State crime and police cover up; a reappraisal of infamous cases: Sarah Payne

Share This

If the reader has never before thought about it, please now consider the remarkable similarities between false flag terror and high profile crime cases. The instant beatification of the victim and the victim’s family, the carnival, huge scale corporate-media coverage, first to traumatise an unsuspecting audience, and then to condemn a suspect in the court of public opinion, are but a few of the features that indicate that they are manufacturings of the exact same ilk. In particular, the Borough Market terror attack to us must resemble the Yorkshire Ripper serial killings in that there appears to have been more than one set of perpetrators, and one perpetrator respectively. There was political capital to be had from both, which is another shared potential feature. From the latter was created trouble between men and women (for social engineering in the name of feminism), and from the former, more stock for war in the Middle East. However,  it was the Valerie Graves case that proved to be a revelation to the author. The investigation into that murder looked like police covering up that a crime had been committed by someone other than the man who was jailed for it. The investigation, at the same time, saw a violation of civil liberties when police assumed the guilt of the men folk of two entire West Sussex villages, and tried to coerce them into surrendering DNA into an unregulated database.

A hypothesis that has formed from these observations is that UK Government does the high profile murders – through its military intelligence assets – for causing trauma mostly, but sometimes for moving ahead with a political agenda, and then civilian police forces must cover up. It stands to reason, then, that there should be a re-examination of the notorious murder cases of the later twentieth century from what is a post-9-11 realism perspective to see if the hypothesis bears out. The author, for one, is confident that if such a thing were undertaken it will be found that another aspect of Government-by-hoax, which we think of as a 21st century phenomenon, whereby UK Government directly preys on the inhabitants of Britain, has existed for a long, long time – perhaps even as far back so as to incorporate the serial murders attributed to “Jack the Ripper”.

Keeping things in West Sussex for the first of a number of exercises along the lines stated above, the abduction and murder of the 8-year-old Sara Payne on Saturday, 1st July, 2000, was pinned on a 41-year-old, Roy Whiting. Even at the time it was clear that, even if the evidence, as dubious as it was, could only amount to enough to convict Whiting of kidnap, that he murdered the child was a fact that could only be arrived at by presumption. Indeed, some have reasoned that the crime was one in a series of murders in the south east that happened in the first years of the new millennium (Milly Dowler, Danielle Jones, and Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman), which Whiting could not have committed by dint of being in jail. And although there is a penchant amongst those who make such connections for declaring the constituent part cases to be indication of a clandestine paedophile network, such assumptions should not be jumped to, because there is no evidence for them. We can say, however, that when a murder is done, but, as in the Sarah Payne case, not by the man the Crown sends to jail, and then the corporate-media uses it to traumatise the general public, there is a relationship to perceive whereby the one, the murder,  is done expressly for the other, the traumatisation, with the State playing a role in the middle exactly as happens in other crisis events for psychological manipulation.

Whiting became the suspect in the case because he had a previous conviction for violently molesting a girl and was on, what was then, a new sex offenders register – no one is saying that he isn’t a nasty piece of work, and we’ll deal with the potential significance of this information in due course. As for the Sarah Payne case, however, Whiting’s barrister defending him against charges of abducting and murdering the girl said that there was only one piece of evidence against him. This was a number of fibres found on a shoe, which was supposed to have been being worn by Sarah Payne when she was abducted, and fibres found in the hair coming away from Sarah Payne’s body in its shallow grave. It should be pointed out that Sarah Payne had been stripped naked, presumably to give the appearance of a sexually motivated attack, and left more or less in the open, in a field where people sometimes fly-tipped (so the farmer said), presumably so that the body could be discovered, and that forensic evidence that could incriminate the real culprits would be destroyed exposed, as they would have been, to the elements.

There were 22 fibres, and they were said to come from items found in Whiting’s van: a sweatshirt, a curtain, and a pair of socks, and the driver’s seat cover – and also from another unknown source. However, the problem with this evidence, so the defence insisted (and it was right), is that not only could the same fibres come from other instances of these items, but they could be common to all sorts of pieces of clothing and fabric. Besides which, the police had a problem with cross contamination of the evidence.

The sweatshirt, found in the van of unemployed mechanic Roy Whiting, was among a batch of 55 items transferred by police in sealed bags to the Forensic Science Service in Lambeth, south London.

Bags containing two hairbrushes from the Payne household were among them but forensic scientist Raymond Chapman discovered a number of human and animal hairs had become stuck to the sticky labels on the bags. One of the hairs was similar to the one found on the sweatshirt and, when it was examined by scientists, was found to have come from Sarah’s younger sister Charlotte, now aged six.

