Peters’ Life – Timeline

Peter <3


Peter was born at the North Middlesex University Hospital on 1 March 2006.

On 22 March health visitor Yvonne Douglas makes first home visit. Records that Peter was developing well and breast feeding but suffering oral thrush. Because of the family’s history, Peter’s case was placed in a blue folder, denoting cause for concern.

On 24 March the family’s GP Jerome Ikwueke sees Peter for his oral thrush.

On 7 April the health visitor weighs Peter at the baby clinic.

On 13 April the GP carries out Peter’s 6 week check.

On 2 May Peter is taken to the GP suffering from diarrhoea and vomiting.

On 4 May Peter’s Mother [PM] takes Peter to the health clinic and is seen by the health visitor

On 22 May Peter has his first vaccinations for meningitis and diphtheria.

On 28 May PM calls the out of hours emergency service because Peter is vomiting after feeds.

On 4 June PM takes Peter to the GP for pain, diarrhoea and vomiting.

On 9 June PM is seen for depression by mental health worker (mhw) Karolina Jamry.

On 19 June Peter receives his second vaccinations.

During the summer of 2006 Peter’s parents separate and his father leaves the family home on 17 July due to his wife’s infidelity. Peter’s relationship with Stephen Barker has begun. Within 3 months, he moves in with Peter’s mother and her children.

On 11 August PM sees MHW again and discusses her marital problems.

On 15 September the health visitor makes a home visit.

On 18 September PM took Peter to the GP with a cough and nappy rash. During the consultation PM complained that the Peter bruised easily and she might be accused of hurting him.

On 13 October PM returned to the GP saying Peter had fallen down the stairs and upon examination the doctor found bruises on the left breast and left cranium and advised PM to install a stair gate. NOTE – Peter was only 7 and a half months old and NOT walking.

On 17 November PM takes Peter to the GP again for an upper respiratory tract infection and thrush.

On 11 December PM phoned the GP and said Peter had a swelling on his head and asked what she should do. The GP asked her to attend surgery for examination and consequently referred Peter to Whittington Hospital initially for a skeletal scan and blood clotting tests.

At the hospital, extensive bruising to Peter’s buttocks, face and chest were identified in addition to the swelling on his foreheadPM offered no explanation for the swelling but suggested climbing, falling and slapping his body in play in addition to her assertion that he bruised easily as causes for the bruising. She also suggested that he had fallen off the sofa and been scratched by the dog. Later, under police caution, PM gave no clear but a number of hypothetical explanations for Peter’s injuries and denied that she or her mother were responsible, though did believe the injuries must have occurred whilst in her mother’s care. Tests indicated Peter was not suffering from any condition that would mean he was susceptible to bruising easily.

The full injuries were: bruising to Peter’s forehead, nose, to the right cheek (but not on the bony prominence), breastbone and breast, right shoulder, both buttocks (which required significant force in order for them to be inflicted) and a faint bruise to the left shin.

On 12 December a strategy meeting was held attended by a social worker and DC Angela Slade (who also sees Peter) from the police. A decision was made that Peter could not return to the family home until the s.47 enquiries and police investigation was completed. PF at this point offered to take time off work to care for Peter but PM claimed he had slapped the children in the past. The meeting notes documented that Peter’s parents were separated and that, ‘mother had a friend, Mr H. He is not alone with the children.’ No efforts were made either by the police or social services to investigate ‘Mr H’ further, or even to question him as a witness.

On 13 December the social worker and police officer interviewed two of Peter’s siblings at their school. No concerns were raised about their physical safety.

On 14 December the consultant paediatrician at the Whittington, Heather Mackinnon, stated that the combination of bruising on Peter ‘is very suggestive of non-accidental injury’. She added, ‘Not to be allowed home. Police protection order if necessary.’

On 15 December Peter was discharged from the hospital into the care of his mother’s friend, 25 year old Angela Godfrey (allegedly a registered childminder). Sylvia Henry, a team manager at the Tottenham social services office, found Peter suitable foster carers and was ‘very reluctant’ to allow him to be given to Miss Godfrey but was bound by the Children’s Act 1989 to explore placement options with friends and family. In a statement to police investigating following Peter’s death Miss Henry said, ‘My impression of Angela was that she believed the local authority were overreacting and that the explanation for Peter’s injuries were those of his mother’s – that they were caused by rough play and by his head banging.’ Miss Henry also claims that Miss Godfrey asked, ‘for a large sum of money, possibly £320 per week to look after the child and continually pressed for his return home.’

