Theoretical conclusions over burn marks to Nevill

[jon]

Oh, so what happens if they decide that testing in another Country is inadmissible. Simon McKay didn't strike me as someone who wastes his own time and destroys his reputation.

English police have used expert's in USA before !!

[Hartley]

The defence say that since the evidence now strongly suggests that a silencer was not used, any human blood inside the silencer must have been the result of contamination.  Whether that was accidental or deliberate they do not have to establish as a necessary part of the defence submissions.  However, other  evidence now available which cast doubt upon the evidence given at trial about the silencer will be relied upon in support of the proposition that the evidence relating to the silencer in its entirety should now be regarded as undermined.  Without this evidence the convictions could not be upheld.

As contamination has been considered at length, would it not be viewed by the CCRC/CoA that the blood found in the sound moderator, inclusive of the DNA testing conducted in 2002, actually undermines the defence argument that a sound moderator was not used?

[ngb1066]

Oh, so what happens if they decide that testing in another Country is inadmissible. Simon McKay didn't strike me as someone who wastes his own time and destroys his reputation.

There is no problem with using expert evidence from anywhere in the world.  The CCRC would not reject it simply because it is from the USA.  Obviously if they do not believe the evidence or do not accept the defence interpretation of it that is a different matter.  The CCRC have the power to commission their own tests if they wish.  I believe that they would not themselves normally instruct experts outside the UK but they will evaluate any evidence presented with defence submissions.

 

[ngb1066]

As contamination has been considered at length, would it not be viewed by the CCRC/CoA that the blood found in the sound moderator, inclusive of the DNA testing conducted in 2002, actually undermines the defence argument that a sound moderator was not used?

Yes they could take that view, but not simply on the basis that contamination was discussed at the 2002 appeal.  The evidence presented to the Court of Appeal in 2002 would have to be reexamined in the light of the latest evidence.

 

[campion]

 Is this Common Knowledge regarding Expert opinion from outside the UK. Perhaps I am thick but I was unaware outsourcing tests in Criminal Cases was even on the table regarding UK Law ?   

[Hartley]

Yes they could take that view, but not simply on the basis that contamination was discussed at the 2002 appeal.  The evidence presented to the Court of Appeal in 2002 would have to be reexamined in the light of the latest evidence.

Well yes, but it wasn't just discussed, they came to the conclusion that no contamination took place in 2002, so surely there is more than a fighting chance that they would come to the same conclusion now?

[ngb1066]

Is this Common Knowledge regarding Expert opinion from outside the UK. Perhaps I am thick but I was unaware outsourcing tests in Criminal Cases was even on the table regarding UK Law ?   

No you are not thick, the law of evidence can be complex and it is an area of law which many lawyers get wrong.  There is no restriction on calling expert evidence from outside the UK, provided that the witness providing the evidence would be regarded as an expert in the UK.

[Hartley]

No you are not thick, the law of evidence can be complex and it is an area of law which many lawyers get wrong.  There is no restriction on calling expert evidence from outside the UK, provided that the witness providing the evidence would be regarded as an expert in the UK.

I'd guess that it would greatly depend whether they are recognised as experts, either through qualifications or experience.

[ngb1066]

Well yes, but it wasn't just discussed they came to the conclusion that no contamination took place in 2002, so surely there is more than a fighting chance that they would come to the same conclusion now?

I understand the point you are making Hartley but with respect I think you are approaching this in the wrong way.  The Court of Appeal in 2002 made certain findings of fact based upon the evidence they heard.  That, together with arguments presented by Counsel, is what they based their findings on.  If 10 years later further evidence comes to light which points towards a different conclusion they have to consider that new evidence and revisit the conclusions reached in 2002.  The Court of Appeal would not say that since they made certain findings of fact in 2002 they are bound by those findings. 

 

[ngb1066]

I'd guess that it would greatly depend whether they are recognised as experts, either through qualifications or experience.

Yes that is correct.  In this case there is no doubt about the qualifications of those who have provided the latest reports.

[Hartley]

I understand the point you are making Hartley but with respect I think you are approaching this in the wrong way.  The Court of Appeal in 2002 made certain findings of fact based upon the evidence they heard.  That, together with arguments presented by Counsel, is what they based their findings on.  If 10 years later further evidence comes to light which points towards a different conclusion they have to consider that new evidence and revisit the conclusions reached in 2002.  The Court of Appeal would not say that since they made certain findings of fact in 2002 they are bound by those findings. 

No, that's not what I mean, I fully appreciate that they would, if required, look at the contamination of the silencer again, but what I am saying, is, that if nothing has changed, then a fresh look would (should) come to the same conclusion, should it not?

[Hartley]

Yes that is correct.  In this case there is no doubt about the qualifications of those who have provided the latest reports.

Are there doubts about Malcolm Fletcher and Dr Vanezis' qualifications?

[Roch]

Decision will not be until 23rd.  Hartley I'll try to reword my question later.

[Hartley]

Decision will not be until 23rd.  Hartley I'll try to reword my question later.

Okay, thanks.

[campion]

 You've hit it there Hartley, its Fletcher and his credibility as an " Expert " regarding death by gunshot. These are so rare in this Country, what "hands on experience" would he have under his belt!!!