Wednesday 1 August 2018

The withholding of Crime Scene Photographs by Essex Police




Hello everyone,

As you are all aware, the non-disclosure by Essex police of my complete case files and forensic material has hampered our ability to prove all of the manipulations and the facts which led to my wrongful imprisonment. However, the diligent analysis of the material I have had disclosed, has brought us to the point where I know that the justice system will have to concede that my conviction cannot be sustained. This will happen within months as we have several legal approaches that are currently active as well as the imminent submissions to the CCRC within the next few weeks. I am extremely confident and excited that the truth will out and I will soon be home.

In the meantime, following disclosure by Chelmsford Crown Court of a crime scene image that I had no idea existed at trial, I decided to re-conduct a full investigation and analysis surrounding the disclosure of the case photographs. I very soon came to realise that there are even more undisclosed case negatives than I first thought there were.

In fact it can now be shown that there are 272 case images that my defence team or I have never been allowed to see. What do these images show? It is probable that they showed all of the guns in the house including those belonging to Anthony Pargeter, the telephone I supposedly hid in magazines actually being on a shelf in the office and they will no doubt reveal further proof that Sheila was moved by the police and that her hands and feet were not spotlessly clean as they informed the jury they were.

I have also discovered that Essex Police not only deceived me and my defence team on this issue but also deceived the CCRC .

On 09.10.2002, Mr John MacLeod examined 58 rolls of photographic film. He viewed 429 negative images and reached the conclusion that a total of 249 frames of film had been cut from the 58 rolls of film disclosed to him.

On 01.10.08, Mr Peter Suthurst examined 58 rolls of photographic film. He viewed 416 negative images and he reached the conclusion that 262 frames had been cut from the 58 rolls of film that had been disclosed to him.

In 2011, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) disclosed photographic negatives to photography experts who examined 58 rolls of photographic film. They viewed 406 negative images and reached the conclusion that 272 frames had been cut from the 58 rolls of film disclosed to them.

If Essex Police had disclosed all of the case negatives in existence, why do the numbers of missing images differ? They should be the same. However the CCRC failed to investigate this issue at the time as they were satisfied with Essex Police explanation in 2011 that: i

“It was practice that this portion of clear un-exposed film which had no evidential value was cut off and disposed of at the time, whilst the remainder was sleeved in clear acetate for protection.”
However, we recently discovered a document produced by the 2001/2002 Stokenchurch investigation which stated that: ii

“From Mr Gross 31.10.2001: All the negatives in the enquiry have been well preserved and are retained in original uncut strip form.”

Mr Gross is specific, and very clear that on 31.10.2001 the case photographic negatives were retained “in original uncut strip form.

Therefore, who gave permission for these negative strips that were whole and uncut in 2001, to then be cut up and edited before disclosure to the defence in October 2002, October 2008 and 2011? Why would these images have been removed from the strips if Essex Police had nothing to hide?

It seems clear that Essex Police must have copies of the original uncut strips of negative film and must have copied and edited the new versions prior to the three disclosures otherwise the number of disclosed images would have been identical in each instance.

This is just one of the multitudes of issues that will be referred back to the CCRC in the coming weeks.

So to conclude, whilst we are still to this day uncovering even more evidence concerning the corrupt acts of police officers and individuals involved with my case, the facts remain that my case will be referred to the Court of Appeal shortly, of that I have every confidence.

Jeremy

Watch this video by Human Rights Campaigner Peter Tatchell where he talks about the non-disclosure of case photographs of the crime scene at White House Farm by Essex police and its continued effect on Jeremy's case:



i CCRC Provisional statement of Reasons 2011. PDF, Para 315 to 318. 
ii Stokenchurch Action number 85 dated 06.11.2001 reportedii:

Jeremy Bamber

Jeremy Bamber
Innocent Jeremy Bamber