< 1> Monday, 27th April 1998.< 2> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Lawson, may I for the benefit of< 3> the public indicate that I am sorry we are sitting< 4> over half an hour late but on Friday people will< 5> remember that there was cross-examination about< 6> documents and an interview which Sergeant Davidson< 7> may or may not have had with the Kent Police and some< 8> documents did arrive this morning which had to be< 9> investigated by the relevant parties and, therefore,<10> we delayed the start. We are ready I think to go on<11> with Mr Tomlin now, is that right.<12> MR LAWSON: That is right and the new documents have<13> now been disclosed to all represented parties in<14> redacted form. So if Mr Tomlin would come back.<15> THE CHAIRMAN: You are still sworn, Mr Tomlin. I am<16> sorry there has been a delay. Cross-examination will<17> be completed this morning I am sure.<18> <MICHAEL TOMLIN, (recalled)<19> <FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR KAMLISH<20> Q. Mr Tomlin, on behalf of Mr and Mrs Lawrence, you<21> were asked briefly on Thursday about your<22> recollection of something to do with football or<23> football pitches?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. Can I ask you to give us the whole story as to

. P-3006 TOMLIN

< 1> how that fits into your part played in the Inquiry?< 2> A. There is no story.< 3> Q. Do you want so see the messages on the screen?< 4> A. Yes, please.< 5> Q. Can we have the first one in time which is< 6> (MET00880147). We see here on 6th August this is< 7> allocated to you and DC Hogg?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. Then we see the narrative there. If we look at<10> it briefly, I don't want to read it out. The second<11> half of this narrative "Duwayne has been asked to<12> contact me in the next couple of days. Duwayne also<13> stated that he had seen one of the people he picked<14> out on the ID parade before. He believes it was at a<15> football match and a team he plays for called Elms<16> played in a five a side competition either last year<17> or the year before at the Montague Club. He will<18> speak to other team members in an effort to confirm<19> this information"?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. What role did you play in the receipt and the<22> investigation of that information?<23> A. Well if there was an action to carry this out I<24> would have obviously done so. If there is no action,<25> I did nothing.

. P-3007 TOMLIN

< 1> Q. You cannot have done nothing if you were ordered< 2> to do something?< 3> A. That is what I just said, if I had an action to< 4> do it I would have investigated it. This is merely< 5> the input of that result.< 6> Q. I will show you the second action in a second< 7> but before I do, can you remember anything at all< 8> about meetings with Duwayne, taking him anywhere and< 9> so on?<10> A. I had very little to do with Duwayne he was not<11> my role, it was another officer's role. I was merely<12> asked to look after Duwayne while he went on holiday.<13> Q. I am not sure that is the case. Let us look at<14> (MET00880191) please. We see the allocation date on<15> this one is 16th August?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. Which is a different date from the allocation<18> dates on the previous action. So obviously something<19> happened in between?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. To get you on to this?<22> A. There was a couple of occasions when I went with<23> other officers, particularly Mr Bullock on one<24> occasion. My main role, as I said the officer who<25> was dealing with him and had been doing so for many

. P-3008 TOMLIN

< 1> months went on holiday.< 2> Q. You, in fact, took Duwayne with Mr Bullock to a< 3> football ground, did you not?< 4> A. I have no recollection of this whatsoever.< 5> Q. I will put it to you in terms. You took him to< 6> a football ground, it must have been in August< 7> because this is the time of these actions in order to< 8> attempt to jog his memory as to whether or not he< 9> played football against any of the suspects before<10> and when you got there nothing was seen or no-one was<11> seen?<12> A. I don't recall that but on Friday it was a<13> football match so I am rather confused.<14> Q. Never mind what happened on Friday?<15> A. I am trying to help you and recall. As I said,<16> I have been thinking about football matches for the<17> weekend and have no recollection of a football<18> match. I was only informed of this this morning, so<19> I am sorry.<20> Q. If you cannot help you cannot help but I am<21> putting to you in terms -- and his counsel may deal<22> with it in more detail -- you took him first of all<23> to a football ground to jog his memory, which did not<24> jog his memory and then you drove him round certain<25> streets in an attempt to assist the police with the

. P-3009 TOMLIN

< 1> identification issue?< 2> A. I can assure you if that is so it would have< 3> been recorded. If it is not recorded, it didn't< 4> happen.< 5> Q. It would not be recorded if it was not< 6> considered to be----< 7> A. I am afraid it would have been because I would< 8> have put an input in an officer's message. I can< 9> assure you any dealings I would have had with<10> Mr Brooks would have been recorded.<11> Q. Did you speak to Duwayne on any issue such as<12> this?<13> A. I would not have done, no.<14> Q. You say you would not have done?<15> A. I have just said I would not have -- my dealings<16> with Mr Brooks would have been strictly professional.<17> Q. I cannot take it any further because you cannot<18> remember. So there is no further questions.<19> <FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR MENON<20> Q. Mr Tomlin, you recall I ask questions on behalf<21> of Duwayne Brooks. You served as his liaison officer<22> for some time in 1993/1994, did you not?<23> A. Pardon?<24> Q. You served as Duwayne Brooks liaison officer for<25> some time in 1993 and 1994?

. P-3010 TOMLIN

< 1> A. That is not correct, sorry.< 2> Q. Can we have DBR 1, 115 please.< 3> THE CHAIRMAN: Are you switched on, Mr Menon, we are< 4> not hearing you?< 5> MR MENON: I am I will speak louder. DBR 1, 115.< 6> Mr Tomlin, have a look at the screen. This is a< 7> questionnaire that you would have been asked to fill< 8> out in 1994?< 9> A. Yes that's correct, yes.<10> Q. In relation to any dealings that you had with<11> Duwayne Brooks?<12> A. That was sometime after, there is no date on<13> this.<14> Q. There is a date at the bottom. 9th--<15> A. I can see it now, that is 9th May 1994, this is<16> when I had left the investigation.<17> Q. This is what you say?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. "Between May 1993 and March 1994, I met Brooks<20> on several occasions in my capacity as his liaison<21> officer." Is that wrong?<22> A. Several occasions, yes, it is absolutely<23> correct.<24> Q. As his liaison officer?<25> A. This is a stereotyped letter, this is a format,

. P-3011 TOMLIN

< 1> this was sent to every officer that dealt with -- on< 2> The Inquiry, it is not my written statement.< 3> Q. Yes, but you say here you met him in your< 4> capacity as his liaison officer?< 5> A. Yes, that's correct.< 6> Q. How many occasions do you think you met him< 7> during that ten month period?< 8> A. Exactly what it says there, "several".< 9> Q. Your evidence is that that was only when DS<10> Bevan his liaison officer was on holiday, is that<11> right?<12> A. That is who it is, yes, I couldn't remember his<13> surname.<14> Q. That was the only time that you actually served<15> as his liaison officer?<16> A. Yes, it was DS Bevan, he went on annual leave<17> and I looked after -- not looked after but I dealt<18> with any actions that were necessary to be done<19> during that period.<20> Q. Was your demeanour when dealing with<21> Duwayne Brooks as liaison officer similar to your<22> demeanour when you were answering my questions on<23> Friday last?<24> A. I should think so, yes.<25> Q. How would you describe the way you were

. P-3012 TOMLIN

< 1> answering my questions on Friday last, your< 2> demeanour?< 3> A. You tell me I will answer you.< 4> Q. I am asking you the question, Mr Tomlin, I would< 5> appreciate your answer?< 6> A. My demeanour was trying to be helpful to you.< 7> Q. You feel that adequately and comprehensively< 8> describes your demeanour on Friday when I was asking< 9> you questions?<10> A. I think what you actually asked me which if my<11> demeanour did change was you asked me why I didn't<12> investigate the differences between statements, which<13> I felt to be a silly question.<14> Q. You, therefore, believed that you dealt with<15> Duwayne Brooks in generally the same way that you<16> dealt with me when I was asking you questions on<17> Friday, is that right?<18> A. I wouldn't agree with that at all.<19> Q. You would not agree with that. What was the<20> difference?<21> A. What is the difference?<22> Q. Yes, what was the difference in your demeanour<23> in dealing with me when I asked you questions and<24> your demeanour when dealing with Duwayne Brooks in<25> your capacity as his liaison officer?

