Mark Lundy in the dock during his 2015 trial, for the 2000 murders of his wife Christine Lundy and daughter, Amber Lundy, in the High Court at Wellington. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Mark Lundy in the dock during his 2015 trial, for the 2000 murders of his wife Christine Lundy and daughter, Amber Lundy, in the High Court at Wellington. Photo / Mark Mitchell
There were "powerful" reasons to believe Mark Lundy was guilty of murdering his wife and daughter, despite the use of inadmissible evidence at his trial, the Crown says.
Lundy's final bid to overturn his convictions will come to an end in the Supreme Court in Wellington today.
He was previously convicted of killing wife Christine 38, and 7-year-old daughter Amber at their Palmerston North home in August 2000.
The appeal hearing, which began yesterday, hangs on a single point - whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in choosing not to overturn the convictions when part of the evidence used to secure them was found to be inadmissible.
Lundy's lawyer, Jonathan Eaton QC, said yesterday his client's name had become synonymous with bad science and miscarriage of justice.
He had earlier criticised use of mRNA evidence calling it "novel and junk science".
The evidence was used to tell the jury the brain or spinal tissue found in tiny specks on Lundy's shirt was likely human, rather than from an animal.
The method for analysing the brain tissue had "never been used before, never been used again", and the evidence based off it had been found inadmissible by an earlier court ruling.
He said the use of the evidence was "too overwhelming" to significantly challenge at trial, and that it tainted Lundy's defences.
Christine and Amber Lundy were found hacked to death at their home, likely with an axe or tomahawk. The murder weapon was never found.
Crown lawyer, Philip Morgan QC, said there were two key bits of evidence at the retrial – the DNA and the fact that the material on the shirt was tissue from the central nervous system.
"Everything else was an add-on," he said.
The killer had to have been "covered" in brain matter after the attack, and it was a "formidable achievement" for them to have made it out of the house without leaving any forensic evidence anywhere except the immediate murder scenes.
"The killer simply had to have been covered in blood and gore. The pattern of human material spattered about the room, even on the roof, he simply had to be covered in it, yet that person managed to get themselves out of the house without leaving a trace," Morgan said.
Other "compelling" bits of evidence included blue and orange paint flakes found at the scene and embedded in Christine Lundy's skull fragments were the same colour Mark Lundy painted most of his tools.
He said the killing had to have been done by someone who knew and hated Christine.
"These other pieces of evidence were very powerful."
He said Lundy must have been wearing overclothes and could have changed out of them in the bedroom, accidentally getting the two spots of central nervous system tissue on his shirt in the process.
Eaton said the idea Lundy was wearing overclothes during the killing was not supported by evidence.
There were fibres found under the victims' fingernails, and if these were from overclothes it followed that the fibres should also have been found on Lundy's shirt.
"No such evidence," he said.
He also addressed the issue of the paint chips, saying Christine was in and out of the toolshed regularly and likely already had paint dust in her hair at the time she was attacked.
There were other bits of paint found at the scenes that did not match anything else in the house, including Lundy's tools.
He said Lundy was asking: "After 19 years, can I not have a trial where I'm not being confronted with the Crown putting before a jury unreliable expert opinion?"
The judges will release their decision in writing.
Mark Lundy being supported after the funeral of his wife Christine and daughter Amber in 2000. Photo / Mark Mitchell
The court cases
Lundy was first convicted of the murders in 2002, and his first appeal attempt resulted in the court increasing the non-parole period of his life sentence to 20 years.
His conviction was quashed by the Privy Council in 2013, which ruled there were problems with the analysis of the brain tissue found on Lundy's shirt, as well as with the time of death.
In a 2015 retrial at the High Court in Wellington, Lundy was again convicted of the murders.
He appealed to the Court of Appeal last year, which found the evidence around the brain tissue should not have been presented to the jury, but decided to uphold the convictions anyway.
The Crown argued Christine Lundy's brain tissue was found on the polo shirt her husband wore on the night of the murders.
