Jeremy Bamber: Five Moderators

In 1985 Jeremy Bamber was found guilty of murdering his entire family and imprisoned.

In 1994 a judge ruled that the Home Office was to disclose all material relating to the case to Jeremy Bamber's legal team. The material was never given to Jeremy's Defence and records show that a Special Branch officer ordered the destruction of all DNA exhibits, except for the Sound Moderator (gun silencer).

The material was incinerated at a unit off the North Circular Road and an innocent man is spending his thirtieth year in prison whilst evidence which could free him, lies in ashes.  If there was nothing for the prosecution to hide, why then did the Home Office order the destruction of what could be relevant evidence and helpful to the Defence? Strangely, they saved the moderator 'evidence'.

Interestingly and unsurprisingly, after many years it has now been discovered that at least five moderators were removed from White House Farm after the murders and forensics were combined by police, relatives as well as scientists at Huntingdon Laboratory, either deliberately or accidently and were produced at Jeremy's trial as if relating to only one moderator and this was what members of the  jury were led to believe.

Incidentally Jeremy has always maintained that when he left the rifle on the settle (bench) at White House farm, after his time out shooting rabbits, there was no moderator on it:

 
 http://twitpic.com/7ue4z5 

Read more about this injustice with further documented evidence of police cover-up and collusion on the Campaign Team website: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/

Michael Turner QC

 

The Telegraph

Sponsored

 

By Cole Moreton

7:00AM GMT 02 Dec 2012

Devil's advocate Michael Turner prepares for his toughest case

The QC could find himself leading fellow lawyers on strike over Legal Aid plans

Facebook 4

Twitter 9

Pinterest

Michael Turner QC: What if he realises halfway through a trial that his client is evil? “Whether I think my client is an evil individual or not is neither here nor there” Photo: PAUL GROVER

 

By Cole Moreton

7:00AM GMT 02 Dec 2012

        

If you ever find yourself accused of murder, covered in blood and holding a smoking gun, Michael Turner is the man to call. “If you say you didn’t do it, the gun was planted and it’s a stitch-up, then fine,” says this leading defence lawyer. “You want me to believe you – or at least appear to – and put that case with passion.”

He’s very good at that. Michael Turner QC is a proper devil’s advocate, a champion of apparently lost causes, from alleged multiple murderers to parents accused of shaking their babies to death. He has a reputation as “a barrister who can secure results no others could”, notably gaining freedom after 18 years for a man falsely convicted of killing the 13-year-old paper boy Carl Bridgewater.

“It is incredibly important that if the state accuses one of its citizens of a crime, they are properly represented,” he says. “I have done enough injustice cases to know that the system can get it dreadfully wrong.”

But he has also represented the likes of Jeremy Bamber, who on Thursday lost his latest appeal against a whole-term life sentence for the murder of five relatives. So what is it like to stand up in court and plead the case for a killer?

“Everybody asks me that,” says this expert cross-examiner, looking sternly over the top of his half-moon glasses. “The answer is that you don’t know if someone’s guilty. You take instructions from your client. You think: 'Oh no, this sounds really unlikely.’ Then you test it and find out that what he says might actually be true. A jury might believe him. So you give it everything you’ve got.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html

'Who is Jeremy Bamber?' by Matt Wall http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/who-is-jeremy

Jeremy Bamber: Julie Mugford's police deal?

Attrib: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/29/jeremy-bamber-appeal-evidence-itv?CMP=share_btn_tw

Eric Allison

Thursday 29 March 2012 06.59 BST 

Last modified on Wednesday 4 June 2014 03.21 BST                                               Edits PAM

 

Jeremy Bamber in new challenge to conviction for murdering family

Bamber lawyers claim charges against ex-girlfriend Julie Mugford were dropped to induce her to give evidence for prosecution

Jeremy Bamber in 1986. He has always denied killing five members of his family at their Essex farmhouse. Photograph: Trinity Mirror / Mirrorpix / Ala/Alamy

 

Jeremy Bamber, who was jailed for 26 years for killing five members of his own family, is launching another bid for freedom after evidence emerged that the assistant director of public prosecutions decided not to proceed with drug trafficking and fraud allegations against a key prosecution witness.
His legal team is expected to argue that this raises the possibility that she was induced to give evidence against Bamber in return for the allegations being abandoned.
Bamber, now 51, was found guilty in October 1986 of shooting his adoptive parents, June and Nevill, his sister Sheila Caffell and her six-year-old twins, Daniel and Nicholas, at their Essex farmhouse. He has always maintained his innocence.

Julie Mugford, who gave evidence against her ex-boyfriend Jeremy Bamber. Photograph: PA Archive/Press Association

The prosecution witness Julie Mugford was Bamber's girlfriend in the run-up to the killings. After their relationship broke down following the murders, Mugford told police Bamber had confessed to hiring a hitman to kill his family. That theory collapsed when the man named was found to have a cast-iron alibi, but Mugford's evidence was crucial to the prosecution's case. The trial judge told the jury they could convict Bamber on her evidence alone.
Now Bamber's lawyers have discovered Mugford testified against him after police decided to drop investigations into criminal offences she had allegedly committed before the trial. Documents only recently disclosed to Bamber detail how Mugford was accused of burglary, smuggling cannabis into the UK from Canada and cheque fraud.
The Guardian has seen a letter from the then assistant director of public prosecutions (DPP) , John Walker, to the chief constable of Essex, which stated: "With considerable hesitation I would suggest that Mugford be advised she will not be prosecuted in respect of these matters – burglary, cheque fraud and cannabis offences. Thereafter she will be called as a witness against Bamber." Further documents relating to the dealings between the DPP and Mugford remain undisclosed under public interest immunity rules.

Bamber's lawyers have sent the new evidence to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) in an attempt to get his case back to the court of appeal for a third time.
Bamber's lawyers have also asked the CCRC to consider evidence from eminent ballistic experts indicating the family were killed by a rifle without a silencer attached to the barrel. The silencer was crucial to the prosecution case against Bamber. It was found days after the killings and the Crown's case was that Caffell, who police initially believed had killed her family before shooting herself, could not have done so and then removed the silencer from the gun.

• This article was amended on 29 March 2012. It originally implied incorrectly that the ITV documentary would examine issues surrounding Mugford's testimony. This has now been clarified.

 Edits
Julie Mugford's name is now Smerchanski; she lives in Winnipeg, Canada.

The use of Public Interest Immunity (PII) in the Jeremy Bamber case, is a misuse, in my opinion. In Neilson v Laugharne22, a case decided by the Court of Appeal in 1981, the then, Lord Justice Olive
stated,

'If public policy prevents disclosure, it prevents it, in my judgment, in all circumstances
except to establish innocence in criminal proceedings'.


What was the motive for thousands of undisclosed documents being placed under PII?  It seems clear to me that these documents must contain evidence, which if had been known by the defence, and therefore the jury, would have radically altered the outcome of Jeremy Bamber's prosecution and trial.  In the news recently an American public prosecutor was imprisoned for withholding evidence which he knew would be of benefit to the defence.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Morton_(criminal_justice) . I sincerely hope that when Jeremy Bamber's injustice is accepted publically by those who must know it privately, that Public Prosecutors will be held accountable and placed on trial for non-disclosure of vital evidence contributing to the UK's gravest ever miscarriage of justice.