0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yes but most have a preference there normaly better at doing one than the other.
He was a highly respected lawyer, not wet behind the ears. Most people on here spout on about what should or shouldn't have been mentioned, without having any real knowledge of the law (I've done it myself before anyone pipes up).
There are rules to what can be brought up and the manner in which it is approached. Half the stuff dragged up here would have been objected to and would very likely have made the case against Bamber lot worse!
as a proscuter most of the works done for you ver different with the defence.the police find the witnesses for you and all the statements you have more less unlimted money and as most people plead guilty anyway most of the time you only have to turn up.
I agree nugs,it is much harder for the defence.
Unless the defendant is very wealthy. OJ Simpson, Robert Durst to name a few.
According to Hayward. (Who's testimony was the Linchpin) It could either be Sheila's or RWB.Sheila's blood and planted or RWBs blood and planted were both viable avenues. RWB had his own blood on him(obviously) They also had possetion of Sheila's bloodstained clothing also.
I wonder why Rivlin represented JB ? Or who'd made the suggestion that he does ? He just let the prosecution ride roughshod over him,as happens when there's a poor defence anyway.
He was second choice to George Carmen. It was said his soft-spoken flat Northern vowels hid a steely resolve, but I doubt a South-East England jury would have seen it that way.
George Carman would not have taken the case on legal aid.
The excuse in Blood Relations was that he was too busy.
