The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!


View previous topic View next topic Go down


Post by Tony Bennett on 16.09.14 14:36

Despite the array of evidence summarised here that Lee Balkwell lost his life not through an accident, but by the deliberate actions of others, one of the country's top barristers, Karim Kahlil Q.C., intends in a trial starting on 6 October 2014 to prove that Lee's death was no more than just 'a tragic accident'   


by A Bennett, 12 March 2014

1. The claims of the Bromleys, supported for 12 years by two, interlinked, police forces, Essex and Kent: It was an ACCIDENT

Lee was climbing feet first out of an inspection hatch at about 1.00am, and was trapped and killed when Simon Bromley switched on the drum and it suddenly revolved, probably because it had been accidentally left in gear

2. The hypothesis of Les Balkwell, father of Lee Balkwell: It was NO ACCIDENT

That Lee was violently assaulted by one or more members of the Bromley family between 12.00 midnight and 1.00am. Then, in order to fake an accident, Lee was placed, conscious or unconscious, into the cement mixer drum. This was then turned on deliberately by one or more of the Bromleys, either to kill him, or to mask existing injuries

Main facts that are agreed:

  1. Lee’s lorry broke down and was repaired by Scammells Commercial between about 3.45pm and 5.30pm on 17 July 2002

  2. There was a quantity of setting concrete which needed to be ‘gunned out’ when Lee returned to the Baldwins Farm

  3. Lee and Simon Bromley were gunning out the concrete between about 7.45pm and 9.00pm that evening

  4. Lee left Baldwins Farm at 11.35pm on the CCTV and returned at 12.03am

  5. The concrete mixer was switched on shortly before David Bromley called East of England Ambulance and other emergency services  

Main facts that are in dispute:

  1. The Bromleys say there was a huge amount of concrete left to drill out, about 6 to 7 tons, which would take 5 to 6 hours’ work. Les Balkwell says that there was only about 1 hours’ concrete left to drill out

  2. The Bromleys say that work carried on continuously from 9.00pm to 1.00am. Les Balkwell says that the gunning-out stopped shortly after 9.00pm

  3. The Bromleys say that the lorry was taken down the lane between 9.07pm and 9.14pm (CCTV time) merely to ‘add water to make the gunning-out more easy’. Les Balkwell says that before the lorry went down the lane, the drum had expelled all the loose rubble, and the lorry went down the lane for a final rinse or ‘wash-out’, normal procedure at the end of a working day.

  4. The Bromleys say that the drum revolved accidentally probably because it was in gear and that Simon Bromley stopped it and then immediately reversed it. Les Balkwell says the lorry was started (and probably moved) twice, each time deliberately, about 3 minutes apart.   

Evidence in support of the claim of the Bromleys and the police:

  1. The claims of Simon Bromley, which can be shown to be full of outright lies, fabrications and evasions

  2. The claims of David Bromley, which can be shown to be full of outright lies, fabrications and evasions

  3. The claims of Scott Bromley, which contradict the claims of other members of the Bromley family

  4. The claims of Linda Bromley, which contradict the claims of other members of the Bromley family

  5. The claims of Susan Lawrence, which include obvious lies and fabrications

  6. Hearsay evidence of Lorraine Mitchinson and Jamie Nelson who say they were told that work had been carrying on after 9.00pm.

Evidence in support of Les Balkwell’s hypothesis:

A The amount of concrete left in the drum when Lee arrived back
B The condition of the concrete
C The scene at 1.20am
D The clothes worn by Lee
E The evidence that there was any work done after 9.14pm (CCTV time)
F Evidence that work had finished by 9.14pm (CCTV time)
G Were they climbing in and out of the hatches?
H When were the inspection hatches taken off?
I Evidence that the control cable was working and the rod not broken on 17/18 July
J Evidence that the cab controls were deliberately broken (i.e. after 18 July)
K Evidence that the stop button was not working
L Other expert evidence
M Contradictions in Simon Bromley’s account
N Contradictions in the accounts of David Bromley
O The behaviour of Scott Bromley in court
P Problems in the evidence of Susan Lawrence
Q Contradictions between the accounts of the Bromleys
R The strange conduct of the Bromleys
S The conduct of the police
T Other circumstantial evidence
U The evidence of several honest ‘whistleblowing’ intelligence officers
V The conduct of the CPS:
W What about the medical evidence?
X What accounts for the two piles of rubble found either side of the hatch and a quantity of rubble still in the drum?
Y What about the evidence of Lorraine Mitchinson?


A. The amount of concrete left in the drum when Lee arrived back

1.         Evidence from a builder from east London who received the second load of concrete after 6pm on 17 July - evidence that was deliberately withheld from the Inquest. He got his full load; there was little concrete left
2.         The evidence of Simon Monaghan who spoke to Lee early evening; Lee told him there was not much concrete left in the lorry 
3.         The fact that the lorry was filled up with enough concrete for two loads in the early afternoon and confirmation that both loads were successfully delivered

B. The condition of the concrete

4.         John Bond, expert engineer, said you would still be able to manipulate the concrete several hours after the drum had stopped rotating
5.         Even Simon Bromley in two of his statements said that the concrete had not set hard and wouldn’t set hard for many hours – see e.g. page 2 of interview summary with Andrew Saunders:   “…if it had been left until the next morning it would have gone off solid”   
6.         By contrast, in his evidence to the Inquest, Simon Bromley claims that the concrete “had already gone off by the [time the lorry left Scammells at around 5.30pm]”. A CONTRADICTION
7.         Then again, in another contradiction, when he attempts to explain why the cement mixer wasn’t dusty at 1.00am, he says (p. 122-3 of the Inquest): “It wasn’t dusty in there. It was wet cement. It wasn’t dry. It wasn’t bone-dry cement. Bone-dry cement, when you Kango it, would give off a lot of dust”.  ANOTHER CONTRADICTION
8. The report of David Sackett, concrete expert, obtained by Det. Supt. Lee Catling in 2011, says the same thing, namely that the concrete would have been easy to dig out and expel.

C. The scene at 1.20am  

9.         No-one could work out how Lee’s body could possibly have ended up in the position it was. The balance of evidence suggests that it was deliberately placed in that position
10.       There was no lighting at the scene; even the lead lamp seems to have been switched off, making it more difficult for those on the scene to establish what had happened
11.        The obvious lack of blood at the scene
12.       Some medical evidence that Lee had died well before 1.20am
13.       Even if Lee was in the drum (we say there is no evidence that he ever was), for what possible reason would he decide to try to get out?
14.       The blood-line going up the drum and not below it & why was the drum reversed at all?

D. The clothes worn by Lee

15.       He would not be wearing a fleece to work in
16.       His fleece was destroyed by Det Supt Bull without good reason
17.       He was found wearing boots, but on the balance of probabilities was probably in his trainers when he returned to the farm
18.       His trainers were never found
19.       The police never tested the trainers in the lorry to see whose they were
20.      Lee’s white T-shirt was never found
21.       His jeans were loose - the belt was not tight round him
22.       Lee’s jeans were burnt by Det Supt Bull without obtaining consent from the family 

E.  The evidence that there was any work done after 9.14pm (CCTV time)

23.       There is none
24.       There is no evidence of light having been provided in the drum or around the lorry
25.       No evidence that any lead light or other light was taken out before 12.12am
26.       The Kangos were outside the drum, pointing to work having finished; claims that they were ‘chucked out’ is obvious ‘backfitting’ and are not in the least credible
27.       The claims of members of the Bromley family in support of work carrying on after 9.14pm are obvious fabrications
28.       David Delivett, Ambulance Technician, noted (top of p. 2 of his statement): ‘The area was dark where the cement mixing lorry was situated’.

