See earlier article here: https://veaterecosan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/fatal-police-shooting-in-bristol.html
Given a fire and blockage on the motorway at the critical time, it is very difficult to see how the police account of Mr Ashworth waving a pistol at Juction 8 at 8.30 am, can be substantiated!
Lisa Fussell told the BBC she had been driving along the Portbury Hundred when she came across a scene of "chaos" involving two unmarked police cars and "five or six officers dressed all in black". Not in uniform you notice. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-41415223)
"Spencer Frederick Ashworth, 29, was filmed trying (not very convincingly) to rob a shop ten months before he was shot dead by police." DM
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/03/15/44FD680100000578-0-image-m-42_1507039943217.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2qH6Gim9n8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ny-SZfYyyw
It is now approaching four weeks since a man sitting in his car was shot dead by armed police on the out-skirts of Bristol on 27th September, 2017. In rather typical fashion, the story and its implications has also died a death.
The media it seems has fulfilled its function by reporting the bare facts at the time of the incident, with few further progress reports or any attempt to discover or question the facts of the case.
By design or accident?
A recent report by the Independent Police Complaint Commission (IPCC) issued on the 2nd October, 2017 is reproduced at end of article. The bland content largely just repeats what was already in the public domain.
- The name and age of the victim, when and where he was shot dead and by whom, although names and ranks are with-held.
- That the killing followed two reports that the driver had threatened others earlier in West Mercia and Gloucestershire, although no detail is given.
- That one marked and two unmarked vehicles, and four authorised firearms officers (AFOs), employed by Avon and Somerset Constabulary, were involved.
- That "a non-police issue" firearm was found at the scene and that an autopsy the next day confirmed Mr Ashworth had died from gunshot wounds resulting from the police action.
It self-evidently studiously avoids answers to important questions.
Since this was issued we read in the Bristol Evening Post (here http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/family-spencer-ashworth-shot-dead-644481) that Mr Ashworth's family have been given no reason why he was shot, and will have to wait until January 24 next year for a pre-inquest review, before even the chance of learning more!
This approach appears to be increasingly common by police and other authorities following serious incidents and it is having a detrimental consequence for the credibility and reputation of the forces of law and order in particular. This is just the latest incident that suggests the very fundamentals of British policing are being radically altered in the total absence of public debate.
Not only are the circumstances of the incident highly suspicious, the subsequent secrecy surrounding it can only fuel serious doubts about the official explanation.
Has the government covertly introduced new operational guidelines that permit or even encourage, the use of deadly force, even where officers and/or public are not actually at serious risk of injury? Was this really a pre-planned killing mission for undisclosed reasons quite different to those publicised?
Such a situation would effectively mean the introduction of extra-judicial killing and police taking on the mantle of assassination squads at their own discretion, with virtually no oversight and no legal consequences!
A Slippery Slope towards Death Squads?
How is it that such a situation has developed without any significant political or media debate? Have we as a nation, become so inured to violence in all its forms, that all that is required to placate our concern about the death of a person by officials in uniform or out of it, is the suggestion of some criminal activity in the past? If so we are already on a very slippery slope. Who can tell where the bar will be set in future?
Owning a gun today may be possessing a knife tomorrow. An assumed threat to a police officer today may be just non-compliance tomorrow. Armed rebellion today may be just passive resistance tomorrow. The protection of the innocent today may easily slip into police racketeering in which only they have the right to carry arms or use them against others.
So before this case - and it is only the most recent of several recent ones where valid questions have not been asked or answered - slips into the bureaucratic bog land, what are the questions that should be posed in order to decide whether this action was proportionate and necessary, or whether the official story stands up to examination. Should fatal shootings by 'officers of the state' be held to at least the same level of account as members of the public.
(Note the shooters in this case were neither arrested or independently questioned under caution. They were instead allowed to leave the scene and are being treated merely as "witnesses" and no one even raises a hair!)
It is certainly a bad day for truth and justice if we cannot believe what the police say, particularly if it is in connection with what otherwise would be regarded as murder.
Six bullet holes/marks not including those that shattered two windows. Which of these were the fatal ones can only be surmised.
