Jeremy Bamber: New Forensic Evidence

Atttrib: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/forensic-evidence

1. The sound moderator: (sometimes referred to as a silencer)    The trial judge told the jury repeatedly in his summing up that they could convict Jeremy Bamber on the evidence of the sound moderator alone, for two reasons: · Because it contained traces of the blood enzyme (AK-1) found to be present in Sheila’s blood · Because there were flakes of red paint adhering to the end. The judge said that “it was inconceivable that Sheila would use the moderator during part of the tragedy and then take if off and put it in the gun cupboard where it was later found. He also said that the red paint was proof that the moderator was attached to the rifle during the incident. “On that fact alone you could convict” he said. The moderator did not “connect” Jeremy with the deaths of his family, it merely meant that if it was on the rifle when Sheila suffered her injuries, then she did not commit suicide. At the 2002 appeal, forensic scientists testified that none of Sheila’s DNA was present either inside or outside the moderator, but the court found that there were possible contamination issues relating to DNA testing and the moderator, and accordingly this appeal point was lost. 2. New forensic evidence from American expert Dr Fowler, (confirmed by two peer reviewers) found that the fatal gun shot wound to Sheila’s neck was a contact wound. This wound was caused when the end of the rifle’s barrel was in contact with her skin, and not caused by the end of the moderator as the court was told. Dr Fowler’s evidence has been confirmed through experimentation by ballistics expert Mr Philip Boyce. The CCRC reject this evidence from four credible experts stating that their conclusions are “speculation” and incapable of forming a ground of appeal. 3. Burn marks to Nevill Bamber’s back. The judge said in his summing up that it was “a fact” that the moderator was on the rifle in the kitchen. New evidence from Dr Caruso, a leading burns specialist confirms that Nevill’s burn injuries were made by the end of the rifle’s barrel. They were not made by the end of the moderator. Forensic tests and experiments have been carried out by ballistic expert Mr Philip Boyce which has confirmed the conclusions of Dr Caruso. Scientific evidence from five credible experts makes it very unlikely that the moderator was on the rifle during this tragic incident. Evidence strongly suggests that Nevill was burnt with the end of the rifle’s barrel either after death or when he was completely incapacitated. In 2011 the defence discovered that Essex Police had instructed Mr Fletcher (pre-trial) to test whether the burns to Nevill’s back were caused by the end of the rifle’s barrel, or the end of the moderator. It was suggested that he used pig skin for these experiments. The results from Mr Fletcher’s tests have never been disclosed. 4. Scratch marks under the red painted kitchen mantle shelf correspond to the red paint found adhering to the end of the moderator. In light of Dr Caruso’s evidence, Dr Fowler’s evidence and newly disclosed photographs it is reasonable to question the scratch mark evidence afresh. It is also known that more than one moderator features in this case. Evidence now shows that there are five or possibly six moderators in total. Essex Police maintain that there is only a single moderator associated with this case, which oddly has at least three different forensic reference numbers, DB-1, SBJ-1 and DRB-1, and two case numbers, SC688-85 and SC786-85. The moderator was also noticed to be visually different each time it was forensically examined. During a post trial investigation, two of the Crown’s forensic scientists discovered that Essex Police had altered the moderator’s exhibit reference numbers in the witness statements without their permission or knowledge. The City of London Police concluded in their final report that the changes of exhibit reference numbers relating to the moderator was an administrative error, and a need to change DB-1 to DRB-1. The CCRC concluded that this explanation was perfectly acceptable. Both the City of London Police and the CCRC fail to explain why it was necessary to alter the moderator’s original and unique exhibit reference number, and the case number once one had been allocated to it. “Administrative error” is not applicable as a possible defence in this instance. Accordingly an adverse inference can be drawn over Essex Police altering statements without the knowledge or permission of these two forensic scientists, unless that is, a credible explanation for this is given to explain matters further. 5. Scratch marks which appear in photographs taken on 12th September 1985 of the red painted Aga surround, are not present in photographs taken on 7th August 1985, of the same Aga surround. Peter Sutherst a leading photometrist confirmed this, but his conclusions were challenged by Mr Andy Laws of LGC Forensic, as being inconclusive. To resolve matters, accurate measurements would be required from the kitchen of White House Farm. The CCRC failed to resolve this issue by not instructing Mr Laws to carry out these measurements, (accompanied by Mr Sutherst) so this issue remains unresolved. In July 2011 the CCRC finally disclosed to the defence for the first time, 402 photographic negatives that supposedly accounted for all the photographs taken by the police in this case. Oddly 77 photographic frames have been cut from these 63 rolls of film. The CCRC accept the explanation given by Essex Police that unused frames at the end of a roll of film would be cut off routinely. DC Bird, the photographer was surprised by this explanation. The CCRC have failed to address the fact that some of these strips of negatives are missing up to eight frames at the beginning of these films, which is not explained by stating that they were removed because they were unused. All of these 402 negatives have now been scanned at high resolution enlarging kitchen photographs taken on 12th September 1985. It shows that the Aga surround was scratched and gouged during the taking of these photographs. An explanation was sought from both Essex Police and the CCRC about how the red painted Aga surround came to be scratched and gouged on 12th September 1985. A complaint about this scratch mark issue has also been made to the IPCC, who granted dispensation to Essex Police so this matter has yet to be investigated. Fresh evidence from Dr Caruso and Dr Fowler now shows that the trial judge was quite wrong to tell the jury that it was “a fact” that the moderator was on the rifle during this incident. Expert scientific analysis of the same evidence used by the Crown’s experts at trial proves that the jury was misled over the sound moderator evidence. Mr Philip Boyce has carried out numerous forensic experiments confirming that Dr Caruso and Dr Fowler’s conclusions are correct, and Dr Fowler’s work has been peer reviewed twice, by credible experts, who agree with his findings. The CCRC are wrong to dismiss the evidence from five very eminent scientists as no more than “speculation,” without experts of their own confirming this with their own findings. To date the evidence of Dr Fowler and Dr Caruso remains unchallenged.

