Chris, I dont know whether the jury-duty rules have changed, but it was certainly
the case when I did 2 years of an Ll.B at Canterbury waaaay back in the late 1960s.
Thanks for that update Kyle!
I think the remote location bit still applies (while Whataroa had a courthouse, it didnt, but that courthouse is now closed.)
Yeah, I can't imagine they'd make you travel hours to do your service.
With all the armchair relitigators (self included), I suspect they will have a hard time finding members for a jury that haven’t already spent time speculating, or been exposed to theories, on this case…
If the prosecution decides to revise the timeline to a late-night/early-morning event, that will change an enormous number of things. Bain II was pretty much a prosecutorial replay of the previous trial, complete with the transcript testimony of the accused himself. Changing the time of the murder in Lundy means a completely new prosecution. It would certainly challenge preconceptions.
I think the remote location bit still applies
I believe it's a 30km radius from the courthouse, for rather self-evident reasons, and I know people who have been summonsed for the Manukau District Court while resident closer to the Auckland High Court. Auckland is a challenge because some unfortunates (I think including myself) fall within 30km of all the city's courts.
I believe it’s a 30km radius from the courthouse
Ahh! Thanks...the nearest court house being in Hokitika (2 hours' drive, roughly 190k from my door) means I am not liable for jury duty. Nor would any South Westlander, south of Ross.
Which is a bit of a shame: I'd like to sit, listen, & observe a trial...
Which is a bit of a shame: I’d like to sit, listen, & observe a trial…
I like the idea of sitting on a jury. But I'd just as likely get some child sexual abuse case or something horrendous like that and want to spend all the time punching humanity in the face.
But I’d just as likely get some child sexual abuse case
That's what I got, and the prosecution screwed it up so the trial was abandoned. Frustrating, to say the least.
The original pathologists identified a too-narrow window, the gastric smell concept does not appear to have a basis in forensic science. Yet those two point are not equivalent to the statement that digestive contents are completely useless. The lack of any material passing into the duodenum is one piece of information (see papers by Chen et al. and by Hellmig et al.), and the fact that some of the stomach contents were still recognizable is another. A 2013 paper by Patel and coauthors called "Estimation of time since death by gastric contents" covers the latter issue. I would say that they were dead within about 3 hours of consuming their last meal. In other words the prosecution's present theory (that they were killed more than six hours after their last meal) is nonsense IMO.
That always got to beloved and I: Lundy is such a terrible actor. That funeral performance was hollow, and I can believe the no tears claim.
Yeah - a lot of people were sympathetic or at least agnostic until they saw that. It looked too unreal, too staged. And because of that it was quite chilling to watch.
But one possiblity is he didn't do it, but was quite glad it happened, and had to fake grief.
Personally, I've come to no firm conclusions at all - until recently I felt he had probably done it, but some of the recent evidence makes me doubt that.
I suppose we shall have to see what comes out of all this.
The Crown's RNA evidence with respect to the putative brain material was rubbished by two absolutely top-drawer scientists, Stephen Bustin and Marielle Vennemann. With respect to the original immunostain work, several scientists expressed reservations (or there would not have been a retrial IMO). The forensic work as a whole reeks of confirmation bias and third-rate work. Much of it should have been excluded from the trial.