The Inadvertent Framing Hypothesis

[Erik Narramore]

Re.: DS Stan Jones.

To pursue somebody he knew was innocent, he and anybody else involved would have had to be demented.  It could happen, but such conduct has to be extremely rare indeed, and I think in those circumstances, Jeremy's 'innocence' would have come out and would have been obvious, and the judge would have stopped the trial

But there's a nuance to this that needs to be considered.  He may not have known that Jeremy was innocent, but he might have turned a blind eye to things that pointed to Jeremy's innocence.  It's a subtle difference that some people in the pro-Jeremy camp have a deal of trouble understanding or acknowledging, but anybody who has spent five minutes with a British police officer will know how innocent people can end up in prison: it's not because police officers lie as such (though they may lie in covering-up what they have done wrong), rather it's that police officers have a tendency to form a view and then make the facts and evidence fit, which I think is a result of how their job conditions them mentally.  Police officers in their ordinary duties have to make snap judgements about people and situations and they carry this mindset over into investigative work, forgetting that this requires a more thoughtful approach.  The relatives, for maybe slightly different reasons, may have pursued things under a similar mindset.

[Erik Narramore]

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 the Birmingham Six were guilty, some were unquestionably innocent.  What happened is that the officers decided they were guilty and set about 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, with the exception of DS Jones, 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.

[Erik Narramore]

Inadvertent framing could be called the Lomax Hypothesis on the case, in tribute to the author.

Lomax was saying the relatives made a mistake they were unaware of.  That, in summary, is the central argument of Lomax in his book.

[Erik Narramore]

However, the Lomax book does come across as him having one eye on defamation law.  Even so, I can only go on what he says.

[rochford]

I see this somewhat differently.  In the context, either of something going wrong during TFG or something going wrong or untoward post TFG:

Simpson needed Bamber to be investigated thoroughly, in order to appease Robert Boutfour.   The reason he needed to appease Robert Boutflour is likely to have related to the fast developing situation.  The relatives were acting in a determined manner.  The next stop would have been to try and draw in external actors, for example via the press.  That could open up a Pandoara's Box for Simpson, who, while the case was contained within EP, still had the authority and ability to exercise control. That level of control would diminish if the press started sniffing around and printing articles stemming from disgruntled relatives. This is probably why detective Keneally's report would have been ignored - because it had no use to Simpson in terms of keeping Robert Boutflour constrained.   

[Erik Narramore]

I see this somewhat differently.  In the context, either of something going wrong during TFG or something going wrong or untoward post TFG:

Simpson needed Bamber to be investigated thoroughly, in order to appease Robert Boutfour.   The reason he needed to appease Robert Boutflour is likely to have related to the fast developing situation.  The relatives were acting in a determined manner.  The next stop would have been to try and draw in external actors, for example via the press.  That could open up a Pandoara's Box for Simpson, who, while the case was contained within EP, still had the authority and ability to exercise control. That level of control would diminish if the press started sniffing around and printing articles stemming from disgruntled relatives. This is probably why detective Keneally's report would have been ignored - because it had no use to Simpson in terms of keeping Robert Boutflour constrained.

Where I will agree with you is that if something accidentally occurred at the White House on the morning of the 7th. August 1985 that the police wanted to cover-up for some reason, and if this thing that was being covered-up was discovered by the family, then this could have provided a pretext for the application of serious pressure on officers.

But there are a lot of 'ifs'!  A conspiracy of this kind would be dangerous indeed for everybody involved, with the chances of discovery very high.  In that event, wouldn't an officer or family member who wasn't part of it all simply tell the press, or tell somebody else who then tells the press?  I think that's quite likely, and with this mind, I think your theory depends on knowledge of whatever happened being kept within a very tight circle of individuals, and somehow it then leaks to the family - probably via Robbie Carr.  I'm a great believer that if there was a family conspiracy of any kind, it involved only two individuals: Robert Boutflour and his son, David Boutflour.  No-one else. 

