. . . promoting capitalist acts between consenting adults.
I’m sure you’ve heard the news that Mark Lundy’s conviction for the murder of his wife and daughter has been quashed by the Privy Council.
So, what do you think?
I think I'm a bit tired of seeing the usual posts on the twitters along the lines of "well, who else did it then?" as if that's how justice is supposed to work.
There's no way he could have made the trip in that timeframe. So either he didn't, or the timeframe is wrong.
It was obviously some other overweight guy wearing women's clothing.
Lundy was certainly a good suspect but I like safe convictions and this wasn't so its a reasonable move to review it. The cops don't seem to be very good at solving these things nowadays.3:16
After years of putting up with karam trying to free bain (who I think is guilty as sin), we now have another case which will be in the headlines for years to come. I'm over it already... (I have no opinion as to his guilt)B Whitehead
D'you think there night be something wrong with our police force and judicial system, that we have so many of these cases in which they seem to have stuffed up? Leaving all of us as befogged as before each trial and retrial as to the guilt or innocence of the accused--and increasingly unwilling (with increasing justification) to trust any verdict whatsoever.Which is increasingly unsettling for any country premised on the rule of law.
Arthur Allen Thomas, Scott Watson, Peter Ellis, David Tamahere, etc , etc. Just about every high profile case has inconsistencies, where it appears evidence was fabricated or the crown alleges an impossible scenario. For example, Scott Watson was apparently seen on his yacht in the middle of Cook straight, then 2 hours later in Picton. (his boat wasn't capable of that sort of speed).The general trend seems to be that the Police turn up, come to a conclusion as to who did it, then find evidence to support their case. Any contrary evidence is discarded. An example of this is David Tamahere who the police alleged stole a watch off the swedes. The original owner of that watch came forward at the time and was ignored. When one of the bodies was found, the watch was still there.Interestingly, I did a short legal course, recently & one of the first things the lawyer told us was that law & justice aren't necessarily the same thing.I think a lot of people have this ideal that Law & Justice is the same thing. That can be a dangerous view to hold, if you happen to live in the wrong country.As for Lundy, I'm just not interested, it's just another high profile mess.B. Whitehead
"D'you think there night be something wrong with our police force and judicial system"?We'll fer a start it is not "ours". It is government's. But you did ask if there is something wrong and the answer is yes, of course. It is part of government with all the corruption that implies.Amit
I am pleased with the Privy Council decision - I have always been very uneasy about the Lundy case from the moment he was arrested.As someone who quite likes the odd bit of trivia, since 2000 I have always been intrigued at the astonishing similarities between the Lundy case and a famous British murder case of a Mr William Herbert Wallace, accused of murdering his wife.Like Lundy there was no evidence against Mr Wallace; like Lundy there is the absence of any other suspects (or even the ghost of another suspect); like Mrs Lundy, Mrs Wallace was the least likely person to have any enemies, or be a murder victim.Like Lundy, Mr Wallace also had a cast iron alibi which was a bit odd and unusual - and an alibi which seems incredibly convenient considering a phantom murderer chose that precise moment to murder his wife for no apparent reason.Like in the Lundy trial, with Mr Wallace the Jury seems to have ignored the alibi - despite it involving 'absolutes' - and convicted him anyway.Like Lundy, you have a situation whereby if Mr Wallace didn't do it then nobody could have done it - yet there is a dead body.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Herbert_Wallace
1. Commenters are welcome and invited. 2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.