Contact details for Leeds Combined Court Centre

[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

Thought it was Ainsley as opposed to Ainslee

[APRIL]

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?

[Nicholas]

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.

[Nicholas]

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.

[Nicholas]

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 ?

[Nicholas]

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?

[Nicholas]

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/

[Nicholas]

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

[Nicholas]

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

[Nicholas]

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

[ISpyWithMyEye]

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.

[Nicholas]

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 ?

[Nicholas]

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 ?

[Nicholas]

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

[Nicholas]

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.