The provenance (continuity) of the sound moderator
27. The original finding of a sound moderator that was labelled SBJ/1 occurred, according to the investigating officers and prosecution witnesses, on 10th August 1985. Namely, it was discovered by a David Boutflour. It was asserted at trial that it was handed to an Essex Police Officer, DS 21 Jones, on 12th August 1985 by Ann Eaton. Then on 13th August 1985 it was submitted for forensic testing at Huntingdon laboratories on by DI Cook.
28. However, in his broadcasts to various media organisations, that were notably later retracted, ACC Simpson was quoted in ‘The Mirror,’ on the 17th September 1985,
‘A heavily bloodstained silencer was found by the police hours after the gruesome massacre,’ in addition, ‘Police discovered a blood stained gun silencer at the farm on the day of the massacre.’
29. Furthermore on 16th September 1985, ACC Simpson informed Paul Davidson of ‘The Essex Gazette,’ ‘Although a silencer was found shortly after police broke into the house, a few hours after the killings on 7th August 1985, it was not until after enquiries were reopened that this was regarded as significant,’
30. The enquiry that was ‘reopened,’ provided suspicion that Jeremy Bamber had committed murder and killed five members of his family, his motive being for his inheritance making it appear that his mentally ill sister had in fact murdered the family members, including her two children.
31. The CPS position at trial was that David Boutflour discovered red paint and blood on the sound moderator SBJ/1. This sound moderator was crucial in the prosecution’s case, where they used it to imply there being a struggle with Jeremy Bamber and his father Nevill Bamber on the 7th August 1985, resulting in scratch marks on the underside of a (The Case of Jeremy Bamber 22.08.11, Page 5 of 23)
mantel shelf in White House Farm, thereby depositing red paint on the knurl of a sound moderator, (see the photograph showing the scratch marks; our reference img – 3654. CR2)
32. According to COLP the labelling of the sound moderator in the first instance was SBJ/1, and then for the sake of clarity regarding different officer’s initials it was later entitled DB/1 then later again changed to DRB/1. This was to correspond with David Robert Boutflour’s initials, which were similar to another investigating officer’s namely, DC Bird, (see paragraph 2.2, COLP 001793)
33. The provenance of the exhibit SBJ/1, being later relabelled was not deemed to be an issue by COLP, indeed they asserted that there was nothing sinister in this lack of clarity,
‘My conclusions are that each query…has with stood close scrutiny and found to be an innocent mistake or careless entry – nothing more.’ (paragraph 1.214, COLP 001898; our italics).
34. Yet when COLP interviewed DI Cook in 1991, he stated, ‘I have been shown exhibit label DRB/1 and identify the signature on the second line as mine. I also recognise Glynnis Howard’s signature on the third line. However, I cannot now explain why SBJ/1 is not recorded on the label bearing my signature.’(see Document S10 page 14; Document P – 37, showing a copy of the file exhibit labels, Document share file 04;our italics).
35. COLP left this assertion unchallenged. While later COLP questioned DI Cook, ‘What was the purpose of placing sellotape over the ends of the silencer during the superglue treatment?’ DI Cook replied, ‘It shows superglue by me on 15th August 1985.’
36. COLP failed to point out that SBJ/1 had a white film of superglue all over it on the outside, yet it is submitted it can be found as fact that DRB/1 which was handed to DC Oakey and then on to DCI Wright on 11th September 1985 did not have any white film on it.
37. Similarly, COLP did not sufficiently consider the provenance of the sound moderator and David Boutflour’s assertion that he could identify his signature, but was unable to recall when he signed the exhibit label and whether it was with the silencer, (paragraph 2.44, COLP 001913) The Case of Jeremy Bamber 22.08.11 Page 6 of 23
38. It is submitted that COLP should have enquired more robustly and thoroughly why the provenance of the exhibit was altered three times in view of the above. It is submitted that COLP knew full well that this was not due to an ‘innocent mistake,’ or ‘careless entry,’ or indeed the initials of prosecution witnesses and investigating officers becoming confused.
39. It is due to the fact that it can now be proven there were in issue two sound moderators discovered during the investigation at White House Farm.
40. It is submitted that COLP found it as fact that there were two sound moderators back in 1991 and colluded with Essex Police as asserted earlier, in order to maintain the integrity of the officers involved in the case in the first instance.
