policeshame.com — A Public Record
The record
they won't release.
The man who can't call police.
A judgement issued prematurely. Victims reclassified as suspects. Men permitted to walk away. And across five police forces, a wall of silence where a duty of care should have stood.
By The Numbers
The Scale of the Failure
These figures are drawn from documented records, official correspondence, and verified incident references. Every number is defensible.
Operational Contact
| Total calls to police | 200+ |
| Emergency calls (999) | 3 |
| Emergency calls resulting in deployment | 0 |
| Emergency response rate | 0% |
| Average calls per month | 8–10 |
| Average days between calls | ~3–4 days |
Police System Footprint
| Police forces involved | 5 |
| Incident references identified | 7+ |
| Crime references identified | 6+ |
| Total operational records | 13+ |
| Distinct police units touched | 10+ |
| Personnel footprint | 30+ individuals |
Oversight & Complaints
| Formal complaints submitted | 3+ |
| PSD investigations triggered | 1+ |
| External oversight references | 1 confirmed |
| Subject access requests filed | 1+ |
| Data-accuracy disputes raised | 1 |
| Oversight body | IOPC |
Evidence Scale
| Evidence reports prepared | 5+ |
| Legal filings created | 10+ |
| Evidence documents in bundle | 100+ pages |
| Supporting files | 20+ |
Legal Exposure
| Claimants | 2 |
| Police forces potentially liable | 5 |
| Legal grounds pleaded | 6 |
| Estimated damages exposure | Up to £1.6 million |
Matthew O'Crowley
The man who
can't call police.
A merchant navy officer. A survivor of a staged attack, sustained drugging, and a false arrest. A man who has called police more than 200 times and been arrested once — for reporting arson with intent to kill.
The arson has never been investigated. The CCTV of the attack has not been reviewed. The audio of him drugged has been dismissed. The murder victim called 101 to check on his own body search.
Section 01 — The Account
What Happened to Matthew O'Crowley
This is Matthew's account. It is drawn from his own words — recorded in official transcripts, formal complaints, and documented correspondence. Nothing here is speculation. Everything here has been stated, on the record, to police or to official bodies.
Matthew's account is drawn entirely from official transcripts and documented correspondence.
"Whilst I was with Scott, I never made a drink or a meal — he had total control over what I ate and drank. And one of the things he did on every evening, he would make a very strongly flavoured coffee drink, made with ice creams and all sorts of things in it that would disguise something that you put in it."
— Matthew O'Crowley, West Mercia Police transcript, 11 September 2025"I found an audio recording of me clearly incapacitated, and I have no memory of that whatsoever. I have no memory of that person being in my home. I have no memory of ever watching pornography with Mr Millard, and it's clearly on in the background."
— Matthew O'Crowley, West Mercia Police transcript, 11 September 2025"I've got the nitrazepam, which has got no place in my home. Where's it come from? I am — it's come from one other person that could bring it in."
— Matthew O'Crowley, West Mercia Police transcript, 11 September 2025"The CCTV taken 20 seconds after four men strangled and beat me on a street in Birmingham that nobody seems to think is evidence."
— Matthew O'Crowley, West Mercia Police transcript, 11 September 2025"When I got back from Thailand, and I unzipped my bag — I opened my bag and I found a big bag of drugs in it. What happens in Thailand when you get found with a big bag of drugs at the airport? It looks like crystal meth."
— Matthew O'Crowley, West Mercia Police transcript, 11 September 2025Section 02 — The Wall
Twelve Reports. The Same Wall.
Since January 2025, twelve separate reports. The response to each is documented below.
Since January 2025, Matthew has made twelve separate reports to police and official bodies. The response to each is documented below. In five cases, no investigative contact followed at all.
What follows is Matthew's own account of what it is like to make those calls.
Birmingham, 2024 — The Attack
He paid them. Then he walked away.
In Birmingham in 2024, Matthew O'Crowley was attacked. The CCTV footage captured what happened. It captured who was present. It captured what was paid, and to whom. It captured the moment Matthew's husband walked away and left him to die. West Midlands Police have reviewed this footage and concluded it is not worth its weight as evidence.
Matthew O'Crowley — wedding day. The attackers demanded both wedding rings.
What the CCTV shows
Matthew's husband paid the attackers.
The CCTV footage from Birmingham captures the moment Matthew's husband handed money to the men who attacked Matthew. The attackers had demanded the couple's wedding rings — indicating prior knowledge of the marriage. The attack stopped only after the wallet, described as stuffed with cash, was handed over.
