Wednesday, 13 April 2011

"I am keen to see those who fabricated evidence arrested and charged"

“I would like to say thank you to Title Role Productions who produced the documentary on my case which was aired over Sunday and Monday evenings. This is the first time that a strong and true account of my case has been broadcast in a documentary. I’ve not seen the programme but I have heard that it was very good and I’m really pleased that the truth can now be seen by so many people. Many thanks to Andrew and Sarah for their work with the production team. I have had a number of new people writing to me as a result of “Crimes that Shook Britain” which I understand is up for a regional award.

I am told that in the content of the programme DI Miller says that Sheila was found with the gun lying on her body, but we have his pocket book which states the gun was found alongside her - another Essex Police anomaly.

There has been some discussion over which negatives the CCRC are to release to my Defence team and this process has held up the forensic work unfortunately. We have though applied for an extension which we hope will be looked on favourably.

The point I would like to make about the CCRC’s provisional judgement is that they do not state that there are scratch marks on 7th August the crime scene photographs. They merely rely on the testimony of a different expert in a different field from photometry who states that Peter Sutherst’s methodology was inaccurate. If they were able to prove the scratches were on the mantle on the 7th August their own expert would have stated so in his testimony and he didn’t so draw your own conclusions.

I believe the CCRC know, as well as Essex Police, that the scratch marks are not in the original crime scene photographs. But the CCRC have to test out specialist forensic evidence and this is an important part of their work. Imagine if we had gone to an appeal court and lost on this point?

Witnesses have continued to come forward and many of these are still being looked at, unfortunately many accounts can only be considered as hearsay evidence and these can’t be used in court but there are others where we have obtained both documentation and first hand testimony.

I also received a mention in Inside Time magazine which is distributed throughout UK prisons. My admin team has set up a testimonials site which I have found very heart warming. I do hope that in the coming weeks we will see a speedy conclusion to my case as I am keen to see those who fabricated evidence arrested and charged as soon as possible so they can start their jail terms.”


Jeremy Bamber

Jeremy Bamber
Innocent Jeremy Bamber