UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Nicholas on May 23, 2020, 07:26:30 PM
-
If anyone wishes to make direct contact with the Leeds Combined Court Centre where Bamber’s hearing will be heard
Contact details are as follows https://courttribunalfinder.service.gov.uk/courts/leeds-combined-court-centre
Visit or write to us:
The Courthouse
1 Oxford Row
Leeds
LS1 3BG
Email
Crown Court: customerenquiries.leeds.crowncourt@Justice.gov.uk
Admin court: administrativecourtoffice.leeds@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk
Phone numbers
Enquiries: 0113 306 2800
Disabled access: 0113 306 2669
Admin court: 0113 306 2578
(Administrative Court - Division of the High Court)
-
The judge presiding over the hearing is the Honourable Mr Justice Julian Knowles
Julian B Knowles QC
Julian grew up on a council estate in Manchester and attended the local comprehensive school. He studied mathematics at Oxford University; one of the first generation of his family to attend university. Julian initially intended to be a mathematician but was inspired to become a barrister after spending the summer of 1990 as a volunteer paralegal with death row prisoners in Oklahoma. Julian was called to the Bar in 1994 and was appointed as a Queen’s Counsel in 2011. He specialised in complex criminal law, extradition, human rights law, public law and media law. During his career Julian appeared in numerous significant cases including: the Pinochet extradition case; the Siôn Jenkins murder case; the Dewani 'honeymoon murder' extradition case; the shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes; and the MPs' expenses prosecutions. He was also one of the counsel team that brought a number of constitutional appeals in the Privy Council which resulted in restrictions on the death penalty in the Caribbean. Julian has written a number of legal books and is the co-author of the extradition textbook ‘Nicholls, Montgomery and Knowles’. He was appointed as a Recorder in 2009 and as Deputy High Court judge in 2017.
https://www.judicialappointments.gov.uk/high-court-judges-2017
-
The judge presiding over the hearing is the Honourable Mr Justice Julian Knowles
Julian B Knowles QC
Julian grew up on a council estate in Manchester and attended the local comprehensive school. He studied mathematics at Oxford University; one of the first generation of his family to attend university. Julian initially intended to be a mathematician but was inspired to become a barrister after spending the summer of 1990 as a volunteer paralegal with death row prisoners in Oklahoma. Julian was called to the Bar in 1994 and was appointed as a Queen’s Counsel in 2011. He specialised in complex criminal law, extradition, human rights law, public law and media law. During his career Julian appeared in numerous significant cases including: the Pinochet extradition case; the Siôn Jenkins murder case; the Dewani 'honeymoon murder' extradition case; the shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes; and the MPs' expenses prosecutions. He was also one of the counsel team that brought a number of constitutional appeals in the Privy Council which resulted in restrictions on the death penalty in the Caribbean. Julian has written a number of legal books and is the co-author of the extradition textbook ‘Nicholls, Montgomery and Knowles’. He was appointed as a Recorder in 2009 and as Deputy High Court judge in 2017.
https://www.judicialappointments.gov.uk/high-court-judges-2017
Kinell!! Not 'No Chance Knowles'!
-
If anyone wishes to make direct contact with the Leeds Combined Court Centre where Bamber’s hearing will be heard
Contact details are as follows https://courttribunalfinder.service.gov.uk/courts/leeds-combined-court-centre
Visit or write to us:
The Courthouse
1 Oxford Row
Leeds
LS1 3BG
Email
Crown Court: customerenquiries.leeds.crowncourt@Justice.gov.uk
Admin court: administrativecourtoffice.leeds@hmcts.x.gsi.gov.uk
Phone numbers
Enquiries: 0113 306 2800
Disabled access: 0113 306 2669
Admin court: 0113 306 2578
(Administrative Court - Division of the High Court)
Why would we want to do that out of interest?
-
Why would we want to do that out of interest?
Third party intervention - To assist the court 8((()*/
-
Third party intervention - To assist the court 8((()*/
Oh, Julian Knowles would have read up on the boring submission already 💤
However, their assistants do actually glance at social media, as do the police...
I’d say there’ll be rolling eyes on Friday 🙄💤🙄💤🙄💤
Hope Jeremy Bamber has filled out his menu card for Christmas...
-
Oh, Julian Knowles would have read up on the boring submission already 💤
However, their assistants do actually glance at social media, as do the police...
I’d say there’ll be rolling eyes on Friday 🙄💤🙄💤🙄💤
Hope Jeremy Bamber has filled out his menu card for Christmas...
Who’s funding this hearing and how much has it cost ?
-
Who’s funding this hearing and how much has it cost ?
That dull solicitor from Quality Solicitors Jordans (impressive name 😌), Mark Newby is doing it for free, I think...pro bono. Jeremy Bamber isn’t entitled to legal aid — they've even clamped down on genuine cases — so he can only get what he’s offered. Newby just wants a bit of recognition; he knows he hasn’t a hope in hell.
The courts are sick to their teeth of JB, and his latest moan is that the police gave CAL a photograph he hasn’t seen. Tough. So he can stare at his victim? Who’s to say he wouldn’t get off on it?
He has the psychopathic arrogance to call it “a disgrace”
Never mind the FACT he shot dead two six-year-old boys in the head six times, plus his sister and parents...
Oh, he’s also coming out with “new fresh evidence” that there were two silencers.
Shame.
The one found was the one he used to murder his family: it had Sheila’s blood in it.
The court will end up banning him from making any more submissions,
Copied this from the web:
“On Friday, at an oral renewal hearing in Leeds, the high court will be asked to “review the refusal of the Crown Prosecution Service to disclose evidence they believe could undermine [the] conviction” of Jeremy Bamber according to the Guardian’s Simon Hattenstone.
Bamber’s legal representative, solicitor advocate Mark Newby of Quality Solicitors Jordans, told the paper:
“Since proceedings were issued it came to our attention that the author of the book the ITV drama was based upon [Carol Ann Lee] appears to have received material directly from the police [images of which she shared on Instagram and later deleted].”
“It cannot be right that an author has been given material that Mr Bamber’s defence team have not seen, particularly in light of the persistent refusal by the CPS to disclose specific material we have been asking for. It raises the question of whether a work of fiction is more important than justice.”
