Legal Reasoning Lesson 001: Relevancy

[Luminous Wanderer]

Some people here and on the Red Forum are disputing, or are surprised by, my strict attitude to the evidence.  I believe relevancy is important in all areas of the law, but especially in criminal appeals.  I am not a lawyer, but what I have surmised from experience is that an understanding of relevancy in any given context is a key skill for a good lawyer.

In evaluating the legal safety of Bamber's conviction, we must focus on the essentials that support the conviction and not allow ourselves to be distracted by sidelights or seduced by tantalising irrelevancies.

Here's one possible test or heuristic for legal relevancy:

-If we remove this evidence, does the conviction still stand?-

You'll see over on The Jigsaw Puzzle thread http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9344.0.html that I have summarised four facts or points of evidence (so far) that I consider irrelevant at this stage of Jeremy Bamber's legal saga.

Let's apply my legal relevancy test to each in turn, then you can tell me what you think:

1. There is no direct forensic evidence linking Jeremy Bamber to the crime scene.

I could skip this one, but I'll mention that even if everybody accepts this as true, it has no impact on Bamber's legal position one way or the other.  In the first place, the Crown do not depend on linking Jeremy forensically to the scene for their case.  In the second place, the Crown are not asserting that the absence of such evidence tacitly indicates Bamber's involvement or a conspiracy involving Bamber (even though they could have done).  It axiomatically follows that the defence would not and cannot assert that the absence of such evidence absolves Bamber.  Ergo, this point is irrelevant.

2. Allegations of Jeremy Bamber's insensitive, etc. behaviour before and after the killings.

Let us imagine that everybody involved in this case, from the cleaners at the Old Bailey up to the Lord Chief Justice himself, accept that Jeremy Bamber is a rake and a cad who didn't care less about the shooting of his parents and put on an act at the funeral, with the help of Wonderful Julie.  Here's my question: So what?  It proves absolutely nothing.  It neither affirms the conviction nor undermines it, and removing this evidence does not disturb the conviction one iota.  That's because it doesn't go to the question of whether Bamber carried out the killings.  It's irrelevant.

3. Julie Mugford says that Jeremy Bamber told her that Matthew McDonald told him that he had done the killings.

The problem with Miss Mugford's evidence is very simple: if we remove her evidence, Bamber's conviction still stands.  That's because her evidence does not prove anything beyond that Jeremy Bamber has a screw loose.  There is no evidence of a confession in her statements because Matthew McDonald could not have carried out the killings.  Her contribution to the case is barely one notch above first-hand gossip and the critical part of her evidence is hearsay and irrelevant to the core question.  Even if we endorse her evidence, this neither assists nor hinders Bamber's position in strict terms.

4. Jeremy Bamber could have entered the farmhouse using a downstairs window.

Interestingly, the windows evidence, unlike 1, 2 and 3 above, actually PASSES the legal relevancy test: remove this evidence, and you do have reasonable doubt, but the problem is that we can't remove the evidence.  Bamber accepts this evidence by his own admission.  There is no supposing about it: Jeremy Bamber frankly admitted in his police statements that he could enter the farmhouse using a window.  The court therefore accepts this as fact.  It follows that Bamber must have been able to leave the farmhouse by that route, and since nobody on the police side was asserting that all the windows were locked, we must assume that Bamber was capable of 'securing' the window from the outside by the expedient of simply shutting it in a way that would keep it shut - banging it if necessary.  By accepting this supposition, it doesn't follow that Bamber's conviction is affirmed.  The Crown are merely asserting, in support of their case theory, that this is what Bamber could have done.  Hence it's just another red herring.

[Steve_uk]

Some people here and on the Red Forum are disputing, or are surprised by, my strict attitude to the evidence.  I believe relevancy is important in all areas of the law, but especially in criminal appeals.  I am not a lawyer, but what I have surmised from experience is that an understanding of relevancy in any given context is a key skill for a good lawyer.

In evaluating the legal safety of Bamber's conviction, we must focus on the essentials that support the conviction and not allow ourselves to be distracted by sidelights or seduced by tantalising irrelevancies.

Here's one possible test or heuristic for legal relevancy:

-If we remove this evidence, does the conviction still stand?-

You'll see over on The Jigsaw Puzzle thread http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9344.0.html that I have summarised four facts or points of evidence (so far) that I consider irrelevant at this stage of Jeremy Bamber's legal saga.

