'An injustice that won't go away' (Déjà vu Jeremy Bamber)

Attrib:TOM MANGOLD The Independent: Edited

 

 

SUNDAY 12 AUGUST 2012

On St Valentine's Day 1988 Lynette White, a Cardiff prostitute, was murdered by one of her clients, Jeffrey Gafoor, in a row over sex and money. He had repeatedly stabbed and almost decapitated her. The crime led to one of the biggest on-going scandals in British criminal history – "the largest scale of injustice in a single case", according to the eminent QC Lord Carlile. Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the powerful home affairs committee, says simply: "If this case had been written as a work of fiction, people would not believe it."

Two investigations, one by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and one by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) into the judicial debacles that have continued to haunt the case for close on a quarter of a century, are due to conclude early next month.

The murder was investigated by the South Wales Police CID. Blood stains were found on the dead girl's clothing, and evidence pointed clearly to a single white male assailant. There were no outstanding complexities to the case beyond the inevitable problem of finding the killer, probably a random punter in Butetown, Cardiff's then seedy docklands area.

The CID team did everything by the book, including a BBC Crimewatch appeal for a lone white man.

Several dockland "characters" – prostitutes, pimps, small-time criminals, gays and drifters – were interviewed, but none could identify the killer. However, the detectives did come up with a prime suspect, dubbed Mr X. But DNA tests ruled him out and eight months after the murder, the team had got nowhere.

Then, on 19 October, Violet Perriam, a secretary at the local yacht club – a place where detectives who worked out of Butetown police station used to drink – told detectives she suddenly remembered having seen four black people outside the gloomy flat where Lynette had been murdered. A month later, she gave two names to detectives.

Within days, the direction of the investigation had been turned on its head. Gone was the single white male and, in his place, emerged five black and mixed-race Butetown locals, including Stephen Miller, Lynette's pimp/boyfriend. By 12 December, after a new fast-track investigation, the five men were charged.

The CPS gave the go-ahead even though the police had no forensic evidence, no weapon had been found, and no motive or opportunity established. Some of the five barely knew each other. The crown's evidence was heavily dependent on the alleged confession of Miller, and the alleged corroborating evidence of, among others, two prostitutes – Leanne Vilday and Angela Psaila – a couple of unemployed gay men and Ms Perriam. A further witness came forward later, a criminal already in prison hoping for parole, who claimed one of the accused had confessed to him while on remand.

On 22 November 1990, three of the accused (Stephen Miller, Tony Paris and Yusef Abdullahi) were found guilty, and two were acquitted.

In February 1992, the producer Toby Sculthorp and I investigated the case for Panorama and highlighted a string of inconsistencies that plagued the case. A media campaign followed, and on 10 December that year, the Court of Appeal quashed the Cardiff Three's convictions, and they walked free. It transpired that Miller had been mercilessly interviewed, shouted at and bullied by detectives during 19 sessions of questioning. He had denied involvement on 307 occasions, but eventually broke down under the remorseless pressure and "confessed", incriminating himself and the others.

Nevertheless, South Wales Police declined to reopen the case unless new evidence was obtained. However, advances in DNA profiling and continued media pressure led to a thorough and efficient re-investigation of the murder and the arrest of Jeffrey Gafoor, a security guard. He promptly admitted being the murderer, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment in July 2003.

This clearly left the South Wales Police and the CPS with a dilemma. How had their collection of evidence and witnesses against five wholly innocent men come about? What had led to the flaky prosecution and just how many witnesses and detectives may have lied on oath to secure the convictions ?

It might have been sensible to place this colossal can of worms into the hands of an independent, outside police force for the inevitable further criminal investigation. Instead, the IPCC, which was charged with allocating the inquiry, promptly invited South Wales Police to investigate itself, a baffling decision that may defy logic and common sense but was taken, I understand from a primary source, to "try to help restore the battered morale of the SWP".

