Which Murder Forced Police to Declare Masonic Membership: Daniel Morgan or James William Durrant?

It has now been confirmed that police officers who are members of the Freemasons are required to declare that membership.

This raises an important and unresolved question: what prompted this change?Was it the findings of the Daniel Morgan murder review, or did it arise from wider concerns exposed through other cases — including the investigation into the murder of James William Durrant?

Following Mr Durrant’s brutal and financially motivated murder, an unsigned trust deed was produced and later relied upon by an impostor trustee operating through an offshore jurisdiction. That document did not contain Mr Durrant’s name, his family’s names, nor his signature, yet it was used to justify control over assets accumulated during his lifetime.

If such a document were produced today in the aftermath of a murder, it would raise immediate and serious criminal concerns. The fact that it was accepted without proper scrutiny highlights systemic failures that demand public examination.

The unsigned deed relied upon by the offshore trustee is shown below.

The Metropolitan Police have failed to comply with the lawful deadline of 31 December 2024 to provide Jordan Durante and his father with a full Subject Access Request (SAR).

To date, the Metropolitan Police have supplied Jordan only with information relating to his own previous arrests and interactions with the force, while withholding material directly connected to the murder of James William Durrant and the handling of that investigation.

The Commissioner’s Office has also refused to disclose any documents held in the safe at Mr Durrant’s home, where he was murdered. This refusal has made it impossible for the Durante family to:

• access their rightful inheritance left by Mr Durrant,

• obtain key evidence relevant to the murder investigation, and

• ensure that the wishes of a former RAF Squadron Leader were properly respected and carried out.

The continued failure to provide this information raises serious concerns about transparency, accountability, and compliance with data protection and disclosure obligations.

Jordan Durante understands why the Metropolitan Police continue to withhold the documents held in the safe at James William Durrant’s home.

Those documents are understood to reference “John”, a man who was in business with Mr Durrant from the mid-1970s onward. On the night Mr Durrant was brutally murdered, 26 October 1988, John’s wife filed for divorce in the United States. This coincidence places renewed significance on the late-night meeting at Mr Durrant’s home shortly before his death.

Two days ago, the Commissioner’s Office confirmed by email that the Metropolitan Police will not release any information contained in Mr Durrant’s safe to his family.

Despite this, the police continue to resist any suggestion that the murder was financially motivated. That position is difficult to reconcile with their ongoing refusal — decades later — to allow the family access to documents that directly affect:

• the understanding of the circumstances surrounding the murder, and

• the Durante family’s ability to access their rightful inheritance and give effect to Mr Durrant’s wishes.

If the murder were not financially motivated, a fundamental question remains unanswered:why are the police still blocking transparency and disclosure of documents held in the victim’s own safe?

The email from the Commissioner’s Office confirming the refusal to release these materials is shown below.

On 1 October 2025, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley appeared on BBC News and publicly stated that the Metropolitan Police had a problem with Freemasonry within the force, adding that a report on the issue would be published.

Shortly afterwards, the BBC news clip containing these remarks was removed. A copy of the original clip is retained and referenced below.

Following the removal of the broadcast, Jordan Durante submitted a formal complaint to the BBC, raising concerns about the disappearance of a statement made by the Commissioner on a matter of significant public interest. That complaint, dated 1 December 2025, is also shown below.

Together, these documents raise serious questions about transparency, accountability, and the handling of information relating to policing, Freemasonry, and historic investigations.

A further question now arises: why has it taken years after the Daniel Morgan Review for the police to act at all?Why is movement only occurring now?

Is this timing coincidental, or does it follow the recent pamphlet submitted to the Metropolitan Police, which set out detailed research into the murder of James William Durrant and raised serious concerns about the role of Freemasonry in historic policing failures?

Below is a selection of recent email correspondence between Jordan Durante and the Commissioner’s Office. These communications confirm that the police continue to refuse to release any information held in Mr Durrant’s safe.

By maintaining this position decades after the murder, the police leave themselves open to an unavoidable inference: that individuals within the system are still actively preventing transparency in a case involving a brutal and financially motivated killing, unresolved inheritance issues, and the production of disputed documents after the victim’s murder.

If there is nothing to conceal, the public is entitled to ask a simple question:why are the police still withholding the contents of the victim’s own safe from his family?

The correspondence below is published so the public can judge these matters for themselves.

Subject: Formal Response to SAR Obstruction and Request for Full Disclosure

Dear Miss Ahmed

Thank you for your recent email. I must express my deep concern at the position taken by the Commissioner’s Office.

I formally reiterate my request for full disclosure of all data held under my name, including (but not limited to) any records of previous arrests, reports, call logs, witness statements, emails, internal communications, and any material relating to my contact with the Metropolitan Police since our first interaction. This would include all information related to any of my arrests for clarity yet again.

