Back in March I covered the story of David Emmanuel's suicide whilst the Metropolitan Police were execting a search warrant at his house in Surrey. I made comment that there were undoubtedly flaws in the planning and execution of the warrant and the IPCC would no doubt highlight those to try and show the family their investigation was thorough and independent.
The IPCC have now completed their initial investigation but the full report will not be released until after the inquest, which will take place in front of a jury. You have to feel some sympathy with the IPCC. The family and some sections of the community will never be happy unless a police officer is convicted of stabbing him, no matter what the evidence might dictate.
The family have, of course, reacted angrily to the news that the IPCC have found no evidence to prosecute any officer for any crime, nor is there sufficient evidence to prosecute any officer under the Police (Conduct) Regulations. Merlin Emmanuel said "We firmly believe that Smiley was murdered and that the IPCC have let us down and treated us miserably." If only there were a shred of evidence to support that statement.
The family have stated they will now take out a private prosecution. I just hope that doesn't waste any more taxpayers money on legal fees. The family will have their day in Court when the officers involved will have to answer questions at the inquest.
We will have to wait for more detail to be made available after the inquest. This cannot take place until after the two drugs trials to which David Emanuel was connected. That should be interesting.
The lid has been well torqued down but threads on the pressure cooker are showing signs of fatigue. Watch IPCC retreat to a safe distance from the kitchen apocalypse.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence indicates there were none of Smileys finger prints on a knife supposedly used to stab himself. The evidence indicates the knife went straight through his heart and out the other side of his back. The evidence indicates the 'poor' police officer that was assigned to keep smiley seated couldn't explain how he managed to evade his attention. The evidence indicates those police officers weren't asked to make official statements immediately after the incident. The evidence indicates that The Sun Newspaper claimed to know facts about the case before the Emannuels did.
ReplyDelete@ Merlin Emanuel - Contrary to popular belief, fingerprints are not left on all objects touched. It would not be uncommon for no fingerprints to be found on a wooden handled knife, for example. The deep penetration of the knife does not mean the wound was not self inflicted. The police officer supervising him is not necessarily going to be able to stop him grabbing a knife in the kitchen. The police officers would have been advised not to make full written statements immediately after the suicide but they did give detailed verbal accounts. I don't see any relevance regarding the Sun Newspaper.
ReplyDeleteSome food for the conspiracy theorists but where is there any evidence of police wrongdoing?
I am looking forward to reading about his daughters trial when it comes along.I am sure this incident will be bought up as mitigation in her defence.
ReplyDeleteJaded
Meanwhile, another innocent policeman lines up for massive compensation as he gets back into the swing of custodial care.
ReplyDeleteSgt Mark Andrews is reinstated after original CCTV footage showing a 60 year old woman being thrown to the floor, was re-worked to depict Ms Somerville drawing a concealed blade with which she made repeated thrusts at Wiltshire's finest.
I won't say too much about Mark Andrews as I see Gadget has said it already. There seems to be some perception that Andrews just dragged a middle aged woman into a cell and threw her on the ground.
ReplyDeleteThe woman was a drunken, foul mouthed, disgusting creature who would not respond to any reasonable requests. A decision was made to put her in a cell and she had to be forcibly dragged there. On reaching the cell door she clung onto the frame and was pulled from it and fell down onto the floor bashing and cutting her head.
It doesn't look pretty and unless you have experience of dealing with some of the disgusting, vile people we have to it may be difficult to comprehend.
At the end of the day the police have to use force where people will not comply with lawful requests. If people resist, some will inevitably get hurt, as do some police officers.
The Police Appeals Tribunal is made up of members of the public and usually chaired by a QC. They have reviewed this case in detail and have come to the conclusion that Mark Andrews did not deserve to be sacked. I agree!
This was an Establishment gift, lex. A bottle of paraquat with which to toast a deliverance.
ReplyDeleteMelvin you must be foaming at the mouth with this decision!!! (I assume you often foam at the mouth in normal times anyway).
ReplyDeleteHa ha
Jaded
The civilian response of 'sitting back with popcorn' demanded quiet, intelligent counter moves from police.
