News

Latest Campaign News

10 January 2017

The application to the Attorney General’s Office to gain his consent to start High Court proceedings to quash the second inquest into Carol’s death has been has been completed and submitted. Tracking of the application has confirmed that it has been received today at the Attorney General’s Office.

16th October 2016

The application to quash the second inquest into Carol’s death, which is to be sent to the Attorney General’s Office is nearing completion, we have completed about 85% – 90%. New evidence has very recently come to light, which has very serious implications because it completely destroys the official testimony of a key witness at the second inquest, and as a result it also destroys the official narrative of the second inquest. We believe that we are now in a position to deliver a very strong application to the Attorney General’s Office.

29 July 2016

We have today received the final response from the Policy Team at the Information Commissioner’s Office in regards to gaining access to a key witness statement at Carol’s inquest and other documents held by the Coroner responsible for conducting the 2nd inquest into Carol’s death. The key witness statement is directly in regards to Carol’s death and is 106 pages, at the inquest 87 pages were completely redacted and the remaining pages were partially redacted. We applied under the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act to the Coroner for access to the information. The Coroner refused access to all information requested. In a very significant step forward the ICO have today found in our favour, The ICO have now requested that the Coroner provide us with all information requested in the Subject Access Requests (SARs) from each of our immediate family.

25 June 2016

After careful consideration of all of the evidence from both previous inquests into Carol’s death, We believe that it can be clearly demonstrated that the Coroners from both inquests, have deliberately withheld vital witness testimony from our family in regards to Carol’s death. we have therefore decided that it is necessary in the interests of justice to submit a further application to the Attorney General’s Office for a third inquest into Carol’s death.

1st April 2016

In January 2016, we submitted a Freedom of Information Request and Data Protection Requests from each member of our immediate family to the Coroner in regards to a 106 page statement of a key witness at Carol’s inquest (Dr Fisher), the statement was ordered by the Coroner upon specific directions from two High Court Judges and was directly about the involvement of the witness at the time of Carol’s death. At the inquest 87 pages out of the 106 page statement were redacted (censored). Our family believe that morally and legally we are entitled to see the full testimony of this witness. The Coroner refused in writing to supply any of the information. We then submitted an official complaint against the Coroner to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), stating that the Coroner was in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The ICO have upheld our complaint and have written to the Coroner to ask that she provide all information requested by family in our Subject Access Requests (SARs). We believe that this information is very important and is crucial to providing more of the truth of how Carol died. A letter has today been sent to the Head of the Coroner’s legal team and informed him that if the information is refused, we will immediately instigate court proceedings to obtain the information. we have asked him to provide the contact details of the individual(s) from his legal team that we will need to subpoena to court.

In a separate development, we have officially complained to the regulatory body of one of Carol’s therapists about Carol’s appalling treatment. They have also upheld our complaint and found that the therapist does have a case to answer. The therapist now has to appear at a disciplinary hearing, which is yet to be arranged.

16th February 2016

On the 19th December 2014 at the High Court In London our family successfully applied and overturned the original inquest verdict into Carol’s death. The original inquest was quashed. The case was heard before two High Court Judges, the Honourable Mr Justice Ouseley and His Honour Judge Peter Thornton QC, Chief Coroner for England and Wales.

The grounds for the quashing of the original inquest and the reasons for the High Court ordering a fresh inquest were as follows:

‘The reason which the parties agree justifies a fresh inquest is that the first inquest did not consider the circumstances of Dr Fisher’s emergency call and/or Dr Fisher’s involvement with the Deceased in the period around her death. In particular, the emergency call records indicate (a) that Dr Fisher had reason to suspect that the Deceased had taken an overdose and (b) that she expected the Deceased to be found in her bedroom. At the lowest, these records suggest that Dr Fisher had knowledge of the mood and behaviour of the Deceased which could be relevant to an investigation into her death. They also raise proper questions as to whether Dr Fisher actually knew or believed that the Deceased intended to take or had taken an overdose.’

On the 9th September 2015, Dr Fisher gave her testimony in regards to Carol’s death in an interview with the Metropolitan Police. The interview with Dr Fisher took place over several hours and her statement consisted of approximately 106 pages. This statement was made by Dr Fisher in the full knowledge that all of the content may be read out in its entirety, in public. At the inquest, approximately 87 pages of this 106 page statement was redacted by the Coroner, as in her opinion it was outside the remit of the inquest. In the unredacted 19 pages of Dr Fisher’s statement that was submitted to the court, Dr Fisher made a number of statements that are demonstrably false.

In January 2016, David Felstead submitted a Freedom of Information Request and Data Protection Requests from each member of my immediate family to the Coroner in regards to the 106 page statement of Dr Fisher, as justifiably we want to know the full extent of Dr Fisher’s involvement in Carol’s life. This statement is directly about the circumstances of Carol’s death. Our family believe that morally and legally we are entitled to see the full testimony of Dr Fisher.

We have today received a refusal from the Coroner of all information requested and have now submitted an official complaint against the Coroner to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

3rd February 2016

On the 19th December 2014 at the High Court In London our family successfully applied and overturned the original inquest verdict into Carol’s death. The original inquest was quashed. The case was heard before two High Court Judges, the Honourable Mr Justice Ouseley and His Honour Judge Peter Thornton QC, Chief Coroner for England and Wales.

The grounds for the quashing of the original inquest and the reasons for the High Court ordering a fresh inquest were as follows:

‘The reason which the parties agree justifies a fresh inquest is that the first inquest did not consider the circumstances of Dr Fisher’s emergency call and/or Dr Fisher’s involvement with the Deceased in the period around her death. In particular, the emergency call records indicate (a) that Dr Fisher had reason to suspect that the Deceased had taken an overdose and (b) that she expected the Deceased to be found in her bedroom. At the lowest, these records suggest that Dr Fisher had knowledge of the mood and behaviour of the Deceased which could be relevant to an investigation into her death. They also raise proper questions as to whether Dr Fisher actually knew or believed that the Deceased intended to take or had taken an overdose.’

On the 9th September 2015, Dr Fisher gave her testimony in regards to Carol’s death in an interview with the Metropolitan Police. The interview with Dr Fisher took place over several hours and her statement consisted of approximately 106 pages. This statement was made by Dr Fisher in the full knowledge that all of the content may be read out in its entirety, in public. At the inquest, approximately 87 pages of this 106 page statement was redacted by the Coroner, as in her opinion it was outside the remit of the inquest. In the unredacted 19 pages of Dr Fisher’s statement that was submitted to the court, Dr Fisher made a number of statements that are demonstrably false.

On the 16th January 2016, David Felstead submitted a Freedom of Information Request to the Metropolitan Police for a full copy of Dr Fisher’s 106 page statement on behalf of our family, as justifiably we want to know the full extent of Dr Fisher’s involvement in Carol’s life. This statement is directly about the circumstances of Carol’s death. our family believe that morally and legally we are entitled to see the full testimony of Dr Fisher.