Robert Boutflour discloses the information to his own son, David Boutflour, knowing that he will not tell Karen Boutflour, a relatively passive actor in the case.  Peter Eaton, the son-in-law, is not told, as it's believed that he will tell Ann Eaton.  Ann Eaton is Robert's daughter, but is not told because she cannot be trusted to keep it to herself and not blab.

However, when I think of a family conspiracy in this case, it involves the blood in the silencer and the scratch marks.  As I see it, the basic flaw with a conspiracy involving the police who first entered the farmhouse that morning is that whatever happened obviously must have involved the raid group officers, which means that before you even start you've already got a dangerous criminal conspiracy that involves too many people.

Bear in mind that what you are theorising here is something quite novel: a cross-conspiracy involving the police and a farming family who have nothing otherwise to do with the police. 

At each stage, there would have been a much safer course of action.  If ACC Simpson was told by Robert Boutflour that unless Jeremy was made a suspect, the press would be notified about a cover-up involving the accidental shooting of Sheila, then Simpson could have done one of four things:

(i). Frame Jeremy Bamber.
(ii). Tell Robert Boutflour to clear off, in the knowledge that the cover-up was well-executed and nothing can be proved.
(iii). Ignore Robert Boutflour, for the same reason as (ii) above.
(iv). Blow the whistle.

I would suggest to you that (ii), (iii) and (iv) are orders of magnitude safer options then (i). 

Option (i) is crazy.  It means the police are adding another conspiracy, this time involving even more officers and forensic scientists (even if some of these individuals are not aware of what is going on).

The only reason I can think of for pursuing option (i) would be that they were already committed to one conspiracy and feared that if the press and media started investigating the shooting more deeply, one or more officers might 'break' under the pressure and confess.

There is also one further possibility.

It could be that ACC Simpson agreed to go along with (i) in the belief either that the Ainsley-led inquiry would peter out or, even if charged, the prosecution of Jeremy would go nowhere and it would either all be dropped or he would be acquitted.  Maybe Ainsley was hand-picked for the purpose?  Ainsley himself seems dogmatically committed to Jeremy's guilt and the manner in which he pursued the investigation suggests he was motivated by genuine reasons, but it could be that more senior officers assumed he either could be manipulated or wasn't very good at his job and would mess it up, or both.

As an aside, but of some relevance: I believe I am right in saying the Kenneally Review was completed prior to Julie Mugford/Susan Battersby coming forward or being arrested (depending on what you think happened) and also prior to the blood results from inside the silencer coming back from the FSS. 

By the way, you call the Kenneally Review a report, but I'm not aware of any written report having been completed.  Was there one?  The impression given is that Kenneally gave his views verbally, but in view of what is in the archive, consisting of internal memos and reports and so on, it does seem quite likely that there was an internal report as there was a clear working pattern within Essex Police of putting things in writing - probably submitted to ACC Simpson.

[rochford]

I see this somewhat differently.  In the context, either of something going wrong during TFG or something going wrong or untoward post TFG:

Simpson needed Bamber to be investigated thoroughly, in order to appease Robert Boutfour.   The reason he needed to appease Robert Boutflour is likely to have related to the fast developing situation.  The relatives were acting in a determined manner.  The next stop would have been to try and draw in external actors, for example via the press.  That could open up a Pandoara's Box for Simpson, who, while the case was contained within EP, still had the authority and ability to exercise control. That level of control would diminish if the press started sniffing around and printing articles stemming from disgruntled relatives. This is probably why detective Keneally's report would have been ignored - because it had no use to Simpson in terms of keeping Robert Boutflour constrained.

Where I will agree with you is that if something accidentally occurred at the White House on the morning of the 7th. August 1985 that the police wanted to cover-up for some reason, and if this thing that was being covered-up was discovered by the family, then this could have provided a pretext for the application of serious pressure on officers.

