13 Aug 2010

UPDATED CROSS PARTY CLAMOUR FOR DAVID KELLY INQUEST Experts call for David Kelly inquest

Diane Abbott, never a Tony Blair devotee heads up Labour rebellion against their former boss, perhaps Michael Howard sees it more as a good political move?   The only thing I could say is it seems a little hypocritical to wait so many years, did it need a change of government to start the ground swell of revolt against the Lord Hutton whitewash, Maybe!?
Michael Howard leads MPs' call for full inquest into the death of weapons inspector Dr David Kelly


By Simon Walters and Glen Owen

Last updated at 10:12 PM on 14th August 2010

Comments (0) Add to My Stories

Demands: Michael Howard is leading A campaign to force an inquest into Dr David Kelly's death

Former Tory leader Michael Howard tonight put himself at the head of a powerful all-party campaign to force a full inquest into the death of Min­istry of Defence weapons expert Dr David Kelly.

Mr Howard, Conservative leader when the Hutton Report found Dr Kelly took his own life, said: ‘In view of the growing number of relevant questions that have arisen and cast doubt on the conclusions reached by Lord Hutton, I believe it would now be entirely appropriate for a full inquest to be held.

‘Recent evidence by the first police officer on the scene, together with new statements by doctors, raise serious questions which should be considered. This has been on my mind for quite a while and recent events have crystallised my view.’

Mr Howard, now a leading Tory peer, was backed by Labour leadership challenger Diane Abbott, two former Labour Defence Min­isters who served in Tony Blair’s Government and a number of senior Tory, Lib Dem and Labour MPs.

They spoke out amid signs that the Government is prepared to act in response to the growing demands to resolve questions over the circumstances of Dr Kelly’s death.

It emerged yesterday that Attorney General Dominic Grieve is ready to meet the group of senior doctors who last week claimed Dr Kelly could not have committed suicide in the way described in Lord Hutton’s report.

Mr Grieve has already indicated he is ready to ask the High Court to order a full inquest if he believes there is sufficient evidence to cast doubt on Lord Hutton’s verdict.

And Justice Minister Ken Clarke was yesterday urged by a Cabinet colleague to scrap Labour’s unprecedented 70-year embargo on releasing Dr Kelly’s medical records, including the results of the post-mortem examination.

‘If we are going to find out how Kelly died, the first requirement is to allow his medical details to be scrutinised,’ said the Cabinet Minister, who asked not to be named.

In tomorrow's Mail on Sunday, Dr Michael J. Powers QC, a doctor and barrister behind the latest demand by medical experts for a full inquiry, delivers a fresh challenge to Lord Hutton’s account of the way Dr Kelly is said to have slashed his wrists.

‘A fatal haemorrhage from a ­severed ulnar artery is so improb­able that more evidence was essential before such a conclusion could be reached,’ says Dr Powers.

Mystery: The death of Dr David Kelly in 2003 has been plagued by doubts over how it happened

Dr Kelly’s body was discovered in woods near his Oxfordshire home in July 2003, shortly after he was exposed as the source of a BBC news report questioning Tony Blair’s grounds for war in Iraq.

Unusually, no coroner’s inquest was held into his death. The only official verdict has come from the Hutton Inquiry, commissioned by Mr Blair, which concluded that Dr Kelly, 59, died from loss of blood after cutting his left wrist with a blunt gardening knife and taking an overdose of co-proxamol, a painkiller commonly used for arthritis.

Critics regarded the report as a ‘whitewash’, crippled by an assumption from the outset that suicide was the only possible conclusion – and a desire by the report’s author, Lord Hutton, to spare Dr Kelly’s family additional distress.

The Mail on Sunday has led the way in reporting experts’ doubts over the Hutton verdict. We revealed that a close female confidante of Dr Kelly believed it was impossible for him to have killed himself by slashing his wrist because his right cutting hand was too weak to slice into steak. The woman, Mai Pederson, has confirmed this to Mr Grieve.

Inquiry: Police officers outside the home of Dr David Kelly in 2003. No coroner's inquest was held into his death. The only official verdict has come from the Hutton Inquiry

We also disclosed last year that 13 doctors had mounted a legal challenge to the finding of suicide on the grounds that a cut to the ulnar artery, which is small and difficult to access, could not have caused death. Their 12-page dossier is also now in Mr Grieve’s hands.

And last week, the first interview with the policeman who found Dr Kelly’s body cast further doubt on the verdict that he died of blood loss. Detective Constable Graham Coe revealed he had not seen ‘much blood’ around the body. DC Coe, 63, also said police searched Dr Kelly’s home the day after his death for papers ‘of a sensitive nature’ about Iraq.

Significantly, the demands for a full inquest now command support from all sides in Parliament, not just those who opposed the war.

Mr Howard gave full support to the conflict, though later accused Mr Blair of lying over the reasons for it.

Labour leadership contender Miss Abbott said: ‘When so many doctors have expressed genuine concerns, I think it would be a good idea to have a full inquest so we can set this matter to rest once and for all.’

Lord Gilbert, a Defence Minister in the Blair Government, said: ‘If serious medical people are agitated about the cause of Dr Kelly’s death, I see no reason why there should not be an inquest to resolve these doubts.’

Probe: The body of Dr Kelly was found in woodland near his home. The Hutton report concluded he died from loss of blood after cutting his left wrist with a blunt gardening knife and taking an overdose of painkiller co-proxamol

Fellow former Labour Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle said: ‘Politicians who know nothing about medicine have no right to gainsay senior physicians who say the cause of death in the Hutton Report does not stack up. An inquest must be approved.’

Senior Labour MP Ann Clwyd, an ardent Labour advocate of the Iraq War, said: ‘If serious people with no political motive are not satisfied with the official account, it is fair enough to have an inquest. But we must take account of the family’s views.’

Lib Dem MP Mike Hancock, a member of the Commons Defence Committee, said: ‘Dr Kelly was treated appallingly by the last Government. His death was written off as suicide too hastily and the circumstances of his death were never fully investigated. If any criminal element was involved we need to know.’

Tory MP Adam Holloway, an Army captain in the Gulf War, said: ‘We need to establish the true cause of Dr Kelly’s death.’

However, there is likely to be opposition from Labour figures involved in the war and its aftermath. They include former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, a close Blair ally. It was he who chose Lord Hutton to investigate Dr Kelly’s death and who put the 70-year embargo on releasing his medical records.

