Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on February 11, 2019, 09:32:PM

Title: 2019 - Where is the case at?
Post by: Roch on February 11, 2019, 09:32:PM
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.

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

Title: Re: 2019 - Where is the case at?
Post by: Aunt Agatha on March 12, 2019, 10:55:AM
Thank you Rich - trusting you are well x
Title: Re: 2019 - Where is the case at?
Post by: Reader on March 14, 2019, 02:18:PM
The referenced Guardian article ( was published on 21/09/2018.  Highlights are as below.

Lawyers acting on behalf of Jeremy Bamber, serving a whole life sentence for one of Britain’s most notorious multiple murders, have sent the Crown Prosecution Service a report by a senior forensics scientist which they claim undermines vital evidence heard at his trial.

The confidential report, which has been seen by the Guardian, casts doubt on the validity of evidence relating to a rifle sound moderator, or silencer, that was pivotal to Bamber’s conviction in 1986.

Bamber has claimed for many years that evidence was not disclosed to the defence by Essex police showing that two silencers had been examined by forensic scientists.

In the new report, the senior forensic scientist and leading firearms expert concluded that separate silencers were being examined by the police at the same time in different departments, based on “serious discrepancies” in how the devices were described and the fact that there was no record of any item being transferred from one section to the other.

Both silencers are believed to contain blood that could belong to either Caffell or Boutflour. However, Bamber and those supporting him believe the issue of the silencers is a red herring – that Caffell killed the five family members, but no silencer was used.

In May this year, Bamber’s lawyer Mark Newby received a letter from Frank Ferguson, head of special crimes at the CPS. He had written to the prosecutors’ office on the issue of two silencers being examined in the case but the jury only being told about one.

Although Ferguson stated “there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”, he added: “Any evidence that suggests that there was or may have been another silencer for the rifle would raise the possibility that the other silencer was used during the shooting and not the one alleged by the prosecution.

“Such a possibility would significantly undermine the case against JB [Jeremy Bamber] and any material supporting such a possibility would plainly be material which casts doubt on the safety of the conviction.”

Now Bamber believes he has the evidence to undermine the case against him. Writing to the Guardian from Wakefield prison, Bamber said: “The report in the hands of the CPS proves with absolute certainty that this case featured two silencers. And now the CPS must act. There are moments in life when the truth can no longer be suppressed and this is one of those times.”

Newby, a solicitor advocate from Quality Solicitors Jordans, said: “I hope this report will persuade the CPS to now authorise the handing over of all the undisclosed material still held by Essex police in this case.”
Title: Re: 2019 - Where is the case at?
Post by: Roch on April 19, 2019, 10:41:AM
Thank you Rich - trusting you are well x

Yeah thank you for asking and hope you are well too. Well it looks to me that the Bamber trail stops here.  There's been no further news for quite some time now.