ReplyDeleteJaded is sure to make the wrong decision before you can say 'Hillsborough'. And without any thought whatsoever, the Gadgetistas have snatched the 'gloat and shout' option.
Gloating is great fun.Especially when idiot ACPO's make a cock-up and rush to judgement.I also love gloating when Lefties have to choke on their words.
ReplyDeleteJaded
That was good...very good indeed, Jaded.
ReplyDeleteNow crayon a nice picture for Uncle Melvin whilst he waits for grown-up comments.
Oh no,i've been zinged,oh the humanity.......I will be handing in my warrant card forthwith.
ReplyDeleteJaded
"The woman was a drunken, foul mouthed, disgusting creature who would not respond to any reasonable requests"
ReplyDeleteFunny how she's softly spoken in the video and Andrews is abusive, and you can see Andrews knocking her off her feet which is why he drags her. i fail too see how knocking someone off their feet helps you lawfully move her from A to B.
And your description of what happened at the door frame isn't what was said at his acquittal. it was said that her injuries were "probably caused by her falling over when she let go of the door frame" Not a terrible accident that is was solely self inflicted, when as we can see in the vid it obviously wasn't. Your defence of Andrews is not the one he made he said I'm paraphrasing "she just fell over" you're not going with that explanation for an obvious reason, you trust your eyes. maybe you should ask yourself why the official line is so ludicrous.
I've always had respect for you especially with Gadget about, defending Andrews is beneath you.
Btw Jaded i wouldn't gloat too much. Wiltshire are appealing the decision and this all came to light after his fellow officers reported him, not exactly an easy working environment to return to.
Also can you imagine the liability he is now, with this history any accusation of police brutality will destroy a case, he's already gutted one by being violent/stupid.
A campaign to tarnish police and alienate civilians, might include setting up a bogus police blog. A blog primarily designed to court popularity....but seamlessly shifting to condense the crude views of disaffected/psychotic commenters, has potential to seriously harm the police image. And the Architects would not resist the strong temptation to generate finance from a multi million hitter.
ReplyDelete(It's a hypothesis, Jaded. Perhaps you may consult the Illustrated Dictionary and give this one some thought before responding, dear.)
@ Anonymous 0042 - We won't agree on everything. I watched this video many times before taking a stance on it. I disagree with you that Andrews knocked her off her feet. He took hold of her and started walking her to the cells. Very quickly she sat back resisting this and then sat on the floor. He continued to drag her away.
ReplyDeleteAt the cell door she held onto the door frame. I would have stopped at this point and pulled her hands off the frame before putting her in the cell. Andrews uses brute force to achieve this resulting in her sudden ejection into the cell.
I have seen exactly the same thing happen elsewhere. Unless you have worked in a cell complex and seen what we have to deal with it is difficult to comprehend.
As I said, it is not pretty, I wouldn't have done it that way but in my opinion he does not deserve to lose his job. An independent group of members of the public have reviewed everything and agree.
Melvyn - Careful, uncovering conspiracies everywhere you look may actually be paranoia. Mind you, £8.50 for a mug is a bit steep!
ReplyDeleteUnlike the common parting of Mugs from their cash, proxy paranoia is a real albeit rare condition, lex.
ReplyDeleteNo you can see him yank her arm far to high knocking her off balance at which point he starts yanking her around do she's on the floor.
ReplyDeleteAs for the cell door that's not what they're saying they're saying she just fell over. As you obviously don't bellive that I question why they would lie. Look I get it it's a tough job but this sort of thing cannot be allowed. And why not check to see if she's ok when she's lying on the floor. He said in the trial he thought she's fallen quite hard or something similar so why not check.
Also as your so fond of pointing out that the public don't understand policing do lets see, who thought this was unacceptable? A member of his team and the police force. Who fired him? The police. Who's trying to reinstated him? Joe public who you always argue don't have a clue about policing.
Btw Gadgey is a leftie anti police conspiracy anonymous? Really? A slightly extreme conspiracy theory. And sadly no him and his gaggle are police I fear.