Oh, you’re sick of Bain? Here comes Lundy!

Credit: Fairfax

Credit: Fairfax

Jimmy Ellingham and Matthew Appleby reported last night

In a decision announced in London last night, the Privy Council unanimously decided to allow Lundy’s appeal and said he should face re-trial as quickly as possible for the murders of wife Christine and daughter Amber, 7.

For now Lundy, 54, will remain in Rangipo Prison, pending any court decision to grant bail.

He is 12 1/2 years into a 20-year minimum jail term for the August 29, 2000, killings, but has always maintained his innocence.  

Jarad Savage adds

The appeal hinged on seven grounds, the most crucial being a challenge to the reliability of the science used to identify DNA matter found on Lundy’s shirt as brain tissue, the time of death and when the Lundy family computer was switched off.

Instead of magazines standing on edge and “parallel” lines, get ready to become an expert in brain tissue and computer viruses as the media and the courts revisit this case.

Main arguments in Lundy’s original trial

The Crown case was that Lundy went to Wellington on August 29, 2000, on a sales trip. He checked into a motel at 5pm, and 30 minutes later received a phone call from his wife telling him Amber’s Girl Guides meeting was cancelled and they were having McDonald’s for dinner.

The Crown said Lundy convinced Christine to get Amber into bed by 7pm so they could have a romantic evening. He then drove 150km back to Palmerston North at high speed, parked 500m from his home, then ran inside around 7pm and attacked his wife with a tomahawk. When Amber got up to see what was happening, he killed her too. He then sped back to Wellington, arriving just before 8.30pm, when he phoned a friend.

Lundy said he stayed in Petone, read a book, drank alcohol and paid a prostitute to visit him at 11.30pm.


You can view the full Privy Council Decision here: Mark Lundy Privy Council Judgment.

Sources:  Fairfax, NZ Herald


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Jmac

    Brace yourself.

    Who is next after Lundy?

    • Michael

      Scott Watson.

      • williamabong

        Sitting on the, sideline too often it seems our police find a suspect then make the evidence fit, Scott Watson I think is one of these.

        • stephen2d

          Scott Watson is a scumbag and there is plenty of evidence against him. Just saying that “the police made it fit” and using Bain, Lundy and other stupid “examples” doesn’t make it OK to draw any parallels.

          • Bunswalla

            Sound like you know a bit about this. Care to elaborate?

          • stephen2d

            Just did below. Read it, since you appear unwilling to examine the evidence yourself.

          • redeye

            You obviously have no clue. Read up a little.

          • stephen2d

            Same, read real stuff other than “Investigate” magazine. Regardless, it is up to you sick lot to provide evidence, just like Bain & co.

          • redeye

            I have never read your magazine. But I have read Trial by Trickery and it’s conclusive and damning.

            Explain why all of the reliable witnesses described a completely different assailant?

            Explain how one man overpowering 2 people, murdering and dumping them overboard, managed that by leaving only a hair or 2 in forensic evidence. Hair that took 2 different searches to find and only turned up after they had visited Olivia’s parent to collect hair samples.

          • kehua

            And the finger nail scratch marks under the fresh paint??????

          • redeye

            “But what about those scratches on the hatch – made by desperately scrabbling fingernails? Well, the hatch actually opened from the inside. Anyway, some of the scratches went right under the edge of the cover, and included parts on the side that couldn’t be reached when it was closed.’

            Don’t you think if they were desperate enough to make these scratches they would have left some DNA?

          • stephen2d

            The only one that needs to provide evidence is Watson’s camp. He has been tried, he is in prison. End of story. Overpowering “two people”, you mean two teenagers by a person known for agressive and violent behaviour? What is your evidence or rebuttal on the existing stuff? Facts, only facts, by objective people, not by audience hungry “journalists”.

          • redeye

            So according to you no one has every been wrongly convicted?

          • stephen2d

            I don’t remember saying that. Quote, please?

          • redeye

            So far I’ve offered witnesses, rebuttal of the scratch marks, and showed serious doubt over the hairs. You reply by saying “He has been tried, he is in prison. End of story.”

