The death of Lee Balkwell. ROMFORD RECORDER: Proof that my son was tortured

Today's news:

http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/content/havering/recorder/news/story.aspx?brand=RECOnline&category=newsRomford&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsromford&itemid=WeED04%20Dec%202009%2012%3A53%3A38%3A203

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Balkwell

Website:

http://www.justiceforleebalkwell.com/

The death of Lee Balkwell

Was it an accident? Was it foul play? Time for Essex Police and the Health and Safety Executive to make up their minds

15 reasons why the evidence points to foul play

Notes made by Tony Bennett in advance of a meeting on 25 April 2008 between Les Balkwell (father), Mr E Scoggins, HM Principal Inspector of Health and Safety, and Detective Superintendent Keith Garnish and Detective Constable Ian Rayner of Essex Police.

Background

At 1.03am on 18 July 2002, Mr David Bromley, of Baldwins Farm, South Ockendon, Essex, telephoned 999 and reported that Lee Balkwell was dead, ‘hanging out of a concrete mixer’.

Ever since then, the authorities - Essex Police, the Health and Safety Executive and the Centre for Corporate Accountability, have held that this was an accident (the C.C.A. has an entry to this effect on the Internet). Since late in 2002, Lee’s father Les Balkwell has suspected that foul play caused his son’s death.

For reasons yet to be fully explained, and after three abortive police investigations (currently being inquired into by a top-level, independnet enquiry team appointed by the Independent Police Complaints Commission), the inquest into Lee’s death was not held until January and February 2008, over 5½ years after he was killed. The Office for Judicial Complaints is currently investigating complaints against the Coroner relating to the delay in holding the inquest and the conduct of it.

During the inquest, the three barristers representing Essex Police made 25 separate applications for evidence to be kept out of the inquest, mostly concerning police action in the cases. 24 of those 25 objections were allowed by the Coroner. The Coroner also refused to allow Mr Balkwell’s team to adduce 15 relevant witnesses. The jury were consequently deprived of much evidence.

Moreover, the Coroner refused to allow the jury to reach a verdict of ‘unlawful killing by homicide [murder]’, despite a submission by Les Balkwell’s barrister, Tony Ventham, that there was ‘overwhelming circumstantial evidence’ of foul play that night.

The role of Essex Police and the Health and Safety Executive

Mr Scoggins, HM Principal Inspector of Health and Safety at the Chelmsford H.S.E., has helpfully outlined arrangements the H.S.E. and the police are expected to adopt under what is called the ‘Work-Related Death Procedures/Protocol’. This has been updated from time to time but basically three scenarios are possible:

1) Murder or foul play: Essex Police have primacy and H.S.E. have, in short, nothing to do with the investigation

2) An accident caused by manslaughter or gross negligence: Joint investigation by Essex Police and H.S.E. under the direction of a senior police officer

3) An unfortunate accident where there is little or no evidence of negligence: investigation by the H.S.E.

That makes sense, but what has happened here?

It is crystal clear that the H.S.E. has been deliberately kept out of the picture for nearly 5 years, has been deprived of information and has not been able to take any part at all in any of the three so-called ‘investigations’. Under the Work-Related Deaths Protocol, that can only happen under Scenario 1, namely - that Essex Police suspect murder or foul play. Yet, throughout, the police have maintained that this was ‘only an accident’.

They maintained this position right up to the inquest, at the inquest, and even now, after the jury’s unanimous ‘unlawful killing’ verdict, they are maintaining this position. They have even, apparently, written to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority stating that this was ‘only an accident’ (this followed a formal claim by Mr and Mrs Balkwell for compensation from the CICA in respect of a fatal death to a relative. In such cases, £5,500 is awarded to each relative, plus funeral costs).

Evidence of foul play

Here I summarise in a few key points the evidence that Lee Balkwell was assaulted and murdered - and did not die in a freak accident whilst working in a concrete mixer at 1.00am, as the Bromley family have maintained.

Mr Balkwell maintains that his son was assaulted by [withhled] His body was then placed in the concrete mixer to make it look like an accident.

The Bromleys have maintained that Lee and Simon Bromley were working on ‘Kango-ing out’ setting, or ‘green’, concrete from 7.30pm to 1.00am, the evening he died, a total of 5½ hours, and that Lee Balkwell was climbing out of a 14-inch wide inspection hatch, encrusted with up to two or three inches of razor-sharp ballast, when Simon Bromley switched on the engine, the drum somehow (as yet unexplained) started revolving quickly, and Lee was caught up in the revolving drum, was trapped, and was killed more or less instantly.

