09.06.2016 Views

Statutory Report

1sxlyXm

1sxlyXm

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

8.19<br />

Upon Police Officer 18 taking over the investigation he made an<br />

immediate policy decision stating ‘family liaison to remain the<br />

responsibility of the previous FLO’, he provided rationale: ‘this officer has<br />

already had some contact with the families in previous meetings and<br />

should remain given the other significant personnel changes in the<br />

investigation’.<br />

8.20<br />

Police Officer 18 acknowledged the need for police senior command and<br />

himself to meet with the families and survivors and provide them with an<br />

update on the police investigation. As a result I am aware that together<br />

with Police Officer 19 a meeting was held on 26 July 2005. During this<br />

meeting it was disclosed that there were ongoing DNA forensic tests but<br />

that these and other enquiries had been delayed due to the loss of<br />

trained and experienced detectives arising from the Patten<br />

recommendations. The victims and survivors did not accept this position<br />

and considered the remarks of Police Officer 19 to be insensitive.<br />

8.21<br />

My investigators interviewed Police Officer 19, who was clear in his view<br />

that he had not meant to be insensitive but needed to inform the<br />

interested parties that he had personal concerns in respect of the<br />

resourcing of murder enquiries at that particular time. He supported his<br />

position by referring to the fact that the Policing Board was also<br />

concerned and had questioned the Chief Constable in relation to his<br />

resourcing of all murder enquiries. I understand why the victims and<br />

survivors considered Police Officer 19’s comments to be insensitive.<br />

8.22<br />

At the meeting with the families Police Officer 18 was aware that there<br />

was a positive DNA link in respect of a suspect, who had not previously<br />

been identified in the investigation. The arrest of this individual did not<br />

take place until 2008 due to the itinerant lifestyle of the suspect and he<br />

was subsequently eliminated from the enquiry as a suspect. Whilst the<br />

delay was for an extended period, I accept that locating suspects can be<br />

a painstaking and lengthy procedure.<br />

Page 132 of157

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!