            You also promote the prosecutions claims that he was a person “known for agressive and violent behaviour”. Where’s your evidence for that?

          • stephen2d

            You offered statements that were addressed by the court and you have written some speculation. No proof, no evidence. For someone who ended up tattooing a swastika on his forehead, I doubt he is fond of boy scouts. He was agressive at the bar in Fourneaux and he has convictions for assault.

          • redeye

            Here you go again progressing more rumours;-

            More “real stuff” you’ve been reading?


            The rumours about our son, Scott

            Martin van Beynen’s article (Nov 29) trots out the rumours and misinformation endured by my son and his family during the Operation Tam investigation (if such it was).

            The inaccuracies are many, but your 200-word limit on letters makes it difficult to rebut them individually.

            Probably the most offensive is the assertion that Scott has a swastika tattooed on his head.

            Has van Beynen seen it or any documentary evidence of such a tattoo? Or does he only know this as a whisper from Christchurch police?

            Scott does not have such a tattoo.

            His assertion that a length of anchor chain was missing is another piece of garbage and was not even suggested by the prosecution. Another whisper?

            Van Beynen has assigned the “ketch” to Guy Wallace alone. There were three people aboard the taxi after the missing pair were dropped off.

            All describe, some with more detail than others, a large boat with a deck four feet from the water, wide stripe and scuttles. Two of those witnesses categorically denied, in court, that Blade was the vessel.

            CHRIS WATSON

          • stephen2d

            No more than you. Like I said, only facts and evidence to be dealt by courts. Hasn’t got any? Then he should rot in jail.

          • redeye

            Facts? And you put forward bullshit about a swastika and a violent history? No apology?

            And again you infer the courts have never got anything wrong.

          • stephen2d

            OK, apologies for using hearsay. I am not saying courts “have never got anything wrong”. What I am saying, all the evidence has been seen by this court and there is nothing (no new evidence) other than spin that puts in doubt the verdict brought by the court and its jurors.

          • Mr_Blobby

            Witnesses who notice things like one or two masts on a boat. But again no bodies,chain of evidence.

            No Watson case will need to be looked at again to, he just needs a benefactor, to take case up on his behalf.

            The sad state of our overpriced, inefficient, ineffective, waste of space of our justice system filled and protected by vested interests.

          • williamabong

            Scott Watson may be a scumbag, a thief, a criminal, but none of these things make him a murderer.

          • stephen2d

            well, unless he has the evidence to prove he isn’t – and no one has seen any, whereas there is plenty that says he is (and the court agreed), he is a murderer.

          • island time

            Prosecution has to prove the case, rather than defence provide other evidence. Very basic principle you have missed.

          • stephen2d

            Erm, prosecution already DID prove the case in court, in front of 12 jurors. If you want to dispute that, you need to bring new evidence.

          • island time

            Erm thats what the appeal is about….the evidence would appear to have been in one case withheld by the prosecution, and in another based on a science that is not used by the courts as it has proven to be inconclusive.

            Stick to your day job

          • stephen2d

            What appeal?

          • island time

            Erm the appeal that just finished to the privy council

          • stephen2d

            Are you talking about the same case (Watson) or just putting some random cases together, making parallels without any logic? Watson’s appeal was dismissed in court in 2008 and Privy Council (the same that dealt with Bain and Lundy no less) found that there are no grounds for his appeal to them. Case closed.

        • Mr_Blobby

          Tend to concur, he had a criminal background, but the question of the bodies has never been answered.

    • Agent BallSack

      John Barlow. Considering it took 3 trials to convict him.

  • Hopefully this time the Crown will get the time of death right – it was more like 01:00 AM, which allowed plenty of time. The time of death in the original case (7:30 PM) implied a death defying speed run which just didnt allow any time for a clean up

    • Dead right Peter. That theory would be far easier for the Crown to prove.

    • Team ENZ

      i agree, the time of death @ 730pm is not accurate. I still think he is guilty as hell, considering he is an aldulterer and having financial problems. He also tries to create alibis with muliple phone calls and having a prostitute (not a crime) which all seems suspicious.

