top of page
Search
  • empowerinnocent

Retired Detective Superintendent Michael Ainsley has died - CCRC must not let justice die with him


Jeremy Bamber



"...all of the information revealed in this article is contained within the files listed above. How did the CCRC miss the pertinent data?"


Introduction


Essex Police recently announced:


“Michael Ainsley who retired as a Detective Supt. in 1990 and served at Basildon, Colchester, New Scotland Yard and CID at Headquarters passed away on the 13th of February 2023 aged 83 years.”

What they failed to mention was that he, arguably, orchestrated one of the most serious abortions of justice (defined as an intentional wrongful conviction as opposed to an unintentional miscarriage of justice) this country will ever see. This article argues that he conspired to imprison Jeremy Bamber and shows how he evaded discovery by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) for over 25 years.

When Jeremy Bamber’s latest submission was made to the CCRC on 11 March 2021 his legal advisor, Mark Newby commented:


“This has been a journey that has never forgotten that at the centre of it is a family tragedy and one that still affects all the participants today including Jeremy Bamber. But it has also been astonishing in terms of the picture that is now uncovered and how far away from the original trial narrative this case now presented to the commission is...The audit trail now uncovered raises very serious questions over withheld evidence, misleading of the jury, interference with the crime scene, the movement of key evidence, altered phone records and admitted destruction of original exhibits" (my emphasis).

It is known that Michael Ainsley took home and destroyed 27 pieces of documentary evidence related to the White House Farm (WHF) murders and it must be presumed that he did so to deny Bamber’s defence crucial information.

Joe Stone, KC, for Bamber, said at Leeds administrative court:


"The claimant was informed that... Michael Ainsley had taken back to his home address in 2010 more documents from the investigation and destroyed them. It's significant given his position in the investigation and it's significant bearing in mind he knew there were ongoing appeal proceedings."

As Mark Newby said, the evidence presented by Michael Ainsley to the Director of Public Prosecutions, to the Crown Court at Chelmsford in October 1986 and to the Court of Appeal in 2002 was, in effect a deliberately misinformative fairy-tale based upon hundreds of factual inaccuracies. Upon the false narrative constructed by Ainsley, highly inaccurate books on the case have been written and television programmes created, none of which bear any relationship to the truth. Virtually no aspect of the evidence given against Jeremy Bamber is reliable.

On the 28th of October 1986, Jeremy Bamber was found guilty of five murders. According to an anonymous former member of the police investigation team cited by author Carol Ann Lee, the Jury Foreman said that after Jeremy had been found guilty, the Jury were going to find him ‘not guilty’. This was until the Judge, Lord Justice Maurice Drake, instructed them that they had to find Jeremy Bamber ‘guilty’[1]. The Jury Foreman commented that without such a clear directive from the Judge they would certainly have found him not guilty, and he stated: “It was all down to the Judge’s summing up. He directed us to find Jeremy guilty and that’s why we did, in the end. If it hadn’t been for the judge telling us what to do, he would have walked free.” The biased Judge was heavily influenced by what he had read in fictitious reports penned by Michael Ainsley.

Detective Superintendent Michael Ainsley replaced Detective Chief Inspector Thomas ‘Taff’ Jones as lead investigator into the White House Farm (WHF) Murders on 7 September 1985 and Ainsley received a temporary promotion to Chief Superintendent. This was after both DCI Jones and Detective Superintendent James Kenneally had independently investigated the WHF incident and found that the perpetrator of the killings was Sheila Caffell who murdered her parents and two sons before ending her own life. At the behest of various relatives of the deceased and for political expediency on the part of Essex Police, Ainsley was entrusted with finding sufficient evidence to have Jeremy Bamber convicted of murder.

The WHF murders generated three investigations, two of which exonerated Bamber; the CCRC has failed to examine copious materials from both of them, including the most important one undertaken by DCI Taff Jones. An examination of material in the original investigation would most likely have led to the CCRC concluding that Bamber’s trial received false evidence, as outlined below.

