top of page
  • empowerinnocent

Is the CCRC implicated in 36 years of deception in the case of Jeremy Bamber?

Updated: Mar 13, 2022

In this detailed evaluation of the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s (CCRC) handling of Jeremy Bamber’s 2004 failed appeal, Bill Robertson asks whether the CCRC’s slavish adherence to official judicial narratives and documents undermines its claimed independence and its central task of impartial investigations to determine the truthfulness or otherwise of claims of innocence by alleged victims of wrongful convictions.

The Prosecution case against Jeremy Bamber for the alleged murder of five members of his family depends almost entirely upon the reported discovery of his sister, Sheila Caffell’s, blood inside a sound moderator (silencer). The fundamental issue is that if Sheila Caffell killed her family before ending her own life, how did her blood get into a silencer that was discovered inside a box in a cupboard? The prosecution suggested that her blood was inside the silencer because Jeremy Bamber killed her and placed the silencer in the box himself. During 1986 while Jeremy was on remand, he suggested that blood discovered in the silencer had been planted there by his relatives. The notion that the blood was planted in the silencer has been around for a very long time.

On the morning of Wednesday 7 August 1985 at the White House Farm (WHF) crime scene Detective Sergeant (DS) 21 Stanley Brian Jones took possession of a silencer and assigned it the evidence identifier SBJ/1. On Friday 9 August the silencer SBJ/1 was ‘dusted’ for fingerprints by DS219 Davidson, as confirmed by him in his interview with City of London Police[i].

Essex Police now deny that they took possession of a silencer from WHF on 7th August 1985 despite their own Assistant Chief Constable, Peter Simpson, confirming that they did so on more than one occasion.[ii]

This admittance was reported in the Colchester Evening Gazette dated 16th September1985:

“And although the silencer was found shortly after Police broke into the house a few hours after the killings on August 7, it was not regarded as important until inquiries were re-opened last week.”

The Essex Chronicle dated Thursday 17th September 1985 also wrote in its article:

“Mr Simpson hit out at national newspaper reports and added: ‘A silencer was found at the farmhouse on the day of the killings, but this does not have to mean anything that is suspicious. As for being blood –stained, I just don’t know. We are waiting to hear from ballistics experts.’” [iii]

However, despite what Assistant Chief Constable Simpson said more than once, Essex police insist that only one sound moderator was involved in the murders. The one that was found on Saturday 10 August, handed to the police by Bamber’s relatives on Monday 12 August, and delivered to Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory on Tuesday 13 August[iv].

This sound moderator is alleged by the police and Bamber’s relatives at various times to have been:

  • (a) scratched;[v]

  • (b) not scratched;[vi]

  • (c) covered in a jam-like substance;[vii]

  • (d) not covered in a jam-like substance;[viii]

  • (e) had a grey hair attached to it;[ix]

  • (f) did not have a grey hair attached to it;[x]

  • (g) had a flake of blood outside it;[xi]

  • (h) had a flake of blood inside it;[xii]

  • (i) measured 7 inches and had 17 baffle plates inside;[xiii]

  • (j) measured 6.5 inches and had 15 baffle plates inside;[xiv]

  • (k) had a lot of blood inside;[xv]

  • (l) had just one flake of blood inside;[xvi]

  • (m) had Sheila’s blood inside;[xvii]

  • (n) didn’t have Sheila’s blood inside;[xviii]

  • (o) had June’s DNA inside;[xix]

  • (p) didn’t have Sheila’s DNA inside;[xx]

  • (q) had unidentified male DNA inside;[xxi]

  • (r) had 250 red paint flakes on the outside;[xxii][xxiii]

  • (s) didn’t have any paint on the outside;[xxiv]

  • (t) had a flake of blood between baffle plates 1 and 2;[xxv]

  • (u) had a single flake of blood on baffle plate 5;[xxvi]

  • (v) had blood on baffle plates 1-5;[xxvii]

  • (w) had three lowered rings along the length, one at each end and one in the middle;[xxviii]

  • (x) had no rings along the length;[xxix]

  • (y) had a film of white residue on it from superglue fumes used for fingerprinting purposes;[xxx] and,

  • (z) had no white residue from superglue fumes[xxxi].

All of the above 26 assertions were made by various witnesses. Is it possible that they could have been describing more than one silencer?

