Hillsborough: The Truth… A quarter of a century late

Mark Austin ITV News presenter

Liverpool fans trying to escape severe overcrowding during the FA Cup semi-final football match against Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough. Photo: David Giles/PA Wire

Well they thought it would be bad, but never in the darkest of many dark hours for the families of the Hillsborough tragedy could they have imagined it would be quite as bad as this.
The 23-year-old secrets contained in thousands of documents are simply shocking.
The truth was there. Oh, yes, it was there alright. It‘s been there all the time.
It’s just that it was concealed in redacted documents and doctored statements and in the minds of those who made decisions that day that should never have been made .
The truth was “there”. Mercifully for the people of Liverpool it is now "out there".

A Liverpool fan at Hillsborough after their FA Cup semi-final football match. Credit: A Liverpool fan at Hillsborough after their FA Cup semi-final football match

I was a sports correspondent at the time.
But there I was hurtling up the M1 on a warm,sunny, Spring weekend listening to, but not believing, what I was hearing on the car radio .
Football commentators became purveyors of horror that afternoon.
Radio voices we associated with Saturday afternoon near misses, bad tackles and wonderfully struck goals, were now conveying a terrible story of tragedy.
Even so, when I arrived I was not prepared for what I encountered. Weeping relatives outside a gym that had become a temporary mortuary.
They told me they were being shown photographs of bodies from which they had to identify their sons, daughters, sisters and brothers.
Once identified, the numbered body bag was brought to them.
They had to confirm it was their loved one, then they were asked all sorts of questions about what happened before the game, including how many pubs they had been to.

Fans on the pitch receiving attention after severe crushing at Hillsborough Credit: David and John Giles/PA Wire

Already, just a few hours after the tragedy, the anger was there.
But while many relatives and friends of the dead were blaming the police, those very police were already pointing fingers at the fans .
A medic I saw leaving Hillsborough that day told me they weren’t allowed on the pitch because of the fighting.
The police won the propaganda battle.Theirs was to become the widely accepted narrative.
Drunken, ticketless, violent Liverpool fans were responsible for the disaster and that was that.
Only, that wasn’t that. The families of the dead would not let it rest.

Fan pays tribute at the Hillsborough Memorial in Liverpool. Credit: Press Association

And today, almost a quarter of a century on, they have their victory, their vindication.
We now know the game was at a hopelessly inadequate ground. We now know Liverpool fans were not to blame. We now know there was a complete failure of crowd control.
We now know there was a woeful response by police and rescue services. We now know that, perhaps, 41 lives could have been saved that day.
And worst of all we now know there was a cover-up sanctioned and organised by senior police officers that brings shame to the force.

A copy of the report delivered by the Hillsborough Independent Panel Credit: Peter Byrne/PA Wire

I’ve heard it said many times that Hillsborough changed football for ever. And of course it is true.
In the eighties, hooliganism meant fans were treated like caged animals. Seldom has tar and brush been used so unthinkingly.
Everybody was to blame. Everybody had to suffer .
Now fans are treated like human beings. It’s a family game.
But at what cost? Ninety-six dead, hundreds injured and many,many bearing the mental scars forever.

Hillsborough Family Support Group members Jenny Hicks (2nd left), Margaret Aspinall, and Trevor Hicks during a press conference. Credit: Peter Byrne/PA Wire

Today, the Hillsborough families have finally got the truth. They have finally got an apology and who knows, they may eventually get justice.
But it is an appalling story of betrayal. And perhaps the biggest scandal of all is that it has taken 23 years to get here .

Last updated Mon 15 Sep 2014

Jeremy Bamber:Essex Police and the Missing Files

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Edmund Burke

Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797

                                                                                  
30 years ago, October 1986 Jeremy Bamber was tried and found guilty for the murder of his entire family at White house Farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex, in August 1885. 

Essex Police are still withholding 340,000 pages of documents and 175 photos under Public Interest Immunity (PII).  Essex Police and the CPS refuse to address the issue of the 2001 and 2002 Appeals and comply with Court Orders for disclosure.  What is more concerning is that this issue is not being addressed automatically by the courts, leaving Jeremy with the responsibility of acquiring the finances necessary for a court hearing and ruling to enforce that order.  On the campaign team website is a petition that the Secretary of State for Justice intervene along with a booklet outlining the documents required for disclosure.

The documents in Jeremy's possession indicate that Essex Police had two separate files on the White House Farm murders and two separate case numbers.  The initial file concluded that Sheila Caffell, suffering from schizophrenia, had killed her adoptive mother and father, June and Nevill Bamber along with her twin sons, then committed suicide.  However, at a later stage the investigation took a different view; the total reasons are not clear but this change in stance seems to coincide with Julie Mugford's claim that Jeremy had told her he was planning to kill his family, plus information fed to Essex Police by Jeremy's relatives.  It was no secret that the relatives disliked Jeremy and referred to him as the 'cuckoo in the nest'.

Others documents which have since been released and are on the Jeremy Bamber  website, also give reference to Essex Police original conclusions.

Andrew Hunter in 2005, then MP for Basingstoke, address to parliament.

Although 98% of all documents are still being withheld by Essex Police.  The 2% Jeremy's team do have include hand written police records, the telephone log of

Nevill Bamber's call to the police at 03.26 as well as events occurring inside the house from approximately 04.00.

Significantly all the following events took place whilst Jeremy Bamber was standing outside with police officers; several names are provided, amongst them PC Bews and PC Myall.

Other police officers were called in, including the firearms team, and upon breaking down the door over three hours later, at around 07.30 recorded,
'One dead male one dead female in kitchen'

.

PC Hall states that whilst in the company of PC Collins, PC Delgado, A/PC Woodcock,

'I immediately heard a noise upstairs, I began to challenge up the stairs I was covering.  I was

calling to Sheila BAMBER to make her whereabouts known to me.'

More on Julie Mugford now Smerchanski, now living in Winnipeg, Canada.

And further information on Jeremy's relatives Ann and Peter Eaton
David Boutflour.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of Jeremy Bamber though not a member of his campaign team; so do not speak or write in an official capacity in that sense; though I do have some thoughts around further motives and possible reasons why these documents are being withheld.

