lundy to pursue are a pardon from the Crown
through the royal prerogative of mercy, or taking the case to the
Criminal Cases Review Commission when it's established in mid-2020.
The lawyers' statement says the commission won't face the restraints of
the appeals process through the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
Lundy was again found guilty of the killings at a 2015 retrial, but his
lawyers unsuccessfully argued for a third trial because scientific
evidence subsequently ruled inadmissible by the Court of Appeal was
heard by the jury.
It related to testing of central nervous system tissue found on one of
Lundy's shirts, which also had traces of Christine's DNA.
At both the retrial and his original 2002 trial the Crown called what
has been described as "novel" scientific evidence about the tissue. The statement says Lundy's supporters, including forensic experts from
around the world, will continue to monitor international developments in
that area and "will not give up the fight on behalf of Mr Lundy".
"History tells us that it is the passage of time that often provides
the opportunity to demonstrate the weaknesses and dangers in relying on
what is otherwise said to be novel but reliable scientific opinion."
Lundy and his legal team and supporters are disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision.
"The prosecution of Mark Lundy has been something of a testing ground
for new or novel science never previously advanced in any court of law,"
the statement says.
"It is frustrating and very disappointing that Mark Lundy never had the
opportunity to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury who
where not exposed to bad science – scientific opinion that a jury should
not have heard."
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Justice has so far paid Lundy's defence
team $64,634 in legal aid funding for the Supreme Court appeal, on top
of $184,961 for taking the case to the Court of Appeal. Legal aid
payouts include expert witness expenses and other costs.
The case has been costly down the years. Lundys lawyers at the
retrial, London-based Kiwi David Hislop, QC, Ross Burns and Kincade had a
legal aid bill of about $1.8m.
Crown Law paid lead prosecutor Philip Morgan, QC, about $210,000 for
his role in the case, while fellow prosecutor Ben Vanderkolk was paid
from the Palmerston North Crown solicitor's annual funding.
The two police investigations into the killings, Operation Winter and,
for the retrial, Operation Spring, cost about $1.3m and $1.8m,
respectively.
Lundy is eligible for parole in 2022."The entire story can be read at:
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;
---------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices.""
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20191210/da-drops-murder-charge-against-taunton-man-who-served-35-years-for-1979-slaying
----------------------------------------------------------------