A source close to Lord ­Falconer said: ‘The idea that a coroner’s inquest could be better than an inquiry led by someone as experienced and as distinguished as Lord Hutton is not plausible.’

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: ‘The request for the release of Dr Kelly’s medical papers is currently under consideration.’





David would never have committed suicide in that spot

Conspiracy theory: Nikolai Tolstoy believes Dr Kelly was killed

A distinguished historian and neighbour of Dr David Kelly has added to the growing clamour for an inquest by declaring he does not believe Dr Kelly committed suicide.

Count Nikolai Tolstoy said last night that the scientist’s ‘considerate’ character meant he would never have chosen to die in a place where passers-by were likely to be shocked – particularly when he could easily have deployed more discreet and effective means of killing himself.

Tolstoy, who is an expert on Celtic mythology and the Second World War, lives in the Oxfordshire village of Southmoor where the scientist shared an old farmhouse with his wife, Janice Kelly. Dr Kelly died on nearby Harrowdown Hill, on a walking route that is widely used by locals.

‘I remember the night of his death very well,’ Tolstoy said last night. ‘There were helicopters flying overhead for hours after the body was found.

‘The general view in the village is that suicide is extremely unlikely. He used to drink in our local pub and he was a very friendly and considerate man.

‘I frequently walk past the spot where he died, and he would not have done something like that in a place where an old lady could have found him.

‘It just seems wholly implausible that he should have chosen to saw away at his wrist with a blunt knife when there were other means available to him at home, where his wife kept various drugs for her medical conditions.’

Tolstoy, who stood as a UKIP candidate against David Cameron at the last Election, believes that Dr Kelly died because he had annoyed Tony Blair’s Government.

The historian, who is a distant cousin of War And Peace author Leo Tolstoy, had his own battle with the Establishment in the Eighties when he was ordered to pay £1.5 million damages to Lord Aldington, after making claims in a pamphlet accusing the peer of complicity in war crimes.

Tolstoy’s defence against the libel action was seriously hampered when the Ministry of Defence removed vital papers from the Public Record Office which Tolstoy needed to fight his case – while Aldington found his access to war records unimpeded.

‘I was in a similar position when I was attacked by the Establishment and it didn’t make me feel that way [suicidal],’ Tolstoy added.

‘As Sherlock Holmes said, when you have eliminated the impossible, you are left with what happened.

‘Presumably the British Government was behind it all. I don’t believe the theory that Iraqi agents murdered him – how would they have the means and the opportunity to come into the country?

‘I wouldn’t put anything past the Government, as I know from personal experience. When the Establishment is threatened, it closes ranks.’





Dr Kelly was a brilliant man who did his best for his country. We owe it to him and ourselves to discover the true cause of his deathIn this powerfully argued article, doctor and barrister Dr Michael Powers QC explains why justice demands an inquest is held



Doubts: Dr Michael Powers QC says key questions were not asked about Dr Kelly

Since his untimely death in July 2003, questions have continued to be raised about the circumstances of Dr David Kelly’s death. Many wonder whether he really killed himself and speculate that he was murdered. His sudden death shocked the nation – how could it have happened?

As a specialist practitioner in law and medicine, I feel a responsibility to the two professions to air my doubts about a case that bridges both worlds.

Any question of suicide or murder has to follow the determin­ation of the cause of death. To do otherwise risks putting the cart before the horse. It would, for example, be scientifically and logically unsound to assume suicide and then to set about finding evidence to prove it.

Before asking whether a deceased himself or a third party put the ­bullet in the head, it is necessary to determine first that there was a hole in the head and secondly that the deceased died because of it.

For 1,000 years, coroners have been investigating sudden, violent and unnatural deaths. They have got good at it. Suicide used to be a crime and a finding of self-murder is an unhappy reflection on the victim and his family and friends.

That is why suicide has to be proved to the same high standard as murder. It has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased did the act which killed him with that intention in mind.



Puzzle: Many wonder whether Dr Kelly really killed himself. Below, how the Mail on Sunday reported on the story

The normal inquest process in the case of David Kelly was interrupted by the order of the Government. Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor at the time, exercised a rarely used power to require the Oxfordshire coroner to adjourn his investigation and to give that responsibility to Lord Hutton.

The coroner had the power to compel witnesses to attend and to give ­evidence on oath. The Government which took our country to war with Iraq chose not to give these considerable powers to Lord Hutton.

Although there were 24 days of evidence taken over two-and-a-half months, the whole of the medical evidence took no more than a half day. The evidence of the pathologist, toxicologist and forensic ­biologist can be read in 30 minutes. No one could say this was a detailed investigation into the death.

I was trained as a doctor and during my years in medical practice I often had to pass fine catheters into the radial artery in the wrist. This is where medics usually feel the pulse. It can even be seen pulsating in many people. Dr Kelly’s wrists were not slit. Neither radial artery was cut. This alone is a strange finding in someone who intends suicide by this method.

Deeper in the wrist on the side of the little finger lies the ulnar artery. It is not used for catheterisation because it is too small. Yet Lord Hutton, on the unchallenged evidence of a single pathologist, concluded that Dr Kelly bled to death from the severance of this single small artery in the left hand.

No courtroom drama would be complete without critical witnesses being challenged through the cross-examination process. Like all barristers, I received a rigorous training in advocacy and, because of its enormous importance, I take time from my practice to train barristers in this art. A skilful cross-examination is often the key to ascertaining the truth.

None of this happened in Lord Hutton’s inquiry and witnesses were simply led through prepared evidence. Reading the transcripts, far from providing any sense of satisfaction, leaves me with feelings of frustration. Opportunity after opportunity was lost to pursue answers until every avenue had been thoroughly explored and every ‘escape route’ closed.

At the very end of his evidence, Dr Nicholas Hunt, the pathologist who had conducted the post-mortem, was asked: ‘Is there anything else you would like to say concerning the circumstances leading to Dr Kelly’s death?’

Such a question gives the witness who is favourably disposed to the questioner an open opportunity to go further than his witness statement. It is NOT a question ever asked in cross-examination as it provides a free pass to an escape route.

Dr Hunt answered: ‘Nothing I could say as a pathologist, no.’ He is an experienced expert witness. What on earth did that answer mean? He was there to give evidence as a pathologist. He knew that. Everyone knew that. So why did he give that answer? It begged the question whether there was anything else he knew. Was he ­concerned about any other forensic or factual evidence? These questions were never asked.