15 ‘pointers’

1. Res ipsa loquitur: The things speaks for itself

The likelihood of someone working in a concrete mixer at 1.00am, that he would choose to exit out of a 14” inspection hatch encrusted with sharp ballast making it even narrower (when the normal means of exit was the much wider rear discharge aperture), and that at the same time the drum would suddenly revolve so fast as to trap him in the drum is so improbable that these alleged circumstances warrant the very closest scrutiny and suspicion

2. Accounts by those to whom Simon Bromley spoke after the accident

[Details withheld]

3. The impossibility of Lee climbing out of the inspection hatch

It is claimed that, for the accident to have happened, Lee must have been climbing out of the open inspection hatch. There are several obvious reasons why this was impossible:

(a) there is no reason to exit via an inspection hatch when the normal and far better means of exit is via the rear discharge aperture

(b) the inspection hatch was only 14” wide. Lee had a 38” waist and was sufficiently well-built to fall into the ‘obese’ category on the ‘Body Mass Index’ scale

(c) in addition, there was up to 3” of encrusted sharp ballast around the edges. Anyone, especially of Lee’s dimensions, trying to exit through the inspection hatch, would have ripped their skin to shreds trying to get through.

4. The clearest possible evidence that Simon Bromley was not ‘inching round’ the drum all night as was claimed

Simon Bromley claimed to police that the ‘accident’ happened when he was trying to ‘inch round’ the drum so as to make it easier to ‘Kango out’ the remaining ‘green concrete’. The tachograph evidence is against him. The tachograph evidence shows that the concrete mixer was switched on twice around 7.30pm, which is consistent with what we see on the CCTV video recording. The same is true of two ‘strike marks; when the lorry is switched on just after 9.00pm.

There are then two clear ‘strike marks’ at 12.59pm and 1.03pm (times adjusted to ‘real time’). These, we say, are times that the lorry and drum were switched on...

[rest withheld]

5. Evidence that the Kango-ing out had finished at 9.10pm

The drum revolving rapidly as it comes up the lane at just after 9.00pm is powerful evidence that the job of Kango-ing out had been finished - consistent with what we say happened after that, namely that Lee went into Simon Bromley’s bungalow to socialise in the ‘pool room’ [rest withheld]

6. Evidence that the inspection hatches were not opened until after midnight

The CCTV video also shows clearly that at this time (9.00pm) the inspection hatches were not open. This ties in with other evidence which shows that the inspection hatches were deeply rusted and could only be dislodged by banging off the bolts. At least two were shown to have been sheared off because they were so deeply rusted into the hatch. The most likely explanation for the hatch being found removed on the arrival of the ambulance is that they were taken off in a hurry by the Bromleys, between 12 midnight and 1.00pm

7. Clear evidence that the only lighting found at the lorry was a lead lamp outside the lorry and that it was taken out to the lorry by Simon Bromley at about 12 minutes past midnight

The evidence provided by the ‘lead lamp’ is very telling. Here is what we know about it and can deduce from what we know about it:

(a) the lead lamp is shown being taken out by Simon Bromley at about 12.10am. We say this is probably minutes after Lee was assaulted/stabbed

(b) the lead lamp is pictured outside the lorry when photographed by P.C. Wojcik, Scenes-of-Crime Officer

(c) in the police picture, the lead lamp is pristine, shiny and new, looking as if it has just been taken out of a box

(d) we know from other evidence at the inquest that there was no convincing evidence from any of the Bromley family that the lorry or the interior of the drum was lit during the evening

(e) we can deduce from these facts that Simon Bromley brought the lead lamp out of the lorry for some purpose other than using it for Kango-ing out the drum. Its obvious purpose was [details withheld]

8. Lee’s body could not have ended up in the position it did by accident

The position of Lee’s body. In short, it is impossible to conceive how it could have ‘accidentally’ rested in that position, especially with one leg being wound round the chassis bar. The obvious solution is that it was placed there by someone

9. Lee would not have been wearing his blue fleece inside the drum on a hot night. Yet he was found wearing it

The fact that Lee was found in the concrete mixer with is blue fleece on. Given that it was a warm and sticky night, confirmed by meteorological records, he would simply not have been working in his fleece. He was seen on CCTV returning at midnight in his fleece. It is likely that he still had it on when he was assaulted/stabbed

10. Lee’s trainers were not found where he would undoubtedly have left them - in his pick-up truck. They were found in the lorry - a fact that Essex Police withheld from Les Balkwell for well over 4½ years

His trainers were not found in his pick-up truck. In his witness statement, Les Balkwell says that by long force of habit, Lee would change into his trainers the moment he had finished work.