Jeremy Bamber: Update on CCRC Application

CCRC Applications                                      Attrib:http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/ccrc-applications

Updated on 22.05.13 Jeremy's case is currently being prepared for another application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The submissions will consist of documentary evidence and material from a number of world leading forensic scientists. We are unable to offer any details about the nature of the submissions at this time. On the 29th of November 2012, Jeremy Bamber's lawyer, Simon McKay, made an oral submission to the High Court in a bid for a Judicial Review of the The Criminal Cases Review Commission's decision not to refer his case for appeal. The application for Judicial Review was refused. The role of the CCRC is politically valuable and the judiciary are also keen to see the institution maintained. To read the judgement which makes reference to the weakest part of the applications to support its case click this link. To read the latest academic work on the CCRC by Michael Naughton's Innocence project which Jeremy is not directly involved in please click this link. The CCRC has been under public scrutiny for some years now with 96% of applications being rejected.[1] You only have to surf the web for a few minutes to see campaigns from all areas – even former Commissioners like David Jessel[2] are speaking out about its shortcomings. This is a serious issue and the CCRC are under pressure to perform, but they are underfunded and mismanaged. Jeremy Bamber, one of the UK's highest profile prisoners, convicted for the murder of his family back in 1986, had his latest bid for an appeal, rejected by the CCRC back in April, after waiting a 8 years for the final decision. The forensic evidence submitted was strong with reports by some of the worlds leading forensic scientists. The material fitted all of the CCRC's criteria, sitting within of section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. If Jeremy Bamber had won his Judicial Review of the CCRC decision, it would have meant that their competency, veracity and integrity would be brought into question. Moreover, handling of all the cases they have rejected (and possibly those they have put through to appeal) could have even required review. The wider implications of the Judicial Review, were within the level of public interest as the CCRC is not fully independent as it claims, but it is a Government body or ‘quango’ – publicly funded, and reporting directly to the Justice Minister – it is politically controlled, nothing like a Non Governmental Organization (NGO). Curiously coinciding with this case was the CCRC’s Triennial Review and the Government were calling for applicants to share their experiences directly with the review board.[5] Alternatives are already being suggested by campaigners, and The Centre for Criminal Appeals is a worthy contender.[6] There are other suggestions particularly from Bamber himself that the process should be shifted from political control back to judicial hands, for example, preliminary appeal submissions should be heard by a single judge and submitted formally by a lawyer. It is unlikely that the government will change the structure of the appeals process without significant public pressure. There has to be a serious and high profile reason for the Government to act, for example if Jeremy Bamber had won the JR, but with grounds for Judicial Review being pulled tighter by new Justice Secretary, Christ Grayling, hope for others fighting for their freedom could be lost. Dr Michael Naughton, Director of the Innocence Network and Senior Lecturer at Bristol University has written a book on the problems of the CCRC.[3] Naughton provides statistics, showing that Miscarriage of Justice cases being overturned each year, are in their thousands and at an average of 18 per day, the Government can no longer insist this is a rare ‘phenomenon.’ Back in 2005, Andrew Hunter MP, raised the matter of non-disclosure of documents in Parliament, he was told that the CCRC was 'nobody's patsy' and still, 7 years later there is no disclosure of the material Hunter was referring to. [4] Campaigners are concerned that now, and in the future, the Government require political control of the process of overturning convictions, simply because we will end up with a situation where large numbers of convictions could be overturned, owing to the level of police corruption from the 1970’s and 1980’s on wards. This would be similar to the phenomenon seen in the early 1990’s,[7] where the overturned convictions of the Birmingham Six, and Guildford Four, brought the justice system into disrepute, undermining confidence in the judicial process at a time when the integrity of the entire judiciary is being brought into question. It is highly likely that none of these high profile cases would have made it to the appeal court via the CCRC and were referred to the court under its predecessor, the Home Office section C3 department. The CCRC is proven time and time again, to ignore or give un-plausible explanations for instances of police corruption without formally responding, or addressing the evidence in any way and this is prevalent in many cases including those of Susan May and Eddie Gilfoyle to name just two.[8] Issues of funding, and the quality of the work by CCRC ‘case managers’ is also in question, with the Commission needlessly ‘sitting on cases’ for up to 10 years. All of our fears might be realized when Bamber’s conviction is eventually overturned in the court of appeal. It is a worrying concern for more victims of 'the system' is that the Criminal Cases Review Commission will continue to flout the law, and cover police corruption unhindered by the wheels of justice. When will we ever learn that Justice is for the judiciary and politics has no part in it? At the High Court Simon McKay addressed how the Commission ignored new forensic evidence by leading experts in the United States, and will also mention that 'New evidence continues to emerge from additional investigative work, most recently that telephone logs which formed a critical plank of the Crown’s case, have demonstrably been “manipulated” by Essex Police.' As Bamber lost his application for Judicial Review he has to make new submissions to the CCRC, they are known to take up to 9 months to allocate a case manager and in the meantime and innocent man's life ebbs away in prison at the cost of £80,000 to the tax payer each year. Notes [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/mar/27/criminal-cases-review-commission-reform-campaign [2] http://www.davidjessel.co.uk/index.php?/Articles/article/campaigners_and_the_commission/ [3] Naughton, M The Criminal Cases Review Commission: Hope for the Innocent? 2012 ed.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/11/neil-hurley [4] Andrew Hunter MP tabled a question in Parliament in 2005 asking why the CCRC had not obtained disclosure of documents from Essex Police, he was told the CCRC was nobody’s patsy and that if required documents would be obtained. There is still not full disclosure. Download a transcript here http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/in-parliament [5] https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/ccrc-triennial-review/consult_view [6] http://www.criminalappeals.org.uk/ [7] Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, Bridgewater three, Cardiff Three and more. [8] Unrelated to CCRC but more broadly see corruption where 8 officers were acquitted is the Cardiff Three.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-15981541

