top of page
  • Marion Rogers



Harry Rice, George Wilkinson, Josh McGuinness

Many of you would have seen the appalling lies regarding our case recently printed in the Daily Mail, The Sun and no doubt reported on in many other fake news outlets. We were going to let it lie as it is evident the media have no regard for the truth and continue to ignore facts and people’s feelings when they report their lies. However, on reflection we feel it is important that we debunk those media lies of the horrific deliberate murder of our three boys to ensure anyone who does have their doubts has the evidence in front of them to show others the truth.

Any parent will tell you that the loss of a child under any circumstance is horrendous and there are not enough words to describe how much it hurts, no one wants to bury their child. The news that our boys had died after being hit by a car was bad enough, imagine how much worse we felt when we started to realise that this was not just a selfish drunken act of dangerous driving but a deliberate act. Instead we were faced with the evidence that the driver, Jaynesh Chudasama, had in fact deliberately driven into our three boys and two of their friends. No parent would want to think their child had been killed deliberately. The media however seem to think we have been used by ‘far right’ groups who have exploited our situation to promote their own agendas. Let us make this crystal clear, NO ONE has used or exploited us for any ‘far right’, ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ agenda! We had the facts, we had the evidence and it was people from all walks of society that were decent enough to offer to help raise awareness of our campaign. You would think that groups such as ‘Stand Up to Racism’ etc would have shown interest in the case, instead we've been at demonstrations with other families who have suffered injustices, where they have protested against them. This isn't about the colour of their skin, their religion or their beliefs this is about a miscarriage of justice. We will not be silenced. They will not win by trying to demonise us or the people who support us because good will always triumph over evil.

Let’s look at the facts which debunk the most recent attack the media made on our campaign:

1. The media reported that the car spun three times

This is true, the car did spin but what they failed to mention was that it spun AFTER it had hit and killed our three boys. The CCTV clearly shows the driver was in full control of the car and he manoeuvres left on a dropped kerb clearly and concisely and then drives in a straight line along the pavement, knocking two boys out of the way who thankfully survived and then hitting and murdering our three boys. It then spins three times in the road. The media tried to word it as such that the driver was not in control and spun the car. This only happened because the 5th child to be hit & the 3rd child to be murdered Harry, landed on the bonnet which blocked the driver's view and resulted in the crash.

2. Court papers

The recent media coverage is keen to point out they have had sight of the court papers but what they fail to mention (as it doesn’t suit their narrative) is that vital evidence was not produced in court! The collision report clearly states that Jaynesh Chudasama was in full control of the car and the CCTV proves this.

3. Remorse

The recent media coverage is also keen to point out that Jaynesh Chudasama has shown great remorse for what happened. To date we have received no apology, no condolences or in fact any correspondence from him or his legal representative or family, so this is absolutely not true. If he is remorseful please explain;

a. Why he ran from the scene without even stopping to check if our boys were alive?

b. Why he asked the Police Officer interviewing him if this would take long as he had to open up the car rental company in the morning?

c. Why he provided 3 different false addresses in Leicester when he was applying for bail.

d. Why he lied that he was the only person living with his ‘sick’ mother so would need to be bailed in order to look after her, in reality there were 4 other people living at the same address.

e. Why he appealed his sentence. Anyone decent and remorseful would bow their head in shame and simply accept a 13-year sentence (where you will be released within 4 for good behaviour).

We would like to bring your attention to facts previously published once again for confirmation that we are not seeking justice out of bitterness or any so called ‘right wing’ agenda. We are seeking justice simply because justice has not been served! The establishment are working against us, not with us, why? Why are the Police being obstructive? What have we done wrong? Why has the passenger not been charged with any offense, is he being protected by the MET and why?

Information given in previous article ....

At 20:40 GMT on Saturday 26th January 2018, five boys were happily on their way to a girl’s 16th birthday party at the Goals football club on Shepiston Lane, three of these boys were Harry, Josh and George.