On 18 December a social worker, Agnes White, visted PM at the family home. Reports were that it was dirty, untidy, smelt of urine and 3 dogs were living there.

On 19 December PM and his maternal grandmother (MG) were arrested on suspicion of child cruelty. During police interview at Hornsey police station in North London neither offered any specific explanations of the injuries but gave the same possible causes as previously. Both said only PM and the 4 children lived in the home with MG staying occasionally. Neither is asked directly about other adults who might access the home. PM stated in a recorded interview, ‘I’ve never slapped him in his life and I never intend to. At the end of the day I’m a very good mother. I’m not the best mother but I’m a good mother.’ Both are bailed to return on 11 January 2007.

On 21 December Peter’s leg is x-rayed at the hospital. At one of his x-rays, the second serious case review notes that, Peter had a good relationship with his biological father (PF), which was seen when he went for his bone scan when only his father could calm his distress.’

On 22 December a child protection conference was held attended by a social worker, legal rep of the local authority and police. The family’s GP was not invited and the pediatrician at the Whittington Hosptial did not attend due to work commitments, nor was a rep sent in her place, though she did contribute a detailed written report. Another doctor from the Child Development Centre was invited but also did not attend. The conference noted that the pediatrician at the Whittington was of the opinion that the injuries to Peter were non-accidental in nature and that no adult had given any explanation of how they had been sustained nor who was with him when they occurred. Peter was registered for both physical abuse and neglect and the youngest of his three sisters was also put on the child protection register. None of the conference members supported the registration of Peter’s two eldest sisters. The legal view given orally immediately following the conference and confirmed by email on 29 December was that the threshold for care proceedings had been met. However, this did not prompt the Children and Young People’s Service to initiate care proceedings in respect of Peter.

Whilst staying with Angela Godfrey she reported that Peter had bruises on his testes and claimed they were caused by hospital staff doing a scan. His mother visited frequently and saw her son three times on Christmas Day. social workers and health visitors also visited Peter and during this time the relationship between him and his mother was assessed positively.

On 9 January 2007 Angela Godfrey takes Peter to the health clinic for thrush on his buttocks and is seen by the health visitor.

On 10 January the first core group meeting was held and PM attended with Peter.

On 12 January and again on 27 January Peter’s leg is x-rayed again at the hospital.

On 19 January PM sees her MHW.

On 24 January a review strategy meeting was held and it was agreed that if the injuries were non-accidental it was not clear who the perpetrator was. The police agreed Peter could return home once his mother had made alternative arrangements for the dogs.

On 25 January Peter is taken to the GP with nappy rash.

On 26 January Peter returned home, despite the dogs still being there and despite no resolve of the protection issues. Syliva Henry, however, claims she tried to delay Peter’s return because the police agreed that he should remain, ‘out of the care of his mother.’ But because the mother was not going to be prosecuted for child cruelty, Miss Henry said there was nothing she could do. She told police that ‘reluctantly it was agreed that with changes to the home environment in place and all the support services in place with the family there were little grounds for Peter to remain out of the care of his mother.’

On 2 February Peter has his third set of vaccinations. On the same date Maria Ward is allocated as his social worker.

On 8 February a ‘preliminary assessment’ of PM was carried out by Caroline Sussex (organisation unknown).

On 19 February the family moved to their new four bedroom home.

The House Where Peter Was Murdered

On 22 February social worker Maria Ward made her first home visit and observed a good relationship between Peter and his mother. She also observed Peter smiling at later visits on 5 and 8 March.

NOTE: At some point during March 2007, PM was interviewed by a social worker on video for a pilot therapy (Solution Focused Brief Therapy) scheme. During the interview, she talks at length about her male ‘friend’ and about cooking valentines dinner for him. Despite this, Haringey Social Services claim they did not know about Barkers presence, and that Peter would have been removed if they had. No video was EVER passed to the police, not as part of the abuse case before Peter’s death, or as evidence in the failed murder trial. Former head of children’s services at Haringey, Sharon Shoesmith, and her deputy, Cecilia Hitchen, were responsible for handing all documents to the police.

The police maintain, had they been given this video, they would have wanted to speak to ‘Mr. H’ – if only to eliminate him from enquires in the child abuse investigation BEFORE Peter’s death.

