Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on September 05, 2011, 11:02:PM
-
I've just seen this on an FB site:
Please write to Catherine Dilks, Customer Services Manager. I will post below the reasons for our complaint so include these points in your own letter. As many people as possible could make a difference.
A/PS Woodcock was the officer who broke down the door to WHF on 7th August 1985. He was one of the first team of officers to actually enter the property. It is imperative that the Defence have access to this witness statement. Why has the CCRC not used its powers under Section 17 of the 1995 Criminal Appeals Act to obtain the original HANDWRITTEN document.
The Police have refused to disclose this document under Freedom of Information and Data Protection by applying a number of exceptions. It is therefore the job of the CCRC and Mr French to obtain documents. The work of the CCRC is under public scrutiny and therefore should perform their duties to the best of their abilities without failure.
A/PS Woodcock's Handwritten witness statement. It is not known if A/PS 426 Peter Woodcock knew that his original 13 page statement made on the 20th September 1985, was edited down to 10 pages. Or that a new page 5 was inserted that was typed up by an individual not part of the Police typing pool. it can also be seen that the original page numbers from 9-13 have been altered and renumbered 6-10
What genuine reason would A/PS Woodcock have for his original witness statement to be covertly edited, or for his cooperation in concealing information from the defence and the C.P.S.? It is much more likely that his witness statement was tampered with by a third party without his consent. Therefore where we have requested to see original handwritten statements, this is the reason.
about an hour ago
Mr Peter French, Jeremy Bamber's case worker at the CCRC, had been asked to investigate how and why A/PS Woodcock's witness testimony had been interfered with. The Commission was given a forensic report to confirm all of the above. The Commission chose to ignore this complaint, and took no action of any sort to discover what was written in A/PS Woodcock's original statement that required it to be ;unofficially and unlawfully edited.
A/PS Woodcock's original handwritten statement dated 20th September 1985 is requested so that it can be compared with the disclosed version. Only then will it be known why 3 pages of his original witness testimony were removed from his disclosed statement.
-
Wouldn't the original statement have been written prior to 20/9/85?
-
Good find. What FB site, if you don´t mind?
-
Think he means facebook abs
-
Think he means facebook abs
I know, but there are many pages on Facebook.
-
try jeremy bamber is innocent, 2 pages should show, look at both abs :)
-
I've just seen this on an FB site:
Please write to Catherine Dilks, Customer Services Manager. I will post below the reasons for our complaint so include these points in your own letter. As many people as possible could make a difference.
A/PS Woodcock was the officer who broke down the door to WHF on 7th August 1985. He was one of the first team of officers to actually enter the property. It is imperative that the Defence have access to this witness statement. Why has the CCRC not used its powers under Section 17 of the 1995 Criminal Appeals Act to obtain the original HANDWRITTEN document.
The Police have refused to disclose this document under Freedom of Information and Data Protection by applying a number of exceptions. It is therefore the job of the CCRC and Mr French to obtain documents. The work of the CCRC is under public scrutiny and therefore should perform their duties to the best of their abilities without failure.
A/PS Woodcock's Handwritten witness statement. It is not known if A/PS 426 Peter Woodcock knew that his original 13 page statement made on the 20th September 1985, was edited down to 10 pages. Or that a new page 5 was inserted that was typed up by an individual not part of the Police typing pool. it can also be seen that the original page numbers from 9-13 have been altered and renumbered 6-10
What genuine reason would A/PS Woodcock have for his original witness statement to be covertly edited, or for his cooperation in concealing information from the defence and the C.P.S.? It is much more likely that his witness statement was tampered with by a third party without his consent. Therefore where we have requested to see original handwritten statements, this is the reason.
about an hour ago
Mr Peter French, Jeremy Bamber's case worker at the CCRC, had been asked to investigate how and why A/PS Woodcock's witness testimony had been interfered with. The Commission was given a forensic report to confirm all of the above. The Commission chose to ignore this complaint, and took no action of any sort to discover what was written in A/PS Woodcock's original statement that required it to be ;unofficially and unlawfully edited.
A/PS Woodcock's original handwritten statement dated 20th September 1985 is requested so that it can be compared with the disclosed version. Only then will it be known why 3 pages of his original witness testimony were removed from his disclosed statement.
The first alteration in this statement occurs at the very point where the police enter the kitchen, where moments before PC Collins reports seeing the body of a female behind the door (I know there is some dispute about which kitchen Collins was referring to, and whether the body he saw could have been the body of Ralph Bamber or not). The latter pages of this edited version of this statement would have dealt with the possible later finding of Sheila's body on the bed, and how it came to end up on the bedroom floor (in my opinion), also it would refer to his duties at the scene, after all the other firearms officers (with the exception of PI Montgomery) had left at around 9am...
The original version of his statement would help to explain how the rifle was moved from the body by three different police officers (DI Cook, PI Montgomery and PS Woodcock) at different stages of the operation. It is important to remind everyone that when PS Adams (Commander of firearms operation at the scene between 5am - 8:15am) was interviewed by COLP in 1991, he told them that when he viewed Sheila Caffells body on the bedroom floor at about 9am, he had no recollection of the rifle being present upon her body, and that Sheila's head was not in the same position it was later shown in when he and the other officers were shown a video containing crime scene pictures at a de-briefing held at Witham police station later that (7th August 1985) evening. Adams also told COLP that the bible which was photographed by PC Bird to be resting partially upon the front upper and outer right arm, and conveniently covering a pool of blood on the bedroom carpet, was further away from Sheila's body when he saw it, he described it to COLP as originally being some 15 inches away from the body in the region of the victims waist. PS Adams and the other firearms officers left the scene at just after or around about 9am that morning, which everyone should bear in mind for the following reasons...
