The police
Would have had to engage with every individual or organisation. To varying degrees.
A 24/7 framing department may have been created after Peter Simpson replaced Taff Jones. A mountain of false evidence has been created & the DPP approved their submission which had quickly been created.
Roch says Ainsley was brought in to dispose of evidence.
The qualified experts
The police would have told them what evidence they wanted them to forge.
There may have been lobbyists within the industrial frame department. To suss out which qualified experts were willing to commit forgery & perjury in court. As a lot of qualified experts were required.
The blood testers
The police simply put Sheila's blood on the silencer & gave it to Huntingdon.
The testers submitted the results & testified. These were correct results from the fabricated evidence the police gave them.
Unlikely they knew about the fabrication prior to receiving the silencer. Would have been asked to committ forgery & perjury if the results given to the police were not suffient.
The relatives
Would need to engage with the police & agree to give false WS's & commit perjury. Saying they found the silencer with paint & Sheila's blood on.
They engaged with Julie & Bamber in formal & informal ways. May have tipped Julie off that Bamber was being framed.
Julie Mugford
Had to engage with the police to give a false WS & commit perjury.
Also engaged with Mary Mugford. Either asking her to give a false WS & committ perjury, or accepting MM's offer to do this.
Spent a long time exclusivly with Bamber & engaged with the relatives.
Mary Mugford
Engaged with her daughter & the police.
Agreed to give a false WS & commit perjury. Either offerring or being asked to by Julie or the police.
Also met Bamber pre & post massacre.
James Richards
Would only need to engage with the police. Who asked him to create a false WS & commit perjury.
DPP
The police handed them the evidence. This was substantial due to the forgery & false WS's. The DPP instantly approved the submission.
It is unclear whether the DPP knew that the evidence was false.
The trial prosecution team
It is unclear whether the police told them of the industrial frame.
Bamber's trial legal team
They were not involved in the frame. However it has been suggested they were not good enough, although highly paid.
They did not suggest an industrial frame at trial.
The judge
Presided over all the prosecution witnesses who committed perjury.
No suggestion he was part of the frame although Bamber's first appeal was based on the judges summing up.
The CCRC
Submitted Bamber's case to the COA in 2002. Were criticised for doing so.
May have then closed ranks after 2002 after engaging with the police. Resulting in a 2012 rejection.
COA
A 522 point document outlines the reasons for 2002 dismissal.
The police may have asked the COA to dismiss the 2002 application after the CCRC had put it through.
The police Complaints Authority
This is the police investigating the police. So the police closed ranks. They would have to engage with several other people & bodies to be able to give reasons for rejecting Bamber's application.
Hopefully people will say whether they agree with my thread post. Or whether there was more or less forgery & perjery in the industrial frame.
I did ask David whether he agreed with my thread post. He has previously said the conviction was based on 'forgery & perjury' without elaborating. However got no response.
It is a fact the evidence shows Bamber is guilty. He was convicted 32 years ago & has had several failed appeals. This evidence must have been created via the industrial frame involving hundreds of dedicated people over the last 32 years.
Hopefully my thread post can be improved on.