41. Indeed COLP states, ‘The silencer was sent to the lab on 30.8.85 when additional examinations were made, culminating in its return to the police on 13.11.85.’
While COLP also states, ‘To have saved any dispute as to its identity, ideally the sound moderator should have been photographed in detail in the very early stages. Although a photograph was taken on 11.11.85 it merely showed the rifle and moderator within the gun cupboard at White House Farm.’(see COLP paragraph 2.57, 001918, and Document X2; our italics)
42. While a sound moderator was being forensically tested, the other was being photographed at White House Farm, one was SBJ/1 the other DRB/1. It is, of course impossible for the sound moderator in issue to be in two places at once. Photographs img – 3642. CR2 through to img 3649. CR2, picture the rifle and sound moderator in the gun cupboard on the 20th September 1985. While photographs img – 3650. CR2 through to img 3653. CR2, shows the rifle with a different sound moderator attached in the gun cupboard on the 11th November 1985. Thus the photographs of DRB/1 were taken on 20th September 1985, and the photographs of SBJ/1 were taken on 11th November 1985.
43. In addition, Essex Police informed COLP that the first photograph taken of the sound moderator was on the 11th November 1985, (see paragraph 2.57 COLP Enquiry).
44. However, it is submitted that all the earlier photographs that were taken of the sound moderator were not disclosed to COLP, e.g. it is now known to be fact that DI Cook took photographs of a sound moderator on 21st August 1985, (see Document AB – 25), and that DC Hammersley took photographs of the rifle with a sound moderator on 20th September 1985, (see Documents B – 2, and AB – 25).
The Case of Jeremy Bamber 22.08.11 Page 7 of 23
45. Furthermore Document S15, clearly shows a telephone message from David Boutflour on 11th September 1985 at 15.20 stating he has found a silencer with blood on it logged as message 13.
46. Moreover, there are no references to a sound moderator having been found at White House Farm in Ann Eaton’s witness statements until her fifth submission on 12th September 1985.
47. While on the 13th August 1985, DS 21 Jones showed DI Miller the sound moderator and drew his attention to the red paint and blood present upon it, (See DI Miller’s statement dated October 1985, Document AB – 13).
48. On the 14th August 1985 DS 21 Jones took a witness statement from Ann Eaton and there is no mention of a sound moderator having been discovered on the 10th August 1985. While it is also asserted that Ann Eaton spent the day with DI Cook, DS Jones and DI Miller to show them where DRB/1 had scratched the red mantel shelf, (see DI Cook Statement to COLP page 21, Document S 10).
49. It is submitted that if it was true that DRB/1 was found on the 10th August 1985 then it would be logical for her to mention the discovery because it was deemed so relevant by officers and indeed herself.
50. While back in August 1985, at the initial crime scene it is recorded that DS Jones was inside White House Farm on 7th August 1985 between the hours of 09.30 and 13.37. He was noted as taking photographs at the scene, some of which have since been destroyed, notably SBJ/3 which was of the downstairs toilet and where Anthony Pargeter was known to keep his rifle, (see document A-B).
51. Similarly, Anthony Pargeter states this to be the case, (see Anthony Pargeter’s 12th 1985 December witness statement; Doc share: File 67). He asserts that he expected to find his .22 rifle and sound moderator in the downstairs toilet/shower room when he went in search of it on the 26th July 1985, instead he found that his rifle was now being stored in the office gun cupboard. ‘My gun case, containing my rifle and sound moderator was on the floor of this gun cupboard.’
52. This is further proven in photograph img – 3522. CR2, which shows Anthony Pargeter’s .22 rifle on top of Nevill Bamber’s 12 bore shotgun case, on the floor of the office gun cupboard. This photograph was taken on the 7th August 1985. In addition photographs img – 3514. CR2 and img 3513. CR2, pictures Anthony Pargeter’s 12 bore shotgun case in the downstairs toilet/shower room on a bench behind a cabinet, (these were also taken on the 7th August 1985). The Case of Jeremy Bamber 22.08.11 Page 8 of 23
53. Photographs were taken of all the items discovered downstairs in the office at white House Farm, in the gun cupboard while the house was being searched on 7th August 1985, yet these photographs have been removed. The inference by Jeremy Bamber’s Defence team is that they did in fact reveal the presence of a second sound moderator, (COLP Enquiry, paragraphs 1 – 211 and 2.57). These photographs are referenced as strip (white label) 0039 and have had eight of the negatives removed, (negatives 1 – 6 missing and 9 and 10). It is submitted that Essex Police did this to conceal that Anthony Pargeter’s .22 rifle and sound moderator were also in the gun cupboard at White House Farm, where David Boutflour later found the second sound moderator on 11th September 1985.