The CCTV shows that when he left Baldwins Farm at around 11.35pm, he was two or three minutes before switching on the lights of his truck and driving off. Almost certainly, says Les, he was kicking off his boots and putting on his trainers. If so, he no doubt returned at midnight in his trainers. So how was he found in his boots? [other details withheld]

This also explains why both Detective Superintendent Bull and Detective Superintendent Coxall could never explain to Les where the trainers were or indeed whether they were ever found. Only when Detective Constable Ian Rayner mentioned some photographs in 2007 did Les Balkwell learn for the very first time that they had been found in the cab of the lorry. Lee would never have put them there. It is suggested that one of the Bromleys placed them there. No forensics of the trainers were ever done, according to the police.

11. Obvious lies told by Susan Lawrence at the inquest

The conduct of Susan Lawrence (Simon Bromley’s partner) in the inquest.

(a) she claimed that she had gone out to the lorry to give drinks to Lee and Simon. The CCTV conclusively proved that she did not, and that she was therefore lying

(b) she said that she had seen Lee climbing out of the inspection hatch during the evening. When asked to describe how he emerged through the hatch, head first or feet fist, she gave a hesitant and convoluted explanation that was easily recognisable as a lie

(c) without anyone ever mentioning a knife [details withheld]

12. The impossibility of the drum starting to turn at all, never mind fast, without being switched on.

The drum could not have started to turn at all, never mind fast, without someone taking specific action to switch it on. The evidence on this is somewhat technical, but essentially it would require an extraordinary combination of circumstances for the drum to operate without someone manually switching it on. Taken together with all the other evidence, it is clear that the engine and drum [details withheld]

13. Evidence of one or two stab wounds

[details withheld]

14. The mystery of Lee’s belt

The evidence shows that Lee’s belt was not on him when he was photographed by Essex Police in the morning of 18 July. Yet it was on him in the mortuary. There is more to say about this vital issue but the rest of what we want to say on that issue is being withheld and given only to the I.P.C.C. or to an outside force - if Essex Police grant the repeated request of Mr Balkwell for an outside force to investigate Lee’s death.

15. The mystery of the defective cab controls

Simon Bromley claimed that the cab controls weren’t working the night Lee died. He needed to claim that because it backed up his story of how Lee suddenly became trapped at 1.00am in the concrete mixer. But we know from Dave Scammell of Scammell Commercial that the cab controls were working the afternoon Lee died. We know from the Fire Service that they were working when they had the difficult task of removing Lee’s body the following morning. So why weren’t they working a week later when Essex Police photographed them? Because [details withheld]

--------------------------------------------------

Note: This is only a provisional list of some of the main evidential pointers towards foul play. It is likely to be added to, as and when the Inquest Transcript is made available to Mr Balkwell, and after additional research, analysis and evaluation is undertaken based on the information available to us and which may be forthcoming in due course.


Tony Bennett 18 April 2008 (revised 25 April 2008)
Harlow, Essex

[Additional note: 19 months has elapsed sine this report was written and new evidence has now come to light; the report is presented here to give an introduction to the main gorunds for believing that Lee Balkwell's death was not accidental].

Tony - do you think it;s going to snow. It feels really really chilly round these parts

In all honesty, and in truth no insult intended, with your history Mr Bennett, do you think you can help this family? I mean, you say there is nothing to answer, you are 100% innocent, as with the Lubbock case, you say so, I will accept it.

However, do you think your past history will be a hinderance here?

The nagging fraud thing? Lubbock, Madeleine? IS there any sort of fund for this case Mr Bennett?

For god's sake Mr. Bennett leave these grieving families alone why don't you ! Have you nothing better to do than to search the internet looking for grieving parents to assist ( and I use the word assist lightly) Have you no family Mr.Bennett,? if the answer to this question is yes , Well go spend time with them .
Have you ever lost a child Mr B. ? If you have you would know your attention on these parents are nothing more than vinegar to wounds .
Go live a life, enjoy christmas with those nearest and dearest to you, but please inflict no more of your "I can write another booklet", or assist you on these poor souls.
I implore you as a parent who has lost a child , please leave them alone , when a child is lost it's like the sun will never rise again, you cling onto any hope that will ease your pain.
Do not alllow yourself to be a temporary cushion for these vulnerable parents Mr. Bennett.
This time, it's time to walk away.

