Met anti-terror head for the chop...

[detective-boy]

As a witness to a crime which was perpetrated upon myself, I gave a first class
description of one person (according to the police) and almost of the second person. Apart from one big mistake, I could have sworn the 2nd person had a dark jacket on but as it happened so fast I was mistaken. They had a white jacket with a black shirt.
Luckily there were good cctv images and it resulted in a conviction.
I consider myself pretty good at describing people and have a few tricks to help me, such as noting where the top of the head comes to against a doorway.

Exactly the sort of incident which underlines the possible pitfalls of witness accounts, especially in fast / traumatic incidents. You end up with a very convincing witness who honestly IS telling the truth as they recall it ... but, sadly, that is NOT what actually happened!

Although there is no legal requirement for corroboration of a witness in most cases in England and Wales (Scotland is very different) it is always sought as a matter of good investigative practice (and it is precisely why the polce always want all available witnesses to come forward, even if they have some / many already).

 

[detective-boy]

"One account given to the media ...

If you go back and find the contemporaneous TV / print media reports I think you will find this is exactly right - they found a "witness" (or, perhaps, they made one up) at the scene at the time. (i.e. "Given to the media" means made to the media as opposed to handed to them by the police).

It would certainly not be the first time that a "witness" found by the media tells a very different story to everyone else and turns out to be untraceable (creating major difficulties for the investigation). It's happened personally to me many times.

 

[Jazzz]

Let's get a dose of reality in here.

The police knew as soon as they fumbled through the poor guy's pockets and found his driving license that they'd pumped a perfectly innocent bloke full of lead. They knew damn well what had happened.

They chose not to tell us, and whether the media machine was worked or not is beside the point - it was spin by omission.

Of course Ian Blair's claim that he didn't know who the guy was until a day later just reeks of 'I didn't hear you tell me it was the wrong guy so I can carry on pretending'.

Let's not forget that Paddick said they knew, they said he was lying, he threatened them with court action and they backed down.

 

[butchersapron]

If you go back and find the contemporaneous TV / print media reports I think you will find this is exactly right - they found a "witness" (or, perhaps, they made one up) at the scene at the time. (i.e. "Given to the media" means made to the media as opposed to handed to them by the police).

It would certainly not be the first time that a "witness" found by the media tells a very different story to everyone else and turns out to be untraceable (creating major difficulties for the investigation). It's happened personally to me many times.

I'm absolutely sure that this has happened as you describe and will happen again, i'm equally sure that the police have engaged in it for short-term expediency as well (leaving problems down the road).

 

[laptop]

"account given to the media" is an interestingly ambiguous phrase for the IPCC to use.

If they'd interviewed the journalist to whom it was given - and I remember no journalists in the list of people mentioned in the report - they'd have been bound to "protect their source" anyway, if it was said to them in confidence. Whether that source were a mistaken member of the public, or an official (MPS or other) saying what someone else had said...

 

[Ned Pointsman]

Ned posted in post#44
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6305993&postcount=44

According to the bbc, the report says "One account given to the media wrongly described Mr Menezes as wearing a bomb belt with wires coming from it. This witness has not come forward to the IPCC."

I was suggesting that this may have come from a police source to justify the killing in the immdiate aftermath of the incident, or from a coppere who had heard it from another police source at the time, and that it was only passed on with the understanding that it was reported as a coming from a witness not OB. Hence their total dissapearance -they didn't exist so couldn't come forward.

You've misunderstood slightly, we know that was said by this guy larkin.

Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man appeared to be wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".

We know the guys name, the ipcc know the guys name (though presumably the ipcc aren't like a congressional hearing or something, they cant summon people) he's obviously not some anonymous source, where it gets interesting is here. And perhaps explains, if indeed anthony larkin (and it could well just be pure coincidence) is not a care assistant from hartlepool and is instead the Lead Scientist at the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Department, why he didn't come forward to the commission.

 

[laptop]

if indeed anthony larkin (and it could well just be pure coincidence) is not a care assistant from hartlepool and is instead the Lead Scientist at the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Department, why he didn't come forward to the commission.

