things I have learnt from CAL book.

[Jan]

A judges summing up will influence a jury. He's an expert in trials and legal matters.

A judge is a respected person, so jurors will take into account what he said.

The judges summing up is the last thing a jury will hear.

The judge takes a lot of time preparing his speech, after going through the paperwork and trial. He then spends a long time summing up for the jury.

So I don't see how a judges summing up cannot influence the jury.

No Adam - that is the whole point of the jury system . The judge is there to advise on legal points and questions.  He can say what he wants after the verdict has been decided but before he should not pressurise or give his personal opinion.

It is a generally accepted principle that a jury must be allowed to consider its verdict free from all external pressures, such as threats, violence, intimidation, or bribery. It is also very important that a jury should not be under the undue influence of the trial judge. If it is so, it may lead to the defendant's conviction being quashed on appeal.

One of the example of the improper judicial pressure occurred in R v McKenna, in which the trial judge Stable J, threaten the jury the jury members that if they did snot return the verdict in the next 10 minutes they would be locked up all night. Within six minutes, jury gave the verdict of guilty against the defendants, having spent previous two and a quarter hours unable to agree. On appeal the convictions were quashed because of a material irregularity in the course of the trial. The Court of Criminal Appeal said:

“It is a cardinal principle of our criminal law that in considering their verdict, concerning, as it does, the liberty of the subject, a jury shall deliberate in complete freedom, uninfluenced by any promise, unintimidated by any threat. They still stand between Crown and the subject, and they are still one of the main defences of personal liberty. To say to such a tribunal in the course of such deliberations that it must reach a conclusion with in ten minutes or else undergo hours of personal inconvenience and discomfort, is a disservice to the cause of justice…”

As for as the communication between judge and jury is concerned, trial judge must be at all times in a position to give proper advice to the jury on any matters of law and fact which are problematic to the jurors. There should be no private or secret communication between the judge and the jury for the sake of impartiality and openness. During the course of trial all the communication should be dealt with in open court in the presence of entire jury, defendant and his counsel. Failure to observe this practice may result on appeal in the quashing


Read more at Law Teacher: http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/criminal-law/the-jury-system.php#ixzz3rVXK6Nef

[Adam]

Judges main points:

Did the jury believe Julie or Jeremy ?

Did Jeremy mention Matthew Mcdonald as a cover up ?

Both Jeremy & Julie had committed recent crimes. That does not mean either lied in court in this trial. Julie had paid back the money she stole. 

Jeremy trusted Julie to help him commit a crime at the caravan site. Did he trust her enough to confide in the murders ? 

The jury should ignore the media. 

Every witness in the trial is equal. 

Did the mysterious phone call from Neville happen ? 

Could Mugford have lied under oath for nearly two days ?

Did Mugford's testimony have a ring of truth ?

The prosecution claim to have an overwhelming case even without the silencer evidence. The judge told the jury to disregard this comment & review all evidence. 

Red paint on silencer shows it was on during kitchen fight. Jeremy said the gun was left that night without a silencer on. Why would Sheila put a silencer on the gun & did she know how to do this ?  

Why would Sheila take the silencer off the gun & put it away, rather than throw it on the floor ? 

There was overwhelming evidence it was Sheila's blood on the silencer. 

Police mistakes not relevant. Part of the reason for the mistakes early on was because they had been lead in that direction. 

Jeremy had a financial motive to commit the crime. 

Jeremy said he had used the found hacksaw to gain access to WHF after the murders to get documentation.  Was this correct or had he gained entry on the murder night ? 

The bicycle had dried mud on the wheels according to Robert Boutflour. Jeremy said his relationship with Julie was coming to a close in August. Why was the bike brought to the cottage just before the murders ? 

Both the defence & prosecution agree the silencer was fitted for most of the time the crime was taking place. 

Mugford was questioned at lenght & in detail. She stuck to her story under cross examination. The defence complained about her crying. But that could be a sign of weakness the defence could have exploited. Were the defence really complaining because she did not change her story ? 

If Mugford was called at 3:12 by Jeremy & the police st 3:26 it badly undermines Jeremys version of events.  

If Neville called at 3.26, he had no face wounds. The police arrived at WHF at 3.48 & never heard any shots. Sheila must have fought Neville, perhaps shot other people, washed, unscrewed & put the silencer away & then shot herself. In 22 minutes. 

Colin Caffell testified that Jeremy said Neville sounded wounded on the phone. However in court Jeremy said he thought it might have just sounded terrified. The judge said Jeremy should remember.

Dr Ferguson had testified that Sheila had never shown physical violence to other people. Others testified she was attached to her father & loving towards her sons. 

Dr Bradley testified that people with no history of violence can become violent. 

The judge mentioned the supper when fostering was mentioned. Jeremy said Sheila was non responsive. Therefore this cannot be used as a reason why Sheila could have committed the crimes. 

The judge said it was 'very very' unlikely Sheila could overcome Neville in a fight & not have any marks. Jeremy was not examined for a long time & would have had time to clean up on the night. 

The judge asked could Sheila load a gun ? 

The judge said there is no doubt the silencer was on the rifle in the kitchen fight. It is not credible that Sheila would then put it back in the gun cupboard. 

The judge said the blood found in the silencer was specific to Sheila. There was a remote possibility of it being a mixture of Neville & Junes. 