. P-3013 TOMLIN

< 1> A. I dealt with Duwayne Brooks in a very< 2> professional manner as I felt, even more so than I< 3> may have done with anybody else.< 4> Q. Are you suggesting you did not deal with me< 5> professionally on Friday?< 6> A. (Witness laughs). This is stupid.< 7> Q. Just answer the question?< 8> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Tomlin, it is not a joking matter.< 9> THE WITNESS: I am not laughing for that reason I<10> am----<11> THE CHAIRMAN: On the other hand, Mr Menon, I am not<12> quite sure that the questioning gets us far.<13> However, proceed if you think it is necessary.<14> MR MENON: I think I have the answers I require, sir,<15> thank you. (To the witness). Prior to serving<16> temporarily as Duwayne Brooks liaison officer what<17> experience did you have in serving as a liaison<18> officer in cases of this seriousness prior to 1993?<19> A. I think we are going too far here. I was not a<20> liaison officer. I looked after him to do anything<21> that was necessary. It may well have been -- and I<22> can't answer how many actions it would have been,<23> there may be 3 or 4, but when the SIO asked me to do<24> something which involved him during that fortnight, I<25> did it, simple as that.

. P-3014 TOMLIN

< 1> Q. What experience did you have, using your own< 2> words, looking after someone as important as< 3> Duwayne Brooks in as serious a case as this prior to< 4> 1993?< 5> A. I have never served as a liaison officer as< 6> such.< 7> Q. Were you aware in 1993 of any guidelines in< 8> respect of dealing with victims of racist attacks?< 9> A. No.<10> Q. Had you had any training prior to 1993 in<11> respect of dealing with victims of racist attacks?<12> A. I worked in areas where there was a large black<13> population, I have never had a problem with black<14> people.<15> Q. Have you had any training in dealing with<16> victims of racist attacks?<17> A. Yes 20 years of experience, as has been<18> apparent.<19> Q. Any training Mr Tomlin?<20> A. No.<21> Q. Any training in respect of dealing with<22> witnesses prior to 1993, particular traumatised<23> witnesses?<24> A. No, only the usual, any training that the job<25> would give us during those updates on current----

. P-3015 TOMLIN

< 1> Q. How long have you had a police officer in 1993?< 2> A. 20 years, sorry 1993, 19 years.< 3> Q. Did you appreciate when you were taking care of< 4> Duwayne Brooks, to use your words, that he was not< 5> only the key witness to this Inquiry but also the< 6> surviving victim of a racist attack?< 7> A. I certainly did, yes.< 8> Q. You did. There are four matters in respect of< 9> your dealings with Mr Brooks I would like to ask you<10> about. Can we have (MET00500125) please, Grace.<11> THE CHAIRMAN: 50.<12> MR MENON: (MET00500125). Scroll down please.<13> MR LAWSON: Can you pause a moment please. Can I<14> have a word with Mr Menon.<15> MR MENON: I think there is another reference number<16> for the same document.<17> THE CHAIRMAN: That is probably unredacted.<18> MR GOMPERTZ: It may be possible to find it on<19> (MET00880148).<20> MR MENON: I am grateful.<21> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. All right now, Mr Lawson.<22> MR MENON: It is a different page.<23> MR GOMPERTZ: Sorry I thought that (MET00500125)<24> would follow (MET00500124) and that likewise the<25> other reference (MET00880147) would be followed by

. P-3016 TOMLIN

< 1> (MET00880148) but it seems not.< 2> MR MENON: I recall Mr Kamlish used the same page< 3> with a different reference number.< 4> MR GOMPERTZ: Mr Kamlish gave (MET00880147).< 5> MR MENON: That is it.< 6> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Menon, that is the redacted form of< 7> the one you were asking us to look at.< 8> MR MENON: I am grateful, sir. Scroll down please.< 9> If you look at the paragraph dated 11th August headed<10> "result" Mr Tomlin, 5 lines down, it says this:<11> "I explained that Mr Penston...", Mr Penston<12> works for the Race Unit as Greenwich Council; do you<13> recall that?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. "...had offered counselling and he agreed to<16> meet Mr Penston with a view to arranging a meeting."<17> Just to clarify that, it was Mr Penston who was<18> offering counselling for Mr Brooks?<19> A. That's correct.<20> Q. It was not the police?<21> A. He offered his services, I believe, and it was<22> accepted.<23> Q. The second point I would like to deal with is a<24> matter that Mr Kamlish raised in relation to<25> football: do you recall that at some time when you

. P-3017 TOMLIN

< 1> dealt with Mr Brooks you took him to the Samuel< 2> Montague Football Club to see if it would jog his< 3> memory -- there was not a match on, that is a very< 4> important factor, and it did not; do you recall that?< 5> A. I don't recall it. If I had done that I would< 6> have put it on paper I can assure you.< 7> Q. After that you drove him around neighbouring< 8> streets to see if he could spot anybody; do you< 9> recall that?<10> A. Not at all, no.<11> Q. The third matter?<12> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Menon, for my help can you put a<13> date to that?<14> MR MENON: I cannot.<15> THE CHAIRMAN: Not even approximately.<16> MR MENON: That is why I worded it the way I did,<17> sir, by saying, at some time whilst this officer had<18> dealings with Mr Brooks. I cannot be more specific<19> than that.<20> THE CHAIRMAN: I understand.<21> MR MENON: The third matter that I would like to<22> specifically ask you about, Mr Tomlin, is in relation<23> to (PCA00350169). This is a matter that was<24> allocated to you Mr Tomlin. You will see that there<25> is a result in respect to your Inquiry. Does this

. P-3018 TOMLIN

< 1> ring a bell with you?< 2> A. What date is this, I can't read it.< 3> Q. Sorry?< 4> A. What date is this, I can't read it.< 5> Q. You have resulted it on 13th September?< 6> A. Yes, I see that.< 7> Q. You, according to this, interviewed Mr Brooks on< 8> 9th September 1993. You did not take a statement< 9> from him, did you, a written statement?<10> A. I don't know.<11> Q. There is not one we have seen?<12> A. I didn't take one then.<13> Q. It was in relation to Peter Musoca and what the<14> result says is that Mr Brooks admitted knowing<15> Musoca, not as a friend or a casual acquittance and<16> he denied he had seen Mr Musoca on the day of<17> Stephen Lawrence's murder; do you recall this matter?<18> A. No I don't.<19> Q. It appears that the police had been given some<20> information that Peter Musoca had some dealings with<21> Mr Lawrence and Mr Brooks on that day and hence I<22> think you were actioned to deal with the matter?<23> A. Again it is roundabout the same time, as I said,<24> when Mr Bevan was on holiday. I don't recall this at<25> all.

. P-3019 TOMLIN

< 1> Q. It does not ring a bell at all?< 2> A. No.< 3> Q. The final point is this, Mr Tomlin: Mr Brooks< 4> had given the police, before your involvement with< 5> him, his own address, his mother's address and his< 6> mother's phone number; does that ring a bell?< 7> A. I have read that to be partially correct, I< 8> would imagine, on some of the results.< 9> Q. If we go back to the same page that we were<10> looking a minute ago (MET00880147), the line after<11> the one we were last looking at, you have said this:<12> "He still refuses to give his current address<13> but gave a telephone number. " That is not right, is<14> it, Mr Tomlin?<15> A. What is not right?<16> Q. That Duwayne Brooks refused to give the police<17> his current address?<18> A. That certainly was correct, yes.<19> Q. He gave his address, he gave his mother's<20> address. What he was reluctant to give the police<21> was his girlfriend' address?<22> A. That is not correct.<23> Q. Although he had not provided that address to the<24> police on one occasion he showed you where his<25> girlfriend lived, did he not?