It could be coincidence. There are currently two Anthony Larkins in Hartlepool - and at least four in London.

 

[detective-boy]

And perhaps explains, if indeed anthony larkin (and it could well just be pure coincidence) is not a care assistant from hartlepool and is instead the Lead Scientist at the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Department, why he didn't come forward to the commission.

There is no evidence to suggest that the two Anthony Larkins are the same. Whilst it is not the most common name, I suspect there are dozens around the country.

Just reading his account again, however, knowing what we now know about the sequence of events, there is another possible explanation for what he reported seeing. We know that Mr de Menezes was already on the train, with a surveillance team around him. We know that the armed officers arrived and ran into the station, down onto the platforms to challenge him. It would be perfectly logical for them to be met at the front and taken down by a member of the surveillance team. Surveillance teams wear "body set" radio equipment which often involves a body harness of sorts and, sometimes, wires between different bits of the kit. They sometimes wear jackets when everyone else is in T-shirts to conceal this. Larkin describes a man in a black bomber jacket "being chased by" the armed officers along the platform and this man having wires protruding and wearing a "bomb belt".

What he saw COULD be perfectly accurate - the man in front could have been the surveillance officer leading the armed officers down, with his radio equipment becoming visible as he ran. What Larkin CONCLUDED, or what the media made of what he saw (that the man was the suspect and the wires, etc. were a bomb belt) could be wrong, as we now know it is, without meaning that he was lying.

Without having Larkin available for cross-examination, or revisiting other witnesses (e.g. the surveillance team) it is not possible to know. But to reduce this point to was he lying or not is too simplistic - he could be telling the truth about what he saw and that could still be consistent with what we know know to have happened from others.

 

[Ned Pointsman]

It could be coincidence. There are currently two Anthony Larkins in Hartlepool - and at least four in London.

Hence.

and it could well just be pure coincidence

 

[Ned Pointsman]

There is no evidence to suggest that the two Anthony Larkins are the same. Whilst it is not the most common name, I suspect there are dozens around the country.

Not turning up to an ipcc investigation into lies when your testimony was one of the cornerstones that allowed those lies to propagate, I believe could be described as circumstantial. What's more likely, that the lead forensic scientist at the met is at the scene of a major crime in london or that a care assistant from well over one hundred miles away is on a train in london in the middle of the week.

As the guy has apparently disappeared and the police nor the ipcc have any desire to track him down, we'll never know. The whole shrugging of the shoulders from the ipcc on this guy just doesn't seem right.

Just reading his account again, however, knowing what we now know about the sequence of events, there is another possible explanation for what he reported seeing. We know that Mr de Menezes was already on the train, with a surveillance team around him. We know that the armed officers arrived and ran into the station, down onto the platforms to challenge him. It would be perfectly logical for them to be met at the front and taken down by a member of the surveillance team. Surveillance teams wear "body set" radio equipment which often involves a body harness of sorts and, sometimes, wires between different bits of the kit. They sometimes wear jackets when everyone else is in T-shirts to conceal this. Larkin describes a man in a black bomber jacket "being chased by" the armed officers along the platform and this man having wires protruding and wearing a "bomb belt".

What he saw COULD be perfectly accurate - the man in front could have been the surveillance officer leading the armed officers down, with his radio equipment becoming visible as he ran. What Larkin CONCLUDED, or what the media made of what he saw (that the man was the suspect and the wires, etc. were a bomb belt) could be wrong, as we now know it is, without meaning that he was lying.

Possible, could, sometimes, that's not really an explanation, it's supposition, stretching the fabric of a best case scenario over the framework what 'sometimes' happens, I'd like to think surveillance officers aren't in the habit of being in the middle of having a piss then deciding to follow someone because they've got 'Mongolian eyes' this wasn't a 'what normally logically happens' event.

One of the theories banded about was that Menezes was attacked a few weeks prior which is why he ignored any police instruction/tried to get away from those shouting at him (if indeed there were any,) if that instruction came from people quite obviously regaled in police paraphernalia, would he not have been more likely to heed that instruction ?

