Further extension of time for response to CCRC

[curiousessex]

In a statement, the CCRC said: "Mr Bamber's legal team has very recently suggested that an additional line of enquiry should be pursued.

"In the interests of completeness, we have agreed in principle to explore the potential for the further work suggested and have extended the deadline for submissions in order to facilitate this.

What might the additional line of enquiry be?

It is misleading of the CCRC to say that this line of enquiry has been "recently suggested" as the recent request only repeated requests made several times over the past few years by Jeremy Bamber.  Although the nature of the line of enquiry has not yet been publicly disclosed I do not think it can do any harm for me to reveal that it relates to the logs.



 

It seems to me the CCRC are preparing the ground to say that everything brought to attention has been considered so that in the possibilty they uphold the provisional decision there will not be any grounds to launch a 4th Appeal.

I also get the general impression the current appeal is being dragged into just identifying admistrative errors and inconsistancy for an investigation which has been admitted to have not been conducted in the best manner. Much of which caused changes in police practices which were detailed in the Home Office review and recommendations on how murder investigations should be conducted.

Much of these errors and inconsistancy relate to evidence / handling of evidence for which it could be argued was available at the original trial and therefore is not regarded as new evidence.

[Jackiepreece]

Curiousessex yesterday we had another head case on here spouting they knew the secret that Jeremys application to the ccrc granting his leave to appeal had already been turned down


I always like to give these people the benefit of doubt so i went straight back to his campaign team although Ngb had already made it clear it was going to be another fabrication


This is what i was told yesterday

He is talking rubbish the psor is the only document handed out by the commission that was in Feb no other document been issued so the author of this email is a crank

Jeremys team thought it was an email but I had cut and pasted and sent the email but you can quite clearly understand what they are saying

If you have any further knowledge from inside the ccrc please share it with the forum we would all love to know now rather than wait weeks

[Roch]

It seems to me the CCRC are preparing the ground to say that everything brought to attention has been considered so that in the possibility they uphold the provisional decision there will not be any grounds to launch a 4th Appeal.

I also get the general impression the current appeal is being dragged into just identifying administrative errors and inconsistency for an investigation which has been admitted to have not been conducted in the best manner. Much of which caused changes in police practices which were detailed in the Home Office review and recommendations on how murder investigations should be conducted.

Much of these errors and inconsistency relate to evidence / handling of evidence for which it could be argued was available at the original trial and therefore is not regarded as new evidence.

This view does seem depressingly stark to me.  I think anybody who has followed the case from a pro JB perspective should always prepare themselves for major disappointment.  Personally I find JB's blog an excellent read but at times he may be way too optimistic about the results of unearthing discoveries or confirming previously held suspicions. 

Curious, I have to take issue with your point about the administrative errors.  Couldn't there be an equal trail of 'errors' in a case were fabrication had been employed?  If we go down the line of 'mistakes', are we not allowing Essex Constabulary an enormous berth for errors, right from the logs on entry, all through the original investigation and onwards through to the administration of the 2nd investigation?  The number of errors must be staggering.  Suspiciously so?  Where are the peaks and troughs along the way regarding these errors and edits and retypes and crossed out labels and dates?  I suspect that if somebody was to plot a graph, you might see that the peaks are linked to the most questioned areas of the prosecutions evidence and exhibits.

Also, I cannot see how a great many of these 'admin errors' were available at trial as you suggest, if any of these very same inconsistencies have been discovered and cross referenced with earlier known documents, only in the wake of statements and docs being sourced by FOI requests in the intervening years. 

[Roch]

One thing I would further add about this case.   It seems where the authorities are presented with a whiff of skullduggery and a less obvious benign explanation, they will plum for the latter every time.

[Alias]

+1 roch!

[chochokeira]

It seems to me the CCRC are preparing the ground to say that everything brought to attention has been considered so that in the possibilty they uphold the provisional decision there will not be any grounds to launch a 4th Appeal.