54. Furthermore it is submitted that in view of the fact there were a number of guns at White House Farm (namely 7) it would be inconceivable that Essex Police did not record their presence. Indeed of the 402 photographs disclosed to Jeremy Bamber only one photograph was taken of the 12 bore shotgun. Apart from the murder weapon, no other photographs of the guns at White House Farm have been disclosed.
55. It is submitted that DS Jones would have assisted Scenes of Crimes Officers (SOCO) or indeed the Firearm Services Unit (FSU) seizing and cataloguing the guns at the house. DS Jones was appointed as the investigating detective it was his duty to gather all evidence from the scene, in addition to the material exhibits seized by SOCO.
56. It is assumed that DC 466 Bird photographed each gun and the location in which it was found and it is submitted that these are the pictures missing from the negative strips.
57. COLP also discovered that DI Cook had signed a fabricated exhibit label, DI Cook stated, ‘DS Jones telephoned me on Monday afternoon and told me that the family had found the sound moderator with blood on it.’ He then went on to state, ‘I feel sure that DS Jones did not know who found the silencer when he handed it to me.’ And furthermore he asserts, ‘I can assure the City of London Police there was only one silencer submitted that day,’(see document S10 page 12). It is submitted there is an inference that he was questioned about there being two sound moderators by way of his answer.
58. COLP also found in issue a Police Action Report 88 detailing DC Oakley as attending Ann Eaton’s house on the 11th September 1985. It states that he picked up AE/1 and ‘a silencer,’ which he then referred to SOCO DCI Wright, based at Chelmsford Police Station. This clearly contradicts paragraph 40 above. The Case of Jeremy Bamber 22.08.11 Page 9 of 23
59. While DC 769 Oakey states in his 25th October 1985 statement that he visited White House Farm on the 11th September 1985 and collected telescopic sights DRB/2 and Eley Bullets DRB/3. This clearly shows confusion as to whom it was who collected the sound moderator, although they have the same surname they are different officers.
60. The general examination record states that item 22, the sound moderator SBJ/1 was examined on 25th September 1985, (see document S3). Essex Police, however assert that DRB/1 was examined on this date, yet the general examination record dated the 25th September 1985 shows the exhibit reference of the sound moderator was SBJ/1 not DRB/1.
61. COLP also found in issue the following chronology of events -Police Action Report 181 states DS Davidson examined a silencer on the 18th September 1985 for fingerprints and fibres, at the Scenes of Crimes Department, Chelmsford Headquarters. While DI Cook states that he had sound moderator SBJ/1 examined for fingerprinting at Sandridge Police Scientific Development Branch to use their specialist service on 15th August 1985 and 23rd August 1985, (see COLP 2.60, 001919).There was no result indicated for the sound moderator where DI Cook took it on 15th August 1985, (see paragraph 3.5, 001796).
62. DI Cook states that he did not record the results of the fingerprinting to the operational log and that whoever did failed to record the result of the examination of the silencer, (See paragraph 3.5, 001796).
63. Again COLP accept this as being yet another administrative error, (see paragraph 3.7, 001797).
64. Furthermore, a Telephone Message Report 44 states that David Boutflour phoned Essex Police insisting he be interviewed about finding a sound moderator covered in blood, (Message 44 taken between 12th and 17th September 1985, Index Card 1, 18th September 1985/ Holmes 2 Account 49, Document 37/160 ).
65. In addition Telephone Message 38 states, ‘11th September 1985: From David Boutflour. He has found silencer with blood on it. Silencer was in cardboard box in downstairs office,’ (see Document S 15).
66. While Index Card for Silencer states: ‘7. Action 195. Boutflour mentions silencer in gun cupboard at scene and he suggests possible layouts of items in cupboard,’ (see Document P – 32). The Case of Jeremy Bamber 22.08.11 Page 10 of 23
67. Similarly, David Boutflour confirms in his witness statement dated 12th September 1985 that he, ‘informed the police of the finding of the telescopic sight and sound moderator,’ (see Document AB – 6).
