Jeremy Bamber has always maintained that his father Nevill Bamber had telephoned him for help in the early hours of the 7th August 1985.  Without the means to verify his claim, it was supposed that Jeremy was lying. 

 At Jeremy’s trial in 1986 Anthony Arledge QC informed the jury in no uncertain terms that Jeremy had “done it [carried out the murders] and was trying to cover it up”.   Had Jeremy been able to prove to the Court that his father had telephoned him on that particular morning then Arledge would have conceded that it had indeed been Jeremy’s sister Sheila who had been running amok with a gun.

It was only last year when documents substantiating Jeremy’s claim regarding his father’s telephone call were put into the public domain.  There is a link on this page of Jeremy’s website where you may view the Police logs of both Nevill and Jeremy Bamber’s telephone calls. 

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/nevill-s-call-to-police

Essex Police has always denied receiving a telephone call from Nevill Bamber and simply dismisses the log of Nevill’s call as the details of Jeremy’s call being passed on from one department to another.  However there is further irrefutable proof that Nevill did contact the Police.  The following link will take you to a page of Jeremy’s campaign site with a further link to view the document from Essex Police detailing a list of items to be destroyed.      

http://t.co/1I3rB4g    

Numbers 598 and 599 on the list clearly refer to two recordings of phone calls to be destroyed: Maldon 860207 being Jeremy’s parents phone number at White House Farm and Maldon 886645 being Jeremy’s phone number at Bourtree cottage.

Yet, Essex Police still maintains that Nevill’s call to Police never took place when the actual recording on Nevill’s phone call is on their list of items to be destroyed.  This is just one example of a miscellany of evidence having been destroyed, withheld, tampered with, backdated………

Had these documents which have come to light in recent years, been available at trial it is without doubt that the outcome for Jeremy would have been entirely different.  (There are still many thousands more documents kept under PII.)

Non disclosure of evidence is regarded, under Article 6 of The European Convention of Human Rights, as an impediment to a fair trial.  A trial which is deemed unfair should, under European law, either have its verdict quashed or a retrial granted.

Why then is Jeremy Bamber still sitting in a prison cell after 26 years with no chance of parole?

I first became interested in Jeremy’s case during his 1986 trial. I remember feeling somewhat perturbed by the lack of any concrete evidence and intrigued as to why the Court should rely heavily on the emotional backlash of a woman scorned. However, it was the introduction of a sound moderator and the speed at which it became the integral factor of the case which baffled me most of all. Since it was believed from the outset that it was a murder/suicide investigation, it would seem to me that the rational process of thought would be to repudiate the sound moderator as opposed to an attempt to choreograph a correlation between the implement and the crime.

These two factors kept niggling away at me over the years, whilst intermittently reflecting on the possibility of an innocent man withering away in jail. I must have written dozens of letters to Jeremy in the early days, though they seemed so futile when reading them back: ‘if there’s anything I can do to help….. ’; ‘I’ve always believed in your innocence…..’. Each letter ended up in tiny pieces in the waste paper bin. I felt so helpless: before the ubiquitous use of computers it was not only difficult to know what course of action one could take but just charting the course of Jeremy’s sentence proved near enough impossible.

I read Roger Wilkes book ‘Blood Relations’ and Claire Powell’s book ‘Murder at White House Farm’. Both these authors are predisposed to imparting a sense of verisimilitude to their accounts which can at times be quite compelling, but still there were too many anomalies that just didn’t add up…….

How could a murderer carry out such a crime and yet leave no forensic evidence behind?

How could Jeremy have possibly carried out the murder of his family, returned to his cottage in Goldhanger within the allotted time frame (ten minutes I believe), remove any forensic evidence from his bicycle/car, clean himself up, change/dispose of his clothing and regain his composure before telephoning the police?

Furthermore, had Jeremy been responsible for the murder of his family, planned with such meticulous attention to detail, why then did he fail to arrange a credible alibi?

It wasn’t until many years later with the aid of the internet that I was able to accrue more information on Jeremy’s case: and the more I read, the more convinced I became of his innocence and the enormity of this grave miscarriage of justice.

I began to take a more active role in Jeremy’s campaign. But it was only then, once we started corresponding (when he was no longer just a character in a book or an occasional face in a newspaper), that the reality of the situation really hit me. This was ‘real life’ and this man has been imprisoned for twenty-five years, and has spent every day relentlessly fighting to clear his name, dealing with one knock-back after another: two failed appeals; the upgrading of his twenty-five year sentence to a full-life tariff; having his neck slashed by a fellow inmate to within millimetres of losing his life - requiring twenty-six stitches.