But there are a lot of 'ifs'!  A conspiracy of this kind would be dangerous indeed for everybody involved, with the chances of discovery very high.  In that event, wouldn't an officer or family member who wasn't part of it all simply tell the press, or tell somebody else who then tells the press?  I think that's quite likely, and with this mind, I think your theory depends on knowledge of whatever happened being kept within a very tight circle of individuals, and somehow it then leaks to the family - probably via Robbie Carr.  I'm a great believer that if there was a family conspiracy of any kind, it involved only two individuals: Robert Boutflour and his son, David Boutflour.  No-one else. 

Robert Boutflour discloses the information to his own son, David Boutflour, knowing that he will not tell Karen Boutflour, a relatively passive actor in the case.  Peter Eaton, the son-in-law, is not told, as it's believed that he will tell Ann Eaton.  Ann Eaton is Robert's daughter, but is not told because she cannot be trusted to keep it to herself and not blab.

However, when I think of a family conspiracy in this case, it involves the blood in the silencer and the scratch marks.  As I see it, the basic flaw with a conspiracy involving the police who first entered the farmhouse that morning is that whatever happened obviously must have involved the raid group officers, which means that before you even start you've already got a dangerous criminal conspiracy that involves too many people.

Bear in mind that what you are theorising here is something quite novel: a cross-conspiracy involving the police and a farming family who have nothing otherwise to do with the police. 

At each stage, there would have been a much safer course of action.  If ACC Simpson was told by Robert Boutflour that unless Jeremy was made a suspect, the press would be notified about a cover-up involving the accidental shooting of Sheila, then Simpson could have done one of four things:

(i). Frame Jeremy Bamber.
(ii). Tell Robert Boutflour to clear off, in the knowledge that the cover-up was well-executed and nothing can be proved.
(iii). Ignore Robert Boutflour, for the same reason as (ii) above.
(iv). Blow the whistle.

I would suggest to you that (ii), (iii) and (iv) are orders of magnitude safer options then (i). 

Option (i) is crazy.  It means the police are adding another conspiracy, this time involving even more officers and forensic scientists (even if some of these individuals are not aware of what is going on).

The only reason I can think of for pursuing option (i) would be that they were already committed to one conspiracy and feared that if the press and media started investigating the shooting more deeply, one or more officers might 'break' under the pressure and confess.

There is also one further possibility.

It could be that ACC Simpson agreed to go along with (i) in the belief either that the Ainsley-led inquiry would peter out or, even if charged, the prosecution of Jeremy would go nowhere and it would either all be dropped or he would be acquitted.  Maybe Ainsley was hand-picked for the purpose?  Ainsley himself seems dogmatically committed to Jeremy's guilt and the manner in which he pursued the investigation suggests he was motivated by genuine reasons, but it could be that more senior officers assumed he either could be manipulated or wasn't very good at his job and would mess it up, or both.

As an aside, but of some relevance: I believe I am right in saying the Kenneally Review was completed prior to Julie Mugford/Susan Battersby coming forward or being arrested (depending on what you think happened) and also prior to the blood results from inside the silencer coming back from the FSS. 

By the way, you call the Kenneally Review a report, but I'm not aware of any written report having been completed.  Was there one?  The impression given is that Kenneally gave his views verbally, but in view of what is in the archive, consisting of internal memos and reports and so on, it does seem quite likely that there was an internal report as there was a clear working pattern within Essex Police of putting things in writing - probably submitted to ACC Simpson.

You make some good points, particular in the lower section.

The way I see it - the relatives did not know what happened at the scene.  They did not get wind of any undeniable SC culpability.  Or at least, no level of SC culpability that was sufficient to override their own expediency.  When Robert goes to Simpson, I see him as a wily character who knows full well that he can ruffle Simpson's feathers and overplay the hand that he brings.  Simpson on the other hand, has actual knowledge about what really did take place.  He can see that Robert is a manipulative, impassioned, determined, wily old man who could cause problems and open up a can of worms in the process.  Have you ever seen the film Casino?  https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/d6dc8040-f0de-465f-b8e2-95ac96a6be02 This is what Simpson thought.  If EP try to prosecute Bamber and fail, Robert cant really complain.  But if EP fail to even try and prosecute Bamber, Robert can stir up shit.  The problem is, they pulled off the conviction. 

