I've copied this from the Official Blogger site.
Jeremy Bamber: My Review of the Tonight Programme.
“The I.T.V. 1 ‘Tonight’ programme on the 29th March 2012 gave the viewer a good insight
into the new ballistics evidence, pathology evidence and new forensic matters relating to a
sound moderator. My trial in 1986 centered on a sound moderator and the Judge told the
jury: “It’s a fact, the sound moderator was on the rifle during a struggle in the kitchen
between Nevill Bamber and his assailant.” The Judge, we now know, was completely wrong
to tell the jury this was as ‘fact’ as no evidence exists to suggest that a sound moderator
featured in this incident at all.
The “Tonight” programme was able to confirm that the Crown’s case that relates to a sound
moderator being on the rifle was, and is, without foundation. Producers commissioned Mr
Philip Boyce to undertake a number of forensic experiments that confirmed and further
validated the American forensic expert’s testimony for the defence.
There were a number of other witnesses for the prosecution who appeared on the
programme. The viewer may have been left with the impression that the defence cannot
answer the questions raised by the interviews. Set out below in the briefest possible quotes
are answers to the most important of the questions raised.
These quotes are taken from the HOLMES 2 computer system which is the Home Office
Database. The references are those designated by the Police.
Barbara Wilson, Secretary at N&J Bamber Ltd
Barbara Wilson (HOLMES 47/11) was interviewed pre-trial by Chief Inspector Dickinson.
She was asked:-
Q: How did you find Jeremy?
A: Very pleasant, no qualms, always okay with me. Probably got on better with him than my
own son (Philip). He was a likeable jovial fellow.
Q: Ever say anything nasty about parents, Sheila or the twins?
A: No, never heard him say anything bad at all.
D.S Stan Jones has written intended police actions. (HOLMES 45/22)
A58 re background etc from Barbara Wilson (Maldon, 860379 from Darcy Way, Tol. Darcy)
She is secretary to Bamber’s and apparently at some time before incident Sheila said words
to the effect that “all People are bad and should be killed” (Ann Eaton told me this in
confidence)
Obviously D.S. Jones didn’t obtain a witness statement from Barbara Wilson about what
Sheila had said to her, neither Barbara Wilson or Ann Eaton have spoken about this during
the numerous interviews they have given over the years.
Page 1 of 8
At trial, the Crown portrayed me as not telling the truth over the suggestion that there was
a conversation between Sheila and my parents over fostering on the night of the tragedies.
Barbara Wilson knew that this was true but stayed silent about it in court but
(HOLMES 73/38) reveals that Essex Police knew that the issue of foster care for the boys was
true.
Essex Police did not disclose this fact to the Court because Ann Eaton, David and Robert
Boutflour gave witness testimony that they knew Nevill and June Bamber would never ever
consider “any such nonsense” so for the Police to prove otherwise would portray David,
Robert and Ann as witnesses who either knew very little about the personal life of Sheila
and the twins, or as people who were prepared to mislead the Court in an attempt to
portray me as a liar.
Essex Police had taken detailed witness testimony from Judy Jackson, Mary Lester and
Barbara Babic who had acted as foster parents to Daniel and Nicholas. Essex Police had also
taken witness statements from Social Services personnel Michael Abel, Susan Elliott-Brown,
Sheila Lloyd and Julie Wilkes about Sheila’s care of the twins, or other assistance
possibilities. Essex Police also had witness testimony from some of June Bamber’s friends
who stated that she had been asking locally if anyone could recommend someone who
could offer foster care for the boys.
It may be the case that Barbara Wilson has told the Media that she knew about fostering,
and this information has been edited out of her interview. What is known is that Essex
Police have deliberately concealed what Barbara Wilson could have told the court, this was
deliberately to disadvantage the Defence and mislead the jury.
DI Cook and the findings of the investigation between 7.8.85 & 7.9.85
D.I. Ron Cook who appeared on the “Tonight” programme ought to have been asked the
obvious question:-
“The evidence now proves that the sound moderator was not involved in anyway in this
awful tragedy. Accordingly, it’s now impossible to explain how red paint came to be
impacted into the knurl of the sound moderator found by David Boutflour. Furthermore, the
scratches and gouge marks in the red painted Aga surround that were forensically attributed
to having been made by a sound moderator can now be photographically proven to have
been made 5 weeks after the event on the 12th September 1885.”
D.I. Ron Cook was the Head of Chelmsford Scenes of Crime Department in August 1985.
