An arson attack at my home on 9th March 2017, has been crimed as ‘arson with intent to endanger life‘ appears to have been ‘intentionally‘ whitewashed by Lancashire Police.
Evidence (recording and images) has been presented on this website http://pubchat.co.uk/ormskirk-arson-attack/
There were 3 suspects to this arson attack.
- Paul Turner, a known police informer who has already received a formal police caution for threatening to kill my family. Police have a motive to protect him. (see the official caution here)
- Hugh Abercrombie & Darren Velasques, both from Wolverhampton BJJ Club, threatened to ‘hunt me down and kill me‘ because I stood up to them when they made sexually derogatory comments to my wife and I, amongst other things (See details here)
- The Police themselves. I have a private prosecution against Inspector Martin Melvin and a number of very serious complaints against other officers in the pipeline (DS Langton, Sgt Eckersley for example). Would Lancashire Police really do this? They do have a motive.
We never really gave any further thought to the arsonist being a police officer or paid by a police officer, (maybe we are still a little naive), however, there is now some credibility to this potential being a police officer now after a call from the Officer in charge, Detective Sergeant Monk of Skelmersdale CID.
I will get to the point right now, further evidence to substantiate this will be lower down.
When police attended on the evening of the arson attack, the attending officer asked if I had any suspicion who it may be.
I told the officer that I suspected (and still do) Paul Turner from Skelmersdale (No.1 above). The reason is that he has received a police caution for making death threats against my wife and children and he is such a twisted person that this is his ‘M.O.‘ He has also continued a course of conduct against me and my family for almost 4 years.
In terms of evidence and motive, Paul Turner is the ‘prime suspect‘.
The initial police response to this information was ‘that is not enough to let us talk to Paul Turner‘..!
I said to the cop, “didn’t you just hear me, Paul Turner has been given a police caution for threatening to kill my family“.
The cop said, ‘that is not enough to bring him in‘!
The fireman who was sitting with me at the time looked down in clear shock at what he heard and even called the fire investigator to report what the cop had said saying that it seemed ‘very odd and very wrong‘. This will be noted in the Fire brigade notes as I had identified the possible arsonist and police made it clear, witnessed by a fire officer, that they were not interest.
Over a week went by and police made no contact with us, (the victims). We called them dozens of times on 101 (which annoyingly costs 15p per call) and were passed around by them, no one had any info for us not even telling us who was investigating.
We told police (via 101) of 4 CCTV cameras at the pub opposite but it took them days to even try to get it.
We told them that no forensics officers had been out to check for any evidence, leaving us with a burnt out car on our drive for almost a week waiting for forensics. They have still not sent forensics out missing out on potential crucial evidence.
After we had had enough, we contacted the local press and reported that we are being blanked by police on social media. A dedicated Facebook page was setup here https://www.facebook.com/arsonattackormskirk/ , we eventually received a call from police (they really do not like media attention to their incompetence/misconduct.
We were told that Paul Turner had been pulled in and questioned. Why we wondered? Did they have any evidence now to link him to the arson attack. They had no intention of calling him in after the fire, so what changed?
Police told us that ‘they know Paul Turner did not light the fire‘ he had a convenient alibi for 00:30am! They did not say he was not connected nor did they say he was no longer a suspect.
They told u not to make this public, so we foolishly conformed with them and kept quiet thinking the were really trying to help!
Police then told us ‘we have no intelligence that there will be a further attack‘… Really? That would imply that the initial arson attack may have been known to them OR, the interview with Paul Turner led to this conclusion. Something must have drawn Lancashire police to this conclusion. Paul Turner is the only person they investigated before saying there is no further threat!
As far as we know, the suspects No.2 have NEVER been questioned. If police were drawing blanks as they have told us, you would expect all suspects to be questioned? The big question is why not? If they do not have a suspect, then why would they rule out a suspect.
After this, police arranged for a specialist alarm company to provide a immediate response panic alarm in our home..!
My children are now living in fear of further attacks.
Do police have knowledge who committed the crime?
Days later, my wife received a call from Sergeant Monk of Skelmersdale CID telling here ‘they were doing everything they can‘ and that they had collected the CCTV from the Yew Tree Pub. They told us very little at the time but told us the car was a dark Vauxhall Astra. (it was in fact a light Astra, the total opposite). He told us that they have a lots of CCTV to go through (#01) and would give us an update in due course.
