Mark Lundy retrial: Jury retire for night

Mark Lundy in the dock during his trial. Photo / New Zealand Herald / Mark Mitchell

The jury in the Mark Lundy double murder trial has spent three hours deliberating without reaching a verdict.

The 56-year-old is accused of hacking to death his wife Christine and 7-year-old daughter Amber in their Palmerston North home on August 30, 2000, and the court has heard from dozen of witnesses over the last seven weeks.

Justice Simon France crystalised that evidence as he summed up the case in the High Court at Wellington today and his words were the last the jury heard before they retired.

Justice France acknowledged Lundy's first trial in 2002 at which he was found guilty, but told the jury to shelve any views they had about that, despite some of the evidence being replicated.

"It's important you reach your verdicts on the basis of the evidence you've heard," he said.

"Put aside anything you thought you knew about the case before it started, anything you heard or read outside these four walls."

Justice France used the example of Lundy's use of a prostitute to steer the jury away from prejudice.

"Whether you approve of that from a moral viewpoint doesn't matter to your task. If you think it relates to their relationship it might have relevance, but don't judge him because you don't approve of a married man using a prostitute."

When the jury resumes deliberations tomorrow they will attempt to reach unanimous verdicts.

It would only be "much later on" that the judge would consider a majority verdict of 11 to 1.

Justice France said the scientific evidence from "recognised leaders in their fields" might be difficult to assess because the witnesses disagreed on many points.

"But you have an advantage over those experts because you know all the evidence. You have the broader picture," he said.

"None of that means you should ignore the evidence of the experts; just don't get overwhelmed by it."

Justice France spent much time summarising the key points relied on by the Crown in attempting to prove Lundy was the killer and those used by the defence in its bid to clear him.

He said the forensic evidence of central nervous system tissue on Lundy's polo shirt had the potential to be "very significant" and warned the jury not to discount it just because it was cutting edge.

Lundy's lawyer David Hislop, QC, sought to show that the central nervous system tissue found on the defendant's polo shirt could have got there through contamination, or if not, that it was from an animal rather than a human.

But Crown prosecutor Philip Morgan, QC, highlighted the forensic evidence as clear proof he was the killer.

The polo shirt was found by police, inside out inside a suit bag in Lundy's car and the Crown submitted there was no way the tissue could have been accidentally transferred.

Another gaping difference between the two sides was in their opinions on the way the case was investigated.

Mr Hislop told the jury in his closing police computer expert Maarten Kleintjes and Dr James Pang -- who gave evidence on stomach contents and time of death -- changed their stories from the first trial.

Justice France was also critical of the pair but said it was up to the jury to decide whether their evidence amounted to the police showing "tunnel vision" in its original investigation of Lundy.

The financial pressures on the Lundys was put forward by the Crown as a motive -- that maybe the defendant cracked because of their problems, and that he had also recently increased their life insurance policies.

"Small businesses owing money to people and being owed money by others isn't at all unusual," the judge told the jury.

"The vineyard venture probably wasn't so flash."

Lundy remains on bail while the jury ponders his alleged role in the killings.

They will resume deliberations at 10am tomorrow.