|
The scene was handed over to four TVP police officers, who it would seem failed to secure it to prevent any further contamination although we suspect even they would have been too late after the RAF Police and paramedics were through. Failed because they have commenced a scene watch! This means no-one can enter unless authorised! One states he saw 4 small white non window envelopes with some writing on them ON THE WINDOWSILL. It was confirmed by the RAF Police Corporal these were found on the floor. However their part in the investigation is not as debateable but contradictory to the Detective Sergeant assigned to the case. |
|
This is his statement:
At 1324 hrs on Sunday 4th September 2011 I was on duty, in plain clothes, when I attended Room 15 Campbell House, RAF Benson following a report that a male had been found hanged at that location. When I arrived I liaised with RAF Police Corporal ****** and PS ******** who briefed me on what had occurred so far. Room 15 is on the ground floor and faces into the main car park area. I was aware that this window was slightly open when the deceased was discovered but had to be manipulated from the outside to release the catches to allow entry. I did not see any damage or sign of interference with the window or it's frame. Once inside the building I made my way to room 15 and went inside. The room has a single bed at one end with wardrobes on one side and a sink at the other end. Lying on the floor was the body of a male identified to me as Robert FLEETING. The deceased was dressed in blue jeans and black boots with no clothing on his top half. I could see a gold coloured chain and crucifix around his neck. His hands were by his sides. I could see quite deep marks around his neck area which looked consistent with having been caused by hanging using a material noose which was lying nearby. The noose appeared to have been made from one of the room window curtains. Assisted by Scenes of Crime Officer ****** I checked the body for any defence wounds or suspicious injuries but found none. I checked the pockets of the deceased's jeans and removed an empty cigarette pack, some loose change and his wallet which were placed on top of a sideboard. SOC ****** took photographs of the scene and body. The room was quite tidy with no evidence of a disturbance or struggle. Lying next to the body were some envelopes with writing on. I could see from the content that they were suicide notes and seized them as evidence at 1330 hrs. I can produce these notes as exhibit DLC/1 "4 X NOTES". On the windowsill I found a pair of broken scissors which I seized as evidence at 1335 hrs. I can produce the scissors as exhibit DLC/2 "BROKEN SCISSORS", Also on the windowsill was a damaged green top which at 1340 hrs I seized as evidence. I can produce this top as exhibit DLC/3 "CUT/TORN GREEN TOP". It looked as though the deceased may have tried to fashion a noose from the green top using the scissors. I later booked these exhibits into crime property at DIDCOT POLICE STATION under entry number 1243/11. I exited the scene at 1433 hrs and searched the deceased's vehicle which was parked nearby. Nothing of note was found. At 1526 hrs I re-entered the scene with RAF SIB Corporal ***** to explain my findings and discuss the case. We left the scene at 1543 hrs. Prior to resuming I was handed a mobile phone by Cpl ****** which is exhibit RF/1. I later booked this into crime property at DIDCOT POLICE STATION under reference number 1244/11. Taking all thing into account I was content that there was no evidence of third party involvement in the death or any suspicious circumstances indicating anything other than suicide. It is worth pointing out that the first constable on the scene was introduced to RAF Cpl ********* who was Welfare Officer of the RAF who requested the next of kin details as the RAF wanted to contact them too??? It's also worth pointing out that this Constable was also introduced to RAF SIB Cpl ***** *****, who he then introduced to the DS from TVP. A second statement made on the 2nd of December 2011 (yes that's right the 2nd of December)!
States: At 1630 hrs on Tuesday 18th October 2011 I was on duty at DIDCOT police station when I took possession of exhibit DLC/4 "RED CURTAIN TWISTED INTO A NOOSE" which had been delivered to me by Geoff WEBB, Coroners Officer. I packaged DLC/4 forensically and booked it into the Crime Property Register under entry number 1384/11. I then placed the exhibit into the property store At 1000 hrs on Friday 21st October 2011, I was on duty when I attended RAF HIGH WYCOMBE: Site 3 where I liased with Flt Lt ***** *********** who assisted me in locating personal effects of Robert FLEETING. From these personal effects I seized the following: DLC/5 "ENVELOPES" DLC/6 "A4 PIECE OF PAPER WITH WRITING ON BOTH SIDED" DLC/7 "NOTE PAD" I transported these items to DIDCOT police station where I booked them into the Crime property register under entries 1395/11 and 1396/11 and placed them in the property store. At 0945 hrs on Monday 31st October 2011, I was on duty when I attended LGC FORENSICS, CULHAM, OXON where I delivered the following exhibits for handwriting analysis. DLC/1 "4 NORES" DLC/6 "A4 PIECE OF PAPER WITH WRITING ON BOTH SIDEDS" DLC/7 "NOTE PAD" SK/1 "SUICIDE NOTE ON WHITE ENVELOPE ENCLOSED IN BROWN OUTER ENVELOPE MARKED RESTRICTED STAFF WITH A COMPLIMENT SLIP FROM RAF BENSON" JAM/1 "NVQ FOLDER BELONGING TO ROBERT FLEETING" These items were handed to support staff at LGC FOENSICS. On Tuesday 8th November 2011, I was on duty when at 1525 hrs attended TVP HIGH TECH UNIT and delivered exhibit RF/1 "BLACK SAMSUNG TOUCH SCREEN MOBILE PHONE" which was to be examined for any deleted data. The handwriting expert's report is dated 28th November 2011. This states there are similarities in the writing on the notes to Robert's.
