Recall that Paul Roundhill admitted to punching Mark and setting his flat cap on fire. Had Mark been ejected, twice as now claimed, then that would suggest movement on the balcony, movement neighbors apparently reported hearing.
It does not take a brilliant mind to draw the obvious conclusion of a suspicious death. Are the detectives at the Met so “star-struck” by Pete Doherty that they need assistance in seeing the obvious? Are the detectives at the Met so dependent on Paul Roundhill‘s “advice” that they must look the other way when “investigating” this case?
Granted, there are no reliable witnesses; and Johnny “Headlock” did retract his confession– though apparently only one of the several he made– but does the Met’s sense of justice stop at hearsay concerning what “witnesses” either report or confess in such patently conflicting and contradictory terms? Do they really expect the truth from those who were present at the scene; or do the “witnesses’s” claims merely convenience them, given the “sensitive nature” of the probable suspects involved?
Could seasoned crime investigators really be so blithe and naive? We’ll have to wait and see– as we have for over three years now.