Anthony Arlidge QC -v- Geoffrey Rivlin QC

[Holly Goodhead]

I can't think of any other profession other than advocacy at trial where it is pretty much impossible to measure competence/success rates  8-)(--)  I am not saying Goeffrey Rivlin was necessarily overall incompetent  but I do wonder if his background made the WHF case more difficult for him personally  8-)(--)

I think most would agree that WHF is based on complex relationships and human emotions.  Whether that be JB greedy and full of hate towards his adoptive family.  Or SC mentally ill perhaps largely as a result of her difficult start in life ie June's depression as a result of adopting SC.  And further tipped over the edge by her reunion with her birth mother and her perception of losing control over welfare of the twins.

I wonder if Anthony Arlidge was simply more able to articulate the above to the jury than Geoffrey Rivlin was  8-)(--)

Anthony Arlidge

Born 1937 in Bromley, Kent.  Married 1964 London City.  Has 4 children and 9 grandchildren.  I think AA remains married to his first wife but for many years lived with judge Constance Briscoe who is currently embroiled in the Huhne/Pryce speeding point fiasco.  AA now lives with a female barrister 50 years his junior.

Gained a double first in law from Cambridge.  Wow!    

His case history - notable cases:

http://www.18rlc.co.uk/barristers/anthony-arlidge-qc

Geoffrey Rivlin

Born 1940 Leeds, Yorkshire.  No record of him marrying or having children. 

No record of his time as a QC ie case history/notable cases. 

He has for many years been a judge.

All the above information is in the public domain.

The reason for the above is to show the contrast between the pair:  AA a family man, GR appears not to have married/had children;  AA from the South, GR from the North; AA continuing in advocacy/qc; GR becoming a judge. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Interesting article here re Michael Turner QC who represented JB at the CoA hearing in 2002:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html

Michael Turner is asked if he believes JB is innocent and he states "Passionately".

[John]

From bitter experience Holly, as long as the dosh keeps rolling in these guys don't give a shit!  A lawyer is never a friend but a means to an end.  The lawyer will always enhance his bank account come what may.  I must say I have never met a bigger bunch of lying s..mbags in my entire life!  Lawyers, advocates, Q.C.'s, Sheriffs and Judges are all cut from the same cloth.

Justice I fear is a rather overrated entity.

[goatboy]

Interesting article here re Michael Turner QC who represented JB at the CoA hearing in 2002:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html

Michael Turner is asked if he believes JB is innocent and he states "Passionately".

He's also said he's got people acquitted of murder and then gone on to see them murder again. So perhaps not that great a judge of whether or not someone is guilty!

[Holly Goodhead]

From bitter experience Holly, as long as the dosh keeps rolling in these guys don't give a shit!  A lawyer is never a friend but a means to an end.  The lawyer will always enhance his bank account come what may.  I must say I have never met a bigger bunch of lying s..mbags in my entire life!  Lawyers, advocates, Q.C.'s, Sheriffs and Judges are all cut from the same cloth.

Justice I fear is a rather overrated entity.

Yes if the defendant loses and is paying him/herself its lose-lose but for those representing him/her its lose-win.  I guess its the only service paid for where the consumer ends up paying even if they don't get the result they are anticipating   8-)(--)  The solicitor/barrister might have an idea of the outcome but it seems to me judges are unpredictable  8-)(--)

Justice is really the preserve of the wealthy where the best can be bought up-front and funds are available to keep pursuing it through the system if they don't win first time around.

I was once involved in a contractual dispute with a franchisor which cost me dearly.  Eventually I won but still seemed to end up out of pocket  8-)(--)  What really p****d me off was the fact that I couldn't just say 'here it is get on with it'.  Without enormous input from myself I would have been on a hiding to nothing.

[Holly Goodhead]

He's also said he's got people acquitted of murder and then gone on to see them murder again. So perhaps not that great a judge of whether or not someone is guilty!

Well I guess its all part of the training/mind-set which to the layperson seems a bit odd.  My understanding of what Michael Turner was saying is that in the case of those who went on to murder again he had no strong views on whether or not they were actually innocent or guilty; he just happened to represent them and they were acquitted and went on to murder again.  In any event I don't believe its the defending barrister's job to form judgements and either up or down the anti accordingly. The defending barrister is supposed to put up a robust defence regardless and the prosecuting barrister put up a robust prosecution regardless and then the jury decide with the judge acting as a sort of referee  8-)(--)  I wonder how Anthony Arlidge will feel, personally, IF JB's conviction is quashed  >@@(*&)

Personally I find it difficult to see how odious individuals like Huntley are dealt with.  Likewise I guess for medical staff that have to treat the likes of Huntley after a failed attempt at suicide.  I guess its called a 'civil society' and forms part of professionals' code of practice. 

