Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparkle
Like I did say earlier, his word against everyone elses. Why would he have said such a thing to a senior officer if he hadn't deliberately added in those comments. Instead of allowing the police investigation make your mind up for you, why not look at the facts and draw your own conclusions.
|
Erm no. The case and his testimony was investigated, and it was found there was no substantive evidence that he had inserted song titles, which means it was pretty much proven he hadn't (innocent until proven guilty etc). Which just leaves the comment to the senior officer, which for all we know may have been an attempt at humour. Poor judgment, and he's facing misconduct charges over that.
---------- Post added at 15:47 ---------- Previous post was at 15:41 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
While we're on the subject of pedantics....
Actually it doesn't clearly say that.
What it says verbatim is "The investigation found however that on the balance of probabilities he, neither acting alone or in conspiracy with other officers, deliberately inserted song titles into his evidence."
What that means as it reads is that he, not acting alone or with another police officer but quite possibly with another individual, deliberately inserted song titles into his evidence.
|
Erm ok, so that one is ambiguous, but doesn't make much sense in your reading. This one isn't though:
Quote:
|
The investigation concluded that AZ8 had not deliberately inserted song titles into his evidence
|