Christine Marie Lundy, 38, and her 7-year-old daughter Amber Grace Lundy were murdered in Palmerston North, New Zealand, on 29 August 2000. In February 2001, after a six month investigation, Christine's husband and Amber's father, Mark Edward Lundy (then aged 43), was arrested and charged,[1] and in 2002, he was convicted of the murders and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years.

Cell phone data proved that Lundy was in Petone at 5:30 pm and 8:28 pm that night.[2] He was also confirmed as being in his motel in Petone between 11:30 pm and 1:00 am by a sex worker.[3] At his first trial, the prosecution claimed Lundy left Petone immediately after the 5:30 phone call, drove 134 kilometres (83 mi) to Palmerston North, killed his wife and daughter at about 7:00 pm, disposed of his bloody clothes and the murder weapon, altered the timing on the family computer to suggest they were still alive at 7:00 pm, was seen running down the street wearing a blond wig and drove the same 134 kilometres back to Petone by 8:28 pm.[4] Lundy's defence maintained that travelling to Palmerston North and back in three hours was implausible.

In 2002, following his conviction, Lundy took his case to the New Zealand Court of Appeal; the court rejected his appeal and increased his non-parole period to 20 years.[5] In 2013, on appeal to the Privy Council in Britain, the convictions were quashed because of exculpatory evidence that had been withheld at the first trial, and a re-trial was ordered.[6][7]

At the retrial in 2015, the police accepted that Lundy could not have made the round trip between Petone and Palmerston North between 5:30 pm and 8:28 pm, and presented an entirely different version of events. They now claimed that he travelled back to Palmerston North in the middle of the night after spending time with a sex worker in Petone. At both trials, contentious evidence was presented that specks of matter found on Lundy's shirt came from Christine's brain tissue.[8] In April 2015, he was found guilty again.[9]

Lundy has continued to claim he is innocent, and in 2017, took his second conviction to the Court of Appeal. On 9 October 2018 the court dismissed the appeal.[10] In 2022, following an application, the new Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) agreed to investigate his case.[11][8] As of 2023 the CCRC has yet to return its review. In 2022 and 2023 Lundy appeared before the parole board where he continued to maintain his innocence; the board denied parole, stating Lundy "remain[s] an undue risk".[12]

Background

Prior to the murders, Mark and Christine Lundy had been married for 17 years;[13] Amber was their only child. They jointly owned a kitchen sink business. The company was often in debt to their supplier for around $100,000.[14] In 1999, Mark Lundy added to their debt by buying two plots of land to grow grapes in Hawke's Bay. The owners of the plots, Christopher Morrison and Douglas Twigg, told the court at Lundy's second trial that the sale went unconditional in early 2000. Lundy missed a number of settlement dates without paying, which lead to penalty interest of about 14%.[14] At the time of the murders, the Lundy's owed $140,000 in penalty interest.[15] The final deadline was August 30, 2000 – the day his wife and daughter were found dead.[16]

A few months earlier, an insurance salesman, Bruce Parson, reviewed the couple's life insurance and the Lundys agreed on an increase from $200,000 to $500,000. The Lundys signed the new agreement on 25 August, five days before the murders. However, Mr Parson told the Lundys the new amount would not apply until the policy document was issued. Christine Lundy was murdered before the process was finalised. Nevertheless, the Crown alleged that Mark Lundy killed her, intending to use the increased payout from her life insurance to cover his mounting debts.[17] After Christine's death, Tower Insurance paid $75,000 off the Lundy's mortgage but no cash payment was made.[14]

Events on the day of the murders

On the morning of Tuesday, 29 August 2000, Lundy drove from Palmerston North to Wellington on one of his regular business trips. He checked into a motel in Petone at around 5:00 pm. His wife or daughter called him on his cell phone in Petone at 5:30pm and they spoke for eight minutes;[18]: 41  Lundy said he was told during the call that they were going to McDonald's for dinner.[19] Police later found a McDonald's receipt in the Lundy home for food bought at 5:45 pm.[20] Christine Lundy took a call at home from a friend just before 7:00 pm that night.[20]

