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.