In the relatively short time I have known Jeremy I have found him to be extremely personable with a gregarious nature. He is warm-hearted, discerning, and perceptive and yet has a delicate sensitivity about him. I feel privileged that Jeremy should consider me one of his friends and that I should have played an infinitesimal role along the route to Jeremy’s freedom.

I do not know from where Jeremy gets his strength and perseverance. It is to his ultimate credit that, where most people in his position would have crumbled, Jeremy has endured this injustice without the comfort and support of his remaining family, and yet has still found the will and the resolve to continue his crusade and ongoing fight for justice.

Jeremy Bamber has been given three months to appeal against the provisional decision made by the Criminal Cases Review Commission: the deadline is May 6^th 2011.  However the CCRC are withholding the necessary evidence which is urgently required by Jeremy’s defence team in order that the necessary forensic work may be carried out. 

In view of this we would like Jeremy’s supporters to write a letter (you might wish to use the letter printed below as a guide) and send/ email it the list of suggested recipients below.  For maximum impact I am suggesting this is carried out on 3^rd May, (for those posting the letter, I suggest one day earlier).

Dear (please see below for a list of recipients)

It is almost three months since the Criminal Cases Review Commission granted Jeremy Bamber and his legal team an opportunity to appeal against their provisional statement: the deadline is May 6^th 2011. 

However, it has been brought to my attention that the CCRC is withholding over  four- hundred negatives relating to the case of Mr Bamber.  It is possible that these negatives, of the crime scene at White House Farm on the 7^th August 1985, may provide vital evidence which may aid Mr Bamber in his plight to prove his innocence.

The CCRC is stating that Br Bamber’s solicitor, junior barrister and Mr Sutherst, a forensic specialist, has had sufficient opportunity to visit the CCRC offices and ‘look at’ the negatives which are not much bigger than a postage stamp.  At the request of Mr Sutherst, the CCRC did produce some prints from these negatives: those produced were grainy and of poor quality. 

Since Mr Sutherst’s previous methodology has been undermined, Mr Bamber’s defence team has requested that the negatives be sent to a Forensic Science Service Laboratory for high resolution scanning in order that accurate prints be made and the necessary forensic work carried out.   This is a reasonable request and one of standard practice.

However the CCRC has not as yet consented to any of the negatives leaving their offices.  Thee months have now elapsed on the CCRC’s extension.  How can Mr Bamber’s forensic work be carried out without the negatives?

Since the CCRC granted the Prosecution’s expert full access to these same negatives in 2010, is it not reasonable that the Defence be offered the same privilege?

The negatives in question were released by Essex Police in 2008 under the Freedom of Information Act and passed on to the CCRC.  It is my understanding that the CCRC is an independent body set up initially in 1997 to help redress possible miscarriages of justice.  Therefore surely the CCRC must play an equitable role in the cases they undertake.  By failing to release these negatives they are in effect acting as judge and jury.  However, this is the job for the Court of Appeal: not the CCRC.

With the deadline of May 6^th looming, it is essential that Mr Bamber’s Defence team gain full access to the negatives as requested in order that the forensic work be carried out.

It is ironic that the CCRC whilst supposedly working in the ‘name of justice’ should appear to be obstructing the very course of it.

Yours sincerely

List of recipients

Mr Peter French, Case Worker

Email: complaints@ccrc.x.gsi.gov.uk

CCRC

5 St Philip’s Place

Birmingham

B3 2PW

Mr C Albert, Principal Director of CCRC

Email:  complaints@ccrc.x.gsi.gov.uk

CCRC

5 St Philip’s Place

Birmingham

B3 2PW

Mr Kenneth Clarke, Secretary of State for Justice

Email:  clarkek@parliament.uk

House of Commons

London

SW1A 0AA

Mr Keir Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions

Email: enquiries@cps.gsi.gov.uk

Casework Directorate

50 Ludgate Hill

London

EC4M 7EX

Teresa May, Home Secretary

Email: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Location 9.05

Ministerial Correspondence Unit

London

SW1H 9AJ

Radio 4 recently broadcast a programme entitled ‘Moral Maze’ with a debate relating to the principle of full life sentences.  Jeremy Bamber was mentioned on several occasions.

However two important points were not addressed.  The first point being, ‘who should decide upon the minimum time a prisoner should spend in jail?’  and secondly, ‘when should a prisoner be told how long he has to spend in jail?’

At his trial in 1986, Judge Drake stated that Jeremy should receive a life sentence with a minimum of 25 years before he would be considered eligible for parole.  This was confirmed by Lord Chief Justice Lord Lane.  However nearly halfway through Jeremy’s sentence the then Home Secretary Michael Howard decided that life should mean life and that Jeremy should never be released from prison. 

