Justice For Carol – The True Story of Carol Felstead
The Creation of a Satanic Myth in the United Kingdom
The Justice For Carol book – telling the extraordinary story of Carol’s life and death – has recently been published. Click here or on the cover to download a copy or to preview sample chapters.
This article has been written by members of the Felstead Family.
OUR FAMILY WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM REPUTABLE LAWYERS WHO MAY BE INTERESTED IN TAKING LEGAL ACTION ON OUR BEHALF.
Our beloved daughter and sister Carole Myers (formerly known as Carol Felstead) happy and healthy aged 20, as a student nurse, shortly after Carol achieved her childhood dream to become a fully qualified nurse. This picture was taken before meeting Dr Fleur Fisher and before Carol became a victim of Recovered Memory Therapy.
This website has been specifically created to draw public attention to the behaviour of Dr Fleur Fisher, the Ex-Head of Ethics of the British Medical Association, following the death of our beloved daughter and sister, Carole Patricia Myers (formerly known as Carol Patricia Felstead).
Our family made an official complaint to the Metropolitan Police on the 13th August 2008. Dr Fleur Fisher was interviewed under police caution at Wandsworth Police Station on the 16th April 2009. The criminal offences that she was being questioned over were the attempted illegal cremation of Carol, perverting the course of justice, the theft of all of Carol’s possessions from Carol’s flat and the theft of Carol’s car.
The Metropolitan Police conducted a fifteen month investigation into our complaint and stated that there is not enough evidence to prosecute Dr Fisher. The Independent Police Complaints Commission upheld the decision of the police. The General Medical Council also states that there is not enough evidence to take any action against Dr Fisher. The Metropolitan Police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the General Medical Council have all seen and heard all of the following evidence that we are now presenting to the public. In total it has taken five and a half years for each of the above organisations to conduct their individual investigations and effectively conclude that Dr Fisher’s behaviour is acceptable. We believe that their decisions are appalling.
This is a story about abuse of professional power. Before we tell our story, we would like to make it clear that we now understand and accept that Carol was severely mentally ill and that she was not in any way responsible for her actions. We will always remember Carol as a fun loving, caring, sociable and kind-hearted person. Wherever you are now Carol, you are in all of our hearts and we will always remember you with affection.
Our beloved daughter and sister, Carol, a vulnerable and mentally ill adult, was found dead in her flat at 17a Swanage Road, Wandsworth, London, SW18 2DZ on the 29th June 2005 at about 3:30pm. The cause of death was indeterminable. Our family have been fighting for five years to get to the bottom of the extraordinary events surrounding her death. The facts are as follows: Carol died on 29 June 2005; our family were not notified of her death by the Coroner’s Office until the 14 July 2005. In the meantime, an eminent doctor, Dr Linda Fleur Fisher, had arranged Carol’s cremation and disposed of her personal possessions.
Dr Fisher told the Metropolitan Police, Battersea Coroner’s Office and Servite Housing Association that she was Carol’s next of kin and executor. She was accepted on her word and was not asked to provide any evidence to support these preposterous claims. In an interview with journalist Will Storr (The Observer Magazine, 11 December 2011), Fisher admitted ”that she had no legal claim to be Carol’s next of kin.” The article can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/11/carole-myers-satanic-child-abuse
Because our family were not informed about Carol’s death until two weeks after she had died, we did not see her before she was buried (her body was placed in a sealed coffin) and we were not present or represented at her post-mortem. Nor were we allowed to attend the pre-inquest into her death because we were not even aware that she had died at the time it took place. No member of our family has ever identified Carol.
No member of our family – except Carol – has ever met Dr Fisher. In fact, prior to 2005, we had never even heard of her. Following Carol’s death, we have checked with the Court of Protection, the Probate Registry, the High Court and many other official bodies to find out if Carol ever appointed Dr Fisher to act as her representative in any legal capacity. No such appointment was ever made prior to 2005; no appointment was ever made.
Our family have in our possession Carol’s medical records which illustrate that Dr Fisher knew about the existence of our family, and had done so for some considerable time.
Every single thing to do with Carol’s death is disturbing. Consider, for example, the manner in which our family were informed of her death. Carol’s brother received a telephone call on 14 July 2005 from Sharon Marshall, an officer in Battersea Coroner’s Court, who told him that Carol had died and was being cremated the following day. The officer said she knew why Carol had died but she did not provide any details about her death. Marshall stated further that Carol’s ‘next of kin’ had told her that Carol did not have a family.
Two minutes later, Carol’s brother received another phone call. This call was even worse. The female caller refused to reveal her identity or position. The person who rang declared that she was Carol’s next of kin. She then invited Carol’s brother to a cremation service, which, she said, had been arranged for Carol the following day. We recorded the telephone number of the caller at the time via the NTL 1471 Facility. We have legally applied for and received Carol’s telephone records. We now know that this anonymous caller was Dr Fisher.
The cremation was prevented by our family less than 24 hours before it was due to take place and Carol was brought back home to Stockport and given a family service and burial.
Our family have been told that the Coroner’s Assistant and Dr Fisher only became aware of Carol’s family after discovering a letter written to Carol by her brother.
The letter was written, ironically, on 29 June, the day that Carol died. On receipt of the letter, the Coroner’s Assistant and Dr Fisher are supposed to have realised for the first time that Carol had a family to contact. We do not believe this scenario. On the 7th July 2005 Dr Fisher insured Carol’s car in her own name. The recording of this transaction is provided below. Dr Fleur Fisher can be heard in her own words confirming that she is completely aware that Carol has a family.
Dr Fisher did not provide any documentary evidence to the Metropolitan Police or the Coroner’s Office to demonstrate that she was legally entitled to represent Carol in any capacity whatsoever, because she did not have any. She was allowed to literally walk in off the street and illegally arrange Carol’s cremation and take Carol’s possessions. Our family think that this is an outrage.