Mark Lundy's cell phone records showed he made a call from Petone to a business partner of his Hawke's Bay wine-making venture at 8:28 pm. The computer at the Lundy home in Palmerston North was switched off at 10:52 pm.[21] At 11:30 pm Lundy called an escort service in Petone from his motel. She left the motel at about 1 am.[3] At his first trial, the Police claimed the murders occurred in Palmerston North, two hours away by car, between 5:30pm and 8:28pm while these events were taking place. At his second trial, police alleged Lundy drove to Petone in the early hours of Wednesday 30 August after the escort went home.[22]

At Lundy's retrial in 2015, Christine's brother testified that he went to the Lundy home the next morning to see Christine about a business matter. He said he entered through an open ranchslider and found the bodies of Christine and Amber bludgeoned to death.[23] Christine's body was on her bed; Amber's was on the floor in the doorway of Christine's bedroom.[24] Both had died of head injuries caused by multiple blows from what was determined to be a tomahawk-like weapon or small axe.[25] No weapon was found. A rear window had been tampered with and had Christine's blood on it. A jewellery box was later determined to be missing.

First trial

After a police investigation of six months, Lundy was arrested and charged with their murders. The trial took place in the High Court in Palmerston North.[26]

Prosecution case

The prosecution claimed Lundy drove "at break-neck speed from Wellington to Palmerston North, killed his family and drove back to Wellington" within three hours.[27] They contended that he killed his wife for her life insurance money because of financial pressure, and killed his daughter because she was a witness. Four days before the murders, the Lundy's reviewed their life insurance on the advice of their insurance broker. Christine's cover was going to be raised from $200,000 to $500,000.[28] However, the policy documents had not been issued so the increase was not valid at the time of Christine’s death.[29]

The prosecution's case was also based on a speck of body tissue found on one of Lundy's polo shirts; the shirt was found along with other clothes and miscellaneous items on the back seat of his car. Although New Zealand pathologists could not identify it as Christine's brain tissue, a pathologist from Texas, Dr Rodney Miller, claimed that he did. The prosecution argued the only way this brain tissue could have got on the shirt was if Lundy himself was the murderer. Later reports and tests by other experts cast doubt upon the identification of the material as brain tissue,[30] and at Lundy's second trial, Miller later admitted that his laboratory was not accredited to do forensic work.[31]

No weapon was ever found, but paint found in the hair of victims matched the paint Lundy used to mark the tools in his toolshed.[32]

The prosecution called more than 130 people to testify.[33] The only person who actually claimed to have seen Lundy in Palmerston North at the time of the crime was Margaret Dance—a 60-year-old woman, who said she had “psychic powers and a photographic memory”. She lived about 500 metres from the Lundy home and said she had seen a man wearing a blond wig who ‘appeared to be trying to look like a woman’ running on the street at about 7:15 pm. She also said she saw seven other people outside a takeaway shop in the area. Nobody else, including the seven people she described, saw anyone running in the area that night.[18]

Defence case

The defence called three witnesses including Lundy himself, who emphatically denied killing his wife and daughter. A key defence argument was that Lundy could not possibly have made the round trip from Wellington to Palmerston North and back in three hours,[34] pointing out that Lundy's phone records prove that his phone was in Petone at 5:38 pm and at 8:29 pm. Regarding the brain tissue evidence, the defence noted that there was blood and tissue splattered everywhere including on the walls, the bed and the floor around the bodies but "his car, glasses, wedding ring, shoes and other clothes were all tested for blood or other tissue and absolutely nothing was found";[18] they said contamination could account for the tissue found on Lundy's shirt.

Verdict

The jury deliberated for seven hours before finding Lundy guilty of the murder of his wife and child.[25] He was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years.

Lundy's brother Craig, who gave evidence at the trial, publicly stated that he believed Lundy was guilty, while his sister and brother-in-law claimed his innocence.[35]

Court of Appeal

Lundy unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal in 2002,[36] and the appeal resulted in his non-parole period being increased from 17 years to 20 years.[5]

