PSM/SLI/SMM/BAMBER

							PSM/SLI/SMM/BAMBER
00162/2004
28 July 2005

Criminal Cases Review Commission,
DX 715466
BIRMINGHAM 41

Dear Sirs,

Re: Jeremy BAMBER

We refer to our previous correspondence in this matter, the relevant Submissions and the
new evidence that we have submitted to the Commission with a view to this matter being
referred to the Court of Appeal as we consider right and proper.

We are somewhat concerned at the delay in the matter since :

the photographs that we have submitted which were not disclosed to the Defence at all, a
completely different story to the way the Prosecution was founded, and

the new evidence that has been submitted including the radio logs.

This clearly shows a cavalier attitude on the part of the Crown when it came to the
question of disclosure.

The matter is further compounded by the admission from the Trial Counsel, Mr. Anthony
Arlidge QC, that the documents we have submitted to the Criminal Cases Review
Commission were not even seen by himself prior to our forwarding him a copy. In short,
he was not aware of the documents which should have been disclosed and which were
clearly hidden from the Defence for whatever reason and for the purposes of these
Submissions are quite irrelevant.

You will of course be aware that the time of death of the five members of the Bamber
household is of paramount importance. We have sent to the Commission a photograph of
Sheila Caffell which was not disclosed to the Defence of the scene of the crime
photographs showing blood pouring from her neck. This is a clear indication that if a
photograph was taken at approximately 9 am, the time of the murder certainly could not
have been before 6 to 7 am and probably somewhat later.

We know that at 7.34 am the officers entered the house. It saddens us that we have now
discovered a further Statement which, at this stage, we are not certain whether or not was
actually disclosed to the Defence because of the 4 million documents that this case has
attracted.

However, the Statement is from Peter Woodcock ATS 426 dated 20th September 1985
and within the Statement it says the following :-

“She had what appeared to be two bullet holes under her chin and blood leaking from
both sides of her mouth down her cheeks”.

This Statement clearly is corroborative to the photographs of Sheila Caffell with blood
leaking down from her neck which we have submitted to the Commission and which, at
the cost of being repetitive, there was a distinct and clear failure to disclose to the
Defence.

We refer to this document, namely the Statement form PC Woodcock, who as we know
was the first officer to enter the house at 7.34 am. Even if we allow a few moments for
the said police officer to find the bodies, it is clear that what he saw was probably before
9 am in the morning. If as PC Woodcock states there was “blood leaking from both sides
of her mouth down her cheeks” at any time after 7.34 am, and we know that within his
Statement 2 hours later, the blood was dry, the time of death or the time that the bullets
went into Sheila Caffell’s neck could not have been more than 1 ½ hours, maximum 2
hours, from the moment that Mr. Woodcock saw her.

That being the case and since our client, Jeremy Bamber, was with the police from 3 am
onwards and, with this evidence, the time of death being maximum 2 hours before PC
Woodcock had seen such, makes the time of death approximately between 5.30 and 6.30
am. Since our client was with the police at the time, we cannot understand now what
further procrastination there can be on behalf of the Commission in referring this to the
Court of Appeal.

First and foremost on the question of the appalling disclosure that this case has attracted
and the manner upon which the evidence now clearly suggests that our client could not be
guilty of these murders.

We therefore would be grateful if you will kindly and as a matter of urgency, let us have
your views on this with the clear distinction that this is a case that properly should be
referred back to the Court of Appeal.

We would remind you with respect that in the case of the Carl Bridgewater murder, a
conviction was quashed purely on the basis of an undisclosed fingerprint. Here there is
more than 30%, in our view, of non disclosed documents which probably, even today, the
Crown have still failed to disclose for whatever reasons.

Further, since there is now (a) the photograph of the blood of Sheila Caffell pouring from
her neck and (b) what we have now found to be a corroborative Statement from Peter
Woodcock APS 426 dated 20th September 1985 evidencing the state of Sheila Caffell and
the timing of such, we cannot see how our client can possibly have been guilty of murder.

We look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency.


Yours faithfully,
PAUL MARTIN & CO.