The Murder Trial Of Britain Robert Lund

Complete Account Of Albi Trial

The trial of Robert Lund began on Monday 16th October 2007, almost three years after he was arrested and eight years after his wife, Lancashire-born Evelyn, died. Both lived on a farm near Rayssac, Realmont in the Tarn. It took place at the Cour d’Assise of Albi located on place Lapérouse. It was open to public and lasted 5 days.

Trials at the Cour d'Assises are given a set number of days in which to conclude. Sometimes this means that the court can sit through until around 9 pm. The French legal system differs to the English system in several ways as you will notice in my account of the court hearing.

MONDAY 16th OCTOBER

The hearing started at 0900 everyday. Many English journalists from the English Press (Lancashire Telegraph), TV (ITV Granada) and the Press Agency were present. From the start, they realised how different French trials were from English trials. It was surprising to find out that you are able take pictures and films in a court until the hearing starts. On the first day, the room was crowded as all witnesses and jurors had to be present. On his arrival, Robert Lund walked past the public gallery wearing a bright pink shirt and smiling at the crowd who came to listen to his trial.

The defendant was asked to introduce himself in French. The official translator for Mr Lund and for the English witnesses had to do the same.

SELECTION OF JURY

In France, a jury is composed of French citizens aged between 23 and 70 living in the department of the “Cour d’Assises”(criminal court). The rule is that 35 jurors and 10 supplementary jurors are selected from the electoral registers. 27 jurors were present on Robert Lund’s trial. 9 had to be selected and because of the length of the trial, 3 additional jurors were also selected. The names were drawn out of a hat and both the defence had the right to refuse up to 5 jurors and the prosecution up to 4 jurors. The defence refused 3 and the prosecution refused 2. This trial’s jury comprised of 9 jurors (5 men and 4 women). There were also 3 supplementary jurors (2 women and 1 man) and they only had to vote on the judgment day, if one of the 9 jurors was not present. However, all 12 jurors had to attend the hearings for the whole week.

WITNESSES

One by one, all 23 witnesses were called to the stand and informed of the date and time they would have to come back for their hearing. They were told they would not be able to stay in the court room unless they were part of the family and until they had given their testimony.

READING OF ACCUSATION BY THE JUDICIAL SECRETARY

A 13-page document was read by the Judicial Secretary. It summarized what had happened since 29th December 1999 when Evelyn Wilkinson was last seen, the reason for the accusation and the findings of the investigation. Many elements were breaking news, including the testimony of a cell mate and the results of the analysis carried out. But all these facts were to be discussed by the numerous witnesses during the week. If he was found to be guilty, Robert Lund risked a maximum of 30 years in jail and a minimum of 1 year. So far, he had spent 2 years and 11 months in prison.

THE HEARING

Mr Robert LUND

The defendant was the first one to speak. He was asked by the President, Mr Richardi, to tell the Court about his life in French. After hesitating, Robert Lund started the story of his school years and his job as tree surgeon for Blackburn Council for 22 years. His father was a lorry driver but died of a heart disease when he was 10. His mother was a nurse and died of a heart condition when he was 24. He had a brother, Neville. He explained how difficult it was to lose his father but he had a mother who encouraged him a lot.

His first wife was Stephanie Wood and they were married for 12 1/2 years. She worked for a bank. Together they owned a 6-bedroomed Victorian house in Lancashire. The couple never had children but she had 4 miscarriages. They separated in 1987 after mutual consent. He said that when they separated he chose to see a psychologist to understand what went wrong so that he did not do the same mistake again.

He met Evelyn in November 1991. At the time he was 39 and she was 44. She had been a housewife and widow for 1 year. Her former husband had died of cancer. They lived together soon after meeting as her father was Catholic. They married on 15th March 1994. As Evelyn did not like their house in England they decided to move and hovered between Scotland, Spain and France. They chose South West France because of the climate and the tranquillity. They looked for a house with annexes and enough land for their numerous animals. They visited 6 properties altogether.. They bought the farm in La Veauté near Rayssac (Tarn) on 2nd August 1994 as it filled all their search criteria. He resigned from his job in England on 16th December 1996 and moved to France with his wife. He worked all the time on the house renovation and their sole income was Evelyn’s pension from the death of her first husband (£1400 per month). They called the house “Fin de Voyage” as they felt they had found the perfect house and wanted to stay there forever. He was adapting well to life in France but she did not and asked everybody to speak English and missed her children immensely.

