So proclaimed the Herald in a ridiculous beat-up story last Saturday with nothing explosive about the item whatsoever.
The Herald revealed that hours before the double murder Lundy’s partner in a proposed vineyard venture was visited by two cuttings suppliers reps re non-payment of a deposit. The partner wrote a cheque for $16,000 then called Lundy in Wellington to tell him of this.
That simply supports the Police case that Lundy was under immense financial pressure so murdered his wife for an insurance payout, and probably then his daughter who witnessed the killing.
How is this explosive?
Lundy has exhausted his appeals and remains in prison as a convicted killer. “Explosive” would be something that showed he’s innocent.
I was one of the two men that visited the business partner that day to retrieve our rootstock or as it eventuated take payment of the deposit. Your points are all accurate regarding the motive of being under financial pressure, it actually confirms that claim and guilty verdict rather than cast any doubt. NZ herald claim this evidence on Sunday is a new revelation after 20 years, that’s not even close to being accurate news as it’s been documented before by that very newspaper. Two Palmerston North detectives took a day trip to visit myself and my business partner in Hawke’s Bay prior to the most recent retrial just to cover this line of enquiry off in case the defence attempted to use it. I was amazed that even needed to happen. Enjoy reading your commentary.
It’s very convenient to blame a deceased person for a crime when they can’t defend themselves. It was used as a defence in a multiple murder in nz not that many years ago..and the silly jury believed that it raised sufficient ‘doubt’ and let the real culprit walk…can’t be hard ti figure out who I’m referring to. Lundy is gulty as sin…you just have to ask yourself who else had a real motive? The herald is run by people with their own agenda, hence the totally biased political ‘ reporting’ which is nothing else apart from being a platform for the so called ‘reporters’ own political beliefs.