Madeleine McCann PRESS Revisited! No news isn't always good news!

Happy 2015. Thanks for the messages, good AND abusive :-)

My first blog of the year is an OLD post I made to some long-forgotten Forum, prior to the UK Press 'love-in' with the McCanns after the Portuguese first 'shelved' the case.

I had LONG forgotten about it, until someone emailed it to me and I was struck by the unnerving fact that little has changed!

=======================================================================

Dear Mr. Editor……… I’m quite sure that you are very busy, organising your hacks and other staff, clearing away space on the front pages of your newspapers to make way for tomorrows joyous headlines, not to mention the inevitable ‘’pull out and keep’’ 10 page insert guide, explaining the tragic chain of events that have had to be endured by Saint Gerry & Kate of Rothley:-

“Bungling/Boozy/Inept/ Sardine Munching Porto Plods finally admit defeat!!”.......... “The agony goes on for our Kate &; Gerry” and “Vindicated at last!!”,

Just some, I am CERTAIN, of the headlines that we will all be reading about in the next couple of days. Readers will then be subjected to innumerable column inches over the coming weeks, with poignant articles from Richard Madeley, Amanda Pearson, Carol Malone et al, explaining how they had all ‘been there’ for our illustrious golden couple, supporting them in their hour of need, joining forces to combat and admonish those ‘vile evil whisperings’ that were emanating along the corridors of certain internet forums and blogs.

No doubt, celebs’ agents are already in negotiation with tabloid editors, all lining up to prepare their clients to express their solidarity by way of ‘exclusive interviews’; “as a parent myself, I can’t imagine what hell they have had to go through………by the way, my new book, which is out this Monday……………………….”

Who knows?. Almost certainly an OBE or two will be in the pipeline, especially if the McCanns are allowed to take credit for the European ‘AMBER ALERT’.

Clarence Mitchell will almost certainly be given greater impetus, either directly or otherwise, to organise the Government’s Media Monitoring Unit, to clamp down and to CLOSE down those websites and bloggers that influence sufficient numbers of people to be potentially detrimental to New Labours diktats, (as he did the MIRROR Forum).

Tony ‘Glenda’ Parsons, will undoubtedly have accrued sufficient soundbites to keep his Mirror column going for the next 2 years.

But, Mr. Editor, just before you fall asleep at night in your bed, having finished the proof reading to your simpering, sycophantic, subservient homage to the McCann's PRESS releases, please give a little thought to the following:-

Irrespective of what the Portuguese announce on Monday, the 20th July, there are a number of serious issues and questions which, FAR from being answered, have actually never been ASKED.

It may very well please you and whoever is dictating your editorial policy to perpetually vilify and BLAME the Portuguese authorities, their police or even their subjects for every aspect of the Madeleine McCann tragedy, but that would not explain, in any way, the following:-- The suspicions surrounding the McCanns and their possible involvement in the disappearance of their daughter arose, NOT because the Policia Judiciaria were inept and clueless, but because the McCanns made inaccurate statements, from the outset. Inaccurate statements about their movements, the movements of their friends, inaccurate statements about the state and condition of how they found the apartment and the shutters, inaccurate statements about what they discovered and discussed.

We know that they made inaccurate statements because what they said directly contravened and countered what the other stated, as well as what some of their friends stated. And they can’t ALL have been correct.

Inaccurate statements, lies or omissions?

Likewise, it wasn’t the ‘bungling Porto plod’ who strongly suspected or suggested that Madeleine may have died in the apartment. It was a couple of British dogs. Specialist canines, who have a LONG and proven history and success rate in determining and locating the precise areas of residual tissue and and materials relating to cadavers. Specialist dogs who are currently proving to be both CRUCIAL and instrumental in unraveling the ongoing horrors being unearthed at Haut de la Garenne in Jersey.

Not, I am sure, that you will give much credence or space to their findings in Portugal, but HOW would you propose to explain away the dogs behaviour in Praia da Luz, in the apartment, on Kate McCanns clothes and belongings? Having a bad day? Inconclusive? The fact that it is not wholly admissible in a Court of Law?

And what about that car boot sample?

The Birmingham FSS, the acknowledged, finest Forensic science laboratory in the world?  Martin Brunt is STILL on the Sky News website video, reporting a “100% DNA Match to Madeleine McCann”. Was he misinformed? Contaminated sample? Mistaken Process? Total fabrication? We may never know, especially given that the British authorities are fighting to ensure that particular aspect of this case remains secret. (Have you ever asked yourself why?, Mr. Editor, or are you simply not permitted to question Mr. Mitchells rhetoric?)