He started working, after the disappearance of his wife, as a builder for Quarin, a builder’s firm in Saint-Juery. Mr Quarin said he was a good worker and a good friend. But he resigned because he had a nervous breakdown after his wife disappeared. He was then questioned about his time in prison and he said he learnt French, went to the library, did sport and generally tried to keep busy. When he was questioned on alcohol he said he did not drink but his wife drank a lot and became extremely violent after drinking. When asked if there was anything else he would like to add, he said his life had now ended but that he still loved France, the French people and its tranquillity and still wanted to stay in France.

The prosecution had then the right to question him all throughout the trial, and asked whether he had an affair while with his first wife. He admitted it.

He was also asked whether he had problems with his neighbours. He said no but he explained that one day he came back home and his wife crying. She told him that their neighbour had threatened her. He asked her what she wanted him to do and he planned to threaten Mr Mure with a gun. He then shot 3 times and the police arrived 30 minutes later and arrested him.

He was then asked whether he had an affair with his second wife. He admitted that he had an affair with a neighbour, Carol Gardiner.

Mr Jean-Pierre MASSELIN – Character Investigator

He was asked by Hélène Ratineau to investigate on the personality of Robert Lund. He said he appeared to have had a good education and to have lived in a happy family, despite the difficult conditions. Many friends and former bosses described him as a nice person and that Robert Lund was always calm and relaxed and that they never discussed the disappearance of his wife. He said it had been difficult interviewing Mr and Mrs Ramsay, the friends of Evelyn, who were the last people to see her.

Mr Neville LUND – Brother of Defendant

When asked how he got on with his brother, he replied, “we never had problems, sometimes we played, and sometimes we fought”. When asked about his brothers’ marriages, he replied that he knew his first wife but sometimes marriages do not work out but they had an amicable divorce. The second wedding had ups and downs. He said he did not come to France but he spoke with his brother on the phone and said he could remember whether they talked about his problems on a couple of occasions. He then said “I think my brother is innocent because it is not his nature - he's a pacifist”. At the end he was asked if Evelyn had a problem with alcohol, he said he had seen her drunk but he was drunk himself sometimes. But he found bottles hidden in the house that Robert had hidden to stop her drinking.

MAJOR VAN BATTEN – Director Of Police Investigation

The retired policeman from Castres explained the way he carried out the body search, the investigation and the findings. He said that what shocked him was the fact that one of the daughters rang him on 6th January 2000 saying that her father-in-law had contacted him to organise the funeral and seem worried about the finances. Their conclusion was it was not an accident especially as she was used to driving the Toyota and that she was unlikely to have run away. He also explained that he had major difficulties with the language barrier and cooperating with the English police as he had to go through the Home Office.

He said Robert Lund had a life insurance of 825 000 FRF and a house he bought for 510 000 FRF. He also said he contradicted himself about the handbag, the glasses and shoes. He was also concerned because when Robert Lund was told that Evelyn had been found he asked for no explanation. When asked whether he thought whether Robert Lund was guilty or not, Major Van Batten said he thought he was guilty. The defence argued that Mr Lund had no rest during police custody. At the end Lund asked Major Batten why he was convinced that he was guilty and accused him of being a liar and being responsible for the mess he was in.

Mr KINS -TOXICOLOGIST

No drugs, no medicines and no alcohol were found in Evelyn’s body. This proved that the last consumption took place 6-8 hours before death.

Dr Jean-Michel DUC – Technician At Gendarmerie Headquarters (Aulnay-Sous-Bois)

Generally, diatom can be found in an organ if person is alive when drowning. As no diatom was found in the bone marrow of the victim, it was unlikely she had drowned. However as diatom had been found in other parts of the body it could not be excluded. But diatom in other parts of the body could have appeared because the body had stayed a long time in water.

Dr COSTAGLIOLA – Pathologist

He carried out the autopsy of the body. Because the body had been a long time in water, it was partially decomposed. No lesions were noticeable apart from an abnormal mobility of bone of larynx. But cause of death could not be established.

A reconstruction took place and no damage on the car was found that could have been caused by an accident. Dr Costagliola conclusion was that if Evelyn had not been unconscious or dead, she would have been able to escape from the car as the window was down. So she could have been unconscious and drowned afterwards.