They were struck by a black Audi that was being driven by 28 year old Jaynesh Chudasama. Josh was struck with such force he was thrown over a fence and into a cemetery, Harry was carried on the bonnet of the car until it crashed into the cemetery wall and a girl held George’s hand as he lay half in the road and half on the pavement. The driver and his passenger then got out of the Black Audi and fled the scene without checking to see the condition of their victims. The two boys that had been with Josh, Harry and George then chased them and managed to catch the driver at the Esso garage where they hit him over the head with a bottle to make sure he didn’t get away. The passenger managed to escape. When the paramedics arrived they went to treat the driver before the boys much to the disgust of the other children at the scene.

The driver was arrested at the scene on suspicion of dangerous driving and a toxicology report showed he was 2.5 times over the limit and had traces of cannabis in his system. The passenger turned himself in two days later. The case went to court on 28 March 2018 and the driver pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, he was given a 13 year custodial sentence along with 13.5 year driving ban. He will be up for parole in 2024 and will then only have another 7.5 years left of his driving ban as it was concurrent. I believe that even if this had been death by dangerous driving the maximum 14 years sentence that it carries is not enough as it does not provide the deterrent that it should and is not fair justice for the victims or their families. However, in this case the sentence given most certainly does not fit the crime and the families of the three boys have been working tirelessly to tell their story so that people know the truth.

There is a catalogue of errors throughout this tragic case that are almost unbelievable. Even more worrying is that the Police seem to have purposely been obstructive from the very start of the investigation causing the families untold and unnecessary stress. They have been left to fight for justice when they should be grieving for their boys, this is unacceptable and as a compassionate nation we should all be raising an eyebrow and standing to fight with them! From here on I will refer to the incident as the ‘murder’ because that is what I believe it was. Please look through the evidence below and make your own mind up;

  1. The black Audi used to murder the three boys did not belong to the driver, Jaynesh Chudasama, it belonged to his brother. Chudasama owned a Ford Focus, why wasn’t he driving his own car that night? The Police have never provided an answer for this but one would think this would be important evidence in order to establish whether this was deliberate or not, after all an Audi is far more powerful than a Ford Focus.

  2. Within 40 minutes of the murder, the Police made a public declaration that the ‘incident was not terror related’. How is that possible within that time frame? Even the 2 months between the murder and the court hearing were not enough to prove that beyond doubt let alone 40 minutes!

  3. The passenger escaped and the parents were told by the police 2 days after the murder that they had identified the passenger and were going to arrest him. Within 2 hours he had turned himself in at a Police Station, how he knew he had been identified is a mystery …. The Police only questioned him for 30 minutes and all he said apart from ‘no comment’ was that he wasn’t driving and he never saw anyone. The week before sentencing he came back with a prepared statement that said nothing more. To date he has not been charged with any offence. He was a suspect and a vital witness to the murder and the Police questioned him for 30 minutes only, does that sound right to you? Apparently he is still under investigation …..

  4. The Collision report compiled by the Police was not produced in court and clearly stated that Chudasama was still in control of the car when he mounted the pavement. This would of course indicate that it was not dangerous driving but a cruel and planned attack. The evidence provided during the court hearing did not however reflect the contents of the collision report! He drove the car in a straight line and then clearly veered left on to the pavement murdering the 3 innocent boys, if it was drunken driving he would not have driven in a straight line and clearly steered the car directly to the left, it was a controlled manoeuvre! The interim report also said that he had control of the car until impact and yet the evidence provided in the court said he was not in control of the car and the prosecuting QC did not argue it! How can that be acceptable? Why was the evidence not used?

  5. The Police stated there were no weapons in the vehicle. This may be the case when they searched it after the murder but there were a few witnesses who clearly saw the passenger with a bag when he fled the scene. What was in this bag and have they questioned the passenger about it or searched for it? There was also a picture of the passenger with the bag outside the Premier Inn (near the scene when he fled) in the press which has disappeared. The police said they searched the passenger’s house and found nothing, did they look for the bag elsewhere? Did they even look for the bag at all? As we are all aware it is now common for terrorists to use a vehicle as a weapon then finish their heinous crime by using weapons such as machetes to physically attack their innocent victims. Why therefore did the Police not investigate the bag seen by witnesses more thoroughly?