We know that Julie Mugford lied when she told Essex Police and the jury that Jeremy had spoken about plans to kill his family and that he had said, 'tonight's the night'.  She also exposed herself as a liar independently of that, on saying that Jeremy had hired a 'hit-man' Matthew McDonald who proved to have an alibi. 

The question of why Mugford lied and went on to lie at Jeremy's trial is often explained as the action of a 'woman scorned' as Jeremy had ended their relationship shortly after the tragedies and she wanted to retaliate; also she was being charged with bringing drugs into the UK from Canada, burglary and cheque fraud, documents indicate that Essex Police did a deal of sorts to drop these charges if she agreed to stand as witness for the prosecution.

We will possibly never know the whole truth but I now believe that Mugford was threatened with a more significant charge, holding a more severe custodial sentence.  It has no affect on Jeremy's innocence and is not meant as a defence as to her actions as apart from that she was happy to accept money from Jeremy for her holiday also to perjure herself on the promise of a £25,000 pay-out from selling her story to the News of The World.

(HOLMES 64/13 - 1/12 - 5/10 - 1/49)
According to Mugford's friend, Elizabeth Rimmington, Mugford had told her that Jeremy had spoken of killing his family.  Around the same time Rimmington had confessed to Mugford that she had also been 'sleeping' with Jeremy; and it was she, ER, who actually contacted the police to report what Mugford had told her (though the exact content of that statement is still being withheld by Essex Police).  Julie Mugford was called in by Essex Police for questioning.  It is possible that Mugford was threatened with being an accessory to the crime, as in her desire to destroy Jeremy she had implicated herself by stating that he had told her what he was planning and that he had said, 'tonight's the night.'  This would likely come under the offence of  'joint enterprise' which is used to incriminate anyone who was present or knew of a crime, even if they did not take a part; and holds a far greater custodial sentence than cheque fraud, burglary etc. As I said previously, it makes no difference but it makes more sense - in a sense.

After the trial and Jeremy's conviction, Mugford moved to Canada, eventually marrying, thus changing her name to Smerchanski.  There are two children from the marriage. It is believed that she will be subpoenaed in the event of an appeal.

Sheila had received two bullet wounds to her neck, the pathologist report states that she shot herself though the first would be unlikely to have killed her and she could have moved around, made her way upstairs and shot herself again, the second shot being fatal.  Recently I have begun to contemplate whether it was in fact Essex Police Fire Arms Team who fired the second shot into Sheila's neck even though she may have already been dead, as documents show that over fifty other people entered the crime scene over the following day and that the scene was used as a training exercise with the gun being moved on and off of Sheila's body.  Plus the original shattered bullet was miraculously made whole and changed size by the time of trial, perhaps another reason for the denial of the original logs of 'one dead male, one dead female in kitchen' and the non-disclosure of other events? Well, I say, 'non-disclosure' but that is just the phrase used to make the act seem more justifiable, in fact it means deliberately lying about events in order to fool judge and jury.

Other failings are that of the Criminal Cases Review Committee (CCRC).  The list is quite comprehensive including illustrations of possible conflicts of interest.  

The trial judge, Justice Drake, in his summing up, led the jury to find Jeremy guilty on the evidence of the moderator alone; prosecution having maintained that Jeremy had placed it on the gun, killed his family, then removed it; his relatives had claimed to have found the moderator in the gun cupboard which police logs show had been searched by police at an earlier time and had found empty. Jeremy maintained that when he left the gun on the settle, after shooting rabbits, that the silencer was not on it - was never on it.

Peer reviewed, fresh evidence was placed before the CCRC in 2012 by four pre-eminent scientists and ballistics experts, showing that the burns on Nevill Bamber's body were made with the muzzle of the gun, not the moderator, which of course has the propensity of making the original guilty verdict unsafe, yet the CCRC refuse to accept their findings and refer to the Court of Appeal. The CCRC seem oblivious as to the application of the 'Golden Rule' i.e. that any material which weakened the prosecution's case or strengthened that of the defence should be disclosed. (House of Lords R v H & C).  One can only speculate as to why. i) Disclosure and PII 

Reference to Michael O'Brien's account of his appeal in his book, 'The Death of Justice' (Cardiff Newsagent Three), in his summing up the judge said (sic) that both clinical and other evidence not seen or understood fully by the jury at trial, may now be taken into consideration; clearly meaning that if the jury had had the information and professional input at trial which was available at the time of their appeal, then there is a strong likelihood that given that information the jury would have found them not guilty.

It therefore must surely be appropriate to follow that precedent in Jeremy Bamber's case.

i) Information Brief: Disclosure and Public Interest Immunity in Serious Cases
Website: www.rahmanravelli.co.uk

2001/2002 Court Order Essex Police 

Disclosure Booklet

Essex Police destroyed evidence despite Court Order to disclose

Jeremy Bamber: New, Independent Appraisal by 'Generation Why'

Preamble:

I've met with and written to my MP, John Whittingdale, several times, (he was also Jeremy Bamber's MP) asking him to help me with many issues relating to Jeremy's arrest and trial, including a FOI request that Essex Police release all documents relating to the case and which have been hidden under the misuse of Public Interest Immunity (PII).  Whittingdale is adamant that Jeremy is guilty and in any case refuses to help me, stating that there is nothing he can do, that he cannot interfere - though he did, 'interfere' when he addressed parliament about the suitability of Jeremy having access, via prison staff, to the internet.  Sauce for the goose...

I've also written to dozens of politicians and church leaders including; PM David Cameron, Nick Clegg, ex Labour Leader Ed Miliband, Home Secretary Theresa May, Shadow Justice Minister Lord Falconer, Bishop of Chelmsford (those last two couldn't even be bothered to respond) COLP, CCRC, IPCC, Bishop of Liverpool, Archbishops of York Dr. John Sentamu and Rowan Williams, (then Archbishop of Canterbury), Keith Vaz, Keir Starmer, Chris Grayling (when Justice Minister) Witham MP Priti Patel; she, who on BBC 'Question Time' admitted she was in favour of the death penalty for the UK; as a deterrent! So innocent Jeremy would be dead if she had her way). None will help, Oh, Dame Joan Bakewell offered sincere advice, bless her but said it's beyond her scope.