Stephanie wrote:For god's sake Mr. Bennett leave these grieving families alone why don't you ! Have you nothing better to do than to search the internet looking for grieving parents to assist ( and I use the word assist lightly) Have you no family Mr.Bennett,? if the answer to this question is yes , Well go spend time with them .
Have you ever lost a child Mr B. ? If you have you would know your attention on these parents are nothing more than vinegar to wounds .
Go live a life, enjoy christmas with those nearest and dearest to you, but please inflict no more of your "I can write another booklet", or assist you on these poor souls.
I implore you as a parent who has lost a child , please leave them alone , when a child is lost it's like the sun will never rise again, you cling onto any hope that will ease your pain.
Do not alllow yourself to be a temporary cushion for these vulnerable parents Mr. Bennett.
This time, it's time to walk away.

You are in complete ignorance of matters realting to Mr Balkwell.

Funnily enough, just two weeks ago, someone contacted Mr Balkwell looking to find out some 'dirt' on me and putting to him that I was a 'money-grabbing leech' who preyed on vulnerable people who had lost a child like him. I wonder who that might have been?

He told me about it. He told the person, quite simply, that he was very grateful for my help and wouldn't have got anywhere near where he is today on his son's case but for me.

You didn't know that it was Mr Balkwell who sought me out, did you?

You didn't know that I've spent hundreds of hours submitting a huge dossier on his son's case which led the Independent Police Complaints Commission tomount a top-level investigation into Essex Police misconduct - at the same level as for te jean Charles de Menezes case - did you?

Nor that 17 current or former Essex Police Officers were served a year ago with Regulation 9 Notices alleging corruption or misconduct?

Nor that on 29 June this year the IPCC issued a damning report highlighting 'serious flaws' in the original Essex Police investigation and then wrote to the Chief Constable in July asking him to allow an outside police force to re-investigate Lee Balkwell's death?

Mr Balkwell asks me to highlight wherever I can the alleged Essex Police corruption which he says caused themn to cover up the true reason his son died.

You have come on this board to suggest that I 'leave these grieving families alone'.

Your concern is bogus.

Stephanie wrote:For god's sake Mr. Bennett leave these grieving families alone...

As a matter of interest, below are the words Terry himself wrote and approved and which appear in Chapter 4 of 'NOT AWIGHT: Getting Away With Murder":

Mind you, even in my darkest days - and knowing that Barrymore was hiding over in New Zealand - I kept on thinking to myself: ‘He’ll come back one day’. And sure enough, he had done so.

Naturally, the press all rang me up and I did many interviews. “You must be furious”, they all said. “You must be angry”. They were all stunned when I replied: “No, in fact I’m elated”. Indeed, I felt euphoric. None of them could understand this, though I tried to explain it to them. Basically, I said that Barrymore still had many questions to answer about the death of my son - and that his return might well help me to get closer to the truth than ever before. I did agree that he should really answer all the questions people had about Stuart’s death before coming back on to British television again. I read somewhere that Barrymore was being paid £150,000 for appearing, which I thought was a lot. In the end, I told all the journalists : “You can print it that I’m furious, or angry or whatever if you really want to. But it’s not true. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a good move - great news!”.

But I still didn’t see how his arrival back in the country would help me to get any nearer about the truth about Stuart. I just sensed somehow that at last the truth might be coming a little closer, but I had no idea of the way forward.

I was reckoning without a couple of people called Tony Bennett and Harry Cichy. It is amazing what they have achieved within a year.

Within days of reading about Barrymore being on Celebrity Big Brother, a letter dropped through my door offering support and help. It was from Tony Bennett. It was a name I knew vaguely and I thought that he had something to do with local politics. I’d seen his name mentioned in the local press a time or two. He mentioned some ideas about campaigning, including bringing a private prosecution against Barrymore in respect of his alleged drugs offences the night Stuart died. And he offered to help. I’ve had one or two letters like that over the years. And I’ve had one or two poison pen letters as well. I didn’t think anything would come of it. So I left it on one side, intending to throw it away.