68. Furthermore, it is also asserted that the HOLAB 3 forms regarding David Boutflour’s entries have, ‘no date when found’ on them. Other exhibit entries on the HOLAB 3 forms have a date attributed to them, as to when they were found.
69. Therefore it is submitted that the evidence illustrates that David Boutflour did not find the silencer on the 10th August 1985.
70. Due to the inference from our above submissions it is asserted that he did in fact find a silencer, but it was not until the 10th or 11th September 1985, and was thus labelled DRB/1.
71. Furthermore COLP states, ‘..as I have already said, the system of continuity regarding the exhibits in this case leaves much to be desired when one comes to try and establish the hard facts. This to a large extent was the fault of the officers chosen to carry out the task of collecting exhibits, recording and finally submitting them for examination,’ (see paragraph 2.125, 001940; our italics)
72. While COLP asserts there is no evidence that a sound moderator was found at White House Farm between the 7th-10th August 1985, by the police, (see Allegation 1, paragraphs 1.80 – 1.211).
73. However, COLP knew full well that there was evidence indicating otherwise. They knew that DS Davidson examined a sound moderator for fingerprints on 9th August 1985, (see COLP Précis, Transcript AH/2 Document S 16 paragraph 17). Therefore, the sound moderator in issue at that time cannot have been DRB/1.
74. Furthermore it is stated in COLP, Superintendent McKay: ‘You’ve already told me Neil that you weren’t aware that a sound moderator had been found by the family,’ (COLP Document AB paragraph 35, 16th October 1991) While at page 48 it states, The Case of Jeremy Bamber 22.08.11 Page 11 of 23
Superintendent Mckay: ‘Knowing there was only one silencer there (White House Farm) did you have knowledge at all of the second silencer?’ (our italics). In addition on page 9 it states, Superintendent Mckay: ‘Do you know on that particular day (8th August 1985) if the silencer was found?’ DS Davidson: ‘No I do not Sir.’
75. DS Davidson was the exhibits officer. If he was not informed about a sound moderator being discovered by the family, then who was he instructed had found the sound moderator that he was testing for fingerprints on the 9th August 1985?
76. Moreover, Ann Eaton’s testimony to COLP states, Q: ‘Did you or any other person or otherwise, find more than one silencer at White House Farm?’ A: ‘The only silencer found to my knowledge was the one found by my brother David. There never has been any other silencer found at White House Farm,’ (Document C4 page 41).
77. The assertion by Ann Eaton is clearly untrue and indicates motive as to wanting Jeremy Bamber to be found guilty of the deaths of his family at White House Farm, (see paragraphs 125 - 137).
78. It is submitted that David Boutflour’s discovery has been tampered with in collusion with other prosecution witnesses, including the police, in order to appear that it was discovered on 10th August 1985 and to avoid the discovery of Anthony Pargeter’s sound moderator, found by DS Jones on the 7th August 1985. Furthermore, the forms relating to the submission of the sound moderator to Huntingdon Laboratory on 13thAugust 1985 illustrate why SBJ/1 the sound moderator found by DS Jones on 7th August 1985 was listed as being found in the gun cupboard, (see photograph img – 3522. CR2, and Document Share File 34, Document D – 10). Thus DS Jones removed the sound moderator from Anthony Pargeter’s .22 gun case and this can be seen in the photograph taken on 7th August 1985.
79. Therefore we assert that unlike COLP, its provenance is in issue. Moreover, there is further evidence to support this and it is submitted that COLP clearly disregarded their own findings of fact that there were two sound moderators, which due to the pattern and tenure of the investigation can only be treated as malfeasance.
Blood and Paint Samples on the Sound Moderator The Case of Jeremy Bamber 22.08.11 Page 12 of 23
80. It is submitted that Glynnis Howard at Huntingdon Forensics was in receipt of sound moderator SBJ/1 on 13th August 1985. While David Boutflour asserted that the sound moderator he had discovered had paint and blood on it.
81. Glynnis Howard at trial, describes her removing blood. She never stated that she had tested the moderator for paint, instead she had discovered both human and animal blood on the moderator, (see document S10).