TUESDAY 16th OCTOBER

Mr. ESPERANÇA - Forensic Expert For Gendarmerie Headquarters (Aulnay-Sous-Bois)

He was asked to test the presence of blood in the car. Blood was found on the drivers’ seat, on the back seat, on her clothes (trousers, jacket, red shirt and white jumpers) but the DNA could not be matched to the victim or a human. But he could not say whether blood stains were present before the car went into the water and he was advised to speak to the “Médecin Legiste” (Pathologist).

Inside the house, the blood stains on the leather sofa matched her DNA profile. But it transpired that Mrs. Lund had injured herself in the sitting room sometime in the past.

Mr. MOROSER – Car Expert For Gendarmerie Headquarters (Aulnay-Sous-Bois)

He was asked to check the car. His findings were that the car was in neutral and that the gear could not have been engaged and popped out. The keys were in the ignition and the engine was running when the car went into water. The front window was down.

Mr. ASSAM – Car Expert For Gendarmerie Headquarters (Aulnay-Sous-Bois)

He was asked to give his opinion on the path of the car into the water. He observed damage to the front left, to the back right of the car and on roof and said they could have been due to rocks, to a boat or occurred before the car entered the water. He believed the car had been pushed into the lake backwards in neutral with the victim unconscious inside because there was no trace of shock. . He calculated that the car must have floated for 1 to 3 minutes before sinking. He said that because Mrs. Lund's 4x4 was not in gear when it entered the lake, it was unlikely to have happened by accident. Evelyn's route down the dirt track to the lake was also analyzed.

Mr. Assam said most drivers would have needed to turn wide or to make at least two manoeuvres to get around the hairpin bend, meaning she could not have driven down there by accident. He also noticed that during reconstruction somebody the same height as Evelyn sat in the car and that the seat may have been too far back for Mrs. Lund. However when Mr. Lund sat in the car, he complained it was too close but it was found that it was the furthest the seat could go.

Mr. GILLABERT – Car Expert For Gendarmerie Headquarters (Aulnay-Sous-Bois)

He was asked to give a second opinion on car path into the water. He said the car could not have been hit by a boat because there are no large boats on Lake Bancalié and the damage would have looked different. He also was convinced such damage could not have occurred in water. He also did not think that car went backwards into lake. It was also revealed those car fragments were found around the rocks, by an access road and near the water.

So there were many conflicting conclusions from both experts that it left the jury puzzled as to what really happened. Maybe a visit to the
lake would clarify the situation.

VISIT TO THE LAKE

The President, the 12 jurors, the prosecution and defence lawyers drove to the secluded location - about 25 minutes drive from the court house in Albi. About 60 people gathered at the exact spot where he gave Lancashire Telegraph journalists his own theory as to how his wife Evelyn's body ended up submerged in Lake Bancalié. When the jury arrived, he was allowed out of the blue Renault Mégane police car, flanked by three gendarmes. He had a bullet proof vest on and was handcuffed but after a while the President asked the Gendarme to remove his handcuffs. Afterwards the jury also took a detour via the road the friend of Lund and the defence said they would have taken. But Maitre Reiner, the family’s prosecution lawyer said it was unlikely as this journey was far too long and she would have had many opportunities to do a U-turn.

WEDNESDAY 17TH OCTOBER

That morning Robert Lund was interrogated on his relationship with Evelyn.

Mr. Robert LUND

He said that Evelyn was an alcoholic and depressed after death a first husband. When she was drunk, he said she hit him. "The worst time was when she threw a 25cm (10in) knife at me. I put my hands up to protect myself and it cut my finger." Neighbours stated that they saw a microwave falling out of a window when they were fighting. During Christmas 1999 she was depressed for many reasons. It was the birthday of her first husband and she was missing having her daughters and children at home and maybe felt abandoned.

