'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

There's no doubt Sheila Caffell killed her family....

Attrib: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/how-and-why-did-sheila-do-it There is absolutely no question that Sheila Caffell killed her family in a psychotic episode, this page is to detail just some of the major factors in piecing together how and why she did it. Sheila was not the Media character of myth, but a modern young woman who loved her children but as a Paranoid Schizophrenic she had many delusions about them and was frequently fearful that they might harm her. She was let down by a system which demonstrably failed to protect her, her children and her family from her illness. Case documents show that there was no support for her, no meetings between herself; doctors; psychologists and her family; or for the children's father to understand her illness. There was no advice or information given to them or guidance on how to cope with her condition at a practical day to day level.  Over-powering Nevill Nevill Bamber was a tall man at 6ft 4 inches and a healty 61 year old farmer at that. There is the prevailing argument that Sheila Caffell at 5ft 7.5 inches and at 8.5 stones would not have been able to overpower Nevill Bamber. We agree with this completely, in fact I would go so far to suggest that few people would be able to overpower Nevill Bamber even at the age of 61. Nevertheless, if you speak to a psychiatric nurse or doctor you will hear stories of very slight and petite women in psychotic states being so strong and out of control that they have only eventually been restrained by a number of people. Regardless of this, the point that is being missed continually is that that Nevill had almost certainly been shot before he was hit with the butt of the rifle by Sheila. Neither has there been the consideration that Nevill could have been unconscious or dead when he was beaten. This is not simple conjecture. Nevill had been shot eight times and it is unclear in which order. The injuries from bullets were to his head, and to his arms and into the chest. [1] Other injuries caused by a blunt object which was likely to have been the butt of the rifle were to his face, these were around the eyes, forehead, cheekbones and the top rear of the skull. There were some other injuries to his right forearms and also to his upper chest. Considering the height of Nevill Bamber’s head it is unlikely that he was attacked whilst standing up. Nevill was found sitting down and it is clear that Sheila attacked Nevill with the butt of the gun after he was incapacitated while he was sitting down. The argument that Sheila Caffell could not have overpowered Nevill Bamber is demonstrably not a valid one. Sheila’s Feet Much has been made of Sheila’s appearance at the scene. I won’t detail too much about it here as there is a whole page about how the police moved Sheila’s body and she was photographed in different positions. Crime scene photographs of Sheila have inappropriately been put on the internet and much has been made of her ‘cleanliness’ the Defence and some writers have suggested that she had washed ritualistically. This is of course a possibility. I however, would like to approach this matter in a different way. Sheila was photographed next to the bed on the floor. She has a considerable amount of blood down the right hand side of her body indicating that she was sitting upright when the first shot was fired and the blood ran down her body before the second shot entered, and the pathologist testified she would not have been killed outright after the first shot but would have been able to even stand and walk around for a while. The problem with photographs which have appeared on the internet is that they are of extreme low quality, some are photographs taken of photographs before the digital age, and it is difficult to pick out any detail. An example of the quality difference between these and the recently developed high resolution images (using £60,000 worth of equipment) is illustrated by the photograph on the right. These socks were found next to Sheila’s body. It is a possibility that Sheila was wearing these socks and took them off before shooting herself. Moreover, this picture shows blood spots on the socks which are light blue. In pictures seen elsewhere on the internet the socks look dark blue or black. There is no detail of the blood on them. Passing judgement of the condition of Sheila's body is difficult without expert forensic advice and high quality photographs. Conveniently, the crime scene pictures and the mortuary pictures do not show the sole of her right foot at all and the fact that individual photographs were deliberately cut from the strips before disclosure by Essex Police[2] is one I won’t go into here, but again the left foot looks relatively clean apart from some bloodspots. Nevertheless the high resolution images of Sheila’s feet taken at the scene and at the mortuary show blood on the sole of Sheila’s left foot, it is clear from these pictures that she has walked in blood. The argument that there was a large pool of blood around Nevill Bamber’s body is a valid one, but this amount would have poured from him for some time, and long after Sheila had walked away from his body. The kitchen floor outside of this pool was clear of blood. The overturned sugar was confined to a small area, so there is no reason why Sheila Caffell would have had sugar or