Published On: Tue, Jan 5th, 2021

State Crime And Police Cover Up; A Reappraisal Of Infamous Cases: Twickenham attacks; Part One: Sheedy

The death of Milly Dowler has been attributed to Levi Bellfield, and he has received a life sentence for it, but it doesn’t fit a pattern, by which a number of women and older female teenagers (not children) were attacked in the Twickenham area in 2003 and 2004, which could be called Bellfield’s modus operandi (assuming that he was the perpetrator). Milly Dowler’s murder was like Sarah Payne’s in that it involved (as far as the official narrative went) a sudden, soundless, witnessless kidnap of a child, and the discovery of a naked body dumped in the countryside. If Bellfield abducted and killed Dowler in March 2002, and if he was accused (but found not guilty) of kidnapping Anna-Marie Rennie (17) in South West London in October 2001, then perhaps the trend indicates that he abducted and killed Sarah Payne in July 2000. This would be interesting, seeing as Sussex Police mismanaged the Sarah Payne case (as shown in the previous article in this series), thus suggesting that Bellfield (not his given name, by the way) was someone-upon- high’s boy. That Bellfield is solely or in any way responsible for the death of Milly Dowler, however, is something that is only a fact by dint of a verdict of a [HM] court, and such things in no way represent justice.

So, as we investigate, we are going to assume that Bellfield could only have been responsible for attacks that fit the pattern of a lone woman, or older female teenager, being pounced upon and attacked where they stood, by a man who would have launched a surprise attack with a hammer or other blunt object, late at night, where the victim is walking home after having taken a bus ride, or is at the bus stop waiting for a bus. This is the modus operandi, after all, that authorities have established as belonging to Bellfield.

There were four of these attacks from January 2003 to August 2004. Bellfield was tried for three of them, and convicted of two. The two convictions were for the murder of Amelie Delagrange (22) on August 19, 2004, and Marsha McDonnell (19) on February 4, 2003. In 2007, a jury failed to reach a verdict regarding an attack on Irma Dragoshi (39), on December 16, 2003, where the victim survived. Police believe that Bellfield was responsible for an attack on Jesse Wilson (17) on Janaury 8, 2003, again where the victim survived, although Bellfield was not charged with the crime. Additionally, Edel Harbison (age unknown) was attacked in April 2004, and believes Bellfield could have been responsible, although he was never charged.

There was another infamous case, of course, where Kate Sheedy, an 18 year old student, was attacked on May 28th, 2004. Bellfield has been convicted of attempted murder in relation to the case, but it doesn’t fit the pattern, and doesn’t seem like it should be Bellfield’s crime. Indeed, there are many reasons to suspect that the Sheedy attack was something else that was nevertheless used to finger Bellfield in the McDonnell case (and then the Delagrange one).  The trouble for the Metropolitan Police had been that they had no forensic evidence whatsoever in these two cases, and were relying on coincidences. The Sheedy case would make it a third occasion where a vehicle belonging to Bellfield made a coincidental appearance at the scene of a crime, and this would be argued, seemingly, as one coincidence too many. However, it looks very much like police made the evidence fit to incriminate Bellfield with regards the attack on Sheedy, to the drastic extent of the likes we are not unused to seeing when we examine crisis events: i.e. tampered-with or out of context CCTV footage presented as definitive evidence.

An article published by the BBC on 4th June, 2004, that tells of a hit and run incident is the soonest mention of the “attack” on Sheedy, after May 28th, that the author can find on the internet. According to this story, Sheedy was run down near the entrance to an industrial estate, and the police were appealing for any information about the happening. There is no mention in the article of Sheedy being reversed over, which is a detail that emerged later on. So, it is easy to infer that the driving was reckless, and the driver wasn’t necessarily motivated to kill.

On August 13th, 2004, there was another BBC article, that conveyed the information that police were looking for a particular vehicle, “a white people carrier, possibly a Ford Galaxy, with blacked out windows”, although Kate Sheedy talked to whoever was interviewing her about a “car”. It is crucial to note that police claimed, on the Channel 5 programme, 5 Mistakes that Caught a Killer, that Kate Sheedy had supplied the information about the car, but there are several clues – and this is one – that in fact she did not do this. At the time of the August 13th article, the police were calling the incident attempted murder (with the reversing detail having been gained), although Sheedy divulged further information about the particular location of the incident so that it looked less like the work of a man with a bus-stop oriented modus operandi for killing:

After the 10 minute journey [making it around ten past midnight, according to when the beginning of the journey is reported] she got off at a stop in Worton Road, just a minute’s walk from her home.

“I got off the bus and walked on a bit and I saw this car ahead of me. It was parked, the lights were turned off but I could hear the engine running and I thought it was a bit strange.

