OPINION: Mark Lundy's last-ditch effort to clear his name comes as no surprise, but does bring back plenty of pain for a lot of people.
It's been more than 12 years since the Palmerston North man murdered his wife Christine and their daughter Amber at their family home.
Lundy has always proclaimed his innocence despite the damning case against him.
Now in his mid-50s, he has spent a decade behind bars and exhausted all avenues of appeal but one - the Privy Council.
Because of when his crimes were committed, Lundy's could be the last New Zealand case to go this far.
More recent crimes now go only as far as our Supreme Court.
There were whispers that he would make this latest appeal, but that doesn't make it any easier for the victims he left behind, family and friends whose lives changed forever after Christine and Amber's horrific deaths.
Even people who didn't know him are enraged by the appeal and every time his name is used in The Manawatu Standard it dredges up a lot of painful memories.
So, why is he doing it? And why now? Clearly Lundy is sticking with his line that he is innocent despite the evidence against him. Stacking up a case to take to the Privy Council takes time, and a lot of money. That would explain the timing.
For Lundy, though, there is nothing else to lose.
He has been in Manawatu Prison for a long time and faces another eight-plus years in there until he is eligible for parole.
If nothing else, it will keep him occupied and help pass time.
Almost forgotten among his plans for appeal are his two victims. Amber Lundy would be about 19 years old if she were alive, while her mum would have been about 50. Instead they will permanently be remembered as being aged 7 and 38.
Mark Lundy has it wrong when plays the victim of a justice system that somehow got it wrong.
It's his wife and daughter who are, not him.
ONE MORE THING
A five-match ban for All Black Andrew Hore's thuggish swinging arm on Welsh lock Andrew Davies seems about right. It was reduced from eight weeks because of his previous clean on-field record.
It was a terrible move to pull so early in the match.
Calls for Hore to be banned from the game are downright over-reactions.
According to the judiciary he showed genuine remorse for his actions and had been in contact with his victim, among other things.
What needs reviewing is the reporting of these incidents during the game.
If Hore had been red-carded, as he should have been, the outcome of the game may have been quite different.
- The Manawatu Standard
Who do you think won Key v Cunliffe's second debate?Related story: Leaders debate reveals more even contest