An e-mail we sent out to Police Scotland today
We also added to this a comment stating that we hope that the delays they build in are deliberate as we would hate to think that such a genuine level of incompetence existed within Police Scotland.
Hello Mr McKenzie/Mr House,
Thank you for your letter today responding to our note sent on 2nd August. Like your note this is a simple acknowledgment of your letter with some comments.
We would like to take this opportunity to ask why in our meeting at Glenrothes on 25th July did you inform us that you could not deal directly with issues we had raised as they had been handed to PIRC?
Minding that our meeting was on the 25th July 2013, we have correspondence from PIRC form 7th August 2013 stating that had not been tasked to review the Fife investigation.
James McGrandles PIRC – “Thank you for your e-mail of 2 August 2013. I can confirm that the PIRC has not been asked to review the complaints which were concluded by Fife Constabulary in March 2013″.
In this light we would re-iterate that you have a serving officer who in late December 2008 into early 2009 attempted to manipulate available evidence to create the perspective that the only information available points to Colin Marr taking his own life. We see comments that all statements were passed to the Crown Office but this was after the intervention of Willie Rennie in 2009. This officer effectively hid from early scrutiny comments from disparate sources of work environments, social events covering an extensive period talking of violence and potential violence being perpetrated against Colin by his partner. You have an organisation that has a help line for domestic abuse where in fact you welcome hearsay for possible investigation but in our situation we have lost someone in a violent manner and these inputs are hidden and to date you actively condone this act by your actions. To us this sounds as if your police policies are about political expediency rather than being genuine commitment to social values.
Despite this information being made available in March 2012 to Fife Police they did not start investigating until September 2012 and complete until March 2013. This investigation was carried out by an officer who was the immediate supervisor of the afforementioned serving officer over a period that covers a significant portion of our complaint and thus must be seen to be investigating himself.
We informed Police Scotland in March 2013 that there were issues as we realised that the delays in completion of the investigation were coinciding with the commencement of Police Scotland and the demise of Fife Police and the senior officers in charge. So, we get a copy of the findings when the body that created them and the senior officer signing off the report no longer organisationally exist.
We talk with your organisation and rather than deal with the significant issue at hand you inform us on 25th June that you will hand this on to PIRC, you then inform us in July you can’t deal with this because it is being dealt with by PIRC. Not only is this last point untrue, like all other aspects of this complaint there appears to be a determined attempt to delay seriously independently reviewing the actions of the serving officer. How long until his retirement?
To cap these delays you had also informed us that the copious amount of information we shared is valueless as it is the summary of our complaints that is investigated and is your contract without this ever being made evident to us. I think in the financial world would be deemed as mis-selling.
Margaret and Stuart Graham