Jeremy Bamber: What part did his relatives play?

1. In 1985, Nevill Bamber, his wife June Bamber and their son, Jeremy Bamber co-owned the farming company, N and J Bamber Ltd. The share ownership was distributed whereby Nevill Bamber owned 79%, June Bamber owned 1% and finally Jeremy Bamber owned 20% of the company.

3. While N and J Bamber Ltd, owned all the assets of the company, i.e. machinery, buildings, crops, livestock and vehicles, 600 acres of the farm was leasehold, and a further 100 acres was freehold. 50 acres (otherwise known as Charity Farm) was owned by Nevill and June Bamber, while the other 50 acres (otherwise known as Renters Farm) was shared equally between Nevill Bamber, June Bamber and Jeremy Bamber, while White House Farm itself was and still is leasehold.

4. Upon the tragic deaths of Nevill and June Bamber, Basil Cook was appointed Executor of their respective estates and thus was responsible for safeguarding their assets. In order to assist Jeremy Bamber in the daily management of the farm, Basil Cock appointed Peter Eaton to manage N and J Bamber Ltd, until Jeremy Bamber was able to take that role upon himself. Peter Eaton was appointed Farm Manager on the 9^th August 1985.

5. Upon the successful conviction of Jeremy Bamber for the murders at White House Farm, Peter Eaton and his wife Ann became the tenants of the leasehold properties previously rented by Nevill Bamber. This included White House Farm, which they had already moved into. However, Basil Cock as the Executor of the estate, after the conviction of Jeremy Bamber, concluded that all the assets of the Bamber estate should be inherited by Pamela Boutflour. This decision was later challenged in the Chancery Division by Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood, Nevill Bamber’s nephew and niece - Case Number CH 1991 PN 8680.

6. In these proceedings Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood sued Basil Cock, Robert and Pamela Boutflour, David Boutflour and Peter and Ann Eaton alleging theft and false accounting in managing N and J Bamber Ltd. In any event, Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood settled after it was agreed they would inherit Nevill Bamber’s estate, while Robert and Pamela Boutflour, and Peter and Ann Eaton and David Boutflour would in turn inherit June Bamber’s estate.

7. Notwithstanding Jeremy Bamber’s conviction, he was still in ownership of 20% of N and J Bamber Ltd when eventually it was wound up and the assets sold.

8. N and J Bamber Ltd was dissolved on the 14^th September 1999, with no assets, only costs. These costs covered winding up the company, depreciation, repairs, outstanding management fees and other miscellaneous costs totalling £80,000. Indeed Jeremy Bamber received a bill from Basil Cock stating that upon liquidation, Jeremy Bamber owed almost £16,000, which was his share of the costs of winding up N and J Bamber Ltd.

9. However, in 1985, N and J Bamber Ltd was a prosperous company worth approximately £388,000. £308,000 was the 79% share Nevill Bamber owned in N and J Bamber while a further £80,000 was from other personal assets, and indeed in 1985, Jeremy Bamber’s share was worth approximately £72,000.

10. Barbara Wilson the farm secretary raised concerns she had about the mismanagement of the farm back in 1987 to Essex Police, however it was not proceeded with pending the appeal of Jeremy Bamber. In view of her allegations going to the heart of the credibility of the chief prosecution witnesses as to their propensity for dishonesty, it is clear that Essex Police had an agenda in maintaining Jeremy Bamber’s conviction by eventually never investigating her complaints in any event.

11. Her allegations were cumulative in nature, involved numerous third parties and illustrated a clear propensity for dishonesty. In view of the fact that after being managed for fourteen years by Peter Eaton on behalf of Basil Cock the company had gone from being worth £380,000 to owing £80,000 while profits for that time span are not accounted for, yet totalling almost £500,000 lost, the question remains as to why Essex Police breached their duty of care to Jeremy Bamber by not investigating the allegations listed in the first instance. The allegations are based upon reasonable suspicion, and Essex Police should have acted in the public interest in investigating them, especially as the officer who interviewed Barbara Wilson described her as an honest person with no clear agenda against the family.

12. It is fact that during Jeremy Bamber’s trial the jury asked ‘If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies? Could it be his Uncle and family? A possible reason or motive for Robert Boutflour’s statement about Jeremy’s being able to kill his own parents.’

