False Convictions v. Wrongful Convictions

[Erik Narramore]

Falsely convict and wrongly convict are not the same things.  I insist on the distinction.  Even if Jeremy is innocent, you would need to meet a pretty overwhelming evidential bar to persuade me that any police officer or pathologist intentionally framed an innocent man.  It's much more likely - and realistic - to conclude that they simply made a mistake and pursued Jeremy under the steam of their own self-righteous enthusiasm, blinding themselves to contrary facts and evidence.  It's a very common phenomenon - we see it on this Forum every day.  It's just human nature and represents a flaw in any human system.  Yes, as part of such a catastrophe, influential individuals may tell lies and untruths, but again I emphasise that this is not the same as intentionally framing somebody who is innocent.

The relatives are a different matter, and I think some of the evidence is consistent with the silencer having been planted, but I've set out my criteria: it would need to be demonstrated that 'vital interests' were at stake for the family before I could believe it was anything more than a misconceived desire for justice that motivated them.

Somewhat against what I have just said, I will now offer a qualified defence of your position.  I agree with you that people like David and Adam underestimate the potential for a group culture that leads to malfeasance.  The culture could be found in a tight-knit and cohesive group or distributed over several agencies and institutions.  In either case, there is the potential for systemised malfeasance or 'constructive malfeasance' - I am having to invent my own vocabulary here because it is a difficult phenomenon to describe and explain.  Probably you would need an organisational psychologist, systems analyst or management consultant, or somebody like that to explain it properly.

What happens is that the people involved are not necessarily part of an agenda, but they tell small or technical lies or untruths that in and of themselves seems trivial yet contribute to an overarching narrative.  It could be that, as you explained in one of your previous posts, the narrative ('ethos') is set by a small group of influential people and this drives everything and frames the perceptions and interpretations of everybody in the case, even the defence, from that point onwards.

Even estimable pathologists could be influenced in this way, and this is where I come to a point of disagreement with you.

Some underestimate the scope for group malfeasance, others may over-state the case for its existence.  It is not necessary for the pathologist or forensic scientists to have been part of some scheme of corruption in order for Jeremy to be innocent.  A lot of forensic evidence is down to interpretation or involves applying a certain method that can turn out to be flawed because it was influenced by the 'ethos'/narrative of the investigative team.

Furthermore, when I use the phrase 'systemised malfeasance', I have in mind a situation where people tell what they think are small or technical lies or untruths thinking that these are trivial in and of themselves without really appreciating that by doing so they are aligning the evidence with the overarching ethos/narrative.  In that scenario, the whole management of the case becomes like a factory or machine in which everybody is expected to produce results that meet a certain case goal so as to fulfil the original ethos/narrative set by the core group, but the individuals involved - even the core group - may not comprehend that what they are doing is wrong.

Essentially, the term I may be looking for is 'group think'.  Detectives, scientists, lawyers, judges, etc., can lose their objectivity and detachment under strong psychological, social, economic and professional influences.

[Erik Narramore]

We must make the distinction between two basic motives for corrupt practices.

(i). One involves framing an innocent man, or a man believed to be innocent, or not caring whether he is innocent or not.
(ii). The other involves framing a guilty man, or a man believed to be guilty.

These are two different things, and although they both involve serious criminal conduct on the part of police (and potentially also witnesses, lawyers and forensic scientists, and others) and lead to much the same result, they involve different actions.

The former, (i) is extremely rare - so rare, that in my view it hardly warrants interest.  Nobody on the Forum has been able to provide a definitive example of (i) ever happening.  I'm sure it has and does happen, but it will be rare and involve police officers who are frankly demented.  The example offered by NG1066 when I had that discussion about it with Gringo was of an officer who was mentally-ill.

The latter, (ii), is what is known as noble cause corruption and it is a very common reason for the police to frame somebody.  It happened a lot in the past (a variation of it once happened to me - as I explain briefly below).  It will still happen today and I can think of at least one or two high profile cases involving recent convictions where noble cause corruption was probably involved.

A complication is that (i) and (ii) can sometimes be blended together in that police officers may believe that a suspect has not committed a specific offence, but may decide to charge him with it anyway because they know he is a criminal and would have committed other offences of the same type.  I have personally seen that happen - it tends to be in the more serious end of crime, involving specialist officers investigating organised criminals, where there is no net loss in convicting a 'legally innocent' individual.  It is still wrong to do this, of course, but the officers will rationalise it to themselves.

Another complication is that (ii) involves lots of nuances and variations.  For instance, the police may not even be aware they are framing somebody in this way.  They may instead be guided by correlation biases and prejudicial thinking.  This is still wrong, and it may also involve some illegality and irregularities in the investigation.  That is more or less what happened to me on one occasion.  I was actually innocent in that instance, but the officers (I must admit, for understandable reasons) concluded I had done it.  It does happen - probably quite a lot.

This is very complicated!

I should add that while I generally dislike the police, that is not because of my own past.  It is for other reasons.  It is because I have been the victim of crime myself, again in circumstances unrelated to my past, and I have found the police to be wanting in their competence, attitude and capabilities - and that's to put it politely.  I hold no brief for criminals.  I deplore and condemn criminality.  I am just looking at the matter objectively.