The suspect's Suzuki Swift.Sky News/Business Insider
Questions:
1. Why was Mr Ashworth targeted?
'Business Insider' reports, despite repeated requests, Avon and Somerset Police "declined to explain why the man had been shot", although terrorism was ruled out. The only reason subsequently advanced was that he had shown or threatened others with his gun whilst on the motorway.
It is hard to believe that this would normally be sufficient to require fatal force without there being additional supporting circumstances. So why was Mr Ashworth targeted and was the given reason merely cover for the real reason that has been kept secret? If not, why the secrecy?
On the face of it he was only a lorry driver/director of a transport company, with fairly minor legal infringements. No further biographical information has been released. His family has made no comment other than they also have been kept in the dark.
The police have said that he had threatened the owner of a lock shop for the purpose of stealing from the till, but strangely he didn't carry through with the threat and left without any real violence or money. The shop keeper was reported as saying, "He was weird - really weird."
Presumably this is why, although found guilty by magistrates of a minor charge, he was treated leniently with just a modest fine. The only other legal infringements referred to were alleged relatively minor speeding offences that had not been judged.
There has been no investigation by MSM it would seem, into Mr Ashworth's background and business connections, some of which I reproduced in the earlier article.
Director of two companies.
What I found interesting, was that 'Companies House' public documents revealed that not only was Mr Ashworth the Director of two companies located in different areas of the country, it appears when he resigned his last "Directorship" of "Cardington Transport" it reverted to Terence Dunne (72) who is based in Leeds.
What is intriguing is that the latter gentleman appears to be a Director and/or Person with Significant Control (PSC) of numerous companies, usually involved in transport, warehousing, vehicle maintenance and other commercial areas. 'Directorstats' states he is mentioned in no less than 303 filings and worked for 224 companies in two clear cohorts dated 1970 and 2017. These are listed elsewhere.
Repeatedly it appears that his status in such companies is very temporary. Resignation and reappointment appear frequently. The model adopted appears to be that lorry drivers and other tradesmen are appointed as Directors of the companies only for so long as they are employed. This appears to be the situation with Mr Ashworth.
Overwhelmingly transport of goods is the main activity although no information is provided as to what these are. The names of Directors/HGV Drivers tend to indicate cross border movement in Europe and beyond. I am in no position to explain any of this but to an outsider it would appear to invite explanation.
Cardington Transport
As regards Mr Ashworth and Mr Dunne, public documents indicate they are both registered as a Directors of Cardington Transport. In addition Mr Ashworth is described as a "3.5 tonne driver" for the time he was associated with the company.
Mr Dunne seems to have been in control from the start of the business in April 2014 but holds this position for only 7 days (10th - 17th April, 2014) until handing over to others who are also truck drivers.
Mr Ashworth takes on this mantle on the 28th February 2017 and relinquishes it on the 5th April the same year.
In this latter process, the 'Registered Office was transferred from his Portishead address back to 7 Limewood Way, Leeds, LS14 1AB On the resignation of Mr Ashworth, Mr Dunne again takes charge of the company. (See: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08990518/officers)
This seems to be the model for numerous companies listed where Mr Dunne is a director. Effectively employees of transport companies with only a very short life, being appointed Directors for the time they work for the company or the company exists.
The exact reasons and ramifications of this, or what materials were being transported, is of course not revealed but it is apparent that certain individuals maintain a presence in a very fluid situation of multiple companies being formed and dissolved with the common purpose of transporting materials, presumably both home and abroad. There are also connections at this address to air transport.
We cannot answer if any of this was linked to the violent and untimely demise of Mr Ashworth at the hands of the police but it is certainly an area that may be worthy of further elucidation.
7 Limewood Way, Leeds, LS14 1AB
7 Limewood Way, Leeds, LS14 1AB is on an industrial estate in Leeds used as an address of convenience for firms, otherwise known as a virtual Registered Company address. The reason the physical location of the company is not used is often because there is none! This may come as something of a surprise to most people.
Companies House here states ten (10) companies are registered at this address. (See: https://www.companieshousedata.co.uk/a/30686) However Endole states 1820 are listed there. (See: https://suite.endole.co.uk/explorer/postcode/ls14-1ab) Meanwhile UK address book states no less than 13,444 are listed at this address! (See: http://www.ukaddressbook.uk/a/7-limewood-way-leeds-west-yorkshire-ls14-1ab) Who knows there may be even more.
