Ground 13, point 444 of the CoA hearing 2002 seems to cover these points along with AE's WS's:
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8100.msg405977#msg405977
Thank you Holly. I think it worth reproducing Ground 13 in its entirety. In mitigation I think it is worth pointing out that the murders took place on the 7th August 1985 and it wasn't until over a month later, on the 12th September that DS Jones inspected Jeremy Bamber's hands.
Ground 13 – scars on the appellant's hands 444. With all respect to the appellant's team, we have found this ground of appeal incomprehensible. Indeed, and in fairness to him, Mr Turner conceded at the outset of his submissions that he did not put this forward as a free-standing ground of appeal, and preferred to rely upon it as no more than an element in the factual background to his overarching allegation of unsatisfactory police behaviour. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, and in order to assess whether this particular complaint adds anything to the overall strength of the appellant's case, we are satisfied that we should consider and deal with it, albeit briefly.
445. The starting point for such consideration is the fact that at no point during the trial was any evidence led from any witness, nor any witness cross-examined, to establish or suggest that the appellant had at any material time had any scars or scratches on his hands. Indeed, on the hand-written postcard note from Ann Eaton (CAE/4) which was disclosed at trial, the entry for the 8 August recorded "No scratches on his hands - no shaking at all".
446. At one stage during his interview on 12 September 1985 DS Jones asked Mr Bamber to show him his hands, and he examined both the palms and the backs. He offered no explanation to the appellant as to why he had done this, but it seems highly likely that the stimulus for this action was a telephone call that appears to have been made on the previous day to the police by Anthony Pargeter, who was Nevill Bamber's nephew. He is said to have reported having seen small "circular scars" on Jeremy Bamber's right hand. This piece of information triggered a series of actions. By Action no. 96, on the 12 September 1985 DI Bright was instructed to take a further statement from Mr Pargeter on this matter. No result of this action is recorded, and no formal statement from Mr Pargeter appears in the documentation in the case. This may well be because of the other information that was forthcoming on the matter. By Action no. 97 of the same date DS Jones was instructed to interview the appellant on the same topic - and DS Jones' response referred to the notes of interview and reported that there were no marks visible.
447. On the 14 September 1985 by Action no. 200, DC Thomerson was instructed to take a statement from David Boutflour (the son of Robert Boutflour) to include, among other matters, any sightings of cuts on the appellant's hands on the day after the killings. This action produced a statement from David Boutflour which included a passage in which he stated that on the Wednesday or Thursday after the killings Jeremy Bamber had made a comment to him about having received two small cuts on his hand while working on the farm. "As he made this comment he showed me the palm of his right hand, but as I was about 5 feet away from him at the time I could not see the scratches to which he referred." This passage did not appear in the edited statement of this witness, which was served on the defence as evidence for use at trial. On 16 September, by Action no. 201, instructions were given for the trigger guard of the rifle to be examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory for blood. There is no record of any result.
448. By Action no. 302 on 19 September 1985 DS Jones was asked to submit a report about these matters, and in his reply DS Jones repeated that when Mr Bamber had been interviewed "There were no visible signs of scars etc". He added that if and when the appellant was re-interviewed an ultra violet light could be used to examine his hands again. This suggestion was picked up on the 24 September 1985 in Action no. 396 when DS Jones was instructed to carry out such an examination; but his response as recorded on the action sheet was "Bamber charged; above not done on instructions of A/D/C/ Superintendent Ainsley." Indeed, on the 26 September 1985 a letter from the office of the DPP indicated that in the view of the Director the appellant should not now be further interviewed.
449. As has already been made clear, the prosecution case against the appellant was conducted on the basis that there was no sign of any injuries to his hand subsequent to the killings. The complaint that the prosecution had kept the defence in ignorance of material which would have permitted them to mount an attack on the veracity of Mr Pargeter is misconceived; there was never any necessity to mount any such attack. Mr Pargeter had never given any evidence which incriminated the appellant in any way. So far from the prosecution seeking to advance dubious evidence hostile to the appellant's interests, it appears that they were unwilling to advance any suggestions by Mr Boutflour or Mr Pargeter that they were not able to confirm for themselves to be soundly based. One of the more remarkable contentions in the appellant's skeleton argument on this topic is the assertion that the defence "were kept in ignorance of the fact of the officer's examination of the appellant's hands....". The appellant, of all people, plainly knew himself that that had happened.
450. Finally, the decision not to pursue the instruction given under Action no. 396 and not to re-interview the appellant again was entirely consistent with code C under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, given that by that time the appellant was either about to be or indeed had just been charged.
451. In our judgment there is no foundation whatsoever for the suggestion that the matters complained of under this ground of appeal resulted in any prejudice to the appellant in the conduct of his defence. Nor, in our judgment, do the facts underlying these complaints provide any support for the assertion that the police officers concerned were determined to withhold information from the appellant or his advisors in an attempt to influence the evidence in favour of a prosecution. In reality, the opposite appears to be the case.