Forensic scientist Malcolm Fletcher appears to inadvertently confirm the fact that there were at least two sound moderators which were examined at the Laboratory. Fletcher made two witness statements, both dated 13th November 1985. One referred to the silencer as DB/1 and the other referred to DRB/1. Why would Fletcher produce two witness statements on the same day, identical except for the silencer reference?

The answers sought by Jeremy Bamber in 2004 when he submitted a request to the CCRC to re-examine aspects of his case revolved partly around this crucial piece of evidence. Bamber had no documentation to assist his search for answers. All forensic examination records were at that time withheld by the Prosecution. All that Bamber had was his suspicion that something was amiss.

The CCRC had the authority to demand sight of a range of forensic records that could have shed light on the issue.

As it states on the CCRC website:

“To help us identify new evidence or legal argument we can use our special legal powers under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 to obtain information from public bodies such as the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, social services, local councils and so on. Under section 18A of the same Act, we can seek a Crown Court order to obtain material from a private individual or organisation. Our legal powers mean that we can often identify important evidence that would be impossible for others to find”.

Bamber needed them to do exactly that in relation to the silencer evidence. What did they do and say?

The CCRC rejected Bamber’s request for his case to be referred to the Court of Appeal on 24 April 2012.

In relation to the sound moderator they said:

“44. For the reasons given below, the Commission acknowledges that the sound moderator was a significant piece of evidence in the Crown's case against Mr Bamber. The Crown contended that the sound moderator had been attached to the rifle during the attacks on the Bamber family, and that it had also been attached to the rifle when Sheila was shot. Tests demonstrated that Sheila could not have shot herself as described if the sound moderator had been attached to the rifle. [xxxii]

Evidence for the Defence

58. The Defence argued that the grouping tests carried out on the sound moderator were inconclusive because there was a possibility that the blood in the sound moderator was in fact a mix of Ralph Neville and June Bamber's blood. Thus, it was still possible for Sheila to have killed the others and removed the silencer before killing herself. The expert witness for the Crown said that whilst this was a remote possibility, he did not believe it to be so.”

In considering Bamber’s submission, the CCRC examined a large range of source material, but not the Forensic Science Service (FSS) records that would have best illustrated the issue of the silencer(s):

The Commission’s Review – what they said:

“78. The Commission has received a number of submissions from Mr Bamber, his legal representatives, and other individuals on his behalf.

79. The Commission has considered: The representations made by Mr Bamber and others on his behalf; the Court of Appeal file; the Crown Court file; the Crown Prosecution Service ("CPS") file; The files formerly held by the C3 Department of the Home Office; Medical and psychiatric reports on Mr Bamber from prison files; Papers from the Operation Stokenchurch Enquiry; Papers from the City of London Police Enquiry; Papers from the Dickinson Review (Essex Police internal enquiry); Photographic reports from Mr Peter Sutherst; Photographic report from LGC; Forensics Material on the HOLMES2 database created during the Stokenchurch Enquiry; The defence files held at the time by Tank Jowett solicitors; the previous application, including the summing-up; and, the full Court of Appeal judgment of 12th December 2002.”

The CCRC said:

“82. In assessing whether there is a real possibility that the Court of Appeal would quash Mr Bamber's convictions on the basis of such evidence, the Commission has considered relevant case law concerning the approach of the Court in assessing the impact of new evidence on the safety of convictions. In particular, the Commission has had regard to the following authorities:

  • Stafford v Director of Public Prosecutions [1974] AC 878.

  • R v Pendleton [2002] 1 All ER524.

  • R v Hakala [2002] EWCACrim 730.

  • Dial and Dottin v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2005] UKPC 4.”

The above four cases are referenced frequently and routinely by the CCRC as reasons why they have rejected Bamber’s submission.

The CCRC rejected Bamber’s submission regarding the silencer thus:

“173. The Commission has concluded that there is no evidence to support Mr Bamber's contention that the police recovered more than one sound moderator from White House Farm. In addition, the Commission notes that all of the above evidence relating to the different exhibit and FSS reference numbers was available to Mr Bamber at the time of his second appeal, had he wished to rely on it.”