So why does Companies House - what we may regard as the definitive list - now only bring up ten (10)? Have the others scarpered since the Ashworth case?
So why does Companies House - what we may regard as the definitive list - now only bring up ten (10)? Have the others scarpered since the Ashworth case?
It is also the Registered Address of many more transport firms in which Mr Dunne and his associates were involved.
Clearly these two company involvements are very short lived and may have no connection to later events. They do however throw up an intriguing wider picture of what appears to be multiple fake or shell companies that Gordon Bowden and others have spent many years uncovering. (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAjZa5VZNjw&t=5s)
Green Ibis Ltd.
Mr Ashworth is also recorded as Director of Green Ibis Ltd but only from 15 March to 15th June 2017, his occupation recorded as "Van/Warehouse". Green Ibis based in The Aspen Building, Vantage Point Business Village, Mitcheldean, Gloucestershire, GL17 0DD was incorporated as a Private Limited Company on 17 November 2010 with a Sic Code of 82990 which covers the following areas:
33 officers of whom 28 have resigned! I have no idea what the explanation for this high turnover is or what the company actually does other than something connected to those listed above.
Five hundred and five (505) businesses are listed at this address also - obviously another of convenience. (See: https://suite.endole.co.uk/explorer/postcode/gl17-0dd)
2. What precipitated the event?
When there are subtle changes to the official account, doubts are immediately aroused about the voracity of it. What were the changes? One complainant became two or more. First it was at 8.30 am at junction 11, then the time of this one became 8.40 and the original one was placed back at Junction 8. "Had seen a gun" became "threatened by one." So did members of the public just see a gun or were they threatened by it, and if the latter, how did this occur on a motorway? Note: the identities/occupations/other details of these alleged incidents have not been revealed. This in itself is unusual and a cause for concern.
The Telegraph suggests there were multiple incidents as follows:
"The incident happened after a series of 999 calls from “concerned members of the public” travelling on the M5 who had reported seeing a motorist brandishing a handgun on Wednesday morning."
There is no suggestion it was in a service station or similar location so we have to ask how a lone driver would threaten someone else and why, whilst cruising at speed on a motorway? And why would a criminal, if such he was, wish to draw attention to himself by waving a weapon in full sight, knowing the consequences, yet make no attempt to make an escape, indeed not even drive at speed? (As I have previously shown, all other factors being equal, the times and locations indicate an average speed of little more than 40 mph if the initial complain was at J.11, much more if at J.8)
The absence of detail and inconsistency does not inspire confidence in the account. Police statements confirmed the action was "not terrorist related" but there was apparent conflict over whether it was pre-planned or not.
What we can say is that the police want us to think it resulted only from public complaint of seeing a man with a gun on the motorway. That, I think would be naive.
If in fact, despite denials, this was a pre-planned operation, it raises profound questions not only why and whether we now have a 'shoot-to-kill' policy on the British mainland, but also the intention by police (or special forces) to use misinformation and deceit to cover it up. If this is the more accurate picture, it of course begs the question, what the true reason for his assassination was?
I can find no MSM sources prepared to question it. Nor it seems, are established hierarchies, by which I mean Chief Constables and Crime Commissioners, able to control it. This also is a disturbing implication.
2. Who took the call and who acted on it?
There is also some confusion over who took the call. Was it the West Mercia, Goucestershire or Avon and Somerset force? Or if the original complaint was in the West Mercia area and passed to central motorway police group (CMPG) as has been stated, how did it get to the Somerset force? Did the CMPG actually get involved, locate and follow the car or not?
If it did, why did it not intervene whilst the subject was still in its area? It is surely unlikely that it would stop following when entering Gloucestershire but if it did, presumably officers from that force took over a process that would have to be repeated when the vehicle entered the Avon and Somerset area. This seems highly unlikely. More likely the CMPG would have followed the car all the way but the statement projects a different story of changeover at some point to a similar West Country task force.