The following statement was sent to the Metropolitan Police:

‘When you consider your decision I would like you to please take into account that my family have had to wait ten years to overturn the inquest into my sister’s death at the High Court in London and hear Dr Fisher’s testimony.

Given the fact that the new inquest was mandated by two High Court Judges at the High Court – The Hon Mr Duncan Ouseley and Peter Thornton QC Chief Coroner for England and Wales, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice in the London solely because Dr Fisher had not given evidence at the original inquest, we are astonished that in the fresh inquest we have not been allowed to read Dr Fisher’s full statement. My family and I believe that if we are not allowed access to this 106 page statement it makes a complete mockery of the inquest process, and quite rightly we need to seriously start considering that Dr Fisher is above the law.

When The Hon Mr Duncan Ouseley and Peter Thornton QC Chief Coroner for England and Wales quashed the original inquest, and ordered that a fresh inquest take place specifically so that Dr Fisher could give her testimony, we are sure that their intention was not for 87 pages of a 106 page statement to be kept secret from my family. If this FOI request for this statement is refused, I believe that my family will need to contact both judges in regards to this matter’.

We have today received a refusal from the Metropolitan Police, who state that it is not in the public interest to give our family a copy of this statement. As we have been forced to do many times in the past, in regards to acquiring information relating to Carol’s death, which normally would be given without resistance to any other bereaved family, we will be contesting this decision by taking further action in regards to acquiring this statement.

17th January 2016

We have now received the full audio of the re-inquest that took place on the 30th September 2015 at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

This case including both inquests, is an absolute scandal. The 2nd inquest for all the shenanigans that occurred, needs a serious article writing on it’s own. This is being written shortly and will be posted on here.

The inquest was the opportunity for the authorities to admit that they had made mistakes and that they had taken steps to make sure it never happened again. They have had more than ten years to reflect on what they have done in Carol’s case, their non compliance with the law has been pointed out in detail many times. During the ten years since Carol’s death none of the authorities has ever acknowledged that they have done anything wrong or ever apologised for anything.

At the inquest the only independent evidence in this case is the photographs taken at the time of Carol’s death, there is a serious problem with them that cannot be reconciled. The extremely serious anomaly in the photographs means that any conclusions drawn at the inquest need to be treated with caution.

There have been a number of developments that have necessitated significant further action:

David Felstead has officially requested on behalf of our family that the Coroner provide him with a full unredacted copy of the approx 106 page statement supplied to the Coroner by Dr Fisher. This statement was supplied by Dr Fisher as her testimony at the inquest, the statement was made with the intention that any of the statement could be read out in public in open court.

At the inquest, approximately 87 pages of this 106 page statement was redacted by the Coroner, as in her opinion it was outside the remit of the inquest. In the unredacted 19 pages of Dr Fisher’s statement that was submitted to the court, Dr Fisher made a number of statements that are demonstrably false.

This new inquest was ordered by the High Court, because Dr Fisher did not give testimony at the first inquest. Our family spent ten years waiting to hear Dr Fisher’s testimony. It is outrageous that the Coroner has not provided our family with a full unredacted copy of this statement.

We have also initiated an official complaint against one of Carol’s therapists with the therapist’s regulatory body, they have investigated and found that the therapist has a case to answer in regards to the treatment of Carol. The therapist is now to appear before a disciplinary panel. We are not naming the therapist simply so that it does not prejudice the hearing. We expect to be reporting other therapists to the regulatory body for investigation for their appalling treatment of Carol.

We have sent in 15 separate Data Protection requests to the Police, Coroner’s and another organisation that are holding information in regards to Carol’s case. We have also currently lodged an official complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office, that is part way through the complaint process.

9th November 2015

Petition launched requesting Prime Minister Rt Hon David Cameron MP to change the law so that it is mandatory that the Police and Coroner’s Office have to inform a family of the death of a relative.

1st October 2015

Yesterday on the 30th September 2015, the full re-inquest into Carol’s death took place at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand London. The verdict at the conclusion of the inquest was an open verdict, which means that the actual cause of Carol’s death could not be determined.

The setting in court can best be described as dramatic. The court was packed. There were two barristers, one representing Dr Fisher, one representing St George’s NHS Trust, sat alongside these was Kevin Felstead, who represented our family. There were two large screens one on each side of the court, where a direct video link relayed Dr Fisher’s testimony.

Specifically, there were two things that we wanted to come out of this inquest: we wanted Carol to be positively identified and we wanted, where possible, to find out how Carol died. Understandably we also wanted to establish whether or not there was third party involvement in Carol’s death.

The conclusion drawn at the inquest was that there was no third party involvement in Carol’s death. After listening to the evidence, our family are satisfied with this conclusion and in the interests of justice, truth and fairness, we will shortly amend this website accordingly.

Kevin Felstead was outstanding in representing our family in court. He also gave several press interviews to the national press outside court. As this post is written, there are at least 9 articles on the inquest printed today. The Coroner stated at the end of the inquest that “what Carol’s family has been through is unimaginable”. Our sincere hope is that serious lessons have been learnt and that the catastrophic consequences of Carol’s case are never repeated again.

The inquest:

Live evidence was taken from a number of witnesses, these included police officers, medical staff, toxicologist, psychiatrist and others. members of our family were also able to privately view Scene of Crime Officer photographs taken at the time of Carol’s death. In regards to the verdict, after listening to all of the evidence testimony we are satisfied that this is the correct verdict. After viewing the photographs, which were different from others that we have seen previously, we are all in agreement that the deceased person was Carol.

The following was established as fact and recorded at the inquest:

Carol had been taking Oramorph for pain relief, an oral solution which is a liquid containing the active ingredient morphine sulphate. At the time of Carol’s death a test should have been done to determine whether or not an overdose of morphine had occurred. The exhumation of Carol’s body was discussed in court to determine whether or not it would still be possible to test for toxic levels of morphine. A toxicologist went into great detail to explain that because Carol had been taking morphine for a substantial amount of time, it would not be possible to accurately interpret the results. Our family listened intently to his evidence and understand and agree that this is the case.

It was established as fact that no test was done at the time of Carol’s death to estimate a time of death for Carol – this should also have been done. Scene of Crime Officer photographs were shown to the toxicologist in court, who gave an estimate that Carol had probably died about 24 hours before she was found, so the best guess of the actual date of her death was the 28th June 2005.

It was established that the post mortem where blood samples were taken for analysis was conducted on the 4th July 2005. Carol died on approximately the 28th June 2005. The post mortem and blood samples should have been taken as soon as possible after Carol had died, to allow for correct levels of drugs to be accurately tested. This was not done.

The actual cause of Carol’s death was speculated to have been: a) Morphine overdose, b) cardiac arrhythmia, from a range of potential causes, or natural causes, given the severe medical surgical history that she had, our family understand and accept that we cannot get any further in regards to the cause of Carol’s death.