. P-3020 TOMLIN

< 1> A. I don't recall that.< 2> Q. You promised him that you would keep that< 3> address secret because he was reluctant to give it to< 4> the police?< 5> A. The only contact we had was his mother's< 6> telephone number and that was who we rang in an< 7> effort to see.< 8> Q. You do not remember him pointing out where his< 9> girlfriend lived?<10> A. No sorry.<11> Q. You Mr Tomlin, you were the only officer who<12> Mr Brooks gave that information to?<13> A. I don't recall it and obviously it was his<14> address we wanted, not anybody else's.<15> Q. The importance of this fact is that in relation<16> to what we are referring to as the Croydon<17> prosecution, police officers arrived one early<18> morning at that address to arrest Mr Brooks. He was<19> not in fact there, but officers arrived at that<20> address which he had given you in confidence?<21> A. The girlfriend's address.<22> Q. Yes?<23> A. I can't assist you at all.<24> Q. The final matter is this, if we can turn to<25> DBR 1115, which is the questionnaire you have been

. P-3021 TOMLIN

< 1> asked to fill in. It is right that you observed that< 2> during the dealings that you had with Mr Brooks you< 3> did not notice any abnormal or out of the ordinary< 4> behaviour on his part; is that right?< 5> A. That is correct.< 6> Q. That is what you said on this form?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. Does that accord with your recollection today?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. Thank you.<11> THE CHAIRMAN: Just one moment.<12> <QUESTIONED BY BISHOP SENTAMU<13> BISHOP SENTAMU: May I ask a question while this<14> particular document is on here. The question of the<15> football match, you said if you had done it it would<16> have been written down?<17> A. That' right, yes.<18> Q. Because it is not written down it did not<19> happen. We have a document there which says that you<20> had been Mr Brooks?<21> A. Liaison officer.<22> Q. Liaison officer. Before it was put to you you<23> actually denied that you had been his liaison<24> officer, so what am I going to make of this? Please,<25> this is a serious matter, do not laugh. What do I

. P-3022 TOMLIN

< 1> make of this?< 2> A. I am not laughing about this matter I can assure< 3> you. What I am saying is that this -- I was not his< 4> liaison officer, I should never have signed that. I< 5> looked after him for a fortnight, that is all. I was< 6> his liaison officer, yes, for a fortnight. It has< 7> been tried to be suggested here that I was his< 8> liaison officer for the whole time I worked on the< 9> Inquiry, that is not correct, and that does not say<10> that.<11> I met him on several occasions, which is<12> correct, which is very few occasions over that<13> fortnight or two or three weeks. There was nothing<14> there to mislead or to intentionally mislead this<15> court.<16> BISHOP SENTAMU: It is not that, it is you earlier on<17> said you said for the football match -- because<18> things are not written down they cannot be accurate.<19> We have a document with something written down and<20> you say you met him between May 1993 and 1994 on<21> several occasions in your capacity as his liaison<22> officer. Counsel asked you a question and you said<23> you never, that is not accurate, you have never been<24> his liaison officer. What am I going to make of<25> this, it is written?

. P-3023 TOMLIN

< 1> A. I thought I explained that, sir. I am sorry.< 2> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR PANTON< 3> Q. I ask questions on behalf of the London Borough< 4> of Greenwich. There are a couple of matters I would< 5> like you to help me with. Would this be right, soon< 6> after the murder Mr Penston was in regular contact< 7> with the investigation team; do you have any< 8> recollection?< 9> A. As I have already said I was aware that<10> Mr Penston offered his services, which had been<11> accepted by the Senior Investigating Officer. The<12> dates I couldn't help you with.<13> Q. In addition to offering counselling for<14> Mr Brooks, there were a number of other things that<15> he specifically assisted the Inquiry with, for<16> example in terms of getting information from schools?<17> A. That's correct, yes.<18> Q. If we look, in particular, at (MET00880096)<19> there is a reference there to, if you scroll down<20> towards the middle of the page, do you see the<21> reference to Mr Penston on the "result", "attach a<22> correspondence relating to an incident that occurred<23> in Kidbrook School".<24> Further on, "Mr Penston may be able to help to<25> obtain the names of the black youths. I have also

. P-3024 TOMLIN

< 1> asked Mr Penston to research a similar incident."< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. Would this be right: that on a number of< 4> occasions Mr Penston was asked to provide information< 5> and he did provide information to the Inquiry, for< 6> example, relating to school records?< 7> A. Yes I remember this one in particular.< 8> Q. I do not know if you were here last week,< 9> Friday, when DC Chase gave evidence, and in answer to<10> a question from Ms Weekes I think he said that he did<11> not ask for records relating to schools. I do not<12> know if you recall that?<13> A. I wasn't here, no I wouldn't have heard that.<14> Q. Information passed on to you or to the team<15> should have been in the system?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. If we look please at (MET00890144) and that<18> says: "Had general conversation with Noel Penston of<19> Greenwich Council re education, housing records and<20> incumbent disclosure issues. Mr Penston will contact<21> DC Tomlin when he has all necessary and pertinent<22> records to hand in order to arrange the manner in<23> which they should be handed over." Again, do you<24> have any recollection of that information being<25> passed on to you?

. P-3025 TOMLIN

< 1> A. No only if it is on record, sorry. As I said if< 2> it is not on the message on the actual answer then it< 3> would be an input message which could be of use to< 4> the enquiry.< 5> Q. He was at pains to say he did not want anything< 6> disclosed without due----< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. There is just one other matter that I would like< 9> to ask you about. About August 1993, do you recall<10> that there were a number of meetings with the council<11> and the police about a poster and leafleting<12> campaign?<13> THE CHAIRMAN: Could you put that again.<14> MR PANTON: About August 1993 there were a number of<15> meetings around discussing a poster and leafleting<16> campaign?<17> A. Vaguely, yes.<18> Q. Part of that involved saying to potential people<19> with information that names need not be disclosed?<20> A. As I say, vaguely, it would obviously be the<21> correct way to do it, yes.<22> Q. Do you have any recollection of statements being<23> passed on sometime just prior to the Inquest in<24> December 1993 from council witnesses?<25> A. No.

. P-3026 TOMLIN

< 1> MR PANTON: You have no recollection. Thank you very< 2> much.< 3> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR YEARWOOD< 4> Q. Mr Tomlin, I put questions to you on behalf of< 5> the Commission for Racial Equality. Calculating from< 6> your 19 years experience in 1993, do I take it that< 7> you joined the Metropolitan back in 1974?< 8> A. 1976.< 9> Q. When you joined the Metropolitan Police, were<10> you given any race awareness training as part of your<11> induction?<12> A. No.<13> Q. In the 19 years that you had spent up until<14> 1993, had you undergone any race awareness training<15> at all?<16> A. No.<17> Q. As far as you know, was training provided be it<18> all on a voluntary basis as opposed to compulsory?<19> A. Not that I am aware of.<20> Q. You have certainly never outside of your normal<21> activity volunteered to be on any such courses?<22> A. No.<23> Q. Are you aware of the AGPO definition of a racial<24> incident?<25> A. No.