The crime was committed by Sheila or Jeremy. There was no possible third party. 

[Jan]

and?


That was not what my point was .

[Adam]

If you think that influenced the jury, then fine.

What is more important is whether what the judge said is wrong.

[Steve_uk]

If you think that influenced the jury, then fine.

What is more important is whether what the judge said is wrong.

From memory he set great store by the silencer evidence with its red paint engrained from the mantle and the blood lodged in the baffles,which he told the jury was Sheila's alone,when there was a remote possibility it could have been a mixture of June and Nevill's. In this he misinterpreted John Hayward's evidence. I think he was in a hurry to get home for the weekend because he passed a paper round the jury members late on Friday afternoon with annotated notes underlining Sheila's name among all the victims' blood groups.

The logic if the blood in the silencer was a mixture of June and Nevill's was that for Jeremy to be innocent Sheila would have had to kill her parents and sons,return the silencer to the gun cupboard and proceed upstairs to shoot herself.

[Caroline]

From memory he set great store by the silencer evidence with its red paint engrained from the mantle and the blood lodged in the baffles,which he told the jury was Sheila's alone,when there was a remote possibility it could have been a mixture of June and Nevill's. In this he misinterpreted John Hayward's evidence. I think he was in a hurry to get home for the weekend because he passed a paper round the jury members late on Friday afternoon with annotated notes underlining Sheila's name among all the victims' blood groups.

The logic if the blood in the silencer was a mixture of June and Nevill's was that for Jeremy to be innocent Sheila would have had to kill her parents and sons,return the silencer to the gun cupboard and proceed upstairs to shoot herself.

What he interpreted incorrectly was notion that Hayward could identify blood group just by looking at it - which of course, is ridiculous.

[Adam]

From memory he set great store by the silencer evidence with its red paint engrained from the mantle and the blood lodged in the baffles,which he told the jury was Sheila's alone,when there was a remote possibility it could have been a mixture of June and Nevill's. In this he misinterpreted John Hayward's evidence. I think he was in a hurry to get home for the weekend because he passed a paper round the jury members late on Friday afternoon with annotated notes underlining Sheila's name among all the victims' blood groups.

The logic if the blood in the silencer was a mixture of June and Nevill's was that for Jeremy to be innocent Sheila would have had to kill her parents and sons,return the silencer to the gun cupboard and proceed upstairs to shoot herself.

Do you think Bamber put that in his 1989 appeal, based on the judges summing up, 'The judge was in a hurry to get home for the weekend'.

It is correct that if it was just June and Neville's blood, then Sheila put the silencer on pre massacre. Then took it off, put it back in the box and then at the back of the gun cupboard. Before shooting herself. The judge generously said this was unlikely.

[Jan]

ok finished the book. The part where the explanation of Jeremy committed the murders are not the authors words but the DPP scenario . And she does mention that the ballistics "experts" that were used later disagree.

So in the paper she made have made it clear what her conclusion was but in the book I think she has attempted to stay neutral. ( I know it is not her opinion but I am talking about the way the book is written)

The back is full of her references and sources - however the quotes from the officers and Jeremy for that matter that do appear in the book do seem to be snippets more that anything .

There are some things that Skippy tried to explain - that I know understand because she make it much simpler (does not use 50 words when 5 will do) 

IMO I got a more rounded picture of the family than reading Colins book .

I also have more questions than I had before.

[lebaleb]

The judge's comment about the fight in the kitchen undoubtedly taking place was misleading. It may have been a fight or a struggle, or a dying man staggering through the kitchen being bludgeoned.
Either the silencer was already attached or the only reason Sheila could have had to attach it would be for the twins not to wake up while being shot. After that she could have returned to June and Neville and delivered some point blank shots. She could have been hearing their voices taunting her even if they were dead. In a frenzy she wielded the rifle to strike Neville's body and scratched the mantle.
Then she may have crawled into the gun cupboard to hide. Then she realised how difficult it was shoot herself with the silencer attached and removed it, dropping it in the box with the bullets.

[lookout]

That's feasible enough lebaleb. If only everyone had used their imagination instead of repeating that there was a fight/struggle in the kitchen,and thought about an injured man trying to get to the phone to ring the police.

[Caroline]

That's feasible enough lebaleb. If only everyone had used their imagination instead of repeating that there was a fight/struggle in the kitchen,and thought about an injured man trying to get to the phone to ring the police.

 

[Jane]

That's feasible enough lebaleb. If only everyone had used their imagination instead of repeating that there was a fight/struggle in the kitchen,and thought about an injured man trying to get to the phone to ring the police.

Hmm, but what was the gunman doing during the time when the injured man was disturbing the kitchen decor by trying to get to the phone?

[lookout]

Hmm, but what was the gunman doing during the time when the injured man was disturbing the kitchen decor by trying to get to the phone?

Hurtling around like a whirling dervish shooting the others.

[Jane]

Hurtling around like a whirling dervish shooting the others.

I hadn't heard that a carousel had been installed

[Adam]

Ha, ha!!!!!!!!! That made me laugh - before you start trying to use sarcasm Adam, best make sure you get your facts right because otherwise you just end up with egg on your face. 

Just so you know - the silencer was NOT disposed of in 1996!!

When was the last blood test done ? Years ago I believe. Was that the one where the blood matched about 13 out 16 indicators of Sheila ?