excessive amounts of blood on her feet. Location of her body Sheila was found on the floor on her father’s side of the bed. What strongly suggests that Sheila committed suicide is the fact that she had calmly laid down on the floor. The argument that Jeremy had persuaded Sheila to sit down or lie down calmly on the floor while he positioned the gun awkwardly under her chin is quite ridiculous. If as the prosecution state, Sheila Caffell was not in a psychotic state, then why did she not fight Jeremy to save the lives of her family and children? Why did Jeremy not have Defence wounds on his arms like the ones on Nevill Bamber had which correspond with those on Sheila Caffell’s arm? The location of Sheila’s body could have had psychological significance for Sheila at the time she died but we will never know what this was. And why would Jeremy, an alleged clever and calculating murderer, march Sheila into her parent’s bedroom shoot her twice and expect to pass it off as a suicide? It was just illogical and as the pathologist suggested for Sheila to have been killed by someone else she would have needed to have been drugged, but tests confirmed she had no sedatives in her body. Gun Residue When the rifle was fired it gave off lead residue. There were swabs taken at the mortuary and sent to the lab but these were rejected owing to contamination issues, but they had their exhibit reference number altered and then they were sent back by police and accepted.[3] These showed very low levels of lead when tested and the prosecution insisted this proved that although there was lead present on her hands, it was not enough for someone who had fired 25 rounds. But tests show that just by wiping your hands on a cloth you can reduce the lead levels considerably. It is not possible to conclude that Sheila did not handle the rifle. Blood on Sheila’s Hands Sheila’s hands were not clean as the prosecution claimed. Again there are no photographs disclosed of the undersides of her hands. One could wonder why that is? It is possible that she had washed them as people in psychotic states do undertake cleaning rituals. Nevertheless, high resolution photographs of her hands show blood on the front of her right hand and also on the front and sides of her fingers. There is now no reasonable argument that Sheila’s hands and feet were clean of blood. Sheila’s Nails Contrary to another popular myth, Sheila’s nails were not ‘perfectly manicured’ they were long red painted nails and although it appears they are intact, the polish has been chipped badly, and the same can be said of her toe nails. Part of her toe nail polish was found on the floor in the kitchen below the mantle placing Sheila at the scene of the attack on Nevill in the kitchen. Forensic expert Peter Sutherst confirmed this “The red object is not paint from the mantle shelf. It is more likely to be a particle of red nail varnish from Sheila Caffell’s right foot since it is a close match in hue to her varnish and also matches damage to the varnish on her right big toe.”[4] As you can see from the page on the rifle, it was very easy for anyone to use, it was lightweight and having long fingernails is not an issue for millions of women who work in a variety of jobs, clean the house and look after children. The prosecution argument about Sheila’s nails being an impediment to her dexterity was simply not a valid one. DNA Exhibits All DNA exhibits including Sheila’s night dress (apart from the moderator) were destroyed in 1996 and dumped at an incineration site off the North Circular Road in London despite a court order to preserve them,[5] no one has been investigated or charged for this act in the destruction of valuable exhibits in a case where a whole life tariff prisoner maintains innocence. Sheila Didn’t know how to use a gun It is an absurd suggestion that the daughter of a farmer, who grew up on a farm during the 60’s and 70’s before gun laws were tightened, who had a brother who used rifles and who herself went to shooting parties did not know how to fire a weapon. This aside, even if Sheila had never actually picked up a gun before, there was one sitting on the settle in front of her in the scullery on the night of the tragedies, the magazine loaded and ready to fire and more bullets on the side waiting to be used. The family were are all shot at very close range, most shots within a few inches, the furthest being 4 feet away. In a phrase similar to that of author Scott Lomax: “at this distance how could anyone be expected to miss?” David Boutflour and Anthony Pargeter had already agreed with DCI Jones in a meeting that Sheila was capable of carrying out the killings.[6] Both of them were experienced in the use of firearms. David told the court, after being asked repeatedly by Mr Rivlin QC for the Defence, that he thought he had seen Sheila firing off a gun at a shooting party in Scotland, though in the first part of the transcript he appears not to remember it at all! Peter Eaton told the City of London Police he too had seen Sheila with a gun but this only appears in his handwritten drafts and is omitted from the final typed statement. Sheila’s Background Sheila Caffell was a divorced mother of two whom previously had a successful modelling career even having breast enhancements to help pursue her work. Sheila had had a number of pregnancies, including a miscarriage and two abortions, the first when she was 15 years old and another one whilst she was dating Colin Caffell before they married. Her relationship with Colin had broken down while she was in hospital for a long period owing to complications whilst carrying the twins and Colin by his own admission met another woman before the twins were born. Jeremy say’s that Sheila suffered what he now realizes was post natal depression. It is well documented that postpartum psychosis can lead to long-term psychotic disorders, particularly as Sheila had also been a user of cocaine, amphetamine and cannabis.