. P-3027 TOMLIN

< 1> Q. Have you ever reported a racial incident in your< 2> 19 years?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. Have you. Can you tell us about it, when was< 5> that?< 6> A. Can I tell you what?< 7> Q. How many racial incidents have you reported in< 8> over 20 years as a police officer?< 9> A. Probably 3 or 4.<10> Q. In respect of those actions, those incidents,<11> the investigation of those incidents, did it differ<12> in anyway from the investigation of other criminal<13> complaints?<14> A. Yes it did in a way, yes.<15> Q. Can you tell us how?<16> A. It appeared to be a problem to senior officers.<17> Q. Appeared to be a problem to senior officers.<18> Can you tell us, so that we get a flavour of the type<19> of offence to which you are referring to, what was<20> the most serious, would you say, of those four or<21> five incidents which you have just mentioned?<22> A. It was in Penge, a young Somalian lad.<23> Q. What happened to him?<24> A. He had been attacking parked cars that were<25> parking, this was outside Penge Police Station and he

. P-3028 TOMLIN

< 1> accused them of calling him names. So he would go< 2> and attack the car and apparently did it on several< 3> occasions.< 4> Q. That is an allegation of criminal damage against< 5> parked cars--< 6> A. No, it was an allegation of racial abuse.< 7> Q. I am sorry?< 8> A. An allegation of racial abuse.< 9> Q. Against senior officers?<10> A. No, against the people in the car. He accused<11> them of calling him names so he attacked the car.<12> Q. Is that the most serious of those allegations<13> which come to you?<14> A. That is the one I recall, yes.<15> Q. What was the problem that senior officers had<16> with dealing with that particular complaint?<17> A. Obviously it was a very -- politically it was a<18> difficult area and they were concerned it was<19> investigated properly. That would really be the nub<20> of it.<21> Q. What was different about it, is it the political<22> aspect of it?<23> A. Yes to my way of thinking, yes. I wouldn't have<24> investigated it any differently whether it was a<25> white person or a black person.

. P-3029 TOMLIN

< 1> Q. Do you think, maybe you have answered my< 2> question, when one is dealing with a racial incident,< 3> that anything different should be done?< 4> A. I don't think so, no.< 5> Q. You do not think so?< 6> A. No.< 7> Q. Do you think that the victim, for example,< 8> should be handled in a far more sensitive manner?< 9> A. If the allegation is correct, yes, certainly.<10> Q. But you say "if the allegation is correct", I<11> mean when you say in a more sensitive manner, I am<12> speaking of a manner more sensitive than in a<13> non-racist enquiry?<14> A. It is no different from any allegation of<15> someone saying "I was assaulted."<16> Q. You are saying you would treat them exactly the<17> same?<18> A. They would be treated exactly the same and my<19> job as an investigating officer would be to see if<20> there was any merit and if there was to gain any<21> evidence.<22> Q. Do you appreciate that maybe someone who has<23> been a victim of racism in the community may, in<24> fact, feel there is an extra sense of vulnerability<25> within that person because of the nature of that

. P-3030 TOMLIN

< 1> attack?< 2> A. I am sure they do, yes.< 3> Q. Do you think in those circumstances there is< 4> that special need for extra sensitivity?< 5> A. You also come up against the problem of false< 6> allegations which particularly this one was.< 7> Q. That may well result but is that not the end< 8> product, we are dealing with how do you deal with it< 9> at the investigative stage before you reach a<10> decision as to whether or not it is justified or not?<11> A. There is no difference -- in my way of working<12> there was no difference. A person was either the<13> telling the truth or they were not.<14> Q. Your approach so far as sensitivity of the<15> investigating of the offence is concerned, whether it<16> be racist or non-racist is really not----<17> A. I have got to say yes. I was concerned for all<18> victims, whether old ladies, black youths or whatever<19> it might be, I don't see the difference, I am sorry.<20> Q. You do not really believe that the victim of a<21> racist attack may feel more vulnerable within his<22> community than that of let us say a mugging?<23> A. It is very difficult to prove a racist attack.<24> If a white person hits a black person is that a<25> racist attack? This is the problem, isn't it.

. P-3031 TOMLIN

< 1> Q. You appreciate, of course, that getting back to< 2> the AGPO guidelines or the definition which you are< 3> unaware of that may well classify such an incident as< 4> a racist incident?< 5> A. It would be dealt with as a racist incident,< 6> yes.< 7> Q. You would appreciate that under your own< 8> guidelines that in itself calls for an extra measure< 9> of sensitivity in looking into or investigating that<10> offence or do you not appreciate that?<11> A. I can only say that I dealt with all victims the<12> same way.<13> MR YEARWOOD: I see. Thank you very much. I do not<14> imagine this will take us any further.<15> MR MENON: Can I just clarify one matter. Perhaps<16> the officer can look at the original of the Croydon<17> questionnaire and confirm the entire document is in<18> his handwriting and not just his signature at the<19> bottom.<20> THE CHAIRMAN: These are in the system somewhere I<21> believe.<22> THE WITNESS: That is mine, yes.<23> MR MENON: You wrote out the bit.<24> THE WITNESS: That is my writing, yes.<25> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr Tomlin, that

. P-3032 TOMLIN

< 1> is the end of your evidence and you are released< 2> now. You can go whereever you wish. Thank you for< 3> coming.< 4> <(The witness withdrew).< 5> MR LAWSON: Sir, we propose to recall Mr Davidson to< 6> complete his evidence.< 7> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Mansfield, you are ready now for< 8> him to be recalled.< 9> MR MANSFIELD: Almost. Sir, could I have five<10> minutes because the documents that were provided, I<11> have only been reading them whilst this was going on.<12> THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the sensible thing is to take<13> a break now, even though we have only been sitting<14> for a short while, until 11:30.<15> <(A Short Adjournment)<16> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Davidson, you are still sworn.<17> I feel some discourtesy because two of my advisers<18> are not here. Perhaps we better give them a minute.<19> <JOHN DAVIDSON, (Continued)<20> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR MANSFIELD<21> Q. Mr Davidson, I represent Mr and Mrs Lawrence and<22> may I begin, as I have with others, ensuring that you<23> have seen and read a notice that was served last week<24> on their behalf in relation to various issues under<25> different headings A, B, C, D, E and F?

. P-3033 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. I have, yes.< 2> Q. In many of those instances, as you will see,< 3> they specify a number of failures, which we suggest< 4> for which you are responsible in relation to outside< 5> information; that is really the general category, is< 6> it not?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. Again, providing you with a similar opportunity< 9> as other witnesses, looking back now on it all, in<10> other words your role in this whole matter, dealing<11> with outside informants and so on, is there anything<12> were you to be facing, which I realise you may not<13> now, but were you to face it all again is there<14> anything you think you might have done differently?<15> A. Personally, no.<16> Q. Nothing at all?<17> A. Nothing that I would have done differently.<18> Q. No mistakes, no delay which you feel was<19> deleterious, in other words had a bad effect, nothing<20> like that?<21> A. By me?<22> Q. Yes, by you?<23> A. Not that I can recall, sir, no.<24> Q. Of course you have had plenty of opportunity to<25> think about this in reflection, have you not?

