Sorry Roch, I don't agree, if this was the case, there would be other examples and none have been provided. Hillsborough is completely different and there is no reason to believe the police KNEW EG was innocent.
Ok, the reasoning I'm using is as follows.
I believe Bill Robertson has called it right, when he asserts that once an ACC instructs / desires a certain outcome, that outcome will be striven for. Perhaps this was even more so, back in the mid 80's.
I was once told by a person in the know, that ACC Simpson went ballistic when DCS (?) Jim Kenneally reached the same conclusion as DCI Taff Jones after having reviewed the case evidence. So it sounds like ACC was very desirous for this outcome, regardless of the fact that they already had a prime suspect in Sheila Caffell. It wasn't just Taff who thought it was not Jeremy. The pathologist was not impressed by DS Stan Jones arguments either.
In order for the ACC to instruct / insist that a case around Bamber as culprit be made, the ACC him self must have been placed under some kind of pressure, whether it be from JM's evidence or whether it be from a disconcerting and purposful Robert Boutflour.
There is a link between the relatives and a cabal of police officers which stinks to high heaven. It is likely that this link strongly contributed to the controversial silencer evidence.
The circs of how JM's evidence came to light are shrouded in controversy. Where this fits in with ACC Simpson, I'm not sure. Was he keen on her evidence being taken seriously because it potentially aided in the outcome he desired?
How much went wrong on the day, in terms of errors, bad practice, direspectful behaviour towards the victims bodies (whether by training exercise or photographs of officers larking around), inconsistencies in crime scene photgraphy and inconsistencies in logs.
I believe Andrew Hunter when he says the police did some terrible things in the 1980's. I believe that special branch officers threatened victims of VIP paedophiles and threatened their supporters also. I believe that senior police officers closed down the investigations of junior officers in to VIP paedophiles.
I believe that the relatives did have some inside info from some police and could have put pressure on ACC Simpson, who would have been concerned about any wrongdoing being exposed and the reputation of his force / his senior officers being potentially impugned, on his watch. If running with Sheila all the way as being the main and only culprit equates to the press and potentially other officials asking awkward questions of EP (in response to the relatives who have turned to the press or other officials) then I do not believe it is beyond the realms of fantasy that Simpson would switch to prosecuting Jeremy Bamber in order to prevent such a scenario.
I believe the police did have the power to 'frame' people and to conceal or manipulate evidence from pocket books to scientific exhibits. However, they would not have time to do so at such short notice, after the tragedy, in the event of the relatives not being accommodated by EP and therefor stirring up all kinds of enquiries or unwanted attention on EP. I've always thought that gunning for JB bought EP time. It put them in control of the situation and control of the 'evidence'.
The person that was undoubtedly framed was a drug dealer who had alientated some of his relatives and lost his only support on the day of the killings. Barbara Wilson claimed that Nevill knew Jeremy had commited the burglary but wanted to keep it 'in house'. To me this suggests a degree of protection afforded to Jeremy. Ann Eaton and Robert Boutflour were never going to afford him any such thing. He was persona non grata and the police would effectively be framing a 'bad apple'. Which if Campion's anecdote is to be taken seriously, goes some way to explaining Kelvin McKenzie's alleged remark, which I take to
mean - nobody really cares that bamber has been framed - he deserved it anyway.
I suspect that police officers rarely (if ever) moved to expose wrong-doing in terms of framing, externally. They may raise concerns internally. But you dont see them on newsnight saying that their ACC sanctioned the framing of a suspect when evidence pointed elsewhere, despite the fact that they themselves protested.
For this reason, I believe that any police officers who needed to unburden themselves would have done so internally and in doing so, felt expunged from guilt or responsibility thereafter, regardless of whether their concerns were disregarded.
I dont believe that this case has to mirror any other case. This case was unique in it's own way, with its own pressures and its own things at stake.
Fo all these reasons, I believe it is possible that the police framed a man that
some of them knew to be innocent (to the extent that they knew Sheila was responsible). It is also possible that some officers who were not in possession of all the facts that morning regarding the TFG's experiences may have genuinely felt Bamber knew more than he let on (and perhaps this might even prove to be the case one day).
