Was the 1986 trial unfair ?

[Adam]

It has often been said on this forum that Jeremy had an unfair trial. As well as that evidence was hidden from the defence.

Straight after being charged with the murders in 1985, Jeremy hired the best defence available. Headed by the excellent David Napley.

The trial was to be in 1986, giving the defence several months to obtain & request evidence. The defence also had the most important & knowledgable witness - Jeremy.

The police & prosecution are obliged to give the defence any requested documents. A failure to do this & the defence can complain to the courts. The defence will also be informed in advance of all witnesses & exhibits the prosecution intend to call. Meaning the defence can prepare their cross examinations.

Jeremys highly paid lawyers are not going to hand over information highlighting Jeremys guilt. They are paid to get him aquited. However it more likely the prosecution would inform the crown if they found evidence highlighting Jeremys certain innocence.

The trial lasted 19 days. The defence attempting to convince the jury that Sheila was capable of commiting the massacre as well as discrediting Julie Mugford. Jeremy himself testifying for 8 hours.

A judge's summing up can favour either the defence or prosecution. Or neither. It depends on the evidence presented at trial & how the judge interprets this. A judge has the authority to advise the jury in certain aspects & interpret evidence. The judge's summing up was very interesting, with some good points.

After the guilty verdict Jeremy immediatly set about appealing. This was not on the basis of an unfair trial. But the equally serious accusation that the judge unfairly summed up the case & was unfair to Jeremy during the trial. The 1989 appeal was dismissed.

If new evidence has since come to light. That does not mean it was an unfair trial. Unless it can be proved the prosecution knew about it & did not disclose. Any new findings could have been submitted in the 2002 & 2012 appeals.

Do people beleive the trial was unfair ?

[susan]

YES

[wilf]

the most glaringly obvious misdirection of the jury  was when they asked a direct question about who would benifit from Jeremys conviction and were not given what we now now to be the true facts. the fact that this information was not disclosed at the time is in my oppinion a shocking example of lack of proper investigation. the jury smelt a rat. as soon as the real facts were brought to light a retrial should have been called.

wilf

[Jane]

I wouldn't have thought a pro Jeremy forum was the appropriate place to ask the question. What do you imagine you'll learn?

[Adam]

the most glaringly obvious misdirection of the jury  was when they asked a direct question about who would benifit from Jeremys conviction and were not given what we now now to be the true facts. the fact that this information was not disclosed at the time is in my oppinion a shocking example of lack of proper investigation. the jury smelt a rat. as soon as the real facts were brought to light a retrial should have been called.

wilf

Is that not something the defence should know ? Who inherits upon a conviction. Not a hard question.

[Jane]

Is that not something the defence should know ? Who inherits upon a conviction. Not a hard question.

If they SHOULD have known but didn't make it their business to know, they didn't do their job properly.

[lookout]

That's just the trouble,,the defence weren't that conversant in who would or would not benefit.This,,believe it or not,puzzled them to such an extent that they asked for an extension,,but not only that,they'd asked for written proof-----didn't get it,so were then told by the judge that they,the relatives, were ALL wealthy in their own right. WRONG ! Because DB and AE were boracic !
As a consequence,the defence didn't get to see the financial side of things.

[lookout]

And YES. The trial was more than unfair---------------------it was illegal in my eyes and shouldn't have gone ahead. If only the jury had seen the late " Taff " Jones's notebook.If only anyone had !

[Adam]

If they SHOULD have known but didn't make it their business to know, they didn't do their job properly.

If the defence can bring up Julies minor fraud & caravan break in, they will certainly consider bringing up a motive for the relatives to lie. Putting reasonable doubt.

However it was also true that the relatives were well of & had no reason to lie.

[Caroline]

Is that not something the defence should know ? Who inherits upon a conviction. Not a hard question.

and they asked it!! They got 'fluff' as he answer!

[wilf]

Is that not something the defence should know ? Who inherits upon a conviction. Not a hard question.

my point exactly! hardly fair if those that are supposed to be expert dont get to the true facts

[lookout]

Ask yourself who was it that " found " the silencer,Adam,,and there's your answer !!

[Caroline]

If the defence can bring up Julies minor fraud & caravan break in, they will certainly consider bringing up a motive for the relatives to lie. Putting reasonable doubt.

However it was also true that the relatives were well of & had no reason to lie.

By the same standards, so was Jeremy so not really a good example of why someone shouldn't lie!!

Guilty or innocent -  no, he didn't have a fair trial.

[lookout]

The trial should have been held at Kew Gardens,,there was so much planting.

[Jane]

If the defence can bring up Julies minor fraud & caravan break in, they will certainly consider bringing up a motive for the relatives to lie. Putting reasonable doubt.

However it was also true that the relatives were well of & had no reason to lie.

Perhaps you should ask the defence about the anomalies in the case. Wealth is relative and Nevill was generous with loaning money to the family.