Are you also, Mr.Editor, going to lambast those bungling, inept, incapable LEICESTERSHIRE police, who were also widely reported as concurring, and in some cases even SUGGESTING, that Madeleine died in the apartment on that first night in May?

“ Licentious, lackluster, Leicester Police loonies!” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it, does it Mr.Editor?

 Friends in high places? Curious RICH associates and backers, underhand Government assistance? Prime Ministerial blessings, chats and advice? Papal divine intervention, European and world leaders hob-nobs?. It’s all there Mr. Editor. Enough material to sell a billion Sunday journals. So why no interest?

You see, Mr. Editor; I don’t really know what happened in Praia da Luz in May of last year. I don’t know why, how or when. I wasn’t there. Neither were you. We can only listen to those that are either close to, or aligned to, the proceeding in question. It boils down to who and what you want to believe.

I am reminded of Herman Goering. He once stated, “it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy”

How right he was. I realised just how right he was when George Bush convinced the majority of his people that Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11, just before he embarked on the massacre of an estimated 600,000 Iraqi men, women and children, just so that Halliburtons could procure the rich oil fields; (FAT lot of good THAT did with the current oil price, but I digress.)

What I particularly, personally,  hate about THAT atrocity, is that the British went ahead and held his hand while he did it. Only at least Blair gave the British people SOME credit. He knew we wouldn’t buy the 9/11 angle, so he made up the WMD’s story, inventing documents, dossiers and ‘intelligence’ as he went along. “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy”

Charles de Mendez? We would know for sure, exactly what happened to him, poor chap, were we to examine the countless surveillance video of the event. Except, for some reason, we can’t. Because the tape is apparently damaged or lost, or the cameras malfunctioned or were facing the wrong way or were broken or vandalised. Or all of the above.

And of course, when Neil Mackay sensationally reported in 2003 that “senior members” of the Labour Government were being investigated for “paedophilia and the "enjoyment" of child-sex pornography”, as part of the infamous ’Operation Ore’, Tony Blair very quickly and effectively served a D.A. NOTICE on the press and media, banning details of these matters being reported. A ban that still stands today.

A sublime example of how a Government and its press can lie, mislead and fool its people. “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy”

So, you see, Mr. Editor. You will have to forgive me if I choose not to believe a single word that your paper publishes on the Madeleine McCann case. You will have to excuse me if I do not join in the rejoicing and celebrations when the illustrious couple are exonerated , nor contribute to their inevitable NEW fund to help them “find their daughter”.

Because, although it may be ultimately true that there is insufficient evidence to prove the culpability of the McCanns in the disappearance of their daughter, there is most definitely AMPLE and OVERWHELMING evidence that the authorities of this country do not wish for the truth to ever come out.

BUT; if there IS a god, and the leaders who presided over this debacle and cover up ever have to stand and atone before him, then rest assured that their minions:- the paltry, gutless, servile cowards who spread their lies and diktats in their respective newspapers, will have to atone also.

That would be YOU, Mr. Editor.

Perhaps you’d care to dwell on that point before you fall asleep tonight.

That, and the image of a precious, angelic and innocent little girl for whom, with your able assistance, Justice was denied.

Godbless, Madeleine. Wherever you may be.

Madeleine McCann and that Scotland Yard review / Investigation in full.......

In case you’ve missed the news, the Ace detectives are closing in.

They’re working through their “list of suspects”, about to interview “many persons of interest”; are actively “probing new leads” and, apparently, the “hunt is making good progress”.

Thus far, Scotland Yard has stopped short of stating that Madeleine McCann will be home for Christmas, as was once famously decreed on television by the EARLIER hired help, METODO 3, but there's time yet.

That ridiculous assertion aside, there’s little to separate the Yard’s apparent lines of inquiry from the other, concocted avenues of investigation, as pursued by the seemingly innumerable private detective agencies placed in the employ of the parents of the most famous missing child of all time.

In case you’ve forgotten, METODO 3 were the Spanish Detective Agency drafted in by the McCanns to usurp the Polícia Judiciária, the official investigators into the case of missing Madeleine, once the Portuguese authorities started turning their attention to the McCann’s themselves.