“It made me feel uncomfortable as it wasn’t a car I recognised and it didn’t look as if it should be there. I didn’t want to walk past it.”

So Kate crossed the road, getting out her mobile phone and house keys to make her feel safe.

It was as she walked passed the nearby Worton Hall Industrial Estate that the car started to move.

“As I was crossing the entrance the car turned its lights on and revved its engine, it did a U-turn in the road and I assumed that it was going to drive off but instead it drove straight towards me. “

A report published by Ealing Today on March 16th, 2005, stated the exact location of the car, and captured the fact that now the police were looking for a different sort of vehicle:

On Thursday 27 May 2004 18 year old Kate was travelling home on the H22 bus from Twickenham to Isleworth. Just after midnight, she got off the bus opposite the County Arms Public House on Worton Road, Isleworth, Middlesex. She was the only passenger to get off the bus.

After the bus pulled away she started to walk towards her home when she noticed the suspect’s vehicle parked on Worton Road just beyond the junction with Farnell Road. The vehicle in question was a white MPV, probably a Toyota Previa people carrier…”

At the same time (March 15th, 2005), the BBC published an article revealing that the Toyota Previa, with registration K855 EFL, thought to be the vehicle involved in the incident, had been recovered by police. However, there was a new story regarding the arrival of the vehicle at the scene:

The vehicle is shown on CCTV footage following the bus Ms Sheedy was on, then waiting behind it whilst she gets off, and then a minute later, it is seen moving at high speed.

It is this story of a vehicle arriving on scene at the same time as the bus that turns the incident from one of a potential simple hit and run to one of murder. By the time that the Channel 5 program, 5 Mistakes that Caught a Killer, dramatized this incident, the murder version had been established, and the programme makers portrayed Bellfield’s vehicle pulling up at the rear of the bus at the junction with Heath Road (see satellite map image), as if it had been following.

The Channel 5 rendition

The view from Google street maps

The big problem with this is that the entrance to the industrial estate, and the junction with Farnell Road, are quite a distance away from the bus stop where Sheedy alighted from the bus, and the stretch of road that Sheedy would have had to walk is surrounded by park land and empty lots on either side. If Bellfield wanted to do what he usually supposedly did, which is leave his vehicle and pursue his victim so as to hit her on the head, there was plenty of opportunity to do it.

Overview; If the attacker was Bellfield at the bus stop, he had plenty of opportunity to perform as usual as Sheedy walked through the green areas. In actual fact, the waiting car was beyond the Farnell Road junction.

Instead, Sheedy clearly encountered a vehicle that was already parked, ahead of her on Worton Road†. If this was a case of reckless driving, Sheedy moved to exactly the wrong place she could have possibly been, as the U-turner also used the industrial estate entrance for a wider turn.

As for the CCTV footage, this was taken from a camera on a now defunct pub that was opposite the Heath Road junction. While this subject is dealt with in a fuller way further below, it suffices to say that the CCTV is no proof of anything (except perhaps that police were trying to frame Bellfield), and should not be considered reliable evidence.

As well as the alteration of the story from a car waiting to a car prowling, there was another evolving aspect which had to do with what Sheedy did, and how much she was able to do after she had been run over. In the 4th June article, Sheedy was said to have managed to call her mother on her mobile phone. With the site of the incident being close by to the family house, Mrs Sheedy was able to come and find her daughter.

In the 13th August article, Sheedy now calls her mother, and after that an ambulance. Of course, a thinking person would wonder why Kate Sheedy would ever do this. If things were that very bad, she would probably call an ambulance first. And indeed, it is so obvious, according to common sense, that that is the order that she would make these calls, this story finally developed to suit. In the end, as told by a February 2008 BBC article, this story had a detail in it whereby according to a statement read to court, Mrs Sheedy reported that Kate Sheedy told her, over the phone, “if they don’t get here soon I’m going to die”.

This is hard to reconcile with the initial reporting where there is no mention of a 999 call, and where one can infer that any call for an ambulance would have been made by Sheedy’s mother. However severe her injuries were, it makes better sense that Kate Sheedy would not necessarily know how bad they were, and being so close to home, would focus on getting there first before calling for outside help.

So, what appears to be a fabrication about a call to the emergency services would be about heightening the sense of the severity of the incident. It is relying on an appeal to authority, so that we must suppose that a woman who has been deliberately attacked would call the emergency services. And yet Kate Sheedy evidently called her mother first [and in the early report, her mother only] – and in her unfit state, and given her proximity to home, this is all we could expect her to do.

Still, the Channel 5 programme, 5 Mistakes that Caught a Killer, broadcast a call allegedly from Kate Sheedy supposedly speaking to emergency services, although the other party in the conversation doesn’t say anything that conclusively indicates she is manning an emergency services telephone.

