Fight between Sheila and June

[Hardy Boy]

Dear NGB, you wrote rather tersely, “Rivlin did not agree a statement of fact in those terms” well, Yes and No. Please let me explain.

I could not easily find my source documents but yesterday, while engaged in some painful constipation and occupying the pan for a considerable time I did a search on an old laptop that I recovered from the loft while waiting for the Hardy to emerge (I call these turds Hardy's because they are thick and obnoxious).

Anyway, buried in a drive were two documents from Yvonne Hartley pertaining to the agreed facts. BU-18-02 Agreed Facts and 45.33 Further Admissions Agreed Facts.

BU-18-02 includes the section that I referred to - Point 8a on page 3 stated, “On the night of 6th and 7th August 1986 (sic) Jeremy Bamber murdered five persons”. However, I now believe this to have been a draft document that was not agreed with the prosecution as document 45.33 Further Admissions Agreed Facts does not include this agreement, even though it does reproduce the rest of BU-18-02 Agreed Facts. And, it seems to be a defence draft rather than a prosecution proposal.

45.33 Further Admissions Agreed Facts is a Stokenchurch document Box number 45 Item 33 entitled List of Admissions. It runs to eight pages and has six more agreed facts than contained in the draft document, BU-18-02 Agreed Facts.

If you were involved in the defence of JB or knew of Rivlin’s outlook, perhaps you would be kind enough to confirm whether he did in fact believe JB to be innocent? His somewhat diffident approach to the trial and his failure to question witnesses in depth, plus helping out prosecution witnesses suggests to many that he was not fully engaged in JB’s defence? It was Rivlin after all who put words into Bews’ mouth – “a trick of the light”. Perhaps if Bews had not been helped out by Rivlin he might have told the truth?
Anyway, if you were there your observations would be interesting.

p.s. The Hardy did eventually emerge and was flushed away I am pleased to report.

As usual Bill talking Shit.

[ngb1066]

Dear NGB, you wrote rather tersely, “Rivlin did not agree a statement of fact in those terms” well, Yes and No. Please let me explain.

I could not easily find my source documents but yesterday, while engaged in some painful constipation and occupying the pan for a considerable time I did a search on an old laptop that I recovered from the loft while waiting for the Hardy to emerge (I call these turds Hardy's because they are thick and obnoxious).

Anyway, buried in a drive were two documents from Yvonne Hartley pertaining to the agreed facts. BU-18-02 Agreed Facts and 45.33 Further Admissions Agreed Facts.

BU-18-02 includes the section that I referred to - Point 8a on page 3 stated, “On the night of 6th and 7th August 1986 (sic) Jeremy Bamber murdered five persons”. However, I now believe this to have been a draft document that was not agreed with the prosecution as document 45.33 Further Admissions Agreed Facts does not include this agreement, even though it does reproduce the rest of BU-18-02 Agreed Facts. And, it seems to be a defence draft rather than a prosecution proposal.

45.33 Further Admissions Agreed Facts is a Stokenchurch document Box number 45 Item 33 entitled List of Admissions. It runs to eight pages and has six more agreed facts than contained in the draft document, BU-18-02 Agreed Facts.

If you were involved in the defence of JB or knew of Rivlin’s outlook, perhaps you would be kind enough to confirm whether he did in fact believe JB to be innocent? His somewhat diffident approach to the trial and his failure to question witnesses in depth, plus helping out prosecution witnesses suggests to many that he was not fully engaged in JB’s defence? It was Rivlin after all who put words into Bews’ mouth – “a trick of the light”. Perhaps if Bews had not been helped out by Rivlin he might have told the truth?
Anyway, if you were there your observations would be interesting.

p.s. The Hardy did eventually emerge and was flushed away I am pleased to report.

There is no way that the sentence I have highlighted could ever have been part of a draft prepared by or even considered by the defence.  I have no idea where this comes from - I can only imagine it might be part of the prosection counsel's opening statement to the jury.

Rivlin never expressed a personal opinion on the case.  Obviously since counsel are human they do form views but the mindset of a barrister in approaching a case is simply to look at the evidence and explore lines of cross examination that cast doubt on the prosecution case and support the defence case.  Essentially, defence counsel assumes for the purposes of the case that the defendant is telling the truth.

I believe Rivlin believed that he had a good chance of securing an acquittal because the evidence was largely circumstantial and there were considerable weaknesses in it.  He was also quite helpful to Jeremy Bamber following the conviction when approached by the defence requesting information.

[Bill Robertson]

Thank you for your reply. I find Rivlin an enigma and I am aware that JB's opinion of him is low and he didn't want Rivlin handling his appeal (I am informed). The trial transcripts may not do him justice, but he seemed quite timid. Many have said that if the roles had been reversed and Arlidge defending, Rivlin prosecuting, then JB would never have been convicted. Any views on that?

[Hardy Boy]

There is no way that the sentence I have highlighted could ever have been part of a draft prepared by or even considered by the defence.  I have no idea where this comes from - I can only imagine it might be part of the prosection counsel's opening statement to the jury.

Rivlin never expressed a personal opinion on the case.  Obviously since counsel are human they do form views but the mindset of a barrister in approaching a case is simply to look at the evidence and explore lines of cross examination that cast doubt on the prosecution case and support the defence case.  Essentially, defence counsel assumes for the purposes of the case that the defendant is telling the truth.

I believe Rivlin believed that he had a good chance of securing an acquittal because the evidence was largely circumstantial and there were considerable weaknesses in it.  He was also quite helpful to Jeremy Bamber following the conviction when approached by the defence requesting information.