It has been reported that the officers that did the shooting were with the the Avon and Somerset force but vehicles and method seem much more in keeping with a specialist unit.
Have we be given the truth regarding this aspect of the incident and if not, why not?
Google Maps/Business Insider
3. Why did it take so long to intervene?
If we are to believe the official version, a full hour and over fifty (50) motorway miles elapsed between the initial report of a man in a car with a gun, and him being stopped. This may not seem long, but this is a motorway situation where individual vehicles can be monitored and police patrols are frequent. Was it to facilitate an armed response not immediately available or located? The police do not say.
The other very strange feature of the official story is that this obviously very dangerous man (sic), having threatened people with a firearm, continues south along the motorway at leisurely pace (at 40 mph if first reported at Junction 11; or 50 mph if reported at Junction 9 or 8 as story subsequently changed to) Either way the story as it stands, lacks credibility.
This is neither likely behaviour of an hardened criminal on the run or of a police response to it. The reality must be different and if the police have lied or altered this, what can be trusted in their account of events?
4. Is the Police story actually IMPOSSIBLE?
I do not pose this question lightly. A serious incident, namely a car catching fire on the M5 ahead of Ashworth's vehicle, would on the face of it, appear to preclude the possibility of him arriving at the Portishead turn off at the time stated. As far as I am aware, NO news outlet has pointed out this difficulty.
Fire M5 Closure @ 8.26 am and its implications
The fundamental problem with the time-line, which as far as I can ascertain, has not been discussed by anyone, anywhere else, is that at 8.26 am it was reported that the M5 between Junction 11 and 12 was closed owing to a car catching fire.
(In fact the Highways England image (below) shows traffic blocked only a mile from Junction 12 which makes the problem of Ashworth getting past it even greater as the distance from J.8 to J.12. is actually just over 20 miles!)
Heavy traffic immediately came to a stand-still and started to back up for miles. It apparently remained closed until after 9 am, when presumably traffic began filtering past although the delay for anyone stuck in the traffic jam must have been considerably longer.
So the obvious question emerges, was Ashworth stuck in that jam which would have prevented him reaching the Portishead turn-off by 9.30 or did he pass the point before the car caught fire and so escape the congestion caused?
Highways England announced the blockage on Twitter at 8.36 am and is reproduced here. They further add that at almost 9.03 am "traffic at total stand-still at the moment" effectively blocking all movement until well past that time for anyone caught in it. Not until way past 9.30 is the road clear.
1 lane open #M5 southbound btwn J11a (#A417) + J12 (#Gloucester) @Glosfire tackling a car fire. Pls allow extra travel time, delays expected
#M5 southbound between J11A and J12 - Congestion - Full details at Roadca.ms/Traffic
"Traffic at a total standstill at the moment"
M5 Southbound Junction 11 and 12 traffic now moving well (Note time)
If the most recent police reports can be believed, the traffic jam is six minutes after Ashworth was reported at Junction 8 waving his gun. With reference to the table here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M5_motorway) we can see that Junction eight is over eleven miles prior to Junction 11 and twenty miles to Junction 12. Even if travelling at 60 mph he could not have reached junction 11 until 8.40 am or J.12 by 8.50 am by which time the motorway had already been blocked for at least four to fourteen minutes and almost certainly longer as the announcement must involve a modicum of delay.
In these circumstances I cannot avoid the conclusion that if Ashworth was at Junction 8 at 8.30 am as the police claim, he must have been caught up in that complete traffic jam that would not have released him until well gone 9 am and so prevented him from getting to Bristol by 9.30 am when he was shot.
It is thirty miles from J. 12 to J.19. If he got past the jam at say 9.15 a.m., it would have required an average speed of 120 mph to reach J.19 in a quarter of an hour.
The only alternative is that the police placing him at Junction 8 is unreliable, and if on the M5 at all, he must have been well past Junction 11/12 before the car caught fire at or before 8.36 am. Either way the information put out by police would be proved false it seems.
In addition if following the initial reports of the gun at Junction 8 are true, presumably motorway patrols would have been detailed to follow him. These equally would have been caught up in the same jam.
Also if Ashworth had been stuck in the jam, he would have been easily identified and arrangements could easily have been put in place to stop him when he came out of it. Clearly this didn't happen.