82. Indeed COLP found that Glynnis Howard was instructed by DI Cook, ‘basically to look for blood on the silencer, (and rifle),’ (see COLP Allegation 2, paragraph 2.53, 001917), thereby implying that the paint was not tested due to it not being in issue.
83. Indeed, COLP asserts that the issue of paint on the sound moderator and on the underside of the mantel shelf, were not appreciated until the 14th August 1985, (see paragraph 2.58, 001918).
84. Yet it is logical to infer that while testing the sound moderator SBJ/1, she would in fact have discovered and made a note of the paint on the moderator, notwithstanding that it was not in issue at that time in the proceedings. Indeed David Boutflour was emphatic that there were paint and blood on the moderator that he discovered.
85. It is submitted that to test the blood dry it is first dissolved in distilled water, therefore the blood would have dissolved leaving the red paint (which was gloss), that would then have to be recorded on the laboratory notes and examined.
86. Glynnis Howard was cross examined at the trial in 1986 about the blood on the sound moderator,
A: ‘There was some blood staining actually in the knurled end.’ Q: ‘On the outside but in the holes?’ A: ‘The actual ridges formed dips in the surface and the blood was actually in those,’ (see document S11B, page 125 at D).
87. While Brian Elliott the other forensic scientist at Huntingdon Laboratory found paint on the knurled end of the moderator on the 25th September 1985. He stated at trial, Q: ‘Did you discover anything on that?’ (sound moderator) A: ‘Yes, the end of the sound moderator I described as knurled.’ Q: ‘Yes.’ A: ‘And impacted into this pattern are numerous small deposits of paint which showed the layers, the undercoat layers that I have already described.’
88. As stated earlier it would be logical to infer that where there was blood or paint combined upon the sound moderator, then there would be a note made in the laboratory records at that time.
89. Indeed, Brian Elliott testified that there were twenty-eight flakes of paint removed from the knurl, it is submitted they were about the size of a pin head and that the blood would have looked like an additional layer of red paint to the naked eye until tested.
90. The Crown asserted at trial that Sheila Caffell was the last to die. It is logical to infer that it would be her blood that would be on the sound moderator. Instead the DNA tested was of a male and its characteristics were similar to Nevill Bamber’s, however it was not Nevill Bamber’s, it was of a similar loci. Anthony Pargeter is Nevill Bamber’s nephew.
91. In any event, DI Cook stated that he took a paint sample on 14th August, yet he actually waited until the 12th September to photograph the underside of the mantelshelf, where it is submitted, the scratch marks were made in corroboration with there being red paint on a sound moderator, (see DI Cook’s pocket book where it is submitted that he has written the facts of the paint sample at a later date, not on the 14th due to his handwritten submission being squeezed in onto a page filled with text; see also document S2, strip 46/0036).
92. His assertion that he photographed the scratch marks on 12th September coincidently corresponds with the case being changed to that of five murders by Jeremy Bamber. Jeremy Bamber was first arrested on 8th September 1985.
93. Yet COLP Precis, found as fact that two samples were taken, (DS Davidson’s 16th October 1991 interview). The précis states, ‘paragraph 12 CID6 (6.11) paint samples RC/1 and RC/2. RC = Ron cook.’
94. While Ann Eaton stated to COLP in her testimony dated 14th May 1991 that, [on 14th August], ‘I clearly remember one of them (DI Cook, DI Miller or DS Jones) producing a pen knife and cutting a sample of paint from the underside of the mantel. It was either DI Cook or DS Jones that actually took the sample. One of them put some yellow/orange sticky tape over where the sample was taken from, (see COLP Statement Ann Eaton pages 50 – 51).
95. While DI Cook and DS Davidson assert that this was on 14th September 1985. Therefore there is an inference that Ann Eaton as a prosecution witness is not credible.
96. Furthermore, David Boutflour in his witness statement dated 17th September 1985, asserts that when he examined the shelf on the 14th August 1985 there was no yellow sticker, he is correct in his assertion. It is submitted that this was not until the actual finding of the sound moderator DRB/1 after the 10th or 11th of September that DI Cook did in fact take his paint sample and placed a yellow sticker over the mark. Therefore David Boutflour should have stated that there was in fact a yellow sticker placed there by DI Cook, (see also paragraphs 95-96).
97. If COLP had had a true inclination to establish the facts then they would have realised that the issue of the scratch marks and the paint on the sound moderator are linked to the provenance and authenticity of the sound moderator.
