The curious case of Chief Constable Michael Todd - no conclusions, but lots to think about

For the record, I should stress from the outset that I didn't know Michael Todd either personally or professionally, and I am not, nor have I ever been, a denizen of Manchester. In fact, it was only when news of his death was first reported that I really found out who he was.

My motivation for writing the original blog post about his strange death was due to his 18-month inquiry, at the behest of Liberty, into whether the CIA had used British soil to transport terror suspects to third countries for torture, as part of the United States' extraordinary rendition programme. Todd's death may well have been either a suicide or simply the tragic endgame of a series of spiralling events, I thought. However, the fact that he had died after previously putting the CIA under the microscope (as others had done in the past) gave me reason to believe that I should perhaps look a little closer at the circumstances.

It took me just over a month to research and write the post, and I willingly allowed it to consume all my free time. But what became immediately apparent from my research (which involved night after late night of poring over news reports, from national news sources to the smallest regional's, from tabloids to broadsheets) was the highly contradictory nature of the way the case was reported. The devil is in the details, they say. But the details of Michael Todd's death, and the possible causal factors behind it, were all over the place.

The reasons for Todd's descent into despair ranged from his wife's discovery of his extramarital affairs, to the threat of a tabloid exposé about his private life, to the simple the fact that, while outwardly successful, charismatic and focused, he was secretly a "haunted character". What was certain, though, is that the media circus that followed, which seemed to forensically examine every aspect of Todd's private life, ensured that barely any time at all was dedicated to analysing the strange circumstances of his death.

Given that there were so many oddities in the case to investigate, I found it strange that the press spent so much of their time in the knicker drawers of Todd's former female "conquests" (as The Sun referred to them). It seemed like a concerted effort to direct our attention away from any lingering questions or doubts about his death, and have us focus solely on the salacious details of his alleged serial bed-hopping.

I remembered a Guardian article from June 2000, which pondered whether British journalists were being manipulated by secret intelligence agencies. The article suggested various forms of manipulation, such as: intelligence officers posing as journalists in order to write tendentious articles under false names, and intelligence agency 'black propaganda' (i.e. false material and stories) being planted on willing journalists, who disguise their origin from their readers. With the plethora of unsavoury articles about Todd that ran off the printing presses after his body was discovered - drawing the nation's attention away from the death itself - I wondered if Fleet Street was still overrun with spooks driving the story.

To my surprise, in the months following the publication of my blog post I was contacted personally by various people who claimed to be either friends, former colleagues, or to have been emotionally involved with Michael Todd. Unfortunately, much of what these people told me was in the strictest confidence, so I am regrettably unable to disclose the information they imparted (both about themselves and about their own thoughts and theories on Todd's death). But what I can say, is that one of those people explicitly stated: "I would say there is no doubt that he was murdered."

PHOENIX

Comments posted to the blog were sporadic for the first six months. However, everyone who took the time to comment seemed to have some kind of emotional investment in the Michael Todd case, whether it was someone lamenting the passing of a man they had admired from afar, someone claiming to have had an emotional involvement with the late Chief Constable, or perhaps even friends and colleagues who felt duty bound, through a sense of deep loyalty, to untangle the web of contradictions and lies that had been spun since his death. In one way or another Michael Todd had clearly touched many lives.

However, it wasn't until late November last year - after I wrote a belated blog post about the inquest into Todd's death - that comments on the blog started to get a little bit weird.

The first odd comment was posted on November 28, 2008, and it was the opening line that noticeably set it apart from the other comments left by regular visitors to the blog. "Hi. I love this conspiracy arguement [sic]. I was the last person to see Michael Todd alive," claimed the mysterious commenter.

The comment continued:

"The question which no one is able to answer but me is...Why did he [Todd] choose to spend his last night on earth...with a woman he had met only ONCE, 2 and a half years earlier. What was so imperative and why the expediency of his need to see her? and [sic] why Did he take the bottle of champagne she gave him up the mountain and clutched it to himself as he died of a broken heart...It was certainly not the Elements that killed him. Rather, the lies, fear and heavy handedness of the establishment whom he served. It will never make sense until all the pieces which have been eradicted [sic] can be placed appropriately back together. Then, you will see, the TRUTH will speak for itself. Even from beyond the grave. Love and truth are the only two components stronger than DEATH.......PHOENIX...."

As a small and relatively new blog, I like to respond to all comments. But at the risk of alienating a potential (and much sought after) reader, I felt I had to take this person to task over the tone of their comment. For the regular commenter's on the blog, who seemed to be so emotionally connected to the Michael Todd case for one reason or another, there was certainly no joy in poring over the minutiae of his death. So for someone to say they "loved" it was a step beyond.

Apart from the general cryptic nature of the comment, there were several elements to it that called into question the authenticity of the claims. For instance, in spite of the commenter claiming to be the last person to see Todd alive, it was never really established whether they were speaking in the third person when they referred to him "spending his last night on earth" with a woman who gave him the bottle of champagne that was found unopened on Mount Snowdon. Of course, the last time Michael Todd spent the night with a woman was on Saturday, March 8, 2008, which was not his last night on earth.

Due to the fact that the commenter posted anonymously, I was also unsure whether the "Phoenix" sign-off was their chosen username or maybe a clue of some kind. As I'd clearly watched too many investigative thrillers, I asked the commenter if "Phoenix" was a reference to the CIA's 'Phoenix Programme'. (Maybe they were suggesting that Michael Todd had been 'neutralised' for some reason? I had to ask!) However, it was a question that remained unanswered. Subsequently, as "Phoenix" continued to sign-off with this name, I concluded that my imagination had gotten the better of me.

The sudden appearance of 'Phoenix' in the comments section seemed to rattle the regular contributors, to the point where I wondered if she was simply a troll. However, when several days passed without another word from her, I thought she'd disappeared into the ether for good. But you can't keep a good troll down! Because five days later she returned with more nonsensical offerings.

