A fair trial?

[Kaldin]

Quite a few people on here have said they didn't think Jeremy had a fair trial, and I'm interested in what they mean by that.

Jeremy's first appeal was on the grounds that the judge was biased towards the prosecution in his summing up. I also think that judge sounded rather biased, but that appeal was dismissed.

Apart from that, what made it unfair? One can say now that new things have come to light, but does that make the original trial unfair?

[andrea]

i think people mean he didnt have a fair trial, because paper work and photos which were available at the time werent disclosed? the silencer is a worry, that shouldnt have been used simply because of the amount of tampering.

[Kaldin]

i think people mean he didnt have a fair trial, because paper work and photos which were available at the time werent disclosed? the silencer is a worry, that shouldnt have been used simply because of the amount of tampering.

Well what exactly wasn't disclosed at the time?

Re the silencer, the defence had the chance to try and get the silencer evidence thrown out because of the tampering. Did they even try to do so?

[andrea]

photographs and paper work wasnt it? im only going on what ive read, i was a kid when all this happened in 85

[Kaldin]

photographs and paper work wasnt it? im only going on what ive read, i was a kid when all this happened in 85

I don't know. Nobody has said which photos were available at the trial. There's been some talk about police logs being missing but that's not clear either. Anyway, the defence could have asked for all these items, and if they failed to do so that's not down to the judge or the prosecution.

[andrea]

hmm i agree, but was there a master photo album or something that ccontained more photos than what was presented at the trial? to be frank with you kaldin, im getting confused with whats fact and what isnt, whats has been said on statements what hasnt, what was disclosed and what wasnt, and the silencer!! dont even go there as i may end up asleep face down in the ashtray again 

[Kaldin]

hmm i agree, but was there a master photo album or something that ccontained more photos than what was presented at the trial? to be frank with you kaldin, im getting confused with whats fact and what isnt, whats has been said on statements what hasnt, what was disclosed and what wasnt, and the silencer!! dont even go there as i may end up asleep face down in the ashtray again 

I'm not convinced that the trial wasn't fair as far as it went. There were things the defence could have followed up but didn't - like Jeremy allegedly seeing a figure at the window. As far as I know, that wasn't brought up at the trial, and Bews wasn't grilled on it either.

[Kaldin]

For example, let's take the issue of the inheritance. Some people have said it was unfair because the jury didn't know that Robert Boutflour would benefit, but they actually asked about that issue, so the defence surely had ample opportunity to tell them how he could benefit (and the other family members too). If the defence didn't do that, that doesn't make the trial itself unfair does it?

[andrea]

i think jb was certain he would be found not guilty, its he who instructs his legal team. could be different at a crown court trial, i know that a client instructs his legal team at a magistrates hearing.We can only wonder why they didnt pursue certain aspects of the case, they no doubt deeply regret it now.

[andrea]

the jury did ask who would bennefit if jb was found guilty and sent down, but i read somewhere ( cant remember where) that they werent actually told that it would be boutflours and eatons. and hasnt db recently admitted that he inherited a substantial amount and that he wasted most of it?

[grahameb]

In some ways the outcome of a trial is dependent on how good your counsel is. But personally I didn't think JB had a fair trial because (1) they used a witness that should not be used as she was guilty herself of several offences, had something to gain herself by testifying and therefore should have been dismissed as an unreliable witness. (2) one of the crucial pieces of evidence was itself presented on the hearsay of one of the relatives and had also been contaminated through the handling of various people, as it was never segregated from other items,neither were steps taken to keep it from contamination. Therefore it should never had been entered as evidence.

[Kaldin]

the jury did ask who would bennefit if jb was found guilty and sent down, but i read somewhere ( cant remember where) that they werent actually told that it would be boutflours and eatons. and hasnt db recently admitted that he inherited a substantial amount and that he wasted most of it?

I think they were told that Pamela Boutflour would benefit. Technically, the Eatons didn't benefit and neither did Robert Boutflour, but there was nothing to stop the defence pursuing that and explaining how they could benefit from Pamela Boutflour inheriting.

David Boutflour did not inherit directly as far as I know.

[Kaldin]

In some ways the outcome of a trial is dependent on how good your counsel is. But personally I didn't think JB had a fair trial because (1) they used a witness that should not be used as she was guilty herself of several offences, had something to gain herself by testifying and therefore should have been dismissed as an unreliable witness. (2) one of the crucial pieces of evidence was itself presented on the hearsay of one of the relatives and had also been contaminated through the handling of various people, as it was never segregated from other items,neither were steps taken to keep it from contamination. Therefore it should never had been entered as evidence.

OK, but the defence could have objected to Julie Mugford being called as a witness, so did they do that? They had the chance to break down her testimony and they failed.

Re the silencer, did the defence object to the evidence on the grounds that it had been tampered with?

[clifford]

Perhaps, at trial the defence were not aware it had been tampered with.

[grahameb]

In some ways the outcome of a trial is dependent on how good your counsel is. But personally I didn't think JB had a fair trial because (1) they used a witness that should not be used as she was guilty herself of several offences, had something to gain herself by testifying and therefore should have been dismissed as an unreliable witness. (2) one of the crucial pieces of evidence was itself presented on the hearsay of one of the relatives and had also been contaminated through the handling of various people, as it was never segregated from other items,neither were steps taken to keep it from contamination. Therefore it should never had been entered as evidence.

OK, but the defence could have objected to Julie Mugford being called as a witness, so did they do that? They had the chance to break down her testimony and they failed.

Re the silencer, did the defence object to the evidence on the grounds that it had been tampered with?

No they didn't. Hence the first part of my post.