One might question how a single Member of Parliament can make a suitably informed decision?   Firstly, allowing a politician to set a prisoner’s sentence is potentially open to prejudice and abuse.   Politicians can be led by the media and may be swayed by colleagues/ public opinion.  Secondly, not having attended the trial of a convicted criminal, how can an MP possibly be familiar with the intricacies of a legal case in order to make a just and informed judgement? 

In 2003 the law was changed after the House of Lords decided that it should be the judge and not the Home Secretary who should set the tariff for a prisoner.  Nevertheless, in Jeremy Bamber’s case, Michael Howard’s decision still stands.  In the light of today’s justice system, should his decision not revert back to the judge’s original minimum sentence of twenty-five years?

Jeremy was nearly half way through his sentence when he was told that he would never be released from prison: is this acceptable nine years into one’s sentence?  Had Jeremy ‘confessed’ and shown ‘remorse’ for the crime he did not commit, it is possible that one day he would be granted parole.  But having vehemently maintained his innocence for twenty-six years he will never be eligible for parole. It is not surprising  that Jeremy considers it quite unacceptable for this decision to have been made nine years into his sentence and without any legal representation, and furthermore, on the decision of just one solitary MP.

Jeremy asks whether a prisoner has a human right to be told the length of their sentence on conviction, or whether it is acceptable to impose a new and much lengthier sentence halfway through one’s sentence. 

Is the full life tariff not simply a circuitous method of reintroducing the death penalty, whereby the prisoner has no hope or opportunity for anything other than to die in jail? 

It would seem reasonable that a Judge should impose a prisoner’s sentence at trial.  If the death penalty should ever be reinstated it should be done so properly with a national referendum, as opposed to an indirect cruel and inhumane form of it: old age.

This article relates to the fragmented bullet that was found in Sheila Caffell’s neck after supposedly having been shot with a rifle with a sound moderator attached.   The significance of the sound moderator being attached to the rifle is as follows……..

Had the sound moderator actually been attached then it would have been impossible for Sheila to have committed suicide since the sound moderator was found in a cupboard downstairs some time after the murders.  This would therefore lead us to the conclusion (as Essex Police would like us to think) that Jeremy carried out the murders.   

In order to introduce the sound moderator into the picture, it was necessary to replace the fragmented bullet with a whole bullet.  This whole bullet could then be fired through a sound moderator in order to ‘give the impression’ that a sound moderator had been used, thus incriminating Jeremy.

However if the sound moderator had actually been attached to the rifle at the time of the murders, then why would Essex Police have had to lie/cover up/ tamper with evidence? 

The fragmented bullet PV/20 

Facts

•  There are sixty documents verifying the fragmented bullet PV/20 was replaced by a whole bullet.  This whole bullet was then replaced by a further bullet which had been fired through a sound moderator.

•  There are photos of all bullets including PV/20 depicted as a fragmented and as a whole bullet.  

• Both whole bullets had been weighed twice: these are recorded both in the metric and imperial system. The chart reveals a disparity between the two recorded weights of the bullet PV/20.  This was overlooked until the grains were converted into grams.   Both of these weights are more or less consistent with a whole bullet, which matches the photo of PV/20: not the 15 tiny fragments as in the x-rays. 

Questions

• Why has the discrepancy in weight between the two whole bullets not been questioned by police?  The weight of the first bullet was 23.83 grains, the second, 26.46 grains: thus confirming that one bullet must surely have been replaced with another.

• Why did the police destroy these bullets?  Had the Defence had the opportunity to forensically examine the bullets, it may have resolved the issue of whether Sheila’s wounds were sustained with or without the sound moderator attached to the rifle.

• Why has the destroying of the said bullets not been questioned?  This issue was central to the Jeremy’s case at his 1986 trial?  Four Police enquiries took place between 1985 and 2002, yet still this issue was not investigated.

Conclusion

The question must be raised as to why the police replaced the shattered bullet with not one but two whole bullets.

One may deduce it was necessary so that the ’whole’ bullet could then be fired through a sound moderator in order to convince the court that a sound moderator had been used in the murders? 

It was imperative for the prosecution to convince the jury that the sound moderator had been used.   With it attached to the rifle, it would have proved impossible for Sheila to have carried out the murders and then shoot herself before replacing the sound moderator in the downstairs gun cupboard.

However if a silencer had ‘genuinely’ been used in the murders then why the need to replace the shattered bullet with a whole bullet?  

Surely this refutes the whole theory that the silencer was used in the murders, thus supporting the ‘Red paint/sound moderator/scratch mark issue’.

(You may read the full article on the ‘Red paint/ sound moderator/ scratch mark issue’ on page 1 of this blog.)