Role of media since first trial

In 2009, North & South magazine published the results of an investigation into the case by Mike White titled "The Lundy murders: what the jury didn't hear".[18] Lundy would have had only three hours to make the return journey from Petone to Palmerston North, a round trip of approximately 290 km (180 mi), kill his wife and daughter, change his clothes and dispose of evidence; White contended that was not possible in such a short time frame.[18] In order to make it back to Petone by 8.28 pm, Lundy would have had to drive to Palmerston North in rush hour traffic at an average speed of around 117 km/h (73 mph; the maximum open road speed limit in New Zealand at the time was 100 km/h, 62 mph),[18] commit the crimes, and make the return journey back to Petone at an average speed of 120 km/h (75 mph).[18]

In 2012, documentary film maker, Bryan Bruce made an episode examining the Lundy case as part of his series The Investigator. Like others, Bruce believed that Lundy could not possibly have made the return trip in three hours,[37][38] but he thought Lundy could have made the trip and committed the crimes later that night, returning to Petone in the early hours of the morning.[38]

Privy Council

In November 2012, Lundy applied to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council seeking permission to appeal his murder convictions. The hearing before the Privy Council (including Chief Justice of New Zealand Dame Sian Elias) began on 17 June 2013.[39]

The appeal was based on three main issues: the time of death, the time of shutdown of Christine's computer, and the claim that brain tissue was found on Lundy's shirt. Affidavits sworn by three experts in immunohistochemistry, Professors Phillip Sheard, Helen Whitwell and Kevin Gatter, all concluded the tissue was poorly preserved. They concluded the IHC procedure was an "uncontrolled experiment" incapable of producing a reliable outcome.[39]

On 4 October 2013, the Privy Council quashed his convictions stating that "the divisions between the experts are so profound, they range over so many areas and they relate to matters which are so central to the guilt or innocence of the appellant, that the Board has concluded that they may only properly be resolved by the triers of fact in a (new) trial".[40] After the Privy Council decision, he was released on bail and was in the community for 18 months before his second trial.[41]

Second trial

In 2015 Lundy was tried a second time. The Crown case was led by Philip Morgan QC. The defence was led by David Hislop QC. The Crown made significant changes to the prosecution case against Lundy following the ruling of the Privy Council. They no longer claimed that Lundy made a 300 km round trip from Petone to Palmerston North in less than three hours to commit the murders. Instead, they argued Lundy drove up to Palmerston North in the middle of the night after he had been with the prostitute.[22] The Crown no longer relied on the testimony of the only 'witness', self-proclaimed pyschic, Margaret Dance, either. She was not asked to testify at the second trial.[42]

The jury also heard about scientific tests which were conducted on tissue found on one of Lundy's shirts. The Crown claimed the stains were brain or spinal cord matter from Christine while the defence argued they could have been stains from a meat pie.[43] The tests were developed specifically for the Lundy case by a laboratory in the Netherlands and compared the tissue on the shirt with brain tissue from animals, including a chicken and a cat.[44] As of 2017, this process has not been used since. The prosecution claimed the tests proved the tissue was human.[45]

Lundy's lawyer, Jonathan Eaton, QC, says this was flawed science. The MRNA testing done in the Netherlands was subsequently ruled inadmissible at the Court of Appeal in 2018, but the jury had already heard it, and on 1 April, found him guilty a second time.[46][47][48]

Second Appeal

In October 2017, Lundy appealed his second conviction at the Court of Appeal in Wellington.[49] Lundy was represented in the Court of Appeal by Jonathan Eaton QC, Julie-Anne Kincade, Jack Oliver-Hood and Helen Coutts.[49] The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in October 2018. It ruled that the Crown evidence about RNA (the alleged presence of brain tissue on Lundy's shirt and similar to DNA) in the retrial was inadmissible but decided the appeal should be dismissed "on the basis that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred."[50]

Supreme Court

Lundy was found guilty in the second trial after the results of two different tests, immunohistochemistry [IHC] and mRNA, conducted on tissue found on one of his shirts were presented to the jury.[51] The Court of Appeal subsequently ruled this evidence was novel science that had never been used before, or since, and should not have been presented to the jury – but upheld Lundy's convictions anyway.[52] This was the 'proviso', the mechanism that allowed the Court of Appeal to dismiss Lundy's appeal.[53] Lundy's lawyer, Jonathan Eaton QC, then argued to the Supreme Court that Lundy had become the victim of 'junk science'[54] and in May 2019, he was granted leave to have his appeal heard by the Supreme Court - solely on the proviso argument.