Illustrating her tellingly selective thoughts on what evidence should be released, to whom and where, in an interview with the East Anglian Daily Times in January this year, Ms Lee – whose son also worked with her on the White House Farm drama – stated:
“My personal opinion is very much that he’s guilty. He’s been in prison for 30 years and the evidence he was convicted on has not been overturned. He’s been appealing ever since he’s been in prison and nothing has come out that has been able to overturn that conviction… And for me the overriding piece of evidence, if you like, was looking at the original crime scene photographs. Without going into detail, it was obvious from one of the photographs in particular, that has never been published and should never be published, that those murders were committed by somebody who was extremely adept with a gun – who knew what they were doing.”
Responding and speaking of news of Friday’s hearing from Wakefield prison to the Guardian, Jeremy Bamber commented:
“It is disgusting that a third party was provided with documents and sensitive photographs when Essex police and the CPS have been unwilling to hand over material to our own forensic experts to prove that two silencers were recovered from the scene.”
“Despite court orders being in place for them to make full disclosure to us, which they deliberately chose to ignore, when Carol Ann Lee requested material she was given it without a second thought. Where is my justice?”
-
“It is disgusting that a third party was provided with documents and sensitive photographs
Sounds like he’s referring to the photos of SC he tried to sell to the Sun
-
That dull solicitor from Quality Solicitors Jordans (impressive name 😌), Mark Newby is doing it for free, I think...pro bono. Jeremy Bamber isn’t entitled to legal aid
Who’s paying Judge Knowles and all those other people involved in the hearing ?
-
Simon McKay
Prior to the above in October 2012 he wrote and published an article headed, Judicial mischief
”Last week the High Court rejected, on the papers at least, an application by Jeremy Bamber, convicted in 1986 of the murder of his entire family. The reasons included a rejection that the often cited authority of R v Criminal Cases Review Commission, ex parte Pearson did not create a two-staged approach to considering miscarriage of justice cases and in any event even if it did, the CCRC did not have to follow it. It was also critical of a throw away remark Mr Bamber made to a journalist several years ago that he may not have been showing all of his hand.
Wonder if Judge Knowles will have picked up on any of Bamber’s remarks over the years or more recently?
-
So it's all happening tomorrow, is it?
Judge Knowles will make a final decision on the long running saga re non-disclosure? Will this include the info supposedly held under pii?
-
Sounds like he’s referring to the photos of SC he tried to sell to the Sun
I believe he’s referring to the photograph they sent to CAL of one of the twins.
CAL said it was that photo which proved to her beyond all doubt that Jeremy Bamber was the killer. She said the photo would, nor should, ever be allowed in the public domain, so it must be absolutely HORRIFIC!😖
That stinking b........ did that, and revolting people are trying to help him get free! They should hang their disgraceful heads in disgust!
I bet the psychopath is fuming and also scared that the photo will be leaked...
-
So it's all happening tomorrow, is it?
Judge Knowles will make a final decision on the long running saga re non-disclosure? Will this include the info supposedly held under pii?
Hope you’ve got your Blue Nun on chill, you’ll want some when you get the disapproving news...
-
’Justice Julian Knowles deferred a decision on whether the evidence should be disclosed until next week.
“It is a very important, complex case and I want to take a little time to consider,” he said.
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/18484076.jeremy-bamber-high-court-bid-evidence-says-clear/
‘At a virtual hearing at the Administrative Court in Leeds, Joe Stone QC, representing Bamber, said disclosing the evidence would provide a real chance for his conviction to be overturned.
“If there was second sound moderator then it would fundamentally alter the way the prosecution case was put,” he said.
“It would be helpful evidence in support of Mr Bamber. It could be potentially invaluable and is arguably the most important exhibit in the case.”
However, Annabel Darlow QC, representing the CPS, said the presence of another sound moderator was irrelevant because of how deep the blood had been lodged, meaning Sheila could not have shot herself.
“It doesn’t matter if another 40 were found at the property,” she said.
“The only significance of the sound moderator is that it had blood type matching Sheila Caffell on it.”
-
Joe Stone QC, representing Bamber, told a remote High Court hearing on Friday that "it now seems almost certain that there is a second sound moderator" evidence he suggested could "significantly undermine the prosecution case".
He told Mr Justice Julian Knowles the second silencer "could be the most important exhibit in the case - we simply do not know its true relevance".
Mr Stone said:
"The prosecution case at trial was based exclusively on the point that there was only ever one sound moderator and that the specific factual circumstances in which this sound moderator was found and the nature of the blood grouping on it meant that Sheila Caffell could not have committed the murders and then taken her life."
The court heard the prosecution case at Bamber's trial in 1986 was that Ms Caffell could not have reached the trigger to kill herself if the silencer was attached to the murder weapon.
Mr Stone argued his client would be "significantly handicapped" in mounting a fresh bid to overturn his conviction through the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the independent body which investigates possible miscarriages of justice, without the evidence sought.
He added that "blood-based exhibits from Sheila Caffell's DNA were destroyed by Essex Police in February 1996", as part of what he described as "systematic destruction of core exhibits".
Mr Stone also referred to a recent ITV drama about the killings, White House Farm, and claimed that material was provided to the author of a book on which the show was based by the original investigating officer "without permission or lawful authority".
He said author Carol Ann Lee had been given "a number of sensitive case documents" by former detective superintendent Michael Ainslee, who is said to have later destroyed the items despite knowing "there were ongoing appeal proceedings".
Mr Stone said: "This week, the claimant (Bamber) was informed that the original senior investigating officer Michael Ainslee had in fact taken back to his home address, in 2010, more documents from the murder investigation, and had in fact destroyed them, and it is not known what these particular documents were."
Annabel Darlow QC, for the CPS, said in written submissions: "The alleged existence of two sound moderators, and the integrity of the exhibits relating to the examination of the sound moderator, have been the subject of exhaustive inquiry and review."
She said the CPS "does not accept that the documents now sought were not previously disclosed or made available to the claimant".
She added: "The relevant evidence at trial was the existence of one sound moderator, contaminated with deposits explicable only on the basis that it was attached to the firearm used for the murders.
"Even if, contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the existence of a second sound moderator was established, it would not displace those scientific findings.
