Guys did I post the full CCRC statement here? I have it paraphrased on a notepad and the word hearsay was used, I know the CCRC said that. Was it on their twitter account?
I remember reading that the full statement of reasons was to remain confidential Mat?
Is this what you are referring to?
The CCRC have issued their grounds for not referring Jeremy Bamber’s case back to the appeal court these are the main points stated in their documentation.
• Fragmented bullet swapped from Sheila Caffell’s body – CCRC said this was available at trial and therefore cannot be used.
• Photographs showing Sheila Caffell’s body had been moved were not accurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn’t touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.
• Photographs showing that the gun was moved on Sheila Caffell’s body were also inaccurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn’t touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.
• No response to the documentation still held under Public Interest Immunity, 340,000 documents.
• No response to negatives still not released to the defence now totalling over 211.
• No mention of the evidence showing that Peter Eaton, Ann Eaton, David Boutflour and Robert Boutflour’s statements conflict with contemporaneous dates showing when the sound moderator was found which was 34 days after the killings and not 3 days after as they said in court.
• No mention of the nail polish chipped from Sheila Caffell appearing at the ‘alleged’ struggle in the kitchen
• No mention about the two sound moderators and how these were merged together by police officers.
• The CCRC found another photometry expert who questioned Peter Sutherst’s methodology in establishing that the scratch marks were not present in the original crime scene photographs. (Jeremy Bamber intends to use Amped 5 software to further support Peter Sutherst’s findings) Nevertheless, Peter Sutherst is one of the UK’s most eminent specialists in this field with over 50 years experience.
Final note: Jeremy has said that he has found the CCRC to be entirely unprofessional in their approach to the evidence submitted from Peter Sutherst as they did not address any problems with his methodology and discuss this with the Defence.
Jeremy Bamber has large teams of people who work for him, these are from many different backgrounds and countries, some are friends and many others offer their professional services pro-bono and want to see justice done. There is currently a mountain of further evidence which Jeremy Bamber will submit to the CCRC in his fight for freedom. The law must bring those to justice who have fabricated evidence in this case. Not one of us or Jeremy will ever give up until this innocent man is set free and justice is finally done.