[Mr Moderator]

Well I guess its all part of the training/mind-set which to the layperson seems a bit odd.  My understanding of what Michael Turner was saying is that in the case of those who went on to murder again he had no strong views on whether or not they were actually innocent or guilty; he just happened to represent them and they were acquitted and went on to murder again.  In any event I don't believe its the defending barrister's job to form judgements and either up or down the anti accordingly. The defending barrister is supposed to put up a robust defence regardless and the prosecuting barrister put up a robust prosecution regardless and then the jury decide with the judge acting as a sort of referee  8-)(--)  I wonder how Anthony Arlidge will feel, personally, IF JB's conviction is quashed  >@@(*&)

Personally I find it difficult to see how odious individuals like Huntley are dealt with.  Likewise I guess for medical staff that have to treat the likes of Huntley after a failed attempt at suicide.  I guess its called a 'civil society' and forms part of professionals' code of practice.

Justice and the truth often have little in common.

[Holly Goodhead]

The following article is interesting:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html

Quote from Ed Lawson

Ed Lawson, QC, Mr Rivlin's junior at the trial, described how, on the eve of conviction, Bamber was "disconcertingly composed" and "talking somewhat unattractively about how much money he would make from selling his story to Fleet Street". Lawson will take no part; he died from a stroke earlier this year.

------------------

Quote from David Connett - journalist who attended much of the trial

In all honesty I would not have convicted Bamber on the evidence I heard. Admittedly, I didn't attend every day of the trial, but the evidence I heard left me far from certain that Bamber's guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt. And yet I believe Bamber was guilty. I remember thinking later that I now understood the benefit enjoyed by Scottish juries of being able to return a verdict of "not proven".

---------------

Interesting that although DC found the 'evidence' lacking he still believed JB guilty  >@@(*&)

Further quote from David Connett

Vitally, scientists also found traces of Sheila Caffell's blood inside it.

------------------------------------

DC is a well respected and established journalist and yet the above statement is WRONG.  It has never been proven that SC's blood was in the silencer only that her blood/type group matched the sample found in the silencer.  Which also matched Robert Boutflour's blood/type group and RB had a hand in finding the silencer.  It may well match mine or anyone who reads this post!  The jury were also misled by the judge into thinking that SC's blood was found in the silencer.

[Angelo222]

The following article is interesting:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html

Quote from Ed Lawson

Ed Lawson, QC, Mr Rivlin's junior at the trial, described how, on the eve of conviction, Bamber was "disconcertingly composed" and "talking somewhat unattractively about how much money he would make from selling his story to Fleet Street". Lawson will take no part; he died from a stroke earlier this year.

------------------

Quote from David Connett - journalist who attended much of the trial

In all honesty I would not have convicted Bamber on the evidence I heard. Admittedly, I didn't attend every day of the trial, but the evidence I heard left me far from certain that Bamber's guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt. And yet I believe Bamber was guilty. I remember thinking later that I now understood the benefit enjoyed by Scottish juries of being able to return a verdict of "not proven".

---------------

Interesting that although DC found the 'evidence' lacking he still believed JB guilty  >@@(*&)

Further quote from David Connett

Vitally, scientists also found traces of Sheila Caffell's blood inside it.

------------------------------------

DC is a well respected and established journalist and yet the above statement is WRONG.  It has never been proven that SC's blood was in the silencer only that her blood/type group matched the sample found in the silencer.  Which also matched Robert Boutflour's blood/type group and RB had a hand in finding the silencer.  It may well match mine or anyone who reads this post!  The jury were also misled by the judge into thinking that SC's blood was found in the silencer.

I don't think so Holly.  The blood was the same group as Sheila but the DNA found within the silencer baffles was also a 17 marker match.  A one in many million chance that it wasn't Sheilas.  The only alien substance found in the silencer was human blood and we know how it got there as a consequence of back spatter so it isn't hard to understand the link.  I'll take those odds any day.

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't think so Holly.  The blood was the same group as Sheila but the DNA found within the silencer baffles was also a 17 marker match.  A one in many million chance that it wasn't Sheilas.  The only alien substance found in the silencer was human blood and we know how it got there as a consequence of back spatter so it isn't hard to understand the link.  I'll take those odds any day.