This led first ,in February 2007, to three of the witnesses who had given evidence on oath against the innocent men being charged with perjury. They admitted lying, but somewhat revealingly the judge told them: "You were seriously hounded, bullied, threatened and abused and manipulated by the police during a period of several months … as a result you felt compelled to agree to false accounts suggested to you." They were each sentenced to 18 months.

The three witnesses and the five innocent men had one thing in common: they were humble people, they lived on the edge of the law as minor criminals, and were vulnerable to any intimidation by the police.

The evidence thus pointed towards the possibility of a miscarriage of justice perpetrated by detectives who may have perverted the course of justice to secure homicide convictions against innocent men.

A new investigation was begun by the South Wales Police. The officer in charge of this deeply complex and highly sensitive case was Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Coutts. His task included investigating Dick Powell, a senior officer who, according to a former police officer, had been DCS Coutts's colleague and superior. This potential conflict of interest appears to have been ignored.

South Wales Police refused to co-operate with Panorama both in 1992 and for tomorrow night's fresh examination. Not one retired officer involved in the case would talk publicly, nor would anyone from the CPS or the IPCC. Mr Coutts has retired and is writing a book on the affair. His publicity officer asked if we were prepared to pay for an interview with him.

Mr Coutts's thorough investigation eventually led to the arrest in March 2009 of 13 former police officers and two civilians, including Ms Perriam, whose initial testimony had changed the entire direction of the investigation. All were variously charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or perjury. All pleaded not guilty.

An extremely long and detailed opening statement by Nick Dean QC for the prosecution laid out the case. He claimed the prosecution would show that Ms Perriam's new evidence "was lies" and that the story of the five men murdering Lynette White was "absolutely extraordinary … almost entirely a fabrication and was largely the product of the imagination and then the theories and beliefs of police officers".

Mr Dean's allegation was simple and devastating if true – a conspiracy to fit in evidence "so that it implicated those people the police had decided were guilty". In other words, Mr Dean claimed he would show that, in the absence of any firm evidence, the detectives created a murder scenario and then made witnesses and the men they charged fit snugly into the fiction. "The police had moved away from investigating a murder and were instead busy trying to implicate people in that murder – people who were actually completely innocent," Mr Dean told the jury.

Sadly, we never got to hear the prosecution's full case nor any of the defence. What happened next strains belief. There had been increasing problems over the vital business of monitoring and producing some of the one million documents connected to the case. Nearly £500,000, a special software system and two dedicated police officers had been set aside by the judge. Their sole function was to ensure there were no mistakes in this vital documentation process known as "disclosure".

But as it became obvious during the trial that document cock-ups were increasing, the judge decided to perform "an acid test", calling on the prosecution to produce some relevant files. The documents were not produced and a deeply embarrassed prosecution told the judge the documents had been destroyed without proper authorisation. The two disclosure police officers gave vague evidence of the documents having been destroyed, apparently on the orders of Mr Coutts himself.

At this stage, it might have been sensible for the Crown to have Mr Coutts confirm that he had indeed ordered the destruction of the documents. Instead, the hapless CPS decided to bow out of the case. The judge ended the trial there and then with formal verdicts of not guilty. The newly exonerated police officers left court punching the air.

A few weeks later, the missing documents turned up. Mr Coutts (in a comment for which he received no payment) told me if he had ordered the destruction of the documents they would have been destroyed.

Cock-up or conspiracy? I am inclined heavily to the former. This was one more demeaning episode in a 25-year-old scandal that just keeps on giving, and taking. Current cost to the taxpayer: somewhere around £30m. The IPCC has been busily investigating South Wales Police and itself for a report on its role in the myriad cock-ups, which it will publish next month. I understand the words "honest mistakes" will figure in the document.

