Not Guilty
253 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
Link to this I meant to.
Rebel Dog Know
-
Lundy, faster than a speeding bullet, a motiveless killer.
But then, he was fat. So that proves it, eh?Can someone tell me how cell phone calls work? Lundy's timing is framed by 2 mobile phone calls (if memory serves) that both came from Lower Hutt. Is there anyway those cell phone locations could have been spoofed?
And a witness placed him in the neighbourhood at the time, dressed as a woman.
-
I only expect an answer from a lawyer or from Russell.
I'll have a go. [disclaimer: I'm not a media lawyer]
It appears there is still a suppression order in place relating to certain information.
Thus, it appears the Herald has made a colossal error.
I doubt anyone is going to come chasing after people on this site when they clearly were just responding to something that was in the public domain. As to whether anyone is technically in breach in the absence of a deliberate intent to defy a court order, I dunno. If I didn't have a day job I could spend time researching the matter.
But Russell, you should probably take down anything that refers to that content of that Herald story until it's clear exacly what the suppression order relates to. Unless you've had advice from a media lawyer.
-
C'mon, this man was found to be not guilty by a court of law.
Perhaps some legal scholar can help me out here, but "not guilty" doesn't mean "he didn't do it" but that he wasn't proven to have done so beyond reasonable doubt? Right?
For what it's worth (not much), I still think he did do it, but the defence managed to introduce reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. Having said that, I don't know what the point of the character witnesses were and why they were allowed.
-
Perhaps some legal scholar can help me out here, but "not guilty" doesn't mean "he didn't do it" but that he wasn't proven to have done so beyond reasonable doubt? Right?
Correct. Dictionary definition here.
I have no idea whether he 'did it' or not. Can't be bothered wading through the evidence.
However, it seems to me that the crown/police were in a clear no-win position as soon as the original conviction was overturned - they were never going to convince 12 people 'beyond reasonable doubt' given the time that had passed and the problems that would cause (15 years worth of lost or destroyed evidence, etc).
-
Thanks, Scott.
-
But Russell, you should probably take down anything that refers to that content of that Herald story until it's clear exacly what the suppression order relates to. Unless you've had advice from a media lawyer.
Thanks Scott. I'll take some advice on that, and watch what the Herald does.
-
I have no idea whether he 'did it' or not. Can't be bothered wading through the evidence.
And at the end of it all, five people were murdered in their own home. That appears to have gotten lost somewhere... which is sad, but not surprising.
-
And a witness placed him in the neighbourhood at the time, dressed as a woman.
"At the time". 7.15, sunset was at 5.54 that night and the temp. was 10c with cloud cover of 50% and a waning moon (1.3% illumination, plus it had rained earlier in the day, thus condensation could well have been present on the car windows (wolfram alpha)
And, the eye witness claimed to have "psychic powers" TUI AD!
Dressed like a woman but she "recognised" him immediately?
Statistically, if someone is dressed like a woman then they are more likely to be a woman than a man. (I don't feel the need to reference that)
As for the phone,Mark and Christine both used mobile phones on the Telecom 025 network, which apparently uses the AMPS/D-AMPS system. This is very different to the newer systems used for the Telecom 027 and Vodaphone 021 networks and uses different towers.
Mark's phone records from Telecom show the cellular phone tower that his mobile phone was connected to when calls were made or received. The coverage of the towers in the Petone area is such that each tower only covers about 100 metres approx. These records were used to place Mark in Petone on the night of the murders.
link
but note; Police have denied having these records.
An interesting case, more inconsistencies than the Watson case. -
And at the end of it all, five people were murdered in their own home. That appears to have gotten lost somewhere... which is sad, but not surprising.
Agreed, except for the possibility that one of those five may have, for all most of us know, died by their own hand.
The solid belief, expressed without firm evidence, that someone probably, even definitely did it, does creep me out a little. I recall being roundly howled down back in the mid 80s by a group of teachers and academics for suggesting that Lindy Chamberlain might be innocent. She was a Christian, she'd slandered Australian wildlife, what more evidence did I need?
-
she'd slandered Australian wildlife
I know I shouldn't, but that raised a chortle.
-
I know I shouldn't, but that raised a chortle.
