Jeremy Bamber's Blog: Plans to televise interview....

We are currently going through the process of applying for permissions for me to have a televised interview at Full Sutton which will be the first instance in the UK where a prisoner wrongly convicted will be able to argue their case to a national audience. There is absolutely no question that the interview will not go ahead as planned as there are so many reasons why it must be done. Primarily it is in the public interest for the new evidence to be discussed and for the first time ever I will be able to defend myself personally against my conviction. This will pave the way for exposure of other miscarriages of justice cases, and encourage greater transparency of the judiciary where information is deliberately kept under wraps through the means of stifling the voice of those maintaining innocence.

The IPCC and Essex Police have recently logged further criminal acts by police in my case bringing the total number of complaints made to them in the past 18 months to well over one hundred. This time though I am convinced that the IPCC will rule against the request from Essex police for further dispensations to be applied to retired officers and instead order an outside force to investigate police misconduct.

The documents we now hold electronically consist of 3.5 million pages and these include copies of material from all different judicial departments and investigations, no one hold’s all of these documents in one place collectively and this puts us in a really strong position, the case files are made up of the following: Home Office files, CPS files, Forensic Science Services files, Appeal Court files, all of my barrister’s files, my solicitors files, my own files, the IPCC files, The CCRC files, The Dickinson Enquiry files, The Metropolitan Police (Stokenchurch files), Civil Case files, Judicial Reviews, a copy of the police HOLMES 2 computer files, also media files, correspondence files and research files as well as law reports, forensic expert files, photographs and material from my prison files. No one else has all of this material in one place. If you were to start reading our database today – reading 500 pages each day, every day, 365 days a year it would take 19 years and 4 months just to read through everything once. It is unlikely that you could manage 500 pages a day but in order to understand the evidence everything has to be grouped, cross referenced and analysed. So you can understand why more evidence is being discovered on a daily basis by myself and my teams, both legal and admin.

There is set to be a complete revamp of the web site beginning towards the end of the year and both a vast amount of content and design is to be replaced and all text will be academically referenced to documents, it is much appreciated that we will have the help of new team members to continue the work already in place.

I’ve been very busy of late and my correspondence is behind owing to the volume of letters I receive from friends and newcomers alike. It’s really good to have the support of so many of you and all well-wisher emails are frequently passed on to me, it’s been really heart warming to see them increasing week by week.

Keep in touch. Jeremy

Posted by Jeremy Bamber at Sunday, September 09, 2012

"Information is deliberately kept under wraps through the means of stifling the voice of those maintaining innocence"

Jeremy Bamber: Poor Mr Blunt. So much time; so little to do...

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (toothless bark Clarke) how many media requests the Prison Service received to enter prisons from (a) broadcast and (b) print media in each of the last three years; and how many were (i) accepted and (ii) rejected. [118136]

Mr Blunt: The National Offender Management Service desk in the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) press office receives a significant number of bids for access to prisons for a variety of reasons. These include covering ongoing news stories, filming dramas, producing documentaries and to collect material for print features. Bids are received via email, phone and from journalists in person. They may go to individual prison staff, the NOMS desk, the MOJ press office newsdesk, Ministers' offices, charities working in prisons, service providers such as primary care trusts, the office of the Prison Service Chief Executive Officer and the private companies running prisons who have their own press offices. Bids from national media are usually channelled to the MOJ press office but some are immediately rejected before they reach press office and regional bids may be accepted by prisons without reference to press office. The MOJ press office does not collate the requests they receive, or progress, centrally.

As a result it would not be possible, without disproportionate cost, to provide a list of media requests to enter prisons for the past three years.

Fantastic subject for a poem.  Errrrm? Now what rhymes with Blunt?

Jeremy Bamber: Dickinson Inquiry:Perversion of justice

 Atttrib: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/dickinson-enquiry

In November 1986 after the trial of Jeremy Bamber the trial Judge Mr Justice Drake ordered an enquiry into the conduct of Esssex Police. The investigation was directed by the Chief Constable, Mr Robert Bunyard. The review was conducted by Detective Chief Superintendent Dickinson of Essex Police assisted by DI Storey. This investigation consisted of interviews with Police officers and witnesses but no statements were taken although statements and other material submissions from pre-trial were used during the enquiry. It was also noted that the papers available did not include any written records of the original senior investigating officer DCI Thomas Jones who died in a tragic accident at his home on 11th May 1986. <!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--> The Dickinson report was an account which relied heavily on the accounts of Jeremy Bamber’s relatives and in particular his uncle Robert Boutflour. The final report does not accurately reflect events which were uncovered by Dickinson and Storey. It is only post 2002 appeal that extensive handwritten accounts of interviews have been disclosed to the defence. Missing from the Defence copies were the interviews of Julie Mugford and her mother Mary Mugford. In addition to this many of the senior police officer’s interviews are also missing.  Overall the review inaccurately drew on accounts which contradict the original statements of witnesses and even contradicted court testimony. It also presented Jeremy Bamber in a biased way using the accounts of Julie Mugford and Robert Boutflour to provide a complete character assassination of Jeremy presented as a money hungry sexual predator who was also engaged in “unsavoury homosexual activities”. At the end of the report DCI Dickinson concluded that the most senior investigating officer had not visited the scene until after the bodies had been disturbed. He also found that owing to a "shortage of resources," senior officers DCI Jones, DI Cook and DI Montgomery had failed to request that a pathologist and ballistics expert attend the scene with the bodies in situ. Recommendations were made pertaining to these points and also included issues of training and force communication with other police sources. DCI Dickinson would have us believe that Jeremy Bamber was so sophisticated that he managed to fool a large number of senior and junior police officers at the scene and later a pathologist and ballistics expert. We put it that it is highly unlikely and improbable that experienced police officers attending such a tragic scene would have ignored key evidence if they had not been 100% convinced that Sheila Caffell had killed the family. In 2002 the appeal court judges placed little significance on any of the Dickinson report referred to by the Defence including the issue of inheritance an area which has developed further in light of evidence disclosed since the 2002 appeal which brings into question the credibility of key prosecution witnesses in particular that of Robert Boutflour.