F. Evidence that work had finished by 9.14pm (CCTV time)

29.       The normal method of ejecting gunned-out rubble is to spin it out with the ‘worm’/corkscrew inside the drum, not to eject it by the shovelful
30.      The scene photographs show clear evidence of rubble having been ejected from the rear of the lorry, which his exactly what one would expect if the job had been finished
31.       Nick Humpish, Managing Director of Hymix, poured scorn on Simon Bromley’s claim that the lorry was taken down the lane at 9.07pm (CCTV time) in order to add water to ‘make it easier to gun out the setting concrete’. He said that would make no difference whatsoever
32.       It was becoming dark by 9.14pm
33.       The CCTV shows people going into the bungalows between 9.14pm and 9.30pm. It does not show them going back out to work on the lorry
34.       The security lights do not flash between 9.30pm and 11.35pm (apart from a brief glimpse of Simon Bromley at 10.36pm and 10.39pm), suggesting nothing was happening around the lorry during this period, and that they were all probably inside one or both bungalows 
35.       The tachograph shows no starting of the lorry between 9.14pm (CCTV time) and 1.00am (CCTV time) – a period of nearly 4 hours

G. Were they climbing in and out of the hatches?

36.        The normal procedure for ‘gunning-out’ was to use the rear entrance to the drum, loosen the setting concrete, and then expel it out of the back at the end of the job. Simon Bromley concedes this in his interview under caution by Jason Weald. Clearly this was what e.g. Jamie Nelson and Lewis Colley were able to observe when they were on site (see their statements)
37.       It (climbing in and out of the hatches) was a procedure Bromley had never used before and was virtually unknown in the industry
38.       They would have been doing this extremely difficult procedure in the dark
39.       Asked by the ambulance staff how Lee was injured, Simon Bromley says: “I don’t know...I can’t see, it’s all dark out there
40.       It would require great agility to manoeuvre oneself feet first out of the inspection hatch and in the dark
41.       Despite claims that they were each exiting from different hatches, one hatch had no clothing fibres traceable (see also next point), showing it was never used for ingress or egress
42.       Each hatch has two to three inches of sharp ballast around its rim. This would have ripped the clothing and possibly the flesh of anyone trying to climb in or out
43.       Bromley claims that they took the inspection hatches off when it became clear that gunning-out the setting concrete from the rear wasn’t working. But the inspection hatches were still on at 9.14pm – around an hour-and-a-half after they had started. Why take so long to decide on a different ‘modus operandi’? The evidence anyway is that the work had finished and was being taken for its final rinse at 9.08pm to 9.14pm

H. When were the inspection hatches taken off?

44. The CCTV evidence is clear that the hatches were still on the lorry when the lorry comes up the lane at 9.14pm. The only evidence as to when they came off comes from Simon Bromley
45.       Simon Bromley is always evasive when answering questions about when the inspection hatches were taken off
46.       Simon Bromley takes out what looks like a set of tools, very possibly including a spanner, shortly after 12midnight. That suggests that this was the moment at which he decided to take off the inspection hatches and did so
47.       Despite Simon Bromley’s claim that the inspection hatches were taken off to promote the ‘inching round’ procedure, at the Inquest he says that ‘inching round’ did not occur at all after the inspection hatches were taken off. This is also a ‘BACKFITTING’ CHANGE OF STORY’

I. Evidence that the control cable was working and the rod not broken on 17/18 July

48.       Lee had never mentioned a broken control rod to his father
49.       Lee had never mentioned any broken control rod to Simon Bromley
50.       Simon Bromley himself was unaware that it had been broken
51.        Dave Scammell of Scammells Commercial admitted that as an educated guess it must have been working when brought into him on 17 July
52.       It is probable that the control cable was used to test the roller bearing on 17 July at Scammells Commercial
53.       The person writing up the scene log (P.C. Slade) noted twice that the control  lever in the cab was working and used to control and move the drum