I believe the government are running scared because of public outrage that will erupt when this gravest and longest, THIRTY YEAR miscarriage of justice and corruption finally breaks free; and challenges the credibility and integrity of the whole UK judiciary system.

*********

The following independent podcast appraisal of Jeremy Bamber's arrest, trial, and conviction is unbiased, clear and constructive.  Their conclusion is an obvious one, as it would be to anybody given the full facts of the case and had sight of the evidence which Essex Police and the prosecution withheld from the defence, the judge and jury; who if they had seen it, would surely have led them to the verdict that Jeremy Bamber was/is innocent, beyond doubt.

White House Farm Murders – 141 – Generation Why  

Jeremy Bamber: Why was sentence changed in secret?

1988 By Secretary of State Douglas Hurd



Copyright © Jeremy Bamber Campaign Attrib: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/jeremy-s-sentence Updated 02.03.13 British Government Maintains ‘Reviews in Whole Life Orders’ are Giving Prisoners False hope. On the 28th of November 2012 the European Grand Chamber heard the case for appeal against the whole life tariff’s of three prisoners from the UK, Vinter, Bamber and Moore. Back in January 2012 the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, voted that whole life sentences do not contravene Article 3 of Human Rights Law, even in cases where a sentence was imposed on the prisoner retrospectively and in secret. The case is for prisoners to have a ‘review’ inserted into their whole life sentences. The prisoners assert that in contrary to article 3 of the Human Rights Act, to have a whole life sentence imposed without a mechanism for review is inhuman and degrading on the following grounds. Whole life sentencing means permanent exclusion from society in a similar way that its predecessor did - sentence to death was also permanent exclusion from society.[1] The appellants argued that to be imprisoned for whole life, means withdrawing not only the possibility of atonement, but also hope, it is then argued that to live without hope amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment. Law in England and Wales currently has conflicting ideologies where the objective of imprisonment is concerned.  Our present alignment with European law makes us part of the reintergationist view of imprisonment, where prisoners rehabilitate as part of their punishment and become integrated back into our communities. Contrasting with this is whole life sentencing, without any reviews, which follows the exclusionary doctrine of hanging, and is at odds with the European reintergrationist ideology. As the British Government detail in their defence to the Grand Chamber, whole life orders are for the ‘purposes of punishment and deterrence,’ with not a single reference to redemption, atonement or re-integration or the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.[2]   The public dissatisfaction which preceded the abolition of the death penalty in the UK, was brought about because of high profile cases where innocent people had been hanged.[3] Those who are wrongly convicted, and posthumously cleared can never have their lives back, and this is a very strong argument considering the high volume of miscarriages of justice which according to Dr Michael Naughton, of Bristol University Innocence Project, are a ‘mundane part of the justice system’ and which now total 18 cases per day.[4]  One of the appellants who has always maintained innocence and makes serious representations to support his claims, is Jeremy Bamber, who was convicted by a 10:2 majority verdict in 1986. Under the old system he would not have been sentenced to death because hanging was only an option for those convicted by a unanimous verdict. Bamber would likely have had a sentence fixed at 25 years, and is therefore one of the few whole life sentence prisoners who would be better off under the archaic system abolished in 1965. The trial judge, Mr Justice Drake, sentenced Bamber to serve ‘life’ and both he and the Lord Chief Justice recommended that Jeremy Bamber should serve a minimum of 25 years before a review. However, in 1988 the Secretary of State, Mr Douglas Hurd, imposed a whole life tariff without informing Bamber.[5] After prisoners won a Judicial Review of the Secretary of State’s reserved right not to tell prisoners the length of their sentence, on the 15th of December 1994, the Home Office Prison services, then formally advised Jeremy Bamber of this decision.[6] Until this point, Jeremy Bamber had been unaware that his sentence had been upgraded by the Government retrospectively. The fact that whole life sentences were introduced in 1983, and the first one was not set until 1988, is surprisingly not in breach of Article 7 (1) of the Human Rights Convention. The Home Office Prison Service also formally advised Jeremy that he would serve the whole life sentence with a review which was already set for 2002 by the Secretary of State.[7]  But this review was withdrawn when the House of Lords held that the Secretary of State was not an ‘independent and impartial tribunal,’ and that political sentencing of this type was incompatible with the convention right to a fair trial.[8]   The Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003, reformed the law in England and Wales, and removed all reviews from mandatory life sentences upgraded to discretionary whole life orders, thus withdrawing the powers previously held by the Secretary of State to apply sentence reviews or set tariffs.[9]  Transitional provisions of the CJA of 2003, allowed Bamber to apply to the High Court for a review of the whole life term because it had been set by a politician and not a judge.[10] In accordance with this provision, Bamber challenged his new sentence which had been imposed by the Secretary of State, it was heard, and astonishingly still upheld by the High Court on the 16th of May 2008 despite the CJA aiming to ‘judicialise’ sentencing. In 2012 Jeremy Bamber took his case to the European Court of Human Rights with this background, and made appeals that the British Government were in breach of Articles, 3, 5 and 7 of European Human Rights Law. Submissions by his lawyers included: “the sentence which the trial judge would have passed, if he had had the power to do so, namely a minimum term of 25 years, was reviewed by the High Court nearly 22 years afterwards applying a sentencing regime created 17 years afterwards, which is more severe than the one which prevailed at the time the offences were committed. That can neither be fair nor compatible with the requirements of Article 7 (1).” Bamber’s legal team added: 'It cannot be acceptable for the Government to have promised a whole life prisoner a series of reviews at the stages identified in this letter and then to renege on that promise and withdraw that right to review, and consequently the possibility of release.' [11] On 17th of January 2012 the European Court ruled that there had been no breach of Article 3. This was a narrow majority ruling, with three out of the seven judges dissenting. Clearly exclusionary forms of sentencing are still favourable in contrary to European integrationist penal trends. The dissenting judges stated that the appellants were denied the Human Right to ‘hope’ which did amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. On the 28th of November 2012 Bamber, Vinter and Moore returned to Europe, this time in the Grand Chamber to see if they could have some ‘hope’ put into their sentences. On the 24th of September 2012, a non Governmental Organization known as the ‘Hungarian Helsinki Committee’ sought leave to submit a third party intervention on behalf of Vinter, Bamber and Moore under rule 44 (3) of the court. The Committee ‘monitors the enforcement of human rights’ and ‘has for years been advocating for abolishing lifelong imprisonment without the possibility of parole.’ The application made by the Committee was refused by the court as was their intervention into the case of a Hungarian man jailed for whole life without a mechanism for release.[12] It seems even Strasbourg reject the insertion of release mechanisms, so the possibility of the appellants winning their case is slim. Our concern is that not only has England and Wales have been unethical in setting sentences, and is still in the mode of political meddling, but this country brings itself into conflict with Europe and Scotland as a result. Michael Mansfield QC has suggested the following where miscarriages of justice are concerned. “Despite the CCRC there are cases where strong evidence of innocence or serious doubts of the conviction, exist, which do not meet the stringent criteria of the CCRC and the appeal courts. The INUK and this book, then, present an imperative attempt to resurrect alternatives for such cases where the CCRC can offer no hope to, such as petitioning the Secretary of State for a pardon under the prerogative of mercy”[13]   Most concerning of all is that Jeremy Bamber is not eligible for a prerogative pardon under his whole life order - there is no mechanism for review. The Bamber case highlights the most unusual set of circumstances in which the government ‘secretly’ interfered with the imposition of sentences. We should be even more concerned that there is no provision for the possibility that the judiciary is setting what is effectively a ‘death sentence’ to individuals who maintain innocence with no mechanism for review, and this has echoes of the death sentence imposed on Troy Davies in the USA, despite his maintaining innocence with supporting evidence. More attention must be paid to the absurdity of political sentencing ethics which are supported by the UK judiciary (when it suits) and how these conflict with European Human rights laws if we are ever to find a system that works satisfactorily. [1] “reintergrationist” versus “exclusionary” types of imprisonment, Dolovich. pg 13 & 122; Life Without Parole, Ed Ogletree and Sarat, NYU Press, 2012. [2] Observations on Behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom, 18th September, 2012. [3] Derek Bentley, Timothy Evans [4] Daily average in Crown Court, CACD (including referrals from the CCRC) and House of Lords, Naughton, M. Rethinking Miscarriages of Justice: Hope for the Innocent, 2012 edition, Palgrave, Basingstoke. [5] Observations on Behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom, 18th September, 2012. [6]R (Doody) v Secretary of State for the Home department http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Secretary_of_State_for_the_Home_Department_Ex_p_Doody [7] Home Office, Prison Service letter to Mr Bamber, 15th December 1994 [8] R (on the application of Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] [9] Schedule 21, CJA 2003 [10] Schedule 22, CJA 2003 [11] Bamber v United Kingdom, 2012 [12] Letters Grand Chamber and Hungarian Helsinki Committee, 27th January 2012 [13] Mansfield, foreward xxii.  Naughton, M. The Criminal Cases Review Commission: Hope for the Innocent, 2012 edition, Palgrave, Basingstoke.                                                                                                       **** “The enormity of the universe can make us feel so small but there is nothing greater than our own capacity to endure.”  Jeremy Bamber September, 2012

