Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on July 07, 2017, 01:21:PM
-
How Jeremy's conviction was obtained:
The first rule is always to restrict the number of persons directly involved in the conspiracy to a bare minimum; to divulge information strictly on a ‘need to know’ basis.
There would perhaps have been 6 or fewer police officers who knew for certain that a conspiratorial plot was being enacted to convict Jeremy Bamber.
The core team was DCI Michael Ainsley, DS Stan Jones, DI Miller and DI Ron Cook. They would have manipulated other police officers such as DS Barlow, who fabricated the evidence about the kitchen window at WHF.
The strategy is to formulate a ‘team’ ethos. In the WHF case it was the characterisation of Jeremy Bamber as extremely cunning, devious and manipulative. So, the core team would say to a witness, “Help us or this horrible man might get set free”.
They would play on somewhat mythical fears that the Court system was rigged against the police and the police had a far greater burden of proof than was fair or reasonable. Alternatively, the police would simply lie to the witness. The situation regarding Colin Caffell’s witness statement serves as a good example.
On 9th September 1986 Colin Caffell, Sheila’s ex-husband, wrote a letter of complaint to DCI Ainsley voicing his concerns about an alteration which had been made to his witness statement. “I am writing to you because there are a few things which have been on my mind recently which I would like to bring to your attention. The main point I would like to raise concerns a sentence in either my first or second statement. It is the part where I am talking about my conversation with Jeremy at my party prior to the shooting. It refers to an opinion of Jeremy's where he says that he has always felt that I (referring to me) had always had a rough deal with regards his family etc. When the typed, edited statement was presented to me to read and sign, I noticed that the reference Jeremy had made to me, was changed to him, altering the whole inflection of the sentence. The 'I' which is underlined above was changed to 'he'.
When I commented to Stan Jones on this, he said something like: "Oh, it's only a typing error, don't worry about it. It's correct on the hand written statement isn't it? That's all that matters, so just sign it- If you change it, we'll have to have it all typed out again." This has been niggling me for some time and feel it must be important to have been included in the typed statement. When I asked Stan Jones about it again last week he said, "Leave it, whatever you do don't say anything about it in the witness box, it'll cause all sorts of trouble if you do." Unfortunately I can't accept that and feel I have to say something about it now, before it's too late.”
There does not appear to be a written response from DCI Ainsley to Colin Caffell regarding his concerns, however DS Jones visited him again on 15 September 1986. The only recorded reference to what was discussed is in a note attached to the action which states: “Caffell seen 15/09/86 – Got his facts wrong”. The statement was never corrected to read in the original wording contained in Caffell’s hand written original version of this statement and, of course, the defence only ever saw the typed, inaccurate, version.
For the detectives working on the WHF incident, the primary benefit to them of being involved was financial. This was an investigation that would result in hundreds of hours of overtime payments. To hard-up police officers the ‘murder’ case was a godsend. To rock the boat by questioning whether Jeremy Bamber was guilty would jeopardise the financial rewards of many colleagues.
Very few witnesses would be asked to lie outright. Julie Mugford being the most obvious example of one who was.
A witness such as Ann Eaton could however be ‘advised’ that certain truths would be unhelpful - if the aim was to convict a vicious murderer.
For example, if Ann Eaton barely knew Sheila Caffell, it would not lend her testimony credibility. Thus, Eaton might be persuaded to say that she knew Sheila well, or fairly well, and she could testify with alleged accuracy as to Sheila’s supposed scatty and uncoordinated nature, or that Sheila could not possibly know how to fire a gun.
For the witness, this form of deceit was not regarded as conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, this was just being helpful to the prosecution when the odds were stacked so highly against them (according to the police themselves).
For the professional witnesses the situation was slightly different.
The Home Office appointed forensic scientists were, in effect, part of the prosecution team. They were not expected to demonstrate scientific impartiality. Their role was to use scientific arguments to bolster the prosecution case. They were paid by the government and they were expected to support the police, not undermine them. Thus, they were highly susceptible to police pressure for them to overlook the submission of forensic evidence that did not comply with regulatory requirements, such as hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell that were transported along with firearms and bullets, which could have caused cross-contamination. Ainsley regarded the rejection of the hand swabs with utter disdain and raged against the decision to reject them, causing them to be examined again at the first opportunity.