[Erik Narramore]

I see this somewhat differently.  In the context, either of something going wrong during TFG or something going wrong or untoward post TFG:

Simpson needed Bamber to be investigated thoroughly, in order to appease Robert Boutfour.   The reason he needed to appease Robert Boutflour is likely to have related to the fast developing situation.  The relatives were acting in a determined manner.  The next stop would have been to try and draw in external actors, for example via the press.  That could open up a Pandoara's Box for Simpson, who, while the case was contained within EP, still had the authority and ability to exercise control. That level of control would diminish if the press started sniffing around and printing articles stemming from disgruntled relatives. This is probably why detective Keneally's report would have been ignored - because it had no use to Simpson in terms of keeping Robert Boutflour constrained.

Where I will agree with you is that if something accidentally occurred at the White House on the morning of the 7th. August 1985 that the police wanted to cover-up for some reason, and if this thing that was being covered-up was discovered by the family, then this could have provided a pretext for the application of serious pressure on officers.

But there are a lot of 'ifs'!  A conspiracy of this kind would be dangerous indeed for everybody involved, with the chances of discovery very high.  In that event, wouldn't an officer or family member who wasn't part of it all simply tell the press, or tell somebody else who then tells the press?  I think that's quite likely, and with this mind, I think your theory depends on knowledge of whatever happened being kept within a very tight circle of individuals, and somehow it then leaks to the family - probably via Robbie Carr.  I'm a great believer that if there was a family conspiracy of any kind, it involved only two individuals: Robert Boutflour and his son, David Boutflour.  No-one else. 

Robert Boutflour discloses the information to his own son, David Boutflour, knowing that he will not tell Karen Boutflour, a relatively passive actor in the case.  Peter Eaton, the son-in-law, is not told, as it's believed that he will tell Ann Eaton.  Ann Eaton is Robert's daughter, but is not told because she cannot be trusted to keep it to herself and not blab.

However, when I think of a family conspiracy in this case, it involves the blood in the silencer and the scratch marks.  As I see it, the basic flaw with a conspiracy involving the police who first entered the farmhouse that morning is that whatever happened obviously must have involved the raid group officers, which means that before you even start you've already got a dangerous criminal conspiracy that involves too many people.

Bear in mind that what you are theorising here is something quite novel: a cross-conspiracy involving the police and a farming family who have nothing otherwise to do with the police. 

At each stage, there would have been a much safer course of action.  If ACC Simpson was told by Robert Boutflour that unless Jeremy was made a suspect, the press would be notified about a cover-up involving the accidental shooting of Sheila, then Simpson could have done one of four things:

(i). Frame Jeremy Bamber.
(ii). Tell Robert Boutflour to clear off, in the knowledge that the cover-up was well-executed and nothing can be proved.
(iii). Ignore Robert Boutflour, for the same reason as (ii) above.
(iv). Blow the whistle.

I would suggest to you that (ii), (iii) and (iv) are orders of magnitude safer options then (i). 

Option (i) is crazy.  It means the police are adding another conspiracy, this time involving even more officers and forensic scientists (even if some of these individuals are not aware of what is going on).

The only reason I can think of for pursuing option (i) would be that they were already committed to one conspiracy and feared that if the press and media started investigating the shooting more deeply, one or more officers might 'break' under the pressure and confess.

There is also one further possibility.

It could be that ACC Simpson agreed to go along with (i) in the belief either that the Ainsley-led inquiry would peter out or, even if charged, the prosecution of Jeremy would go nowhere and it would either all be dropped or he would be acquitted.  Maybe Ainsley was hand-picked for the purpose?  Ainsley himself seems dogmatically committed to Jeremy's guilt and the manner in which he pursued the investigation suggests he was motivated by genuine reasons, but it could be that more senior officers assumed he either could be manipulated or wasn't very good at his job and would mess it up, or both.