Between 7th August and 6th September 1985, Essex Police had investigated this case
thoroughly. This was because from the 9th of August onwards, Ann Eaton and Robert
Boutflour had been trying to convince Essex Police that I had to be guilty of murdering my
family. They had meetings at Witham Police Station, rang individual Police Officers dozens
of times, were showing them around White House Farm, pointing out everything from
footprints to empty tampon holders, and Robert even brought in the help of Robbie Carr, a
Metropolitan Police Sergeant, to badger Essex Police on their behalf.
Page 2 of 8
After a month, Robert saw Assistant Chief Constable Peter Simpson to complain that
nothing had been found to suggest that I was connected to the tragedies. On the
6th September, Mr Simpson appointed Detective Chief Superintendent Kenneally to review
every aspect of this investigation. (HOLMES 7/18) reveals the outcome of this review at a
6:00pm meeting at headquarters. Accordingly to DI Ainsley, Det Ch supt Kenneally
presented his report to the Chief Constable Robert Bunyard, Assistant Chief Constable Peter
Simpson and D.C.I. Ainsley, Head of Essex C.I.D.
His final conclusion is minuted as this:-
“That all the evidence indicated that Sheila WAS responsible.”
It is interesting to note in (HOLMES 36/306) that David Boutflour is relating that he gave his
own sound moderator to Essex Police “fairly shortly after they had established there was
blood in the sound moderator.” The match head sized blood flake was found in the sound
moderator on the 12th September 1985. Oddly, Essex Police have no documented record of
David handing in two additional sound moderators in September 1985, though he still
speaks freely to the Media that it actually happened.
It is also reported in the same document that David Boutflour says:-
“Heard privately that D.C.I. “Taff” Jones had said “if Jeremy Bamber had (done it) we
couldn’t prove it, so what’s the point?” D.I. miller, even DS Stan (Jones) seemed adamant
that it was suicide.”
There are many others documents and statements which illustrate the point that the police
found no evidence against me and that DCI Jones took the relatives personal circumstances
into consideration when making decisions.
Julie Mugford and Elizabeth Rimmington
Essex Police were convinced on the basis of all available evidence that Sheila had killed the
family and committed suicide. On the 7th September 1985 Elizabeth Rimmington telephoned
Witham Police Station to say that Julie Mugford was withholding vital evidence in the White
House Farm enquiry. This was at 4pm. This telephone call was documented as Telephone
Report Number One. The exact content of this telephone call from Ms Rimmington is still a
mystery as Essex Police continue to withhold this document from the Defence.
This is the sequence of events
5:00pm D.S. Stan Jones goes to the address of Malcolm Waters and takes Julie Mugford into
custody. (HOLMES 64/13 and 1/12)
While in custody at Witham Julie asked that her father is contacted so she can talk to him.
(HOLMES 5/10)
Julie Mugford was interviewed under caution. (HOLMES 1/49)
Page 3 of 8
7:00pm to 10:40pm D.S. Jones and D.I. Miller interviewed Juilie together.
11:00pm to 02:00am D.C.I. Jones interviewed Julie.
The taped record and written record of Julie Mugford’s interviews on 7th September 1985
remain undisclosed.
Brett Collins, Mathew MacDonald, Christine Bacon and I were all arrested on the
8th September with:-
“Suspicion of being concerned with the murder of June and Nevill Bamber, Sheila, Daniel and
Nicholas Caffell.”
So, there is every reason to suspect that Julie was taken into custody for the same reason.
Whilst in Police Custody, Julie confessed to cultivating and selling cannabis, burglary, a bank
fraud, and to possession of drugs. Other documents from the City of London Police detail
that she admitted smuggling cannabis into the UK from Canada. The majority of the
offences she confessed to were not connected with me in any way. She admitted to using
cocaine in her 10th September 1985 statement, when she and Ms Rimmington had gone
back to a hotel with two men they had just met.
Around the same time, Ms Rimmington stated that Julie had told her she’d broken up with
me and “you don’t know the half of it.” Liz said “that Julie was lucky you’ve broken up” as
she went on to tell Julie that she had been sleeping me with her behind Julie’s back.
Julie says she told Ms Rimmington “that Jeremy had told her he’d paid a hit man to kill the
family.” Ms Rimmington states in her 8th September 1985 statement that from the
1st September she had told Julie repeatedly to go to the Police. Julie had refused to go.
Ms Rimmington states in her 15th September statement that on the 6th of September she
and Julie had booked and paid to go on holiday to Malta together on the 8 th September for
seven days. Ms Rimmington does not explain why she then reported Julie to Essex Police for
withholding evidence in a murder enquiry on the 7th September, the day after paying for
their holiday and a day before they were due to fly off to Malta.