Exclusive: Jeremy Bamber PII and Essex Police

 
Attrib: Basildon Yellow Advertiser

EXCLUSIVE: Essex Police silent over allegations it is hiding important files on Jeremy Bamber murder case, as campaigners demand their publication

Friday, 21 August 2015 By Charles Thomson          

Jeremy Bamber pictured in jail by a friend in 2010.

POLICE have refused to answer allegations that they are withholding important documents about their investigation into convicted murderer Jeremy Bamber.

The force twice failed to answer questions by the YA about claims made in a new online petition.

Campaigners have launched the petition claiming Essex Police has refused to release ’thousands of pages’ of information. Signatories are asked to call on justice minister Michael Gove to intervene.
Mr Bamber, 54, was convicted in 1986 of murdering his adoptive parents, adoptive sister and her six-year-old twin sons at White House Farm in Maldon.

He was convicted on the strength of a 10-2 majority verdict and is serving a whole-life sentence.
He continues to protest his innocence and campaigners say releasing unseen documents could provide grounds for a new appeal.

In 2001 the Criminal Cases Review Commission decided there were possible grounds for appeal and referred his case to the Appeal Court, but judges upheld the conviction.

Heidi Hawkins, 53, from Jersey, a member of the Jeremy Bamber Official Campaign, said the group believes the files exist because they are referenced in documents which have been made public.
She claimed many of the unseen papers detailed the early stages of the investigation, when police believed the deaths were the result of a murder-suicide killing by Bamber’s adoptive sister Sheila.
Ms Hawkins claimed the documents were never released because the subsequent investigation into Mr Bamber was dealt with as a separate case.

The petition, launched two weeks ago, has attracted more than 400 signatures. Campaigners have also released a 99p e-book on Amazon detailing their case that Mr Bamber was wrongly convicted.
The petition states that Essex Police is refusing to release documents by citing ’public interest immunity’, meaning it claims there is no public interest in publishing them.

However, campaigners strongly disagree, saying even people who believe Mr Bamber is guilty have signed the petition, posting messages saying the information should still be made public.
Ms Hawkins said: “If they have nothing to hide then let’s see all of the information. We just want justice for Jeremy Bamber. Nobody gets a fair trial if you don’t hear half of the information.”

When the YA asked Essex Police to confirm or deny whether it was refusing to release documents, a spokesman said: “Essex Police has no comment to make on this matter, given that Jeremy Bamber’s conviction has been the subject of several appeals and reviews by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and there has never been anything to suggest that he was wrongly convicted.”
The YA again asked the force to confirm or deny the claims but the spokesman replied: “No further comment beyond our statement.”

The YA asked the Police Commissioner’s office, which has a duty to scrutinise Essex Police’s decisions, whether it would investigate the campaigners’ claims.

Deputy Commissioner Lindsay Whitehouse said: “I am aware that a petition is being circulated asking for the disclosure of documents relating to the Bamber case. We are considering the implications of the matter and are unable to comment further at this time.”

