Murder Underlying the News of the World Scandal







This man is Jonathan Rees, a former Met officer and private detective jailed for trying to frame someone as an unreliable witness in divorce proceedings.  He was also suspected of a 20 year old axe murder – that of his partner back then, the body found in the car park of a South London pub.  Details at:

The murder remains unsolved.  The CPS offered ‘no evidence’ after 19 months of legal wrangling.  The case raises some interesting issues on just what a ‘reliable witness’ is, given ‘supergrass’ evidence was intended to be presented.  On what I’ve read, I would not have been convinced by the ‘evidence’ and am more inclined to see it as yet more evidence that police and prosecution investigations need more active scrutiny than we give them.

Rees was caught out through the use of a wire put in his office – this in respect of framing the woman.  One has to wonder why this was not possible in 1987 when his partner Daniel Morgan was murdered, especially as both Rees and Morgan had been suspected of working with corrupt Met officers.

Rees may well be innocent of the Morgan murder and is calling for a public enquiry himself, as are Morgan’s relatives.  I’d call for one too, if I believed they weren’t just another part of the clown secrecy establishment’s white-wash weaponry.

In Stockwell, there blatant facts were first of dire cock up, then interference with the already laggardly IPCC along with the leaking of a pack of lies, then the cover up of officers being allowed to collude, the dumb story of shouting warnings that 17 members of the public didn’t hear – all not evidence of utter stupidity and lying, apparently – but never put to a real jury.  The Tomlinson evidence is again obvious and again there was severe reluctance to put it to a real jury.

In this case it appears a senior Met man has lied to Parliament and all sorts of assurances given by worthies are turning to dust.  Bent Met people seem all around as much as when I worked there before the alleged purge.  As ever, I see the police as no special case – there is now widespread corruption in politics, the press, finance and the law.  Everywhere there is self-regulation it fails.  By the time cops start trying to discredit people trying to get them to do their jobs and our courts turn evidence of innocence to that of guilt (Nico Bento) and what 17 people actually don’t hear is not good enough evidence that something was not shouted, it’s hardly surprising our Prime Minister hires a sleazy media magician.

There are ways to approach these matters without judges, public enquiries and the kind of stuff that eventually tells us a sexed up dossier wasn’t sexed up and that an ice cream cone in the possession of an Iraqi is a shaped-charge WMD; or that the Met is institutionally racist when the real problem was that some bimbo in uniform didn’t do what she could have for a poor guy who’d been stabbed.  Something is very rotten in the State of Denmark.  It’s a rotten orchard and we need a much wider focus than blaming individuals or cops.

What are we not getting while resources are wasted on 20 year old cases making fortunes for lawyers, what news do we not get as the Dirty Digger’s functionaries turn down the expenses scandal, and how corrupt are our politicians that they just have to be better at spin rather than tell the truth directly?  There is a bigger story we are blind to as this muck unfolds.  Why is our Parliament so quiet on how the very rich are getting richer?

Do our courts know what evidence is?

At 2:00 in the morning on 25 January 1995, Boston police officer Kenny Conley was chasing a shooting suspect who climbed over a chain-link fence. An undercover officer named Michael Cox had arrived on the scene moments earlier, but other officers had mistaken him for a suspect, assaulted him from behind, and brutally beat him. Conley chased the suspect over the fence and apprehended him some time later. In later testimony, Conley said that he ran right past the place where Cox was under attack, but he claimed not to have seen the incident. The investigators, prosecutors, and jurors in the case all assumed that because Conley could have seen the beating, Conley must have seen the beating, and therefore must have been lying to protect his comrades. Conley was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice and was sentenced to thirty-four months in jail.

This is obviously a US case, but courts around the world have difficulty with “evidence”.  There’s a long list from the UK I’m aware of – Nico Bento being the classic, in which the very evidence that should have secured his acquittal was turned to the damning piece.  This involved a judge and jury being asked not to believer their own eyes but the cock-and-bull of an “expert” already discredited elsewhere.