Jeremy Bamber: Corruption in Reports of Key Police Officers

From Jeremy's official blog
http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/corruption-revealed-in-private-reports.html

Corruption Revealed in Private Reports of Key Police Officers

"As everyone who follows the case will know, during the past eighteen months I’ve been cross referencing every aspect of the evidence, hunting out all of the anomalies within the case documentation and I would like to thank everyone who has been helping me do all of this work. Between our team we have read, reviewed, examined and made an assessment of almost three and a half million pages of case material. All the necessary work has been completed and we have the answers to all of the outstanding questions that remained after the last review of the evidence by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

It was surprising and quite unexpected to have discovered the truth about police corruption in this case, which was extensively documented in the private notes and reports written by Former DCI Ainsley, DS Jones and DI Miller.

Originally the only documents provided to the Defence were just signed witness statements and a transcript of their trial testimony. I was lucky enough to be given every possible piece of paperwork that related to every one of the investigations into the case that took place between 1985 and 2013 – although still excluding much of the original case numbers. We are still missing all sorts of documents and photographs, but the fact that Essex Police have withheld this list of materials says more about how corrupt they still are, than it does about the evidence that they think is still being completely concealed from us.

For example there is no witness statement from a forensic ‘Scenes of Crime’ police officer who arrived at White House Farm at 9:16am on the morning of the 7^th of August 1985. He entered the house and left the scene at 12:50 but Essex police have failed to tell the courts over the years that a police officer was stationed on Pages Lane recording details of everyone who arrived at the farm, their rank and the police station they were from (if they were police officers). The courts were also not told that two officers were tasked with listing every person, both police and civilian who entered the house between 07:35 and 09:58. All of these people were required to give elimination fingerprints and to give details about the rooms they entered, what they moved or touched and the reasons they entered the house that day.

This particular forensic officer had been based at Chelmsford HQ and is now known to have been part of the team who forensically examined the house on the 7^th of August 1985. The simple fact that this officer made no statements and has left hardly any trace of his existence in the case, suggests that his presence was concealed for a reason – although what this reason was is unknown. The jury were entitled to know about his actions inside the house, including any evidence he gathered, his role that day and a statement of his actions and any further actions he carried out as a result of his work at the scene.

It was also a surprise to discover that various key witnesses, police and civilians, wrote out statements in draft form which were then altered and corrected with key material omitted which would have aided my Defence. For example one of my cousins and one of the scenes of crimes police officers wrote five different draft statements before the final copy was made. These particular statements are full of conflicting versions of events revealing how Essex Police created witnesses statements to tally with pieces of evidence they wanted to make significant in the case so that circumstances surrounding the evidence were ficticiously constructed.

It is not possible to go into closer detail about the evidence we now have about all of the above and many other issues, but had the Chief Crown Prosecutor known a fraction of this evidence then he would not have agreed to me being arrested and charged. Eventually every aspect of this case will be public including details about how the jury were misled into believing the house was not securely locked when they were presented with photographs taken after the initial SOCO photographing of the house aided with inaccurate evidence from police and my cousins.

It is only because former police officers kept their personal notes and files from being destroyed illegally in 1996 that we are able to piece together the information into the bigger picture. Some officers were not all bad, just stupid because we now have the proof of how the jury was completely misled by the police investigation in my case."

Jeremy