      • OhopeBeachBugger

        You’ve summed up precisely what I thought – multiple alibis are a little too convenient aren’t they.

        • Mr_Blobby

          Would no alibi be better?

          • OhopeBeachBugger

            Hardly, hence the careful planning to ensure ample alibi evidence.

          • Mr_Blobby

            So an alibi is good?

          • OhopeBeachBugger

            Don’t be obtuse Mr Blobby, though it rather fits your general blobbiness.

      • Harvey Wilson

        If the facts don’t fit the theory,
        change the facts.

        Albert Einstein

    • Bunswalla

      Even the communist “Investigator” managed to work that one out. Having travelled extensively for my work including the route Lundy took (I have an alibi for that night, honest) there’s no way he could have done that trip in the time allowed, particularly without several other motorists noticing a maniac screaming past them at a rate of knots.

      The brain tissue evidence was always dodgy, the method used was unproven at the time and since then has been widely discredited.

      The contents of the stomach were a red herring – if a Big Mac can live in a fridge untainted for 2 years, it can survive in your gut for a lot longer than the pathologist estimated. The problem will be that the prosecution can’t really call that pathologist again (though the defence can), and there’s nothing left to examine.

      IMO Lundy is as guilty as sin and killed his family after the ho visited. Plenty of time to do so without attracting attention to himself.

  • unitedtribes

    I wonder if the “Stig” could be an expert witness

    • AnonWgtn

      The Police tried it a number of times and could not do it.

  • ConwayCaptain

    I think that the evidence of 150 km in less than 2 hrs is impossible.
    Second;ly I think Scott Watson is innocent as well.

    • stephen2d

      Scott Watson innocent?? Laughable. And insulting to their families and common sense (and evidence).

      • Bunswalla

        Although Olivia’s father has stated publicly he has grave doubts. Time to put up or shut up Stephen.

        • stephen2d

          Only one to shut up is you, mate. Exploiting Olivia’s father’s pain, being bombarded with this shit form Watson’s father, is sick (what about the other victim’s father?). Everyone in the Sounds now he has done it. Regardless – they were last seen climbing on his vessel. Next time, when the cops caught up with him, on 1 January still relatively early, he is hurreidly repainting his boat, washed it completely inside, ropes missing, their DNA found, etc. He is convicted, the only one eneding to provide evidence to the contrary is Watson’s camp. Shame there is no death penalty in this country.

          • Random66

            ‘..they were last seen climbing on his vessel’. This has been disputed by eye witnesses.

            ‘hurreidly (sic) repainting his boat,’. It was reported that this event was planned and paint had earlier been purchased.

            ‘DNA found’. Hair strands that may have been collected from a hairbrush as the number of hairs were not counted and recorded. This DNA was also ‘discovered’ later in the investigation after hair samples were collected from the brush.

            While we all realize this would be every parents nightmare, as a parent I would want the right person held accountable. I am less convinced of Watson’s guilt than I am of Lundy’s.

          • Bunswalla

            Couldn’t have put it better myself.

            That vessel they were last seen climbing on, you know the one the water taxi driver Stephen Wallace reported to the police, how many masts did it have?

            Wallace and others say it was a ketch i.e. it had 2 masts. Watson’s boat the Blade had only one, it was a sloop.

            The hair strands were found in an evidence bag that had been tampered with – there was a hole in it.

            Unlike you who seems to be jumping to some very large conclusions, I’m aware of the evidence and also how the police tried to portray Watson. Sure he’s no saint but fitting him up for a double murder with conflicting, circumstantial evidence and no bodies is a bit too far. Did he do it? I don’t know, and neither do you.

            EDIT: to clarify for Random that other than the first sentence, this is addressed to Stephen.

          • Kimbo

            Don’t dispute that the witnesses say what they did (but they could be mistaken).

            However, the crucial evidence is the hairs as they link Watson to Olivia Hope.

            And here’s the thing – the Defense argued at trial that they were planted or transferred by incompetence on the part of the police. And the jury decided otherwise.

            Everyone else but those 12 jurors are Monday morning quarter-backs. There has been no other evidence presented by Watson to merit overturning the jury decision.Whether those 12 are right or wrong, that is the bar Watson has to hurdle.