As someone who has investigated the case for fifteen years, numerous examples of Ainsley’s deceit in compiling evidence come to mind, but for the purpose of this article I shall concentrate on important issues that have hoodwinked the CCRC since they first started considering it circa 1997.

1. A telephone call from Nevill Bamber to the police at 03:26 when he was supposedly dead. 2. A telephone call from Jeremy Bamber to the police at 03:36 which the police say occurred at 03:26. 3. Blood supposedly unique to Sheila Caffell allegedly found inside a ‘silencer’. 4. Character assassination of Jeremy Bamber and hoodwinking the Director of Public Prosecutions. 5. The character of chief witness Julie Mugford and police attempts to hide her criminality from the jury. 6. Multiple wounds to the three adult victims hidden from the jury.


Telephone calls

Essex Police received a telephone call from Nevill Bamber at around 03:26am on the morning of 7th August 1985 alerting them to an incident taking place at WHF. As can be seen in the table below, referring to official police documentation, the call at 03:26 noted information that would only conceivably have come from Nevill Bamber (in bold).

Jeremy Bamber also called the police at 03:36 using terms that a brother would have used and giving a different age for Sheila Caffell (who had actually just turned 28).

Nevill Bamber’s call to PC West:

Address: White House Farm, Tolleshunt D’Arcy.

Telephone number: 860209.

Message: ‘daughter’ (26 years old) has gone ‘berserk’ Daughter has ‘got hold of one of my guns’.

Police Action: Car CA07 allegedly dispatched 3.30am.

Malcolm Bonnet at police HQ records the time of the call as 3.26am.


Jeremy Bamber’s call to PC West

Address: Head Street, Goldhanger.

Telephone number: 88645.

Message: My ‘sister’ (27 years old) has gone ‘crazy’ ‘Sister has got ‘the gun’.

Police Action: Car CA05 dispatched circa 3.33am.

3.36am according to PC West’s record sheet.

Despite the conflicting information on the incident record sheets, the police claimed that only Jeremy Bamber contacted the police at 03:26, because the police narrative had Nevill Bamber dead at that time. At the trial, the Judge, Maurice Drake, tried to bully PC West into admitting that he had made a mistake in recording the time of the call from Jeremy Bamber and that it must have been at 03:26. PC West refused to agree, but nevertheless every account of events since accepts that PC West was mistaken. But now we know for certain that he was not mistaken.

Before outlining how we know PC West was not mistaken, let’s consider how Ainsley tried to hide information from enquiries into the sequence of phone calls. The first ‘serious’ examination of the evidence occurred in 1990 when the City of London Police (COLP) were tasked with investigating complaints from Jeremy Bamber. There was a prospect that they would examine the incident recording sheets completed by PC West using a technique known as ESDA (electro-static document analysis) testing process. An Electrostatic Detection Device, or EDD, is a specialised piece of equipment commonly used in questioned document examination to reveal indentations or impressions in paper which may otherwise go unnoticed. Crucially, it had the potential to reveal what was written on the sheet of paper on top of the form completed by PC West – quite likely the original telephone call from Nevill Bamber. Michael Ainsley caused PC West to forge another information sheet, thus removing any indentations.

We know that this happened because the forgery by PC West contains some words not on the original form and spelling mistakes not present in the original form. The CCRC could have discovered this when Bamber made his first submission to them if they had investigated the case by accessing the original investigation by DCI Taff Jones. Once it is realised that the police record form has been forged and that the record form handed to COLP was not the original, it becomes apparent that deception is taking place for a specific reason – to hide the fact of Nevill Bamber being alive at 03:26 and therefore Jeremy Bamber could not have killed him.

We now know that Jeremy Bamber told the truth about calling PC West at 03:36 because in 2019 a scrap of notepaper was discovered among papers that were compiled by DCI James Dickinson in 1986 and the case against Jeremy Bamber was destroyed by this discovery.

The scrap of paper records that PC Myall (based at Witham) received a telephone call from PC West at 03:37, who was in the control room at Chelmsford Police Station. It confirms that PC West was telling the truth when he said at Jeremy’s trial that Jeremy telephoned him at 03:36 and thus the 03:26 phone call had to be from Nevill Bamber.