13. The fact that the jury were suspicious as to motive by Jeremy Bamber’s relatives places in issue their credibility as prosecution witnesses whereby they stood to make a pecuniary gain by securing a conviction for murder with Jeremy Bamber as the accused. Thus where Jeremy Bamber’s appeal was pending at that time and where the honesty or credibility of these material witnesses to the case is in question it is relevant that these allegations were investigated appropriately. Indeed the allegations of dishonesty and asset stripping clearly tolerated by Essex Police highlights a further agenda that bites on motive by the relatives of Jeremy Bamber who misled the jury regarding that relevant question. Due to their misleading the jury, they were never cross examined at trial as to this issue.

14. Robert Boutflour witness statement given to the jury, dated 17^th October 1986, in response to the jury’s question, he stated that he was a very wealthy man in his own right owning a 50% share in Carbonell’s Farm, (Document A – 16), this was his primary asset. Yet he did not state that it is fact that on the 7^th August 1985, he had a much greater motive to mislead the jury, because at that time he did not own Carbonell’s Farm. On the 7^th August 1985, Jeremy stood to inherit 50% of Carbonell’s Farm upon the death of Mabel Speakman (his maternal grandmother) whose will left her estate equally between her two daughters, Pamela Boutflour and June Bamber.

15. In his diary for that period in 1985, Robert Boutflour was concerned about Jeremy being a beneficiary only 5 days after the tragedy at White House Farm, (Robert Boutflour’s Diary Doc  D-18). It is fact that on the 24^th August 1985, Robert Boutflour met his own solicitor, Mr Rant, to receive legal advice to be informed as to how he could stop Jeremy from ‘profiting from his act.’ At that meeting he records how he was advised that the only way to allay this was for Mabel Speakman to change her will. Thus on the 2^nd September 1985, Robert Boutflour organised for a solicitor, Mr Peek to visit Mabel Speakman in order for her to change her will. Thus ensuring that his wife, Pamela Boutflour was the only beneficiary of the estate.

16. Indeed during the trial there is record (Document AB-40 pages 50 – 52), of a discussion in chambers between counsel and the trial Judge regarding Robert Boutflour having a motive to lie to the jury about Jeremy

17. In 2003, Jeremy commenced civil proceedings against the Boutflour’s as to their use of undue influence in ensuring Mabel Speakman changed her will. There was no legal aid available for this action, and Jeremy was forced to represent himself, thus he was not fully informed of the procedures undertaken to ensure a hearing took place. The proceedings never commenced, because Jeremy failed to submit a pre-action letter to the respondents stating his case, prior to launching the action.

18. In January 2004, the Boutflour’s countersued Jeremy, this was for the costs of defending his proceedings. They were awarded £18,359.50 including over £7,000 for two barristers to oppose him. They did not have any need to employ a barrister in any event because they would have been instructed that due to there being an omission to act accordingly as to procedure, the case would have been struck out in any event.

19. Thus, not only were the Boutflour’s instrumental in ensuring that Jeremy had no recourse to funds in order to fight his case while in prison, by running down N and J Bamber Ltd, they also ensured that he was made liable for legal costs that they needn’t have incurred in the first instance due to their having access to legal advice. They have cynically ensured that Jeremy lost altogether just over £100,000 of his own money.

20. Not content with inheriting Mabel Speakman’s estate and June Bamber’s, they needed to ensure Jeremy suffered great financial loss, so as to prevent him fighting his case from prison. Basil Cock was employed to protect his interests, but on the face of it colluded with the family regarding the asset stripping of N and J Bamber Ltd.

21. In view of the fact that Essex Police did not address the matter with a view to investigating it, it is obvious that they did not want any attention drawn to the allegations of theft and dishonesty because it would have impugned the credibility of these witnesses as to the successful prosecution of Jeremy Bamber.

22. In Jeremy’s complaint to the IPCC dated December 2011, he questions why the Eaton’s and the Boutflour’s were not investigated in the first instance and that they are investigated again, by an external Police Force for theft and fraud in addition to investigating Essex Police themselves as to why they did not undertake a full and comprehensive investigation of the allegations made back in 1987.

Supporting documents: ...

Edited