Author Topic: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices  (Read 1051 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11007
Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« on: January 29, 2020, 11:59:PM »
What made things far more difficult for Jeremy’s defence is that Michael Ainsley ensured that the police withheld numerous aspects of vital evidence from the defence, as outlined by Paul Terzeon, a member of Jeremy’s defence team.

1.   The defence were never made aware that the original hand-swabs taken from Sheila Caffell’s body had been rejected by the laboratory.  Terzeon stated that had this been known he would have sought to exclude the evidence from hand-swabs entirely; had this objection not succeeded he would have cross-examined witnesses; and lastly would have sought to present expert witness testimony to rebut the Crown’s case.

2.   In relation to the alleged ‘struggle in the kitchen’ Terzeon confirmed that the defence were completely unaware that it was acknowledged by the police, that the raid team had caused the spillage of sugar and disruption of furniture.  Terzeon stated, “On the evidence available we had no reason to suppose that the disruption to the kitchen had not been caused during the events leading to the deaths”.

3.   The defence was unaware that the police knew that officers had opened both the kitchen and bathroom windows prior to photographs being taken and were unaware of a visit to WHF by DC Barlow on 22nd August 1985.  Terzeon made the point that he would have wanted to cross-examine Barlow as to whether he saw any sign of the alleged damage to windows or the broken hacksaw blade said to have been used to force entry.  The defence were also unaware that a police officer had opened a fanlight window in the kitchen and almost certainly moved items around the kitchen sink while doing so, something attributed to Jeremy at Trial, where it was alleged he broke out of the house via the kitchen window in question.

4.   The defence were unaware of a note written by Ann Eaton in which she said that Julie Mugford had told her that Jeremy telephoned Mugford at 03:30, not earlier as she claimed.

5.   The defence were unaware that a grant of immunity was given to Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby regarding multiple cheque frauds committed against Midland Bank.  The police also lied to Terzeon when they claimed they had no contact with Midland bank whatsoever.  Terzeon pointed out that the Midland Bank manager; Mr Dovey gave a different impression at the Trial to that given later to the COLP investigation, when the involvement of DS Stan Jones in brokering a deal with the bank became known.  The jury were also not aware that Julie Mugford had already made arrangements to sell her story to the Press before the Trial began.

6.   In relation to the argument the night before the killings Terzeon said that the defence was not shown a letter from Colin Caffell that threw light on the potential fostering of the twins.  As a result the defence were prevented from introducing questions to Dr Ferguson, Sheila’s psychiatrist, at the Trial.

7.   The defence was never made aware that Colin Caffell had complained to Det. Supt. Ainsley, that DS Jones had altered Colin’s witness statement, so as to give a wrongfully detrimental opinion of Jeremy’s outlook towards his parents; and DS Jones refused to make amendments to correct it.

8.   The defence was never shown the photograph of a carved inscription found on a door in the twins bedroom saying, “I hate this place”, wording that was most likely written by Sheila Caffell (as the handwriting did not appear to be that of a child).  Thus Dr Ferguson, Sheila’s psychiatrist, could not be asked for an opinion on this aspect of evidence.

9.   The defence was unaware of the pages to which the bloodied bible was open.  In fact Terzeon asked a police officer if the police were aware of the pages that were open and he was told that the police did not know and did not have any photographs - a blatant lie.

10.   The defence were not aware of a belief that the Boutflour’s believed that Jeremy intended to sell land that was part of the Speakman estate and this influenced the response agreed by the defence to a Jury question on the matter.

11.   The defence were unaware that Det. Supt. Ainsley knew that a police officer had used a telephone at WHF on 7th August and by implication the handset in the kitchen had to have been replaced by the police.

12.   The defence were unaware that Anthony Pargeter claimed to have seen scars on Jeremy Bamber’s hands, something that the police established was not true, Jeremy was unmarked. The defence were unable to cross-examine Pargeter on this matter and demonstrate that he was prepared to give false information to the police so as to incriminate Jeremy.

13.   Terzeon went into detail about the blood results; The defence were not aware at Trial that the forensic scientist, John Hayward, did not follow proscribed procedure when testing the blood and therefore he could not be cross-examined on this crucial matter.

Furthermore

The portrayal of Jeremy by Ainsley in his report to the DPP involved multiple insults related to matters of a sexual nature.  Given that there was no sexual connotation to the murders, it can be deduced that these comments were included purely for influencing purposes, i.e. the allegation that Jeremy was a sexual ‘pervert’ means he was more likely to have killed his family.  Thus, the frequent references to alleged homosexuality, meant to convey that Jeremy was deviant because in 1985 the police regarded all homosexuals as untrustworthy deviants. 

In relation to Jeremy’s former girlfriend, Julie Mugford, Ainsley’s comments were by any measure, quite bizarre.  For he portrayed Jeremy as having morally corrupted Mugford, even though there was no evidence that she, as a 19 and 20-year-old woman during their relationship, did not consent fully to whatever sexual practices they both indulged in.  Ainsley said, “I have no doubt that the accused deliberately set out to corrupt Julie –sexually, morally, criminally and in drug abuse” – however, there was absolutely no evidence that this was the case; Mugford was a willing participant in every activity undertaken jointly by the pair.  In terms of criminal activity, Mugford’s crimes of cheque fraud were committed before she even met Jeremy.