On 28 July 2005, Carol’s brother received by post a small parcel. He opened the parcel which contained an unmarked box. The box was 14 inches long, 9 inches wide and 3 inches deep. It looked like a shoebox. The box contained no details of the sender. There was no letter or note inside the box identifying who had sent it. The box contained what was left of Carol’s possessions – these consisted of various documents including bank statements, and almost all of the documents were about three years old or older; there was also an old passport. The passport contained Carol’s father’s name and address. These details are accurate to this day. Our family believe that Dr Fisher committed this callous act of cruelty. The only personal items of Carol’s that we received were Carol’s watch, a ring and a pendant, which came in an evidence bag from the Metropolitan Police.
An inquest into Carol’s death took place on 12 August 2005 (the inquest returned an Open Verdict). Dr Fisher was not even named in the inquest. In fact, our family were quite unaware of her existence at this time.
Not only did Dr Fisher arrange Carol’s cremation; she also helped identify Carol. We have a letter from the coronial office which states that the Coroner’s Assistant took a photograph of Carol in a mortuary and compared this with a photograph provided by Dr Fisher. Our family were to find out after the inquest that, on the day that Carol died, Dr Fisher made an emergency 999 phone call to the Police in relation to Carol’s death, while she was in Manchester, some 200 miles away.
The Metropolitan Police, despite repeated requests over the last five and a half years, have refused to allow our family to hear this 999 telephone call. This call has been confirmed by the Metropolitan Police as still in existence and is stored on Metropolitan Police systems. We are hoping that public support and pressure will force the Metropolitan Police to allow our bereaved family to hear this emergency 999 call which was made by Dr Fisher at 15:14 on the 29thJune 2005. We want to know all of the circumstances of Carol’s death.
Update: (On 27 November 2011), After six years of repeated refusals the Metropolitan Police have finally provided a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) of the emergency 999 phone call Dr Fisher made, at 3.14 pm, on the 29th June 2005 to the Metropolitan Police, directly in relation to Carol’s death. This CAD of the phone call was secured by Andrew Stunnell MP via the Directorate of Legal Services in New Scotland Yard. The following extracts are recorded by the Metropolitan Police Operator in the CAD:
- Dr Fisher stated that she ”is a friend of Carole Myers. She has serious concerns that female may have taken an overdose of drugs.” This suspected overdose was not mentioned at Carol’s inquest – which took place on 12 August 2005.
- Dr Fisher further stated in this call that ”Female will be in bedroom which is in the rear of the property.”
- At 5. 17 pm Dr Fisher made a further call to the Operator from the Metropolitan Police. The Computer Aided Dispatch records the following information: ”She has asked me if the person is deceased. I have not told her anything. She asks that she can speak directly to Inspector Rogers and she states that his mobile number was given to her. She believes that she knows what this is all about and that the dead person was in a depressive state and she may have taken her own life… She said she would be sitting down if I wanted to give her bad news…”
- The CAD additionally records that, when asked to disclose her home address, Dr Fisher did not ”furnish this information.”
The emergency 999 phone call was not mentioned at Carol’s inquest. Our family only became aware of Dr Fisher after a police officer inadvertently mentioned her name in a telephone conversation after the inquest had taken place. We did a quick internet search on Dr Fisher and were astonished to find out that she specialises in health care ethics and was formerly Head of Ethics at the British Medical Association.
Our family have not been provided with an estimated time of death for Carol. We have repeatedly asked, in writing, for an estimated time of death, The purpose of the callout to the Metropolitan Police, as stated in the inquest, was to attend Carol’s flat to undertake a welfare check.
At the inquest and recorded in the inquest transcript (we have a copy) the Coroner stated that the callout was because “a friend had called her friend’s doctor as she was concerned for her friend ‘Caroline Myers’”. (This should have said Carole Myers, not Caroline Myers) The Coroner did not name either the friend or the doctor.
The police officer who received the emergency 999 call also gave evidence at the inquest and his evidence is also recorded in the inquest transcript. He stated that he was on duty on the 29th June 2005 and received a call to attend 17a Swanage Road, Wandsworth. When giving his evidence he did not state who made the call, nor was he asked by the Coroner to identify who had made the call..
In 2010, we applied under the Freedom of Information Act and received the actual ambulance call-out sheets for Carol’s death. The ambulance call-out sheets are unambiguous and state that the reason for the call-out was “F suspected drug overdose”. No reason has ever been given to our family, by either the Metropolitan Police or the Coroner’s Office, to explain how Dr Fisher could have possibly known from 200 miles away that Carol had taken a suspected drug overdose.
Carol’s father wrote a detailed letter to the Coroner’s Office, following the inquest. In this letter, our family expressed concern about the identification of Carol and sought clarification about a number of points regarding the circumstances of Carol’s death. In total, we submitted 299 questions to the Coroner. In contrast to what is stated in the letter from the Coroner below, our family did not, at any point, ask to remain anonymous during the inquest. For reasons that will become clear at a later point in this narrative, the truth of the matter is that Carol’s father warned officers from the Coroner’s Court that he would prosecute any witness who gave testimony which slandered our family.
Carol’s father received a letter written by Dr Shirley Radcliffe, Deputy Coroner. The letter is signed and dated. In this letter, Dr Fisher is not named explicitly but is referred to as ‘the next of kin.’ Dr Radcliffe confirms in the letter that ‘the next of kin’ told her that there was no family to contact. The ‘next of kin’ was Dr Fisher.
Dr Fisher was not named or mentioned at all in the inquest. We could not ask any questions about Dr Fisher at the inquest, because at the time we were totally unaware of her identity and the extent of her involvement following Carol’s death. The deliberate omission of Dr Fisher’s name can be seen by looking at the inquest transcript, of which we have a copy.
It is the considered view of Carol’s family that the inquest was inadequate because Dr Fisher did not appear and was not named at the inquest. Given her role in events following Carol’s death, we find the deliberate omission of Dr Fisher in these proceedings to be frankly astonishing.
The Telephone Call made by Dr Fisher to Diamond Insurance Company on the 7th July 2005 at 12:45pm.
Dr Fisher continued to have a sinister involvement in Carol’s affairs, even after Carol had died.
Here is a recording of a telephone call made by Dr Fisher to Diamond Car Insurance on the 7th July 2005. Dr Fisher can be heard taking out insurance on Carol’s car, so that she can drive the car to her home in Plymouth.
