Silencer evidence "inadmissable" - ngb1066 ?

[BarefootDanC]

This question is for anyone, but particularly ngb1066* with his legal knowledge.

I keep being told that the judge was biased in allowing the silencer to be admitted as evidence, given the "chain of custody" - it being found by relatives, taken back in a toilet roll, etc.

I am also being told that as well as the judge being biased, this was incompetence on the part of the defence. Despite the fact that the defence were very experienced lawyers - Rivlin had been a QC for nearly 6 years, the deputy barrister was nearly a QC and the solicitor was a partner in the firm with significant experience.

Is there any substance to this claim at all?


* hope I am OK to direct this question to him?

[ngb1066]

This question is for anyone, but particularly ngb1066* with his legal knowledge.

I keep being told that the judge was biased in allowing the silencer to be admitted as evidence, given the "chain of custody" - it being found by relatives, taken back in a toilet roll, etc.

I am also being told that as well as the judge being biased, this was incompetence on the part of the defence. Despite the fact that the defence were very experienced lawyers - Rivlin had been a QC for nearly 6 years, the deputy barrister was nearly a QC and the solicitor was a partner in the firm with significant experience.

Is there any substance to this claim at all?


* hope I am OK to direct this question to him?

I am happy to reply to this.  It is something that has been raised in the past.  There are several aspects to it and I will try to post about it later today.

[Cambridgecutie]

This question is for anyone, but particularly ngb1066* with his legal knowledge.

I keep being told that the judge was biased in allowing the silencer to be admitted as evidence, given the "chain of custody" - it being found by relatives, taken back in a toilet roll, etc.

I am also being told that as well as the judge being biased, this was incompetence on the part of the defence. Despite the fact that the defence were very experienced lawyers - Rivlin had been a QC for nearly 6 years, the deputy barrister was nearly a QC and the solicitor was a partner in the firm with significant experience.

Is there any substance to this claim at all?


* hope I am OK to direct this question to him?

Told by whom?  Unless you have carried out due diligience to ensure these sources are credible and reliable why would you place any weight on what you are being told in this regard?

[Cambridgecutie]

This question is for anyone, but particularly ngb1066* with his legal knowledge.

I keep being told that the judge was biased in allowing the silencer to be admitted as evidence, given the "chain of custody" - it being found by relatives, taken back in a toilet roll, etc.

I am also being told that as well as the judge being biased, this was incompetence on the part of the defence. Despite the fact that the defence were very experienced lawyers - Rivlin had been a QC for nearly 6 years, the deputy barrister was nearly a QC and the solicitor was a partner in the firm with significant experience.

Is there any substance to this claim at all?


* hope I am OK to direct this question to him?

John Hayward - Biologist at FSS - Opening trial testimony:

[Cambridgecutie]

I am happy to reply to this.  It is something that has been raised in the past.  There are several aspects to it and I will try to post about it later today.

From your trusty assistant:

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4121.30.html

Posts #19, 21, 26, 36, 37, 43, 58

 

[Cambridgecutie]

This question is for anyone, but particularly ngb1066* with his legal knowledge.

I keep being told that the judge was biased in allowing the silencer to be admitted as evidence, given the "chain of custody" - it being found by relatives, taken back in a toilet roll, etc.

I am also being told that as well as the judge being biased, this was incompetence on the part of the defence. Despite the fact that the defence were very experienced lawyers - Rivlin had been a QC for nearly 6 years, the deputy barrister was nearly a QC and the solicitor was a partner in the firm with significant experience.

Is there any substance to this claim at all?


* hope I am OK to direct this question to him?

What experience did the lawyers have involving cases of:

1. Gun crime
2. Gun crime where a silencer was at the crux?
3. Gun crime involving a mass shooting

[Cambridgecutie]

The UK Gov instructed an inquiry into 'Bloody Sunday'.  At the heart of this investigation lies a shooting incident.  Who did the UK Gov instructed as an expert witness?  Dr Vincent DiMaio an American, US based, pathologist with expertise in gun crime.  This is exactly what JB's lawyers SHOULD have done at trial.  Instead Ed Lawson QC relied on quoting generic information from a couple of American, US based, pathologists. 