          • redeye

            Both Olivia Hope and Scott Watson were partying in the same bar. It is reasonable to suggest that hairs from Olivia were transferred to Watson during their time in the bar. The hairs do not prove that Olivia was on Watson’s boat.

          • Kimbo

            You may be right they were never on the boat, but we can safely conclude from the verdict that the jury thought otherwise. Your suggestion of how the hairs got there may be reasonable (although I’m not sure if the Defense argued it – didn’t they go for the stupid/crooked cops scenario?), but again, the jury thought otherwise.

            No new evidence – just different explanations/spin on evidence the jury already heard, deliberated on, and then delivered their verdict.

            Case closed, nothing to see here, move on…

          • redeye

            No doubt he had a crap defence. Real pity about the demise of Greg King.

            I don’t believe Lundy has any new evidence either. Isn’t he just disputing the evidence that put him inside.

          • Kimbo

            No, Lundy is disputing what the experts said the evidence was re the brain tissue found on Lundy. .

            It would be similar to Watson finding an expert who could throw doubt on whether they were really Olivia Hope’s hair.

            “Crap defense”? Well, yes, everyone in prison is their because they had a crap lawyer. Let’s quash every conviction, and let them be continually re-tried until they get the verdict that ensures they don’t have a crap lawyer. Hmm, I’m sure there is something wrong with that scenario.

            Bottom line: Watson, not his lawyer ultimately, as every client does, made all the decisions re how his defense was conducted – including the decision (as was his right) not to take the stand.

            Case closed, nothing to see here, time to move on.

            Unless we decide our present system should be replaced, as some seem to imply, or unwittingly support, by trial by jury. Hmm, I’m sure there is something wrong with that scenario too.

          • redeye

            So if there is a guilty man still running free we should just be happy that we’ve managed to lock someone up for it?

            There has to be just too many queries on this to say that.


          • Kimbo

            “if there is a guilty man still running free..”

            You can ultimately say that about nearly every convicted murderer. Anything is possible. Only the jury gets to make the decision that counts on what is reasonable.

            “If” there really is someone else who did the Marlborough Sounds murder, then go find him.

            Like I said, folks can query all they want – they have produced nothing of substance that undermines the evidence the jury heard, and decided otherwise from those who think there are “just too many queries on this”

          • blairmulholland

            The system is not some god that must be unquestioningly obeyed and feted, as you seem to believe.

            The right of appeal is there for a reason. Lundy has used it. No less than Law Lords of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have found the evidence wanting in this instance. So why be such a blind cheerleader for the justice system? It is clearly and self-evidently not perfect, and in cases where the system has got it wrong, we endeavour to fix the mistakes. You are like a petulant child in the playground yelling “no do-overs!” Why is your precious system more important than finding out the truth of a matter and ensuring that justice is done?

          • Kimbo

            And you are posting like an egg who cannot read properly.

            Despite the post topic, we discussing the Lundy appeal. Instead, in the general context of the NZ justice system (which was also implied by the original post title mentioning David Bain) we were discussing the Watson case. Watson may very well be innocent. However, like Lundy, the best way for him to prove it so is to bring new evidence, or demonstrate conclusively that the evidence that convicted him, particularly Olivia Hope’s hairs found on the blanket from his yacht, was unsafe. He tried that argument at trial, the jury ruled otherwise.

            The alternative is continual trial by media, and it was that, rather than, “The system is not some god that must be unquestioningly obeyed and feted, as you seem to believe”. Lundy won an appeal, not on trying to sway public emotion and poisoning the well by means of trial by media (as Karam did in the years leading up to the 2nd Bain trial), but on the basis of the facts. In fact, Lundy is still a deeply unsympathetic character, so his lawyer had better try and argue nothing but facts!

            Kindly lift your attention and comprehension skills, blairmulholland, because I usually respect your postings

          • Mr_V4

            Given that the DNA is largely found in the root, I find that incredibly unlikely that a stray hair transferred onto Watson’s clothing who then carried it back to his boat, – to be found by police days later.

