CCRC letter by Dodgy Di Stefano

[David1819]

Bellow is an exact correspondence from Giovani Dodgy Di Stefano to the CCRC 

R E G I N A



V



JEREMY NEVILL BAMBER




FURTHER SUBMISSIONS TO THE CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
CASE NO: 00162/2004





Studio Legale Internazionale,
Via Tommaso Salvini 15,
00197 Roma,
Italy
TEL +44 7766 732099
FAX +39 06 80692652



REF: DM/DP/GDS


     06 JUNE 2004

R. v Jeremy Nevill Bamber





These further submissions should be in conjunction with the application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission filed on the 8 March 2004 and 17 March 2004 respectively. In accordance with the instructions received from the Commission dated 10 March 2004 further information is in the form of these submissions. For the purposes of these further submissions it is necessary to recite the legislation and law in order that the Applicant is fully aware of the limitations and constraints levied upon any submissions made to the Commission.


THE LAW
The terms of reference of the Commission are set out in the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 section 13, which provides as follows :-
1. A reference of a conviction, verdict, finding or sentence shall not  be made under any of Sections 9 to 12, unless :-
(a) The Commission considers that there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld were the reference to be made.
(b) The Commission so consider :-
(i) in the case of a conviction, verdict or finding, because of an argument or evidence not raised in the proceedings which led to it, or on any appeal or application for leave to appeal against it, or
(ii)   in the case of a sentence, because of an argument on a point of law or information not so raised, and     
(1)   in the case of an appeal against the conviction, verdict, finding       or sentence has been determined or leave to appeal against it has been refused.
(2)   Nothing in Sub Section 1 (b)(i) or (c) would prevent the making of a reference if it appears to the Commission that there are exceptional circumstances which justify making it.

In R v Bamber [2002] EWCA Crim 2912 Lord Justice Kay delivering the approved judgement of the Court stated as follows when considering the question of fresh evidence in appellate proceedings:

“Section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 requires the court to have regard to four matters in deciding whether to admit fresh evidence:
“(a)  whether the evidence appears to the Court to be capable of belief;
(b)  whether it appears to the Court that the evidence may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
(c)  whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings from which the appeal lies on an issue which is the subject of the appeal; and
(d)  whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in those proceedings”.
In a number of cases this court has made clear that it will not readily admit expert evidence as fresh evidence where the necessary expertise was available at the time of trial (see e.g. Lomas, 53 Cr. App. R. 256 & Jones (Steven) [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 56).  To do otherwise would permit an appellant to shop around for an expert after conviction and upon finding one favourable to his case mount an appeal based on the views of that expert.  To allow that would subvert the trial process and generally speaking the time for advancing expert evidence is before the jury and not after conviction.” (Para 219-220)


The purpose of these submissions in part will satisfy the caveats imposed by precedent and procedure.

DISCLOSURE

We have already outlined in detail the legal submissions regarding disclosure and it is not necessary to recite such for the purposes of these submissions. We have already stated that disclosure is a matter of law regulated by procedure.

The existence of a post mortem photograph of Ralph Bamber’s right arm evidencing lacerations caused by finger nails should have been disclosed by the Prosecuting Authorities to the Applicant as part of their primary disclosure obligation pursuant to section 3(1)(a) Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 at the very least for the Appellate Procedures in 2002. It follows that the failure to do so at the original trial denied the Applicant and his then Learned Counsel vital missed opportunities at indeed advocating the proposition that the said murders were committed by a third party.

Any document which might reasonably found an application for a charge to be quashed, and/or to be stayed as amounting to an abuse of the process of the court, is a document which has a potential to “undermine the case for the prosecution against the accused”. Moreover, failure to disclose to the Applicant the existence of such document, is clearly contrary to the spirit and intendment of the Guidelines issued by the Attorney-General (whether pre- or post- the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, i.e. whether one has regard to the Guidelines issued 18th December 1981 or to the current Guidelines issued 29th November 2000).

