Mark Lundy's defence lawyer has put forward the case that his client never received a fair jury trial because of impressions formed of Lundy's "performance" at the funerals of his wife and daughter.
Lundy's defence lawyer, Jonathan Eaton, explicitly explained to the Court of Appeal's three judges this morning how public opinion was against Lundy because of the circumstances that followed the murders of wife Christine and seven-year-old Amber.
"There's this view that he is a big, fat, so and so, who was with an escort on the night, and did you see that unconvincing performance at the funeral?" Mr Eaton told the court.
"Of course he's guilty."
In 2002, Lundy, who is now 58-years-old, was convicted of the murders of Christine and Amber.
In 2013, the Privy Council quashed his conviction and ordered a retrial, at which he was again found guilty in 2015, and is now serving life in prison.
Mr Eaton told the court the issue of the public's perception of Lundy had never been "dealt with adequately at trial".
"Which, in my respectful submission, has been the elephant in the room throughout this experience with the criminal justice system," Mr Eaton said.
"The public perception of Mr Lundy has been defined by their views of him at the funeral – the Lundy funeral scene.
"And which was not dealt with adequately at trial, at all, and which I do raise as a distinct ground of appeal here.
"What is it about the Lundy case you remember? And most people talk about the funeral scene.
"And hence we have programs like 'Beyond the Darklands' where so-called experts express their view that he was feigning distress, that it was all a performance of a guilty man.
"And we have a public perception that seems to have just accepted that.
"Because what is it about Lundy that sets it aside from other cases is it – that this case, that this court's ultimately resolved in terms of miscarriage, and I talk about Teina Pora, talk about Rex Haig – there's been divided opinion in the community, but with Lundy there never seems to have been that divided opinion.
"There's this view that he is a big, fat, so and so, who was with an escort on the night, and did you see that unconvincing performance at the funeral.
"Of course he's guilty."
Lundy the victim of poor science
Mr Eaton's remarks came after he had earlier claimed Lundy was the victim of poor science, in which it was deduced that highly degraded tissue on his shirt was his wife's brain or spinal cord tissue.
Mr Eaton argued the DNA would have been severely degraded and the test could not prove the tissue was human and not animal.
He also argued it should not be up to a jury to determine if testing is reliable or not.
He told the court a lot had changed over 15 years, since Lundy was first convicted.
The appeal continues.