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
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
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
Essex Police destroyed evidence despite Court Order to disclose