NGB, would Rivlin have had to get Bamber’s signature to a statement of fact, agreeing that he was responsible for the murders?

[ngb1066]

Thank you for your reply. I find Rivlin an enigma and I am aware that JB's opinion of him is low and he didn't want Rivlin handling his appeal (I am informed). The trial transcripts may not do him justice, but he seemed quite timid. Many have said that if the roles had been reversed and Arlidge defending, Rivlin prosecuting, then JB would never have been convicted. Any views on that?

I think Rivlin was a very poor choice.  He was a prosecutor and this was the first defence case he had handled.  There are several leading defence barristers at that time who I knew well who would very probably have secured an acquittal on the evidence.  Kingsley Napley were a bad choice of solicitor.  They handled few criminal cases but made their name on the Jeremy Thorpe trial.  They did not normally accept legal aid work but for some reason accepted this case.  They were not familiar with the legal aid system so did not get approval for the right expert witnesses. 

[Adam]

I think Rivlin was a very poor choice.  He was a prosecutor and this was the first defence case he had handled.  There are several leading defence barristers at that time who I knew well who would very probably have secured an acquittal on the evidence.  Kingsley Napley were a bad choice of solicitor.  They handled few criminal cases but made their name on the Jeremy Thorpe trial.  They did not normally accept legal aid work but for some reason accepted this case.  They were not familiar with the legal aid system so did not get approval for the right expert witnesses.

What would another defence lawyer have done differently to get an acquittal?

[Hardy Boy]

NGB, would Rivlin have had to get Bamber’s signature to a statement of fact, agreeing that he was responsible for the murders?

I was going by this NGB?

Client Representation:
Solicitors act on instructions from their client. They cannot make statements of fact on behalf of a victim if those facts are not known to the solicitor or have not been approved by the victim.

Honesty and Truth:
Solicitors must act with honesty and are forbidden from misleading others or the court.

In summary, a solicitor cannot simply provide a statement of fact for a victim without their consent, particularly if it purports to be the victim's account. Doing so would violate professional conduct rules and could constitute an attempt to mislead the court or the other parties involved.

So if Bill’s claim is true, Bamber must have admitted he killed his family and signed a document to say so?

[ngb1066]

NGB, would Rivlin have had to get Bamber’s signature to a statement of fact, agreeing that he was responsible for the murders?

If Jeremy Bamber had told Rivlin that he committed the murders Rivlin would have told him that he should plead guilty.  There would not be any reason for an agreed statement of facts in that case, the plea itself would be sufficient.  This whole suggestion that Rivlin drafted a statement of fact admitting guilt is pure nonsense and I do not know how it came to be suggested.

[ngb1066]

I was going by this NGB?

Client Representation:
Solicitors act on instructions from their client. They cannot make statements of fact on behalf of a victim if those facts are not known to the solicitor or have not been approved by the victim.

Honesty and Truth:
Solicitors must act with honesty and are forbidden from misleading others or the court.

In summary, a solicitor cannot simply provide a statement of fact for a victim without their consent, particularly if it purports to be the victim's account. Doing so would violate professional conduct rules and could constitute an attempt to mislead the court or the other parties involved.

So if Bill’s claim is true, Bamber must have admitted he killed his family and signed a document to say so?

If Jeremy Bamber had admitted to Rivlin that he killed his family Rivlin would have told him to plead guilty.  If he refused Rivlin would have been obliged to withdraw from the case.  The fact that he did not and he called Jeremy to give evidence shows that this suggestion is complete rubbish.

[ngb1066]

Wha would another defence lawyer have done differently to get an acquittal?

There are various aspects of the case which could have been handled in a more forceful way.  In particular, cross examination of the relatives and of some police officers could have explored some issues in more detail.  Rivlin in effect conceded that the silencer was attached to the rifle during the shootings and that blood from one or more victims was inside it.  The jury denied the opportunity to consider some alternative scenarios.

 

[Hardy Boy]

If Jeremy Bamber had admitted to Rivlin that he killed his family Rivlin would have told him to plead guilty.  If he refused Rivlin would have been obliged to withdraw from the case.  The fact that he did not and he called Jeremy to give evidence shows that this suggestion is complete rubbish.

I think anyone with an ounce of common sense would know this NGB.

[ngb1066]

I think anyone with an ounce of common sense would know this NGB.

I know HB and this sort of thing harms JB's campaign.  There has been some dreadful nonsense spouted in support of JB over the years and this gets in the way of the strong defence points which can be made. It really annoys me. 

[Hardy Boy]

I know HB and this sort of thing harms JB's campaign.  There has been some dreadful nonsense spouted in support of JB over the years and this gets in the way of the strong defence points which can be made. It really annoys me.

Ive always said the same NGB as you well know, yet when you call out such nonsense they don’t like it.  I really do try to be impartial at times, but this was absolutely diabolical to think that Rivlin agreed a statement of fact with the prosecutor that JB killed his family, it has to be challenged, for Jeremy sake if nothing else.  They don’t realise the damage it does for Jeremy.

[ILB]

For me it was a difficult case to defend. It was literally Jeremy Bamber v Et al.

[Steve_uk]

There are various aspects of the case which could have been handled in a more forceful way.  In particular, cross examination of the relatives and of some police officers could have explored some issues in more detail.  Rivlin in effect conceded that the silencer was attached to the rifle during the shootings and that blood from one or more victims was inside it.  The jury denied the opportunity to consider some alternative scenarios.

I don't see what else they could have done vis-à-vis the relatives. As for questioning police, the defence I assume did not want to detract from the original decision of DCI Taff Jones, that it was four murders and a suicide.