25 September 2015

There have been a number of protracted communications with the Coroner’s Office during the last two days. After more than nine months and with just one week to go before the actual inquest into Carol’s death, the Coroner’s Office has given us witness statements from a number of people who are to appear at the inquest. To serve the statements on ourselves at such short notice is appalling. One of the main witnesses, in my family’s opinion, the main witness in the entire inquest has given a statement to the police directly in regards to Carol’s death, which has then been forwarded to ourselves from the Coroner. This statement is 106 pages long, out of the 106 pages approximately 87 pages has been redacted – blacked out so that the content cannot be seen. This immediately begs the question exactly what can be so sensitive and secretive about a witness statement in regards to Carol’s death that it cannot be seen by the inquest or my bereaved family? This inquest has been mandated by the High Court, it is supposed to be an honest transparent process, where any conclusions which are drawn are made by a considered rational analysis of the known facts and evidence. If 80% of the main witness testimony is excluded, how is it remotely possible for a proper investigation into the circumstances of Carol’s death to take place? We have informed the Coroner that this is totally unacceptable and we have requested that we see the full unredacted statement. An official complaint about the conduct of the Coroner in this new inquest has already been made to the Ministry of Justice, a copy of the complaint has been sent to the Attorney General’s Office, and also a copy has been sent to His Honour Judge Thornton, Chief Coroner for England and Wales. After the inquest has taken place on Wednesday 30th September at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, we fully expect that there will be a number of serious additions to the complaint.

23 September 2015

There have been a number of important developments over the last few days. We have submitted an official complaint about the Coroner to the Ministry of Justice, a copy of the complaint has been sent to the Attorney General’s Office and a copy has also been sent to forwarded to His Honour Judge Thornton, Chief Coroner for England and Wales. The complaint is necessary because of the conduct of the Coroner throughout this entire new inquest process. We had asked for the inquest to be postponed until an investigation conducted by the MOJ had taken place, however with just one week to go before the inquest date, we have today received statements from a number of witnesses, it is appalling that they have not been given to us months ago. The statements contain information that is of very significant interest to us, because of this we have decided to go ahead with the inquest on the 30th September 2015 at the Royal Courts of Justice in London and also the viewing on the 29th September of the SOCO photographs taken at the time of Carol’s death. We will continue with the complaint against the Coroner after the inquest.

4th September 2015

The date for the 2nd full Inquest into Carol’s death has been officially confirmed as 30th September 2015 and will be held at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand London. Dr Fisher will be providing live evidence, however, her evidence will be via video link, this apparently is for the convenience of the Court. On the day before the inquest – the 29th September, Our family will be viewing Scene of Crime Officer (SOCO) photographs taken at the time of Carol’s death. this is something that we do not want to do, but it has to be done. The last sham inquest was a very harrowing experience, this inquest will be the same and we anticipate some very contentious dialogue at the inquest. We remain confident that the testimony of certain witnesses will significantly reveal more of the truth, if not the whole truth of how Carol died.

27th August 2015

We are continuing to meet great obstruction and resistance from the Coroner’s office in regards to any information about facts and information in regards to Carol’s death.

We have requested in writing, four times, answers to the following simple questions from the legal assistant to the coroner and received no response.

1. Can you provide an update urgently regarding the following queries. If the 30th September is an operational date for a hearing as our family has to book time off work and make travel and accommodation arrangements. Is 30 September operational? If so, will this be a full Inquest or another Pre-inquest Review Hearing (PIRH)?

2. POLICE PHOTOGRAPHS
We would like to view the photographs in advance of the Inquest, we would like to view the photographs on the previous day. That would be on 29 September, if a PIRH or full Inquest is confirmed for 30 September. Can you confirm that this is possible?

3. WITNESS STATEMENTS
Can you confirm whether you are now in receipt of witness statements?

4. If witness statements have not been issued, have summonses been issued as was stated in the last PIRH?

5. Have you received a response from the medical experts?

The Coroner has had nine months to provide our family with witness statements. We have received none. One of the witness statements we are expecting is from the Coroner’s Officer from the original inquest, who works in the same building with the new Coroner.

A Coroner can have responsibility for conducting many inquests during a year. Every inquest hearing has to be scheduled well in advance of the date to ensure that all witnesses and interested parties can appear and where necessary, give evidence at the inquest.

There have been two pre-inquest review hearings into Carol’s death during this new inquest process. One took place on the 26th March 2015 and the second took place on the 10th June 2015, both took place at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Our family was never notified that either of the hearings was going to take place, it was only because we persistently requested information from the Coroner’s Office that we even got to hear that they were taking place. The last inquest into Carol’s death was a scandal, this inquest process is following an identical pattern, where conclusions are not based on factual evidence and where possible no information is given to our family.

We are not phased in the slightest by any of this deliberate protracted obstruction and resistance from the Coroner’s Office. A full inquest has to eventually take place. When it does, we have every confidence that we will get the truth of how Carol died.

04 August 2015

On the 21st July 2015, we sent an important letter to the legal representative of the coroner who is responsible for the new inquest into Carol’s death. In the letter we stated that unless the coroner provided within 14 days, Scene of Crime Officer (SOCO) photographs taken at the scene of Carol’s death, we would be officially submitting a substantial complaint, which is already written to the Ministry of Justice. In the complaint we would be requesting the removal of the coroner from the inquest process.

The complaint was due to be submitted to the Ministry of Justice tonight. Today we have received confirmation that with just a couple of hours to go before the deadline expired, the police SOCO photographs have now been found. We will be informing the coroner that the photographs are going to be subjected to rigorous critical analysis by qualified expert(s) so that the correct conclusions in regards to Carol’s death can be drawn from them. The photographs should be a step forward and should provide physical evidence that should allow Carol to be identified, an estimate of the time of her death to be made and should also help to provide clarity in regards to the circumstances of her death.

21st July 2015

Today we have sent an important letter to the legal representative of the coroner who is responsible for the new inquest into Carol’s death. In the letter we have stated that unless the coroner provides within 14 days, Scene of Crime Officer (SOCO) photographs taken at the scene of Carol’s death, we will be officially submitting a substantial complaint, which is already written to the Ministry of Justice. In the complaint we will be requesting the removal of the coroner from the inquest process. The last inquest was a demonstrable sham, crucial information was deliberately omitted from the inquest and this resulted in the inquest being quashed at the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. It makes a complete mockery of the Justice System; to repeat the failures of the original inquest and to conduct the fresh inquest process without crucial evidence is not acceptable.

The SOCO Photographs are extremely important evidence that would allow Carol to be identified; the photographs would also assist in estimating a time of death.(based on the deterioration of her body); moreover, they would provide clarity on the circumstances of Carol’s death, which would then facilitate a considered judgement to be made about the actual cause of Carol’s death which, as the police records show, was initially deemed to be ‘suspicious.’

