Latest 18 August 2010
Jeremy has sent out a letter for this latest section of this website which has been scanned and can be viewed by clicking the following link. VIEW LETTER
A Message from Jeremy
Update 11 July 2010
Over the past 3 months we have been working hard to uncover further material to support Mr Peter Sutherst's discovery that the underside of the mantle shelf was scratched with a sound moderator after the crime scene photographs were taken. (see article/video from Guardian/Observer 21.2.10) for more information.
During our research we discovered that during the 1986 trial it appeared that Mr Elliott, a Forensic Scientist acting for the prosecution discovered what seems to be scratch marks on photographs taken later (12th September 1985) that do not appear on the crime scene photographs taken on the 7th August 1985.
It seems quite incredible that in 1991 the Police Complaints Authority dismissed my complain about this on the grounds that “as Jeremy Bamber hadn’t seen these photographs his complain was not valid” (para 1.9 of the PCA’s final report)
Either both Mr Elliott and DI Ron Cook are right about scratch marks being visible in one photograph and not in another or they are wrong. The PCA and the City of London police had a duty to obtain a photometry experts opinion on this in 1991 in order to verify exactly what the true position was. Instead the PCA said my complaint was invalid because I had not seen both photographs. I have now and it is very clear indeed – the underside and the bevelled edge of the mantle shelf is unscratched on the 7th August 1985 but scratched and chipped when photographed on the 12th September 1985. This means that the Home Secretary was misled in 1991.
An official complaint has been sent to the Justice Secretary Mr Ken Clarke stating that the Home Secretary was lied to in 1991. I have also set out a Complaint of Malfeasance in Public Office by the PCA and the City of London police to Mr Clarke. This Complaint of Malfeasance in Public Office has also been made to Mr Keir Starmer QC, the DPP.
Their response to these complaints is now awaited.
A second key issue that emerged from this research is that the exhibit labels for the sound moderator that was produced in court were faked.
The consequences of this to the Crown’s case are utterly devastating. Now that it has been shown that the exhibit labels are a complete fabrication the DPP and the Crown Prosecution Service have a statutory duty to concede that they can no longer sustain my conviction. The trial jury were misled.
A complaint has been formerly lodged with DCS Simon Coxall, Head of Crime, Essex Police about this issue. I allege that the City of London police were lied to or misled about this issue. It is wondered why the City of London police did not pursue this issue during the 1991 police enquiry. I have made a complaint to Ms Glass of the Police Complaints Commission about the 1991 enquiry and await the response.
A specific complaint about this matter of the exhibit labels has been made to the CPS and the DPP asking how they can rely upon the sound moderator evidence when it has been proven that the exhibit labels are a fabrication. Their response is eagerly awaited.