When asked how she'd coped with the ordeal of wrongful imprisonment, Lindy Chamberlain admitted that she'd learned to laugh at dingo jokes while working in the laundry at Darwin's Berrima jail.
-
And a witness placed him in the neighbourhood at the time, dressed as a woman.
Last time I looked, being a transvestite -- or a moody middle-aged man -- wasn't a crime. Here's what really creeps me out about this, we've heard a lot of "X. healed puppies with his touch while Y. was a creeoy perv" (while reserving the right to do a 180 degree turn faster than Linda Blair's head in The Exorcist-- all of which may or may not be true, but being a weirdo does not ipso facto make you a mass murderer. Just as Peter Ellis being a camp old queen who might have seen a dirty video at some point in his life was not damning evidence that he was a child molester.
-
being a weirdo does not ipso facto make you a mass murderer.
Try telling that to our boys in (pale) blue.
New Globe Dork
-
Just a couple of thoughts.
I can understand the Jury finally deciding that they were not sure of his guilt. They asked the judge for a definition of reasonable doubt and that what he told them "that they must be sure..."
And as a result I can see the jury deciding Not Guilty was the only verdict.
But consider this, if you sat on a jury and heard about 5 murders and in the end decided that the crown had not proven the case - and hence you had to say not guilty - but you knew damn well he had done the evil deed...
Would you then want to hug the accused? And go to a party with him?
So as far as I can tell not only were some of the jury convinced that they could not be sure , some of them were convinced he was completely innocent.
Given they heard ALL the evidence it's hard for me to believe that I know more than them.
-
Does Scott Watson still keep the company of White Power? One to ask of the events of New Years day etc would be his helpful sister.
-
Would you then want to hug the accused? And go to a party with him?
That did occur to me. OTOH, some of the jury's conduct could be seem to verge on an inappropriate level of emotional investment in the defendant.
-
. . . an inappropriate level of emotional investment in the defendant.
Something akin to Stockholm syndrome, perhaps?
-
I'm going to have to watch 12 Angry Men again. The Henry Fonda version.
-
That did occur to me. OTOH, some of the jury's conduct could be seem to verge on an inappropriate level of emotional investment in the defendant.
Yeah, and I've long wondered whether some of the media should get a room already:
In the end, the deep, beautiful singing voice that spanned three octaves failed him.
It was about 20 minutes after David Bain heard the words he and his supporters had waited 15 years to hear.
Martin van Beynen's news judgement failed him, and the most disturbing thing is that The Press was far from the worse offender.
-
We're going through the reporting for this week's TV show. Some of it is really quite embarrassing.
-
And I suppose it's worth noting that the jury cane back to the judge to ask about the exact meaning of "reasonable" doubt", which would suggest that at least one member wasn't thinking in terms of comprehensive innocence.
-
We're going through the reporting for this week's TV show. Some of it is really quite embarrassing.
I'm also beginning to wonder if its dangerous -- if someone is accused of murder, surely there's a happy medium between cackling at the foot of the guillotine (and decrying due process as wet pussy bullshit) and fanboy gushing that would make Oprah cringe.
I still wonder whether a stronger case against Chris Kahui might have resulted if the media resisted the urge to bray for blood because charges weren't laid fast enough for their liking. As I've said elsewhere, its all very nice for the media and commentators to tut-tut about "sloppy Police work" in various cases, but a little honest self-examination about whether they're not a big part of the problem is in order. I just won't hold my breath waiting.
Now, if certain media outlets want to campaign to have Bain cut a big fat compensation cheque I just ask that it doesn't masquerade as news.
-
Can someone tell me how cell phone calls work?
The cellphone logs in to a cellsite. This gets recorded, along with any calls.
To spoof a cellphone call, depending on the system, you'd have to either:
- clone the phone or SIM
- alter the service providers recordsWho was Lundy and who did he kill, anyway?
-
some of the jury's conduct could be seem to verge on an inappropriate level of emotional investment in the defendant
Hell yes. It's pretty much a case of what were they thinking? But it does suggest to me that at least a couple of the jury were convinced he was more than simply not guilty.
And yes asking for a clarification suggests some were on the other end of the spectrum.
I guess my point is even having heard a lot of the trial via media I know a lot less than the jury. I just don't feel comfortable over-ruling their judgement given my ignorance.
I probably would be uncomfortable inviting him into my home but beyond that I just don't know.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.