In terms of moral decrepitude, it was Mugford who allegedly knew that five murders were planned to take place and neither said nor did anything to prevent them.  It was Mugford who lied repeatedly on oath, under no duress from Jeremy, but instead acted in obedience with instructions from the Police.

In respect of alleged sexual corruption, Mugford told the News of The World newspaper after the trial, “Jeremy completely swept me off my feet.  He was a skilful lover.  He taught me to enjoy sex as never before.  I gave everything to him, including myself”, which hardly suggests coercion or corruption.  But of course, by the time Mugford revealed her true feelings, Jeremy had been jailed for life – which is what Ainsley calculated.  His deceptions had worked.

It was Ainsley’s responsibility to file a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Sir Thomas Hetherington QC. that presented evidence strong enough for the Prosecutor to make a decision to charge Jeremy Bamber with murder.

After ordering the re-writing of literally hundreds of witness statements without the witnesses’ knowledge or signature, Ainsley compiled a report for the DPP.  Ainsley’s ‘interim’ report dated 23 September 1985 was created using just a tiny portion of witness statements that were available to him.  It was also aided by elements of a personal ‘diary’ kept by one of the relatives - Robert Boutflour.  Though the 'diary' in itself was proven to be inaccurate, the fact it was relied on as a support to evidence is unthinkable: they were a collection of notes, all compiled on a single day of which there were three different versions, each saying different things.  Thus Ainsley, far from conducting a professional enquiry relied on the backdated, fabricated accounts of one of Jeremy’s relatives.  Ainsley’s report was used as the basis to convince the DPP to charge Jeremy with five murders; in conjunction with the information discussed at a meeting held at the DPP’s Offices on 25th September 1985, where a decision was then taken to prosecute Jeremy for murder.

Ainsley’s report to the DPP has been analysed in depth and over 100 errors of fact have been identified

Some are seemingly just due to incompetent and slovenly detective work and others are clearly designed to mislead.  In his Interim and final reports certain points of evidence, such as the vital issue about the location of the telephones in the house contradicted each other with no explanation.  As an additional example, the Interim report also referred to Jeremy stealing Cartier watches.  Essex Police then found this to be untrue, but this discovery was omitted from the Final report, thus misleading the DDP into unjustly questioning Jeremy's character. 

Additionally, Ainsley said the twins lived with Sheila when actually, they lived with Colin and he had legal custody of them since one of Sheila’s psychotic episodes in March that year.  Sheila only had the children a couple of days a week.  From an accuracy point of view, Ainsley even recorded the date of birth of Nevill, June and Sheila incorrectly. 

His reports are also littered with homophobic comments about Jeremy and his friends.  Ainsley consistently failed to reprimand or admonish his staff for regarding Jeremy as a ‘queer’, an attitude that saw supposed impartial members of a public institution fall in line with the relatives of the Bamber family in carrying hurtful and unjust prejudices.  Again, this may well have aided the DDP to reach a decision based on misleading information.

Ainsley re Julie Mugford

It didn’t appear to strike Ainsley, an experienced detective, that Julie Mugford had waited a month after the murders to tell the police about how Jeremy had killed his family.  He also did not appear to be overly troubled that, according to her statement, she had known the murders were going to occur for around a year and had warned nobody, not even on the evening before the murders. He seemingly took everything she said at face value.  He was undeterred when vital aspects of her story proved to be flawed.  He didn’t ensure that DS Stan Jones probed in great detail the gaping omissions from Mugford’s story, such as what she discussed with Jeremy on the night of 7th August, or why she didn’t say something about Jeremy’s alleged actions when she went to identify the bodies, accompanied by Ann Eaton and DC Clark. Ainsley ignored the obvious suspicion, already voiced by Malcolm Waters, that Mugford was simply seeking revenge against Jeremy for ending their relationship.

Ainsley re Colin Caffell

Under Ainsley’s leadership, DS Stan Jones was seemingly prepared to alter the truth; Colin Caffell registered an official complaint in a letter with Ainsley about an important error in his witness statement:

Quote
"It is the part where I am talking about my conversation with Jeremy at my party prior to the shooting.  It refers to an opinion of Jeremy's where he says that he has always felt that I (referring to me) had always had a rough deal with regards his family etc.  When the typed, edited statement was presented to me to read and sign, I noticed that the reference Jeremy had made to me, was changed to him, altering the whole inflection of the sentence.  The 'I' which is underlined above was changed to 'he'..

When I commented to Stan Jones on this, he said something like ‘oh, it's only a typing error, don't worry about it. It's correct on the hand written statement isn't it?  That's all that matters, so just sign it.  If you change it, we'll have to have it all typed out again.’  This has been niggling me for some time and feel it must be important to have been included in the typed statement.  When I asked Stan Jones about it again last week he said, ‘Leave it, whatever you do don't say anything about it in the witness box, it'll cause all sorts of trouble if you do.’
 