During cross-examination by Sally O’Neill QC, for the defence, Mr Chapman conceded that it was “a possibility” that one of Sarah’s hairs could also have been on the sticky label, fallen off and ended up on the sweatshirt. But he told the jury of nine men and three women: “It’s not a great possibility.”


Indeed, O’Neill, called the police “hapless”, “incompetent”, and “completely shoddy” in respect of their handling of the evidence. Moreover, Chapman, the forensic scientist giving evidence, was called “flippant” and “on the side of the prosecution”.  She told the jury:

It’s quite impossible for you to be sure that the hair on the sweatshirt isn’t there as a result of contamination and the only fair and safe way that you can deal with that is to disregard it totally.

Moreover, O’Neill would further excoriate the prosecution’s case, and tell of how there was “not one scrap of scientific evidence to provide one single solitary link” between items in Whiting’s van and Sarah Payne. The fibre story, she said, required a “leap of faith”.

As suggested above, while material evidence to suggest Whiting abducted Sarah Payne is entirely dubious, there is no evidence whereby he should have been convicted of murder. The cause of Sarah Payne’s death was assumed to be suffocation, because there were no marks on the body that could be associated with a cause of death. The police tried to find evidence of Whiting’s van at the site where the body was found, but tests on the mud in the tyres did not match the soil at the field (source), and although Whiting’s van was known to leak oil, there were no signs of the substance at the site of Sarah Payne’s disposal.

The shoe, which was discovered in the road on the B2139 near the village of Coolham, and was a key piece of evidence, is also to be suspected.

Buckbarn garage (where it was known that Whiting was, on the night of Sarah Payne’s abduction) is on the crossroads formed by the A24 and the A272, which is the that can be seen on the map, above, that is south of Horsham, to the east of Coolham. So it would seem that the only reason that it appeared in the location it was found was to create a link between Whiting’s known movements, and the site where Sarah Payne was disposed of. For, the prosecution could offer no good reason for why it should be there, other than that Whiting threw it out of his window. This is ludicrous given that no other item of Sarah Payne’s clothing has ever been found. Thus, we are supposed to believe that Whiting hid or destroyed all the other clothes so well that they could never be discovered, but he threw a shoe out of the window of his van.

Another implausible aspect about this shoe is that it was collected from the road side by a Mrs Bray (“How I found Sarah’s shoe”), who first saw it two days after Sarah Payne was abducted (and please note, police had Whiting surveilled from the first day after the abduction, and he was never observed to revisit the area [citation to follow]). She got in touch with police after she heard that a body had been discovered. The police told her to find the shoe herself. By now, it was under a hedge, but Bray found it, and picked it up and transported it to a police “control point” in the footwell of her car without any thought of protecting it from contamination. The only thing we can infer from the way it was collected is that the police initially did not think it could have been a shoe belonging to Sarah Payne.

However, the shoe was owned by Sarah Payne’s mother as being one that had belonged to her child, even though when a reconstruction was filmed a week after the abduction (in fact, Friday 7th), and before the shoe had been handed to police, a child re-enacting the last moments of Sarah Payne on the day she went missing was seen to be wearing a pair of trainers (click to enlarge).

“The actual shoe Sarah was wearing when she was killed; now called the Coolham shoe.”

Girl in reconstruction wearing shoes with grey soles, possibly laces and white logo.

Ultimately, Lee Payne, who was 13, and the eldest brother, failed to pick Whiting out of an identity parade on July 5th – only four days after he supposedly saw the driver of a van speeding off from the scene of the crime. Reader, it can only mean one thing that Lee Payne did not recognise Roy Whiting, and yet the boy was able to provide so much detail in his description of  the driver (“He looked scruffy. He looked like he had not shaven for ages. He had little white bristles on his face and there were little bits of grey in his hair, which was greasy… His face was dirty and he had yellowish teeth when he grinned. His eyes were really white and stood out on his face. He looked like he had been through some bushes” – source).

While on the subject, the very story about how Sarah Payne was abducted is problematic. We should note that the Payne brothers’ account of what happened when Sarah Payne disappeared – because they never saw her being abducted – has always been treated as gospel, and appears not to have been challenged at the trial. In fact, the Payne family were automatically bestowed with sainthood, when it is quite clear that an effort should have been made to get to bottom of events leading up to the girl’s abduction, even if it caused offence.

