Key Complaints
1. Delay in getting to the scene of death
The ambulance arrived at 1.20 am but the local police - who are based only 3 miles away - did not arrive at the scene for another 30 minutes.
Weald and Oakley told LB that the officers could not find the "farm" which delayed their arrival. LB does not believe that the police were unaware where the farm was located considering the fact that Simon Bromley was known to the police.
2. London Ambulance Reports
Fireman contacted LB and told him to get copies of the ambulance reports. These were sent to LB and he found that they stated that in the ambulance officers view there was 'foul play'.
LB was told that neither the coroner nor any of the police officers had seen the copies of the London ambulance report. The first time the police had seen it was when LB showed it to Coxall of the new investigation team in March 2003
3 Length of time before ambulance called
LB was told by the fireman present that night that the ambulance men had said that Lee had been dead by over an hour by the time they had been called.
Police did not investigate this question.
Change of Officers
4. Why was PC Gail Taplin moved out of the investigation to be replaced by Jason Weald?
[New officers say that this was quite normal police procedure]
5. Failure to test the CCTV video
LB estimates that there were 4 CCTV cameras focused on the area where the incident took place. Only one was recovered. Martin Oakley and Jason Weald told LB that Simon Bromley's video was not working. But when LB's daughter entered the house after the incident, she saw the screens and they appeared to be working.
LB says that the police admitted that they simply took the word of the Bromley's that the CCTV camera were not working - and did not test it themselves.
6. Viewing the CCTV Video that did exist
LB was told different things by different officers about whether he could see the CCTV footage.
LB visited Grays Police station with his wife and asked to speak with Jason Weald. LB asked whether he could see the CCTV. He was told by Weald that he could not. LB led Weald to believe that he had some vital information with regards the tape and Weald then said that he would get the tape. At that point, LB's wife was not well and LB asked Weald if he could come back later between 2-3pm. Weald agreed.
• At 2.20pm LB's mobile rang and Weald tells LB that he is unable to view the tape as the librarian has gone home.
However LB spoke to the librarian the next day and in the coarse of the conversation she indicated that she had not gone home until 4pm.
[Should be noted that in the end Weald and Oakley did allow LB to see the video though not at normal speed and not all the way through]
7. Failure to provide correct information on whether Scott Bromley was present that night
When LB and his brother Ray saw the video at the police station, there was no sign of Scott Bromley on the video. They asked Martin Oakley and Jason Weald whether Scott Bromley was present. They replied, "Scott wasn't there, he's not in the video.' The police emphasised the point that Scott Bromley was not three
LB has however subsequently confirmed that Scott was present in the house at the time.
His presence has been more recently confirmed when LB saw the original video at real speed.
8. Police Response to question whether Simon Bromley had a drug test
DC Martin Oakley gave three different responses when asked about whether a drug test had been done on Simon Bromley.
- first he said that "yes been tested, but nothing to worry about
- second, said that 'no he never had to be tested"
third that "he's been tested and he was clean. It was done properly because a friend of mine which been in the force for years, he's done a proper test on him." This was confirmed by Jason Weald.
On a separate occasion, at which DCS Graeme Bull was present, LB asked Bull again if Simon Bromley had been drug tested and his reply was "no it wasn't deemed necessary to drug test him."
8b. Police Response to evidence provided by Simon Bromley
LB was informed by the Marin Oakley and Gail Taplin on the day of Lee's death that Simon Bromley had told them that he was inching the drum round and it unexpectantly went fast which threw Lee out feet first through one of the inspection hatches which crushed him to death
Simon Bromley repeated this story to LB's son in law on the same day, and again to LB himself a couple of days later, and also to friends of Lee who had gone to the scene of the incident.
It is also confirmed that Bromley had initially said this as, at a later date LB spoke with Dept Supt Graeme Bull and he told LB that "he did not see how it could be possible for Lee to be thrown out like this" and that he had had words with his officers at the scene. Det Supt Graeme Bull then said that "he'd had a right bull and cow" with them for accepting this version of events. This conversation was witnessed by Ray Balkwell at a meeting at Rayliegh police station.