Funded by many hundreds of thousands of pounds from kind donors to the ‘Looking for Madeleine’ Fund, (along with other resources), this small time Spanish debt collection agency came up with some BIG time fables:-

From the swarthy vagabonds of Morocco, to the foothills of African drug hideouts; from Arab paedophiles to the bustling streets of Bosnia; our intrepid heroes were, seemingly, hot on the trails of Madeleine’s “abductors”, flying from one destination to the next.

Once it transpired, however, that the several hundred thousand pounds lavished on the company had returned, precisely NOTHING, and critics in the press were starting to question their veracity, their services were dispensed with, or at least limited, from around mid 2008.

The Spanish hotshots were last heard of being uncomfortably embroiled in illegal Political espionage, phone tapping allegations, drug smuggling and money laundering.

Not to be deterred by one charlatan, however, the McCann’s then turned to what was described as an un-named “secret” AMERICAN detective agency, composed of, (according to the Telegraph), "ex- FBI and CIA agents who were offered a contract of £500,000”.

“These really are the big boys." A ‘friend’ of Kate McCann was quoted as saying.

This particular company, eventually metamorphosing into and revealed to be Oakley International, was headed by Kevin Halligen, a man now enjoying notoriety for being imprisoned for fraud on a huge, multi-million Dollar scale.

Big boys, indeed!

There has, in total, been an estimated SIX firms of private detectives/agencies/mercenaries, etc involved in the search for Madeleine.

It has been alleged that several of them were involved in intimidating witnesses or paying for individuals to make false “sightings”; i.e.; to allege that they had seen the little girl or someone closely resembling her at some specified location or another.

Of course, at present, those allegations cannot be categorically proven.

What CAN be proven, however, is that amongst the very many stories, sightings and escapades that these detective agencies profess to have been involved in, not ONE of them has a single iota of credibility or evidence to substantiate them. 

Stories that generated a great many column inches and broadcast news reports in the Media.

Stories of Madeleine being abducted by Middle Eastern perverts.... Moroccan Gangsters...Saudi Arabian paedophile rings....Bosnian mobsters......Robert Murat look-alikes......African ‘steal-to-order’ child-nappers......dead or dying Sex offenders and nefarious Gypsies.......not to mention the innumerable “absolute certain” sightings in Belgium, Malta, Spain, France, Britain, Brazil, the Netherlands, New Zealand and India; ALL linked by a single, inarguable factor:-

Not ONE of them has a single shred of tangible evidence to support them.

But NOW, seemingly, that is all about to change.

For NOW, after investigations conducted by the Portuguese Police, (along with the Leicestershire Police), and the detective agencies listed above, the McCann’s have procured the services of the Metropolitan Police’s infamous SCOTLAND YARD, surely THE vanguard of investigative agencies everywhere.

Quite how the Met became embroiled in this is a story all on its own, of course.

Ostensibly commissioned to undertake a “review of the case so far" by Premier David Cameron, as an act of kindness to the McCann’s, (an act which is without precedent whatsoever in the annals of Police or political history); this actually only came about when pressure was exerted by the Rupert MURDOCH press, via correspondences between former News International Chief executive Rebekah Brooks, Cameron and Home Secretary Theresa May where Brook allegedly THREATENED, (or “persuaded”, as Brooks herself confessed to the Leveson report), to ensure that MAY and others in the Cabinet got bad front-page Press unless the review was ordered:-

Brooks: "I was certainly part of a strategy to launch a campaign in order to get a review for the McCanns," Brooks says, disputing that it was a "threat".

Leveson: "Give me another word for it, would you?"

Brooks: "Persuade?"

Whoever, however or whatever, the astonishing fact remains that the McCann’s have managed to enlist the services of what has, for many years, been widely regarded as one of the finest Police forces in the world after the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was “persuaded” to order them to undertake an “investigative review” of their case.

As I type this, the current state of affairs is this:-

Operation Grange, as Scotland Yard’s undertaking is called, is moving from a “review” inquiry to an “investigative” inquiry, headed by Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood of Scotland Yard’s Homicide and Serious Command.

The McCann’s themselves are said to be “satisfied”, “grateful” and “delighted” for the Met’s involvement, and to “warmly welcome it”, presumably not least for the fact that Redwood states he rejected the "conspiracy theories" about the parents' involvement and was focusing on "a criminal act by a stranger."

Redwood has also been quoted as saying
“We continue to believe there is a possibility that Madeleine is alive”.

