Crown rejects Lundy killer burglar theory

Mark Lundy has to be the man who murdered his wife and daughter, as the evidence points well away from it being a random burglary gone wrong, the Crown says.

Lundy is appealing his convictions for murdering wife Christine and 7-year-old daughter Amber in August 2000 in their Palmerston North home.

Lundy was first convicted after a jury trial in 2002 but won a retrial after the Privy Council overturned the verdicts in 2013.

He was again convicted after a retrial in 2015.

Crown lawyer Philip Morgan QC told the Court of Appeal in Wellington on Wednesday the defence theory that the murders could have been a burglary gone wrong did not stand up.

The only item taken was a jewellery box, despite Christine’s bag being open in the kitchen, and there was paint in Christine’s and Amber’s wounds that matched paint from Lundy’s tools and his garage.

But it was the level of violence used in the attack that buried the burglary theory, Morgan said.

‘‘What random burglar gets access to the garage, takes one of [Lundy’s] tools, gets into the house without breaking a window and attacks [Christine] in her bed while she is asleep in ferocious way. Then, observed by a little girl – she was only 7 – they kill her. ‘‘Who kills a little girl?’’

The burglar would then have to get out of the house without moving blood or brain matter from the bedroom, despite being covered in it, Morgan said.

The only blood found elsewhere was on a part of a window that would usually be covered when closed, he said.

‘‘The killer, quite remarkably, managed to get out somehow, without leaving another trace.

‘‘It is an inside job by someone who wanted Christine Lundy dead and didn’t want to get caught.’’

Morgan said Lundy had a major problem in appealing his case – two stains on the shirt he told police he wore the day before the victims were discovered.

It was undisputed that Christine’s DNA was found in the two stains.

Those two stains also contained central nervous system tissue, Morgan said. ‘‘Hence the Crown’s submission in the [retrial], and again in this court, is that these features, together with the rest of the evidence ... demonstrated that this was brain tissue from Christine Lundy.’’

The defence had suggested the tissue got on the shirt either through police error or food, which Morgan said was not a strong argument.

A big sticking point between the trials was the petrol in Lundy’s car, as the Crown says he drove from Petone to Palmerston North, committed the murders, then drove back.

The Crown points to mileage on his car.

There is no argument he drove from Johnsonville to Palmerston North after being told there were unexplained police at his house, averaging speeds above 100kmh.

Lundy’s lawyer, Jonathan Eaton QC, said the defence team tried to get an expert to give evidence about this subject at Lundy’s retrial but the trial judge said the expert was not properly qualified.

Since then, the defence team engaged Bruce Robertson, from Canterbury University’s engineering college, to carry out tests.

He got a professional driver to drive two cars – one the same model Lundy drove – at steady and fast speeds.

The results found Lundy’s car used three times more petrol than the Crown alleged he did when making the trip from Johnsonville, making it impossible for him to fit in the trip to commit the murders, Eaton said.