"The existence of Sheila Caffell's blood deep within the sound moderator, in circumstances in which she could not physically have shot herself with the moderator attached, renders irrelevant the putative existence of further sound moderators."
Ms Darlow argued the CCRC had previously "looked extremely extensively at the issue of whether or not there was a second sound moderator" and said Bamber was "tribunal shopping to avoid going back to the CCRC".
This case is the latest legal action brought by Bamber in his long-running battle to clear his name.
Mr Justice Julian Knowles reserved his judgment on Bamber's application and said he hopes to give a written ruling next week.
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2020-05-29/mass-murderer-jeremy-bamber-will-appeal-against-his-convictions-in-the-high-court-tomorrow/
-
Joe Stone QC, representing Bamber, told a remote High Court hearing on Friday that "it now seems almost certain that there is a second sound moderator" evidence he suggested could "significantly undermine the prosecution case".
He told Mr Justice Julian Knowles the second silencer "could be the most important exhibit in the case - we simply do not know its true relevance".
Mr Stone said:
"The prosecution case at trial was based exclusively on the point that there was only ever one sound moderator and that the specific factual circumstances in which this sound moderator was found and the nature of the blood grouping on it meant that Sheila Caffell could not have committed the murders and then taken her life."
The court heard the prosecution case at Bamber's trial in 1986 was that Ms Caffell could not have reached the trigger to kill herself if the silencer was attached to the murder weapon.
Mr Stone argued his client would be "significantly handicapped" in mounting a fresh bid to overturn his conviction through the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the independent body which investigates possible miscarriages of justice, without the evidence sought.
He added that "blood-based exhibits from Sheila Caffell's DNA were destroyed by Essex Police in February 1996", as part of what he described as "systematic destruction of core exhibits".
Mr Stone also referred to a recent ITV drama about the killings, White House Farm, and claimed that material was provided to the author of a book on which the show was based by the original investigating officer "without permission or lawful authority".
He said author Carol Ann Lee had been given "a number of sensitive case documents" by former detective superintendent Michael Ainslee, who is said to have later destroyed the items despite knowing "there were ongoing appeal proceedings".
Mr Stone said: "This week, the claimant (Bamber) was informed that the original senior investigating officer Michael Ainslee had in fact taken back to his home address, in 2010, more documents from the murder investigation, and had in fact destroyed them, and it is not known what these particular documents were."
Annabel Darlow QC, for the CPS, said in written submissions: "The alleged existence of two sound moderators, and the integrity of the exhibits relating to the examination of the sound moderator, have been the subject of exhaustive inquiry and review."
She said the CPS "does not accept that the documents now sought were not previously disclosed or made available to the claimant".
She added: "The relevant evidence at trial was the existence of one sound moderator, contaminated with deposits explicable only on the basis that it was attached to the firearm used for the murders.
"Even if, contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the existence of a second sound moderator was established, it would not displace those scientific findings.
"The existence of Sheila Caffell's blood deep within the sound moderator, in circumstances in which she could not physically have shot herself with the moderator attached, renders irrelevant the putative existence of further sound moderators."
Ms Darlow argued the CCRC had previously "looked extremely extensively at the issue of whether or not there was a second sound moderator" and said Bamber was "tribunal shopping to avoid going back to the CCRC".
This case is the latest legal action brought by Bamber in his long-running battle to clear his name.
Mr Justice Julian Knowles reserved his judgment on Bamber's application and said he hopes to give a written ruling next week.
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2020-05-29/mass-murderer-jeremy-bamber-will-appeal-against-his-convictions-in-the-high-court-tomorrow/
R v Jeremy Bamber
[2002] EWCA Crim 2912
Annabel Darlow QC appeared in this appeal against conviction by one of Britain’s most notorious killers for the murders of five members of his adopted family, including his twin six-year old nephews. Annabel also appeared in the subsequent appeal against the imposition of a whole-life tariff.
https://www.6kbw.com/notable-cases/r-v-jeremy-bamber
-
Well, it is a tough decision, but when all the evidence is looked at as even detailed in Andrew Hunter's unpublished book it was definitely an unsafe conviction.
-
The Evening Standard have reported,
Excerpts:
“The issue of a second sound moderator is therefore crucial.
“If there was one then the jury would have unable to correctly evaluate this critical dimension of the case - namely the exact circumstances in which Sheila Caffell died - where the second sound moderator was located and the relevant inferences that could have been drawn from that to rebut this dimension of the prosecution case.”
Mr Stone told a hearing this morning that “it now seems almost certain that there is a second sound moderator”, seeking a ruling that would move Bamber’s bid to overturn his convictions a step further.
At Bamber’s trial in 1986, the prosecution argued that Ms Caffell could not have reached the trigger to kill herself if the silencer was attached to the murder weapon.
Mr Stone argued Bamber’s latest attempt to challenge the convictions through the Criminal Cases Review Commission would be “significantly handicapped” without the CPS evidence he says exists, and denied that this was a “speculative fishing exercise”.
At his trial, jurors heard how Bamber stood to receive a large inheritance after the murders and had placed the gun in the hands of his sister – who suffered from schizophrenia – to make it look like a murder-suicide.
At today’s hearing, Bamber hit out at the original officer in the case, claiming he had provided “sensitive” material in the case to author Carol Ann Lee, who was behind the recent TV drama White House Farm with actor Freddie Fox taking the role of the killer.
He claims the officer has since destroyed case material despite knowing there is an ongoing appeal.
In a written submission, CPS lawyer Annabel Darlow QC said: “The alleged existence of two sound moderators, and the integrity of the exhibits relating to the examination of the sound moderator, have been the subject of exhaustive inquiry and review.”
She said the CPS “does not accept that the documents now sought were not previously disclosed or made available to the claimant”.
Ms Darlow added: “The relevant evidence at trial was the existence of one sound moderator, contaminated with deposits explicable only on the basis that it was attached to the firearm used for the murders.
“Even if, contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the existence of a second sound moderator was established, it would not displace those scientific findings.”
She added that the CCRC had previously “looked extremely extensively at the issue of whether or not there was a second sound moderator” and said Bamber was “tribunal shopping to avoid going back to the CCRC”.
The judge is expected to rule on the application next week.
