Discussion: Robert Boutflours Blood Groupings in Sound Moderator

[Roch]

Well I assume the only way Rivlin knew RB's blood was an identical match for SC's is that RB volunteered to take a blood test in the first place.

OK, let's say you are right on this. What would be the point of RB taking a blood test in the first place?  In addition, is there evidence available that this was voluntary and not as a result of being requested to do so?  I mean, I can't see him raising his hand aloft and asking if he could please be tested.

[Steve_uk]

OK, let's say you are right on this. What would be the point of RB taking a blood test in the first place?  In addition, is there evidence available that this was voluntary and not as a result of being requested to do so?  I mean, I can't see him raising his hand aloft and asking if he could please be tested.

I'm not privy to the details, but had he anything to hide I assume he would have refused.

[Roch]

I'm not privy to the details, but had he anything to hide I assume he would have refused.

So he agreed to take a test, to rule himself out of the blood in the SM.  The test then ruled him in.  But Rivlin decided that the fact he agreed to take the test was all that mattered; and not the result itself?  Why then, did Rivlin ask him if he had cut his finger?

[Steve_uk]

So he agreed to take a test, to rule himself out of the blood in the SM.  The test then ruled him in.  But Rivlin decided that the fact he agreed to take the test was all that mattered; and not the result itself?  Why then, did Rivlin ask him if he had cut his finger?

Well it took the spotlight off his client for one thing. For another it might have made the jury dubious as to the validity of the silencer evidence.

[Roch]

Well it took the spotlight off his client for one thing. For another it might have made the jury dubious as to the validity of the silencer evidence.

Sorry Steve, but you're just not grasping this. If I am wrong then please explain that to me.

[Steve_uk]

Sorry Steve, but you're just not grasping this. If I am wrong then please explain that to me.

Nothing but a confession in the witness box by RB that he contaminated the silencer with his blood is going to satisfy you.

[Roch]

Nothing but a confession in the witness box by RB that he contaminated the silencer with his blood is going to satisfy you.

Steve, you're completely missing the point.  It's like you've got a mental block or blind spot or something.

[Roch]

Does anyone know where David and Pamela Boutflour's blood groupings are listed on the forum?

[Steve_uk]

Does anyone know where David and Pamela Boutflour's blood groupings are listed on the forum?

They're not on the forum, but are mentioned in the link in #401. I wish you would explain your point, otherwise you're looking for a scenario akin to Romaine Heilger in Agatha Christie's Witness for the Prosecution.

[Zoso]

Sorry Steve,  but what a load of rubbish.

He would be stating a scientific fact!  He could have put the Crown's case in serious jeopardy by doing so, thereby increasing his chances of a famous victory among criminal defences.

I am pretty sure Steve is correct (although NGB will know), you're not allowed to openly accuse someone of a crime like 'fitting up Bamber' with the SM. By asking him about cutting his hand, it was to make the suggestion that the blood may have come from RB in the jury's mind.

[Zoso]

Steve, you're completely missing the point.  It's like you've got a mental block or blind spot or something.

Why don't you just say what your point is? If he's not allowed to implicate him directly (and I am sure NGB with clarify that point), how else do you suggest he introduced the notion that the blood belonged to RB?

[Roch]

I am pretty sure Steve is correct (although NGB will know), you're not allowed to openly accuse someone of a crime like 'fitting up Bamber' with the SM. By asking him about cutting his hand, it was to make the suggestion that the blood may have come from RB in the jury's mind.

And how would that occur exactly, if the jury were told that the blood was a match for Sheila but nobody else?

Why don't you just say what your point is? If he's not allowed to implicate him directly (and I am sure NGB with clarify that point), how else do you suggest he introduced the notion that the blood belonged to RB?

By stating a scientific fact.  What was the point in the first place, of getting the relatives blood tested?  Why not just say, 'well there's no point in even asking for their blood samples.. because if anything comes back as a match, we can't say anything about it anyway'.

Codswallop.

[ngb1066]

I am pretty sure Steve is correct (although NGB will know), you're not allowed to openly accuse someone of a crime like 'fitting up Bamber' with the SM. By asking him about cutting his hand, it was to make the suggestion that the blood may have come from RB in the jury's mind.

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.

 

[Roch]

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.

ngb, Anthony Arlidge questioned the scientist and showed him a list of names, which didn't include the relatives' names and results. The scientist concurred with Arlidge that nobody else on the list shared blood groupings with Sheila Caffell; the inference being that the blood in the SM could only have come from Sheila Caffell.  Therefore the jury were led to believe that the blood groupings in the SM did not match anyone else's blood groupings.

I assume the jury were aware that the relatives discovered the SM after being given the keys to the farmhouse by Jeremy Bamber, subsequent to police searches. 

If Rivlin had cross examination the scientist regarding the blood groupings of Robert Boutflour as (per detailed by the scientist in his written communication) do you think this may have unsettled the jury regarding the SM evidence?  Could it have also restrained Justice Drake in his summing up?

[Zoso]

ngb, Anthony Arlidge questioned the scientist and showed him a list of names, which didn't include the relatives' names and results. The scientist concurred with Arlidge that nobody else on the list shared blood groupings with Sheila Caffell; the inference being that the blood in the SM could only have come from Sheila Caffell.  Therefore the jury were led to believe that the blood groupings in the SM did not match anyone else's blood groupings.

I assume the jury were aware that the relatives discovered the SM after being given the keys to the farmhouse by Jeremy Bamber, subsequent to police searches. 

If Rivlin had cross examination the scientist regarding the blood groupings of Robert Boutflour as (per detailed by the scientist in his written communication) do you think this may have unsettled the jury regarding the SM evidence?  Could it have also restrained Justice Drake in his summing up?

Well, there you are then, Rivlin should have accused Boutflour of contaminating the silencer and all of the other witness's for framing Bamber. Including West and Bonnet. Lets not assume any of these rat bags are telling the truth - well, except Bamber of course!