          • Kimbo

            Thank You! Finally, someone is applying the test of “reasonable doubt” that the jury also did

          • AnonWgtn

            Hair was contaminated evidence ?

          • williamabong

            If the police are so good, and Rob Pope is perfect how come he couldn’t find the extra mast off Watson’s yacht.
            Without trying to sound rude my suggestion to you would be to do a little research before you run off at the gob, Pope is a lazy bastard and he let the court of public opinion convict Watson the day he hauled the boat out and showed the world his suspect, add to that the rumours spread by the police all helped to make sure by the time court day arrived Watson was seen to be guilty and Pope the conquering hero.
            Did Watson do it, who knows, Did he get a fair lick of the justice lolly , definitely not.

          • Mr_Blobby

            Elementary my dear williamabong, the extra mast is missing,the bodies are missing, one would deduce that they are missing together.

          • Mr_V4

            Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.

          • redeye

            Man you talk some shit. Only 30% of the boat had been cleaned. 3
            witnesses claim they boarded a much larger boat, no ropes were missing,
            and he had told many people he was planning to paint his boat in the
            new year so ‘hurreidly repainting his boat’ is no where near the truth.

          • stephen2d

            Great. Then let’s see what happens in court if there is anything new that hasn’t been dealt with by the court and jurors. Is there any new evidence?

          • Kimbo

            Answer: Nyet!

          • Mr_Blobby

            The missing mast and the bodies would be a good start.

      • Arran Hunt

        Stephen2d. The fact that the victims had parents or that Scott Watson was a creep are not reasons for upholding a verdict nor proclaiming guilt. Many people (probably more than Lundy and Bain combined) believe that Watson is innocent. You seem to be living in a whole if you don’t see that.

      • Mr_Blobby

        Common sense and evidence. How about beyond reasonable doubt.

        • stephen2d

          The jury has reached a verdict. Move on or let us know if you have any new info.

          • Mr_Blobby

            Find the missing mast and you may also find the bodies.

    • Harry B’Stard

      the 150km journey was completed numerous times at different times of day easily within two hours

      • Bunswalla

        No Harry, that’s incorrect. It was 150km each way, and had to be completed in a maximum of 2 hrs 58 minutes. To drive 300km in that time required an average speed of over 100kph for the entire distance – door to door.

        The trip was attempted at least twice by experienced police drivers, who had every reason to want to show that this is achievable, and they couldn’t do it.

        As mentioned above, I’m an experienced driver that used to do 50,000 km a year for several years, and I know those roads like the back of my hand. it simply can’t be done, certainly not without a police escort or a lot of people noticing your driving at high speed.

        If you change the time of death to after 11pm the whole thing makes sense and fits very easily with the facts.

        • Cadwallader

          Agree. You can’t generally do it one-way in under an hour and 45 minutes.

        • Dave

          Buns. There is a lot of argument around, believe me, it can be done, easily. Many years ago, I lived in the Manawatu (a crime in itself) and had regular meetings in our Petone Head office. I managed it time and time again in an hour 20 minutes in a beat up old company ute (that was in the early 80’s)

          Take the back route through Tokamaru, make every corner as wide as possible. take the back road around Shannon Continue through the back of Levin coming out past Kimberley hospital, the Otaki bypass, then the shortcut through Grays road Pauatahanui…….

          BTW, only one fixed speed cameras on the route then were in the middle of Otaki, easily bypassed OR slow down to pass it. Then average 115-120KM/h on open road, and always sit 10 Km/h above posted limits elsewhere.

          So, 1 hour 20 mins each way no sweat, 15 mins inside, job done.

          • Bunswalla

            No way mate – not at rush hour, not when Lundy also had to run 1 km (big fat bastard) as Police maintained he parked the car 500m away. Plus he has to get into the house, kill his wife, kill his daughter, rig the computer to close down at 10:52pm, clean himself up (no blood or gore found in his car), dispose of the murder weapon and clothes, and average well over 100 kph all the way there and back.

        • Harry B’Stard

          Yes Buns it is correct, I’m mates with one of the drivers that did it and gave evidence of that fact in court

      • Jimbob

        And it gave me a new line for when i hit 160km/h… Doing the Lundy!