Attached to these addendum submissions is the post mortem report on all five victims as adduced at trial and the 2002 Appeal dated 30 day of September 1985.  It is important to note the following matters within the said report:

(a) Whilst dated 30 day of September 1985 Professor Peter Vanezis carried out the post mortems on the 7 day of August 1985 commencing at 3.30pm and completing such “on the afternoon of the 8th August 1985.” It follows the said post mortems were carried out without haste and with great care and attention. All the said bodies were subject to radiography for the sake of completeness.
(b) Professor Peter Vanezis has further and readily signed the post mortem report encompassing such within a witness statement format with the caveat: “ This statement, consisting of 15 pages each signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.”

THE POST MORTEM REPORT
 
 
The post mortem report on Ralph Neville Bamber commences on page 5 and concludes on page 9. It is important to note the observations of Professor Vanezis on page 7 : “ There was loss of skin from the palm of the right hand near the 5th digit. There was a collection of bruises, 3 of which had an approximate linear configuration, covering a distance of approximately 2” x 4” on the ulnar aspect of the right forearm.”

Lord Justice Kay in R v Bamber [2002] EWCA Crim 2912 stated as follows:

“The examination of Nevill Bamber’s body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.” (Para 42)

For the purposes of the Defence, the Crown and the Learned Trial Judge and further the Court of Appeal the evidence was that to the right forearm of Ralph Neville Bamber there existed ONLY bruising of a linear type.

In making these submissions we are fully aware this case has attracted over 4,000,000 documents and that only part of such was available to the defence. Post mortem photographs were made available to the Defence, the Trial Judge, and of course the Jury. In the 35 boxes received from Glaisyers Solicitors therein contained for the Appellate purposes were three blue photograph albums marked:

“METROPOLITAN POLICE. R v Bamber Court Bundle (7B) Photograph Album (1) Jury Bundle”
 
By inference the said album and its contents were the post mortem photographs before the Jury, the Trial Judge, the Appellate Courts and available to the defence. It must be noted the said albums contain colour photocopies of photographs and not actual photographic paper. By inference the negatives and/or actual photographs are to be found in the possession of the Prosecuting Authorities who were responsible for the Jury Bundle.

Quite apart from the three albums found amongst the 35 boxes a further album, different from the Jury Bundle and consisting of actual photographs was found. It was not encased in a blue photo album folder but bound by black wire spiral binder half broken.

On the cover the markings as follows:

“METROPOLITAN POLICE. R v Bamber Court Bundle (7B) Photograph Album (III) Original Case Photographs”

Amongst the album marked “Original Case Photographs” was a post mortem photograph of Ralph Neville Bamber’s right arm, missing from the album made available to the Jury, Trial Judge and Appellate Courts as well as the Defence.

The photo of Ralph Neville Bamber’s arm does indeed sustain the observation and witness statement of Professor Vanezis in that “there was a collection of bruises, 3 of which had an approximate linear configuration…” and the observation uplifted from the post mortem report in the Court of Appeal’s Approved Judgement in para 42: “linear type bruising to the right forearm,”
but what was not made available to the Court of Appeal was the very post mortem photograph itself since what was available was only the blue photographic albums marked “Jury Bundle” and NOT the album marked “original case photographs.”

Even to a medically untrained eye the photograph of the right arm of Ralph Neville Bamber shows finger nail marks consistent with the assailant/attacker having gripped the deceased and having lacerated the skin with finger nail marks.

What is of some considerable concern and forms part of the basis of the request to the Commission to refer this matter back to the Court of Appeal is that Professor Vanezis made NO mention of these vitally important marks in his post mortem report.

The finger nail lacerations are consistent with a person with finger nails between 5mm-6mm long since the lacerated indentations into the skin are measured.

Amongst the post mortem photographs available to the Jury et al was a post mortem photograph of the arm of June Bamber showing one laceration consistent with a single finger nail indentation into the skin. There is no mention of such in the post mortem statement of Professor Vanezis although it is conceded that the said photograph was indeed amongst the Jury Bundle photographic album.

It is submitted that the discovery of the post mortem photograph amongst the “original case photographs” of Ralph Neville Bamber’s arm must be constituted as fresh evidence not available to the Defence at either Trial or Appellate proceedings. Had such been available it would have been included amongst the albums marked “Jury Bundle” and would by the obvious nature of the said photograph (even to the untrained eye) raised serious questions from the Defence.

