We know Ainsley retained evidence.
But you don't know what, if any, other evidence was available to Ainsley. I'm sure he did see things that nobody outside the police (and others closely-connected to the incident) saw, but it's just an assumption to say that it is of any relevance.
Nevertheless, this opens up the possibility of two, or even more, Jeremy Bamber cases.
One is the distilled version that the public see, which reflects the rough-and-ready case heard by the jury at the 1986 trial.
The other is the hidden case, which also reflects the rough-and-ready case heard by the jury at the 1986 trial - but more loosely, and much more favourably towards Jeremy, and perhaps even exonerates him.
I may stand to be corrected, but as far as I can gather, destroying evidence is not, per se, a criminal offence, but the conduct of destroying evidence may amount to one of or a combination of the following offences:
- perverting the course of justice;
- attempting to pervert the course of justice;
- misconduct in public offence;
- criminal contempt of court.
There may also be a civil contempt of court, which can be imprisonable.
I think the key questions are:
(i). Can it be proved that he took evidence home and destroyed it? Has he admitted this or is there some other reliable basis for believing it?
(ii). Does he have a defence for doing so? Possible defences could be that he was given permission by Essex Police to do so or he sincerely believed that the evidence was of no value or the evidence was not material to the case.
(iii). Was the destroyed evidence potentially of value to Jeremy? Could it have affected the outcome of a CCRC application or appeal?
(iv). Can the evidence be retrieved or recovered in some form?
The practice, which seems to be becoming a habit, of Essex Police handing over material to media people and journalists is a separate matter. In a way, it's good news for people like me who want to research the case.