I also get the general impression the current appeal is being dragged into just identifying admistrative errors and inconsistancy for an investigation which has been admitted to have not been conducted in the best manner. Much of which caused changes in police practices which were detailed in the Home Office review and recommendations on how murder investigations should be conducted.

Much of these errors and inconsistancy relate to evidence / handling of evidence for which it could be argued was available at the original trial and therefore is not regarded as new evidence.

With the Bamber case, the key issue has been, and remains, the non-disclosure of evidence to the defence. Early in 2004, Bamber's new defence team looked at the evidence again, and exhibit 29 caught their attention in particular. It was a document listing some radio messages from the scene of the crime. The defence wondered whether it might be the first page of a longer document rather than a complete document in itself, so they sought clarification. Essex constabulary was adamant that exhibit 29 was a whole document and had been available to the defence for the trial. Unconvinced, Bamber's defence team took the matter to court in March 2004. It was successful, and the police produced the entire document. Exhibit 29, it transpired, was not a single-page document, and Bamber's solicitors received by fax a 24-page summary of radio communications. They then took the unusual step of writing to both the trial judge and the chief prosecution counsel, inquiring if either had known at the time of the trial of the existence of the lengthier log of radio messages. Both replied that they had not.

On receiving the 24 pages, the defence immediately noticed that the first two pages had not only been re-written on different paper from the rest, but had been edited. A comparison with police witness statements revealed that several key radio messages that were made had been left out. Why? The defence therefore asked for the original document so that it could be sent for electrostatic document analysis testing, but Essex constabulary refused. The request has been repeated many times, and on each occasion the constabulary has refused.

However, perhaps inadvertently, the police also provided evidence that had not been requested—pages from a contemporaneous telephone log and from a contemporaneous incident report. The defence had not known that either existed. It was immediately apparent that the two logs and the incident report that the police had withheld contained details that were entirely inconsistent with the case put by the prosecution at Bamber's trial. I will give just two examples; others might be used by Bamber's defence on another occasion.

....four entries in the logs and incident report flatly contradict the prosecution's account that Neville Bamber's body was found downstairs in the kitchen and the other four bodies upstairs. An entry in the radio message log, which the police withheld for nearly 19 years, reads:

"0737: one dead male and one dead female in kitchen".

...So, almost immediately on entering the farmhouse, the police had found two bodies downstairs in the kitchen, and later three more bodies had been found upstairs.

Most emphatically, that is not what the prosecution said during the trial.

Debate in Parliament 9 Feb 2005. Andrew Hunter MP


Adminstrative errors my foot!

[chochokeira]

"Bamber's defence team has repeatedly asked for access to the following: first, the notebooks and other papers of Inspector Jones, who headed the initial investigation and firmly believed in Bamber's innocence; secondly, the findings of the coroner who inquired into Inspector Jones's sudden death, which have never been made public; thirdly, the audio recordings of all telephone and radio messages from White House farm; fourthly, the audio recordings describing the scene of the crime; fifthly, the video recordings of the scene of the crime; and sixthly, the original radio and telephone messages log and incident report.

All are still being withheld from the defence. On every occasion on which the defence team has asked for them, Essex constabulary has refused to provide them. I put it directly to the Minister—and ask her to respond—that that is surely an intolerable state of affairs."

Debate in Parliament 9 Feb 2005. Andrew Hunter MP

Key evidence is not being withheld due to admin errrors but due to the determined refusal of EP to provide the defence with the evidence it should have!

[Steve A]

I thought the audio recordings had all been destroyed, is that not the case then?

[chochokeira]

"In December I tabled a written question asking the Home Secretary to instruct Essex constabulary to give Mr. Bamber's solicitors all audio tapes relating to events at White House farm. The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety replied:

"The disclosure of information held by Essex Constabulary is a matter for the Chief Officer of the force".

Unfortunately, the chief constable has made his position clear: he will not co-operate. One wonders why not."

Debate in Parliament 9 Feb 2005. Andrew Hunter MP

Adminstrative errors?