-
R v Jeremy Bamber
[2002] EWCA Crim 2912
Annabel Darlow QC appeared in this appeal against conviction by one of Britain’s most notorious killers for the murders of five members of his adopted family, including his twin six-year old nephews. Annabel also appeared in the subsequent appeal against the imposition of a whole-life tariff.
https://www.6kbw.com/notable-cases/r-v-jeremy-bamber
Excerpts from BBC News
’Prosecutors said his sister Sheila Cafell's blood was found on a silencer, meaning she could not have committed the murders and then taken her own life - as Bamber argued in his defence.
His lawyers claim prosecutors did not disclose evidence of a second silencer.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) told the High Court that even if this second silencer existed it would not displace "overwhelming scientific evidence".
Bamber was found guilty in 1986 of murdering his adoptive parents Nevill and June, both 61, Ms Caffell, 26, and her six-year-old twins Daniel and Nicholas.
He has always maintained his sister, who had schizophrenia, shot her family and then herself.
During the remote hearing, Joe Stone QC, representing Bamber, said his client had been told this week of allegations of evidence destruction by the case's original senior investigating officer.
He also said blood-based exhibits from Ms Caffell's DNA were destroyed by Essex Police in February 1996, as part of what he described as "systematic destruction of core exhibits".
He argued evidence of a second silencer could "significantly undermine the prosecution case".
Annabel Darlow QC, for the CPS, said: "Even if, contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the existence of a second sound moderator was established, it would not displace those scientific findings.
"The existence of Sheila Caffell's blood deep within the sound moderator, in circumstances in which she could not physically have shot herself with the moderator attached, renders irrelevant the putative existence of further sound moderators."
This case is the latest legal action brought by Bamber in his long-running battle to clear his name.
Justice Julian Knowles deferred making a ruling in the case until next week due to "complexities" in the case.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-52853759
-
Mr Stone said: "This week, the claimant (Bamber) was informed that the original senior investigating officer Michael Ainslee had in fact taken back to his home address, in 2010, more documents from the murder investigation, and had in fact destroyed them, and it is not known what these particular documents were."
Who’s made these allegations exactly?
-
Joe Stone QC, representing Bamber, told a remote High Court hearing on Friday that "it now seems almost certain that there is a second sound moderator" evidence he suggested could "significantly undermine the prosecution case".
He told Mr Justice Julian Knowles the second silencer "could be the most important exhibit in the case - we simply do not know its true relevance".
Mr Stone said:
"The prosecution case at trial was based exclusively on the point that there was only ever one sound moderator and that the specific factual circumstances in which this sound moderator was found and the nature of the blood grouping on it meant that Sheila Caffell could not have committed the murders and then taken her life."
The court heard the prosecution case at Bamber's trial in 1986 was that Ms Caffell could not have reached the trigger to kill herself if the silencer was attached to the murder weapon.
Mr Stone argued his client would be "significantly handicapped" in mounting a fresh bid to overturn his conviction through the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the independent body which investigates possible miscarriages of justice, without the evidence sought.
He added that "blood-based exhibits from Sheila Caffell's DNA were destroyed by Essex Police in February 1996", as part of what he described as "systematic destruction of core exhibits".
Mr Stone also referred to a recent ITV drama about the killings, White House Farm, and claimed that material was provided to the author of a book on which the show was based by the original investigating officer "without permission or lawful authority".
He said author Carol Ann Lee had been given "a number of sensitive case documents" by former detective superintendent Michael Ainslee, who is said to have later destroyed the items despite knowing "there were ongoing appeal proceedings".
Mr Stone said: "This week, the claimant (Bamber) was informed that the original senior investigating officer Michael Ainslee had in fact taken back to his home address, in 2010, more documents from the murder investigation, and had in fact destroyed them, and it is not known what these particular documents were."
Annabel Darlow QC, for the CPS, said in written submissions: "The alleged existence of two sound moderators, and the integrity of the exhibits relating to the examination of the sound moderator, have been the subject of exhaustive inquiry and review."
She said the CPS "does not accept that the documents now sought were not previously disclosed or made available to the claimant".
She added: "The relevant evidence at trial was the existence of one sound moderator, contaminated with deposits explicable only on the basis that it was attached to the firearm used for the murders.
"Even if, contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the existence of a second sound moderator was established, it would not displace those scientific findings.
"The existence of Sheila Caffell's blood deep within the sound moderator, in circumstances in which she could not physically have shot herself with the moderator attached, renders irrelevant the putative existence of further sound moderators."
Ms Darlow argued the CCRC had previously "looked extremely extensively at the issue of whether or not there was a second sound moderator" and said Bamber was "tribunal shopping to avoid going back to the CCRC".
This case is the latest legal action brought by Bamber in his long-running battle to clear his name.
Mr Justice Julian Knowles reserved his judgment on Bamber's application and said he hopes to give a written ruling next week.
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2020-05-29/mass-murderer-jeremy-bamber-will-appeal-against-his-convictions-in-the-high-court-tomorrow/
What a waste of time 🙄
Bet Julian Knowles is seriously pissed off having to bat this load or rubbish out by giving his ruling next week — which will be, to put it succinctly, FO.
-
Who’s made these allegations exactly?
Jeremy Bamber, no doubt
It’s actually embarrassing
-
Jeremy Bamber, no doubt
It’s actually embarrassing
Wasn’t it claimed Mick Ainslee ended up working at Osea Road after he retired from the force ?
-
Wasn’t it claimed Mick Ainslee ended up working at Osea Road after he retired from the force ?
Mick Ainslee?
Rings a bell, but I’ve forgotten who he is, Nicholas
-
Mick Ainslee?
Rings a bell, but I’ve forgotten who he is, Nicholas
Mr Stone said: "This week, the claimant (Bamber) was informed that the original senior investigating officer Michael Ainslee had in fact taken back to his home address, in 2010, more documents from the murder investigation, and had in fact destroyed them, and it is not known what these particular documents were."
-
Wasn’t it claimed Mick Ainslee ended up working at Osea Road after he retired from the force ?
Essex Live by Sam Tobin & Hope Woolston https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-4177596
‘Bamber's lawyer also claimed that the police gave material to an author, Carol Ann Lee, who wrote a book on the murders which inspired the recent ITV drama "without permission or lawful authority".