However she states the state of the handwriting is due to Robert being heavily intoxicated. The family hold a record of all calls and texts from Robert's phone. Apparently there was no deleted data. Another Police Officer states that on the 21st of October she attended RAF Benson to interview ***** ************ in relation to the sudden death close friend and colleague Robert Fleeting.
It was on this date she received Robert's NVQ folder. Robert's fiancé's statement dated 1st October reads:
I am the fiance of Robert Fleeting who died at RAF Benson, Wallingford, Oxon on Sunday 4th September 2011. At about 5 pm on Sunday 11th September 2011, I was at the White Hart Hotel in Dorchester-on-Thames, Oxon when I saw DS ****** ********** who handed me photocopies of four notes (Exhibit DLC/1) that had been found in Robert's room. I later read these notes whilst by myself and recognised the handwriting as Robert's. Some of the notes were less tidily written than others so it was hard to tell if the writing was Robert's or not but I did recognise his writing in at least one of the notes. I later gave copies of these notes to Robert's family. |
No muddy footprints? No punctuate abrasures? You are either lying here or elsewhere when questioned! (We have proof you made another statement blaming another officer for leaving items in the pocket). How did they get from the windowsill to the floor? 6 minutes after arriving, being briefed checking the body and searching the pockets? Only 4 notes? 11 minutes after arriving! Could they have been stood on? 15 minutes after arriving being briefed, checking the body and searching pockets, and to collect evidence? Was it his? DNA? 1 Hour and 9 minutes! 53 minutes to check a car. For what? 38 minutes more than it took to collect evidence! The sole Judge of everything decides it's suicide. A Corporal? WTF??? The RAF had to ask the Police for NOK details? The RAF have consistently stated the SIB were not involved! This curtain has been manhandled by who knows how many people and 44 days later is forensically packaged! 47 days later! 57 days later! This was carried out at the family's request. It should have been done quicker at the police request! 10 days after receiving the NVQ Folder! 65 days later! 85 days later! She hasn't mentioned if they could have been written under duress. Who has said he was heavily intoxicated? All other witnesses say he wasn't drunk! A full 47 days after Robert's death. Why was he not interview at the same rime as the others? Why has she referred it as a sudden death and not suicide? 20 days after getting the notes! Recognised! Right. Hard to tell! Right Definitely maybe! Why did the Police not hand them over and why only copies of copies? You'll notice she states she was at the White Hart Hotel. Why then did she state differently when she sold her story to a well known magazine? |
Here she states she went to the police station! |
The family complain to the Police Standards about the nature of the investigation and the complete disregard for the parents of Robert.
The complaint was made on the 22nd of November 2011, the report was written on the 24th January 2012 and a covering letter was sent with the report on the 8th February 2012.
The complaint was made on the 22nd of November 2011, the report was written on the 24th January 2012 and a covering letter was sent with the report on the 8th February 2012.
Click on any image below and it will expand. Place your mouse on the image and you will be able to go forward or backwards.
Please refer to Page 2 Paragraph 4 where he states the medic did not change his statement! He withheld information on the first statement. He lied about taking the phone immediately to the Police. The police perception of lying seems to be particularly lapse here.
In Paragraph 10 it is stated the curtain was collected. Lie! It was handed in to Didcot Police Station by the Coroners Officer. Check his statement above! The date was the 18th of September and not the 10th. They can't even read!
See Finding Robert!
In Paragraph 10 it is stated the curtain was collected. Lie! It was handed in to Didcot Police Station by the Coroners Officer. Check his statement above! The date was the 18th of September and not the 10th. They can't even read!
See Finding Robert!
This was not enough for the family who again complained and another investigation into the handling of the case was ordered by the IPCC.
It should be pointed the officer carrying out the investigation was from the same station as DS Cartwright! The family knew this would be a whitewash, but not the same as the first where CS Murray concluded by stating he is satisfied the investigation had been proportionately and properly conducted. He should look at why he was lied to for him to come to the conclusion
It should be pointed the officer carrying out the investigation was from the same station as DS Cartwright! The family knew this would be a whitewash, but not the same as the first where CS Murray concluded by stating he is satisfied the investigation had been proportionately and properly conducted. He should look at why he was lied to for him to come to the conclusion
Note on image 4. The complaint was received on the 24th of May and not allocated until the 2nd of July. It only took 15 days to complete and be written up. The covering letter is dated the 3rd of August. How time flies in TVP!
