The Murder Trial of Bobby: A Legal Analysis

1

The Murder Trial of Bobby: A Legal Analysis

Jordan Walker

LAW3045 – Criminal Evidence and Procedure

Dr. Amanda Reid

21 March 2025

2

The Murder Trial of Bobby: A Legal Analysis

Court cases, particularly those involving murder, require adequate presentation of evidence and facts for ruling and sentencing. For this scenario, there lies a court case relating to Bobby being charged with the murder of his wife, Pamela. Ideally, Pamela would disappear from the public limelight in August 2013, only to be discovered later. At the time, Bobby would report Pamela missing and continue with his life. However, Pamela’s body would later be found with massive evidence associated with a possible murder, attracting the need for an investigation into Bobby. A review of Pamela’s disappearance and subsequent death examines facts in the issues, burden, and standards of proof, potential items of evidence, inferences, and legal questions that might arise.

Facts in Issue

The leading facts in issue across this case range from the act of killing, identifying the identity of the perpetrator, the intent to kill, the time and place of death, and the defensive claims. In such a context, in a criminal trial, the prosecutor must explore facts associated with the action that characterizes the unlawful act, which, in this case, cuts across as Bobby’s direct involvement in causing Pamela’s death. Ideally, around this ‘Actus Reus’, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bobby murdered Pamela by providing evidence that authenticates that he strangled her with a ligature and disposed of her body in the lake. Another fact, in this case, relates to identifying the perpetrator. In this scenario, the prosecution must provide evidence to justify why Bobby is the perpetrator for adequate verification of whether he committed the act that caused her death. Besides, there lies the fact of the intent to kill. Such a dynamic is founded on the prosecution’s responsibility to identify and justify Bobby’s ‘Mens Rea’ by focusing on possible intention in killing Pamela or causing her serious bodily harm.

3

Research advances this, noting that in criminal law, a jury or prosecution must determine the intent behind a crime to identify the accused’s culpability and blame¹. There also lies facts on the time and place of death to authenticate whether Pamela died in August 2013 near their home, as alleged. For instance, in this case, the importance of focus on the time and place of death lies in Pamela’s body’s location in the lake near their home, Carter’s sack sighting of Bobby, and their joint account bank withdrawal, which offer crucial facts that tie the accused to the crime. Moreover, the prosecution and jury have to explore facts related to the defense claims, in particular questioning Bobby’s assertion that Ken left with Pamela, which could make him innocent of this debacle.

The Burdens and Standards of Proof

On the other hand, the prosecution bears a legal burden to prove Bobby’s involvement in the murder of Pamela beyond a reasonable doubt. Studies identify that in law, the burden of proof dictates a legal standard that requires parties to provide evidence to demonstrate the validity of a given claim ². In this scenario, the prosecution has a legal burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Pamela died as a result of an unlawful act; Booby caused her death and had the intention to kill. Such a legal burden shall require the prosecution to expound on facts related to Pamela’s cause of death, intent, identity, and time and place of the death. Moreover, Bobby bears an evidential burden to raise a defense that proves his innocence. Besides, within the prosecution’s legal burden, the standard of proof cuts across as proving Bobby’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

4

However, under Bobby’s evidential burden, the standard of proof aligns with proving a reasonable possibility of not being involved in Pamela’s murder. Under such a reasonable possibility, Bobby must provide a scintilla of evidence to sustain possible arguments on the unreliability of witnesses like Patricia, Pamela leaving with Ken, and the un-traceability of Ken.

Potential Items of Evidence

Prosecution evidence list

1. Bobby’s wife, Pamela, was found to be murdered
   1. Body found near her home
   2. Strangled to death by a ligature
2. Similarity of bricks used to weigh down Pamela’s body and repair Bobby’s Garden wall
3. Pamela’s statement about being bruised by Bobby
4. Pamela’s statement on Bobby’s Internet search history
5. Carter’s statement on Pamela’s disappearance and Bobby holding a sack
6. Charlie Wade’s expert evidence
7. Email showing Bobby’s purchase of a one-way ticket to Cuba
8. Bobby’s confession to his mother
9. CCTV footage