This documentary evidence of the 03:36 telephone call was not disclosed by DCI James Dickinson after he interviewed PC Myall in 1986, presumably because Dickinson realised that it demonstrated that Jeremy Bamber had not telephoned the police at 03:26. The CCRC could have discovered this if they had bothered to examine the handwritten (unpublished) notes made by Dickinson but, again, they failed to do so.

Already we can see that if a Case Review Manager (CRM) just sits at a desk reading court papers they will not discover anything ‘new’ and in order to assist an applicant it is necessary to visit a police headquarters and delve into previously undisclosed materials.


Blood unique to Sheila Caffell inside a silencer

An extensive explanation of the blood in the silencer question is outlined here. At the time of Bamber’s trial, Ainsley knew:

a) The blood in the silencer could not be confirmed scientifically as being from Sheila Caffell; and, b) The blood group identified matched Robert Boutflour, a relative of the family who stood to gain financially if Bamber was convicted and the prospect of the blood having been planted in the silencer was very likely to be raised by the defence.

Ainsley conspired with others to conceal both aspects from the Jury, involving a deception by a forensic scientist, John Hayward, and collaboration of the leading prosecution counsel, Anthony Arlidge. The effect of John Hayward’s testimony was to be devastating for Jeremy Bamber’s defence. Among other things he said that the blood in the silencer was a “perfect match” for Sheila Caffell. It simply was not.

Hayward has said:


“At the time of my original work in this case, I was one of the most experienced bloodstain groupers at the Huntingdon laboratory. For several years I had been the senior technician in the blood grouping section and, after I became a case reporting officer, I maintained my blood grouping expertise”[2].


The fact is though, he did not personally process the blood flake removed from the silencer that was analysed, despite the evidence that he gave at Bamber’s trial. Hayward said that he tested the blood flake, but he did not. The blood flake was cut into five separate pieces and analysed by junior staff at the Forensic Science Service laboratory. The incorrect notion that he undertook any of the analysis was repeated during the 2002 CoA hearing when frequent reference was made to Hayward having analysed a flake of blood. This is important because the blood analysis could not confirm several aspects of the source of the blood, most importantly, whose blood it was.


At the Trial in 1986 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”


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, he lied when he said that he had carried out the tests.


There was a further exchange of questions:


Arlidge) In your view, could the findings that you found A PGM1+EAP BA AK1 Hp 2-1 have come from a mixture of any other two people’s blood on our list?

Hayward) There is what I regard as a remote possibility of a mixture of blood from Ralph Bamber and June Bamber. However, I did not detect June Bamber’s AK 2-1 group.


Hayward’s answers to these questions, highlighted in bold, gave the clear impression to the Jury that he personally undertook the testing of the blood flake inside the silencer. Had it been understood by the defence that junior staff did the testing they could have been called as witnesses. That would have been five separate Forensic Science Service staff. This could potentially have revealed that the analysts did not find conclusive evidence to support the contention that Sheila Caffell’s blood was inside the silencer. Indeed, the blood analysis could not reveal conclusively whether the blood was also a match for Robert Boutflour or any other relative of the Bamber family. Some of the analysts, had they been called as witnesses would have to admitted that by the standard applied by Hayward, their tests were inconclusive and there was not a “perfect match” for Sheila Caffell.


Analysis of blood samples taken from the victims at autopsy yielded the following blood group results, according to Hayward:


ABO PGM EAP AK Hp Nevill Bamber O PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1 June Bamber A PGM1+ EAP BA AK2-1 Hp2-1 Daniel Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2 Nicholas Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2 Sheila Caffell A PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1 Hayward testified that the blood found inside the silencer was A PGM1+EAP BA AK1 Hp 2-1.

Hayward has stated in meetings with defence forensic experts that he needed two consistent test results to make a valid report in any blood group. However, chart notations by his five junior staff show conclusively that Hayward did not have two consistent results in the HP2-1 group nor in the AK1 group, nor in the ABO A grouping.


