PoppyMeze

Monday 18 September 2017

Tory cuts to pensioner benefits April 2018


The Tories are using conference season to push through a change in a crucial benefit, Pension Credit, which they have renamed Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI); I suspect hoping it will attract little attention at such a time.  This could mean a cut to income of over £200 over month. 

Pension Credit is a top-up for those who are in receipt of State Pension but who have not paid in enough National Insurance to qualify for the full amount. Mostly women and mainly because they have stayed at home to look after family or took part-time or seasonal work as 'pin money' as was the norm when the 'war babies' became mothers.  A certain amount of Pension Credit is held back each week under the heading 'housing costs' which could mean anything depending on whether a home owner or renting, either, in what was referred to as 'Council Housing' or from a private landlord.  SMI has been created by the government in order to associate it specifically with mortgage interest in the hope they'll get away with making cuts under this guise.  To reiterate, SMI was never an identified benefit or included in Pension Credit and housing costs were never referred to under that heading plus there was never any indication that Pension Credit would be cut unless personal circumstances changed.

The poorest people struggling just to exist from one week to the next are an anathema to this plutocratic regime.

Theresa May has decided that people for whom this benefit is essential will be offered a loan instead. Coming into force in April 2018 the loan will be from a company of the government's own choosing, SERCO, who have already had their own problems and has to be repaid with interest with your house held as security and a restriction on selling without government permission.  

So now the worst-off won't just be fretting about paying their mortgage interest, they have to find the income to pay interest on the loan set-up to pay that interest.  They can put off this 'loan' and interest until they sell their homes.  What use is this?  After several years of this arrangement they will be left with even less equity, especially those on an 'Interest Only' mortgage, which many now are; how will they then buy another property?  The other option is to sell their homes earlier than planned but as the provision of suitable 'social' housing to move into is non-existent, where will they go?  

What a way to spend your final years.  How someone is expected to cope with these changes with only six months notice is beyond me.  All this whilst May continues to award Winter Fuel Allowance to all pensioners regardless of status.

What has happened to our moral compass?

Thursday 29 June 2017

Address removed

29 October 2011

FYIA
Criminal Cases Review Commission
5 St Philip's Place
Birmingham
B3 2PW

Letter by email to:complaints@ccrc.x.gsi.gov.uk
Hard copy by Recorded Delivery

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re:                  R v Bamber 1986 IPCC Case number 2011/015691

I write to you due to my grave concerns regarding recent information I have received which I have reason to believe will prove that the trial of Jeremy Bamber and subsequent appeals were tainted.

Documents intended for Public Interest Immunity (PII) were ‘inadvertently’ sent to Jeremy Bamber.  It is clear that these documents were intended never to be in the public arena for reasons which will be made clear upon reading them.

Jeremy’s most recent sixteen page letter to me provides an in-depth account of what he has found within these documents.  Jeremy’s letters are handwritten.  He writes in detail including reference and exhibit numbers and he has the written evidence to support every statement he makes.

I believe it is crucial that this information is placed in your hands as it shows beyond doubt that Jeremy’s trial was tainted; that witnesses perjured themselves also that Essex Police and others including the City of London Police falsified or withheld evidence which would have supported Jeremy’s continued pleas of his innocence.  Jeremy states on more than one occasion, ‘I have the documents to prove it’.  The following in red italics are direct quotes from Jeremy’s letter and of his findings within these documents

‘COLP (City of London Police) discovered that Glynis Howard and her assistant Leslie Tucker; John Hayward and his assistant, Andrew Palmer; Brian Elliott and his assistant, Louise Float and Malcolm Fletcher all signed a set of falsified documents for a second sound moderator to create a chain of evidence paper trail capable of deceiving the jury and it did.......I have their lab notes.’

‘They(sound moderators) are both the same, Parker-Hale MM1 type and someone simply took SBJ/1 out of its cardboard tube packaging and slipped in DB/1 that had been contaminated with red paint from the scene.

‘And in any event they admitted this to COLP in 1991 but COLP and Essex Police just covered it up under PII.  John Hayward took photos of SBJ/1 on 12th Sept ’85, well him and his assistant Andrew Palmer, COLP showed these photos to Brian Elliott in 1991 and asked, “Is that the same sound moderator you examined?” 

Elliott replied as follows;

‘Well, the one I examined had red paint flakes impacted into the pattern on the knurled end.  Also, the one I examined had a large piece of adhesive tape with flakes of red paint stuck to it, that was stuck along the sound moderator as you can see in the drawing my assistant made on 25/Sept/’85.’

Jeremy adds, ‘and you can see it’.

‘Everyone examined the sound moderator under a microscope as well as by eye and it’s clear that the first one SBJ/1 had blood on it and this smear of red paint and the second one DB/1 was switched with SBJ/1 after being sent to the lab on 20/Sept/85.’