The rejection by the CCRC was based entirely on a review of evidence that had already been considered and rejected by the Court of Appeal in 2002. In effect, all the CCRC did was to confirm that as far as they were concerned the Court of Appeal had been correct. If the CCRC had actually done some investigation of Forensic Science Service (FSS) records they would have discovered that:

There were at least two silencers forensically examined at the forensic laboratory. One was 7” long and the other was 6.5” long. One was a Parker-Hale silencer, the other make is at present unknown. One had three decorative grooves around the outside and one was plain. One had smears and flakes of paint on it, the other had none. One had blood in it and the other had none. One had blood belonging to David Boutflour inside and one had blood belonging to Robert Boutflour inside. Parker-Hale, manufacturer of the silencer purchased by Nevill Bamber, had never produced the shorter length silencer.

The forensic scientists listed below carried out experiments regarding blood grouping, DNA and ballistics. The results of these tests were presented at trial and at the 2002 Appeal as having come from one sound moderator. Different examinations yielded different measurements for the sound moderator examined at different times by different scientists:

1. Parker Hale 175 mm

2. Brian Elliott’s examination 176 mm

3. Malcolm Fletcher 175.2 mm

4. Malcolm Fletcher O.L 165.1mm [ Overall Length]

M.T 165.1mm [ Muzzle to trigger]

B 165 mm [Barrel]

5. Glynis Howard 166.1 mm

6. Malcolm Fletcher 177.8 mm

7. Martyn Ismail 177 mm

8. DI Cook 180 mm

9. Malcolm Fletcher 165.1 mm

There are 5 measurements of the length of the silencer at 165/166 mm or 6 ½ inches and there are 6 measurements of the length of the silencer of 175/180 mm or 7 inches.

During 1986 while Bamber was on remand, he suggested that blood discovered in the silencer had been planted there by his relatives. Word of Bamber’s suggestion seems to have reached DI Ron Cook. Cook caused blood samples to be obtained from Bamber’s relatives and the result was surprising. A letter dated 29 September1986, just days before the Trial commenced, written by Graham Craddock, Head of Biology, Huntingdon Forensic Science Laboratory, to the Chief Superintendent of Essex Police stated that blood from the relatives had been taken and tested by Mr Hayward.

His findings concluded that[xxxiii]:

"I have considered the grouping results given in my Statement dated 15 November 1985 and in Miss Howard's Statement dated 29 September 1986. Judged by these grouping results alone, the blood from the sound moderator (22) could have come from either Sheila Caffell or R W Boutflour."

Thus, Bamber’s suggestion that blood from a relative had been planted in the silencer may not have been as fanciful as it may have seemed at first.

The Jury were then hoodwinked by the Prosecution. It seems that in the two or three days available to the prosecution prior to the trial, as a way of obscuring the information that had come to light about the origin of the blood, the police or the prosecution deliberately produced a list which the prosecution referred to at the trial, but the list deliberately omitted any of the relative’s names, including, crucially, Robert Boutflour. Therefore, when giving witness testimony, forensic scientist John Hayward referred to the ‘list’ and as a result Hayward was able to tell the court that the only person on the list whose blood was found inside the silencer was Sheila Caffell. This looks like deliberate deception, and it seems that Bamber’s defence was aware of this but did nothing tangible to expose this sleight of hand to the Jury[xxxiv].

The questioning of Hayward was seemingly purposely misleading. The following exchange took place in relation to blood found inside the silencer:

  • ”Q) Mr Arlidge: Did you test further any of that blood?

  • A) Hayward: I did, Sir, and found that this blood was also of human origin, and I obtained grouping reactions for group A PGM1+EAP BA AK1 Hp 2-1.

  • Q) Mr Arlidge: Looking at those items you have given…it appears that those correspond with the grouping that you found for Sheila Caffell?

  • A) Hayward: That is correct Sir

  • Q) Mr Arlidge: But not with anybody else on our list?

  • A) Hayward: That is correct Sir.”[xxxv]

The list that Arlidge referred to contained the names of the five victims plus Jeremy Bamber. Therefore, Mr Hayward answered truthfully that the only person on that list with the blood group A PGM1+EAP BA AK1 Hp 2-1 was Sheila Caffell.

However, Mr Hayward was aware that blood samples had been taken from some of Jeremy Bamber’s relatives and the blood was also an identical match for Robert Boutflour. Mr Hayward did not disclose this to the Court, neither did anyone else on behalf of the prosecution.

Pre-trial it was established that the blood group also matched exactly the blood group of the beneficiary, Jeremy Bamber’s uncle, Robert Boutflour.

Martyn Ismail carried out DNA tests for the CCRC before the 2002 Appeal and said that Sheila Caffell’s DNA was not in the sound moderator. He said that there was DNA belonging to an unidentified female and also male DNA in the sound moderator. Robert Boutflour did not give a DNA sample. Dr Ismail examined the longer of the two sound moderators, not the shorter one examined by Glynis Howard in 1985 who found both Sheila and Robert’s blood group in the baffles.

Jeremy Bamber discovered during March 2017 that a further blood group was found in the baffles of a sound moderator tested on 29 April 1986 at 11:30 am by Glynis Howard and Detective Sergeant Ron Cook[xxxvi]. A diagram was drawn to indicate the location of the additional blood group discovered in a sound moderator.

This blood group exactly matches that of beneficiaries David Boutflour and Pamela Boutflour and not any of the deceased. The 1986 Jury were not advised of this second blood group result.[xxxvii]

Crucially, the CCRC could have uncovered these facts at any time since they first became involved in considering the case. The discovery of the seeming existence of two silencers being examined and blood from two or three of Bamber’s relatives being discovered, plus DNA from unidentified male and female persons surely causes great doubt about the provenance of the single-silencer proposition put forward by the Prosecution.

The CCRC, as of February 2022 have still not found this information for themselves, preferring to fall back on Court of Appeal judgements and the ‘honest’ word of Essex Police.

However, although the CCRC are not prepared to undertake any research of original forensic records, they are prepared to ‘data-mine’ confidential discussions between Bamber and his defence counsel and use this to undermine Bamber’s application and justify way it was rejected:

“145. In a note of a conference between defence counsel and Mr Bamber on 3rd September 1986, leading defence counsel, Mr Rivlin Q.C noted: ‘GR mentioned the difficulty with the silencer. There was blood in the silencer which was SC's blood. JB postulated that the blood was planted on the silencer by Ann Eaton. GR thought this was far-fetched.’"

Given what is outlined above, perhaps Bamber ‘s suggestion was not so far-fetched?


As we have seen illustrated above, the truth in a case is often found in a hand-written scrap of paper never typed up and never reported by any witness. No forensic scientist has ever admitted in Court that blood matching that of beneficiaries David Boutflour and Pamela Boutflour was found in a silencer. No scientist has admitted that they measured silencers of two different lengths or that blood discovered in a silencer that was reported in Court could just as easily have come from Robert Boutflour as it may have come from Sheila Caffell. Or, indeed, that Sheila Caffell’s DNA could not be found in the silencer (whichever one they produced for Court).

The CCRC said to Bamber that they relied upon papers from the Metropolitan Police ‘Operation Stokenchurch’ Enquiry and papers from the City of London Police Enquiry (COLP), plus, papers from the Dickinson Review (Essex Police internal enquiry). All three whitewashed the police investigation and all three ‘buried’ vital evidence of Bamber’s innocence.

The Stokenchurch enquiry did not report that DS21 Stan Jones disclosed that Sheila Caffell had left a suicide note or that the case was regarded as clearly four murders and a suicide. The COLP enquiry failed to make any issue of obviously forged Essex Police Incident Report sheets and Dickinson failed to report that a police officer, PC Myall, confirmed that Jeremy Bamber had told the truth about telephoning the police at 03:36, which implied that it was his father Nevill who called the police at 03:26 and, thus, Jeremy could not have killed his father or by implication, Sheila Caffell, who was then the logical suspect.

The information in the scrap of paper reproduced above destroys the entire police case against Jeremy Bamber because it shows that PC Myall received a telephone call from PC West at 03:37, who was in the control room at Chelmsford Police Station[xxxviii]. It confirms that PC West was telling the truth when he said at Jeremy’s trial that Jeremy telephoned him at 03:36. Dickinson failed to mention this crucial evidence in his official report.

The CCRC said that they had used records from the Court of Appeal file, the Crown Court file and the Crown Prosecution Service ("CPS") file. These records are riddled with factual errors because they all emanate from the error-strewn report compiled by Essex Police following the investigation by Acting Detective Superintendent Michael Ainsley who could not even record the correct date of birth for any of the three adult victims[xxxix].

In a case that involves widespread police corruption and the creation of false evidence, the perusal of official records is of no use whatsoever in finding the reality about what happened.

The truth in the Bamber case is being discovered by dedicated volunteers who are painstakingly making their way through case papers.

The CCRC, rather than conducting desk-top reviews of factually incorrect documents and rubber-stamping official reports, needs to get among the dusty cardboard boxes that moulder in storage, open up long forgotten lever arch files, and root out the original handwritten notes and scraps of paper that reveal the truth.

Overall, the CCRC must never forget that it represents the last and only chance that innocent victims of wrongful convictions have of clearing their name once they have failed in the normal criminal appeals system. If there is to be justice, CCRC caseworkers need to get away from their desks and get their hands dirty seeking out the truth.

Jeremy Bamber has so far been in prison maintaining his innocence for the last 36 years. Only time will tell if the CCRC will fare better with his latest application and bring one of Britain's most notorious miscarriages of justice to an end.


[i] AA-11-AB-13, Davidson, COLP Interview Precis, 3 October 1991, para 16-17, fingerprinting moderator on 9 August 1985 the day before it was allegedly found by David Boutflour. [ii] See FF-01-46) Media: “And although the silencer was found shortly after Police broke into the house a few hours after the killings on August 7, it was not regarded as important until inquiries were re-opened last week.” and “Mr Simpson hit out at national newspaper reports and added: “A silencer was found at the farmhouse on the day of the killings, but this does not have to mean anything that is suspicious. [iii] BU-209-01, Box 09, Ainsley Press Release, page 5 details that a moderator was taken from the farm for forensic examination, not one found by a civilian witness. The second silencer was found in the so-called gun cupboard at White House Farm by David Boutflour on the 10th August 1985. Police documentation proves that it was not handed to the police on 11th August. It remained in a cardboard box at his sister, Ann Eaton’s house until 11th September 1985, not 11th August 1985 as later claimed by the police. It was collected by DC Oakey on 11th September 1985 and handed to DCI Wright SOC Chelmsford. Therefore, the Boutflour/Eaton family had a month to dismantle the silencer and do whatever they wished with it and evidence suggests that they took the opportunity to plant blood inside the silencer. The simplest way to think about the two different sound moderators is that the first one seized, examined by Glynis Howard, and referenced SBJ/1had a smear of blood on it (but not necessarily in it) but no red paint.The second sound moderator, referenced DB/1 examined by Brian Elliot, had red paint on it. [iv] It was the case at Trial and at the Appeal Court in 2002, that the silencer forensically examined was found by Bamber’s relatives on 10th August 1985. It seems that whenever new evidence is found in Jeremy Bamber’s case, or the unfairness of his trial is pointed out, Essex Police trot out some routine statements to reassure the public that justice was done and imply that Jeremy is, once again, raising pointless or flippant arguments. Typical police comments include: “A spokeswoman for the force told the BBC the force had "no comment to make" about Bamber's requests for the disclosure of evidence as "there has never been anything to suggest that he was wrongly convicted". BBC website (2 April 2016). Also: “A spokesman for Essex Police said: "Jeremy Bamber's conviction for killing five people, including two children, has been subjected to close scrutiny by the Court of Appeal and also a review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and there has never been anything to suggest that he was wrongly convicted. "The Court of Appeal found in 2002 that the deeper they looked into the available evidence the more likely it seemed that the jury was right. "Between 2004 and 2012 the Criminal Cases Review Commission investigated the safety of the conviction with the full co-operation of Essex Police, and it did not identify any new evidence or legal argument to overturn Bamber’s conviction. A Judicial Review brought by Bamber of the Commission’s decision was also dismissed by the High Court." East Anglian Times (13 July 2016). [v] David Boutflour, Dickinson interview 11/11/1986 “I noticed damage to the silencer. Unusual scratches”. David Boutflour witness statement dated 17/09/1985 “Prior to leaving the White House with Ann I made a closer examination of the silencer and found that the exterior of the knurled end contained deposits of what appeared to be red paint. … there was also a fresh silver coloured scratch mark about 1" long about halfway along its length.” [vi] David Boutflour COLP notes FF-01-29 “didn’t recall scratch on end” Extract Holmes 36/06 Operation Stokenchurch investigation - " DRB (David Boutflour) states that there was one quite deep scratch mark on it (the silencer) as well. Now this is a total mystery because no scientist for either the prosecution or the defence has seen a sound moderator that has one quite deep scratch on it." DS Young 4/6/1991. [vii] Ann Eaton trial transcript AA-20-20 “I saw something red — jam-like — on the end. Sort of coagulated blood, I suppose” [viii]None of the forensic scientists who examined the silencer(s) reported anything more than a smear of blood on the outside of the silencer(s). None of Bamber’s relatives apart from Ann Eaton reported a blob of blood on the outside of the silencer(s). At trial, John Hayward testified that there was insufficient blood on the outside of the silencer to enable a test for blood grouping purposes. [ix] HOLMES 8/230) Eaton Peter) 04.11.85. PDF, Pg. 1: Peter Eaton witness statement ““Although I did not mention it in my previous statement, I remember that the silencer had a piece of hair attached to the silencer which was grey in colour and about 1" long”. [x] 6.308 COLP Draft Peter Eaton PDF. Pg. 22: Peter Eaton to COLP in 1991 “I have been asked by Det. Inspector Hammett if I saw any sort of hair on it at this time or anything else adhering to it. I do not remember seeing a hair or anything else at that time although I did later. NO mention was made by David of seeing a hair either.” And “Again I emphasise that I do not remember seeing the hair on the silencer”. [xi] GLYNNIS HOWARD’S witness statement for the 13th November 1985, details that she tested blood on the inside and outside of the sound moderator DRB/1, and in both cases the blood was found to be of human origin, (Holmes 8/224) However, a letter from PETER WINGAD to DR, SCAPLEHORN states, ‘There was no record of blood being seen on the outside of the sound moderator,’ (see HOLMES 78/24). [xii] Numerous forensic scientists reported finding blood inside the silencer [xiii]Forensic Science Service diagram DB/1 Case H/01/23425 [xiv] See evidence of 6.5 inch silencer in main text above [xv] John Hayward made a number of confusing statements about how much blood was discovered inside the silencer. His trial testimony was that “on a few baffles near the muzzle end of the rifle there was a considerable amount of blood” He then said it was on the uppermost four or five baffles” [xvi] John Hayward testified that he found a single flake of blood which he used for all his blood grouping tests. [xvii] John Hayward testified that he found blood belonging to Sheila Caffell’s blood group inside the silencer. [xviii] DNA tests for Bamber’s 2002 appeal failed to find any of Sheila Caffell’s blood or DNA in the silencer. Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA Profiling is so sensitive that if only a few cells of Sheila’s blood had ever been present it would be detectable. The fact that her DNA has not been detected is highly suggestive that her blood was never in the moderator in the first place. The absence of Sheila’s DNA therefore strongly argues against the suggestion that Bamber committed the murders. [xix] DNA that was an exact match for June Bamber or Pamela Boutflour (June’s sister) was found. [xx] DNA tests for the 2002 appeal failed to find any of Sheila Caffell’s DNA in the silencer. [xxi] Male DNA was found but did not match anyone whose DNA was known. Various relatives of Bamber did not provide DNA for comparison, including Robert Boutflour. [xxii] 25/09/1985 Brian ELLIOTT examined the sound moderator. Elliot did not record the existence of ANY blood or indeed a smear of red paint as recorded by four highly skilled Forensic Scientists upon their examination of the silencer on 13/08/85.Instead the sound moderator DB/1 had numerous flakes of red paint impacted into the knurled end of this sound moderator. [xxiii] John Hayward in his witness statement dated 13.11.85 states: “There is a smear of red paint at the muzzle end of the sound moderator.” No mention of 250 flakes of paint. This is consistent with what Glynis Howard and Leslie Tucker found. i.e., this exhibit did not have red paint impacted into the knurled pattern on the end. In 2002, The Metropolitan Police Stokenchurch enquiry asked the FSS to examine sound moderator SBJ/1 that had a smear of red paint on the flat surface of the muzzle end. However, a different sound moderator, reference DB/1 had been found in fact to have numerous red paint flakes impacted upon the knurled pattern, and no smear of red paint on the end of the flat surface, thereby establishing the difference between SBJ/1 and DB/1. [xxiv] Forensic scientists Glynis Howard, Leslie Tucker, Andrew Palmer and John Hayward had all examined sound moderator SBJ/1 on 13/08/88 and 12/09/85. This was the sound moderator removed from WHF on 7th August 1985. There was no red coloured paint around the knurl during those two separate forensic examinations of the sound-moderator SBJ/1. During forensic examination of SBJ/1, the only red paint consisted of one single ‘smear’ of red paint on the flat muzzle end of that sound-moderator. HOLMES 17/178) John HAYWARD statement dated 13/11/85: “There is a smear of red paint at the muzzle end of the sound moderator (22).”AH-07-11) Glynis HOWARD COLP statement dated 01/08/91 (HOLMES 67/319): “I observed for blood stains on the sound moderator, potentially a fifth, and confirmed this observation using the low power microscope and a chemical test.” AT-08-224. Statement of Glynis Howard 13 November 1985. Glynis Howard, the first forensic scientist to examine a silencer did not initially report any paint on the outside. At a later time, a reference to red paint in the knurled end of the silencer appears to have been added in different handwriting. No reference to paint is made in notes written at the time of examination. [xxv] Glynis Howard reported seeing the flake of blood at the entrance to the silencer, i.e., between baffles 1-2. [xxvi] John Hayward stated that he discovered a single flake of blood inside the sound moderator that he used in all his blood grouping tests. 78-014) (18 x Docs). PDF. [xxvii] In his trial evidence Malcom fletcher stated: “Q. Let us confine ourselves to the inside, as you did count to the fifth baffle, of which you are certain blood went down to. It went as far as the fifth baffle did it not? A. Yes Sir.” John Hayward gave evidence that: “Q. About how many baffles down did it go? A. I did not make a note at the time sir, but from recollection I certainly detected it on the uppermost four or five baffles.” [xxviii] The Parker-Hale 7-inch silencer had three decorative grooves along the length.The silencer/sound moderator examined by Howard on 13 August 1985 clearly show an indented groove around the circumference halfway along the length, which was a standard feature of the Parker-Hale MM1 sound moderator.

