Police make renewed call over John 'Goldfinger' Palmer murder
"His killing was a brutal, planned execution," said Det Supt Stephen Jennings of the Essex and Kent Serious Crime Directorate."Over the years there has been much commentary, media coverage and even television programmes speculating about his connections to the underworld, high profile crimes and his past."But whatever someone's past, John was a father, partner and much-loved by his family."
In 1983, armed robbers stumbled upon £26m worth of gold, diamonds and cash in the Brink's-Mat warehouse near London Heathrow Airport.Palmer was found not guilty of conspiring to handle the stolen bullion at an Old Bailey trial in 1987, but the Met Police continued to investigate him.
He amassed an estimated fortune of £300m in the 1990s, with a portfolio including mansions, helicopters, restaurants, a £750,000 yacht and classic cars.But in 2001, he was jailed for eight years at the Old Bailey for conspiracy to defraud, having scammed about 16,000 couples out of millions on Tenerife.
In May 2015 - a month before his murder - Spanish prosecutors charged him with fraud, firearms possession and money laundering in relation to his timeshare scam.Police believe a contract killer watched him through a spyhole in his fence at his property, before scaling the fence and shooting him at the only spot not covered by CCTV.Remarkably however, two police officers assessed his death as non-suspicious, owing to his wound from gall bladder surgery which took place a week earlier.A post-mortem examination on 30 June revealed he was actually shot in the chest, abdomen, arm, elbow, back and kidneys.The two officers later faced disciplinary action and Det Supt Jennings has previously admitted the force failed to carry out "background checks on John" and did not "really check the body well enough".
In 2019, other individuals were found guilty as part of the same Spanish fraud indictment that Palmer had been charged with."We know the key to solving John's murder lies within the underworld and we have always suspected it may have been linked to the fraud trial," said Det Supt Jennings."A lot has changed within the criminal fraternity, including loyalties, and people may now feel able to come forward."A 43-year-old man from Rugby, Warwickshire, was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit murder in 2015, but was released without charge.In February 2017, detectives said a 50-year-old man from Tyneside, who lived in southern Spain, was questioned on suspicion of murder in what was a voluntary interview. He faced no further action.Anyone with information can call Essex Police on 101 or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111 or via its website crimestoppers-uk.org.
Follow Essex news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why did Lucy Connolly receive a 31-month sentence for Southport tweet?
The case of Lucy Connolly has sparked intense debate since she was jailed for inciting racial hatred online following the Southport attacks, with some criticising her sentence as excessive. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Connolly's sentence was 'harsher than the sentences handed down for bricks thrown at police or actual rioting'. Here, the PA news agency explores her case and 31-month prison sentence. – What offence did Lucy Connolly commit? Connolly pleaded guilty in September to a charge of inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X, formerly Twitter. On July 29 last year, she posted: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it.' The post was viewed 310,000 times in three and a half hours before she deleted it. The charge, contrary to section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986, said that she 'published and distributed written material on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, which was threatening, abusive or insulting with the intent thereby to stir up racial hatred or whereby, having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred was likely to be stirred up thereby'. The 1986 Act covers offences around incitement, public disorder and harassment, and covers both online and offline offences. – How was Lucy Connolly sentenced? Connolly admitted a 'category 1A' offence, meaning that her culpability was deemed to be in 'category A', and the harm was in 'category one' – both the highest categories. Guidelines on how to sentence offenders for several crimes are published by the Sentencing Council, an independent body which is led by the judiciary. The guidance for racial hatred offences states that those who commit such a crime are to be deemed to have high culpability if they demonstrate one or more of three factors. These are using a 'position of trust, authority or influence to stir up hatred', showing an 'intention to incite serious violence' and demonstrating 'persistent activity'. A publication is considered to cause 'category one' harm if it 'directly encourages activity which threatens or endangers life', and there is 'widespread dissemination'. The maximum sentence for the offence is seven years behind bars. Defendants who commit category 1A offences can be sentenced to between two and six years in prison, with the 'starting point' for sentences – the point used before aggravating and mitigating factors are considered – being three years. – How did the sentencing judge categorise the offence? During sentencing, Judge Melbourne Inman KC said both prosecution and defence barristers agreed that the case involved a 'category 1A' offence. He said the timing of the post was a 'further significant aggravating factor' to the offence, which came amid a 'particularly sensitive social climate'. He added that in the three and a half hours between Connolly publishing and deleting the post, it was 'widely read', having been viewed '310,000 times with 940 reposts, 58 quotes and 113 bookmarks'. In mitigation, Judge Inman said Connolly had no previous convictions, that it was her first time in prison, that she did not repeat her statement and deleted the post, and that she 'sent some messages to the effect that violence was not the answer'. He also said he accepted she still 'very keenly' felt the loss of her own child several years ago, and that she regretted her actions. But he also found that Connolly had 'little insight into, or acceptance of' her offending. He said: 'Whilst you may well have understood the grief of those who suffered their own tragic losses in Southport, you did not send a message of understanding and comfort but rather an incitement to hatred.' He added that the sentence he would have imposed after a trial was one of three and a half years – 42 months – but then reduced this by a quarter because of Connolly's early guilty plea, resulting in the final sentence of 31 months. – What happened when Connolly appealed against her sentence? At the Court of Appeal in May, judges dismissed a legal challenge against her sentence. In a written judgment, Lord Justice Holroyde, said: 'There is no arguable basis on which it could be said that the sentence imposed by the judge was manifestly excessive.' Lawyers for Connolly had said that Judge Inman 'miscategorised' the offence, claiming her culpability should have been deemed as 'category B', and that the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating features. But Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mr Justice Goss and Mr Justice Sheldon, ruled that Connolly 'willingly pleaded guilty' to the offence and that Judge Inman was 'entitled, and indeed obviously correct, to categorise the case as he did'. Connolly's husband, Conservative councillor Ray Connolly branded the decision 'shocking and unfair'. The Northampton town councillor, and former West Northamptonshire district councillor, said his wife had 'paid a very high price for making a mistake'. But Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer defended it earlier this year. He was asked about Connolly's case after her Court of Appeal application against her jail term was dismissed. Asked during Prime Minister's Questions whether her imprisonment was an 'efficient or fair use' of prison, Sir Keir said: 'Sentencing is a matter for our courts and I celebrate the fact that we have independent courts in this country. 'I am strongly in favour of free speech, we've had free speech in this country for a very long time and we protect it fiercely. 'But I am equally against incitement to violence against other people. I will always support the action taken by our police and courts to keep our streets and people safe.' – What has the response been to her case? Lord Young of Acton, founder and director of the Free Speech Union, which funded Connolly's legal challenge, said: 'The fact that Lucy Connolly has spent more than a year in prison for a single tweet that she quickly deleted and apologised for is a national scandal.' Conservative and Reform politicians have decried what they call 'two-tier justice' in her case comparing it with that of Ricky Jones, a suspended Labour councillor who was found not guilty of encouraging violent disorder at an anti-racism rally in the wake of the Southport murders. Lawyers have said the cases should not be conflated as Connolly and Jones faced allegations of a different nature – and Jones faced trial where Connolly, having pleaded guilty, did not. Reform UK's deputy leader Richard Tice has also proposed 'Lucy's Bill' after Connolly's case in Parliament, which would allow people to mount mass appeals against punishments they deem to be too severe or lenient.
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Watchdog urged to probe ‘dangerous shambles' of Afghan relocation data breaches
A watchdog has been urged to investigate the 'dangerous shambles' of Afghan relocation data breaches after the Ministry of Defence reportedly admitted more than previously known. A freedom of information request by the BBC revealed there have been 49 data breaches in the past four years, including four already known to the public. Seven breaches were serious enough to be reported to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), three of which had not been made public, the broadcaster reported. Those three included one in 2021 and two in 2022, the same year a major leak prompted the Government to obtain an unprecedented superinjunction barring journalists from reporting it. Sean Humber, a lawyer at Leigh Day, which acts for Afghan citizens affected by previous breaches, said the latest reports are 'shocking' and confirm the MoD 'appears to be institutionally incapable of keeping personal data safe'. He said: 'These data breaches betray a cavalier attitude to keeping such sensitive information safe as well as a complete disregard for the potentially life and death consequences of failing to do so. 'The Information Commissioner's Office must now roll up its sleeves and carry out a thorough and immediate investigation of what appears to be systemic failures of data protection policies, procedures or practices by the Ministry of Defence. This dangerous shambles cannot be allowed to continue. 'All those affected must be notified of the breach of their personal data, including the personal data affected, without further delay and appropriate steps taken to ensure their safety.' Adnan Malik, of Barings Law, which represents 1,500 affected people, said: 'This represents a deeply alarming data failure and the recent 49 Ministry of Defence breaches make clear that the Afghan case was not an isolated error but part of a wider and troubling pattern of negligence. 'Transparency is not optional; it is critical for protecting individuals, maintaining public trust, and ensuring that lessons are learned to prevent future breaches.' The MoD did not provide any details of the nature of each breach. Last month, a High Court judge lifted the gagging order relating to the major breach, which saw the details of 18,714 applicants for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme released in 2022. When the breach was discovered more than a year later in August 2023, the MoD was granted an unprecedented gagging order amid fears the Taliban could target would-be refugees for reprisals. It also saw the establishment of a secret £850 million scheme, the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR), to bring thousands of those affected to the UK. Arap was responsible for relocating Afghan nationals who had worked for or with the UK Government and were therefore at risk of reprisals once the Taliban returned to power in Kabul in 2021. An MoD spokesperson said: 'We take data security extremely seriously and are committed to ensuring that any incidents are dealt with properly, and that we follow our legal duties. 'All incidents that meet the threshold under UK data protection laws are referred to the Information Commissioner's Office and any lesser incidents are examined internally to ensure lessons are learned.' The ICO said it continues to engage with the MoD to be 'assured that they have made the required improvements'.
BBC News
7 minutes ago
- BBC News
Woman in her 40s dies in high street Waitrose in Esher
A woman in her 40s has died at a Surrey Waitrose, according to police. Officers said they were called to the supermarket on Esher High Street shortly after 18:00 BST on Wednesday by the South East Coast Ambulance Service, which was responding to a medical was pronounced dead at the scene despite the best efforts of paramedics, Surrey Police was a "significant" emergency services presence in the area, including the air ambulance, the force added. Waitrose was closed while police and medics carried out their work, but it has since reopened. The supermarket chain has been approached for comment.