‘I can prove every word of the above – I have all the PII primary documents showing exactly how my relatives and Essex Police and the forensic scientists at Huntingdon and COLP and PCA (now the IPCC) all worked together to either directly corrupt the sound moderator evidence or actively assisted in concealing that Essex Police found SBJ/1 and it was switched between 20th and 25th Sept ’85 at Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory with DB/1 that had been used to scratch and score the kitchen mantle shelf at White House Farm to falsely implicate me as a murderer. ....I have the documents showing that it was.......These are the document references: Exhibit signed by Glynis Howard, Malcolm Fletched, John Hayward and Brian Elliott:- ‘Police Crime Number’ SC/786/85, ‘Description of Article ‘Silencer’ DB/1, crossed out, and DRB/1 in brackets:- Serial Number 22, as the identification marker.’

I would plead for justice here.  Jeremy has been imprisoned for twenty six years for a crime which can only have been carried out by someone of a deranged mind and for which he has always maintained his innocence even to the extent of taking a polygraph test along with twenty seven psychiatric tests, all of which found no evidence of mental ill health or psychopathy. 

After reading this evidence, to incarcerate him for a day longer would constitute an act of the most heinous kind adding further to the injustice of what must be the longest known miscarriage of justice on British soil.

It is not an unreasonable request that this matter be treated with the utmost urgency and I await your response.

Yours faithfully,





Cc COLP, IPCC, Theresa May Home Secretary, Kenneth Clarke Justice Minister, John Whittingdale MP.


Nevill Bamber Jeremy Bamber calls




Monday 26 June 2017

Jeremy Bamber: Gun cupboard

Boutflour and Eaton state they found the moderator in this gun cupboard after Essex Police had already searched it and found it empty.


Saturday 13 May 2017

Disclosure & UK Appeal System: Dr Dennis Eady

Atttib Dennis Eady
Dr Dennis Eady is founder of South Wales Liberty (now South Wales Against Wrongful Conviction) and case consultant at Cardiff Law School Innocence Project
Disclosure’s Catch 22
The appeal system was set up to ensure that if new evidence arises it could be appropriately considered. But, Dennis Eady notes, there are plenty of systems in place to ensure that no such evidence ever surfaces

Yossarian: Ok, let me see if I’ve got this straight. In order to be grounded, I’ve got to be crazy. And I must be crazy to keep flying. But if I ask to be grounded, that means I’m not crazy anymore, and I have to keep flying.
Dr ‘Doc’ Daneeka: You got it, that’s Catch-22.
Yossarian: Whoo… That’s some catch, that Catch-22.
Dr ‘Doc’ Daneeka: It’s the best there is.
Joseph Heller,
 Catch 22 (1961)

