Published On: Fri, Oct 19th, 2018

Who killed Police Constable Keith Palmer?

Share This

According to the inquest, recently closed, into the Westminster Bridge attack of March 2017, the policeman Keith Palmer died from a knife wound that had penetrated deep into his chest from a point of entry somewhere under his left arm. It was extremely bad luck, as Kahlid Masood, the knife-wielder, had managed to strike Palmer in a place not secured by anti-stab body armour that was worn like a vest under uniform.

Without knowing the outcome of the inquest, or penetrating into jargon-filled accounts from medical practitioners called to give evidence, one could surmise the cause of death by the testimony of Tobias Ellwood, MP. Ellwood, of course, famously happened upon the distressed policeman in the grounds of Parliament, and got involved in the application of emergency assistance. He reported finding lacerations of the left arm, which he wasn’t concerned about as much as another wound in terms of danger. The other was a stab wound “piercing the lung”, and Ellwood supposed that the “huge amount of blood” lost via this wound was “going to be a significant factor” [(day) 6, (page) 12: (lines) 3-4] in the state of Palmer’s health. In fact, it wasn’t long before Palmer’s heart and breathing stopped, at which point Ellwood commenced CPR.

When an objective observer looks at the images of Palmer being resuscitated, and they apply logic to what they see, they should reach a conclusion that partially confirms Ellwood’s testimony, but also exposes him as an unreliable witness (let’s put it that way). Because there appears to be very little blood at the scene, Palmer must have died from disruption to internal organs, but caused by an intrusion of minimal disruption to outer tissue and blood arteries. In spite of what Ellwood told the inquest, the images show very little blood shed onto the cobblestones of New Palace Yard.

Palmer’s left side is visible in this camera angle. It is this side that was supposed to have been hacked into.

Before we extrapolate, it must be said that we don’t have to trust Ellwood implicitly because he is a Member of Parliament; yes, we are supposed to, but we don’t have to. In fact, there is a good reason why Ellwood should not be treated as a trustworthy character: he is absolutely of that class that thinks itself entitled to rule and causes so much catastrophe engineering conditions to reinforce its grasp on power. Ellwood has been the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa ever since Cameron appointed him as such, in short, Ellwood’s jurisdiction in the Foreign Office is where the British Government has been waging war this past seven years. Ellwood’s career also saw him serving in the Royal Whatever regiment in the British Army – so he was a captain in the City-of-London-Mercenaries who went into the Ministry of The Same Sort of Business. Moreover, given that the inquest into the London Bridge attack is a whitewash, we don’t need to believe learned fellows with the title of Doctor and their autopsy pronouncements or medical appraisals from on-scene: advances in position and career, financial gain, and then not having a death threat carried out against them are all the reasons why so many people can keep a conspiracy secret.

So, applying some thought, what do we think could cause a destructive wound without large amounts of entry wound distress? A layman’s answer might be a bullet. Was Keith Palmer shot, and did that cause him to die?

When one examines witness testimony given at the inquest, the certainty of Palmer’s exposure to an effective knife attack becomes unclear. All the witnesses appear to agree that there was an encounter between Masood and Palmer at a point inside the New Palace Yard at a distance away from the gates and the perimeter. Not all agree that the attack commenced at the gates. Of the three police constables who guarded the gates and gave testimony, only Nick Carlisle said that there had been an initial confrontation: “PC Palmer was being driven back with his arms up, attempting knife-defence, trying to parry off blows.” [15, 13: 7-9]

While PCs Doug Glaze and James Ross did not appear to see this contest, eyewitnesses from Portcullis House, the building that overlooks the New Palace Yard, do not mention it either. Antonia Kerridge said:

So I didn’t see I couldn’t see the confrontation at the gates, so I don’t know whether the officer had been injured or yes, I didn’t see that moment.

[5, 74: 18-20]

I know he wasn’t pushed because there was no one round him when he fell… He was alone, like there was no one around him when he actually fell, but he sort of — yes, he sort of collapsed or fell to the ground.

[5, 81: 5-6/8-10]

What Kerridge refers to in the second quote is the moment when Palmer, having retreated from Masood – thus having not confronted him – tripped over cobblestone, and tumbled to the floor in the vicinity of a black barrier that describes the separation between the immediate entrance and the hinterland, so to speak, of the New Palace Yard.