This shows, as the PGM group was always ‘negative’ i.e. no trace, and the HP group ended negative, that the only single blood group having two consistent tests was the EAP BA group and, compared to the first two questions asked by the Jury regarding the blood in the silencer being a “perfect match of Sheila’s blood.” The truth is that only one single group had two consistent tests, EAP BA. Hayward was deliberately misleading when he said that the blood found in the silencer was a match for Sheila Caffell, the test results did not meet his criteria of two consistent results.


What he should have told the Court was that the only verified blood group inside the silencer was EAP BA and, therefore, the blood could have come from Sheila Caffell, Nevill Bamber or June Bamber. This could have led to the defence suggesting that Sheila Caffell had killed her parents with the rifle with a silencer attached before removing the silencer and placing it in the so-called gun cupboard at White House Farm. It is my contention that Michael Ainsley could not allow the truth to emerge and presumably he influenced John Hayward to give misleading evidence.


I am going to refer now to a report by James Stevenson[3]. Stevenson said:


“...it is clear that when John Hayward made and signed his Statement on 13th November 1985, his reference to the blood group HP 2-1 as being in the blood from inside the sound moderator was NOT correct in that the HP group was shown in the blood chart results to be ‘negative’, i.e. not present, on 12th September 1985 in the silencer – inside (threads) stain 4 notation and ‘negative’ on the 25th September 1985 in the silencer – inside (flake) stain 3 notation also. These two stains form the sum total of blood inside the silencer-moderator. Similarly, in Hayward’s trial evidence on 10th October 1986, the ‘vanished’ i.e. non-existent position of the HP2-1 blood group was never clarified or explained to the Court and Jury nor was the single group test result of AK-1 on the 13th September 1985 as recorded positive by analyst ‘ALB’ on the flake inside the silencer mentioned by Hayward, or that the same test was ‘negative’ i.e. non-existent for AK-1."


What this means in essence is that Hayward was used by the prosecution to give false evidence to bolster the prosecution case and that Hayward must have agreed to give false testimony. If the Bamber case is stripped of definitive evidence about blood inside the silencer then in reality there is no case against him. My analysis suggests that Ainsley knew this and took action to ensure that the Jury remained ignorant.


The information from which these conclusions are drawn are contained in hand-written scientific records compiled by forensic scientists which have been examined by the defence after the release of documentation in 2011. The CCRC had the theoretical ability to have detected all of this deception circa 1997 if they had taken Bamber’s complaints seriously and made a determined effort to examine the scientific paperwork. Bamber was alleging from the very outset that blood had been planted in the silencer. The information was there – the CCRC couldn’t be bothered to look for it.



Character assassination


There are around 100 factual errors in the report that Michael Ainsley compiled for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Throughout his report he makes reference to Jeremy Bamber’s sexuality in disparaging terms, alluding (falsely, not that it matters) to homosexuality. The implication is that all homosexuals are criminals and therefore Jeremy Bamber was guilty of killing his family. Essex Police openly discriminated against gay men at a time when homosexuality had been legalised eighteen years previously. Bamber’s girlfriend, Julie Mugford, played right into their hands by inferring Jeremy had been, or was involved, in homosexual relationships. This allowed the police a further angle on which to undermine Bamber’s character.


In a statement, which was not disclosed to the Defence or Jury, Julie Mugford stated:[4]


“Although I cannot say Jeremy is gay, I believe him to be bisexual although to my knowledge he has not practiced it since knowing me.”


Mugford told Essex Police she suspected that Jeremy could have been having a sexual relationship with a friend, Brett Collins,[5] who freely admitted to being bi-sexual.[6]


On the second paragraph of his Final report, Ainsley deterred the DPP from referring back to the Interim report he made on 23rd September by stating:


“Although an interim report was submitted through yourself to the Director of Public Prosecutions dated 23rd September 1985, for ease of reading I will cover in full all of the points raised in that report thereby negating the necessity to refer back.”