For more information, visit: http://tinyurl.com/Bamber-Petition-Page

Essex Police: PII abuse: Jeremy Bamber

Essex Police: Release ALL Documents Withheld under PII to Jeremy Bamber’s Legal Defence

The Jeremy Bamber Official Campaign

The Jeremy Bamber Official Campaign

 

Essex Police: Release All Documents Withheld under Public Interest Immunity (PII) to Jeremy Bamber’s Legal Defence Team with Immediate Effect.
As 30 years have now elapsed since the tragedy took place, there is no beneficial reason for withholding the documents and photographs by refusing disclosure under Public Interest Immunity or for any other reason. The public have a right to insist that they are released to his Defence Counsel forthwith so that a fresh appeal can be lodged on Jeremy’s behalf.
At White House Farm, Tolleshunt D’Arcy, England on the 7th August 1985, five members of the same family were shot dead. They included Nevill Bamber, his wife June Bamber and their daughter Sheila Caffell and Sheila’s twin sons, Nicholas and Daniel Caffell. Based upon evidence the police established the shootings as a case of murder/suicide.
However, Jeremy Bamber, Nevill and June’s son was arrested on the 8th September and released after six days of questioning. He was re-arrested on the 29th September and charged with murder. In October 1986 he was convicted on a 10:2 majority verdict and given a twenty-five year sentence, but the Home Secretary changed this to whole life in 1994.
Disclosure Required
1.      Original handwritten logs and statements written by Malcolm Bonnett & PC West relating to Jeremy’s father calling the Police between 03:00am and 03:30 am saying his daughter had gone berserk with the gun.
2.      The original situation report radioed in by PS Bews calling out the firearms team because he'd seen Sheila Caffell moving in the house while Jeremy was with police. Also PS Bews and PC Myall’s original witness statements written on the 7th August 1985.
3.      The 06.9.85 Report by DI Kenneally stating that the evidence showed Sheila was responsible for murdering her family and then committing suicide.
4.      Also required, the audio recordings of the open phone line at White House Farm recording the raid on the house by the Firearms Officers who broke in at 07:39am.
5.      The original handwritten statements from first case investigation number SC/688/85 including those written by the raid team and all fifty-four (54) people who entered the house on the 7th August 1985.
6.      Interviews from the DI Dickinson Enquiry including those from the forensic scientists Glynis Howard, Malcolm Fletcher, Graham Craddock and Graham Renshaw to discover if they wrote the same things to the Dickinson Enquiry regarding two sound moderators, that they later admitted to during the 1991 C.O.L.P Enquiry.
7.      Public Interest Immunity file on Julie Mugford referring to her ‘deal’ with the Crown Prosecution Service in exchange for immunity from prosecution for five criminal offences three of which were unknown to the jury. Also disclosure of the Essex Police file on the £25,000 newspaper deal, agreed to in November/December 1985 (pre-trial) by Julie Mugford’s solicitors.
8.      Photographs of all the rooms in white house Farm including those containing firearms such as the main office, and the box room next to the Master bedroom. In November 2001, all the case negatives were in uncut complete strips of ten. By 2011 and their disclosure to Jeremy, someone had cut and removed seventy-seven (77) negative images from these film strips, which left sixteen (16) of them cut up into multiple pieces of two, three and four frames. Disclosure is required of all seventy-seven (77) photographic images.
9.      Sheila Caffell's medical/psychiatric records referring to her conversations with her consulting psychiatrist where she informs him she was afraid she would kill her children - as he briefly mentioned at trial. Disclosure of her 1983 and 1985 diaries periods where she suffered severe episodes of psychosis.
10.   Original forensic report by Renshaw referring to the blood in the sound moderator as identical to beneficiary of the Bamber estate Robert Boutflour, one of the relatives who found it after police searched the house and 'missed it'.
Jeremy Bamber has been in prison for 30 years.  Please sign the Petition. Thank you.

Letter to

Michael Gove - Secretary of State for Justice

Essex Police: Release ALL Documents Withheld under PII to Jeremy Bamber’s Legal Defence Tm

 

Share this Petition

Jeremy Bamber: Anglia TV piece...

10 August 2015 at 10:17am




Anglia TV Natalie Gray 
Jeremy Bamber 30 Years On                                                            

Petition Michael Gove: Essex Police: Release ALL Documents Withheld under PII to Jeremy Bamber’s Legal Defence

Last updated Mon 10 Aug 2015

• Jeremy Bamber
• Natalie Gray
• Essex

Jeremy Bamber: CCRC & Court of Appeal

Until I became a supporter of Jeremy Bamber I did not understand the process of court appeals and I am still far from an expert but...

I had originally thought that at an appeal the same evidence is re-tried and I used to wonder why someone would keep providing the same information, having had it dismissed by the court previously; since then I have learnt that the appellant has to provide 'new' evidence.  How an innocent person is expected to find new evidence whilst in prison, is another story.

Before an appeal can be heard by a judge it has to be submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), a body set-up precisely to deal with miscarriages of justice.  The CCRC then decide whether the case stands a chance of being heard by the Court of Appeal.
Justice Committee discussion on CCRC

A major factor in Jeremy Bamber's case is that in the original investigation Essex Police believed there was sufficient evidence to support the fact that Sheila Caffell, suffering from schizophrenia, having just been released from a mental health unit after a psychotic episode, had killed the family then turned the gun on herself.  But by the time the case went to trial, this had all changed and now Essex Police and the Crown Prosecution (CPS) were maintaining that Jeremy Bamber committed the murders.  Jeremy had told Essex Police that when he left his family home that evening, there was tension; his parents had been speaking to Sheila about having her, seven year old, twin sons fostered again.  The police and prosecution denied this but now there is the evidence to show that foster carers and social service staff had been interviewed
 

As I understand it, much of the original case notes and police logs, citing Sheila, were given a different case number and withheld from the defence also from the jury at Jeremy's trial.  Although Jeremy's team now have access to some of this original information, I think I am correct in stating that, as far as the CCRC is concerned, it is not considered new evidence. No consideration appears to be given to how the defence could possibly know what had been withheld from them!

 

Jeremy has always maintained his innocence and his story of the events of that night has never changed and now he has documented evidence to support that.  Let us hope that sanity prevails and that the law is not the ass it is so often accused of being.

Jeremy Bamber: Sheila Caffell's twins WERE

previously taken into foster care, due to their mother, Sheila Caffell's mental health problems.  Essex Police denied this but here are the facts, plus the names of the foster carers and social services staff 2).

