No they aren't always prosecuted. Which is a real travesty.
They are usually out of a job, hushed out if you will, and the CPS don't have the will or money to go chasing it all. It ends up being 'not in the public interest to pursue it' etc etc.
Now this is going to be VERY controversial, but:
you're all aware of Mr Ian Brady yes? or Mr Peter Sutcliffe? (I'm sure you are).
Now what if Mr Sutcliffe said, actually it wasn't me and I'd like to prove it. Could you please forward me all the photos of the women please, and any details of the cases? EVERYTHING please?
It's expensive to do that, AND there's a danger he's hmmm how can I put this, getting gratitude from it?
This was one of the problems with Brady and Hindley when Peter Topping requested special dispensation for them to revisit Saddleworth Moor to help the police identify possible body locations. It was a concern that they may actually get a thrill from it. Many of the public strongly objected.
In the end, they did recover one body, never found the other - but you see the problem? When you think someone's innocent letting them have access to everything seems a good thing, but when you think they are guilty it can feel like they are 'taking the system for a ride' (at best) or worse (seeking publicity, seeking to be vexatious, or even getting a kick from it).
Just to get one court case transcript can costs 20 thousand pounds or more (someone has to type it, and verify it, and all the damn overhead costs etc), and there aren't limitless resources to pander to Bamber, or Huntley, or anybody for that matter.
I am NOT saying it's right, just saying that sometimes, full access to all the info isn't as simple as it sounds.
The Guildford Four? it's always gone on, and still does today. Plenty of 'stitch ups' happen.
With regard to the Bamber case, it's entirely possible he was stitched up (imo) but unlikely (imo).
The reasons I think this?
If the evidence presented came only from the Police, it might look like questionable for the Police, esp given their mistakes on the case from the start.
If the evidence came only from the family? the same - the question on motive is impossible to ignore, and it's impossible to ignore that they HAD a motive.
If the evidence came only from Mugford? the same as per the family.
All three colluding together start to become a little less believable (to me personally).
Then we have to look at Jeremy's own actions. Which, in their own right do NOT make a man guilty - so what if he liked to spend reasonably lavishly after the deaths? or chose to 'get away from it all' ?
But he broke and entered into the home after release from the Police under bail with regard to being a suspect for murder. Foolish young man? quite possibly, but nobody colluded to make him do that - THAT was of his own volition.
To 'eagerly' sell artifacts from the house and from Sheila's flat? again, not wrong on their own, but when combined with other evidence, it corroborates rather than goes against what others were claiming.
It's for that reason Jeremy ended up being convicted. Just too many parties involved to make a 'stitch up' sound feasible.
This is a huge problem I'm having here... this notion of 'likelihood' vs 'possibility'.
Here's an example:
I get caught for speeding at 40mph in a 30 zone. I claim I had no idea it was 30 and ask to be let off
The officer shows me a sign saying 30 and I say I must have missed it.
He then points out that there are 4 signs I've gone past, so I explain I must have missed them all
He then says "I've booked you before on this road" ... and I claim oh yes, I remember now, I just forgot.
He then asks where I live and I explain "around the corner"
if you take any one thing, it's believable
if you take ALL of them, it's possible
but
It really is very unlikely.
And just because my defence team pulls out ALL those 'possibles' you can't NOT convict just because there is a theoretical possibility.
For some cases, the jury must work on 'the balance of probability' meaning "quite likely"
For murder, the jury must believe 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. That does NOT mean NO doubt, but beyond all REASONABLE doubt.
The slight doubts that I might have been telling the truth in my speeding incident are not 'reasonable' doubt when summed together.