Hutton focused on the so-called dodgy dossier and the conflict between the Government and the BBC which, at that time, was more in the public eye. Because it was taken for granted that Dr Kelly had killed himself, the medical evidence was insufficiently explored.



In the absence of any bleeding tendency from a clotting deficiency (and there was no evidence of this) fatal haemorrhage from a severed ulnar artery is so improbable that more evidence was essential before such a conclusion could be reached.

If you want to know how much beer has gone from a full pint glass, it is easy. You can either measure how much has been poured out or measure how much remains. To be confident, you would measure both. The same approach should have been adopted in this case.

As it was not, there is no evidence as to whether there was sufficient haemorrhage from the ulnar artery to cause death. The inquiry fell into the trap of the circular argument: Dr Kelly died, therefore he must have lost sufficient blood.

In my work as a barrister I meet many medics, but I have never met a single doctor who has disagreed with the proposition that it is extremely improbable that haemorrhage from a single, severed ulnar artery would ever be a primary cause of death.

Yet this extreme unlikelihood was never explored with Dr Hunt. Whatever the reason, this was a serious failure of the Hutton Inquiry. It has understandably led to a suspicion of cover-up. This could not have been the cause of death, the argument goes. If it were not the cause, then what did cause his death? Was it something Dr Kelly did to himself, intending to cause his own death, which has not yet been discovered? Was it part of some elaborate plan by others to end his life?

The only way to stop the many theories which abound is for there now to be a thorough and open investigation by way of a fresh inquest. Surely the Government realises that the way to foster conspiracy theories is to be secretive and to resist calls to disclose all the medical evidence. We should pay tribute to Dr Kelly. He was a brilliant man who did his best in the service of this country. He deserves our gratitude and respect. We owe it to him and ourselves to ensure the true cause of his death is ascertained.

* Dr Michael J. Powers QC is a barrister specialising in medical causation and a Fellow of the Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians to which he is an appointed





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303190/Michael-Howard-leads-MPs-Dr-David-Kelly-inquest.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0wcsCqkE1





If Tony Blair is really guilty of everything the British public, myself included, suspect him of, then it is about time we found out and the relatives of  Dr David Kelly see justice. 

Official cause of David Kelly's death is 'extremely unlikely', say group of legal and medical experts


, Friday 13 August 2010 09.23 BST Article history

An inquest into the death of David Kelly was suspended before the Hutton inquiry and not resumed afterwards. Photograph: Ian Waldie/Getty Images Europe



A group of prominent legal and medical experts today called for a full inquest into the death of the government scientist David Kelly in 2003.



An inquest was suspended by Lord Falconer, then lord chancellor, before the Hutton inquiry into the circumstances of the scientist's death. It was not resumed after Hutton's report in 2004 concluded that Kelly killed himself by cutting an artery in his wrist.



Nine experts including Michael Powers, a QC and former coroner, and Julian Blon, a professor of intensive care medicine, said in a letter to the Times that the official cause of death – haemorrhage from the severed artery – was "extremely unlikely".



"Insufficient blood would have been lost to threaten life," they said. "Absent a quantitative assessment of the blood lost and of the blood remaining in the great vessels, the conclusion that death occurred as a consequence of haemorrhage is unsafe."



Kelly's body was found in woods close to his Oxfordshire home in 2003, shortly after it was revealed that he was the source of a BBC report casting doubt on the government's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which could be fired within 45 minutes.



Lord Hutton concluded that "the principal cause of death was bleeding from incised wounds to his left wrist which Dr Kelly had inflicted on himself with the knife found beside his body".



In January, five doctors who made an application to the Oxford coroner to have the inquest reopened, were told that Hutton made a ruling in 2003 to keep medical reports and photographs closed for 70 years. Hutton responded by saying the documents could be revealed to doctors and that he had made the gagging order to spare Kelly's family "unnecessary distress".



Hopes for a new inquest have been raised by the change in government. Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, said in April, when he was shadow justice secretary, that the Tories would consider a new inquest into Kelly's death. He also called for a review of the government's decision not to release related medical records and postmortem documents.



Grieve is looking at the matter with the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke. Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP and a junior minister in the coalition government, supports resumption of the inquest. He resigned from the front bench while in opposition to write a book, The Strange Death of David Kelly, which argued that the scientist's life had been "deliberately taken by others".



The Hutton inquiry applied a less stringent test than would have been used in an inquest, where a coroner has to be sure "beyond reasonable doubt" that a person intended to kill themselves.

55 comments:

viv said...

At the very least, surely an inquest should be properly looking at the state of mind of Dr Kelly around the time of his death, and what he had to endure for simply wanting to tell the truth.

On a lighter note, perhaps, with a state of the art scanner device, the secrets of the River Thames riverbed are being revealed. Already they have found an object that may be a V2 bomb from the war or maybe part of an old London Bridge.

This device will surely be of great interest to the police in looking for murder victims in addition to the fascinating history this is likely to reveal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10960603

docmac said...

Hiya Viv

I remember reading (correct me if I'm wrong) that only one ulnar artery was severed. In that case, it would be almost impossible to bleed to death, as the lumen (bore) of the artery is so small (just feel the difference in your own arm between the radial and ulnar pulse volumes).

Additionally, the ulnar artery goes into spasm very quickly, even when an arterial blood sample is extracted therefrom. I have seen a baby lose 2 gangrenous fingers after this procedure. Thanks to modern non-invasive technology, the incredibly painful and dangerous arterial sampling is almost never required nowadays.

There is no way he died from that wound.

Having said that, there is another case, close to the heart of this blog in fact, where another unlikely scenario was presented, then rubber-stamped and whitewashed by all sorts of people. They are still trying to sweep the resulting mess under the carpet. Where are the 'great minds' asking questions as in Dr Kelly's case?

viv said...

BBC

DAVID KELLY: THE CONSPIRACY FILES
Transcript

Harrowdown Hill Oxfordshire.

In July 2003, the body of Dr David Kelly – Britain’s leading weapons
inspector, was found here.