He said Carol Ann Lee had been given "a number of sensitive case documents" by former detective superintendent Michael Ainslee, who is said to have later destroyed the items despite knowing "there were ongoing appeal proceedings".
-
How many appeal attempt, including attempts for leave to appeal has Jeremy Bamber had, I wonder?
I stumbled upon this on Facebook where they’re ridiculing him constantly appealing...no idea if these women are some of his supporters as I didn’t join his vile group. The comment about Jeremy Bamber is beneath the photo of these women standing by a cake. I know he did a bake-off 🙈
Do you recognise any of them, Nicholas?
I’ve only seen a couple: Trudi etc...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Mick Ainslee?
Rings a bell, but I’ve forgotten who he is, Nicholas
The journo spelled it wrong... should be Mike Ainsley, lead detective who was interviewed by CAL for her book.
https://simonwilkinson.photoshelter.com/image/I00005EAyJho0wuc (https://simonwilkinson.photoshelter.com/image/I00005EAyJho0wuc)
-
Ah, of course!
Thank you, Nicholas.
I can’t see why Mike Ainsley would have taken documents home, nor how he’d have been allowed to.
It’s probably more lies from JB and his CT.
The things they dream up are insane...
-
The journo spelled it wrong... should be Mike Ainsley, lead detective who was interviewed by CAL for her book.
https://simonwilkinson.photoshelter.com/image/I00005EAyJho0wuc (https://simonwilkinson.photoshelter.com/image/I00005EAyJho0wuc)
Thought it was Ainsley as opposed to Ainslee
-
Ah, of course!
Thank you, Nicholas.
I can’t see why Mike Ainsley would have taken documents home, nor how he’d have been allowed to.
It’s probably more lies from JB and his CT.
The things they dream up are insane...
Crafty, though. Given that negatives can't be proved, how would he go about establishing that he didn't? Think we're back to West and Bonnett concealing a phone-call from Nevill. How can it be proved that something which didn't happed, didn't happen?
-
Bamber’s targeted Mick Ainsley in the past
This from a 2015 petition update here https://www.change.org/p/michael-gove-secretary-of-state-for-justice-essex-police-release-all-documents-withheld-under-pii-to-jeremy-bamber-s-legal-defence/u/13374688
‘A key discovery during this 1991 C.O.L.P. Enquiry was that the case featured a silencer and a sound moderator, two distinct exhibits. Both of these exhibits had been removed from the gun cupboard at White House Farm on or after 7th August 1985.
C.O.L.P. also discovered that DCI Ainsley had deliberately misled the D.P.P. in 1985 regarding many of the central Issues in this case. However a Policy decision was taken not to make public any wrong doing by any Police Officer, Forensic Scientist or any other Prosecution witness who gave evidence during this Enquiry. All of the case files became subject of a Public Interest Immunity Order as a result of this decision Policy.
-
Essex Live by Sam Tobin & Hope Woolston https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-4177596
‘Bamber's lawyer also claimed that the police gave material to an author, Carol Ann Lee, who wrote a book on the murders which inspired the recent ITV drama "without permission or lawful authority".
He said Carol Ann Lee had been given "a number of sensitive case documents" by former detective superintendent Michael Ainslee, who is said to have later destroyed the items despite knowing "there were ongoing appeal proceedings".
Suspect some of Bamber’s surviving relatives would have had copies of case files - especially given the fact Bamber tried to sue them.
-
Bamber’s targeted Mick Ainsley in the past
In a December 2002 article by the Telegraph here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1415952/Bamber-stays-in-prison-as-judges-throw-out-appeal.html headed, ‘Bamber stays in prison as judges throw out appeal’
It stated,
‘The detective who headed the investigation said the appeal was a waste of public money. Michael Ainsley, now retired, said,
“The Criminal Cases Review Commission should be looked at to find out why they allowed this matter to go as far as it did. It is a gross waste of public money. His appeal was based on fabrication and lies.”
So why has Bamber’s innocence fraud been allowed to continue ?
-
Wasn’t it claimed Mick Ainslee ended up working at Osea Road after he retired from the force ?
From Bamber’s website here https://jeremybamber.org/ann-peter-eaton/
‘After Jeremy’s conviction a directors meeting was attended by two proxie’s on Jeremy’s behalf. The proxie’s wrote an account of their visit to the meeting [8] detailing that Mr Ainsley (former head of the investigation on the Bamber case as a Supt of Essex Police) was now working there, they also stated that Pamela was asking after Jeremy but this was frowned upon by other members of the family.
During the 2002 Metropolitan Police enquiry, Ainsley was questioned and interviewed in connection with his handling of the investigation, he affectionately refers to Robert Boutflour as “Bobby.”[9] He doesn’t mention any close ties to the Boutflour’s in his statement of 1991 and 2002. Nevertheless he does detail that he had ordered a Det Supt Kennelly to carry out a review of the Bamber investigation in light of the insistence by Ann and Robert that Sheila could not have been responsible. “On my return from annual leave I obviously enquired of Kenneally as to the situation with the murders and he assured me that Sheila Caffell was responsible. At the beginning of September that year following a meeting with the ACC Peter Simpson I instructed Kenneally to carry out a review of the case. On Friday the 6th September at I believe 6pm a meeting was held in my office with the chief Constable R, Bunyard, Mr Peter Simpson (ACC), Det Supt Kenneally and myself. When Kenneally was asked to give us the results of his review, he stated that the evidence indicated that Sheila was responsible.” Where is the missing report that Kennelly provided at this meeting? What was the evidence indicating that Sheila was responsible and why was this never disclosed to the Defence?
-
From Bamber’s website here https://jeremybamber.org/ann-peter-eaton/
‘After Jeremy’s conviction a directors meeting was attended by two proxie’s on Jeremy’s behalf. The proxie’s wrote an account of their visit to the meeting [8] detailing that Mr Ainsley (former head of the investigation on the Bamber case as a Supt of Essex Police) was now working there, they also stated that Pamela was asking after Jeremy but this was frowned upon by other members of the family.
