Silencer evidence "inadmissable" - ngb1066 ?

[Cambridgecutie]

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.

Thank you Boss. 

Instead jurors were told by the trial judge at the end of the summing up:

"He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, “on its own” lead them to conclude that Jeremy was guilty"

Does ngb1066's response answer your question BarefootDanC?

[David1819]

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.

Its interesting that JB suggested to his defence counsel that the silencer could have been contaminated by Ann Eaton considering JB knew these witnesses personally.

[BarefootDanC]

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...

Rivlin and Lawson were at very advanced stages in their careers and Terzeon was also quite experienced at least.

Both the prosecution and the defence had experts and quite a lot of scientific research went into the silencer between the trial the appeal hearing.

[BarefootDanC]

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.

Thank you very much for replying.

In what way were the "full facts" not presented at trial? Stan Jones said in testimony how he transported the silencer back using a used toilet roll as a container, a few days after the family found it.

[Cambridgecutie]

Rivlin and Lawson were at very advanced stages in their careers and Terzeon was also quite experienced at least.

But what experience did they have with cases involving gun crime and a silencer? 

Both the prosecution and the defence had experts and quite a lot of scientific research went into the silencer between the trial the appeal hearing.

I quote from Roger Wilkes book:

"The Home Office forensic science laboratory at Huntingdon was opened two years before the Bamber case in May 1983 by the then Home Secreatary, William Whitelaw.  The new laboratory cost £4million and was built to serve ten police forces in the east of England, from East Anglia to Leicester, Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire.  When it opened, it employed nearly seventy experts in all brances of forensic science, including biology, chemistry, toxicology, blood sereology and the examination of firearms.  In theory, the service provided at Huntingdon is equally available to prosecution and defence teams in a criminal case.  But in practice, because of the structural and informal links with the police, the service at Huntingdon (as at the five other regional Home Office laboratories) is identified almost exclusively with the prosecution.  Defence lawyers trying to gain access to laboratory resources often find themselves thwarted at every turn.  Even obtaining samples for independent testing can be very difficult."

[BarefootDanC]

Its interesting that JB suggested to his defence counsel that the silencer could have been contaminated by Ann Eaton considering JB knew these witnesses personally.

But his defence council knew that this was unlikely to be believed by a jury.

[BarefootDanC]

But what experience did they have with cases involving gun crime and a silencer? 

Given that Rivlin had been a QC since 1979 and the junior barrister was nearly a QC, they would have been involved with several cases involving a gun so I would be very surprised if this was the first time involving a gun / silencer.

But in any case, that it why the defence have their own experts - to advise them on the science of the case.

[BarefootDanC]

But what experience did they have with cases involving gun crime and a silencer? 

I quote from Roger Wilkes book:

"The Home Office forensic science laboratory at Huntingdon was opened two years before the Bamber case in May 1983 by the then Home Secreatary, William Whitelaw.  The new laboratory cost £4million and was built to serve ten police forces in the east of England, from East Anglia to Leicester, Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire.  When it opened, it employed nearly seventy experts in all brances of forensic science, including biology, chemistry, toxicology, blood sereology and the examination of firearms.  In theory, the service provided at Huntingdon is equally available to prosecution and defence teams in a criminal case.  But in practice, because of the structural and informal links with the police, the service at Huntingdon (as at the five other regional Home Office laboratories) is identified almost exclusively with the prosecution.  Defence lawyers trying to gain access to laboratory resources often find themselves thwarted at every turn.  Even obtaining samples for independent testing can be very difficult."

Dr Lincoln, defence expert, visited Huntingdon and went over the blood evidence.

Mark Webster, defence expert, also went over the blood evidence between the trial and the 2002 appeal.

[Cambridgecutie]

Given that Rivlin had been a QC since 1979 and the junior barrister was nearly a QC,they would have been involved with several cases involving a gunso I would be very surprised if this was the first time involving a gun / silencer.

Would they?  Which ones?  Thought you said a few days ago you were only able to identify the case of Ian Wood?

This does not tell us how much, if any, experience the defence had involving cases with a gun/silencer.

But in any case, that it why the defence have their own experts - to advise them on the science of the case.

13.  Forensic science provision in England and Wales has evolved since the 1980s when one provider, the Forensic Science Service (FSS) had a virtual monopoly, to the current situation with several private forensic science providers (FSPs). The changes were driven by the concept and emergence of a market in forensic science provision.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/855/85505.htm#:~:text=13.,market%20in%20forensic%20science%20provision.

From Roger Wilkes:

"The Home Office forensic science laboratory at Huntingdon was opened two years before the Bamber case in May 1983 by the then Home Secreatary, William Whitelaw.  The new laboratory cost £4million and was built to serve ten police forces in the east of England, from East Anglia to Leicester, Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire.  When it opened, it employed nearly seventy experts in all brances of forensic science, including biology, chemistry, toxicology, blood sereology and the examination of firearms.  In theory, the service provided at Huntingdon is equally available to prosecution and defence teams in a criminal case.  But in practice, because of the structural and informal links with the police, the service at Huntingdon (as at the five other regional Home Office laboratories) is identified almost exclusively with the prosecution.  Defence lawyers trying to gain access to laboratory resources often find themselves thwarted at every turn.  Even obtaining samples for independent testing can be very difficult."

[Cambridgecutie]

Dr Lincoln, defence expert, visited Huntingdon and went over the blood evidence.

Dr Lincoln was a senior lecturer in blood group serology at London Hospital Medical College.  How much did he know about the chain of custody of exhibits?  What reason would he have for considering the possibility of FSS perverting the course of justice and needing to bear this in mind?

Mark Webster, defence expert, also went over the blood evidence between the trial and the 2002 appeal.

Mark Webster is a biologist.  How much did he know about the chain of custody of exhibits?  What reason would he have for considering the possibility of FSS perverting the course of justice and needing to bear this in mind?

The case requires a multi-disciplinary approach of ballistics, biologist and pathologist.  This is exactly what should have happened at soc as stated in the Dickinson report post trial. 

[BarefootDanC]

Would they?  Which ones?  Thought you said a few days ago you were only able to identify the case of Ian Wood?

Yes, I came across that case by accident. The problem is it that would be 40 years ago and well before the internet.

[Cambridgecutie]

Yes, I came across that case by accident. The problem is it that would be 40 years ago and well before the internet.

But surely common sense dictates any experience would be minimal due to firearms licensing in the UK?