WHF secretary, Barbara Wilson, for reasons known only to herself, changed her positive testimony about Jeremy Bamber to a negative one.  Her original police statement 1).

Barbara Wilson died within weeks of contributing to a further, slanderous, TV programme about Jeremy Bamber, on Channel 5 in 2014, so cannot be challenged further as to her motives for concealing the truth.

The following is Jeremy Bamber's response to another programme,  ITV's 'Tonight', in March 2012 which, before airing, professed to be providing a 'balanced' view and although it showed evidence of the burns on Nevill's body which were consistent with the nozzle of the rifle and NOT the moderator, one has to question why the imbalance of contributors in favour of the prosecution?  Where's the balance between black and white?  How can one  'balance' the truth with falsehood?

Review of ITVs' 'Tonight' programme by Jeremy Bamber  (Edits and highlights by PAM)

The ITV 1 'Tonight’ programme on the 29th March 2012 gave the viewer a good insight into the new ballistics evidence, pathology evidence and new forensic matters relating to a sound moderator. My trial in 1986 centred on a sound moderator and the Judge told the jury: ‘It’s a fact, the sound moderator was on the rifle during a struggle in the kitchen between Nevill Bamber and his assailant'. The Judge, we now know, was completely wrong to tell the jury this was as ‘fact’ as no evidence exists to suggest that a sound moderator featured in this incident at all.

The 'Tonight' programme was able to confirm that the Crown’s case that relates to a sound moderator being on the rifle was, and is, without foundation. Producers commissioned Mr Philip Boyce to undertake a number of forensic experiments that confirmed and further validated the American forensic expert’s testimony for the defence.

There were a number of other witnesses for the prosecution who appeared on the
programme. The viewer may have been left with the impression that the defence cannot answer the questions raised by the interviews. Set out below in the briefest possible quotes are answers to the most important of the questions raised.

These quotes are taken from the HOLMES 2 computer system which is the Home Office Database. The references are those designated by the Police.

1)

Barbara Wilson, Secretary at N&J Bamber Ltd

Barbara Wilson (HOLMES 47/11) was interviewed pre-trial by Chief Inspector Dickinson.

She was asked:-

Q: How did you find Jeremy?

A: Very pleasant, no qualms, always okay with me. Probably got on better with him than my
own son (Philip). He was a likeable jovial fellow.

Q: Ever say anything nasty about parents, Sheila or the twins?

A: No, never heard him say anything bad at all.

D.S Stan Jones has written intended police actions. (HOLMES 45/22)

A58 re background etc from Barbara Wilson (Maldon, 860379 from Darcy Way, Tol. Darcy).  She is secretary to the Bambers and apparently at some time before the incident Sheila said words to the effect that 'all people are bad and should be killed' (Ann Eaton told me this in confidence).

Obviously DS Jones didn’t obtain a witness statement from Barbara Wilson about what Sheila had said to her, neither Barbara Wilson or Ann Eaton have spoken about this during the numerous interviews they have given over the years.

At trial, the Crown portrayed me as not telling the truth over the suggestion that there was a conversation between Sheila and my parents over fostering on the night of the tragedies. Barbara Wilson knew that this was true but stayed silent about it in court but;

(HOLMES 73/38) reveals that Essex Police knew that the issue of foster care for the boys was true.

Essex Police did not disclose this fact to the Court because Ann Eaton, David and Robert Boutflour gave witness testimony that they knew Nevill and June Bamber would never ever consider ‘any such nonsense’ so for the Police to prove otherwise would portray David, Robert and Ann as witnesses who either knew very little about the personal life of Sheila and the twins, or as people who were prepared to mislead the Court in an attempt to portray me as a liar.

 2)

Essex Police had taken detailed witness testimony from Judy Jackson, Mary Lester and Barbara Babic who had acted as foster parents to Daniel and Nicholas. Essex Police had also taken witness statements from Social Services personnel Michael Abel, Susan Elliott-Brown, Sheila Lloyd and Julie Wilkes about Sheila’s care of the twins, or other assistance possibilities. Essex Police also had witness testimony from some of June Bamber’s friends who stated that she had been asking locally if anyone could recommend someone who could offer foster care for the boys
 

It may be the case that Barbara Wilson has told the media that she knew about fostering, and this information has been edited out of her interview. What is known is that Essex Police have deliberately concealed what Barbara Wilson could have told the court, this was deliberately to disadvantage the Defence and mislead the jury.

DI Ron Cook Head of Chelmsford Scenes of Crime Department August 1985.

DI Cook and the findings of the investigation between 7.8.85 & 7.9.85

DI Ron Cook who appeared on the 'Tonight' programme ought to have been asked the obvious question:-

‘The evidence now proves that the sound moderator was not involved in any way in this awful tragedy. Accordingly, it’s now impossible to explain how red paint came to be impacted into the knurl of the sound moderator found by David Boutflour.  Furthermore, the scratches and gouge marks in the red painted Aga surround that were forensically attributed to having been made by a sound moderator can now be photographically proven to have been made 5 weeks after the event on the 12th September 1885'.

Between 7th August and 6th September 1985, Essex Police had investigated this case thoroughly. This was because from the 9th of August onwards, Ann Eaton and Robert Boutflour had been trying to convince Essex Police that I had to be guilty of murdering my family. They had meetings at Witham Police Station, rang individual police officers dozens of times, were showing them around 'White House Farm', pointing out everything from footprints to empty tampon holders, and Robert even brought in the help of Robbie Carr, a Metropolitan Police Sergeant, to badger Essex Police on their behalf.  

After a month, Robert saw Assistant Chief Constable Peter Simpson to complain that nothing had been found to suggest that I was connected to the tragedies. On the 6th September, Mr Simpson appointed DS Kenneally to review every aspect of this investigation. (HOLMES 7/18) reveals the outcome of this review at a 6:00pm meeting at headquarters. Accordingly to DI Ainsley, DS Kenneally presented his report to the Chief Constable Robert Bunyard, Assistant Chief Constable Peter Simpson and DCI Ainsley, Head of Essex C.I.D.

His final conclusion is minuted as this:-

'That all the evidence indicated that Sheila WAS responsible'.