Catch 22 is at the heart of our appeal system. We are not allowed to re-run trial evidence because we are obliged to employ the ‘doublethink’ (to borrow from another novelist with authority issues George Orwell) of believing that juries can never get it wrong, when we surely know that they can.
So it is going to be tough as we will need new evidence for a successful appeal and in practice significant and powerful new evidence.  But it is going to be tougher still because we will confront the vocabulary of new evidence prevention.  Do not make ‘speculative’ enquiries, do not entertain ‘fishing expeditions’, and do not go ‘expert shopping’.  In other words, get new evidence but don’t do anything that might lead to the discovery of new evidence. Yes, it’s some catch, that Catch 22.
In the experience of the innocence project at Cardiff University, there are invariably gaps in the paperwork available, some of which may be due to post-trial moving/storing/mislaying of papers between solicitors and others. Furthermore experts that we consult frequently suggest that we need disclosure of exhibits or additional paperwork in order for them to comment on aspects of the cases.
This is not speculation – it is simply what is required to do a fair and reasonable job for our clients.  Most of our requests for disclosure, whether directly to the police, CPS or within CCRC applications have not resulted in disclosure being made. A couple of examples of recent responses from police forces may be of interest in showing how the Catch 22 mind-set is alive and well when it comes to resisting disclosure.
In the first case the paperwork available to us is very limited yet concerns are apparent that could only be resolved by disclosure of certain reports. These include some witness statements, unused schedules and other investigation records, post mortem reports and photos. These are all items that are frequently disclosed pre-trial and should already be in the case papers.
The response to our request, which was made via a solicitor, was brief, quoting a ‘duty of confidence to those who have given information for policing purposes’ and suggesting that disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Human Rights Act 1998. If these Acts are breached by post-trial disclosure it is hard to see why pre-trial disclosure of such materials does not? Despite utilising the Human Rights Act to deny our client his human right of fair disclosure the police stated that they ‘would like to assist’ and suggested:
‘If you can provide the written consent of the persons who have provided information to the police we would normally agree to provide that information to you.’
This generous gesture was unfortunately in the realms of absurdity, given that most of the documents requested were written by the police themselves.  Furthermore of those that were not, the age of the case meant that trying to track down witnesses would be almost impossible to do, not least because in most cases we lacked the names of who they were.
In the second case, which involved a death in a fire, experts we consulted felt that the information available to them was lacking and we required some of the original fire reports that were missing along with the original photographs. The police took a different approach in this case and decided that:
‘Where some or all of the information can be withheld under one or more Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemptions, requests would be dealt with under FOIA.’
We had not made a Freedom of Information Act request, just a straightforward request for disclosure to assist our work, but nonetheless treating the request that way provided the opportunity to deny our client freedom of information by applying the exemptions within the FOIA. Never let it be said that the British police lack a sense of irony.
Needless to say, there has been a long and complex exchange of argument on this matter. The police argued that information released under the FOIA would have to be disclosed to anyone who requested it and it might therefore be upsetting to the victim’s family and would reveal sensitive police investigation practices to potential criminals. We responded by pointing out that we were in this case requesting objective scientific fire reports not sensitive police files and that the likelihood of the victim’s family or any others making similar requests was to say the least remote – we do work to strict confidentiality protocols. Moreover we stressed that we did not wish to use the FOIA and that was purely a device used by the police to deny freedom of information. The argument goes on but we have little chance of success.
Real prospect
Of course there needs to be some limit to what might be spent on funding endless enquiries into clearly irrelevant issues, but as the Open Justice Charter suggests why should someone who is deprived of their life and liberty not have access to the records of the procedures that have put them there? In the digital age there is even less excuse for denying this.
Why should people maintaining wrongful conviction in an inherently fallible system not be able to test the evidence against them by scrutiny of the investigation, the social context of the witnesses and the validity of the science? There is surely enough evidence from the sad history of wrongful conviction for us to know that these things can and sometimes do go wrong, and to know that the wrong can very rarely be righted without rigorous re-examination of the evidence. Moreover that this re-examination does require ‘thinking out of the box’ and following many avenues that may lead to dead ends but may also be the only hope of finding something new and significant. Without fishing expeditions we will not catch any fish; without expert shopping we will never discover new potentially more enlightened scientific explanations.
Post-trial disclosure is one of the keys to overturning wrongful convictions. The 2014 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Nunn epitomised the Catch 22 problem. Paragraph 30 of the Nunn judgement refers to the Attorney General’s Guidelines on disclosure (2013):
‘Where, after the conclusion of proceedings, material comes to light that might cast doubt upon the safety of the conviction, the prosecutor must consider disclosure of such material.’
The Nunn judgement considers this position ‘properly stated’ with the addition that ‘if there exists a real prospect that further enquiry may reveal something affecting the safety of the conviction, that enquiry ought to be made’ (paragraph 42).
So what is a real prospect? In the Nunn case this was defined very conservatively indeed. It seems that the key discovery has to be known about before any testing can take place. There is no concession to the fact that enquiry and scrutiny in itself sometimes discloses the unexpected revelation. It does suggest that the CCRC ‘does not, and should not, make enquiries only when a reasonable prospect of a conviction being quashed is already demonstrated’ (paragraph 39).
There are two problems with this position. Firstly it is of no help to those who are not eligible to apply to the CCRC because they have not been able to launch an appeal without help to find new evidence to do so.  (You need disclosure to find new evidence for an appeal; the CCRC can do that for you, but only if you have already had an appeal.Yes, it’s some catch that Catch 22).
Those who have been rejected by the CCRC are in the same position. Secondly the experience of many applicants is that the CCRC are not always very keen to use their disclosure obtaining powers and, as research by Professor Caroline Hoyle suggests, the Court of Appeal/CCRC are particularly loath to consider police misconduct or poor legal representation as grounds for appeal.  Consequently the CCRC may feel there is little point in seeking disclosure of items which might ‘merely’ throw questions upon the investigation.
Resistance to disclosure remains one of the greatest obstacles to justice and to systemic integrity, yet in the light of examples ranging from the tragic case of Sean Hodgson (discussed in the Nunn judgement without a trace of irony) to Hillsborough, the authorities should surely be aware that cover-ups make things so much worse in the long run. The Jeremy Bamber case is perhaps the mother and father of illustrations of this resistance to disclosure (see www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk). After more than 30 years, the preferred option is to leave a potentially innocent man on a full life sentence rather than simply disclose material that could potentially exonerate him.
The appeal system has been developed to ensure that if new evidence arises it can be appropriately considered. In turn there are plenty of systems and bureaucrats available to ensure that new evidence does not arise.


Thursday 13 April 2017

Jeremy Bamber: A thirty year injustice

first published June 2016


1) My awakening
All content is supported with documented evidence.

