Sunday, March 20, 2005

Mark Lundy

The front page of today's Sunday Star Times features a story about Mark Lundy. Lundy was convicted in 2002 and sentenced to 25 years behind bars after being found guilty of bludgeoning his wife, Christine, and seven-year-old daughter, Amber, to death in their Palmerston North home in August 2000.

There have always been question marks over the safety of the Lundy verdict. Despite this,
The Court of Appeal later threw out Lundy's appeal - and increased his non-parole term by three years - saying the evidence suggested Lundy planned his wife's killing very carefully.
The evidence suggested? I thought that the evidence had to put the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt! It's certainly plausible that Mark Lundy killed his wife and child, but it's also plausible that he didn't. Better occasionally to let killers go free, than to incarcerate the innocent and bereaved for decades.

FACTUAL ("For Amber & Christine - Truth Uncovered About Lundys") have a web site where they itemise areas of doubt concerning the case that call into question the safety of the verdict. One of their claims contains some unintentional humour.
The alleged time of death of 7:00 p.m. is difficult to accept by many of those who knew the Lundy family well, as it is inconsistent with habitual routines.
Dying at 7:00 p.m. not one of the Lundy family's habitual routines? I guess not!


At 2:23 am, Blogger Zenskar said...

Criminal appeals are based on points of law, including a judges directions to the jury (if there is a jury). It is not a review of all evidence presented. This is predicated on the notion that the jury was best placed to hear and assess the evidence, not some judges looking at a written record of proceedings.

At 7:42 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

yea, sorry i'm a little late, but I totally agree with you and love the name of your blog.


Post a Comment

<< Home