Defense Evidence List

1. Bobby could testify that Pamela told him in August 2013 that she was having an affair with Ken, packed her clothes, took her passport and personal items, and left.
2. Bobby’s initial report to police in August 2013 stated that Pamela had disappeared, consistent with his story of her leaving with Ken.
3. Expert to counter Dr Ewing

5

4. A doctor to testify about Patricia’s dementia in 2020, highlighting memory distortion and confusion.
5. Carter’s statement on normalcy
6. The potential commonness of bricks
7. Bobby’s lack of a criminal record

Ideally, this evidence mirrors an arrangement depicted by section 79 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 framework. Research reiterates that under section 79 of the PACE 1984, the accused shall be the first called upon by the court before the other witnesses. Such a development is visible in this scenario, as the documentation of evidence starts with the prosecution, for the accused to later be called before other witnesses ³. On the other hand, the collective evidence across this case shall cut across the dynamics of forensic, circumstantial, testimonial, documentary, expert, and character evidence. Under forensic evidence, the prosecution shall offer criminal evidence acquired through scientific methods to prove Bobby’s act. Within the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution shall provide facts that offer an inference to connect it to Bobby’s possible act of murdering Pamela. Besides, there shall be provision of testimonial evidence, ranging from Bobby’s testimony, Patricia’s initial statement, and Carter’s insight. Another form of evidence applicable to this case relates to documentary evidence to examine Bobby’s 2013 police report, bank records of the joint account, Bobby’s employment records, and email confirmation of the Cuba flight booking. The case also requires the incorporation of expert evidence to authenticate the CCTV records and Patricia’s dementia. Another dynamic relates to character evidence to examine Bobby’s personality traits, moral standing, or propensities for direct relation with the possible act of murder against the wife.

6

Moreover, the prosecution’s evidence shall start with establishing ‘Actus Reus’, which ties Bobby to Pamela’s murder as her body is found near her home, and additional conventional statements. Ideally, Bobby’s defense can refute such evidence by pointing out the lack of forensic evidence that directly links him with the murder, the lack of witnesses that placed him in the area where the body was found, and the inadequacy of some of the witnesses ranging from the mother’s dementia, and Sue Ellen’s unavailability due to death. Another piece of evidence from the prosecution that establishes Bobby’s act and intent relates to the similarity in the bricks used to weigh down Pamela’s body and to repair his Garden wall. Booby’s defense can challenge such evidence by citing elements of coincidence in the brick material, which another person could have used. In addition, there is the prosecution’s evidence alleging Sue Ellen’s statement that Pamela got a bruised eye from Bobby and was unhappy, wanting to leave. Bobby’s defense could counter this by implying that the failure of a possible cross-examination of Sue Ellen should make her arguments inadmissible since she is already dead. Besides, there is prosecution evidence in Pamela’s statement about Bobby’s internet search history. Bobby could defend against such claims by identifying that his job as a criminologist explains the searches as professional research, not personal intent. Another prosecution evidence relates to Carter’s statement on seeing Bobby hold a sack upon a sack upon her disappearance. Bobby could argue that the sack’s content was unrelated, and Carter’s request not to be summoned for such statements showcases his unreliability, as he initially described them as a ‘regular couple,’ which contradicts his perceived motive. In addition, the prosecution could present evidence related to Charlie Wade’s expert opinions across Bobby’s therapy session. Bobby can launch a defense against Charlie Wade’s expert opinions by leveraging part of the provided counseling session notes, such as his showcasing of bereavement, to prove his experience of sadness across the whole incident instead of guilt.

7

There is also the prosecution evidence on Bobby’s purchase of a Cuban ticket, which he can defend against by arguing that access to such information by the police was without consent and illegal. Moreover, the prosecution can also apply the evidence related to Bobby’s confession to his mother that he wanted to do away with Pamela. For this scenario, Bobby’s defense should entail the incorporation of a medical expert to allege that Patricia’s dementia makes her unreliable, as the condition exposes her to risks of increased distorted memory or fabrication. Studies advance on this, noting that dementia exposes patients to neuropsychiatric symptoms such as hallucinations, delusions, or even issues in remembering, thinking, or making decisions ⁴. There is also evidence on CCTV footage, which the defense could counter by stating that the “new and novel technique” in identifying him across the film is untested in terms of reliability in the legal field.

