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.