As an aside, but of some relevance: I believe I am right in saying the Kenneally Review was completed prior to Julie Mugford/Susan Battersby coming forward or being arrested (depending on what you think happened) and also prior to the blood results from inside the silencer coming back from the FSS. 

By the way, you call the Kenneally Review a report, but I'm not aware of any written report having been completed.  Was there one?  The impression given is that Kenneally gave his views verbally, but in view of what is in the archive, consisting of internal memos and reports and so on, it does seem quite likely that there was an internal report as there was a clear working pattern within Essex Police of putting things in writing - probably submitted to ACC Simpson.

You make some good points, particular in the lower section.

The way I see it - the relatives did not know what happened at the scene.  They did not get wind of any undeniable SC culpability.  Or at least, no level of SC culpability that was sufficient to override their own expediency.  When Robert goes to Simpson, I see him as a wily character who knows full well that he can ruffle Simpson's feathers and overplay the hand that he brings.  Simpson on the other hand, has actual knowledge about what really did take place.  He can see that Robert is a manipulative, impassioned, determined, wily old man who could cause problems and open up a can of worms in the process.  Have you ever seen the film Casino?  https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/d6dc8040-f0de-465f-b8e2-95ac96a6be02 This is what Simpson thought.  If EP try to prosecute Bamber and fail, Robert cant really complain.  But if EP fail to even try and prosecute Bamber, Robert can stir up shit.  The problem is, they pulled off the conviction.

I think any conspiracy along the lines you suggest must involve the family knowing that things went awry at the crime scene and preferably they would have to know what happened (courtesy of Robbie Carr).

[rochford]

I see this somewhat differently.  In the context, either of something going wrong during TFG or something going wrong or untoward post TFG:

Simpson needed Bamber to be investigated thoroughly, in order to appease Robert Boutfour.   The reason he needed to appease Robert Boutflour is likely to have related to the fast developing situation.  The relatives were acting in a determined manner.  The next stop would have been to try and draw in external actors, for example via the press.  That could open up a Pandoara's Box for Simpson, who, while the case was contained within EP, still had the authority and ability to exercise control. That level of control would diminish if the press started sniffing around and printing articles stemming from disgruntled relatives. This is probably why detective Keneally's report would have been ignored - because it had no use to Simpson in terms of keeping Robert Boutflour constrained.

Where I will agree with you is that if something accidentally occurred at the White House on the morning of the 7th. August 1985 that the police wanted to cover-up for some reason, and if this thing that was being covered-up was discovered by the family, then this could have provided a pretext for the application of serious pressure on officers.

But there are a lot of 'ifs'!  A conspiracy of this kind would be dangerous indeed for everybody involved, with the chances of discovery very high.  In that event, wouldn't an officer or family member who wasn't part of it all simply tell the press, or tell somebody else who then tells the press?  I think that's quite likely, and with this mind, I think your theory depends on knowledge of whatever happened being kept within a very tight circle of individuals, and somehow it then leaks to the family - probably via Robbie Carr.  I'm a great believer that if there was a family conspiracy of any kind, it involved only two individuals: Robert Boutflour and his son, David Boutflour.  No-one else. 

Robert Boutflour discloses the information to his own son, David Boutflour, knowing that he will not tell Karen Boutflour, a relatively passive actor in the case.  Peter Eaton, the son-in-law, is not told, as it's believed that he will tell Ann Eaton.  Ann Eaton is Robert's daughter, but is not told because she cannot be trusted to keep it to herself and not blab.

However, when I think of a family conspiracy in this case, it involves the blood in the silencer and the scratch marks.  As I see it, the basic flaw with a conspiracy involving the police who first entered the farmhouse that morning is that whatever happened obviously must have involved the raid group officers, which means that before you even start you've already got a dangerous criminal conspiracy that involves too many people.

Bear in mind that what you are theorising here is something quite novel: a cross-conspiracy involving the police and a farming family who have nothing otherwise to do with the police. 