Thus, for a forensic scientist, being asked to work on two different ‘silencers’ was not problematical - as long as they were never asked directly to perjure themselves. They may have realised that there were two diverse silencers being examined but their role was not to question why – it was simply to report on what they found. The shenanigans surrounding falsifying exhibit labels were not the concern of the forensic scientists, as long as nobody knew.
For independent experts such as Dr Peter Vanezis, other considerations could be used to influence him. Primarily, the great financial rewards for being regarded as a prosecution-friendly pathologist. He has reaped huge financial reward and professional kudos over the years from being a Home Office pathologist, and an OBE with certain celebrity status. All that was required was for Ainsley to point out the testimony that would be good for Vanezis’ career, and again, to play on the need to convict a cunning and devious murderer who had, somehow, been clever enough to slaughter his entire family without so much as receiving a scratch.
The conspiracy was aided greatly by the decision of the DPP to allow Ainsley’s team to edit and amalgamate witness statements. The end result was cherry-picked testimony in statements that were not dated or seen and signed by the witnesses. Very few witnesses were aware that their words had been ‘twisted’ and those such as Colin Caffell who did notice, were fobbed off by the police. The defence protested about the production of undated and unsigned witness statements and Ainsley was forced to promise that he would get them signed, but he never did.
Thus, by the time papers were submitted to the defence prior to Jeremy’s trial, a careful case had been constructed that omitted a vast amount of information. The nature of the evidence was such that Jeremy’s defence conceded before the trial began that he was guilty, but didn’t tell Jeremy this.
Ultimately, it was a conspiracy between a handful of police officers and a few professionals who knew what was going on. The majority of civilian witnesses just thought they were being helpful to the police, although several of Jeremy’s relatives lied on oath so as to ensure that they inherited large sums of money.
-
I would just like to add to this topic that one of the ambulance men at the scene strongly believes Jeremy is innocent and has followed this case from day one
I hope one day (maybe in the next documentary) we will find out why he is so convinced why Jeremy is innocent
-
Wow. As imagined and thought by many but the wording wouldn't have been as legible as this post.
Well done Roch for explaining the " wrong side of the law ".
-
I would just like to add to this topic that one of the ambulance men at the scene strongly believes Jeremy is innocent and has followed this case from day one
I hope one day (maybe in the next documentary) we will find out why he is so convinced why Jeremy is innocent
One of the ambulance men ?
If only I had known.
-
One of the ambulance men ?
If only I had known.
Ah, but the other ones thought he was guilty ;D
-
It's good that everyone agrees the evidence shows Bamber is guilty. Even Bamber & the CT haven't disputed most of the 200+ pieces.
I've been suggesting for a long time the focus should be on an industrial frame. Both pre & post the DPP submission & the 32 years after the trial.
-
Ah, but the other ones thought he was guilty ;D
Funny how the word of an ambulance driver (way back from the scene) becomes important, but the word of a telecom engineer who worked at the Maldon exchange at the time of the murders - is just brushed off. VERY telling.
-
There was also the animated phone-call from DB which he'd inadvertantly rang Colin instead of who he'd supposed to have rang,regarding " bombshell news on the front cover of a newspaper ".
Imagine being " excited " over an horrific murder ? It beggars belief to be jumping for joy at the thought it was " in the bag " as to who the murderer was,without having questioned anyone,but no,they went straight for the kill !
Normal people would have wanted to have known all the whys and wherefores and would have sat back awaiting results------------not gone looking for any object that they could find. Would I have been suspicious of their actions ? Too right !!
-
It's good that everyone agrees the evidence shows Bamber is guilty. Even Bamber & the CT haven't disputed most of the 200+ pieces.
I've been suggesting for a long time the focus should be on an industrial frame. Both pre & post the DPP submission & the 32 years after the trial.
NOT everyone !! Just chill will you ::)
-
Hopefully David can assist Roch with the industrial frame.
He said all the evidence which has convicted Bamber was due to 'forgery & perjury' but did not respond when I asked him how the industrial frame was organised.