Compound such failure by the clear failure from Professor Vanezis to have included such in his report/witness statement has for the purpose of these submissions mislead the Court and renders per se the conviction unsafe.

Whosoever attacked Ralph Neville Bamber had finger nails at least 5mm-6mm long and certainly no longer but positively not shorter. Had the finger nails been shorter they could not have inflicted the wounds on the right arm and a similar wound on the arm of June Bamber. Whilst it c an be stated that Defence Counsel and the Appellate Court could have raised questions owing to the inclusion of the post mortem photograph of June Bamber’s arm, without a correlating, corroborative and accurate witness statement from Professor Vanezis would indeed lead to the only conclusion as formed in para 42 from the Court of Appeal.

To all intent and purposes on the right arm there was only bruising as stated by both Professor Vanezis and repeated by Lord Justice Kay.

There now being the clearest of evidence that not only was there bruising but lacerations consistent with finger nail indentations – similar in shape, form, length, and diameter in both the arm of June Bamber and Ralph Neville Bamber and with the knowledge and submission that the Applicant Jeremy Bamber has always maintained SHORT finger nails, the said photograph of Ralph Neville Bamber must be adduced as exculpatory evidence and it follows should be considered as fresh evidence in any referal.

It must also be stated that those present at the post mortems should be interviewed and a full and proper explanation taken from Professor Vanezis, with the greatest of respect to his professional capabilities, as to why he failed to note vitally important aggressive attack marks on the right arm of Ralph Neville Bamber. Those present at the post mortems were: D.I. Miller, D.I. Cook, D.S. Davidson and PC Wright who acted as an officer for the Coroner.

The finger nails of Sheila Caffell were examined. A post mortem photograph of her hands was indeed made available and formed part of the “Jury Bundle.” The said finger nails of Sheila Caffell were too long to have caused the laceration/indentation marks on the arm of Ralph Neville Bamber and the singer mark on the arm of June Bamber. The Prosecuting Authorities failed however, to take any scraping from under her finger nails. The results could indeed have been matched to the finger nail lacerations on the arm of both Ralph Neville Bamber and June Bamber and could either have been proved conclusive and consistent with an attack from Sheila Caffell or exculpatory. Had the results of such tests been made known to the Defence,  the Applicant and his then legal team may well have defended the case not by alleging the murderer was Sheila Caffell but indeed elected to state it was a third party.

If one were further to have made available the radio log showing the Firearm Team were in “conversation” with a person from inside the farm at 05.25am and had available the post mortem photograph of the arm of Ralph Neville Bamber and any subsequent tests from the finger nails of Sheila Caffell the Applicant would have then, and only then, received an appropriate fair trial.

The Prosecution case was that Ralph Neville Bamber struggled with the attacker. Defence or aggression marks form part of admissible evidence within any criminal trial. There is no suggestion that the said finger nail laceration marks on the arm of Ralph Neville Bamber were made by any other party other than the attacker and subsequent murderer.

There was available to the Prosecuting Authorities the clearest of evidence and with a definitive link owing to a similar finger nail laceration common to both June Bamber and Ralph Neville Bamber.

The Jury, Trial Judge, Defence Counsel, Appellate Courts and invariable even Prosecuting Counsel had only available a single post mortem photograph of the arm of June Bamber and the witness statement from Professor Vanezis a witness statement which at best is inaccurate and fails to mention vital marks, at worst negligent albeit perhaps innocently negligent.

It must be stated however, that Professor Vanezis most certainly did not rush the post mortems. The evidence is that they took slightly longer than 24 hours and subject to radiography and photography although the witness statement was not made until over a month after the post mortems. One must ask whether it be conceivable that Professor Vanezis would fail to note in his witness statement vital evidence that would easily link the assailant to the victims by the lacerations caused by finger nail marks!

Professor Vanezis had a further opportunity at disclosing the finger nail lacerations on the right arm of Ralph Neville Bamber in his witness statement dated 7 May 1986. Nevertheless, Professor Vanezis simply states:

“ With regard to the bruising on the ulna aspect of the right forearm in my view such injuries could have been caused by multiple blows by a linear object with a rounded end either by hitting the forearm with the side of the linear object, 3 or possibly 4 times and 4 times with the rounded end of the object. It should be noted there are no such injuries to the left forearm.”

