Are some CCRC staff determined not to learn anything? Do these staff have a ‘death wish’ for the CCRC?

When Chris Henley QC completed his report into the failings of the CCRC with respect to the case of Andrew Malkinson, the CCRC responded to suggest that Mr Henley was only examining their disgraceful performance in respect of one case, that of Andrew Malkinson. The CCRC, thus, implied that everything was hunky dory with regard to everything else being handled by the organisation. However, the continuing saga of the submissions submitted on behalf of Jeremy Bamber in March 2021 suggests that the Malkinson case was not an isolated incident. It also demonstrates that certain CCRC staff seem determined to learn nothing from what Chris Henley said and in fact seem determined to do the opposite in respect of Jeremy Bamber.

As reported here previously, CCRC Watch requested a meeting with Mr Mike Proctor who is Senior Case Review Manager overseeing Jeremy Bamber’s submission. This was to discuss evidence of circa 70 wounds not divulged at Bamber’s trial by the pathologist: gouges, scratches and cuts, inflicted upon the three adult victims at White House Farm (WHF), strongly indicative of frantic attempts to disarm Sheila Caffell.

One of the wounds, to Sheila Caffell’s right index finger exactly matches the rifle cocking mechanism and in the words of one forensic expert consulted proves that she fired the rifle on the night in question.

The wounds in question, dismissed as mere smears of blood at the trial, were still clearly visible in post-mortem pictures after all the blood had been washed away – so they were not just smears of blood as the pathologist assured the court incorrectly.

The point being that, as a juror, having been assured that all the blood trails were nothing more than smears of blood from two neck wounds, it would be natural to dismiss any thoughts that separate wounds were the cause of the blood trails and, that perhaps the three adults had been fighting for possession of the gun.

The judge addressed this directly:

Q) From Mr Justice Drake to the witness: No evidence of any other injury, what about the possibility that she had been involved in some fighting or scuffling to leave any sort of marks, other than what one might term “an injury”?

A) There was certainly no evidence of any other marks that could have been produced in a scuffle

That these 70 wounds exist is beyond dispute and they were clearly visible in pictures shown repeatedly during a recent Channel 4 documentary aired on 26/27 August 2025.

Mr Proctor refused to meet us citing an agreement with Jeremy Bamber’s legal representative Mark Newby, that the CCRC would not consider evidence submitted by third parties to the CCRC. However, Mr Newby has not confirmed that such an agreement with the CCRC exists.

After refusing to meet us Mr Proctor was sent a copy of our 52-page report and its receipt was signed for by a CCRC representative and presumably delivered to Mr Proctor. Mr Proctor confirmed by email that he is aware of the report, but intimated that he is not prepared to read it, citing the request of Mark Newby.

Our report represents the ‘holy grail’ in terms of the fresh evidence required for the CCRC to refer the Bamber case to the Court of Appeal – numerous examples of wounds to the adult victims that the pathologist denied existed or wrongly explained to the jury. Nothing could be clearer than the fact that his testimony had the potential to seriously mislead the jury.

Sadly, we seem to have an organisation in possession of material that exonerates Jeremy Bamber, who has been wrongly imprisoned for nearly forty years, and a Case Review Manager who will not spend one hour reading our report. That is all the effort that it requires; in fact, after ten minutes of perusal there is enough evidence to show that Sheila Caffell was the perpetrator of the violence at White House Farm.

Why is this the case? It is only our speculation, but as Mr Proctor’s supervisor is a retired senior police officer could it be that there is a marked reluctance to admit that Jeremy Bamber is innocent?

Of course, the fall-out from the Bamber case promises to be spectacular if one considers that so much evidence/testimony had to be false at the trial and that Essex Police have kept up a deception for forty years. There will necessarily be inquiries into how an innocent man spent nearly forty years in prison and how the CCRC failed him on numerous occasions. Is that what is driving the stubborn refusal to discuss the issues?

There are further important considerations. The images accessed by CCRC Watch have been in the possession of the CCRC for at least 15 years, perhaps longer. The images studied were provided by the CCRC, but in all that time they seem to have never examined them for evidence in accordance with Locard’s theorem[1].

It is distressing to consider that nobody at the CCRC took Jeremy Bamber seriously enough to apply Locard’s theory (are they even aware of it?) to the bloodied bedroom and kitchen crime scenes at WHF and then to examine the court transcripts for evidence of misleading testimony. It was presumably easier to write sarcastic and dismissive Statement of Reasons documents rejecting his submissions.

Whatever the reason for the failure of the CCRC to refer Jeremy Bamber’s case to the Court of Appeal, the procrastination has to end now otherwise it will be clear that some CCRC staff have no desire to see the organisation recover from the disastrous Kneller years.

By Bill Robertson

Bill Robertson has researched alleged miscarriages of justice for around 20 years and advised on several cases, including the most recent application to the CCRC by Jeremy Bamber.

Please let us know if you think that there is a mistake in this article, explaining what you think is wrong and why. We will correct any errors as soon as possible.

Reference

[1] Dr Edmond Locard formulated the principle of exchange. This means anyone who enters a scene both takes something of the scene away with them and leaves something of themselves behind. Every contact leaves a trace, however minuscule. This could be, for example:

• fingerprints

• DNA

• fibres

• footwear marks

This trace is normally caused by objects or substances coming into contact with one another and leaving a minute sample on the contact surfaces.

When a foreign object or piece of material has been brought to a crime scene, tracing its origin can assist an investigation. Similarly, finding trace evidence from the victim or crime scene on a suspect can also have a strong impact on a case.