The CPS is undergoing independent investigation. If the 13 accused Cardiff detectives had been found guilty, presumably all their previous cases – hundreds – would have had to be reopened and re-examined. Instead, they are now considering suing the South Wales Police.
----------------------------------------------------------

My opinion?
A cock-up may have initiated the farce but conspiracy is very evident in the cover-up. 
So what else is new?
Tricky Dicky; Mmm? I'm reminded of D.I Cook 'The Books' Vis-à-vis  Jeremy Bamber

'Justice Denied: The Greatest Scandal?' produced and directed by Toby Sculthorp will be shown on Panorama on BBC1 at 8.30pm Monday 13 August

Jeremy Bamber's Review of ITV1 'Tonight' Programme

The I.T.V. 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 centered 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, 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 Bambers and apparently at some time before incident Sheila said, words-to-the-effect, “all people are bad and should be killed” and Ann Eaton told me this in confidence.

Obviously D.S. 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 regarding the suggestion that there was a conversation between Sheila and my parents over fostering of the twins, Daniel and Nicholas, 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 had given 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.

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 concealed what Barbara Wilson could have told the court, this was deliberately to disadvantage the Defence and mislead the jury.

DI Cook and the findings of the investigation between 7.8.85 & 7.9.85 D.I.  

Ron Cook who appeared on the 'Tonight' programme ought to have been asked the obvious question, “As the evidence proves that the sound moderator was not involved in any way in this awful tragedy, is it  now possible to explain how red paint came to be impacted into the knurl of the sound moderator found by David Boutflour; considering that the scratches and gouge marks in the red painted Aga surround that were forensically attributed to having been made by a sound moderator, are photographically proven to have been made 5 weeks after the event, i.e on the 12th September 1885?"  D.I. Ron Cook was the Head of Chelmsford Scenes of Crime Department in August 1985.  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 Boutflour saw Assistant Chief Constable Peter Simpson to complain that the police had found nothing to suggest that I was connected to the tragedies.  On the 6th September, Mr Simpson appointed Detective Chief Superintendent 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, Det Ch supt Kenneally presented his report to the Chief Constable Robert Bunyard, Assistant Chief Constable Peter Simpson and D.C.I. Ainsley, Head of Essex C.I.D.  His final conclusion is minuted as  follows, “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 and “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 Boutflour 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 D.C.I. 'Taff' Jones had said “if Jeremy Bamber had (done it) we couldn’t prove it, so what’s the point?  D.I. 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 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 D.S. Stan Jones goes to the address of Malcolm Waters and takes Julie Mugford into custody. (HOLMES 64/13 and 1/12).
Whilst in custody at Witham Julie Mugford 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 D.S. Jones and D.I. Miller interviewed Juilie together.
11:00pm to 02:00am D.C.I. 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 Mugford was taken into custody for the same reason.

Whilst in Police Custody, Julie Mugford 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 told Julie, "lucky you’ve broken up" and she went on to tell Julie that she had been sleeping me with her 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, D.C.I 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.”  D.I. 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 D.S. 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, D.I. Ron Cook and D.S. Stan Jones on the evening of the 14th August 1985.  Examination of photographs taken by D.C. Bird on the 12th September, under the instruction of D.I. 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).  This is the roll of 50mm acetate film consisting of ten negatives in a single strip.  D.C. Bird confirms in his 22nd October witness statement that he took this roll of film whilst at White House Farm with D.I. Ron Cook on the 12th September from 10:30 A M 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 D.I. 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 D.I. 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 D.I. 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 trying to gather evidence against me.
Julie Mugford Charged with Burglary D.S. 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 D.S. 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 he 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 Mugford 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, this happened that one of you Police Officers said that you thought you could see a shadow and you all jumped?"
Bews: "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, D.I. Ron Cook and David Boutflour should all have been asked something to challenge them in relation to their evidence, especially D.I. Cook who must know who damaged the Aga surround paint work, and why they did so.  Showing NEGATIVE SEVEN and NEGATIVE NINE to D.I. 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.

Jeremy Bamber: What part did his relatives play?

1. In 1985, Nevill Bamber, his wife June Bamber and their son, Jeremy Bamber co-owned the farming company, N and J Bamber Ltd. The share ownership was distributed whereby Nevill Bamber owned 79%, June Bamber owned 1% and finally Jeremy Bamber owned 20% of the company.

