PC Carmen Whittle of Lancashire Police Perverts the Course of Justice

Hiding Evidence
To report this post you need to login first.

Hits: 29

A Complaint against PC Carmen Whittle 2971 of Skelmersdale Police for conspiring to and perverting the course of justice has be submitted to Lancashire PSD department via the IPCC website.

PC Carmen Whittle 2971 met with the crime victims and after taking statements from them, agreed a course of action.  The course of action was to arrest the alleged offender (Paul Turner) and seize his computers for forensic analysis. This course of action was confirmed  formally in writing and MP, Rosie Cooper, was made aware of it.

Over the following months, PC 2971 Carmen Whittle told the victims many times that they were “unable to locate Paul Turner”.  This continued for 3 months (fast approaching the time limit for a summary only offences).  PC Carmen Whittle finally told the victims that she had unsuccessfully been to Paul Turners house, tracked his National Insurance details, tracked his benefit claims, and even pointed out that he may have been put into Police Protection (this is only for Police Informers)…

The victims took it upon themselves to find Paul Turner and did so within 30 minutes and then provided the Police with Paul Turners address and car registration details.  During this 3 months being unable to find Turner, who attended a local gym in Ormskirk every single day which the Police were fully aware of, during this time, Paul Turner (a known Police Informer) setup a hate website about the victims and published confidential information that he acquired via his Police handler, DS Andy Langton.

It is understood, as Paul turner is a confirmed police Informer, the Police intentionally attempted to delay finding the offender to allow the 6 month time limit to lapse therefore protecting him.

Once the Police were furnished with Turners details, PC Carmen Whittle of Skelmersdale Police (under orders of corrupt Inspector Charlie Cox – who has now left the police during an investigition into him) then decided, ‘not to arrest him‘ but to ask him for a voluntary attendance.  Note that this has a significant impact on the agreed course of action for the following reasons:

  1. It is not possible to seize a computer unless an arrest has been made.
  2. Giving Turner the heads up of a voluntary interview allows then to destroy evidence.

This was the reason Lancashire Police officer PC 2971 Carmen Whittle changed the agreed action, simply because she thought that by pretending Paul Turner could not be found, she could allow the crime to ‘time out‘.  During this time though, her positive actions (repeatedly telling the victims that Turner could not be found) is Misconduct in a Public Office as her misconduct was caused by an ‘Positive Action’ or S26 of the Criminal Courts and Justice Act 2015 which covers ‘inaction’.

She has intentionally perverted the course of justice.

Local MP Rosie Cooper has confirmed a meeting with the Chief Constable of Lancashire Police, Steve Finnigan to question:

  1. WHY Lancashire Police are protecting a Police Informer,  and
  2. WHAT changed to make the course of action change.

Rosie Cooper is aware that Paul Turner is a Police Informer and concerned that Lancashire Police are allowing such people to be free to commit crimes and being free from prosecution.

Update: We have been informed that PC Carmen Whittle has given a statement to say that she changed the decision to Arrest the offender (for some strange reason) and the justification was that she was giving him the chance for a voluntary attendance (heads up to destroy evidence) saying he would be arrested if he did not attend.  Turner did attend after which he offered his computers for analysis (no doubt different to those he committed the crimes with!).

As the original decision to arrest was for evidential reasons, the change in decision was wrong and criminal evidence has now been lost (intentionally).

Why would the decision be changed?  considering PC Carmen Whittle 2971 had already informed the victims that an arrest was attempted but Turner was not at home.  The victims have been given no evidence that the attempted arrest took place, this should be formally logged.  The address the Police attempted to make the arrest at was the Turners previous address which the Police were aware of, so if they did go to his previous address, why would they do this?

PSD Investigators have been informed that all criminal allegations against the Turner have been predominantly investigated by Police officers actively undergoing promotion, i.e. training as…  When this was put to PSD that this would make the officer do anything to ensure a successful promotion, PSD agreed that this would likely be the case and they would look into this.


Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.