‘Somebody out there knows something’ – Family of Chase Tate still have questions after inquest into death

The family of 23-year-old Chase Tate have been given no answers as to how their son died, despite an inquest concluding into his death.

Chase, also known as Chase North, died on the A1104 near Ulceby Cross close to Alford after a suspected hit and run on the morning of Saturday, January 7 in 2017.

However, despite it being over two years later the police and family still have no answers as to what happened to him.

His family said that he was a loving and caring person and who was working at McDonald’s doing a managers course.

Speaking after the inquest, dad Chris Tate said: “There’s somebody out there that knows something.

“It could be a little bit of information which some may find insignificant but could be what the police need to make a break through.

“We as a family will never feel satisfied until we find out the truth.

“The person who did this knows that they did and they will have to live with that for the rest of their life.

“We have been devastated by Chase’s death, you never expect that you will have to bury your son.

“And not knowing why it happened makes it even worse.

“When he was younger he was shy around people he didn’t know but he came out of his shell.

“He had a lot to look forward to and had just done his managers course for McDonalds.

“For us this isn’t closure but hopefully we will find answers in the future.”

An inquest heard that he was found lying on the floor at Miles Cross Hill by a passing motorist at 5am that morning.

He had been on a night out with friends in Skegness before being dropped at a friend’s house in Alford but for an unknown reason he decided to leave the house and walk out of the town.

He was found to have alcohol and cocaine in his system at the time and was going through a difficult period after splitting up with his girlfriend.

He was seen on CCTV walking out of Alford and towards Ulceby Cross shortly after 4.30am.

Police launched an investigation which was described as one of the biggest in the department for the past 10 years which managed to trace every vehicle which travelled along the road during the time frame.

However, despite arresting two people no further action was ever taken.

Speaking at the inquest held today Detective Inspector Ewan Gell said that each motorist had been tracked down and spoken to but no evidence was found to suggest that any of those vehicles were involved.

It was heard that despite efforts there was a ‘gap in the net’ as CCTV footage couldn’t cover minor roads.

Collision Investigator Raymond Holloway for Lincolnshire Police who attended the scene also gave evidence.

He said: “I could not see any shoe marks or debris to identify the place where he was struck.

“I have never come across anything like that before in my career.

“It is very unusual to not find anything at the scene, I have personally dealt with in excess of 200 fatal collisions.”

Royal Mail driver John Clancy gave live evidence at the hearing as he was interviewed and his car examined.

He had driven past and claims to have seen Chase walking along at the side of the road – however there were inconsistencies on the location where he had seen him.

The red paint of his vehicle was thought to match the paint found on Chase – but after thorough examination it was found that they did not match.

Pathologist Frances Hollingbury said that he had injuries consistent with being a pedestrian hit by a moving vehicle.

She gave a medical cause of death of head and chest injuries.

Senior Coroner Timothy Brennand said that the only conclusion that he could possibly return was an open one.

He said: “It’s clear that the essential evidence must come from the driver of the vehicle who struck Chase.

“That driver is still in a position that they know what happened. It could be someone in the local community or someone from further afield with good local knowledge of back lanes.

“I would urge that person to search their conscience and make themselves known.

“Nothing could have been proven with any certainty to bring back any short form conclusion.”