On 2 March the social worker and health visitor make a home visit and observe Peter head butting the floor. He is referred to the Child Development Center  PM admits, ‘taking her eye off the ball’ following the breakdown of her marriage but is back on track now.

On 5 March a school nurse at the older children’s school phoned Maria Ward to report that she had observed PM shouting and slapping the face of one of Peter’s siblings outside the school. The sibling was seen alone and confirmed the assault. She was then added to the child protection register.

On 13 March Maria Ward interviewed PF. This was the first time he had been seen since December. PF stated he wanted more contact with his children and was advised to get legal advice. He further stated that PM had a boyfriend whom he had seen at the family home. PM later angrily denied this to the social worked and said he was just a friend who helped around the home. PF also stated that he did not believe PM would hit the children.

On 15 March PM begins a course of Mellow Parenting.

On 16 March a review child protection conference was held which PM attended. It was agreed that the social worker would increase announced and unannounced visits to weekly and for there to be further contact with the health visitor either at home or at the clinic.

On 20 March Peter and his mother are videoed at a parenting class.

On 22 March the social worker spots a red mark on Peter’s face which his mother claims was caused by him falling on a table.

On 23 March Peter had his one year check up at the health clinic. The health visitor, Paulette Thomas, reports ‘no concerns’. During the visit PM was reportedly angry and upset with social workers for their high frequency of visits which prevented her relaxing and enjoying her children.

On 29 March a core group meeting was held.

On 7 April a family friend claims she saw Peter in the garden eating dirt with a large bruise on his forehead. He is quiet and withdrawn.

On 9 April the GP saw Peter with bruising to his face. At 16.40 Peter was admitted to the North Middlesex Hospital in Enfield. A nurse noted a large boggy swelling to the left side of his head. PM’s explanation was that 4 days earlier another child his age had pushed him against a marble fire place. She said he had seemed grizzly but fine over the next two days but had woken that morning with neck pain and holding his head to the left side. He had a small round bruise on his right cheek, a large swelling and bruising on the left side of his head, bruising around the eyes, scratches to his face and earlobe, a rash on the back of his arms and obvious head lice. Body maps taken a the time indicated bruises and scratches to Peter’s face, head and body. Tests for meningitis proved negative, though PM used this as a way to excuse the injuries and is heard boasting that her son has meningitis. A CT scan was normal and social services provide the family with a fireguard.

The full injuries were bruising to the back of Peter’s head with a boggy swelling that was soft to the touch which caused Peter to be in pain and cry when he moved his neck, bruising around his eyes, scratches to the left of his face and on the left ear lobe, a bruise on his upper lip and two bruises on his back (as well as head lice).

On admission PM stated she had a friend in the waiting room who had witnessed the fall and was fearful Peter would be taken into care because he was on the child protection register. The friend is now thought to have been her Stephen Barker. Further, a man referred to as his ‘father’ was present on two evenings but didn’t stay whilst PM did stay with Peter.

A hospital nurse told the social worker that the injury was not viewed as non-accidental because it had been caused by another child. Police were not informed.

All Of Peters Recovered Clothes Were Stained With Blood

On 10 April Peter is referred to the Child Development Center by a social worker who has observed him head banging.

On 11 April Peter was discharged back to the family home. A discharge report dated 17 April stated Peter had suffered, ‘a trivial head injury, caused by playing with siblings, a few days before admission.’

On 12 April a child protection meeting was held at North Middlesex Hospital.

On 24 April the social worker visited the home and saw all the children. She discussed with PM the fact that Peter appeared unsteady on his feet.

On 2 May a core group meeting was held.

On 3 May PM and Peter attended a parenting class.

On 9 May the health visitor made a planned visit to the family home and noted that Peter was a lively and active toddler, clean and appropriately dressed.

On 10 May PM missed a parenting class.

On 16 May Marie Lockhart, a family support service worker visited the family home and observed Peter and a sibling playing happily. Barker is now known to have answered the door at Connelly’s home to a support worker on one occasion.

On 18 May Peter was seen by the GP for an allergic reaction. He is prescribed antihistamines.

On 21 May social worker visited and saw all the children playing happily and observed they were well.

On 24 May PM missed a parenting class.

On 29 May PM fails to take Peter to an appointment with the Health Visitor at the Lordship Lane Clinic.

On 31 May PM missed a parenting class.