The tragic death of the man caught in the crossfire of a prolonged and
bitter battle between the Government and the BBC over why Britain
went to war in Iraq.
The official account says that under pressure he took his own life by
cutting his wrist.
Thames Valley Police spokesman:
There is no indication at this stage of any other party being involved
But the method it’s said he used was so unusual that many people
now doubt the official version
John Scurr, Consultant Vascular Surgeon:
The question really is does it seem reasonable that he could have died
from this injury alone, and I don't think he could.
The official version says he also took an overdose of pills. But is there
another story?
Rowena Thursby:
They were intent on not only killing him but making it look like-like suicide.
They didn't want to know-people to know that he was being murdered.
Lord Hutton’s inquiry into David Kelly’s death had far less legal
powers than an inquest.
Dr Michael Powers QC:
They didn't have to give evidence under oath. A witness lying to Lord
Hutton could not be prosecuted for perjury
Some say it could be more sinister than suicide.
Richard Spertzel, UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq 1994-1998:
David Kelly did not commit suicide. He was assassinated
After a six month inquiry Lord Hutton concluded there was no
evidence at all of any foul play.
Press:
There was no involvement by a third person in Dr Kelly’s death
But could there have been a conspiracy by intelligence agencies to
murder Dr David Kelly?
Norman Baker MP:
He told me it was a wet disposal which means killed in a hurry
What led this man to a tragic death on this lonely hillside?

Dr David Kelly was Britain’s leading expert on biological weapons,
and a key UN Inspector in the hunt for Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of
Mass Destruction.
Richard Spertzel, UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq 1994-1998:
Well there's no question that David was an extremely good inspector A
hardworking dedicated honest servant to what he believed in.
Doctor Kelly did not seek out the harsh light at the centre of the
political stage. A private man, he found the Oxfordshire countryside a
respite from his involvement in the tense build up to the controversial
war in Iraq.
The Government said that Iraq posed an imminent threat in a dossier
of intelligence about the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Tony Blair September 2002:
He has existing and active plans for the use of chemical and biological
weapons which could be activated within 45 minutes.
The 45 minute claim changed the reputation of the Government, the
BBC, and David Kelly forever.
After Iraq was invaded, no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found.

When the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan reported that a secret source
told him that the Government probably knew the 45 minute claim was
wrong, the Government’s credibility was on the line.
Journalist’s question to Tony Blair:
Did you mislead parliament Prime Minister?
The stakes got higher and higher as the Prime Ministers integrity was
questioned around the world
News reporter:
British Prime Minister Tony Blair is facing a barrage of accusations that he
exaggerated intelligence about deadly weapons..

Blair is being characterised as a political Pinocchio in cartoons. An
influential magazine spells Blair: ‘Bliar.’.

viv said...

Hiya Doc,

From the above extract it can be seen that Dr Kelly was a man known to love the countryside which is where he was found.

But the official version also says he had taken pills.

What I do not get is this, if he planned to take his own life and he wanted to be away from his wife and looking at the countryside, would it not have made much more sense to just sit there and take a huge overdose? Why would an educated man have cut his wrist in such a way that he would not have even died from that anyway?

It is not unheard of for UK to bump off really difficult people. There are so many eminent people saying this was murder or at the very least should be properly looked at. To me if he was pushed into taking his own life by the horrible and humiliating way he was treated by MPs that is not far short of murder. Bullying is serious and people need to be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.

viv said...

In terms of personality, Blair has been likened to Bush, psychopathic control freaks.

Oooh someone is showing us up for the murdering lying oil grabbing thugs that we are, better get rid pdq. It certainly looks that way.

viv said...

As Andrew Gilligan’s secret source, David Kelly had unwittingly
become the key to the biggest and fiercest row ever between the
Government and the BBC in which neither side would back down.
Alastair Campbell, Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman 1997-2003:
Until the BBC acknowledge that is a lie I will keep banging on that
correspondence file will get thicker,and they’d better issue an apology pretty
quick.
A witch hunt for the whistleblower gripped the corridors of power for
six weeks.
Dr Kelly volunteered his name internally to the Ministry of Defence,
hoping he’d be protected, but the government revealed details about
his identity before finally confirming his name.
He and his wife had just ten minutes notice to flee their home to
escape a rat-pack of reporters hot on his tail.
Alastair Hay, Professor of Toxicology Leeds University:
This pressure was extraordinary I don’t know what point somebody has to
reach before it becomes too much.
The Inspector became the inspected.
Andrew Mackinlay MP:
This is the High Court of Parliament and I want you to tell the committee
who you met.
Three days after this questioning, Dr Kelly was found dead a few miles
from his home in Oxfordshire, on Harrow down Hill. Thames Valley
Police read out a statement from his family.
Kelly Family Statement:
Events over recent weeks have made David’s life intolerable and all of
those involved should reflect long and hard on this fact.

viv said...

The McCanns mentality, if they are waiting for bloggers or anyone else to apologise to them they are in for a long wait, no matter how much they beat that drum. I am still waiting for them to seriously apologise to their children for ruining their lives.

Alastair Campbell, Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman 1997-2003:
Until the BBC acknowledge that is a lie I will keep banging on ...

In much the same way Carter Ruck were wanting the BBC to say their report about Trafigura was a lie, presumably. Of course every detail was the horrific facts.

Mitchell, Campbell, bring this muck in when the sh1T really hits the fan for some seriously horrible people with no respect for human life.

Iraq, Trafigura, Kate and Gerry McCann. If you are a decent person you do not need a mitchell or a campbell or lawyers like Carta Muck to enforce your version of truth even harder.

S.B. said...

Good Evening.....,

Before you bombard me with technicalities I should like to stress that I don't expect the law within the UK to adopt a simplistic approach to crime or unexplained circumstances that require investigation. I respect the need to thoroughly explore all avenues with integrity and professionalism and not purely on gut-feeling, flimsy evidence and hearsay; although I am sure such measures are frequently used by the police in addition to more conclusive methods.

For the purposes of this particular subject I should like to simplify the case from a non-medical point of view as the circumstances pointing towards foul-play are blatantly obvious. Why would Dr Kelly take his own life in such a way that does not guarantee success? Why in this particular location? Why was not the precise location of his death included on the death certificate? Why consume alcohol before slashing your wrist ~ Dutch courage? Why would he wish to commit suicide? There are many questions to be answered in this respect but very few as to the reason why someone would want him dead!

Where I worked in the UK corruption was quite a normal pratice (plain brown envelopes in exchange for contracts) but nothing could be done to eradicate the problem because it spread from comparatively menial staff to local politicians. The greater the necessity for individuals to covers their own back-sides the wider the network became, primarily because people are greedy and are prepared to risk their necks for a few dollars more. Ring any bells?

