Clean decapitation by wheel arch: No other publicly documented case in the UK—or globally—has confirmed a pedestrian being cleanly decapitated by a bus wheel arch. This mechanism is virtually unheard of in forensic trauma literature.
Two forensic tents at the scene: Suggests spatial separation of body and head, raising questions about the exact moment and location of trauma.
Public mistook the severed head for a Halloween prop: Indicates the head was intact and visible—an extremely rare outcome in high-impact RTAs, especially involving crushing forces.
No global precedent for this mechanism: Searches across Europe, Asia, and North America reveal no similar incidents involving clean decapitation by wheel arch.
Scene management anomalies: Reports of rapid pub closures, crowd confusion, and limited media access suggest tight control over public narrative.
Potential for staging or misclassification: If the head was found separate from the body in a way inconsistent with mechanical trauma, it opens the possibility of tampering or misdirection.
No driver charges or public inquiry: Despite the severity, the driver has not faced formal scrutiny, and no Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) has been announced—unusual for a death this catastrophic.
Internal communications escalated to CEO level: FOI findings show the bus company treated this as a reputational and operational crisis, suggesting deeper concerns than publicly acknowledged.
Delayed pedestrianisation of Cowgate: The Council had previously flagged safety concerns for the area, yet traffic remained unrestricted—potentially contributing to risk.
- No other UK cases match the trauma profile: Other UK beheading cases involve criminal acts or mental illness—not mechanical trauma from public transport.
We are also reaching out to the two active police officers and a member of the ambulance service who have approached us, assuring you that all information will be securely stored on multiple encrypted servers.
Nevertheless, because of the absence of transparent information and the withholding of details by the council, we find ourselves with no choice but to identify the coach company involved. We have made efforts to contact the directors of both the bus company and the parent company, but they failed to respond.
30th September a follow up email to the MD of Radical Travel
"This is a communication intended for Christopher Ward, the Managing Director of this company. I am an investigative journalist and I reached out to him recently, as well as to your parent company. I requested a conversation regarding information I was planning to publish unless they had any objections. I have now released a portion of it and I intend to utilise the remaining information, which I will post online later this week. Additionally, it will be featured on the Radio Station Resistance Frequency. The current website hosting this information is www.jaoc.org.uk. I will wait until Friday for Mr. Ward to get in touch with me, and if I do not hear from him, I will proceed with the rest of the story."
Radical Travel Group is a collective of award-winning Scottish travel brands—including HAGGIS Adventures and Highland Explorer Tours—dedicated to delivering immersive, locally guided experiences across Scotland. With a legacy dating back to 1993, Radical Travel has built its reputation on storytelling, sustainability, and exceptional service.
As part of The Travel Corporation family of brands, Radical Travel benefits from global expertise in responsible tourism, operational excellence, and community engagement. This partnership reinforces Radical Travel’s commitment to creating unforgettable journeys while upholding the highest standards of environmental and cultural stewardship.
Independent gives his opinion to JAOC
Coroner’s Informal Assessment – Key Observations Regarding Mechanism of Fatal Injury
“I’ve worked as a funeral director for 18 years, with seven of those directly involving duties for the coroner — including recovery of deceased individuals from road traffic accidents involving buses and lorries. In every case where someone was struck and run over, the physical result was unmistakably consistent: catastrophic flattening. Blunt force trauma does not produce precision. It crushes everything in its path.
That’s why this case raises serious red flags. The deceased’s chest cavity retained its full profile — there was no evidence of crush injury at all. The neck, however, had a clean severance. No damage to the jaw, no cranial flattening, no distortion of bone structure. Just a near-surgical separation.
I measured a standard bus tyre — approximately 20 to 25 centimetres in width. It’s physically impossible for a tyre of that size, under normal conditions, to cleanly sever a human head without crushing surrounding areas. No known traffic incident involving buses produces decapitation in this manner.
I’ve seen footage. In one clip, a young bystander picks up the severed head, recoils in horror, and drops it. Aside from being detached, the head showed no other injuries. That’s not consistent with any case I’ve ever handled where a pedestrian was struck.
The police urged the public not to circulate imagery — likely because, in this case, the photos are the evidence. They challenge the official narrative.”
JAOC COMMENT
Ordinarily, fatalities involving this level of severity would prompt clear public safety warnings, detailed investigative disclosures, and coordinated responses across agencies. Instead, the opacity surrounding Michael’s case suggests either a systemic failure or deliberate suppression. It raises pressing questions: Was there industrial negligence? Are political interests involved? Is reputational damage being managed behind closed doors?
In response to this institutional hush, I’ve launched a series of targeted Freedom of Information requests aimed at unearthing withheld details — from internal emails and safety assessments to ministerial meetings and agency communications. This isn’t just about one case; it’s about demanding accountability in a system that too often defaults to silence when transparency is most vital. Until there are answers, I won’t stop digging.
Follow my freedom of information requests by clicking the links and following me :
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/inquiry_regarding_cowgate_fatal#incoming-3074014
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/foi_request_council_response_to#outgoing-1891045.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/foi_request_cowgate_fatal_collis#outgoing-1891044
An update from Edinburgh Council 8/08/25
Please look at all the responses from Edinburgh council which has redacted a lot of information. They have stated that by releasing information of a certain nature would inhibit open dialogue between parties. This is highly unusual as if it was a straight decapitation from a bus wheel they would have shared this information. Please view council response and I'm working on different avenues to show what really did happen.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/foi_request_council_response_to#incoming-3171691
Requests from the council and the Police due 1st of August 2025.
If any police officer or spokesperson knowingly made false or misleading statements in connection with the Cowgate incident, several legal and procedural avenues are available depending on the nature and impact of the falsehood:
- Misconduct in Public Office: If an officer knowingly lied in an official capacity, they could face criminal charges under common law. This offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, though typical sentences range from months to several years.
- Perverting the Course of Justice: Deliberate falsehoods that obstruct or mislead an investigation may qualify as this serious offence. It includes fabricating evidence or knowingly making false statements that influence legal outcomes.
- Perjury: If false statements were made under oath (e.g. in court or sworn affidavits), perjury charges may apply. This is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment.
Civil and Regulatory Remedies
- Police Complaints: You can file a formal complaint with Police Scotland’s Professional Standards Department or escalate to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC). If dishonesty is proven, it may result in disciplinary action, dismissal, or referral for prosecution.
- Judicial Review: If a false statement influenced a public decision (e.g. closure of investigation, refusal to release footage), you may seek judicial review in the Court of Session to challenge the lawfulness of that decision.
- Freedom of Information (FOI): FOI requests can expose inconsistencies between internal communications and public statements. If discrepancies are found, they can support escalation to oversight bodies or legal action.
MEDIA CONTACTED AND NO REPOSNSE
- Edinburgh Evening News
- Scotsman
- Daily Record