On 1 June the social worker made an unannounced visit to the family home and found Peter lying on the sofa under a blanket with a red face, bruising under the chin and a red line under his eye. PM claimed it was caused in a squabble with a friend’s child. The social worker requested PM take Peter to the GP and he was taken to NMUH who were aware he was on the child protection register.

Peter was found to have 12 areas of bruising and scratches of different ages on his body and a grab mark on his lower right leg that doctors were particularly concerned aboutPM’s account for the bruises was that a friend had been staying between 25 and 28 May and she thought the bruises were caused by rough play with the friend’s 22 month old child. She said the grab mark was caused by her trying to prevent him falling off a sofa.

The social worker informed the police but they elected not to undertake a joint investigation but to allow the social worker to look into it and call them in if she felt they had a role. The social worker was happy for Peter to be discharged back home as a family friend was staying that weekend.

The full injuries to Peter were 12 marks of bruises, scratches and marks on the right lower jaw, to the left ear lobe, under the left eye, on the left nostril and left corner of the mouth, to the right chest, lower back, just below the umbilicus, the tip of the left middle finger and on the left lower leg.

On 3 June the health visitor contacted the hospital who told her Peter had also had an infected finger. They also said PM was observed to have bonded well with him.

On 4 June a strategy meeting was held at the request of the police who were convinced that the injuries were non-accidental. Agreement was reached to undertake s.47 enquiries, hold an urgent legal planning meeting to consider care proceedings; fast track a paediatric assessment; make arrangements for Peter to be supervised at the family home by Angela Godfrey; agree a contract with PM; find a childminder to assist with childcare during the day. A joint investigation by the police and children’s social care was ongoing.

On 5 June PM arrested for a second time and interviewed under caution by the police at Hornsey Police Station. She offered a variety of possible causes for the injuries. In the recorded interview she said, ‘I have never hit him what so ever which is why I keep getting upset because I’m being accused of something which I haven’t done.’ The interviewer Detective Constable Stuart O’Brien said, ‘There are various different bruises, various different injuries, that’s a lot of injuries in a week. Either he’s the unluckiest kid in the world or it’s something more than this.’ The mother replied, ‘It’s not something more, I swear.’ She added, ‘My world would fall apart without him. I’ve been trying for a boy for so long, I’m lucky to have him.’

Also on 5 June PM and Angela Godfrey met the team manager to sign a written agreement to the effect that PM and Peter would not be left alone together. A registered childminder, Ann Walker, would care for Peter and his youngest sibling for certain days during the week. The agreement was to be reviewed in a fortnight. The police, however, felt that whilst the investigation into Peter’s injuries was still taking place he should be removed from his mother’s care. A senior officer wrote in his log: “This situation cannot continue. I am at a loss as to why our position is at variance to that held by social services. Our concerns for Baby P are valid.”

On 6 June Peter was seen at the Health Clinic by Paulette Thomas, a health visitor. She notes he has lost weight since March and has scabs on his head. PM claims this is an allergic reaction.

On 7 June Peter had further vaccinations at the GP’s surgery.

On 8 June a review child protection conference was held. The social worker informed the conference of the 1 June injuries and that PM’s account did not explain them. The reasonable conclusion from the medical exam was that the injuries were likely non-accidental. The meeting was informed that a legal planning meeting was to be held within the next week to inform future decision making. The conference Chair expressed her concern that Peter was experiencing the same injuries for which he was originally placed on a child protection plan. In addition, if they were caused by Peter’s own behaviour as his mother claimed, then they should be occurring continuously rather than in a pattern of serious but intermittent injury.

On 8 June the police took pictures of Peter and seized a toy from his home. A photo of Peter shows a bruise at the center of his spine.

On 12 June the childminder Ann Walker tells social worker that she is concerned about Peter’s head injury which is weeping and bleeding and that he is often unwashed, smells of vomit and always seems to be hungry.

On 15 June the family support service worker visited the family home. Barker was present. PM was upset at being arrested for the injuries to Peter. She said she was happy to speak in front of Barker because he knew everything. Also that day the childminder tells social services of a bruise on the Peter’s chin but it is decided it is a pre-existing injury.

On 19 June Peter and the youngest of his siblings were visited by the social worker at their childminder Ann Walker’s house. She notes scratches on his scalp. Both children interacted well with the three other children being looked after. The childminder did not convey any concerns.

Although no mention is made in the executive summary of the serious case review, Ann Walker claims that she repeatedly raised concerns about Peter. She has been quoted in the press as saying,

‘He was dying. I told them about his state. I said things were not right. But nothing was done. If someone had taken action we would not be mourning the loss of a baby’s life. The warning signs were all there. It was upsetting. Four or five times I phoned about bruises, marks, nappy rash and dried blood in his ear. He always smelt of vomit, his clothes were dirty. His fingers were black and nails were broken. Once he pulled off one of his fingernails. He had a large scab on his head that would weep blood. He was in a terrible state.’ 

Ann further says she was told she had been employed to, ‘give the mum a break’ and to report any injuries she found to the social worker who she was told would visit – but did so only once. She says that when she reported the injuries and asked how they had happened was told he was accident prone.

On 20 June a core group meeting was held.

On 21 June PM and Peter attended a parenting class.

On 29 June the social worker had a message from Ann Walker that PM had taken Peter away. The social worker tried to contact PM three times that day without success. Some reports state that PM phoned Maria Ward the previous day (28 June) to say she was going away the following day for her birthday.

Around 29 June (though some accounts suggest it was some weeks earlier) Jason Owen, Barker’s brother, his 15 year old girlfriend and his three children move into Peter’s family home. Apparently concealing 6 extra people in a 4 bed house that already has 5 residents is possible, as Haringey claim they were unaware of this, despite the numerous visits by various professionals to Peter’s home in the last few weeks of his short life.

On 2 July the social worker managed to speak to PM who said she was caring for a seriously ill uncle in Cricklewood and would return on either 4 or 9 July depending on his health. This was found to be a complete fabrication, and it is believed Peter was suffering visible injuries at this time. School electronic attendance records show that the two elder children did not attend school between 29 June and 5 July.

On 5 July PM and Peter attended a parenting class.

On 9 July the social worker made contact with PM who was ‘back in Haringey’. PM had taken Peter to the walk in clinic at the North Middlesex Hospital for an ear and scalp infection. Later that day the social worker visited the family home and saw all the children. Peter’s ear was red and looked sore. PM showed the social worker the medicine that had been prescribed. PM cancels an appointment with the health visitor.

On 10 July a police meeting leads experts to agree that the injuries to Peter in December 2006 are suggestive of non accidental injury but non conclusive.

On 11 July the social worker made a home visit. She notes an ear and scalp infection.

On 16 July PM cancels an appointment with the health visitor.

On 18 July PM took Peter to the Health Clinic for a ear and scalp infection. Peter’s weight had reduced to the 25th centile although his appetite was described as ‘good’. PM told them that Peter had been seen on 16 July and treated with cream for head scabs (though is was actually 9 July). It was noted that Peter was on a child protection plan and was well groomed and nourished and that there were no unexplained physical injuries. He had also been given antibiotics for his ear infection. His left ear was red on the outside and his lobe appeared to be infected. PM explained she had caused the bruising around his ear when cleaning it. The health visitor advised PM to return to the walk in clinic. The health visitor contacted the social worker who in turn tried without success to contact PM to discuss her concerns.

On 19 July PM took Peter back to the walk in clinic at the North Middlesex Hospital where he was referred to A&E. A history was taken and he was assessed and described as alert and looking around. He had an infected scalp with bloody scabs, head lice and blood around the left ear where he had been scratching. He looked grubby and the middle finger of his right hand was infected in the nail bed. PM said he had developed a hives reaction on his head to red Leicester cheese, which became infected from scratching. Doctors did not investigate the infection. A&E phoned the emergency duty team. Also that day PM and Peter attended a parenting class.

On 23 July Ann Walker, the childminder, phoned the social worker to say she could no longer care for Peter and his sister because of his scalp infection and their head lice. The social worker phoned PM expressing concern that the infection was taking too long to clear up and Peter should be taken to the GP. On the same day an appointment for Peter at the Child Development Center at St Ann’s Hospital is cancelled and PM fails to attend an appointment with the health visitor claiming she forgot.

On 25 July the legal planning meeting took place the decision made that the case did not at present meet the threshold for care proceedings but that the position should be reviewed in light of further reports expected.

On 26 July the social worker phoned PM for details of Peter’s visit to the GP where she had taken him for head lice and blood in his ear. According to PM the GP didn’t prescribe further antibiotics and was not concerned thinking Peter may have an allergic reaction to the head lice treatment. The GP later said he had recognized the need for concern but did nothing because he thought others would do something and the child was being seen at the Child Development Centre in a few days. He also stated that Peter was withdrawn and pulled away during examination.