James West, also in Portcullis House, told the inquest

So the police officers, that’s what actually drew myattention to it [Masood running through the gates], they were running away from the gates.

[5, 91: 23-25]

I hadn’t noticed anything at the gate. He [Masood] was through the crowd and into New Palace Yard fairly swiftly, so I don’t imagine there was much delay at the gate.

[5, 92: 18-20]

Yes, so all of the officers bar one, all of the officers ran towards Westminster Hall apart from one officer in a hi-vis jacket [Palmer], who ran round towards the left . They appeared to trip or stumble on — as you can see there’s a kerb and the ground is cobbled. They appeared to trip as they reached the kerb and fell over, at which point the assailant, who was a short distance behind, started attacking the officer on the ground.

[5, 92: 7-14]

A witness, Carl Scott Knight, was on a bus stopped at the traffic lights on the road coming from Westminster Bridge. Describing Masood as an “African male”, his witness testmony was read out:

It was as if there were no guards on the gate as the African male ran, still wielding the knives, into the garden area of the Palace. He made it 20 metres in, approximately, running to his left. I then remember seeing a high visibility police officer. I m not sure if he challenged the African male or exactly what he did, but they both began grabbing each other and then tumbling to the floor.

[5, 62/63: 22-4]

What seems to be clear is that Palmer was not driven backwards into the yard, and the attack did not start until Palmer found himself on the floor. There was no knife wounding before Palmer was overtaken by Masood. As for this assault, even the CCTV cannot be definitive about its savagery:

No, I’ve looked at this footage many, many times and I don’t think the footage allows you to definitively say how many blows were landed either at that point or at the Carriage Gates itself.

[5, 56: 16-19]

These are the words of Detective Constable Osland of the Metropolitan Police in response to a question concerning his being able to discern how many blows were landed by Masood. The footage in question had just been described in the inquest as that which “shows the attack from the closest camera angle” [5, 56: 5]. So much for surveillance. Moreover, Doug Glaze, a constable guarding one of the gates, said that he didn’t see the attack on Palmer: “I had no — I was I had no recollection of it at all until I saw the CCTV afterwards, under SO15 supervision.” [5, 200: 1-3]. On the other hand, James Ross said a very strange thing: “He [Masood] was hitting him [Palmer] with such force that the blades were bending on impact.” [5, 111: 9-10] Perhaps this indicates Masood striking the body armour more often than not – perhaps Masood was using knives that weren’t strong enough to plough through flesh and bone. In fact, the bus passenger, Knight, said something very complimentary to Ross’ impression:

The African male then began stabbing the officer in the back. It looked as if the knives were bouncing off the police officer’s jacket.

[5, 63: 8-10]

Witnesses said at the inquest that Palmer was struck between two and six times (John West contradicted an earlier written statement where he claimed he saw as many as ten blows). The question is, were any of these blows dealt by Masood adequate enough to cause Palmer to be critically injured?

To factor into any consideration along this line of investigation is the way that Palmer was seen to miraculously recover. Knight has him leaving the scene like a gazelle:

I believe the officer was stabbed around five times until he sprinted off away from the African male. The officer has ran towards the Palace…

[5, 63: 11-13]

For West, Palmer’s recovery caused a moment of reappraisal:

The officer somehow seemed to escape from under the weight of the attacker, and started running in the direction towards Westminster Hall where all of the other officers had originally ran to. I remember being amazed, because the officer had managed to get up after being attacked, stabbed so many times. My initial reaction was that maybe the knife hadn’t made as significant contact as it looked to have done from a distance.

[5, 94: 9-16]

Finally, the following is a review of CCTV during one of the cosy chats between QCs and senior or “investigating” Met Police staff, this time the “interrogator” was an eminent fellow by the name of Hough, and he was speaking to DC Osland as they were looking at footage that was at last able to show something conclusive:

And then in the moments that follow, we’ll see the officers, including Keith [Palmer], run through the vehicle barrier, which has risen to allow a car to exit, pursued by Masood?

[5, 45: 18-21]

At the point in the incident being discussed, Palmer seems to be surprisingly fit for a man who has been stabbed in the lung. One explanation, of course, is that Palmer was working on adrenalin. It’s fair enough – except an equally good explanation is that Masood hadn’t, in fact, struck the killing blow.