Potential Inferences

Besides, the prosecution’s potential inferences range from pointing out that Bobby committed an ‘Actus Reus’ by strangling Pamela; he had the intention to kill his wife, was the perpetrator, and the wife died at a time and place near their home. In this scenario, the prosecution can draw potential inferences associated with Bobby committing an ‘Actus Reus’ by strangling Pamela, placing her body in a sack weighted with bricks from their property, and dumping it in the lake. Ideally, the prosecution inference of Bobby’s ‘Actus Reus’ stems from evidence related to Pamela dying by ligature strangulation, which he had googled on the internet, Carter seeing Bobby carrying a sack to his car around the time of her disappearance, and her body being discovered later in a sack with bricks that reflect those in their home’s garden wall, and near their home.

8

Another potential inference relates to Bobby’s intention to kill Pamela, as the prosecution can provide proof of his possession of ‘Mens Rea’ from validation of Bobby’s internet searches on how to commit murder, her possession of a bruised eye, indicating prior violence from Bobby, and probable jealous reaction due to her quest to leave him for Ken. In addition, there lies an inference associated with identifying Bobby as the perpetrator as enhanced CCTV footage shows Bobby, disguised as Pamela, withdrawing £15,000 from their joint account before her disappearance, flight booking escapade, which shows his intent to escape, and Charlie Wade’s confession of how during therapy sessions, Bobby spoke of Pamela in the past tense, implying he knew she was dead. For instance, studies identify that under Attorney Generals Reference Number 2 of 2003, the prosecution and defense should offer expert on films that captured a witness committing the offense for the jury to have an opportunity to compare the defendant in the court with the suspect in the film ⁵. From such insight, the CCTV captured Bobby’s subsequent withdrawal acts, which links him to staging Pamela’s disappearance. Moreover, there lies the inference of linking time and place dynamics to Bobby’s act of murder, since upon Pamela’s disappearance, her body was found in a nearby lake, with the CCTV footage of his £15,000 withdrawal occurring a week prior.

However, from the defense standpoint, one can also make inferences related to someone else, like Ken being involved in the murder of Pamela, Bobby’s lack of intent, uncertainty in identity, and inadequate matching of time and place dynamics. In this scenario, a leading inference for defense lies in someone else like Ken being involved in the murder due to Bobby’s 2013 evidential statement on Pamela claiming to be leaving with Ken, who is currently untraceable. Another defense-related inference aligns with Bobby’s lack of intent, based on Charlie Wade’s exertion that he acted bereaved and not guilty, his criminologist job pushing him towards internet searches related to murder, and Carter’s inability to identify signs of a volatile marriage with Pamela.

9

Besides, there lies the defense-related inference based on uncertainty in identity, as the enhanced CCTV footage might have lacked collaborative evidence. For example, studies identify the Ozger v. England and Wales ([2022] EWCA Crim 1238), the appellate court dismissed an appeal, affirming the conviction based on the quality of the CCTV evidence and collaborative evidence associated with cell site analysis, possession of items matching CCTV depictions, and confessions from co-defendants ⁶. From such insight, the CCTV evidence capturing Bobby’s ATM withdrawal before Pamela’s murder is of high quality, although it lacks collaborative evidence as no witnesses saw Bobby kill or dispose of Pamela, and Bobby has not been found in possession of items used in the acts. Another defense-related inference is on the inadequate matching of time and place dynamics, as there were no forensic links to Bobby, no witnesses sighting Bobby’s actions, and Bobby’s consistent 2013 statement that Pamela left in August 2013 and lived with Ken.

Legal Questions

1. Is Sue Ellen’s hearsay statement about Pamela’s bruised eye and fear admissible?

One of the leading legal questions in this case is determining the admissibility of Sue Ellen’s hearsay statement about Pamela’s bruised eye and fear. In this scenario, Sue Ellen passed on four years ago in a car accident, which brings to light possible legal questions from Bobby’s defense about the admission of her hearsay statement. Research identifies that under Section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, hearsay evidence can be used in court if the witness is unavailable to testify due to death (Criminal Justice Act 2003, n.d.). Under Section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, Sue Ellen’s hearsay statement would likely be admissible in a court of law since the person can be identified despite being departed, as per the court’s satisfaction.