Indeed, the way the audio is presented, there is no way of identifying either speaker. But if we assume that it was Sheedy who whined like she was being sent to bed and didn’t like it (rather than like a person who was in excruciating pain because she was damaged in a way that was intended to kill her), then the author suggests that a snippet of the conversation between Sheedy and her mother (somehow recorded) was presented as representing a call to emergency services. If the UK Government and its agents will tamper with CCTV footage, they won’t be beyond this nefariousness – and they won’t flinch at coercing or tricking witnesses so that they volunteer a lot of lies into court records, either.

We should note that the speaker who is supposed to be Sheedy says that she was “run over again”, and when asked if she was run over twice, she answers yes. Now, it is within the bounds of reason that a reckless driver who needs to use the entrance to an industrial estate to perform a u-turn in a road, and who hits a pedestrian in the doing of it, might make any number of adjustments backwards and forwards, all the while not understanding that there is a body under the driver’s side front wheel. Besides which, if the driver was someone who wanted to kill Kate Sheedy, why not get out of the vehicle and make sure that the witness was not alive to tell a story? This is the point that really undermines the accusation against Bellfield.

More evidence that Kate Sheedy was only accidentally run over comes in the way that she rapidly healed from her injuries, as awful as they were made to sound. The following is from the abovementioned 13th August article:

As well as an enormous wound which ran the width of her back [a variation of this is a back torn open] Kate suffered severe internal injuries.

Her liver was ruptured, one lung had collapsed, the other was punctured, she had broken the ribs on the right hand side of the cage at the front and back, her collar bone was broken and a tube had to be inserted in her bile pipe.

However, we also know from a caption in this same article that Sheedy, despite all this damage, was well enough to go to her school prom on 9th July.

We also know from the June 4th article that Sheedy and her mother managed to have much to say to each other, and not always directly to the point:

“No mother wants or expects to be phoned by their own child saying that they have been run over and that she thinks she is dying,” she said.

“When I found Kate on the pavement her first concern was for her pink shoes – these she had bought for her 18th birthday.”

So, it is quite possible that every aspect of this incident, which looks as if it could very well be a hit and run case, has been distorted to make it look like an attack by someone intending to kill.

On top of that, there is the distinct probability that evidence has been manufactured to frame Levi Bellfield in particular.

In August 2004, police were looking for a white people carrier by Toyota, with blackened out windows. But no mention was made of a faulty wing mirror, which joined the list of defining features of the vehicle at a later date. In fact, the wing mirror was not mentioned in the August 13th article, but it did become a factor after a Toyota Previa people carrier had been recovered; This is a snippet from the Ealing Today piece mentioned above:

The vehicle had blacked out windows all round and black wing mirrors (not colour coded). The driver’s mirror had some form of defect or blemish but was still intact.

It was stated above that we shouldn’t believe that police understood what car they were looking for because of anything that Kate Sheedy told them, and here is another proof for us. Apparently, while she was being run over, in the dark, Sheedy was supposed to notice the defect shown in the image below. Could that be right?

The glass is missing from the wing mirror of this Toyota Previa; is it something that Sheedy would notice as she was being run over?


In fact, how easy is it to understand that a windscreen is tinted when there’s so little daylight on the subject? Indeed, how easy is it to discern white paintwork on a car with the yellow and orange tint of street lighting  shining on it? Remember how, in the initial reporting, police were looking for a Ford Galaxy?

It is eminently significant in the regards of how police came to be looking for a particular vehicle that Levi Bellfield was stopped by police a month before the Kate Sheedy incident driving a Toyota Previa people carrier – with a defective wing mirror.

What suggests itself is that police, knowing of Bellfield, and thinking that he should take the rap for the Twickenham  hammer attacks (that he may or may not have committed), and having knowledge of his current vehicle, thought that the Sheedy incident presented an opportunity to associate him with another crime to implicate him in respect of the broader series. This decision would have been taken some point between the June 4th and August 13th media reports, and is reflected in the change of the brand make of the vehicle involved. Then, when the police were able to inspect the Toyota, and they were sure that Bellfield had not mended the wing mirror, between the time he was pulled over and it had been noted  and the time of the “attack”, they refined the list of defining features pertaining to the vehicle to include this detail. Naturally, the police would still be asking for the public to provide information as to the owner of the vehicle, because they would need the tip-off to be seen to be coming from somewhere else than their own sources. They evidently avoided the appearance of knowing it was a car that Bellfield would be driving by  claiming that they could see the licence plate of the Toyota in CCTV footage – quite the feat that they couldn’t manage with the vehicles in the Delagrange and McDonnell cases – and this must have been how they knew which vehicle to recover (again, without appearing to know that Bellfield would have been driving it). Finally, according to the Channel 5 programme, 5 Mistakes that Caught a Killer, police claim that they were able to use a description given to them by Kate Sheedy to check Bellfield’s “criminal intelligence file”, and see the report on Bellfield’s being pulled over in a vehicle that matched the description. This is all too obviously a cover story.