We are sceptical in the extreme that multiple copies of photographs, taken at the time of Carol’s death, can be missing, especially when they are stored at different locations, i.e. Metropolitan Police files and Westminster Coroner’s.

In order to assist the coroner, we have provided unique serial number identification of the photographs. If the coroner does not respond within 14 days we will be asking the Ministry of Justice to intervene in this inquest and produce evidence that these photographs have been lawfully destroyed. All Coroner’s files and Metropolitan Police Files have retention periods. The storage, access and destruction of all documents is recorded, this includes photographs. If these photographs have been lawfully destroyed we want the Ministry of Justice to provide full details of their destruction from both the Coroner’s Office and the Metropolitan Police.

24th June 2015

We have today sent a letter to the Coroner who is conducting the new inquest into Carol’s death explaining that In regards to the new inquest, the expectations of my family are very straightforward: we want her to consider the evidence in the case and arrive at a verdict for the cause of Carol’s death based on the facts and not on speculation. There are two specific aims that we want to achieve at this new inquest: (a) we want Carol to be positively identified, as no member of my family has ever identified Carol (b) We would like to know the cause of Carol’s death. we have pointed out that we will accept any verdict that the court delivers, providing that verdict is based on a reasoned, considered judgement of the evidence. There have been two pre inquest hearings in this new inquest, both were held in the Royal Courts of Justice on 26 March and 10 June 2015, we have told the Coroner that we want to officially state on the record, in the strongest terms possible, that we have grave concerns about the manner in which the pre inquest hearings have been conducted.
The purpose of an inquest is very narrow:
Who has died?
Where did they die?
When did they die?
How did the death come about?
At both hearings the Coroner’s Office has failed to provide any evidence that demonstrates that the identification of my Carol’s body is correct. The very first and most basic point in an inquest is to establish “who has died”; it is an imperative necessity of any inquest.
At both hearings the Coroner has stated that all Scene of Crime Officer (SOCO) photographs taken at the time of Carol’s death are missing; crucially, identification photographs are also missing. This is totally unacceptable as there were multiple copies of the SOCO photographs stored at separate locations.
We do not expect any special treatment. We simply expect that all proceedings are evidenced-based. The previous Inquest was shambolic. We are not prepared to allow that process to be replicated.
We have stated that unless clear evidence of identification is provided within 14 days from the date of this letter, we will make an official complaint about the conduct of the Coroner during this inquest to the Coroner’s Unit at the Ministry of Justice.
If evidence of positive identification of my sister cannot be provided, we want the Coroner to issue an order for exhumation of the body in order to positively identify Carol.

16th June 2015

The 2nd pre-inquest hearing into Carol’s death took place at Royal Courts of Justice, in the Strand London on the 10th June. At the hearing the Coroner stated that all SOCO (Scene of Crimes Officer) photographs taken at the time of Carol’s death were missing, a photograph which was used to identify Carol is also missing. A Coroner’s remit is very narrow: Who has died? Where did they die? When did they die? How did the death come about?
At the moment the Authorities cannot prove “who has died”. These photographs are crucial to establishing the estimated time of death, the circumstances of Carol’s death and also the identification of Carol’s body. We have just sent irrefutable documentary evidence to the Coroner, that not only were there photographs, there were also multiple copies of the photographs. One set was irrefutably with the Coroner’s Office and one set was irrefutably with the Metropolitan Police. It is also very likely that there was a third set of originals. My family and I do not accept that all of these photographs can be missing. If these photographs are still missing at the time a full inquest takes place, we will be taking steps to establish whether this legally invalidates the whole inquest.

10th June 2015

Today at the Royal Courts of Justice, in the Strand London, the 2nd pre-inquest into Carol’s death took place. The hearing went well under very difficult circumstances. There were some dramatic key moments during the pre-inquest: the Senior Coroner for Inner West London gave an update of the enquiries that are still currently ongoing; she also confirmed that all of the police photographs taken at the time of Carol’s death as well as an alleged photograph that was used to identify Carol are missing and cannot be found. As it stands at the moment, the identification of Carol’s body cannot be proved by the authorities and is still in doubt. Kevin Felstead acted as the spokesman for our family, walked the Coroner through a number of Police documents that were disclosed to our family at the last pre-inquest, held on the 26th March 2015. He pointed out that a number of points in the official narrative written in the documents were demonstrably untrue and provided evidence to support this statement; he pointed out that proper questions needed to be asked of a key witness in regards to them. The Coroner agreed with this assessment. The Coroner also stated that she wanted to officially put on record that if witnesses who have been asked to supply a statement, do not supply a statement within one month from today, then a summons for contempt of court will be issued to each witness. Journalists from the Times, The Press Association,The BBC and a number of other media sources were present at today’s hearing. A new date has been provisionally put aside for a full inquest hearing. The Provisional date is the 30th September 2015.

19th May 2015

The 10th June 2015 has been confirmed by the legal representative of the Coroner as a second pre-inquest into Carol’s death. This will be held at the Royal Courts of Justice at the Strand in London. The full inquest into Carol’s death cannot go ahead because all photographs taken of Carol by the police and Coroner are missing. There are also a number of significant unresolved issues, in particular surrounding the identification of Carol.

29th March 2015

The Pre Inquest into Carol’s death took place on Thursday 26th March in Court 11 in the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand London. To ensure that the proceedings went as smoothly as possible, Kevin Felstead acted as the representative for our family and did all of the talking in court. There was some very interesting dialogue on a number of unresolved issues, some of which are very contentious. In a significant step in the right direction, the Coroner has agreed to provide us access to a number of photographs and police files that have previously been unavailable to us. We expect to get access to the police files (from the day of Carol’s death) in the next week and access to the photographs as soon as they have been located, the photographs should have been in the previous Coroner’s files, but are missing at present. We will also be getting copies of all witness statements in good time before the new inquest. The Coroner has stated that, depending on how the enquiry develops, it may be necessary to have a further Pre Inquest Review, the original Inquest date of the 10th June 2015, will be operational and may be either a further Pre Inquest Review or it could be the full inquest.

23rd March 2015

Several members of our family are travelling to London on Wednesday 25th March for the Pre Inquest Review (PIR) into Carol’s death. The hearing will take place at the Royal Courts of Justice, at the Strand in London on Thursday the 26th March. The Pre Inquest Review is the last hearing in the legal process before the actual inquest itself, which is scheduled for the 10th June 2015, which will take place at the Royal Courts of Justice. The agenda of the PIR is as follows:
1. Interested Persons
2. Scope of the inquiry
3. Matters in issue
4. Draft witness list
5. Disclosure
6. Administrative matters
7. Dates
8. Any other business

2nd March 2015

We have just received official confirmation that there will be a PIR (Pre Inquest Review) into Carol’s death, this will take place on the 26th March 2015 at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London. This review is extremely important because it defines the issues that are to be addressed at the new inquest, the witnesses to be called and the evidence that is to be allowed into the inquest. As it stands at the moment there are some very serious anomalies in regards to a number of issues, in particular around the identification procedure that was used to identify Carol, We will be making it very clear that if a number of issues are not addressed and resolved at the inquest, (all of which are routine in any other death) then we will be taking further significant action immediately after the inquest. The actual inquest will be on the 10th June 2015, again at the Royal Courts of Justice, The Senior Coroner for Inner West London, Dr Fiona Wilcox, will be conducting the Inquest.

