The Bible
The Bible features in this case because it can be seen in the photographs lying next to Sheila Caffell’s body. At the trial in 1986 no evidence was called relating to the Bible other than that it was discovered next to Sheila.
In October 2005 while carefully reviewing the scenes of crime photographs, it was noticed that a note/letter was protruding from between the pages of the Bible. It could also be seen that a piece of crocheted material was between or underneath other of its pages.
Could we conclude anything from this evidence and more importantly should the jury have been shown these things to assess their relevance or importance to the case?
Did Essex Police conceal the existence of this note/letter and cloth?
By referring to the transcript of the evidence given by Paul Terzeon in the Royal Courts of Justice on 28 th October 2002 matters become clearer. Paul Terzeon was the defence solicitor for Jeremy Bamber at the trial in 1986. During the appeal in 2002 he was questioned about the Bible:
Paragraph 141
Mr Terzeon is asked to look at the photograph bundle
Q You see two photographs of the Bible
A Yes
Q Now were those photographs that you ever saw at any stage in the lead up or
during the trial?
A No I never saw them
Q Do you have any recollection of making any enquiry for such photographs?
A Yes I do
Q What was the nature of that request?
A I wanted to know if there was any photographs of the Bible or if they knew
at what page it was open and the belief at the time that the Bible did not exist
it had been destroyed
Mr Terzeon goes on to say that he visited Witham police station to look at the master bundle of photographs but no pictures of the Bible were available for him to view. He states that he asked police sergeant Stan Jones for photographs of the Bible but he was told there were none.
It is odd then to discover in 2002 that photographs did exist of the Bible when finally, after 17 years of asking, Essex Police handed them over to the defence prior to the appeal. Why these same photographs were not made available to Mr Terzeon when he visited Witham police station in 1986 pre trial has yet to be explained.
At the appeal in 2002 no one seemed to notice either the note/letter or the crocheted cloth, or if they were noticed then the issue was not raised in court. Once they were noticed in 2005, detailed research began to determine what had happened to both of these items.
DC1470 Pc Hammersley was the scenes of crime officer responsible for the recovery of the Bible. The Stokenchurch document 59/6 is a contemporaneous crime scene log filled in by Pc Hammersley as he found and logged each item he recovered from White House Farm.
White House Farm 6.00pm 8/8/85
DRH/44 Bible on floor next to Sheila Caffell’s body
There is no mention of either the note/letter or the crocheted cloth being secured with the Bible or being individually tagged and recovered as separate items as should have been done. A very much more detailed log was filled out at the police station once the items from White House Farm were brought in by Pc Hammersley.
This log Stokenchurch document 62/6, the major incident property register, has the Bible listed as item 410 Bible DRH/44 W/House Farm floor next to Sheila Caffell
Found by DC1470 11.20am 9/8/85
Again there is no mention anywhere in the major incident property register of this note/letter or crocheted cloth. How was it that no entry was made in either the crime scene log or major incident property register referring to these items, as would be expected?
With no mention in any of these logs perhaps Pc Hammersley makes mention of finding them in his witness statements or his pocket book? After careful reading of all of his statements and his pocket book entries, no mention can be found of these items being discovered and recovered by him.
Essex police should have carried out forensic analysis on the Bible, the note/letter and the crocheted cloth. However the Stokenchurch document 64/349 DI Cook's fingerprint tests on items found at White House Farm, makes no mention of the Bible ever being fingerprinted. There is again no mention made of these other items being fingerprinted.
This in itself seems unusual because the Crown's case against Jeremy Bamber is that he staged the crime scene and placed the Bible next to Sheila Caffell. If this were true then surely they would have fingerprinted the Bible to establish this as fact?
This becomes an even more compelling point when it was revealed during the 2002 appeal that there were a number of bloody fingerprints on certain pages of the Bible. Clearly these were not from Jeremy Bamber so who did they belong to and why have the police never produced this evidence? In the light of the bloodied fingerprints being on certain Bible pages can we assume there were similar prints on the note/letter?
From the official records kept by Essex police we are expected to believe that no fingerprint examination was made of the Bible or the note/letter found between its pages, yet in the light of what we know this does not appear to be credible. Perhaps DRH/44 the Bible was sent for forensic analysis to Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory to assess if it had firearms residue on it or to see whose blood had made the bloody finger marks on its pages?
