| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 139246 | 2015-04-01 03:13:00 | Mark Lundy found guilty | Zippity (58) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1397782 | 2015-04-01 19:36:00 | Who expected that? www.nzherald.co.nz I did. How many $mills have we spent on this.. |
paulw (1826) | ||
| 1397783 | 2015-04-01 20:04:00 | I did. How many $mills have we spent on this.. Déjà vu all over again ? Arthur Allan Thomas comes to mind. | wainuitech (129) | ||
| 1397784 | 2015-04-01 21:45:00 | That got me as well, defence said 71lt wasn't enough for a return trip Is that because a 10l petrol tins hadnt yet been invented so he couldnt of had some of those in his boot ? :-) I'd say being broke & wanting to increase the life insurance amount to some ridiculous amount is a bit of a giveaway. Was the guy just stupid . Surely a murderer(assuming he did it) would burn his clothes he wore at the time, given the mess he(?) made. |
1101 (13337) | ||
| 1397785 | 2015-04-01 22:37:00 | It may not be over yet ... Canterbury Law School Dean Chris Gallovan: Lundy's second conviction may not end the already-lengthy legal saga. "I think that what people have to realise is that after the Privy Council quashing of the conviction and granting of appeal, that really pushed the reset button," he said. "So this trial was conducted as if the first trial hadn't existed. And just as he had a right of appeal after the first trial, he's got one after this as well." |
WalOne (4202) | ||
| 1397786 | 2015-04-01 22:44:00 | Me. I have ever since his performance at the funeral Nigel Latta's opinion, too ... Mr Latta says "behavioural evidence" also indicates Lundy's guilt. "His performance at the funeral was ridiculous. It struck people at the time. "A funeral director at the time just was incredibly uncomfortable at how he behaved. This is someone who is around grieving people for a living. That's a job. And she was uncomfortable with how Lundy was performing." |
WalOne (4202) | ||
| 1397787 | 2015-04-02 04:40:00 | Déjà vu all over again ? Arthur Allan Thomas comes to mind. Why do call him Arthur Allan Thomas? Do you call people by their middle names? |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 1397788 | 2015-04-02 05:28:00 | I once went to a funeral of a man who was killed in a shooting accident. The widow got hysterical and tried to jump into the grave. Years later it was discovered that she had shot him herself. Shortly after that she married a multimillionaire, needless to say he didn't meet the same fate. | mzee (3324) | ||
| 1397789 | 2015-04-02 06:43:00 | It's an expensive drain on the economy when guilty people use the system to it's full extent to try and get away with their crimes. But to me it has to be this way to protect those that are actually innocent from being wrongfully imprisoned. As long as the defence can show enough of a case to convince the legal system a trial or appeal or whatever is warranted then for the sake of anyone who might ever get wrongfully accused we must allow it. Better a few criminals rip of the system and maybe go free than innocent people getting stuck in jail. There is no perfect system that guarantees the guilty always get punished and the innocent always go free so we have to bias it towards the innocent in my opinion. Also as tempting as it is to decide the guilt of these people from what the media feeds us I try not to, without sitting in on the case we really just don't know. If Lundy can once again raise enough doubt to get an appeal going then so be it. If the case was clear cut the appeal would not be possible. I just hope if he is guilty he stays in Jail. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1397790 | 2015-04-02 09:12:00 | Well said Dugimodo. I started a thread (on another forum) about 6 years ago (arising from a North and South article) where I doubted the evidence was strong enough in the Lundy case. Principally the driving time. So I've followed the recent trial with great interest and am satisfied that both juries got it right. Interestingly a Radio NZ reporter who sat through the 7 weeks of evidence also said the jury got it right - which is a rare statement from a journalist. But never mind that. At the heart of the matter is the utterly brutal and violent deaths of a woman and a little girl. Christine and Amber are without voice and we should remember them. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 1397791 | 2015-04-02 09:41:00 | That got me as well, defence said 71 litres wasn't enough for a return trip For a recent funeral I drove two-up from Auckland to Palmerston North and back in one day on one tank of fuel. It was touch and go, the low fuel light came on at the top of the Bombay Hills, but it was a motorway cruise the rest of the way so that was more than 950km on one tank. It is only 150km from Palmerston North to Petone so whoever the Police chose to drive the route, they must have assumed that Lundy had been towing a caravan, been stuck in traffic, or didn't know where he was going because that equates to about 4.2 km/l. My vehicle was 2/3 the size of Lundy's and the engine was 2/3 the capacity, as was the tank. So, I reckon he could get 550-650km on a full tank, and he wouldn't have been speeding, so even a half-full tank would have been enough. Less than 300 km, even on half a tank, is laughable. He got his just deserts. Billy |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||