How this investigation will unfold can only remain to be seen.

For the record, and not for the FIRST time, I want to put my position on this case in print:-

I have NO idea what happened to Madeleine McCann in Praia da Luz in May 2007.

I wasn’t there.

Furthermore, the testimonies of those that WERE there widely contradict each other, as a consequence of which it is impossible to derive an accurate picture of what happened.

What I WILL say is that I believe, having studied the available Police files, Rogatory statements and contributory documentation, witness statements and testimonies, including those made by the McCann’s themselves, (as well as those of their friends); that the events, circumstances and situations that they describe, and which they and their seemingly endless entourage of wealthy Lawyers, business friends, Politicians and PR companies continue to insist happened; cannot possibly have occurred.

Additionally, evidence unquestionably exists which suggests a cover up or, at the very least, an obfuscation of the facts relating to the missing girl.

Furthermore, I also firmly believe that, were anyone else to undertake the same studies, they too would arrive at the same conclusions.

That is NOT to say that I believe that the McCann’s murdered their daughter or that they were complicit in any one of the innumerable theories that proliferate on the internet.

Just that, like many unsolved cases, the Madeleine McCann case invariably poses more questions than answers.

And at the risk of FURTHER repeating myself, my main, overriding angst with this case is not that those questions remain unanswered;

It’s that they aren’t being asked.

I should ALSO like to place on record that I have very little faith in Scotland Yard’s “investigation”. It is clear from the Press quotations made by DCI Redwood that he intends to pursue the fabricated or redundant avenues of investigation as previously pursued by the agencies listed above.

Of course, it may well be that Redwood's men conduct a THOROUGH, proficient, professional and far-reaching investigation. 

In which case I will be MORE than willing to accept the Yards’ findings PROVIDED they can answer, and provide credible evidence and answers for, the following:-

When was Madeleine McCann abducted when, according to the testimonies and statements of the McCann’s and their friends, there was NO real ‘window’ of opportunity for her abduction to have taken place?

HOW was Madeleine abducted when the only conceivable, (and purported), method, was via a window far too small to pass through, especially if carrying a child?

Why is there NO forensic evidence of any abductor?

Why is the only purported evidence of an abduction, (Jane Tanners sighting of a ‘man’), contradicted by two other witnesses, INCLUDING Gerry McCann himself, and why has Tanner’s description of that ‘man’ changed on several occasions?

How and why has Operation Grange chosen to ignore the overwhelming evidence of the Enhanced Victim Recovery, (EVR), dogs which points to cadaverine and other suspicious fluids/substances being present in the McCann’s holiday apartment, as well as on many of the McCann’s personal possessions and in their hire car, and ONLY IN THOSE PLACES?

How does Scotland Yard propose to assert that those dogs were WRONG, when they have hitherto NEVER being wrong  where their services and skills contributed to solving very many cases investigated by many Constabularies across the UK and elsewhere?

Given the above, how and why does DCI Redwood “continue to believe there is a possibility that Madeleine is alive”?

Any 'investigation' or 'inquiry' that omits to address these few key questions can not be called either.

Moreover, it would be a whitewash.

Even WORSE, I do not rule out Scotland Yard “solving” this case. 

It has been my fear for some time that some unfortunate miscreant will “confess” to the abduction and murder of Madeleine. Perhaps, as I have hinted at in previous blogs, one of those now deceased perverts or convicted paedophiles that the tabloids like to point the finger of suspicion at will be deemed to have made an irrefutable "deathbed confession".

Even IF, (and I would genuinely and whole-heartedly rejoice along with everyone else were it the case), Madeleine McCann were actually FOUND alive and well, I would still assert that those questions above are valid and demand credible answers.

“SPUDGUN, you’re an evil, depraved NUT!”

Just one on the many regular, abusive emails/tweets that I receive on a daily basis.

“Who do you think you are, questioning or doubting the integrity of Scotland Yard. Are you THAT stupid and arrogant to think you’re better than them”?

Actually, no, I don’t purport for one second to be the equal of Scotland Yard, or any OTHER investigative body, for that matter.

But do I DOUBT them?

Well, permit me to refer you to theses previous, Scotland Yard “reviews and investigations”:-

“This case has been the subject of the most careful investigation by experienced detectives ... No additional evidence has come to light. I therefore consider no further investigation is required."

