Allegedly biased summing up by the judge

[BarefootDanC]

Why was the judge's summing up biased?

If you think it was biased, please provide examples and please post the full summing up.

[Steve_uk]

Why was the judge's summing up biased?

If you think it was biased, please provide examples and please post the full summing up.

This has been answered already.

[BarefootDanC]

This has been answered already.

Fair enough, although I thought it deserved a new post, especially as a it was a separate topic to what was being discussed.

I don't think there was any bias.

[Steve_uk]

Fair enough, although I thought it deserved a new post, especially as a it was a separate topic to what was being discussed.

I don't think there was any bias.

I don't think it was biased either. I don't know what you mean about it being a separate topic.

[Adam]

After the 'guilty' verdict didn't the judge say to the jury he agreed with them?

[Steve_uk]

After the 'guilty' verdict didn't the judge say to the jury he agreed with them?

I don't think he said that, but before the verdict he said he would take a majority verdict. He was well prepared for the guilty verdict and gave a good speech if you do believe Bamber was guilty.

[Adam]

Will have to re read that bit in Wilkes's book.

[Steve_uk]

Will have to re read that bit in Wilkes's book.

Apparently there was some ambiguity in blood expert John Hayward's evidence that there was nothing in the appearance of the silencer to suggest that the blood contained therein belonged to more than one person. Mr. Justice Drake took this to mean that the blood was unique to Sheila Caffell, and produced his own chart for the jurors to peruse with the five victims where Sheila's name was underlined. It's not specifically stated in Wilkes' book, but the implication is that since two jurors were already hanging out for not guilty it might well have persuaded a third so to do.

Of course, it would still have to mean that Sheila killed four, returned the silencer to the gun cupboard, then proceeded upstairs to shoot herself. I personally can't envisage such a scenario.

As far as Geoffrey Rivlin is concerned, it's stated in Blood Relations that though he couldn't be sure of Bamber's innocence he felt badly about the way the trial was handled, which included the summing up. It's the reason he spent many hours working pro bono on the case after Bamber's legal aid was withdrwan.

[Rob_]

Apparently there was some ambiguity in blood expert John Hayward's evidence that there was nothing in the appearance of the silencer to suggest that the blood contained therein belonged to more than one person. Mr. Justice Drake took this to mean that the blood was unique to Sheila Caffell, and produced his own chart for the jurors to peruse with the five victims where Sheila's name was underlined. It's not specifically stated in Wilkes' book, but the implication is that since two jurors were already hanging out for not guilty it might well have persuaded a third so to do.

Of course, it would still have to mean that Sheila killed four, returned the silencer to the gun cupboard, then proceeded upstairs to shoot herself. I personally can't envisage such a scenario.

As far as Geoffrey Rivlin is concerned, it's stated in Blood Relations that though he couldn't be sure of Bamber's innocence he felt badly about the way the trial was handled, which included the summing up. It's the reason he spent many hours working pro bono on the case after Bamber's legal aid was withdrwan.

It makes an absolutely huge difference! Drake was effectively telling the jury Bamber was guilty.

Having been told it was Sheila's blood in silencer it shows how weak the Crown's case was that two on the jury held out.

[ILB]

After the 'guilty' verdict didn't the judge say to the jury he agreed with them?

Justice Drake some years later said loosely " I kept an open mind throughout the trial but by the end I came to the conclusion Julie Mugford was telling the truth, ergo he believed Jeremy culpable.

[ILB]

Patrick O Connor on the theroux documentary ( barrister) said Justice Drakes summing up paid little attention to Jeremy's evidence.

[Steve_uk]

It makes an absolutely huge difference! Drake was effectively telling the jury Bamber was guilty.

Having been told it was Sheila's blood in silencer it shows how weak the Crown's case was that two on the jury held out.

But they were women, bedazzled by his appearance in the witness box. I still can't see Sheila putting the silencer back in the gun cupboard, or deciding to use it at all for that matter. I'm quite clear in my own mind that Bamber is guilty.

[Adam]

Drake did give a speech after the guilty verdict - 'evil almost beyond belief' etc.  That is what they always do before giving the sentence.

Wilkes's book does not say Drake said he agreed with the jury.

[Adam]

Drake mentions the caravan break in during his summing up and sentancing speeches.

[BarefootDanC]

It makes an absolutely huge difference! Drake was effectively telling the jury Bamber was guilty.

Having been told it was Sheila's blood in silencer it shows how weak the Crown's case was that two on the jury held out.

Bamber was guilty, and there was no bias in the summing up.