I can see the point but is it possible a "non practising barrister" isn't practising because he isn't very good?
Rivlin and Lawson were both top QCs and understood that trials are not just about facts and evidence but some theatre too.
As unlikely as it sounds, Sheila finding the silencer, shooting everyone except herself and then putting it back in the cupboard was the only real option for Bamber save for some weak suggestion of accidental contamination.
Otherwise, he is confidently ignoring the expert scientific evidence and alleging serious charges of perverting justice against the Boutflours/police based on a conspiracy theory. He was already claiming a number of others had lied about him, some with motive and some without.
The issues you raised above were explored to the extent they could be; I am a little confused about DBs attempts to unscrew the moderator but AFAIK, that's all that was admitted to, an attempt. Likewise, if they did attempt to scrape blood with a razor blade, this would be the exact opposite of a frame as they would be destroying evidence.
As for accidental contamination, this was also explored to the bounds of any credible defence.RB denied handling the mod and denied having any cuts. The idea that a bucket containing watered down menstrual blood could have been the source of a dried flake found trapped between the baffle plates is laughable - what would the expert witnesses answer have been?
As the 2002 appeal judgement makes clear, JB was also keen to avoid any mention of his intention to sell the farms, including the land that NB had secretly purchased and so could not supply a motive for this dastardly and unlikely plot
Did the relatives know SCs blood group? Did they know RB was a group match?
Did they know there were no photos of the underside of the mantel?
The short answer ( brevity isn't my strong suit !) is simply that Arlidge would have ridiculed any serious attempt to raise a conspiracy and left the jury with the impression that Bamber was simply desperate.
I agree wholeheartedly, CS.
As you obviously know, all barristers are effectively self-employed and if they’re “non-practising”; losing thousands & thousands of pounds; and resorting to posting on a forum — one filled with strangers obsessed over a convicted mass murderer — just to pass the time, one can safely assume they’re never called upon to represent anyone. Which speaks volumes...
As for Jeremy Bamber, he had two excellent QC’s so if they weren’t able to convince the jury that JB wasn’t guilty, it doesn’t bode well almost four decades later trying to leave for appeal yet again, with no new evidence, and that’s after having also lost two previous Appeals, including an appeal at the Court of Human Rights, and having a further Leave to Appeal rejected.
JB and his campaign team have never come up with any solid evidence that he could be innocent. Ever. They rehash the tired old conspiracy theories, but as you say, it simply makes them look desperate. You’ve covered the argument pertaining to the silencer, and it is indeed ludicrous for JB and his team to suggest that maybe RB planted the blood inside. Not even a forensic scientist could have planted Sheila’s blood in that silencer. They’d have need some kind of apparatus to cause blood to spray in exactly the same way Sheila’s did when her back spatter flew deep inside the silencer and then dried into a flake at the bottom. How could RB have razored off a dried flake of blood from somewhere, and then sprayed it into the silencer to produce back spatter and a new dried flake to stick on the eighth baffle plate?
They often suggest RB used Sheila’s watered down menstrual blood where she had some underwear soaking in a bucket. But menstrual blood is totally different to normal blood, and forensics would have spotted it immediately. For one thing it doesn’t clot; it also contains tissue and other fluid from the lining of the uterus; and has other particles that only menstrual blood has. It’s such nonsense that no barrister would dare suggest such a ridiculous suggestion.
Besides the forensic angle which is irrefutable, there’s be no logical reason why Sheila would have put the silencer away. None. Even if the silencer had been found by her side, all the other damning evidence would have still pointed to one person being the murderer — Jeremy Bamber.