I also formally repeat the request—submitted jointly by myself and my late father—for full disclosure of all data held under his name. To refuse this SAR, despite my father having granted clear Power of Attorney , demonstrates a continuing refusal by the Metropolitan Police to cooperate transparently.

Your confirmation that the Commissioner’s Office will not comply with these legally valid SAR requests raises serious questions about intent. The continued withholding of information appears to support the longstanding pattern of obstruction surrounding the murder of my grandfather, RAF Squadron Leader James William Durrant, and the associated large-scale financial fraud that followed his brutal murder.

My pamphlet accurately states that the Metropolitan Police will not comply with lawful SAR requests — and this confirmation now makes the pamphlet fully complete.

I will now be formally seeking a public review of my grandfather’s murder and I will also be seeking the removal of Sir Mark Rowley from office, as he has demonstrated that he is unfit to dismantle the Masonic networks operating within the Metropolitan Police. This is especially alarming given that Sir Mark publicly acknowledged on BBC News on 1st October that there is a problem with Freemasonry in the police — a broadcast that has since been removed by the BBC. For clarity, I hold a full copy of this recording with audio.

I once again request a meeting at New Scotland Yard to present the evidence of who murdered my grandfather and how his death was financially motivated by the offshore trust structure and his substantial wealth.

I also remind your office that I hold Power of Attorney for my  father, which continues to be ignored. This refusal demonstrates, in my view, that the Commissioner’s Office is acting outside the law.

If a meeting to review my work continues to be refused, then I am prepared to let the public judge my six years of investigation rather than those within the Metropolitan Police who closed the case and repeatedly dismissed my evidence as “not relevant.” Your own office already confirmed that I identified seven individuals in business with my grandfather — something the original 1988 investigation failed to uncover.

I request that you now act lawfully and supply:

• all information held under my name

• all information held under my father’s name

• all documents from my grandfather’s safe that contain my name or relate to me or my father or close the investigation and release all information to allow the settlors wishes to be concluded and stop hindering the rightful beneficiaries.

I know for a fact that documents bearing my name are held in the safe, and continued refusal to disclose them shows the Metropolitan Police assisting those responsible for a financially motivated murder and blocking the rightful beneficiaries of the murdered settlor’s numerous trusts since 1988.

I request that this matter is escalated immediately and that the Commissioner personally reviews the decision not to comply with the SARs. Anything less will reinforce the perception that the Metropolitan Police are maintaining a cover-up rather than assisting the victim’s family in the pursuit of truth and justice.

I look forward to your urgent reply and to full compliance with both legally valid SARs.

Yours faithfully,Jordan Durante

December 8th 2025-Commissioners office reply.

Dear Mr Durante,

I have now sent you the disclosure of all reports linked directly to you in relation to your previous arrests and interactions you have had with police.

As stated in my prior email no information will be shared to you at this moment in time with relation to your late grandfathers death as this is still an ongoing investigation.

Please be advised that as disclosure of documents linked to you has now been made, your right of access request has been closed.

Further from this I will not be making any further communication with you with regards to your additional requests listed below.

Kind regards,

Naz Ahmed

Data Rights Case Supervisor

Data, Digital & Technology

Metropolitan Police Service

Subject: Formal Response to SAR Obstruction and Request for Full Disclosure

Dear Miss Ahmed

Thank you for your recent email. I must express my deep concern at the position taken by the Commissioner’s Office.

I formally reiterate my request for full disclosure of all data held under my name, including (but not limited to) any records of previous arrests, reports, call logs, witness statements, emails, internal communications, and any material relating to my contact with the Metropolitan Police since our first interaction. This would include all information related to any of my arrests for clarity yet again.

I also formally repeat the request—submitted jointly by myself and my late father—for full disclosure of all data held under his name. To refuse this SAR, despite my father having granted clear Power of Attorney , demonstrates a continuing refusal by the Metropolitan Police to cooperate transparently.

Your confirmation that the Commissioner’s Office will not comply with these legally valid SAR requests raises serious questions about intent. The continued withholding of information appears to support the longstanding pattern of obstruction surrounding the murder of my grandfather, RAF Squadron Leader James William Durrant, and the associated large-scale financial fraud that followed his brutal murder.

My pamphlet accurately states that the Metropolitan Police will not comply with lawful SAR requests — and this confirmation now makes the pamphlet fully complete.

I will now be formally seeking a public review of my grandfather’s murder and I will also be seeking the removal of Sir Mark Rowley from office, as he has demonstrated that he is unfit to dismantle the Masonic networks operating within the Metropolitan Police. This is especially alarming given that Sir Mark publicly acknowledged on BBC News on 1st October that there is a problem with Freemasonry in the police — a broadcast that has since been removed by the BBC. For clarity, I hold a full copy of this recording with audio.