[xxix] The 6.5-inch silencer tested on 29 April 1986 was plain, with no grooves along it according to drawings/diagrams made by forensic scientists. The sound moderator examined on 29 April 1986 shows clearly that the silencer/sound moderator that Howard examined with DI Cook in April 1986 did not have this groove:

[xxx] Silencer SBJ/1 had a white film of super glue fume residue covering its outer surface owing to the fingerprinting process undertaken on the 15th August 1985. HOLMES 45/49) Dept Supt. AINSEY: 15th August 1985: “These items, plus cartridge cases, taken to Home Office research Establishment at Sandridge for laser examination and cyno-acrylate vapour exposure. These tests carried out in effort to enhance any fingerprints on articles other than rifle. These tests were negative.” [xxxi] DB/1, the sound moderator examined by BRIAN ELLIOT and LOUISE FLOAT did not have a white film of superglue residue on its outer surface. [xxxii] This was untrue. The rifle trigger mechanism could be operated by use of the toes. [xxxiii] Extract Craddock Letter re blood grouping. PDF. [xxxiv] Rivlin, for the defence, asked Robert Boutflour if he had ever cut himself while handling the sound moderator. Receiving a negative response, he simply proceeded to a completely different line of questioning rather than explain why he had queried the subject. [xxxv] AJ-15-40 John Hayward trial transcript page 4. [xxxvi] 24.09.86 Huntingdon blood in baffles tested - Pam B or David B – Copy page. 2. [xxxvii] AR-17-03) Howard (Glynis) - 29.09.86 page. 7. [xxxviii]Jeremy Bamber Campaign Official Web Site - New Call Logs Evidence Oct 2019 ( [xxxix]AX-04-10) Ainsley 07.11.85 Report. PDF. Para. 159: “Ralph Nevill BAMBER. Born on 8th June 1924” Ralph was born on the 9th June 1924. AX-04-10) Ainsley 07.11.85 Report. PDF. Para. 159: “June BAMBER nee SPEAKMAN Born on 13 June 1924,” June Bamber was actually born on the 3rd June 1924, AX-04-10) Ainsley 07.11.85 Report. PDF.AX-04-10) Ainsley 07.11.85 Report. PDF Para. 170: “Sheila Jean CAFFELL – nee BAMBER Sheila was born on 18 June 1957. Sheila was actually born on the 18 July 1957. AH-02-05) and AH-02-06.

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. He serves as Deputy Editor of CCRC Watch.

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.

1,225 views0 comments


Commenting has been turned off.
Post: Blog2 Post
bottom of page