John Yates, Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, commenting on being asked to look further into PHONE TAPPING, just 2 years before almost SIX THOUSAND victims were revealed to have been tapped, along with the sale of information to Journalists often with the complicity of the Met Police, and 3 years before Brian Paddick, a former Acting Assistant Commissioner, took the stand at the Leveson inquiry to describe what he termed a general "culture of cover-up" at the Met.

How about Ray Adams, former Scotland Yard Commander who had tangible, established links to the Brink’s Mat Gold Bullion robbery and well known faces such as Kenny Noye and Clifford Norris, father of David Norris, convicted for the murder of Stephen Lawrence?

Or for obfuscation and cover ups at their very finest, have a look at the murder of Daniel Morgan whose family are still awaiting justice for his brutal murder. By the Yard’s own admission, there is:

 “Clear acknowledgment….that police corruption was, if not at the heart of the case, a contributing factor”.

From the murder and cover up of Blair Peach in 1979, through the cases of Damilola Taylor, Jill Dando, Jean Charles de Menzes to name but a FEW, up to the killing of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 Summit protests.

 

All these cases illustrate corruption, and sometime complicity, duplicity and invariably a COVER up by the Metropolitan Police.

So you will have to excuse me if I don’t share the same confidence as others in the Scotland Yard ‘investigation’.

Above all else, I am abundantly aware that this is a review/investigation the McCann’s desperately wanted. An outcome that, by her own admission, Rebekah Brooks campaigned for on the McCann’s behalf by using what was alleged to be “threats; what she preferred to call “persuasion”.

Such an investigation, if, or rather WHEN, it concludes that Madeleine was indeed, abducted by persons known or unknown, will serve as the official SEAL of approval; a final act of authoritative intervention, designed to STOP the theorising, the conjecture, the questions and the doubts.

In the light of that belief, it is difficult to see how Scotland Yard could come up with anything that contradicts what ‘Team McCann’ purports to be the official chain of events surrounding Madeleine’s disappearance.

Ah, yes. Finally, therein lays the REAL rub. Team McCann.

TEAM McCann.

What a team, indeed.

Elite lawyers, wealthy businessmen, Media Moguls, Icons, ‘A’ list to ‘Z’ list celebrities, Newspaper Columnists and Daytime TV presenters, Government Spokespersons, Ministers, Euro-Ministers, Members of Parliament, Tabloid and Broadsheet Editors, TV Producers...........

Oh, and THREE Prime Ministers!

What questions would all THEY have to answer, were Scotland Yard to uncover something along the lines of that which Team McCann have spent fortunes in suppressing in the Libel Courts?

It may well be that the truth cannot forever remain hidden.

But it is equally the case that a long time may pass before forever comes……….

Godbless Madeleine McCann, wherever you may be.

The Case of Ian Tomlinson

The authorities, media and public commentators have all recently, collectively, expressed disdain, disbelief and total bemusement as to how so many people could possibly want to sign up to a Facebook tribute page, in support of dead murderer, Raoul Moat.

Celebs, columnists and anyone who likes the sound of their own voice, (or the size of their column inches), have been waxing lyrical about the state of our ‘sick’ society, where people would want to canonise a murderer.

Even the Prime Minister himself was quick to declare, in the House of Commons, that Moat was NOT deserving of any sympathy; rather such sentiments should be reserved purely for his victims.

I am sure that quite a few sighs of relief would have resonated along the relevant corridors of power when the tribute page’s creator voluntarily closed the site down; especially so, given that Facebook itself refused to bow under Prime Ministerial pressure to censure 'RIP Raoul Moat you Legend'.
However, I rather believe, and fear, that many of those who ostensibly appeared to be SUPPORTING Moat, were, in fact, actually making a statement about, and demonstrating against, what many perceive to be an increasingly hostile POLICE state, where officers can act improperly and unprofessionally without impunity. I am NOT necessarily suggesting that this was the case in the Raoul Moat case, or in the circumstances relating to his demise. We shall have to wait ANOTHER eon, no doubt, before the full facts relating to THAT matter are ever fully realised, if at all.

No; if the powers that be want to know how or why so many people would wish to express such resentment and distrust of the authorities, police and law enforcers of this country, then they need look no further than the tragic case of Ian Tomlinson.

Mr. Tomlinson, you will remember, died on April 1st, 2009, collapsing in the street after having been beaten and pushed to the floor by a truncheon wielding police officer during the G20 summit protest. The incident, where Mr. Tomlinson was NOT taking part in the protest, having his hands in his pockets and walking away from the police line, was FILMED by several sources; most of them clearly showing what appears to be a completely unprovoked and uncalled for attack.

