Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Menezes officer admits changing evidence
I know the Menezes case has been done to death, so lets not go over the old stuff again, but concentrate on this new angle to the story.
The notes made by a surveillance officer at the time of the incident read...
"The Brazilian electrician should be allowed to get on a Tube train at Stockwell station because he was "not carrying anything".
The surveillance officer, said he deleted this part of his computerised notes on Oct 7 � two weeks into the inquest.
His disclosure at the inquest prompted the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to launch an investigation. Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, described the admission as a "very serious matter".
Was this action an innocent mistake or an attempt to hide the truth?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/pol itics/lawandorder/3192792/Jean-Charles-de-Mene zes-inquest-officer-admits-changing-evidence.h tml
The notes made by a surveillance officer at the time of the incident read...
"The Brazilian electrician should be allowed to get on a Tube train at Stockwell station because he was "not carrying anything".
The surveillance officer, said he deleted this part of his computerised notes on Oct 7 � two weeks into the inquest.
His disclosure at the inquest prompted the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to launch an investigation. Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, described the admission as a "very serious matter".
Was this action an innocent mistake or an attempt to hide the truth?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/pol itics/lawandorder/3192792/Jean-Charles-de-Mene zes-inquest-officer-admits-changing-evidence.h tml
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
And after they did that they released incorrect and misleading information in order to try to cover it up and it now seems they tampered with evidence too.
And no amount of establishment apologetics can change that!
Geezer the question specifically tried to avoid going into the whole shooting thing again and yet you still brought it back around to that to avoid the real quesuion which is
Can we trust the Police to tell the truth?
And no amount of establishment apologetics can change that!
Geezer the question specifically tried to avoid going into the whole shooting thing again and yet you still brought it back around to that to avoid the real quesuion which is
Can we trust the Police to tell the truth?
Quinlad,
It was his own computer that he made the deletions (to his own records) before submitting it as evidence at the inquest.
The evidence which was deleted referred to the Commander of the operation. The allegation is that he heard her testimony and then after that deleted the things that contradicted it, and then dated the amendment to the day before her testimony.
"He then signed the document and dated it incorrectly by writing on it: 'Modified to use codenames instead of initials. 5 October 2008.'
However, his version of events was called into question as he changed it last Tuesday - October 7 - the day after Miss Dick gave evidence which said any suspect would not be allowed 'to run'. "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-107723 2/Cover-claim-Special-Branch-officer-admits-ch anging-evidence-Menezes-inquest.html
It was his own computer that he made the deletions (to his own records) before submitting it as evidence at the inquest.
The evidence which was deleted referred to the Commander of the operation. The allegation is that he heard her testimony and then after that deleted the things that contradicted it, and then dated the amendment to the day before her testimony.
"He then signed the document and dated it incorrectly by writing on it: 'Modified to use codenames instead of initials. 5 October 2008.'
However, his version of events was called into question as he changed it last Tuesday - October 7 - the day after Miss Dick gave evidence which said any suspect would not be allowed 'to run'. "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-107723 2/Cover-claim-Special-Branch-officer-admits-ch anging-evidence-Menezes-inquest.html
Probably mis placed loyalty, but if he did it as stated then no doubt he should go.
How do they exactly know what he wrote ? I know thre are various ways but uit doesn't say. It matters becasue although he should go the inquest should know what he had thought.
It is odd though that just one person would hear this. Have others changed their story or did he hear wrong.
It may not ba as clear cut as first seems.
Personally I never trust plod. Nothing to do with the ACAB tattoo on my forehead either.
How do they exactly know what he wrote ? I know thre are various ways but uit doesn't say. It matters becasue although he should go the inquest should know what he had thought.
It is odd though that just one person would hear this. Have others changed their story or did he hear wrong.
It may not ba as clear cut as first seems.
Personally I never trust plod. Nothing to do with the ACAB tattoo on my forehead either.
-- answer removed --
I think you may be missing the point slightly youngmafbog.
It is now whether this individual was wrong and should go. It is whether what had been on his computer for 3 years as his truthful recollection of events was falsified after he heard the 'Official' version.
That is why people are saying it is part of a cover-up.
How do they know. Everytime you amend a file on a computer, a copy of that file remains on your hard drive as well as to where you save it. They can tell when a file was changed, and what was changed when. That is how Dr. Shipman was caught out.
It is now whether this individual was wrong and should go. It is whether what had been on his computer for 3 years as his truthful recollection of events was falsified after he heard the 'Official' version.
That is why people are saying it is part of a cover-up.
How do they know. Everytime you amend a file on a computer, a copy of that file remains on your hard drive as well as to where you save it. They can tell when a file was changed, and what was changed when. That is how Dr. Shipman was caught out.
OK jake, fair enough, plod does tell porkies and cover things up, no denying it. I'm no friend of the old bill, I've been put through the mill myself by them and the CPS. The point I'm making is that people like Gromit/Waldo etal refuse to acknowledge that it was an accident brought on by unusual circumstances.