This recording has been edited to remove Dr Fisher’s personal contact details. The full recording is more than 17 minutes long. We do have a copy of the unedited recording. This recording was obtained lawfully under the Freedom of Information Act from Diamond Insurance Company.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, WHEN LISTENING TO THIS RECORDING, THAT CAROL HAS BEEN DEAD FOR EIGHT DAYS. IT IS A FURTHER SEVEN DAYS BEFORE OUR FAMILY WERE INFORMED OF CAROL’S DEATH. DR FISHER IS MAKING THIS TELEPHONE CALL IN THE CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE THAT OUR FAMILY HAVE NOT BEEN INFORMED THAT CAROL IS DEAD.
CAROL DIED ON THE 29TH JUNE 2005. OUR FAMILY WERE NOT NOTIFIED OF CAROL’S DEATH UNTIL THE 14TH JULY 2005.
Click here to listen to this recording
Main Points of the Call
(1) Dr Fisher states that she is next of kin of Carol in all documents.
This is demonstrably false. Joseph Felstead (Carol’s father) is and always has been Carol’s next of kin. In an interview with journalist Will Storr (The Observer Magazine, 11 December 2011), Fisher herself admitted ”that she had no legal claim to be Carol’s next of kin.” Click here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/11/carole-myers-satanic-child-abuse
We have copies of Carol’s medical records, which were legally obtained under the Freedom of Information Act from the Primary Care Trust responsible for the records. Dr Fisher is not named as Carol’s next of kin in any of Carol’s medical records. As Carol was a vulnerable mental patient who had been on the severe mental illness register since June 29 1992, for Dr Fisher to have acted as the next of kin of Carol or as her personal representative, it would have been necessary for her to have been designated as such by the Court of Protection, which is the Court set up specifically to safeguard the legal rights of the mentally ill.
Dr Fisher did not have any legal entitlement to represent Carol at any time. See Heading: Next of Kin Status for a legal definition of the rights of next of kin.
(2) Dr Fisher states that she will be the executor of Carol’s estate.
By stating that she will be, and currently is not, the executor of Carol’s estate, Dr Fisher confirms that she is acting as Carol’s executor without any legal entitlement.
Dr Fisher was not the executor of Carol’s estate. She was not named in a will, and she did not go through Probate. By the laws of intestacy which apply to every death in the UK, she had no legal right to act as Carol’s executor whatsoever.
(3) Dr Fisher states that ‘Carol was a survivor of brutal family abuse over many years’.
This appalling, ridiculous, slanderous and totally false allegation confirms that Dr Fisher was fully aware of the existence of our family and always had been. She is also completely aware that our family at the time of this telephone call do not even know that Carol is dead.
Dr Fisher is a medical ethicist and a campaigner for the privacy and confidentiality of medical records. Dr Fisher reveals Carol’s medical information which is false, sensitive and confidential to a complete stranger.
Dr Fisher has never met any member of our family with the exception of Carol. She did not meet Carol until Carol was 21 years old. Dr Fisher has no personal knowledge whatsoever of Carol’s childhood or of Carol’s family.
This ‘brutal family abuse’ was explicitly defined in a preposterous document that Dr Fisher passed to both the Metropolitan Police and to the Coroner’s Office before we were informed of Carol’s death. The document contained a number of claims that could be independently checked for truth by anyone. This document allegedly depicted Carol’s life from birth to late adulthood. This purported ‘Life Assessment’ document was typed, unsigned, undated, and was supposedly written by Carol whilst she had been in a mental hospital undergoing psychiatric treatment. Dr Fisher personally vouched for the truthfulness of its contents. The document does not contain specific names of individuals, it does not contain any actual dates or addresses – in fact, every single piece of information is generic. In an interview with Journalist Will Storr (The Observer Magazine 11th December 2011) Fisher was asked by Will Storr: ”Are you aware of any evidence that any of Carole’s claims actually happened?” Fisher replied “I never looked for any evidence.”
Upon being acquainted with these claims WE immediately instigated a number of police investigations which ALL confirmed that they were complete nonsense. See the section False Allegations.
In an interview with journalist Daniel Foggo (published in the Sunday Times on 12 June 2011), Fisher confirmed that Carol had ”no knowledge” of ritual abuse when she first saw her. A link to the article can be found here: http://www.richardfelstead.com/sunday-times-article-satanic-abuse-claims-doomed-our-girl/
Dr Fisher was subsequently interviewed by the police after our family lodged a formal complaint about arranging an illegal cremation, theft and perverting the course of justice. Here is what Detective Sergeant Grant Lander, in a letter to Carol’s father, had to say about these allegations:
“You provided me with photographs and documents for Carol, which proves she had a very happy upbringing and was a loved and cherished daughter. However she seems to have suffered deteriorating mental and physical health from her early twenties up to her untimely death in June 2005. There is absolutely no evidence that I have obtained in my investigation that showed that Carol ever suffered abuse by yourself or any members of your family.”
Detective Sergeant Grant Lander also stated: ‘In fact I find it quite incredible that Dr Fisher seemed to take everything Carol told her on face value’.
(4) Dr Fisher confirms when she is making this telephone call from Carol’s flat that she is removing all of Carol’s possessions.
Carol did not make a will; Dr Fisher did not go through Probate. She had no legal right to dispose of Carol’s possessions which, under Probate Law, belonged to Carol’s family.
Dr Fisher was interviewed under Police caution. The interview took place on 16 April 2009 in Wandsworth Police Station. Dr Fisher said in interview that she needed to clear Carol’s flat out urgently as she had received a Demand for Recovery of Premises from Servite Housing Association. Detective Sergeant Lander provided a summary of this interview to Carol’s father in which he states that this rebuts any suggestion of dishonest intent. This is patent nonsense.
Here is the real housing policy of Servite Houses, the Housing Association responsible for Carol’s flat. It has been extracted from ‘Servite Houses – Your Tenancy With Us’, reference SH RH 0509:
‘Upon your death, your executors must continue to pay four weeks’ rent while your belongings are being removed from the property or until the keys have been returned, whichever is the latest.’