There was much shock and disbelief at the CCRC’s decision last Friday.  Jeremy himself was both stunned and disappointed.  However this was just a provisional decision: Jeremy’s defence team has been given a further three months to present additional material.  Initially Jeremy’s lawyers had submitted in excess of fifty grounds for appeal which of course is a considerable amount for the CCRC to deal with. 

The CCRC have implicitly stated that focusing on the two or three more compelling pieces of evidence may be more advantageous.  The defence now proposes to supplement the key elements already submitted with clear and precise scientific attestation. 

Jeremy believes the CCRC has been helpful and cooperative in assisting and guiding him and his lawyers towards a positive decision leading to a referral to the Court of Appeal.

Jeremy wishes to thank everyone for their letters of support.  He is unable to disclose any more information at present for legal reasons but will be able to provide an update on his case in due course.

After years of waiting on Jeremy’s part the CCRC has finally arrived at a decision regarding whether to refer his case to the Court of Appeal.  On January 31^st a spokesman for the CCRC stated that they “had reached a decision in principle”.  However, this decision will not be made public until both Jeremy and his legal team have received the document expressing the decision and the reasons for it.  The spokesman stated that this could take up to two weeks.

Jeremy has since been informed that the CCRC are to give their decision this coming Friday, 11th February. 

With the recent wealth of compelling evidence Jeremy is optimistic of a positive outcome.  Much of this evidence has caught the attention of the media over the recent week resulting in a lot of positive feedback.  Last Sunday’s Observer published a two page article highlighting the discrepancies over the finding of the bodies at White House Farm and photographs, analysed by photographic expert Peter Sutherst which were discovered to be incompatible with the principle prosecution case: http://t.co/YvkgiQk 

Channel 4 News has also given much exposure to Jeremy’s case with an informative article: http://www.channel4.com/news/jeremy-bamber-fighting-for-retrial in which Jeremy states “I would love a retrial so all evidence can be examined in the public arena so that everyone can see the full extent of what has happened for so long.”  The article also mentions the inconsistencies relating to evidence tampering and the restaging of Sheila’s body by police.

The Guardian has also launched several video’s, one of which you can view here: http://tinyurl.com/6dghahy  and an audio clip of Jeremy from Full Sutton Prison: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/audio/2011/jan/30/jeremy-bamber-murder-appeal-audio

Jeremy has received mountains of letters and cards from well-wishers: he would like to express his appreciation to all his supporters.

 In 1986 Jeremy Bamber was found guilty by a majority of 10-2 at Chelmsford Crown Court

At Jeremy’s trial Anthony Arledge QC informed the jury that the murders could have only been committed by Jeremy himself or Jeremy’s sister Sheila.  Jeremy has always claimed that his father telephoned him for help during the massacre, informing him that Sheila had “gone crazy and has the gun”.  Had Jeremy been able to verify his father’s telephone call at Court, then Arledge would have conceded that Sheila had indeed been “running amok with the gun”.

With Jeremy unable to substantiate his claim, Arledge strongly suggested to the Jury that Jeremy was lying because “he had done it and was trying to cover up”.

Mr Justice Drake sentenced Jeremy to a minimum of 25 years imprisonment

However in 2010, twenty-five years after the crime, contemporaneous police logs disclosing the details of Nevill’s call to the Police were discovered and put into the public domain: thus validating Jeremy’s claim that his father had indeed telephoned him on the night of the murders.   Consequently, with reference to Arledge, here lay the proof that it was in fact Sheila, who was “running amok with the gun”.

The jury were therefore misled with fallacious evidence which most certainly influenced the outcome of Jeremy’s trial.  Consequently Jeremy received an unjust trial: hence an unfair verdict was reached.

Article 6 of The European Convention of Human Rights states that the right to a fair trial is seen as an essential right of everyone.  Non disclosure of evidence would be regarded as an impediment to a fair trial.  A trial which is deemed unfair should, under European law, either have its verdict quashed or a retrial granted.

I wonder whether Jeremy’s twenty-five year wait for a ‘fair’ retrial would be considered an excessive delay in the violation of the “reasonable time” requirement of the Convention?

In 1994 the then Home Secretary Michael Howard extended the twenty-five year sentence imposed on Jeremy to a whole life tariff.  Nearly halfway into his sentence Jeremy was informed that he would never be released from prison.   

Since this was too political a case for the CCRC to deal with Jeremy decided to challenge his whole life tariff at the European Court of Human Rights.  Mr Howard’s decision to increase his tariff is a violation of the European Convention:  Article 7 ‘prohibits a heavier penalty being imposed than was applicable at the time when the criminal act was committed’.

After many years of waiting, Jeremy has been informed this week that an appeal against his whole life tariff will be heard imminently although a specific date has not been given.   

This appeal is not to be confused with Jeremy’s ongoing appeal at the CCRC and his twenty-five year plight to prove his innocence.