Moments after the incident, Ian Tomlinson was dead.

Over fifteen and a half Months later, the CPS has declared that NO charges will be brought against any officer in relation to Mr. Tomlinson’s death.

Mr. Tomlinson’s family have stated that the authorities have engineered a cover up.

The evidence available suggests they might be right.

PC Simon Harwood was the officer who was filmed striking and pushing Mr. Tomlinson to the ground. His policing methods, together with those of the unit in which he served, the Territorial Support Group, (TSG), appear to have some history of dubious activity.

According to reports, Harwood had previously served and RESIGNED from the Metropolitan Police, for using unnecessary force in a “road rage” incident. He left the Force on Medical grounds, receiving a pension and thus avoiding the Disciplinary hearing that he was due to face, together with any punitive measures for his actions.

He then, (somehow), REJOINED the police, where his previous behaviour appears to have been completely forgotten, before subsequently receiving an appointment back at the Met.

According to other Media reports at the time of the Tomlinson incident, Harwood is alleged to have removed his shoulder ID number and obscured his lower face with his balaclava just prior to him lashing out at Mr. Tomlinson.

Another newspaper investigation alleged that the TSG were known FREQUENTLY to swap ID numbers amongst themselves whilst on operations, enabling them to claim mistaken identity in the eventuality of any complaints or allegations of wrongdoing being levied.

If ever there was a case where the authorities had to make a stand for common decency and for the General Public, and to be SEEN to be administering justice for clear wrongdoing, this was it. Of course, it is inconceivable that PC Harwood intended to cause serious harm to Mr. Tomlinson, and I personally do not feel that a charge of Manslaughter should ever have been made.

However, to elect to NOT bring any charges whatsoever against Harwood, DESPITE the initial recommendations of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, is not only a most injurious and dangerous course of action to take by the Crown Prosecution Service but, in my opinion, potentially one that could cause a most corrosive and irreparable relationship between the Police Force and the authorities as a whole, and the public whom they are meant to serve and protect.

It must surely be a most unfortunate coincidence that the Deputy Director for the CPS who made the decision NOT to prosecute anyone in the Tomlinson case, Stephen O'Doherty, is the SAME Deputy Director who elected NOT to bring any prosecutions in the Jean Charles De Menezes case.

In that case, you may remember, Mr. O' Doherty absolved the armed police officers and their commanders in a botched operation that left an innocent Mr. De Menezes with seven bullets in his head.

Rather like the De Menezes case, the IPCC originally stated that there were NO CCTV cameras in the area that recorded the incident involving Mr. Tomlinson. When photographs of the SIX cameras available were published by newspapers, the IPCC reversed its position and said its investigators were looking at footage recovered from them.

I can think of no greater insult, nor example of rubbing salt in the wounds of Mr. Tomlinson’s family, than by citing the reasons not to prosecute anyone in this case because of the Medical evidence of Dr Mohmed Saeed Sulema Patel.

“Freddy” Patel, alleged that Mr. Tomlinson died of a heart attack. Natural causes. Nothing to do with any injuries.

Patel is currently facing disciplinary hearings relating to 26 charges of sub-standard practices, including incompetently carrying out a number of earlier autopsies where he failed to attribute any significance to obvious signs of injuries incurred as a result of violence.

For some reason best known to himself, Dr. Patel also disposed of three litres of bodily fluids taken from Mr. Tomlinson, said to be blood from an internal rupture.

Patel carried out his medical “examinations” of Mr. Tomlinson in the absence of any other Medical expert.

Patel is currently suspended from the Home Office register of accredited forensic pathologists and barred from carrying out postmortem examinations in suspicious death cases.

Despite the fact that two further, detailed and lengthy Post Mortem examinations suggested that Ian Tomlinson death was due to internal bleeding, as a result of blunt force trauma – an injury consistent with a fall or assault- Dr. Patel is the medical expert that was clearly more favoured by CPS Director Stephen O’Doherty, stating that the “irreconcilable conflict" between Patel and the other two doctors would undermine any prosecution against the police officer involved.

To summarise:- a clear and obvious assault, by a Police Officer who quite possibly shouldn’t have been serving in the capacity that he was in the first place, operating in a unit whose policing procedures have effectively been rewritten as a consequence of this case; resulting in the death of an innocent man, the true reasons for whose demise were almost certainly omitted by an incompetent and most inept Doctor.

