“This is an exciting time for me right now. At long last all the case documents are catalogued and indexed into a manageable system. This matters more than could be imagined because the truth has been buried under millions of pages of misinformation, misdirection, red herrings and irrelevant information. It is only now that we can pare the case down and discover the actual facts.
As I am waiting to hear about our judicial review against the CCRC’s decision to dismiss all of our forensic experts testimony as ‘pure speculation,’ I’m using this time to go back over every issue and every document I’ve written and insert further supporting documents. These will be put into the public domain as they are completed and Essex Police should at long last admit that my conviction is unsustainable because in fact there never was any actual evidence against me, the police just manipulated the case papers to make it appear that there was.
For instance: I told the police that one of the topics of conversation on the evening of the 6th of August 1985 was what could be done in the best interests of Sheila. DI Ainsley quoted me as saying “there was mention of foster parents along with other solutions.” He goes on to say “Jeremy is the only source of such a suggestion. . . he has been active in spreading this misinformation. . . . every person is agreed that this in an outrageous suggestion and would never have been suggested or entertained.” [by Sheila or the Bamber family]
When DI Ainsley wrote this important report he knew this was not true. Foster care had previously been arranged and statements had been obtained by Essex police but the jury was never to know about these. There were two separate foster families who had both given statements about their foster care of Daniel and Nicholas when Sheila had been unable to cope previously. These arrangements had been made with the aid of three different social workers who all made statements but none of these were disclosed to my Defence team at trial. During the 2002 appeal preparations a statement was disclosed to the Defence from a social worker named Lloyd who could not be traced. It is now clear that the social worker’s name was Floyd, the disclosed material made her last name unreadable, other copies now show her actual name.
DI Ainsley had full knowledge from these statements that foster care arrangements had been used over a number of years to assist Sheila in looking after the twins. So it is hardly surprising that such arrangements would have been suggested by my parents to help Sheila during a difficult time after her discharge from hospital.
Pamela Boutflour says in her 12th August 1985 statement that “June told me that she was very worried about Sheila.” And that “Sheila had no interest in anything including the twins. . . She would like me to see her and form an opinion about her health. . . I gathered Sheila was acting oddly.” Pamela was relating to the police the conversation she’d had with her sister June at 10pm on the 6th of August 1985. I had already gone home so could not have influenced my Mum’s call to Pamela. I could not have known what had been discussed during this call.
Barbara Wilson in her 12th September 1985 statement says that she phoned Nevill at 09:30pm when “he was not his usual cheerful self, giving short yes/no answers. I thought something must have been wrong and felt under the impression I had interrupted something possibly an argument by the way he sounded.” Again, I knew nothing of this call and could not have influenced my Dad’s behaviour towards the secretary or known about this phone call’s contents as I had already gone home. So, two independent witnesses had formed the opinion that all was not as it should have been.
The statements of social workers and foster carers would have exposed the false testimony told by Ann and Peter Eaton, Robert Boutflour and David Boutflour who had all said that fostering would not have been a possibility considered for Sheila. The family had had very little contact with Sheila in 6 years. Without having these statements my Defence team could not cross examine these people about the foster care issue. If they had done, the relatives as key prosecution witnesses and benefactors of the estate upon my conviction would have been discredited. Similarly if they had been questioned about the financial situation regarding the estate and the land which my father had purchased from Peter Eaton to help them when they were in financial difficulty, their motive not to tell the truth would have been clear.
I am told that if the High Court agrees to judicially review the CCRC’s decision on my case we should know soon but a hearing might not happen for over six months or more.”
Thanks for your support and letters, please keep in touch.