[7] Sheila a single parent, the Twins & Social Services Sheila has frequently been described as a socialite and part of the “Chelsea Set.” This might have been true in her earlier days, but Sheila had become ill and this was beginning to impact upon her relationship with her friends, family and children. The trail of Sheila’s contact with social services can only traced back in documents as far as the 1st of August 1981, there were concerns by social workers at this point about her ability to seek medical advice promptly when the twins were ill and there are references to Daniel sustaining scalds and a burn to parts of his body including his torso and face, and having an unattended ear infection. Sheila was described as forgetful and disorganized but there were no notes made about her having a psychiatric illness at this time and her GP had confirmed that she had been taking prescribed sedatives. [8] The next conference on file was during March 1982 where it is stated that the children were being fostered by day foster parents, this is contrary to what the relatives had told police, although there are no notes as to the specific reason for fostering, and again there are no details as to why Sheila was admitted twice to hospital up until this point. One can’t help feeling that already social services were not investigating the cause of injuries to the children or assessing the cause of Sheila’s admissions to hospital which might have alerted them to the fact that there were issues with Sheila’s mental health and that the children were in danger. [9] There are no references to suggest that they might have discussed the twins well being with their father, it is baffling as to why this was not done. Sheila had a number of social workers allocated to her during this period and they were involved in organizing day nursery places for the boys. One social worker described Sheila as being “Nervous, and lacked confidence.” He goes on to note that she was a heavy cigar smoker although at this time he felt that her care of the children was “adequate” which would imply she was just about sufficient in managing to care for the children. During December 1982 the case was closed. On the 4th of May 1983, Nicholas sustained a head injury which was caused “it was thought by him falling from a taxi” [10] The police were involved and confirmed this had happened. Sue Ford, then girlfriend of Jeremy Bamber, stated that Jeremy had told her Nicholas has been injured when Sheila had pushed him from the taxi. Sue Ford also details in her statements that Farhad “Freddie” Emami had told her that Sheila used to punch the boys in the face and that Jeremy was concerned that Sheila was unable to cope and had expressed a wish to help look after the children, but he had little time to do this with him often working long hours on the farm in Essex and Sheila and the twins living in London.[11] On 1st June 1983 Sheila had contacted social services but there are no records of what this call was about or even if this call and the problems were followed up. Sheila Caffell was then referred to a private psychologist at St Andrews Hospital in Northampton during August 1983. Dr Hugh Ferguson, stated that this was the first time he had seen her and diagnosed her “as in a state of acute psychosis.” After about four weeks of treatment  he says she was discharged. Below is an extract from The SANE.org web site about the condition, this gives us an insight into how Sheila was thinking, what she was experiencing and the causes of psychotic episodes. Confused thinking When acutely ill, people with psychotic symptoms experience disordered thinking. The everyday thoughts that let us live our daily lives become confused and don’t join up properly. Delusions A delusion is a false belief held by a person which is not held by others of the same cultural background. Hallucinations The person sees, hears, feels, smells or tastes something that is not actually there. The hallucination is often of disembodied voices which no one else can hear. What causes psychosis? The causes of psychosis are not fully understood. They are likely to be a combination of hereditary and other factors. It is probable that some people are born with a predisposition to develop this kind of illness, and that certain things — for example, stress or use of drugs such as marijuana, LSD or speed — can trigger their first episode. Some people experience a brief form of psychosis which lasts only a few days or weeks. Some people experience a few episodes of psychosis only. Some people experience psychosis associated with a longer-term illness such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Listen to this podcast on psychosis.