J. Evidence that the cab controls were deliberately broken (i.e. after 18 July)

54.        Nick Humpish, Managing Director of Hymix, says the control rod was ‘sheared off’ i.e. not in normal wear and tear
55.        John Bond says exactly the same
56.        The H.S.E. expert says exactly the same
57.        Engineer Philip Ivey-Ray says exactly the same
58.        Other experts say exactly the same; the only was who doesn’t is a metallurgist called in by Det. Supt. Lee Catling in 2011
59.        Despite all the above overwhelming evidence, Det Supt Lee Catling decided to instruct a metallurgist (David Price), who came up with a different view. But the metallurgist’s view, apart from being contrary to those of five other engineers, was effectively demolished in detailed response by John Bond. It raises serious questions as to why Catling decided to obtain this report 

K. Evidence that the stop button was not working

60.      John Felstead’s report on 24 July 2002 showed the stop button was functioning normally. and John Hennessey’s report also found no problem with the functioning of the stop button.
61. Simon Bromley himself claims that he was using the stop button perfectly normally throughout the evening (p. 37, Weald interview). If this were true, there would be no reason for the stop button to fail at 1.00am

L. Other expert evidence

62.       The clear tachograph evidence: A. The engine was not switched on at all between 9.14pm and 12.58am (nearly 4 hours)
63.       The clear tachograph evidence: B. There were two starts at least 3 minutes apart from each other between at around 1.00am – none of Simon Bromley’s statements account for this
64.       The clear tachograph evidence: C. There is clear evidence (especially from Andrew Whiteford) that the lorry was physically moved (forwards or backwards) on both occasions around 1.00am - again something that Simon Bromley cannot explain  
65.        John Bond says in a report: “It is therefore my opinion…that it is highly improbable that the fatal injury/ies to Mr Balkwell were caused by his entrapment by the hatch/vehicle chassis as he attempted to exit from the drum, feet first, while the drum was rotating…If Mr Balkwell had been trying to climb out of the drum at the material time, his body could not have reached the position that the emergency services found it after being called to the site”
66.       The evidence of John Bond on 22 January 2014: “It is my further opinion that it is highly improbable that the alleged incident as claimed by Mr Simon Bromley took place at all”.
67.       The decibel tests proved that Simon Bromley’s claim - that the person inside the drum would shout out the best position for the drum to be ‘inched round’ to - was palpable nonsense
68.      Dr Andrew Morris said that the hatch would have to be at 110 to 120 degrees from the vertical to allow ingress and egress. It would always have to be in a similar position to allow ingress and egress, therefore effectively refuting the ‘inching round’ claim

