good morning I wrote a blog post last week on the website of mine I put a link
underneath this video and blog post is called lawyers persuading with effective
word pictures and what you can learn the blog post was prompted by the current
murder trial going on in the Central Criminal Court involving the so-called
love triangle a temporary involving the accused man is Patrick Kirk and he's
accused of murdering Bobby Ryan but what I was struck by last week in particular
was the summing up to the jury by Michael Bowman senior counsel for the
prosecution and then Bernard Condon senior counsel for the defense clearly
Michael Bowman wants a prosecution or once conviction and Brandon Bernhard
Condon senior counsel wants an acquittal but what struck me really was the word
pictures that both men painted and I really thought that they were striking
the remarkable I think we can learn a lot of stuff from them let me explain
firstly all of the evidence or practically all of the evidence in this
case this circumstantial circumstantial evidence
if you watch TV programs at all US or UK TV programs crime programs dealing with
murder and solving crimes and so on and so forth you'll have an idea that
circumstantial evidence is seen as I was that doesn't quite cut the mustard isn't
good enough isn't good enough to convict for murder anyway however Bernhard or
Michael Bowman see culture he's prosecuting he recognized
that his problem is that the jury is looking at all of this circumstantial
evidence and he knows that it may well be a problem in getting the jury to
convict if all he has is circumstantial evidence for Michael Bowman last week or
the week before in speaking to the jury in his final swimming up he told them
that the human condition can only tolerate so much coincidence
before we shake our head and say that is not coincidence that is planned and this
idea was planted in my mind of a man or a woman shaking her head and saying
that's just too much that's too much coincidence I can't accept that that's
bloody ridiculous and the circumstantial evidence is enough but the point I'm
making is that he recognized the weakness in the prosecution case was the
circumstantial evidence that all of the evidence was practically circumstantial
and he tried to address this head-on by drawing the jury's attention to not
shying away from us and basically saying look you can only tolerate so much
coincidence and after that then you must just shake your head and as he said the
human condition can only tolerate so much coincidence before we shake our
head and say this is not coincidence so he was actually feeling the jury's him
to a certain extent but he was giving him a perfectly reasonable house he
can't be expected beyond a certain point to accept all of this circumstantial
evidence and not convict in other words you just have to shake your head and say
that's just not credible he also then went on to paint the picture of the
victim Bobby Ryan as a man living a quiet and peaceful a content life in a
small village man who lived who loved his job a man who loved music who loved
the dancing of his girlfriend and who very dearly loved his two children
and anyone ought to say who would take the life of such a man distribute naked
always worldly possessions and his dignity and leave his body to decompose
in a sealed chamber on a farm in fauna gone again we're talking about word
pictures here again we're talking about painting the victim as a man living a
quiet dignified life who loved his children and so on and so forth
notwithstanding the fact that he was in some sort of a relationship with the
lady in question this farmer lady married whatever her name is Mary Lowry
so that's Michael Ball Monsignor counsel he's prosecuting and he's painting or
pictures for the jury and he's persuading them or telling them that
circumstantial evidence isn't the best evidence but nevertheless there does
come a point in time when you have to just draw a lie and shake your head and
say no cuz this is just too much on the other hand then you've got Bernhard
Condon senior counsel for the jury and he pointed to the difficulty or the
imperfection in the circumstantial evidence he warned that circumstantial
evidence is not a shortcut to convict now everybody knows this everybody who
ever watched TV program dealing with a crime trial on whatever knows this but
burnt Condon senior counselor goes a step further he told the jury does when
they looked at the evidence they were taking the journey I'm taking a journey
in the forensic equivalent to a train he said you were being invited by the
prosecution to go to the last station on the line it would be uphill and will
twist and curl and he said the prosecution should be able to bring them
to the very last station on the journey with evidence as the fuel if it isn't
the sort of evidence that you yourself would be happy to be convicted on if it
is not great a fuel you will not get to the station
at the top marked guilty and he went on to say that mr. quirk was parked in a
train station marked innocence I was up to the prosecution to move him out of it
how to do that with evidence well he said there was a problem here because
the evidence is thing you will have to pass through several stops you must you
may go past suspicious suspicion station likelihood station and then probability
station but if they get there you're in the wrong place for the conviction in
other words you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the man is
guilty of the charge of murder so he's telling them that they can get past
suspicion they can get past likelihood they can get past probability but that's
not enough but this image of a train is fantastic I think because everybody
understands what a train is everybody understands what train stations is and
burn Condon seeing accounts is actually giving the jury at hours now he's
telling them the door after convict because they can go through suspicion
they can go through likelihood they can go through probability but if they don't
get the last station which is marked beyond the reasonable doubt I'm guilty
with greater fuel than they can't convict the jury is still out the jury
is still deliberating and as a second day now I think they were deliberating
yesterday they are deliberating again today but the ability of these two
gentlemen men in this situation Condon and the other fellow born to paint these
pictures to paint these work pictures to paint difficult complex subjects and
issues in language that people understand ordinary people people on the
jury will understand what a train station is what a train is and the
concept of moving from one to the other people understand or can see in the mind
a man or a woman shaking her head and saying that's circumstantial evidence
all right but that's far too much you know I mean there's only so much the
human condition can bear it's very very interesting I think it's
fascinating I think the ability of these people be senior counsel quite frankly
to paint these pictures to tell these stories these remarkable and if I was
to the murder hopefully or accused of murder hopefully I won't be ever but if
I was either of these men defending me I'd be happy enough with us what I was
going to say though following on from that is that's just generation to make
appointments he senior counsel recognizing the difficulty the other
hands with the jury insofar as circumstantial evidence is concerned I'm
going to WRC hearing in the not-too-distant future and their
difficulty with a particular document that I have it's a medical report
and rather than shying away from us hiding from us or hoping that it doesn't
come up I'm going to address it head-on and try to deal with her and I'm gonna
try and do it in the same way not so much like make it bomb and I can't do
that you know he's tough not senior counselor
sex etc but the point I'm making is that if there's a difficulty or a problem
with the case that you're trying to prove or it's as difficulty or a problem
with the case that you're trying to defend you really do need in my view to
tackle that problem head-on get it out in the open and deal with it because if
you don't the other side will and that's what Michael Bowman has done here in
relationship to circumstantial evidence he knew that the other man the defense
senior counsel mr. Condon would be on about the circumstantial evidence and
indeed the judge has pointed to the jury as well in her swimming up a lot of
these are four sets of evidence but Bowman met it head on and said locus
there's only so much that the human condition can bear hope you find this
video useful if you do give it a thumbs up down below and you may be interested
in subscribing to my youtube channel