  6. On the night of the murder, the driver and his passenger sat in the Black Audi for 2 hours 20 minutes in a nearby Asda car park strategically parked behind a coach between 4:00pm and 6:20pm. No one approached the car and they did not get out of the car for the whole time it is shown there on the CCTV. The Police have confirmed they were using their mobile phones but not to who or where. What were they doing in that car for 2 hours 20 minutes and who were they talking to on their mobiles? From Asda at 6:20pm they turned left and then apparently vanished and there is no CCTV coverage from then until they appeared at Shepiston Lane at 8:40pm? Really? That is another time frame of exactly 2 hours 20 minutes! Police never asked the public for information other than during the two days after trying to identify the passenger. They never even placed an appeal board at the scene! On that road there are cab drivers all the time why have the Police not questioned any of these for more information?

  7. So there is another time slot of 2 hours 20 minutes between the time they left Asda and arrived at Shepiston Lane that is not accounted for. The driver’s defence QC did not provide an explanation of his whereabouts during this time until the night before the court hearing (which was 28 March). The explanation he had given was that he was at Stockley Park drinking with friends during that time. He even said he was only drinking due to ‘peer pressure’ the man is 28 for Christ’s sake! The parents were not aware of this information until the judge asked the defence barrister in court. Ok, so this is a reasonable explanation and would explain why he was apparently 2.5 times over the limit and there were no empty cans or bottles in the car. So did the police verify it? No, they didn’t! There is CCTV all over Stockley Park and Vehicle Recognition Cameras but the police said a DC Pullen had checked the CCTV inside Stockley Park and the picture quality was not good enough and there was insufficient time to check the cameras again or get them enhanced. The Police also said that the mobile phone checks they carried out confirm that the passenger (or at least his phone) was at Stockley Park for the time stated. Who were these so called friends in the park? Why have they not been questioned to confirm they were with them and also questioned about the state of mind of the driver and his passenger, this is VITAL evidence! If there was not sufficient time should the court hearing have not been adjourned until a FULL investigation had been undertaken? Why was it rushed through? A Police Officer was adamant that the families had been provided with the mobile phone info and they haven’t, another blatant lie!

  8. The Police have stated there is no CCTV footage of the Audi between the Asda car park and Shepiston Lane, I find this very hard to believe and think the movements of the car between leaving the Asda car park and Shepiston Lane may provide more answers. Furthermore the parents specifically requested the police check the CCTV to see if the vehicle had already travelled down Shepiston Lane and back again before the incident. The police said images were not clear enough.

  9. This was a major incident in which 3 young lives were lost, the scene should have therefore been treated like a major crime scene that required a thorough investigation. Why therefore was the road re-opened within hours before daylight leaving the friends to finish cleaning the scene up themselves the following morning before the family arrived? There was blood left on the road and pavement and the victims shoes and phone etc. were left scattered around! If there is an accident on the motorway the police keep it closed for hours regardless of disruption to traffic and rightly so. Why did they not do that for this incident? Especially when the location would not have caused any major traffic disruption as a diversion would have been very simple. It is insane and the police need to provide answers. Regardless of the driver being taken in to custody and them thinking this was a cut and dried case they should still have spent hours investigating the scene and cleaning it up. I would think it would be at least 18-24 hours before the road could have been re-opened! The Police never apologised to the families that the scene had not been cleaned properly, instead they blamed the council.

  10. The parents were not notified by the Police that the inquest date had been set, it was postponed regardless and they still haven’t had one! One would think it was very important that the families were informed of the date of the inquest so why not tell them?

  11. The parents all made and signed an Impact statement for the court hearing. On the day of the court hearing the Prosecutor Crispin Aylett QC told them that the impact statement was to be edited with large sections being crossed out. The parents were not happy with this and made their feelings clear but the Impact statement was still altered. Just after that Crispin Aylett left flowers and a card at the crime scene saying ‘With Heartfelt sympathy’ guilty conscience? ……. It is against the law to change a witness statement, you can add an additional piece but you cannot change it yet the parents were told if they didn’t agree then they wouldn’t be allowed to read it in court!

