Thank you for the various responses.
Caroline may be right actually that Mugford's testimony was NOT hearsay.
But that doesn't change my point about the probative value of her evidence at trial and the relevance of her evidence now. I do stand by what I have said.
I actually doubt Mrs Smerchanski could be convicted of perverting the course of justice - there are too many hurdles - but even if she were, I simply don't see how that would undermine the conviction. I am looking at this objectively, I have no axe to grind.
Of course, we must also take into account that even appellate judges look at these cases with some element of bias and 'greyzone' thinking, and it may well be that if Mugford's evidence is undermined, then moral pressure will be brought to bear to quash Bamber's conviction. I appreciate that what happens in the courts isn't always strictly in accordance with evidence.
I thought you said you had a good understanding of the different types of evidence?
I try to focus on aspects that potentially are black and white so to speak! Aspects like JM's testimony, phone calls, windows I try to avoid.
4 x 13 year old teenage girls admitted lying "for a laugh" at Stefan Kiszko's trial. They faced no punishment.
Also that month, the four girls involved in the court trial admitted that the evidence they had given which had led to Kiszko's arrest and conviction was false, and that they had lied for "a laugh" and because "at the time it was funny". Burke said she wished she had not said anything but refused to apologise, saying she did not think it would go as far as it did. Buckley said it was not Kiszko who had exposed himself to her and that he had not been stalking them, but they had seen a taxi driver (not Ronald Castree) urinating behind a bush on the day of Molseed's murder. She also refused to apologise. Brown refused to make a statement. Hind was the most remorseful of the four, saying that what they did was "foolish but we were young" and that, had she appeared in court, she would have told the truth about Kiszko, unlike her friends, who all had committed perjury. She herself did not think Kiszko would be convicted.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_MolseedYou have previously said you want to see elite
male judges privately educated with double firsts from Oxbridge but maybe these sorts, or a high %, are low on emotional intelligence and struggle with testimony from young females? I find it worrying that David Waddington QC was unable to break the four young girls. The trial judge commented as follows:
"The judge praised the three girls who had made the exposure claims, Buckley in particular, for their "bravery and honesty" in giving evidence in court and their "sharp observations".
