I'll get back about that. I know it's a conundrum in the case. I am going to replay each podcast and note some of the claims being made. I've also started grammatically editing Shaw's unfinished unpublished manuscript. I know it's not sourced but I am going to compare any similarities between the claims made by Shaw and info gleaned from podcasts. I will eventually post up a word doc containing Shaw, to make it easier to read.
I don't believe there was a motive to frame an innocent man, or frame him without caring about his guilt or innocence. It is true that Jeremy was bisexual and also involved in drugs at a low level, and he was suspected of the caravan park break-in. The police would have discovered these things and not have taken kindly to him, and these facts may have been background factors influencing the renewed interest in him, but to frame Jeremy simply out of dislike or disapproval of his minor criminal lifestyle would require a psychopathic or mentally-deranged police officer whose efforts go undetected in an investigation involving many hands. Somebody would have stepped forward. I accept it probably does happen in rare instances, but it is so rare that it's normally off the table for consideration, as there are hardly any recorded cases of it.
I find it much more plausible that individual police officers and relatives simply assumed - perhaps correctly - that Jeremy was guilty, and then some of them set about framing him on that premise. Obviously the background factors above will have been a major influence on police officers. They concluded he was guilty and interpreted evidence accordingly, bending the rules and cutting corners here and there to make the case fit. That is how 'corrupt' miscarriages of justice happen. The phrase used for the phenomenon is 'noble cause corruption'.
This is what occurred in the Birmingham Six case. Although I believe some of them were guilty, some were unquestionably innocent. What happened is that the officers decided they were guilty and set out making a case that proved it. It's a classic illustration of the dangers of abandoning due process and rule of law.
Closely-related to that is a situation where mistakes and errors are made with the evidence by police and forensic scientists, and instead of owning up to this, there is a cover-up of the mistakes in the belief that the accused or convicted individual is guilty anyway and in the knowledge that the police and scientists involved could be in serious trouble if they come clean and admit to mistakes and errors, even though there was no criminal intent involved.
This can also happen at an organisational level, in which case it is normally inadvertent rather than an intentionally criminal effort to hide or destroy evidence. For instance, an Essex Police Special Branch officer authorised the destruction of exhibits in 1995, did he not? The actions of the Special Branch officer were probably entirely innocent, but even if he was following orders, his actions were grossly negligent. He should have refused the order, ensured the evidence was secured, and then reported the matter upwards to the Chief Constable, and if necessary to an outside complaints body or different police force. The police must uphold the rule of law above all else, in spirit and in its ethos and values, as much as the letter. They cannot be a law unto themselves.
What about this business that has come out of Mike Ainsley holding evidence at home? It cannot be right that this was allowed.
A much more common occurrence is when the police make a genuine mistake in their deductions that is influenced by the human tendency towards arrogance, bias and recklessness. They decide somebody looks guilty, so he is guilty, and they build a case accordingly, ignoring and disregarding anything that calls their assumptions into question. This is of course something that almost everybody does.
This is what occurred in the Stefan Kiszko case. At some point, the officers decided poor Mr Kiszko was guilty and interpreted the evidence accordingly, disregarding evidence that didn't fit their preconceived conclusions.
My view of the Bamber case is that, if - a big if - Jeremy is innocent, then it boils down to mistakes and incompetence rather than general corruption, and has its roots in:
(i). the nature of the incident and crime scene itself, with each piece of evidence wide open to interpretation;
(ii). an idiosyncratic officer, Stan Jones; and,
(iii). pressure brought on the police by the relatives, especially Robert Boutflour, convinced of Jeremy's guilt.
But even if Jeremy is guilty, what we can still say about this case is that it shows quite well how a tiny group of people, in this case chiefly Stan Jones, Robert Boutflour, Peter Eaton, and Ann Eaton, can greatly influence a larger group - even technical experts - in following a given agenda and coming to certain conclusions. I think the explanation for this is that the tiny group were emotionally-vested in it all (and maybe financially-vested, though the innocent camp have yet to convince me of this), while the larger group were merely acting as paid professionals and were willing to do as they were told or implicitly accept the narratives of others. Again, this point underscores the importance of professional integrity and independence in all things.
Jeremy Bamber himself compounded a dangerous situation with his own naivety in openly answering police questions [Where was his solicitor?], joking around with Julie, neglecting to deal with the estate in an efficient, tactful and sensitive manner, and speaking ad hoc to police officers and relatives about incriminating matters, when he should have kept his mouth shut and kept them at arm's length.
The conduct of the trial was also a factor in it all. The rather passive 'reasonable doubt' defence put forward and the misdirections to the jury, played a part.
It's complex and messy. Reducing it all to a simple conspiracy is entertaining and would make a good novel or film, but doesn't reflect what really happened, in my view.