But two days later, on Thursday 12 January, there was a big headline in the local Harlow Herald. It ran: ‘Barrymore to face private prosecution’. What’s more, the prosecution was being taken by this same Tony Bennett who had written to me a few days ago. This time, I knew I just had to ’phone him, and did so. It was Thursday night. He ’phoned me the following morning. We agreed to meet that afternoon.

Then he ’phoned me back later, and said he had a good friend, a Mr Cichy, who was a publicist of some kind. Would I like to meet him as well? I said: “Yes, O.K., anyone who can help me in my quest for justice and truth for Stuart.

They both came round later that afternoon and we had a good long chat about everything. In my mind, it all seemed to ‘click’. As far as I could tell at that early stage, the two men seemed like they sincerely wanted to help me. They didn’t seem to be in it for any personal gain. I trusted them. In fact, I must have done, because by the time a couple of hours had gone by I allowed Tony to rush off to Office World (it’s ‘Staples’ now) to copy some of my original Court documents that I’d kept safe for the past three or four years. He brought them all back safely a couple of hours later.

While he was down there busily copying away, I chatted to Harry and discovered that he had been a champion of the successful campaign to get justice for the victims of the Hoover ‘Free Flights’ fiasco in the 1990s. Hoover had run a huge promotion offering free flights to America to anyone who bought one of their hoovers - but had been unable to fulfil their promise to customers. Harry, as one of the ‘victims’, had got stuck right into the campaign - in fact had led it with one other colleague - and persevered for years, finally forcing Hoover to pay up millions. I knew I had a worthy fighter on my side.

While they were with me, I got a call from an old press contact of mine, David Brown from The People. He was bursting to know if it was true what he’d just seen on the Internet - namely the story the Herald had just broken that Barrymore faced a private prosecution. Tony spoke to him and confirmed all the details. The case was listed at Epping Magistrates Court for the coming Monday, 16 January. It would be before a District Judge.

I conferred with Tony over the weekend and Tony said he would like to meet Dot and that if possible we should both be at the Court together with him. I spoke to Dot and though she was a bit dubious, she agreed, which I was pleased about. The People ran a big story about Barrymore facing Court proceedings on the Monday. As soon as The People was on the streets, I got loads of ’phone calls from various journalists. Was the story true? Where was the case going to be heard? When? What was the prosecution all about, who was behind it?, etc. etc. All of a sudden, after over two years of nothing happening, now the name ‘Stuart Lubbock’ was in the news again. And so was Michael Barrymore.

Tony drove us to Court that Monday morning, where we met Harry and another friend of Tony’s, Phil. On the way, Tony warned me and Dot: “Look, I really believe in what I am doing. I think that after all that I have read about what happened at Barrymore’s house that night, that he should face charges over the drugs being used at his home. But I really don’t think I’m going to get anywhere with it. These private prosecutions are very difficult to get going. You have to meet a number of strict conditions. I’ve done my best to follow all the legal procedures. But I must warn you that the judge will probably chuck the case out this morning”.

By the time we got there, there were several press people and photographers waiting for us. They wanted snaps of me, Dot and Tony with his bundle of legal papers. Ed Mayo, the Police Officer who had initially told me about the circumstances of Stuart’s death, also turned up, I don’t know quite why. He had apparently now been promoted to the Head of Epping Police Station.

Tony was wrong. The case wasn’t thrown out. A kindly old Judge peered down at us from above in the old-fashioned Court room. He asked Tony a few questions. He said these were serious matters and he wanted to give them careful consideration. I remember him saying: “This is a most unusual case in a number of respects”. And then he said those precious words which as it turned out gave us such a great publicity opportunity: “I think Mr Barrymore should have a chance to see this application and have a proper opportunity to let the Court have his observations on it. I am therefore directing you to serve a copy of your application on Mr Barrymore”.

No-one had anticipated this turn of events. As we all got out of the Court room, the press were wild with excitement. “Are you going to try to serve these papers on Barrymore right now, while he’s in the Big Brother studios?” Some of the press had visions of Tony walking into the Big Brother house and serving a copy of his application on Barrymore on live television. Tony said he needed a bit of time and a cup of coffee to think about it. He sent someone off to a local stationers to make a set of photocopies of his documents. Myself, Dot, Tony and Harry discussed the situation over coffee at a café across the road from the Court house. Meanwhile the press were all on their mobiles getting instructions from their bosses and reporting the Court’s decision. All the editors seemed to be coming back to them saying: “If the lawyer decides to go down to Big Brother and tries to serve the private prosecution papers on Barrymore, then follow them down and we’ll send up camera crew or get a photographer”.

By the time we’d finished coffee, we had all agreed. We would go down there, to Elstree, and try to get the papers served on Barrymore at the Big Brother studios. These are located only about 25 miles from Epping Court - no more than half-an-hour or so along the M25 and A1. Dot agreed to come with me. By 12 noon we were down there at the reception office of Elstree Studios and Tony was asking if the legal papers could be served on Barrymore. It was wet, with driving rain and near-freezing temperatures. It was clear that we had caught Elstree Studios, Endemol - the company that produces Big Brother - and Channel 4 all on the hop.

Various staff showed up in reception. They asked what the legal papers were all about, and then when they found out, tried to send Tony away. There was plenty of time for the TV crews to get lots of good pictures and for Tony and I to do loads of interviews with the various press and media. It took Channel 4 and Endemol the best part of two hours to make up their minds what to do. Eventually Tony was summoned inside the entrance office and disappeared for about 15 minutes. As he came out, followed by two staff, I saw Tony toss a set of documents on the front desk and walk smartly back to the rest of our group who were waiting at the entrance 20 yards or so away. A couple of people in yellow high visibility jackets chased after Tony: “Oi! You’ve left these papers ’ere”. Tony shouted back: “Yes. The Court has told me I must serve them on Michael Barrymore and I’m leaving them on the desk for you to take to him. That’s a Court Order”.

All of this exchange was captured by the various TV cameras filming outside and gleefully beamed back to their studios, where they became entertaining material for those watching the evening news. Tony told me later that Channel 4 and Endemol had refused to accept any papers and said that he must serve them on Barrymore’s lawyers. But the trouble was that Tony had already contacted both of Barrymore’s lawyers and each had said they would not accept any as they were ‘no longer acting’ for Barrymore. So he felt he had no alternative but to leave the application there.

Evidently Channel 4 and Endemol did change their minds at some stage, decided to accept the papers after all, and informed Barrymore’s former lawyer David Corker. He wrote to Tony a few days later, saying he did now have instructions and asking several questions about Tony’s application.

Meanwhile, Tony, Harry and I were discussing how to build up a campaign to get justice for Stuart. Indeed, that was the name I came up with for our campaign: ‘Justice for Stuart Campaign’. We published one or two pamphlets under that name to hand out to journalists at the Court. Tony suggested that we form a Trust, and drew up a Trust Deed. Its main aim was very simple: to assist the police to find who committed the violent attack on Stuart Lubbock on 31 March 2001 and to help them in bringing to justice those responsible.

We also wanted the Coroner to re-open the Inquest and hopefully, this time, find that Stuart had been unlawfully killed. I wanted to call it the Stuart Lubbock Trust, but in the end we went for ‘The Lubbock Trust’. One of our first actions was to set up a website, which we did within a few weeks...

...I want to say in conclusion that the media in this country help to keep things on an even keel and, without them, democracy would suffer. I am truly grateful for their help. I also want to place on record that I thank from the bottom of my heart Tony Bennett and Harry Cichy, whose energy and enthusiasm has brought the matter of Stuart’s death to public attention and kept it in the public’s mind".

That was all, of course, before Harry Cichy decided to break the agreement regarding sales of the book and start selling it himself on eBay and elsewhere and paying the proceeds of sale in to his private bank account.

Good Morning Mr.Bennett.

"You are in complete ignorance of matters realting to Mr Balkwell"

I like the rest of the country read this mans tragic story through the Media so that statement Mr.Bennett is untrue only my knowledge of the case is a healthy one not an obsessive one.

"Funnily enough, just two weeks ago, someone contacted Mr Balkwell looking to find out some 'dirt' on me and putting to him that I was a 'money-grabbing leech' who preyed on vulnerable people who had lost a child like him. I wonder who that might have been?"

HOW DARE YOU ! Not everyone who answers your posts are remotely interested in running around trying to find anything out about you, who on earth do you think you are ? You are forever screaming libel then make a statement like that to a person/poster you know nothing about,I am as entitled to my opinion just as much as you are yours.
Why Mr.Bennett when someone responds to you in a way you do not like or do not want to hear you always seem to come out with an apparent deviousness that happened last week or a few weeks ago ?

"You didn't know that I've spent hundreds of hours submitting a huge dossier on his son's case which led the Independent Police Complaints Commission tomount a top-level investigation into Essex Police misconduct - at the same level as for te jean Charles de Menezes case - did you?"

