Author Topic: 2019 - Where is the case at?  (Read 54 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10565
2019 - Where is the case at?
« on: February 11, 2019, 09:32:PM »
Quote
Last updated 10.01.19

Jeremy Bamber's lawyer, Mark Newby, is currently in an ongoing discussion with the CPS regarding the non-disclosure of key evidence. At the time of the trial the Defence did not know that there was more than one sound moderator seized by police. One came from the relatives (later estate beneficiaries) who found the moderator at the house days after the police had finished their work. The other was probably taken by police from the house before the end of their scenes of crime work. It is impossible to tell the difference between them at various times, but disclosed paperwork shows that there were two moderators being examined on the same day, each with different contaminates and having different characteristics. This means that we can be certain there were two.

A new forensic report has been given to the CPS which supports this evidence together with a legal a request for disclosure of all chain of evidence material. The report also brings into question the integrity of the police forensic examinations. These moderators (silencers) were swapped and used interchangeably by police. Furthermore, it is impossible to know which one was examined for the 2002 Appeal in which there was no DNA from Sheila Caffell obtained, but there was DNA from an unidentified male. There is a possibility the DNA came from one of the Bamber estate beneficiaries, Robert Boutflour, who had an identical blood group to Sheila. The trial court was not told about this simple fact, even when the jury asked if Robert Boutflour and the beneficiaries had financial motive to lie.

This issue was recently reported in the Guardian by Eric Allison and Simon Hattenstone.

https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/latest-news

Quote
Here’s an update on the campaign work in 2018.

At present the legal team are still in an ongoing dialogue with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on the non-disclosure of essential evidence. We are hoping the matter will draw to a close during February when Jeremy’s case will be referred to the Court of Appeal.

We have continued to work with documentary makers, but despite a growing interest in Jeremy’s case by producers, there has been a lack of response from broadcasters. No less than 19 different production companies, all making approaches to different mainstream broadcasters and streaming channels, have approached the case in a number of different ways. One producer even received development funding in 2017, but the head of documentaries was changed, and he pulled the plug at the last minute. This is highly frustrating and of course extremely time consuming, but there are two documentary makers who have persisted in sticking with the case and pursuing our work, and we hope to have more success in early 2019.

In the meantime we have also continued engagement with journalists and human rights campaigners who have followed the case for sometime. Again attempts at news articles are also met with limited success despite the research being carried out and access to evidence. Regardless of these setbacks we continue to make approaches to media outlets on a frequent basis and keep Jeremy’s profile high on social media. We were very pleased with the Guardian’s recent article on the CPS’s receipt of a new forensic report opening up key concerns about the evidence, and Eric Allison and Simon Hattenstone reported this. This has helped to create more transparency around the actions of the CPS, which cannot go on in secret: the CPS must be held accountable for non-disclosure.

Our work with the Lords and MPs continues and we are currently recruiting for our Parliamentary Campaign Group, which will see further political pressure on the CPS to disclose all of the material they hold.

I have been part of a working group that includes representatives of JUSTICE, The Centre for Criminal Appeals, and Inside Justice, on designing a protocol to assist both police representatives and prosecutors in handling requests for post-conviction disclosure. In addition, the Centre for Criminal Appeals are to launch a campaign known as “Show Us The Evidence” which will help ensure that innocent prisoners and campaign groups like ours, doing the work of the CCRC, should have access to the evidence they need to defend those maintaining innocence.
Myself, Yvonne and Philip also attended United Against Injustice again this year and found it very productive to discuss Jeremy’s case more widely within the context of other miscarriages of justice. The conference this year was focused on non-disclosure, and I was able to highlight, in my morning speech, the disclosure issues that have hampered Jeremy’s fight for justice over 34 years.
Our patrons and supporters have also been very proactive this year, and Jeremy has asked me to thank them on his behalf for all they have done and continue to do in helping his fight for justice.
Finally, thanks to all of you who made a donation in the past year. The funds raised will go towards continued forensic work, but we really do need more contributions because as you can see there are still a number of vital reports outstanding. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) recently told our legal team that they would not accept an application from Jeremy on one issue, as they have previously said they are not prepared to accept an application submitted piecemeal, so we need to press on with funding for forensic issues so that they can be given to the CCRC in one submission. It remains to be seen if the CCRC will accept a partial submission on multiple issues of disclosure alone. 
Forensic work carried out in 2017/2018 - all reports favorable to the defense
1.     Analysis of photographs of the kitchen window.
2.    Eight separate ballistics issues have been completed including the one already submitted to the CPS.
3.     DNA analysis and blood grouping work.
4.     Pathology reports on times of death.
5.     ESDA testing on copied material to support disclosure requests.
Further forensic work awaiting funding
1.   Second report examining the scene logs, currently awaiting disclosure of originals for the work to be carried out (an initial report warrants full disclosure).
2.     Further blood and DNA analysis, awaiting disclosure.
3.     Analysis of full scene images, awaiting disclosure.
4.   Forensic reconstruction of scene, including blood pattern analysis and police officers interference with the scene.
I hope to complete my law degree during 2019, and it is at this time we will reassess the model used to work on written legal material. 
Happy New Year.

Trudi Benjamin
Director

https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/latest-news