State Crime And Police Cover Up; A Reappraisal Of Infamous Cases: Twickenham Attacks; Part Four: a psychological operation

Anna-Maria Rennie was approached by a man in a car at a bus stop in Twickenham in October, 2001. When she refused his offer of a lift, he tried to drag her into his vehicle. She struggled and escaped, and in 2005, she identified Levi Bellfield as the culprit in a “video ID parade”, after his arrest in November, 2004, in connection with the murder of Amelie Delagrange.

On December 16th, 2003, after she had finished her hairdressing work in the evening, Irma Dragoshi was waiting for the 7.30pm bus to Hounslow in Longfield Village, near Heathrow. She was hit on the head from behind, and knew nothing about the attack. However, Bellfield appears to have been shopped to police by a man who had been with him at the time of the attack, and testified that he had assaulted Dragoshi.

These are the other two incidents that informed the jury at Bellfield’s trial, where he also stood accused of the murder of Delagrange (see part two of this mini series), and Marsha McDonnell (part three), and the attempted murder of Kate Sheedy (part one),  that he was the sort of person who could kill a woman, and attempt to do it. Ironically, the jury could not reach a decision about Bellfield’s guilt in these two incidents, so they shouldn’t have served as weight against him in the consideration of the three other crimes. Indeed, when one knows the detail of the Dragoshi incident, where Bellfield might have been as ineffectual an attacker as he was a kidnapper of Rennie (the victim of a completely different sort of crime), then it is clear that the Delagrange, McDonnell and Sheedy attacks were very different crimes performed by someone else – or, in fact, other persons.

First of all, the attack on Dragoshi does not fit a pattern of a successful, silent predator pouncing very late at night. Secondly, Dragoshi was not beaten until she was dead, and in fact, to cause death might not have been the motivation for the attack. Dragoshi was on the phone to her husband when the attack happened. He reported that he heard his wife suddenly screaming. The connection was immediately lost, and he tried to call her back. Eventually the phone was answered by a woman, who handed it to Dragoshi. Incidentally, that this woman was on hand so quickly is another factor in why this crime was different to the murders of McDonnell and Delagrange.

Although she is reported to have forgotten what happened to her, it appears that Dragoshi never lost consciousness, as witness testimony from Bellfield’s trial indicates:

“She was screaming and she was also saying ‘someone has hit me on the back of my head’,” Mr Dragoshi said.

A constable who was sent to the scene after Mr Dragoshi alerted police provided more, and crucial information:

Detective Constable Nick Deakin told jurors how Mrs Dragoshi was “wailing, screaming and crying” in a “hysterical” state when he arrived at the scene.

She told police officers at the scene she had been hit across the head after an attacker came from behind and tried to grab her phone.

DC Deakin, who was a uniformed officer in 2003, said: “She had the phone in her hand and indicated that someone had come from behind and attempted to move her phone.

“Her phone was apparently being reached for and she said she was struck on the head.”

Let us note, then, that the primary feature of the attack might have been an attempt to snatch a phone. Let us also note that Dragoshi was not hit so effectively  – if she was hit at all – so that she became distressed in the same way as did McDonnell and Delagrange.

In his defence, Bellfield blamed the attack on an associate who was in with him in his car – this was Sunil Gharu, who has been variously described as a friend or work colleague of Bellfield’s, and the man who must have been the reason why Bellfield could be linked to the incident.

…on the day in question he [Bellfield] came back to his car to find Mr Gharu had left the vehicle.

“He was pulling at the lady. As he pulled a handbag or her arm, she fell back and that is when I drove off,” he said…

Mr Bellfield told the court Mr Gharu said to him Ms Draghoshi may have been involved in robbing his girlfriend of her mobile phone.

Gharu, had his own story:

“He [Bellfield] switched off the headlights, but the engine was still running,” he told the court.

“He made a comment like, ‘look at this’ or ‘watch this’ or something and said to me to get into the driver’s seat.

Mr Bellfield then approached a woman who was on her mobile phone, he added.

“He just jogged up to her,” Mr Gharu said.

“It looked like he grabbed her. There was a bit of a struggle and he threw her to the ground then jogged off.”

Mr Gharu said Mr Bellfield got back to the car and drove off, “just laughing about what he’d done”, he told the court.

