Lundy murders

‘inside job’

The Crown has responded to Mark Lundy’s appeal by saying all the facts point to the murder of his wife and daughter as being an ‘‘inside job’’.

Meanwhile, the defence is trying to get new evidence accepted in the case, which it believes proves it was impossible for Lundy to be the murderer.

Submissions from both the Crown and the defence were heard on day two of Lundy’s appeal, held in the Court of Appeal in Wellington.

Lundy has twice been convicted of murdering his wife Christine and their 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 convicted again after a retrial in 2015.

Crown lawyer Philip Morgan, QC, told the court on Wednesday a defence theory that the deaths were possibly the result of a bungled burglary was totally wrong.

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 a ferocious way.

‘‘Then, observed by a little girl – she was only 7 – they kill her. ‘‘Who kills a little girl?’’

It was remarkable the killer got out of the house without leaving a trail of brain and blood tissue, Morgan said.

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

Lundy also had a major issue – two stains on a shirt he said he wore on the night of the murders.

It was undisputed that Christine’s DNA was found in the stains, which also contained central nervous system tissue.

Morgan said that made it safe to infer the tissue came from Christine.

But defence lawyer Jonathan Eaton, QC, said evidence collected after Lundy’s retrial showed it was impossible for him to be the murderer.

The Crown says Lundy drove from Petone to Palmerston North, committed the murders, then drove back to Petone.

There is no dispute he then drove extremely fast back to Palmerston North after being told police were at his house.

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 has engaged Bruce Robertson, from the University of Canterbury 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 when making the trip from Johnsonville, making it impossible for him to fit in the murder trip, Eaton said.

There were also issues with the jury’s perception of Lundy’s emotional reaction at the victims’ funeral and to seeing photos of them at the scene.

Eaton said the jury engaged in ‘‘demeanour reasoning’’ at the trial, based on a video of him seeing the photos. ‘‘You can see his response to that... loud, disturbing, physical, audible.

‘‘It has parallels to the funeral scene.’’

The funeral scene played on the television news while the jury deliberated, an issue the trial judge should have addressed, he said.

The case continues today.

‘‘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 a ferocious way.’’

Crown lawyer Philip Morgan, QC