On Christmas Eve, she drank all night and was extremely violent until 4 a.m., she was screaming all the time. “She was criticizing me because we lent 10 000 FRF and they refused to refund us.” It transpires they denied it but because they did not have any “I owe yous” (reconnaissance de dettes) the lawyer told us we could not do anything about it. Phone listings show that Mrs. Lund made several phone calls to help lines such as SOS Amitiés, SOS Dépressions, SOS Divorce. She finally went to bed at 6 am and slept all day. On 26th December, she felt much happier as we had invited many English friends with whom she could talk to. In the evening there was a storm and we had no telephone or elecricity. But she was worried her family would not be able to reach her. On 29th December after the postman called, he was angry and said “I do not want New Year’s Eve to be the same as Christmas Eve.” Then she left and he remembered that she was wearing the same clothes as the clothes that the body was found in. The next time they spoke he did not where she was but he discovered that she was at her friends, the Ramsey’s. Then the next day I rang the Ramsey’s and they said that she had left leaving a note saying that she was going home to feed the cats and dogs. When interrogated why it took so long to report her missing he said that in England you need to wait 24 hours. On 1st January he rang the police to make a statement about her disappearance. But he claimed to have discovered her handbag soon after the gendarmes had left the house. He then started to panic. I called the Gendarmie to say he had found her bag and said that he had started searching for Evelyn and the car.

Many questions were asked by prosecution regarding the glasses and how they could have suddenly appeared in her handbag. He remembered that on 11th January Lance Camden had said that Evelyn had left her glasses at the Ramseys’ and asked what he should do. I said “Put them in her handbag”. Later on he accused Lance Camden of stealing the bank statement of his wife’s account.

Mrs. Alice RANGELEY – Friend of the Couple

Mrs. Rangeley described both of them as nice people but admitted that Evelyn tended to ring her while she was drunk and, as she could not stand it anymore, she stopped seeing them 2 years before Evelyn’s disappearance. She also denied owing any money to the Ramsays’. She denied saying he was a gigolo and that he once threatened her for refusing to take calls from Evelyn.

Mrs. Marianne RAMSEY – Friend of Evelyn

Before coming to France Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey used to own and run a restaurant and Mrs Ramsey had been an officer in the military police. She was a good friend of Evelyn but thought Robert belittled her. She had not seen Evelyn for 6 months but they had many phone conversations. Evelyn arrived at their home on 29th December just as they returned from Réalmont market. “She was totally hysterical and it took a moment to calm her down” She explained she just had a row with Mr. Lund and spoke of all the problems in their marriage and cried an enormous amount. Mrs. Ramsey suggested she stayed for lunch. They had fish and chips with peas and a couple of glasses of Gaillac wine.

Evelyn then helped Mr. Ramsey to feed the animals. Then Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey went for their daily afternoon nap and suggested Evelyn also have one in the guest bedroom. When they woke up Evelyn had gone leaving a note saying “Gone to feed the animals”. She concluded "I think it's absolutely tragic that a lovely woman had been destroyed by her husband, literally and figuratively and she did not deserve it”. Many questions were then asked about the clothes she was wearing and why they did not match the clothes she wore when she died.

Mrs. Deana SEGARO– Friend of the Couple

Mrs. Segaro was asked by Evelyn to come and pick her up from the Ramsey’s. But Deana refused as there just had been a major storm and trees had fallen everywhere and it was dark. Evelyn said “Don’t worry I will do it my way”. She concluded that she did not think that he was capable of the things he was accused of.

Mr. GOODYEAR – Friend of the Couple and Mrs Segaro’s Former Partner

He confirmed helping Mr. Lund to search for his wife.

Mr. BLANC – Former Local Gendarme

He said that Mr. Lund rang him on 1st January to say his wife had disappeared and asked him to visit him but he called back to say he had no petrol. He then made his first statement and Mr. Lund rang him again the next morning to say that he had found the handbag. He also said that he knew Mrs. Lund was violent as he was once called by neighbours to sort out a problem with a right of way. But Mrs. Lund became violent and she hit him and damaged his stripes.

Mr. COSTAGLIOLA – Pathologist for Gendarmerie Headquarters (Aulnay-Sous-Bois)

The President asked the pathologist to come back to check about stains on the back seat as Mr Esperança, the forensic expert, was not qualified to do so . He said it was not possible for the blood to have impregnated the whole seat if she was hit under water. He also said it is unlikely there was a frontal impact as she would have had many injuries which we were not found on her body. He revealed that he had wrong information on the level of water on day the car went into water.

THURSDAY 18TH OCTOBER

The morning’s witnesses were mainly friends of the couple.

Mr. Norman ANDERSON – Retired

Mr. Anderson got to know Robert at French lessons at Greta in Albi. Despite finding Robert a bit arrogant at first, they got to know each and became friends. But after the disappearance of Evelyn, Norman found that Robert’s behaviour was “wrong”. Indeed he had seen him withdrawing cash from his wife’s account. In July 2000, he also saw Robert burning Evelyn’s boots because he would not need them anymore.