  12. In one of the meetings before the trial the parents joined the CPS, Police and prosecutor, there were 15 people in the room. The parents sat there for nearly two hours telling them why they thought this was not dangerous driving but a deliberate act. They asked them to prove it was not deliberate but no one in that room was forthcoming! One of the Police Officers, Robert Simpson, asked if he should read the collision report and proceeded to do so. It stated clearly in black and white that the driver had control of the car and then made a sudden turn left towards the group of children walking on the pavement. He concluded by saying he could not answer why he had killed the children only that he ‘presumed’ it was the drink. That is presumption so why not presume it was deliberate instead? As mentioned already this evidence was not put forward during the hearing!

  13. The parents met with the QC at the Old Bailey once before the hearing and it was only a 5-minute meeting. His main comment was that Muslims don’t drink and the driver was 2.5 times over the limit! What does that even mean?

  14. When sentencing Wendy Joseph QC presiding didn’t even ask Chudasama to stand. She gave him 13 years and a 13 year 6 month driving ban which ran concurrently. Work that one out! Shouldn’t the driving ban commence when the scum bag is released from prison? In 2024 he will be paroled.

  15. During the court hearing there was a Police Officer who was clearly annoyed by the evidence being provided by the defence, even counting on his fingers and shaking his head in disbelief at some points. This same Police officer took the two boys who had held the driver into a room along with their parents after the sentencing and apologised saying he was sorry they had messed up. There is obviously a lot being covered up here and it would be nice if there was an officer decent enough to blow the whistle.

  16. The police did not search the driver’s house. They couldn’t get a section 18 they said and when they went round there people were sleeping so they couldn’t go in. This is totally unacceptable!

  17. The parents were told by the Police that the driver did not have a previous record then it was revealed during the court hearing that he did: a) January 2012 he was given a caution for possession by theft. b) In March 2013 he was given a caution for possession of cannabis. c) Late 2013 he was convicted of an assault involving "considerable violence" which he committed together with another man, after a fight at a block of flats in Uxbridge.

  18. The parents were also told that he was born in the UK by Daniella Zenga. It turned out he was not born here either. When Tracy Blackwell (mother of Josh McGuiness) queried why she was lied to about this after the court hearing they totally blanked the question and didn’t answer.

  19. The parents were asked by the Police what their wishes for the funerals were and all parents clearly stated they were happy for the public and press to be present. Protocol should have then meant the Police done a press release informing them that the parents were happy for them to cover the funeral. George was buried before Josh and Harry who had a double funeral just after. On the day of George’s funeral the lack of attendance from the press was evident. There were none there. When the parents investigated why they found out from the press themselves that the Police had stated the parents did not want them present! Furthermore the Police had informed the school the boys attended that the parents did not want a big fuss and the school then sent out a letter saying only close friends and pupils of the same year were to attend the funerals and no photographs were permitted!! What is it the Police are trying to keep out of the public domain? They have actively gone out of their way to keep this story under wraps.

  20. The driver had legal aid for his representation. His legal team asked for bail stating that he had mitigating circumstances and needed to care for his sick mother as he was the only one living at home with her at the time. This was a proven lie as like most Asian families there were many family members living at the address. When he was in court the first time he gave three different addresses and none of them existed. Why was he not held to account for this? Bail was refused regardless but this is once again evidence of the driver’s bad character. He also provided 40+ character references, most of which were exactly the same just signed by different people with slight different wording. These were considered by the judge when she gave a 13 year instead of 14 year sentence.

  21. The boys were murdered on 26 January and the original court hearing was set just one month after on 26 February, correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t this too soon for a full investigation to be completed? This was adjourned and the Police told the parents it was due to reasons that would benefit them but it was not terror related. When the case was finally heard on 28 March this ‘new information’ was nowhere to be seen or heard. It seems that the police were happy to settle for the reduced charge of dange

  22. rous driving without investigating any further regardless of the fact that both the driver and the passenger had answered ‘no comment’ to the majority of their questions.

  23. The parents asked if the steering wheel had been checked for finger prints (it could suggest the passenger had grabbed it and steered it on to the pavement perhaps?), the answer was no it had not been finger printed. The DNA on the air bags proved that Jaynesh was sat in the driver’s seat at the time of accident. Why was the steering wheel not fingerprinted? Surely this would be standard procedure?

