Discussion: Robert Boutflours Blood Groupings in Sound Moderator

[Roch]

The defence are not obliged to disclose anything.  It is for the prosecution to prove guilt, and that comes with an obligation to make full disclosure.

In this case the prosecution prefer to spend hundreds of thousands to prevent full disclosure. 

[Zoso]

The defence are not obliged to disclose anything.  It is for the prosecution to prove guilt, and that comes with an obligation to make full disclosure.

Yes I know, that doesn't mean they didn't have anything that influenced their handling of the defence. Afterall, at the end of the day lawyers are people too and would surely have the same level of disgust for such a crime and the perpetrator? Especially if they have knowledge that Bamber was likely guilty?

Sure, they could have pursued the RB blood in the silencer theory, however, if I were a member of the jury, it wouldn't be enough to tell me he had the same blood group and enzyme as Sheila - I don't even know what my own blood group is so the first thing I would wonder, would be how he could have known? There isn't a single reason why he would. I also imagine that drawback wasn't something he would have been familiar with. The only way that would have worked, is if the police identified the two samples as being the same and used his blood to contaminate the silencer given that Sheila's samples were sealed. Not that I'm trying to add to the whole idea of a conspiracy!

[Rob_]

Yes I know, that doesn't mean they didn't have anything that influenced their handling of the defence. Afterall, at the end of the day lawyers are people too and would surely have the same level of disgust for such a crime and the perpetrator? Especially if they have knowledge that Bamber was likely guilty?

Sure, they could have pursued the RB blood in the silencer theory, however, if I were a member of the jury, it wouldn't be enough to tell me he had the same blood group and enzyme as Sheila - I don't even know what my own blood group is so the first thing I would wonder, would be how he could have known? There isn't a single reason why he would. I also imagine that drawback wasn't something he would have been familiar with. The only way that would have worked, is if the police identified the two samples as being the same and used his blood to contaminate the silencer given that Sheila's samples were sealed. Not that I'm trying to add to the whole idea of a conspiracy!

What do you mean by this Zoso? If you are saying what I think you are then this is a major cause of MOJs!

[Roch]

Especially if they have knowledge that Bamber was likely guilty?

What knowledge?

if I were a member of the jury...

If you were a member of the jury, you'd be most likely heading for an acquittal decision, until you heard Drake's one-sided speech.  He wouldn't have been able to give that one-sided speech, if it had came to light that one of the people present when the key prosecution exhibit was allegedly discovered, matched the blood inside the exhibit.

Drake wouldn't have another victim to add the previous 27-28 people he had managed to have wrongly convicted.  And there'd been a line of stoney faced / red faced relatives absolutely fuming about inheritance; and possibly facing a civil lawsuit from JB.

[Jane]

What knowledge?

If you were a member of the jury, you'd be most likely heading for an acquittal decision, until you heard Drake's one-sided speech.  He wouldn't have been able to give that one-sided speech, if it had came to light that one of the people present when the key prosecution exhibit was allegedly discovered, matched the blood inside the exhibit.

Drake wouldn't have another victim to add the previous 27-28 people he had managed to have wrongly convicted.  And there'd been a line of stoney faced / red faced relatives absolutely fuming about inheritance; and possibly facing a civil lawsuit from JB.

Give a dog a bad name, eh, Roch!

It would have taken a supremely confident/educated/arrogant jury to, whatever had been their unanimous, prior decision, have gone against the judge.

[Roch]

Give a dog a bad name, eh, Roch!

It would have taken a supremely confident/educated/arrogant jury to, whatever had been their unanimous, prior decision, have gone against the judge.

I believe his one-sided summing up is explored in the Theroux 'documentary' by a legal expert.  When confronted with the Bridgewater Four convictions, he blamed corrupt policing. He was also aware that the police changed statements in the Shrewsbury 24 case.  If you cut Drake in half, he would have MOJ written all down his middle, like a stick of rock.

