Contact details for Leeds Combined Court Centre

[Nicholas]

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

[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 ?

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

[Nicholas]

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?

[Nicholas]

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”.

[Nicholas]

“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

[mrswah]

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.

[Caroline]

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 

[APRIL]

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.

[Caroline]

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? 

[APRIL]

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?

[Caroline]

We're back to trying to prove negatives again!! How many times has that old trick been used?

Ainsley must have left a note. 

[APRIL]

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?

[Caroline]

As in "Borrowed the Bamber stuff" but didn't expect his wife would chuck them out with the rubbish?

Occupational hazard 

[Caroline]

Also, Mike Ainsley retired around 1991 

[ISpyWithMyEye]

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