JB's lawyers at trial, pre and post, were utterly useless and totally arrogant.

[BarefootDanC]

What experience did the lawyers have involving cases of:

1. Gun crime
2. Gun crime where a silencer was at the crux?
3. Gun crime involving a mass shooting

It is hard to find specific examples from the 1980s, with that being well before the internet era, but Rivlin had been a QC for around 6 years. Murder and other very serious offences use QCs.

Here is a case from 1986 involving Rivlin, which I appreciate was after the Bamber case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ughill_Hall_shootings

*********

My question was to do with the law around admissibility of evidence.

[BarefootDanC]

Told by whom?  Unless you have carried out due diligience to ensure these sources are credible and reliable why would you place any weight on what you are being told in this regard?

Yes, that is exactly why I asked ngb1066

[BarefootDanC]

What experience did the lawyers have involving cases of:

1. Gun crime
2. Gun crime where a silencer was at the crux?
3. Gun crime involving a mass shooting

Another thought I had, every case is different and I would be surprised if there are that many cases involving a silencer which was found by a third party.

But in decades of experience, they would have come across other cases where the "chain of custody" was poor (evidence found by civilians and not contained in a forensically secure plastic bag, etc) and in theory the defence could apply to the judge for the evidence to be excluded - which is what my original question was about.

[ngb1066]

From your trusty assistant:

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4121.30.html

Posts #19, 21, 26, 36, 37, 43, 58

 

Thank you CC.

[Cambridgecutie]

It is hard to find specific examples from the 1980s, with that being well before the internet era, but Rivlin had been a QC for around 6 years. Murder and other very serious offences use QCs.

Here is a case from 1986 involving Rivlin, which I appreciate was after the Bamber case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ughill_Hall_shootings

*********

My question was to do with the law around admissibility of evidence.

The crux of the Ughill Hall case hinged on Murder or Manslaughter.  There was no question Wood was responsible.  This is a very different case to WHF and as you said was post WHF. 

Do you accept that Rivlin, Lawson and Terzeon were very unlikely, at any stage of their careers, to have the sort of experience of gun crime that an average lawyer in the US was likely to have due to the very different firearms licensing laws pertaining to the two countries? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_homicide_rates

As you can see from John Hayward's trial testimony, it appears the trial judge was aware of the 'chain of custody' surrounding the silencer hence asking Rivlin if there was any issue with whether they (bloodstained exhibits, incl silencer) were transmitted properly and where they were found.

I think it might have been possible pre-trial to argue the silencer should not have been considered admissable evidence due to the 'chain of custody'?  If so why didn't it happen?  Over to the Guv...

[Cambridgecutie]

Another thought I had, every case is different and I would be surprised if there are that many cases involving a silencer which was found by a third party.

But in decades of experience, they would have come across other cases where the "chain of custody" was poor (evidence found by civilians and not contained in a forensically secure plastic bag, etc) and in theory the defence could apply to the judge for the evidence to be excluded - which is what my original question was about.

But we are not talking about a random "third party" or "civilians" finding the exhibit which underpins the conviction.  We are talking about JB's extended adoptive family finding the exhibit who were unable/ unwilling to accept that NB and June's estate would leave the blood family and pass to JB.

[Cambridgecutie]

Thank you CC.

You're welcome Boss.

Was just wondering if it would have been possible to argue pre-trial that the silencer was inadmissible due to the 'chain of custody' ie who found and how it was handled thereafter? 

[ngb1066]

You're welcome Boss.

Was just wondering if it would have been possible to argue pre-trial that the silencer was inadmissible due to the 'chain of custody' ie who found and how it was handled thereafter?

No, in reality it could not be argued that it was inadmissable but if the chain of custody had been explored it would have been the basis for a serious challenge to the reliability of the evidence and the weight to be given to it.  If the full facts had been presented the trial judge would have been obliged to give a strong warning about it.  It was admissable evidence because it was supported by witness testimony but there were huge red flags.