By saying this, Ainsley was able to deceive the DPP. In his Interim and final reports certain points of evidence, such as the vital issue about the location of the telephones in the house contradicted each other with no explanation.


As an additional example, the Interim report also referred to Jeremy Bamber stealing Cartier watches. Essex Police then found this to be untrue, but this discovery was omitted from the Final report, thus misleading the DDP into unjustly questioning Jeremy's character[7].


Additionally, Ainsley said the twins lived with Sheila when they lived with their father Colin Caffell, and he had legal custody of them since one of Sheila’s psychotic episodes in March that year.


A lot of police resources went into the effort to denigrate Jeremy Bamber’s reputation. In addition to trying to get various people to describe Jeremy in unflattering terms, one of the most significant deceptions was over the issue of the conversation that took place between Sheila Caffell and her parents on the evening of 6 August. Jeremy Bamber said that this terse discussion included suggestions that Jeremy’s parents would organise day foster-care for the twins, local to Tolleshunt D’Arcy. [The parents had even gone as far as having identified a property that they proposed to purchase for Sheila and the boys to live in]. The police wished to present this conversation as pure fiction; something made up by Jeremy to suggest that Sheila had a motive to kill her family.


Consequently, hand-written statements from eight social workers that described previous foster-care arrangements made to assist Sheila were not typed and not disclosed to the defence. As a result, the day foster-care scenario was able to be presented to the Jury as a lie concocted by Bamber. Ainsley was thus able to state to the DPP a barefaced lie when he told the DPP in paragraph 384 of his report, in relation to the subject of foster care, that:


“I think it is only right to say that Jeremy is the only source of such a suggestion…every person who knew Ralph Nevill, June and Sheila are all agreed that this is an outrageous suggestion and would never have been suggested or entertained by these persons”. Clearly, the only outrageous suggestion, i.e., lie, was Ainsley’s."



The character of chief witness Julie Mugford and attempts to hide her criminality from the Jury


From the 7th September 1985 Essex Police protected Julie Mugford. She was placed in a Police ‘safe’ house. In 2002 Julie, by now named Smerchanski, informed the Metropolitan Police[8]:


“We were supervised at all times. I was encouraged not to talk to anyone outside while I was there and that included my mum.”


It is a matter for speculation that the time spent in the safe house gave DS Jones the opportunity to coach Julie. It is unknown how many actual meetings were held between and DS 21 Stan Jones during the time leading up to Jeremy’s trial, but documents reveal that between 8th August 1985 and 30th September 1986, they had at least thirty-two meetings.[9]


In any event, it is a very significant amount of contact and seems inevitable that coaching her for her court appearance took place.


Julie Mugford was not an ideal witness for the prosecution having committed numerous crimes. She did not present herself to the police with an unblemished record of being truthful. This posed a major problem for the police, as her integrity was of the utmost importance to them[10]. According to DS Jones, on 10th September 1985 he told Mugford:


“As this was such an important case, she should tell us immediately if she had any skeletons in her cupboard.”[11]


Julie admitted initially to burglary and growing cannabis, which was not a full disclosure of her criminal past. She subsequently admitted committing serious cheque frauds that should have resulted in prosecution and probably imprisonment.



Offences Committed by Julie Mugford


In trying to “come clean”, Julie admitted to Essex Police that she had committed a number of offences which involved drugs. Essex Police would use this evidence to create the impression that Jeremy Bamber had corrupted Julie.[12] What Essex Police have failed to do is cover the fact that they were fully aware that not only did Julie smuggle drugs into England, but that she had used drugs socially before meeting Jeremy and in the company of her friends when Jeremy was not present. Essex Police could not risk letting the Jury hear this evidence and it was not included in the served copy of her witness statement.


Consequently, the Jury did not get to hear that Julie Mugford had been involved in:


1. Smuggling drugs from Canada to England[13].

2. Smuggling drugs from Holland to England.[14]

3. Cultivating cannabis.[15]

4. Dealing drugs to college students.[16]

5. Taking cannabis, marijuana and cocaine.[17]


Had the jury known the extent of her involvement in the drugs scene it would obviously have had an impact at the Trial as to her credibility and the reliability of the evidence she gave.