This statement of yours is actually factual, NO I did not know that,but I will also add that considering Mr.Balkwell made 104 complaints to the police about the handling of this case it comes as no suprise to me to find out you spent hours compiling a multitude of dossiers assisting him to press these charges,but just because I paint pictures that doesn't make me an artist now does it?

As for your blasé statement that my concerns are bogus,how on earth have you come to that conclusion ? You hardly have a good track record with the families you "assist" do you ?

Before you jump up and down screaming liar liar to the next decent poster you come across who disagrees with your rhetoric maybe you should take a deep breath and answer respectfully

Respect is earned Mr.Bennett not commanded.

As for your epic post under your response to my original post I am afraid I will not be reading that but thankyou all the same.

I stand by my original post,you may not like the sentiment but that is my opinion Mr.Bennett,and you can post the whole casefiles from war and peace if you so like,that is my opinion and once again I will repeat I am entitled to it.

And by the way I did not come on this board to suggest anything to you,I came on this board to read,participate and educate myself on all the posts that interests me, And I am certainly not a Mr.Bennett groupie,I after all couldn't leave you ignorant of that fact now could I ?.

Can we hope that you will spend a bit more time on The Bakewell Case, Mr. Bennett? Mr. Bakewell seems to want your assistance. The McCanns do not.

mr bennett doesnt tell the truth but dont be fooled into thinking that les balkwell is an innocennt greiving parent in all this because he also knows exactly what hes doing and doesnt tell the truth himself!

Interesting.......

so what's your take on this then? So far Mr Bennett has had a pretty clear run on his version of the Balkwell case.
What do you know different?

badmanners wrote:Interesting.......

so what's your take on this then? So far Mr Bennett has had a pretty clear run on his version of the Balkwell case.
What do you know different?

You'll get an evasive answer from lorraine - or none at all.

She knows nothing about the case and is only pretending.

Unless she's Lorraine Mitchinson, in which case she should know better.

And who might she be?

Oh well, just answered my own question via Google - Lorraine Mitchinson was Lee's partner of 5 years and mother of his son.

Odd if she were to turn up here being less than complimentary

Tony Bennett wrote:

badmanners wrote:Interesting.......

so what's your take on this then? So far Mr Bennett has had a pretty clear run on his version of the Balkwell case.
What do you know different?

You'll get an evasive answer from lorraine - or none at all.

She knows nothing about the case and is only pretending.

Unless she's Lorraine Mitchinson, in which case she should know better.

Les Balkwell has asked me to point out for the record that Lorraine Mitchinson and her mother Linda Mitchinson, who were not present at most of Inquest into Lee's death, were offered sight of all the evidence in the case that suggests foul play rather than a tragic accident, but declined to view that evidence.

By contrast, the IPCC is viewing it with great interest.

It's not too late for the Mitchinsons to view that evidence if they wish to.

I don't intend disclosing what was told to me privately but I can say that Lorraine has her own views on the matter and they in no way match yours.

badmanners wrote:I don't intend disclosing what was told to me privately but I can say that Lorraine has her own views on the matter and they in no way match yours.

Your message has been relayed to Les Balkwell. He finds it of great interest that you have been in touch with Lorraine Mitchinson and know her views on this matter. Les Balkwell has dictated the following message which he has asked me to place on this forum:

Les Balkwell:

"The I.P.C.C. has decided to investigate at the highest level possible claims of misconduct and corruption against Essex Police with regard to the investigation into my son's death. In December 2008, they served Section 9 cautions on 17 current or former officers of Essex Police alleging misconduct in public office and possible criminal offences. In June 2009 they submitted a 20-page dossier to Essex Police in which they stated their plain and firm conclusion that the original Essex Police investigation was 'seriously flawed'. They asked Essex Police to stop investigating the death of my son and turn over the investigation to an outside police force. Essex refused, but have conceded that an outside force should review the previous investigations and that review, by West Midlands Police, began 9 days ago on 9th December.

"As I've said on countless occasions, I know that Lorraine loved my boy Lee and was utterly distraught when he lost his life at Baldwins Farm. Essex Police haven't searched for the truth in this case; they've covered it up. But now both the I.P.C.C. and West Midlands Police are on the trail of those who have covered up what really happened to my boy and we are getting nearer and nearer the truth of what went on the night he died. Lorraine and her family and me and my family all have a shared interest, in commemoration of Lee's life, in finding out the truth about the circumstances of his death.