[12]  Sheila was diagnosed with the condition of Paranoid Schizophrenia. This illness is chronic, and it needed to be managed in the long term by medication and contact with a psychiatric nurse. Short term care in specialist hospitals can be ineffective because, often the patient has a relapse within a fairly short time period. Dr Ferguson had recommended that Nevill transfer her to the care of the NHS as he had been paying for private treatment. The Bamber family were worried about Sheila’s condition. Nevill, June and Jeremy had very little understanding of her illness. This was because of a number of factors. Firstly, Nevill and June wanted to keep Sheila’s illness very low key, and it is likely they thought that after a short spell in hospital the problem would be ‘fixed.’ They had not told the rest of the family the extent of her condition and socially they were middle class and affluent, they were considered as pillars of the community, they would have been subconsciously concerned for Sheila and her children having to cope with the added social stigma of being mentally ill as well as suffering from the condition itself. The Bamber’s, like many families suffered in silence with little knowledge. Because of Doctor-Patient confidentiality Nevill, June and Jeremy (and social services) had no idea that Sheila had thoughts about harming herself or of harming her children – but these thoughts are very real and are documented. Jeremy himself knew that Sheila was ill, but he had no idea of how to cope with her psychotic episodes and again had no knowledge of the thought’s she was having which she had already shared with her psychologist. Returning to Sheila’s contact with social services, the records log again in September 1983 the nursery for the twins had contacted them expressing concern for the children as they had heard that Sheila was in hospital. The twins were then absent from the nursery for a month and it is noted that Social Services “presumed” the twins were with Sheila’s parents. Then on the 7th of October Sheila contacted social services herself by phone and explained that she “had recovered from a 3 month breakdown” She told them that she was concerned for the care of her children and stated that at the time her husband had no suitable accommodation. Social services seldom mention Colin Caffell the children’s father, and it seems from statements disclosed by that no attempt was made by Social Services to contact him to discuss the children’s well being. During 1985 Colin had the children only three days a week and says in his unedited police statement of the 11th September 1985, that he was concerned about Sheila's associates and that her psychologist had contacted him directly to discuss this issue, Colin was not alerted to the fixed false belief's Sheila held about the children. Clearly the lack of communication between Sheila’s doctors, social services and her family, compounded the events building up to the tragedies. Dr Ferguson knew that Sheila Caffell had a serious mental illness having diagnosed psychosis and yet no one had alerted social services to this fact. Sheila would naturally be concerned over the care for her children and clearly did not want Social Services to know about the seriousness of her medical condition, preferring to refer to her psychosis as a “breakdown” which would imply something less serious, but she had admitted that she had been in St Andrews psychiatric hospital. Nevertheless, Sheila was reaching out for help and trying her best to obtain it from social services. Sheila missed a meeting with the social worker on the 23th October 1983, but she was finally seen at her home on the 21st November 1983. Sheila wanted to take up a Hotel Receptionist course and was worried about the care of her children. The social worker did not note any problems or injuries to the children at this time, but noted that Sheila lacked confidence and was worried about having another episode of “depression.” At this point the case was closed. Maybe if we were to look comparatively at Social Services handling of Sheila’s case with the same signs in today’s society we would feel that social services had not handled Sheila’s case well at all.  There are no documents from Social Services appearing before 1982, and no statements have been obtained by the Defence from Dr Dodd’s, Sheila’s doctor who referred her from his Camden practice to Social Services, so we don't have a clear picture of Sheila's full medical history and cannot trace her earlier contact with social services. The warning signs appear above and social services should have been called back into the case long before the tragedies in August 1985, but this never happened. Sheila & Farhad “Freddie” Emami Sheila had met Freddie, a mature 41 year old, back in 1981. Although he is often described as Sheila’s boyfriend, Freddie was married and called himself Sheila’s confidant and friend, to whom she turned to for help and advice. Freddie said that Sheila had a “deep dislike” for her mother June. [13] He described Sheila as having “a very quick and violent temper which she would lose over the simplest things.” He also says that about 10 months before the tragedies Sheila became depressed and withdrawn, he also said that she would not discuss all of her problems with him, but whenever she returned from staying at White House Farm she would be even more depressed because of June preaching to her about her lifestyle. Colin Caffell also said that Sheila had a quick temper and that Sheila’s condition always deteriorated rapidly after visiting her parents.