The character of Julie Mugford was the raised by DCI Ainsley in his report to the DPP where he described her character as:


“I would describe her as an intelligent young lady, a typical student, reasonably presentable, who, prior to meeting. Bamber, led a normal student type of life…….”


“as a result of-her liaison with Jeremy Bamber, Julie became morally and criminally corrupted.”


“She committed criminal offences of deception to "prove something to him."


“In addition, she indulged in cannabis smoking, which was either cultivated by or purchased by Bamber, and in fact sold cannabis cultivated by Bamber at his behest.”[18]


Julie Mugford not only lied throughout all her evidence, witness statements and in her evidence given at Jeremy’s trial; she had considerably more involvement with the drugs scene than Ainsley revealed to the DPP, not only with her involvement of the cultivation, taking of, dealing and smuggling of cannabis whilst in a relationship with Jeremy but also her involvement with smuggling drugs into the UK from Canada before she met Jeremy. Julie Mugford admitted taking cocaine on numerous occasions however this was edited out of the served copy of her witness statement.[19]


The cheque fraud committed by Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby was nothing to do with Jeremy Bamber. In fact, Mugford stated that it was something which she and Susan Battersby had planned for some time. [20] In paragraph 220 of his Report to the DPP DCI Ainsley stated:


“Fortunately, Julie Mugford appears to have recognised her steady decline and has come to her senses and has now pulled back from the precipice which, faced her.”


Giving the false impression to the DPP that she was of unflawed character and had only partaken in criminal acts because of the influence of Jeremy. This was a complete misrepresentation of the truth. Charges against Julie Mugford were never made as she was offered a deal of immunity from prosecution if she gave evidence for the prosecution.[21]



Multiple wounds to the three adult victims hidden from the Jury


Showing contempt for the concept of justice, Michael Ainsley suborned false testimony from pathologist Prof. Peter Vanezis. (see) and (see). Vanezis was persuaded to tell the Court that 70 wounds suffered by three adult victims did not exist and that there was no evidence of any form of struggle between the adults. Its is indicative from our research that all three of the deceased adults fought in a life and death struggle inflicting numerous wounds on each other, for possession of the murder weapon, which was used by Sheila Caffell to kill her family.


Ainsley was instrumental in ensuring that all of the key forensic evidence given at the trial was misleading and untruthful as a means of covering up the fact that Sheila Caffell killed her family. Ainsley also ensured that the suicide note written by Sheila Caffell[22] was not revealed to the defence or the Jury. It seems quite possible that Sheila Caffell’s suicide note was one of the 27 documents destroyed by Ainsley at his home.


All of the books written to date about the White House Farm murders are in effect fiction, particularly the execrable offering from Carol Ann Lee, who was greatly assisted by Essex Police and Michael Ainsley, which was used to form the basis of a deplorably inaccurate TV series.


When rejecting Bamber’s submission in 2012 the CCRC listed the documentation that they had accessed:


• 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;

• Papers from the Operation Stokenchurch Enquiry

• Papers from the City of London Police Enquiry

• Papers from the Dickinson Review (Essex Police internal enquiry);

• Material on the HOLMES2 database created during the Stokenchurch Enquiry

• the defence files held at the time by Tank Jowett solicitors.


The list of files examined appears impressive until one considers that all of the information revealed in this article is contained within the files listed above. How did the CCRC miss the pertinent data? Presumably, by not looking thoroughly at the source materials and only considering the finalised reports. For example, the existence of a suicide letter written by Sheila Caffell was acknowledged during the Operation Stokenchurch Enquiry, but was not mentioned in the final report. It is only by reading all of the ‘background’ interview materials that the information is uncovered. That requires an enquiring mind on the part of the researcher which is not apparent when the CCRC regards everyone as guilty (see).


