ECHR ..... now - Killers' life terms 'breached their human rights'

[Nickos]

Did Rivlin, usually I believe a prosecution barrister, see in that cocky JB swagger and arrogance the traits he had seen in other murderers.

Were their aspects of JB's stories that just did not add up for Rivlin.

Was Rivlin (as professional as a lawyer has to be in his prosecution / defence role) really convinced that JB was not guilty.

In fact imo I believe Rivlin actually thought/suspected JB possibly guilty (not that he, as his defence barrister, would or could ever admit it).

After all Rivlin retired (as a judge) some time ago, but I have not seen any support for JB in the media from him.

Has Rivlin now also washed his hands?

 

[maggie]

Did Rivlin, usually I believe a prosecution barrister, see in that cocky JB swagger and arrogance the traits he had seen in other murderers.

Were their aspects of JB's stories that just did not add up for Rivlin.

Was Rivlin (as professional as a lawyer has to be in his prosecution / defence role) really convinced that JB was not guilty.

In fact imo I believe Rivlin actually thought/suspected JB possibly guilty (not that he, as his defence barrister, would or could ever admit it).

After all Rivlin retired (as a judge) some time ago, but I have not seen any support for JB in the media from him.

Has Rivlin now also washed his hands?

Hi Nickos
Until Rivlin retired, he helped Jeremy on various occasions, I believe.

[Steve_uk]

He's managed to get a nice little earner for himself.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-crime/9393505/New-recruits-to-SFO-include-retire-judge-Geoffrey-Rivlin.html

[Nickos]

Hi Nickos
Until Rivlin retired, he helped Jeremy on various occasions, I believe.

Thanks maggie. I assume Rivlin may have been restricted helping JB when Rivlin was a judge, but after Rivlin retired he could have had a more visible/media profile.


From Steve UK's post it look like Rivlin had a better offer!

[killingeve]

Hi Nickos
Until Rivlin retired, he helped Jeremy on various occasions, I believe.

Hi Maggie

I believe GR now works for SFO advising on when to bring cases to trial.

[ngb1066]

It's a phrase initially coined by a judge some time ago. I guess the term noble is when it is truly believed the "evidence" is used to get the right result.

I still believe the right result was reached in the Bamber case.

Rivlin must have known that the silencer had been discovered and handled by the relatives prior to trial, after all the trial was over a year after the murders. 
 
I wonder how Rivlin tackled this in court - he must have had his opportunity to undermine the silencer evidence - but did he?

Surprising though it seems now, Rivlin did not tackle this at trial.  I believe this was a tactical decision.  The defence believed that the prosecution case was weak and that an acquittal was likely upon the basis of reasonable doubt.  They did not wish to create problems in relation to this by making an all out attack on prosecution witnesses (other than Julie Mugford of course).  I can understand that decision, although with the benefit of hindsight it was a major blunder.

 

[killingeve]

Hi Maggie

I believe GR now works for SFO advising on when to bring cases to trial.

Oooops  shld read posts before I post!  Just seen other posters have already stated the above.

[Nickos]

Surprising though it seems now, Rivlin did not tackle this at trial.  I believe this was a tactical decision.  The defence believed that the prosecution case was weak and that an acquittal was likely upon the basis of reasonable doubt.  They did not wish to create problems in relation to this by making an all out attack on prosecution witnesses (other than Julie Mugford of course).  I can understand that decision, although with the benefit of hindsight it was a major blunder.

Thanks ngb - a fair answer, but as per your last sentence just unbelievable.

It strikes me that although a lot of JB's demise is blamed by some on relatives, EP, PII, etc. significant blame can also be placed at the door of the original defence.

Raising the silencer topic would not have to take the form of an all out attack. Rivlin could simply have confirmed by cross examination that the silencer was found some time after the murders (having been overlooked by EP) and then handled by the relatives. This in itself would have at least given the Jury something to think about.

As you know I believe JB guilty, but if I was made aware at trial that someone (other than EP ) had found and handled (effectively contaminated) the silencer  it would at least create some doubt. 

But as you say - the benefit of hindsight eh! 

(I'm away on a two week holiday now - bye  )

[maggie]

Hi Nickos

Happy Hols, where are you off to, the sun I hope.

[maggie]

Oooops  shld read posts before I post!  Just seen other posters have already stated the above.

No matter NN, thanks for the info.

[killingeve]

Hi NN, on the silencer evidence I agree, but I believe the silencer evidence was slipped in to get the right result (noble cause). Surely Rivlin must have known that the silencer had been discovered and handled by the relatives prior to trial.

If he did it must have been a no brainer to raise this with the Jury.

If he didn't - why not!!

Either way Rivlin let this go - as with a lot of other things.

I certainly understand your point on how a jury should reach its verdict – it’s just amazingly coincidental imo that the Judge stated he would accept a majority verdict – and low and behold he got a 10:2 majority. Where does a majority start – I believe it is at 10?