Angelo222 it would be great if the LCN-DNA analysis provided conclusive evidence/proof but it does not. 

The three appeal court judges in conjunction with the scientists found the analysis/results were "completely meaningless".  (Source CoA doc 503/69).

The also concluded (Source CoA doc 497/ i ii and iii)

i)  June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;

ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and

iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male

The reason for the above is due to the very realistic possibility of contamination.  Please see my previous post sourced from CoA doc:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3233.msg123746#msg123746

CoA Doc:

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

I don't believe the said silencer ever left the gun cupboard on that fateful night.  Had Geoffrey Rivlin presented to the jury the potential for the silencer to have been accidentally or deliberately contaminated then imo the verdict would have been very different.  He didn't.  He concocted some bizarre story about SC using the silencer and returning it to the gun cupboard before committing suicide.  This was given some credence by the scientist confirming a remote possibility that the blood sample found in the silencer was an intimate mix of June's and NB's rather than SC's.  During deliberations the jury asked for confirmation about a "remote possibility" of an intimate mix of June's and NB's blood and a "perfect match" for SC's blood.  Had Geoffrey Rivlin had done his job properly the jury would also have been asking about the potential for contamination and the fact that Robert Boutflour's blood type/group matched that found in the silencer and SC's.  Imo this was an important aspect for the jury to either accept or reject in light of all the evidence heard given that RB had a hand in finding the silencer.  Sadly the jury were kept in the dark about this aspect.   

[John]

The judges couldn't state that it was Sheila's blood in the silencer because under English Law you have to have 10 pairs of markers ie 20 markers in common.  As they only found 17 in common they were constrained in what they could say,   I agree with Angelo, the chances that the DNA didn't belong to Sheila is many millions to one.  What we can't say however is that the material which was tested for DNA was blood.  The best we can say is that it probably was blood but that's all.

In the final analysis however it matters little as all the other evidence is crystal clear.

[Holly Goodhead]

Angelo222 and John 

The DNA evidence really is "utterly meaningless" as per the outcome of the CoA 2002 hearing due to the very real risk of contamination.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3233.msg123746#msg123746

IMO the evidence is anything other than "crystal clear".  As far as I can see there is not a scintilla of evidence to support JB's conviction just much myth, gossip, rumour, hearsay etc.  I have no strong views on JB as a person as I didn't know him in 1985 (don't know him now and never likely to) but I have not heard anything that leads me to think he was capable of killing anyone.  We hear about plenty of people behaving badly eg greedy bankers, mp's with their noses in the trough, badly behaved footballers, Sally Bercow with her tongue down blokes' throats in nightclubs, Huhne/Pryce/Briscoe embroiled in trying to manipulate the system and others for their own ends, journalists hacking voicemails, Prince Harry dressing up as a Nazi and so it goes on.  These are all privileged people.  JB was just a mere mortal so what if he was a bit of an arse doesn't make him a murderer? 

[puglove]

Angelo222 and John 

The DNA evidence really is "utterly meaningless" as per the outcome of the CoA 2002 hearing due to the very real risk of contamination.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3233.msg123746#msg123746

IMO the evidence is anything other than "crystal clear".  As far as I can see there is not a scintilla of evidence to support JB's conviction just much myth, gossip, rumour, hearsay etc.  I have no strong views on JB as a person as I didn't know him in 1985 (don't know him now and never likely to) but I have not heard anything that leads me to think he was capable of killing anyone.  We hear about plenty of people behaving badly eg greedy bankers, mp's with their noses in the trough, badly behaved footballers, Sally Bercow with her tongue down blokes' throats in nightclubs, Huhne/Pryce/Briscoe embroiled in trying to manipulate the system and others for their own ends, journalists hacking voicemails, Prince Harry dressing up as a Nazi and so it goes on.  These are all privileged people.  JB was just a mere mortal so what if he was a bit of an arse doesn't make him a murderer?

Stephen Seddon was "a bit of an arse" too!!   

[Myster]

Stephen Seddon was "a bit of an arse" too!!   

But  puggylove... just because he (and JB) was a "bit of an arse" doesn't make him a murderer, as some like to keep on repeating !!!!   

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1048.msg128957#msg128957

[Myster]

Thought that was who Joanne was referring to until I Googled Christopher Foster.  Then I remembered

Imagine finding him (SS) bearing down on you    I wonder if any woman ever let him take her in any position other than doggy without a blindfold 

Stephen Seddon is or was married with children.