M. Contradictions in Simon Bromley’s account

69.       He claims in an early statement: ‘We’d been at it all night’ and ‘We was hard at it all the time’ (Weald interview). Yet there is no credible evidence of work carrying on after 9.14pm (CCTV time)
70.        He says we were ‘working on it’ and ‘inching it round’ all night, yet when challenged at the Inquest, he said that no inching round had occurred for ‘2 or 3 hours’ since the inspection hatches were taken off’: ‘BACKFITTING’ CHANGE OF STORY
71.        If his account were true, the drum would have revolved at least one and two thirds revolutions, if not a lot more, yet only about 30” of blood line were found. If he had given a truthful account in the first place, there would be no contradictions such as this one
72.        He does not initially say anything at all about ‘reversing’ the drum.
73.        Later he gives contradictory accounts and changes his story about  exactly when and why he did this ‘reversing’ procedure
74.        In one version of events, told to a Mr Gary Severn, Simon Bromley claimed that he realised something was wrong when he ‘heard a thud’, yet another CHANGE OF STORY 
75.       If the drum suddenly spun round ‘quite fast’, and he knew that Lee was in the drum, why did he not stop the drum immediately? He cannot answer that question
76.       Neither he nor any of the Bromleys can give a credible explanation of why there are two separate strike marks on the tachograph, 3 minutes apart (that is, engine starts), and when it seems probable that the lorry was also moved slightly on each occasion 
77.       On one occasion Simon Bromley mentions that they had ‘torches’ in the drum, but then never mentions them again. No torches were found in the drum or elsewhere around the lorry
78.       In some versions of events, Simon Bromley he ‘tried to pull Lee out’; in other versions, he never mentions this. On one occasions he uses the phrase ‘picked him up’ (Weald interview, p. 62). Another version, from Scott Bromley, is that Simon ‘touched his legs’
79.       In his interview with Andrew Saunders (summary, p. 6), Bromley is asked to explain why two Kango drills are found neatly placed in the piles of rubble outside the drum. He replies:  “I don’t think I put my Kango hammer outside the drum – I can’t rightly remember”. Yet later, and at the Inquest, he changed his story to claim that he has ‘chucked them out of the drum’ before the claimed ‘inching round’ procedure. A jury member at the Inquest exposed the absurdity of this claim. He then could not explain how they got into the two piles of rubble
80.      In the interview with Weald, he gets confused about exactly when he is supposed to have reversed the drum, say he cannot remember
81.        In the Inquest (p. 100) Simon Bromley suddenly invents a completely new version of why he wanted to ‘inch round’ the drum at 1.00am, he says: “What we’ll do, I will get out and start the motor, and we will move it round so that the inspection hatch is from there, so we can chuck stuff out the bottom”
82.      The above explanation is wholly improbable in that he had not apparently thought of it for the previous 5 hours
83.      If the above explanation were true, he would not have needed Lee to stay in the drum as it would be perfectly obvious when the hatch had reached the bottom (see diagram)
84.       Even Det Supt Coxall conceded that Simon Bromley had given a number of (different) accounts
85.       The CCTV evidence contradicts Simon Bromley’s claim that he was working inside the drum all the time from about 7.45pm to 9.00pm (see CCTV and Inquest, pp. 109 & 110)
86.      At p. 122 of the Inquest, his recollection of what light was used in the drum is wholly unconvincing and contradicts other versions he has given about the lighting 
87.       Simon Bromley’s claim (Inquest, p. 111) that the lorry was being taken down the lane to make it easier to drill out the remaining concrete is contradicted by Nicholas Humpish’s evidence which is that this would not help at all
88.      The convoluted and conflicting accounts of what was supposed to have happened to the two Kangos at the time of the incident (pages 124 and again 129 of the Inquest transcript) demonstrate that this incident never happened; the position of the two Kangos wholly lacks a credible explanation
89.      Russell Webb, firefighter, noted in his Statement of 11 January 2007: “I also found it strange that if the deceased was drilling out the mixer drum at the time, then why was the drill placed outside of the vehicle on our arrival?”

N. Contradictions in the accounts of David Bromley

90.      Originally, he said he didn’t know who Lee was, later the Bromleys all said that he had been a friend of the family for years – noted by Les Balkwell’s barrister at the Inquest
91.       His claims of not having gone to bed at 9.00pm are not credible 
92.       His claims of not knowing who he was talking to for 10 minutes or so between 7.00pm and 8.00pm, is wholly unbelievable
93.       His claims of not remembering if anyone came on to the farm that evening also wholly lack credibility  
94.       His claims of not being able to remember if he was out there for two hours - despite CCTV evidence to the contrary - also wholly lacks credibility 
95.       His evasive answers about what we say is a suitcase full of drugs being carried by him into his bungalow also wholly lack credibility

