Jack O’Sullivan a Bristol Law Student, attended a party in the Hotwells district of Bristol on Friday 1st March 2024. The last confirmed sighting of Jack, recorded on CCTV, showed him walking up Bennett Way slip road, back towards Hotwells area, at 03:40am on Saturday 2nd March 2024.
Statistically young men who have been drinking and subsequently go missing, show they have usually ended up entering nearby water. Avon and Somerset Police believe this to be the case. His family do not agree with this.
In Jack’s case, IF he had decided to head back towards the water, then the same CCTV cameras which show him heading north of the water at 03:40am would also have shown him, then changing his mind and heading south TOWARDS WATER. there is no such evidence of this.
So what happened to Jack? Do you know? There is a substantial reward.
A collective gathering outside the head offices of the CCRC
It was announced on Tuesday 14th January 2025, that Helen Pitcher has resigned. I feel this well over due decision, is the way forward for all victims who continue to be the subject of a ‘miscarriage of justice.’
Collectively we have to continue to apply pressure, to ensure some of the people employed at the CCRC Head Office either resign or are removed. This all started when I stood with a number of victims, or their representatives, and drew attention to the current ‘unfit for purpose state’ of the CCRC, outside their Birmingham Head Office on 10th May 2024.
However improvements towards achieving the very purpose of existence of the CCRC, can only happen if other things are sorted at the CCRC. This includes sufficient funding from central Government, to ensure enough, ‘qualified legal personnel’ are taken on, to deal with a massive backlog of cases, which at the very least should be treated with professionalism, courtesy and consideration of all their case facts.
Helen Pitcher can now concentrate, full time on promoting her Montenegro property portfolio, instead of working part time for the CCRC, dishing out part time results for victims.
Valley Vets Mark Evans Guilty under Animal Welfare Act 2006?
Mark Evans (the vet employed by the vale of glamorgan council) attended my home, a with Animal Licensing officer Amanda Ewington Gape.
Before they arrived our tortoises were kept on suitable substrate (what they walk on) and given a very good environment. This is evident in these two photographs.
Section 9of the Animal Welfare Act 2006
Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare
states:
A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.
For the purpose of this Act, an animal’s needs shall be taken to include-
its needs for a suitable environment
Its need for a suitable diet
It’s need to be able to exhibit normal behavioural patterns
Any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and
It’s need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
The photograph below, shows the appalling way, in which Mark Evans treated these tortoises. He was supposed to be IMPROVING the environment not make them suffer. As you can see, not even a single sheet of newspaper or any form of substrate, did he provide them with, to avoid them slipping and becoming stressed on the bare plastic trays.
Mark Evans Valley vets Cardiff Guilty under Animal Welfare Act 2006?
There are other photographs, which confirm how Mark Evans also left these tortoises, without any shade, protection, or water, from the mid day July sunshine. I made him provide them with shade.
This whole episode, was even more cruel, because the Animal Licensing officer Amanda Ewington Gape, just stood there and allowed this to happen.
Two days after this dreadful situation took place, I instructed my solicitor to write to the vale of glamorgan council, and raise my deep concerns at the manner in which, these two council employees, conducted themselves. So called professionals. When you understand this was done by a vet, and a vet who says he specialises in reptiles, the whole situation must be considered appalling, cruel and a dereliction of his professional duty.
I also raised complaint with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, about the lack of care shown by Mark Evans, for these tortoises. That complaint of course fell on deaf ears, as they primarily exist to protect their own members.
Isubsequently tried issuing a private prosecution against Mark Evans and Amanda Ewington Gape in Cardiff Magistrates Court. My application was refused, but not because of any lack of ‘Merit’ but simply the Magistrate ruled, I was ‘out of time.’
It would appear to me, Mark Evans and Animal Licensing officer Amanda Ewington Gape, were both, by evidence of the above single photograph, guilty under all sections of Section 9, of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
It appears (if you believe everything you see in the news) Helen Pitcher the head of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, based in Birmingham, England, only works part time for the CCRC. I suppose therefore it is hardly surprising, we only get part time Justice in the United Kingdom.
It seems Helen Pitcher, spends a lot of time promoting her property empire in Montenegro.
Helen Pitcher of the CCRC property empire building in Montenegro.
On 4 July 2008 a warrant was executed at my home. Seven (all) of my Box files on the Lord Lucan case were removed by the vale of Glamorgan council, animal licensing officer (Amanda Ewington Gape). I had already made three formal complaints against her. She deceived Magistrates in to giving her a warrant to search my home. The warrants was issued, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 section 52(5)(a).
Amanda had stated to Magistrate’s, she would find evidence of unnecessary suffering to animals at my home, specifically she stated ‘on a computer.’
The council spent thousands of pounds, having all my mobile phones, computers and children’s computer, forensically examined at great public expense, for this ‘alleged’ evidence. No evidence was ever found because there never was any to find.
Amanda then executed the warrant at my home. My solicitor correctly noted in his ‘Attendance notes of me, that no evidence of any animal suffering was found at my home, which justified the obtaining of a warrant.
