The police officer, who was granted anonymity at the inquest (because who wants an accountable non secret police force) did these things-
Before he gave evidence, he revealed that he had made a note on the Metropolitan police computer in late July 2005, before he made his original statement in November 2005. He had then accessed and altered the note in October 2008 before handing it to the Met’s lawyers.
Owen had been present in New Scotland Yard’s room 1600, which was under the direct command of Commander Cressida Dick on 22 July 2005, although he was not within the nucleus of senior officers commanding the operation, the IPCC said.
The text he deleted read: “Management discussion. CD [Cressida Dick]: can run onto Tube as not carrying anything. Persuaded otherwise by UI [unidentified] male amongst management”.
The independent investigation found Owen had acted alone both in failing to disclose his note, as required by the IPCC in 2005, and in redacting it on 7 October 2008.
So today the IPCC concluded-
But the IPCC said today there was no evidence of deliberate deception in this instance by the Met as a whole or any individual within it.
Bear in mind he is a Special Branch officer, they liaise with the intelligence services, they are literally secret police, he gave evidence anonymously and is now found to be blameless while Dick has been promoted. What does this note suggest? That prior to Jean Charles de Menezes being shot at point blank range multiple times the officer in charge was thinking he was not carrying anything, ie. not a bomb threat. The common refrain of the killers (the coached and rehearsed testimony they were able to collude on) was they were acting in self defence because they claim to have believed he could have been a suicide bomber.
That she was dissuaded or failed to communicate her judgement to the armed personnel means the ‘UI [unidentified] male amongst management‘ bears great responsibility for the killing, as does Cressida Dick who is shown to make weak & faulty judgements and bad communication shows up these professional paramilitaries to be utter chumps. Clearly evidence was concealed then altered to protect senior officers. But no such issues will be addressed because the IPCC doesn’t think it important or that any malfeasance has occurred in relation to the note. They are as capable at investigating abuses of power by the police as Tony Blair is at not lying a country into war.
Best case: The armed security forces, licensed to employ state violence couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery.
Worst case: Execution by state paramilitaries protected from legal responsibility by the establishment.
Yasmin Khan, spokeswoman for the Justice4Jean campaign, accused the IPCC of failing to hold police officers to account. She said: “It doesn’t matter if you are a policeman fiddling notes after a shooting or a politician fiddling expenses on the sly, no-one should be above the law. This latest decision is one of a long line of IPCC decisions which have led every police officer involved in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes off scot-free. This weak and woefully poor excuse of a watchdog must now be overhauled and replaced with a robust body that can actually hold police officers to account.”