. P-3034 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. I have sir, yes.< 2> Q. Because not only, obviously, has the matter been< 3> in the public eye, in any event, since the event but< 4> you yourself were seen at least twice by the< 5> Kent Constabulary in relation to the PCA< 6> Investigation, were you not?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. Then eventually you made a statement which was< 9> provided this year, which the Inquiry has seen?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. I am going to deal with it in a form of<12> chronology, to make it a little easier to follow. I<13> am going to suggest to you now, you again see from<14> the notice, I am going to suggest to you that you did<15> not pursue crucial areas of information in this case<16> that had they been pursued and developed at an<17> earlier stage could have helped with the arrest of<18> various individuals and the interviewing of various<19> individuals; do you follow?<20> A. I follow what you are getting at, yes, sir.<21> Q. You indicated that you started your<22> participation in this Inquiry on Saturday 24th April?<23> A. If Saturday was the 24th, it was the Saturday,<24> yes, sir.<25> Q. I am starting with care because I suggest there

. P-3035 DAVIDSON

< 1> is even a little doubt over when you did in fact< 2> start. It may be a mistake, but there are good< 3> reasons for asking you. Could you have been at work< 4> on Friday 23rd?< 5> A. No, sir.< 6> Q. Let us work on the basis that it is the 24th for< 7> the moment?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. Where had you been, on some other inquiry before<10> that?<11> A. No, I was on golf tour. I was on annual leave.<12> Q. You were on annual leave?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. So you are requested on the Saturday to join<15> this team?<16> A. Yes, sir, to my recollection.<17> Q. Who requested you to join it?<18> A. I believe I was called out by the AMIP office,<19> sir. I don't know who phoned for me.<20> Q. You worked with the AMIP team before?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. Many times?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. It is a close knit team?<25> A. It changes from time to time. It was building

. P-3036 DAVIDSON

< 1> at that stage into a close knit team yes. At that< 2> time there was a call out rota for officers from< 3> different divisions to join various AMIP teams. It< 4> eventually became an attachment to AMIP after I had< 5> left, sir.< 6> Q. Let us deal with the key people in it when you< 7> arrive. On the Saturday, as you seem to recall at< 8> the moment it was, two key figures, two senior key< 9> figures I want to deal with, that is Crampton and<10> Bullock, if you do not mind me doing it that way, you<11> knew those two before?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. Both of them?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. You had worked with them before?<16> A. I do not think I had worked with Mr Bullock<17> before I worked with Mr Crampton before.<18> Q. That will do. Did you think you had a good<19> working relationship with him?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. So in fact you yourself were not a junior<22> officer, were you?<23> A. I was only a Sergeant, sir.<24> Q. Yes, but you had had a lot of experience?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-3037 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. How many years by that stage?< 2> A. At that stage 25.< 3> Q. 25 years?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. So not junior in terms of experience, were you?< 6> A. No but not senior in terms of rank, sir.< 7> Q. I appreciate the difference but for an inquiry< 8> of this kind, that is where an area major< 9> investigation pool or team, or however you call it,<10> is called in there has to be close liaison, does<11> there not, between the team members and the<12> leadership?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. Because if there is not close liaison then there<15> is libel to be serious mistakes made, because one<16> hand does not know what the other is doing?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. Do you agree?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. Coming into this, that is Crampton and Bullock<21> on the Saturday, just shooting forward, of course the<22> officer who takes over is Mr Weeden, and I think you<23> have already said you had worked with him before?<24> A. Yes, sir.<25> Q. So, again, another officer you knew relatively

. P-3038 DAVIDSON

< 1> well?< 2> A. I had, in fact, been working with him before I< 3> went on the golf tour.< 4> Q. You had a good working relationship with him?< 5> A. I would hope so yes, sir.< 6> Q. Once again the same thing applies, that you< 7> would want to liaise closely with him about< 8> information he had or you had?< 9> A. About information I had but certainly, sir, but<10> information he got would be entirely up to him, he<11> was a senior officer at all times.<12> Q. We will come to that. You would agree, if there<13> is going to be any sense out of this inquiry, if he<14> has key information that is going to help you he<15> really ought to tell you?<16> A. I would hope so, yes.<17> Q. You would hope so. That is the sort of working<18> relationship at the top.<19> Your role when you first were brought in was<20> what?<21> A. In terms of outside enquiries, sir.<22> Q. You were in charge. I worded your notice<23> carefully because you have not said in your statement<24> that you were in charge, I have put you senior<25> officer with responsibility, but you were in charge

. P-3039 DAVIDSON

< 1> of outside enquiries?< 2> A. Yes. The AMIP team is split, as to a Sergeant< 3> in charge of the office; the senior officer with the< 4> DI as his assistant, come bag carrier, come overall< 5> office charge man; then a Sergeant in charge of< 6> house-to-house enquiries; a Sergeant for liaison with< 7> the family and a Sergeant in charge of outside with< 8> another Sergeant, so shared responsibility but in< 9> charge of the outside enquiries.<10> Q. As a matter of practicality therefore the<11> Sergeants with the different areas of responsibility<12> in this inquiry, plus the senior officers are plainly<13> an extremely important position in these very early<14> days in order to, as it were, target who might be<15> responsible; do you agree?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. You agree. One of your first functions, you<18> said to the Inquiry, was to read material once you<19> arrived, you say, on Saturday at 12 noon you sat down<20> and read statements?<21> A. Yes, sir, or statements, bits of paper,<22> correspondence regarding the Inquiry.<23> Q. I am going to split them into two bits: did you<24> read the statement of Duwayne Brooks?<25> A. If it was available I would have done, yes, sir.

. P-3040 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. I would like to ask whether it was available to< 2> you on Saturday, if that is when you came on, again< 3> we are on that premise for the moment, on Saturday< 4> 24th at noon, between noon and 2.00, was it available< 5> to you and did you read it?< 6> A. I couldn't tell you, sir, I can't remember.< 7> Q. You see he is an eyewitness victim, I am going< 8> to put it together, an eyewitness victim, a friend of< 9> Stephen Lawrence. He gives an extensive statement in<10> which he describes where he had been with him, etc,<11> all the way through. It is a long statement, you<12> have seen it since, have you not?<13> A. I imagine I have, sir. I read most of the<14> statements on the Inquiry, I am sure I would have<15> read Duwayne Brooks. I can't tell you when I read it<16> but I would have read Duwayne Brooks's statement,<17> yes, sir.<18> Q. You cannot pin it to this time?<19> A. I can't pin it to any time.<20> Q. Do you remember anything about that statement<21> particularly, at all, now?<22> A. I remember the events as described leading up to<23> the incident where Stephen died and I can imagine<24> those events were in the form of Duwayne Brooks'<25> statement. Therefore I would get the events leading

. P-3041 DAVIDSON

< 1> up and what happened at the scene from that, yes,< 2> sir.< 3> Q. All right. There were, in fact, one or two< 4> other witness statements from people who had been at< 5> the scene; do you remember reading any of those in< 6> these 12.00 to 2.00 period?< 7> A. Yes, sir. There was people at bus stops, yes.< 8> Q. You remember those?< 9> A. I don't remember actually if I read them at that<10> stage but if they were the ones available I would<11> have read them then.<12> Q. I am going to suggest they were all available,<13> well not all but certainly some key eye witnesses<14> available in the key period on 24th?<15> A. Therefore I would have read the statements.<16> Q. In this category of people who described what<17> happened, having read them and standing back as an<18> officer who had the role of in charge of outside<19> enquiries and information, did anything strike you<20> about the assault, attack that you were reading?<21> A. In what way, sir.<22> Q. No, no, no this is my question; did anything<23> strike you, stand out when you read those statements<24> to you?<25> A. I am not being vague, sir, but I don't know

. P-3042 DAVIDSON

< 1> exactly what you are talking about. What would< 2> strike out? A boy was murdered, a young lad was< 3> murdered by four of five other young lads outside a< 4> bus stop, what would strike me about that, sir?< 5> Q. Yes, what would strike you about that, officer?< 6> A. It was a murder, sir, it was the most heinous< 7> offence it could be.< 8> Q. And?< 9> A. And, was there an and sir?<10> Q. Yes there is an and. I am not going to take all<11> day about it, obviously, I just wondered if it<12> occurred to you that it was a race attack?<13> A. At the stage of reading the statements I was<14> aware there was alleged four or five white lads<15> attacked two black lads. In my mind I would think<16> that may have been a race attack. There was a call<17> out, I believe, of a racial nature which again would<18> put it in my mind that it may be a race attack.<19> From other information I gleaned during the<20> Inquiry I would say that the persons that were<21> believed to be allegedly responsible were persons<22> that would have killed anyone had they been there at<23> the time. I do not think in my own mind this was a<24> race attack. I believe this was thugs attacking<25> anyone, as they had done on previous occasions with