Let's apply my legal relevancy test to each in turn, then you can tell me what you think:

1. There is no direct forensic evidence linking Jeremy Bamber to the crime scene.

I could skip this one, but I'll mention that even if everybody accepts this as true, it has no impact on Bamber's legal position one way or the other.  In the first place, the Crown do not depend on linking Jeremy forensically to the scene for their case.  In the second place, the Crown are not asserting that the absence of such evidence tacitly indicates Bamber's involvement or a conspiracy involving Bamber (even though they could have done).  It axiomatically follows that the defence would not and cannot assert that the absence of such evidence absolves Bamber.  Ergo, this point is irrelevant.

2. Allegations of Jeremy Bamber's insensitive, etc. behaviour before and after the killings.

Let us imagine that everybody involved in this case, from the cleaners at the Old Bailey up to the Lord Chief Justice himself, accept that Jeremy Bamber is a rake and a cad who didn't care less about the shooting of his parents and put on an act at the funeral, with the help of Wonderful Julie.  Here's my question: So what?  It proves absolutely nothing.  It neither affirms the conviction nor undermines it, and removing this evidence does not disturb the conviction one iota.  That's because it doesn't go to the question of whether Bamber carried out the killings.  It's irrelevant.

3. Julie Mugford says that Jeremy Bamber told her that Matthew McDonald told him that he had done the killings.

The problem with Miss Mugford's evidence is very simple: if we remove her evidence, Bamber's conviction still stands.  That's because her evidence does not prove anything beyond that Jeremy Bamber has a screw loose.  There is no evidence of a confession in her statements because Matthew McDonald could not have carried out the killings.  Her contribution to the case is barely one notch above first-hand gossip and the critical part of her evidence is hearsay and irrelevant to the core question.  Even if we endorse her evidence, this neither assists nor hinders Bamber's position in strict terms.

4. Jeremy Bamber could have entered the farmhouse using a downstairs window.

Interestingly, the windows evidence, unlike 1, 2 and 3 above, actually PASSES the legal relevancy test: remove this evidence, and you do have reasonable doubt, but the problem is that we can't remove the evidence.  Bamber accepts this evidence by his own admission.  There is no supposing about it: Jeremy Bamber frankly admitted in his police statements that he could enter the farmhouse using a window.  The court therefore accepts this as fact.  It follows that Bamber must have been able to leave the farmhouse by that route, and since nobody on the police side was asserting that all the windows were locked, we must assume that Bamber was capable of 'securing' the window from the outside by the expedient of simply shutting it in a way that would keep it shut - banging it if necessary.  By accepting this supposition, it doesn't follow that Bamber's conviction is affirmed.  The Crown are merely asserting, in support of their case theory, that this is what Bamber could have done.  Hence it's just another red herring.

I think you would have been better to put this on the end of the Jigsaw Puzzle thread rather than create a new one. Like many others you have to dismiss the silencer evidence for Bamber to remain innocent and it therefore under your reasoning does not fall under the forensic evidence category, whilst those of us who do accept it are fully entitled to regard it as such.

Strange that you should now advocate the use of a heuristic approach to the White House Farm murders whilst castigating me severely yesterday for so doing.

[Luminous Wanderer]

I think you would have been better to put this on the end of the Jigsaw Puzzle thread rather than create a new one. Like many others you have to dismiss the silencer evidence for Bamber to remain innocent and it therefore under your reasoning does not fall under the forensic evidence category, whilst those of us who do accept it are fully entitled to regard it as such.

Not true, or not quite true.  As I explained on The Jigsaw Puzzle thread, it is only necessary for Bamber to demonstrate reasonable doubt in regard to one of the five incriminating evidence points.  For instance, if Bamber could show that there is at least a real possibility that Nevill did call him, then the Crown's case collapses, even with the silencer evidence intact.  That's because if Nevill called Jeremy, then the silencer evidence is redundant on the equation of facts - i.e. if Nevill called Jeremy, that means Jeremy wasn't at the scene of the killings, which means that, on the grounds of simple redundancy, silencer is no longer relevant to the Crown's case against Jeremy.  In that hypothetical, all the other evidence is, also, redundant or voided at that point.  Therefore, if there is a realistic possibility that Nevill called Jeremy, the appellate judges would be forced to conclude that a hypothetical reasonable jury could have come to a different verdict, and they would then have no option but to quash Jeremy's conviction, and in all the circumstances, he would be released rather than remanded for re-trial.  It would be over.  (In fact, under that evidence, it's possible Jeremy could ask the court for a declaration of innocence, depending on the strength of the evidence that Nevill had made a call - but that's another matter).

Anyway, agree or disagree, but this is not the subject-matter of the thread.  I'd like to stay on-topic, please.  The issue I wish to discuss here is how do we reason out what is relevant and what isn't.  To me, it's perfectly clear that the four points I have mentioned in my opening post, while important, are not relevant.  I welcome constructive criticism of my reasoning and thought processes.  I also welcome correction if I have any facts wrong.

