Author Topic: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices  (Read 16622 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Reader

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #90 on: February 09, 2020, 11:39:PM »
There was a really good article in the east anglia daily times about Sheila and Jeremy’s relationship but it has been removed. Has anyone got a copy?
Did you see the article on a PC or only on a smartphone or tablet?

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #91 on: February 10, 2020, 07:07:AM »
Did you see the article on a PC or only on a smartphone or tablet?

I saw it on my laptop. Well I didn't actually see it because when I clicked on it there was nothing there.

Offline Reader

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #92 on: February 16, 2020, 08:50:PM »
It was JackieD who claimed that it was a good story. If she read it, there might still be a retrievable copy of it on the device she used.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16117
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #93 on: June 03, 2021, 12:18:PM »
Joe Stone has recently claimed that JB was informed, that Mick Ainsley took documents to his home in 2010 and destroyed them. How would a retired police officer get hold of such documents? Presumably, he'd have to know which documents he wanted. But who would facilitate him being given such documents in the first place?  And who informed JB? I mean, how would anyone know that Ainsley had done this - a whistle blower inside EP?

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3818
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #94 on: June 03, 2021, 04:55:PM »
Joe Stone has recently claimed that JB was informed, that Mick Ainsley took documents to his home in 2010 and destroyed them. How would a retired police officer get hold of such documents? Presumably, he'd have to know which documents he wanted. But who would facilitate him being given such documents in the first place?  And who informed JB? I mean, how would anyone know that Ainsley had done this - a whistle blower inside EP?


It would be good to get to the bottom of that fiasco. Who is Joe Stone ?
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16117
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #95 on: June 03, 2021, 05:39:PM »

It would be good to get to the bottom of that fiasco. Who is Joe Stone ?

JB's current barrister.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48611
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #96 on: June 03, 2021, 06:29:PM »
He's reckoned to be quite a good defence barrister. I read about him a while back.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 37668
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #97 on: June 03, 2021, 07:46:PM »
Joe Stone has recently claimed that JB was informed, that Mick Ainsley took documents to his home in 2010 and destroyed them. How would a retired police officer get hold of such documents? Presumably, he'd have to know which documents he wanted. But who would facilitate him being given such documents in the first place?  And who informed JB? I mean, how would anyone know that Ainsley had done this - a whistle blower inside EP?

Was it campaign co administrator Yvonne Hartley who told Jeremy?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3818
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #98 on: June 03, 2021, 08:08:PM »
JB's current barrister.

Well if any of that is true it shows QC’s opinion on bent coppers not really a true reflection in the JB case and also even if everything held under PII was released the defence still would not have this evidence

I wonder what Neil thinks about Joe Stone?
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48611
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #99 on: June 03, 2021, 09:00:PM »
Wasn't it Joe Stone who'd suggested that Jeremy goes ahead with another appeal that there was enough material, including the new stuff, during the time when Jeremy had been refused his request for information held under PII ? He represented JB at that time a couple of years ago.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16117
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #100 on: June 04, 2021, 09:15:AM »
Wasn't it Joe Stone who'd suggested that Jeremy goes ahead with another appeal that there was enough material, including the new stuff, during the time when Jeremy had been refused his request for information held under PII ? He represented JB at that time a couple of years ago.

Not quite. The CPS had originally expressed that they would consider cooperating with disclosure requests for documents they had, pertaining to forensic tests carried out of the sound moderator/s if the defence submitted proof that there were two moderators involved. Boyce did a report regarding this, based on the evidence already obtained. The CPS then apparently ignored the report and went back on their previous expression of cooperation. This is what led to the recent judicial review. It was the judge justice Knowles who suggested that another submission to the CCRC was the appropriate course of action in the case  (after he himself bottled making the CPS disclose the documents they have). As a lay person, I question why there's such a cuffuffle about disclosing the docs in the first place.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16117
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #101 on: June 04, 2021, 10:19:AM »
Was it campaign co administrator Yvonne Hartley who told Jeremy?

