Grounds for not referring Jeremy Bamber’s case back to the appeal court.

[Hartley]

Source: http://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html#8897856103087525852

The CCRC have issued their grounds for not referring Jeremy Bamber’s case back to the appeal court these are the main points stated in their documentation.

• Fragmented bullet swapped from Sheila Caffell’s body – CCRC said this was available at trial and therefore cannot be used.

• Photographs showing Sheila Caffell’s body had been moved were not accurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn’t touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.

• Photographs showing that the gun was moved on Sheila Caffell’s body were also inaccurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn’t touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.

• No response to the documentation still held under Public Interest Immunity, 340,000 documents.

• No response to negatives still not released to the defence now totalling over 211.

• No mention of the evidence showing that Peter Eaton, Ann Eaton, David Boutflour and Robert Boutflour’s statements conflict with contemporaneous dates showing when the sound moderator was found which was 34 days after the killings and not 3 days after as they said in court.

• No mention of the nail polish chipped from Sheila Caffell appearing at the ‘alleged’ struggle in the kitchen

• No mention about the two sound moderators and how these were merged together by police officers.

• The CCRC found another photometry expert who questioned Peter Sutherst’s methodology in establishing that the scratch marks were not present in the original crime scene photographs. (Jeremy Bamber intends to use Amped 5 software to further support Peter Sutherst’s findings) Nevertheless, Peter Sutherst is one of the UK’s most eminent specialists in this field with over 50 years experience.

Final note: Jeremy has said that he has found the CCRC to be entirely unprofessional in their approach to the evidence submitted from Peter Sutherst as they did not address any problems with his methodology and discuss this with the Defence.

Jeremy Bamber has large teams of people who work for him, these are from many different backgrounds and countries, some are friends and many others offer their professional services pro-bono and want to see justice done. There is currently a mountain of further evidence which Jeremy Bamber will submit to the CCRC in his fight for freedom. The law must bring those to justice who have fabricated evidence in this case. Not one of us or Jeremy will ever give up until this innocent man is set free and justice is finally done.

[31Gr19l64Kw]

Who was the photographer???

[Hartley]

Who was the photographer???

I don't know. I'm not sure it matters though, the statement of a photographer would not override the statements of police officers.

[31Gr19l64Kw]

perhaps he's flown away!!

[Alex]

I wonder who the expert the CCRC found is and how Sutherst views their criticisms.

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

Extract from the CCRC


• Photographs showing Sheila Caffell’s body had been moved were not accurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn’t touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.

• Photographs showing that the gun was moved on Sheila Caffell’s body were also inaccurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn’t touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.


This really infuriates me. You might as well take a picture of a white ball and get 25 people to write sworn statements that the ball is black, in which case it must be black!

There used to be a saying that "the camera never lies". Unfortunately people do!

[CYCLOPS75]

I think this is disgusting. They've got photo graphic evidence that the body was moved but because a copper says it wasn't him, thats the law. I just can't belive the audacity of the legal team behind that decision. They may aswell blame Jeremy for moving (staging ) the body as they have blamed him for everything alse with out a bit of concrete evidence.

[Pete0001]

Yes, but the pictures merely show WHAT happened... not when and how. They are not time stamped and there is no order to them so Justice system is bound to take a Police Officers time and date stamped statement as evidence.
I'm not saying whether its right or wrong just that alone the photographs mean nothing more than documenting the out come.

[Hartley]

Whether the body and rifle were moved or not, it was not the evidence which convicted JB of multiple murder.

[CYCLOPS75]

So what evidence did they have other than a statement of a disgruntled ex girlfriend, druggy and thief who is now living in canada, working as a school teacher and living the good life. Now tell me thats not suspicious. A little helping hand from essex police there, me thinks.   

[CYCLOPS75]

Also i don't think the photo's would prove his innocence, but they would show that the crime scene was tampered with whilst in the police's care. This alone should show that it was an unfair trial due to scene staging and he should then be granted a retrial.

[Hartley]

So what evidence did they have other than a statement of a disgruntled ex girlfriend, druggy and thief who is now living in canada, working as a school teacher and living the good life. Now tell me thats not suspicious. A little helping hand from essex police there, me thinks.

Well it was trial by jury 10-2 verdict so at the time the evidence was deemed sufficient to convict JB.

Since then through various appeals the defence has been unable to produce sufficient evidence to the contrary.

What is it that makes you cerain of his innocence?

[tonyb]

9 to 3 and he would of walked. I wonder what the views are of the original jurors are today

[Tricksy]

9 to 3 and he would of walked. I wonder what the views are of the original jurors are today

That is a good point and I would love to know what opinion the jurors would have today, in light of the points his appeal brought up.

[Pete0001]

So, if photos lie and people don't, did they take into consideration the statement (withheld from the original trial) in which the firearms officer Julia Jeapes says she saw a gun in the bedroom window BEFORE the police entered the house? Or is photographic memory not admissible?

Woo there.. I never said photo's lie.. but they do not confirm or prove anything that isn't in them/on them. Yes there was the body of sheila with a gun and wounds in one shot. Thats all that picture tells us.. not when it was taken and what happened immediately before that image or immediately after it. Its a photograph not a video.

There is no order, time stamp or markers to tell anyone when they were taken.. so it is mere speculation as to order and time.
Photographic memory would never be admissible as far as I know.... too many contributing factors i.e the person with the memory has emotions and independent thoughts and feelings.