[14] According to Freddie, June did not approve with Sheila “making love” with boyfriends and said that she "should remember God." Freddie said that before her “first breakdown” she blamed herself for Nicholas falling out of a taxi because she was not concentrating and only thinking of her mother’s “religious rantings.” Freddie did not have contact with Sheila during the period she was being treated. It was alleged by other witnesses that Freddie was involved in drugs. About a month after Sheila came out of St Andrews for the first time, she contacted Freddie and he gave her money. He said she appeared well but he could see that she had not completely recovered. He goes on to describe an incident which occurred the following time he went to her apartment. Freddie describes one of Sheila’s psychotic episodes which started during a call with a friend. Here is what Freddie says: “During the call the phone went dead. Sheila suddenly became hysterical, mumbling about the phone being bugged. She became like someone possessed ranting and raving. She was striking herself and beating the wall with her fists. I tried to calm her but she did not seem to hear me. I became extremely frightened not only for her but for myself. She kept talking about the Devil and God, and stated that God was sitting opposite her and unlike what her step mother said he in fact loved her. I contacted her ex-mother in law and asked her to come round. This aggravated the situation and Sheila became even more violent and abusive. Her mother in law called and found a prescription for Sheila’s drugs and asked me to get them for her. I went to the chemist and when I retuned I was met at the front door by the mother in law who was leaving. She told me Sheila had kicked her out. I went in and tried to pacify Sheila but was unable to do so. I became extremely concerned for my own safety. I telephoned Sheila’s Doctor and a short while later one of her partners arrived. Sheila refused to let him examine her shouting that he was trying to poison her. By this time she had become completely irrational. The doctor eventually left without being able to do anything. Being unable to do anything I contacted another doctor who arrived shortly afterwards. Again he was unable to do anything because Sheila would not allow him near her. He wrote a short note which he handed to me and asked me to hand to Sheila’s GP and gave her a stronger drug, whilst the first doctor was there Tara’s husband called to collect his daughter who was staying with Sheila. I had arranged for this as I felt something nasty might happen. I was extremely scared for everyone’s safety. At that time I felt that Sheila may use violence towards someone." Freddie goes on to say that after Sheila came out of hospital he discussed that episode with her and she could not remember anything about it and that she believed he had made it up. He also recalled that during the psychotic episode he witnessed ,Sheila could not recognise anyone who came to the flat and “believed everyone was trying to hurt or kill her.” It is very obvious even to an untrained observer, that Sheila was very ill, it is also clear that her delusions were very real to her, it would also follow that if one is of the belief that someone is trying to hurt or kill you then you might adopt “attack is the best form of Defence.” For a woman who was seriously ill to be living in a house with an arsenal of weapons and ammunition (which she definitely knew how to use) I have no doubt in saying this was a very dangerous situation. Leaving guns around the house was irresponsible, and we know from individuals independent of Jeremy that Nevill did leave guns around the house, Michael Deckers for example stated: “There was always a gun at the farm in the first room as you walked in.”[15] Anthony Pargeter had told the court he left his rifle at the farm in the downstairs toilet, police found weapons in the upstairs and downstairs office leaning against the wall when they raided the house.[16] Even if these weapons were not left out they were only in a standard cupboard under the stairs where Sheila could have accessed them at any time. Sheila’s hospitalisation, medication, and the Statements of Dr Ferguson Part of client patient confidentiality meant that Nevill and June Bamber would not have been made aware of the thoughts that Sheila was having. It is only in Dr Feguson’s Statements, some of which were undisclosed at trial, as were Sheila’s medical records and diaries, that we start to understand the thoughts that she was having. Dr Ferguson had diagnosed acute psychosis and later confirmed Schizophrenia. He described her as “a difficult patient to treat but once on medication and mending well became a completely different person” Dr Ferguson also said that he was not happy about her leaving the hospital so soon and felt she needed follow up visits from a psychiatric nurse. In his statement of the 8th of August 1985 he describes her treatment at St Andrews during 1983: “I found that Sheila had bizarre delusions about posesson by the devil and complex ideas about having sex with her twin sons. She thought the sons would seduce her and saw evil in both of them. In particular she thought Nicholas was a woman hater and potential murderer. These feelings expressed where clear symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia.” Dr Ferguson details in his 30th of September 1985 statement, which was not referred to at trial and was not even typed up, “Her delusional ideas on admission included her boyfriend Freddie being the devil: there was a very religious basis to her delusional thinking. Her psychotic symptoms receded briefly on medication but when this was reduced she again flared up into paranoid interpretations of the nursing staff, becoming at times quite hostile and believing that she was being monitored and televised, and that there was an attempt by the devil to take away her godliness, with many people around her being seen to be involved in the conspiracy.”   