As for that CCTV footage, the clip that was shown on the Channel 5 programme, 5 Mistakes that Caught a Killer, is dubious indeed. The first thing that one notices is that it is a series of stills that yet has a time stamp where the seconds are ticking over. A bus, which looked like it might have stopped on Hall Road (opposite the old pub), but had not done that, because there is no bus stop there, becomes invisible in the same second. 15 seconds later a likely looking vehicle comes along the same route – hardly closely following. After that, the same vehicle is seen going the other way, as if the deed was done, and the culprit was fleeing the scene of the crime. But we know for certain that this isn’t how the incident happened.  Besides which the time on the footage contradicts other reportage.

1. Now you see it…

2. Now you don’t see the bus.

3. Here comes “Bellfield”.,,

And there “he” goes. This image was found elsewhere on the internet other than the Channel 5 programme.

So, there are many things wrong with this CCTV footage, and if what we get to see hasn’t been tampered with then it can’t incriminate Bellfield, because whatever it was he was doing that a car he was driving happened to be recorded passing along Hall Road, he wasn’t by any means a stranger in the territory. Besides which, the corrupt police are quite capable of recreating useful snapshots from CCTV after any event: we know from looking at false flag terror attacks that CCTV footage is not as reliable as everyone is led to believe. The fact that it is trying to tell a story that didn’t happen is a strong indicator that this CCTV footage was staged after the fact. Notice how it appears to emerge at the same time as police got their hands on the vehicle.

But the quite sinister thing about the material we have sifted through here is that it presents the possibility that Sheedy was targeted in order to create the situation whereby Bellfeld could be framed. In the Channel 5 programme, 5 Mistakes that Caught a Killer, a Detective Sergeant Gary Cunningham said that “I was on the murder squad, and I also happened to know Kate Sheedy’s family”. We also note that Sheedy’s being out was not a random thing; she had been at a celebration oriented around a calendar event. Moreover, she was a convent school girl who had only on one prior occasion returned home so late on her own. If someone wanted to hurt her in particular, they were not just lucky to be in the right place at the right time that night.  We note with great interest the report in a much later article looking back on the incident from 2019, that

Kate spent the next month in hospital. For the first week, while she was heavily sedated, police kept a vigil by her bedside in case she died.

As common sense should inform, it is not the job of the police to stop anyone dying while they are staying in hospital. This situation reminds the author of the case of  Helen Kennett, a victim in the Borough Market false flag terror attack. In the chapter of the continuing FBEL series that covers her experience, it tells of how she had a little trouble with the Metropolitan Police:

Key witness Helen Kennett revealed that she was recovering from a knife wound to her neck, and was being medicated, when she gave a statement. In fact, she was unable to speak – meaning it is quite possible that police invented her account, with Kennett perhaps, upon her recovery, having to take the police on their word regarding what she (God knows how) communicated to them.

Above all else, despite what the official narrative – now history – claims, the car with which someone ran over Kate Sheedy was waiting when she arrived at a place where she found it. Moreover, a feature of the story that has definitely been struck out is that Sheedy thought that there were two people in this car – at least, this is what police were reporting on her behalf (“Kate believes that there were two people in the car – both males due to their shape/size”: Detective Chief Inspector Colin Sutton [who headed the operation], in the 15th March article).

Although this information is also something that emerges after the police seize the vehicle, and is clearly released to encourage an informant – as we can see in the extract from a 17th March, 2005, BBC article – it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

CCTV footage of the vehicle which could have been involved has also been released.

Two people were thought to have been in it.

Det Ch Insp Colin Sutton, of Operation Yeaddiss, said: “It may be that whoever was the passenger had nothing to do with what the driver did – it may be that person has nothing to fear. We need that person to come and talk to us.”

Overall, there is evidence here to suggest that a team who knew that Kate Sheedy would be coming, was waiting for her in a location on Worton Road that was ideal for their purpose, and then hit her with the vehicle they were in. This sort of attack would not kill her, even if it involved a reversal of the vehicle back over her body, which would make the incident look less like an accident. This, then, would provide a living witness for a “Bellfield” attack without the witness being able to see the attacker – and know that it wasn’t Bellfield. If it lacked the traits of an actual “Bellfield” attack, then these omissions could be filled in with dodgy CCTV, and tall stories from the Metropolitan Police as they covered up more State crime, not for the first time, and not for the last either.


† And if the driver of the vehicle reached this forward position after following the bus, how did he know which way Sheedy was going to travel from the stop so that he could get ahead to ambush her?

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
T-shirts to protest compulsory face coverings - click image