What the CCTV also shows
He walked away and left Matthew to die.
While Matthew was being strangled, his husband walked away. This is captured on CCTV. The footage exists. Crime reference: 22/51320/25. West Midlands Police have not reviewed it as evidence.
The audio evidence
Matthew, drugged. On record.
There is an audio recording of Matthew in a severely incapacitated state — drugged to the point where, in his own words, he sounds as though he has come off a ventilator. West Midlands Police have concluded this recording is not sufficient as evidence of drugging.
"The CCTV footage shows my husband paying the men who were strangling me. He then walked away. West Midlands Police told me the footage was not worth its weight as evidence."
Matthew O'Crowley — documented account
Crime reference 22/51320/25 remains open. The CCTV has not been formally reviewed. The audio has not been formally examined. No suspect has been identified by West Midlands Police in connection with the attack.
Featured Audio
Britain's Police Shame
A documentary audio record of institutional failure. Every voice is real. Every call is documented.
policeshame.com — Exclusive Audio
Britain's Police Shame
An audio documentary. Real calls. Real responses. Real consequences.
Section 03 — The Audio Record
The Record
Every clip is from a real call. Every voice is real.
The following audio compilation is drawn from Matthew's own recordings of his calls to police, official bodies, and other parties. Every clip is from a real call. Every voice is real. Nothing has been altered except to remove extended periods of silence and to normalise levels for clarity.
Audio Compilation — March 2026
The Record
A 27-clip compilation of calls made by Matthew O'Crowley between 2025 and 2026. Includes calls to West Mercia Police, West Midlands Police, the Metropolitan Police, and other official bodies. Duration: approximately 28 minutes.
"I told them what happened. They said it wasn't their department. I was passed to someone else. That person said the same thing."
— Matthew O'CrowleySection 04 — The Questions
The Custody Record That Cannot Be Explained
Custody record reference 20GA/11037/25, Wolverhampton Central. 27 documented irregularities.
On 4 March 2025, Matthew was arrested. The custody record opened that day — reference 20GA/11037/25, Wolverhampton Central — contains 27 documented irregularities. Eight of the most significant are set out below.
The Attempted Murder Enquiry
An attempted murder enquiry was opened following Matthew's arrest. On 31 July 2025, it was closed. No evidence review was recorded. The covert audio recording, the bank record, the digital message evidence, the physical drug evidence, and the witness accounts were all available at the time of closure. On the material available, none of them were considered.
Evidence Available — Not Examined
The following items of evidence have been identified, documented, and presented to police. None have been formally examined.
Section 05 — What Matthew Asks For
A Proper Investigation. Nothing More.
Matthew O'Crowley has not sought retribution. He has not sought to harm anyone's reputation. He has sought, consistently and on the record, to have the evidence he holds reviewed by an authority with the power and the will to act upon it.
He asks three things.
"I'm not asking for anyone to be convicted. I'm asking for someone to look at the evidence."
— Matthew O'CrowleyIf you have information relevant to this matter, or if you have experienced a similar failure of investigation, you can write to Matthew's legal team via the contact details held by his solicitors.
Investigation Map
The Network Behind the Events
A detailed forensic map of the individuals, connections, and timeline. Access requires authorisation.
The Allegations Against Matthew O'Crowley
The hostage who was sent to Asda alone.
The allegations made against Matthew O'Crowley are presented here alongside the documented facts. They are offered without editorial comment. The reader may draw their own conclusions.
The Firearms Allegation
Taken to Asda at gunpoint.
No armed response was deployed. The allegation does not appear on the PNC report. No weapon was ever produced or evidenced. The same individual was routinely asked to go to Asda alone, and did so on multiple occasions.
He was also taken on a caving day out.
The Arson Report
Matthew was arrested after reporting arson with intent to kill.
The arson itself has never been investigated. Matthew reported the arson. He was arrested. The fire that was intended to kill him remains an open matter with no investigation.
The person who reported the crime was arrested. The crime was not.
The Murder Allegation
Matthew O'Crowley murdered the complainant.
The individual alleged to have been murdered subsequently called 101 to enquire about the progress of the murder investigation and the search for his own body. There is no death record. There is a phone call.
The investigating force has not addressed this chronology.
The Rape Allegation
Rape allegation made against Matthew.
The interview was recorded audio-only, in breach of PACE Code E. The solicitor's signature is missing from the interview record. The complainant's account contains documented inconsistencies that have not been put to them.
Matthew has never sought to stop the rape investigation. He has sought for it to be conducted properly.
The Hostage Situation
Matthew held a person against their will.
The alleged hostage attended a caving day out. He was sent to Asda alone on multiple occasions. He was, on the evidence available, free to leave at any time and did so regularly.
The investigating force has not been asked to reconcile these facts with the allegation.
The Drug Use Entry
Custody record entry: "cocaine and meth yesterday."
No drug test was conducted. No evidence was recorded to support this entry. It was logged as fact. Matthew's own reports of being drugged over an extended period have not been investigated.
Nitrazepam was found in Matthew's home. It was not seized. It was not tested.
The Timestamp Impossibility
Arrest recorded at three separate times: 12:22, 17:11, and 18:50.
A timestamped bank transaction places Matthew at a location physically incompatible with the recorded arrest location at the recorded time. All three recorded arrest times are inconsistent with the actual time of approximately 19:00.
This discrepancy has not been explained.
The Nominated Contact
Standard custody procedure followed.
The person whose conduct is the subject of the majority of Matthew's reports was logged as Matthew's nominated custody contact and was contacted at 07:44 while Matthew's own rights were still delayed.
This conflict of interest has not been investigated.
The Safeguarding Withdrawal
Safer Neighbourhood Team officer emails Matthew: do not report crimes to me.
The same officer had previously extended a warm and explicit invitation to Matthew to contact her at any time. Matthew was subject to documented death threats and other serious threats against his life. The email withdrawing that access arrived while those threats remained active and unaddressed. This is a safeguarding failure. The officer had a duty of care. She withdrew it in writing.
Coming today: the full correspondence.
The Voyeurism Charge
David, a friend of Matthew's, was charged with voyeurism.
David had installed a CCTV camera in his own home. He was arrested for voyeurism in his own property and placed under house arrest for five and a half months. The camera was his own. The home was his own. The charge has not been explained.
Five and a half months of house arrest. In his own home. For his own camera.
The Central Impossibility
The man Matthew O'Crowley was alleged to have murdered subsequently called 101 to ask about the progress of the murder investigation and the search for his own body.
There is no death record, because he was not dead. He was alive, and on the phone to police, enquiring about a murder hunt in which he was the supposed victim. This is not a procedural irregularity. It is the complete collapse of the allegation. The investigating force has not been asked to explain it.
No armed response for the firearms allegation. No investigation of the arson. The hostage went caving. He went to Asda alone. The murder victim called 101 to check on his own body search. Matthew was arrested for reporting arson with intent to kill. These are the documented facts. They have not been explained.
Documentary Evidence — The Fabricated History
He claimed 20 years. His name meant nothing.
Within the first weeks of the relationship, Matthew's husband told him that they had a shared history spanning 20 years — that he had been a barman in Matthew's life, that he had known him, that there was a past between them. Matthew noticed the lie almost immediately. He stayed, watching to see where it was intended to lead.
A genuine friend of Matthew's from that period — someone who was actually there — was asked whether the husband was the barman he claimed to be. The answer was unambiguous: he had no idea who he was. Matthew's husband was never in his life 20 years ago. He was never there. The history was invented.
"No I don't recognise him. I had a completely different person in my head but it's a vague recollection."
A friend of Matthew's from that period — on being shown a photograph of his husband
WhatsApp Exchange — A friend of Matthew's — 19 Apr 2024 to 4 Apr 2025
19 Apr 2024 — The exchange
6 Dec 2024 — Wedding photo shown
4 Apr 2025 — The answer
The Claim
Matthew's husband told him they had a shared history of 20 years. He claimed to have been a barman in Matthew's life during that period.
The Evidence
A genuine friend of Matthew's from that 20-year period was shown a photograph of the husband and did not recognise him at all.
The Conclusion
Matthew's husband was never in his life 20 years ago. The shared history was fabricated — the opening move in a sustained pattern of manipulation that Matthew identified within weeks.
Matthew noticed the lie within the first couple of weeks and stayed to observe where it was intended to lead. This exchange, conducted over several months, confirms what Matthew already knew: the 20-year history was the opening act of gaslighting.
Forthcoming Investigations
There is more. Much more.
The following investigations are in preparation. Each one is documented. Each one is evidenced. Full publication is imminent.
Get In Touch
Contact Matthew
If you have information relevant to this case, wish to offer support, or are a journalist or legal professional, please use the form below. All messages are read personally.