• Lundy told a client he and his wife had been turned down in a bid to increase their life insurance to $1 million
• Lundy's clients describe him as acting normally only hours before the alleged murders
• Lundy's lawyer challenges police computer expert on evidence
• Court hears testimony from late parents of Mark and Christine Lundy
• They said there was no violence in couple's relationship
• Lundy's father said son did not have tomahawk in tool shed

Hours before allegedly hacking his wife and daughter to death, Mark Lundy told a work client he had tried to increase his and his wife's life insurance for $1 million.

The double murder trial at the High Court in Wellington today heard from customers the defendant encountered as a kitchen sink salesman while he was on a work trip around Wellington on August 29 and 30, 2000.

Keith Bradbury, manager of Petone's QA Joinery, said Lundy had arrived at the premises earlier than usual on August 29.

Advertisement

After "general chit chat", the defendant brought up his insurance policy.

"He told me they were looking at updating life insurance and had been knocked back because of weight concerns from the doctor," Mr Bradbury said.

He said Lundy was looking for a $1 million policy but had been only able to secure a $500,000 one and he and his wife had been refused because of concerns around their weight.

Mr Bradbury said he got on well with Lundy and he seemed no different on that day.

A string of other witnesses who had seen Lundy through work on the same day took the stand and all said he seemed the same as usual.

One administrator described him as "bubbly and happy", while another said he was "casual and easy going" during their meeting.

The focus of Lundy's defence lawyers yesterday was his brother-in-law Glenn Weggery, whom they accused of committing the murder.

Today though, the subject of their intense scrutiny was police computer expert Maarten Kleintjes.

Advertisement

At the first trial in 2002, one of the planks of the Crown case was the suggestion Lundy had manipulated the family computer to make it look as though it had been shut down at 10.52pm.

Expert witness Mr Kleintjes said the "registry files" had been tampered with several times and said the time on the computer could not be trusted.

Defence lawyer David Hislop, QC, accused him of changing his evidence today, "like the prosecution's case".

But the witness claimed what he said was consistent with his previous statements.

He was also grilled about a laptop that Mr Hislop said had been given to him for analysis.

"Was there something on that laptop that was inconsistent with the then Crown case that you wanted to bury?" Mr Hislop asked.

Mr Kleintjes said he did not recall it and FBI electronics expert later told the court there was no evidence of connectivity between the Lundys' desktop computer and a laptop.

Earlier the court heard about the Lundys' relationship, which was portrayed as warm and loving by respective parents.

The defendant's late father Bill Lundy said in a statement there was "no violence in their relationship" and that Amber was "the apple of [Lundy's] eye".

But their lives were not perfect.

The Lundys began trying for another child just over a year after Amber was born but were unsuccessful and visited a specialist.

Mrs Lundy also once miscarried in the early stages of pregnancy.

"Christine was very upset when she found out she couldn't have any other children... the accused didn't say much," her mum Helen Weggery said.

The trial before Justice Simon France is expected to last up to nine weeks.