On 20 December 2019, the Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed Lundy's appeal,[55] stating in its concluding paragraph that "The other evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Lundy murdered Christine and Amber Lundy."

Parole Board hearings

In August 2022, Lundy attended his first parole board hearing having served his minimum term of 20 years. He was denied release because the Board was concerned he didn't have a safety plan to address triggers which might lead to further offending. Lundy said he was unable to create a plan because he was innocent and had never been triggered to commit murder. "It's rather difficult to do a safety plan for something I haven't done," he said. The Board also expressed concerns about his drinking pattern prior to the murders.[56]

At his second hearing in May 2023, Lundy was questioned by board chairman Sir Ron Young about his motivation for the murders. Lundy replied that this was a difficult question for him to answer, because he didn't have a motive for something he didn't do. Since the previous hearing, he had attended treatment for his drinking problem from 20 years ago. Parole was declined once again because he didn't have a safety plan.[57]

Other suspects

Geoff Levick, who runs a campaign to have Lundy's convictions overturned, believed Lundy was innocent largely based on the time needed to travel from Petone to Lundy's house and return. He speculated that a creditor of Lundy paid someone to go to Lundy's house to "teach him a lesson", but Lundy was not there and matters "got out of hand".[58] Levick also claimed that an associate of Lundy's was threatened by someone over outstanding debts on the day of the murders. The victim called the police and then rang both Christine and Mark Lundy to warn them. Police were aware of these events and subsequently offered this man immunity if he admitted his involvement in the murders. He denied having anything to do with it and was never charged.[59]

At the retrial, defence counsel David Hislop, KC, suggested Christine’s brother, Glenn Weggery, had been molesting Amber Lundy and accused him of the murders. He said that when police examined his car, blood was found inside the boot. Blood was also found near the driver’s seat and on a towel in Weggery’s truck.[60] Traces of blood were also found in the bathroom of his house, on a pair of his underwear and a handkerchief in his house, which were an 83% match to Christine’s DNA and an 88% match to Amber’s.[61]

Defence counsel Ross Burns, asked questions about DNA found in Christine and Amber's fingernail scrapings which came from two different men. This testing was done shortly before the retrial but was not available at the original trial, although who the DNA came from has never been established.[62] Christine also had 21 strands of hair tangled in her hands which did not match her husband's hair.[63]

Public reaction

At Christine and Amber's funeral, Mark Lundy appeared so distressed, he had to be supported by a couple of friends. His overt grief was filmed and shown repeatedly on television. Many who viewed the footage, who didn't know him, thought he was putting on an act. Lundy’s lawyer, Jonathan Eaton QC, said whenever Lundy’s case was in the news, the funeral footage was shown. It made Lundy a pathetic, comedic figure. Eaton believes the image became ingrained in people’s minds, and that the constant replaying of scenes from the funeral inevitably affected the jury (at both trials) and had a serious effect on the outcome. The disclosure that he had been with a sex worker on the evening of the murders also did little to engender public sympathy for him.[64]

The time to drive between Petone and Palmerston North had also been the subject of speculation, and was tested by Mike White for his February 2009 coverage in North & South.[18]

Lundy 500

In July 2009, and again in 2013, university students proposed races whereby teams of vehicles would travel from Petone to Palmerston North, in an attempt to recreate the journey Mark Lundy was alleged to have made in order to commit the murders within the timeline.[35][65][66][67] The events were supposed to be called the "Lundy 500" and the "Lundy Three Hundy" in reference to the Undie 500, a student road race between Christchurch and Dunedin. Both events were called off after negative publicity.[68][69]