Sometime later LB was told by a conversation with a coroners officer that Lee was found headfirst in the drum with his feet outside.
Simon Bromley was then interviewed by the police.. According to LB he then changed his story relating to the circumstances of Lee's death, and apparently then stated: "he's started the truck/drum up, not knowing where Lee was."
In relation to this point there are a number of issues:
• assuming Simon Bromley has given two different versions of events to the police, why did the police not consider this to be suspicious? Why was he not challenged about the different version during the interview - which apparently he was not? Was Bromley tipped off about what to say?
• if it was not true that Bromley had given two different version of events, why was LB given such inaccurate information by the police?
It should be noted that at the last meeting with the police, LB was told that the statements of SB were consistent.
9 Failure to consider evidence
LB told the police that on the evening of Lee's death, Lee had phoned Lorraine Mitchinson (his partner) at approximately 11.40pm to say that he would be coming home in approximately 30 minutes, and wanted a bath. Lorraine returned his call and said that she would be in bed when he returns.
This was the last time that Lee was known to have spoken to someone and could be helpful evidence to the time of death.
When LB spoke with Martin Oakley and Jason Weald about this, they appeared uninterested, and said that Lorraine must have got the time of the call wrong. According to LB they would have said this since the ambulance was only called at 1.03 - which could mean that there is an unaccounted hour and a half.
The police officers said "what is Lee's phone - probably pay-as-you-go; what was Lorraine's phone - probably pay-as-you-go, then we cant do anything". They undertook no further interest in this or undertook any more enquiries.
In fact Lorraine's phone was under contract, so LB's family applied for a copy of the statement that records the calls, which proved that Lorraine did return Lee's call at 11.44 pm
Police had not investigated this apparent unaccounted for period in time
10 Failure to Interview witnesses
- Jamie Nelson spoke with Lee at 9.30 pm the evening of his death and said that he was sweating profusely. Why was he not interviewed?
- Glen Nichols saw Lee at 10.30. He also said that he was wringing in sweat. He was however not interviewed?
These were the last two people known to have see Lee alive.
• The CCTV shows David Bromley, Simon Bromley's father, leaving the family in a small pick up truck at approximately 1.20 am - before the police had arrived. He was not interviewed.
LB took this issue up with Oakely and Weald but according to LB, this was brushed aside, and as far as LB is aware, Graeme Ball was not informed.
• Simon Bromley's mother, wife and brother live in the house, but they were not interviewed.
11. Acceptance of evidence that was clearly impossible
Graeme Bull told LB at a meting that in his view Lee was 'kangoing' through the hatch. In LB's view this was impractical and impossible because of the weight of the kango. At that meeting the LB had brouhgt a man called Gary Seven, who owned Mix and Lay concrete who had explained why such an explanation was not possible.
Despite this, Graeme Ball insisted that this was what most likely happened
12. Failure of Grame Bull to consider case seriously
After a meeting with LLB, Graeme Bull agreed to review the case and get back to him. After not hearing from him after three or four weeks, LB contacted him and made out that he had something important to say. A meeting was hastily arranged. At that meeting Bull says he has not looked at the files yet.
This was the officer in charge of the case who had agreed to review the case.
13. Destruction of Clothes
Why were they destroyed so quickly - since they could have been important evidence?
[should be noted that Lorraine had told the police that she did not want them back. Also new investigation team said that nothing unusual in this as had concluded no crime had taken place]
14. Significance of what Lee was wearing
Lee was wearing a fleece when he was found dead. It is highly unlikely that any person would be wearing a fleece if they were actually working - since it was such a hot day and he would not want his good fleece to be ruined.
The police did not understand the significant of this
15. Why not arrest Simon Bromley that evening
LB has recently spoken to Inspector Croft who was on the scene that day, and asked why he had not arrested Simon Bromley. He said that he had wanted to but was told by his SIO (?Bull) that they should wait 24 hours until forensic comes back