He goes on:   “I have been shown an extract from the statement of her boyfriend Freddie in which he describes her violent conduct immediately preceding her admission on 3rd March 1985. I had no knowledge of her using physical violence at any time but someone in her condition faced with what she regarded as real pressing fears could respond with physical aggression directed to property, to herself or to others. There is no reason to doubt what Freddie says.”  When shown the statement of another witness to Sheila’s behaviour he states:  “I have been shown and have read the statement made by HELEN GRIMSTER in which Sheila is described on 30th March as having been “very strange”, talking of having contemplated suicide on more than one occasion and of her belief that she was a white witch and had to get rid of evil in the world. Whilst I have no knowledge of this conversation other than what I have read I would regard these abnormalities as consistent with the condition from which she suffered.”  In reference to drug abuse and fostering he said:   “I have referred in my previous statements to Sheila’s use of cannabis and cocaine. Whilst these drugs themselves would not have any effect upon the medication prescribed I was concerned about her using them and advised her strongly not to. Such drugs can alter the perception of the user, chemically producing disturbed perceptions. In the case of a schizophrenic patient such drugs can potentially aggravate the existing psychosis. I have been asked to express an opinion as to how she might have reacted if she became aware of a proposal to remove the children from her care. I would expect a very negative reaction. She would resist it in any way she knew. It would threaten whatever precarious balances she had. Her precise responses would be difficult to predict: she could have withdrawn into depression or have become angry and vitriolic.”   “Whilst in 1983 she expressed fears of harming or doing violence to her children that fear did not seem to recur. I find it difficult to conceptualise her harming her children or her father but I could conceive of her harming her mother or herself. Of course I cannot state categorically that she was incapable of doing harm to her family.”   The mystery of this 30th September 1985 statement remains: Why was this last statement not disclosed at the trial?   As we know Sheila had become ill and at times appeared ‘well’ again but Schizophrenia is an illness which has to be managed effectively by institutions, psychiatric treatment and psychologists over long periods and also by including the use of regular medications to stabilize moods, drugs are not always successful in treating the symptoms of hearing voices and having delusions. It is a condition which one has to ‘live with’ and it does not just correct itself or go away over night and the illness has a stronger hold on younger people than those who are older. It is an illness which has both "positive" symptoms which are hallucinations, delusion, etc and "negative" symptoms such as social awkwardness and withdrawal. All of these had been displayed by Sheila.   Sheila's Medication  Haloperidol is an anti-psychotic medication very commonly prescribed during the 80s and 90s. The dosage is adjusted for each individual so that the psychosis is controlled but the patient is not overly troubled with the well-known possible side-effects like muscle stiffening. However, not all patients will have these side-effects. Haloperidol can be given by injection or orally. There is an advantage to giving injection - it ensures that the patient receives the medication as not all patients will comply in taking oral medication. If and when side-effects occur they can be reduced by another medication - Procyclidine which is taken orally either as a regular medication or on an "if necessary" basis. Dr Angeloglou stated [16a] that Sheila had been prescribed Procyclidine on 29 April (three months before the killings) when she received 120 x 5mg tablets which could be taken up to 10mg morning and evening. According Dr Angeloglou she was not given any more which carries a clear implication that she was not affected by the Haloperidol side-effects. It was common practice to also prescribe an anti-depressant because anti-psychotic medication can cause the patient's mood to "dip". Depression and suicide are well-documented as being associated with Schizophrenia, for this reason Sheila was prescribed Anafranil 10mg x 1 to be taken at night, later increased to 10mg x 3 to be taken at night but these were last prescribed to her on the 15th of January 1985.  