http://poppymeze.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/jeremy-bamber-how-police-and-scientists.htmlContents reviewed by "Cyclops" reviewers:-
A) In 1991, the City of London Police (COLP) were requested by JEREMY BAMBER to investigate the following issues:
‘
Allegation One’: that there was no Exhibit Label for the sound moderator SBJ/1 from the original Police investigation, case number SC/688/85, when it was tendered in Court.
‘
Allegation Five’: that Essex Police failed to investigate whether the sound moderator tendered in evidence at trial was the moderator bought for the murder weapon.
B) On completion of the COLP enquiry two reports were produced. The published report concluded there was no case to answer to any of the complaints made by JEREMY BAMBER against Essex Police. While the undisclosed confidential report found as fact that fabricated evidence had been adduced to impugn the credibility of Jeremy Bamber thus resulting in a guilty verdict at his trial in 1986.
The Evidence
1) That an Essex Police Officer, probably DS 21 Stanley Brian Jones, seized a sound moderator SBJ/1 from the gun cupboard at White House Farm (WHF) on 7th August 1985.
2) Indeed this is corroborated by Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) PETER SIMPSON stating in a press conference and reported in ‘The Echo’ dated 17th September 1985,
‘A silencer was found at the White House Farm on the day of the killings, but this does not have to mean anything suspicious.’ (See Material Exhibits File News clippings)
3) And yet in a letter, dated 18th July 2002, from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to Glaisyers Solicitors, PAUL CLOSE states that the beginning of the audio tape in question as to the above interview has a considerable section of the tape missing, when Essex Police disclosed it, (see Letter To Ewen Smith from CPS)
4) The beginning of the interview would have evidenced that the sound moderator SBJ/1 was in fact seized on the 7th August 1985, which would have impugned the Crown’s case against JEREMY BAMBER at trial and appeal.
5) Other documents that evidence the above allegations will be identified throughout this statement using the ‘HOLMES 2’ computer reference numbers from ‘ACCOUNT A 49.’
6) It is fact that COLP interviewed Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO) DS 219 DAVIDSON on 3rd October 1991, (HOLMES 76/174). In the précis of his statement at paragraph 17 he asserts that on the 9th August 1985, he was tasked with examining a number of objects including a sound moderator, (SBJ/1).
7) On the 13th August 1985, DI RON COOK submitted this sound moderator SBJ/1, to Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory for examination by scientists, GLYNNIS HOWARD and LESLIE TUCKER, (see HOLMES 67/319 – GLYNNIS HOWARD statement 1st August 1991).
8) See the HOLAB 3, Submission of Articles for Examination Forms, dated 13th August 1985, (See Holab Forms 1,2,3,4,5) reference the sound moderator, ‘Item 22’ and ‘Item 23’, ‘SBJ/1,’ ‘DB/1,’ and ‘DRB/1,’ with the police investigation case number as ‘SC/688/85.’
9) GLYNNIS HOWARD’S witness statement for the 13th November 1985, details that she tested blood on the inside and outside of the sound moderator DRB/1, and in both cases the blood was found to be of human origin, (Holmes 8/224)
While a letter from PETER WINGAD to DR, SCAPLEHORN states, ‘There was no record of blood being seen on the outside of the sound moderator,’ (see HOLMES 78/24). PETER WINGAD wrote this letter in his capacity as Head of the Forensic Laboratory. While GLYNNIS HOWARD simply stated in Court at trial, that she had found blood on the outside of the sound moderator, (see GLYNNIS HOWARD’S Trial Transcript), therefore lack of corroboration is in issue.
10) LESLIE TUCKER states in her 1st August 1991 testimony to COLP that she assisted GLYNNIS HOWARD on the 13th August 1985, (see HOLMES 67/321). Indeed, LESLIE TUCKER took notes and made a diagram of SBJ/1, (EXHIBIT REF GH/1).