  24. The night after the driver was sentenced the passenger put out a video on Instagram which was only published for 24 hours. In it he said he was screaming at the Police after the hearing because his friend ‘Spikey’ (Jaynesh Chudasama) got a 13 year sentence. How about the life sentence him and his friend gave to 3 innocent families, no remorse or shame at all! The passenger is of a certain religion and there is evidence to suggest he is a terrorist sympathiser. This information will be made public in due course.

  25. The parents were curious to know if Chudasama had driven down the road in the opposite direction before driving back and directly into the boys. The Police checked the CCTV and said there was a ‘similar’ car but the images were not clear enough to clarify this is as fact. So …. If indeed this was Chudasama in the Audi it would mean he drove down the road, saw the group of children walking on the pavement then turned around and went back to deliberately drive into them. Surely this is reason for the Police to enhance the images and re-open the case to investigate further as it would indicate he saw them and purposely returned to commit is horrific crime!

By now I am sure you have several question marks in your heads, I know I do! In particular, I would like answers to the following:

➢ Was this a planned attack?

➢Were the driver and his passenger known to the police?

➢ What religion was the driver? By his own admittance he had submitted to peer pressure with drinking, it is therefore highly likely he may well have submitted to pressure and brainwashing from extremists.

➢ Were the driver and his passenger working with the police which might explain their strange behaviour sitting in the car for hours doing nothing and suggest the Police are attempting to cover something up?

➢ Is there anyone who knew the driver or the passenger (both from Hayes) willing to talk about their characters. Surely if they are as ‘clean’ as they portrayed there would be people willing to vouch for this …..

➢ Did anyone take any mobile phone footage at the time of the murder or after that may provide vital evidence?

Since writing this I have watched the families continue their fight for justice and witnessed the brick walls they have come up against the whole way. The authorities just do not seem interested, especially the Police. How can any of us sit back and allow this to happen? Something is being covered up and that affects us ALL. Please try and help these families get the justice they deserve, it will never bring their boys back but it will help them to see their murderers tried for the actual crime they committed and not a trumped up charge of dangerous driving! The driver has had the absolute audacity to appeal his sentence .... the passenger is still roaming around free without charge continuing to post his support for Jihadis on social media. YOUR children are at risk because the people who are supposed to protect us are too busy trying to appease those who wish us nothing but harm, stop standing back and STAND UP to fight this before it goes so far we can’t stop it. After the tragedy these families have suffered they are still fighting, not just for their boys but for everyone. If they can find the strength, ask yourself why you can’t? …..

These were three innocent care free beautiful young souls with their whole lives ahead of them. They were minding their own business and on their way to a birthday party and their lives were cruelly taken away from them, leaving a path of devastation and pain for their families. Why are the Police therefore treating the parents with discontent? Why have they purposely tried to rush the whole case through and sweep it under the carpet? I don’t have the answers, all I have are question marks and a very heavy heart when I think of the pain the families must be suffering, this makes me feel compelled to help them find the truth. We can only do this by sharing this story in the hope that someone comes forward with more information. PLEASE SHARE and if anyone has any information please contact us in strict confidence.

We also need to help the families find legal representation, there must be a barrister in this country that can help? PLEASE COME FORWARD!

I will leave you with the words of Tracy Blackwell after she had to endure the heart breaking task of watching the CCTV footage of the murder on 10 May.

On the first manoeuvre they told us he pulled in between the two bollards after over taking another car and said his rear back wheel ran along the kerb which was about 100 to 150 metres back to where our boys were walking, one police officer (Robert Simpson) told me if he had not made that first manoeuvre they would have looked at this as a deliberate act....... meaning that the overtake made him cause what he did 150 meters further on, which we knew was all rubbish anyway. However, that first manoeuvre was flawless!! So another lie......... I am sitting here thinking do they think we would have not watched this? Is it something someone would not usually want to watch? Do not get me wrong I didn't want to watch it and got others to watch it first because I did not know what I would see.......... but it was flawless driving ...... precision even and not even close to the bollard 150m back like they tried to say.......I just do not know how they think they could get away with all of this...

To follow the families and keep up to date with their story please follow them on social media.

409 views0 comments
bottom of page