References

  1. ↑ "Murder accused owed $2 million". TVNZ. 19 July 2001. Archived from the original on 2 February 2014. Retrieved 18 May 2013.
  2. ↑ The Queen v Lundy [2002] NZCA 197; (2002) 19 CRNZ 574 (13 August 2002), Court of Appeal. 16 December 2011
  3. 1 2 "Lundy with escort agency woman on night of murders". NZ Herald. 18 July 2001. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
  4. ↑ The retrial: Four changes to the case, NZ Herald, 2 April 2015
  5. 1 2 "Lundy loses appeal, sentence increased". The New Zealand Herald. 13 August 2002. Retrieved 2 January 2012.
  6. ↑ Ellingham, Jimmy; Appleby, Matthew (8 October 2013). "Lundy's sister constant in supporting him". stuff.co.nz. Retrieved 1 February 2014.
  7. ↑ "Mark Lundy's sister hopeful over appeal bid". ONE News. TVNZ. 20 June 2013. Archived from the original on 2 February 2014. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
  8. 1 2 White, Mike (29 August 2020). "The Lundy murders, 20 years on". Stuff. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
  9. ↑ "Mark Lundy guilty of murder after retrial". Stuff.co.nz. 1 April 2015. Retrieved 29 October 2017.
  10. ↑ "Mark Lundy's appeal fails over infamous double murders". Herald.co.nz. 9 October 2018. Retrieved 9 October 2018.
  11. ↑ Sumner, Bonnie (19 August 2022). "Why the Lundy case will never go away". Newsroom. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
  12. ↑ Ellingham, Jimmy (25 May 2023). "Murderer Mark Lundy's parole bid denied". RNZ. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
  13. ↑ White, Mike (February 2009). "The Lundy Murders: What the jury didn't hear". North & South.
  14. 1 2 3 "Mark Lundy murder retrial: Focus on vineyard plans". Stuff. 16 February 2015. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
  15. ↑ Galuszka, Jono (17 February 2015). "Mark Lundy murder retrial: Day 7". Stuff. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
  16. ↑ "Lundy trial: Witness denies deal on vineyard". NZ Herald. 7 December 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
  17. ↑ Lundy, Sharon (16 February 2015). "Lundy needed to raise $2m, court told". RNZ. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
  18. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mike White (February 2009). "The Lundy murders: what the jury didn't hear" (PDF). North & South. Retrieved 2 January 2012.
  19. ↑ "Mark Lundy: The story so far". Newshub. Newshub – newshub.co.nz. 17 October 2017. Retrieved 19 October 2017.
  20. 1 2 "Mark Lundy murder retrial: Time of death rethink". Stuff.co.nz. 16 March 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2017.
  21. ↑ "Circumstantial evidence vital in Lundy case, says prosecutor". The New Zealand Herald. 21 March 2002. Retrieved 17 July 2013.
  22. 1 2 "The horror of the Lundy trial". Radio NZ – radionz.co.nz. 2 April 2015. Retrieved 3 September 2017.
  23. ↑ "Christine Lundy's brother recalls grim discovery". Newshub. Newshub - newshub.co.nz. 9 February 2015. Retrieved 29 August 2018.
  24. ↑ "Lundy to be tried for murders". The New Zealand Herald. 19 July 2001. Retrieved 17 July 2013.
  25. 1 2 "The Lundy murders". crime.co.nz. Retrieved 17 July 2013.
  26. ↑ "Lundy keen to get bail hearing as soon as possible". Radionz.co.nz. 7 October 2013. Retrieved 9 October 2013.
  27. ↑ Lundy case: Crown rejects 'meat pie' theory, RNZ, 19 october 2017
  28. ↑ Lundy adviser proposed life cover lift, court told, NZ Herald, 15 February 2002
  29. ↑ Mark Lundy murder retrial: Focus on finances, Stuff, 16 February 2015
  30. ↑ Jimmy Ellingham (7 October 2013). "Brain Tissue at Crux of Lundy Decision". Stuff.co.nz. Retrieved 9 October 2013.
  31. ↑ Smear on Mark Lundy's shirt 'absolutely' brain tissue, pathologist says, Stuff, 10 March 2015
  32. ↑ "Christine Lundy repeatedly struck in her bed, court hears". 16 July 2001. Retrieved 17 July 2013.