3. While N and J Bamber Ltd, owned all the assets of the company, i.e. machinery, buildings, crops, livestock and vehicles, 600 acres of the farm was leasehold, and a further 100 acres was freehold. 50 acres (otherwise known as Charity Farm) was owned by Nevill and June Bamber, while the other 50 acres (otherwise known as Renters Farm) was shared equally between Nevill Bamber, June Bamber and Jeremy Bamber, while White House Farm itself was and still is leasehold.

4. Upon the tragic deaths of Nevill and June Bamber, Basil Cook was appointed Executor of their respective estates and thus was responsible for safeguarding their assets. In order to assist Jeremy Bamber in the daily management of the farm, Basil Cock appointed Peter Eaton to manage N and J Bamber Ltd, until Jeremy Bamber was able to take that role upon himself. Peter Eaton was appointed Farm Manager on the 9^th August 1985.

5. Upon the successful conviction of Jeremy Bamber for the murders at White House Farm, Peter Eaton and his wife Ann became the tenants of the leasehold properties previously rented by Nevill Bamber. This included White House Farm, which they had already moved into. However, Basil Cock as the Executor of the estate, after the conviction of Jeremy Bamber, concluded that all the assets of the Bamber estate should be inherited by Pamela Boutflour. This decision was later challenged in the Chancery Division by Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood, Nevill Bamber’s nephew and niece - Case Number CH 1991 PN 8680.

6. In these proceedings Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood sued Basil Cock, Robert and Pamela Boutflour, David Boutflour and Peter and Ann Eaton alleging theft and false accounting in managing N and J Bamber Ltd. In any event, Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood settled after it was agreed they would inherit Nevill Bamber’s estate, while Robert and Pamela Boutflour, and Peter and Ann Eaton and David Boutflour would in turn inherit June Bamber’s estate.

7. Notwithstanding Jeremy Bamber’s conviction, he was still in ownership of 20% of N and J Bamber Ltd when eventually it was wound up and the assets sold.

8. N and J Bamber Ltd was dissolved on the 14^th September 1999, with no assets, only costs. These costs covered winding up the company, depreciation, repairs, outstanding management fees and other miscellaneous costs totalling £80,000. Indeed Jeremy Bamber received a bill from Basil Cock stating that upon liquidation, Jeremy Bamber owed almost £16,000, which was his share of the costs of winding up N and J Bamber Ltd.

9. However, in 1985, N and J Bamber Ltd was a prosperous company worth approximately £388,000. £308,000 was the 79% share Nevill Bamber owned in N and J Bamber while a further £80,000 was from other personal assets, and indeed in 1985, Jeremy Bamber’s share was worth approximately £72,000.

10. Barbara Wilson the farm secretary raised concerns she had about the mismanagement of the farm back in 1987 to Essex Police, however it was not proceeded with pending the appeal of Jeremy Bamber. In view of her allegations going to the heart of the credibility of the chief prosecution witnesses as to their propensity for dishonesty, it is clear that Essex Police had an agenda in maintaining Jeremy Bamber’s conviction by eventually never investigating her complaints in any event.

11. Her allegations were cumulative in nature, involved numerous third parties and illustrated a clear propensity for dishonesty. In view of the fact that after being managed for fourteen years by Peter Eaton on behalf of Basil Cock the company had gone from being worth £380,000 to owing £80,000 while profits for that time span are not accounted for, yet totalling almost £500,000 lost, the question remains as to why Essex Police breached their duty of care to Jeremy Bamber by not investigating the allegations listed in the first instance. The allegations are based upon reasonable suspicion, and Essex Police should have acted in the public interest in investigating them, especially as the officer who interviewed Barbara Wilson described her as an honest person with no clear agenda against the family.

12. It is fact that during Jeremy Bamber’s trial the jury asked ‘If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies? Could it be his Uncle and family? A possible reason or motive for Robert Boutflour’s statement about Jeremy’s being able to kill his own parents.’

