As a citizen and taxpayer of this country, the guilty verdict given to Mark Lundy for the murders of his wife and daughter seriously worries me. There are just too many things about the case that do not appear to "stack up" or are inconsistent. I find it unbelievable that our justice system can allow a man to be imprisoned for life on such flimsy evidence.
The case against him seemed to rely heavily on the possibility he may have had the opportunity to do the crime, rather than hard evidence, in my humble opinion. The only scientific evidence relates to a tiny stain on a shirt, and this shirt is different to the one that an eyewitness claims to have seen him wearing. How could someone do such a violent crime, run past his local shops, then drive back to his motel at high speed without leaving any other traces of blood or tissue on himself or his car?
The Police in the case must have been exposed to some very unpleasant work, and very messy exhibits. Even with the greatest care, surely there must be a possibility that the tiny stain may have been accidentally transferred from another gruesome exhibit? This does not mean that Police were careless or incompetent, just human. Commonsense must dictate that this piece of evidence is inconsistent with other findings ( or lack of! ) on Mark and his property.
The vicious nature of this crime is so much like that of other vicious murders committed whilst the perpetrator is under the influence of methamphetamine or "P". There were reports in the press of this being a gang "hit", possibly on the wrong house. This explanation certainly seems more plausible, and I often wonder whether this possibility was fully investigated, or just abandoned once the tiny stain was found on Mark's shirt.
The other aspect that worries me is that there was mention of other suspects that had not been eliminated, and a jury request for information on this was turned down by the judge.
This must have been a harrowing case for the jury, and I am sure they were pleased when it was over. How can they decide on a verdict if they are denied information that they considered important?
Did they make the right decision?
Would it have been different if they knew more about the other suspects?
I lie awake some nights worrying about this case, and whether the real killer is still out there!