[lookout]

So do I !

[Steve_uk]

Not true, or not quite true.  As I explained on The Jigsaw Puzzle thread, it is only necessary for Bamber to demonstrate reasonable doubt in regard to one of the five incriminating evidence points.  For instance, if Bamber could show that there is at least a real possibility that Nevill did call him, then the Crown's case collapses, even with the silencer evidence intact.  That's because if Nevill called Jeremy, then the silencer evidence is redundant, and therefore if there is a realistic possibility that Nevill called Jeremy, the appellate judges would be forced to conclude that a hypothetical reasonable jury could have come to a different verdict, and they would then have no option but to quash Jeremy's conviction, and in all the circumstances, he would be released rather than remanded for re-trial.  It would be over.  (In fact, under that evidence, it's possible Jeremy could ask the court for a declaration of innocence, but that's another matter).

Anyway, agree or disagree, but this is not the subject-matter of the thread.  I'd like to stay on-topic, please.  The issue I wish to discuss here is how do we reason out what is relevant and what isn't.  To me, it's perfectly clear that the four points I have mentioned in my opening post, while important, are not relevant.  I welcome constructive criticism of my reasoning and thought processes.  I also welcome correction if I have any facts wrong here.

You do have a circuitous, bumbling way of stating the obvious, wrapped up in a mantle of mock efficiency. Of course if the telephone call from Nevill could be proved Jeremy would be out tomorrow, but the sad fact is you are no nearer now than you were in 1986 of achieving that aim.

[Luminous Wanderer]

You do have a circuitous, bumbling way of stating the obvious, wrapped up in a mantle of mock efficiency.

I'm not stating the obvious.  A lot of people on here - including you - don't have any grasp of the relevancy of different pieces of evidence.

Of course if the telephone call from Nevill could be proved Jeremy would be out tomorrow, but the sad fact is you are no nearer now than you were in 1986 of achieving that aim.

I'm sorry but you seem to have misunderstood.  I was using the example of a phone call from Nevill to explain my point.  I realise that such evidence would have an obvious impact on my case, but it wasn't my purpose to state the obvious. 

You do seem keen to misrepresent and misconstrue my posts - which I believe in your case is down to a lack of intelligence.

I am happy for these personal attacks to remain posted on the board, but if it continues, I will make an issue of your privilege to post here.  It's clear you have no interest in discussing this case from a point-of-view of neutrality and objectivity and, in my view, you are not very intelligent and your presence here is not constructive.

Some of us want to reason things out, ask questions and not make assumptions.

Thank you very much.

[maggie]

I have removed posts from this thread. it is never acceptable to attack another poster personally.  It's not acceptable to call posters names because you happen to regard them as 'stupid' etc because they have a different point of view.
Take this as a warning that such continual abuse will result in a ban.  Thank you.

[Luminous Wanderer]

I have removed posts from this thread. it is never acceptable to attack another poster personally.  It's not acceptable to call posters names because you happen to regard them as 'stupid' etc because they have a different point of view.

This is not true.  I called Steve 'stupid' because of what he wrote and because he was deliberately posting off-topic and misrepresenting the purpose of my posts.   

Tell me this - if I'm such a malign influence here, then why is it that until a few days ago you lot were discussing how to get back at Julie Mugford, even though her evidence is irrelevant and won't assist Bamber in an appeal?  Steve's posts suggest he still doesn't understand this, which in turn suggests that he isn't very bright.  Take that, together with the fact that he is deliberately disrupting my threads, and I will respond accordingly.

Most of you here have been discussing this case for years, whereas I've only been looking at it on and off for a few weeks, yet I have better understanding of it than you do.  What does that tell you?

I've PM'd you and the Admin of this board and requested that you delete my posts and delete my account.  Please comply.  Thank you.

[David1819]

I've PM'd you and the Admin of this board and requested that you delete my posts and delete my account.  Please comply.  Thank you.

If you are leaving what did you hope to achieve here?

[Luminous Wanderer]

If you are leaving what did you hope to achieve here?

To have an honest discussion about the evidence and the legal safety of Bamber's conviction, without any agendas beyond establishing whether his conviction is safe.

I believe that is the ONLY rational way to proceed. 

If you are a family member and related to the victims, or a friend of Bamber's or a member of his campaign team, then taking sides is excusable.

But taking sides just for kicks is, in my view, deeply dishonest, and more importantly, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of this particular case - which is quite ironic, given how long some of you have been posting about Bamber on these forums.