In her testimony she states, ‘GH/1 has other notes upon it not made by me. These appear to be made by JOHN HAYWARD and ANDREW PALMER. These notes were not made on 13th August 1985. I am not aware of when they were added.’
11) Four signatures appear on the General Examination Record made at Bench 4 on the 13th August 1985, they are LESLIE TUCKER, GLYNNIS HOWARD, MALCOLM FLETCHER and JOHN HAYWARD. However, the General Examination Record does not corroborate that of the original sound moderator seized SBJ/1, because this document, the one bearing all four signatures refers to the forensic reference number as DB/1. It can now be evidenced that this reference did not in fact exist until 17th October 1985. Thus the General Examination Record cannot be the original one created by LESLIE TUCKER on 13th August 1985, (see GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORD DB/1).
12) The original sound moderator first discovered was assigned the reference number SBJ/1 on the 13th August 1985. A Memo from DI COOK to MALCOLM FLETCHER states,
‘Change sound moderators number to DB/1,’ (see HOLMES 67/241 MEMO dated 17th October 1985).
13) GLYNNIS HOWARD testified to COLP in her witness statement dated 10th July 1991,
‘I did not have any further contact with DI COOK on the matter, or with Essex Police due to my sick leave,’ (see HOLMES 67/318).
14) This is corroborated in a report by DR. WINGAD attached to a Memo from DR. THOMPSON to DR. CLARKE which clearly states,
‘To complicate the issue GLYNNIS HOWARD has been on long-term sick leave since January of this year,’ (see HOLMES 87/3).
15) How is it that GLYNNIS HOWARD has signed a General Examination Record for a sound moderator DB/1 on the 13th August 1985, when the General Examination Record she signed was in fact referenced SBJ/1?(see paragraph 8).
16) Furthermore, GLYNNIS HOWARD asserted in her testimony to COLP dated 1st August 1991 that when she examined SBJ/1 on the 13th August 1985, she discovered five stains on the sound moderator, (see HOLMES 67/319). Four of these stains proved to positively identify human blood, while she tested a fifth stain on the flat surface on the muzzle end of the sound moderator, and identified this as a smear of red paint.
17) GLYNNIS HOWARD failed to record her discovery of a smear of red paint on the end of the sound moderator in her Memo to DI COOK, dated 14th August 1985, or indeed in her numerous pre-trial witness statements and during her trial testimony. It was not until 1991 that GLYNNIS HOWARD asserted this relevant discovery, in view of the facts turning on there being a fight in the kitchen at WHF, scraping the mantel shelf around the Aga. (See Holmes 67.318)
18) Indeed, LESLIE TUCKER corroborates this as she has drawn a smear of red paint on the end of the sound moderator at the 9 o’clock position, (see EXHIBIT GH/1). Thus it is relevant that on the General Examination Record depicting DB/1 and not SBJ/1, as the sound moderator in issue, the identifying smear of red paint is not recorded.
19) The existence of this smear and it being deemed at the time materially relevant by the scientists is corroborated by JOHN HAYWARD in his hand written witness statement signed 8th November 1985, where he asserts that he examined SBJ/1 and that,
‘There is a smear of red paint at the muzzle end of the sound moderator,’ (see HOLMES 67/100 PDF page 7).
20) Indeed JOHN HAYWARD took it upon himself to take a number of photographic images of the sound moderator SBJ/1, when he examined and dismantled it on the 12th September 1985. These images are referred to as reference JH/1. See also document 80/10 reference 24J – 6 X Photo albums of silencers, and 24w – 7 X albums of photographs re silencer.
21) Moreover, BRIAN ELLIOT was shown these photographs by COLP, (see BRIAN ELLIOT’S witness statement dated 3rd October 1991, HOLMES 67/322). These images taken on the 12th September 1985 that are undeniably relevant evidence have never been tendered to the Defence in any event. Similarly those photographs of silencers mentioned in document 80/10 remain undisclosed.