A week later, I was called by Sgt Monk, telling us the CCTV gave them no leads and that they needed our permission to put this in the general media. We of course agreed.
The CCTV was flooded through the media, 1,000 of shares on Facebook but police strangely did NOT use the CCTV of the arsonist lighting the actual fire, leaving lots of people asking ‘what crime has been committed‘ etc.
I re-created the video and added the actual arson attack in so people can see the person crossing the pub car park, ‘actually doing something criminal‘ rather than just walking one way, then the other.
Police said on the CCTV campaign that ‘a man’ did the arson attack? Are they sure it was a man? There is substantial evidence to show this ‘could have been a female’, there is no conclusive evidence that the attacker was male. Why are police so sure?
A couple of weeks later, I was called by Detective Sergeant Monk of Skelmersdale CID telling us that the media campaign gave them nothing. They only posted it once to Facebook, yet other crimes were posted multiple times over a period of time.
Detective Sergeant Monk then continued to tell me everything he had done. I think he genuinely believed himself but remember, it is much harder to lie than tell the truth.
Sgt Monk (investigating officer) told me the following:
- Police did not receive any additional CCTV (hmmm, see #01 above)
- Police knocked at all the houses they identified with CCTV and every one either had the cameras switched off or it recorded over in 24 hours. He then said, people tend to only record on CCTV for 24 hours to save money.
- Police had checked over 1,000 car registrations on ANPR images checking cars for mismatched number plates etc.
- Police had leafleted the entire area asking for CCTV footage. (#02)
- Police had even checked CCTV in Ormskirk town, over a mile away.
I asked him if he has taken DNA samples from the post the arsonist can be seen clearly placing his hand on before the attack. He told me it was a concrete post (this is a lie).
I told him that it was in fact a gloss painted post.
He then made other excuses about being unable to get a scientist, and that others ‘may’ have touched the post since the attack.
Sergeant Monk even told me ‘I have spoken to a scientist who told him there would be no DNA’.
Sergeant Monk said the arsonist was wearing gloves? How do they know this? there is no evidence to suggest this. Is Sgt Monk trying to avoid collecting evidence?
WOW, these scientists are fantastic, they can even tell if there will be DNA evidence at a crime scene without even attending (or Monk lied)
The conversation continued and he stated he believes the arsonists car (that they are unable to identify) came from Narrow Moss Lane. I queried this saying, don’t you think it may have come via Heskin Lane? He assured me it hadn’t as he had been and checked the CCTV at the end of that road and even checked 30 minutes before and after the time of the attack.
Very thorough, after all he is a Sergeant and a Detective in CID no less, of course he will have done everything. They appear to have identified where the car did not come from or where the car did not go by physically checking CCTV.
Surely then, as they fully believe it came from Narrow Moss Lane, they would have checked here?
I decided to drive down Narrow Moss Lane, I was amazed to find 3 separate houses with 4 very prominent CCTV cameras all pointing at the road. I knocked on each door and asked if the police had requested their CCTV or leafleted the area. All occupants told me they have had no leaflets and no police asking to view CCTV.
One of the houses was stunned about the arson attack (so close to their home) and shocked police had not requested their CCTV as police often ask for their CCTV for other road offences. Why didn’t police check CCTV from the road they suspect the car travelled.
WHO ARE THEY PROTECTING…
So, it appears the road that police are convinced the car came along, police failed to check or post leaflets.
My wife called the police as soon as I had checked the CCTV. The investigation officer had gone on two weeks leave. (this was within 1 hour of him calling me) , She spoke with “Ian Derbyshire” who said he would look into it and call her back.
Ian Derbyshire called us back within around 10 minutes, telling us he had called Sgt Monk at home.
The message Sgt Monk asked Ian Derbyshire to relay to us was that, Sgt Monk said the ‘CCTV would not be viable for the investigation or would help in any way and that is why it has not been recovered’.
So, all the leaflet they posted asking for the public to supply them with CCTV was not really ‘viable’.
Police checking of the CCTV on Heskin Lane (that determined the car did not come that way) was more important than the CCTV from the road that the car did come from?
This CCTV was crucial.