According to this statement, there was not an urgent imperative from the housing association to clear Carol’s flat. The need to empty out a dead person’s flat immediately after their death is not supported by the Housing Association’s own tenant’s policy.
Carol lived in an unfurnished flat. Therefore all of the furnishings in the flat belonged to Carol. Our family are in possession of a copy of Carol’s Housing Benefit Form (written by Carol) which confirms this.
The Metropolitan Police, despite interviewing Dr Fisher under police caution, have never explained to our family what happened to the contents of Carol’s flat.
(5) Dr Fisher confirms that she is arranging Carol’s Cremation.
Dr Fisher is arranging Carol’s cremation in the the full knowledge that our family has not even been informed of Carol’s death. It is a criminal offence to falsely complete Cremation Forms.
(6) Dr Fisher declares that Carol was her unofficial daughter.
This statement is absolutely ridiculous. No one in our family had even heard of Dr Fisher before Carol’s death. Dr Fisher is the ex-Head of ethics of the British Medical Association. She is also a professional ethicist who delivers lectures and workshops on maintaining ethical boundaries between Doctors and Patients. How ethical was this relationship?
(7) The insurance employee states that Carol is owed a refund on her insurance. The insurance employee then states that the money is to be refunded to Carol’s credit card on the 12th July 2005. Dr Fisher can be heard in the taped recording of this telephone call requesting that this money should be sent to her. Copies of the transaction details provided by Diamond Insurance state that this refund was for £357.04.
(8) Dr Fisher states that she is insuring Carol’s Car for three days and is driving the car to Plymouth, where she lives. She had no legal entitlement to take Carol’s car.
Following Carol’s Death, her father contacted the DVLA and put a scrapping order on the car. No member of our family has ever seen this car or driven it. The car was registered as scrapped by the DVLA at an ATF Plant in London, on 30th September 2005. We have a print-out of the details of the destruction. We would like to know what happened to the car in the three month period after Dr Fisher had driven it to Plymouth.
Evidence that Dr Fisher did not have any legal right to represent Carol in any Capacity
Note: Documents have been redacted to remove personal details.
Letters of Administration from the High Court of Justice
The Letters of Administration grant Carol’s father the legal right to deal with Carol’s affairs and possessions. Such rights exist in association with those inherent in being the father of the deceased. Since this is a printed copy it does not bear the Court Seal. We do have the original copy with the embossed seal. Click here
Probate Registry Search
Our family instigated a search with the Probate Registry. This letter states that Carol did not make a will and therefore did not bequeath her possessions to anyone. Probate Law then applies, with the possessions falling to the direct members of the deceased’s family. Click here
Certificate of Search from the Public Guardianship Office on behalf of the Court of Protection
The Court of Protection exists to administer the affairs and estates of those permanently or temporarily mentally incapacitated. The search was made to establish whether Carol legally provided Dr Fisher or any other person with Enduring Powers of Attorney. None were ever assigned during Carol’s life or after it. Carol was registered as mentally disabled; therefore all powers of Attorney and Receivership could only be invested by the Court of Protection. Click here
Reply from the Public Guardianship Office on behalf of the Court of Protection
After enquiring whether Powers of Receivership or of Enduring Powers of Attorney have been granted by the Court of Protection to anyone before or after Carol’s death, the Public Guardianship Office searched their records and concluded no application had ever been made. Carol did not legally appoint anyone to administer her affairs. Click here
Letter from Wandsworth Council confirming Non-Existence of Carer
Carol did not register herself as having a Carer with Wandsworth Council. She also specifically wrote to them stating that she did not have a Carer. We have copies of this statement written in Carol’s own handwriting. Click here
Rules of Intestacy
This is an Authoritative diagram from TaxationWeb (www.taxationweb.co.uk) demonstrating the rules of intestacy in a simple and easy to understand manner. According to the Rules of Intestacy, Dr Fisher was not legally entitled to dispose of Carol’s possessions at any time. Click here
Following her death, Carol’s father wrote to her doctor to request copies of Carol’s medical records. Carol’s GP, Dr Staples, refused to supply details from her medical files, on the grounds that her records remained confidential – even following her death. Our family believe that decision is appalling.
We did eventually obtain from the Primary Care Trust (PCT) Carol’s medical records (what is left of them). These records were legally obtained in 2008 following a Freedom of Information Request. When we received these records, the first twenty one years of Carol’s life – with the exception of 3 documents – were missing. All sectioning medical records are missing. Many pre-operative and post-operative medical records for a number of operations are missing.
Carol’s father was informed by the PCT that on the very day that he contacted Dr Staples to obtain copies of Carol’s medical records, Dr Staples requested that all of Carol’s medical files be returned to herself. Dr Staples kept these files for 9 months. Our family would like to know what happened to Carol’s missing medical records. These records will reveal categorically that Carol’s physical and psychological health was exemplary before the age of 21.
We do have a letter in Carol’s notes which states that Dr Fisher gave Carol counselling in 1986. Carol was aged 22 at this time. All medical notes relating to this treatment are also missing. However, the onset of Carol’s physical and mental deterioration can be pinpointed exactly to this period when she first came under the influence of Dr Fisher. Amongst the medical records which we have in our possession are a number which demonstrate that Dr Fisher was fully aware of the existence of Carol’s family.
Next of Kin Status
Here is the law in relation to next of kin status.
An individual claiming to be next of kin – whether genuinely or falsely as in Dr Fisher’s case – has no legal rights. Probate, Powers of Attorney, Enduring Powers of Attorney (or Lasting Attorney, as it is now called), Powers of Receivership, and appointments by the High Court take precedence.
Without other legal entitlement, next of kin status has no special legal validity. In the House of Commons on 13 June 2006, Harriet Harman, the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, said that the law relating to next of kin was not going to be changed:
“Being someone’s next of kin does not automatically give a person the right to do anything. Being next of kin does not, for example, give a person a right to bury someone, or to administer their estate.” (Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060613/text/60613w0886.htm#0606147000455. This online link to the parliamentary debates has since been removed. A new one can be found here: www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2006-06-13b.76572.h.)
A copy will of course still exist in the records of Hansard for the day. Next of kin status has thus been defined by a Minister of State.
