Witheld evidence

[Welshman]

An argument used by Bamber's supporters is that evidence in this case has been suppressed and destroyed.  On the recently created pro Bamber blog it was argued that if the police had clear and overwhelming evidence of Bamber's guilt they should be willing to release all information regarding the case.  What is the truth behind the allegation that evidence has been suppressed. 

[John]

An argument used by Bamber's supporters is that evidence in this case has been suppressed and destroyed.  On the recently created pro Bamber blog it was argued that if the police had clear and overwhelming evidence of Bamber's guilt they should be willing to release all information regarding the case.  What is the truth behind the allegation that evidence has been suppressed.

Totally untrue Welshman.  Nothing has been suppressed which can in any way change what we know about the events which led up to the murders and the event itself.  There is ample evidence on the table already which taken as a whole can tell us what happened that morning.  It has been stated many times that Jeremy Bamber implicated himself by inventing telephone calls and by blaming his sister Sheila.  The evidence gathered from Sheila proves beyond any doubt that she never fought with her father in the kitchen that morning and never fired any gun.  By default that leaves only Jeremy Bamber.

Additionally, there was no break in at the farmhouse that morning so either someone already within the farmhouse did it or someone who knew how to get in and out undetected.  This leaves only one person and that person is Jeremy or someone instructed and assisted by Jeremy.  Either way he is guilty.

The material which has been suppressed relates mostly to events which occurred after the murders ie the police conduct on site.  This has been the subject of two separate independent police inquiries but had no relevance to Jeremy Bambers conviction.

It is preposterous to suggest that the police set Jeremy up in any way as they actually believed him at the beginning and thought that Sheila had done it.  It was only weeks later that they came to realise their mistake...the rest as we know is history!

[insider]

An argument used by Bamber's supporters is that evidence in this case has been suppressed and destroyed.  On the recently created pro Bamber blog it was argued that if the police had clear and overwhelming evidence of Bamber's guilt they should be willing to release all information regarding the case.  What is the truth behind the allegation that evidence has been suppressed.

It is unfortunate that in most cases the prosecution files is for the most part deemed to not be for public scrutiny and is deemed not to be in the public interest for any outsider to see it.  The argument which is always put forward by the CPS is that showing such documents to outsiders would expose officials to undue criticism and prevent them from making fit and proper comments in respect of future cases.  Basically, if I can explain this in another way.  Investigators and Crown Prosecutors don't want the public to see what they get up to behind the scenes and the comments they make on files.

I have no doubt that this is the case with Jeremy Bamber and his continued request for documents.  The Crown will never real;lease this information and that is their right under the Law of the land.   I also strongly believe that there is nothing relevant in the Bamber case files which hasn't already been seen by the CCRC as is their right.  The vast majority of documentation still being protected under PII most probably relates to post event investigations and enquiries and is not for public scrutiny.

[John]

An argument used by Bamber's supporters is that evidence in this case has been suppressed and destroyed.  On the recently created pro Bamber blog it was argued that if the police had clear and overwhelming evidence of Bamber's guilt they should be willing to release all information regarding the case.  What is the truth behind the allegation that evidence has been suppressed.

It is unfortunate that in most cases the prosecution files is for the most part deemed to not be for public scrutiny and is deemed not to be in the public interest for any outsider to see it.  The argument which is always put forward by the CPS is that showing such documents to outsiders would expose officials to undue criticism and prevent them from making fit and proper comments in respect of future cases.  Basically, if I can explain this in another way.  Investigators and Crown Prosecutors don't want the public to see what they get up to behind the scenes and the comments they make on files.

I have no doubt that this is the case with Jeremy Bamber and his continued request for documents.  The Crown will never real;lease this information and that is their right under the Law of the land.   I also strongly believe that there is nothing relevant in the Bamber case files which hasn't already been seen by the CCRC as is their right.  The vast majority of documentation still being protected under PII most probably relates to post event investigations and enquiries and is not for public scrutiny.

I found the same thing when I was trying to uncover the lies and deceit in my own case.  I made two separate requests to the Crown Office in Edinburgh for a copy of the Extradition File but much of it was retained in order to protect Crown officials.  That is what they actually said in the letter.

Unfortunately for them though they also provided information which showed illegality within the Crown Office, an issue which I am still pursuing.

[goatboy]

It's been said that the CCRC have access to all documentation withheld under PII anyway, so surely if there was anything in there proving Jeremy's innocence they would have picked up on this. People can theorise all they like that withheld documents provide evidence that would release him from jail but it sounds like it just proves the conviction is safe. Maybe the CCRC upholds the conviction because it is safe, not because they are conspiring to keep an innocent man in jail for no reason at all?

[John]

The CCRC do have access under the Law to any documents in the case but only those they know of and which are made available.  If an organisation has either destroyed documents or declines to offer them up then I fear that there is nothing the CCRC can do.  They may have all these powers but they are in effect blind too.