"Then, finally, after years of agony, delay, expense and disruption, caused by those who killed Lee and those who have covered it up, dishonouring their police uniforms, we can perhaps finally come to terms with our loss, achieve closure, and move on at long last".

I have my doubts. "with regard to the investigation into his son's death".
"his"????

Molly wrote:I have my doubts. "with regard to the investigation into his son's death".
"his"????

Quite right, now amended 'his' to read 'my'.

Your message has been relayed to Les Balkwell. He finds it of great interest that you have been in touch with Lorraine Mitchinson and know her views on this matter. Les Balkwell has dictated the following message which he has asked me to place on this forum:

As no-one is under any injunction to stop discussing any matters to do with this case with anyone else, I cannot understand why you should feel the need to inform him.

But then you always do feel the need to relay everything to everyone and I admonish myself for even mentioning it.

oh please when is this going to stop. i dont understand why you have put linda mitchinson on here ive wrote it its nothing to do with my mum and i actually did attend most days of the inquest and the days i didnt it was because i am a mother incase you forgot and i have to put my son first but i know exactly what went on the days i missed and unlike you i actually did sit and listen to everything i didnt walk out on the bits i didnt want to hear!. i have seen all the police eveidence and never declined to see anything. i dont know why you are doing what you are doing you are not telling the truth and you are making lee out to be something you know full well hes not i will never forgive you not that that would bother you but perhaps you should start thinking of what lee would be thinking and perhaps you should stop letting this tony bennett man use lees name for forums to talk about him self. im glad that someone is reviewing the case perhaps it will finally make you stop but i doubt it after this one you will probley get another review because you wont like the answers you get.i went round to les wed to ask if he could make you see sense and stop blackening lees name but this obviously did no good. i will not be answering any more of your silly posts i have got far too much respect for lee and my son to help you carry on this crap over the internet

Mr Bennett, perhaps you would be able, as a human being, to reply to Lorraine?

Compassion?

In all fairness, we don't know if this is really Lorraine.

True and we don't know it's not, so erring on the side of kindness is best all round, isn't it?

Lorraine didnt want to post any information on an open forum because one of the things that bothers her about this entire campaign is the thought of a good deal of lurid speculation about Lee being on forums for their son to see when he is older.

Which convinced me that she is who she says she is.
Personally I think this is all very sad, and a timely reminder that there are real people and real families involved in all these 'campaigns', and that sometimes they can be dividied over the best course of action to take.

I regard Mr Bennett's decision to inform Lee's father that Lorraine had been here as most unfortunate. It may cause more upset and division when leaving it alone would have done no harm at all.

lorraine wrote:oh please when is this going to stop. i dont understand why you have put linda mitchinson on here ive wrote it its nothing to do with my mum and i actually did attend most days of the inquest and the days i didnt it was because i am a mother incase you forgot and i have to put my son first but i know exactly what went on the days i missed and unlike you i actually did sit and listen to everything i didnt walk out on the bits i didnt want to hear!. i have seen all the police eveidence and never declined to see anything. i dont know why you are doing what you are doing you are not telling the truth and you are making lee out to be something you know full well hes not i will never forgive you not that that would bother you but perhaps you should start thinking of what lee would be thinking and perhaps you should stop letting this tony bennett man use lees name for forums to talk about him self. im glad that someone is reviewing the case perhaps it will finally make you stop but i doubt it after this one you will probley get another review because you wont like the answers you get.i went round to les wed to ask if he could make you see sense and stop blackening lees name but this obviously did no good. i will not be answering any more of your silly posts i have got far too much respect for lee and my son to help you carry on this crap over the internet

Lorraine, I've read out your message, twice, to Les Balkwell tonight.

He's asked me to reply to you briefly as follows:

"All your comments are carefully noted.

"I note there are some inaccuracies.

"Without Tony Bennett I would never have got this far and I fully approve of all efforts he makes to spread knowlegde of the true circumstances surrounding Lee's death, my 7-year-long fight for justice for him, the progress being made first by the Independent Police Complaints Commission and now the West Midlands Police in uncovering the truth about how he died and the continuing cover-up by Essex Police, and in recent days the exposure this has had in the 'Evening Standard' and national newspapers such as 'The Observer' and the 'Daily Mail'.

"I do not want to carry on the converation you started on this thread either and I suggest we both help the I.P.C.C. and West Midlands Police to fulfil their tasks of completing their respective investigations into all that has gone on".