IHAT. Just when you thought that it was safe to go outside...

B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#1
Well, look's like the IHAT enquiry is going to go on for a lot longer than was anticipated.

Iraq 'war crimes' Inquiry chief quits - Telegraph

Looking on the bright side though, at least it'll keep a load of former police officers in pay and expenses and G4S in a contract during these times of austerity, even though they don't appear to be any further forward than they were when this kicked off.

Be interesting to see what the final bill is.
 
#2
I particularly like the following statement. A man of integrity if ever I saw one.


"For the avoidance of doubt, my decision not to renew my contract with the MoD in September was made for reasons entirely unconnected with the IPCC inquiry"
 
#3
Not an Apple product for the Parachute Regiment, then?
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#4
#7
#8
Dear Members.
I appreciate this Is an old thread but I have only just found this.
I am Julie Lake who the IPCC ruled In favour of following my arrest and trial.
There Is a document on the net published after the IHAT Inquiry regarding the allegations made by Louise Thomas.
During the Inquiry, Phill Havers QC for the MOD found Ms Thomas had resigned from the IHAT team, she claimed at the time, because IHAT was a whitewash and not Independent. She later reapplied for her job because she said she believed she could make a difference. This was found to be untrue. She had applied for another job believing she had secured the post. When she didn't get the job after all, she asked for her job back at the MOD. When she was rejected, she went to the newspapers as the so called whistleblower. The Inquiry also found she had made Inacurracies on her CV when applying for the job. The Inquiry concluded with paragraph 105.

"After hearing the evidence of Louise Thomas, considering the written materials and
seeing for ourselves some of the recordings that were said to have been inaccurately
graded, we are entirely satisfied that the allegations made by Louise Thomas are
without foundation. At the outset of her cross examination by Mr Havers QC she
maintained that the IHAT was not a genuine investigation, but merely a face saving
exercise; it was a cover up. Having heard her evidence and examined the
documentation we regret to conclude that we could place no reliance on her evidence.
She had realised before confirming the allegation set out in paragraph 101 that the
incident had occurred in 2008. She resigned from IHAT not because of concerns
about its work (as she had said in her statement), but to obtain better employment.
When that employment did not materialise, she asked to withdraw her resignation, but
IHAT refused. Her CV submitted to IHAT contained matters (the length of time and
position she had held in previous employment and a negative answer to a question
about integrity issues) which she must have known were untrue. Apart from these
matters which in themselves show that she was not a person who could be relied on to
tell the truth,
the careful, thorough and penetrating cross examination of Mr Havers
QC and our own viewing of some of the recordings demonstrated that her evidence as
to the conduct of the analysis and grading by those at IHAT, the extent of the missing
recordings, the attitude of the staff and of the Royal Military Police were without
foundation. We regret to conclude that she put forward an inaccurate account,
probably in a misguided attempt to discredit IHAT. "

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...gments/AZM+_No+2_+v+SOS+for+Defence+FINAL.pdf

So... You decide from the links you provided from my trial and the conclusion of the IHAT Inquiry whether this Is a reliable witness ? !!!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top