Mr CODJIA – Teillet – Car Mechanic

Mr. Codjia was the garage owner in the village and became friendly with Robert because his wife speaks English. He felt sorry for him when his wife disappeared. Just after Robert found out about the discovery of the body of Evelyn, he went to his garage and bought a car radio. He is now also part of the Support Committee for Robert comprising of 10 members. He thinks Evelyn missed a turn and had an accident. But despite having lived all his life in Teillet, he admitted he did not know this road.

Mrs. Lilly HEIJDE – Former Campsite Restaurant owner and Leader of the Support Committee

Lilly got to know Robert as she owned a seasonal restaurant-bar and campsite in Teillet. She said that the couple met sometimes for a drink or dinner and that Evelyn had arrived drunk at the bar on a few occasions and they had argued once in the restaurant and Evelyn even abused one of her customers. Robert stayed calm but returned the following day to apologize. Lilly was the main leader of committee and even organized their own investigation which the Depêche du Midi called the “contre-enquête” counter-inquiry. She was convinced of Robert’s innocence to which everybody but the Ramsay’s cooperated.

Mrs. Barbara BULLEN – Retired (formerly nursing assistant in psychiatric hospital)

Barbara was an old friend of Evelyn and met her during her first wedding more than 20 years ago. She was one of her closest confidents. As a close friend, she lived with the couple and then with Robert until she had her own house built. When Robert was in prison, she looked after house and animals.

She said that Evelyn suffered from alcohol problems and the menopause but, because of her lack of trust in doctors, she would not take the prescribed medicine. She said that one day she locked herself in the shower room at her home and threatened to take an overdose of tablets the doctor had given her for depression.

Mrs. Barbara Bullen, said that her friend had "squandered" the inheritance left by her wealthy first husband and wasted money on silly things. She said that the 52-year-old was so poor that she could not afford to buy her family Christmas presents but she kept up a "public facade of wealth".

She told the jury that her friend was "destroyed by alcohol”. She said: "Evelyn wouldn't accept that she had a drinking problem and after she moved to France she got more and more depressed, and drank more.

Mrs. - Journalist - Lancashire Telegraph

She was the initial journalist who reported on that case in the local press where Robert comes from. She gave a detailed and fair account of her involvement in the case in French.

Mr. JOHNSON – Photographer – Lancashire Telegraph

Mr. Johnson came to France to make a report after the body was discovered. They discussed about what happened during the 3 days of report. They took many pictures with the full cooperation of Robert. The overwhelming concern was the although Mr. Lund said he had never been to the lake before he took them with no hesitation to the point where the car was supposed to have gone into water. But Robert Lund said that it was easy to find out where it was because there there had been a lot of news reports.

Mr. AUTIER – Director of Prison of Albi

Mr Lund was currently held in the prison where he is a director and said his behaviour had been irreproachable. He was asked to come to the bar to speak about Mr Loriot, a former cellmate of Robert’s. The accused had confessed the crime to Loriot, giving him a full description of what had happened. But Mr Autier said they needed to be careful as Mr Loriot was a “fabulateur” with a tendency to fabricate stories. He had been accused of breach of trust and fraud on many occasions.

During the rest of the afternoon, the testimonies of the witness belonging to Evelyn’s family took place.

Mr. Lance CAMDEN – Son-in-Law

He had known Evelyn since 1987 and had married Elisabeth in 1990. They were quite surprised when Robert and Evelyn moved to France as Evelyn always talked about moving to Scotland. He described Robert as lazy. Last time they saw Evelyn was in 1998 when she returned to England to visit her father. In 1999, they received numerous distressed calls from Evelyn. They were going to to visit her but his passport was about to expire. They were informed on 1st January of the disappearance of Evelyn and were annoyed that he did not report her missing to police. He went to visit him on 8th January because his wife was worried and because Robert said he had no money. Robert had said there was no love in the marriage as he was only staying with her for her money.

Lance was surprised when Robert asked him if he should cancel the car insurance. The next time they saw him was on 20th January when he returned with his wife Elizabeth, her twin sister, Patricia, and their young sister, Victoria, to make a statement. Lance was also questioned about being given the glasses by Mrs. Ramsey and putting them back in handbag or giving them to Victoria.

