Made worse by the fact that the production team ignored Jeremy's legal team in setting the record straight on a number of anomalies which had been presented in the drama thus not always displaying a truer/ clearer picture of what did happen. The information offered was/is backed by proof of how events unfolded and not how the author had wished it to be.
I believe it was the CT and not the solicitors working for Bamber who wanted to add their two penneth and refused? Bamber’s solicitors or legal team added nothing to set the record straight? Here is their statement, all they was concerned about was the timing?
Jeremy Bamber ITV Drama - Statement
Posted on December 17, 2019
On or around the 8th January 2020 ITV is scheduled to broadcast a Drama based on the case of Jeremy Bamber and what happened at White House Farm . This is our statement on behalf of our Client Jeremy Bamber .
In view of the proposed broadcast of this drama series approaches are being made by the media for a comment by our Client and his campaign over this drama due to be aired .
This arises in the context of an on going and very active process to seek to return the case of Jeremy Bamber back to the Court of Appeal ,including importantly judicial review proceedings which have been issued against the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to serious non disclosure which our Client says have occurred .
As a result of this we have written to the producers of the Drama Series and invited them to postpone the broadcast of this series whilst matters are resolved in the High Court . We have intimated that we are concerned that such a drama series by its nature will place a fictitious narrative in the public domain which may be counter productive to the administration of justice in due course .
Our Client understands that considerable resources may have been put into this drama series and therefore does not today suggest it should be cancelled rather that as a matter of precaution any broadcast should be delayed pending the High Court Case .
We will not be making any further comment in view of the ongoing case before the Court .
ENDS