Dear Andy Burnham
Re: Jeremy Bamber FOI request for disclosure of all documents referenced in Court Orders
2001 and 2002.
The story of the tragedy at White House Farm, Tolleshunt D’Arcy, Essex and the trial and conviction of Jeremy Bamber for the murder of his entire family, thirty years ago, has been wrapped in mythology and many, ignorant of the facts, just accept the lies as truth.
I am not naïve so I researched everything, read every document and account I could locate, before committing myself to supporting Jeremy's fight for justice. I have written to many politicians, church leaders and others, including my own MP John Whittingdale, who states that he cannot interfere. I am not asking anyone to 'interfere' with the course of justice, merely to ensure that justice is done and to be seen to be done. So I would ask that you please take the time to read the following and help with this request by acting on my behalf and lobbying Essex Police for full disclosure.
Essex Police and the CPS are dependent on the 2002 Appeal to support the false contention that they have made full disclosure, they need to address the issue of the 2001 and 2002 Appeal Court Orders for disclosure. The first was made on the 20th of July 2001 (see Appendix 1) and requested specific evidence relating directly to the grounds of appeal.
The Judges ordered Essex Police and the Crown to hand over to the Defence all of the following material:
1.Remaining documentation and material held by Essex Police (all case material).
2.Police Complaints Authority (P.C.A) supervised enquiry by the City of London Police (all C.O.L.P. documents).
3.Essex Police Internal Investigation by DCS Dickinson (including all the police and forensic witness statements).
4.All non-disclosed material at the trial.
5.All P.C.A. material (from the numerous Enquiries).
6.All Forensic Science Laboratory documents and all materials appertaining to fingerprint examinations.
7.Reports by DCI Ainsley (un-redacted and complete).
8.The Stokenchurch Enquiry (all 88 boxes).
9.The C.P.S. files (including the nature of the deal done with Julie Mugford).
10.Details of the destruction of all blood exhibits in 1996 (despite a Court Order to preserve them).
The second order was dated the 2nd of July 2002 and requested disclosure of more specific evidence relating directly to the appeal grounds (see Appendix 2).
The Appeal Court instructed the Metropolitan Police to act in collecting all evidence stipulated in the orders and was known as the ‘Stokenchurch’ Investigation. Stokenchurch collated all documents and stored them electronically with an index on the HOLMES II computer system. The total amount of material came to 88 boxes. However, the Defence only received partial disclosure, totalling only 68 boxes of material.
Box 1-78 had full indexes but 10 boxes of material were missing.
Box 79-88 had no indexes and all 10 boxes of material were missing.
We know these 20 boxes exist owing to documents, which make reference to the box numbers, and from the arbitrary disclosure of partial documents relating to the missing boxes. All material, which was not given to the Defence pre-trial in 1986 and was withheld from the 2002 appeal despite the Court Order, should now be disclosed. The limited nature of information given to the Defence directly related to both the general order of Disclosure (2001) and the specific appeal grounds (2002) seriously biased the appeal in favour of the Prosecution.
The 2001 and 2002 Appeal Court orders still stand and it is under these orders that the Defence still expects the police and CPS to fully comply. Essex police are under a legal duty to respond to requests for discourse under a Court Order and their claim that they are not is simply a lie.
Secondly, any reference to Essex Police giving ‘full co-operation’ to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, (CCRC) during their investigation is inaccurate. When asked for the original hand written logs of Nevill and Jeremy Bamber’s calls to the police, requested under section 17 of the CAA, the CCRC were informed on the 3rd of February 2013, the logs could ‘not be located’ or had ‘not been found’ This response is simply flouting the legal obligation to disclose. Similar documented responses to requests for disclosure have been made repeatedly to Jeremy Bamber’s lawyer since 1985.
The outcome of the trial and the 2002 appeal would have been very different had full disclosure been made. For instance, the Court’s decision would have been affected by DCI Kenneally’s Report dated 6th of September 1985 which stated 'the evidence indicates that Sheila was responsible,' which has not been disclosed to date. The Chief Constable still wants to keep that evidence a secret to protect and conceal the endemic corruption within Essex Police in 1985. The same could be said for all of the specific requests for information asked by the Defence in the Disclosure Booklet.
Yours sincerely,