. P-3043 DAVIDSON

< 1> other white lads.< 2> Q. What I want to suggest to you very clearly, in< 3> what became very clear -- I think it will save time< 4> if you will accept -- during the Dobson interview you< 5> made it clear to Mr Dobson that you personally did< 6> not think this was a race attack, did you not?< 7> A. By that time I didn't, no, sir.< 8> Q. By that time you did not think it was?< 9> A. I didn't think it was, no, sir.<10> Q. That is your view today, is it not?<11> A. It is, sir.<12> Q. Do you know the definition, the AGPO definition<13> of a racial incident?<14> A. No, sir.<15> Q. You do not. Has anyone ever told you what it<16> is?<17> A. Probably.<18> Q. Probably, but you have forgotten?<19> A. I would imagine, from my memory and my<20> experience in a job, a racial incident is one which<21> is caused by or through racism. It can be anything<22> from a shout, in this case there was a shout, to an<23> out and out racist attack, but because these lads had<24> attacked whites before very, very similarly with a<25> similar knife, the ones we believed, I believed this

. P-3044 DAVIDSON

< 1> was thugs.< 2> They were described as the Krays. They were< 3> thugs who were out to kill, not particularly a black< 4> person, but anybody, and I believe that to this day< 5> that that was thugs, not racism, just pure bloody< 6> minded thuggery.< 7> Q. I do not want to debate with you about the< 8> nature of racism but do you recognise that thugs who< 9> may kill white people for a variety of reasons, but<10> who kill blacks because they are blacks are<11> committing a racial crime?<12> A. Yes, sir I recognise that if they were killed<13> because he was black that is racist.<14> Q. That is exactly what this case was about but you<15> refused to recognise it, did you not?<16> A. I still refuse to recognise it, sir. I am very<17> surprised that anybody knows it is about that because<18> it has never been cleared up anyway, sir.<19> Q. Or is it because you know a great deal more<20> about the Norrises?<21> A. I arrested his father.<22> Q. You arrested his father. When?<23> A. After this incident. In order that Mr Mellish<24> could then try again with his statement to get<25> witnesses because he was causing the witnesses to be

. P-3045 DAVIDSON

< 1> in fear and alarm on the estate.< 2> Q. I will come back to Mr Norris in a moment.< 3> A. You can ask me about his, sir.< 4> Q. Had you been, before this incident, on any race< 5> awareness course?< 6> A. I don't remember being on a course, I would have< 7> been made aware of race issues and I would have read< 8> them up yes, sir.< 9> Q. Were you aware of the procedures that apply not<10> to just any old thugs killing people irrespective but<11> the procedures that apply to racial crime?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. What were they in 1993?<14> A. There was a method for informing immediately,<15> any race incident had to be informed to the Yard by<16> teleprinter, they had to be marked up as a racial<17> incident, they had to be brought to the attention of<18> the senior officer.<19> Q. Whose responsibility was that?<20> A. Whoever took the crime sheet and the crime<21> report, which was two days before that was on it.<22> Q. Yes, I appreciate that. Did you see the crime<23> report in this case?<24> A. No, sir.<25> Q. Did you see any indication before, in this 12 to

. P-3046 DAVIDSON

< 1> 2 period when you first came on, that anybody was< 2> treating it as a racial attack?< 3> A. Other than being aware it was whites on blacks,< 4> no, sir.< 5> Q. No?< 6> A. I have got to say, sir, had it be a racial< 7> attack had I had it in my mind it was a racial< 8> attack, I would have done nothing differently at< 9> all. I don't treat any victim of murder any<10> differently no matter what colour, creed he is, sir;<11> and I never ever would have done in my time in the<12> police, sir.<13> Q. Do you recognise the whole point, if I may put<14> it to you this way, is quite the reverse that where<15> you have a racial attack it may be very important to<16> identify it as such because it may be important to<17> look at what connections this may have with other<18> racial attacks in the area, other people responsible<19> for racial attacks in the area and so on?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. You recognise that that may be one of the very<22> good reasons why you would need to have a correlation<23> with other material under the heading "racial<24> attack"?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-3047 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. But of course in this 12 to 2 period because you< 2> did not treat it as that, you did not in fact make< 3> any enquiries as to other material that my bear upon< 4> racial attacks, is that correct?< 5> A. I made myself aware of all material that was in< 6> the murder squad at the time, sir.< 7> Q. For example, did you make any approach to the< 8> Racial Incidents Unit?< 9> A. I didn't no, sir.<10> Q. Did you ask anyone else whether in fact there<11> was any information on racial attacks in this area?<12> A. That wasn't my job, sir, I didn't.<13> Q. You are dealing with outside information, are<14> you not?<15> A. I was out to get information about the murder<16> and follow up leads that were there, sir.<17> Q. What you do before you even start on the outside<18> is to ask officers on the squad have they accumulated<19> local intelligence on racial attacks in the area?<20> A. Sir, within the first 4 hour, four-and-a-half<21> hours of me being on the squad I was made aware of<22> names that I believed were very good suspects. I was<23> then dealing with that almost in its entirety<24> throughout the next few days and weeks.<25> Q. Please understand, I am premising these

. P-3048 DAVIDSON

< 1> questions on you coming on duty on 24th between 12< 2> and 2 when you are reading up. Did you know anything< 3> about this case?< 4> A. Not before.< 5> Q. Because you had been away?< 6> A. Yes, sir. I was aware of the television report< 7> on the Saturday morning.< 8> Q. Perhaps. But the only question I am asking you< 9> is whether before you begin to even pursue angles of<10> outside information whether -- I think the answer is<11> no to this -- you pursued any officer within the<12> squad and say: Look, is there any local intelligence<13> on racial attacks in this area?<14> A. Sir, before I attempt to do anything I was<15> ending up dealing with an informant. I was reading<16> the material, I was dealing with the informant. I<17> was trying to take in as much as possible in that<18> first day. There was almost 36 hours had passed<19> since the incident. I was trying to collate and get<20> everything into my head with that when I was<21> confronted by an informant giving me names that to<22> all intents and purposes may well have been the ones<23> that had done the murder. I, therefore, concentrated<24> my whole efforts on that, sir.<25> Q. Is the answer "no"?

. P-3049 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. During that time yes, the answer is "no".< 2> Q. The answer is "no". Before we move to the< 3> specific lines, would this be a fair summary: you< 4> did not treat this as a racial attack, you did not< 5> make enquiries about other racial incidents and you< 6> went to other bits of information that you were asked< 7> to pursue, is that a fair summary?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. I am going to suggest to you straightaway,<10> Mr Davidson, that that in itself was a neglect at the<11> very beginning to appreciate the nature of the attack<12> and to bother to pursue it. Do you follow?<13> A. I know what you are saying, sir, I don't say it<14> is a neglect, I still say it wasn't a racial attack.<15> It was thugs attacking a poor young innocent lad. He<16> was attacked and killed had he been black, white,<17> green, blue or yellow he would still have been<18> attacked and killed because they picked that man at<19> that time, not for any other reason. Stacey<20> Benefield was white. Lee Pearson was white, several<21> other lads were white. I only recently discovered<22> that one called Kevin Lunden was black, I didn't know<23> that at the time.<24> Q. In the interview with Dobson you did know that?<25> A. Well then but it never crossed my mind that he