Ainsley failed to take any action to correct Caffell’s witness statement. Neither the Court nor the Defence had sight of the hand-written version pre-trial.

Ainsley re the twins' foster care

One of the most serious acts of deception by Ainsley was over the issue of foster-care for the twins.  The fact was that Sheila had used foster care previously and it was being considered again.  Ainsley had statements made by foster carers but these were only in a hand written form and were not typed up and not produced as evidence.  None of the foster carers were called to give evidence at Trial in an attempt to undermine Jeremy and depict him as lying about the issue.

Statements from social workers were not disclosed to the DPP on the 25th September 1985 when Ainsley and colleagues pressed for murder charges to be brought against Jeremy.  The Defence did not know at the time Jeremy was charged with murder that the DPP believed Jeremy had invented the story about hearing plans for fostering discussed on the evening prior to the killings.  Det. Spt. Ainsley’s report to the DPP regarding fostering of the children states:

Quote
“I think it is only right to say that Jeremy is the only source of such a suggestion and he has been quite active in spreading this information or, as I would believe, misinformation. Every person who knew Ralph Nevill, June and Sheila are all agreed that this is an outrageous suggestion and would never have been suggested or entertained by these persons, not forgetting the natural father, Colin Caffell whose authority would have been required and I might add not forthcoming.”

He goes on to state (his own capitals),

Quote
"THERE WAS MENTION OF FOSTER PARENTS ALONG WITH OTHER SOLUTIONS".  I think it only right, to say that Jeremy is the only source of such a suggestion and he has been quite active in spreading this information, or as I would believe, misinformation.  EVERY person who knew Ralph Nevill, June and Sheila are all agreed that this is an outrageous suggestion and would never have been suggested or entertained by these persons, not forgetting the natural father, Colin CAFFELL, whose authority would have been required and I might add not forthcoming".

Ainsley knew with 100% certainty that Sheila had obtained help with the children in the past and had organised day foster care. Eight separate Actions were raised by Essex Police to obtain statements from ten distinct persons employed by Westminster and Camden Social services regarding the fact that Sheila had needed their help in the past.  Ainsley also had the statement from Colin Caffell’s mother who stated that she and June had talked about foster care.

The police were always desperate to portray Jeremy as a liar.  This is just one example of how Ainsley’s deliberate lies to the DPP were used to denigrate Jeremy at Court and in later appeal hearings.


Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2020, 12:31:AM »
Did you type this up Roch?

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11007
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2020, 07:27:AM »
Did you type this up Roch?

David, I'm glad you asked. Unlike your good self, I am unlikely to obtain a PhD in the case.  I am in touch with a few independent researchers and one of them compiled this. I have changed the format a little, to suit forum reading.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43389
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2020, 10:19:AM »
He's a bad egg isn't he ??

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2020, 11:09:AM »
David, I'm glad you asked. Unlike your good self, I am unlikely to obtain a PhD in the case.  I am in touch with a few independent researchers and one of them compiled this. I have changed the format a little, to suit forum reading.


Thank you for the post which says everything to any new forum members
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2020, 11:09:AM »
The lies and deception
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11007
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2020, 03:37:PM »

Thank you for the post which says everything to any new forum members

Cheers. I had that in mind when I sat for two hours trying to format it.  Then when I got up this morning, I saw that Mike had posted his thread. You can't win 'em all.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43389
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2020, 03:41:PM »
Cheers. I had that in mind when I sat for two hours trying to format it.  Then when I got up this morning, I saw that Mike had posted his thread. You can't win 'em all.






I think you can win, trust me.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10307
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2020, 09:53:PM »
Very interesting

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12122
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2020, 11:19:PM »
Jeremy Bamber was on trial for murder, not Sheila Caffell. Have you got that..

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5057
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2020, 11:23:PM »
Jeremy Bamber was on trial for murder, not Sheila Caffell. Have you got that..

Really?  I am glad we have you here to put us right.

 

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12122
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2020, 11:32:PM »
Really?  I am glad we have you here to put us right.
.. and what would we do without paterfamilias ngb1066 at the helm?

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1811
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2020, 11:39:PM »
.. and what would we do without paterfamilias ngb1066 at the helm?

The docu drama hasn’t done a very good portrayal of Mugford has it Steve.

Shown as the shrinking violent and not a mention of the organised cheque book fraud she organised???
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12122
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #13 on: January 30, 2020, 11:43:PM »
The docu drama hasn’t done a very good portrayal of Mugford has it Steve.

Shown as the shrinking violent and not a mention of the organised cheque book fraud she organised???
They have truncated it to the bare bones, and it's probably been made on a shoestring. Of course if you're a Jeremy supporter you're bound to be unhappy.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2020, 11:52:PM »
David, I'm glad you asked. Unlike your good self, I am unlikely to obtain a PhD in the case.  I am in touch with a few independent researchers and one of them compiled this. I have changed the format a little, to suit forum reading.

I take my PhD as a sign of an unhealthy interest  ;D