22) In 2002, a third Police enquiry was undertaken to investigate the actions of Essex Police in the STOKENCHURCH enquiry. A number of issues were found as fact.
23) Action Number A204 states:
‘Examine paint on moderator to establish if there is paint thereon.’
‘FSS to examine paint stain (one) on moderator to establish if there are any blood stains underneath the paint marks.’
Result, 20/02/02:
‘The underside of the paint and the exposed area left on the moderator were tested for the presence of blood. The results were negative.’
24) In 2002, STOKENCHURCH asked the FSS to examine sound moderator SBJ/1 that had a smear of red paint on the flat surface of the muzzle end. Sound moderator DB/1 had been found as fact to have numerous red paint flakes impacted upon the knurled pattern, and no smear of red paint on the end of the flat surface, thereby establishing the difference between SBJ/1 and DB/1.
25) COLP misled the Home Secretary at the time, in their published report submitted to him where they state,
‘That the sound moderator should have been photographed at the earliest opportunity. Unfortunately this did not happen. The earliest photographs taken of the sound moderator were taken on the 11th November 1985,’ (see COLP Report, paragraph 2/57). It can now be evidenced that this statement lacks credibility.
26) MALCOLM FLETCHER was sent a number of photographs taken of the dismantled sound moderator by DI RON COOK, (see HOLMES 78/14). These images had been taken by DI RON COOK at Chelmsford HQ Scenes of Crime Department on 21st August 1985, (see Holmes 8/215 DI RON COOK’S 25th September 1991 Witness Statement PDF page 33).
27) It remains to be disclosed whether JOHN HAYWARD was aware when he examined SBJ/1 on 12th September 1985, that SBJ/1 had been dismantled in the first instance and had its baffle plates spread out upon a work bench where a blood stained rifle had been placed for convenience at the same time, possibly corrupting its evidential integrity.
28) JOHN HAYWARD stated that he discovered a single flake of blood inside the sound moderator that he used in all his blood grouping tests, the question remains was he aware of the images that MALCOLM FLETCHER had in his possession as to the real possibility of contamination of SBJ/1 by the rifle when he examined it? (see HOLMES 78/14)
29) Both JOHN HAYWARD and GLYNNIS HOWARD gave testimony as expert witnesses at trial. They stated that they had screened the blood stains discovered on the sound moderator SBJ/1, to discern whether they were of human or animal origin. The Jury were instructed by the two of them, that the blood tested did not originate from an animal but was in fact human.
30) JOHN HAYWARD and GLYNNIS HOWARD failed to inform the Jury that they in fact screened the blood for two types of animal – dog and hen, (see HOLMES 12/194 PDF page 5) but the .22 rifle in issue (Exhibit DRH/15), was used to shoot rabbits, foxes and rats. No evidence has been submitted to Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory to suggest that the sound moderator was ever used to shoot hens or dogs. Why then select these two animal types as possible sources of the blood staining on the sound moderator SBJ/1? Indeed, why did JOHN HAYWARD and GLYNNIS HOWARD fail to inform the Jury that they had not tested the blood for obvious farm pests such as foxes, rabbits and rats but instead for hens and dogs?
31) In 1986, on the basis of their expert testimony the Jury were led to believe that all types of animal screening had been undertaken, with a negative result, thus their credibility is in issue.
32) Had it been brought to the Jury’s attention that the sound moderator could well have been contaminated with rabbit blood, then the Defence would have been able to rebut the prosecution’s proposition and illustrate that the positive result for AK/1 an enzyme attributed to Sheila Caffell, as asserted by JOHN HAYWARD, could also be attributed to the AK/1 enzyme found in all rabbit blood (see R-10).
33) Moreover, on the 25th September 1985, BRIAN ELLIOT was prima facie given ‘SBJ/1’ to examine including the smear of red paint on the flat surface on the muzzle end, as discovered by GLYNNIS HOWARD and JOHN HAYWARD, (see HOLMES 67/319, HOLMES 67/100).
34) BRIAN ELLIOT instead found a large quantity of red paint flakes impacted into the knurled end of the sound moderator, and no smear of red paint adhering to the surface of the flat end piece. At the time BRIAN ELLIOT believed he was examining SBJ/1 due to its packaging and labelling, however this sound moderator was in fact DB/1. This fact can be corroborated by BRIAN ELLIOT’S realisation in 1991 when he was shown JOHN HAYWARD’S photographs by COLP of SBJ/1, (see HOLMES 67/322, statement dated 3rd October 1991).
35) Indeed, the sound moderator in photos JH/1 had blood in the dips and the grooves of its knurled pattern (see GLYNNIS HOWARD’S Trial Transcript). These photographs had none of the twenty-five plus red paint flakes that BRIAN ELLIOT found in the dips and grooves of the knurl, and as evidenced in his trial testimony he found no blood in the sound moderator’s knurl (see BRIAN ELLIOT’S Trial Transcript).
36) The diagrams drawn by BRIAN ELLIOT and LOUISE FLOAT on the 25th September 1985 shows that the sound moderator had a large piece of sticky tape adhering to it that was not present when JOHN HAYWARD examined it, and then photographed it on 12th September 1985, (see HOLMES 67/193).
37) It is fact that the sound moderator SBJ/1, also had a white film of super glue covering its outer surface owing to the fingerprinting process undertaken on the 15th August 1985.
38) But DB/1, the sound moderator examined by BRIAN ELLIOT and LOUISE FLOAT did not have such a white film on its outer surface.
39) Indeed DB/1 was found in the same gun cupboard as SBJ/1 by DAVID BOUTFLOUR on the 10th August 1985. It then remained in a card board box at his sister, ANN EATON’S house until 11th September 1985, (see P35). It was then collected by DC OAKEY on 11th September 1985 and handed to DCI WRIGHT SOC Chelmsford.
40) On the 12th September 1985 DI COOK and DC BIRD attended WHF to take photographic images of scratch marks on the underside of the kitchen’s mantel shelf. On that same day they also took photographs of the kitchen in its tidied state, (see Police Reference Number Negative Strip YELLOW LABEL – 34, NEGATIVES 7-10, these appear in the Master Copy Album as Photographs Numbers 148, 149, 150, and 151).
41) It can be clearly seen from NEGATIVE NUMBER 7 of YL-34 that it is an area of red painted surround to the left of the cooker (at waist height), it can be seen to be free of scratch marks or chips/gouges in the red paint work.
42) While it can be seen that NEGATIVE NUMBER 9, of YL-34 shows the same area of this red painted Aga surround, when this area is enlarged it shows that the left hand vertical fascia at (waist height) now has a deep ‘U’ shape, white coloured scratch mark upon it. Also, near the ‘U’ shaped scratch mark is a deep, white coloured gouge in an area of the small cupboard door. This area on the cupboard door was previously covered by the kitchen calendar in the crime scene photographs.
43) These two distinct marks must have been made either by DC BIRD and/or DI RON COOK, as no other person was present at WHF on the 12th September 1985. NEGATIVE NUMBER 7 of YL-34, has been taken in a chronological order and is taken prior to NEGATIVE NUMBER 9 of YL – 34, therefore it is logical to assume that these later marks were gouged using the sound moderator DB/1. Indeed there were over twenty-five flakes of red paint upon DB/1 which would corroborate an intensity of impact upon the Aga surround by the sound moderator and the depth of the mark made, that was later used to bolster the prosecution’s proposition.
44) In 1991, DR. BAXENDALE, using ESDA testing, was requested by COLP to examine the Exhibit Labels for the sound moderator SBJ/1 (Exhibit Label AH/1), (see HOLMES 24/170).
45) Indeed, DR. BAXENDALE’s 23rd September 1991, witness statement shows clearly that he found as fact that the Exhibit Label signed by GLYNNIS HOWARD, DI RON COOK, JOHN HAYWARD, MALCOLM FLETCHER and BRIAN ELLIOT was originally written out specifically for sound moderator DRB/1, case reference number SC/786/85, (see HOLMES 6/109).
46) While GLYNNIS HOWARD testified to COLP that she only signed one Exhibit Label for the sound moderator SBJ/1 on 13th August 1985, case number SC/688/85. Furthermore, she stated that the Exhibit Label shown to her by COLP bearing her signature, (AH/1) shows that SBJ/1 had been changed to DB/1 then DRB/1 subsequent to her signing it, (see HOLMES REF 67/320). This clearly contradicts the findings of the expert witness DR. BAXENDALE and impugns GLYNNIS HOWARD’s credibility.
47) Moreover, COLP were aware of his findings from his 23rd September 1991 Witness Statement, and that GLYNNIS HOWARD was not a credible witness due to what she stated on 3rd October 1991. Instead GLYNNIS HOWARD signed a new Exhibit Label for DRB/1, a sound moderator she had neither seen nor examined for case reference SC/786/85. To create a false Exhibit Label in order to mislead a Jury is to pervert the course of justice. JOHN HAYWARD was never interviewed by COLP in 1991. He has not explained how his signature came to be on the exhibit label marked DRB/1 when he examined SBJ/1.
48) It may be fact that Essex Police misled Huntingdon’s Forensic Scientists into creating a new set of examination documents and a new Exhibit Label for DRB/1, without them realising that they were facilitating SBJ/1 being swapped for DB/1 and then being merged evidentially to form a third fictional sound moderator, as being the one removed from WHF.
49) However, it is believed that Essex Police had at least one Forensic Scientist who conspired to help switch SBJ/1 to DB/1 prior to BRIAN ELLIOT’s 25th September 1985 examination. Unless an admission is made by the scientist in question their identity will remain concealed. Indeed it is not known how much of the information provided thus far the scientists in question were aware of in 1985 and 1991. Yet there are over one hundred additional documents that contain information corroborating and evidencing all the above facts.
50) In any event, the Defence request a full account as to how it was that Essex Police instructed Huntingdon Forensic Scientists to fabricate a set of false documents, purporting to follow a chain of evidence that bolstered the credibility of an exhibit item, for a sound moderator DRB/1, which it is fact was fictional. This ‘sound moderator’ DRB/1, was used to mislead the Jury in 1986 by merging the forensic evidence of two sound moderators SBJ/1 and DB/1, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
51) It is considered that complicity and lack of credibility by certain scientists as adduced by other expert witnesses not involved in the trial at first instance, i.e. DR. BAXENDALE, in addition to the documents now in the hands of the Defence, suggests the mens rea regarding the offence of perverting the course of justice.
Conclusion
It is only now twenty-six years later, that JEREMY BAMBER’s Defence team were eventually disclosed case photographs and documents previously withheld under Public Immunity Interest. This evidence clearly shows that the Jury were misled regarding the provenance of the sound moderator material to the facts of the prosecution’s case. In addition to it being corrupted and fabricated as to its identity in any event.
The Huntingdon Forensic Scientists had a duty and obligation to make accountable to the Court at the time of trial as to the re-writing and signing of numerous sets of documents, including the Exhibit Label for alternative sound moderators. The fact that they did not and indeed in two instances at least, committed perjury during the COLP enquiry allowed Essex Police to pervert the course of justice by fabricating it as fact that only one sound moderator featured in the case.
ACC SIMPSON himself was aware that two sound moderators featured in the evidence of the case and that the Jury were misled by the tainting of evidence as facilitated by the Forensic Scientists named in this document. None of the expert witnesses who were in a position of trust, or serving Police Officers tendered evidence that actually illustrated the truth of the facts as shown in this document. This resulted in the jury being misled in 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------
Reviewers point out that parts of this presentation are problematic, and misunderstood by its presenter, which need to be addressed (details to follow)...