It should have been of some concern to the court that the story about a white van emerged when Lee was walking in the fields with police, after they had been alerted. Evidently, Lee had not told his parents before Sara Payne, the mother, made the call. Luke, Lee’s younger brother of 11, only heard the story later from Luke. This is all stuff openly reported of:

PC Paul Jeacock said he was one of the first police officers to reach Sarah’s grandparents home at Peaks Lane beside the cornfield where the Payne family had been staying.

He walked around the field with Lee and Luke for about an hour. Then Lee made a remark to him.

PC Jeacock said: “He said he hadn’t mentioned it earlier because he didn’t want to worry anybody but when he lost sight of Sarah a white van wheel-spun out of Peaks Lane and the driver smiled at him and waved.”


Here’s another account:

The court heard earlier how Sarah’s eldest brother Lee had delayed telling police about seeing a man grinning in a white van after his sister disappeared because he did not want to worry anyone.

Pc Paul Jeacock said Lee had made the revelation as he and his brother Luke retraced their sister’s last known movements with him.


And then there was this:

Luke said he was worried when he heard from his brother Lee that a white van was spotted near where Sarah disappeared and he feared there could be “a pervert going around in a white van picking up children”.


The concern should be that police introduced the whole concept of a white van being used to abduct Sarah Payne. Although Sussex police claim that they did not know that Whiting owned the same kind of vehicle until they spoke to him the day after, the very fact he was on a registered offenders list meant that he would have been of perpetual interest to the police. And it may well be the case that Lee Payne saw a white van at some point during his excursion, and that other people saw a white van in the area: they are not uncommon. However, we cannot trust that the white van driver as pervert is Lee Payne’s idea.

Meanwhile, there is more than one problem with the white van story.

The Payne children were playing in a corn field; hide and seek, or so we are told. This in itself should cause eyebrows to rise. Even if the Paynes were not country people, their grandparents did live directly next door to fields in which crop were growing, and should have known that such cornfields are not for playing in because the farmer doesn’t like it when his valuable plants have been traipsed over and ground into the dirt. Such fields may well have tracks and footpaths in them, however, which means that children – and older people – can use them to get from A to B; and we do know that the Paynes were on their way to the site of a rope swing before Sarah became separated from the others. However, if the story is as simple as the Payne children were in the field using a footpath, then there would be no reason for Sarah Payne to leave the field to become abducted – which would be a problem for the narrative. This becomes much clearer when the story is more closely examined.

Sarah Payne suffered a bump during the playing, and decided to go back to her grandparents. The boys were not happy at this, because, as the official story goes, the party was not supposed to become separated. The boys moved to prevent her leaving, but she gained the road, Kingston Lane, ahead of them through a gap in the hedge. Luke was only 10 seconds away from her, and appears to have been delayed further because the younger sister had obtained a nettle sting (there is no explanation as to why Lee could not attend to her). In any case, by the time Luke got to the junction between Kingston and Peak lanes, he saw a white van pulling out of the latter into the former. It was a van he had seen even while chasing after Sarah, going along Kingston Lane, and if we can understand his story correctly, it did a turn in the mouth of Peak Lane. Of course, Sarah Payne was never seen again, and it was assumed, after a little help from the police, it seems, that she had been on board the van.

If the reader looks at the image below, which shows the landscape of the area of our concern (and is taken from the Channel 5 documentary on the subject, “Five Mistakes that Caught a Killer”, he can begin to become oriented.

The field in question with Kingston Lane running on its right. The vehicle access gap is near the clump of trees at the top right of the field. Note someone using the track. Click to enlarge.

The Paynes’ grandparents’ house is in the cluster of buildings in the foreground, at the centre of the scene. The field in question is the one immediately above it. The site of the rope swing is the copses to the left of the field. (This information is gathered from various material, but is best viewed together in  an annotated photo, owned by Getty Images (link), which appears to be an official Sussex police aerial photograph). The way that anyone would walk from the Paynes’ grandparents’ house to the site of the rope swing is along the right hand side of the cornfield, and then away from the road along its top. While the image might not show it very well, the Ordinance Survey map of the area shows that the track at the top is an official footpath. Meanwhile, the track at the right hand side is well established, as can be seen in this, and several other images included below.