Sheila Caffell was prescribed 200mg IM (intra-muscular) injection on a monthly basis by Dr Ferguson and this was administered on 2 May and 11 June. She complained to Dr Ferguson that she was unable to sleep and he then recommended that she should be given the reduced dose of 150mg at her 11 July appointment. Both Dr Angeloglou and Dr Wilkinson say in their statements that Dr Wilkinson had only administered 100mg. So Sheila’s dosage was halved which is not in accordance with usual practice guidelines - dosages should be adjusted in smaller increments, it is unclear why the dosage administered was below that recommended by Dr Ferguson. So by the 7th of August, when the tragedy happened, the effectiveness of her last injection would have worn off and her psychotic symptoms would have been poorly controlled and the possibility of any side-effects would also have diminished, thus she would have experienced no difficulties with co-ordination. The prosecution had argued that muscle co-ordination would have rendered Sheila unable to load the rile and fire it at close range, based on the now fully disclosed statements above we know that she would have had no physical problems carrying out the shootings. Dr Ferguson even stated that she was “fairly erratic in attendance for appointments and I believe in taking her medicine.” He also stated that her psychosis on admission to St Andrews the second time was not drug induced but “would certainly be exacerbated by abuse of illicit drugs. [17] Sheila was also menstruating when the tragedy happened, it is thought that hormonal imbalances could have contributed to the psychotic episode which caused her to kill the family. The toxicologist reported that he tested Sheila’s blood and urine for the following: opiates, barbiturates, amphetamines, Lysergide (LSD), benzodiazepine drugs, and alcohol and all tests were negative. Sheila tested positive for the following: Cannabis in her urine, haloperidol in her liver. No drugs were indicated in her stomach contents. So it seems likely that Sheila had not been taking all of the the tablets prescribed to her which included Anafranil, an antidepressant; Noctec to aid sleeping; Procyclidine used to treat side effects of Haloperidol; Triludan for allergic reactions. The toxicologist also reported that there would have been interaction between Cannabis use and Haloperidol.[18] By 2002 Dr Ferguson had made a statement to the Defence which included the issue of a letter written by Colin Caffell to Nevill Bamber in which he presented the scenario that he take over care of the children. Dr Ferguson said that if Nevill had pleaded Colin Caffell’s case to Sheila this may have had a catastrophic effect and she “may have projected on her father a concept of evil.”  Dr Ferguson had arranged for Sheila to see a psychiatric nurse in London when she returned home, but Sheila was staying at White House Farm in Essex. One wonders why he nor Sheila's GP had not informed social services about the extent of her illness and advised that she and her family would need considerable support.  Essex police had not taken statements from a large number of Sheila's friends. A handwritten note by DS Stan Jones states that he should take a statement from Barbara Wilson regarding her relaying to Ann Eaton that Sheila had told her that "all people are bad and should be killed." Curiously, Wilson's statements show that she was never asked if Sheila had told her this and there is no other trace of this event in the statements of Ann Eaton. [19] Mentally ill women do kill their children and their families; it has become more prevalent over the last three decades particularly in the United States where a large portion of citizens own guns, this is a large area of research which I won’t develop here. Moreover, there are recent cases of mothers killing their children in the news in the UK including mentally ill Sonia Bellfield 29, who stabbed her two year old toddler to death having been seen two days previously by social workers. Paranoid Schizophrenic Aisling Murray 23, stabbed her daughter to death 52 times, in this case it was believed that social services were under resourced and her social worker was inadequately supervised. Vivian Gamor, 29 killed her children in a psychotic episode, she also had delusions about religion very similar to Sheila. Vivian thought that Jesus was her twin, but social services had granted her unsupervised access to her children when she killed them. It is apparent in all cases including that of Sheila Caffell, that Social Services inadequately assessed the risk that these women posed to their children.  For more information on Paranoid Schizophrenia and other mental illnesses visit  http://www.sane.org.uk   References[1] 7th May 1986, Statement, Dr Vanezis [2] Peter Sutherst report, 01.08.08, 3.1 Film strip ID [3] Scenes of Crime exhibit list, reference numbers [4] 22.07.10, Report, Peter Sutherst [5] 30.03.00 Officers Report, DC Whiddon [6] 14.08.91 Ann Eaton, COLP, Statement [7] 30th September, 1986, Dr Ferguson Handwritten Statement. [8]30th September, 1985, Michael Abel, Statement, Camden Social Services [9] Ibid [10] Ibid [11] 16th September 1986, Statement Suzette Ford [12] http://www.sane.org/information/factsheets-podcasts/185-psychosis [13] 8th August 1985, Farhad Emami, Statment [14] Over the Rainbow, 1992, Colin Caffell, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1994 [15] Statements: J. Bouttell, Michael Deckers previously undisclosed undated. [16] Anthony Pargeter trial transcript, 19.09.85 Statement of PC Rozga, SOCO Photographs  [16a] 12.09.85 & 20.09.85 Dr Angeloglou Statement,  09.10.85 Dr Wilkinson, Statement, collective statements of Dr Ferguson.[17] 8.8.85 Dr Ferguson, Statement [18] 04.10.85 Alexander Allan, Toxicologist, Statement [19] DS Jones, hand written police actions HOLMES 45/22

