Hi Steph,
I did state the names.
I also do not agree with Caroline that the meeting with Ainsley was a 'debrief'. These officers expressed concerns internally but they were not prepared to express concerns outside of their chain of command.
This is one of the problems in the Bamber case. Nobody thinks they should 'take the rap' for decisions that were made - which they either didn't agree or which was either outside of their control or represented following an order from their chain of command.
Now i know what you are going to reply with... it was the police under pressure... they made an error etc etc. Instead of posting up links about unconscious bias - how about recognising some 'conscious bias' instead? The kind that means you have to interpret every anomaly as an innocent mistake - otherwise it doesn't fit in to your stance on the case.
Jeremy Bamber has been in prison for 30 years because of a crime scene based on photographs that were taken after these officers left the scene.
Maybe it's time you looked at other cases, like for example the SH case.
The victim was found in her hallway, her nightdress was up exposing her nether regions. When discovered by her neighbours Mr & Mrs Twoose, one of them pulled the nightdress down in order to cover her, save her decency. This was done before the police arrived. The post mortem concluded injuries were caused after death.
"Crucially, the post mortem showed that an additional number of wounds found on Joan Albert were committed after her death. The crown's pathologist gave evidence to the court that these wounds had been inflected a significant amount of time after death, up to 30 minutes. http://web.archive.org/web/20080511202219/http://justice4simon.co.uk/theTrial.phpI stated years ago and recently, the police hired 2 criminal profilers in order to help them determine the offenders psychology. They suggested the motive had been sexual or had a sexual element (I'm not quoting directly from the case files). They also suggested the offender may have had an interest in piquerism, among other things.
https://drmarkgriffiths.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/having-a-stab-at-it-a-beginners-guide-to-piquerism/Roch, when you heard SH had confessed, your posts on this forum suggested you accepted the confession as fact. You have not since disputed this fact.
Your points about a mass conspiracy is too generic in my opinion. I feel the truth of what took place is much more layered and complex. People use the term 'conspiracy' as some kind of all-purpose dismissal.
As for police officers coming forward - how many police officers came forward in other suspected MOJ's and held their hands up?
I don't believe any conspiracy took place in the SH case regarding the conviction obtained but what made them veer from a sexual element to a burglary gone wrong? I once believed this case was much more layered and complex than what it actually turned out to be. I was in the thick of it when I held these beliefs and had been brainwashed. I was no longer thinking objectively.
On the weekend leading up to SH's overdose in February 2013, he suggested to me via the recorded prison telephone, he was aroused by sadistic sexual acts. I was not aware of such interests until this time. I chose to not publicise this fact at the time, mainly due to my wrongly held belief, that he sounded psychotic and was most probably under the influence of drugs when he said it.
However following his stay in hospital, he began to disclose a large volume of information of a sexual nature, to both myself and prison staff and continued to do so up until his death.
Why did the police choose to ignore the criminal profilers observations that the crime scene appeared to suggest there had been a sexual motive. Why did the Crown prosecutors and indeed the defence choose to not use witness statements from men who had come forward claiming they'd had sexual relations with SH, for example.
The only reference of this suggestion during trial was when Scott Doughty (Pub landlord) had been asked to tell the court if he and SH had kissed. Apparently Scott lied and said no. Yet there was evidence from other witnesses which supported this claim, like for example an ex girlfriends of SH's who had stated they broke up weeks before the murder because she believed SH was having sex with Scott.
So you tell me Roch, who should take the rap' for decisions that were made that obtained a conviction of a man who it was found in a court of law, had murdered following a burglary gone wrong.
All those involved in the murder investigation in the SH case clearly couldn't have agreed on the motive. Plus it was nearly 7 months before SH was arrested.
These facts suggest to me internal concerns must have been raised but similarly these individuals were not prepared to express there concerns outside of
their chain of command.
What do you make of all this? I've given you some of my opinions regarding the Bamber case but I am open to any suggestions, both in this case and the Bamber case.
However, I remain of the firm belief Jeremy Bamber is guilty. Nothing I have read to date suggests otherwise.
We don't have access to ALL of Bamber's case files, as he hasn't put them all in the public domain. Why hasn't he put them all in the public domain?
Since the SH confession, why haven't arrests been made in relation to all witnesses who perjured themselves and attempted to pervert the course of justice? Why weren't witnesses arrested following the guilty verdict?
Who makes the decisions to not prosecute witnesses in murder trials like this? Surely if further convictions were sought following trial, it would have been less likely for SH to publicly maintain innocence.