Evelyn said that Robert wanted to isolate her from the rest of family so he could play mental games with her and break her. Lance believes that Evelyn came back home and that Robert killed Evelyn by accident or by premeditation and tried to cover it up ever since. In December 2000 he had threatened to hit her if she hit him again.

Mrs. Victoria TAYLOR – Travel Agent – 30

She described her mother as the best mother in the world. She related how her mother and Robert met at a family party when he was living in a caravan. He moved in after a while but, because they were always arguing, she had to move out and get her own flat. She said she did not go to their wedding because she did not agree with it. She also spent time in their French home in the Tarn and saw them fighting many times, even in front of their grandson Sam.

After her disappearance, she was worried because he was talking about an insurance policy and the car insurance. Soon after the disappearance, Robert also asked whether they should have a funeral or a cremation. Victoria, like Lance, also denied having anything to do with the glasses and admitted seeing them at the Ramsey’s.

Mrs. Patricia KAY – Chef – 37

She described her mother as being kind with people and said she used to work to help the needy. Evelyn looked after her children when she went to work. She also said it was not a car accident as the relationship was so volatile that something like that was waiting to happen.

Mrs. Elizabeth CAMDEN – Child minder – 37

She added that her mother had a large circle of friends in England and that a lot of them stopped phoning because each time they rang Robert was nasty to them. She also said that since she met Robert, there were a lot of items which had been broken in the house during arguments.

Last time she spoke to her mother was on 26th December when she had many friends around her. Then she spoke to Deana and said “Liz will come with her boys in the summer and you will meet her.

Mr. WILKINSON – Executive Officer for the British Foreign Office – 42

Evelyn was my sister but was 18 years older than me and she was at home when I was brought up as a child and she was a second mother. When she disappeared, the report came on the news so I had to visit my parents, who were on a long holiday in Malta. After the disappearance Robert was so strange during our phone conversations. He said the only place the car could be was in a barn or a lake. Their mother passed away 2 months ago and he wished Robert would admit what had happened so his parents could see justice being done.

At the end of the day the ophthalmologist’s report was read by the President and the conclusion was that Evelyn could not drive at night without wearing her glasses. During the day she could drive without them as she did not need to wear them all the time.

FRIDAY 19 OCTOBER 2007

Mrs. Pascale SABATIER – Psychologist

Her task was to carry out the psychological assessment of Robert Lund. Despite the language barrier, the assessment went well. Robert Lund was not found to have any major personality problems and even had a sense of humor. Mrs. Sabatier felt that the defendant may have been too relaxed considering his situation.

Dr. Daniel ASZENBERG – Psychiatric Doctor in Lavaur

Mr. Aszenberg was a renowned doctor in the area. He thought the absence of a father could have had an impact on his personality. Mr. Lund mentioned that he had a breakdown after the discovery of the body. He was prescribed anti-depressants which provoked an epileptic fit. This is a side effect of taking anti-depressants. He was a lucid and intelligent man who was not dangerous on a psychiatric level. He also said that he may have been pushed to the limit.

In French courts, after all witnesses finish their statement, the prosecution pleads. This is what took place the reminder of the final morning of trial.

Maître RENIER – Family Lawyer

He made a 50-minute prosecution speech where he accused Robert Lund of cynicism. He tried to get him to confess to end the suffering of the family.

Maître DROUY-AYRAL Danielle – State Prosecution Lawyer

She made a long preamble and explained her mission of an “avocat général” was to ensure the public safety was preserved by not acquitting a guilty person. But also had to ensure that no innocent person was condemned. She demonstrated how an accident could not have taken place and told Mr. Lund that she found he was good story-teller capable of telling the worst lies. She said that her house “Fin du Voyage” turned out to be the end of her journey. She was hoping that the defence was not going to plead “benefit of doubt” because of his cynicism. They pleaded murder and an imprisonment of up to18 years.

Then there was the usual lunch which gave enough time for the defence to prepare their reply.

Maître Thiebault TERRIE – Defence Lawyer

He said that as the prosecution requested such a. heavy sentence, the evidence had to be reassessed. He said that the fact Mr. Lund was British needed to be taken into consideration. Unlike French people who externalize their feelings because of their Mediterranean culture, British people tend to internalize and keep things to themselves.