The above is important because it delineates with clarity that Professor Vanezis has indeed considered carefully both arms from Ralph Neville Bamber and has commented on such with the obvious failure to state the lacerations on the right arm which would have been vital to ascertain whether either Sheila Caffell or the Applicant Jeremy Bamber had participated in the attack by an examination of their finger nails.

On the 26 November 1985 Professor Vanezis made a further statement exhibiting what elements from the post mortems were handed to D.I. Cook and it is not included are any finger nail scrapings from Sheila Caffell notwithstanding the fact that on the arm of both June Bamber and Ralph Neville Bamber there were finger nail laceration marks.

The subject matter of disclosure and specifically the photographic albums was the subject of intense correspondence between the Applicant’s then solicitors and the Director of Public Prosecutions. It must be noted the prosecution of this Applicant was initiated and handled by the then Director in pro per.

Amongst the 35 boxes examined the following letters of correspondence are noteworthy when considering the level of photographic disclosure in this case and more specifically the absence of the post mortem photograph showing the right arm of Ralph Neville Bamber:

1 Letter dated 18 April 1986 from S J Sullivan the Principal Legal Officer of the DPP to the solicitors acting for the Applicant, Messrs. Kingley Napley. The said letter confirms that “the only set of photographs is held by the police….the only way to cope with the request for photographs, which have not already been given to you, is for you to view all the photographs..” This confirms that only the police had a complete set of photographs and as early on as April the police were selective regarding disclosure whilst it is conceded the DPP did allow the defence solicitors an opportunity to view all the photographs (subject to accepting that all would mean all) but this was not accepted by Kingley Napley. It is also interesting to note what is exactly termed as “non material” photographs
2 Letter dated 23 June 1986 from the DPP to Kingsley Napley. The defence solicitors were quite properly concerned with post mortem photographs not exhibited as part of the committal bundle. Again the DPP allowed the Defence an opportunity at viewing such at Witham Police Station. What is important and vital to remember is that it was an obligation in 1986 for the defence to have all the post mortem photographs and the request by the defence accentuated the failure of the Prosecuting Authorities to comply, at that time and to date, with the common law rules regarding disclosure. Defence Solicitors should never have been placed in a position where “if they wanted they could attend a police station to view all the photographs and decide which was required” but they should all have been made available. This is far different from the subject matter of how many copies the defence were entitled to be supplied. It was the issue of cost and quantity which clouded the issue of disclosure and has to date.
3 Letter dated 8 July 1986 from Kingsley Napley to the DPP. As late as July 1986 there was still the question of what Kingley Napley termed the “master bundle of photographs” and the “post mortem photographs” which had not been carried out. The defence were entitled to all the post mortem photographs but ultimately had to accede to those supplied by the police. This failure and denial of disclosure has remained consistent prejudicing this applicant and his inherent right to a fair trial.
4 Letter dated 9 July 1986 from the Essex Police Detective Superintendent M Ainsley to the DPP confirming delivery of 5 sets of photographic albums to be served upon the defence. To be noted are para. 8 and 9 refers to the “master bundle” of photographs which were “likely to be used for trial” and more disturbing than ever para 9 “the edited post mortem photographs.” This gives rises for concern and may well explain the potential “editing” by not including the post mortem photograph showing the right arm of Ralph Neville Bamber.
5 Letter dated 8 May 1986 from the DPP, Principal Legal Officer S J Sullivan, to the Chief Constable of Essex. What gives causes for grave concern is the use of the phrase in the ultimate line: “ Similarly, its existence may also be kept secret.” The trend of keeping evidence “secret” has remained a consistent factor in this Prosecution.

It is submitted for the reasons herein above and the attached documents, exhibits the Commission are requested to refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal in conjunction with other submissions on the basis the conviction of Jeremy Bamber and the Appellate Proceedings have been vitiated by a failure to disclose evidence, which is treated as fresh evidence, satisfies the test laid down by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995.




DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
(1)   Post Mortem report and witness statement from Professor Vanezis dated 30 September 1985.
(2) Post Mortem Photograph of Right Arm of Ralph Neville Bamber found as photo 56 in the photographic album marked “Original Case Photograph.
(3) Post Mortem Photograph of Right Arm of June Bamber found in Jury Bundle marked as photo 16.
(4) Letter dated 18 April 1986 from S J Sullivan the Principal Legal Officer of the DPP to the solicitors acting for the Applicant, Messrs. Kingley Napley. 
(5) Letter dated 23 June 1986 from the DPP to Kingsley Napley.
(6) Letter dated 8 July 1986 from Kingsley Napley to the DPP.
(7) Letter dated 9 July 1986 from the Essex Police Detective Superintendent  M. Ainsley to the DPP
( 8 ) Letter dated 8 May 1986 from the DPP, Principal Legal Officer S J Sullivan, to the Chief Constable of Essex.
(9) Witness statement of Professor Vanezis dated 26 November 1985 confirming exhibits taken from post mortem

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PAUL MARTIN & CO AND SIR MAURICE DRAKE

By virtue of a letter dated 5 May 2004 from the Commission to Paul Martin & Co Solicitors the Commission acknowledged receipt of correspondence between the Trial Judge Sir Maurice Drake and the solicitors for this Applicant. The issues raised relate to the interpretation of “conversation” and “person” contained in the Radio Log.
Correspondence between Paul Martin & Co and the Trial Judge, Commission, and the Essex Police Force Solicitors are herein contained.
It is important for the Commission to note that the Radio Log was deemed to be “exhibit 29” at trial and it was submitted by the Essex Police Force Solicitors it was available at trial and as such was not used by the defence for strategic or other purposes.
The Trial Judge had no recollection of such document as neither did Mr Edmund Lawson QC or HH Judge Rivlin QC. The Essex Police by letter dated 22 April 2004 in an unprecedented manner wrote to the Commission-prior to the Commission had either sought the assistance of the Prosecuting Authorities or requested external assistance- in an attempt to persuade the Commission the issue regarding the Radio Log was without merit.
Paul Martin & Co sought the assistance of the Chelmsford Crown Court and requested the court file on this Applicant be retrieved. It had been submitted by the Essex Police that the Radio Log Exhibit 29 consisted of a number of pages but that the first page (in their possession) was not an original as the said original was lost but that the other pages were originals.
It was established by the Court Services in letter dated 6 May 2004 that Exhibit 29 was in fact a single piece of paper double sided so that the Radio Log carrying the entry of 05.25am pertinent to the first submission for referral was on the reverse side. It is inconceivable the Essex Police would have an original to one side of a single piece of paper whilst conceding to have lost the other side! Further, in accordance with Essex Police letter dated 3 March 2004 and exhibited in the March submissions, exhibit 29 consisted of 21 pages whereas the reality is that exhibit 29 in accordance to the Court Files is only a single sheet of paper.
We take the view and submit that when the exhibits were copied, by genuine human error and without any malfeasance or ill intent only one side of the exhibit was copied and since the Radio Log was on the second side of the single sheet of paper was thus missed and did not form part of the material available to the Defence or Trial Judge which would explain why Sir Maurice Drake, Mr G. Rivlin QC or Edmund Lawson QC have no recollection of the said Radio Log.
Sir Maurice Drake kindly and helpfully speculates as to the identity of the “person” whom the Firearm Team was in “conversation” with at 05.25am. Speculation cannot form the basis of sustaining a conviction for murder when the defence has been deprived of exculpatory material not only in the availability of the Radio Log but also now the post mortem photographs.
For the sake of completeness we have attached correspondence between parties for the assistance of the Commission.

CONCLUSION
The test for a referral, it is submitted, is not whether there would be any likelihood of success by virtue of a referral per se. It is whether the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 s.9-12 can be properly applied. We have detailed the basis at the beginning of these submissions. We reiterate our views within the main submissions dated 8 March 2004 and 17 March 2004. We take the view this is a matter which by virtue of the documentation within the submissions fulfils the criteria of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 for an urgent referral back to the Court of Appeal.
Studio Legale Internazionale,
Via Tommaso Salvini 15,
00197 Roma,
Italy
TEL +44 7766 732099
FAX +39 06 80692652

06 JUNE 2004

I have more to come later

[Jan]

And lookout was admonished several times when she mentioned this. At least we know there was a source , dodgy or not 

[maggie]

And lookout was admonished several times when she mentioned this. At least we know there was a source , dodgy or not 

I had heard about June having a mark or marks on her arm before, the source may be dodgy but it still may be a fact.

[Jan]

I had heard about June having a mark or marks on her arm before, the source may be dodgy but it still may be a fact.

And how many men use their nails in a fight?

[guest154]

The autopsy reports are quite clear on who had what injuries.

Di Stefano is dodgy. 

If he is the source, good luck - says alot about how much people care about the truth to be honest.

[David1819]

The autopsy reports are quite clear on who had what injuries.

Di Stefano is dodgy. 

If he is the source, good luck - says alot about how much people care about the truth to be honest.

He does, the attachments

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
(1)   Post Mortem report and witness statement from Professor Vanezis dated 30 September 1985.
(2) Post Mortem Photograph of Right Arm of Ralph Neville Bamber found as photo 56 in the photographic album marked “Original Case Photograph.
(3) Post Mortem Photograph of Right Arm of June Bamber found in Jury Bundle marked as photo 16.
(4) Letter dated 18 April 1986 from S J Sullivan the Principal Legal Officer of the DPP to the solicitors acting for the Applicant, Messrs. Kingley Napley. 
(5) Letter dated 23 June 1986 from the DPP to Kingsley Napley.
(6) Letter dated 8 July 1986 from Kingsley Napley to the DPP.
(7) Letter dated 9 July 1986 from the Essex Police Detective Superintendent  M. Ainsley to the DPP
( 8 ) Letter dated 8 May 1986 from the DPP, Principal Legal Officer S J Sullivan, to the Chief Constable of Essex.
(9) Witness statement of Professor Vanezis dated 26 November 1985 confirming exhibits taken from post mortem

I don't have any of these  Just the submission letter

[scipio_usmc]

I had heard about June having a mark or marks on her arm before, the source may be dodgy but it still may be a fact.

The submission is crystal clear that it is his opinion alone that they are nail marks.  He found no experts to opine such after looking at the photos thus said it was his layman opinion and submitted the photos hoping the CCRC members would decide they were fingernail marks.  He also decided on his own that they could not have been made by Sheila's nails because they were too long but Jeremy's too short and thus there was some third party likely involved.




 

[guest154]

He does, the attachments

I don't have any of these  Just the submission letter

None of that backs up his claims though  - not sure why he included them. To add supposed weight to his letter and make it look more than it was, I guess.

[scipio_usmc]

He does, the attachments

I don't have any of these  Just the submission letter

Some of them are in the archive.

None of the attachments though provide support for his claims.  It is his claim alone that the mark in the photos he is referring to are fingernail marks.   That is where he needs support but he provides none.  He just claims it is blatantly obvious even to a layman they are nail marks thus effectively claiming he doesn't need any expert support.  All that really demonstrates though is that he had no expert support for the heart of his position. 

[Jan]

Have we seen any photos of junes arm?

[lookout]

 No we haven't Jan,but you can bet your life they'll exist.

[lookout]

And lookout was admonished several times when she mentioned this. At least we know there was a source , dodgy or not 

I could have written that letter myself for the information that's there. I don't think it's dodgy at all.Only those who oppose it are bound to say such.

It's a source that MOST will CHOOSE to IGNORE.!!

[lookout]

I had heard about June having a mark or marks on her arm before, the source may be dodgy but it still may be a fact.

I can bet there WERE marks on June's arm,simply because M had marked my friends arm in a similar way when she tried to push her mother downstairs. It sounds almost like a carbon copy of behaviour of Sheila and those with paranoia.

[Caroline]

I could have written that letter myself for the information that's there. I don't think it's dodgy at all.Only those who oppose it are bound to say such.

It's a source that MOST will CHOOSE to IGNORE.!!

So you only support info when it's written in defence of Jeremy? The man is  proven fraud and a liar, had this been written from a guilty perspective, you be screaming what a fraud and a liar he is. 

[David1819]

So you only support info when it's written in defence of Jeremy? The man is  proven fraud and a liar, had this been written from a guilty perspective, you be screaming what a fraud and a liar he is. 

Why did Jeremy even hire Dodgy Distefano?  Not good for Jeremy's PR