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.
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.