November 2025

28 November – Gloucestershire Constabulary has confirmed a full independent review of Jools’ case, led by newly appointed Senior Investigating Officer Gary Haskins, formerly Head of Major Crime. The review will examine all original case material alongside Fedora’s 23-page report, pursue any new lines of enquiry, and reassess the original outcome. Police have committed to a rigorous, transparent process. 

21 November – A positive meeting was held with Gloucestershire Constabulary, who were genuinely caring in their approach. We are now awaiting their formal response, giving them the necessary time to review Fedora’s 23-page independent report. They have confirmed they will reply by 28 November.

2 November – Meeting confirmed for 21 November with Assistant Chief Constable Richard Ocone; Detective Superintendent Steve Bean (Head of Public Protection); Mick Randall (Fedora Investigations); Mark Bramah (former Senior Investigating Officer); Matt Sweeney (Jools’ dad); and me.

​​

October 2025

24 October – Emailed Assistant Chief Constable Richard Ocone at Gloucestershire Police to request a meeting to discuss major concerns about Jools’ case.
16 October – Received a comprehensive 23-page report from Mick Randall (Fedora Investigations). It provides an independent and detailed review of how Gloucestershire Police handled Jools’ case and highlights serious failings.

​

September 2025

7 September – A highly experienced forensic specialist re-examined Jools’ devices.
5 September – I’ve written a full ‘brain dump’ of Jools’ last day. Every moment, every tiny detail I can remember, laid out in a timeline. It was incredibly painful to relive, but the experts asked me to do this so they could piece together what happened, and so much was overlooked in the original investigation. Even something as simple as Jools wearing different clothes when I found him compared to earlier in the day… why wasn’t this noticed? Is it relevant? I don’t know. But now, I must let the experts do their job. I am beyond grateful for their kindness in helping me.
4 September – Had a two-hour meeting with two former Senior Investigating Officers and my barrister, Harry Lambert. For the first time, I finally felt heard. What I have always believed was overlooked has now been confirmed as entirely reasonable and correct. Their words, not mine.

​

August 2025

31 August 2025 – I’m now gathering every piece of evidence and paperwork to submit my application to the Attorney General. On Thursday, I have an important meeting with a former Senior Investigating Officer and a forensic expert, both of whom have kindly offered to help me review the police report. It’s a huge step forward — finally looking at what was done, and what wasn’t, at the original inquest with people who truly understand the process. All of this will then go to my barrister, who is also a coroner, and has generously offered to represent me without charge. I am deeply grateful for the people who have come forward to help, but it’s still such a painful journey, piecing everything together and wondering how so much could have been missed.
19 August 2025 – I finally received the police report. Sadly, it contains no new information. I have sent it straight to my lawyers for review, but it’s hard not to feel disheartened. Every delay and every blank page is another reminder of how far I still have to go to uncover the truth about what happened to Jools.
18 August 2025 – I emailed the Minister, Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson DBE, to complain that Gloucestershire Police had failed to respond to my request for the overdue report and now appeared to be ignoring my emails.
9 August 2025 – Back on 7 July, Gloucestershire Constabulary’s Legal Services Department told me I would receive the police report on Jools’ devices by 4 August. Then I was told it would arrive by the end of this week, which I assumed meant yesterday. Perhaps their definition of “the end of the week” is different. Either way, the report has still not arrived. I have chased again. The waiting never seems to end.

​

July 2025

23 July 2025 – I received a letter from Minister Alex Davies-Jones at the Ministry of Justice. She wrote that while she and her colleagues deeply sympathise with my loss and my determination to find the truth, they cannot formally support my application for a fresh inquest. The decision must be made independently by the Attorney General, who alone can grant a Fiat (permission) for a new investigation. Although disappointing, she acknowledged the importance of my campaign and my ongoing efforts to seek answers.
17 July 2025 – I wrote again to Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP, raising my concerns about the app LMK and about WhatsApp. The children’s codes do not cover these private messaging platforms in the Online Safety Act because they are encrypted and not public platforms. Yet they are often used by predators to move children from open platforms into private chats, away from safety and oversight. This loophole continues to put children at risk.
16 July 2025 – Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP, Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation & Technology, replied to me, and you can see his letter here.
7 July 2025 – The Police Legal Team confirmed that I would receive their full report by 4 August.

​

June to July 2025

2 July 2025 – I wrote to Gloucestershire Constabulary’s Legal Team requesting complete clarity on what data was reviewed, how, and when. I also asked which of Jools’ social media accounts the police located before the inquest. I can only hope this doesn’t take another nine months to receive, as it did when I first asked for the police file on Jools.

When that file finally came, much of it was redacted. I raised this with Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson DBE MP, Minister of State for Policing and Crime Prevention, and was told:

“When responding to a data subject access request pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2018, the law allows law enforcement authorities, in this case the Gloucestershire Constabulary, to restrict the response (for example by redacting) if that is necessary and proportionate for a range of circumstances, including to avoid prejudicing the prevention, detection or investigation of criminal offences or to protect the rights and freedoms of others.”

It was another reminder of how hard it is for parents to access the very information that could explain what happened to their children.

26 June 2025 – I wrote to the following ministers asking for their support in my application to the Attorney General for a new inquest for Jools:
Alex Davies-Jones, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice
Dame Diana Johnson DBE MP, Minister of State for Policing and Crime Prevention
Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP, Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Baroness Maggie Jones, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, DSIT

​

May to June 2025

6 June 2025 – The Coroner returned several documents. The next step is to obtain statements from Jools’ friends.
27 May 2025 – I wrote formally to the Coroner. After Jools’ inquest, I only ever received the final inquest pack, but lawyers have since told me there should have been more documentation shared. I’ve asked to see the full records and have requested that the Coroner support my application for a fresh inquest. Jools’ inquest file had been archived, so I am now waiting for it to be returned. It’s another slow, emotional process, but one that I have to see through to the end.