The Sound Moderator and the Painted Mantle
On the 6th September, D.C.I Kenneally reports that the evidence shows that “Sheila was
responsible” and on the 7th September Julie is said to have withheld “that Jeremy had hired
a hit man to murder his family.” D.I. Ron Cook now had to go back to White House Farm and
prove it, helped by Ann Eaton who pointed out the windows allegedly used to get in and out
of the house, and a mysterious footprint on a magazine under the said window. I was
arrested on the 8th September and released on the 13th September 1985.
It was not until the 12th September that D.S. Jones mentions for the first time after
questioning me for more than 20 hours over four days that forensics had recovered a sound
Page 4 of 8
moderator from the scene. (PAGE 104 JB Interview transcript) D.S. Jones stated that this
was found to have red paint on it and:-
“I believe the red paint comes from the WALL in the kitchen where the stove is.”
At the trial, the Jury were told that the scratch marks were found on the underside of the
mantle shelf in the kitchen of White House Farm by Ann Eaton, D.I. Ron Cook and D.S. Stan
Jones on the evening of the 14th August 1985.
Examination of photographs taken by D.C. Bird on the 12 th September, under the instruction
of D.I. Ron Cook, (of the kitchen at White House Farm) reveals that the Aga’s red painted
surround is unmarked (see Police Reference YELLOW LABEL 34, also given a second
reference WHITE LABEL 0010.)
This is the roll of 50mm acetate film consisting of ten negatives in a single strip. D.C. Bird
confirms in his 22nd October witness statement that he took this roll of film whilst at White
House Farm with D.I. Ron Cook on the 12th September from 10:30 A M onwards. NEGATIVE
SEVEN shows the red painted Aga surround completely unmarked, free of any scratches or
gouges. NEGATIVE NINE is a photograph of exactly the same area of the Aga’s red coloured
surround. In this photograph, a large horse shoe shaped scratch mark and a gouge mark can
be seen. These marks are identical to those later attributed to having been made by the
sound moderator.
When D.I. Ron Cook was interviewed for the “Tonight” programme, it is wondered why he
was not asked to explain how the red painted Aga surround came to be scratched and
gouged on the 12thSeptember 1985. Was it by accident or was it that D.I. Ron Cook was
under so much pressure to find something to link a hit man to the scene that David
Boutflour’s sound moderator was used to scratch and gouge the paint work?
Until D.I. Cook explains how the Aga surround was damaged on the 12 th September as
PHOTOGRAPHS SEVEN and NINE prove conclusively, the public must accept that the cause
of damage to the Aga surround remains unknown.
Police in the spotlight of Media Pressure
The press at the time of my arrest and release between the 8th and 13th September and
prior to me being charged on the 29th September were stating that:-
(10th September “Gazette“)
“A number of persons, both male and female, are assisting with these enquiries.”
(18th September “Gazette“)
“In the face of mounting public concern over the way the investigation was handled.”
(15th September “News of the World“)
“Detectives may have bungled by destroying vital clues.”
“A 22 year old woman guarded by armed Police.”
(29th September “News of the World“)
“Now they have been given vital new evidence by 22 year old student Julie Mugford.”
“Julie had also been given Police protection.”
Page 5 of 8
“Julie now in hiding said “I’ve told the Police everything I know”.
“She revealed that she had broken off her 3 year relationship with 24 year old Jeremy.”
(18th September 1985 “Daily Mirror“)
“This was not the bumbling fictional detective-even Inspector Clouseau could not have
made such fundamental mistakes.”
(14th October “The Times”)
“Police jobs at risk in farm deaths enquiry.”
“The jobs of at least three senior officers are thought to be at risk.”
(20th October “Sunday Express”)
“A key witness in a murder enquiry is under 24 hour (Police) protection.”
“It was after Miss Mugford volunteered fresh information about the case that detectives
moved her to a “safe” house used by the Police.”
“Miss Mugford was in Court last week when Bamber made a Court appearance. She had
disguised herself by bleaching her hair and restyling it.”
During this Media outcry Essex Police trying to gather evidence against me.
Julie Mugford Charged with Burglary
D.S. Jones explained in his 16th June 2002 statement that Julie was not arrested or charged.
“In Essex at the time we either arrested and charged people or we reported them for
process and they were bailed.”
“Julie was reported for cheque frauds, burglary and for growing cannabis.”
In a fax dated 5th December 1985 from Chief Crown Prosecutor Mr. Adams to Mr. East it
states in a handwritten addendum:-
“I agree that she should not be prosecuted. I also agree that the burglary charge can be
withdrawn.”
This makes D.S. Jones out to be misleading, as Julie was arrested and charged with burglary
and the jury were entitled to have known of this inducement.