[Jane]

I believe his one-sided summing up is explored in the Theroux 'documentary' by a legal expert.  When confronted with the Bridgewater Four convictions, he blamed corrupt policing. He was also aware that the police changed statements in the Shrewsbury 24 case.  If you cut Drake in half, he would have MOJ written all down his middle, like a stick of rock.

So, previously, he got it wrong sometimes? Regrettable, I agree. However, the law of averages says no one gets it wrong ALL the time.

[Roch]

So, previously, he got it wrong sometimes? Regrettable, I agree. However, the law of averages says no one gets it wrong ALL the time.

If you were a copper trying to fit someone up, and you found out Drake was going to be the judge, you would probably think, 'well at least we've half a chance with this fella'.

How likely is it that Drake can be involved in three high profile trials, and in each one, there are accusations of corrupt policing?  It's not as if Bamber has tried to use the previous trials in the argument either. Come on Jane, wake up.

[Zoso]

What do you mean by this Zoso? If you are saying what I think you are then this is a major cause of MOJs!

I thought I was pretty clear - what's not to understand? I was playing devils advocate, I'm not saying it DID happen, just how it COULD.

[Zoso]

What knowledge?

You know when you keep saying something happened at the CS to initiate a frame up of Bamber - same kind of knowledge!

If you were a member of the jury, you'd be most likely heading for an acquittal decision, until you heard Drake's one-sided speech.  He wouldn't have been able to give that one-sided speech, if it had came to light that one of the people present when the key prosecution exhibit was allegedly discovered, matched the blood inside the exhibit.

Drake wouldn't have another victim to add the previous 27-28 people he had managed to have wrongly convicted.  And there'd been a line of stoney faced / red faced relatives absolutely fuming about inheritance; and possibly facing a civil lawsuit from JB.

I don't remember much about the case from back then, but I do recall thinking he was guilty as sin!

[Jane]

You know when you keep saying something happened at the CS to initiate a frame up of Bamber - same kind of knowledge!

I don't remember much about the case from back then, but I do recall thinking he was guilty as sin!

As did many others, probably around the 10/2 ratio of the jury. I doubt it's far off that now.

[Roch]

As did many others, probably around the 10/2 ratio of the jury. I doubt it's far off that now.

It's probably 8-4, by virtue of all the money and resources that have been poured in to selling the guilty version in the media; and a lack of understanding regarding the purpose, function and performance of the CCRC, in the minds of the general public. 

Like I expressed before, whoever controls the narrative, controls public opinion.

[killingeve]

Steve is wrong and Roch is correct.  Counsel is entitled to put any accusation to a prosecution witness, with certain exceptions.  It was open to Rivlin to ask a witness whether he had tampered with the silencer.  He chose not to ask the direct question for tactical reasons.  I do not have time now to set out the entire position but a few years ago I posted a lengthy explanation of the legal position in response to another member.  I gave an example of an Old Bailey case with which I was very familiar. A search should find the post.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4121.msg171132.html#msg171132

[Steve_uk]

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4121.msg171132.html#msg171132

This is what the Solicitors Regulation Authority says:

You should only accuse a witness of lying during cross examination if you have evidence to support that accusation. Most witnesses are not trying to deceive the court - they are giving their version of events which may be unreliable because of: an honest mistake.

What evidence did Rivlin have that Robert Boutflour contaminated a silencer with his own blood?

[killingeve]

This is what the Solicitors Regulation Authority says:

You should only accuse a witness of lying during cross examination if you have evidence to support that accusation. Most witnesses are not trying to deceive the court - they are giving their version of events which may be unreliable because of: an honest mistake.

What evidence did Rivlin have that Robert Boutflour contaminated a silencer with his own blood?

Well I don't think Rivlin needed to go in all guns blazing with such an accusation but the mere fact Boutflour snr was around when this crucial exhibit was found was enough to sow the seeds in jurors' minds.  Coupled with the fact his family would benefit financially from Bamber's conviction.  Rivlin did ask Boutflour jnr if he or his father cut themselves around the silencer.