Need to run this one by a few times to try and work out the logic, if any.
A SENIOR police surveillance officer from SPECIAL BRANCH involved in the tragic shooting of unarmed Brazilian Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Underground station on July 22nd 2005, who DELETED notes pertinent to the case and FAILED TO REFER TO THE NOTES during the investigation, has been CLEARED of ANY WRONG DOING.
The Independent(?) Police Complaints Commission said the officer had acted naively, but found no evidence of deliberate deception.
- You do not get into Special Branch by being naive
- You do not become a senior officer in Special Branch by being naive
- Deletion of anything, especially on a computer, as in this case, can only be deliberate as one is asked at least once if that was your intention.
In October last year, one week before giving evidence to the inquest, the officer removed a line of text before handing the note to Metropolitan Police lawyers. Not immediately after the event, but just before he was due to give evidence.
The officer told the inquest he altered his version of events more than two weeks into the inquest because it was ‘misleading’ and not ‘relevant’. Surely it is up to the Coroner or a Judge to decide what is, or isn’t relevant.
Nope, still can’t see the logic I’m afraid and I can’t get through to Chief Superintendent Whitewash for clarification.