In a fax to Anthony Arlidge Q.C. for the Crown, dated 27th January 1986, it states:-
“Miss Mugford has now been advised of the Director’s decision not to prosecute her, and
warned he that she will be required as a witness against Bamber.”
The C.P.S. wrote on the 19th July 1991:-
“I set out in a note that Mugford should be used as a prosecution witness. This resulted in
the decision that Julie Mugford would not be prosecuted for offences disclosed against her,
but would be used as a prosecution witness.”
The Judge, had he known about this deal to withdraw criminal proceedings against Julie in
exchange for her testimony against me, would have been required to give the equivalent
direction to the jury that later became known as the:- “MAKAM JOULA 1995- DIRECTION.”
Page 6 of 8
Julie Mugford & NOTW Deal
The “Tonight” programme said that Julie Mugford had sold her story to “The News of the
World.” On the 9th October 1986, Anthony Arlidge Q.C. told the Trial Judge and Defence
Council in Chambers, and this was repeated to the jury in open Court that:-
“Julie Mugford has given me her assurance that she has not sold her story to a newspaper,
and she has no intention of doing so.”
This was wholly misleading. Julie Mugford in her 11th April 2002 witness statement admitted
that she had sold her story to “The News of the World” for Twenty-Five Thousand pounds.
This was later ruled in breach of guidelines by the Press Complaints Council, though she was
not made to pay the money back. Julie swore in 2002 under oath that on the day of the
verdict she was in a Hotel paid for by “The News of the World.” Her solicitor had drawn up
the contract a month after I was arrested. This is consistent with “The News of the World”
naming Julie Mugford as being interviewed by them on the 29 th September 1985.
It is also telling that Julie must have known she was going to receive a large cash payout in
due course as she stopped work in March 1986 and ran up an overdraft until the trial in
October 1986.
Julie Mugford’s bank statements also reveal that the £400 cheque I had given her in August
1985, to help pay for a holiday, was cashed on the 17 th September 1985, 7 days after Julie
had been taken into custody accusing me of hiring a hit man to murder my family, yet she
was happy to go on to spend the money I had given her.
Sheila’s Handling of Weapons
David Boutflour and Peter Eaton had told both the court and the police that they had seen
Sheila handling a gun. Essex Police knew that Sheila was able to handle a gun, but again the
Court was led to believe that she was unable to do so.
In 1991, Peter Eaton told the City of London Police (HOLMES 36/308) that Sheila had been
seen with a gun during a shooting holiday in Scotland. This appears in the hand written
version of the City of London Police witness statement. For some odd reason this key piece
of witness testimony is missing from the typed version disclosed to the Independent Police
Complaints Commission (Formerly the PCA) and the Defence.
Did the “Tonight” programme have enough time to ask these witnesses some key
questions?
PS Bews should have been asked why he was now suggesting that it was me who was
misleading police officers when he never said this before in any of his statements, neither
did any other police officer. The programme accidentally transposed the order of events;
the firearms team was called after the reconnaissance of the house where the movement
was seen in the window. Here is the relevant extract from PS Bews trial transcript:
Page 7 of 8
Rivlin: "Do you remember at some stage early on, this happened that one of you Police
Officers said that you thought you could see a shadow and you all jumped?"
Bews: "Yes, that is when we first went to the house with Mr Bamber. We had gone round
what I thought was the back. We had seen the kitchen door with the light on. We then went
into a field which is at the side of the farm house and went round to where what is - - I
believe the front door is and above that is a window. As we moved away I thought we saw
something else move, a shadow, something like that. We looked up and after looking for a
couple of minutes I was satisfied that it was a - - perhaps a part in the glass that just shone
the light slightly as you looked at it."
Rivlin: "It could have been a trick of the light?"
Bews: "I think it was a trick of the light"
I’ve said before that there was no light source to reflect in the glass, PS Bews has also
recently stated in a Guardian interview that it could have been the moon, which was
unlikely as it was overcast and the moon was on the other side of the house and so would
not have thrown light on the windows. Even Bews trial transcript contradicts itselfl: a
shadow would imply a dark shape, but he goes on to state that the ‘glass shone the light.’
Barbara Wilson, D.I. Ron Cook and David Boutflour should all have been asked something to
challenge them in relation to their evidence, especially D.I. Cook who must know who
damaged the Aga surround paint work, and why they did so. Showing NEGATIVE SEVEN and
NEGATIVE NINE to D.I. Cook on camera, and asking him to account for how the paint work
came to be scratched and gouged may have made great television.
Of course, both Essex Police and many of the prosecution’s witnesses have numerous other
important questions to answer- but answering the few questions set out above would go a
long way to explaining how it was that the jury wrongly reached a 10:2 majority verdict of
guilty against me.
Page 8 of 8