Nonsense! The key issue is one of deliberately withheld evidence which has precluded Jeremy Bamber from having a fair trial!

[chochokeira]

"At Bamber's trial, the prosecution argued that if Sheila had committed the murders and then killed herself, she would have trodden in blood as she moved about the house; but no trace of blood was found on her feet. Interestingly, no photographic evidence was produced at the trial to support that assertion. Curiously, the first bundle of photographs contained no pictures of Sheila's feet. That is not so with the second bundle of photographs, which were withheld. In that bundle were photographs, which were not available at the time of the trial, clearly showing blood on Sheila's feet."

Debate in Parliament 9 Feb 2005. Andrew Hunter MP

[chochokeira]

"The points that I have made—I could make many others if we had more time—give rise to grave concern about Bamber's conviction. Their common theme is the non-disclosure of evidence by the police. Nearly 16 years after the White House farm murders, the defence first saw the second bundle of photographs. After nearly 19 years, the defence team discovered that there was a full radio log, a telephone log and an incident report, of which it had previously been unaware. It is the understatement of all understatements to say that such non-disclosure is deeply worrying. Even worse, it is still going on."

Debate in Parliament 9 Feb 2005. Andrew Hunter MP

[ngb1066]

"Bamber's defence team has repeatedly asked for access to the following: first, the notebooks and other papers of Inspector Jones, who headed the initial investigation and firmly believed in Bamber's innocence; secondly, the findings of the coroner who inquired into Inspector Jones's sudden death, which have never been made public; thirdly, the audio recordings of all telephone and radio messages from White House farm; fourthly, the audio recordings describing the scene of the crime; fifthly, the video recordings of the scene of the crime; and sixthly, the original radio and telephone messages log and incident report.

All are still being withheld from the defence. On every occasion on which the defence team has asked for them, Essex constabulary has refused to provide them. I put it directly to the Minister—and ask her to respond—that that is surely an intolerable state of affairs."

Debate in Parliament 9 Feb 2005. Andrew Hunter MP

Key evidence is not being withheld due to admin errrors but due to the determined refusal of EP to provide the defence with the evidence it should have!

Compounding the injustice here is the reluctance of the CCRC to use the powers available to them to compel Essex Police to disclose the withheld evidence.  The CCRC have powers which defeat Public Interest Immunity and other grounds used by Essex Police as the basis for non disclosure.

[chochokeira]

I thought the audio recordings had all been destroyed, is that not the case then?

I believe I have read that there are copies of these, Steve.

[ngb1066]

I thought the audio recordings had all been destroyed, is that not the case then?

Essex Police say that the audio recordings were wiped after one month, in accordance with normal practice. The defence believe that copies were retained.
 

[chochokeira]

"Bamber's defence team has repeatedly asked for access to the following: first, the notebooks and other papers of Inspector Jones, who headed the initial investigation and firmly believed in Bamber's innocence; secondly, the findings of the coroner who inquired into Inspector Jones's sudden death, which have never been made public; thirdly, the audio recordings of all telephone and radio messages from White House farm; fourthly, the audio recordings describing the scene of the crime; fifthly, the video recordings of the scene of the crime; and sixthly, the original radio and telephone messages log and incident report.

All are still being withheld from the defence. On every occasion on which the defence team has asked for them, Essex constabulary has refused to provide them. I put it directly to the Minister—and ask her to respond—that that is surely an intolerable state of affairs."

Debate in Parliament 9 Feb 2005. Andrew Hunter MP

Key evidence is not being withheld due to admin errrors but due to the determined refusal of EP to provide the defence with the evidence it should have!

Compounding the injustice here is the reluctance of the CCRC to use the powers available to them to compel Essex Police to disclose the withheld evidence.  The CCRC have powers which defeat Cand other grounds used by Essex Police as the basis for non disclosure.

Excellent point, NGB. Why, oh, why, do the CCRC refuse to use these powers so that this crucial evidence - which should never have been placed under Public Interest Immunity in the first place - is properly examined as it should be?