THE COMMENTS ON OUR http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/ AND ON WWW.JEREMY-BAMBER.CO.UK ARE THE OFFICIAL LINE OF JEREMY BAMBER. WE CAN SUBSTANTIATE ALL CLAIMS MADE WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT INVOLVED IN AND CANNOT MAKE COMMENT OR TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CLAIMS MADE BY OTHER WEBSITES ON JEREMY BAMBER INCLUDING THOSE MADE BY PEOPLE WHO FALSELY CLAIM TO WORK FOR JEREMY. WE DO NOT MAKE POSTS ON ANY OTHER INTERNET WEB SITES APART FROM OFFICIAL OUTLETS Contact Us here

Jeremy Bamber: Julie Smerchanski (nee Mugford) subpoena'd?

Winnipeg woman's testimony could be key to appeal of five U.K.

 By Nick Martin, Winnipeg Free Press April 19, 2012

 

Jeremy Bamber was convicted in 1986 of murdering five members of his family — one of the most sensational British murder trials in decades.

Photograph by: REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubaz, REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubaz

WINNIPEG — Jeremy Bamber was convicted in 1986 of murdering five members of his family — one of the most sensational British murder trials in decades.


The 52-year-old Bamber has alleged all along that he was the victim of a wrongful conviction, and he'll find out next week if the British courts will grant him leave to appeal.


If the appeal goes ahead, a key witness could again be his former girlfriend, Julie Mugford — now Julie Smerchanski, a Winnipeg wife and mother, and director of assessment and instructional support services for the Winnipeg School Division.


"Yes, absolutely," he will call Smerchanski to testify should his client have his appeal heard, Bamber's lawyer Simon McKay said Wednesday from Leeds, England, "She was a key witness," McKay said, though he emphasized: "No one considered that her evidence alone convicted Bamber."


Smerchanski has not responded to emailed interview requests from the Winnipeg Free Press. She has an unlisted home phone number.


Bamber's case has resulted in several books and numerous television documentaries.


Bamber was adopted as a child into a relatively wealthy English farm family. In 1985, five members of his family were found shot to death, a rifle lying across the body of Bamber's non-biological adopted sister.

The victims included Bamber's adoptive parents, and his sister's two young children.


For weeks, police believed that the sister suffered from mental illness and had committed four murders before taking her own life.  But they eventually charged Bamber with all five murders, and he was convicted and sentenced to life without parole.


McKay said that the Bamber trial has been so sensational in the United Kingdom for so many years, that a mythology has developed around it. The original trial created a media frenzy in Britain, complete with some media outlets offering tens of thousands of pounds for exclusive interviews.


A previous appeal bid failed in 2002, but that attempt to get a new trial was based entirely on DNA evidence, said McKay, who took up Bamber's case last year. McKay has had several highly publicized murder convictions overturned, and is representing several clients victimized in the ongoing hacked telephone and email scandal in Britain.


McKay said that he will allege in court that the police thoroughly mishandled the original murder investigation, and that some crucial evidence was contaminated. Bamber's legal team has pathologists and forensic experts who will testify that the evidence clearly points to the sister as the murderer, said McKay.

He said the charges against Bamber were laid after Mugford came forward and told police about statements he had allegedly made to her, McKay said, "It wasn't until the 2002 appeal that it was learned she had moved to Canada," McKay said. "I know journalists have come to Canada and tried to talk to her."


Extensive online coverage of the Bamber case indicates that Mugford played a crucial role in the 1986 trial, and that she has consistently declined to talk to the media.


McKay said that he believes he can compel Smerchanski to testify at an appeal.  "We're fairly certain we can issue a subpoena upon her," and that extradition treaties would force her to testify, he said.

© Copyright (c) Winnipeg Free Press

Read more: http://www.globalwinnipeg.com/Winnipeg+woman+testimony+could+appeal+five/6481881/story.html#ixzz1saNbiibM

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.