Dr Fisher passed the ridiculous and totally unbelievable document to which we’ve previously referred, to both the Metropolitan Police and to the Coroner’s Office. The document made a number of preposterous (and, quite frankly, impossible) claims, such as: that Carol’s mum had murdered another daughter Joan Julie Felstead in 1967, sat the dead baby on top of Carol and then attempted to murder Carol by setting the house on fire (Joan Julie is also not named and is referred to as ‘my sister who was born with Down’s Syndrome’).
The Coroner’s Officer informed our family that Carol had changed her name by deed poll some years earlier. Our family were completely unaware of this fact, though it does help to explain why it had previously been difficult to contact Carol.
Carol had been repeatedly sectioned under the Mental Health Act. As Carol’s nearest relative was never informed, this sectioning was illegal under the Mental Health Act. Our family had no knowledge of Carol’s mental illness, for reasons which will become clear. Given Carol’s severe mental health problems, our family are frankly astonished that these claims were accepted as having any basis in fact by both the Metropolitan Police and the Coroner’s Office.
In addition to the so-called Life Assessment document, Carol’s father was then informed by the Coroner’s Assistant that he had been involved in a court case in which he and the rest of his family were supposed to have been the defendants in a major criminal trial accused of Satanic Ritual Abuse. This court case did not occur; it was completely fictitious. We instigated a police investigation into it and it was proven that it had never existed. But this fictitious court trial was recorded on Metropolitan Police systems as if it had actually occurred. The trial is meant to have taken place in the late 1980’s/early 1990’s. (Carol’s mother and father are not named explicitly (they are mentioned generically as mother and father). The trial is supposed to have collapsed.) As previously mentioned – in an interview with journalist Daniel Foggo (published in the Sunday Times on 12 June 2011), Fisher confirmed that Carol had ”no knowledge” of ritual abuse when she first saw her. A link to the article can be found here: http://www.richardfelstead.com/sunday-times-article-satanic-abuse-claims-doomed-our-girl/
These slanderous allegations were placed on intelligence systems of the Metropolitan Police Force. These claims are completely false. However, the Coroner’s Assistant left Carol’s father in no doubt whatsoever that these allegations were accepted with deadly seriousness – that is as real events which actually took place. At no point in 2005 were these allegations simply considered to be the outpouring of an unbalanced and disturbed mind. In consequence, Carol’s father wrote to the Coroner’s Office and provided family photographs, a copy of Carol’s school leaving certificate together with death certificates to demonstrate that these events did not occur. Carol’s father has a copy of this letter.
After being informed about these false allegations, we questioned the Data Protection Team of the Metropolitan Police and upon receiving answers of a totally unsatisfactory nature, immediately instigated an Independent Police Complaints Commission inquiry into these events which involved Greater Manchester Police, Cheshire Constabulary and the Metropolitan Police.
The results of this inquiry were:
- There had never been a court case.
- Joan Julie Felstead (who suffered from Downs Syndrome) died a medically documented natural death in Stepping Hill Hospital, Stockport, on the 7th October 1962; the date and details of her death are on her death certificate
- The fire was a real event based on a household accident and took place in 1963; it was reported in the local newspaper at the time – the ‘Stockport Express’ – as being a tragic, accidental event, but, fortunately, no-one was serious injured. Our family have a copy of the original article, which shows that Carol’s mother was extremely upset and distressed at the time.
- Carol was born on June 8th 1964 in Stepping Hill Hospital in Stockport, as is apparent by looking at her birth certificate.
- Therefore Carol was not alive as she had not been born when Joan Julie died or when the fire took place. These events are not just false, they are actually impossible.
On receipt of Carol’s medical records, our family believe that we have found where this purported life assessment has come from. In Carol’s psychiatric notes, she states that two former Cabinet Members abused her at Conservative Party Headquarters, and that these well- known politicians and our family were all members of a Satanic Cult. Carol also said that she suspected that the police and medical doctors were part of the cult. The conclusion of Carol’s psychiatrist was that Carol was delusional. The Carol we knew would never have said anything as ridiculous as this. What has happened in the copy of the purported life assessment passed by Dr Fisher to the Metropolitan Police is that the two Cabinet Members and the Police have been removed so that the alleged perpetrators are only our family. We believe that Dr Fisher’s intention in passing this purported life assessment over to the police was to have members of our family arrested and imprisoned for crimes that never even occurred.
Recovered Memory Therapy
From Carol’s medical records and other information that we have acquired since Carol’s death, it appears that Carol had been given ‘regressive memory therapy’ or recovered memory therapy as it is commonly known. The basis for the therapy is that a patient turns up at a doctors with an innocuous complaint like stomach ache. No physical cause can be found, so the doctor asserts that the cause must be psychological. The patient is then referred for therapy.
The therapist asserts that the patient has suffered some kind of terrible abuse – which he/she has repressed and therefore have no conscious memories of whatsoever; this, unbelievably, is supposed to be the case, even if the abuse is meant to have occurred thousands of times over many years. The purpose of recovered memory therapy is to recover the ‘lost memories’. Some patients receiving this treatment have undergone drug-assisted interviewing (using sodium amytal), hypnosis and age regression. We believe that this therapy was responsible for Carol’s mental illness. After having this treatment, Carol became convinced that she had been a victim of events which never actually occurred.
After receiving recovered memory therapy, Carol’s medical records reveal that she made claims that are so preposterous that nobody would believe them without some evidence, except it seems Dr Fisher, Carol’s therapists and other like-minded individuals who never bothered to check if any of these ridiculous claims were actually true. Carol’s medical records also reveal that her therapy was supported with extensive medication.
Before meeting Dr Fisher in 1985, Carol was a fully qualified nurse, capable of running a hospital ward. Carol was a happy, sociable and outgoing young woman. Carol enjoyed her life and seemed to have the world in front of her. Carol’s brother used to work at the same hospital and regularly had his tea break with Carol when they both used to work the same shift. Carol was independent and had moved away from home, although she maintained regular contact with her family. She had a regular boyfriend with whom Carol’s brother still occasionally has contact. Carol had a very normal life with a bright future ahead of her.