. P-3050 DAVIDSON

< 1> was black.< 2> Q. You did know that, you said it in the interview,< 3> it was said by both of you in the interview with< 4> Dobson that he was black?< 5> A. I don't recall that, sir.< 6> Q. You do not recall. The whole point, however, as< 7> you have accepted is irrespective of the nature of< 8> the victim, the fact is even if somebody goes around< 9> killing all colours, it still does not mean that a<10> particular attack is not racial, you have accepted<11> that, by the same people?<12> A. Yes, I accept that.<13> Q. You accept that. I want to move to the specific<14> lines that you were then asked to develop. I am<15> going to go carefully on this because once again I am<16> going to suggest you neglected what you had to do. I<17> want you to think again about when it was that you<18> were deputed to speak to a particular individual<19> which we all know as James Grant?<20> A. From recollection and from my duty sheet it was<21> on the Saturday afternoon.<22> Q. In general terms would you agree having, as it<23> were, dealt with this man and others that there are<24> two factors that arise generally: first of all, it<25> would be fair to say in this case from the beginning

. P-3051 DAVIDSON

< 1> of the enquiries there was no wall of silence by the< 2> community, was there?< 3> A. No wall of silence, there was information coming< 4> in but there was no one willing to put it on paper< 5> and make statements about it, sir.< 6> Q. We will come to that. There was no wall of< 7> silence on information, was there?< 8> A. It depends what you are saying wall of silence< 9> is, sir.<10> Q. Plenty of people ringing in, some named and some<11> unnamed, with information about names and addresses,<12> were they not?<13> A. There were people ringing in yes, sir.<14> Q. It was not a wall of silence from the community,<15> was it, Mr Davidson?<16> A. It was a wall of silence from the community,<17> sir, inasmuch as nobody would come forward and give<18> evidence against these lads, they were frightened of<19> them.<20> Q. We will come to the giving of evidence, I am<21> dealing with the first stage. There can be no<22> suggestion that the community were not prepared to<23> give information to the police, can there?<24> A. They were prepared to give information but not<25> back it up in any form at all, sir.

. P-3052 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. We will come to the back up in a moment. That< 2> is one aspect which I suggest, no wall of silence< 3> from information point of view. Secondly, it was< 4> perfectly obvious to you from the beginning, given< 5> the nature of the attack even on your basis, leaving< 6> aside the race element for a moment, even on your< 7> approach to this that there was going to be, as there< 8> might always be even if it is two gangs, any kind of< 9> major crime where there is a murder, there is going<10> to be an element of fear, is there not, amongst<11> people?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. There is going to be an element of fear, there<14> is going to be anxiety by people speaking or being<15> seen to speak to the police. Do you agree?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. Particularly if we were dealing, as it must have<18> been clear to you fairly soon, that you were dealing<19> with a range of people who were going to be in their<20> teens. In other words, you are dealing with young<21> people, that provides, as it were, a double effect,<22> does it not?<23> A. It can do, yes, sir.<24> Q. In other words young, vulnerable, anxious,<25> fearful people you might be dealing with?

. P-3053 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. So firstly it is getting information from them< 3> and secondly it is ensuring that you can develop the< 4> information and then finally obviously get their< 5> willingness to come forward and speak in court if you< 6> can get a case?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. Those are the various stages?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. Obviously with your responsibility and outside<11> enquiries, you would want to ensure there was some<12> sort of strategy or plan to deal with such witnesses,<13> potential witnesses?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. Was there?<16> A. In what way, sir?<17> Q. It is my question. What was the strategy, what<18> was the plan that you developed in charge of outside<19> enquiries as to how to handle these individuals, some<20> of whom were known and some of whom were not known<21> because they were anonymous. I will just deal with<22> the ones that you had to deal within turn, but was<23> there a plan as to how these people should be<24> approached, how they should be cared for, how they<25> should be supported, what provision should be made

. P-3054 DAVIDSON

< 1> for them, etc?< 2> A. An out and out plan, no there wasn't sir. Why< 3> not, probably based on experience of the officers< 4> that were dealing there, sir.< 5> Q. No, you are the one dealing with this area of< 6> responsibility and the suggestion I have made is very< 7> clear that this was totally mishandled, this whole< 8> area of information was mishandled. Why was there no< 9> plan, no strategy?<10> A. There was no difference in dealing with, as you<11> said yourself, any witnesses to a murder that<12> happened to be among gangs and among youngsters and<13> among witnesses for murder. There is no special way<14> of dealing with the witnesses in this murder than the<15> witnesses in other murder involving gangs etc. We<16> all know how to deal with vulnerable people or we<17> should or we shouldn't be on the murder squad.<18> Q. I suggest you put most of the ones off in this<19> enquiry and that is why they did not come forward in<20> the end, did you not, Mr Davidson?<21> A. I put most of who off, sir?<22> Q. You put them off?<23> A. Who did I put off, sir?<24> Q. Emma Cook?<25> A. I put Emma Cook off, I didn't put Emma Cook off

. P-3055 DAVIDSON

< 1> at all, sir.< 2> Q. We will come to the individual examples.< 3> Anyway, you accept there was no particular strategy,< 4> that was going to be treated just like any other< 5> enquiry, there were no discussion with senior< 6> officers about--< 7> A. There wasn't any other enquiry, sir, it was a< 8> murder of a young lad. It was a very serious< 9> murder. It was taken very seriously in every step,<10> it wasn't just dealt with willy-nilly; and I really<11> get annoyed when people even suggest that I didn't<12> give 100% in this murder and I gave more than 100%.<13> I gave it as I would give to any murder, sir.<14> Q. What discussion was there between you and either<15> Mr Crampton for the first weekend or Mr Weeden for<16> the rest of the time for providing protection,<17> anonymity and so on, for young teenage friends and<18> associates of the suspects who may have committed<19> this crime?<20> A. I dealt with two of the witnesses, sir. I<21> provided through the Yard safe houses. I provided<22> different identities for them. I took them away and<23> I looked after them for a long time in this.<24> Q. Are these two known by initials?<25> A. No, they are known now by names they were Stacey

. P-3056 DAVIDSON

< 1> Benefield and Matthew Farnham. This was the very< 2> first part of the information that I dealt with, sir,< 3> and I dealt with thoroughly and I ended up dealing< 4> with them as minding their witnesses.< 5> Q. Was there any provision for Emma Cook,< 6> Michelle Casserly?< 7> A. Michelle Casserly, in front of her mother used< 8> the most venomous language I have heard from a young< 9> girl to me as I walked in when I was being perfectly<10> charming to her mother. I was trying to look after<11> her as a girl. When a girl of 14 or 15 whatever she<12> was at the time comes out with a mouthful in front of<13> me I know I am up against something that is a little<14> bit different, sir.<15> Q. Was there a strategy already worked out to deal<16> with----<17> A. Yes, other officers were sent down after me.<18> Everybody had a go at each of the witnesses to see if<19> they could get them to talk us to so. As far as the<20> strategy went the senior officer then sent others<21> down.<22> Q. What I am going to suggest to you, Mr Davidson,<23> is by the time other officers get on to the scene it<24> is too late, you have cleared the pitch. Do you<25> follow? Do you follow?