In England, thirty years ago on 28 October 1986, Jeremy Bamber was tried and found guilty, by a ten to twelve majority verdict, of the murders, on the night of 7 August 1985, of his entire family, they being, his adoptive parents; June, an active member of the local church community, father, Nevill, an agricultural farmer and magistrate, Jeremy's adoptive sister, Sheila Caffell, and her six-year-old twin sons.

I recall the images splashed all the over newspapers. I was appalled at the brutality - the violence - the obscenity of it all and those poor little boys, their whole lives ahead of them; shot in the head and heartbreakingly we heard that one was still sucking his thumb when found in his bed.

June and Nevill Bamber lived in the village of Tollesunt D’Arcy, Essex, Jeremy Bamber's home was a few miles away in Goldhanger. Both villages have direct access to the River Blackwater. Visiting with her sons was Sheila, who had been previously diagnosed with Schizophrenia, which, according to local gossip, was exacerbated by her use of illegal drugs, resulting in her admission to a mental health hospital, from which she had been discharged a few days earlier.

Living locally as I do I had daily reminders of those events and presumed Jeremy Bamber was guilty as charged. I trusted the judicial system, our British police, and to a certain extent, the press. I recall being bewildered that Jeremy Bamber had requested that the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) forward his case to the Court of Appeal and although his conviction was upheld Jeremy continued with those requests. I could not understand why he would re-submit the same evidence for review but at that time I did not appreciate the complex nature and criteria of the UK appeal system.

My journey into the truth began one evening in August 2011. Attempting to relax after a busy day and frustratingly channel-hopping for some easy-to-watch TV, my thumb, seemingly ignorant of my plans, paused and hovered tantalisingly over a programme entitled,  ‘Crimes That Shook Britain’ succumbing to curiosity I let it fall onto 'select'.



2) First steps
All content is supported with documented evidence.

I remained motionless as 'Crimes That Shook Britain' credits rolled down the TV screen, trying to take in what I had just watched. I had no sense of disbelief, other than the disbelief that the UK justice system had incarcerated this innocent man for twenty five years, with no circumstantial or forensic evidence linking him to the murders. Yet his two appeals had been overruled - why? But then the company that produced the series, Title Role, is considered reputable. They do not appear to indulge in sensationalism but use credible, investigative journalism such as in the tragic unfolding of events in the life of little Victoria Climbié, tortured and starved to death by her guardians, under the full gaze of Social Services, health professionals and the education system. The atrocity led to a public inquiry and produced major changes in child protection and multi-agency working in the United Kingdom.

Sipping on my glass of red I wandered through the kitchen into my garden, admiring the success of my green-fingered efforts in such a restricted growing environment; and revelling in the pleasure and pride I felt that the blackbirds had honoured my plot again this year and that their sheer perseverance in nest-building, in the grapevine overhanging the pergola, had once again produced a brood.

Sinking into a lounger by the pond - I pondered as to why someone would keep providing the same information for appeal, having had it dismissed by the court previously. The familiar trickle of the water-pump going about its bubbly business was comforting and reassuring so I was unexpectedly overwhelmed with sorrow that this simple pleasure, and the freedom I take for granted, is denied to those locked up for twenty three hours a day; one hour in the exercise yard, which in winter is often after dark.

I had to do - something.

I did not understand the process of appeal back then. Since, I have learnt that the appellant has to provide 'fresh' evidence. How an innocent person is expected to find fresh evidence whilst in prison, is another story. Prior to forwarding to the Court of Appeal this fresh evidence has to be submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), a body established in 1997 primarily to investigate miscarriages of justice as more incidents were being revealed. The CCRC then decide whether the case stands a chance of being heard by the Court of Appeal.

knew Jeremy Bamber was innocent.

I wasted little time in searching on-line for contact information for Jeremy Bamber’s campaign team, sent a brief email, can I help and how? I received a reply from a team administrator the same day, greatly appreciative of my support, adding that speaking or writing to my MP, John Whittingdale, would be the most useful, initial action to take. Whittingdale, at that time, was also Jeremy Bamber’s MP though now rules have been changed and a prisoner has to contact the MP in the locality of the prison in which he or she is incarcerated. In 2011 Jeremy was in HMP Full Sutton, Yorkshire, approximately 220 miles from his home village of Goldhanger, Essex.

I checked out the links on the Jeremy Bamber Campaign website and discovered copies of documents, police logs, statements and phone calls. One particular piece of evidence held my attention. It was a log of a phone call from Jeremy’s father, Nevill Bamber, to Essex Police at 03.26 on 7 August 1985 to report that his daughter, Sheila, had got one of his guns, ‘gone berserk’. I rather naïvely thought that this phone log, along with other documents, must have been overlooked by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and/or Jeremy’s defence team, and that once I had spoken with my MP, and explained the mix up, he would surely see that a miscarriage of justice had occurred and would want to help - after all he had even lived in the same village as Jeremy and must have known the family.