We now know that after 1985, because of Dr Fisher’s secretive involvement in separating Carol from her family, Carol’s contact with the family became less and less frequent and she moved away to live in London. Throughout the last twenty years of her life Carol maintained sporadic but relatively regular contact with the family; about once every eighteen months she would contact various members of the family and send birthday cards and Christmas cards.
The reason that Carol always gave for the lack of contact with her family was that she was furthering her career. This was never really convincing and the lack of contact with Carol was frustrating, to say the least. Carol’s family made repeated attempts to contact her, but we now realise that these attempts were hampered significantly by the fact that Carol had apparently changed her name by deed poll in 1992. Our family simply never had any idea that Carol was mentally unwell – ever. Her mental illness was deliberately kept from us by Carol and by Dr Fisher.
Carol’s gradual separation from her family was very difficult to accept. It broke her parents’ hearts and although it was something which we had to come to terms with, it didn’t really make any sense. There were periods when we didn’t have a contact address or telephone number, but we now know that when our family were under the illusion she was a nurse working in various hospitals, furthering her career, the real truth is that Carol was a mental patient who spent a considerable amount of her adult life in various mental institutions. Carol was asked repeatedly to make more of an effort to contact us. She would always state that she was not having any problems and that she was working shifts and pursuing her career. Carol living in London and the rest of our family living in Stockport did not help. We were forced, with much regret, to accept that Carol was an independent adult and was moving on with her life. Although she did ring up and send birthday and Christmas cards, all of which tended to contain the message of how she would come to see us in the near future, nobody in our family actually saw Carol from 1995 onwards.
Two of the therapists who treated Carol are Vera Diamond – or Vera Diamond-Carruthers – as she is sometimes known and Valerie Sinason.
Here are a couple of examples of their beliefs:
British therapist, Vera Diamond, working with people subjected to Satanic and mind control abuse says, “Children say the word Satan is used more frequently than any other, but other demons include Baphomet and Behemoth. Molech seems to be one particularly associated with eating babies, and one called Choronzon. These do seem to be associated with eating babies.“ p299 Biggest Secret
Below is a video clip of Vera Diamond, where she reconstructs a therapy session and describes her belief in satanic cults. Further information about this video clip: http://www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/devilvid.htm
http://www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/indyhoax.htm – Please follow this link for Valerie Sinason and man eating dead baby.
Carol was also treated by other prominent believers in Satanic Abuse such as Robert Hale. Carol’s medical records contain a letter written by Dr Hale. The letter is dated 28 May 1993 and it is signed by Dr Hale. The letter confirms that Carol had received weekly therapy from Hale and Valerie Sinason, over an eight- month period. Significantly, Carol was placed on the mental health register in 1992. Dr Hale’s prognosis is that Carol was a victim of Satanist abuse and this abuse had begun in ‘very early childhood.’ In Carol’s psychiatric notes, it states that her parents were the High Priest and High Priestess of a Satanic Cult. Our family are supposed to have dug up graves and performed ritual sacrifices, which include murder. Here is a letter written by Valerie Sinason to a Dr Frances Raphael on 9th July 1997. In the letter Valerie Sinason confirms that Carol was the first Satanic Ritual Abuse patient that she had treated. As Carol was not a victim of Satanic Ritual Abuse, as there was no ritual cult whatsoever, as Carol was never abused or injured in any way, shape or form, and as the events attributed to Carol’s life did not happen and were incontrovertibly impossible, Dr Valerie Sinason’s method for treating patients such as Carol was clearly invalid, irrational, and dangerous. Page 1, Click here Page 2, Click here.
Update: Here is an excerpt from a Valerie Sinason interview with journalist Will Storr (The Observer Magazine, 11 December 2011), which gives an insight into Sinason’s belief system.
Sinason arrives, in her north London counselling room, tanned and relaxed in a loose smock, dark leggings and trainers. There’s a chaise longue with a crowd of teddies resting in its crook. On the floor, shoved beneath a table, a large cloth boy gazes sadly into space. We’re joined by her husband David, who takes notes throughout our talk.
Sinason insists she doesn’t use recovered-memory techniques. “I’m an analytic therapist,” she says. “The idea of that is someone showing, through their behaviour, that all sorts of things might have happened to them.” Signs that a patient has suffered satanically include flinching at green or purple objects, the colours of the high priest and priestess’s robes. “And if someone shudders when they enter a room, you know it’s not ordinary incest.”
Another warning, she says, is the patient saying: “I don’t know.” “What they really mean is: ‘I can’t bear to say.’” A patient who “overpraises” their family is also suspicious. “The more insecure you are, the more you praise. ‘Oh my family was wonderful! I can’t remember any of it!’”
In the medical records, Sinason noted that Carole was her first chronic sadistic-abuse patient. Today, when I ask about her first patient, Sinason describes the arrival of two medical professionals – a nurse and a psychologist – one of whom was limping.
“I just had that nasty feeling,” she says. “It’s her, and she’s been hurt by them.”
“You could tell that from the limp?” I ask.
Soon, we get to the actual satanism. Sinason talks of a popular ritual in which a child is stitched inside the belly of a dying animal before being ‘reborn to satan’. During other celebrations, “people eat faeces, menstrual blood, semen, urine. There’s cannibalism.” Some groups have doctors performing abortions. “They give the foetus to the mother and she’s made to kill the baby.”
“And the cannibalism – that’s foetuses?” I clarify.
“Foetuses and bits of bodies.”
“Raw or cooked?”
“The foetuses are raw.”
“Not even a bit of salt and pepper?” I ask.
“Raw. And handed round like communion. On one major festival, the babies are barbecued. I can still remember one survivor saying how easy it is to pull apart the ribs on a baby. But adults are tougher to eat.”
She describes large gatherings in woodlands and castles, with huge cloths being laid out. “That’s normally when there’s a sacrifice,” she notes, “and because the rapes are happening all over the place. There’s a small amount of cannon fodder in terms of runaways, drug addicts, prostitutes and tramps that are used. There’s sex with animals. Horses, dogs, goats. Being hanged upside down. In the woods, on a tree.”