The only info from I have seen relating to it, is the claim that 24hrs before the judicial review against the CPS, it was discovered that Ainsley had taken home material from the investigation, some of which he showed Carol Ann Lee.  So there is a claim he took material home, showed some to CAL and destroyed some material. 

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3818
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #102 on: June 04, 2021, 11:43:AM »
The only info from I have seen relating to it, is the claim that 24hrs before the judicial review against the CPS, it was discovered that Ainsley had taken home material from the investigation, some of which he showed Carol Ann Lee.  So there is a claim he took material home, showed some to CAL and destroyed some material.


Bent coppers using Carol Anne Lee as there mouthpiece

QC has gone quiet on the issue
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #103 on: June 04, 2021, 12:54:PM »

Bent coppers using Carol Anne Lee as there mouthpiece

QC has gone quiet on the issue

I have not 'gone quiet' on the issue, or any issue.  I have already said that I have nothing further of substance to say on the Forum.  This is because I believe the Forum condones trolling, and I find that attitude callous, obnoxious and objectionable.  It's a matter of principle.  It's also a matter of my time not being wasted by posters who aren't here in good faith to discuss the case.  Believe it or not, I am a very busy person with lots of different demands on me.

Like most posters on here, you have misunderstood my position on police corruption.  This is because you are not making the distinction between two basic motives for corrupt practices. 

(i). One involves framing an innocent man, or a man believed to be innocent, or not caring whether he is innocent or not.
(ii). The other involves framing a guilty man, or a man believed to be guilty.

These are two different things, and although they both involve serious criminal conduct on the part of police (and potentially also witnesses, lawyers and forensic scientists, and others) and lead to much the same result, they involve different actions.

The former, (i) is extremely rare - so rare, that in my view it hardly warrants interest.  Nobody on the Forum has been able to provide a definitive example of (i) ever happening.  I'm sure it has and does happen, but it will be rare and involve police officers who are frankly demented.  The example offered by NG1066 when I had that discussion about it with Gringo was of an officer who was mentally-ill.

The latter, (ii), is what is known as noble cause corruption and it is a very common reason for the police to frame somebody.  It happened a lot in the past (a variation of it once happened to me - as I explain briefly below).  It will still happen today and I can think of at least one or two high profile cases involving recent convictions where noble cause corruption was probably involved.

A complication is that (i) and (ii) can sometimes be blended together in that police officers may believe that a suspect has not committed a specific offence, but may decide to charge him with it anyway because they know he is a criminal and would have committed other offences of the same type.  I have personally seen that happen - it tends to be in the more serious end of crime, involving specialist officers investigating organised criminals, where there is no net loss in convicting a 'legally innocent' individual.  It is still wrong to do this, of course, but the officers will rationalise it to themselves.

Another complication is that (ii) involves lots of nuances and variations.  For instance, the police may not even be aware they are framing somebody in this way.  They may instead be guided by correlation biases and prejudicial thinking.  This is still wrong, and it may also involve some illegality and irregularities in the investigation.  That is more or less what happened to me on one occasion.  I was actually innocent in that instance, but the officers (I must admit, for understandable reasons) concluded I had done it.  It does happen - probably quite a lot.

This is very complicated! 

I should add that while I generally dislike the police, that is not because of my own past.  It is for other reasons.  It is because I have been the victim of crime myself, again in circumstances unrelated to my past, and I have found the police to be wanting in their competence, attitude and capabilities - and that's to put it politely.  I hold no brief for criminals.  I deplore and condemn criminality.  I am just looking at the matter objectively.

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2462
Re: Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices
« Reply #104 on: June 04, 2021, 01:18:PM »
I fully understand the arguments QC makes. However I believe there is another option he has not set out.

There is a possibility that during the course of an incident the police make a serious maybe unforgivable mistake. They seek to conceal this error and close down the case to their satisfaction.

Later other actors who have 'issues' with this outcome deduce or are told by someone (whistle blower) what took place in fact.

They then pressurise the police to reinvestigate the crime who then pursue an innocent individual who has a very close connection to the crime. They frame a  convenient 'patsy' in order that their initial mistake and cover up remains hidden.