During the 2002 Metropolitan Police enquiry, Ainsley was questioned and interviewed in connection with his handling of the investigation, he affectionately refers to Robert Boutflour as “Bobby.”[9] He doesn’t mention any close ties to the Boutflour’s in his statement of 1991 and 2002. Nevertheless he does detail that he had ordered a Det Supt Kennelly to carry out a review of the Bamber investigation in light of the insistence by Ann and Robert that Sheila could not have been responsible. “On my return from annual leave I obviously enquired of Kenneally as to the situation with the murders and he assured me that Sheila Caffell was responsible. At the beginning of September that year following a meeting with the ACC Peter Simpson I instructed Kenneally to carry out a review of the case. On Friday the 6th September at I believe 6pm a meeting was held in my office with the chief Constable R, Bunyard, Mr Peter Simpson (ACC), Det Supt Kenneally and myself. When Kenneally was asked to give us the results of his review, he stated that the evidence indicated that Sheila was responsible.” Where is the missing report that Kennelly provided at this meeting? What was the evidence indicating that Sheila was responsible and why was this never disclosed to the Defence?
Bamber’s campaign team have also claimed the following re Mick Ainsley
‘Further supporting the defence contention that the window catch was fully deployed when the police arrived at the scene on the 7th August 1985 was a report sent from DI Ainsley to the Director of Public Prosecutions on 7th of November 1985. "As stated, there was no apparent entry to or exit from the house and D/Chief Inspector Jones did in fact examine the inside of all ground floor windows and noted that they were all shut and secured on their latches." However, the jury were told that the windows were all closed but not that they were secured. This issue is important because if the catches could not be fully deployed from the outside of the house but were found to be "secure on their latches" by the police at the scene, then they can only have been secured from within the house. The prosecution argument that Jeremy used this window to exit the scene is based on false evidence.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/appeal-fund/
-
From Bamber’s website here https://jeremybamber.org/ann-peter-eaton/
‘After Jeremy’s conviction a directors meeting was attended by two proxie’s on Jeremy’s behalf. The proxie’s wrote an account of their visit to the meeting [8] detailing that Mr Ainsley (former head of the investigation on the Bamber case as a Supt of Essex Police) was now working there, they also stated that Pamela was asking after Jeremy but this was frowned upon by other members of the family.
During the 2002 Metropolitan Police enquiry, Ainsley was questioned and interviewed in connection with his handling of the investigation, he affectionately refers to Robert Boutflour as “Bobby.”[9] He doesn’t mention any close ties to the Boutflour’s in his statement of 1991 and 2002. Nevertheless he does detail that he had ordered a Det Supt Kennelly to carry out a review of the Bamber investigation in light of the insistence by Ann and Robert that Sheila could not have been responsible. “On my return from annual leave I obviously enquired of Kenneally as to the situation with the murders and he assured me that Sheila Caffell was responsible. At the beginning of September that year following a meeting with the ACC Peter Simpson I instructed Kenneally to carry out a review of the case. On Friday the 6th September at I believe 6pm a meeting was held in my office with the chief Constable R, Bunyard, Mr Peter Simpson (ACC), Det Supt Kenneally and myself. When Kenneally was asked to give us the results of his review, he stated that the evidence indicated that Sheila was responsible.” Where is the missing report that Kennelly provided at this meeting? What was the evidence indicating that Sheila was responsible and why was this never disclosed to the Defence?
The Annual General meeting at Osea Road Caravan Park was apparently held in October 1996
Bamber and his campaign team claimed Mick Ainsley was then working at Osea Road having retired from the police force
So when is it being claimed Mick Ainsley obtained these documents ?
The Criminal Cases Review Commission have never made these claims and their review was ongoing after Mick Ainsley’s retirement from the force
-
In a December 2002 article by the Telegraph here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1415952/Bamber-stays-in-prison-as-judges-throw-out-appeal.html headed, ‘Bamber stays in prison as judges throw out appeal’
It stated,
‘The detective who headed the investigation said the appeal was a waste of public money. Michael Ainsley, now retired, said,
“The Criminal Cases Review Commission should be looked at to find out why they allowed this matter to go as far as it did. It is a gross waste of public money. His appeal was based on fabrication and lies.”
So why has Bamber’s innocence fraud been allowed to continue ?
Re the Criminal Cases Review Commissions grounds of appeal
‘Grounds 1 to 13 relate to documentation and other evidence which it is suggested was not made available to the defence before or at trial. However, many significantly more serious allegations were made against the police because it was suggested that there was evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by deliberately concealing evidence helpful to Jeremy. The allegations extended beyond mere concealment and involved actual fabrication of evidence adverse to Jeremy. These allegations were reflected by ground 16 which alleged that “in the light of the activities” of three named police officers “the prosecution case as a whole is tainted and therefore unsafe”.
As observed by Mr Temple, QC, who has represented the prosecution at this appeal, there was a stark contrast between the allegations made on behalf of Jeremy in the opening of this appeal in the full glare of media publicity, and the case that Mr Turner, QC, on behalf of Jeremy felt able to advance when the evidence had been examined. It should be understood, particularly since his closing remarks did not attract the same degree of media coverage, that the appeal in this regard is a very different one that we now have to consider than might have been anticipated from the opening. Some of the very serious allegations made against police officers were manifestly wrong, and Mr Turner has recognised that position by not pursuing such matters once the fact became apparent. Nonetheless Mr Turner does maintain the suggestion that there is sufficient evidence of police wrong doing as to render the convictions unsafe.
http://netk.net.au/UK/Bamber2.asp
-
Re the Criminal Cases Review Commissions grounds of appeal
‘Grounds 1 to 13 relate to documentation and other evidence which it is suggested was not made available to the defence before or at trial. However, many significantly more serious allegations were made against the police because it was suggested that there was evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by deliberately concealing evidence helpful to Jeremy. The allegations extended beyond mere concealment and involved actual fabrication of evidence adverse to Jeremy. These allegations were reflected by ground 16 which alleged that “in the light of the activities” of three named police officers “the prosecution case as a whole is tainted and therefore unsafe”.