The Crown's case was that Jeremy Bamber had committed the killings and then staged the scene to make it appear that Sheila had done it and then committed suicide. If this were true then testing the Bible for firearms residue would be very telling. If he had placed the Bible next to her body after she was killed, then no firearms residue would be on it but if Sheila had it next to her prior to her suicide, then it would have firearms residue on it and that would be compelling evidence as to Jeremy Bamber’s innocence. So why were these tests not carried out?
Looking at all of the booking in logs at the Home Office Forensic Laboratory at Huntingdon there is no mention of the Bible DRH/44 ever having been submitted for forensic investigation. All the items for submission forms have also been carefully looked at to see if Essex police submitted the Bible to Huntingdon or any other forensic laboratory, but it was never submitted, which seems peculiar.
Could this note/letter be nothing more than a red herring and of no relevance to this case?
It can be seen by looking at the part protruding from the Bible pages that the words love one another are readable. These words come from the passage in John chapter 13 dealing with Jesus and the last supper. Because very little of this note/letter can be seen we can only speculate about its contents, but John chapter 13 has these quotes which might have some relevance:
[2] and supper being ended the devil having now put into the heart of Judas
Iscariot
[9[ Simon Peter saith unto him Lord not my feet only but also my hands and my
head (Jesus is washing his disciple's feet)
[36] Simon Peter saith unto him Lord, wither goest thou? Jesus answered him
wither I go thou canst not follow me [37] now but thou shalt follow me
afterwards. Peter said unto him Lord why cannot I follow thee now I will
lay down my life for thy sake
It would appear that this series of passages may have been of interest to the jury in 1986, especially so in the light of Dr Ferguson (Sheila’s psychiatrist) stating in evidence that Sheila’s mental illness was often influenced by conflicts of good and evil and the devil being in people as well as obsessing about God and religion.
It could have been assumed that Essex police would have asked Dr Ferguson prior to the trial about the significance of this note/letter or the relevance of the Bible pages at which it was open. In a statement dated 6 th August 2002 Dr Ferguson states that he was unaware of the pages the Bible was open at nor does he make mention in any statement of Essex police showing him the note/letter, so the jury had no information from any source to guide them about the importance of the Bible and they were kept unaware of the existence of a possible suicide note/letter.
Why was this crocheted cloth there at all? Was it some sort of prayer cap or mantilla? Was it used to wipe hands or simply to act as a bookmark? Not only do we not know anything about the note/letter or this cloth but we don’t know which pages of the Bible they were between and if those passages on those pages would have had any relevance.
We cannot even be sure that the photograph of the Bible resting against Sheila’s arm is an accurate representation of the scene as discovered by the police. In an interview with PS Adams with the City of London police in 1991 it states:
Photo of ‘Sheila’ not in same position as when I saw it (8.10am)
Head (1) Too close to bedside table
- Not sure about angle of head but something not right
- No recollection of gun
- Bible shown next to body was level with her waist 12 – 18” away
Pc Collins and I had a conversation about the position of the Bible his opinion could have been there sitting up reading put it down away from body
This would appear to suggest that someone moved the Bible after Ps Adams and Pc Collins saw it at 8.10am because when photographed after 10am, it was propping up her arm at almost shoulder height. Furthermore by looking at all of the photographs of the Bible, it appears to be open at completely different pages in different photographs which would be very irregular as it would indicate someone restaging the scene between photographs.
The very fact that Essex police have kept this note/letter and crocheted cloth out of the evidence is very suspicious. If they were of no relevance to the case then why not disclose them? Why was Paul Terzeon told by Essex police that the Bible had been destroyed? And why was it never fingerprinted or forensically examined? Why have Essex police not explained why they moved the Bible from where it was originally found by Ps Adams and Pc Collins, to be used as a means of propping up Sheila’s arm? Why did they need to prop up her arm anyway?
All of this information should have been made available to the jury to assess whether it had any relevance to the case. It was not for Essex police to decide that the note/letter and crochet cloth should remain undisclosed. They should have had the Bible tested for forensic evidence and fingerprints and not told Paul Terzeon that the Bible had been destroyed so that the defence were unable to commission those tests on it themselves.
How could Jeremy Bamber have had a fair trial when such evidence along with countless other things was kept from the jury?