Waldo, no you're anti police because you always want to paint them as the bad guys and then refuse to empathise with the situation they where in. We all have the luxury of sitting calmly thinking about this, the coppers on the ground did not have that luxury. Do you want them prosecuted for murder?
So if I disagree with the mightly Waldo, I must be infantlke and retarded, mmm right oh! You might want to rethink that.
Menezes is a victim of Islamic terrorism, simple!
Waldo, no you're anti police because you always want to paint them as the bad guys and then refuse to empathise with the situation they where in. We all have the luxury of sitting calmly thinking about this, the coppers on the ground did not have that luxury. Do you want them prosecuted for murder?
So if I disagree with the mightly Waldo, I must be infantlke and retarded, mmm right oh! You might want to rethink that.
Menezes is a victim of Islamic terrorism, simple!
Geez.
I don't believe an innocent man was killed on purpose, but then I cannot call it an accident either.
He was deliberately shot in the head several times. That is not an accident, a mistake would be more accurate. An accident you can walk away from and say 'well these things happen. A mistake you have to learn lessons from and find out what went wrong and do everything you can to make sure it cannot happen again.
When this mistake happened, there were concerted efforts to put out lies, and this admission that evidence is still being tampered with, makes efforts to get a truthful account and learn from this tragedy more difficult.
Blaming terrorists for the police making a mistake is disingenuous . It is like a man phoning the fire brigade when his house is on fire, and getting the blame when the fire engine runs someone over.
I don't believe an innocent man was killed on purpose, but then I cannot call it an accident either.
He was deliberately shot in the head several times. That is not an accident, a mistake would be more accurate. An accident you can walk away from and say 'well these things happen. A mistake you have to learn lessons from and find out what went wrong and do everything you can to make sure it cannot happen again.
When this mistake happened, there were concerted efforts to put out lies, and this admission that evidence is still being tampered with, makes efforts to get a truthful account and learn from this tragedy more difficult.
Blaming terrorists for the police making a mistake is disingenuous . It is like a man phoning the fire brigade when his house is on fire, and getting the blame when the fire engine runs someone over.
"Waldo, no you're anti police because you always want to paint them as the bad guys and then refuse to empathise with the situation they where in."
That would be a brilliant and damning bit of evidence but for the fact it's not true. I have a great deal of respect for the police service.
It's not even the case that I have no empathy for the coppers. It seems that they're the victims of bad proceedure too.
If I don't empathise with these particular coppers, it's because the evidence shows categorically that basic proceedure was ignored and that people lied about it afterwards to cover up.
"We all have the luxury of sitting calmly thinking about this, the coppers on the ground did not have that luxury."
Absolutely. That's why they have procedures that are designed to minimise risks to officers, public and suspects.
"Do you want them prosecuted for murder?"
I would like to see that where clear procedural errors were made, the necessary steps are taken to ensure they don't happen in future. That protects both public and cops, by the way.
If there is a clear case to support a prosecution for murder then naturally I would expect to see them prosecuted. I do not expect that to be the result.
I would like to see that where there is clear evidence of corruption and cover up that those responsible are held accountable. If you think that the police are not accountable for their actions, I'd be very surprised.
"So if I disagree with the mightly Waldo, I must be infantlke and retarded, mmm right oh! You might want to rethink that."
No, *you* might want to read what I actually wrote. I didn't say you were infantile or retarded, I said a position you were taking was.
"Menezes is a victim of Islamic terrorism, simple!"
Indeed; that is simple.
That would be a brilliant and damning bit of evidence but for the fact it's not true. I have a great deal of respect for the police service.
It's not even the case that I have no empathy for the coppers. It seems that they're the victims of bad proceedure too.
If I don't empathise with these particular coppers, it's because the evidence shows categorically that basic proceedure was ignored and that people lied about it afterwards to cover up.
"We all have the luxury of sitting calmly thinking about this, the coppers on the ground did not have that luxury."
Absolutely. That's why they have procedures that are designed to minimise risks to officers, public and suspects.
"Do you want them prosecuted for murder?"
I would like to see that where clear procedural errors were made, the necessary steps are taken to ensure they don't happen in future. That protects both public and cops, by the way.
If there is a clear case to support a prosecution for murder then naturally I would expect to see them prosecuted. I do not expect that to be the result.
I would like to see that where there is clear evidence of corruption and cover up that those responsible are held accountable. If you think that the police are not accountable for their actions, I'd be very surprised.
"So if I disagree with the mightly Waldo, I must be infantlke and retarded, mmm right oh! You might want to rethink that."
No, *you* might want to read what I actually wrote. I didn't say you were infantile or retarded, I said a position you were taking was.
"Menezes is a victim of Islamic terrorism, simple!"
Indeed; that is simple.
1 to 18 of 18
Latest Posts
Crosswords7 mins ago
So Lets Shaft Our Farmers.....
News9 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
ChatterBank22 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.