It so happened that Palmer collapsed almost immediately after Masood was shot by Met Police body guards who were on site waiting for their assignment. There is an image, in fact, that seems to show Palmer moving quite strangely almost as if he is on the verge of his collapse – and the viewer of this image will also notice Masood on the ground behind [the image in question is embedded in the previous article in this series – here]. This is what Glaze said about the moment in an interchange with Hough:

Hough: After you had heard the shots fired, did you see the intruder and what had happened to him?

Glaze: I then saw him on the floor. I’d turned round sir and just I don’t I have no memory of it. I’ve seen photographs and I’ve seen the video since. I’d drawn my baton and turned round. It was over my shoulder.

Hough: Were you aware where the other officers and, in particular, Keith Palmer, were at this point?

Glaze: I think PC Marsh was more or less level with me, I believe, and PC Palmer was running down the barrier for the garden entrance at New Palace Yard.

Hough: Did you see anything happen to him?

Glaze: PC Palmer then just he fell over opposite me.

[5, 171: 12-24]

The author suggests that there is enough evidence to propose the theory that Palmer was shot moments after Masood had been gunned down so as to disguise his execution – and this would be the explanation for his sudden collapse. Indeed, it appears that there is a missing bullet that was heard, but then not discovered where it might have been expected: for Masood is said to have been shot twice in the chest†, while some witnesses reported hearing three rounds discharged. We’ll come to these shortly.

Firstly, though, let’s deal with the dismal SA74 and SB73. These are the codenames (that sound like the names of Disney Star Wars robots) of the aforementioned body guards, or Close Protections Officers (CPOs). The former of these is the one who shot Masood. When asked about how many shots he took, SA74 told the inquest “I was aware of a number of shots” [20, 38: 6]. SB73 told the inquest “My colleague fired a number of shots which stopped the male.” [10, 17: 12-13] When pressed if he was aware of the number of shots, he answered no.

The lowly reader might be astonished to learn that a number of illustrious and highly remunerated Queen’s Counsels did not think anything the matter with the fact that these two officers could not count between them how many shots one of them had fired. In fact, one of them, a man called Keith, instead conducted these men to talk about the training by which they were qualified to shoot people dead. Evidently, there must have been a concern to show that the two had had some instruction, because many would say that if they can’t count how many times they pull a trigger or hear a gun retort, then they shouldn’t even be running a conveyor belt of ducks at the fun fair. And so, dear reader, here is the most fundamental evidence that we may hope to find of the inquest into the Westminster Bridge attack being a complete travesty.

Indeed, it is only thanks to a couple of civilians – who won’t have been trained so that they are licensed to kill – that we know that three shots were heard close together in the vicinity of Parliament at around forty one minutes past two of the pm on 22nd March, 2018.

The first was Carl Scott Knight, who imparted a very useful piece of information:

The African male was still running until I heard what I would only describe as gun shots. There were three in total, two immediately, a tiny delay, and then a third shot.

[5, 63/64: 23-1]

This sounds like the third shot could have come from a different source reacting to the cue of the first two shots. Amazingly, the rhythm of the three shots was something that the inquest found itself having to deal with in order to explain the pattern as being something natural to a single shootist. It smacks of being caught out and having to regroup. The following is the interchange in this respect between Hough and Temporary Chief Inspector Paul Sheridan:

Hough: The jury have heard and may hear again about there being three shots fired on this occasion. First, two shots, then a gap, then a third. Is there any particular feature of training or firearms technique that would explain that sequence of two shots, a gap, and then a third?

Sheridan: No, there isn’t. So they’re taught to constantly reassess… whether more force is used [i.e. if more shots need to be taken].

[19, 42: 6-14]

Again, what the reader also sees here is indicative of the apparent lack of concern by those conducting the inquest regarding the number of shots the CPO fired. As far as the author has read the transcripts, the significance of three shots and two gunshot woundings of Masood just didn’t seem to attract any curiosity or scrutiny. Indeed, the number of shots taken by the CPO, as can be seen in the above extract, was something treated as open for interpretation, beginning with the failure to make SA74 admit to a significant fact that he should have been in possession of.