Blair has indeed got a lot to answer for, in particular condoning and thus participating in the Irakien war but as can be seen from so many witnesses testifying at the inquiry the truth is far from forthcoming nor do I think is it ever likely to be forthcoming. In my opinion Blair should be made accountable for his actions but the cynic in me tells me that will never happen any more than we will ever uncover the truth behind the death of Dr Kelly.

At least I am pleased to say that the McCann’s are not protected in this way!

docmac said...

Viv

OT for a mo...

You have seen all the videos, I know. But Himself' has put many of them together with annotations in a quite outstanding way. I'm very impressed with the work that went into it!

viv said...

Hiya both

I am really shocked at this comment in the Mirror attributed to Jim Gamble, I have never seen anything like this before, please tell me he did not say this!

"We absolutely support the McCann family," he says, sitting in his glass-walled office in Pimlico, Central London.

"They are to be applauded for their tireless work to keep the campaign to find their daughter in the public consciousness. It is a case for every parent of 'There but by the grace of God, go I'."

docmac said...

I'm sure Dr Dangerous and Dr Dim lapped it up, Viv.

viv said...

Is that code for Dr Gerry and Dr Kate or am I being dim, lol!

If he was trying to kid them along that was going way too far. How dare he suggest other parents could so easily do the same!

viv said...

It was rather disingenuous of Gerry to deny receiving text messages on the day of Maddie's disappearance or the day after, he adds, when in reality what police are really concerned about are ten text messages the day before she went missing. Himself points to a further report when all texts are denied by someone on behalf of the McCanns (they are real good at that).


But Himself produced the evidence from the PJ file of those 14 texts received on Gerry's phone.

So why was he so shy about even mentioning the texts were actually the day before. Because that is evidence of a premeditated crime, perhaps?

When taken with the two copies each of two different pictures sized 6 x 4 that Gerry just happened to have available to immediately hand to the PJ that does not look too good for him really, does it!

viv said...

As for the ear pulling video when denying and smirking about giving his kids sedatives, I just had to laugh at that one, once again!

Wizard said...

Jim Gamble’s comments make me fear for his mind if taken strictly as read but I find myself agreeing with him in a way - give someone (the Mcs) enough rope and they will hang themselves.

Perhaps Gamble is pleading CONTEMPORARY insanity with these remarks. Lol

More likely the Mirror is supporting the Mcs, at this point in time, so if the story ever breaks they will get an exclusive and their circulation figures will spiral. ££££££

Wizard said...

Morning All,

I’m always suspect of foul deeds when someone dies unexpectedly and you hear sighs of relief all round. As happened in the higher echelons of power in Britain on the apparent suicide of David Kelly.

There is however, a nagging belief in my mind that crass mistakes happen all the time and only in high profile cases like Dr Kelly’s and the McCanns’ are they analysed by people outside the loop and the errors and misinformation is highlighted.

As we see from Gamble’s scribbling the integrity of the press is suspect so more power to internet bloggers who don’t always get it right but they certainly rattle a few cages.

viv said...

Hiya Wiz

Thanks for the words of reassurance about the remarks of Jim Gamble. I have always thought that a close relationship with them was very important for him to learn more. You clearly get nothing from someone you have made an enemy of. Gamble would understand the pschology very well I believe.

I think the amount of blogging on this case would certainly come to the attention of Gamble and the government and so people are helping by demonstrating the serious principles they feel are at stake here and wish to see it resolved rather than just put on the back burner or deep into cold storage.

We know parents can be uncaring, abusing and downright dangerous to their children and we know that parents are the ones who statistically present that serious risk of harm, not some stranger.

The McCanns have set themselves up as flag bearers for the principle that this is a one in a million case and they are completely innocent of wrong doing, even negligence. For that it is even more essential that thousands of other children are protected by an example being made here.

viv said...

I hope that the political will to properly find out what happened to Dr Kelly will herald the way for a better approach to justice in really difficult cases.

What the McCanns did with Madeleine and their seriously odd behaviour ever since clearly comes into that category.

Wizard said...

Hi SB,

As I mentioned a few weeks back I had ordered a copy of ‘The Suspicions of Mr Whicher’ off Amazon – I’ve now received and read it. I have to say it was a bit disappointing as although Mr Whicher’s suspicions appeared to be correct because of a confession – was the confession true? I suspect not! The little boy was killed by someone in the locked house - but by who?

Whicher points out after interviewing all the suspects that they were not lying because they were guilty, but because they were scared and all had something to hide.

A child of 3 years 10 months was the victim, the father said it was a stranger who committed the crime, windows were left open to suggest an intruder, a pink blanket was said to be taken with the child and then said not, most people changed their statements I could go on. There are striking similarities to the MBM case and Saville Kent’s as everyone seemed to be covering for everyone else.

The crime would not have been taken to court without the confession. Whicher comments also that middle class people just had to say they didn’t do and they would probably not be charged in cases like this. Hmm….

Di said...

Hi all

Hi Doc

Himself has worked really hard on putting those videos and clips together. It is so interesting to look back and see just from Kate & Gerry's mannerisms how guilty they look, and I don't think it is shyness of the cameras. I love the clip where Gerry invades Kates space, her face is a picture.

Di said...

Hi Viv

I think the fact that Dr Kelly's post-mortem results are being kept secret for 70 years has not helped at all with this case. It cries of injustice and a cover up.

Hopefully there will be a full inquest and the truth will out. Then maybe his family will be left in peace.

Di said...

Hi Wizard

Your synopsis of "The suspicions of Mr Whicher" if I didn't know better I could be reading about the disappearance of Madeleine. Spooky or what!

viv said...

Hiya Wiz

Making the analogy not lying because they were guilty but because they were scared and had something to hide would imply the McCanns and their friends did neglect their children and as a direct result of that one of them had an accident or was abducted.

As Hope would point out, if they are lying to the police to cover their own negligence and Madeleine really was abducted they must be the most wicked parents alive. If they are lying because Madeleine did die to to neglect and they mercilessly lied and wasted countless millions of pounds with a complex investigation that should have been so simple and, more importantly, would have allowed them to show Madeleine respect in death by affording her a proper burial, that too is terribly wicked.

But I still do not think that is quite the answer here, for me there is too much evidence of a planned crime.

The similarities to this case are uncanny. That is perhaps, (although there are many) one of the most damning facets of this case against the McCanns. They claim they repeatedly neglected their children, even after they knew she or they had been crying and left the doors open and then lied about the window and shutter. What clearer evidence could there be in both cases of staging?