The campaign team had particularly wanted my MP’s help with ‘Freedom of Information’ (FOI) which is a request to Essex Police requiring them to release other relevant documents which had not been produced at trial. I booked a meeting with John Whittingdale at his surgery and wrote to Jeremy. My letters to Jeremy are all handwritten and I regret having not kept copies; though have saved some of my emails sent to him via the email a prisoner service.

Jeremy’s first reply was dated 27 August 2011, five A4 sides, handwritten in capitals; he clearly wanted to ensure his words were legible. He wrote of his childhood, his happy days at Maldon Court School and his favourite teachers, Miss Carter and Miss Robinson. Of his French lessons from aged six and the French au pairs that looked after him, alongside his mother, until he was eight-and-a-half. He reflects on his memories of a ‘lovely little school, happy days’ and recalls fondly how his mother would nervously drive him up the steep Market Hill to school, even in wet and icy weather.

Jeremy’s affection and respect for his father shines through his writing. An agricultural farmer, Nevill grew and sold various crops which Jeremy would deliver to local outlets. Pentland Javelin potatoes grown especially for Copsey, a local fish restaurant. Jeremy writes that recalling delivering potatoes to Copsey is full of happy memories. The owner would give him a portion of chips made from them and Jeremy states, ‘No other potato, chips like it’. He asks me if the shop is still there and speculates as to whether one of the sons now runs it. Copsey still exists and I decide that in with my reply I would enclose a photo of the shop assuring Jeremy that I ‘see’ us both there celebrating his freedom. Jeremy was also so enthusiastic about my appointment with Whittingdale, said he had already written to him. A tear springs to my eye as I re-read his words and recall becoming infected with Jeremy’s enthusiasm and hope as he explained how some of the police files which had been placed under Public Interest Immunity (PII) had recently been sent to him inadvertently. He had only a small percentage of the paperwork but said they referenced other non-disclosed documents and files and that ‘John’ could have access to them if it would help him. He ended with words, genuinely expressed but which I have read so many more times in the past five years, ‘I’ll be out on bail soon’.

However, my new job-in-hand was to focus on preparing for my meeting with my MP. I believed in Jeremy’s innocence but I was new to the jargon, the ‘legalese’ and wanted to be, and sound, confident.


http://simplebooklet.com/disclosurebookletjeremybamber#page=0
copyright JBCampaignLtd

3) The ‘Law’

All content is supported with documented evidence.

It was the 3 September 2011 when I walked up Maldon High Street to the Moot Hall and to where my MP John Whittingdale was holding his surgery.

I arrived in time for my appointment to discover several other people already waiting. A fifty something male clerk, I suppose one could call him, was standing ahead of a queue of people, they appeared to be writing, I presumed it was to provide Whittingdale with a list of constituents waiting to see him. When my turn came I was surprised to discover that I was not shown a list of names but was given an A4 sheet of paper with a box for my signature at the bottom. I asked what it was for and the reply, ‘In case Mr Whittingdale has to do some work for you’. He said to take a seat but as I had not been inside the Moot Hall before I spent my waiting time taking in my surroundings. Eventually my name was called and I was directed up a flight of stairs to a small room where Mr Whittingdale was sitting at a desk. He indicated to the chair opposite. I sat down. He took the sheet of paper whilst I took a deep breath…

As I walked home, mentally regurgitating the tone and content of our meeting, my initial feeling was again one of disbelief. Bet it would be a different story if it were one of his own!

Turning left into Market Hill instead of going directly to my house, I made tracks down to where road bridge crosses the River Blackwater. A member of the Turtle clan, according to the Ameri-Indian tradition, I am drawn to water, its company provides a sympathetic medium when faced with decisions, watching my troubles float out with the tide or simply navel-gazing. Even when the tide is out, this historic ‘once-upon-a-time’ fishing village, which some folk, ignorant of its uniqueness and the wildlife depending on it, refer to as, ‘Maldon on the Mud’, remains precious to the likes of me. Maldon mud can be beautiful, when the setting sun throws a veil of gold, amber, magenta and bronze across the salt marshes. Stepping down from the shallow wall by the ‘Welcome Sailor’ public house, to the delicious smell of the salt and crunch of empty mollusc shells, I review my main points.

To my concerns about Essex Police holding thousands of undisclosed documents on Jeremy Bamber which could help prove his innocence, Whittingdale stated that he could not ‘interfere’ with the law. When I asked to whom would I go when the very system set-up to facilitate justice is itself involved in a miscarriage of justice? He assured me that there is no-one, that he believes in the workings of our justice system - that he, ‘believes in the law.’ However, Googling the case later, I discover that Whittingdale did ‘interfere’ when in Parliament he had singled out Jeremy Bamber and argued that he should not have access to the internet (in the UK certain prisoners, for example for educational or legal reasons, may have controlled and fully supervised access to the internet).

