Sheila Blanco – who has endured police failings ever since her son Mark died in 2006 – has blasted the Met for ‘insulting and disingenuous’ offer to review the case itself
The mother of an actor who fell to his death following a row with Pete Doherty has accused police of a “cover up” over a review into the case.
Mark Blanco, 30, died during a drug-fuelled party with the Babyshambles star in 2006 and the case has never been resolved despite his mum Sheila’s relentless fight for justice. She called last year for an outside force to be brought in to review the Metropolitan Police’s handling of the investigation but the force told her last month that it would do the work itself.
Sheila told the Daily Mirror: “This is scandalous. We have had twenty years of apathy and cover-up. It is insulting and disingenuous to now suggest an in-house review.”
Sheila requested a Victims’ Right to Review over the decision last year to close Mark’s case without charging anyone.
The Mirror reported in December that the City of London Police had agreed to carry out the review but the force has now dropped out.
READ MORE: Stephen Lawrence’s dad braces for fresh battle over son’s racist murderREAD MORE: Tot beaten to death by mum’s ex-solider boyfriend after months of abuse
An officer wrote to Sheila last month saying the force had been unable to find an outside force willing to carry out the work. Instead a Met Police commander would look at the case with a “small advisory group” providing assistance.
Sheila’s lawyer Mike Schwarz said: “The MPS appear to be unable or unwilling to comply with even the first, basic steps of ensuring an independent, prompt and thorough review of Mark’s death.
“Sadly, this is simply the latest example, in a 20-year saga, of its seemingly wilful efforts to brush this suspected homicide under the carpet.”
Sheila said she has not been granted access to a report that the Met has sent other forces as background for the review.
“I understand a detailed internal Met Police report has been produced ‘to provide an overview and understanding of the case’ but is ‘not considered appropriate for disclosure.’ So much for transparency,” she told the Mirror.
VRRs were introduced in 2013 and give victims of a crime the chance to ask police to examine the decision not to charge. If approved, a senior officer who was not previously involved in the case looks over the evidence and decides if there is a possibility that charges can be brought.
It comes more than two years after a Channel 4 documentary Pete Doherty, Who Killed My Son? suggested Mark had been murdered after an FBI expert claimed he was thrown to his death.
A 2007 inquest heard Mark had been kicked out of the London “crack den” during a row with Doherty’s literary agent Paul Roundhill and minder Johnny “Headlock” Jeannevol.
Mark returned two minutes later before somehow falling to his death from a balcony. Police investigated and suggested the Cambridge graduate’s death was suicide, which a coroner rejected.
FBI instructor Grant Fredericks told the Channel 4 film that his belief after analysis of CCTV was that Mark was “thrown over the balcony”.
He used 3D and reverse projection, overlaying new film on top of the original images, to “step back in time”. He claimed he asked the Met to carry out the reverse projection work 10 years ago but they failed to do so. ”
A study by Professor Richard Wassersug in 2011 suggested Mark’s head injuries were not that consistent with him deliberately jumping.
And forensics expert John Kennedy, who has given video testimony in scores of cases here and overseas, said there was no sign of defensive movement in CCTV of his fall.
He said: “The only explanation I can think of is that somebody might have dropped him off the balcony. He doesn’t climb over the railing himself.
He doesn’t jump. He just suddenly appears outside the railing and falls.”
The Met Police said in a statement: “A Victims’ Right to Review in relation to the investigation into the death of Marc Blanco has been initiated and is ongoing.
“Whilst the Victims’ Right to Review is taking place, we will not be making any further comment about this matter. The person who requested the review will be updated, as appropriate, during the process and informed of the outcome.”