Without having Larkin available for cross-examination,

But he IS available unless he's dead, which the ipcc would have surely reported as they went to the trouble of mentioning his absence in the first place.

or revisiting other witnesses (e.g. the surveillance team) it is not possible to know. But to reduce this point to was he lying or not is too simplistic - he could be telling the truth about what he saw and that could still be consistent with what we know know to have happened from others.

He could also be lying/over egging it as I suggested earlier or he could be the chief forensic scientist for the met who didn't turn up to an ipcc investigation as an apparently independent witness because someone would have pointed out that he's the chief forensic scientist for the met.

 

[detective-boy]

Not turning up to an ipcc investigation into lies when your testimony was one of the cornerstones that allowed those lies to propagate, I believe could be described as circumstantial. What's more likely, that the lead forensic scientist at the met is at the scene of a major crime in london or that a care assistant from well over one hundred miles away is on a train in london in the middle of the week.

Arguably the latter.

I have never known a forensic scientist to be present during an armed surveillance operation. They sometimes, albeit rarely, attend the scene some time later, during the scene examination phase ... but that is not what is being talked about here.

And, as I read the link, he used to be with the Forensic Science Service but was now with Forensic Alliance, a private company who sometimes provide forensic science services to the police, including the Met. They would ONLY be engaged during the course of a subsequent investigation. They have no involvement even in the scene examination process, far less in an armed surveillance operation ...

And as for whether the witness didn't "turn up", do you know if he was asked? If he was ever properly identified? If it was a real name? If anything really ...

 

[paolo]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if a member of the public who had (seemingly*) made such a gravely incorrect observation, went to ground.

Would anyone want to be labelled and paraded as the person who said "he had a bomb... blah blah"... given what subsequently became clear?

I know I wouldn't.

(* A nod here to DB's earlier comment. The observation might have been totally correct, but misinterpreted.)

 

[butchersapron]

Just been reading through some of the summaries of the full report and something jumped out at me: Blair, who claims not to have been told of any suspicions or rumours that JCDM was innocent for 24 hours, attended a meeting of the police management board at 5PM the day of the shooting at which Hayman said:

"There is press running that the person shot is not one of the four bombers. We need to present this that he is believed to be. This is different to confirming that he is. On the balance of probabilities, it isn’t. To have this for offer would be low risk."

Now, the IPCC report then says:

"There is no indication that anyone at the meeting challenged AC Hayman when he referred to presenting the deceased as a wanted bomber although it was likely he was not. It would follow that if those at the meeting understood what was proposed and agreed with this course of action then those present were party to an agreement to mislead the media and the public."

All seems fine and straightforward - Blair was at a meeting where it was agreed to cover up JCDM's innocence 8 hours after the shooting[i/], and that agreement could only have been made on the basis that there was already evidence that a mistake had been made - and that thefore Blair was aware of the jist of it from Hayman's intervention at the management meeting he attended - yet he claims to have no idea until 24 hours later.

Yet the conclusion that the IPCC report draws is that

"When the commissioner left New Scotland Yard mid evening on July 22 2005 he was almost totally uninformed."

 

[laptop]

All seems fine and straightforward - Blair was at a meeting where it was agreed to cover up JCDM's innocence 8 hours after the shooting, and that agreement could only have been made on the basis that there was already evidence that a mistake had been made - and that thefore Blair was aware of the jist of it from Hayman's intervention at the management meeting he attended - yet he claims to have no idea until 24 hours later.

Yet the conclusion that the IPCC report draws is that

"When the commissioner left New Scotland Yard mid evening on July 22 2005 he was almost totally uninformed."

There is a way of reconciling that statement with the meeting discussion.

It begins "the Commissioner is too stupid..."

Columnist in the Sunday Mirror gunning for him...

 

[detective-boy]

"There is press running that the person shot is not one of the four bombers. We need to present this that he is believed to be. This is different to confirming that he is. On the balance of probabilities, it isn’t. To have this for offer would be low risk."

I think it is worth reading that quote in the light of knowledge of how the police / press work.

