Gunfire-Graffiti UK

[Nicholas]

What grounds could the defence use to prevent Marsden being called up by the prosecution?

Could Marsden’s evidence have been unworthy of belief at the time?

Or maybe the prosecution made a mistake by choosing to not call him?



“Charles Marsden gave a statement that was of particular interest to detectives. He asserted that Jeremy had never ‘made mention either in a jocular fashion or otherwise of doing harm to his family’, except obliquely on one occasion in December 1984. The two of them were in a Maldon wine bar when Jeremy commented that the whole family was getting together and that ‘if the house were to burn down at Christmas everything would be his.’ Charles thought it ‘a strange thing to say’ but dismissed it as typical Jeremy, trying to shock.”


“At quarter to five, the interview was paused for two hours. Returning, Jones asked:
‘Did you decide not to burn the house down because of the valuables in it? Because Julie says you did.’
‘You are implying that I planned to burn the house, which is lies,’ Jeremy responded.
‘She has said it and Charles Marsden also says you said it to him. Are they both lying?’
‘Yes.’
‘What for?’
‘Matter of opinion.’
‘You could say she is lying perhaps because of a broken down romance, but what reason would he have for saying such things about you?’
‘Who knows.’
After another series of rapid, seemingly random questions, Jones asked, ‘Do you still love Julie?’
‘No comment.’
‘Didn’t you give DC Barlow a piece of paper with a message on it to be delivered to her since you have been in custody?’
‘That was personal and you had no right to read it.’
‘What did it say in the letter or note?”

(Excerpts from The Murders at White House Farm by Carol Ann Lee)

[colsville]

There's no mention of Charles Marsden in the CoA notes from the 2002 appeal, even though there is a section headlined: "Other evidence of the appellant's dislike of his family".

In that section, it looks like various witness statements were examined to obtain the entries in that section.

I am assuming that Charles Marsden provided a witness statement too, but he is not mentioned in the above report.

Maybe he wasn't considered reliable? 

Not that any of this matters, the 'big' evidence provides all the evidence needed.  All these tiny pieces of the jigsaw are neither here nor there.

[Nicholas]

There's no mention of Charles Marsden in the CoA notes from the 2002 appeal, even though there is a section headlined: "Other evidence of the appellant's dislike of his family".

In that section, it looks like various witness statements were examined to obtain the entries in that section.

I am assuming that Charles Marsden provided a witness statement too, but he is not mentioned in the above report.

Maybe he wasn't considered reliable? 

Not that any of this matters, the 'big' evidence provides all the evidence needed.  All these tiny pieces of the jigsaw are neither here nor there.

I don’t agree

The ‘jigsaw’ isn’t complete without ALL the evidence

[Nicholas]

There's no mention of Charles Marsden in the CoA notes from the 2002 appeal, even though there is a section headlined: "Other evidence of the appellant's dislike of his family".

In that section, it looks like various witness statements were examined to obtain the entries in that section.

I am assuming that Charles Marsden provided a witness statement too, but he is not mentioned in the above report.

Marsden was spoken to by detectives several times. It’s not known how many witness statements he may have made - we are only aware of one

He may have only made one?

[Truth SKR1]

Marsden's testimony about Bamber talking about killing his family would've been absolute gold dust to the prosecution. It defies logic that they wouldn't use him if he was willing. Especially in light of Bamber telling the judge halfway through the trial that Julie and Robert Boutflour were lying through their teeth. There would be no possible motivation for Marsden to make that up, and it would've significantly enhanced the prosecution case that the idea had all been months and months in the planning.

[Nicholas]

Marsden's testimony about Bamber talking about killing his family would've been absolute gold dust to the prosecution. It defies logic that they wouldn't use him if he was willing. Especially in light of Bamber telling the judge halfway through the trial that Julie and Robert Boutflour were lying through their teeth. There would be no possible motivation for Marsden to make that up, and it would've significantly enhanced the prosecution case that the idea had all been months and months in the planning.

So why wasn’t Charles Marsden called to give evidence ?

[Geordie]

The problem for the prosecution is that you cannot cross-examine your own witness. If Mardson had turned hostile to the prosecution while in the witness box it would have been difficult for them and the defence could then cross-examine him. It would have been better for the prosecution if the defence had called him.

[adam]

The problem for the prosecution is that you cannot cross-examine your own witness. If Mardson had turned hostile to the prosecution while in the witness box it would have been difficult for them and the defence could then cross-examine him. It would have been better for the prosecution if the defence had called him.

Why would he turn hostile to the prosecution.

[Geordie]

Why would he turn hostile to the prosecution.

Just theorising why they might not have called him. Hostile is perhaps a bit strong but if he wandered from his story he could not be cross-examined by the prosecution. It does happen at times and with being a murder trial they might have not thought it was worth the risk. Once he was in the witness box Marsden could have been swayed by his previous closeness to Bamber.

[adam]

Doubt that Marsden would have turned hostile in the witness box & committed perjury.

He just had to testify about the one conversation he had with Bamber. The defence could accuse him of lying, but why would he?

In a murder trial there has to be a line drawn over testimonies about who said what to who and when. Exceptions being Barbara Wilson,  Julie and Mary Mugford who had more to say. The defence also called a couple of character witnesses for Jeremy.

[Holly Goodhead]

Doubt that Marsden would have turned hostile in the witness box & committed perjury.

He just had to testify about the one conversation he had with Bamber. The defence could accuse him of lying, but why would he?

In a murder trial there has to be a line drawn over testimonies about who said what to who and when. Exceptions being Barbara Wilson,  Julie and Mary Mugford who had more to say. The defence also called a couple of character witnesses for Jeremy.

Perhaps testimony to Japan Olympics chief who said women talk too much! 

Yoshiro Mori, an 83-year-old former prime minister with a record of insensitive and sexist pronouncements, had tried to justify the lack of women at a senior level in the Japanese Olympic Committee by saying women talk too much at meetings and make them run on too long.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/japan-olympics-mori-women-resign/2021/02/11/ce8458f4-6c1f-11eb-a66e-e27046e9e898_story.html