(1) Either PS Adams is/was lying to COLP about the position of Sheila's body on the floor at about 9am, or not, since if true it was not until 9:20am that DI Cook (soc) and PC David Bird (soc) arrived at the scene, to enable PC Bird to start photographing the scene, from about 10 O'clock, onwards, and in these circumstances, PC Bird could not have been the person who photographed Sheila's body on the bed (minus any blood flowing from the corners of her mouth, etc), because PS Adams places Sheila's body on the bedroom floor before he left the scene at about 9am (some 20 minutes before the arrival of Cook and Bird at the scene at 9:20am). Therefore, someone other than PC Bird (soc) must have taken the photograph of Sheila's body on the bed, before it was moved to the bedroom floor in time for PC Bird to photograph it there, after 10 O'clock that morning.
(2) Body of Sheila was moved from bed to floor, before PS Adams viewed it on the bedroom floor when he visited the bedroom at about 9am.
(3) Two other Scenes of Crime Officers were already present at the scene, by the time PS Adams entered the house/bedroom at 9am - namely, DS Davidson (soc) and DC Hammersley (soc), must have took a series of original pictures (that were placed into the SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM) which so far have not been officially disclosed, including the one of Sheila's body on the bed.
(4) Body must have been moved from bed to floor, before the arrival of the police surgeon, Dr Craig, and PI 'Bob' Miller, in time for the time of Sheila Caffells death to be confirmed at 8:44am - either that or both Dr Craig/PI Miller have made false statements about where body was when Craig verified her death at 8:44am.
(5) Statements made by members of the raid team who entered bedroom, were altered by a third party (CPS) to suggest Sheila's body was found on the bedroom floor, rather than on the bed, so that their testimony matched the disclosed crime scene photographs, taken by PC Bird (soc) which shows her body on the bedroom floor.
PS Woodcock claims he removed the rifle from Sheila's body at about 11:15am, and that he made it safe, yet, DI Cook (soc) testified during the trial saying that it was he who had removed the gun from the body and that he had got PI Montgomery to check and make the rifle safe before Cook stood the rifle against the bedroom window, in accordance with photograph number 23 (COURT ALBUM). PC Bird (soc) took picture 23, and he told the court that he did not see who had removed the rifle from the body at that stage, and placed it against the window in photograph 23? If Cook (soc) removed the rifle from Sheila's body and stood it against the bedroom window in keeping with photo' 23, then how did the gun get back onto the body in time for PS Woodcock to remove it again at about 11:15am?
Coroners officer, PC Wright, made a statement to COLP in 1991, saying that when he saw the body (at about 9:25am) he had no recollection of a gun being present on the body...
According to the police surgeon, Dr Craig, and PI Miller, there was a gun laying alongside the body of Sheila when they viewed the body in time for Dr Craig to verify her death at 8:44am...
Depending upon which version you decide to accept or believe in, the gun was not on the body, was on the body, or moved onto/off the body, or leaning up against the bedroom window, at various crucial stages of the operation? One thing seems obvious, and that is that the gun could not have been in all these different places or positions, and yet been on Sheila's body in time for PC Bird (soc) to photograph it there from 10 O'clock onwards, unless someone was moving the gun about from time to time, away from the body, onto the body, and back off the body again, and then back onto the body and so forth, right up to the point PC Bird started to take his pictures?
PS Woodcock was present at the scene when all this tampering was/had been going on, and this will have been reflected in his original handwritten statement, that the CPS edited. It was obviously edited because its contents undermined a crucial part of the prosecutions case against Jeremy Bamber - It was a necessary part of the case against Jeremy, that it was he who stage managed Sheila's body on the bedroom floor to make it look like she had committed suicide, after killing the others? Any evidence that contradicts this scenario, was edited out or not disclosed at all, or should I say it was withheld under pii, and continues to be withheld under pii...
There must be evidence contained in PS Woodcocks original 13 page handwritten statement, which was/is capable of seriously undermining the prosecutions case that it relied upon at trial to get Jeremy Bamber convicted for these murders - if true, police and CPS/DPP have conspired together to get an innocent man convicted of offences that he could not, and did not commit...
-
Great find Roch. Who posted this on the fb page just out of interest?
-
Found it on one their innocent pages. Problem with getting involved is that it attracts some of other lot...
as can be seen by some posts on here:
http://captainranty.blogspot.com/2011/09/gross-injustice-jeremy-bamber-story.html
And then you start biting your self :P
-
Great find Mike. Who posted this on the fb page just out of interest?
Perhaps Rocky could provide the "facebook link" for us?
-
Great find Mike. Who posted this on the fb page just out of interest?
Perhaps Rocky could provide the "facebook link" for us?
This is it. Look for the post by Kathy Ross which is entitled PRESSURE ON THE CCRC
http://www.facebook.com/groups/263614995639/
-
i see they are still banging on about supporters, time they played a different tune the boring bastards :o
-
Great find Mike. Who posted this on the fb page just out of interest?
Perhaps Rocky could provide the "facebook link" for us?
Yes I noticed that and corrected it. I saw this picture of this great tough guy and thought it was you who posted it. ;D
-
Great find Mike. Who posted this on the fb page just out of interest?
Perhaps Rocky could provide the "facebook link" for us?
This is it. Look for the post by Kathy Ross which is entitled PRESSURE ON THE CCRC
http://www.facebook.com/groups/263614995639/
I can't read it anyway because I left. And unfortunately Kathy Ross has blocked me.
-
Here's the address :- C Dilks, Customer Services Manager, C.C.R.C. 5 St. Philips Place, Birmingham, B3 2PW