I had taken various documents to leave with Whittingdale and had attempted to make reference to them but he would not entertain even looking at them. He did say that he believed Jeremy Bamber to be guilty, and that he is blaming everyone else instead of taking responsibility for his actions; that he, Whittingdale, had been out to see the relatives and ‘they don’t think much of him at all’.

Tempted to dismiss my effort as a waste of time, I realised it was not - it was a revelation, I had learned a valuable lesson. In regard to their constituents’ requests, MP’s are not obliged to help or advise, are not unbiased, so what is Whittingdale’s role and what is he being paid for? And - where is my signed sheet?

I did not know Jeremy’s adoptive family background. I had read that at trial the jury asked a question about relatives’ possible motive to lie. The response being that family members were wealthy in their own right therefore would have no reason to do so. Upon researching the family tree I discover that this was not the case at the time of trial. There had been a secret deal agreed about land farmed, though not owned by, Ann and Peter Eaton and which was purchased for them, as a favour, by Nevill Bamber.

Jeremy’s reply dated 9 September 2011 was very brief; just as well for me as when it dropped onto the door mat I was still digesting his first letter, especially the closing paragraph,

‘…blind eyes being turned for career progression. Ewen Smith, my appeal solicitor, becoming a CCRC commissioner needs an explanation in the light of what we know - sad to think it but the police sent him a file of PII material by mistake prior to my appeal. As soon as the police realised they told Ewen he must not tell me or my barrister about the contents of this file – he didn’t tell us! I wonder what was in that file?’

In this latest, short letter, one-and-a-bit A4 pages, Jeremy writes that he has been very busy. The QC case files had arrived and he had found more documents hidden under PII revealing that the QC had ten times the amount of documents he produced at trial or gave to Jeremy’s legal team, also that the ‘great news’ was that John Whittingdale was no longer his MP and the ‘office’, Jeremy’s short-cut for his campaign team, had already found documented proof of what Essex Police did to corrupt the case,

‘…full of juicy pieces of evidence never before seen in the public arena, it’ll take three months to read them but not to worry – I hope to be out on bail by then.’

In response to an email to Whittingdale, requesting he return my signed sheet, I received a reply - to imply - that it would not be used. To a second request, referring to the then, on-going MP’s expenses revelations and accompanying outrage; in the post I received a photo-copy of my signature which had clearly been cut from the original document, leaving me to draw my own conclusions.

Having read police officer DI Wilkinson’s statement, my plan was to drive to Goldhanger in the next few day, have a look at the sea-wall and the route that Wilkinson implies that Jeremy Bamber could have cycled in the dark but Jeremy’s next letter, revealing the cover up of the sound moderator (gun silencer) evidence, provided me with a task which I felt took priority.





4) Fake forensics

All content is supported with documented evidence.

Sixteen pages! A detailed letter from Jeremy listing his findings regarding the sound moderator (gun silencer) which the jury had been told was found in a gun cupboard by relatives, though after the same cupboard had previously been searched by Essex Police and logged as empty. Lots to digest. Got to be half-a-bottle of red’s worth.

Jeremy closed by asking if I would write to various legal and justice departments, quoting his evidence - but as I read and re-read the comprehensively evidenced letter I seriously doubted that I could do its content adequate justice.

Jeremy summarised his main points which I highlighted for use in my letter along with the organisations he had asked me to contact.

Decided to delay my taste of the vine until I had pondered a while, perhaps drive to Osea, walk my ‘girls’ along the sea-wall? Having negotiated some of the campaign website I discovered that Osea Caravan Site caretaker had been one of Jeremy’s job descriptions, his father Nevill being the proprietor. Barbara De’Ath, a campaign supporter, paints a revealing canvas of the area in the mid 1980s.

Fighting to engage the ageing gears as I back my little red KA off the drive, I curse this rapidly expiring banger - more money - never ending; then, as was becoming a habit, I dwell once more on what it must be like not to be free to do that very thing. Jeremy has probably forgotten what it is like to drive; he did say when asked what he missed on the outside, that he could not remember what life was like on the outside. I so hope his next appeal is successful. How can the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) not refer it? OK maybe a few years ago, before this new evidence came to light but not now, surely, with his father’s telephone log and the forensics, false and altered statements and police corruption?

The sea air had inflated me with hope and I drove back feeling encouraged and enthused. Quickly fed and settled the dogs then rummaged around for the bottle opener. For a little more encouragement I grabbed my lap-top and searched for the link I had saved of Jeremy’s conversation with the Guardian’s Eric Allison.

I had to read Jeremy’s letter a few more times, as if cramming for an exam. I did not want to ramble and lose my ‘audience’ but at the same time it was vital I included pertinent paragraphs. I wrote several drafts before settling on the final format and content though feel that I could make a better fist of it now that I am more familiar with Jeremy’s case and legal procedures. I then emailed it and posted hard copies by Recorded Delivery.