“How do they get an animal to have sex with a human?” I wonder.
Sinason’s husband thinks for a moment. “Well,” he says, “plenty of dogs have a go at people’s legs.” “True,” says Sinason, adding poignantly: “However horrible it sounds, the dog, at least, is friendly afterwards.”
“Because at least the dog’s had a good time,” I say.
“And the child loves the pet,” Sinason nods. “The pet is made to have sex with the child – but the pet, at least, is still their friend.” A link to the full article can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/11/carole-myers-satanic-child-abuse
Carol’s medical history is littered with the who’s who of Satanic Ritual Abuse believers. The myth of Satanic Ritual Abuse is in our opinion a national scandal. And it is a scandal which needs exposing. In 1994, Valerie Sinason edited a collection of essays about putative satanic abuse. The book, Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse, was reviewed by one commentator as: ‘useful for anyone who needs a startling, clear demonstration of the amazing ability of 20th century human beings to persuade themselves firmly to believe in utter claptrap and nonsense.’ Carol almost certainly forms one of the case studies discussed in chapter 32 of the book.
It is our settled opinion that any doctor who attempts to illegally cremate a patient, takes their possessions after they have died, and does not inform the family about the death of their relative, should be prosecuted, struck off the Medical Register, and never allowed to practice again.
Falsely filling in details on cremation forms (or knowingly allowing the Coroner to do so) is perverting the course of justice and is also a criminal offence under the Cremation Act. Cremation forms are very specific – if someone other than the family is arranging the cremation, it has to be stated why the family are not arranging the cremation.
The following are quotes from a standard cremation form, as in use today. It is Cremation Form 1 and replaces Cremation Form A, however the questions below have been common to cremation forms for many years.
Part 4 The application
1. Are you a near relative or an executor of the person who has died?
Near relative means the widow, widower or surviving civil partner of the person who has died, or a parent or child of the person who has died, or any other relative usually residing with the person who has died.
If no, please give the nature of your relationship and explain why you are
making the application rather than a near relative or an executor.
2. Is there any near relative(s) or executor(s) who has not been informed of the proposed cremation?
4. What was the date and time of death of the person who has died?
Part 6 Statement of truth
…. I am aware that the facts given in this application are true. I am aware that it is an offence to wilfully make a false statement with a view to obtaining the cremation of any human remains.
[A printed name, with a signature and date are then required to complete the form.]
Metropolitan Police Investigation
The Metropolitan Police conducted a 15 month investigation into Dr Fisher, after we lodged a formal complaint. Dr Fisher was interviewed under caution in Wandsworth Police Station. The investigation concluded in 2009. Our family lodged a formal complaint against Dr Fisher regarding arranging an illegal cremation, perverting the course of justice and theft of Carol’s possessions from her flat and the theft of Carol’s car. On 16 October 2009, DS Lander wrote to Carol’s father: ‘I have now heard from the Crown Prosecution Service. They have advised me that there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of a conviction in this case. Therefore no further action will be taken against Dr Fisher.’ As part of his investigation, DS Lander conducted enquiries with the Coroner’s Office, Servite Housing Association and Diamond Insurance Company. This investigation lasted approximately fifteen months. The investigation conducted by Detective Sergeant Lander is different from every other criminal case in the United Kingdom in that the investigation does not have a crime reference number, case reference number or a crown prosecution service reference number or any other unique identifying reference number whatsoever. The investigation is not recorded on the Crime Report Information System (CRIS). This fact has been confirmed by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Our family are staggered by the sheer incompetence of this investigation. Page 1, Click here Page 2, Click here Page 3, Click here Page 4, Click here.
Dr Fisher can be heard in the taped recording on 7 July 2005 to Carol’s insurance company stating that she is emptying Carol’s flat and insuring Carol’s car, so that she can drive it home to Plymouth.
Detective Lander stated in his investigation that Dr Fisher told him in interview under police caution that she deposited the car at the Coroner’s Office and that our family drove it away. A subsequent investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission concluded that Dr Fisher deposited the keys to Carol’s car, at the Coroner’s Office.
Sergeant Lander has a copy of the taped recording from Carol’s insurance company.
Detective Sergeant Lander has stated that he believes that a member of our family collected the car from the Coroner’s Office. This statement is ridiculous and completely false. No member of our family has ever seen the car. We are appalled at his incompetence. We have asked him, in writing, to provide a signature from the Coroner’s Office of the family member who was supposed to have picked up the car. He has not replied.
The Coroner’s Office are also completely aware that the only time that they have ever seen any member of our family was at the inquest into Carol’s death on the 12th August 2005.
The car was registered as scrapped by the DVLA at an ATF Plant in London, on 30th September 2005. We have a print-out of the details of the destruction. If a member of our family is supposed to have collected the car from the Coroner’s Office, then they would have had to:
(a) Travel from Stockport to London.
(b) Get the car and the keys from the Coroner’s Office without having to sign for the car.
(c) Drive the car uninsured back to Stockport.
(d) Keep the car uninsured for three months.
(e) Drive the car back up to London uninsured and then scrap it at London Auto Parts in London.
(f) Travel back from London to Stockport.
This scenario is totally false.
The insurance policy granted to Dr Fisher by Diamond Insurance Company (8 days after Carol’s death) lasted for 3 days. The insurance expired on 11 July. Our family were not informed of Carol’s death until 14 July. How on earth could we have driven the car away when we did not even know that Carol had died?
There is also another problem with this scenario. According to the inquest transcript, the Coroner’s Assistant, Sharon Marshall, identified Carol on the 12th July 2005. If Dr Fisher deposited the car at the Coroner’s Office it must have been between the 7th July 2005 and the 11th July 2005, unless she drove the car uninsured. If Dr Fisher deposited the car at the Coroner’s Office for our family to collect, then the Coroner’s Office must have been aware of the existence of our family between the 7th July 2005 and the 11th July 2005. If the statement in the inquest transcript is true, why did Sharon Marshall identify Carol on the 12th July 2005 instead of informing our family of Carol’s death? And why did she not then ask a member of our family to identify Carol?