O. The behaviour of Scott Bromley in court

96.        Lee Balkwell’s barrister cited the demeanour of Scott Bromley in court

P. Problems in the evidence of Susan Lawrence

97.       Her account of taking out drinks to the men is manifestly fabricated and is disproved by the CCTV evidence (see e.g. p. 53 of her Inquest transcript evidence)
98.      Her account of how she claims to have seen Lee Balkwell climbing out of the inspection hatch in daylight wholly lacks credibility
99.       She claimed in a statement dated 1 June 2005 that she had a direct conversation with Lee and Simon Bromley late in the evening but at the Inquest (her evidence, pages 28 and 34), she contradicts herself and can’t say whether this alleged conversation was at the front door or by the lorry, or whether she spoke to them and received any answer  
100.    She makes claims about the lighting which appear totally unconvincing (Inquest, pages 35 to 36)   

Q. Contradictions between the accounts of the Bromleys

101.     Scott Bromley says he and Simon went to look at Lee’s body and Simon touched Lee’s leg. Simon Bromley never mentions this at all
102.     Simon Bromley says he ran in to wake up his Dad. He never mentions seeing Simon first of all and then going to re-check the lorry
103.     Linda Bromley says that she wakes up David Bromley. Both Linda Bromley and Simon Bromley are alleged to have woken up David Bromley  
104.      In his interview with Andrew Saunders, Simon Bromley says: “I don’t know whether my brother Scott was there or not…”  Yet Scott Bromley gives a detailed account of how he met Simon coming in to the bungalow and then went out to the lorry with Simon and Simon ‘touched Lee’s legs’
105.     Linda Bromley claims that she saw Simon ‘collapse’ to his knees and to the floor twice whilst running across the yard. Yet Simon never mentions this ‘collapsing’
106.     They all give wholly different versions of why known drugs courier Glen Nicholls came on to the property with what is with little doubt a suitcase full of cocaine
107.     Linda, Scott and David Bromley all say they were in the kitchen when Simon is supposed to have rushed in, but Simon doesn’t mention this  
108.     Scott Bromley is totally unable to say where he was earlier that evening and cannot remember if he was in the bedroom or the front room between 12midnight and 1.00am (his Inquest evidence, p. 66-67)

R. The strange conduct of the Bromleys

109.     David Bromley saying : ‘You’ll enjoy this one’ to the firefighter
110.  David Bromley not knowing where Lee’s body was (or pretending not to know) and leading the ambulance officer all around the lorry before finding Lee’s body 
111. The claim of Susan Lawrence that it took her 45 minutes to an hour while ambulance, police and fire crew were there before emerging to ask ‘what’s going on?’ – and then suddenly becoming hysterical. The professional staff there found that very strange
112.     Simon Bromley’s strange demeanours on the night: calm, cool and collected at certain moments, apparently extremely distraught at other times, when meeting emergency service personnel  
113.     Switching off the lead lamp before the emergency services arrived in order to make it more difficult for them to find out what had happened 
114.     They nearly all deny knowing the identities of the people who visited Baldwins Farm earlier that evening [Glen Nicholls, Jamie Nelson, Marlon John]

S. The conduct of the police

115.       See the IPCC final report on 30 January 2012; this is self-explanatory; 26 separate and serious findings of misconduct against 8 officers, most of them senior officers
116.      Withholding the evidence of the east London builder
117.       Withholding the initial written report/handover statement of Mark Hall
118.      Police having lied about the availability of mobile ’phone records
119.     Police having lied about the existence of a Scenes of Crime Report (we hold a statement that there never was one
120.     Rejecting the IPCC’s recommendation that there should be an immediate re-investigation by an outside police force
121.      Appointing Kent Police to carry out a review, when the two forces were clearly interconnected in a number of important ways   
122.     Weald lying about the foot pedal not working (not covered in IPCC report)
123.     Denying there was a drugs delivery at Baldwins Farm during the evening of 17 July 2002
124.      Claiming to review a 7-hour CCTV for evidence of criminality in 1½ hours without having had an adequate briefing on the subject (Burgess & Bridge)
125.      Claiming to have an expert analyst carry out a review of the contradictions between all the Bromleys’ accounts without apparently finding anything significant (when Garnish was the S.I.O.)

