The theme of this article is to question the seemingly callous disregard of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) towards evidence indicative of the probable innocence of Jeremy Bamber, and the lack of leadership qualities evident in the senior management of the organisation. There seems to be a culture of inhumanity fostered among the staff in marked contrast to the pioneering ethos of the founding members of the organisation recruited in 1995.
Jeremy Bamber has been imprisoned for almost 40 years for committing five alleged murders of his family. Let us not forget that his guilt was only deemed by a majority 10:2 verdict, there was plenty of scope for doubt even before revelations started to be made. A plethora of evidence has been presented over those years that casts doubt on his conviction and in March 2021 a comprehensive submission, believed to number thousands of pages in length, was made to the CCRC setting out the case for Bamber’s case to be referred to the Court of Appeal. That is, almost four years ago and still the CCRC have not completed the task of analysing the submission so as to give a verdict on whether to refer the case.
The CCRC has admitted that the original case officer assigned to evaluate the submission failed to read any of the documentation for a year; they also admit that Bamber’s submissions have always been overseen i.e. vetted, by former senior Essex police officers.
Added to those insults, we now know that new case materials are still being placed under a 70 year embargo at the National Archives in Kew. Clearly, somebody seems to want the truth about the White House Farm murders to remain undisclosed for as long as possible.
On 29th July 2024, The New Yorker magazine published an article on the case and within the article was astounding information to the effect that a police officer, PC Nicholas Milbank, received and/or listened to a 999 call made from within White House Farm at 06:09 on 7th August 1985. By then, all five occupants were supposedly dead, killed by Jeremy Bamber. (CCRC Watch has reported extensively on the handling of the 2021 submission in articles found here, here and here.)
If Sheila Caffell made a telephone call at 06:09 and spoke to a BT Operator and/or PC Milbank the entire case against Jeremy Bamber collapses. The CCRC knows this, or rather should know this if it has studied the case.
Also revealed in The New Yorker article is the fact that an Essex police witness statement exists purporting to be PC Milbank’s record of his duties that morning which PC Milbank says he never constructed or signed, i.e. the witness statement is clearly a forgery. In essence, what PC Milbank has stated is that evidence was fabricated at the behest of the investigation officers around the crucial issue of the 999 call.
This clearly indicates that such a distress call did take place, and the investigation officers were aware of it[i], otherwise they would not have constructed such a bland witness statement on behalf of PC Milbank denying the existence of the 999 call, even if the witness statement was not revealed to the defence and Milbank did not give evidence in court.
Four months after this highly important revelation was made, despite being urged to take immediate action by various interested parties (see here) the CCRC has failed to contact PC Milbank to discuss this vital new evidence - surely this represents an egregious obstruction to justice and a fundamental dereliction of duty on the part of the CCRC?
This is very similar to how the CCRC treated evidence of Andy Malkinson’s innocence proven by DNA analysis, suggesting that the CCRC learnt nothing from the chastening criticism by Chris Henley KC after he reviewed the CCRC handling of the Malkinson case.
I am certain that the staff appointed by the CCRC in 1995, when the organisation was launched, would have instigated contact with PC Milbank immediately as it is evident that his testimony changes the entire understanding of what occurred at White House Farm. So, why is the current CCRC so disinterested on this issue?
Perhaps, one reason for the indolent attitude of the CCRC is their acknowledged stance that every applicant is guilty (see here). Thus, despite the CCRC having referred around 500 cases to the Court of Appeal since 1995, they still seem to operate on the basis that every applicant is guilty and trying to ‘game’ the system. This attitude dominated their approach to the Malkinson case in their refusal to consider DNA evidence handed to them 'on a plate' by the charity APPEAL and seems to have a similar impact on how they view Bamber’s submission (and thousands of others). The CCRC appear to have a deep, almost pathological, reluctance to consider that policemen, forensic experts and witnesses can be untruthful, or that courts and juries make mistakes.
Does the CCRC exist to assist the innocent to achieve access to the Court of Appeal (CoA), or does it simply exist to demonstrate that it can follow bureaucratic procedures in the processing (and rejection) of applications?
The CCRC have said that:
“...the approach to reviewing the thousands of pages submitted was agreed with Mr. Bamber’s representatives and we have been prioritising the most complex issues first – these naturally take the longest time to review”.
This raises an interesting point about CCRC process, and the submission made to them. No doubt, ploughing through thousands of pages and cross-referencing to previous submissions and CoA rulings is very time consuming, but if an opportunity arises to make a swift decision to refer a case why not take it and save hundreds of hours of staff time?
It seems to me that failing to contact PC Milbank four months ago represents both a wasteful use of CCRC staff resources and a callous indifference to the suffering of Jeremy Bamber.
Are the CCRC saying that in the past four months nobody had time to phone PC Milbank and ask a few simple questions? They could, for example, ask: “What did the BT Operator say to you when she put the call through?” It is known that BT Operators would at the very least take note of a phone number and name and, according to the BT archive film available, Operators had to be a bit like the Samaritans when they were speaking to distressed people, so, presumably, the Operator informed Milbank of the condition of the caller (assumed to be Sheila Caffell – a paranoid schizophrenic).
Let us not forget that Essex Police are aware of what former PC Milbank said, and they know that it indicates that Jeremy Bamber is innocent. No prizes for guessing that they have done nothing to encourage him to contact the CCRC himself and it appears that Mr. Milbank is content to remain silent until contacted by the CCRC.
What a disgraceful, immoral and shambolic crew they all are. This is a resignation issue for CCRC CEO Karen Kneller if ever there was one as she has failed in the simple task of ensuring that Milbank is interviewed.
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.
References
[i] Try to imagine what it was like for police officers to construct a forged statement by Milbank in the knowledge that Sheila Caffell was alive at 06:09 and Jeremy Bamber was innocent, yet nevertheless permit him to be found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Then to remain silent for 40 years; what an indictment on humanity.
Comments