Why do you feel the confession was false Wiz? Police oppression or something else?

viv said...

Hiya Di, Gerry does seem to make a habit of invading the space of women, I am sure that is what Sandra Filgeiras thought back in February when Gerry was so angry things were not going his way.

In Dr Kelly's case I agree, that leaving the files uncovered for 70 years and treating his case differently to any other person, by not allowing a post mortem smacks of something being covered up. Or someone's reputation that was considered to be so important.

Pushed into suicide after the most obscene treatment or actually murdered because Blair was being exposed for the liar that he is, either way Alistair Campbell was going to keep on insisting the BBC are liars. Why do Campbell, Gerry, Mitchell etc believe they can brainwash and bully people? What does it say about them? What sort of pleasure do they derive from feeling they sare so manipulative? Certainly in their case they seem to wear the badge with pride. Most would hang their heads in shame or feel quite unable to behave in such a deliberately deceptive, malicious and cunning way.

Lastly, when did Dr Kelly take the pills? Was he still in the house, how did he know he would even reach his chosen destination. En route to that destination, why did he drop by the potting shed for the rusty pruning knife. Would you do that in that frame of mind? Or would you just take a kitchen knife in case you needed to finish the job?

Of course if there were intruders it would be so much easier to slip into the garden and steal a pruning knife.

On balance however, it still seems just slightly more likely to me he was suffering from extreme stress and did intend to just end it all, his reputation and career having been destroyed by Tony Blair and his minions. But to drive someone to that by such terrible behaviour should be a criminal offence. Or, at the very least the public have a right to know that those under the stewardship of Tony Blair made Dr Kelly so ill, he died. Severe stress releases dangerous chemicals into the bloodstream at far beyond the normal requirement for a bit of stress to make us function better in time of need.

Whilst I feel the conservatives will mainly be motivated by an act of political damage to the Labour Party, that does not detract from the good things and inquest could bring, a message to the public that actually yes, we can provide open, fair and transparent justice for all our citizens. He deserves and inquest, just like others do who die in strange circumstances.

Not some inquiry by a judge appointed by the chief architect of the cover up, Tony Blair. That is what so annoys me about him and Gerry McCann, they actually believe they are so much smarter than everyone else, to the extent they can lie and lie and con and con and people will think they are lovely. Surface charm has a habit of rubbing very thin, just like cheap polish. I think Gerry is just not quite in the same league as Blair in his ability to be so charismatic whilst also being pretty wicked. Gerry just likes to think he is that good, so long as he has a mouthpiece so that he can argue, well I never said that. Well that is a bit simplistic but you know what I mean!

Blimey rambling a bit, must go to bed! Nite all xx

viv said...

I just watched the there is no evidence against us did you hear that video of Gerry at the side of this blog

There must be something wrong with my sound card or whatever, Martin Luke where are you??

No sound, but it was a very interesting exercise, because when you just watch Gerry, snarling wit rage and moving ever closer, you could be forgiven for thinking he was squaring up to some bloke in a pub and then moving in to ////^^*&

But, no, he was actually meant to be civilly answering the question of Sandra a reporter whose paymasters actually pay the McCanns a lot of money for interviews. Is he grateful? Well no this is a man who likes the money but people are not meant to deviate from his script, especially when he is very upset, the realisation beginning to dawn that yet another narcissistic dream to grab another million was, just a narcisstic dream. Narcissists are very good at those Gerry, lots of them finish up in jail, but they do get the chance to tell their fantastic stories in court beforehand, not that anyone believes them.

Wizard said...

Hi Viv,

Why do I think the confession was false? Constance Kent at the time of the murder was 16 years old but didn't confess until some years later. Although originally charged with the murder, the case was thrown out of court due to lack of evidence. The case was brought to a full court hearing again many years later because of a confession and some very suspect circumstantial evidence. To be honest it just doesn’t add up.

Constance was a daughter from her father’s first marriage and the children from his second marriage, which included the murdered boy, were given preferential treatment.
Constance and her full brother William were extremely close and William felt a second-class family member more than his other siblings from his father's the first marriage.

The secrets of a middle class Victorian family being opened up to public gaze caused the whole family to suffer. Her father had difficulty maintaining his job, which the whole household relied on financially. All members of the family and household were put under suspicion and everybody suffered including William, Constance’s younger beloved brother.

A few years after the murder Constance was put into a convent and it was here she caught religious fervour and imo brainwashed - she perhaps sacrificed herself for the good of her family and in particular her beloved brother. Her confession released all other members of the family to get on with their lives, which up to this point had been put on hold because of public hatred and suspicion towards them.

There was no evidence for a conviction and her lawyer said to her before the trial if she changed her plea to not guilty, he would get her off. The crime itself could not have been done by one person alone let alone by a very slight sixteen year old. If Constance was guilty, she was helped by someone else she did not act alone.

A similar weak case as applied to Constance could be made to any other member of the household. A man’s cutthroat razor and a knife were used to murder the boy but Constance says she only used a razor. So who used the knife? To kill the child would have meant having to keep putting him down to smooth blankets, unlock and open heavy French doors etc all with out waking him. A bloodied nightdress found in the boiler furnace she said she did not put there it wasn’t hers why lie if she was confessing. All these points strongly indicate if guilty, she did not act alone or it wasn’t her at all and she was covering for someone.

Constance was found guilty because of her confession but was spared the hangman’s noose. She spent over 20 years in various prisons in England and after her release immigrated with her brother and two elder sisters (full blood siblings) to Australia. Constance became a nurse and her kindness to all was noted, she lived to be 100 under an assumed name and never returned to England. If Constance was tried for this murder today it would never get to court even with her confession.

viv said...

Hiya Wiz

It does sound as though it may have been the younger brother and she was an accomplice, perhaps helping more in the way of a clean up to save him from blame?

Being pushed out by new siblings certainly can cause deep resentment and I suppose a need in the older siblings to protect the younger ones.

Maybe the targeted little boy was getting everything, the father would want to cover up I suppose, imagine how you would feel if you had driven your own children to this? Admitting it was someone in the house would be like admitting it was him, by proxy. It must have been a very dysfunctional household.

I think modern police would have unravelled what role each of the children had in this, if any.

docmac said...

Halligen in court tomorrow. Horseferry Court, Court no. 3 at 10 am on 18th August

Can't afford a berrister. Should be interesting.

http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/online_archive/?name=kevin+halligen&place=&courts=0

docmac said...