The police will proactively release information when they are sufficiently sure that it is accurate. That will be in the form of a Press Release which contains the information, which is proactively sent to their "mailing list" and which is "posted" on the Press Bureau site / phone-in line used by the media. In relation to deaths, they have a number of considerations, not least the issue of identification of the deceased and informing the family. There would invariably be no proactive naming of a deceased (no matter what the circumstances) until (a) it had been confirmed and (b) all that was possible had been done to inform the family.

Investigating / Senior officers may also, however, provide Press Bureau with additional information which they can release "if asked" - in other words they will not proactively release it but, if the journalist asks, then the question will be answered with that response. This is often used in cases where the media have established something themselves which the police cannot positively confirm (for whatever reason) but where it would be improper / damaging (to investigation, community, victims or whatever) to say nothing.

They will NOT say anything which is wrong as it will come back and bite them in a number of ways. (There are various alleged "back channels" where information is said to be released unattributably but I am talking about anything which has passed through the official channels).

AC Haymans comment acknowledges the media stories that the victim was not the intended suspect but, at that time, his identity would not have been confirmed to the point where it could be proactively included in a Press Release. They could not say he WAS the bomber but equally they could not say he WASN'T. The "he is believed to be" would be the only option (it being a continuation of the belief at the time of the actual shooting) left. The "On the balance of probabilities, it isn’t" piece for offer suggests that if pressed on how strong that "belief" was, it would be acknowledged that it was not looking likely.

Ironically, the "risk" he referred to is probably (it is not clear without seeing the context of the quote) referring to the risk of allegations of misleading press releases ...

Rather than it confirming a "cover-up" eight hours after the incident, it probably only reflects the fairly common situation nowadays where the media have something which cannot be formally confirmed yet by the police for legitimate reasons. It would be better described as a "delaying" or "holding" position as it is hardly credible to expect that the police would even think they could continue to deny that it was, in fact, Jean Charles de Menezes and not the bombing suspect who was dead.

Whether it was handled as well as it could be, or whether an exception from the normal approach should have been considered in this case, is certainly debatable! (Personally, I think a proactively issued statement saying "It is looking increasingly likely that the person killed was NOT the bombing suspect but idenitification has yet to be positively confirmed" may, with hindsight have been better ... but bearing in mind that there was an ongoing operation to find the suspects (including the one believed to have been shot!) there may well have been reasons for not doing this which have not been highlighted.)

 

[butchersapron]

...and Blair didn't ask Hayman if the stories the press had got hold of were true?

It's not about the media -that's neither here nor there, it's about Blair's reaction when told of these rumours by Hayman well before the 24 hours had elapsed. It's simply not credible that he sat there and said or asked nothing - and if he didn't, then why the hell not?

I don't believe it for a second, especially considering that he had made other contributions to the management board discussion on how to handle the issue publically - part of that discussion was what spin was needed to be put on things (for whatever reason) and that would have entailed discussion of what facts they had or what they suspected to be the case.

Blair has the 'i was too stupid' option as mentioned by laptop, but i'm starting to think his real one is 'you're all too stupid not to buy the i'm too stupid act'

 

[detective-boy]

It's simply not credible that he sat there and said or asked nothing - and if he didn't, then why the hell not?

That would be my view, too (as I have posted several times previously).

 

[butchersapron]

...and let's be perfectly clear here,the reason that the press were reporting that the OB had made a mistake, they they hadn't killed Hussain Osman as they believed, was because Hayman had already told them that at a meeting of the CRA at 4 PM.. Db's second last para in post #75 seems to be wrong then. This is actually the core of the complaint about Hayman that was upheld by the IPCC.

 

[detective-boy]

...and let's be perfectly clear here,the reason that the press were reporting that the OB had made a mistake, they they hadn't killed Hussain Osman as they believed, was because Hayman had already told them that at a meeting of the CRA at 4 PM.. Db's second last para in post #75 seems to be wrong then. This is actually the core of the complaint about Hayman that was upheld by the IPCC.