We believe that the statement in the inquest transcript that Sharon Marshall identified Carol on the 12th July 2005 is false. We do not know why. As a pre-inquest had already taken place without our knowledge on the 4th July, we believe that Carol’s identity was clearly already known.
We do not believe that Dr Fisher deposited the car at the Coroner’s Office. We believe that she drove it to Plymouth where she lives, exactly like she states in the recording to Diamond Insurance Company. We do not know what she did with the car after she drove it to her home in Plymouth.
False Information passed to the Metropolitan Police by Dr Fisher
We cannot understand how and why the false information about our family was recorded on Police Systems, yet the investigation conducted by the Metropolitan Police into Dr Fisher is not recorded on the Crime Report Information System.
The General Medical Council Investigation into Dr Fisher (GMC Case Reference Number: IH/CI-231021645)
The General Medical Council have seen all of the evidence in this case and state that there is not enough evidence to put Dr Fisher before a fitness to practise panel. To demonstrate to the public how wrong this shocking and outrageous decision is, given the evidence provided to the GMC, we have provided our full complaint to the GMC below.
The Involvement of the GMC
General Medical Council (GMC) Investigating Officer in the case:
Standards & Fitness to Practise Directorate
Direct Line: 020 7189 5166
Direct Fax: 020 7189 5103
Address for correspondence: 3 Hardman St, Manchester M3 3AW.
On the 11th November 2009 we received an email from Detective Sergeant Lander who stated that during his ongoing investigation into our complaint against Dr Fisher he had received an enquiry from the General Medical Council who were requesting disclosure of his investigation under their fitness to practise procedures. Detective Sergeant Grant Lander then provided the GMC with details of his investigation.
On the 14 March 2010, we received a letter from Detective Sergeant Lander, in the letter he stated that he had received a letter from the GMC. They had informed him that their Fitness to Practise enquiry with regard to Dr Fisher had been concluded and no further action was to be taken.
During their entire investigation into Dr Fisher’s fitness to practice, the GMC did not ever contact my family for any input from us. We were appalled that the GMC were not taking any action against Dr Fisher and we think it is an absolute disgrace that they did not contact us. We subsequently contacted the GMC and on the 31st March 2010, Ian Howell confirmed that the GMC had indeed reached the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations and no realistic prospect of establishing that Dr Fisher’s fitness to practise was impaired to a degree justifying action on her registration and that the case was now closed.
As we did not know how much information Detective Sergeant Lander had actually provided to the GMC in regards to his investigation, in order to ensure that the GMC were definitely supplied with all of the evidence in our case, we informed Ian Howell that we would be submitting a complaint in due course directly from ourselves to the GMC.
Here is the actual complaint that was made to the GMC. Please click here to view it.
On the 6 May 2011, Ian Howell confirmed that he had been passed our complaint from the 11th March 2011 against Dr Fleur Fisher and he had been asked to respond.
He stated that the allegations in our complaint had been previously considered by the GMC and closed by the case examiners with no action and confirmed that the case reference is: C1-231021645.
The last week of Carol’s life
Carol sent her mum and dad a Christmas card in December 2004; in the card she stated that she would be coming to visit them in the early part of 2005. We still have the Christmas card. Carol did not visit and nothing further was heard from Carol until the 21st June 2005. Carol also spoke with her brother twice on the last week of her life. She stated that she was fed up with living in London because she was lonely and wanted to come back to be near her family. Carol was supposed to be coming to Stockport on the week that she died. The next week she was dead.
What would have happened if Carol’s brother had not written to her on 29 June? Presumably the cremation arranged by Dr Fisher would have gone ahead as planned. We would not even know that she had died. Our family are extremely concerned that this may have happened to other vulnerable, mentally ill women. Carol was given recovered memory therapy and then deliberately separated from her family. This was done in total secrecy. Her name was changed in secret. She was illegally sectioned under the Mental Health Act in secret. She was almost cremated in secret.
Our family have obtained copies of Carol’s telephone records; they show that Carol rang her brother on the last week of her life. The very next call that Carol makes is to Dr Fisher. We believe that Dr Fisher knew that Carol wanted to come back to live in Stockport with her family. Dr Fisher must also have known that if Carol actually met our family, then her involvement in Carol’s life over the last twenty years would be revealed.
Dr Fisher did not appear at Carol’s inquest. Dr Fisher did not attend Carol’s funeral. Dr Fisher did not make any enquiries about where Carol’s funeral was taking place. Dr Fisher did not send flowers or a card to the funeral. In our opinion, Dr Fisher’s influence on Carol’s life has been malign from beginning to end, and has continued in that vein after Carol’s death.
As a result of the secretive separation of Carol from her family over the last twenty years by Dr Fisher, our family has only had limited contact with Carol, whereas Dr Fisher has had a controlling relationship with Carol involving a lot of personal contact. As a result, a number of people and organisations, including the Metropolitan Police, seem to believe that Dr Fisher was entitled to represent Carol. This conclusion is completely wrong. Dr Fisher had no legal entitlement to represent Carol in any capacity whatsoever. She had no legal right to arrange Carol’s cremation and to dispose of Carol’s possessions. Our family do not believe that any other doctor would behave like this. We do not believe that any other doctor would arrange a cremation. We do not believe that any other doctor would have disposed of Carol’s possessions. Nor do we believe that any other doctor would have acted as next of kin and executor without any legal authority to do so.
Our family think that Dr Fisher’s behaviour is an absolute disgrace. We are equally appalled that the authorities will not take action against her. Indeed, it is the considered view of our family that they are protecting Dr Fisher. Our family want to expose this scandal and get justice for Carol. Carol’s life was precious to our family.
A system is in place which permits anybody to arrange a cremation without the dead person’s family being informed of their relative’s death. At present this can be done without having to produce any supporting legal documents. There is no legal process in place that will prevent illegal cremations. The police do not have a legal obligation to check for direct family and apparently neither does the Coroner’s Office. The process needs to be changed so that it is impossible to arrange an illegal cremation or burial. It must be made mandatory by law that a search for the family of the deceased is made in order to inform them of the death of their relative. It should not be possible to cremate or bury anyone without any legal entitlement to do so.