The gap in the hedge that Sarah Payne would have used to leave the field is not where it is claimed in the official narrative. In the official narrative, Sarah Payne used the large opening at the top right hand corner of the field, but that opening is obviously one that provides access for a vehicle coming in off the road, and Sarah Payne would not have seen it as her route home – because it would have meant her having to walk on the road. Indeed, it is hard to believe that any of the Payne children had not been told to not walk on the Kingston Lane, which is essentially a bend on a country lane that many an idiot in a car would take too quickly (and this road is not as deserted as the official narrative would make out).

The track and the “real” gap in the hedge clearly seen in this overhead view from Google Maps.

The “real” gap in the hedge facing away from the junction.

The “real” gap in the hedge facing towards the junction. Note the proximity of the house.

A walker using the track, captured by Google in June 2012. The vehicle access gap can be seen in the distance, just ahead of the tree (click to enlarge).

The gap in the hedge that Sarah Payne would actually have used is the one at the end of the track on the bottom right hand side of the field; it is a gap that is seen clearly in the images attached above. It is a gap that would have meant travelling but a few feet along Kingston Lane until reaching Peak Lane – a road eminently safer for a pedestrian because it essentially leads nowhere. Indeed, the fact that Sarah Payne used this gap is suggested in the narrative:

Lee ran through the cornfield and was three-quarters of the way to a gap in the hedge but she had vanished by the time he reached it…

Lee said he went outside the field and saw a suntanned man in a white van drive past, grinning and waving at him.


To get to the vehicle access gap from the rope swing, Lee would not have to run through the cornfield. On the other hand, he would have had to cut across from the top left hand side of the field to reach the diagonally opposite corner to get to the gap that Sarah Payne actually used. Ultimately, it is quite clear that the gap in question took him to the junction with Kingston Lane and Peak Lane, and only a matter of a few yards from his grandparents’ house.

So, the question is, did a man driving a white van really kidnap Sarah Payne at a spitting distance from her grandparents’ house? Although he may not have known that he was abducting her directly from under the noses of Sarah Payne’s kin, would he not generally fear the child kicking up a stink and attracting attention so close to where people lived? And why didn’t anyone hear Sarah Payne protesting against being abducted – which we must assume she did – so close to her grandparents’ house?

And the real damning question that we must ask is why is it that the authorities want us to believe that Sarah Payne was abducted on Kingston Lane at the other end of the field? Well, the reason is painfully obvious. The reason has to be so that we can appreciate the abduction as being remotely plausible: so we don’t appreciate that Sarah Payne was abducted under the noses of her grandparents, and thus understand the story to be too implausible to be true. The reader will perhaps not be surprised to hear that the jury in Whiting’s trial asked to visit the site of the abduction to inspect it, but the judge, Richard Curtis, did not allow it (source).

Reconstruction has “Sarah Payne” leave the field through a wide gap in the hedgerow. The sequence ends at this point, and it would be a surprise if this little girl was asked to be filmed in the road. In fact, the location looks like it isn’t Kingston Lane, which would probably be too busy for the impression of desertedness that this film crew was obviously looking to create.

In the light of information that eliminates Roy Whiting, as far we can perceive, with the connection insisted upon by the State to the abduction and death of Sarah Payne, we must think about why he was the man that police targeted, and why he was in fact complicit in his own conviction. Following the lines of this enquiry, we must note that Roy Whiting, when he was jailed for four years for his first offence – as told of above –  could have in fact been jailed for life, which is the maximum term allowed for the crime. We must note that he admitted to the crime, and this is the reason, at least as the Wikipedia entry for the man goes, that he received a very lenient punishment (apparently, the justice system was grateful that Whiting spared the victim an ordeal of having to give evidence against him). Dress it up as you like, but Whiting came out better than he should have expected by dint of his making a deal, and who knows what Whiting actually fully agreed to in order to escape a life sentence at that time (it being a deal with the devil, he wouldn’t ultimately prosper). And if Whiting’s circumstances remind the reader of those that we read terror patsies finding themselves in, then it is only natural to notice such an obvious resemblance.

When Whiting was arrested on the first night after the disappearance of Sarah Payne, he infamously spent an entire interview answering every question put to him with a “no comment”. This was presented by the prosecution as an aspect of Whiting’s bad character, but the funny thing is that previously, and then later at his trial, Whiting would do so very well at incriminating himself. At least  by refusing to answer questions in his police interview, Whiting minimalised the chances of his misspeaking and saying anything on the record that could incriminate anyone else.

As for the times he gave good cause to treat him with suspicion, the most famous was being caught with a receipt from Buckbarn garage.

The story behind this is that a splinter group of investigators, unbeknown to superior officers in the case, knocked on Whiting’s door to ask him about his movements the previous night – the night of Sarah Payne’s disappearance. Whiting was surveilled immediately after this visit – and we are perhaps supposed to believe that the interview caused police to be suspicious enough that they caused this to happen, but we actually have no way of knowing if Whiting was already being watched. In any case, on the same night after the visit – police say – Whiting was observed making repeated visits to his van from his apartment. When he finally got in the van to drive it away, he was stopped, and took in for questioning.

When Whiting told police during the initial contact that he had come home from Hove the night before, arriving back at 9.30pm, he did not mention that he had actually been at Buckbarn garage, calling there to make his purchase at 10pm. The contradiction of Whiting’s story as police understood it evidently became reasonable cause for suspicion and triggered his arrest. But it is weak. It is not unusual that some people are going to believe that their private affairs are not automatically the business of police, and unless one is preventing the apprehension of a person other than oneself (perverting the course of justice), an alibi is a matter for defence in a court – where, at that stage, Whiting had a story that incorporated a visit to the garage.

However, the receipt was clearly a device that explains why police did not arrest Whiting at the first opportunity, as thus actually give Whiting some degree of warning. We don’t know what Whiting did after first contact with police, except what we are officially told. We note that a search of Whiting’s flat did not find any incriminating evidence, so we have an idea that he did not remove anything to there from his van. However, it is possible that he placed material in the van. We also must notice that he forced the hand of the police by then trying to depart to go somewhere late the same night after he had been interviewed, and this is when police, who had been shown the van previously, found the garage receipt which fluttered down (from where not explained) so that Det. Supt. Steve Wagstaff could pick it up and read it (as told by the same policeman, as peculiar as the story sounds, on the Channel 5 programme, “Five Mistakes that Caught a Killer”).

Then, of course, there is the fact that Whiting insisted on and kept a garage receipt from a place that was  on a route to the location where a dead child had been dumped. It has been characterised as a mistake, but it could be called indicative of a man trying to take the fall. And this is exactly what Whiting did more of at his trial, when he let it be known that he cleaned the back of his van the day after Sarah Payne had been abducted:

Turning to Whiting’s decision to go into the witness box, the [defence] barrister stressed the fact he had volunteered information not known to the police -including the fact he had pressure-cleaned the white van, in which the prosecution allege Sarah was abducted – and suggested he wouldn’t have done so if he was guilty.

“You may think it makes little sense to go into the witness box and tell the prosecution things which potentially damage your case and undermine a good point that had could be put in your favour. Why tell you these things if you were going into the witness box to lie?”


Why indeed?  In fact, it’s hard to imagine why a defence counsel would not have advised Whiting against a course of action so damaging to him.

The author’s explanation for the behaviour is that Whiting’s candid confessions (short of admitting the crime) were needed in order to prejudice a jury against him in the circumstances where there was only circumstantial evidence – and very dubious at that – upon which he could be convicted. After what has gone before on this page, the reader shouldn’t need to have it explained why, in the theory being presented, Whiting would be required to act in such a way, and why his defence counsel would let him. While O’Neill accounted for herself tolerably well – at least so that she could be seen to be convincing – the defence probably wasn’t designed for winning, lest we should have heard about the abduction story ripped apart.

Of course, on the back of the Sarah Payne killing, UK Government introduced Sarah’s Law (tellingly, campaigning for it started very early), which is a way that the public can become aware if someone who has access to their child has ever been convicted of committing a child sexual offence. Ultimately it is a way that UK Government doesn’t have to submit to a public demand to have sex offenders permanently locked up, and thus doesn’t have to properly deal with sex offenders (and, indeed, ensure that the term doesn’t apply where it shouldn’t), but instead be able to keep them on the ground as a kind of dial-a-patsy for the old purpose of causing trauma through serious crime. As it happened, the ramifications of the Sarah Payne case were overshadowed by events that would happen at the end of 2001, so that Islamic terrorists would become the bogeymen preferred by UK Government by which to frighten the British public with.


Please also read:

The Midsomer Murder Solved? Part One: An Abundance Of DNA, After All – (link).

The Midsomer Murder Solved? Part Two: Perpetrator Indicates A Conspiracy, Police Not Interested – (link).

The Midsomer Murder Solved? Part Three: Another Case Of State Crime – (link).


It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
Displaying 1 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. BeBopRockSteady says:

    Very interesting perspective with such dark undertones.
    . Thank you.

T-shirts to protest compulsory face coverings - click image