RAF Benson has yet properly explained to us how it happened.
“The pathologist said it was trauma from something being inserted into the anal passage. At first we were told Robert must have caused it himself by inserting a botle or something but nothing was found at the scene.
“Then we were told it was a natural event as a result of the hanging due to the internal organs falling down but we’ve never been able to find anyone else who could confirm this as normal, especially as Robert didn’t suffer a drop. He was found hanging from a door.”
The family remain convinced Robert’s death was not properly investigated and that as a result the verdict of suicide recorded by the Oxfordshire Coroner was influenced by its failures.
Despite two investigations into the death, a report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission confirming several serious flaws in the initial inquiry and an admission from Thames Valley Police that the family did not receive “a good service,” the Fleetings feel they are no closer to finding the truth. They want a second inquest with a jury to re-examine all the evidence.
They believe there are too many unanswered questions:
How did Robert suffer a trauma to his anal passage as highlighted by the autopsy? What were the “other injuries” mentioned in the first post mortem examination report, reference of which were omited
*What were the ‘other injuries’ mentioned in the first post mortem examination report? References to them were omitted in a second document produced to ‘correct a spelling error.’
in a second document produced to “correct a spelling error”? Why were there no fingerprints on the suicide notes which the family doubt were writen by Robert? What happened to the police log, which should have detailed who atended the crime scene and the actions carried out, but has since been lost? How did 5ſt 8ins Robert manage to hang himself from the door closing mechanism of a 6ſt 6in door? Three types of DNA traces were reportedly found on the noose used in the hanging. One was Robert’s but what about the identity of the other two? Why did police accept the word of a key witness despite him giving contradictory statements? “You can’t have a proper inquest if there has not been a proper investigation,” said Charlie.
“Thames Valley Police have admited the investigation did not come up to their standards and that we, as a family, received a poor service. A thorougher job has not been done.”
June 2015 41
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100