-
Funny how the word of an ambulance driver (way back from the scene) becomes important, but the word of a telecom engineer who worked at the Maldon exchange at the time of the murders - is just brushed off. VERY telling.
Hmm ;D ;D ;D
-
Funny how the word of an ambulance driver (way back from the scene) becomes important, but the word of a telecom engineer who worked at the Maldon exchange at the time of the murders - is just brushed off. VERY telling.
Maybe both the former ambulance driver and the telecom engineer have valuable insight.
-
Depending on specifics,an ambulance wouldn't have been called out to pick up 5 dead people,that's up to the coroner who would arrange collection.
If it can be proved that one person had been alive,then yes,an ambulance would have been called.
-
So to be clear do you think because of pressure and the way the case was bungled forensically they thought Jeremy could have been guilty so when they changed track they were determined to get him by any means because if he had got off they would have been made to look even more stupid that's they did?
But you are not saying they had evidence that could have proved his innocence but decided to cover it up ?
Because if it is the latter situation they must have had a very Good reason for doing so?
-
One of the ambulance men ?
If only I had known.
You did , it has been mentioned on here several times you must have forgotten .
-
You did , it has been mentioned on here several times you must have forgotten .
I must have not read that post.
How could I forget one of the ambulance men believing Bamber is innocent ?
-
It breaks my heart how trusting Colin, Sheila, Nicholas and Daniel as individuals were, all of a mindset of gentler times, none of whom could ever envisage what lay in store for them as the 1980s progressed and the social fabric of the nation gently deteriorated alongside mother's health.
-
It was the beginning of the end of those times Steve,forever.
-
I must have not read that post.
How could I forget one of the ambulance men believing Bamber is innocent ?
Because you would have dismissed it anyway.
-
Because you would have dismissed it anyway.
Jan think the term is "selective memory"
-
Jan think the term is "selective memory"
You say things. Then deny saying them. Asking me to find you're own posts because you have not got the capacity to.
-
Because you would have dismissed it anyway.
How can I dismiss one of the ambulance men (apparently) thinking Bamber is innocent ?
-
Jan think the term is "selective memory"
Yes, if the cap fits.
-
RB went to Peter Simpson in September. Ainsley & Kinnely came into the case after this & Taff was taken off heading the case. The submission to the DPP was also in September.
There is no possibility enough false evidence for the DPP could have been created in only a few days.
There is also no reason why the police would rush things & risk a rejection, which may leak out to the media. The police had no deadlines.
-
A way around this impossibility is that the DPP were also corrupt in this case. Letting the case through when there was insufficient evidence.
The police may have told the DPP they wanted to frame Bamber & the DPP agreed Bamber should be framed.
As Roch said, after the DPP approval, EP & the external bodies then had a year to create over 200 pieces of watertight false evidence.
-
You say things. Then deny saying them. Asking me to find you're own posts because you have not got the capacity to.
Hello Adam, think you make a mistake to underrate Susan. She is not short of 'capacity'.
-
Hello Adam, think you make a mistake to underrate Susan. She is not short of 'capacity'.
Yes that is quite rude .
-
Hello Adam, think you make a mistake to underrate Susan. She is not short of 'capacity'.
And I don't have a selective memory.
-
And I don't have a selective memory.
Quite right Adam, I thought that was a bit harsh.
-
The police were taking a big risk in asking the DPP to be corrupt. A rejection & report by the DPP would be a disaster for EP & individual police officers.
As mentioned the police were under no time restrictions. Now that Simpson had got his team of corrupt officers together, they could have spent the next few months creating sufficient false evidence for the DPP without asking them to also be corrupt.
-
Quite right Adam, I thought that was a bit harsh.
This started when Jan accused me of seeing something after I said I had not seen it. Apparently it's been 'mentioned on here several times'. Susan then making an offensive comment.
Hopefully the serious issue of whether the independent body, the DPP were corrupt in this case can be looked into.
-
You say things. Then deny saying them. Asking me to find you're own posts because you have not got the capacity to.
Adam how can you be so cruel to me I thought you wanted to help me. :)
-
Nobody has to " ask " anyone to be corrupt,if the seed is already sown in being that way inclined,then situations where corruption becomes a necessary evil comes naturally. Ordinary members of the public haven't a clue that certain laws can be bent by the very ones who uphold law and order.
