'Nothing really substantively new....'

[nugnug]

Don't forget that whatever strategy Rivlin used, he was using it on JBs instruction. I'm not sure what the likely consequences would be for the defence had they have alleged deliberate contamination without evidence to support the allegation, maybe one of the lawyers here could comment. As for accidental contamination, I'm struggling to think of a credible explanation for how it would have happened.

no he wasn't necarsrly following Jeremys instructions very people instruct there lawyers they just assume the lawyer knows what he is doing this often has tragic consequences.

[Bridget]

no he wasn't necarsrly following Jeremys instructions very people instruct there lawyers they just assume the lawyer knows what he is doing this often has tragic consequences.

Rivlin will of course have offered guidance as to strategy, and will have discussed and agreed this with JB. No doubt if JB had suggested alleging deliberate contamination Rivlin would have advised against it.

A very foolish move but protected by absolute priviledge in terms of libel.

Loss of credibility in the eyes of the judge and jury.

Thank you Petey, yes, I was thinking of consequences within the context of the trial rather than anything wider.

[nugnug]

no he might well not have asked jbs agreement to do anything he might well of said this is what im going to do if you dont like it you'll have to sack me.

[Bridget]

no he might well not have asked jbs agreement to do anything he might well of said this is what im going to do if you dont like it you'll have to sack me.

I suppose there may well have been a conversation of that nature if JB had insisted on Rivlin making allegations of a dishonest or criminal nature against a witness without evidence or proper grounds (he's prevented from doing so by the Bar Standards Board code of conduct). But we don't know that he did, so it's pure speculation.

[ngb1066]

I suppose there may well have been a conversation of that nature if JB had insisted on Rivlin making allegations of a dishonest or criminal nature against a witness without evidence or proper grounds (he's prevented from doing so by the Bar Standards Board code of conduct). But we don't know that he did, so it's pure speculation.

JB was effectively told by Rivlin what line should be followed by the defence at trial.  JB in reality had very little say in the matter.  The Bar Code of Conduct would not have prevented Rivlin from presenting the possibility of dishonest or criminal conduct on the part of prosecution witnesses since there was a sufficient evidential basis to do that (albeit with care).  However Rivlin opposed that strategy because he thought the prosecution case was tenuous and an acquital was anticipated upon the basis of reasonable doubt.  He did not want to cloud the issue by basing the defence upon a proposition which required the jury to disbelieve family members and some police officers.  With hindisight (and some would say even without the benefit of hindsight) this strategy was wrong.

 

[Bridget]

JB was effectively told by Rivlin what line should be followed by the defence at trial.  JB in reality had very little say in the matter.  The Bar Code of Conduct would not have prevented Rivlin from presenting the possibility of dishonest or criminal conduct on the part of prosecution witnesses since there was a sufficient evidential basis to do that (albeit with care).  However Rivlin opposed that strategy because he thought the prosecution case was tenuous and an acquital was anticipated upon the basis of reasonable doubt.  He did not want to cloud the issue by basing the defence upon a proposition which required the jury to disbelieve family members and some police officers.  With hindisight (and some would say even without the benefit of hindsight) this strategy was wrong.

 

What evidence of deliberate contamination of the silencer was there?

[ngb1066]

What evidence of deliberate contamination of the silencer was there?

There was opportunity and there were also admissions about the attempt to unscrew the silencer and the use of a razor blade to scrape blood.  There was evidence of blood stained clothing removed from the house.  There was sufficient to permit cross examination about this and if the possibilities had been explored in cross examination it would have been possible to present this to the jury as a possibility to be considered.



 

[Bridget]

There was opportunity and there were also admissions about the attempt to unscrew the silencer and the use of a razor blade to scrape blood.  There was evidence of blood stained clothing removed from the house.  There was sufficient to permit cross examination about this and if the possibilities had been explored in cross examination it would have been possible to present this to the jury as a possibility to be considered.

I don't believe anyone used a razor blade to scrape blood. That is a misinterpretation of something said by DB when describing the size and shape of the blood spot he saw. In any case, none of that amounts to credible evidence of deliberate contamination of the silencer. Whether Rivlin rejected that strategy on the grounds of admissibility of just poor strategy probably isn't important. The jury were aware of the handling of the silencer, and of the clothes, and of the relatives' potential to benefit from JBs conviction, and a direct accusation against them without more wouldn't have done JB any favours IMO.

[nugnug]

they had no reason to touch the silencer its called tampering with evidence witch is a crime in itself.

[Bridget]

they had no reason to touch the silencer its called tampering with evidence witch is a crime in itself.

The house and all of it's contents had been handed back to them. They could touch whatever they liked. With hindsight I'm sure they wish they hadn't handled it as much as they did.

[nugnug]

no if you find a silencer witch you think is conected to a murder you dont touch it it you take it to the police.

[ngb1066]

I don't believe anyone used a razor blade to scrape blood. That is a misinterpretation of something said by DB when describing the size and shape of the blood spot he saw. In any case, none of that amounts to credible evidence of deliberate contamination of the silencer. Whether Rivlin rejected that strategy on the grounds of admissibility of just poor strategy probably isn't important. The jury were aware of the handling of the silencer, and of the clothes, and of the relatives' potential to benefit from JBs conviction, and a direct accusation against them without more wouldn't have done JB any favours IMO.

You misunderstand the rules of evidence and the Bar Code of Conduct.  There was nothing to stop Rivlin going down this route, it was a tactical decision which in my view was wrong.  Rivlin did not need to rest his entire defence upon the possibility of deliberate or accidental contamination of the silencer, he only needed to lay the basis for presenting it to the jury as a possibilty.  Instead he conceded that that the silencer must have been fitted to the rifle at some stage in the shootings and that concession was extremely damaging to JB.

   

[Lugg]

What evidence of deliberate contamination of the silencer was there?

Am I missing something here? I can't see the word "deliberate" in ngb's post? I have read the word "possibility". Must be my age again in missing words as I read.

[Alias]

they had no reason to touch the silencer its called tampering with evidence witch is a crime in itself.

I agree. I am not saying that something was done to the silencer by the relatives, I have no idea, but the mere fact that it was NOT found by the EP, but by a relative who had something to gain by a conviction of Jeremy, and that they had it in their possession (why did they not leave it where they found it, and immediately inform the police about it, so a crime scene technician could handle it from that point?)
By the sound of the statements it was fidgeted with by numerous hands until it came into possession of the EP.
I am not sure such evidence could be used in a trial today.

[Caroline R]

JB was effectively told by Rivlin what line should be followed by the defence at trial.  JB in reality had very little say in the matter.  The Bar Code of Conduct would not have prevented Rivlin from presenting the possibility of dishonest or criminal conduct on the part of prosecution witnesses since there was a sufficient evidential basis to do that (albeit with care).  However Rivlin opposed that strategy because he thought the prosecution case was tenuous and an acquital was anticipated upon the basis of reasonable doubt.  He did not want to cloud the issue by basing the defence upon a proposition which required the jury to disbelieve family members and some police officers.  With hindisight (and some would say even without the benefit of hindsight) this strategy was wrong.

 

Totally agree, it seems he had only one strategy and no back up plan if the mood of the court seemed to be against them. However, it does indicate how little Riviln thought about the strength of the case against Bamber.