Lundy labelled victim of coincidence
A string of ‘‘uncanny coincidences’’ would have to line up if Mark Lundy murdered his wife and daughter, his lawyer says.
Jonathan Eaton, QC, has also hinted in the Court of Appeal there is evidence pointing to someone else being the killer.
Lundy, twice convicted of the August 2000 murders of his wife Christine and their 7-year-old daughter Amber, was having his case argued yesterday and today, with the case possibly spilling into tomorrow.
Lundy was first convicted after a jury trial in 2002, but won a retrial after the Privy Council quashed the verdicts in 2013.
He was again convicted in 2015 and filed his appeal soon after.
Lundy was not in court, even though he could have watched in person or via an audio-visual link.
Eaton went through the case against Lundy, then spoke about various ‘‘uncanny coincidences’’ that would have had to line up for it to be true.
Lundy would have had to get rid of all the clothing he was wearing when he committed the murders, apart from a polo shirt, which the Crown says has Christine’s central nervous system tissue on it.
Lundy told the police he was wearing the shirt the day before Amber and Christine’s bodies were found.
He would have also had to dis- pose of the still-missing murder weapon, a jewellery box taken from the house, scrub all the material from his glasses, watch and wedding ring, and ensure no brain or blood matter got into his car, Eaton said.
He then would have acted normally the morning after the murders, as people who saw him reported nothing out of the ordinary.
There was no evidence of the murderer cleaning up at the scene or in the Petone motel room Lundy stayed in, Eaton said.
Furthermore, there was animal DNA found in the stains on the polo shirt the Crown says contains Christine’s tissue.
‘‘Lundy not only got rid of his clothing, forensic evidence, the weapon, jewellery box and ... [he] did so before he got into the car and drove back to Wellington,’’ Eaton said. Otherwise, he managed to clean all the genetic material on his clothes from his car after the drive, Eaton said. IF NOT LUNDY, THEN WHO? Eaton said there was evidence at the murder scene showing it could have been someone other than Lundy.
There were unidentified footprints, fingerprints and a shoeprint at the scene, while DNA found under Christine and Amber’s fingernails matched to an unidentified male.
There were also hairs found on Christine that did not match Lundy, Eaton said. LUNDY A ‘‘GUINEA PIG’’ Eaton said both trials involved new scientific tests to see if there was human central nervous system tissue on his shirt.
‘‘It is right that Lundy asks ‘why in my case did I become the guinea pig in the world?’ ’’
The test used to find tissue on his shirt for the second trial had not been peer reviewed, as the Crown said it was unlikely to be used again, Eaton said.
‘‘The translation is: ‘It has served it’s purpose. Lundy has been convicted. We created a test to prove [the tissue was] human. It has been accepted in New Zealand courts.
‘‘Don’t worry about validation or peer review because it has served its purpose’.
‘‘That, as lawyers and judges, should make the hair on the backs of our necks stand up.’’
It was 15 years since Lundy first appealed his convictions on the basis he was a victim of a miscarriage of justice, Eaton said.
‘‘Now, we wind the clock forward to 2017, talking about actions from 2000.
‘‘In the meantime, however, a lot has changed. Saying ‘a lot’ is an understatement.’’
One of the biggest changes had been in the science used to convict Lundy, Eaton said – ‘‘science which I think we would all agree has become extremely complex’’.
‘‘At the heart of this appeal, therefore, is this issue of untested and novel science, and its relationship with criminal justice.’’
There had been big differences between the two trials, especially around the time Lundy is said to have committed the murders, Eaton said.
Lundy was said during the first trial to have murdered his wife and daughter about 7pm on August 30, but that was changed to sometime in the early hours of the next morning at the retrial.
Eaton said no-one in New Zealand history apart from Lundy had been convicted twice on such different sets of facts.
‘‘THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM’’
One of the issues that should have been covered at the retrial – ‘‘the elephant in the room’’ – was the public perception of Lundy, Eaton said. ‘‘The Lundy funeral scene.’’ A straw poll asking people about the case would end with most of them talking about Lundy’s emotional reaction at Christine and Amber’s funeral, Eaton said.
‘‘What is it about Lundy that sets him apart from other cases?
‘‘There is this view that he is a big fat so-and-so, with an escort on the night, and people saying ‘did you see the unconvincing performance at the funeral? Of course he is guilty’.
‘‘He has engendered no public sympathy.’’
Hamilton-based Philip Morgan, QC, Mark Jepson and Palmerston North Crown solicitor Ben Vanderkolk are appearing for the Crown.
Eaton, Julie-Anne Kincade, Jack Oliver-Hood and Helen Coutts are appearing for Lundy.