Jeremy had named every scientist and member of staff who worked on the moderator evidence at Huntingdon Laboratory. Upon reading, it is clear which of those scientists perjured themselves, those who were likely unaware of the collusion and contamination of evidence and those who oversaw the deception, they being mainly various police officers. He adds, 'If you want to see the actual docs yourself ask the 'office' quote the refs and they'll show you.’

Going over this again in 2016 knowing that Jeremy’s appeal application was not successful, I am aware of the rage erupting in my gut, along with the need for justice - not just that, the desire for revenge. We were so hopeful. I will not act upon it; I am impotent in that area anyway but more importantly it would not help Jeremy. He cannot afford to waste energy on revenge; and any anger he feels I imagine he utilises in perfecting his investigation. There’s that lump in my throat again as I recall being told that in the early days, before my involvement and pre-internet, Jeremy would send handwritten drafts to his supporters asking if they would print off flyers to circulate. All those years…

Friday 28 October 2011 brings further positive news. Jeremy writes that everything is ‘happy, happy with the case, and we are finding lots of new stuff’, for use in December for his appeal. He says he would love to tell me everything but he must not, which is hard for him as ‘I cannot keep my own secrets’, though he does allow me in on some of his findings.

Essex Police had asserted that they had photographic evidence supporting their claim that Jeremy had accessed the house on the night of the murders via the shower room window, using a hacksaw blade. When requested by the CCRC, the City of London Police (COLP) and the courts, to reveal in what order these photographs were taken, Essex Police were at a loss as to how to do that, even though recording photographs with times, dates and names of photographers was deemed standard practice. Jeremy writes,

until finally I get disclosed to me four hundred and two case negatives and after fifty hours work I can place every photo in the order it was taken and name each photographer and the relevant statement accompanying it… I discovered that the reason Essex Police didn’t want to do this was because they had perjured themselves when they said they found a hacksaw blade as the photos show this was not the case.’

Jeremy closes with, 'Onwards and upwards. Lots of love and thanks mate for your support.' Then a post script, 'I've just re-read this, I hope you can follow what I'm saying - I'm up for questions - as many as you want.'




5) And so it continues

All content is supported with documented evidence.

Rising and falling with the swell, my eyes absorb the view and the translucent blue of the River Blackwater gleaming in the sunshine. Having driven up Head Street, past the house where Jeremy had lived, then slight left to park outside St Peter’s church in Goldhanger, I placed the lever-arch file in which I keep Jeremy’s letters and other relevant documents into the bag-on-wheels I finally purchased after seeing a much younger woman with one. I had been too proud, even though I had needed such a thing since a back injury many moons ago, I had refused to buy not wanting to be labelled , ‘elderly’. Idiot! Made my way down Fish Street, then left across the fields to the sea wall.

The letter I pull from the file is dated 27 March 2012. Very brief, Jeremy is looking forward to a television programme to be aired a few days hence. It will contain peer-reviewed reports from experienced and highly respected ballistics experts, from both the UK and the US. The aim of the programme, I anticipate, is to show that the wounds on Nevill Bamber were created with the barrel of the rifle and not the moderator, thus placing into doubt the judges conclusion when he led the jury to find Jeremy guilty on the evidence of the moderator alone.

I recall the ITV programme well, and remember tweeting about it over the following days. I was furious as to why a TV producer would take a genuine and credible piece of scientific investigation then use it to air negative views including fabrication by ex-police officers and others.

Judging by the tone of Jeremy’s next letter it was clear that my views on this rubbish piece of television were obviously fed back to him. I suspected I knew the culprit and discovered a piece of slanderous text this person had posted on a forum. This same person had been bombarding me with emails on a daily basis, fourteen in one single day. I dealt with it accordingly. Jeremy blogged his response to the programme, 'Tonight'.

I replied to Jeremy on my feelings both in regard to the programme and on my freedom to express my opinion in whatever way I choose providing it is legal.

During that year Jeremy had asked me to write to various individuals and organisations about the evidence he was finding in these files. Upsetting to think that his case worker at the CCRC withheld photographs and paperwork, for over five years, which supported Jeremy’s innocence and seemingly blatantly lied to him, stating there was nothing significant in them. He left the CCRC shortly after that. Jeremy provided me with his name; said he had complained to this worker’s manager over one hundred times and at that stage had received no substantial response.

With the tide fully up and with it a bit of a breeze I decide to call it a day but as I place the papers back in their date order my hands fall onto an A4 envelope containing copies of the police logs which Jeremy had asked me to send to the media in December 2012. They are written by a PC West on a carbonated pad and have clearly been altered and edited, which is illegal. I was keen to help though the media already had in their possession and published what I believe to be the most significant piece of evidence, that being a copy of Nevill’s telephone call to the police; referenced elsewhere.

