more lies about jean charles

[Donna Ferentes]

It's probably not best to approach the question on a personal level.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

It's just Mr.Bishie doing some willy-waving about how he knows more about guns and shit than the moronic coppers ... He seems to think that they show a "lack of discipline and control".

I'm voicing an opinion, some of which is based on knowledge & experience. Stop throwing the insults around, & stop making excuses.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

The IPCC found no evidence of any improper change of logbook entry. It's in their report.

Their report appears to read:

Alteration of the surveillance log

20.111 There is no doubt that the surveillance log has been altered. That would not have occurred if the investigation had been referred to the IPCC immediately and in accordance with the practice that had been established during the previous fifteen months of the existence of the IPCC. The alteration totally changes the context of the entry from ‘I believed it was NT’ to ‘and I believed it was not NT’. The significance of this cannot be over stated. The evidence obtained by the IPCC does not make it possible to establish with any certainty who was responsible for the alteration. However, it is possible to infer that a clear motive lay behind the alteration. The investigation has not found sufficient evidence against any individual to make it possible to suggest that criminal proceedings might be appropriate."

I'm not sure I can interpret that as meaning "found no evidence of any improper change of logbook entry". If I am wrong, why am I wrong?

 

[detective-boy]

I'm not sure I can interpret that as meaning "found no evidence of any improper change of logbook entry". If I am wrong, why am I wrong?

The released report contains signficantly more detail than was previously known.

It concerns me that the officers have "hidden" behind their (perfectly legal and proper) legal advice and rights and have not provided an explanation or answered questions in interview. Although this by no means shows that there was any misconduct (no-one assumes any other suspect who remains silent is guilty), I strongly believe that police officers should (morally) explain themselves to the public.

There is no reliable evidence (at least in the summary in the report) of whether or not the added words were in the same hand as the rest of the log or in a different hand (the experts seem to disagree).

There is an implication (but no more than that) in the account of the loggist that if they added the words then it would have been because on re-reading the log, they realised they had made a mistake. As I explained at the time it is quite normal for a surveillance team to debrief an operation and, on realising that the log compiled by an individual officer working from their own observation and often imperfect radio messages, to make the changes. They should, however, be initialled and a note of the circumstances be kept. If that was the case here, and it was innocent correction of a genuine mistake, I would have hoped for an explanation to have been provided. As none has that does tend to suggest something is not right.

That said, I still doubt vey much that the change, wrong though it is, has made any significant difference - there are several bits of the curveillance which suggest they thought it was / might be Osman and several bits which suggest otherwise. And, overall, I don't think there is any doubt that the consensus of the surveillance team was that they thought probably not.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

When you say "surveillance team" you mean the people watching the Tulse Hill flat?

If that's so, I find it astonishing that we can get from him probably not being Osman to his being executed, based on...what additional information? Getting off and on the bus at Brixton?

 

[detective-boy]

If that's so, I find it astonishing that we can get from him probably not being Osman to his being executed, based on...what additional information? Getting off and on the bus at Brixton?

As I have repeatedly said, and has been stressed in all the reports, one of the main problems was communiction, so we had a surveillance team who thought one thing and an armed team who thought something quite different.

You (and many others) make the mistake of treating police officers as if they are all as one and have perfect shared perception. They aren't and they don't. They are individuals. Just because one individual (or team) knows / thinks one thing does not automatically mean another individual (or team) knows / thinks the same.