As a result of this report the family once again contacted the IPCC!
As a result of this report the family once again contacted the IPCC!
As a result of the contact the IPCC ordered TVP to investigate the concerns raised in the letter, however TVP in their wisdom re-investigated the whole case!
this took over two years
the original investigation took 2 hours 19 minutes
The IPCC were far from impressed with this!
One of the worst performing police forces in the country is Thames Valley police force and they have a notorious reputation for providing such poor service and it is not surprising that so many complaints are now raised against them.
For information, in 2008 two complaints that were deemed upheld & substantiated were against the same officer within Thames Valley Police Force, DC MarkTorrington who is based in Banbury. The complaints were raised through the IPCC and after an investigation by the Thames Valley Police Professional Standards Dept (PSD) it was concluded that both complaints against were indeed upheld and substantiated.
The complaints were for “Improper Disclosure of Information” and the investigation report details that DC Torrington disclosed personal & private information and data to the complainants employer on a regular basis and continually providing “updates”, therefore breaching the Data Protection Act 1998. Due to this breach Thames Valley Police have also been reported to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).
The second complaint which was also concluded as being upheld & substantiated was for “Mishandling of Property”. This involved the same officer, DC Torrington giving away various personal possessions & items of the complainants property to an unauthorised person and also without permission or even recording it.
The investigation report details and concludes that DC Mark Torrington will receive Management Advice from the Area Commander as a result of his actions.
This officer should have been prosecuted in the same way as any member of the public would have been!
However this once again highlights the poor conduct of officers and the very low standard within Thames Valley Police which on many occasions just gets “glossed over” from the public. The actions of this officer are just one example of why Thames Valley Police have got such a poor reputation and proves that officers including DCTorrington obviously can not be trusted!!
For information, in 2008 two complaints that were deemed upheld & substantiated were against the same officer within Thames Valley Police Force, DC MarkTorrington who is based in Banbury. The complaints were raised through the IPCC and after an investigation by the Thames Valley Police Professional Standards Dept (PSD) it was concluded that both complaints against were indeed upheld and substantiated.
The complaints were for “Improper Disclosure of Information” and the investigation report details that DC Torrington disclosed personal & private information and data to the complainants employer on a regular basis and continually providing “updates”, therefore breaching the Data Protection Act 1998. Due to this breach Thames Valley Police have also been reported to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).
The second complaint which was also concluded as being upheld & substantiated was for “Mishandling of Property”. This involved the same officer, DC Torrington giving away various personal possessions & items of the complainants property to an unauthorised person and also without permission or even recording it.
The investigation report details and concludes that DC Mark Torrington will receive Management Advice from the Area Commander as a result of his actions.
This officer should have been prosecuted in the same way as any member of the public would have been!
However this once again highlights the poor conduct of officers and the very low standard within Thames Valley Police which on many occasions just gets “glossed over” from the public. The actions of this officer are just one example of why Thames Valley Police have got such a poor reputation and proves that officers including DCTorrington obviously can not be trusted!!
Apr 21, 2009
This highlights even more exactly what our police are like!
Several police officers within the Thames Valley Police force have had justifiable complaints made against them for various reasons.
There are also many complaints which do not get reported against the police and this is mainly due to the public having very little confidence in the complaints system.
The problem is that police officers know that they will get away with anything they want, and if a complaint is made against them it is almost certain that they will 'get away with it' as it is the job of the forces Professional Standards Department to gloss over the misconduct and incompetence of its officers, and they are very good at doing this. The usual excuse is that there is not enough evidence to take further action and have used this excuse in this instance so it will be interesting to see what excuse they use this time against the IPCC findings!!
The advice to anybody is that if they wish to pursue a case against a police officer or any member of the police force is that they need to take a private prosecution through a solicitor. It is occasionally a waste of time involving the IPCC or complaining to the forces Professional Standards Dept as they will produce a biased report. However, so far the IPCC have come out on the family's favour!
This highlights even more exactly what our police are like!
Several police officers within the Thames Valley Police force have had justifiable complaints made against them for various reasons.
There are also many complaints which do not get reported against the police and this is mainly due to the public having very little confidence in the complaints system.
The problem is that police officers know that they will get away with anything they want, and if a complaint is made against them it is almost certain that they will 'get away with it' as it is the job of the forces Professional Standards Department to gloss over the misconduct and incompetence of its officers, and they are very good at doing this. The usual excuse is that there is not enough evidence to take further action and have used this excuse in this instance so it will be interesting to see what excuse they use this time against the IPCC findings!!
The advice to anybody is that if they wish to pursue a case against a police officer or any member of the police force is that they need to take a private prosecution through a solicitor. It is occasionally a waste of time involving the IPCC or complaining to the forces Professional Standards Dept as they will produce a biased report. However, so far the IPCC have come out on the family's favour!