I once again request a meeting at New Scotland Yard to present the evidence of who murdered my grandfather and how his death was financially motivated by the offshore trust structure and his substantial wealth.

I also remind your office that I hold Power of Attorney for my  father, which continues to be ignored. This refusal demonstrates, in my view, that the Commissioner’s Office is acting outside the law.

If a meeting to review my work continues to be refused, then I am prepared to let the public judge my six years of investigation rather than those within the Metropolitan Police who closed the case and repeatedly dismissed my evidence as “not relevant.” Your own office already confirmed that I identified seven individuals in business with my grandfather — something the original 1988 investigation failed to uncover.

I request that you now act lawfully and supply:

• all information held under my name

• all information held under my father’s name

• all documents from my grandfather’s safe that contain my name or relate to me or my father or close the investigation and release all information to allow the settlors wishes to be concluded and stop hindering the rightful beneficiaries.

I know for a fact that documents bearing my name are held in the safe, and continued refusal to disclose them shows the Metropolitan Police assisting those responsible for a financially motivated murder and blocking the rightful beneficiaries of the murdered settlor’s numerous trusts since 1988.

I request that this matter is escalated immediately and that the Commissioner personally reviews the decision not to comply with the SARs. Anything less will reinforce the perception that the Metropolitan Police are maintaining a cover-up rather than assisting the victim’s family in the pursuit of truth and justice.

I look forward to your urgent reply and to full compliance with both legally valid SARs.

Yours faithfully,Jordan Durante

At the time of the original investigation, the senior investigating officers were Freemasons. Two officers in particular — Inspector Butcher and Inspector Bloxham — were identified as Freemasons and confirmed this directly to Jordan Durante’s parents.

One of these officers later assisted Michael Durrant with the cancellation of a speeding ticket, an action which raises legitimate questions about conflicts of interest and professional boundaries in the handling of the case.

The documents held in James William Durrant’s safe are central to understanding why disclosure continues to be resisted.

Those documents identify John and seven other individuals who were in business with Mr Durrant during his lifetime. None of these individuals were identified by the original murder investigation. Instead, they were later described by authorities as having roles only in the aftermath of Mr Durrant’s death, primarily in connection with the family trusts.

This distinction is critical. If these individuals were already in business with Mr Durrant prior to his murder, then their absence from the original investigation represents a serious and unresolved failure — one that can only be properly examined through full disclosure of the contents of the safe.

The Metropolitan Police have stated that Jordan Durante was blocked from contacting the Specialist Casework Team and from calling 101 due to alleged “abusive behaviour”. This assertion requires important clarification.

The screenshot shown below relates to a period when Jordan was repeatedly threatened with arrest for contacting the police while reporting the murder of his grandfather, James William Durrant, from Spain. For months, Jordan was told by the police that no such murder had taken place at 12 Cranes Park Avenue, Surbiton, despite the fact that this was the confirmed location of Mr Durrant’s death.

During this period, Jordan contacted 101 on a daily basis, attempting to have the murder acknowledged and properly recorded. The repeated denial of the murder’s existence, combined with threats of arrest for persisting in reporting it, created an extraordinary and distressing situation.

It was only after months of being dismissed, threatened, and blocked from meaningful engagement that Jordan raised his voice in frustration. Any such reaction must be understood in the context of:

• a confirmed homicide being denied by the police,

• a family seeking answers about a murdered relative,

• and the sustained refusal by the authorities to engage lawfully or transparently.

The screenshot below is published so the public can see;

Eventually, Jordan Durante was asked by the police what steps could be taken to prevent him from continuing to call. By that stage, Jordan had independently located a news clip reporting the murder of his grandfather, James William Durrant, and required the police to view the footage themselves via YouTube.

It was only after this that the police acknowledged the murder and apologised. Jordan was then referred to the Metropolitan Police Historical Murder Unit in Putney.

Subsequently, the Historical Murder Unit wrote to Jordan stating that:

• they were unable to access the YouTube news clip on police computer systems, and

• they were uncertain whether the murder was classified as solved or unsolved.

This correspondence is shown below.

The fact that a confirmed homicide required a family member to locate media evidence decades later — and that specialist officers were unable to determine the status of the case — raises serious concerns about record-keeping, institutional memory, and the handling of historic murder investigations.

The timing of these communications is critical.

The Metropolitan Police only threatened Jordan Durante with a 101 misuse offence during a period when the murder of James William Durrant was not properly listed or acknowledged on police systems. At that time, Jordan was repeatedly reporting a murder that the police themselves were asserting did not exist.

It was this institutional failure — not any intent to harass the police — that led Jordan to persist in calling 101. He was attempting to force recognition of a confirmed homicide that had effectively been erased from official records.

As a direct result , Jordan began publishing independently. This included the creation of the YouTube channel London’s Unlisted Murder, established to document:

• the existence of the murder,

• the absence of official recognition,

• and the difficulties faced by a family seeking basic acknowledgement and disclosure.

