Mark Lundy trial: Trial turns to scene search

Detective Nigel Hughes said the risk of contamination was minimal. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Police defend examination of house and family car.

Police footage of the violent crime scene where two members of the Lundy family were murdered depicted a normal family home with toys outside, a sock hanging from the clothesline and knick-knacks on the living room wall.

The Crown used the footage to show the lengths gone to by police to not contaminate the scene as they examined the Palmerston North house on August 30, 2000.

Mark Lundy, on trial in the High Court at Wellington, has denied murdering his wife and daughter in the early hours of that day.

He bowed his head and tightly squeezed his eyes closed as the jury was shown pixelated footage, taken on the afternoon of August 30, which showed the bodies of Christine Lundy, 38, and 7-year-old Amber.

Stepping plates were shown on the floors of the home.

Police photographer and senior crime officer David Andrews told the court that when he walked through the Karamea Cres house to film the footage he wore loose police overalls, gloves and booties.

He said he took care to only stand on the plates as he moved through the scene.

"I took care not to brush against the walls or anything."

During the crime scene investigation, Mr Andrews lifted a fingerprint that was on a swing set in the couple's conservatory. Defence lawyer David Hislop suggested to Mr Andrews that the fingerprint had never been identified, but Mr Andrews could not remember if that was the case.

The court was also told yesterday that an examination of Lundy's car has found no traces of blood.

Senior crime officer Ross Peat told the court he examined Lundy's car and the property - including a window with a broken latch at the back of the property.

The car, a Ford Fairmont, was examined under a specialist polylight, which did not find any blood, he said.

Part of the Crown's case was that Lundy had tried to attempt to make the murders look as though they happened during a burglary.

Mr Peat told the court there were no fingerprints on a window at the rear of the property, but there was blood visible on the frame by a broken window latch.

The court also heard evidence about the search for jewellery and a jewellery box which had disappeared from the Lundys' house.

Detective Sergeant Rochelle Ross said part of her role in the investigation was to find an identical jewellery box, but after an exhaustive search she was unable to find a similar one, or any of Mrs Lundy's jewellery.

Ms Ross also searched the couple's office for two days, and read and seized documents that showed the couple's financial position.

The court was also shown photos of evidence bags piled up in a room in the Lundy house.

Mr Hislop suggested to Detective Senior Sergeant Nigel Hughes there was a risk of contamination with the exhibits kept in that state.

"I guess you can't rule it out," Mr Hughes said.

"But in that situation there, [the risk is] very minimal, in fact unlikely."

A photo of one of the rooms in the Lundy house showed no stepping plates that officers were using to move through the house.

Mr Hislop questioned how the photographer was able to move around the room without stepping on the ground.

Mr Hughes said he was confident the photographer would have used plates as he moved around the room.

The trial in front of Justice Simon France continues.

Key evidence

• Footage was shown of the police scene examination of the Lundy home showing stepping plates were used

• A defence lawyer has suggested a fingerprint on a swing set in the house has never been identified

• No blood was found in Lundy's vehicle

• Blood was found on a window frame at the Lundy home

• Despite an extensive search, none of the missing jewellery or the jewellery box from the Lundy house was ever found

• It was suggested evidence piled up in bags could have been contaminated - but this was denied by police