      • AnonWgtn

        When and by whom ? – not the Police – they could not do it and they tried.

    • Never in the dark…..

      Don’t ever ask me to be your passenger ;)

      Because anonymity is never a sure thing, I won’t post past travel times around NZ. Suffice to say the round trip of ±300km in under 2 hours is risky, but possible.

  • Rusty B

    He appears to be a first rate actor!! Experienced also, according to his early days in Palmerston North drama community.

    • A very poor actor IMHO

    • williamabong

      Still doesn’t make him a murderer, at least Lundy made it as far as the witness box, unlike Joe’s show pony.

      • Bunswalla

        Not true – David gave evidence in his own defence at the first trial, and was convicted by a jury of his peers. Since then? Not so much as a peep.

        • williamabong

          Thanks Buns, I stand corrected, interesting how the only time the lying murderer ever spoke he went to the big house, said it before Bain should get nothing and Karam should get half of it.

  • Blue Tim

    God safe us, another case for the media to champion

  • williamabong

    Now some of the evidence is found to be flawed Lundy certainly has the right to at the very least a retrial.
    There are too many cases, Thomas, Bain, Watson,to name three where the police leave enough gaps in the process that a sharp lawyer could drive a truck through the prosecution case.
    To often we see the case bought to court by Inspector Bumblefoot and Constable Jump to Conclusion and the nett result is 10 years after the conviction the whole thing gets dragged through the media and everyone is left wondering if an innocent man has wasted 10 years of their lives.
    None of this makes any of these people innocent, but it does throw doubt on the process that put them in jail.

    • opusx

      Here’s where I think it all falls down. Leadership and experience in detective work. I will never criticise the police for attempting to bring serious criminals to justice, but sometimes these cases and their lack of merit comes down quite simply to the officer in charge of the case. Sadly, sometimes ego takes over. Peer reviewing is not mandatory, and I believe it should be in serious cases.

      • Mr_V4

        I think it is more easily explained by the fact an investigation is conducted in realtime, whereas a defence lawyer can decide with the benefit of hindsight what might be important. The investigator can only collect so much evidence he doesn’t have infinite time.

        For example the Bain blood stains. There was blood everywhere as the photos show. But realistically you can only test so many spots, But it’s pretty easy with hindsight for the defence to find a stain that wasn’t tested and then jump up and down an create a huge sensation about police incompetance, even when the rest of the evidence is compelling.

  • Brian of Mt Wellington

    Karam wont like being pushed aside from the limelight. He will come up with some new unsubstantiated evidence shortly just to keep his name and Bain’s in the public eye.

    • Garbageman

      Damn right he will get that pay day one way or another, Campbell Garner and co will make sure his tragic plight is not forgotton

  • Blue Tim

    Wouldn’t it be nice if the media & talkback “experts” shut up and let the legal process work through this case?

    • opusx

      Tui ad ;-)

  • tarkwin

    If he didn’t do it who did?

    • Never in the dark…..

      That’s the question my wife asked in unison this morning when we heard the news.

  • Phar Lap

    At least we now know that our prisons are full of” innocent” convicted murderers.just ask any of them.

  • Col

    Must be able to make stories up from nothing, maintain guilt at all times towards the subject. You will have the backing of a Police force who can never get the job done right.
    The Bain murder; if the marks were on his fingers at the house in the police photo?
    Why were they not seen when the body was taken away to be examined?
    The police say, they were marks from working on the roof, so they would still be showing on the finger at the examination, but they never saw them?
    You can not convict someone if there is doubt?
    Looks like we have Lundy coming up, due to the fact there is DOUBT.

    • dyannt

      As a woman who has studied the lines and wrinkles and blotches on her face every morning for years, I would have to say that lighting has a lot to do with how easy it is to see a mark on the skin.

      I can quite believe that the marks on the thumb that showed on the photograph were not readily noticed by the naked eye, even if they were being looked for.