Only after public evidence was presented did the police reverse their position, apologise, and refer the matter to the Historical Murder Unit.

The sequence of events raises a serious question of accountability:why was a family member forced to prove the existence of a murder via a news clip of the murder.

It is important to correct a key factual point.

The Specialist Casework Team did not send threatening messages to Jordan Durante regarding alleged communications offences. Those threats came from the 101 call-handling team, and they occurred over a period of months.

This distinction matters. At the time those threats were made, the murder of James William Durrant was not properly listed on the Metropolitan Police’s main systems. Jordan was therefore repeatedly warned about misuse of 101 while reporting a murder that the police themselves had failed to record or acknowledge.

This represents a serious timeline and systems failure, not misconduct by a family member seeking justice. It also explains why the threats ceased once the murder was finally acknowledged and the matter was referred to the Historical Murder Unit.

The wider question raised by this sequence of events is unavoidable and legitimate:how could a confirmed murder remain unlisted within the UK’s primary police records for so long?

That question leads to further issues of public interest, particularly given that:

• an unsigned deed was produced after Mr Durrant’s death naming the FREEMASONS as the beneficiaries.

• the deed named beneficiaries but did not include the settlor’s name or signature, and

• access to key documents has been consistently blocked.

Who has the authority or influence to prevent a murder from being properly recorded, investigated, and disclosed?And who benefits from continued opacity following a financially motivated killing?

These are questions the public is entitled to ask. The documents and correspondence published on this site allow readers to assess the evidence and draw their own conclusions.

John played a role in the family trusts connected to James William Durrant. Yet over the course of several decades, his name is conspicuously absent from legal correspondence, court filings, and professional accounts, despite repeated references to other individuals.

It was only through a Subject Access Request involving correspondence with Sir Edward Davey that Jordan Durante was able to demonstrate that John’s involvement had been known but consistently concealed.[lets not forget JOHN'S fake repayment of $74 million dollars in the road next to where his old business partner Mr Durrant was murdered].

In 2021, Jordan formally notified the Metropolitan Police by email that John and six other individuals had been in business with his grandfather during his lifetime. That email is held and will be published in full. It directly contradicts the long-standing position taken by the police that these individuals played no role until after Mr Durrant’s death. This is also why the police will not supply any of Jordan's communications with them for years as they wish to conceal JOHN'S role and involvement from Jordan and his family.

The continued refusal to acknowledge or investigate this information raises a serious and legitimate concern:why has evidence identifying a key individual connected to Mr Durrant during his lifetime been repeatedly disregarded or withheld?

If the murder of James William Durrant was not financially motivated, there is no rational justification for:

• concealing the contents of Mr Durrant’s safe,

• withholding documents from his immediate family, or

• obstructing access to information necessary for both justice and inheritance.

Transparency would resolve these issues immediately. Continued concealment only deepens concern and undermines confidence in the integrity of the investigation.

The documents published on this site exist so that the public, regulators, and oversight bodies can examine the record for themselves and reach their own conclusions.

Serious concerns exist about the influence exercised within certain offshore jurisdictions, where transparency and accountability are often limited. All agencies and institutions are urged to exercise caution and due diligence when placing trust in individuals or organisations operating in positions of power, particularly where conflicts of interest or undisclosed affiliations may arise.

A public review into the death of James William Durrant will take place in due course. Further evidence and documentation will be released to support that review.

Matters and cases to be examined

The Durrant case intersects with, or raises issues relevant to, a number of historic and international matters that will be examined separately. These include:

• Iran–Contra and associated covert funding networks

• CIA

• Mafia

• Bush family

• Russia

• International bribery case in Australia

• Lawyers tricks in offshore islands

• Robert Maxwell and related financial structures

• Jeffrey Epstein and associated facilitators

• Roberto Calvi and international banking scandals

• Political and military figures connected to arms trading

• Overseas defence and arms-related companies, including historic BAE-linked entities

• Money-laundering methods and offshore concealment

• Police corruption and institutional failure

• Drug-trafficking networks and financial laundering

• Missing assets and unexplained recoveries across jurisdictions

• The $74 million U.S. land transaction

• A series of unresolved or inadequately investigated murders spanning decades

These matters will be addressed carefully, evidence-led, and in context, as further material is released.

Tomorrow’s posts will examine a number of known intelligence figures, many of whom later died in violent or unexplained circumstances. These cases raise serious questions about accountability, transparency, and the risks faced by individuals connected to sensitive financial and intelligence matters.

Thank you for taking the time to read this material. Please consider sharing this case, not only in pursuit of justice for Mr Durrant and his family, but also in the wider public interest — to promote fairness, accountability, and the rule of law.

Kind regards,Jordan Durante