At each stage, there would have been a much safer course of action.  If ACC Simpson was told by Robert Boutflour that unless Jeremy was made a suspect, the press would be notified about a cover-up involving the accidental shooting of Sheila, then Simpson could have done one of four things:

(i). Frame Jeremy Bamber.
(ii). Tell Robert Boutflour to clear off, in the knowledge that the cover-up was well-executed and nothing can be proved.
(iii). Ignore Robert Boutflour, for the same reason as (ii) above.
(iv). Blow the whistle.

I would suggest to you that (ii), (iii) and (iv) are orders of magnitude safer options then (i). 

Option (i) is crazy.  It means the police are adding another conspiracy, this time involving even more officers and forensic scientists (even if some of these individuals are not aware of what is going on).

The only reason I can think of for pursuing option (i) would be that they were already committed to one conspiracy and feared that if the press and media started investigating the shooting more deeply, one or more officers might 'break' under the pressure and confess.

There is also one further possibility.

It could be that ACC Simpson agreed to go along with (i) in the belief either that the Ainsley-led inquiry would peter out or, even if charged, the prosecution of Jeremy would go nowhere and it would either all be dropped or he would be acquitted.  Maybe Ainsley was hand-picked for the purpose?  Ainsley himself seems dogmatically committed to Jeremy's guilt and the manner in which he pursued the investigation suggests he was motivated by genuine reasons, but it could be that more senior officers assumed he either could be manipulated or wasn't very good at his job and would mess it up, or both.

As an aside, but of some relevance: I believe I am right in saying the Kenneally Review was completed prior to Julie Mugford/Susan Battersby coming forward or being arrested (depending on what you think happened) and also prior to the blood results from inside the silencer coming back from the FSS. 

By the way, you call the Kenneally Review a report, but I'm not aware of any written report having been completed.  Was there one?  The impression given is that Kenneally gave his views verbally, but in view of what is in the archive, consisting of internal memos and reports and so on, it does seem quite likely that there was an internal report as there was a clear working pattern within Essex Police of putting things in writing - probably submitted to ACC Simpson.

You make some good points, particular in the lower section.

The way I see it - the relatives did not know what happened at the scene.  They did not get wind of any undeniable SC culpability.  Or at least, no level of SC culpability that was sufficient to override their own expediency.  When Robert goes to Simpson, I see him as a wily character who knows full well that he can ruffle Simpson's feathers and overplay the hand that he brings.  Simpson on the other hand, has actual knowledge about what really did take place.  He can see that Robert is a manipulative, impassioned, determined, wily old man who could cause problems and open up a can of worms in the process.  Have you ever seen the film Casino?  https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/d6dc8040-f0de-465f-b8e2-95ac96a6be02 This is what Simpson thought.  If EP try to prosecute Bamber and fail, Robert cant really complain.  But if EP fail to even try and prosecute Bamber, Robert can stir up shit.  The problem is, they pulled off the conviction.

I think any conspiracy along the lines you suggest must involve the family knowing that things went awry at the crime scene and preferably they would have to know what happened (courtesy of Robbie Carr).

Let's say that RWB is a man on a mission.  He is fed up with DCI Jones' stubborn refusal to consider JB as a suspect etc.  RWB knows that bodies may have been moved at the scene, whether as part of a training exercise or whether because something wasn't done properly. He mentions overtures to the press about police failing to investigate certain evidence (and God knows what else he is prepared to mention, from the Carr rumour mill etc).

The thing is, privately, Simpson knows what happened at the scene.  He knows whether there has been any scene re-staging etc etc. What he does not need is the British press / gutter press flooding their pages with 'relatives dissatisfied' articles and the relevant heat / enquiries that that may bring as a result.

While the case stays within the confines of EP, Simpson, is able to control the narrative and cut short any intentions by the relatives to pull in wider agencies / press etc.

Like the bosses in Casino, Simpson thinks to himself 'why take a chance?'.  So he appease RWB as a first move, by offering reassurances.  He then has no chance but to remove DCI Jones and replace him with a puppet detective - otherwise, the plan will never get off the ground in the first place.