T. Other circumstantial evidence

126.     Glen Nicholls having referred to a ‘murder’
127.     There is the evidence of Steven White who saw Simon Bromley and others counting huge piles of notes on a pool table

U. The evidence of several honest ‘whistleblowing’ intelligence officers

128.      See statement of Les Balkwell and family members about their briefing by ‘John’ and ‘Geoff’. Why has no police officer over 12 years offered them immunity from prosecution under the Official Secrets Act and full pension protection in order to find out what they know about corruption in Essex Police and in particular in their intelligence department?’
129.     Les Balkwell has had help from several other honest whistleblowers in the police, security and intelligence services who have given him assistance - another indication that Lee’s death was murder, but has been covered up by corrupt senior police officers.
130. The release to Les Balkwell of thousands of documents (in paper and disk form) from Operation Portwing is yet another indication that honest ‘whistleblowers’ were intent on helping Les Balkwell arrive at the truth about his son’s death. These documents contain verifiable information about corrupt police officers, dog handlers and Customs & Excise officials.         
131. Former Det. Chief. Supt. Reynolds was the Line Manager to both Det. Supt. Bull and Det. Supt. Coxall until 2005, when he obtained a post as a Senior Investigator with the IPCC. In 2009 we submitted a dossier on him to the IPCC Chief Executive, Jane Furniss, containing good evidence that he was corrupt whilst employed by Essex Police. We hold a statement from a former police officer who has given details of Reynolds’ corruption in the case of police informer Damon Alvin, who was corruptly allowed to walk free after having been actively involved in the murder of Dean Boshell.   

V. The conduct of the CPS:

132.      The failure of Christopher McCann in August 2002 to (a) recognise that this was not just a ‘tragic accident’ (b) to suggest any charges whatsoever, not even negligence and (c) not to recommend that any further enquiries be undertaken
133.     The failure of the CPS again, in 2003, to do any of the above when approached by Det Supt Coxall
134.     The rejection, once again, by Christopher McCann, of any of the above, on 10 April 2006 (letter to Det Supt Coxall):  “I agree with the prognosis within the file that there is no evidence upon which to prosecute murder, manslaughter, or any form of assault arising from the death of Lee Balkwell”.
135.     The appointment of Nick Staite in 2008, claiming he was an independent CPS lawyer, when clearly he was not, and was throughout responsible to Christopher McCann

W. What about the medical evidence?

136.     It is conceded that no pathologist has yet seen any unequivocal evidence of attack, defence or restraint wounds. However, all have conceded that the drum could have been switched on deliberately to mask earlier injuries

X. What accounts for the two piles of rubble found either side of the hatch and a quantity of rubble still in the

137.      Jamie Nelson’s claim that they were ‘chucking the rubble out the back’ and that he wasn’t frightened of being hit by a lump of concrete when he went to talk to the two men gunning out is not credible, as a jury member evidently realised
138.     In order for any rubble to be ejected by shovelling rubble out of the hatch (which is not the normal method of expulsion), the hatch would have to be low, near the chassis bars. The other hatch would have been far too high for anyone to be able to shovel material out of it. Besides that, in shovelling out the concrete, bits of concrete would have bounced against the side of the hatch and back on to them
139.      The structure of each of the piles of rubble looks like it has been created by being tipped the out of a barrow
140.      There is no rubble on the chassis bars on the nearside, effectively proving that that inspection hatch was never used that night, as falsely claimed  

Y. What about the evidence of Lorraine Mitchinson?

141.      (a) she received a very large payout from the Bromleys (b) she has maintained that this was an accident from Day One when she cannot know what actually happened and (c) she has been seen out and about at events in the close company of Simon Bromley. Her evidence, such as it is, is worthless, and may even be, in part, fabricated to promote the accident scenario


The amazing symbiosis between bees and flowers:  

Tony Bennett

Posts : 14978
Reputation : 3029
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum