Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: David1819 on February 10, 2018, 11:42:AM
-
Rivlin's strategy IMO made it impossible for Jeremy to have a fair trial. By arguing the Sheila used the silencer before putting it away resulted in the judge instructing the jury to find Jeremy guilty.
Could Jeremy appeal against conviction on the ground that he suffered a miscarriage of justice as a result of defective representation? Jeremy did once write a letter of complaint to Sir David Napley.
Here are some legal extracts I found on the subject.
"In Winter v HMA 2002 SCCR 720, the Lord Justice Clerk, relying on E, reiterated that in order to succeed in an appeal based upon alleged defective representation, the appellant must show, not only that the instructed defence was not put forward, but also that the failure to do so meant that he was denied a fair trial."
"The United Kingdom ineffective assistance standard originated from case law. Initially, courts in the United Kingdom were concerned with the "extent of counsel's alleged ineptitude." Presently, the courts in the United Kingdom are primarily concerned with whether a miscarriage of justice" resulted from the counsel's conduct.'' More specifically, the courts are concerned with whether counsel's conduct was so prejudicial to the accused that it establishes that the accused did not have a fair trial."
"Hemphill v. H.M. Advocate. In Hemphill, the defendant argued that his solicitor failed to investigate the timing of the victim's death, consult or consider pathologist reports about the victim's time of death, and failed to question expert or forensic witnesses. Rather than relying on information from experts, the solicitor cross-examined the Crown's pathologist based on the solicitor's own hypotheses. The High Court of Justiciary held that there had been a miscarriage of justice since counsel failed to investigate important forensic and pathological evidence. The Court found that if counsel had taken the appropriate steps, the defendant's defense would have been "significantly reinforced""
-
he could such appeals very rarely work lawyers don't like being shown up incompetent.
-
Rivlin's strategy IMO made it impossible for Jeremy to have a fair trial. By arguing the Sheila used the silencer before putting it away resulted in the judge instructing the jury to find Jeremy guilty.
Could Jeremy appeal against conviction on the ground that he suffered a miscarriage of justice as a result of defective representation? Jeremy did once write a letter of complaint to Sir David Napley.
Here are some legal extracts I found on the subject.
"In Winter v HMA 2002 SCCR 720, the Lord Justice Clerk, relying on E, reiterated that in order to succeed in an appeal based upon alleged defective representation, the appellant must show, not only that the instructed defence was not put forward, but also that the failure to do so meant that he was denied a fair trial."
"The United Kingdom ineffective assistance standard originated from case law. Initially, courts in the United Kingdom were concerned with the "extent of counsel's alleged ineptitude." Presently, the courts in the United Kingdom are primarily concerned with whether a miscarriage of justice" resulted from the counsel's conduct.'' More specifically, the courts are concerned with whether counsel's conduct was so prejudicial to the accused that it establishes that the accused did not have a fair trial."
"Hemphill v. H.M. Advocate. In Hemphill, the defendant argued that his solicitor failed to investigate the timing of the victim's death, consult or consider pathologist reports about the victim's time of death, and failed to question expert or forensic witnesses. Rather than relying on information from experts, the solicitor cross-examined the Crown's pathologist based on the solicitor's own hypotheses. The High Court of Justiciary held that there had been a miscarriage of justice since counsel failed to investigate important forensic and pathological evidence. The Court found that if counsel had taken the appropriate steps, the defendant's defense would have been "significantly reinforced""
But Sheila's blood was located in the silencer, which was impossible for him to explain away..
-
Was Rivlin like a fish out of water in his role as defence ?
-
But Sheila's blood was located in the silencer, which was impossible for him to explain away..
Perhaps, in his heart of hearts, Rivlin thought Jeremy was guilty. Such a belief would surely colour his performance in the courtroom?
-
Was Rivlin like a fish out of water in his role as defence ?
He was a highly respected lawyer, not wet behind the ears. Most people on here spout on about what should or shouldn't have been mentioned, without having any real knowledge of the law (I've done it myself before anyone pipes up). There are rules to what can be brought up and the manner in which it is approached. Half the stuff dragged up here would have been objected to and would very likely have made the case against Bamber lot worse!
-
Was Rivlin like a fish out of water in his role as defence ?
I don't think he had done a defence before he was a proscuter.
-
I don't think he had done a defence before he was a proscuter.
I thought one either trained to prosecute or defend. I hadn't realized that it was interchangeable.
-
I don't think he had done a defence before he was a proscuter.
This is what I meant nugs. Once a prosecutor always a prosecutor.