The very significant knowledge that can be taken from these conflicting accounts is that they agree in one point: Draghoshi was not struck on the head, but actually manhandled, and if she fell it wasn’t because of the blow of a blunt instrument, but because she was flung to the ground. Bellfield seems to explain her injuries by the fact that she fell backwards.

On the other hand, the prosecution against Bellfield insisted that Draghoshi had been hit on the head with a blunt instrument. She told the trial that she woke in hospital later the same night with a bump on her head. As we have seen, she told her husband she had been hit on the head over the phone immediately after the attack. But could she have been mistaken?

It should be noted that Draghoshi’s husband had to communicate to the hearing through an Albanian interpreter.  Irma Draghoshi herself appears not to have been able to make herself plainly understood to a policeman in the first instance of contact with one, and afterwards, conveniently, had amnesia regarding the attack. One wonders if she did actually only bang her head on hitting the ground, and then the incident became an attack with a blunt weapon as a later modification through witness statements crafted by police to suit an agenda by wilful misunderstanding of the witness, or by having the witness misunderstand the statement when it is read back to them.

The author tends to think that Draghoshi might not have been hit over the head after all, but it doesn’t matter. The crime was the work of a bungling amateur, whichever way it was prosecuted. If it represented Bellfield’s usual work, then he did not kill Delagrange or McDonnell.

Of course, the other significant thing about this case is that it provides discovery of a deeper dimension through the fact of being an example of Bellfield having a colleague present at the execution of some petty crime (which might have been committed by that person).

In relation to this, at the time that Bellfield was later convicted of the murder of Milly Dowler (a crime that will be the subject of a future article), The Sun newspaper revealed some information that it was evidently sure its readership couldn’t find any significance in. It is, nevertheless, pretty condemning:

[Bellfield] spent years secretly informing on pals in the travelling community, The Sun can
reveal.

His usefulness to the Met was last night feared to be one reason the child-sex monster and serial rapist dodged justice for so long.

Vile Bellfield, 43,… would boast to chums of his hatred for the… police.

But all along the maniac… was registered with Met cops in Ealing, West London, as a “covert human intelligence source”.

…[Suggesting the truth of his protected status, which he boasted about] Bellfield previously only ever served one six-month jail term for ABH despite a catalogue of crimes.

Bellfield appears to have been in a situation where police would look the other way while he committed petty crime. And, his petty crime might explain the coincidences that were used to  incriminate him. That Bellfield’s cars may or may not have been at the scene of the murders of Delangrange, McDonnell and the attempted murder of Sheedy is a phenomenon that can’t be shown to even be a coincidence (it’s not the same as his cars all being on the road on the same nights, which is a lesser coincidence). However, that Bellfield had a tendency to be in possession of certain vehicles at the time of the crime, and then have sold them after is very suspicious. He sold the silver Vauxhall Corsa supposedly involved in the McDonnell murder only a few days after the incident. By November 2004, 3 months after, police were saying they believed that the Ford Courier involved in the Delagrange murder had been sold on, or destroyed.

However, it could be that selling, and indeed buying cars was something that he did systematically for the same reasons he used 42 aliases, “including Lee Johnson and David Bennett” (source). He “claimed they were for ‘tax reasons’ and to avoid people whose cars were clamped seeking revenge”. On the other hand, the slipperiness could have been for not giving the police good reason to pay official attention to his official persona of Levi Bellfield.

Moreover, it could be that Levi Bellfield’s conduct and habits – which could have been a known quantity to the authorities through his being an intelligence asset – made him perfect cover for the people who actually killed Amelie Delagrange and Marsha McDonnell. These people, the evidence suggests, were Krypteia – to use the Greek word, for wont of an English one – and the purpose was to create psychological trauma. Now, the author has decided to separate out a full explanation of who he theorises the culprits must be into a standalone article; for the time being he will justify the accusation by repeating that the attacks on Delagrange and McDonnell were performed by people who could kill silently, simply and efficiently. The attack on Sheedy was performed by people who knew how much to hurt her without killing her. Police are not interested in finding who did these things, and instead have pinned the crimes on a man who they had absolutely no serious evidence against. This is indicative of State crime and police cover up.