98. Photograph img – 3430. CR2 was taken on 7th August 1985. The image clearly shows the aga surround, fascia and mantel shelf in the kitchen and was taken from the doorway. While photograph img – 3669. CR2 was taken on the 10th September 1985 in exactly the same position of the same area in the kitchen. When comparing both photographs it can be seen quite clearly that someone has scored a mark on the red paint of the fascia, the mark appears as a ‘J’ shape and is larger, deeper and a different shape completely from the earlier photograph. It is submitted that this new scoring was made by a sound moderator.
99. When looking at photograph img 3520. CR2 the picture shows in close up the mat placed on the floor before the aga. It is possible to magnify this image so that even single hairs can be seen to the naked eye, yet there are no flakes or chips of red paint on the floor or mat directly underneath where the scratch marks were made.
100. While photograph img 3509. CR2 shows the carpet before the cellar door, this door was forced by Essex Police during the raid on White House Farm. The forcing of the door has caused the paintwork to be damaged. The flakes of paint from the damage caused are clearly visible on the carpet, both large and small. This illustrates that where they are obvious on such a light coloured carpet, then similarly the scoring marks would have left debris on the carpet too, and that it would be visible had they been made during the night of the murders.
101. Furthermore, it is submitted that where an exhibit is discovered or seized by members of the public and not by Police Officers, the provenance of the exhibit is in issue. This is accepted by the Crown Court, (see Document 9, trial transcript John Walter Hayward, 10th October 1986, as question to Mr Rivlin QC by Justice Drake).
102. Similarly it is submitted that Glynnis Howard’s trial transcript states, Q: ‘Of course you had no idea yourself just how that sound moderator had been handled by other people before it came to you?’ A: ‘No I didn’t,’ (see Document P – 21).
103. There are certain protocols that have to be followed in order to allow for evidential weight to be accorded to that item. The public’s witness statement must contain the following; a) The laboratory item and exhibit number. b) The item must be described. c) The location from where it was discovered must be stated. d) The date and time it was found must be stated. e) How it was handled, i.e. was it placed with other items where it could have been contaminated, did the handler wear gloves? f) The method of transportation of the item, from where it was stored prior to being given to the Police. g) Who handled the exhibit between its discovery, and it being submitted to the forensic team at the laboratory. h) Finally, how was it packaged.
104. Similarly, Insp. Cranwell as the Laboratory Liaison Officer was assisted by DS Lovell, (see Document C-8/9) and that they gave testimony to COLP when they made their enquiry.
105. Both officers made a declaration that their original witness statements were four pages in length, however, both of these witness statements have been edited prior to their disclosure and are now three pages in length.
106. In addition both statements can be seen to be word for word identical, yet A/Insp. Cranwell made his statement on 7th August 1991, while DS Lovell wrote his on 29th August 1991.
107. It is submitted that these two officers colluded in falsifying corroboration and that COLP found this as fact and concealed it from Jeremy Bamber when he made his complaint to the Police Complaints Commission.
108. While COLP admits, ‘The question of the evidential quality appertaining to this silencer has been reflected on at length in the reports dealing with Allegations 1 and 3. In the main it has revolved around its integrity and whether continuity can be established. This whole area is open to debate and none more so than the custody of the silencer between 13th August 1985 and 30th August 1985,’
COLP then goes on to state, ‘I believe we can establish, to reasonable satisfaction, that the silencer was properly retained by police during this period. I say ‘reasonable satisfaction’ advisably because unless something is retained under indisputably secure conditions with guaranteed records then a small area of uncertainty will always remain,’ (see COLP Allegation 2 paragraphs 2.61, 2.62, 001919, 001920; our italics).
109. It could be argued that prima facie COLP failed in their duty of care to Jeremy Bamber in establishing that the protocol that governs the provenance of an exhibit, not found by a Police Officer, was clearly breached, calling into question the whole tenure of his trial in the first instance. However we allege that this lack of enquiry has to do with the motive asserted earlier, that COLP had an agenda in not undertaking their investigation with impartiality, (see paragraphs 164 - 165 of this submission).
110. Indeed their enquiry lacks probity. Their investigation clearly shows incongruity in the assertions and factual information gathering of the crime scene in the first instance by officers of Essex Police, which they have culpably ignored.