It is interesting to note in (HOLMES 36/306) that David Boutflour is relating that he gave his own sound moderator to Essex Police, ‘fairly shortly after they had established there was blood in the sound moderator.' The match-head sized blood flake was found in the sound moderator on the 12th September 1985. Oddly, Essex Police have no documented record of David handing in two additional sound moderators in September 1985, though he still speaks freely to the media that it actually happened.

It is also reported in the same document that David Boutflour says:-

‘Heard privately that DCI 'Taff' Jones had said ‘if Jeremy Bamber had (done it) we couldn’t prove it, so what’s the point?’ DI Miller, even DS Stan Jones seemed adamant that it was suicide'.

There are many others documents and statements which illustrate the point that the police found no evidence against me and that DCI Jones took the relatives personal circumstances into consideration when making decisions.

Julie Mugford and Elizabeth (Liz) Rimmington

Essex Police were convinced on the basis of all available evidence that Sheila had killed the family and committed suicide. On the 7th September 1985 Elizabeth Rimmington telephoned Witham Police Station to say that Julie Mugford was withholding vital evidence in the White House Farm enquiry. This was at 4pm. This telephone call was documented as: Telephone Report Number One. The exact content of this telephone call from Ms Rimmington is still a mystery as Essex Police continue to withhold this document from the Defence.

This is the sequence of events:

5:00pm DS Stan Jones goes to the address of Malcolm Waters and takes Julie Mugford into custody. (HOLMES 64/13 and 1/12)

While in custody at Witham Julie asked that her father is contacted so she can talk to him. (HOLMES 5/10)

Julie Mugford was interviewed under caution. (HOLMES 1/49)

7:00pm to 10:40pm DS Jones and DI Miller interviewed Julie together.

11:00pm to 02:00am DCI Jones interviewed Julie.

The taped record and written record of Julie Mugford’s interviews on 7th September 1985 remain undisclosed.

Brett Collins, Mathew MacDonald, Christine Bacon and I were all arrested on the 8th September with:-

‘Suspicion of being concerned with the murder of June and Nevill Bamber, Sheila, Daniel and Nicholas Caffell'.

So, there is every reason to suspect that Julie was taken into custody for the same reason.  Whilst in police custody, Julie confessed to cultivating and selling cannabis, burglary, a bank fraud, and to possession of drugs. Other documents from the City of London Police detail that she admitted smuggling cannabis into the UK from Canada. The majority of the offences she confessed to were not connected with me in any way. She admitted to using cocaine in her 10th September 1985 statement, when she and Ms Rimmington had gone back to a hotel with two men they had just met.

Around the same time, Ms Rimmington stated that Julie had told her she’d broken up with me and ‘you don’t know the half of it.’ Liz said that Julie's lucky that ‘she's broken up'; she went on to tell Julie that she had been sleeping with me behind Julie’s back.

Julie says she told Ms Rimmington that 'Jeremy had told her he’d paid a hit man to kill the family.'  Ms Rimmington states in her 8th September 1985 statement that from the 1st September she had told Julie repeatedly to go to the Police. Julie had refused to go.

Ms Rimmington states in her 15th September statement that on the 6th of September she and Julie had booked and paid to go on holiday to Malta together on the 8th September for seven days. Ms Rimmington does not explain why she then reported Julie to Essex Police for withholding evidence in a murder enquiry on the 7th September, the day after paying for their holiday and a day before they were due to fly off to Malta.

The Sound Moderator and the Painted Mantle

On the 6th September, DS Kenneally reports that the evidence shows that ‘Sheila was responsible’ and on the 7th September Julie is said to have withheld ‘that Jeremy had hired a hit man to murder his family.’ DI Ron Cook now had to go back to White House Farm and prove it, helped by Ann Eaton who pointed out the windows allegedly used to get in and out of the house, and a mysterious footprint on a magazine under the said window. I was arrested on the 8th September and released on the 13th September 1985.

It was not until the 12th September that DS Jones mentions for the first time after questioning me for more than 20 hours over four days that forensics had recovered a sound moderator from the scene. (PAGE 104 JB Interview transcript) D.S. Jones stated that this was found to have red paint on it and:-

‘I believe the red paint comes from the WALL in the kitchen where the stove is'.

At the trial, the Jury were told that the scratch marks were found on the underside of the mantle shelf in the kitchen of White House Farm by Ann Eaton, DI Ron Cook and DS Stan Jones on the evening of the 14th August 1985.

Examination of photographs taken by DC Bird on the 12th September, under the instruction of DI Ron Cook, (of the kitchen at White House Farm) reveals that the Aga’s red painted surround is unmarked (see Police Reference YELLOW LABEL 34, also given a second reference WHITE LABEL 0010).

The roll of 50mm acetate film consisting of 10 negatives in a single strip. DC Bird confirms in his 22nd October witness statement that he took this roll of film whilst at ‘White House Farm’ with DI Ron Cook on the *12th September from 10:30 am onwards.

*NEGATIVE SEVEN shows the red painted Aga surround completely unmarked, free of any scratches or gouges. *NEGATIVE NINE is a photograph of exactly the same area of the Aga’s red coloured surround. In this photograph, a large horse shoe shaped scratch mark and a gouge mark can be seen. These marks are identical to those later attributed to having been made by the sound moderator.

When DI Ron Cook was interviewed for the 'Tonight' programme, it is wondered why he was not asked to explain how the red painted Aga surround came to be scratched and gouged on the 12th September 1985. Was it by accident or was it that DI Ron Cook was under so much pressure to find something to link a hit man to the scene that David Boutflour’s sound moderator was used to scratch and gouge the paint work?

Until DI Cook explains how the Aga surround was damaged on the 12th September as PHOTOGRAPHS SEVEN and NINE prove conclusively, the public must accept that the cause of damage to the Aga surround remains unknown.

Police in the Spotlight of Media Pressure

The press at the time of my arrest and release between the 8th and 13th September and prior to me being charged on the 29th September were stating that:-

(10th September 'Gazette')

‘A number of persons, both male and female, are assisting with these enquiries.’

(18th September 'Gazette')

‘In the face of mounting public concern over the way the investigation was handled.’

(15th September 'News of the World')

‘Detectives may have bungled by destroying vital clues’.

‘A 22 year old woman guarded by armed Police'.