On 27 July Peter spends the night at his father’s home and is reportedly healthy apart from the scalp infection and a bandage on his finger.

On 30 Julythe social worker made a planned visit to the family home. All the

Precious Peter, A Few Days Before His Death. The Chocolate Smeared On His Face Is Believed To Conceal Injuries.

children were seen both on their own and with PM. Peter was in a buggy and reported to be alert and smiling but overtired. His ear was sore and slightly inflamed. He had white cream on his head and PM said she thought the infection had improved. Peter’s face was smeared with chocolate and the social worked asked that it be cleaned off. The family friend took him away to do so and he did not reappear before the social worker left. PM said she had a GP appointment and mentioned grab marks on Peter. She was worried about being accused of harming him. After Peters death it is revealed PM smeared chocolate on his face to hide injuries.

On 31 July the police met with the Crown Prosecution Service who advised no further action due to insufficient evidence against PM and PG on both of the investigations (one relating to December 2006 and one to June 2007).

On 1 August PM and Angela Godfrey took Peter to the Child Development Center appointment at St Ann’s Hospital in North London where he was seen by locum paediatrician Sabah Al Zayyat. This was after two previous appointments had been cancelled. The doctor later said that she thought Angela Godfrey was Peter’s foster carer. Peter’s referral made it clear he was on the child protection register but did not state that he was the focus of current enquiries for injuries. Peter was unwell with a temperature and runny nose and had visible bruises. PM shared her concerns about his behaviour and became tearful when reporting CPS had accused her of causing the bruises to Peter and that he was a much wanted boy. Peter’s weight was now on the 9th centile – a considerable weight loss.

Sabah Al Zayyat concluded that Peter was unwell due to a possible viral infection. Her report also stated that he had a history of recurrent bruising and infection, abnormal behaviours (aggression, head-butting, head banging, hyperactivity) and there was a possibility he might have some underlying metabolic disorder. In notes date 8 August the doctor said that she had advised PM to go to the GP or A&E if Peter didn’t get better. She did not perform a full examination of Peter because he was, ‘miserable and cranky.’. No reports had been provided of his previous admissions and attendances at the Whittington or North Middlesex hospitals for possible non-accidental injuries nor were they sought.

According to the post-mortem, Peter would have been suffering from numerous fractured ribs and possibly a broken spine at the time of this visit. The broken spine would have left him paralysed and unable to empty his bladder. Despite this Sabah Al Zayyar stated in evidence that Peter, ‘didn’t look any different from a child his age with a common cold.’ She also insists he was moving his legs, sitting without support and there was no reason to suspect anything else.

On the same day the mother cancels an appointment with the health visitor.

On 2 August PM was seen by police at the social services offices and was told that neither prosecutions would be pursued. She cries with relief and says she will go back and give him a hug and bake a cake. She also decides not to take Peter to the GP and the social worker agrees as he was seen at the hospital the previous day.

At 01.10 on Friday 3 August PM chats to a friend over the phone and says the children are, ‘fine.’

On 3 August the London Ambulance Service respond to a 999 call at 11.35. The caller was PM who reported a 17 month old child, taking antibiotics was now not moving. She reported to the crew, who arrived at 11.43, that she had last seen him at approximately 01.00 and that he had been unwell recently with a fungal infection. PM travelled in the ambulance to North Middlesex Hospital with Peter, arriving at 11.49. He was pronounced dead at 12.19. The police were called and PM was arrested at 13.45.

Ambulance crew state that it was clear Peter had been dead for sometime before they were called and that PM seemed more concerned with her hair and getting her cigarettes than with her dead baby boy. They also noted the disgusting state of the house, which contained dismembered animals and human faeces smeared up the walls.

By the time the ambulance arrived, Barker, Owen and his 15-year-old girlfriend had already left to dispose of Peters bloodied sheets and other evidence, and to go on the run. They were eventually found by police at a campsite near Epping Forest, with a stash of weapons. All items of clothing owned by Peter were found by the police to be blood-stained.

Sleep Peacefully Brave Little Soldier. 


One comment

  1. […] Peter – BackgroundPeter – InjuriesPeter’s NSPCC Tribute FundPeters’ Life – TimelineTrial And Sentences – Justice?Why Has There Been No Public Inquiry Into Haringey […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: