Officer who who altered de Menezes notes cleared of "deliberate deception"
- Thread starter danny la rouge
- Start date
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Word records a lot of stuff. There is a record of how many times it has been edited, when and by who. If track changes was not turned off, the entire history of the edits would be easily available. It's almost certainly recoverable even without track changes being used.
We get reports through from industry which put their slant on the research that we're doing. It's quite amusing when they forgot to deal with track changes before sending us the reports. Has helped us spot some of their more egregious lies on occasion too.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
It's like multiplying negatives in maths, see? So if you tell an even number of lies, the net effect is that you're telling the truth.
That was the account given in reports where that level of detail was provided (as opposed to most where it was not).
On what basis do you say it was wrong.
I have asked several times. Please point me in the direction of the more detailed account you are basing your comment on.
The bit he changed was about the words used by Cressda Dick, the Commander in charge at the time, in relation to whether she wanted the suspect stopped before entering the tube or not. I don't think there is any confusion over that, it is clearly recounted in almost all the reports in a consistent way. What is not detailed in most is exactly what the note was / why he kept it, etc.
I have found some reports that do add some more detail in that area (and, based on that, provide my best interpretation of what is being referred to) but butchersapron states baldly that that is 100% wrong without revealing the source of his better information.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Plesae, just do some basic research on this point alone (i'm shocked that this presentatiion is after you've already done research):
2. The initial note was not made contemporaneously (i.e. at the time) but some time later
hint: Search for the actual pharase used.
2. The initial note was not made contemporaneously (i.e. at the time) but some time later
hint: Search for the actual pharase used.
It is indeed ... but it is not immediately obvious (unlike the official control room records such as CAD which are specifically designed to overtly reveal any changes (including the words removed) by printing a summary of editing, etc. at the end of the printout in a way which can be understood by a non-techie.
And I can honestly say that I can count the number of times I saw "track changes" used by police officers on the fingers of one hand! Most have trouble turning off the Caps Lock ...
Thank you for your helpful approach. Would it really be so difficult just to provide the link you are relying upon rather than wasting a load of my time searching for it?
(ETA: For your information, The Independent report was the one I took the quote from in my earlier post:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/de-menezes-officer-cleared-of-deception-1690940.html
The report on Adfero (a leading online news provider) mentioned quite clearly that it was not contemporaneous:
and explained that it was in fact made in or about late July:
I have no reason to doubt the veracity of these reports. I do not see any reason to suspect that they made this level of detail up. Please provide your source for claiming that they are inaccurate.)
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Thank you for your helpful approach. Would it really be so difficult just to provide the link you are relying upon rather than wasting a load of my time searching for it?
Did you not find it during your detailed research?
That's from a post by me to you 6 months ago. Link
You dissapeared after that.
Further to the above:
The IPCC have now placed their press release on the case on their website (it is dated 26 May but was not on their site when I checked yesterday).
It contains the exact phrases used in the Adfero report.
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr26052009.htm
Now, unless you provide a source to more detailed and contradictory information (and I don't mean some post made by you - I mean an actual informed source), I intend to take that as a definitive account of what the investigation ascertained. (ETA: The original reports did not have the benefit of the investigation - they were reporters accounts of what they thought had been said at the inquest. The way they phrased what they had heard implied that it had been contemporaneously recorded, hence my confusion about what was being said now. It is a classic example of how you need to investigate things fully before reaching a conclusion about what happened, and how more recent sources may well have more and better details than older ones).
Don't suppose there'll be any chance of an apology though ...
The IPCC have now placed their press release on the case on their website (it is dated 26 May but was not on their site when I checked yesterday).
It contains the exact phrases used in the Adfero report.
IPCC said:
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr26052009.htm
Now, unless you provide a source to more detailed and contradictory information (and I don't mean some post made by you - I mean an actual informed source), I intend to take that as a definitive account of what the investigation ascertained. (ETA: The original reports did not have the benefit of the investigation - they were reporters accounts of what they thought had been said at the inquest. The way they phrased what they had heard implied that it had been contemporaneously recorded, hence my confusion about what was being said now. It is a classic example of how you need to investigate things fully before reaching a conclusion about what happened, and how more recent sources may well have more and better details than older ones).
Don't suppose there'll be any chance of an apology though ...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You are fucking joking 
This why we don't trust you.
You do think we're all mugs don't you?
This why we don't trust you.
You do think we're all mugs don't you?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The quality of what the investigation ascertained is what's under question. You're helping by pointing out obvious contradictions with other existing evidence in it's findings.
Urbanblues
Was that it, life?
Most have trouble turning off the Caps Lock ...
...and turning on the truth!
Urbanblues
Was that it, life?
So, no change there then...
DexterTCN
Troy and Abed in the morning
IPCC. Useless cunts.
Cressida was going to let JC go on the Tube, someone else 'convinced' her not to. JC, an innocent man, dies.
That's the gist of what's being implied here. And look how hard the fucking IPCC look into it.
This should be in an open court, not being decided on by this lot.
This is an extremely valid point.
As I think I have posted previously, those who have experienced investigations by Professional Standards Departments and the IPCC into serious incidents know that they are thorough and that you are very much expected to account for your actions. They also know that the CPS give very thorough consideration to criminal prosecution and, if there are inconsistencies, charges will be pursued.
But those who have not got this experience see only that a decision has been made behind closed doors and it is totally understandable that it is perceived as a cover-up. There is also the fact that a paper file, with written statements and taped interviews with suspects, is very different from having evidence given live and tested by cross-examination and sometimes an erroneous impression can be gained as to the strength of the evidence or the reliability of an account (something that applies equally to many ordinary cases which the CPS review).
Whilst I would not advocate police officers (or other State agents) suspected of criminality being subject to an entirely different system, there is definitely scope for the decisions of the IPCC / CPS in serious cases being tested, after they have been made in the normal way, by some form of public hearing, similar to a US Grand Jury, presided over by a judge, perhaps sitting with a jury, with witnesses and defendant called to give evidence live and subject to cross-examination by an advocate for the public (similar to the counsel for the Inquiry in public inquiries). This hearing would be able to confirm the CPS / IPCC decision or substitute it's own in it's place (perhaps even with power to commit directly to the Crown Court for trial).
If (as I suspect) the vast majority of decisions made by the IPCC / CPS were found to be quite proper on the evidence, the hearings would at least ensure that the public heard the evidence and that it was thoroughly tested, something that is only right and proper in cases where police officers and other State agents use fatal force, etc.
The system we have at present has lost the faith of the public ... but any system in which decisions are made administratively, behind closed doors will sooner or later lose the faith of the public.
That wasn't her evidence, as I recall it.
The key issue was that there was not a specialist firearms team present until the very last minute - she did not want to authorise the surveillance team to do the stop (they are not specialist firearms officers and are armed only for their own protection, they have no body armour on, etc.) because she was advised the armed officers were only minutes away. That proved to be inaccurate and as he was about to get off the bus and go into the tube station she authorised the surveillance team to intervene, only for the armed team to immediately say they had now arrived, causing her to revoke her first decision and direct the armed team to do the stop (believing, incorrectly, that they knew, as she appears to have done, that the surveillance team did NOT believe that the subject was actually carrying a concealed IED).
I do not recall any of her evidence being to the effect that she would have allowed him to enter the station.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It was what this note said.
Now you can do your circular thing and point ot the eport as evidence that it didn't.
Now you can do your circular thing and point ot the eport as evidence that it didn't.
This note contained the recollections of one officer, not centrally involved in the process but present in the Control Room at the time. His evidence was different from the contents of the note. But I am not referring to that - I am referring to the evidence of Cressida Dick. I do not recall her evidence (i.e. what she told the IPCC / Courts) being that she would have allowed the subject to enter to station at any stage. Whether or not the note by another officer says it was does not change what her evidence was - that is what she told the IPCC / Court.
And as for it being "circular", it's comparing different things.
The media reports at the time of inquest were based simply on the reporters interpretation of the evidence which was given and, as the note had only just been mentioned for the first time, were not a reliable source of information as to what had actually happened - there was no detail of what form the note had taken, why it had been made, etc. and anyone with any ability to assess information for reliability would have asked lots more questions before deciding what had actually happened.
The admission of it's existence led to an investigation by the IPCC. That investigation would clearly discover a lot more about the circumstances and that would be reflected when it was eventually completed. The report of that investigation has now been used as the basis for the decision not to take any significant action and the press releases based on that report would be expected to contain far more reliable and detailed information.
Replacement of the poorly informed initial reports and speculation with the better informed and more detailed subsequent reports is NOT a "circular thing". It is adapting a view as the information available changes.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Just Christ, they really know how to build up the public's confidence in the IPCC's effectiveness.
This is the bloke who 'forgot' to tell Blair that they'd shot a Brazilian by mistake, isn't it? Are we really meant to think that he's the organised communicator that'll scrutinise cases of possible misconduct with a fine-toothed comb and hold other officers to account. What else will he fail to disclose or mention until too late
Jobs for the (loyal) boys. And a huge two fingers up to the Menezes family.
This is the bloke who 'forgot' to tell Blair that they'd shot a Brazilian by mistake, isn't it? Are we really meant to think that he's the organised communicator that'll scrutinise cases of possible misconduct with a fine-toothed comb and hold other officers to account. What else will he fail to disclose or mention until too late
Jobs for the (loyal) boys. And a huge two fingers up to the Menezes family.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Hasn't one of the officers involved in the case just landed a top job in the IPCC??
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Look a few posts up.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
reading the Michael Mansield book, the one glaring error is that they told the media he was wearing a bulky bomb concealing jacket, yet he was wearing a tshirt. How the fuck can you get THAT one wrong? I mean i know there's some daft student fashion with bits sewn onto shirts etc but !!!!!
The role is Director of Investigations that is most definitely NOT the same as the Commissioner roles. Investigative skills and experience, especially of reactive investigations into suicide and other serious crime, are simply not found anywhere much except the police service, no matter how much you wish they were.
The IPCC, in my opinion, made a mistake in failing to accept this from the outset and they refused to recruit any ex-police investigators. This has led to (a) poor quality investigations (see lots of criticism of statement taking, scene examination, interviewing skills, etc.) and (b) meant that an opportunity to recruit 50:50 and "grow" their own future senior investigators in-house over 5-10 years was missed.
The Commissioners are specifically prevented from having previous connection with police, etc. and that remains the case. They are responsible for the strategic direction of investigations and for making the decisions as to prosecution or discipline.
A better question would be to ask whether Moir Stewart has the best background as an investigator (his police career being largely in uniform as far as I know).
The IPCC, in my opinion, made a mistake in failing to accept this from the outset and they refused to recruit any ex-police investigators. This has led to (a) poor quality investigations (see lots of criticism of statement taking, scene examination, interviewing skills, etc.) and (b) meant that an opportunity to recruit 50:50 and "grow" their own future senior investigators in-house over 5-10 years was missed.
The Commissioners are specifically prevented from having previous connection with police, etc. and that remains the case. They are responsible for the strategic direction of investigations and for making the decisions as to prosecution or discipline.
A better question would be to ask whether Moir Stewart has the best background as an investigator (his police career being largely in uniform as far as I know).
Similar threads