What chance is there that Simpson never really wanted JB convicted?  He just wanted a trial to collapse or a not guilty verdict, whereby the relatives would need to concede to a jury decision.  However, in using Ainsley, he placed a ruthless individual in place, who, with the assistance of DS Stan Jones, went about ruthlessly making a case against JB - by all means necessary.

When the conviction happens, what is Simpson supposed to do?  There is nothing he can do.  He has to play along.  Under his direction, EP staved off a potential near immediate scandal..  the trade off being that what they accepted in return, was a nighhtmare suspected MOJ case that wont go away.

[Erik Narramore]

Let's say that RWB is a man on a mission.  He is fed up with DCI Jones' stubborn refusal to consider JB as a suspect etc.  RWB knows that bodies may have been moved at the scene, whether as part of a training exercise or whether because something wasn't done properly. He mentions overtures to the press about police failing to investigate certain evidence (and God knows what else he is prepared to mention, from the Carr rumour mill etc).

The thing is, privately, Simpson knows what happened at the scene.  He knows whether there has been any scene re-staging etc etc. What he does not need is the British press / gutter press flooding their pages with 'relatives dissatisfied' articles and the relevant heat / enquiries that that may bring as a result.

While the case stays within the confines of EP, Simpson, is able to control the narrative and cut short any intentions by the relatives to pull in wider agencies / press etc.

Like the bosses in Casino, Simpson thinks to himself 'why take a chance?'.  So he appease RWB as a first move, by offering reassurances.  He then has no chance but to remove DCI Jones and replace him with a puppet detective - otherwise, the plan will never get off the ground in the first place.

What chance is there that Simpson never really wanted JB convicted?  He just wanted a trial to collapse or a not guilty verdict, whereby the relatives would need to concede to a jury decision.  However, in using Ainsley, he placed a ruthless individual in place, who, with the assistance of DS Stan Jones, went about ruthlessly making a case against JB - by all means necessary.

When the conviction happens, what is Simpson supposed to do?  There is nothing he can do.  He has to play along.  Under his direction, EP staved off a potential near immediate scandal..  the trade off being that what they accepted in return, was a nighhtmare suspected MOJ case that wont go away.

One question I would have in this scenario is who did Simpson have around that he could trust and confer with?  Or did he meet Boutflour alone and make the decision there and then?  Wouldn't the conspirators confer before or after the meeting to decide what to do?  Wouldn't they also think of themselves as more powerful than Boutflour and so able to either disregard his threats or threaten him in return?

Let's say you're right, though.  Do you think there was a quid pro quo that went beyond secrecy and in which Simpson demanded something from the family?

Did Ainsley's security role at Osea Road come in this, or was that a more innocent side-effect of things in which the family rewarded him individually?

What about the letter from the Chief Constable to Ann Eaton after the trial, inviting her to lunch? 
Link: https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?topic=75.0

It interests me that Ainsley held only Acting rank as a DCS.  Was this what bought his co-operation (even if, perhaps, he had no knowledge of the wider conspiracy)?  He was a Detective Superintendent and ambitious and keen on promotion, so they offered to make him Acting Detective Chief Superintendent, with the promise of a substantive promotion to that rank if it went well.  He was then duly promoted to DCS after the trial.

However, he remained at DCS rank until retirement.  He may have preferred this, if he liked working at the sharp end as a senior detective, but most who make it to superintendent rank are ambitious. Did he try for chief officer rank but was rebuffed?  If he was rebuffed, maybe this was because those above him knew of his unwitting role in a major conspiracy and he was regarded as 'radioactive'.  You would not want a future chief constable involved in a major miscarriage of justice scandal.

I also see that ACC Peter Simpson was promoted only once more - to Deputy Chief Constable of the same force, Essex.  That's strange because he was obviously an ambitious and (for the time) telegenic individual whose 'face fitted'.  You'd expect him to end up as a county chief constable somewhere, or maybe at commissioner rank with the Metropolitan Police.

Bob Miller, who was a DI in 1985, stayed at that rank until retirement, despite an accomplished career.