Dunno where 'berrister' came from. LOL!

viv said...

Thanks for that Doc!

Excellent news!

Oh poor Gerry lol!

Hands aching too much hard work to type further at the mo but this is great news

xx

docmac said...

Yeah, Viv. Wish I could be there :-)

hope4truth said...

Hello

It would be intresting if someone could ask Halligen just what he was asked to do for the McCanns because it sure as hell was not to find Madeleine....

docmac said...

Hi Hope.

Check your junk mail :-)

docmac said...

Just getting rid of that crappy flag pic that Cal drew on MS paint. He's into pottery now - getting in touch with his feminine side. It's all flowers and butterflies and stuff :-)

No roses yet, ttl.

viv said...

Rceived via email from H, have sent him a link to join blog:

For whatever reason.



I tried to leave this comment Viv but to no avail.

Best

H



Good day all.



I have a couple of links that may be of interest, but I will just make mention first of something that unfortunately I have no link.



Within such a short time (days only) of the details surrounding Dr Kelly's death being made available, just as unbelievable then as now, his widow made a statement to the effect that she accepted that Kelly had indeed killed himself.



When I read this at the time I could only conclude one thing, and it didn't take a genius to arrive at this conclusion, I thought this woman is scared to death, quite fearful no doubt that if she made waves she would be joining her husband in the morgue.

This being my personal opinion only.



But she wasn't the only one experiencing unease at being associated with Doctor Kelly, this story from Nov 07



"I feared I'd end up dead in the woods like Dr Kelly,"



Not a direct link because there are a few links on the same page that may or may not be of interest.



It makes for an interesting read, and not least the circumstances surrounding the writer's air flight to Florida.



This that follows speaks for itself, the only thing that I will say is; journalistically who does it remind you of?



http://twitpic.com/2edm27



You might reach the same answer as I, all of 'em.



By the by, I read DC Coe's account in the Mail, (no I don't subscribe) and, even though he was in attendance, he sounded about as credible as Donal MacIntyre



Again only my opinion.

viv said...

Thanks H for the really good link to your blog. So Dr Kelly wiped his fingerprints of the bloodied pruning knife he just happened across in his potting shed as he ambled off to his death. Well humm.

I just read Tony Blair is giving all of the money off his biography to a war veterans charity, OK for those who survived it I suppose.

Hiya Hope

I am hoping that the resourceful little fraudster Kevin Halligen or whatever he wants to call himself is the little worm that turns. He could do with at least helping himself. I think his brief was to stitch up an apparent gang of Belgian paedophiles who are obviously treating Maddie like a little Princess. That would make Gerry happy.

viv said...

You would think Lord Hutton might have found a "wiped" suicide knife (just to wash the pills down with) just a bit odd really. I killed myself by bleeding to death but I dont want the police or any forensic bods finding the evidence of that.

But there again he lowered the burden of proof that is necesary for a finding of suicide in a Coroners Court, he did not have to assure himself beyond reasonable doubt that is what Dr Kelly did, he just had to think so. Very judicial.

viv said...

Re Dr Kelly's wife H.

When something tragic happens and neither Alistair Campbell or Clarence Mitchell or others who take pleasure in re-writing the true version of events are not involved, we just get one story in the press, one interpretation, that is what happened very sad.

But when it is ambiguous, there are two possible stories, we get the McCann effect. The true news is being "buried".

Why would Dr Kelly's widow have to make any statement "accepting" anything to the media. Given that word was used it kind of implies she may have been thinking otherwise but someone "persuaded" her to accept the "reality". Reality when such murky characters are involved can be a terrifying thing.

viv said...

Blair Confessions of a War Leader...worth a read!

He set up a little company to shield his amassing fortune from prying eyes but also decided to let people read about him and give all of that little pot to the British Legion, how quaint!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/blair-confessions-of-a-former-war-leader-2055353.html


Did I ever suggest the McCanns were laundering money and evading tax with the Find Maddie Fiddle, no I never!

viv said...

Burglar arrested after getting his bum stuck in a window, the householder came down to see his torso popping in but the legs were dangling out ....fireman had to cut the window frame to get him out, man that is funny!

There is even a pic

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7951031/Burglar-arrested-after-getting-bottom-stuck-in-window.html

viv said...

But he had done enough to fulfill the legal criteria for burglary, just putting an arm through a window is enough combined with an intention to enter as a trespasser and commit another offence such as theft, assault, rape, he needn't have to gone to the trouble of putting his whole torso in, whole torso out, shake it all about, when the firemen arrived and the police, I bet they were crying with laughter!

Wizard said...

Hi All,

'All people are equal but some are more equal than others' – the McCann saga certainly appears to be a case in point in many ways.

I was just reading in today’s Mail a story about a British mother who abandoned her eleven-year-old daughter to go to a bar whilst holidaying with her in Spain.

“A British holidaymaker has been arrested after allegedly leaving her 11-year-old daughter alone in a Spanish resort whiles she went to a bar. Alicia Jenkins 42 sat drinking in the bar for hours while the child wandered around a nearby beach, it is claimed.

……the police were called and they went to the bar where the woman was detained. The eleven year old was taken to a children’s care home to be looked after. The girl’s mother from Wales had arrived in Salou, a popular party resort, last Friday and was staying in a three star hotel with her daughter.

She is expected to face a fast track trial. Under Spanish law, parents who abandon their children face jail sentences of 18 months to three years. If the child is put in danger, it can be up to four year.”

I’m probably being a bit presumptuous if I suggest the woman was probably working class and a one-parent family. If that is the case she deserves all she gets – or so it would appear in law.

Wizard said...

The woman in my above post was clearly in the wrong - but I can’t help thinking that the Mcs should be quietly thanking the Portuguese police rather than berating them. After all taking the above case as an example, they have faced no charges for child neglect having left three children under the age of five alone for hours while they went to a bar. Nothing happened to the 11-year-old but their daughter was allegedly snatched by a marauding paedophile through their child neglect. Kate McCann was apparently so drunk she could not string a sentence together at 10.00pm on 3rd May! Ah… but then they are middle class doctors so this kind of behaviour is acceptable if the English press and the Portuguese authorities are anything to go by.

Wizard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wizard said...

Hi Viv,

I’m just looking at the photograph of the burglar caught in the act. Well that’s one crook the police were able to catch.

S.B. said...

Hi Wizard.........,

Read it already? It usually takes longer for a delivery from Amazon to reach me! LOL!

My opinion precisely, having waded through the book with great curiosity the conclusion is disappointing. No I don't believe the confession to be true. I do think that the similarity between Amaral’s investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine Mccann and that of Whicher's investigation is rather interesting, as of course is the comparability of circumstances surrounding the disappearance of a 3 year old child. My recently expressed opinion of UK law and it's comparability with that of the 19th century applies also to law enforcement agencies. Apart from the advent of technology I don't think that the principal of police work has altered much over the years, particularly with regard to sometimes insurmountable obstacles thrown in the way of true justice. I will probably torn apart for saying that! LOL!

S.B. said...

Afternoon Hope.....,

I thought it was an established fact, sorry assumption, that Halligan was exployed to transfer vast wads of cash from the Madeleine Fund.Co.Com into a cosy little off-shore location in order to maximise its value.

It has always been the Mccanns priority to extort, I mean amass, as much dirty lucre as possible to 'assist' with the search for their abducted daughter so what better way to invest? Why give up all that lovely money to the nasty tax man, or worse still the police, when you can so easily shift it to a nice safe location 'away from prying eyes'!

S.B. said...

Hello......,

Boys Sentenced for rape attept of eight year old girl - BBC news 18th October 2010.

"Defence barristers had said the boys had just been naughty or had been playing a game like doctors and nurses"........

What sort of defence strategy is that? This confirms exactly what I have been trying to saying about the British legal system. Reading on to the sordid details of the actual attack, what calibre of doctor or nurse behave in that way, Dr Kate or Dr Gerald? Must have been playing para-medics!

The defence presented before the court is unbelievably irresponsible. What sort of message does that convey to children?

Sorry off topic but I can't resist the opportunity to emphasise my point!

S.B. said...

Sorry, thats supposed to be BBC News 18th August 2010!

viv said...

Hiya all

Wiz, I do think the case of the mom in Spain was pretty open and shut, she abandoned her and nothing further happened to her as a result of that. So the offence to charge her with is clear enough.

That was not the case in the disappearance of Madeleine, the police were looking at a range of charges, murder, kidnapping abandonment, that was due to it not being clear what they had done with Madeleine. They clearly could not charge them with the lesser offence of abandonment when the feeling was Maddie was not going to be quickly recovered and the eventual charges would have to be of a far more serious nature.

But yes, I do agree with you. The arrogance of Kate and Gerry McCann is astounding. At the very least they could have been immediately arrested and placed into custody on the basis of what they admitted to, leaving three tots with the doors open. Of course they consistently denied the length of time they left them however and this is what is so wicked about them. If Maddie really had been abducted and they failed to admit the correct time period they have wasted a huge amount of police time investigating them when they could have simply admitted the truth and faced the consequences, so that the police could at least try to get Maddie back for them. A lengthier period of time would have completely altered the whole tenor of the police investigation.

Although stranger abductions seems highly unlikely, particularly given Gerry claims to have tried the shutters and allowed others to do so, but left no prints, no matter which way you look at what may have happened to Madeleine, they know exactly and they know whose fault it was. And they have never done anything at all to secure her recovery. They should have been concentrating solely on the tennis balls pic of her. This is exactly what she looked like, not putting out a confusing array of pictures of her with baby blond or even tinted red hair.

Quite how they summoned up the nerve to even threaten to sue anyone in all the circumstances is completely beyond me.

They were not exonerated by the PJ investigation, save for the specific charge of abandonment, that was positively ruled out. That, I am afraid is because the police quite obviously feel they did not deliberately abandon her, they got rid of her before they even went out. In short, that charge is nowhere near serious enough in relation to what they did.

In the psychologist's report quoted above, he does admit that the McCanns repeatedly referred to Maddie being "abducted". That is because it is only if that happened that they could be absolved of any of the blame, but in those circumstances they should still have faced up to ten years in a Portuguese jail. They should be eternally grateful. If it were not for the PJ wanting to conduct a thorough investigation and find out precisely what they did, they could have been stitched up with subjecting her to serious harm by abandonment anyway.

viv said...

Hiya SB

If you are saying the criminal justice system does not serve children well, I would agree with you.

Quite often the police will targets specific types of offenders that are relatively easy to catch. Cannabis dealers, known burglars and the speeding motorist etc. Targeting the massive recources required to investigate child abuse and protect children has not been a priority. Budget constraints would always make senior managers feel they will show little result for what they have spent. So long as we have governments who simply expect results by the bucket load and focus on targets and budgets rather than public protection and quality of work, rather than quantity, it is hard to see how that will change.

Unfortunately we still have a Dickensian sentencing system in many respects also and Judges with an old Etonian attitude. Property is valued far higher than serious injury to a child.

But of course once a couple like Kate and Gerry do come to the attention of the police and social workers, resources will be targeted at solving that and there is no doubt UK and Portugal have spent countless millions trying to do precisely that.

I think CEOP is pretty good because it is more geared up to dealing with the specific crimes of child exploitation and has more resources than a police area to do that. They are catching people who perhaps have a penchant like Gerry and David, before they do something quite as bad. Internet snooping on this type of offender is the way forward and I think the problem is so bad we should all be prepared to sacrifice our online privacy so that the authorities can gather intelligence on child abuser and paedophiles.

In short more investigation, more proactive policing rather than just reactive is what is required. Nothing saved Baby P or Victoria Climbie (sp?) but if the social workers and police had been working together in a proactive way they could so easily have been saved.

viv said...

As an example of how the police just fail children, there is a high incidence of British children from poor homes being targeted by pimps and used in the sex business until they are no longer children and no longer required. By the time they are 17 they are hooked on heroin and working as adult prostitutes to feed their habit.

How many offenders have the police prosecuted for this, ONE!

There is an emphasis on foreign children being trafficked into the UK, but no work being done on the ones who are already here. That is a national disgrace.

Di said...

Hi all

Another interesting post on Textusa re: Scent found on friends clothes.

Now Jane, those jeans that you say you never took to PDL!

Oh and on Panarama when you were describing the abductor and the way he was carrying Madeleine. You said I carried, hmmm.

docmac said...

Hi Di

They were Russell's jeans, eh. More to come on the subject...

viv said...

Hi both

In the official files the reports make no mention whatsoever of any apparent scent being found on one of the friends clothes.

Whilst old newspaper reports can be very helpful, when they directly contradict the official police file, I know which I prefer to believe.