Why the CCRC must refer the case of Jeremy Bamber to the Court of Appeal now!

Mike Proctor is the Senior Case Review Manager at the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) in charge of overseeing the submissions made by or on behalf of Jeremy Bamber. He is now in possession of a report from CCRC Watch that means he should refer the case of Jeremy Bamber to the Court of Appeal (CoA) without further delay.

On Wednesday 27^th August the CCRC signed to confirm that they had received our report on the seventy or more wounds to the three adult victims at White House Farm undisclosed to the original trial and denied by the Pathologist.

The report represents genuine ‘new evidence’ as required by the CCRC before a referral to the CoA is made. The report outlines, with high definition images, the following wounds:

Sheila Caffell’s thirty-five additional injuries:

• A small, incised wound, inflicted by a sharp mechanical object, most likely the rifle cocking lever, with bruising near the base of her right trigger finger, with slight bruising to her thumb in two visible separate locations; a smaller graze adjacent to this wound;

• A fingernail shaped wound on the back of her right hand probably inflicted during a struggle with June Bamber;

• A further six wounds to the back of Sheila’s right hand;

• Four further wounds at the base of blood rivulets on her lower right arm caused by June Bamber grabbing Sheila by the arm, cutting her with her fingernails;

• Three fingernail gouge wounds in the vicinity of the mid-arm;

• At least thirteen fingernail gouges on Sheila’s upper right arm;

• A wound to her right forehead;

• Two gouges in Sheila’s neck caused by the pendant she was wearing being pulled tight against her skin, indicative of further attempts to disarm her by choking during a ‘life and death’ struggle;

• A small wound in her right ear lobe where an earring had been torn free during the struggle; and,

• Cut to Sheila Caffel’s right shoulder with blood stream

Wounds to June Bamber in addition to gunshots:

• Large 10mm cut to chin;

• Four small puncture wounds on neck and associated blood streams;

• Four cuts to rear of left hand and four grazes in the vicinity of the wrist;

• Estimated four lower neck wounds (possibly more);

• Black eye; and,

• Ten wounds to June’s right and left legs below the knee, possibly more.

Wounds to Nevill Bamber in addition to gunshots:

• Five wounds to left forearm, distinct crescent shape to 4 of them; and,

• Three cuts to right forearm

Giving evidence at the trial, Dr. Vanezis stated in response to questioning:

Q) Now, apart from the two gunshot wounds, was there any evidence of any other injury anywhere else on the body?

A) No, I could not find any evidence of any other injury.

The Judge then asked a direct question about the possibility of a fight between Sheila and anyone else:

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.

Q) And then you have got this blood on the forearm, which has got spots and then trails either to or from the spots?

A) Yes.

Q) What can you say about those?

A) These trails of blood appear to have run vertically down the outer side of the arm.

Q) They look as if they are going sideways to start with and then they go down?

 A) Yes.

Q) Can you tell how that had occurred? Was that from a wound or did it come from somewhere else?

A) In my view these trails of blood were associated with substantial blood staining on the right side of the nightdress in the armpit area and below, as well as the blood from the neck region.

Q) When you say “associated” do you mean by that it had run directly from one of the other wounds, or had it fallen on to it, or what do you say?

A) All I can say is that blood had been transferred from that area on to the arm, and of course, had trailed.

Q) There are obviously wounds in the neck?

 A) Yes.

Q) Was there an indication that blood had run down from those wounds?

A) Yes.

Every answer that Vanezis gave was is entirely incorrect, as we explain in our 52-page report. There were no blood trails running down the outside of the arm. The blood ‘trails’ on the lower arm were caused by cuts, as were all the other blood trails. Vanezis also described something that was scientifically impossible; that blood running down from the neck wounds had travelled over two feet in distance before branching off in four separate directions all of the same length, where the blood trail widened (rather than narrowed) before forming clots.

Consider, also, that the throat wounds from which these streaks of blood were said to have originated were serious enough that in the opinion of two pathologists giving evidence, Sheila would have bled to death within minutes of the wound being inflicted. Sheila would have been losing consciousness and control of her muscles due to blood loss. How could she have kept still long enough for blood ‘clots’ to form on the lower arm in exactly the same four locations?

There is independent expert opinion in support of our findings. Prior to the 2002 Appeal, the CCRC hired forensic scientist Martin Ismail to examine the photographs of the body. Ismail was head of the Major Crime Service of the Forensic Science Service. In his statement dated 23/08/2002 he said:

“The final position of the arm across CAFFELL’s lower abdomen cannot account for the blood runs on the forearm”.

This contradicts Dr. Vanezis’ theory and, by implication, confirms that the blood runs on the forearm were caused by cuts.

What does this information mean in the context of the jury verdict? It means that the verdict is entirely unsafe. Virtually the entirety of the testimony given by Dr. Vanezis is factually and scientifically incorrect. We have a situation where evidence suggests very firmly that Sheila Caffell sustained many cuts, gouges, scratches and grazes due to her parents trying to disarm her.

In addition to the evidence of numerous wounds, we also know that John Hayward, the chief forensic scientist responsible for blood testing also gave misleading evidence in court. Hayward testified that blood found inside the silencer was A PGM1+EAP BA AK1 Hp 2-1

However, Hayward 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 (who actually did the tests) 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 did not report reality when he said that the blood found in the silencer was an exclusive match for Sheila Caffell, the test results did not meet his criteria of two consistent results and the outcome was, therefore, inconclusive, which is what he should have said.

So we now have the CCRC with indisputable evidence that the evidence given about the blood in the silencer was wrong and the evidence given about the condition of the bodies of the three adult victims was also wrong.

Mr Proctor, what are you waiting for?

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.