In her second comment, Phoenix claimed that Michael Todd was a friend who gave her "hope in the impossible". She continued:

"Because of him I started to believe I could 'fly' and change every ugly proliferation of injustice which I encountered in the world...Michael Todd made me believe in myself, though he could not do the same for himself. For this I owe him a tremendous depth of gratitude. I will treasure all the memories I have of him, they are locked away in a very safe place."

R. Kelly reference aside, she also said that she'd felt "immense pain" after "watching the gradual mental demise of a man who once stood tall, elegant and strong, overshadowed by the wretched disease of depression: asking questions of himself to which there was [sic] no answers." 'Phoenix' ended her comment with a shot across the bows of those who had been openly dubious of her claims, saying:

"The next time you wish to vilify me without cause, try and imagine the difficult place Michael Todd took me to...then left - for me, knowing how he held me in his arms, kissed my face apologetically for hours, told me he was in turmoil and could find the hope he had searched for through the years and that his only wish was to stop living...2 days later, he was dead."

The comment made little sense, but it couldn't be matched for overblown drama! 'Phoenix's' return to the comments section unsettled the regular contributors, as it had done before. Although, many were quick to point out that, in her first comment, she claimed to have been with Michael Todd during "his last night on earth," but in her follow-up comment, said that he died two days later. There were holes opening up in her story that an entire tank division could've ploughed through.

If 'Phoenix' had hand written her comments and delivered them to my house, they probably would have kept a forensic graphologist engrossed for hours. Her writing was flowery to the point of being cryptic, and she exhibited a strange trait of randomly placing capital letters mid-sentence. Such was the faux-poetic nature of her writing, I wondered if Phoenix was in fact "Spiritual Poet" Sheryl Sleigh (as did a few others). After all, Sleigh (or 'Person G' to the inquiry) was reportedly the last person to spend the night with Todd on Saturday, March 8. However, flashes of poor grammar made me wonder if we were dealing with a published author.

'Phoenix' returned fairly quickly to leave a third comment, which hinted at regret that she hadn't been "nearly brave or good enough to stop him [Todd] ascending the mountain." This subsequently led to a flurry of comments from regular contributors and marked the turning point where things got decidedly ugly.

There were several more heated exchanges between 'Phoenix' and the regular contributors, which turned into something of a vicious blame game as to who bore most responsibility for failing to help Todd during his darkest hours. This war of words culminated with 'Phoenix' sniping back at her detractors with a comment that sounded decidedly unhinged:

"I am dead to offence my 'friend'. You know not the strength and inner resolve of the one on whom you cast aspersions. I am so much more than you will ever know or become in yourselves. My strength is legendary."

It was at this point that I hastily interjected and announced my intention to disable the comments section for good. As nothing useful was being generated anymore, I didn't see the point in simply hosting a conflict between anonymous visitors to the blog. However, this decision immediately drew a response from 'Phoenix' (mercifully, her final comment), which was devoid of the flowery nonsense from earlier, but no less bizarre:

"Who's the DUMMY now? Pulling your Blog coz you cant stand the truth! You are full of Marxist Ideologies - that's your TRUTH! Dummy...Long may 'democracy' reign. I won...Your attitude could make a man turn in his grave."

And with that, she was gone. I've only included 'Phoenix' in this write-up about my original Michael Todd post because it was fairly unusual trolling. It wasn't a case of her baiting people by lazily and unimaginatively writing "Michael Todd was a wanker" or "I'm carrying Todd's love-child". To the contrary, as cryptic as her comments were they were actually quite lengthy and detailed (to an extent). 'Phoenix' came across as quite a malign character, but I was still curious as to her real identity. Weirdly, she appeared to leave no trace on my blog analytics whenever she left a comment - no IP address, no location or ISP information - nothing. Each time she left a comment she disappeared like a fart in the wind.

JOE'S COMMENTS

I didn't have much time to dwell on the 'Phoenix' experience before a new and decidedly more interesting development came along. Referring to the conflict in the comments section as "quite a catfight," a commenter called Joe appeared and urged me not to let the war of words "ruin an eminently sensible debate". He then went on to drop quite the bombshell:

"The men in black at the bottom of the mountain [Snowdon] were, in fact, anti-terrorist branch officers (the old Special Branch) if you like. They were from Manchester and they were there to reclaim their chief. The real spooks were in the Chinook, sent to 'see if they could be of assistance...' Hope this helps."

Joe's comment was a breath of fresh air and by far the most interesting that I had received. I had an overwhelming urge to bombard him with questions, but decided instead to exercise a healthy degree of scepticism and attempted to offer a measured (and altogether toned down) response instead.

Joe claimed that Llanberis Mountain Rescue team were "amazed" by the sudden appearance of the Chinook helicopter "as if from nowhere," which added to the "rather bizarre and surreal atmosphere experienced by the rescuers as they were met by the 'men in black' at the bottom of the mountain". Peter Walker (a man with 25 years experience of working with the rescue team, who later revealed that Todd could have been saved if it had not been for the fact that "normal procedures" were not followed) heard the Chinook but didn't see it, as he was based at Hafoty, a summer house half-way up Snowdon and some distance from where Todd's body was found. However, Joe claimed that Walker was experienced enough to know the distinctive sound of the Chinook, and he had also been informed of the incident by one of the rescuers on the mountain who experienced the attempted landing firsthand.

Joe further revealed that Peter Walker was later ostracised by what he termed "the mountain rescue hierarchy" for breaking their 'code of omerta'. He also claimed that they had tried to rubbish Walker's story about the bottle of champagne being discovered on Snowdon ("when of course there was [a bottle]," added Joe). He intriguingly concluded his second comment with a claim that "many more lies have been told about Mr Todd". He then signed off, saying that he couldn't say anymore at that moment. It felt a bit like I was meeting Deepthroat in a basement car park.

I was quite enthralled with Joe's comments. However, as I'd announced a closure to the comments section as a result of the 'Phoenix' affair, it presented me with the problem of whether to make good on my decision or hold off and see if Joe would offer anything further. It was something of a no brainer.

Joe's third comment was even more curious:

"Michael Todd had a GPS (satellite positioning) device fitted to his Blackberry. This should have pinpointed his position to within feet of where he was. Of course, the Americans control the satellite. When the alert about Mr Todd first went out, Manchester police were convinced they had a kidnap situation on their hands and acted accordingly i.e. news blackout etc. When the police and the small team of mountain rescuers mustered in Port Dinorwic it was strongly suggested they already knew Mr Todd wasn't there. I don't know whether any of this helps anyone."

Yet again, I was spellbound by Joe's revelations, but curious to learn how he knew all of this. Was it even true?

I wouldn't have been surprised if Michael Todd did have GPS on his Blackberry. For any number of reasons, it would seem to make sense for a senior police officer to carry a hand-held device with location-based applications and services installed. Of course, if what Joe said is true, then it does call into question the failure to locate Todd's position more accurately on Snowdon.

I have GPS on my iPhone, which was a free application that I downloaded. As a test, I decided to run the application during a trip to my local supermarket a few weeks ago, and was surprised when it subsequently tracked me to my parking space! Obviously, there will be a vast difference between the performance and reliability of a GPS-enabled device in a town on a clear evening, as opposed to a mountainous region during stormy weather. However, the Blackberry GPS was an intriguing aspect of the story. Especially given GMP's failure to locate Todd (in spite of the "sophisticated equipment" that was sent to North Wales to help track his phone). One thing to consider, though, is whether Todd's GPS was switched on and running in the background on his Blackberry. My GPS has to run as a primary application and cannot permanently track me in the background (though, like I said, I have an iPhone and not a Blackberry).

When Joe said: "Of course, the Americans control the satellite," it sounded like he was hinting at some level of nefarious involvement on their part. The constellation of satellites that make up the NAVSTAR Global Positioning System (GPS) is indeed entirely managed by the United States Air Force (50th Space Wing) and was developed by the United States Department of Defence. However, Joe seemed to heavily suggest that satellite information was deliberately compromised to delay and misdirect the search for Todd. My technical expertise doesn't stretch far enough to determine whether such an act of deception is actually feasible, though it's certainly not beyond the realms of fantasy.

Joe's other revelation: that the police and a small team of mountain rescuers gathered in Port Dinorwic even though it was strongly suggested they already knew Todd wasn't there, is equally as curious. Who instructed the search teams to gather at this location, in spite of the overriding suspicion that the search would ultimately be fruitless?

My response to Joe was one of overt caution. His comments were absolutely fascinating, yet almost too good to be true. After all, he'd appeared in the comments section nearly eight months after the blog post had been published and conveniently on the cusp of my shutting down the comments section altogether. With such a unique insight into the case, why did it take him so long? And why did he decide to come forward then, at that moment? Still, I asked him for clarification on whether he was suggesting American involvement in misdirecting the search for Michael Todd. I also asked him to confirm who had overall control of the search teams in Port Dinorwic.

It was a painful wait of nearly 24hrs until Joe returned. He noticeably didn't answer any of my previous questions, but opened his comment with: "I don't say anything I don't believe to be the truth." He then started talking about Michael Todd's final afternoon in Llanberis:

"On his last day alive, Mr Todd spent several hours wandering around the little town of Llanberis, nestling in the foothills of Snowdon. Several people saw him (they recognised his white hair); one said he thought he looked as though he was waiting for someone; another spotted him "loitering" outside the Police (Heddlu) station which is in the middle of a little housing estate adjoining the town. He was spotted in the High Street on at least two occasions (Once when he visited a Costcutter store...to purchase the bottle of gin, perhaps.) The last sighting came when he suddenly emerged from his vehicle in the late afternoon as the gloom was gathering. A Mr Cheeseman said: "This man strode toward me; I didn't know who he was, but I was struck by his face, it was completely expressionless. I nodded to him, but he just stared straight through me as though I didn't exist. I thought he was weird, but I didn't think he was drunk..." These statements were sent to the coroner Dewi Pritchard-Jones, but they were not referred to in the inquest."

With Joe continuing to reveal such insightful and interesting information about the Michael Todd case, I had to somewhat capitulate and accept that, if he claimed not to say anything that he didn't believe to be the truth, then I had no choice but to take him at his word. However, I stated that it would be difficult for me to do so with a name like "Mr Cheeseman" cropping up, which sounded like it had been lifted from the directory of made-up names! I also expressed surprise that there had been so many witnesses of Todd in Llanberis, which hadn't been reported in the newspapers.

The only witness in Llanberis that I had noted in my original blog post was Janice Hughes, a home carer with Gwynedd Council’s social services department. She told plain clothes officers from GMP what time she had seen Todd's vehicle, but admitted that she hadn't seen who was driving it. Hughes was quoted in the Daily Mail, Guardian, Manchester Evening News and the [North Wales] Daily Post, but I didn't recall reading anything about multiple eye witnesses.

I also found it interesting to hear from Joe that, according to witnesses, Todd's demeanour (and the fact that he was seen "loitering" outside the police station) suggested that he was waiting for someone. It sort of changed the landscape of the story for me. Llanberis became, not just the village where Michael Todd parked his car before ill-advisedly ascending Snowdon in a suicidal state, but a possible meeting place - a rendezvous point.

Joe's revelations were coming so thick and fast, I had to backtrack and take stock. So my reply included the following questions:

1) Do you know the real reason why the Security Service (MI5) attempted to land a Chinook helicopter at the site of Michael Todd's body? Why were they sent to "see if they could be of assistance"?

2) Regardless of the fact that Michael Todd was a high ranking police officer, would you say that it's normal or standard procedure for the Security Service (MI5) to assist with what was a civilian rescue/recovery effort?

3) With regards to what you said about Michael Todd's GPS-enabled Blackberry, were you suggesting that satellite information was deliberately compromised or altered to delay and misdirect the search for Todd? If so, by who? Why?

4) You said that police and rescuers gathered in Port Dinorwic even though it was "strongly suggested" that they knew already Todd wasn't there. Who gave the order to continue the search in that area when there was such a strong feeling that the search would be fruitless? Who was in OVERALL charge of directing the search? Was the person in charge merely incompetent or did they know that Todd wouldn't be found there?

5) You've said in a previous comment that "a lot more lies have been told about Mr Todd". Do you mean lies in the press? Or do you mean lies in terms of a cover-up of some sort, possibly within GMP (or higher)? Why the lies?

Joe's reply was curious to say the least:

"Hi Vivian...I do not have much time at the moment. I will say this: Your blog is important for reasons, which unfortunately I cannot explain. Something on your blog triggered a response and the matter filtered down to yours truly. I can't tell you all the answers, but I'll be in touch again. By the way...Martin Shaw is a figment of some reporter's imagination. The unfortunate-sounding "Mr Cheeseman" is, in fact, Mr George H. Cheeseman who just happens to live on Church Road near where Mr Todd's Range Rover was found. The circumstances surrounding Mr Todd's time in Llanberis do not support the inquest's ruling."

While I appreciated the elaboration with regards to the curiously named Mr Cheeseman, I was starting to get a little peeved (and more than a little suspicious) at the way my questions kept going unanswered. Furthermore, I had absolutely no idea why my blog would be considered "important" or what role it could possibly have played in "triggering a response"? Triggered a response where?

The other notable part of Joe's latest comment was his assertion that Martin Shaw - one of Todd's neighbours who apparently saw the Chief Constable getting into his car on Monday, March 10 - was "a figment of some reporter's imagination."

One regular contributor to the comments section - a women who claimed to have been emotionally involved with Todd - disagreed with Joe on this point. Her relationship with Todd was nothing I could really prove, but nevertheless she was adamant that Martin Shaw was in fact a real person who did indeed live in Michael Todd's building (she even gave me Shaw's apartment number and briefed me on roughly how long he had resided there!) On being confronted with this information, Joe immediately rolled over admitted: "You are right! My apologies, I got it wrong. What else do you know?"

The swiftness of Joe's retraction after making such an assured statement, followed by his attempt to elicit information from the commenter that challenged him, struck me as odd. It was the first time Joe slipped up.

One of Joe's final revelations was about an account book, which he claimed Michael Todd had secreted in a dry stone wall near the summit of Snowdon. Joe said that Todd's jacket (which had a bar of chocolate in the pocket apparently) and the account book were both found three days after his death. "The jacket was left to attract attention to the account book which contained a note, the contents of which have never been revealed," said Joe.

I asked Joe: if Todd had left a note in an account book, then why didn't he just leave it in his Range Rover or keep it about his person (perhaps shoving it in his pocket or even one of his boots)? Perhaps he could have simply left it in his rucksack, which was one of the first things to be discovered on Snowdon? Why go to the trouble of hiding it in a dry stone wall and then marking it with a coat? It didn't make sense?

In spite of my reservations, Joe claimed that the account book was a "1000 per cent" fact. He continued:

"What made him [Todd] conceal the account book? Because he wanted the 'right' people to find it. Most people on finding the jacket wouldn't think to look for something else."

But how many people would instinctively think to look for something else after finding a jacket? Was there some kind of understanding between Michael Todd and his closest colleagues and allies in the Force that if he should ever turn up dead, then they should search for his jacket and take it as a sign that something else is waiting to be discovered close by? Furthermore, in terms of the "right people" finding the account book, it's worth noting that two members of the public stumbled across Todd's belongings, and it was a civilian mountain rescue team that recovered the body. There were countless people outside of Michael Todd's circle of trust who could just as easily have found the jacket and account book at the scene. It was a curious story indeed.

Joe also suggested that if the note in the account book was a suicide note, then Todd's colleagues may well have kept it secret so as not to compromise the pension and life insurance payout. Similarly, if the note had been written to one of his female friends and not his wife, Carolyn. "Mr Todd, if nothing else, inspired great loyalty," said Joe. (A debatable point, based on some of Joe's earlier revelations.)

In the immediate hours after Todd's death, there were numerous reports which claimed that letters addressed to his family had been found at the scene. However, these claims were subsequently denied by the police a day later. With this in mind, maybe there was something in the account book story? After all, rescuers said that winds on Snowdon were blowing at 80 knots, so it would probably have made sense for Todd to secrete any notes in a solid structure - like a wall.

At the time, I had no idea that this would be Joe's final comment on the blog. So the obvious finality of his last paragraph didn't really resonate with me, but he concluded:

"One last thing for you to ponder on before I go: Mr Todd's Range Rover inexplicably broke down outside his flat in James Brindley Basin, Manchester. The battery went flat and he had to call on his colleagues to jump-start it. What drained the juice from the battery?"

This was quite a leading question. It sounded almost as if Joe knew exactly what (or who) drained the battery, but was challenging me to explore this aspect of the case further. To be honest, the fact that Todd had called colleagues out from GMP Fleet Services to help jump-start his vehicle on Sunday, March 9, 2008, had largely passed me by. However, Joe's comment made me think about it again.