To justify the assertion about the motive, the reader may well remember the huge attention given to the Delagrange case. The story of a girl being killed on the streets of London shouldn’t have needed to be big news in Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Cardiff or Glasgow. It took on greater significance by being characterised as another killing in a series of attacks that spanned back to February 2003, for the Delagrange murder was swiftly officially linked to the McDonnell murder as early as September 2004. At that time too police were linking the two murders with a number of other incidents (in which none of the victims had been killed):

The team investigating the two murders will also investigate assaults on a 28-year-old in Hounslow Road, Feltham, on 23 August; an attack on accountant Edel Harbison, 34, in Twickenham on 18 April; an attack on 36-year-old Dawn Brunton in Hounslow on 5 November 2003; and an attack on a 17-year-old girl from the Strawberry Hill area of Richmond on 8 Jan 2003.

Delagrange’s murder wasn’t just about her case, after the somewhat instant linking of it with McDonnell’s murder, it was about creating the apparent fact of a serial killer. The attack on Sheedy was about framing Bellfield. And when he was convicted of the two murders, Bellfield was treated like an infamous criminal in the corporate-media. The amount of column inches that Bellfield has been the source of since he has been incarcerated rivals that given to Peter Sutcliffe and Myra Hindley.  So, the Delagrange murder, linked to another at the apparent start of a seeming rampage, McDonnell’s, was about causing trauma in the population. It was about setting up a new national bogeyman who could be recycled periodically and served up to teach the public that it is possible for evil to exist randomly in the society that they live in, and that they should expect to be prey to it at any time. In reality, things are not like that. They are not like that at all.

Ultimately, if Bellfield could not have killed McDonnell and Delagrange, because each were tent poles in either end of an operation by forces bigger than the one man, this is not to say that he can be entirely disassociated from them, and a suspicious eye must be cast in his direction because of his status as a police informant.  In a further revelation, at his trial, Bellfield told of how “as many as 20 men who had access to vehicles used in his car-clamping business”, so it appears that if he owned vehicles in his name, they were actually for use by a company of people; it would appear on face value that the vehicles were used in that respect.

However, if Bellfield was a Met Police informant, there might have been more to who and how and why people had access to his vehicles. It could be that Bellfield’s 42 aliases were in fact cut-outs behind which people who were using his cars, for whatever reason, could be given a front. In this case, and with Bellfield being a pawn, he wouldn’t necessarily have to have much idea who the people who used his vehicles really were. It’s telling that he testified that he thought that at the night of the Sheedy attack, his Toyota Previa was being used by Sunil Gharu and another man. This doesn’t have to be true, and Bellfield doesn’t need to know it isn’t. All that matters is that someone had a cover story. It is not being disputed here that Bellfield’s vehicles were not on the roads of Twickenham on the nights of the attacks on McDonnell, Sheedy and Delagrange, and this theory would certainly explain this lesser, yet still incriminating coincidence.

Moreover, it could be that Bellfield was being relied upon to follow his own instincts and partake in his own petty crime that would help build the picture of a campaign by a murderous villain in between and around the tent poles of the McDonnell and Delagrange murders.

But in the end, it’s impossible to guess at Bellfield’s real situation. To what extent he was “their boy” we can expect never to be revealed; it won’t come out through his handlers, and it is not a flight of imagination to say that he would be permanently shut up if he talked.  The only thing we can be sure of is that, while he shouldn’t be in jail for the attacks on McDonnell, Sheedy, and Delagrange, but if he is a low life – which by all appearances it appears he is – then he should be serving time for the crimes he actually committed. The scandal is that police evidently turned a blind eye to some of these for the sake of the bigger intelligence operation, and the requirements of the State to which crime inflicted upon the public is an important tool of control. The greater scandal is that the people who did kill McDonnell and Delagrange are still at liberty, and that certain people – agents of the UK Government – are generally always at liberty to exercise what they think is a right based in Statecraft to prey on the unsuspecting population: i.e., while the public behaves like bovidae, it needs to be conditioned, and manipulated, and harvested as per the perpetual order of things, and no scruple should be had about how savagely this is done.

If, on the savannah of everyday life, you are a creature that has teeth to eat meat, two legs to stand upon, and hands to hold weapons, but not four legs for flight, nor horns that are always pointing the wrong way, then take heed.