Usually the top brass are responsible as they have to be obeyed.
-
Nobody has to " ask " anyone to be corrupt,if the seed is already sown in being that way inclined,then situations where corruption becomes a necessary evil comes naturally. Ordinary members of the public haven't a clue that certain laws can be bent by the very ones who uphold law and order.
Usually the top brass are responsible as they have to be obeyed.
Do you believe the DPP were already corrupt in 1985. Approving Bamber's submission without any evidence was just one of many ?
Bit of a waste of tax payers money having the DPP in the first place then.
-
Adam how can you be so cruel to me I thought you wanted to help me. :)
Adam on a serious note I do apologise if my remark upset or annoyed you it was not my intention. You have indeed always sought posts out for me when I have asked you. Thank you.
-
Do you believe the DPP were already corrupt in 1985. Approving Bamber's submission without any evidence was just one of many ?
Bit of a waste of tax payers money having the DPP in the first place then.
I WASN'T saying that they were already corrupt,but if the tendency is there to be so--------------
-
From the original post "The Home Office appointed forensic scientists were, in effect, part of the prosecution team. They were not expected to demonstrate scientific impartiality. Their role was to use scientific arguments to bolster the prosecution case. They were paid by the government and they were expected to support the police, not undermine them. "
I must admit I did not realise this. Very interesting .
I was trying to read the statement after the trial which said that the forensic reports were not submitted until sept when ainsley took over?
Or did I misunderstand that?
-
Oh God it gets worse if that's the case.
-
Was anyone helping Jeremy ?? From where I'm sitting it didn't seem so.
-
From the original post "The Home Office appointed forensic scientists were, in effect, part of the prosecution team. They were not expected to demonstrate scientific impartiality. Their role was to use scientific arguments to bolster the prosecution case. They were paid by the government and they were expected to support the police, not undermine them. "
I must admit I did not realise this. Very interesting .
I was trying to read the statement after the trial which said that the forensic reports were not submitted until sept when ainsley took over?
Or did I misunderstand that?
Is there a suggestion here that such is a one off, employed solely in the Jeremy Bamber case?
-
Sorry I am new to all this iPad stuff not sure I can post it
-
The annoying thing is he knew what should have been done and was annoyed at the time but just went along with it. Why did not he insist on going to the scene ? And then he could have seen everything he needed to . And also get a ballistics expert involved ? Now that I understand his role more I can understand.
-
Think how many lives have finished due to slipshod investigations and " mistakes ". Mainly by those who were at the height of their jobs. Unforgiveable.
-
I think generally the opinion was it was better to have a few innocent people in jail than guilty people free. Where as today there is perhaps too much leaning the other way as the proof has to be absolute before you can get a conviction.
But I do think that the powers who be are aware of what went on in this period of time and should take that into account . They need to dig deeper .
I suggested once before an amnesty for anyone involved in the case who would come forward with information and just put things right.
Do people always want retribution ? Or sometimes is the truth and freedom just enough?
-
The way the country is,I think retribution is higher on the list than even bothering seeking the truth,or listening to reason. It's easier to lay blame nowadays and with the help of the media a frenzy is soon whipped up to seek revenge rather than stopping and thinking and people are herded in that direction.
-
I've been trying to find this thread for ages... It is about how there doesn't need to be a mass overarching conspiracy, as is often ridiculously overplayed by some who question innocence.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8513.0.html
-
Didn't one officer go from door to door telling everyone that JB had murdered his family ?
I'm just reading through this post of yours now Roch.
-
It makes you want to weep more than anything else. I remember the bit where CC complained about his statement and also that he has in his book that SJ was a bully !
-
Also, prior to when this case came " on their books " certain officers in the force were being held over a barrel because of their previous investigative work, or lack of. I know the force itself had been in a state of disarray at the time. It was a case of pull your socks up or else. JB was the prime patsy !
I bet they thought all their Birthdays had come at once.
