Bamber is refused chance to appeal
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.First Edition
JEREMY BAMBER, who is serving life for murdering five members of his family, yesterday failed in the High Court to have his case referred back to the Court of Appeal.
Bamber, 32, convicted in 1986, claims the prosecution's case against him was flawed because of the possibility of an error in the analysis of a vital blood sample.
But Mr Justice Auld ruled that the possibility of an error was 'remote' and rejected Bamber's application for leave to seek a judicial review of the decision by Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, in July not to refer the case back to the appeal judges.
Bamber's first appeal bid was rejected in 1989. He was convicted of shooting his adoptive parents at their home in Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex; his sister, Sheila Caffell, a former model; and her twin six-year-old sons.
The prosecution said he killed them to inherit a 500,000 fortune. His defence was that Mrs Caffell, who had a history of mental illness, killed the family and then turned the gun on herself.
Mr Justice Auld said that Bamber's forensic scientist had only described it as a reasonable, but small, possibility that there had been an error while the scientist on whom the Home Secretary relied said it was 'an unlikely possibility'.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments