He was on Conditional Bail after an allegation had been made, on February 5th, regarding a claimed incident. As Surrey Police say (ignoring the presumption of innocence) “The offence, involving an adult victim, is alleged to have taken place on Friday, January 29”. Not a claimant or false accuser but “victim”.

I stress I have no personal connection to the real victim Murdock. I have no idea whether the incident happened, did not happen or was the result of misunderstandings. But my previous complaint about Surrey Police, that they did not sufficiently investigate the possibility that their officers were guilty of misconduct or crimes, was UPHELD by the IOPC on the 3rd September 2020. (Your ref: 2020/132446).

That decision should have caused an instruction by Michael Lockwood, Director General of the IOPC, to the Chief Constable of Surrey Police, GAVIN STEPHENS, to investigate the failures by his Professional Standards Department (PSD) and possible incompetence, misconduct or crimes by individual officers whose incompetence or corruption may have led to the Deaths In Custody of three men in 2015, 2016 and 2017, amongst other possible crimes.

Had Stephens set up an independent investigation, it is likely his officers would have subsequently been told how to handle allegations and what NOT to do under those circumstances, such as presumption of guilt. Any investigation by Surrey Police into an allegation made against William Murdock, 60, would have been handled with sensitivity. The stress caused by a mishandled investigation is the same as a blunt instrument cracking the skull of a suspect. Mentally, not (always) physically. It can cause death.

I am not prepared to allow Surrey Police to continue getting away with contributing to, or causing, deaths.

So I accuse Surrey Police of contributing to, or possibly causing, the death of William Murdock. I also accuse Michael Lockwood, Director General of the IOPC, and Gavin Stephens, of Surrey Police, of MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE, their lack of action having provoked the death of William Murdock.

I also believe the complaints system to be faulty. If the IOPC and Surrey Police wish to avoid proper investigation, as usual, they will cite various petty technicalities when rejecting any complaint. EXCUSES: that I am not related to the victim (so all eyewitness evidence in trials must be abandoned?). As police guidelines put it “you weren't directly affected by the events the complaint is about”. That I am being vexatious and repetitive. Indeed I am; if being vexed and repetitious about a crime is cause to abandon investigation, society is in trouble. That Stephens was not “directly involved” in the death; he must take ultimate responsibility for the behaviour of his officers. Surrey PCC has previously used this excuse to ignore a complaint about CC Ephgrave. That Murdock’s death was not a DEATH IN CUSTODY. Yes it was, according to CPS guidelines*.

Whether or not this death has avoided being referred to the IOPC - as happened to the victims of my previous complaint - and whether the Coroner fails to determine the true cause of death (as with Robert Randall who left a suicide note yet was found by the Coroner to have died from natural causes) - is not important. The institutionalised failure of Surrey Police (as illustrated again & again by the past deaths of Breck Bednar, Milly Dowler, Amelie DeLagrange, Marsha McDonnell, the Deepcut killings) is the concerning “third party involvement”, dismissed in media statements by Surrey Police.

The legislation is being misused in order to avoid genuine investigation into crimes. This is shocking.

If we care about finding the truth, this complaint must not be dismissed for technical reasons.

If Lockwood and Stephens are guilty of the crime of MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE, they must be exposed and prosecuted**. Hundreds, if not thousands, of members of the public will attest that their trust in the office holder has been abused.

If SURREY POLICE contributed to, or caused, the death of William Murdock, it must immediately be rectified, and rogue officers disciplined. This must happen before any Inquest.

Kenneth (Jonathan) King

* following any other 'contact with the police' where there may be a link between the contact and the death.

**a public officer acting as such; wilfully neglects to perform his or her duty and/or wilfully misconducts themselves;  to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder; without reasonable excuse or justification. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.