This is a dreadful letter and it is something which in my opinion should be thoroughly investigated by the police. I note that Paul Harrison has decided not to pursue this through the police, which I find surprising. At face value this amounts to a threat to kill or at least cause serious physical harm to Paul Harrison.
Obviously since I am named in this article I was aware of it. The journalist contacted me for comment. He read me the parts of the letter which referred to me and I gave my reaction to it. The journalist has fairly summarised my comments, so I make no objection to that. However, the main thrust of the article is Paul Harrison's view that Jeremy Bamber himself was behind this threat. I am absolutely convinced that he had no knowledge of it whatsoever and that he will be appalled that it was sent. My reasons for that view are as follows.
First, Jeremy Bamber has nothing to gain from making threats to Paul Harrison, and a lot to lose. He mail is censored and his phone calls are monitored and recorded. Any suggestion that he encouraged this would have serious consequences for him in prison.
Second, a letter written at the instigation of Jeremy Bamber or someone close to him would not refer to me, and would certainly not portray me in the way in which the letter did. In summary it suggested that I would be the barrister who would secure his freedom. As anyone who had been a member of this forum for a while will know, I am a non practising barrister, not having been in practice for nearly 20 years. Even if I were asked, which I have not been, I would not be in a position to accept instructions. As I have described here, my involvement in the case has been limited. At the request of Jeremy Bamber and Simon McKay I provided some assistance in relation to the last final submissions to the CCRC. I subsequently had some very limited input into the Judicial Review application. This was all on an informal basis. Since then I have had no involvement whatsoever. I have had no input into the latest submissions and do not even know what they contain. As has been posted here Simon McKay is no longer acting for Jeremy Bamber. I do not even know who are in the new legal team.
Third, the letter contains a reference to "using the public sector" which is clearly a reference to the publisher referred to in the article. The employee concerned was not named, I imagine for legal reasons. That employee has to the best of my knowledge had no contact with Jeremy Bamber or his campaign team for over two years.
For these reasons it is clear that Jeremy Bamber was not behind this letter. The question therefore is, who sent it and why? The clear inference from the article is that the letter was linked to the employee of the publishing company. I have to admit that when first told of this I had the same thought, although I did not express any view on it to the journalist. However, when I read the article and realised what it contained apart from the references to me I changed my view. If the employee, who had come within a hair's breadth of losing her job, had written this letter I believe the last thing she would have done would be to include a reference in it to "using the public sector", thus directly linking to her employer.
I doubt if we will ever know who sent this letter. My firm view is that it was sent with the intention of harming Jeremy Bamber, me and the employee of the publishing company.