The Crime Reporter's Association have a long-standing agreement with the police that things can be shared with them on the basis that they are not reported yet (or only reported in certain terms). This allows them to carry out background work on a story in preparation for when it can be published. Such instances include kidnaps, background briefings about ongoing prosecutions and trials and such like. From the police point of view it means that stories identified by the media where there are genuine reasons to delay full publication can be prevented from running out of control and damaging investigations, victims, communities or whatever (including police / public reputation / relations).

Things shared with the CRA are frequently not public, official confirmations - they are more in the nature of briefings / updates on "work in progress".

I would expect that the "On the balance of probabilities, it isn't" bit is exactly what they were told.

Whether briefings to the CRA on this basis are a good thing or not is debatable, but they have functioned effectively and to mutual satisfaction for many years.

 

[butchersapron]

The Crime Reporter's Association have a long-standing agreement with the police that things can be shared with them on the basis that they are not reported yet (or only reported in certain terms). This allows them to carry out background work on a story in preparation for when it can be published. Such instances include kidnaps, background briefings about ongoing prosecutions and trials and such like. From the police point of view it means that stories identified by the media where there are genuine reasons to delay full publication can be prevented from running out of control and damaging investigations, victims, communities or whatever (including police / public reputation / relations).

Things shared with the CRA are frequently not public, official confirmations - they are more in the nature of briefings / updates on "work in progress".

I would expect that the "On the balance of probabilities, it isn't" bit is exactly what they were told.

Whether briefings to the CRA on this basis are a good thing or not is debatable, but they have functioned effectively and to mutual satisfaction for many years.

That may well be the situation but it's not really relavent. In this case he was asked which of the four targets had been shot and he he replied that it was none of them and that was then reported. The reporting or the possible agreements with CRA are not the issue here, but that Hayman then went directly to the management board meeting and told them the exact opposite - that's the issue and that's why the IPCC upheld the complaint against him. And that's what allowed Blair off the hook - that and the lack of detailed agreed minutes at the latter meeting.

 

[detective-boy]

...he replied that it was none of them...

Is that his accepted exact words?

 

[TAE]

Columnist in the Sunday Mirror gunning for him...

I think the first four paragraphs are shite, but the rest is very good.

 

[TAE]

It's simply not credible that he sat there and said or asked nothing

It gets stranger and stranger.

 

[butchersapron]

Is that his accepted exact words?

Have you read the reports summary conclusions or the relevant sections of the report as you keep querying the very basics of the complaint, the one that the IPCC upheld against Hayman in particular. This is the report's summary conclusion on this matter:

The investigation report finds that the matters relating to Assistant Commissioner Andrew Hayman are substantiated. It is recommended that the MPA consider what action they intend to take concerning the conduct issues identified in relation to AC Hayman.

The report concludes that AC Hayman's actions in relation to his briefing the Crime Reporters' Association (CRA), at about 4.30 p.m., and then misleading the attendees at the 5.00 p.m. management board meeting and sub-meeting led to inaccurate or misleading information being released by the Metropolitan Police.

AC Hayman either misled the public when he briefed the CRA that the deceased was not one of the four or when he allowed the 6.44 p.m. 22 July press release to state that it was not known if the deceased was one of the four. He could not have believed both inconsistent statements were true.

The investigation concluded that there were serious weaknesses by the Metropolitan Police in the handling of critical information including within the senior management team.

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr020807_stockwell2.htm

And it's contained in the report pages pages 6-11. It;s not denied that this what Hayman told the CRA, not by anyone - indeed, it forms the basis for the reports conclusions.

 

[detective-boy]

Have you read the reports summary conclusions or the relevant sections of the report as you keep querying the very basics of the complaint, the one that the IPCC upheld against Hayman in particular.

Yes. I have. Thank you for the quote taken from that. I take no issue with their findings. It is inconsistent to brief the CRA one way and then allow the later Press statement.

But it does not answer my question. When you said:

In this case he was asked which of the four targets had been shot and he he replied that it was none of them and that was then reported.

are they his accepted exact words? I have not seen them anywhere else (though I have not read the full report in detail as yet).