13. The fact that the jury were suspicious as to motive by Jeremy Bamber’s relatives places in issue their credibility as prosecution witnesses whereby they stood to make a pecuniary gain by securing a conviction for murder with Jeremy Bamber as the accused. Thus where Jeremy Bamber’s appeal was pending at that time and where the honesty or credibility of these material witnesses to the case is in question it is relevant that these allegations were investigated appropriately. Indeed the allegations of dishonesty and asset stripping clearly tolerated by Essex Police highlights a further agenda that bites on motive by the relatives of Jeremy Bamber who misled the jury regarding that relevant question. Due to their misleading the jury, they were never cross examined at trial as to this issue.

14. Robert Boutflour witness statement given to the jury, dated 17^th October 1986, in response to the jury’s question, he stated that he was a very wealthy man in his own right owning a 50% share in Carbonell’s Farm, (Document A – 16), this was his primary asset. Yet he did not state that it is fact that on the 7^th August 1985, he had a much greater motive to mislead the jury, because at that time he did not own Carbonell’s Farm. On the 7^th August 1985, Jeremy stood to inherit 50% of Carbonell’s Farm upon the death of Mabel Speakman (his maternal grandmother) whose will left her estate equally between her two daughters, Pamela Boutflour and June Bamber.

15. In his diary for that period in 1985, Robert Boutflour was concerned about Jeremy being a beneficiary only 5 days after the tragedy at White House Farm, (Robert Boutflour’s Diary Doc  D-18). It is fact that on the 24^th August 1985, Robert Boutflour met his own solicitor, Mr Rant, to receive legal advice to be informed as to how he could stop Jeremy from ‘profiting from his act.’ At that meeting he records how he was advised that the only way to allay this was for Mabel Speakman to change her will. Thus on the 2^nd September 1985, Robert Boutflour organised for a solicitor, Mr Peek to visit Mabel Speakman in order for her to change her will. Thus ensuring that his wife, Pamela Boutflour was the only beneficiary of the estate.

16. Indeed during the trial there is record (Document AB-40 pages 50 – 52), of a discussion in chambers between counsel and the trial Judge regarding Robert Boutflour having a motive to lie to the jury about Jeremy

17. In 2003, Jeremy commenced civil proceedings against the Boutflour’s as to their use of undue influence in ensuring Mabel Speakman changed her will. There was no legal aid available for this action, and Jeremy was forced to represent himself, thus he was not fully informed of the procedures undertaken to ensure a hearing took place. The proceedings never commenced, because Jeremy failed to submit a pre-action letter to the respondents stating his case, prior to launching the action.

18. In January 2004, the Boutflour’s countersued Jeremy, this was for the costs of defending his proceedings. They were awarded £18,359.50 including over £7,000 for two barristers to oppose him. They did not have any need to employ a barrister in any event because they would have been instructed that due to there being an omission to act accordingly as to procedure, the case would have been struck out in any event.

19. Thus, not only were the Boutflour’s instrumental in ensuring that Jeremy had no recourse to funds in order to fight his case while in prison, by running down N and J Bamber Ltd, they also ensured that he was made liable for legal costs that they needn’t have incurred in the first instance due to their having access to legal advice. They have cynically ensured that Jeremy lost altogether just over £100,000 of his own money.

20. Not content with inheriting Mabel Speakman’s estate and June Bamber’s, they needed to ensure Jeremy suffered great financial loss, so as to prevent him fighting his case from prison. Basil Cock was employed to protect his interests, but on the face of it colluded with the family regarding the asset stripping of N and J Bamber Ltd.

21. In view of the fact that Essex Police did not address the matter with a view to investigating it, it is obvious that they did not want any attention drawn to the allegations of theft and dishonesty because it would have impugned the credibility of these witnesses as to the successful prosecution of Jeremy Bamber.

22. In Jeremy’s complaint to the IPCC dated December 2011, he questions why the Eaton’s and the Boutflour’s were not investigated in the first instance and that they are investigated again, by an external Police Force for theft and fraud in addition to investigating Essex Police themselves as to why they did not undertake a full and comprehensive investigation of the allegations made back in 1987.

Supporting documents: ...

Edited