All presided over by a Prosecutor with an unenviable track record of conducting investigations that absolve the police of any culpability.

It is quite possibly fortunate for us ALL, that Raoul Moat met his demise when he did. For if he was still at large, then his subsequent downfall, in the light of Ian Tomlinson’s CPS decision, might have created a tide of support and following for Mr. Moat that no amount of social vilification and comment could impede.


R.I.P. Mr. Tomlinson.................

Where to pin a medal on Cressida Dick?

The Queen's Police Medal (QPM) is awarded to police officers in the United Kingdom and Commonwealth for gallantry or distinguished service.

Apparently, it was created to be awarded to those who had shown: -

(a) Conspicuous gallantry in saving life and property, or in preventing crime or arresting criminals; the risks incurred to be estimated with due regard to the obligations and duties of the officer concerned.

(b) A specially distinguished record in administrative or detective service.

(c) Success in organizing Police Forces or Fire Brigades or Departments, or in maintaining their organization under special difficulties.

(d) Special services in dealing with serious or widespread outbreaks of crime or public disorder, or of fire.

(e) Valuable political and secret services.

(f) Special services to Royalty and Heads of States.

(g) Prolonged service; but only when distinguished by very exceptional ability and merit.

So when I read that CRESSIDA DICK, the officer in charge of proceedings on the fateful day which saw the shooting and killing of an innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, was to receive this prestigious medal, I naturally assumed that Ms. Dick had clearly committed a supreme act of heroism since that tragic event.

For there can surely be no other reason why a woman who presided over the most appalling series of misadventures, monumental cock-ups and downright police failings could ever redeem herself sufficiently to be deemed worthy of such a high award. Surely.

Because about the only unequivocal fact relating to the death of de Menezes on 22nd July 2005 is that there are very FEW, unequivocal facts!. Certainly, many of the official police lines, statements and assertions about the incident not only changed on MORE than one occasion, prior to the eventual hearings, investigations and enquiries, (the first of which was originally kept SECRET), but some of the facts as reported by key officers clearly contradicted those of some of their colleagues.

Indeed, one of the more remarkable assertions was noted in de Menezes POST MORTEM report, stating that Jean Charles had “vaulted over the ticket barriers” and that he “ran down the stairs of the tube station”. Dr Kenneth Shorrock later told the inquest that he had been given this information by police during a "walk-through" with officers at Stockwell Tube Station, the scene of the killing but, despite working in a profession where a supremely meticulous eye for detail is essential, he could not remember who had given him this information.

It then subsequently became apparent during the course of a ‘suppression of evidence’ investigation, that at least one officer had deleted, altered or modified their statements and contemporaneous notes relating to the incident.

Of course, given the fact that there were extensive CCTV cameras all over the station and on the train itself, it would surely be a simple matter to view that material and clarify all of the conflicting accounts. Alas, police reports were later to confirm that the relevant CCTV cameras both on the platform AND in the train carriage itself, (which would have shown a most ACCURATE portrayal of the events), had acquired “technical problems”, resulting in there being “no footage”.

And so, despite several Independent Police Complaint’s investigations, (the IPCC itself clashing with the Metropolitan Police amid claims of obstruction and non-co-operation); a Crown Prosecution Services review which saw the Met prosecuted and merely fined under ridiculous ‘Health and Safety at work’ legislation; together with other critical enquiries, investigations and reviews, NO-ONE has ever been deemed to be accountable or culpable for the one incontrovertible fact; that Jean Charles de Meneze's ended up lying in a subway train with eight bullets to his body, SEVEN of them to his head.

It is easy to cast aspersions and judgements when looking in from the outside. Ultimately, perhaps only those involved on that July day five years ago will ever know the full truth relating to the events that occurred. Only they will, individually, know the thoughts that raced through their heads, the actions that they personally effected. The decisions they elected to make.

But it is surely beyond, not just all rational logic and protocols, but also moral decency and respectability, to award the woman who has TWICE since been promoted, and is now the Highest Ranking female police officer in Scotland Yard, a MEDAL for “gallantry or distinguished service”.

I am tempted to suggest that the medal was awarded under section ‘e’ in the above original criteria: for ‘Valuable political and secret services.’

I am also tempted to suggest that, given the opportunity, the parents of Jean Charles de Menezes would know just where to pin it.