While other police stuck to the storyline, James Ross found a cunning way to tell the inquest that there had been an extra weapon discharge:

At the time all I could say was a number of shots, but it wasn’t until I saw the footage on the news later that I actually heard it was three shots.

[5, 116: 3-5]

And finally, the second civilian who could do what obviously isn’t a requirement for being in the Metropolitan Police – count up to three – was Antonia Kerridge:

So next the man in the suit who was holding the gun shot the attacker, I think two or three times, I think, we could hear the gunshots, and then the attacker fell to the ground, sort of crumpled to the ground on the spot where he had got to.

[5, 79: 12-16]

While the author was researching this piece, it looked very much like the particular explanation being explored here for Keith Palmer’s very sudden demise (right in the middle of a spirited escape) could only be advocated with evidence up to a certain point: for the real nature of Palmer’s injuries – obviously crucial data – would have been covered up, and the imagery released to the public would not have been able to provide an opportunity to detect Palmer receiving or suffering from a gun shot. However, the author was not prepared for the stunning testimony given by one New Palace Yard gate guard policeman in particular.

A flavour of what was to come appeared first in the testimony of Doug Glaze. Look carefully at what he said:

Initially I went to have a look at well, the head wound, and I don’t think we — I noticed it wasn’t bleeding what I would class as profusely, and then I noticed blood coming out from the side onto the cobbles, and we started trying to get his clothes off … To look for other wounds.

[5, 173: 17-21 & 23]

If the reader recalls, it is the lacerations to the arm that Ellwood notices and dismisses – at least in his testimony – as being low priority in terms of blood loss and danger to life. He didn’t mention anything about a head wound.

Now try to comprehend this bombshell from Carlisle:

Tobias Ellwood told me: I’m an army medical officer or army doctor, something along those sort of lines. Can you tell them on the radio we’ve got a police officer shot in the head and we need HEMS on the hurry up.

[15, 17: 5-8]

Keith Palmer was shot in the head‡. If this is not astonishing enough, look at the way that the examining QC,  Hough, hastily shuts down the line of questioning:

Thank you very much. I’m not going to ask further details about the first aid, because we’ve heard about that in some detail. Thank you for your evidence, officer .

[15, 17: 10-13]

More evidence of the inquest as a travesty: here it is confronted with evidence that totally undermines all that has gone before, and not only that, would suggest that Tobias Ellwood is a conspirator in a cover up. Nobody bats an eyelid.

Back in March 2017, at the time of the incident, there were many who couldn’t understand why Ellwood didn’t get out of the way when the professional ambulance service personnel turned up. Now, of course, when we discover from Glaze that Ellwood was arriving on the scene even as he was putting cuffs on Masood [15, 17: 1-2], and from Carlisle that Ellwood pulled rank to get involved, the riddle is solved. Ellwood took charge. Indeed, reviewing Ellwood’s testimony with an appreciation of his butting in and taking over, one begins to see it more clearly as a fact: [6, 8/9: 15-18 & 24-3]

With no disrespect to those who were trying to give support to the fallen officer, I could see that perhaps they could do with help, with assistance, and I ran forward…

I arrived at the scene and I said “I’m medically trained, can I help?” and I recall one of them saying, “Tell us what to do”. Immediately I started going through the drills to provide the necessary first aid support to the officer.

It is quite possible that Ellwood really did wander into a situation and succumbed to his well-developed, if not misplaced, sense of leadership-by-right (his sort are all legends in their own lunchtimes), but If Palmer had been shot, and no one was ever supposed to find out about it, then there are some ugly ramifications for Ellwood.

And if indeed Keith Palmer had been shot with a spare third bullet, what would this mean for the knife injuries that Ellwood and a sundry of other experts have sworn on record to? Well, it doesn’t mean that some knife wounding didn’t happen; death by bullet just helps answer a question about the feasibility of Palmer having been knifed to death; it’s a question that we have here posed. Centrally, it will mean that there doesn’t need to have been a lethal wound into the chest under the left armpit – and the author does notice from the image posted above that this area seems not to have been dressed.

Ultimately, if Keith Palmer has been shot to death with a spare third bullet, we would inevitably have to deal with the question of who killed him. The prime suspect for the murder – purely on the basis that its occupants were allowed to flee the scene of a crime (see below) – could very well be someone located in the black car that forced the vehicle exit barrier to open (see the previous article in this series).

