Lancashire Police have made numerous significant ‘errors’ (lies mainly) in this investigation. These ‘errors’ are too basic for them to be an accident, they are likely to be intentional. There is also a possibility that Lancashire police themselves orchestrated the attack.
This all relates to the arson attack as covered by ITV News.
Lancashire Police LIED saying the ‘arsonist’ touched a concrete post and that is the reason (excuse) why they did not get CSI (Crime Scene Investigators) to take crucial finger prints. Police must think we are stupid, it only took 2 minutes for me to get a photo of the alleged ‘concrete post‘ which is in fact a gloss painted metal post in the photo below. An almost perfect surface to collect finger prints from. Why would they pretend it was concrete?
CSI arrived today (12/04/2017) at the request of police a month after the arson attack, to search for DNA evidence!
Lancashire Police told us the arsonist travelled from Narrow Moss Lane prior to the arson Attack. (listen to audio below)
Lancashire Police assured us they had ‘leafleted’ the area asking for CCTV footage from residents, and that they had done door to door enquiries asking about visible CCTV but told me that all were either not recorded of have been overwritten within 24 hours.
I have knocked at all houses on Narrow Moss Lane with clearly identifiable CCTV cameras and NONE of them have been contacted by Police or had a police leaflet posted requesting CCTV. Police lies again!
It is important to bear in mind that Narrow Moss Lane is the only road that Lancashire police are certain the vehicle travelled along. This is the only road they did not check? They have said that they did not think the cameras on Narrow Moss Lane would help them in any way… (listen to audio recording below)
Sergeant Monk of Lancashire CID said: ‘CCTV [from Narrow Moss Lane] would not be viable for the investigation or would not help in any way and that is why it has not been recovered’.
Here a some of the CCTV cameras on Narrow Moss Lance that Police ‘avoided’ contacting the owners. I have spoken with them.
Who are Lancashire Police protecting by avoiding collecting basic evidence.
Talking bullshit. It really is that simple, some police officers speak so much bullshit they believe themselves and think they are not recorded.
- Detective Sergeant Monk saying there is no credible threat at all now… (now…? what are they not telling us). The only thing we know is that they HAVE interviewed Paul Turner and since then said there is no threat…
2. Detective Sergeant Monk saying the item sent for DNA testing had ‘no trace of anything‘ then he says ‘no err.. credible forensic evidence’. We will be requesting this report to ensure no porky pies are being told. If there is no ‘credible‘ evidence, what ‘non credible’ evidence did they find?
3. Detective Sergeant Monk saying that the post the arsonist touched was concrete (he lied, it is 100% metal) then he realises that I knew he was lying, so he then changes his story, admitting he knew it was metal but then added that the arsonist had a glove on! (lie, no such conclusive evidence to suggest this), he then blames the decision to not take prints on ‘a scientist’ that he spoke to. (read quote below)
This is a QUOTE from a good friend who IS a CSI (Crime Scene Investigator)
“They have fucked up with the wrong person. One thing I will say is that as a CSI you have to complete a crime scene report and on there you have to say which officer requested the forensic exam…. in other words, CSI go where they are requested to go, we don’t pick and choose“
4. Detective Sergeant Monk saying that he thinks the arsonists car comes from the road past the Kicking Donkey (Narrow Moss Lane) and possibly goes back that way, yet, this is the only road police avoid to leaflet or enquire about CCTV..!
5. Detective Sergeant Monk saying how many cars (over 1,000) they have checked on CCTV and how ‘far out‘ the CCTV checks have been. Even the Horseshoe pub in Ormskirk (checked ‘on a bit of a whim‘ he says) but he avoided the Kicking Donkey pub right on the road that he suspects the car drove to and from the attack.
6. Detective Sergeant Monk saying they did not get any other residential CCTV. He says they did identify CCTV but none recorded or were overwritten in 24 hours. (another fat juicy lie). He didn’t even check the road he suspected the vehicle travelled in both directions.
7. Ian Derbyshire of Lancashire Police relaying a message from Sergeant Monk that he [Monk] didn’t think the CCTV from that road would have any evidence or would help in ‘any way‘ so he didn’t even bother trying to collect it. This is the only road he suspected the vehicle travelled on and the only known CCTV evidence. Why would he avoid this… he knows who done it, that is why!
8. The conversation ended with Sgt Monk saying he would keep us informed of anything new. He did not tell me that the minute he put the phone down he was off on 2 weeks leave. Lets hope his stay at home is a little longer as this has been reported as a serious allegation of corruption (covered under the act of legislation Section 26 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015)
Lancashire police have proven what they are prepared to do to me if I do not stop outing their misconduct online on this website and on UKCorruptPolice.com. They have protected Paul Turner, a police informer, who has persisted in harassing my family for 4 years. They disclosed personal data about my children to the same police informer to cause us serious distress, they fabricated 4 malicious charges against me and pursued a malicious prosecution against me which failed, they provided false information to other constabularies about me. Why would they do anything to help me, or is it possible this attack was from them.
The following email below is confirmed by Detective Superintendent Thistlethwaite of Lancashire CID, as being genuine!
On 22/4/2017 one of the arson suspects, Darren HOGAN, posted a message to our personal Facebook page. The message HOGAN wrote ‘implied‘ that Sgt Monk did not investigate the arson attack as he had “Bigger fish to fry“. The inference is that WE (the victims) are the bigger fish!
Darren HOGAN has posted a copy of an email he received from Inspector Jill Halliwell of Lancashire CID. This is the senior officer of Sgt Monk who was the assigned the IO (Investigating officer) for the arson attack.
- why is she contacting Hogan directly who is a suspect in the arson attack?
- Why is she speaking on a personal note, first name terms! – ‘Hi Darren‘
- Why is she on first name terms with Hugh. Not only did he threaten to kill ME, but he has been CHARGED.
This email was sent to Darren HOGAN (aka VELASQUES) only 5 days after the arson attack. This was before we (the victims) had even received any contact from police. This was at a time when police should have been checking finger prints, checking CCTV but they were in contact with the suspects.
Why are Lancashire CID on first name terms with those that have harassed us (one of whom has now been charged). This enforces our belief that Sgt Monk & Lancashire Police deliberately thwarted the arson investigation.
Hugh ABERCROMBIE has been CHARGED with Malicious Communications for his role in this. His court date is set for 04/05/2017 at WALSALL & ALDRIDGE MAGISTRATES COURT.
The following information is taken from the College of policing on the investigation process
Most crimes reported to the police are not major incidents and usually the officer who first attends is the only resource that is required. This officer may be the investigator throughout the enquiry.
The quality of the investigation, whether carried out in person or over the telephone, is a significant factor in gathering material that leads to the detection of a crime.
There may be limited opportunities to locate and gather material and it is vital that those who conduct the initial investigation ensure that material is not lost. Once a crime has been allocated to an investigator, it is important that they gather material from whoever took the initial report.
Investigations should be conducted thoroughly, and investigators should not assume that a crime cannot be solved or that someone else will carry out an investigation at a later stage.”
Initial investigation factors
The following factors should be considered at the initial investigation:
- scene management (identify and preserve)– FAIL
- material (identify other potential evidence sources)– FAIL
- who is the investigating officer?
- risk management
- what is the limit of the initial attending officer’s role?
- communication– FAIL
- record keeping
- handover and briefing
- community impact– FAIL
- initial fast track actions – FAIL
- investigative interviewing (witness, victim and offender) – FAIL
- initial search (access routes, exit routes, places where offenders are likely to have been). – FAIL
Police believe they did EVERYTHING THEY COULD… really?
More evidence will be added to this page as we discover more… Please revisit hourly!