I see that Lundy is at the Court of Appeal (well his lawyers are) presenting various arguments around why they think the second trial was 'unfair'.
Some of it is a bit of a stretch with the main thing expected to be the continuing argument over the tests of the speck of tissue found on his shirt.
Hardly anything in the media as everyone seems to expect this is another big yawn however this article in the Herald seems to drop a bombshell.
How on earth did everyone picking over this case miss the evidence that Christine Lundy had a number of hairs in her hand. Were these hairs ever tested? Ever mentioned? Considering that other evidence from her hand was tested (fingernail scrapings) it is quite mind boggling that the hairs may not have been.
Does this evidence still exist? Is is too old now for reliable DNA? Why hasn't this hit the headlines?
@virgil said in Lundy (again):
Fair to say murder investigations in the mid to late 90’s - 2000’s were run by muppets.
How much possible key evidence was either missed or not properly tested at the Bain murders too?
You got that - test hands of EITHER of the Bains and there's no mystery.
That said, the Lundy Five Hundy sounded like a bloody good rally