Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
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 ----------
Erm ok, so that one is ambiguous, but doesn't make much sense in your reading. This one isn't though:
|
Yes but that statement is immediately followed by
"However, he did make a comment to a senior officer to the effect that he had".
Additionally there
was substantive evidence that he had, or had in concert with others (not necessarily police officers), inserted song references into his testimony - the reference to "Faith" by George Michael refers.
The devil is in the detail. It's all to do with the wording of the IPCC statement - which I'm sure they could have amended anytime from March 4th up until now had they wanted to avoid any possible ambiguity.