I know the sort of responses I am going to now receive, but again, I refer you back to some of the posts on here which reveal that some, maybe most, posters do not understand this case and the evidence, and in some cases lie about it.

What I would say is that pro-Bamber posters are easier to have discussions with and tend to be more open-minded.

I believe that the anti-Bamber camp are a negative influence on this forum.  They lie about the evidence, they are negative in their mindset and have an entrenched position that is inimical to helpful discussion.  As Steve's example shows, they also dislike anybody asking questions.  Again, as in Steve's case, they pretend that they know everything about this case and are quickly exposed as frauds in this respect.  You will also have noticed from Adam and Steve's posts that they goad and needle posters, but then whine and play the victim when you respond to them in kind.

Steve's argument with me is especially ironic, given that I am completely neutral and some of my posts actually could be seen as anti-Bamber.  The problem basically is that Steve has misread or not read my posts, hence my unflattering estimation of his intelligence.  I genuinely do not believe he has any interest in understanding anything from an objective standpoint - but then, he is hardly unique.  Some pro-Bamber supporters aren't much better.

Now, please delete my account and my posts.  I have now requested this several times.

Thank you.

[David1819]

To have an honest discussion about the evidence and the legal safety of Bamber's conviction, without any agendas beyond establishing whether his conviction is safe.

I believe that is the ONLY rational way to proceed. 

If you are a family member and related to the victims, or a friend of Bamber's or a member of his campaign team, then taking sides is excusable.

But taking sides just for kicks is, in my view, deeply dishonest, and more importantly, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of this particular case - which is quite ironic, given how long some of you have been posting about Bamber on these forums.

I know the sort of responses I am going to now receive, but again, I refer you back to some of the posts on here which reveal that some posters do not understand this case and the evidence, and in some cases lie about it.

What I would say is that pro-Bamber posters are easier to have discussions with and tend to be more open-minded.

I believe that the anti-Bamber camp are a negative influence on this forum.  They lie about the evidence, they are negative in their mindset and have an entrenched position that is inimical to helpful discussion.  As Steve's example shows, they also dislike anybody asking questions.  Again, as in Steve's case, they pretend that they know everything about this case and are quickly exposed as frauds in this respect. 

Now, please delete my account and my posts.  I have now requested this several times.

Thank you.

Of all subjects I enjoy to debate in life this case/subject for some reason is the most polarizing.

[David1819]

To have an honest discussion about the evidence and the legal safety of Bamber's conviction, without any agendas beyond establishing whether his conviction is safe.

So what is your conclusion?

[Luminous Wanderer]

Of all subjects I enjoy to debate in life this case/subject for some reason is the most polarizing.

I was born in the late 70s and grew up with the Bamber case in the background.  It was a big thing.  I had always just assumed, as I imagine most ordinary people do, that he is innocent and it was a frame-up.

Maybe two or three weeks ago, I started looking into the case a bit more.  It quickly became apparent to me that my assumptions had been WRONG, and to be honest, my initial conclusion was that he is guilty, and I was genuinely appalled by his conduct.

However, I then read a bit more, and came to a more balanced conclusion that, due to the special features of the case, it is not possible to state whether he is guilty or innocent, but maybe the conviction is unsafe.

That's pretty much where I still am now.  Anybody who has reached some level of understanding about this case quickly realises that pronouncements of guilt or innocence are, at best, redundant, and at worst, actually inimical to rational discussion.  The real issue here is legal safety. 

Arguing about his guilt or innocence, or arguing about the evidence from either tribal standpoint, is akin to two blokes arguing over which football team is best: Manchester United or Manchester City.  Obviously there can be no rational solution to such a discussion.

[Luminous Wanderer]

So what is your conclusion?

See above.  I have not yet reached a conclusion.  If you look at my posts so far, I have not yet gone beyond delineating the questions and sorting out what is relevant and what isn't.  I haven't even started a serious examination of the evidence yet.  In my view, before doing so, we need to understand in outline the case and the questions to be asked.

I also suspect we will not be able to come to a conclusion as we do not have full disclosure of evidence.

And any conclusion, even with all the evidence to hand, would only be tentative anyway. 

The best we could say is: There are indications that this conviction could be legally-unsafe, but these require further and deeper investigation in preparation for an appeal.

[David1819]

That's pretty much where I still am now.  Anybody who has reached some level of understanding about this case quickly realises that pronouncements of guilt or innocence are, at best, redundant, and at worst, actually inimical to rational discussion.  The real issue here is legal safety. 

The real issue for me is uncovering what happened that fateful night. (Natural law)

Conceptual jurisprudence is Jeremys problem, not mine. To put it bluntly