Missing from the list of documentation examined by the CCRC is the original WHF murder enquiry conducted by DCI Taff Jones and the subsequent enquiry carried out by Superintendent James Kenneally. The CCRC has shown no interest in two extensive enquiries that identified Sheila Caffell as the killer despite the fact that Bamber has protested his innocence for over 35 years.


So, Michael Ainsley is dead and has avoided a possible lengthy prison sentence for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice among numerous other potential criminal charges. What chance, though, that the CCRC would ever have uncovered his deceptions? I submit that there is absolutely no chance given the way that the CCRC undertake their role.


All of the materials that have been researched to discover Ainsley’s actions are available to the CCRC and have been available to the CCRC since 1997. Nothing has been discovered by the CCRC, despite all their powers and resources. Yet, the Jeremy Bamber Campaign Team comprising a Painter and Decorator and a busy Housewife/Carer did find all of this evidence between 2015 and 2020, spending thousands of hours of their free time researching the case.


The CCRC refuses to work with Campaign Groups or individuals. On this subject, the CCRC's Chairman, Helen Pitcher, has stated that, as an independent body, the CCRC cannot be in situation where it is perceived to be collaborating with an applicant.[23]


The fact is, though, if dedicated ‘amateur’ researchers can find this information in their spare time, what is stopping the CCRC with their annual budget of £6million and unlimited powers to discover information pointing to the innocence of the applicant?


It is primarily attitude, a confusion over the role of the organisation and a bias towards believing the prosecution.


The simple truth is that dishonest Police Officers like Michael Ainsley believe that their nefarious and evil actions will go undiscovered and unpunished because the Courts and the CCRC are biased towards trusting and supporting the prosecution version of events. While the CCRC operate as ineffectually as they do, corrupt police officers have nothing to fear.


