Discussion: Robert Boutflours Blood Groupings in Sound Moderator

[Roch]

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!

Sorry Zoso, but that post smacks of desperation. 

[Jane]

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?

Ah! I see it all now. Well, some of it. As there's no concrete proof that JB is innocent, supporters are suggesting that if the jury could have been unsettled enough, they'd have found him innocent. Doesn't mean he was, though, does it? Aha! I hear you counter, but there was no concrete proof that he was guilty! There didn't need to be. All that was necessary to prove was time, opportunity, and motive, which were all present. Added to which, as the judge said, it was either him or Sheila.

[ngb1066]

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?

It may have had some effect, but it would have to have been coupled with some more direct cross examination of Robert Boutflour and this conflicted with Rivlin's trial strategy of showing a way for the jury to acquit JB without having to accept that JB had been framed.

 

[Bubo bubo]

Ah! I see it all now. Well, some of it. As there's no concrete proof that JB is innocent, supporters are suggesting that if the jury could have been unsettled enough, they'd have found him innocent. Doesn't mean he was, though, does it? Aha! I hear you counter, but there was no concrete proof that he was guilty! There didn't need to be. All that was necessary to prove was time, opportunity, and motive, which were all present. Added to which, as the judge said, it was either him or Sheila.

Leaving aside from the motive, the other elements along with fake evidence were brought together by false testimony and circumstantial constructions to build a case against him

[Zoso]

Sorry Zoso, but that post smacks of desperation.

Well, you would be best placed to recognise that.

[Roch]

Well, you would be best placed to recognise that.

I'm stating facts, including scientific facts, trickery with Arlidge's handling of an expert witness, withholding of facts from the jury and weak and deferential defence strategy from Rivlin.  Even with all this, the jury were not going to convict.

[Roch]

Ah! I see it all now. Well, some of it. As there's no concrete proof that JB is innocent, supporters are suggesting that if the jury could have been unsettled enough, they'd have found him innocent. Doesn't mean he was, though, does it? Aha! I hear you counter, but there was no concrete proof that he was guilty! There didn't need to be. All that was necessary to prove was time, opportunity, and motive, which were all present. Added to which, as the judge said, it was either him or Sheila.

That's not what I'm saying. I will spell it out for you later.

[Steve_uk]

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.

..and these exceptions would be what?

Accusing a witness of lying

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
a lack of knowledge
poor memory
the circumstances at play when the events took place.

Solicitors Regulation Authority

[Roch]

Hey Steve, maybe you could preside over a case. Judge Steve UK, sympathetic  to DS Jane Blackwater fitting up some poor soul, with the help of solid Essex farming folk. I mean why would such people lie? Surely they a pillars of the community?

[Steve_uk]

Hey Steve, maybe you could preside over a case. Judge Steve UK, sympathetic  to DS Jane Blackwater fitting up some poor soul, with the help of solid Essex farming folk. I mean why would such people lie? Surely they a pillars of the community?

I happen to believe Julie.

[Roch]

I happen to believe Julie.

The jury didn't.

[Jane]

The jury didn't.

That's 100% fact for the entire 12, is it?

[Zoso]

I'm stating facts, including scientific facts, trickery with Arlidge's handling of an expert witness, withholding of facts from the jury and weak and deferential defence strategy from Rivlin.  Even with all this, the jury were not going to convict.

I am sure there was information that the defence sat on too. Happens all the time.

[Zoso]

The jury didn't.

How do you know? Unless they were all in contempt and revealed their deliberations?

[ngb1066]

I am sure there was information that the defence sat on too. Happens all the time.

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.