As observed by Mr Temple, QC, who has represented the prosecution at this appeal, there was a stark contrast between the allegations made on behalf of Jeremy in the opening of this appeal in the full glare of media publicity, and the case that Mr Turner, QC, on behalf of Jeremy felt able to advance when the evidence had been examined. It should be understood, particularly since his closing remarks did not attract the same degree of media coverage, that the appeal in this regard is a very different one that we now have to consider than might have been anticipated from the opening. Some of the very serious allegations made against police officers were manifestly wrong, and Mr Turner has recognised that position by not pursuing such matters once the fact became apparent. Nonetheless Mr Turner does maintain the suggestion that there is sufficient evidence of police wrong doing as to render the convictions unsafe.
http://netk.net.au/UK/Bamber2.asp
“Some of the very serious allegations made against police officers were manifestly wrong, and Mr Turner has recognised that position by not pursuing such matters once the fact became apparent”
But these grounds were advanced by the Criminal Cases Review Commission
-
In a December 2002 article by the Telegraph here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1415952/Bamber-stays-in-prison-as-judges-throw-out-appeal.html headed, ‘Bamber stays in prison as judges throw out appeal’
It stated,
‘The detective who headed the investigation said the appeal was a waste of public money. Michael Ainsley, now retired, said,
“The Criminal Cases Review Commission should be looked at to find out why they allowed this matter to go as far as it did. It is a gross waste of public money. His appeal was based on fabrication and lies.”
So why has Bamber’s innocence fraud been allowed to continue ?
They’re sick to death of him
I’ve heard there’s talk of introducing new powers that if someone has lost more than one appeal, then keeps on, and on, and on trying different tactics, unless they have HUGE NEW SOLID EVIDENCE never seen/heard before that suggests they could appeal they “may” allow it, but more likely would need a retrial, which in his case is impossible. It happened last century, many people are dead, and he’s never been able to refute the overwhelming evidence against him — nor supply any evidence whatsoever that he’s innocent.
Rubbish suggestions suddenly popping up out of the blue “there were TWO silencers” just gets the Judges backs up. It’s wasting everyone’s f*-6#* time and costing the taxpayer money.
-
They’re sick to death of him
But if, as you claim, ‘They’re sick to death of him’ why was Bamber’s latest action allowed ?
-
I’ve heard there’s talk of introducing new powers that if someone has lost more than one appeal,
Never heard of ‘new powers’ being introduced ?
-
They’re sick to death of him
I’ve heard there’s talk of introducing new powers that if someone has lost more than one appeal, then keeps on, and on, and on trying different tactics, unless they have HUGE NEW SOLID EVIDENCE never seen/heard before that suggests they could appeal they “may” allow it, but more likely would need a retrial, which in his case is impossible. It happened last century, many people are dead, and he’s never been able to refute the overwhelming evidence against him — nor supply any evidence whatsoever that he’s innocent.
Rubbish suggestions suddenly popping up out of the blue “there were TWO silencers” just gets the Judges backs up. It’s wasting everyone’s f*-6#* time and costing the taxpayer money.
Appellants can appeal their convictions numerous times
-
In a December 2002 article by the Telegraph here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1415952/Bamber-stays-in-prison-as-judges-throw-out-appeal.html headed, ‘Bamber stays in prison as judges throw out appeal’
It stated,
‘The detective who headed the investigation said the appeal was a waste of public money. Michael Ainsley, now retired, said,
“The Criminal Cases Review Commission should be looked at to find out why they allowed this matter to go as far as it did. It is a gross waste of public money. His appeal was based on fabrication and lies.”
So why has Bamber’s innocence fraud been allowed to continue ?
A previous Telegraph article dated October 2002 by Sally Pook was headed, ‘Bamber was framed by police for five murders, judges told’ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1410504/Bamber-was-framed-by-police-for-five-murders-judges-told.html
Michael Turner QC told appeal court,
“You will be asked to consider whether, on the material that is now before the court, certain matters were deliberately withheld so as to unfairly bolster the prosecution case and secure a conviction”
‘Mr Turner also claimed that Ms Mugford, who had been angry that she was about to be left by Bamber, may have had a ‘selfish motive’ for inventing a false confession. She had also sold her story to the News of the World for £25,000 long before the trial, it was claimed.
Police also attempted to ‘bolster the character of their star witness’ by suppressing evidence about a cheque fraud Ms Mugford Had been involved in, Mr Turner said.
-
A previous Telegraph article dated October 2002 by Sally Pook was headed, ‘Bamber was framed by police for five murders, judges told’ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1410504/Bamber-was-framed-by-police-for-five-murders-judges-told.html
Michael Turner QC told appeal court,
“You will be asked to consider whether, on the material that is now before the court, certain matters were deliberately withheld so as to unfairly bolster the prosecution case and secure a conviction”
‘Mr Turner also claimed that Ms Mugford, who had been angry that she was about to be left by Bamber, may have had a ‘selfish motive’ for inventing a false confession. She had also sold her story to the News of the World for £25,000 long before the trial, it was claimed.
Police also attempted to ‘bolster the character of their star witness’ by suppressing evidence about a cheque fraud Ms Mugford Had been involved in, Mr Turner said.
The above was ultimately advanced by the Criminal Cases Review Commission
And when Bamber’s appeal failed these false narratives/claims/allegations whatever you want to call them remained in the public domain
-
In a December 2002 article by the Telegraph here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1415952/Bamber-stays-in-prison-as-judges-throw-out-appeal.html headed, ‘Bamber stays in prison as judges throw out appeal’
It stated,
‘The detective who headed the investigation said the appeal was a waste of public money. Michael Ainsley, now retired, said,
“The Criminal Cases Review Commission should be looked at to find out why they allowed this matter to go as far as it did. It is a gross waste of public money. His appeal was based on fabrication and lies.”
So why has Bamber’s innocence fraud been allowed to continue ?
Mick Ainsley made a good point back in 2002
Who were the case workers and commissioners at the time who made these false claims to the CoA?
As observed by Mr Temple, QC, who has represented the prosecution at this appeal, there was a stark contrast between the allegations made on behalf of Jeremy in the opening of this appeal in the full glare of media publicity, and the case that Mr Turner, QC, on behalf of Jeremy felt able to advance when the evidence had been examined. It should be understood, particularly since his closing remarks did not attract the same degree of media coverage, that the appeal in this regard is a very different one that we now have to consider than might have been anticipated from the opening. Some of the very serious allegations made against police officers were manifestly wrong, and Mr Turner has recognised that position by not pursuing such matters once the fact became apparent.
http://netk.net.au/UK/Bamber2.asp
‘made on behalf of Jeremy’ by the Criminal Cases Review Commission
-
Mick Ainsley made a good point back in 2002
Who were the case workers and commissioners at the time who made these false claims to the CoA?