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

[1] The Murders at White House Farm, Auth. Carol Ann Lee (2015) page 280: “One former member of the investigation team who does not wish to be named asked the jury foreman afterwards if there had been a deciding factor. He was told: “It was all down to the Judge’s summing up. He directed us to find Jeremy guilty and that’s why we did, in the end. If it hadn’t been for the judge telling us what to do he would have walked free.” [2] Witness statement dated 4/9/2002. [3] James Stevenson, Chairman of Justice for All, prepared a report for the Manchester McKenzie organisation. 22 April 1993. [4] AB-09-03) Mugford (Julie) – 10.09.85, PDF, Pg. 12. [5] AB-09-02) Mugford (Julie) 08.09.85. PDF, Pg. 18: Jeremy and Brett were sitting on the settee. Brett laid his head on Jeremy’s lap whereupon Jeremy started stroking his hair. I thought this strange.“ [6] AF-NM-063-01) B E Collins (01-10-85). PDF, Pg. 3: “I am bi-sexual.” [7] Julie Mugford manufactured evidence about ‘stolen’ Cartier watches. She originally claimed Jeremy had stolen these whilst he was in New Zealand. Police investigations into the issue proved that the watches were not stolen. Jeremy had, according to Mugford, stolen two brand-new Cartier watches, stolen diamonds from jewellery and, further on, she stated that on the same trip Jeremy had stolen from the bank. She went to on add: “He also arranged for his travellers’ cheques to be stolen and cashed by a friend and he then reported the theft and obtained new cheques. The bank was suspicious, and Jeremy had to take part in an Identity Parade.” This simply did not happen. Jeremy did not arrange for his travellers’ cheques to be stolen nor did he cash any that had been reported as stolen. The Bank had nothing to distrust Jeremy about and he did not have to take part in an Identity Parade. If he had, then Essex Police would have found records of this with the New Zealand Police and the bank. Jeremy Bamber, had never been arrested and had no criminal record. [8] AS-05-01) Smerchanski (Julie) - 12.04.02 PDF, Pg. 2 para 1. [9] List of meetings with Julie, HOLMES 47/86, 10.09.86 PDF. [10]AX-09-12 DS Jones PDF Stokenchurch enquiry interview 19/06/2002. [11] Ibid. [12] AB-05-17) DCS Ainsley Interim Report. PDF Pg, 13 Para. 42.” There is no doubt that she has been corrupted criminally, sexually and in relation to drug abuse by BAMBER”. [13] BU-203-59 Offences Admitted to by Mugford Holmes 33.350. PDF. “1b smuggling cannabis into UK from Canada.” [14]AB-09-03) Mugford (Julie) 10.09.85. PDF, Pg. 5 & 6: “After the business was concluded we returned to our hotel, Hotel DE L’EUROPE, where Brett and Jeremy packed the cannabis into straws which were then placed in tooth paste tubes. These tubes, which were the large size, had been bought in this country for concealing the drugs on our way back through Customs. Because Jeremy could not fit all the straws into the toothpaste tube he placed some into a bottle of Cocoa Butter Lotion I had with me.” [15] AB-09-03) Mugford (Julie) 10.09.85. PDF, Pg. 1 & 2: “Shortly after the visits Jeremy planted the cannabis seeds in a propagator. He laid the seeds on cotton wool [sic] which he watered, then he placed the whole lot on to the small kitchen windowsill. A short while later he planted a second lot of seeds and placed them into the airing cupboard. Not all the seeds germinated so he carried on sowing new seeds until he had enough to plant on into bigger pots. As each seedling grew large enough to handle they were re-potted into larger pots and placed back onto the windowsill. They stayed there until the weather warmed up when he transplanted them into the garden. At this stage the plants would have been between six and eight inches tall. Jeremy planted the plants at the bottom of the garden. He did this because it was overgrown, and nobody would recognise them amongst the other foliage. Jeremy would tend his plants everyday unless he was tied up at the farm. On the odd occasion he would ask me to water them which I would do with the watering can." [16] AB-09-03) Mugford (Julie) 10.09.85. PDF, Pg. 2 & 3: “Jeremy asked me to sell some in College in London. I knew there was a market for cannabis so on my return to College I asked around if anyone would like to buy some. I sold about one hundred pounds (£100.00) worth of cannabis. I gave Jeremy seventy pounds (£70.00) as I had already spent thirty pounds (£30.00) on myself. Jeremy was pleased with the sales and asked me to sell more.” [17] AB-09-03) Mugford (Julie) 10.09.85. PDF, Pg. 6: “I have also on one occasion snorted cocaine. This was during this summer. We went to the Stringfellows Club where we met two guys. They invited us back to their hotel for a drink. Once in their room they offered us some cocaine. I initially declined the offer then became inquisitive.” It is thought that “We” refers to Julie Mugford and Elizabeth Rimmington. We does not refer to Jeremy Bamber. Also see AB-09-03) Mugford (Julie) 10.09.85. PDF, Pg. 6: “Throughout the boat crossing Brett and Jeremy were smoking cannabis. I also smoked some.” [18]AX-04-10) Ainsley 07.11.85 Report. PDF. Para.219 [19]AB-09-03) Julie Mugford (Julie )10.09.85 statement. PDF Pg. 6 Holmes 33/350) COLP handwritten notes PDF Page 21 and Page 22. [21] AX-09-12) DS JONES 19.06.85 statement PDF: “Julie was reported for process regarding cheque fraud, burglary and growing cannabis.” [22] It is acknowledged by both Essex Police and the Metropolitan Police that there was a suicide note. Interviewed by the Metropolitan Police in 20002, DS21 Stan Jones said that the scene was immediately treated as "four murders and a suicide" because the team had a note saying "I've killed myself." DS Jones said: "What you've got to remember is, it wasn't five murders it was four murders and a suicide, which throws a completely different picture on it. "Because things wouldn’t be treated the same as a murder scene." "You don't go hunting for things if you've got four murders and a suicide if you've got someone saying I’ve just killed myself you don't start searching cupboards upstairs, you don't start searching cupboards in the other rooms, because you've got a note saying I've killed myself, so it was treated as four murders and a suicide, completely different." [23]CCRC releases official response to the Westminster Commission report - Criminal Cases Review Commission June 2021.

459 views0 comments

Comentários


Os comentários foram desativados.
Post: Blog2 Post
bottom of page