Stan Jones told witnesses that no phone call occurred from Nevill to Jeremy, when in fact, it couldn't be proven either way. I think that is a wicked act. It painted Jeremy as a liar and therfore guilty, in the eyes of witnesses. If you are a potential witness and a detective is telling you that Jeremy definitely made up that call, what would be the likely impact on your psyche regarding Jeremy and the case?
Like I say, maybe he cut corners and acted unprofessionally? I'm not sure I would characterise it as "wicked". That's a strong term. I think if he did what you allege, then it will be because he thought Jeremy was guilty and he believed Jeremy was otherwise going to get away with it.
Police officers are human at the end of the day.
Would you want a mass murderer to get away with it? The killer of two boys?
I suppose it boils down to conducting an investigation professionally. Major criminal investigations are more professional, bureaucratic, scientific and formal nowadays, with checks and balances. You wouldn't have a Taff Jones or a Stan Jones going off at a tangent or engaged in a one-man mission like Inspector Morse, but in a Citroën Dyane.
When the Birmingham Six were brought in for questioning, the dramatic TV version shows it as innocent men being beaten-up, etc. From one point-of-view, that's true, but from another point-of-view you could put yourself in the shoes of the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad and consider that they thought the men in front of them were IRA terrorists who had just ruthlessly and cold-bloodedly blown up 21 innocent people in a pub and injured (in some cases horribly maimed) scores more, and were now refusing to answer questions.
In those circumstances, picture yourself as a detective on that case. Would you have any qualms about altering paperwork, verballing statements, and what not? Maybe you would have such qualms, but maybe that's easy to say with hindsight. Perhaps you can at least understand the mentality?
I suppose all it requires is one step over the line and then another step, then another, and before you know it, you're judge and jury and making up evidence.
Incidentally, this is one factor in why I doggedly maintain a neutral stance in this particular case. I understand my own human weaknesses and flaws and I resist the temptation to leap into becoming either a mouthpiece for a probable mass murderer or a mouthpiece for the repressive authorities - I refuse to be either.
Even if Jeremy is guilty, hasn't he served his time? Is it fair or humane to keep somebody locked up for decades? Of course, as Colin Caffell rightly reminds us, mass murder is inhumane, but I think somebody ought to tactfully remind Colin that Jeremy has served virtually all his productive life in prison. That's punishment. What more can Jeremy give?