So, 11:1 Guilty 10:2 Guilty 9:3 Not Guilty

Hi Nickos

Yes I believe GR was aware of the history of the silencer.  Hence the reason the defence arranged for the relatives to provide blood samples to exclude contamination.  (RB's blood sample matched the sample found in the silencer in terms of type and group.  I'm not legally trained but from a lay person's perspective I struggle to understand WHY GR did not actively pursue contamination, accidental or deliberate, as a realistic possibility.  Instead he went down a one way track of SC using the silencer and returning it to the gun cupboard.  IMO that theory was too unbelievable for a majority verdict of not guilty.  I understand it would have been possible to present the jury with both options and that his reason(s) for not doing so revolved around not wanting to put the jury in the position of having to choose EP/extended family v JB.

I agree with you IMO he let a lot of things go.

I understand he was more use to defending.  Also that JB's sols had not previously conducted a case on legal aid and failed to investigate properly and instruct appropriate expert witnesses.

There doesn't seem to be much info in the public domain re GR?

It strikes me that the case is not the normal run of the mill case a QC wld come up against on a regular basis.  Perhaps aspects of it threw him?  Perhaps he struggled with the fact that those that should have been supportive of JB ie extended family and JM believed him to be guilty and he was overwhelmed by the mountain?

I ask myself how he will feel when JB's conviction is quashed?  Professionally embarrassed I guess.  Personally ?  IMO JB's defence, if you can call it that, did a truly awful job.

[ngb1066]

Thanks ngb - a fair answer, but as per your last sentence just unbelievable.

It strikes me that although a lot of JB's demise is blamed by some on relatives, EP, PII, etc. significant blame can also be placed at the door of the original defence.

Raising the silencer topic would not have to take the form of an all out attack. Rivlin could simply have confirmed by cross examination that the silencer was found some time after the murders (having been overlooked by EP) and then handled by the relatives. This in itself would have at least given the Jury something to think about.

As you know I believe JB guilty, but if I was made aware at trial that someone (other than EP ) had found and handled (effectively contaminated) the silencer  it would at least create some doubt. 

But as you say - the benefit of hindsight eh! 

(I'm away on a two week holiday now - bye  )

I agree with you on this Nickos.  Have a good holiday!
 

[killingeve]

Thanks ngb - a fair answer, but as per your last sentence just unbelievable.

It strikes me that although a lot of JB's demise is blamed by some on relatives, EP, PII, etc. significant blame can also be placed at the door of the original defence.

Raising the silencer topic would not have to take the form of an all out attack. Rivlin could simply have confirmed by cross examination that the silencer was found some time after the murders (having been overlooked by EP) and then handled by the relatives. This in itself would have at least given the Jury something to think about.

As you know I believe JB guilty, but if I was made aware at trial that someone (other than EP ) had found and handled (effectively contaminated) the silencer  it would at least create some doubt. 
But as you say - the benefit of hindsight eh! 

(I'm away on a two week holiday now - bye  )

Hi Nickos

I believe GR did ask RB if he cut his finger.  To which he replied "No".  IMO he needed to pursue this line of defence.  I think it fell on deaf with jurors as opposed to having the desired result of sowing a seed of doubt. I say this based on the judge's summing up ( see archive/last page) where you will see the jury are seeking clarification from the judge re whether the blood in the silencer was a "perfect match" with SC's!  Also the possibility of an intimate mix of NB's and June's blood.  No queries re RB/contamination as GR failed to sow the seed and IMO ultimately failed JB as a result 

Hope you have a good hol. 

[killingeve]

Hi Nickos

I believe GR did ask RB if he cut his finger.  To which he replied "No".  IMO he needed to pursue this line of defence.  I think it fell on deaf with jurors as opposed to having the desired result of sowing a seed of doubt. I say this based on the judge's summing up ( see archive/last page) where you will see the jury are seeking clarification from the judge re whether the blood in the silencer was a "perfect match" with SC's!  Also the possibility of an intimate mix of NB's and June's blood.  No queries re RB/contamination as GR failed to sow the seed and IMO ultimately failed JB as a result 

Hope you have a good hol.

Morning NN

Just thinking about the above and GR's cross examination (if you can call it that) and wondering if RB, JM et al had have been say career criminals if GR's approach to ermmm cross examination might have been er let's say a little more robust 

[killingeve]

Morning NN

Just thinking about the above and GR's cross examination (if you can call it that) and wondering if RB, JM et al had have been say career criminals if GR's approach to ermmm cross examination might have been er let's say a little more robust 

Hiya NN

Wow you're bright and bushy tailed early on a Sat morning 

Yes I agree IMO GR was hopeless and has a lot to answer for.  Think he was taken in, swayed and in awe of the middle class, law abiding, land owners  . Had they have been from a working class background with previous I bet he wldn't have been as 'light touch' in his cross examination. Think he's from the North and normally operated on the Northern circuit.  Think AA and LJK were offay with the South Wonder if
at any stage GR was thinking about his long term career  . Not too keen on the protocol ie all this m'lud
seems a bit unhealthy ie too deferential