How else would they falsely convict JB? You do understand, that your own stance is that Sheila convicted the massacre. How did manage she do it while remaining completely unscathed? The simple answer is, she didn't. Which poses a huge problem if you want or need to convict JB.
Falsely convict and wrongly convict are not the same things. I insist on the distinction. Even if Jeremy is innocent, you would need to meet a pretty overwhelming evidential bar to persuade me that any police officer or pathologist intentionally framed an innocent man. It's much more likely - and realistic - to conclude that they simply made a mistake and pursued Jeremy under the steam of their own self-righteous enthusiasm, blinding themselves to contrary facts and evidence. It's a very common phenomenon - we see it on this Forum every day. It's just human nature and represents a flaw in any human system. Yes, as part of such a catastrophe, influential individuals may tell lies and untruths, but again I emphasise that this is not the same as intentionally framing somebody who is innocent.
The relatives are a different matter, and I think some of the evidence is consistent with the silencer having been planted, but I've set out my criteria: it would need to be demonstrated that 'vital interests' were at stake for the family before I could believe it was anything more than a misconceived desire for justice that motivated them.
Somewhat against what I have just said, I will now offer a qualified defence of your position. I agree with you that people like David and Adam underestimate the potential for a group culture that leads to malfeasance. The culture could be found in a tight-knit and cohesive group or distributed over several agencies and institutions. In either case, there is the potential for systemised malfeasance or 'constructive malfeasance' - I am having to invent my own vocabulary here because it is a difficult phenomenon to describe and explain. Probably you would need an organisational psychologist, systems analyst or management consultant, or somebody like that to explain it properly.
What happens is that the people involved are not necessarily part of an agenda, but they tell small or technical lies or untruths that in and of themselves seems trivial yet contribute to an overarching narrative. It could be that, as you explained in one of your previous posts, the narrative ('ethos') is set by a small group of influential people and this drives everything and frames the perceptions and interpretations of everybody in the case, even the defence, from that point onwards.
Even estimable pathologists could be influenced in this way, and this is where I come to a point of disagreement with you.
However, just as David and Adam underestimate the scope for group malfeasance, I think that you may over-state the case for it. It is not necessary for the pathologist or forensic scientists to have been part of some scheme of corruption in order for Jeremy to be innocent. A lot of forensic evidence is down to interpretation or involves applying a certain method that can turn out to be flawed because it was influenced by the 'ethos'/narrative of the investigative team.
Furthermore, when I use the phrase 'systemised malfeasance', I have in mind a situation where people tell what they think are small or technical lies or untruths thinking that these are trivial in and of themselves without really appreciating that by doing so they are aligning the evidence with the overarching ethos/narrative. In that scenario, the whole management of the case becomes like a factory or machine in which everybody is expected to produce results that meet a certain case goal so as to fulfil the original ethos/narrative set by the core group, but the individuals involved - even the core group - may not comprehend that what they are doing is wrong.
Essentially, the term I may be looking for is 'group think'. Detectives, scientists, lawyers, judges, etc., can lose their objectivity and detachment under strong psychological, social, economic and professional influences.