-
It's no wonder he befriended JB after the trial as he'd probably realised the error of his ways.? Why would you be friendly with someone who'd lost you the case ?
-
I thought one either trained to prosecute or defend. I hadn't realized that it was interchangeable.
It is the same qualification. Many barristers both prosecute and defend.
-
But Sheila's blood was located in the silencer, which was impossible for him to explain away..
According to Hayward. (Who's testimony was the Linchpin) It could either be Sheila's or RWB.
Sheila's blood and planted or RWBs blood and planted were both viable avenues. RWB had his own blood on him(obviously) They also had possetion of Sheila's bloodstained clothing also.
-
This is what I meant nugs. Once a prosecutor always a prosecutor.
id of thought if you were just starting in defence you begin with something small to start off with.
-
It is the same qualification. Many barristers both prosecute and defend.
yes but most have a preference there normaly better at doing one than the other.
-
yes but most have a preference there normaly better at doing one than the other.
I'm inclined to agree with that as I feel there may be a natural leaning to one or the other.
-
yes but most have a preference there normaly better at doing one than the other.
This is why the case was lost. No way can such a transition take place. It was a hopeless mess. Totally unfair from beginning to end.
-
as a proscuter most of the works done for you ver different with the defence.
the police find the witnesses for you and all the statements you have more less unlimted money and as most people plead guilty anyway most of the time you only have to turn up.
-
He was a highly respected lawyer, not wet behind the ears. Most people on here spout on about what should or shouldn't have been mentioned, without having any real knowledge of the law (I've done it myself before anyone pipes up).
And your doing it again...
There are rules to what can be brought up and the manner in which it is approached. Half the stuff dragged up here would have been objected to and would very likely have made the case against Bamber lot worse!
::)
-
as a proscuter most of the works done for you ver different with the defence.
the police find the witnesses for you and all the statements you have more less unlimted money and as most people plead guilty anyway most of the time you only have to turn up.
I agree nugs,it is much harder for the defence.
-
I wonder why Rivlin represented JB ? Or who'd made the suggestion that he does ? He just let the prosecution ride roughshod over him,as happens when there's a poor defence anyway.
-
I agree nugs,it is much harder for the defence.
Unless the defendant is very wealthy. OJ Simpson, Robert Durst to name a few.
-
Unless the defendant is very wealthy. OJ Simpson, Robert Durst to name a few.
even then they haven't got more funds than the prosecution there just evenly matched.
-
yes but most have a preference there normaly better at doing one than the other.
That is often true.
-
According to Hayward. (Who's testimony was the Linchpin) It could either be Sheila's or RWB.
Sheila's blood and planted or RWBs blood and planted were both viable avenues. RWB had his own blood on him(obviously) They also had possetion of Sheila's bloodstained clothing also.
Patrick J Lincoln testified that the blood found in the silencer was specific to Sheila Caffell.
-
I wonder why Rivlin represented JB ? Or who'd made the suggestion that he does ? He just let the prosecution ride roughshod over him,as happens when there's a poor defence anyway.
He was second choice to George Carmen. It was said his soft-spoken flat Northern vowels hid a steely resolve, but I doubt a South-East England jury would have seen it that way.
-
He was second choice to George Carmen. It was said his soft-spoken flat Northern vowels hid a steely resolve, but I doubt a South-East England jury would have seen it that way.
George Carman would not have taken the case on legal aid.
-
George Carman would not have taken the case on legal aid.
The excuse in Blood Relations was that he was too busy.
-
He was second choice to George Carmen. It was said his soft-spoken flat Northern vowels hid a steely resolve, but I doubt a South-East England jury would have seen it that way.
I wouldn't have been too sure about Carman either,somehow.
-
The excuse in Blood Relations was that he was too busy.
He always refused to accept a legal aid brief, and whenever asked his clerk would say he was "not available".
-
I think George Carmen would have made a better job but saw which way the wind was blowing. I was actually referring to Rivlin, though never heard Carmen speak even though he was born in Blackpool.
-
i think rivlen was out of his depth considring it was hes first experience of defence work and he choose a murder case.
he should of started off with somthing miner.
or let somone else be his leader.
-
i think rivlen was out of his depth considring it was hes first experience of defence work and he choose a murder case.
he should of started off with somthing miner.
or let somone else beb his leader.
Chapter 23 of Blood Relations recounts the pre-trial machinations of the Defence. It seems everybody was passing the case onto somebody else, from Bruce Bowler to David Napley to Paul Terezon, who eventually hired Rivlin. But it wasn't Rivlin's first experience of a murder trial.