  33. ↑ "Lundy prosecution calls final witness". The New Zealand Herald. 13 March 2002. Retrieved 17 July 2013.
  34. ↑ "Mark Lundy again takes the stand". TVNZ. 18 March 2002. Retrieved 17 July 2013.
  35. 1 2 "The Lundy Murders". 3 News. 6 October 2013. Retrieved 12 December 2023.
  36. ↑ "The Queen v Lundy [2002] NZCA 197; (2002) 19 CRNZ 574 (13 August 2002)".
  37. ↑ "Did Mark Lundy kill his wife and daughter?". tvnz. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
  38. 1 2 "Doco makes fresh claims in Lundy case". TVNZ. 18 June 2009. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
  39. 1 2 Savage, Jared (22 June 2013). "Lundy's appeal - the three questions". The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 17 July 2013.
  40. ↑ Lundy (Appellant) v The Queen (Respondent), Privy council decision, 7 October 2013, para 164
  41. ↑ Mark Lundy declined parole after serving 20 years in prison for murder of wife and daughter, RNZ, 19 August 2022
  42. ↑ Why the Lundy case will never go away, Newsroom, 19 Aug 2022
  43. ↑ Mark Lundy loses appeal for murder of wife and daughter, Newshub, 10 May 2019
  44. ↑ Lundy brain tissue test a first, RNZ, 3 March 2015
  45. ↑ Petrol, public perception and more science discussed at Mark Lundy's appeal, Stuff 18 October 2017
  46. ↑ The Lundy murders, 20 years on, Stuff, 29 August 2020
  47. ↑ Mark Lundy's final appeal under way in Supreme Court; lawyer seeks another trial, Stuff, 27 August 2019
  48. ↑ "Mark Lundy back behind bars, leaving family divided". Stuff. 1 April 2015.
  49. 1 2 Petrol, public perception and more science, Stuff
  50. ↑ "Mark Lundy appeal rejected". Stuff.co.nz. 9 October 2018. Retrieved 9 October 2018.
  51. ↑ Galuszka, Jono (6 May 2019). "Mark Lundy wins bid to take case to Supreme Court". Stuff. Retrieved 12 December 2023.
  52. ↑ "Supreme Court agrees to hear Mark Lundy's murder appeal". NZ Herald. 6 May 2019. Retrieved 12 December 2023.
  53. ↑ "Supreme Court grants Mark Lundy appeal". RNZ. 6 May 2019. Retrieved 12 December 2023.
  54. ↑ "Lundy a victim of 'junk science', lawyer says in bid for Supreme Court appeal". Stuff. 2 May 2019.
  55. ↑ "SC95/2018 [2019] NZSC 152" (PDF). Judgements of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. 20 December 2019. Retrieved 29 November 2022.
  56. ↑ Ellingham, Jimmy (19 August 2022). "Mark Lundy declined parole after serving 20 years in prison for murder of wife and daughter". RNZ. Retrieved 12 December 2023.
  57. ↑ Ellingham, Jimmy (25 May 2023). "Murderer Mark Lundy's parole bid denied". RNZ. Retrieved 12 December 2023.
  58. ↑ "Reward offer for evidence in Lundy case". Stuff.co.nz. 1 September 2009. Retrieved 24 April 2013.
  59. ↑ The Lundy murders, 20 years on, Stuff 29 August 2020
  60. ↑ Mark Lundy murder retrial: Day 13, Stuff, 25 Feb 2015
  61. ↑ Lundy trial: 'Blood all round the walls and roof', NZ Herald, 10 Feb 2015
  62. ↑ New DNA emerges at Lundy trial, RNZ, 9 Feb 2015
  63. ↑ Why the Lundy case will never go away, Newsroom, 19 August 2022
  64. ↑ Ellingham, Jimmy; White, Mike (28 August 2020). "Lundy murders 20 years on: Friend who propped up a sobbing Mark Lundy says funeral grief genuine". Stuff. Retrieved 12 December 2023.
  65. ↑ "Something big has arrived: Salient announces Lundy 500". Salient.org.nz. 31 July 2009. Archived from the original on 22 May 2010. Retrieved 7 October 2013.
  66. ↑ Grocott, Mathew (21 October 2013). "Grow up Nic Miller - if you can". Manawatu Standard. Retrieved 22 August 2014.
  67. ↑ O'Callaghan, Jody (1 August 2009). "'Lundy 500' not welcome here - Mayor". Manawatu Standard. Fairfax media. Retrieved 7 October 2013.
  68. ↑ "Students call off Lundy 500". NZherald.co.nz. 2 August 2009. Retrieved 7 October 2013.
  69. ↑ "Lundy 500 cancelled". Salient.org.nz. 2 August 2009. Archived from the original on 7 August 2009. Retrieved 7 October 2013.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.