10

2. Can Carter’s 2013 statement be used if he refuses to testify?

Another legal question pertains to the admissibility of Carter’s 2013 statement if he refuses to testify. In this scenario, Carter, a next-door neighbor to Bobby and Pamela, had issued statements identifying that they were a regular couple, never heard arguments coming from the house, and witnessed him carrying a sack to his car when Pamela went missing. However, Carter chooses not to testify despite the summons. Ideally, Carter’s 2013 statement can be used and admissible by compelling his summons. Studies reiterate this, noting that under the Criminal Procedure Act 1965 (for the Crown Court) and section 97 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, when witnesses decline to attend court to give evidence, a witness summons may be necessitated to compel their attendance ⁷. Such an attribute implies that Carter can be compelled to attend court and verify their statement, making their 2013 statements admissible in this case.

3. Is Patricia’s statement admissible, given her dementia?

Besides, there lies the legal issue of Patricia’s evidence reliability due to dementia. In such a context, under the police ABE interview, Patricia, who has dementia, would claim that Bobby told her he had “done away with Pamela” and that it was the “best thing to do.” Studies identify that under Section 53 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, a person is deemed to be competent to give evidence in criminal proceedings if they understand questions put to them as a witness and can offer answers that can be understood ⁸. Such insight implies that under Section 53 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Patricia’s statement is admissible, despite her dementia, since the court can deem her competent to give evidence despite struggling with dementia.

11

4. Was the phone search lawful, and is the email admissible?

In addition, the lawfulness and admissibility of Bobby’s phone search and data retrieval could be a legal question posed by the defense. In such a context, the police would take Bobby’s phone upon arrest, hold it in his face to unlock and access his emails for knowledge about his one-way flights to Cuba. Research identifies that under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained reflected an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings ⁹. Such a dynamic cuts across this scenario, as the police lacked a special warrant during his search and seizure, and they gained unfair entry across his phone by holding it in front of his face for facial unlock, which, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, is unjust.

Competence and Compellability

Besides, different witnesses in this case are either competent, compellable, or both across the case. Research notes that persons are competent to give evidence if they understand questions put to them as witnesses and give answers to them that can be understood ¹⁰. On the contrary, people are compellable if they can provide solid evidence related to the case. From such insight, Bobby, Carter, Patricia, Charlie Wade, and Dr. Ewing are competent enough to provide evidence in the case and trial since they have the mental ability to understand the proceedings and decide. However, Sue Ellen and Lucy are not competent, as one is deceased and the other unknown, making it challenging to pose questions and answers as witnesses.

12

Moreover, Carter, Patricia, Charlie Wade, and Dr. Ewing are compellable since they hold evidence that can help the trial. However, Bobby is not compellable as the prosecution cannot force him to provide self-incriminating evidence. In addition, Sue Ellen and Lucy are not compellable, as one is deceased and the other cannot be traced, making it challenging for them to offer solid evidence within the trial.

In conclusion, the leading facts in issue across this case range from the act of killing, identifying the identity of the perpetrator, the intent to kill, time and place of death, and the defensive claims. Besides, the prosecution bears a legal burden to prove Bobby’s involvement in the murder of Pamela beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, the prosecution’s potential inferences range from pointing out that Bobby committed an ‘Actus Reus’ by strangling Pamela; he had the intention to kill the wife, was the perpetrator, and the wife died in a time and place near their home. On the other hand, from the defense standpoint, one can also make inferences related to someone else, like Ken being involved in the murder of Pamela, Bobby’s lack of intent, uncertainty in identity, and inadequate matching of time and place dynamics. Moreover, one of the leading legal questions in this case relates to determining the admissibility of Sue Ellen’s hearsay statement about Pamela’s bruised eye and fear. Another legal question pertains to the admissibility of Carter’s 2013 statement if he refuses to testify. Besides, there lies the legal issue of Patricia’s evidence reliability due to dementia. In addition, the lawfulness and admissibility of Bobby’s phone search and data retrieval could be a legal question posed by the defense.

13

Bibliography