 

[butchersapron]

Yes. I have. Thank you for the quote taken from that. I take no issue with their findings. It is inconsistent to brief the CRA one way and then allow the later Press statement.

But it does not answer my question. When you said:

are they his accepted exact words? I have not seen them anywhere else (though I have not read the full report in detail as yet).

I don't know his exact words, this is what the report says about it (one of things anyway):

"At about 16:30hrs AC Hayman was due to address the Crime Reporters Association (CRA). This followed the press conference which had just released the images of the four men wanted in connection with the previous day’s attempted bombings. He was accompanied by MPS Press Officers. Prior to the briefing, the press officers advised AC Hayman that he was likely to be asked by members of the CRA which of the four men had been shot. He was also advised by one of the press officers that he understood the deceased was not believed to be one of the four terrorist bombers. In anticipation of such questions AC Hayman made a telephone call.

According to witnesses, shortly after 16:30hrs AC Hayman briefed the CRA that the deceased was not one of the four sought in connection with the previous day’s failed attacks. AC Hayman could recall none of the detail of his briefing when he was subsequently interviewed, though in later correspondence his legal representatives claimed that he must have briefed this gathering to the effect that the deceased was “not believed” to be one of the four."(My emphasis)

Which, without giving the exact words seems pretty clear that he gave words to the effect that the dead man was not of the the four suspects and that he doesn't contest that he did so.

 

[detective-boy]

I don't know his exact words, this is what the report says about it (one of things anyway):

Thanks. Although the words may appear the same, a definite "it's not one of them" would have suggested a level of knowledge about identification that an "it's not believed" would not, and would suggest the identification process was a lot more advanced than everything else suggests.

 

[paolo]

I was going to raise the issue of Hayman's press briefing.

Thanks DB for explaining how/why these things happen.

The impression (and it really is just an impression) I have is that in the subsequent senior management meeting, where Hayman said what line he expected the press to take (wrong man), he didn't also say that he'd breifed the press with that line only an hour earlier. Surely he would have had to tell someone (a peer, a boss) what line he was taking, for reasons of accountability?

----

That aside, there's still something amiss - at least if you consider Paddick's recent interview "vs. Blair". One of them is lying, or to be charitable, being a bit selective with the truth.

On that count, with the very limited knowledge I have of the events or those individuals, I'm finding it hard to be both objective and satisfied we know the truth. And if Stockwell 2 is the end of the matter, I wonder whether we'll ever really know?

 

[butchersapron]

Thanks. Although the words may appear the same, a definite "it's not one of them" would have suggested a level of knowledge about identification that an "it's not believed" would not, and would suggest the identification process was a lot more advanced than everything else suggests.

True enough, but that's just Hayman's half-hearted version that he claims not to even remember through his legal rep though. The IPCC talked to the reporters and others present at the briefing and concluded that he :

"briefed the CRA that the deceased was not one of the four sought in connection with the previous day’s failed attacks"

 

[detective-boy]

The IPCC talked to the reporters and others present at the briefing and concluded that he :

"briefed the CRA that the deceased was not one of the four sought in connection with the previous day’s failed attacks"

I'm not sure that I would take that line as proving he actually said "It's not" in so many words (as opposed to "We don't think it is", "We're pretty sure it isn't" or some similar construction) without knowing the exact circumstances of how it came to be written (i.e. what questions were actually asked of the CRA members, what was their actual recollection, how defibnite were they of their recollection).

Likewise I would not take his recollection, issued later, via his solicitor, as being proof that he didn't.

What we DO know is that at the time he briefed them he did not KNOW the identity of the person for sure (it wasn't definitely confirmed until later that evening) and, knowing AC Hayman, I cannot see him stating definitively something which he could not have actually definitively known at that time.

The issue of concern is not really that anyway - it is the fact that he did not prevent the Commissioner from using an entirely misleading construction in his general Press Statement later - I think it is plain from a variety of accounts (including either of AC Haymans) that by that stage the MPS did not "believe it was" one of the bombers anymore. At very best, they had significant doubts that it was or believed it probably wasn't.