Maître Emanuelle PAMPONNEAU – Defence Lawyer

She stated that it could not qualify as a murder as Robert Lund did not intend to kill his wife but it was voluntary violence leading to death.

She then skillfully took apart the prosecution evidence one by one. One of her major points was that the car was found on its left hand side, so she would have had to have got out out on the right hand side. The body was found in a vertical position with one arm sticking out the rear window. So Evelyn may have undone her seat belt, open the right rear window and tried to escape. But because it was dark and cold that night, she did not manage to get out in time.

Her other interesting point was why would Robert Lund have driven 20 kms away to dispose of the body when there was a lake only 5 minutes away. It would have taken 5 hours to walk back to the house, with the risk of being seen walking back and being recognized. The other surprising fact is her stomach only had peas in it: if she had gone back home, she may have had some other food.

Taking into consideration the fact that there was no firm evidence that a murder had been committed she pleaded the benefit of doubt.

Robert had a chance to speak but simply thanked everybody.

The President read the 4 closed questions that were going to be asked to the 9 jurors during the deliberations. At 1615, the 9 jurors, the magistrate and his 2 assistants went into a room to deliberate and were only to come out once they had reached a decision.

To the questions, the jurors were supposed to answer yes or no. Then the jurors voted in a secret ballot. The defendants are only accused with a majority of 8 out of 12 votes (9 jurors + magistrate + 2 magistrate’s assistants). The jury came out once they reached their decision. It took them three and a half hours.

The jury was asked to consider four questions:

1. Did Lund act with violence towards his wife? They answered ‘Yes'

2. Did that lead to him killing her? They answered ‘Yes'

3. Did he intend to kill her? They answered ‘No'

4. Were they husband and wife at the time? They answered ‘Yes'.

The last question was important as Lund's sentence was more severe because the couple were married at the time of the event.

THE SENTENCE

The sentence was then pronounced: 12 years imprisonment for voluntary violence causing death without meaning to do so.

Lund collapsed on hearing the verdict and after being sentenced by President (judge) Jacques Richardi. He had to be supported by gendarmes as he was led out of the dock to a waiting police van, his face stony-white with shock.

However, if he has good conduct whilst in prison, this sentence could be halved. The 3 years he has already served will also be deducted. This means he may be out in 3 years.

The civil judgment then followed when financial damages were announced as follows:

Daughters: 30 000 € each
Brother: 15 000 €
Son-in-law: 10 000 €
Grand-children: 12 000 € each
Ascendant (parents of Evelyn or heirs): 7 500 €

If Robert Lund is not able to fully pay, a compensation commission (Commission d’indemnisation des Victimes d’infractions pénales – CIVI) will pay the damages.

THE REACTION

In a joint statement, read by Gerard Wilkinson, the brother of Evelyn, the family of Evelyn said: "There is nothing that will ever compensate the family for the loss of Evelyn. The family has always believed Mr. Lund was responsible for Evelyn's death. We just wish he had had it in him to admit this so we wouldn't have had to endure the past eight years. My sister would be remembered as the warm, generous woman that her family and true long standing friends knew her to be, not the unhappy and depressed woman that Mr. Lund turned her into. She was a loving mother, grandmother, daughter and sister, caring and generous and she always put the needs of others before her own. We have found the last week very emotional, tiring and at times extremely painful. We have faced this as a family and continue to do so."

Marianne Ramsey, the last woman to see Evelyn alive, said: "Justice has been done. I am absolutely thrilled about the result. This has been a cloud over our lives for the last eight years. I am delighted as well for the family, who has been suffering for so long. It is at least some sort of closure for them. They have been so dignified. Their mother would have been so proud of them. Evelyn has been portrayed as a hysterical drunk and that is just not true. She was one of the kindest, most generous people you could ever wish to meet and I will always remain friends with the family."

Lily Heijde, from the Support Committee, remains convinced of his innocence. “We will continue to help Robert. He was risking 30 yeas of prison and he only got 12 years. It is rather satisfying but it remains unfair. “

Lund's brother Neville was left in shock. He said: "We are absolutely devastated. We are all wrecked. Our lives are wrecked. I can't believe they came back with a verdict like that. There are so many grey areas. Robert is totally shocked. It's a wonder he's not dead. He went stone cold and nearly passed out. We are absolutely devastated but we will fight on. We will keep going until we get justice because it has not been done in court."

Robert Lund had 10 days to appeal.