‘made on behalf of Jeremy’ by the Criminal Cases Review Commission
Do the case workers and commissioners still work for the Criminal Cases Review Commission ?
And how many other cases were they involved with and what cases were they?
-
Matthew Young for the Mirror
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-murder-detective-destroyed-22112474
‘Jeremy Bamber murder detective 'destroyed White House Farm evidence at his home'
The senior investigating officer in the 1985 White House Farm murders destroyed evidence in his own home, a court heard.
Killer Jeremy Bamber’s legal team made the allegation against Michael Ainsley in an application to have the CPS release 27 documents he says could undermine his conviction.
Annabel Darlow QC, for the CPS, argued the High Court decision in January should not be overturned.
Mr Justice Julian Knowles said a decision will be given next week.
Essex Police said they were “not in a position to comment until the judgement is made”.
Bamber’s team is challenging a High Court decision not to disclose evidence.
The 59-year-old’s parents, Neville and June, were shot dead in their Essex farmhouse along with his sister Sheila Caffell and her twins Daniel and Nicholas, six.
Bamber claims Sheila, a schizophrenic, carried out the killings – for which he is serving a life term.
Joe Stone QC, for Bamber, said at Leeds administrative court yesterday that the 27 documents would help ballistics expert Philip Boyce conclude whether or not a second rifle silencer was at the scene.
Discussing transparency in the case, Mr Stone said: “It’s a fact that the blood-based exhibits from Sheila Caffell’s DNA were destroyed by Essex Police in 1996.
“And one can say that was arguably the most important exhibit in the case. It isn’t simply a situation of one item being destroyed.
“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.”
ITV dramatised the killings at Tolleshunt D’Arcy, near Maldon, Essex, in White House Farm earlier this year.
In the original trial, it was found Sheila could not have killed herself, as claimed by Bamber, because she was not tall enough to shoot herself in the neck with the silencer attached.
It was found with her blood in it – but the court heard Mr Boyce has concluded there was probably a second one.
Mr Stone said this would “fundamentally alter the way the prosecution case was put”.
-
“The claimant was informed that… Michael Ainsley had taken back to his home address in 2010 more documents from the investigation and destroyed them.
Where’s the evidence Michael Ainsley ‘destroyed more documents at his home address in 2010’ ?
He’d been retired for years
Does Bamber really expect us to believe Mick Ainsley went back to work one day during his retirement, helped himself to documents in the Bamber case and took them home to destroy them?!? That’s ludicrous !
The Criminal Cases Review Commission had seen all the documents, as had numerous other investigative bodies
If he did destroy anything, which I doubt - guarantee they were copies and not originals
-
Where’s the evidence Michael Ainsley ‘destroyed more documents at his home address in 2010’ ?
He’d been retired for years
Does Bamber really expect us to believe Mick Ainsley went back to work one day during his retirement, helped himself to documents in the Bamber case and took them home to destroy them?!? That’s ludicrous !
The Criminal Cases Review Commission had seen all the documents, as had numerous other investigative bodies
If he did destroy anything, which I doubt - guarantee they were copies and not originals
Sounds unlikely. I hope so, anyway.
-
Where’s the evidence Michael Ainsley ‘destroyed more documents at his home address in 2010’ ?
He’d been retired for years
Does Bamber really expect us to believe Mick Ainsley went back to work one day during his retirement, helped himself to documents in the Bamber case and took them home to destroy them?!? That’s ludicrous !
The Criminal Cases Review Commission had seen all the documents, as had numerous other investigative bodies
If he did destroy anything, which I doubt - guarantee they were copies and not originals
That's so he can continue to say that there are missing documents @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
That's so he can continue to say that there are missing documents @)(++(* @)(++(*
He appears to have been making the same claim about "missing documents" since I joined blue in 2011/12.
-
He appears to have been making the same claim about "missing documents" since I joined blue in 2011/12.
He does indeed, the police say he's had em all, so now someone took them home and destroyed em. How would anyone know that? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
He does indeed, the police say he's had em all, so now someone took them home and destroyed em. How would anyone know that? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
We're back to trying to prove negatives again!! How many times has that old trick been used?
-
We're back to trying to prove negatives again!! How many times has that old trick been used?
Ainsley must have left a note. @)(++(*
-
Ainsley must have left a note. @)(++(*
As in "Borrowed the Bamber stuff" but didn't expect his wife would chuck them out with the rubbish?
-
As in "Borrowed the Bamber stuff" but didn't expect his wife would chuck them out with the rubbish?
Occupational hazard 8((()*/
-
Also, Mike Ainsley retired around 1991 @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
But if, as you claim, ‘They’re sick to death of him’ why was Bamber’s latest action allowed ?
Because he’s playing the system
He’s had 35 years experIence, Nicholas
The courts are sick to death of him, but they can’t just ignore his crap claims, however ludicrous they are.
They have to respond, even to always tell to FO
-
Never heard of ‘new powers’ being introduced ?
I’ll try to find the link for you, Nicholas
I read it some time ago; a few months back
It was in amongst all the cutbacks legal aid are doing and have been doing. They’re having to tighten up on certain things, there’s just not enough money in the public purse to allow time for weak, frivolous appeals/claims that have no chance of reaching appeal. It’s not in the oublic interest.
-
Well, it is a tough decision, but when all the evidence is looked at as even detailed in Andrew Hunter's unpublished book it was definitely an unsafe conviction.
Well thats your opinion. Most people disagree with you and call him out for the disgusting child murderer he is. Fortunately Bamber hasnt got a cat in hells chance of ever being released, so we can all laugh at him as he gets old and decrepit. No fun being locked up with 20 year olds when youre 80 years old and wetting your pants all day long.
-
Well thats your opinion. Most people disagree with you and call him out for the disgusting child murderer he is. Fortunately Bamber hasnt got a cat in hells chance of ever being released, so we can all laugh at him as he gets old and decrepit. No fun being locked up with 20 year olds when youre 80 years old and wetting your pants all day long.
And that is your opinion.
-
And that is your opinion.
And it's a cracker!!
8((()*/