As far as the official narrative goes, the occupant of the car was Deputy Commissioner of the Met Police, Sir Craig Mackey (who was Acting Commissioner at the time of the incident) and some other lackeys. At FBEL (see the previous article), that doesn’t register as being true: for one thing, Mackey was not parked up between the exit barrier and the gates at the start of the incident as he claims in his testimony.

Secondly, Ross, who, by the time Masood had been shot, had stationed himself at the gates, tells of how he started noticing the black car when someone opened a door – and he didn’t know who it was. Well, according to Mackey, it was none other than his own illustrious majesty, the highest ranking officer – at that time – in the Metropolitan Police. [19, 15: 2-3]. And Ross didn’t recognise him?

Now, consider Ross’ statement from whence this information comes, and notice how he explains that the car remained unattended to while everyone’s focus was firmly directed towards the threat of Masood, and his impending fate:

Yes, I turned immediately, because I realised I was in — I was the backdrop for the suspect [presumably he means in the shooting CPO’s line of sight], so I got out the way sharpish and ran back, and then I realised that the car that was there because the car hadn’t really fixed on any of our imaginations at any point, we were too focused on other things at the time, and then somebody was trying to get out of the car, I didn’t know who it was, it could have been the head of the Salvation Army as far as I was concerned, so I asked the people in the car, in case there was any more suspects, to leave the area and leave the crime scene.

[5, 116: 11-21]

This is a very serious matter. There had been a supposed terror attack, and a car that was on scene when it happened (and playing a role in the development of the incident), but that was not monitored so that the activity of the occupants was not understood in relation to the incident, was allowed to leave without anyone being made to identify themselves? Ross possibly fell for the biggest con in the world – as many do: the car was leaving Parliament, so it could only have the good guys in it, right? As it happens, it is probably a too tough a shot, ergonomically speaking, to hit Palmer accurately from the black car in the position it was in relative to the target. On the other hand, being hidden in plain sight is crucial for being beyond suspicion – and vice versa.

The incident at Westminster Bridge that overflowed into the grounds of Parliament didn’t happen as the official narrative has it – this much we know by examination of the case of Andreea Cristea alone (see the first FBEL article in this series). It was a false flag – executed with military timing – and of course, its purpose would have been to impress upon the British public the continued threat of Islamic terror at a time when the British Government was spoiling to intervene in Syria (as it always is). As such, it’s quite possible that a dead policeman would very much be an objective of the exercise. Was this objective a certainty when the assailant, armed only with knives, in reality had so much security to penetrate, even with the assistance that he received? (see the previous article). It is something else to think about when considering the information reviewed here.

As for the idea that Palmer could have been shot – well, we would certainly abandon it whenever it became crystal clear that there were only two shots that day, and not three – and a solid testimony from the man who killed Masood would have nipped it all in the bud, wouldn’t it? But instead there are loose ends, hanging provocatively and demanding to be tied up. Thinking people are naturally drawn to such challenges; those who think that the British Government should be monitored in painstaking detail for its nefarious activity arrive sooner than most, and take the biggest risks, because the alarm bells need to be sounded. It’s not unusual or crazy to want to understand how one’s living environment is dangerous – which is good advice to lowly constables in the Metropolitan Police.



† Two examples:

PC Andrew Dunmore: “There was two gunshots on his chest.” [20, 58: 5]

Douglas Hope, London Ambulance Services, was told on taking over Masood’s care that “the patient… had been shot twice in the chest”. [20, 70: 2-3]

‡ Carlisle appears to have been sorely mistaken about a confrontation at the gates – but that doesn’t make him automatically unreliable thereafter. Information that comes to a witness, especially if it is presented on stored media, or is insisted upon by peers or superiors, can intrude upon memory to create a certainty that conflicts with initial appreciation. As far as believing Carlisle about what Ellwood said to him, one has to consider if he could have been mistaken in the first instance, and if data after the fact has obliterated the initial experience. To the latter, the answer would probably be no, since the official narrative is contradicted.  As for an answer to the former, the reader must ask other questions: is there a quality about the information given by Carlisle that rules out the possibility that he did not grasp Ellwood’s communication correctly?


Hearing transcripts

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>