Absolutely no mention has been made by the Police to explain how the fire closure of the motorway immediately prior to the time Ashworth was meant to be approaching that section, can be reconciled with the official story of an unobstructed journey.
Given the importance of this incident on the particulars of the Ashworth one, it is remarkable that it was not referred to by either police or media. You would would have thought given the implications of the fire closure of the motorway, Police would have at least referred to it - but not a word to acknowledge the problem or explain it away! Could it be the story had been agreed and distributed before it was realised the motorway had been blocked at the critical time?
4. Why was it considered necessary to immediately open fire without giving the target opportunity to surrender?
The manner of the stop, neatly by the side of the road, affords no suggestion of any attempt by Mr Ashworth to escape or resist arrest, despite it being quite obvious the police were stopping him. Clearly the fact that at least six bullet holes/marks can be seen to the rear and side of the car and officers had to pull Ashworth through the driver's door or window after he was shot and fatally injured, proves he was not even outside his car before shots were fired.
If he was in possession of a firearm as is claimed, in practical terms this would mean that he could not have presented an immediate threat to the officers concerned. How could he from a seated position behind the wheel with all windows closed as they were smashed by bullets? If the gun was in his hand wouldn't they have made sure it remained there and not placed it on the car roof?
Surely with at least FOUR armed officers surrounding his vehicle, with guns pointing at him, their instructions would have been followed and no attempt would have been made to resist a lawful arrest? Instead what we appear to see is no attempt to do this. Rather it appears from the bullet holes in the car and from witness reports, no opportunity for surrender was afforded, and the armed officers came out of their vehicles shooting, obviously intent on killing the suspect.
Apart from the circumstances that indicate no resistance or threat from Mr Ashworth - and at the time the shots were fired there was nothing to corroborate or substantiate the claim he even had a gun apart from possibly unreliable public reports - there is no suggestion the alleged weapon was in his hand or that he displayed it immediately before being shot dead.
It leaves open the possibility of mistaken identity and killing the wrong man. That would suggest to me a very 'gung-ho' approach to an individual and one that if representative of a general approach pervading the police, would mean that no member of the public was safe from being shot dead. Or was this an assassination operation pre-planned for quite different reasons to those made public? In other words could the police be lying about why and how it all happened?
5. Who was in charge of the operation and who carried it out?
The official story paints a complicated picture with no less than five policing organisations involved: West Mercia; Gloucestershire; Avon and Somerset; CMPG and a tri-party West Country Group. The Guardian here (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/27/police-car-shoot-near-bristol-witness) states:
"A tri-force specialist operations unit car was parked at the police cordon. The unit is a collaboration between the Avon and Somerset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire forces, and delivers an armed response in south-western England."
"Police cordon"? So how did that work on the fifty (50) mile journey?
It seems it was a co-ordinated Police response between all five organisations but there is no definitive information as to how this worked in practice or who took the decision to shoot dead Mr Ashworth.
We are informed the four armed officers were all employed by the Avon and Somerset force so presumably it is they that have to take responsibility for the actions of their officers?
Then there is the small question of UNIFORMS! An early witness states when they arrived on scene four or five men in black were present but there is no suggestion of uniforms.
If true does this mean that the Avon and Somerset Constabulary now employs armed officers patrolling in unmarked vehicles with no way of differentiating or identifying them from criminals or terrorists? If so this is yet another worrying aspect to this event.
Obviously the officers have not been identified. Once upon a time this would not have been the case, and officers who had protected others or themselves in the line of duty would not only have been identified but treated as worthy heroes.
This is a new and disturbing era where not only the victim appears to have been unnecessarily killed but the perpetrators slip into the darkness never to be revealed. If policemen and their bosses know they never have to account for their actions, what is stop more of the same?
Even in 'trigger-happy' America in recent notorious cases, the officer has been revealed. In Britain it seems are we to get used to the sinister system of unexplained assassination by anonymous state officials?