      • Col

        Everything needs to be examined, and photos taken. Photos show marks on hands at house but no one noticed them at a later stage, also the hands were never covered when they left the house.
        We are not talking about your day to day body care, we are looking at people who are employed to do this work, and should do it well.
        It is not just a quick look over the bodies, a fine tooth comb is a must.
        Just because your a woman don’t think us men don’t look at ourselves each morning, what night cream do you think is best?

  • Brendon Taylor

    It’s all forgotten of course that there was a witness that saw a large man running down the street dressed as a woman. Come on, he had some sort of internal body matter on his shirt. & why did he book a motel & plan a romantic evening with his wife, as of cleanup time all he would need is a full body plastic spray protectant suit, all these possibilities & factors put together put him at the center of the case, I even remember hearing from someone at the time that after the funeral he was fine then when the TV cameras came into sight he broke down, this all points to guilt, but do agree that technicalities are getting these people off. I just hope police are learning from mistakes. But probably not, I know this case doesn’t compare with the Lundy one but the other night on police Ten 7, they caught some young guys in CHCH red handed with some bread from a stolen bread van, well it played out like this, none of the young guys would talk, so these genius uniforms decide to give them a minute alone to sort their story out. So in the end one of them came out & admitted that they were picked up by someone who was driving the stolen van & taken to his mates place given some of the bread, so this guy was the one taken to the station & processed the fingerprints on the steering wheel didn’t match the guy they had, & they didn’t fingerprint his mates, aw so his story must be true so all that happened was he was fined, no conviction. The reason they were left alone to sort out their story? One of the uniforms said they are all CHCH boys. What a joke.

  • Would he be entitled to an oscar for his funeral performance? Or was it real?

  • And once we’re done with this, Scott Watson is next.

    • Agent BallSack

      Peter Ellis. Scapegoat for homophobes essentially and the way the kids were questioned left a lot to be desired.

      • Then Clayton Weatherston, because he was provoked you know.

        • Never in the dark…..

          He needs a bullet, as there was no element of doubt in his actions.

          • pukakidon

            Wait for the appeal to the Pommy council. There must be one piece of evidence that can be contested in the Witherspoon case that can result in his trial being quashed!!!!!

            The conspiracy gang will be supporting him as well.

            Time we canned our masters the Poms from making decisions for our country!!!!

      • Bunswalla

        At least with Lundy and Bain we know crimes were committed. In the case of Peter Ellis, not only was he not guilty, no such crimes ever took place.

        Lynley Hood’s excellent book “A City Possessed” describes the case and the background in great detail.

  • Dave

    My perspective.

    1) Lundy is as guilty as – reconvict him, give him a min of 30 years

    2) Remember Scott Guy, that scumbag Ewan MacDonald is guilty. Wish he was convicted.

    There is a very fine line between “innocent until proven guilty”, unfortunately in our high tech times, there is many a fact to be disputed, letting reasonable (or unreasonable) doubt creep in, and a guilty scumbag is off the hook.

    Interesting both these crimes were committed in the Manawatu!

    • Kent Richardson

      Don’t get me started on the Kahui twins debacle ! If their was ever a case to charge the whole lot and send them all up for the twins murder….maybe we would have got a decent result. It pisses me off about the having to prove beyond reasonable doubt and the technicalities that are in place to protect scumbags. Why don’t we change the onuses to having them prove themselves innocent in the case of degrees of murder at least ??

      • Dave

        Only TWO issues there.

        1) The boat people who claim to be the owners of Aoteroa seem to be above the law. They simply complain and moan about their rights being abused or racial discrimination.

        2) Their silence and the way they hampered the investigation was despicable, police should have special powers to break this kind of thing. Every member of the (extended) Kahui family is complicit in the crime as they maintained silence and hampered the investigation.

        Perhaps its time for police to CHARGE and get a quick prosecution for anyone believed to be hampering an investigation. Dangerous yes, but the results might break the deadlock in cases such as this.

  • LesleyNZ

    Oh dear – what a bit of news to wake up to! Now we have to go through it all again. Glad that documentary maker Bryan Bruce has done the hard yards to show how Lundy did it.

    • Kent Richardson

      Lets get a replay of the Bryan Bruce documentary.