(29th September 'News of the World')

‘Now they have been given vital new evidence by 22 year old student Julie Mugford'.

‘Julie had also been given police protection'.

‘Julie now in hiding said ‘I’ve told the police everything I know'.

‘She revealed that she had broken off her 3 year relationship with 24 year old Jeremy.’

(18th September 1985 'Daily Mirror')

‘This was not the bumbling fictional detective…even Inspector Clouseau could not have made such fundamental mistakes'.

(14th October 'The Times')

‘Police jobs at risk in farm deaths enquiry'.

‘The jobs of at least three senior officers are thought to be at risk'.

(20th October 'Sunday Express)

‘A key witness in a murder enquiry is under 24 hour (police) protection'.

‘It was after Miss Mugford volunteered fresh information about the case that detectives moved her to a ‘safe’ house used by the Police'.

‘Miss Mugford was in Court last week when Bamber made a court appearance. She had disguised herself by bleaching her hair and restyling it'.

During this media outcry Essex Police were trying to gather evidence against me.

Julie Mugford Charged with Burglary

DS Jones explained in his 16th June 2002 statement that Julie was not arrested or charged.

‘In Essex at the time we either arrested and charged people or we reported them for process and they were bailed'.

'Julie was reported for cheque frauds, burglary and for growing cannabis'.

In a fax dated 5th December 1985 from Chief Crown Prosecutor Mr Adams to Mr East it states in a handwritten addendum:-

‘I agree that she should not be prosecuted. I also agree that the burglary charge can be withdrawn'.

This makes DS Jones out to be misleading, as Julie was arrested and charged with burglary and the jury were entitled to have known of this inducement.

In a fax to Anthony Arlidge Q.C. for the Crown, dated 27th January 1986, it states:-

‘Miss Mugford has now been advised of the Director’s decision not to prosecute her, and warned her that she will be required as a witness against Bamber'.

The C.P.S. wrote on the 19th July 1991:-

‘I set out in a note that Mugford should be used as a prosecution witness. This resulted in the decision that Julie Mugford would not be prosecuted for offences disclosed against her, but would be used as a prosecution witness'.

The Judge, had he known about this deal to withdraw criminal proceedings against Julie in exchange for her testimony against me, would have been required to give the equivalent direction to the jury that later became known as the:- ‘MAKAM JOULA 1995- DIRECTION'.

Julie Mugford & NOTW Deal

The 'Tonight' programme said that Julie Mugford had sold her story to 'The News of the World.' On the 9th October 1986, Anthony Arlidge Q.C. told the Trial Judge and Defence Council in Chambers, and this was repeated to the jury in open Court that:-

‘Julie Mugford has given me her assurance that she has not sold her story to a newspaper, and she has no intention of doing so'.

This was wholly misleading. Julie Mugford in her 11th April 2002 witness statement admitted that she had sold her story to 'The News of the World' for twenty-five thousand pounds. This was later ruled in breach of guidelines by the Press Complaints Council, though she was not made to pay the money back. Julie swore in 2002 under oath that on the day of the verdict she was in a hotel paid for by 'The News of the World'. Her solicitor had drawn up the contract a month after I was arrested. This is consistent with 'The News of the World' naming Julie Mugford as being interviewed by them on the 29th September 1985.

It is also telling that Julie must have known she was going to receive a large cash payout in due course as she stopped work in March 1986 and ran up an overdraft until the trial in October 1986.

Julie Mugford’s bank statements also reveal that the £400 cheque I had given her in August 1985, to help pay for a holiday, was cashed on the 17th September 1985, 7 days after Julie had been taken into custody accusing me of hiring a hit man to murder my family, yet she was happy to go on to spend the money I had given her.

Sheila’s Handling of Weapons

David Boutflour and Peter Eaton had told both the court and the police that they had seen Sheila handling a gun. Essex Police knew that Sheila was able to handle a gun, but again the Court was led to believe that she was unable to do so.

In 1991, Peter Eaton told the City of London Police (HOLMES 36/308) that Sheila had been seen with a gun during a shooting holiday in Scotland. This appears in the hand written version of the City of London Police witness statement. For some odd reason this key piece of witness testimony is missing from the typed version disclosed to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (Formerly the PCA) and the Defence.

Did the 'Tonight' programme have enough time to ask these witnesses some key questions?

PS Bews should have been asked why he was now suggesting that it was me who was misleading police officers when he never said this before in any of his statements, neither did any other police officer. The programme accidentally transposed the order of events; the firearms team was called after the reconnaissance of the house where the movement was seen in the window. Here is the relevant extract from PS Bews trial transcript:

Rivlin: ‘Do you remember at some stage early on…one of your police officers said that you thought you could see a shadow and you all jumped?’

Bows: ‘Yes, that is when we first went to the house with Mr Bamber. We had gone round what I thought was the back. We had seen the kitchen door with the light on. We then went into a field which is at the side of the farm house and went round to where what is - - I believe the front door is and above that is a window. As we moved away I thought we saw something else move, a shadow, something like that. We looked up and after looking for a couple of minutes I was satisfied that it was a - - perhaps a part in the glass that just shone the light slightly as you looked at it'.

Rivlin: ‘It could have been a trick of the light?’

Bews: ‘I think it was a trick of the light'.

I’ve said before that there was no light source to reflect in the glass, PS Bews has also recently stated in a ‘Guardian’ interview that it could have been the moon, which was unlikely as it was overcast and the moon was on the other side of the house and so would not have thrown light on the windows. Even Bews trial transcript contradicts itself: a shadow would imply a dark shape, but he goes on to state that the ‘glass shone the light'.

Barbara Wilson, DI Ron Cook and David Boutflour should all have been asked something to challenge them in relation to their evidence, especially DI Cook who must know who damaged the Aga surround paint work, and why they did so.  Showing NEGATIVE SEVEN and NEGATIVE NINE to DI Cook on camera, and asking him to account for how the paint work came to be scratched and gouged may have made great television.

Of course, both Essex Police and many of the prosecution’s witnesses have numerous other important questions to answer-but answering the few questions set out above would go a long way to explaining how it was that the jury wrongly reached a 10:2 majority verdict of guilty against me.

Further documented evidence

Anglia TV  Natalie Gray looks at the Jeremy Bamber case August 2015