6. Why is the IPCC in charge of the investigation?
This may sound a silly question but I don't believe it is. In practice the IPCC is hardly equipped to investigate crime. Its role is to ensure Police follow established principles of enforcement and in fact relies on the police to carry out its enquiries. I find the immediate emphasis on the IPCC taking control, more worrying than reassuring. The lady below was the IPCC spokesperson in the case.
https://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/image/fetch/w_620,f_auto,ar_3:2,c_fill/http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/webimage/1.6636624.1401037306!/image/892854083.jpg
Huffington Post has this:
"IPCC Commissioner Cindy Butts said:
“My thoughts are with the man’s family and all those affected at this difficult time.
“The investigation is in its very early stages and we will be working hard to establish exactly what happened and would ask for patience while our investigation continues.
“At this stage we are currently investigating the circumstances of the incident and no individual police officer is under investigation. There would have been a large number of witnesses, given this incident took place on a busy road during rush hour. We would ask that anyone with information that may assist our independent investigation make contact with our investigators.”
IPCC Statement here: https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/man-fatally-shot-near-portishead-named
Oct 2, 2017
A 29-year-old man who was fatally shot by police firearms officers on Wednesday 27 September near Portishead in Somerset, has been named as Spencer Ashworth.
Mr Ashworth, whose last known address was in Portishead, was shot by Avon and Somerset Police firearms officers on the A369 Portbury Hundred shortly after 9.30am on Wednesday morning.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is independently investigating the circumstances of Mr Ashworth’s death. Initial information indicates officers were responding to a report of a man travelling on the M5 with a handgun and that he had threatened another motorist. The IPCC has also been informed of an earlier incident where a similar report was received by West Mercia Police.
The vehicle stopped by police on the Portbury Hundred was a red Suzuki Swift, in which Mr Ashworth was travelling. We have established that authorised firearms officers (AFOs) from Avon and Somerset Police arrived in one marked police vehicle and two unmarked police vehicles.
IPCC investigators attended the scene and the post incident procedure, where police officers provided their initial accounts of the incident. The evidence indicates that a number of shots were fired by four officers.
What appears to be a non-police issue firearm found at the scene is currently subject to ballistics and forensic testing.
IPCC investigators are examining body worn video footage from a number of the AFOs. The IPCC is appealing for any other road users who may have captured any part of the incident on their dashcams or helmet cams to share it with investigators.
A post-mortem examination carried out on Thursday in the presence of an IPCC investigator found Mr Ashworth died of gunshot injuries.
The officers involved are being treated as witnesses; this will be kept under review as the investigation continues. Formal identification by Mr Ashworth’s family will take place on Tuesday.
IPCC Operations Manager Mel Evans said: “We are conducting a thorough and detailed independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding Mr Ashworth’s death. We have made positive progress and are continuing to build a detailed picture of what happened. We have made contact with Mr Ashworth’s family to offer our condolences and explain our role and will ensure they, Avon and Somerset Police and the Coroner are kept updated as the investigation continues. Our thoughts remain with all of those affected.
“If anyone witnessed events who has not yet come forward we would be grateful to hear from them.”
The IPCC received referrals from West Mercia Police and Gloucestershire Police in relation to how they dealt with information received from a member of the public prior to the incident near Portishead. The member of the public made the report to West Mercia Police. This information was then passed to Gloucestershire Police. After careful assessment the IPCC will not investigate the actions of either force. Their involvement may be considered at a later stage should further information come to light justifying an investigation. The IPCC investigation will consider the information provided by these forces to inform the sequence of events that occurred last Wednesday.
Anyone with information is asked to call 0800 029 4686 or email m5portishead@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
The IPCC employs about 900 staff to hold the police to account in numerous cases of referral by complaint by those directly affected. In the more serious cases it can refer itself, as in the Portishead shooting case. However it remains independent of all and any police investigations and just supervises them and so to put such great emphasis on its involvement as guarantee of a thorough investigation may not be as reassuring as it may appear.
The statement obscures who is actually in charge of the forensic investigation - effectively what detectives and force. For example is the Avon and Somerset force investigating itself or was another force brought in to do the job? Or did the IPCC instruct and manage its own investigators and specialists. This is not revealed but clearly important in determining what really happened.