  • steve and monique

    Be a bastard if the death sentence still existed for murder here. Would solve a lot of this bullshit though. Ok last statement sounds bad, but in a country so small, how can the police get it wrong on so many occasions. They must be totally inept, and deserving of being sacked for the resulting appeals from wrongfully convicted murderers etc. And how dangerous for all us law abiding citizens that a Murderer is still in our midst. Or have they got the right mongrels,but they(murderers, shitbags) have smarmy smart lawyers who look for any angle to discredit the evidence, even though they know the truth (guilt on clients behalf). Plus the cost of the appeals to the taxpayer, so some snooty privy council judges on the other side of the earth can say ” bad show old chap”. FFS lets sort this mess out, it is bullshit.

    • jcpry

      I don’t buy the inept tag. I think given the increasing reliance on science it has become a lot easier to convict (DNA) but to also defend a case (expert witnesses). Without the dodgy (or will we later find out that it was possible) science around the brain cells the case looks increasingly weak. However they would have had no evidence what-so-ever to tie him to the murders without it – only motive and opportunity had the time of death been established properly in the first instance.
      I still believe he is as guilty as David Bain and that is very guilty.

      • steve and monique

        Agree. Police have to many angles for these mongrels to find a way out.

    • Kent Richardson

      Agree with you all the way. Trouble is in this country – criminals and shit bags like Lundy know if they protest the evidence and pick holes enough – chances are they will get traction on technicalities. The police aren’t that good but have a hell job to cover off all the bases. The lawyers are only fuelling the fire for their own pockets. The tax payer is the loser every time. Pisses me off to hear these cases.

      • steve and monique

        Guess the Police can only go by what the evidence shows. And if there is some doubt,it only makes it easier for these assholes to find a way out. Hope in time these forensic skills they are saying are improving will shut the door on mongrels finding ways out, and then demanding compensation.

  • AnonWgtn

    A slight change – when will somebody do something about the Peter Ellis case.

    • Never in the dark…..

      And Watson?

  • Lion_ess

    Lundy, aye? Must have been the ole lone house-breaker who clubs to death an unknown woman and child and never repeat-offends. To watch his laughable performance at the funeral, such was his grief at the murder of his wife and child – while he’d been busily banging away on some Petone pro’ as this was all taking place. Really? I don’t think so.

  • Steve R

    All I can say is “oh fuck here we go again ”
    Ive more important things to worry about .
    Im sure the government has better things to do with its money than pay for another very expensive appeal .
    Maybe the fat german will pay ??

  • Rodger T

    I don`t suppose we will get any sense out of the MSM on this ,they will be to busy spinning it out for ratings.
    It would be interesting to have his financial state of affairs and how much Mrs Lundy was insured for ,have some light shone on tho`.

  • longjohn

    Sick of this shit. If one little i ant crossed these people walk. I dont know how some of these QC,’s sleep at night. They obviously have had no adversity in their families.

  • GregM

    I have been watching this thread all day, have read all 53 pages of the Privy council Judgement, and here is my humble opinion.
    Firstly, my compassion goes to the family of Christine and Amber, to have all this come up again after 13 years must be absolutely awful.
    It is clear from the Judgement, that the science used at the time has serious flaws, and vastly differing opinions from different “experts” such that the evidence admitted to court from that must be unsafe. If there is the slightest doubt that he did not do it, then a retrial must be held.
    The only thing the police fucked up in my opinion was the timeframe. The stomach contents autopsy report was flawed as well, which is what the Police based the time of death on. The computer registry ( time and date records ) out of sequence is a sideshow and has nothing to do with it.

    Personally, I think he’s as guilty as shit. Tip up a hot ho from Petone at 11 pm thinks to himself ” why am I putting up with her at home” heads up to Palmy and murders her and the child at about 1 am. It all fits then.

    He will probably be acquitted, and we will probably never hear the truth, and that upsets me, because the family need to know. G.

    • Mr_V4

      Yes unfortunately that can happen with scientific analysis using new methods that are not rigourously established. I’m not sure they would have kept the material on LN2 for reanalysis later, like this famous case:


      Not enough discussion of motive is had by the media either.