Jeremy Bamber; Pathologist's Views

Attrib: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/public-interest-immunity/psychopathy/pathologist-s-views

Dr Vanezis, the pathologist who examined the bodies had not detailed a time of death for any of the deceased in his report. He provided the police with statements written long after the post mortem, the first during September and others during November 1985 and May 1986 when he used his notes and scene photographs to assist him.  The Dickinson review then requested that he write an additional report post trial and the extracts below are taken from this report which appears to be much more candid and in favour of the Defence than his pre-trial statements. Regarding his initial examinations he stated:   “Sheila had suffered two gunshot wounds. I was a little concerned with this but in my experience, bearing in mind the low velocity of the weapon, whilst unusual, suicide with two shots does occur. I have experienced four or five in the past. In order to consider this a possibility, however, I must have been impressed by the information given to me as to position of the weapon, length of barrel and the ability of Sheila to reach the trigger. I had been told it was a semi-automatic weapon.  The result of my P.M. examination of Sheila was 'death due to gunshot wounds'. My examination did not reveal anything to contradict the suicide theory and I must say, although I could not from my examination, confirm murder or suicide”  The post mortem’s continued the following day and Dr Peter Vanezis further states:   “Having discussed the number of shots involved (24) I was told the magazine could hold at least eight cartridges. Sheila was a farmer's daughter and would have been used to firearms. I drew no serious consequence from the number of shots fired.”                                                       When DS Stan Jones later asked him some time later what he thought about it being a murder/suicide he wrote:   “Whilst respecting his views there was nothing impressive about what he said and certainly I cannot recall anything of evidential substance to the effect that Sheila could not have done it.”   Dr Vanezis continues:   “I then discussed the two possibilities : If it wasn't Sheila it had to be Jeremy. We went over the information and I expressed the views that Jeremy would have to be a nutter to have done what had occurred, in that he must have had such a warped state of mind to engineer it in the manner in which it was presented. This was almost too incredible to believe. Additionally, in order to stage manage Sheila she would probably need to be under the influence of drugs. I said that I would ascertain the results of the drug analysis with regard to that point before completing my report.”   The drug analysis came back negative, apart from the tests showing a reduced dose of Haloperidol a treatment for Schizophrenia, and a trace of Cannabis taken some four days earlier, Sheila had not been sedated. In support of Dr Vanezis views, Jeremy Bamber had no history violence, has never had any mental illness, and does not have any psychopathic traits in 27 different assessments. Sheila Caffell on the other hand, was delusional, volatile, suicidal and “could use physical aggression directed to property, herself or others” As detailed by her Psychologist, her boyfriend and other witnesses who gave police statements.  It is unclear why the views expressed by the pathologist shifted in this report which seems to suggest that he was later influenced by the information provided by police. He also described one of the bullet's in Sheila Caffell's body as "Fragmented" but Malcolm Fletcher the Ballistics expert for the prosecution describes it as whole which is how it was presented at trial. Read more about Sheila's X-Ray's and the fragmented bullet here. Dr Vanezis also stated that SOCO officers took hand swabs from both Sheila Caffell and Nevill Bamber but none of the SOCO officers admitted to taking swabs from Nevill. Later the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell were rejected by the lab, when they returned they bore a different exhibit reference number and only very low levels of lead were detected suggesting that Sheila had possibly handled the weapon but not fired it. This became key prosecution evidence. Why were the exhibit reference numbers for the swabs altered and what became of the hand swabs from Nevill Bamber which were never allocated an exhibit reference? Many of the key exhibits had altered reference numbers including the sound moderator and hacksaw blade.  Recent testimony from forensic ballistics expert Philip Boyes proves that gunshot reside which would have discharged onto Sheila Caffell's hands when she fired the gun was easily and simply wiped away on cloth or clothing without any need for washing. This meant that Sheila had very low levels of lead when her hands were tested.  The low levels of lead on Sheila's hands  is not a valid part of the prosecution's case and never was.  Professor Peter Vanezis is now a leading Home Office Pathologist.

Jeremy Bamber's Blog: Plans to televise interview....

We are currently going through the process of applying for permissions for me to have a televised interview at Full Sutton which will be the first instance in the UK where a prisoner wrongly convicted will be able to argue their case to a national audience. There is absolutely no question that the interview will not go ahead as planned as there are so many reasons why it must be done. Primarily it is in the public interest for the new evidence to be discussed and for the first time ever I will be able to defend myself personally against my conviction. This will pave the way for exposure of other miscarriages of justice cases, and encourage greater transparency of the judiciary where information is deliberately kept under wraps through the means of stifling the voice of those maintaining innocence.

The IPCC and Essex Police have recently logged further criminal acts by police in my case bringing the total number of complaints made to them in the past 18 months to well over one hundred. This time though I am convinced that the IPCC will rule against the request from Essex police for further dispensations to be applied to retired officers and instead order an outside force to investigate police misconduct.

The documents we now hold electronically consist of 3.5 million pages and these include copies of material from all different judicial departments and investigations, no one hold’s all of these documents in one place collectively and this puts us in a really strong position, the case files are made up of the following: Home Office files, CPS files, Forensic Science Services files, Appeal Court files, all of my barrister’s files, my solicitors files, my own files, the IPCC files, The CCRC files, The Dickinson Enquiry files, The Metropolitan Police (Stokenchurch files), Civil Case files, Judicial Reviews, a copy of the police HOLMES 2 computer files, also media files, correspondence files and research files as well as law reports, forensic expert files, photographs and material from my prison files. No one else has all of this material in one place. If you were to start reading our database today – reading 500 pages each day, every day, 365 days a year it would take 19 years and 4 months just to read through everything once. It is unlikely that you could manage 500 pages a day but in order to understand the evidence everything has to be grouped, cross referenced and analysed. So you can understand why more evidence is being discovered on a daily basis by myself and my teams, both legal and admin.

There is set to be a complete revamp of the web site beginning towards the end of the year and both a vast amount of content and design is to be replaced and all text will be academically referenced to documents, it is much appreciated that we will have the help of new team members to continue the work already in place.

I’ve been very busy of late and my correspondence is behind owing to the volume of letters I receive from friends and newcomers alike. It’s really good to have the support of so many of you and all well-wisher emails are frequently passed on to me, it’s been really heart warming to see them increasing week by week.

Keep in touch. Jeremy

Posted by Jeremy Bamber at Sunday, September 09, 2012

"Information is deliberately kept under wraps through the means of stifling the voice of those maintaining innocence"

Jeremy Bamber: Failures and bias in the Dickinson review?

Attrib: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/home

Dickinson Enquiry In November 1986 after the trial of Jeremy Bamber the trial Judge Mr Justice Drake ordered an enquiry into the conduct of Esssex Police. The investigation was directed by the Chief Constable, Mr Robert Bunyard. The review was conducted by Detective Chief Superintendent Dickinson of Essex Police assisted by DI Storey. This investigation consisted of interviews with Police officers and witnesses but no statements were taken although statements and other material submissions from pre-trial were used during the enquiry. It was also noted that the papers available did not include any written records of the original senior investigating officer DCI Thomas Jones who died in a tragic accident at his home on 11th May 1986. The Dickinson report was an account which relied heavily on the accounts of Jeremy Bamber’s relatives and in particular his uncle Robert Boutflour. The final report does not accurately reflect events which were uncovered by Dickinson and Storey. It is only post 2002 appeal that extensive handwritten accounts of interviews have been disclosed to the defence. Missing from the Defence copies were the interviews of Julie Mugford and her mother Mary Mugford. In addition to this many of the senior police officer’s interviews are also missing. Overall the review inaccurately drew on accounts which contradict the original statements of witnesses and even contradicted court testimony. It also presented Jeremy Bamber in a biased way using the accounts of Julie Mugford and Robert Boutflour to provide a complete character assassination of Jeremy presented as a money hungry sexual predator who was also engaged in “unsavoury homosexual activities”. At the end of the report DCI Dickinson concluded that the most senior investigating officer had not visited the scene until after the bodies had been disturbed. He also found that owing to a "shortage of resources," senior officers DCI Jones, DI Cook and DI Montgomery had failed to request that a pathologist and ballistics expert attend the scene with the bodies in situ. Recommendations were made pertaining to these points and also included issues of training and force communication with other police sources. DCI Dickinson would have us believe that Jeremy Bamber was so sophisticated that he managed to fool a large number of senior and junior police officers at the scene and later a pathologist and ballistics expert. We put it that it is highly unlikely and improbable that experienced police officers attending such a tragic scene would have ignored key evidence if they had not been 100% convinced that Sheila Caffell had killed the family. In 2002 the appeal court judges placed little significance on any of the Dickinson report referred to by the Defence including the issue of inheritance an area which has developed further in light of evidence disclosed since the 2002 appeal which brings into question the credibility of key prosecution witnesses in particular that of Robert Boutflour.