Before I had the chance to prepare a covering document, in the next post Jeremy wrote that his solicitor had advised him not to contact the media and to send the copies to my MP only. I knew that sending them to Whittingdale would get me nowhere, and I was sadly proven right.

Checking my emails on arriving home I am pleased to find one from Jeremy’s campaign team with a link to an article in the Express newspaper, referring to Jeremy’s sister, Sheila Caffell and new evidence on what is thought to be her suicide letter. The publicity is helpful but it irritates me greatly that they still insist on referring to Jeremy as a 'mass murderer'. He is not guilty!

So yet another piece of evidence supporting Jeremy’s innocence and withheld by the police. I want to know why. I want to know who profited, apart from the relatives gaining the land and Jeremy’s inheritance. I want to know how this was allowed to happen and continues to happen. Why are the organisations set up to prevent and expose injustice, the very ones who foster it? Stephen Lawrence, Barry George, Birmingham Six, Eddie Gilfoyle, Hillsborough, and more.

Reflecting on my meeting with Whittingdale and his words when I had concluded my case; they being that Jeremy Bamber blames everyone else, when instead he should take responsibility for the crime. Of course my point is that, not only can Jeremy name those responsible, he has the documented proof. I do not defend Whittingdale’s response in the face of the evidence before him but I do understand his thought processes. It is hard to accept that not just one department in the UK justice system but many, colluded in the lie and what is it that made this particular group of people do so? Now it might be that Mugford, the relatives and Essex Police were subject to different motivations. Mugford was jealous and possibly frightened of the outcome for her as she was being charged with various criminal offences including drug smuggling and maintained that she had known, for some time, that Jeremy was planning to kill all his family, including young boys, so where did that leave her credibility and integrity? The relatives were threatened with losing their financial status; Essex Police officers? Perhaps panicked as to the repercussions should it be revealed that Sheila was alive in the kitchen and they could have saved her; or maybe they did fire the fatal bullet? They also bodged the crime scene by using it as a training ground for over fifty rookies, but from whose mouth did the decision emanate that this young man was dispensable so must be disposed of? Who was/is powerful enough to ensure the lie was manufactured, given life and continues to be fed?

What is it about ‘group think’? What is it that encourages and promotes this, above-the-law belief and allows a police officer, for example, to feel he/she has the ‘divine right’ to behave in ways about which a more rational, responsible person may think twice? Only a week or so ago, in the news, we heard of yet another police car-chase ending in tragedy. What made the driver and his fellow police officers feel so disengaged or lacking in accountability that they considered driving at alarming speeds, chasing someone who had stolen a car - not committed a murder - through an area where there were pedestrians at risk? Couldn’t they have waited until he stopped, ran out of petrol or use CCTV to track him? What kind of structure of training assures them that it is acceptable to act like delinquents whilst the rest of the population is criminalised for the same behaviours?

The dynamics of groups has been studied and written about in depth by those more qualified than myself though I do know something about group-think, due to my past experiences especially within religious groups and cults - and families! In his book, ‘People of the Lie’ about collective ‘evil’, M Scott Peck 1) (writing in the 1990s) lists certain personality traits prevalent in those who join groups. For example, the army, the priesthood and the police force, now officially known as the more user-friendly, Police Service. Peck maintains that a certain type of individual is attracted to certain groups and that a person does not become a police officer by accident. Broadly speaking he writes that the background of someone attracted to the police service is lower middle-class, is aggressive and conventional; Scott speculates that police work allows for a certain amount of aggression in the ‘service of the law’. This group of individuals are distinctly different from other types, for example graduates in English or the Arts, or anti-war demonstrators. Other contributory influences may be, a damaged family background, a need to belong and restricted self-awareness. Peck further states that society at large colludes with these criteria as it wants aggressive, conventional people to represent its police service. Those employees who feel uncomfortable with the expectations of their role, may resign and others, as I can verify due to my counselling work with Essex Police, (officers of all ranks and civilians) can feel a build up of stress, often leading to emotional or physical illness or have felt so pressured to conform they may mentally breakdown.

Closing my laptop my thoughts drift to Jeremy's most recent letter. An intelligent man, he likes to keep up with new ideas and technology and has shared his knowledge through teaching a variety of courses in whichever establishment he has found himself locked up 'at her majesty's pleasure'. I had asked for a run down of his jobs and presume they will be in this, unusually 'to be signed for' letter, though always bubbling at the back of my mind is that it will contain news that justice has prevailed with his imminent release.

The successful outcome of the forensics on Sheila’s suicide letter will be the catalyst for another referral to the CCRC and an appeal - and not before time but - I do not trust the system. There, I have said it, but so want to be proven wrong.

1) Peck, M Scott. (1990) ‘People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil’, Arrow Books