26th February 2015

We have today received official confirmation that the new inquest into Carol’s death has been set for 10th June 2015 and will take place at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London. The Senior Coroner for Inner West London, Dr Fiona Wilcox, will be conducting the Inquest.

25th February 2015

We have today received an official transcript of the High Court judgement to order a new inquest into Carol’s death.

Summary of the High Court Judgement for the new inquest.

These are the actual words spoken by the judge(s) in the High Court Hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice on the 19th December 2014.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

19th December 2014

B e f o r e:

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY

and

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER THORNTON QC

(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Between:

FELSTEAD
Claimant

HM CORONER FOR INNER WEST LONDON
Defendant

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: This is an application brought by David Felstead, the
brother of Carole Patricia Myers, with the fiat of the Solicitor General, dated 4 March 2014. The applicant seeks an order under section 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 (as amended) to quash the inquisition into the death of Ms Myers and to direct that a fresh inquest be heard.

Ms Myers was found dead on 29 June 2005 at the age of 41. As a result of information received in an emergency telephone call, the police forced entry into her flat in Wandsworth, London and found her dead in bed.

The investigation commenced by the Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner West London was inconclusive. The coroner concluded the inquest on 12 August 2005 with an open verdict. The cause of death was given by the corner as “unascertained.”

Medical and scientific evidence about her death was inconclusive. The coroner heard evidence from a pathologist who found mild dilation of the left ventricle and congestion of the lungs, but was unable to establish the cause of death. There was a suggestion that Ms Myers may have suffered an electrolyte imbalance which had triggered a cardiac arrhythmia, but it was little more than a possibility.

There was no finding that Ms Myers actually died on the day she was found, in view of the cyanosis. The coroner concluded with these words:

“I shall say that Carole Patricia Myers has died as 1(a), unascertained. On
Wednesday 29 June 2005, at about 3.30pm at [her address] in Wandsworth,
London, [she] was found dead in bed, and my conclusion as to the death shall
be an open verdict.”

The applicant now seeks a fresh inquest into his sister’s death. He puts forward a number of grounds, the first of which is presented on the basis of “the discovery of new facts or evidence,” one of the bases upon which it may be just to hold a new inquest pursuant to section 13(1)(b).

This principal point concerns a Dr Fleur Fisher, a former clinician who had years before treated Ms Myers but latterly became, in Dr Fisher’s words, “a carer and friend.”

She has also described herself as the “next of kin” of Ms Myers and “executor” of her estate. Dr Fisher was not called to give evidence at the inquest.

The point arises in this way. At around the time of the death of Ms Myers, it was Dr Fisher who made the 999 emergency telephone call, at 3.14pm. In this significant call, she told the police that she was a friend of Ms Myers, and had serious concerns for her welfare, and that she might have taken a drug overdose. Dr Fisher added that they had been unable to reach Ms Myers by telephone and that Miss Myers would be in the bedroom at the rear of Ms Myers’ property. It was as a result of this call that the police went to the flat and forced
entry.

At the time of the inquest, this 999 call was said by a police witness to have been made by “a friend” of Ms Myers, as she was concerned for her friend. The identity of this “friend” did not emerge at the time. No reference was made at the inquest to Dr Fisher.

In my judgment, some of this is potentially material evidence which, if available at the time of the inquest, could have made a difference to the coroner’s decision. I am not saying that any of it necessarily would have made a difference, but some of it might have done.

At the very least there should have been, and now can be, enquiry into the reasons for the 999 call by Dr Fisher, and whether she knew or suspected that Ms Myers may have taken an overdose and, if so, why.

There should be an exploration of what Dr Fisher, who described herself as a “friend and carer” of the deceased, knew about the deceased’s health and state of mind shortly before her death, and of her behaviour. She may have been the last person to have had contact with Ms Myers before her death.

I am therefore satisfied, as a result of the new facts and evidence, that it is necessary and desirable in the interests of justice under section 13(1) of the Coroners Act 1988 (as amended) that another inquest should be held.

Accordingly, if HHJ Thornton agrees, under section 13(1)(2) the inquisition taken on 12 August 2005 will be quashed, and a fresh investigation will be ordered (including an inquest to be held into the death by the Senior Coroner, or an appropriately experienced coroner nominated by her).

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER THORNTON: I agree.

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: In those circumstances, this application is granted and the
inquisition is quashed. There will be a new inquest in this investigation as soon as possible.

13th February 2015

We have been awaiting a response in regards to a date for the new inquest and which Coroner will be responsible for conducting the new inquest. Unsurprisingly we have not received any response at all. The following letter sent by David Felstead on behalf of our family has been sent today by recorded delivery to the Coroner who was the defendant in the High Court. The letter should arrive by Monday morning. We intend to escalate matters from this point on until we get a satisfactory response. (Addresses redacted).

13 February 2015

Dear Dr Wilcox,

On the 19th December 2014, the inquest into the death of my sister Carole Myers (formerly known as Carol Felstead), which was conducted by Dr Shirley Radcliffe on the 12th August 2005, was officially quashed and a new inquest was ordered in the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The case reference was CO/1603/2014, the case was heard before two High Court Judges, The Honourable Mr Justice Ouseley and His Honour Judge Peter Thornton.

As you were the defendant in this case, I expect that you have been informed by the High Court of this decision.

I have enclosed a copy of the Consent Order, agreed by yourself and the co-defendant Dr Radcliffe and also signed by your legal representative and myself, I refer you to point 2(c) of the Consent Order:

“such fresh coroner’s inquiry and inquest be conducted by the First Defendant or, at her option, by another coroner for the Inner West London coroner area (including, for the avoidance of doubt, any area coroner or assistant coroner)”

Can you now please provide the contact details for the Coroner who is going to be responsible for conducting the new inquest and the date of the new inquest? I would like these details as soon as possible so that my family and I can arrange a meeting with the new Coroner before the new inquest.

Kind Regards
David Felstead

A new inquest into Carol’s death has officially been ordered today by two High Court Judges – The Hon Mr Duncan Ouseley and Peter Thornton QC Chief Coroner for England and Wales. We look forward to finally get the opportunity to have our day in court very soon and establishing the truth surrounding Carol’s death.

16th December 2014

We have been in communication with the High Court today and the decision whether or not a new inquest is to be ordered into Carol’s death is officially to be pronounced in the High Court in London, this Friday – Friday 19th December 2014. Various members of our family will be at the High Court to hear the decision. we are very hopeful and confident that a new inquest will be ordered and after a very difficult nine and a half year struggle, we will finally get the opportunity to have our day in court and establish the truth of how Carol died.

25th November 2014

We have today received confirmation that the consent order for a new inquest into Carol’s death has completed it’s final step in the legal process and has now officially been served on the High Court, Carol’s case is now ready to be heard by the High Court judges.

24th November 2014

We are now at last at the final stage for a new inquest to be ordered into Carol’s death, both myself and the legal representatives of the Senior Inner West London Coroner have today officially signed the consent order stating that all parties now agree that the original inquest should be quashed and that a new inquest should be ordered into Carol’s death. The signed consent order will now be served on the High Court. The case will then be heard in private by two or more High Court Judges. The High Court should then quash the original inquest and order another inquest, this could happen before christmas this year. The new inquest, once ordered will certainly happen in 2015 and realistically could happen as early as the beginning of 2015.

20th November 2014

We have today received the final consent form from the legal representatives of the Senior Coroner for Inner West London along with a statement of their reasons for conceding that a new inquest into Carol’s death should take place. David Felstead on behalf of our family will be signing the consent form this weekend. The Defendants – the Coroners are then going to co-sign the consent form. The case will then be listed at the High Court in London to be held before two or more High Court judges, as both parties are now in agreement a new inquest should then be ordered.

18th June 2014

On the 9th April 2014, after receiving the consent of the Solicitor General David Felstead submitted an application to the High Court for a new inquest to be held into Carol’s death. Previously the Coroners involved in the original inquest have stated that they would oppose any application for a new inquest. We are very pleased to say that after receiving the application and extensive supporting evidence, they have reconsidered their position and have instructed their legal representatives to concede that an order should be made for a fresh inquest into Carol’s death. David Felstead has now been asked to consent to the order. We are now considering the next step, but it is almost certain that a new inquest will go ahead.

26th March 2014

A new article on Carol’s case has been published in the Times today:
“Inquest victory for parents accused of satanic ritual abuse”
The family of a nurse who falsely claimed that her parents were Satanists after undergoing “recovered memory” therapy have won the right to seek a new inquest into her death.
The article focuses on Dr Fisher’s behaviour.

7th March 2014

We have received the final response from the Attorney General’s Office in regards to our application for a new inquest into Carol’s death. The Solicitor General has granted his consent to make an application to the High Court for a new inquest under section 13 1(b) of the Coroner’s Act 1988 – where an inquest has been held by him, that (whether by reason of fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, insufficiency of inquiry, the discovery of new facts or evidence or otherwise) it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that another inquest should be held. We are currently assessing what steps need to be taken to initiate the High Court proceedings.

1 January 2014

The Justice for Carol Book has now been completed and is now available from Amazon:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Justice-Carol-True-Story-Felstead-ebook/dp/B00HMDA68O/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388575511&sr=1-8&keywords=justice+for+carol – Our application for a new inquest into Carol’s death is at the final stage at the Attorney General’s Office, all relevant communications from our family and the Coroner’s Office have been submitted to the AGO and we are awaiting the final decision on whether or not a new inquest will be granted.

27th June 2013

We have today received confirmation from the Attorney General’s Office that our application for a new inquest into Carol’s death comprising a 32 page letter with more than 100 pages of supporting documentation has been sent by the Attorney General’s Office to the Coroner’s Office on the 19th April 2013. The Coroner’s Office have confirmed receipt of the documents to the Attorney General’s Office.  The Coroner has been specifically asked to address the issues detailed in our application and reply to the Attorney General’s Office in writing. Once the Attorney General’s Office has received a substantive response from the Coroner’s  Office, this will be then sent to our family and we will then comment on the statements made by the Coroner’s Office.  Our application for a new inquest into Carol’s death is then going to be assessed by either the Attorney General, The Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP or the Solicitor General, Oliver Heald QC MP.

Publication of the Justice For Carol book is imminent, we are in the last couple of weeks of writing and will publish after one final read of the book to correct any minor errors.

31st March 2013

On the 13th February 2013,  a 32 page letter with more than 100 pages of supporting documentation was submitted by recorded delivery to the Attorney General’s Office, specifically marked for the attention of the Attorney General, The Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP. The letter is calling for a new inquest into Carol’s death and the exhumation of Carol’s body in order to positively identify her. This week 28 March 2013 I have received an acknowledgement that the application has been accepted and is being treated as application to the High Court under section 13(1)(b) Coroners Act 1988: – where an inquest has been held by him, that (whether by reason of fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, insufficiency of inquiry, the discovery of new facts or evidence or otherwise) it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that another inquest should be held.

20 November 2012

A New article related to Carol’s case has appeared in this weeks Redbrick Newspaper. Redbrick is the student publication of the University of Birmingham.  The article can be found here: http://www.redbrick.me/2012/11/editorial-a-satanic-myth-the-solicitor-and-a-modern-day-witch-hunt/.

The publication of the Justice for Carol book has been delayed due to a number of unanticipated developments in the campaign.  We now hope to publish the book in January of 2013.

We are at present in the process of writing a substantial letter to the Attorney General, to get a fresh inquest into Carol’s death. As part of this process, we will be requesting the exhumation of Carol’s body in order to positively identify her.

1 November 2012

Carol’s father has been advised by an experienced pathologist, following a review of our case that, in his opinion, we may have grounds for seeking a fresh inquest into Carol’s death. This will necessitate applying via the Attorney General’s Office.  We anticipate holding all of the key players in this scandal to account, in a new hearing in a Coroner’s Court.

19 October 2012

Deadline for the publication of the ‘Justice for Carol’ book officially set for the 19th November 2012.

Carol’s story will be published in a book which will be available from Amazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/ on 19th November 2012. The title of the book will be ‘Justice For Carol’. The final edits for the book have gone well, and we are now scanning and creating PDF files of a number of significant documents which will be included in the book.

27 September 2012

Exhumation

We have been contacted directly this week (25th September 2012) by a pathologist. We are part way through the application process to get a licence for exhumation from the Ministry of Justice. A further discussion with the pathologist is due to take place on Friday 28th September 2012. If he states that he is willing to conduct a DNA test as part of the exhumation, (which is necessary to positively identify Carol) we can pass this information to the Ministry of Justice, who should then grant us a licence for exhumation. The licence is valid for 12 months. When a licence is issued, we will be hoping to conduct the exhumation as soon as possible.

British False Memory Society (BFMS)

The BFMS have published their latest newsletter.  In the newsletter is an extensive article on Carol’s story. The newsletter also contains a number of questions that have been raised in parliament, related to recovered memory therapy and Carol’s case. The newsletter can be found here: http://bfms.org.uk/files/8813/4857/7808/2012_Autumn_Newsletter.pdf

The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust (Tavistock Centre, 120 Belsize Lane, London, NW3 5BA)

Dr Matthew Patrick the Chief Executive of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust has refused to release copies of Carol’s medical records to us.  Here is the letter, which states clearly our reasons for requesting access to Carol’s medical records: http://www.justiceforcarol.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/WebsiteTavistock-Response1.pdf

Dr Patrick personally states that his reason for the refusal are that Carol did not want her family to have access to her medical records. Over the last seven years we have legally acquired thousands of Carol’s medical records, all of the treating hospitals have granted access to Carol’s medical records to us except Dr Patrick. Nowhere in the many thousands of medical records in our possession, does Carol ever state that she does not want her family to have access to her medical records.

Dr Patrick is fully aware, Carol was a vulnerable, mentally unwell adult; who had been seriously mentally ill for the last twenty years of her life, Carol had been placed on the severe mental illness register since June 29th 1992,  he has been asked repeatedly to provide us with documentary evidence, signed and dated by Carol stating that she did not want her family to have access to her medical records, we have also specifically requested to see documentary evidence from the court of protection or the Public Guardianship Office that Carol had been judged as being mentally competent to make such a statement at that time.  On the 6th September 2012,  Dr Patrick confirmed in writing that he has no documentary evidence signed by Carol, that she did not want her family to have access to her medical records, furthermore he also confirmed that he has no documentary evidence from the court of protection or the Public Guardianship Office that Carol had been judged as being mentally competent to make such a statement at that timeWe are currently referring our request for Carol’s medical records and Dr Patricks refusal to the Minister for Health via our MP.

Justice For Carol Book

A very detailed factual book on Carol’s story, has been written, it is now going through the last proof read. The book will be available from Amazon and can be read on a Kindle ebook reader. A very conservative estimate is that it will be published in 4 weeks, however it is more likely to be published much sooner. As soon as it is available, this news page will be updated, with a link to the book.

01 July 2012

We have legally acquired a substantial number of Carol’s medical records, which consist of comprehensive detailed medical and pyschiatric notes, including details of medication. The records are more than 12 inches thick, a very conservative estimate would be that there is a minimum of 1000 pages.  Reading these notes has been extremely upsetting and distressing for our family. It is our opinion that these records have extremely damning implications for Dr Fleur Fisher, Dr Valerie Sinason, Dr Robert Hale and many others, as their individual involvement in Carol’s treatment is extensively documented.  Because of this new information, sections of the forthcoming book on Carol’s case will have to be re-written in order to fully expose their involvement.

We are currently awaiting a response from Andrew Stunnell MP, who has written to the Royal College of Pathologists in an attempt to identify a pathologist who can take DNA as part of an exhumation.  We have never identified Carol, the exhumation and DNA test are necessary in order to positively identify Carol.  If Andrew Stunnell is unsuccessful in locating a pathologist, we will escalate matters and take further action. We are absolutely resolute in our determination to have this exhumation and DNA test conducted.

A taster tape for a documentary on Carol’s case has been submitted to a national television channel, we have been waiting for several weeks now to hear their response.  We have been assured that the decision on whether a documentary to be produced is still under consideration.

09 May 2012

A book on Carol’s story written by Carol’s brother is almost complete. It is looking like the completed book will be just under 30 chapters. The book will pull no punches and the people responsible for Carol’s appalling medical treatment and the scandal surrounding Carol’s death are all going to be named and put under the glare of public scrutiny, with irrefutable documentary evidence of their involvement. The book will be published in July 2012.

May 8 2012

A short recording of the two day filming that took place on March 8th and March 9th 2012 has been submitted to a national tv station. We are awaiting their response on whether they are going to create a documentary on Carol’s story.

May 1 2012

I have been in contact with the Stockport Coroner, Stockport Laboratory Medicine, The Royal College of Pathologists, International Bisosciences, LGC Forensics, Manchester University and various others in an attempt to find a pathologist willing to take DNA as part of the exhumation of Carol’s body, all with no success. We now have a meeting with Andrew Stunnell MP, where we hope to find a means of resolving this situation.

08 March 2012

Freelance Film Producers have conducted two days of filming, interviewing Carol’s dad and brothers about various aspects of the case.

02 February 2012

We are having problems finding a pathologist to conduct a DNA test as part of the exhumation of Carol’s body.  We want to conduct the exhumation in order to positively identify Carol, as we don’t accept the identification process that was conducted at the time of Carol’s death. We have been in touch with our local Coroner, the Royal College of Pathologists, Manchester University and a number of forensic laboratories, all with no success. We are resolute and absolutely determined that the exhumation and subsequent identification will take place, and we will persevere until we find a pathologist. Once that we have details of the pathologist, we then have to provide his/her details to the Ministry of Justice, who then should grant us a licence for exhumation. Once a licence for exhumation is issued, we then have 12 months in which to conduct the exhumation.

10 January 2012

We are currently in discussions regarding a TV documentary on Carol’s story for a national TV channel.

11 December 2011

New article on Carol’s story printed in Observer Magazine, The full article can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/11/carole-myers-satanic-child-abuse

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.”

25 November 2011

New article on Carol’s story printed in this weeks edition of Private Eye Magazine (Page 32).The full article can be found here: http://www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/eyefelsteadmyers.htm
A further weblink relating to the article, containing a shortened summary of the article can be found here: http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/bogus-satanic-ritual-abuse-accusation-resulted-in-another-tragedy/

09 November 2011

We have sent a request for a licence to exhume Carol’s body, to the Ministry of Justice. We do not accept the identification procedure carried out at the time of Carol’s death, and wish to take a DNA sample to positively identify Carol.  The request for an exhumation licence was accompanied by a 20 page letter, detailing the scandalous background and circumstances of Carol’s death.

We are awaiting their response.

02 November 2011

Andrew Stunnell MP acting on our behalf has escalated matters further and has made another request for  access to the emergency 999 call directly related to Carol’s death made by Dr Fleur Fisher on 29th June 2005. Full details of this request have been sent to Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, Theresa May, the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police Borough Commander for Wandsworth. The latest news that we have is that access for the call is being considered by the Directorate of Legal Services at Scotland Yard, headed by Ed Solomons – the Director of Legal Services.

05 September 2011

The Metropolitan Police have confirmed the full of the doctor who certified Carol’s death on 29th June 2005 as Dr Gavin Richard Anthony DeSouza.

31 August 2011

On the 11th July 2011, we requested from the Metropolitan Police the contact details of the doctor who certified Carol as being dead on the 29th June 2005.

Here is a copy of the my family’s latest e-mail response to them.

Email starts:

R.E. my request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 11/7/2011.

I requested the following information:

(a) The full name and Practice address of this doctor who certified that my daughter Carol was dead.

(b) The time that Carol was certified as being dead.
(c) Full job title of the doctor who certified Carol as being dead.

You have replied and stated the following:

(a) The full name and Practice address of this doctor who certified that Carol was dead:-
The name of the doctor who certified Ms Myers as dead was Dr Desouza.
Full name not recorded. Practice address not recorded.
(b) The time that Carol was certified as being dead:-
Ms Myer was certified as being dead at 1647hrs on 29 June 2005.
(c) Full job title of the doctor who certified Carol as being dead:-
Information not recorded.

This response is not acceptable. More information is required. As the Metropolitan Police contacted this doctor at the time of Carol’s death, then the Metropolitan Police have his/her contact details, and as this doctor will, in all likelihood have been involved in many Metropolitan Police deaths, his/her details will be very familiar to you. Why do you not simply just ring this doctor up and ask him to confirm his/her full name, job title and practice address details?

As this doctor will have been paid by the Metropolitan Police, it is simply a matter of finding the payment details in relation to the call out at Carol’s death in order find his/her full contact details. Likewise if this doctor has been involved in other sudden deaths there will be other payment records.

As it was the Metropolitan Police who contacted this doctor and called him/her to Carol’s death scene and therefore employed him/her it is not necessary for me to contact the Coroner’s Office for further information in regards to this doctor.

It is a legal requirement that every death in the United Kingdom is certified by a doctor legally qualified to do so. This is a very simple request. I want the Metropolitan Police to demonstrate that Carol was certified as dead by an identifiable doctor, who was qualified to do so.

It is not good enough to simply say Dr Desouza certified Carol’s death – which Dr Desouza is it?

It should be noted that this information should have been communicated to my family by the Metropolitan Police at the time of Carol’s death in June 2005. It was not, furthermore this doctor should also have been identified at the inquest into Carol’s death, and his/her identity should have been recorded in the inquest transcript. It was not.

I am contacting my Member of Parliament in regards to a number of issues relating to Carol’s death. I want a definitive response from you in relation to this email, that either identifies this doctor or does not. If you cannot provide these details, you should be aware that I am directly passing the response to this email to my MP and I will ask him to bring this issue up in parliament.

Email ends:

31 August 2011

Andrew Stunnell MP acting on our behalf has just been refused by the Metropolitan Police access to the 999 emergency call related to Carol’s death, made by Dr Fleur Fisher on the 29th June 2005. From the London Ambulance Service Callout sheets recorded at the time, we know that the purpose of the callout was for a suspected drug overdose. This overdose was not mentioned by either the Metropolitan Police or the Coroner at the inquest into Carol’s death. We only received the London Ambulance callout sheets in 2010 and were totally unaware of this suspected drug overdose until then. As Dr Fleur Fisher illegally attempted to cremate Carol and took all of her possessions including her car without any legal entitlement whatsoever, we want to know how Dr Fisher who was 200 miles away from Carol’s flat at the time could possibly know that Carol had taken an overdose? Furthermore we want to know why this overdose was not mentioned at the inquest into Carol’s death by the Metropolitan Police or the Coroner’s Office ? we also want to know specifically why our bereaved family is treated differently than every other bereaved family in the UK by the Metropolitan Police. We have never heard of any bereaved family ever being refused access to a 999 call directly related to the death of a close relative. Further action is currently being taken to access this 999 call.

03 August 2011

New Video uploaded to youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoZYAc2CScY

Link uploaded to Justice For Carol Facebook Campaign Pagehttp://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-For-Carol-Campaign/173193876060030

29 June 2011

New Blog on www.richardfelstead.com – How to Make Someone Disappear from the Face of the Earth

Link uploaded to Justice For Carol Facebook Campaign Pagehttp://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-For-Carol-Campaign/173193876060030

21 June 2011

Dysgenics article on Carol http://dysgenicsreport.blogspot.com/

21 June 2011

Stolen Kids article on Carol http://stolenkids-thepress.blogspot.com/

Link uploaded to Justice For Carol Facebook Campaign Pagehttp://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-For-Carol-Campaign/173193876060030

21 June 2011

Memory and Justice article on Carolhttp://recoveredmemorytherapy.blogspot.com/2011/02/justice-for-carol-activities-of-dr.html

Link uploaded to Justice For Carol Facebook Campaign Pagehttp://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-For-Carol-Campaign/173193876060030

21 June 2011

Sub-Culture Alternatives Freedom Foundation (SAFF) article on Carolhttp://www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/marchant.htm

Link uploaded to Justice For Carol Facebook Campaign Pagehttp://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-For-Carol-Campaign/173193876060030

21 June 2011

Sunday Times article on Carol uploaded to Richard Felstead’s bloghttp://www.richardfelstead.com/

Link uploaded to Justice For Carol Facebook Campaign Pagehttp://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-For-Carol-Campaign/173193876060030

21 June 2011

Article written about Carol by Kevin Felstead in British False Memory Society Newsletter-http://www.bfms.org.uk/site_pages/frameset.htm

Link uploaded to Justice For Carol Facebook Campaign Pagehttp://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-For-Carol-Campaign/173193876060030

16 June 2011

The Dramatis Personae website has updated it’s entry for Dr Fleur Fisher.
http://www.dramatis.hostcell.net/Index_E_to_F/index_e_to_f.html

Link uploaded to Justice For Carol Facebook Campaign Pagehttp://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-For-Carol-Campaign/173193876060030

11 May 2011

The General Medical Council state that there is not enough evidence to put Dr Fisher before a fitness to practice 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 on our website http://justiceforcarol.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/OfficialComplaint.pdf

Link uploaded to Justice For Carol Facebook Campaign Pagehttp://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-For-Carol-Campaign/173193876060030

22 February 2011

Video uploaded to Justice For Carol Facebook Campaign Pagehttp://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-For-Carol-Campaign/173193876060030

 

 

 

 

 

4 Responses to News

  1. Marc Ponsford says:

    ~ very similar situation happened to our family , though not as extreme . A clear case of unethical behaviour , and legislation against this form of ‘therapy ‘ must eventually be enacted by parliament . Good luck with your campaign

  2. andy hanson says:

    I am unsure if we can be of any use but if we can, we are willing to help. My partner and I have spent 30 years working inside mental health services and have a very keen insight into how those in power operate. We have both blown the whistle on failing services and managers and survived the experience. We are willing to review all the evidence you have so far collected and suggest some ways forward if we can, obviously we would make no charge for this. We have both worked at senior levels within the NHS and we are currently setting up an effective and new form of patient advocacy service. If we can be of any help please do not hesitate to contact us on the email or phone 07734581561 Yours faithfully Andy Hanson RMN BA MA and Alison Ball RMN RGN BA MA

    • Sally Hughes-Brown says:

      Andy, I too have a wealth of NHS experience at senior level, including the investigation of fraud etc, and would be more than glad to provide support on a no-charge basis to further pursue answers. From reading the material it looks as if the only way to break through the judicial impasse is via a method involving sheer volume of numbers (of people), and a collective needs to form. Please respond if this sounds useful and I will send contact details.

      • Naomi says:

        Hello

        I am a documentary producer working with the Felstead family. I wonder if you might be able to drop me a line regarding your above comment as I would be very interested in discussing this with you?

        Kindest

        Naomi

        naomi@raindaytv.co.uk

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *