This article is perhaps in some ways one of the most challenging for me to write due to my own personal experiences. I endeavour to remain fair and balanced in all of my writing though with certain topics this is particularly difficult to achieve and this is one of them. That said I will as always attempt to do just that.

In order to fairly assess what the role of a Family Liaison Officer is I would like to dissect the meaning in terms of definition and proceed afterwards to compare that with actual cases whereby it can be shown through actions, statements and results to have a somewhat different actual meaning.

By definition in this context, 'Liaison' means "somebody who coordinates communication between two or more people or groups" which at first glance seems perfectly harmless. It is only fair and right to expect families suffering as a result of an incident or crime to be provided with information which is reasonable for them to know in terms of how an investigation is proceeding. The Freedom Of Information Act provides for it along with limitations to ensure any resulting trial will not be prejudiced by any such disclosure.

The term 'Officer' goes without saying and in this case clearly refers to a police officer who should have undergone the necessary training to fulfil the role assigned to them. Again, this seems perfectly harmless and owing to the general public's faith in persons of authority suggests no reason to be anything other than trusting particularly to the innocent.

It is well documented that in the case of Sarah Payne, the Family Liaison Officer received praise by both of her parents which demonstrates an instance where their role has clearly been properly fulfilled. Information to keep the family updated on the progress of the investigation has been provided and they were comforted by his attendance.

However this is not always the case, Sara Payne subsequently went on to become the government Victims Champion and who has provided training for Liaison Officers has come in contact with those whose experiences of Liaison Officers has been quite the opposite. In an interview with Sally Bowman's mum Linda, Sara was told "He (the first family liaison officer) was like a block of cold concrete." A situation which was noted and rectified without the need for complaint but one which should never have occurred in the first instance, basic liaison training would have highlighted the need for sensitivity and compassion. The transcripts of the interview in which this was revealed are available here LINDA BOWMAN TELLS SARA PAYNE HOW SYSTEM FAILED HER

These are merely two individual cases but demonstrate how the needs of a family are not always properly met by those entrusted to do so. I very much admire Sara Payne's efforts and determination following the tragic loss of Sarah and commend what she has achieved thus far.

There are however other factors which need to be considered, the above two cases related to instances where it was only necessary for information to be flowing in one direction. The term 'liaison' however refers to bi-directional communication and as is often the case, rightly or wrongly a family member will unknowingly be a suspect. This gives rise to a conflict of interests, the need for an innocent person and family's comfort with a requirement to seek information related to an investigation. This I'm afraid is where it all gets messy and complicated.

Clearly if there is a suspect there is a need to acquire information which either confirms or refutes that position. Which is where the two way stream of information comes into play, the family is befriended by the Liaison Officer who is considered by them to be in a position of trust and providing nothing more than a supportive role. However in this circumstance this is not the case, if a member of the family is a suspect for whatever reason, their role includes covertly obtaining information to return to the investigating team which they themselves are part of. This can in no way be considered anything other than a conflict of interests which gives rise to the questionable use of any information obtained as a result if it is indeed passed on.

In the case of Luke Mitchell, a Family Liaison Officer was assigned to the Mitchell Family who were completely unaware that Luke Mitchell was a suspect. Other persons known to have been at the scene at a time very close to what would later be revealed as the time of Jodi Jones's death were ruled out without having even been identified. The bike they were seen on was never recovered and one had cut their hair (which matched a witnesses description more closely than did Luke's) prior to coming forward. Despite an overwhelming amount of doubt and amidst huge publicity Luke Mitchell was convicted of Jodi's murder and continues unsurprisingly to fight to clear his name. His QC Donald Findlay described the Family Liaison Officer in this case to 'a vixen in the hen house.' claiming that she was no less than a spy for the police, when Luke and his family were not even aware that he was a suspect. Family Liaison Officers are always part of the investigating team yet the public concerned are not aware of it, how then can they provide impartial support?

Since this is an area which has resulted in my having personal issues with Family Liaison Officers I am going to break away from my normal approach and use knowledge of my own case to highlight how this conflict of interests results in damaging consequences when their suspect is in fact innocent.

An officer who was acting in a position above that which she normally served had been in command at the time of the incident was later assigned as our Family Liaison Officer. She presented herself as sympathetic and her attendance at our home she was perceived as nothing other. Her training for the role had consisted of a few short hours one weekend and nothing more, which perhaps explains why she had repeatedly made promises which could never have been fulfilled. As it transpired through assessment of the documents in the case, it was clear that I had in fact been a suspect before I had even reached the ambulance which took me to hospital the most probable reason for which was due to malicious remarks made by someone who had presented problems in the past and had a police order to stay away from my family following an incident the previous year. My instantly assumed guilt was further acknowledged by her statement as to her position in the investigating team. "My role was to gather information from the family until an appropriate handover strategy had been agreed." It is perhaps little wonder then that the officer who was in charge in the initial stages and ultimately must burden the responsibility of deciding that I was to be a suspect stated to our family that she had "volunteered". It also emerged in court that this officer had placed Annalise in a police cell until she was taken by them to the mortuary rather than call the local undertakers which operate a 24hr call out service and would have been more than willing to collect her respectfully instead. There is absolutely no way under any circumstances had we known this that we would have accepted her into our home or considered her to be sympathetic or supportive in any way.

I would suggest that in my opinion this conflict of interests might explain why information which was made available to her during house visits never appeared in any investigation documents. It could also perhaps explain why information I know for certain I had passed on was apparently not known to the interviewing officers. The person who had originally been responsible for establishing me as a suspect was by consequence seeking to prove her original assessment and therefore in her role as a Family Liaison Officer was in no way able to impartially "coordinate communication between two or more people or groups."