-
The Home Office appointed forensic scientists were, in effect, part of the prosecution team. They were not expected to demonstrate scientific impartiality. Their role was to use scientific arguments to bolster the prosecution case. They were paid by the government and they were expected to support the police, not undermine them. Thus, they were highly susceptible to police pressure for them to overlook the submission of forensic evidence that did not comply with regulatory requirements, such as hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell that were transported along with firearms and bullets, which could have caused cross-contamination. Ainsley regarded the rejection of the hand swabs with utter disdain and raged against the decision to reject them, causing them to be examined again at the first opportunity.
Thus, for a forensic scientist, being asked to work on two different ‘silencers’ was not problematical - as long as they were never asked directly to perjure themselves. They may have realised that there were two diverse silencers being examined but their role was not to question why – it was simply to report on what they found. The shenanigans surrounding falsifying exhibit labels were not the concern of the forensic scientists, as long as nobody knew.
For independent experts such as Dr Peter Vanezis, other considerations could be used to influence him. Primarily, the great financial rewards for being regarded as a prosecution-friendly pathologist. He has reaped huge financial reward and professional kudos over the years from being a Home Office pathologist, and an OBE with certain celebrity status. All that was required was for Ainsley to point out the testimony that would be good for Vanezis’ career, and again, to play on the need to convict a cunning and devious murderer who had, somehow, been clever enough to slaughter his entire family without so much as receiving a scratch.
You're not entirely right, or you're speaking too loosely, when you say that forensic scientists are expected to support the police. Even in those days, when they worked for the state, it is a fact that they gave evidence for both prosecution and defence. They emphatically did not work for the prosecution. If they were called by the prosecution, it was because their evidence was thought to be of help to the prosecution case, but that does not mean they biased their evidence towards the prosecution case - a different thing. Same applies to the defence.
I don't doubt, however, that the police could pressure them and did so. I also accept that the 'objective science' idea is a bit naive. Science should speak for itself, not be bent towards one side or the other. I understand that Alec Jeffreys' first use of genetic fingerprinting in a forensic context was to eliminate a suspect who, without that technique, could have been wrongly imprisoned as the Narborough killer. However, it seems obvious that this same technique, any scientific technique, could be used to prove what detectives want it to prove and the only thing standing in the way is the moral integrity and character of the scientist. Didn't Glynis Howard at the FSS at one point express concerns about the Bamber investigation?
I agree with your overall idea that a conspiracy need involve only a few or handful of people - obviously that's true. Let's be specific about what we mean, though. You are actually talking about mass manipulation by a few people of many. This, again, is plausible in principle.
Let's not dismiss mass conspiracy as a thesis, though. Remember what we have learned from the Post Office scandal, in which legions of management and professional people must have been complicit in concealing a major plank of evidence from legal defence teams. We also have the tragedy at Hillsborough. Personally, I think much of the criticism of the police has been misguided or unfair, but it remains the case that police officers lied or behaved discreditably on an organised basis, and statements of police officers were edited in suspicious circumstances. These were organised efforts. It didn't involve many officers necessarily, but it was more than a few.
I should be clear that we don't know for sure that the individuals caught up in wrong-doing in the Post Office and Hillsborough scandals actually set out to implicate innocent or blameless people, but what those scandals do establish is that the idea of an 'Industrial Frame Department' is not far-fetched at all because we can see it has occurred in real-life. I also think of the Milgram experiment (though that may have been fraudulent - a lot of experimental psychology is) and also the Stanford prison experiment.
Turning back to Bamber, whether the number of conspirators was small or many, I'm still left with one question. If there was a malignant conspiracy against Jeremy Bamber, what was the motive for it all? What moved them to go to all this trouble and entail all this risk?
It would have to be a very compelling motive.
An alternative approach is to posit a non-malignant conspiracy - i.e. noble cause corruption. They believed he was guilty, so efforts were made to fit the evidence to the belief. Very common, especially in those days.
-
I'll second what QC has eloquently stated above but just add the obvious, JB and the CT are not just accusing a few officers of "noble cause corruption" but believe in a conspiracy so vast it can only have included almost everybody connected to the case and one that was so inept, some well meaning amateurs are able to piece it all together despite never seeing the box of evidence marked "top secret" that definitely exists!
I am quite happy to accept a conspiracy, even a vast one, but let's have some credible evidence first.