Over a period of months, Amanda proceeded to build a fabricated case, against me, to save the council from a substantial claim for damages. It was Amanda who authorised all payments/invoices to their council employed Vet, Mark Evans, of valley vets, Gabalfa, Cardiff.
Realising the council were facing a substantial claim for damages, from me, the council had to rely on their own vet being prepared to state something, against me, in order for them to case build against me under the Animal Welfare Act. Foolishly he agreed.
By removing ‘my entire office contents,’ the licensing officer had achieved her aim, to simply disrupt my life as much as possible, without fear of consequence. My initial thought, when the warrant was executed, and the Lucan research material was removed, that perhaps security services were behind this. But that was not the case.
Removing ‘everything’ for ‘sifting later’ is an offence in itself under the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1998. It was a further offence for journalistic material to have been removed. An offence known as ‘Ultra Vires’ was also committed by Amanda, as she was clearly investigating my company vat file. Ultra Vires is a legal term used, where the person executing a warrant, issued by a court, has exceeded the powers given to them by the court.
Legal letter from vale of Glamorgan council confirming they had seized all my Lord Lucan material.
The crucial point to understand is, the Lucan box files contained, hand written extracts, from a Diary Lucan’s friend living in Ebury street made, when Lucan visited him, late on the night of the murder. As a result of publicity and my involvement in this case over many years, in 2008 his son now a grown up man, contacted me. After an exchange of emails, he emailed me extracts of his late Fathers Diary entry written on Friday the 8th November 1974. The man subsequently agreed to meet me in Hereford. However, my home was then raided under warrant.This caused me to suffer a mental break down.
It did not help, that all my mobile phones, computers etc remained in the possession, and under the control of Amanda Ewington Gape for the next six months.
Perhaps the vale of glamorgan council, (Legal Department) should explain why they removed, such substantial unrelated material from my home. They are responsible for why the investigation of the Lucan case, did not advance back in 2008.
When the vale of glamorgan council, returned my property, numerous records, and documents, including the extracts of the Diary entry written by Lucan’s friend, and the DNA sample in my investigation of the Ben Needham case, sent to me by the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) were missing. The story concerning the missing DNA, was covered in a story published by the Mail On Sunday 24 January 2016.
The mans son did not ask me for money. I concluded there was simply, a desire on his part, to finally let some truth, emerge in this case. After all he was not a friend of Lucan’s as his late father had been. There was no question of loyalty to consider.
Ridiculous claims have persisted for far too long, that Lucan lived as Jungle Barry Halpin as a Buddhist in Goa, India. I now understand, Neil Berriman (one of Sandra Rivetts Sons’) believes Lucan is living as a Buddhist in Brisbane, Australia. These are all simply ridiculous. Mad ideas of wishful thinking.
I recently read a newspaper report, that back in the mid eighties, Lucan was allegedly living with another disgraced Lord and his wife in the Philippines. Why do these ludicrous stories, suddenly get reported upon by mainstream media, after all these years? Conveniently coinciding with fifty years since Lucans disappearance.
After hundreds of alleged sightings, why has there NEVER been a single finger print or photograph of Lord Lucan taken after the 7th November 1974? Because he died, in the honourable way, in London, in the early hours of Friday 8th November 1974.
His death confirmed by Lady Lucan, and John Aspinall who stated Lucan committed suicide. Lucan’s Son George Bingham, now the eight Earl of Lucan, said in the Channel Four Documentary, The Hunt For Lord Lucan, that it was his ‘intuition’ that his Father never got out of London.
You can follow my investigation and conclusion of the Lord Lucan case on my YouTube Channel. Just search The Lord Lucan Case.
On Thursday 7th November 1974, Sandra had at last minute changed her usual day off. Altering her day off, lead to her accidental death.
Remembering Sandra Rivett.
On Thursday 7th November 2024 fifty years after Sandra’s murder, I stood and laid flowers on the door step of the house (46 Lower Belgrave Street, London) with a lovely lady, Lindsey Siviter a Historian.
Laying flowers on the door step of where Sandra Rivett was murdered.
Today I raised a complaint with the BBC. Case number CAS-7938854-TOH1K1
The complaint has been made for two reasons:
1. A Million pounds is excessive amount of public money, to cover Neil Berriman’s journey searching for, Lord Lucan who he believes, was his Mother’s killer. Filming has been done in Australia.
2. There are Three Key Facts which almost without any doubt, confirm Lord Lucan (seventh Earl of Lucan) to be dead. The BBC appear to have added unnecessarily to Neil’s anguish, in doing so providing him with completely false hope.
The Metropolitan Police have sometime ago confirmed, the person who Neil believes to be Lord Lucan, IS NOT LORD LUCAN.
The documentary, OBVIOUSLY, is not going to show that Lucan has been found.
I know, I have been involved in this case since the murder took place.
Check out and subscribe to my YouTube Channel – search The Lord Lucan Case.
On the 10th May 2024 I was invited to attend a gathering outside the Birmingham Offices, of the CCRC, Criminal Cases Review Commission.
A number of us gathered which included supporters of wrongly convicted victims, such as Jeremy Bamber.
The general view is that the CCRC do not have the staff to properly review cases of conviction, and when they do the bar is set to high. Therefore people who have been convicted of an offence, are not receiving Justice.