Maybe Todd's vehicle problems were relevant. After all, it was reported that he drove a Range Rover Vogue, which is a £62k vehicle (i.e. not some second-hand heap of crap that you'd expect to break down). Still, it's conceivable that the battery drainage could've been the result of something achingly mundane, like Todd inadvertently leaving his headlights on. Although, I suppose - at a stretch - it could be argued that the battery drainage was an act of sabotage, and that Todd's inevitable call to fleet services enabled undercover operatives to perhaps place a tracking device on his vehicle. Of course, one might think that such an act would be possible to achieve with more stealth and less theatre.

I never heard from Joe again.

There were many who thought that 'Phoenix' and Joe were the same person. After all, in spite of Joe's seemingly unique insight into the Michael Todd case, it took him eight months to contribute to the blog. The fact that he decided to do so a little over an hour after 'Phoenix's' final sign-off was seen as significant by some. Both 'Phoenix' and Joe also exhibited similar stylistic features, such as commenting anonymously but then signing their name below their comment. However, in terms of tone and the actual usefulness of the contribution, there was a gulf of difference between the two in my opinion.

With the fascinating flurry of information from Joe having come to an end, I decided to close the comments section. However, before I did so, I personally addressed Joe and encouraged him to answer a series of questions. (Some of these I had asked previously, but they had gone unanswered.) They were as follows:

1) Do you know the real reason why the Security Service (MI5) attempted to land a Chinook helicopter at the site of Michael Todd's body? Why were they sent to "see if they could be of assistance"? The fact that you quoted the reason they were sent suggests you know more than you have told. You have already asserted that the helicopter did indeed have Security Service operatives on board, so what were they doing flying around Snowdon that afternoon?

2) Regardless of the fact that Michael Todd was a high ranking police officer, would you say that it's normal or standard procedure for the Security Service (MI5) to assist with what was a civilian rescue/recovery effort?

3) With regards to what you said about Michael Todd's GPS-enabled Blackberry, were you suggesting that satellite information was deliberately compromised or altered to delay and misdirect the search for Todd? If so, by who? Why?

4) You said that police and rescuers gathered in Port Dinorwic even though it was "strongly suggested" that they knew already Todd wasn't there. Who gave the order to continue the search in that area when there was such a strong feeling that the search would be fruitless? Who was in OVERALL charge of directing the search? Was the person in charge merely incompetent or did they know that Todd wouldn't be found there?

5) You've said in a previous comment that "a lot more lies have been told about Mr Todd". Do you mean lies in the press? Or do you mean lies in terms of a cover-up of some sort, possibly within GMP (or higher)? Why the lies?

6) You said that my blog was “important”. You also said that something on my blog “triggered a response” and the matter filtered down to you. Why is my blog important? What was triggered? And what filtered down to you? Did a story filter down to you (i.e. you’re a journalist)? Or a line of investigation (i.e. you’re a police officer)? What did you mean?

7) You said that “the circumstances surrounding Michael Todd's time in Llanberis do not support the inquest's ruling”. This suggests that you know further details about Michael Todd’s time in Llanberis and why they are at odds with the inquest. What do you know? Why doesn’t Todd’s time in Llanberis support the ruling?

8) Your comment about Michael Todd’s Range Rover being jump-started was very leading. Do you know something about why his battery was flat? Or is that aspect of the story a non-starter (so to speak)?

9) How do you know about the secreted account book and note? No such thing was ever reported in the press and television news media (to my knowledge), which means that, somehow, you have benefited from a level of inside knowledge. What position do you hold that would’ve given you access to what you have revealed? (This might be better over e-mail rather than the comments page).

I left the comments section open for one last day to allow Joe to respond. However, in spite of the fact that he appeared to visit the blog 11 times on that last day (according to my blog analytics) he failed to answer any of my questions. With a great sense of disappointment, I disabled the comments shortly after.

INFORMATION FROM THE OTHER SIDE

A week after disabling the comments, I received a curious e-mail from a woman who claimed to be involved in psychic rescue (I'll call her Mrs X). Acknowledging the similarities between David Kelly's death and Todd's, she sent me a link to a You Tube video called "The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Secret Truths Revealed," which I strongly suspected was disinformation (though, I doubt she passed it on knowingly). She also provided me what she called "other pointers" in the death of Michael Todd, such as micro-chipping police officers and mind control technology. The latter link discussed a mind-altering covert weapon, based on something called subliminal carrier technology or Silent Sound Spread Spectrum (SSSS). In relation to this, Mrs X drew my attention to one particular paragraph:

"In layman’s terms, this device, this “Sound of Silence” simply allows for the unwarranted implantation of specific thoughts, emotions, and even prescribed physical actions into unsuspecting human beings. In short, it has the very real ability to turn human beings into mere puppets in the hands of certain “controllers,” or puppet-masters." [Her emphasis]

According to the information I was sent, this psychotronic technology was operational in the early 1990's and was used to great effect against deeply entrenched Iraqi troops in the first Gulf War. Apparently, the physical, emotional and psychological effects of the technology were so severe that many thousands of Iraqis surrendered without a single shot being fired.

This was all very interesting, but I wasn't quite sure where this technology fitted into the Michael Todd story? Was Mrs X claiming that Todd's emotional state had been affected and manipulated by such technology? I wasn't sure how the micro-chipping of police officers linked in either, unless Todd was viewed as a potential obstacle to the implementation of the Automated Personal Location System (APLS)? However, I wasn't able to find an obvious link between the two.

When I asked Mrs X for clarification on why this information was relevant, I was bluntly told that I could research RFID chips and microchip technology on the Internet. However, no further clarification about this, or of the relevance of mind-altering weapons in the Todd case, was forthcoming.

The final piece of information that Mrs X provided was the most interesting, though she acknowledged that it would be "a bit hard to take depending on [my] beliefs". I have neither an adequate understanding of, nor a particular belief in, anything psychical, spiritual or otherworldly (I'm having a hard enough time trying to make sense of the physical world!) However, these were in no way sufficient grounds to completely disregard what Mrs X had to say. Therefore, it is with an open mind that I will reveal what she told me.

She claimed that Michael Todd had been "bumped off" and that the CIA were involved. Todd had been in Llanberis that day to meet someone who didn't turn up. When he embarked on his walk, she said that he met an elderly gentleman who had to stop part way because of his asthmatic condition (Todd didn't know the man's name). The Chief Constable was later attacked by three men. He attempted to fight them off, which led to the abrasions on his knuckles. However, the three men ultimately overpowered Todd and administered an injection in his upper left arm, which made him feel nauseated. He then blacked out. Mrs X claimed that "the walkers" (presumably Sophie Antonelli and her male walking partner) are also relevant.

The rest of what Mrs X told me seemed to be conjecture. The walkers were relevant because "they were probably told to keep quiet," she claimed. She added that Todd was killed because he'd "discovered more about the rendition flights and CIA methods and would not have been as easy to control".

With the exception of the three assailants, a lot of what Mrs X told me could have been nothing more than a dramatic story pieced together with information from open sources. In 'The Strange Death of David Kelly', Norman Baker discusses a theory that the weapons inspector was injected in his buttock with succinylcholine, a muscle relaxant drug that can induce paralysis and cardiac arrest and frequently goes undetected in post-mortems. Based on this, I discussed the possibility of a similar type of hit on Michael Todd in my original blog post. I also suggested that the cuts on Todd's knuckles may have been caused from fighting off an assailant.

Still, it was an intriguing, if otherworldly, account of what might have happened to Michael Todd. I appreciate that the above information and the psychical manner in which it was allegedly acquired, won't float everyone's boat. However, this post is about all the information that came my way about the Todd case, even if it requires some concerted thinking outside the box. I should point out, though, that the e-mail Mrs X sent me was decidedly dark in places. She wished me luck with my research, but also warned me "to be very careful what I print".

"To go into the dark places needs some great protection and is not for dabblers," she concluded. I'll admit that I was momentarily spooked by this line...until I started to ponder whether or not I had just been labelled a "dabbler"!

TODD'S INQUIRY INTO RENDITION FLIGHTS, COCAINE SMUGGLING AND THE CIA

The CIA angle of the story could well be the key, but I believe it could go even deeper than a simple betrayal over Diego Garcia. I find it difficult to believe that Michael Todd could have spent 18 months looking into rendition flights, only to conclude that no evidence had been found to warrant the commencement of a full police enquiry.

In January 2006, only a couple of months after Liberty had first contacted ACPO about rendition flights, details of a briefing paper written by Irfan Siddiq, of the foreign secretary's private office, to Grace Cassy in Tony Blair's office, was published by the New Statesman magazine. The leaked document revealed that there was a government strategy to deny knowledge of the CIA's secret detention centres, even though they were fully aware of such facilities. The Guardian noted that On December 7, 2005 - the date of the leaked document - Charles Kennedy, then Liberal Democrat leader, asked Tony Blair when he was first made aware of the American rendition flights, and when he approved them. Blair replied: "In respect of airports, I do not know what the right hon gentleman is referring to." This was clearly a lie.

Director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, said she was "deeply disappointed" by the details of the leaked memo, and subsequently wrote to then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, saying that the government should give its full support to the inquiry being conducted by Michael Todd. The question is: did the Chief Constable receive the necessary co-operation from the government, in light of the revelation that they were fully aware of the rendition programme?

In April 2006, Amnesty International released a report detailing almost 1,000 flights directly linked to the CIA through "front" companies, most of which it said had used European air space. Notably, the report said that four of the CIA's 26 planes had landed and taken off from British airports more than 200 times over the past five years (2001-2006). The airports included Stansted, Gatwick, Luton, Glasgow, Prestwick, Edinburgh, Londonderry and Belfast. RAF Brize Norton, in Oxfordshire, Biggin Hill, in Kent, and RAF Leuchars, in Scotland, were among others used along with the Turks and Caicos islands, a British overseas territory in the Caribbean.

Swiss senator and Council of Europe investigator, Dick Marty, was conducting a lengthy investigation into rendition flights at the same time as Todd. In a preliminary report released in June 2006 (two months after Amnesty's), Marty accused Britain and 13 other countries of colluding with the United States in the "unlawful inter-state transfers" of up to 50 terrorist suspects since the attacks of 9/11. He subsequently described the CIA's rendition programme as a "global spider's web" of secret flights. The Swiss senator based some of his conclusions on flight logs released by Eurocontrol, the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation.

Were the preliminary findings of this separate investigation not compelling enough for Todd/ACPO to dig deeper into Britain's role in the rendition programme, and to utilise all resources at their disposal to uncover the necessary evidence?

It's also worth noting that at least five months before ACPO released a statement claiming that Todd had "now examined all of the information available relating to [rendition flights] and has concluded that there is indeed no evidence to substantiate Liberty's allegations," Diego Garcia had been covered in the Guardian in relation to the CIA's torture flights. However, after Foreign Secretary David Miliband admitted that two rendition planes had "stopped over" on Diego Garcia to refuel in 2002 (lasting "just a short time"), a spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) defended Todd's inquiry into the flights with a claim that it had not extended to British airports abroad. "[ACPO's] initial inquiries covered only England and Wales and did not extend to overseas territories," claimed the spokesman.

This was a strange statement from ACPO. Liberty's request for the police to investigate the rendition flights was due to a concern that such aircraft had flown through UK airports. Why did Todd's inquiries over that 18-month period only cover England and Wales? Is Scotland not part of the mainland United Kingdom? With allegations that Edinburgh, Prestwick and RAF Leuchars had briefly hosted CIA-linked planes, Scotland was a bizarre omission from the narrow scope of Todd's inquiries.

ACPO's claim, that Todd's inquiry hadn't included overseas territories, may well have been true. However, the aforementioned Guardian article about Diego Garcia's possible links to the CIA's rendition programme - published on January 4, 2007 - made clear reference to a CIA Gulfstream jet and known rendition aircraft (registered N379P), which had landed on Diego Garcia. Furthermore, the article noted that the journeys of this aircraft were disclosed in a list of more than 3,000 flight logs, which had been obtained by Stephen Grey, an investigative journalist and author of Ghost Plane. These flight plans subsequently showed the extent of the CIA's flights many of which - including Gulfstream N379P - had passed through Britain. In fact, this aircraft had landed several times at Luton, Prestwick and Northolt between October 2001 and October 2003. Was this not something that Michael Todd thought worthy of further scrutiny?

Following his preliminary report a year earlier, Dick Marty's June 2007 report ('Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states: second report') made several significant references to N379P. The report alleged that the company providing logistical support for this aircraft - Jeppesen International Trip Planning - "filed multiple 'dummy' flight plans...specifically, for the N379P aircraft". Not only had this aircraft landed on British soil (in England and overseas), but there was also evidence that some of its true routes had been systematically covered up.

However, on the day Marty's second report was released, Liberty received the letter from Michael Todd on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) which refused to commence a police enquiry into allegations that extraordinary rendition flights had received British logistical support. Following this, Shami Chakrabarti said that Liberty "rejects ACPO's findings as a 'whitewash' and questions whether it had even investigated the claims.”

This is a good point. I, for one, am highly suspicious of the fact that Todd/ACPO claimed to have found no evidence to substantiate Liberty's allegations about rendition, when there seemed to be ample evidence to the contrary. There was surely enough evidence to dig deeper. In fact, the press statement released by ACPO following Todd's inquiry vaguely referenced where such evidence could be found (much of which is mentioned above): "The issue of rendition has been aired extensively in the media and has featured prominently in official reports over a recent period of months." However, it would seem that no one at ACPO bothered to read the newspapers or even flick through the pages of Dick Marty's reports.

A little over a week before Michael Todd was found dead, the Observer reported that Manfred Novak, the United Nations' special rapporteur on torture, who is charged with investigating human rights abuses, said he had received credible evidence from well-placed sources familiar with the situation on Diego Garcia that detainees were held (and interrogated, according to a report in Time four months later) on the island between 2002 and 2003. This revelation completely undermined David Miliband's earlier assertion, that the island had been used for nothing more than a couple of brief refuelling stops. "The detainees did not leave the plane," Miliband said in a Commons statement in late February 2008, "and the US Government has assured us that no US detainees have ever been held on Diego Garcia."

In light of these revelations, Clive Stafford Smith, director of Reprieve, whose lawyers are currently representing over 30 prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, said that the British government had "allowed itself to be duped by the US on a colossal scale". Of course, it might just as easily have been lies. After all, it was probably far easier for Miliband to play the fool who'd been taken advantage of rather than admit the government's complicity in providing logistical support for the United States' programme of rendition.

Was Michael Todd himself "duped" by the Blair government during his inquiries into rendition flights passing through the UK? Or did he simply agree to look the other way, only to be publicly humiliated by the government's revelations about Diego Garcia later? Could Todd's possible future ascension to the post of Metropolitan Police commissioner have caused problems for those who had crossed him? Whatever the truth, I find it hard to believe that Todd found nothing worthy of further investigation during the 18-month period he was supposedly looking into rendition flights.

Of course, it might also be the case that Michael Todd stumbled across information about rendition flights which subsequently endangered his life (and maybe even the lives of his family and friends). Postman Patel noted a news report on BBC Radio 4 at 5.00 pm GMT (on either March 11 or 12, 2008) in which it was claimed that Michael Todd had sent texts to friends on the Monday afternoon, which suggested danger to his life and that of the recipients. The wording of this report was apparently re-worded for the following bulletin at 6pm.

But what could he have stumbled across? Consider the following...

Just over three months after Michael Todd wrote to Liberty refusing to commence any police enquiry into allegations that Britain may have been used as a staging post for the United States' programme of extraordinary rendition, a CIA-linked Gulfstream II jet crashed in Tixkokob in the northern part of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. According to the Aviation Safety Network, the jet (registration N987SA) crash landed after it illegally entered Mexican airspace and was pursued by Mexican military helicopters (although, another version of the story claimed that the plane needed to refuel, but was subsequently refused permission to land at two airstrips before crashing). No bodies were found in the wreckage of the downed aircraft, but Mexican authorities did recover 132 "military-style black bags" containing about 3.6 tons of cocaine.

According to a number of press reports, this CIA-linked jet had also been used for rendition flights and was believed to have flown between the U.S. east coast and Guantanamo Bay at least three times between 2003 and 2005. It had also appeared on the radar of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe during its enquiry into allegations of extraordinary rendition flights operating within Europe (Dick Marty's investigation). Flight data released by Eurocontrol, the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation, to PACE revealed that this particular jet (N987SA) made several stops at British airports (Luton, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manston) between December 2001 and April 2004. The same flight plan data was also released by the Department for Transport in April 2006.

Well before the Gulfstream II crashed-landed with its cocaine payload in September 2007, and several months before an American DC9 (N900SA) was busted by Mexican troops at a small airport in the Yucatan in March 2006 (carrying 5.5 tons of cocaine packed neatly into 128 identical black suitcases marked 'private'), some bloggers had already speculated that the rendition programme could either be an elaborate cover or simply the perfect vehicle for the Cocaine Import Agency (CIA) to move drugs.

Did Todd actually learn too much about the CIA's rendition programme/cocaine smuggling operation, which, again, would've made him a dangerous figure in his possible future role as Metropolitan Police commissioner? Or perhaps he knew more than was safe to know? This is obviously all conjecture, but worth considering nonetheless.

SIR PAUL SCOTT-LEE'S INQUIRY

The most recent development in the Michael Todd case was the outcome of Sir Paul Scott-Lee's probe into whether Todd's alleged affairs affected his ability to perform his job. The inquiry identified nearly 40 "female acquaintances" of Todd, which is hardly breaking news. However, it was also established that although the Chief Constable had several affairs during his time as head of Greater Manchester Police (GMP), and in his previous high-level posts at the Metropolitan Police, most of his female friends were "coffee or dinner companions".

To ensure that Todd's philandering could still be recognised as a reckless and potentially dangerous extra curricular activity, a source with knowledge of the report's findings told the Daily Mail: "His conduct made him an easy target for a blackmailer. But there is no evidence he was professionally compromised by his relationships with women. It didn't affect his ability to perform his job."

The outcome of this probe should be used to highlight the diabolical and woefully inaccurate press reports that were published after Todd's death. I'm thinking primarily about Dan Evans' bizarre News of the World 'scoop' from August 3, 2008, which claimed that women's underwear, sex toys and a suitcase containing pornography had been discovered in Michael Todd's office at GMP headquarters. The difference between what Evans' report suggested and what Sir Paul Scott-Lee's probe concluded (i.e. that most of Todd's female friends were "coffee or dinner companions") couldn't be further apart.

There has been plenty of negative reporting about Michael Todd since his death, but I am singling out Dan Evans for producing possibly the worst of the lot. Thinking back to what I said at the beginning of this post - about intelligence agency 'black propaganda' (i.e. false material and stories) being planted on willing journalists, who disguise their origin from their readers - Evans' story appeared to be blatantly designed to smear and ultimately discredit Todd even in death. But why?

Where did Evans get the details of this particular story from? The "well-placed sources" he mentioned? Not good enough! We need to know WHO provided the details. What was the name of his source? And who do they work for?

There are many enduring questions that still remain in the Michael Todd case, many of which can be found in my previous two posts. Here are a few (but by no means all) in no particular order:

1) What was the status of the relationship between Michael Todd and Angie Robinson? In some reports it was claimed that the affair ended a year before Todd's death, whereas in others it noted that Robinson dumped the Chief Constable only a matter of days before. The News of the World even claimed that Todd had threatened the Robinsons after the relationship ended, which led officers from his own police force to offer the couple panic alarms for their own protection. The press billed Todd's relationship with Angie Robinson as the key relationship in the whole sordid affair, but it was never established what the true story was (and Robinson went into hiding until the storm clouds passed). Key parts of the wider story could fall down depending on what the true state of the relationship was at the time of Todd's death.

2) Why was the search for Michael Todd delayed, mismanaged and seemingly misdirected - with such tragic results? If Joe is to be believed, police and rescue teams convened in Port Dinorwic to search for Todd even though there was a strong suspicion that he wasn't there. Who was in overall charge of the search?

3) Why did Michael Todd's £62k Range Rover Vogue need jump-starting on Sunday, March 9? What drained the battery? Does this minor event have a place in the story? Or is it a non-starter (so to speak).

4) Why didn't Sophie Antonelli and her male walking partner sell their story to the newspapers about what they found on Snowdon? It may well be the case that they're not the kind of people to court publicity (and it's perhaps refreshing to find two young people who haven't used their experience as a cash cow), but it's most unusual for British journalists to have left them alone. Was Sophie Antonelli debriefed and silenced after she was “whisked away by a squad of police” on Snowdon? Furthermore, who persuaded the press not to pursue them for a story?

5) It has been rumoured that Michael Todd was in Llanberis to meet someone who subsequently didn't show. Who could he have been meeting?

6) Why did a Chinook helicopter attempt two landings at the rescue site, while teams on Snowdon were working to recover Todd's body? Joe claimed that the helicopter contained 'spooks' who were sent to "see if they could be of assistance". If this is true, it raises several questions: (a) Why was the Security Service (MI5) on hand to lend assistance to what was largely a civilian recovery effort on Snowdon? Reports claim that the Chinook simply appeared, attempted two landings, and then took off. Furthermore, it would seem that the Security Service didn't coordinate their supposed offer assistance or liaise with Llanberis Mountain Rescue team at any time. (b) Why was a Chinook full of intelligence officers flying around Snowdon at the exact time Todd's body was being recovered?

7) Why did Michael Todd apparently have an unopened bottle of champagne with him on Snowdon?

8) The inquest into Todd's death claimed that he imbibed a concoction of gin and Nytol sleeping tablets. However, two separate articles in the Telegraph from March 16, 2008, both noted: "There was no visible evidence that [Todd] had taken any pills," and "No tablets or pills were found at the scene." (Those articles can be found here and here.) The Times also reported that "no pills or bottles were found" at the scene.

9) Why was Peter Walker ostracised from the Llanberis Mountain Rescue team after revealing the shortcomings of the rescue effort and the strange appearance of the Chinook helicopter and the 'men in black' at the foot of the mountain (anti-terrorist branch officers according to Joe)?

10) Who has really been driving the negative press campaign against Todd? Why has it been necessary to smear him to such an extent? Furthermore, so many versions of the same story have been told, they can't all be true! So which newspapers/reporters have been lying - and why?

11) Why did Todd fail to find any evidence of rendition flights passing through the UK, when there seemed to be ample evidence to the contrary?

12) Why did coroner Mr Dewi Pritchard-Jones say that the identities of those who received text messages from Todd was "not relevant", allowing them to be identified only by letters (A-G)? This decision robbed the text messages of the context in which they were sent. Many of these people appeared to fail Todd in his darkest hours, yet they have been allowed to walk away with their identities and reputations intact.

There are, of course, numerous other outstanding questions and oddities in this case, but I've already gone on for far too long. These are the questions that we'll likely be left with for a very long time. As usual, I take my hat off to anyone who made it this far!