7. What happened to the four plain clothed shooters?
It is fairly clear that following the shooting they must have left the scene fairly smartly as there is no sign of any fitting the description when soon after photographs are taken. They leave presumably in a vehicle not shown in the after-photographs either. These are important gaps that have not been referred to in statements.
The IPCC has stated that they are treated as "witnesses" and none are under investigation. This opinion taken so early is puzzling. It certainly supports the view that armed police officers are certainly treated very differently to any other person who had just shot a dead another. There is clearly a presumption of innocence of any crime or even unprofessional conduct before any of the circumstances have been assessed doesn't it?
Now the question is, in all the circumstances, is this approach appropriate? For example is it right that the shooters should leave, presumably altogether, before there has been any opportunity to question them independently. It is certainly an established principle that in criminal and cases of this sort, there should be no opportunity to consort before statements are given.
And one might have expected that where a man has been shot dead under at least doubtful circumstances, a higher degree of attention would be paid to those that carried it out. It is almost as if, once an officer becomes an authorised firearms officer, he is adjudged above the law in the matter of killing others, even on the most tenuous of grounds. If arrest was considered inappropriate, should not at least the officers been interviewed under caution, before they had had an opportunity to agree between them a plausible story?
8. Why was the crime-scene interfered with?
Anyone with the flimsiest familiarity with crime scenes will be aware of the importance Police attach to not disturbing it. A serious crime of 'perverting the course of justice' is sometimes applied to those that do. Yet in this case there is clear evidence that the police or others working under their direction did just this in two cases!
The first example relates to Mr Ashcroft's body and the second related to the pistol he is alleged to have been in possession of and which he threatened others with, earlier in the day - although as we have seen this account is rendered very doubtful by virtue of the car fire and motorway blockade at junction 12.
The body.
Credit: South West News Service
It is almost certain that Mr Ashworth was effectively dead by the time he was dragged from the car. We may assume that given the fact that shots were made through the driver's door, some would have been head shots from which there is no recovery. The exact nature of the injuries will have been revealed at the autopsy but these, like everything else in this case, remain secret.
A witness reports he was pulled out for "resuscitation" but this might reflect hope over experience. It obviously quickly became apparent that Mr Ashworth was past any practical intervention that may preserve his life. So the question arises why was his body moved, not once but twice, after he had effectively died?
The moment after he was dragged from the car and it was apparent that he had died, should he not have been left undisturbed where he lay? Instead he was obviously moved to a location between the first unmarked car and the kerb and was placed on his back as shown by photograph the only purpose for which could have been to hide the body as much as possible from sight. Though largely obscured by the vehicle a light tracksuit and white trainers can be observed to legs and feet. If the blue tent later erected covered his body, it must in fact have been moved again. These changes at the very least must mean that the official police photographs do not record the position where he first lay dead outside his car.
The Gun
The second area where the crime scene has undoubted been interfered with is the location of the weapon on the roof of his car. Given that he was dragged fatally wounded or dead from the vehicle there is no possibility that Mr Ashworth could have placed it there so it must have been placed there by a policeman from wherever it was located. Would not normal procedure be to photograph where it was found and then to carefully place it in a sealed evidence bag? The fact that it was placed where it was, rather obviously for advertising purposes, introduces a strong element of doubt that it was in the car at all. Any trained police officer would know the importance of its original location and not to interfere with it in any way. The fact that it was is highly suspicious.
CONCLUSION
This case is important, not only because a man lost his life at the hands of police officers with guns but because it raises much wider questions about public policy in this area. It is hard to see how the story and justification advanced by the police is either convincing or even possible given the fire on the motorway that would have blocked his claimed journey. This demands a proper explanation.
On the wider question the public has a right to know what steps have been taken to roll out armed officers in unmarked cars that are now patrolling public roads, the training they have been given - both practical and psychological - to do their job, and the rules of engagement that have been agreed, largely without public debate or input.
This is not a private matter as it impinges on the safety of everyone and this case is the deadly proof. It is possible that Mr Ashworth's background and activity placed him in a special targeted category. If so, should the public not be informed that the government has replaced in such cases, the judicial process, with a new policy of 'shoot to kill' and what the guiding principles of that are?
Note similar approach here: https://www.facebook.com/younes.arar/posts/10156802303155760
ReplyDelete