Attention: Simon McKay esq., McKay Law
Re: Jeremy Bamber case
Dear Mr. McKay,
I was very idsappointed to learn you have recently made comments in the Canadian press regarding Julie Smerchanski nee Mugford in connection with the Jeremy Bamber case.
You seemed to assume that there would be an appeal court hearing at which you would want to call her to give evidence. You must have know these comments were premature even if you did expect the CCRC to refer Bamber's case to the Court of Appeak.
The following comments attributed to you I found most disturbing:
"We're fairly certain we can issue a subpoena upon her and that extradition treaties would force her to testify".
Besides assuming a court case that was never likely to happen, you directly imply Julie would have to be forced to attend requiring a subpoena and extradition. Julie voluntarily attended the last 2002 Bamber appeal and you have absolutely no right to imply that Julie would have to be forced to attend your hoped for appeal.
In my opinion your sole purpose for making these comments was to damage Julie's reputation in her home town and you should be thoroughly ashamed of your behaviour. I trust now you have failed miserably at the CCRC you will leave Julie alone.
How would you like it if for instance I contacted certain people about your personal history and let them know you are working pro bono for Jeremy Bamber when you have two current IVA's in your name. I am sure your creditors who agreed to the IVA's would wonder why you are working for a proven child killer for nothing when you should be trying to pay back your debts.
There might also be a lot of interest in the fact you didn't disclose your current insolvency agreements when trying to obtain funding in the USA for your failed get rich quick scheme. Just as there might be a lot of interest in the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) judgement against you; mishandling of clients funds wasn't it?
I think you have been led by the nose to the Canadian press by one Miss Jackie Preece and I strongly advise you not to be associated with this woman in any way, shape or form. Miss Preece not only stalks anyone who dare suggest that her idol Bamber is guilty, she spends hours researching their children and using private Facebook photos of their family's to try and hurt her victims. She uses the private information gained and photos in her nasty emails which she freely distributes.
She has also done the same with Anne Eaton and her daughter who was about 7 years old at the time of the murders. Miss Jackie Preece also researched the suicide death of the partner of a member of Bamber's Official Campaign Team and used this information on Twitter to again hurt her victim. I understand Bamber himself is aware of at least this last instance and is rightly furious with Miss Preece's behaviour.
If you doubt anything I have said please feel free to check with Neil who I understand worked closely with you on the resent failed CCRC submission. Neil knows chapter and verse about all Miss Preece's vile stalking activities.
I have no problem with you representing Bamber although I do question your motives. I do have a problem with your harassing of Julie for no other possible purpose than to cause her distress. That was way below the belt Mr. McKay!
I would suggest you have nothing more to do with Miss Preece and play by the rules of decency in future.
Yours truly,
Jennifer Terry
CC:
Jeremy Bamber at Full Sutton Prison by mail
Mark Williams-Thomas by email