Kenny Conley is more likely a decent cop doing his job with some bravery than some in the UK public eye recently.  The matter is reported in the journal i-Perception –

This journal has much about it I would commend, notably that it is free to read and freely available – a model our public affairs should follow.

Our court systems rely on concepts of evidence that are very dated.  Decisions on fact are essentially taken by lay people – magistrates and juries.  This might be a good thing, given some of what is emerging on “expert” decisions in the Crown Prosecution Service and seeps out on bureaucratic manipulations in the like of Baby P, though the same flaws are present in our court rooms because what can be presented in court is severely limited by cost, representation and ‘legal rules’.

Human history is not one in which many people have shown much notion of what real evidence is.  In this case, it isn’t so much that the academics have established that it is quite likely that we might well not see and incident whilst focused on another, but that courts are making decisions on what they cannot know as though they could and prepared to send people to jail on that basis.  Many questions spring up, including that if this can happen to a cop with representation, what else might be going on in cases with no representation?

I feel for Kenny, having been in a similar situation.  The point really though is that the time for our courts to be subjected to proper public scrutiny is long overdue – and this needs to be scrutiny beyond that of superior courts.  I gave evidence that wasn’t quite true in order to both tell the truth and defend an officer doing his job.  Other officers present lied that they could not see the incident, something easily disproved in an recreation (there wasn’t one).  I was some distance further away and arresting someone else – they were, in fact, just watching and the idle and incompetent of many other incidents.

Our courts have been pretending on evidence for centuries.  Our legal system is based on fictions and in no way approaches scientific criteria on evidence – it could not entirely of course.  What really worries me about Kenny’s case is that we would send a man to jail in the belief he was lying about the fact that he could have given evidence, with no one bothering to find out whether anyone was likely to have been able to.

One cannot read i-Perception and conclude anyone was likely to be able to give the evidence Kenny was assumed to have been able to witness.  Yet we assume all kinds of worthies can’t see the blatant corruption around them in Baby P, Parliamentary expenses and in hiring a bent forensic expert who lies to court (Bento) or in CPS decision-making on Harwood and in failing to disclose on undercover officers etc.  All these worthies are clearly more guilty than Kenny, even if he did see the fight.  Unlike the nose-in-the-troughs the sharp end appears exposed to the same unfair ‘justice’ as the rest of us.

What about an experiment on whether we would ‘see’ corruption around us?  The Establishment knows we do – that’s why Tisdale and the guy who told us which direction the Belgrano was sailing in were prosecuted and why whistle-blowers are treated like lepers.

Kenny Conley eventually won on appeal, though not on the academic research.  My own feelings are that it is time to stop the nonsense of magistrates and juries making up their minds on whatever is skewed at them in the weird settings of courtrooms.  Could we not come up with a better system of public scrutiny?  I don’t really mean new court systems – something systemic that would not have to rely on ‘personal integrity’ or ‘value ethics’ acting in secret?

Protesting the Soham Killer

Huntley deserves nothing other than the squeeze of an index finger, and the bliss of not knowing the expanding magnum that ends his life.

He is now suing for around £100,000, no doubt with legal aid.  Yet our wonderful legal system is not so clear on the “rights” of Ian Tomlinson’s family, or many victims of antisocial criminals and others failed by our agencies, or whole communities blighted by Council ‘allocation policies’ and other wonderful practices that lead to violent, nuisance scum and paedophiles being dumped on their victims (thus protecting rich people and saving prison costs).

The few of our MPs and Lords being prosecuted for obvious thieving are spending lots more legal aid on spurious legal drongo making more lawyers and judges rich whilst doing nothing for most of us other than make us sick.  We see high profile libel cases over nothing, mad Egyptians with conspiracy theories and other weird examples littering our courts.

Huntley, scalded and knifed, was probably better protected than any of the victims living with dire social services and police protection.  This won’t do.  One of the reasons Huntley can sue is that his suit won’t produce a flood of others.  To give turds like this ‘more rights’ than decent people is ludicrous.