. P-3057 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. I know what you are saying, sir, I completely< 2> and utterly disagree with you. I have had a lot of< 3> experience it is not alone just accepting the fact< 4> that I cleared the pitch, I treat people as I find.< 5> I tried my utmost to get evidence for this enquiry.< 6> I tried everything. I even went and spent time away< 7> from my family looking after two lads that were< 8> alleged skinheads to get evidence for this enquiry.< 9> I went to these girls. I didn't say a word to this<10> girl when she told me to do what she told me to do.<11> I was getting on great with her mother. Her mother<12> sat and accepted that. I didn't clear any pitch<13> there.<14> Q. I want to deal with it again in some kind of<15> order and that is the first person that you saw<16> namely a man called Grant?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. We are calling him "Grant"?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. During the late afternoon or early evening of<21> Friday, 23rd April this person walked in to the front<22> office of Eltham Police Station and it is in fact<23> somewhere around 7 o'clock-ish that that happened.<24> Would you just listen to this sentence: "DC Budgen<25> interviewed this man initially and later the same day

. P-3058 DAVIDSON

< 1> with DS Davidson." That is Friday, 23rd. Is that< 2> possible?< 3> A. No, sir.< 4> Q. We have only had this this morning and because< 5> your legal representative wanted me to get on with< 6> it, I am getting on with it. However, one enquiry I< 7> wanted to make was whether this is a result of an< 8> interview with you in June of last year, you see,< 9> with an officer called, two officers----<10> MR EGAN: I object on the two basis, I am sorry to<11> interrupt. Firstly, the last comment was wholly,<12> wholly inappropriate to make to a witness. If my<13> learned friend had any complaint or any application<14> to make about delaying this witness he should have<15> made it to the Inquiry and we should not have this<16> collateral comment made towards his legal<17> representative. Secondly, if my learned friend is<18> going to put a statement, an allegedly previous<19> inconsistent statement to this witness in view of the<20> matters or the way this cross-examination is being<21> prepared, it ought to be done properly. In other<22> words, Denman's rules ought to apply. So the<23> statement ought to be put to the witness and he ought<24> to be asked whether he made it.<25> MR MANSFIELD: Certainly, he will be.

. P-3059 DAVIDSON

< 1> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Mansfield, it just a question of< 2> keeping the temperature down a little I think and< 3> going through the steps as they should be taken and< 4> not jumping ahead. I am sure you will do that.< 5> MR MANSFIELD: Yes, I will. Could action 283 as I< 6> know it and in the sense that that has been provided,< 7> it is an interview by DC Newman of DS Davidson, it is< 8> a report on that be before the witness, please, if< 9> there is any copy of it.<10> MR LAWSON: This is one of the documents that was<11> provided and disclosed this morning, it is number 1<12> with 3 in manuscript at the top.<13> MR MANSFIELD: Have you seen this before?<14> A. No, sir.<15> Q. Would you like a minute to look at it?<16> A. Yes, please, sir.<17> THE CHAIRMAN: While he is doing that and the<18> relevant part is on the front page it just strikes<19> me, Mr Mansfield, this is not a statement made by<20> this officer. This is a document prepared by<21> Mr Newman which relates what he says the officer said<22> to him, but there is no written statement of any<23> kind.<24> MR MANSFIELD: I am desisting on asking the officer<25> why there is not.

. P-3060 DAVIDSON

< 1> THE WITNESS: Perhaps I could clear the point of that,< 2> sir: when the officers came to see me they were< 3> aware of an interview I believe they had with DC< 4> Budgen. I didn't have my duty sheets there. I< 5> remember seeing the informant with DC Budgen,< 6> couldn't remember the time it was, and I can only< 7> presume they have assumed it was on the Friday. I< 8> wasn't on the Inquiry on the Friday, sir. I wasn't< 9> even in London on the Friday. This happened on the<10> Saturday, where I was sent down by DI Bullock to see<11> Mr Grant with DC Budgen to check out the informant.<12> MR MANSFIELD: Again I am not going to take a lot of<13> time because Budgen himself had something to say<14> about this. He first thought that you were with him,<15> you see?<16> A. If you check, I believe you have the duty sheets<17> here, if you could pull them up, sir, and look at my<18> duty sheets you will see I wasn't on the inquiry<19> until 12 o'clock on Saturday.<20> MR EGAN: My learned friend can find them at 00320096<21> and 00320097.<22> MR MANSFIELD: We saw it the other day.<23> THE CHAIRMAN: We saw it on Friday and it does bear<24> out, in fact, what Sergeant Davidson says, does it<25> not.

. P-3061 DAVIDSON

< 1> MR MANSFIELD: His duty state does?< 2> A. I am not going to do something and not put it in< 3> the duty state. I got paid a lot of money at the< 4> time by the police.< 5> Q. Please be careful, Mr Davidson?< 6> A. I am very careful, sir. I am not going to do< 7> something on a Friday for the police and not show it< 8> on the duty sheet on a day I am off playing golf.< 9> Q. Really?<10> A. I would never, ever go and do something for the<11> police when I was playing golf elsewhere. Good God,<12> what are you suggesting, sir? Are you suggesting<13> that I would falsely say I was somewhere when I was<14> somewhere else.<15> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Davidson?<16> A. I am not here for this, sir. I am not here for<17> this at all.<18> THE CHAIRMAN: You must calm down because<19> Mr Mansfield is entitled to ask the questions, so<20> just take?<21> A. He is not entitled to suggest I would do that,<22> sir.<23> THE CHAIRMAN: Take a pause. You have dealt with<24> that point, Mr Mansfield.<25> MR MANSFIELD: May I pass on. You appear to be

. P-3062 DAVIDSON

< 1> saying in this report----< 2> A. I am not saying anything in that report, it is< 3> not my report.< 4> Q. Can I ask you to look at this sentence, it is< 5> about the nature of the information:< 6> "DS Davidson is sure he informed the SIO", that< 7> would be Crampton at this time?< 8> THE CHAIRMAN: Point out where you are?< 9> MR MANSFIELD: It is the last sentence of the<10> penultimate paragraph. Do you see that sentence?<11> A. I see that, yes.<12> Q. "DS Davidson is sure he informed the SIO<13> straightaway owing to the importance of the<14> information provided."<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. That is the information provided in the first<17> contact, namely, and if you want to see it we can<18> have it up, it is (PCA00500165) please.<19> You saw this the other day, this is the initial,<20> could you go down to paragraph 12.2.11. We have seen<21> it many times before, perhaps I can just stay there<22> for a moment. Were you present when that information<23> was communicated, leaving aside the date?<24> A. I was present when that was probably repeated to<25> me, yes, sir. I have seen that is dated on the

. P-3063 DAVIDSON

< 1> Friday. It was repeated to me on the Saturday.< 2> Q. Let us deal with it that way, on the Saturday< 3> when it was repeated to you is it Mr Budgen who is< 4> telling you this?< 5> A. No, it is Mr Grant who was telling me this, he< 6> was there in the police station.< 7> Q. On the Saturday?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. Yes. I am going to begin the process of asking<10> you this, and it happens many times, I think you<11> accept you have absolutely no record of that meeting<12> in the sense of its details, do you?<13> A. I have in my duty sheet the fact I met this<14> informant or an informant on an enquiry on the<15> Saturday afternoon. I had him down as an informant.<16> He wasn't given the name Grant at that stage.<17> Q. What name were you given then? Was it his real<18> name, because if it was I do not wish to know?<19> A. It was his real name. He was only given the<20> pseudonym on the next meeting when we were<21> registering him as an informant.<22> Q. We will come to the nest meeting in a moment,<23> you do recognise that this person is, in fact,<24> providing what has been described by others as<25> crucial information, is he not?

. P-3064 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. Looking at it generally, this person plainly, to< 3> put it in a nutshell, is either very close to the< 4> action himself --< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. -- or he knows, as they say in some of the< 7> advertisments, he knows a man who was, he knows< 8> somebody else who was?< 9> A. That was in the first instance we thought, yes,<10> sir.<11> Q. So it is likely to be one of those two?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. Particularly if the material that he is<14> providing, as you indicated before the weekend, was<15> checked out, then it looks as though you have a very<16> reliable informant here?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. Therefore it is imperative, is it not, to keep a<19> very careful record of what this person is telling<20> you?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. There is, in fact, in your hand absolutely no<23> record, is there, in relation to any of the meetings<24> and there were quite a number of them, that you had<25> with this man?

. P-3065 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. That's correct, sir.< 2> Q. Why not?< 3> A. I believe the docket went missing, sir. I know< 4> it went missing because I know the docket was in my< 5> hand, I know when we took it with DC Budgen and< 6> handed it to a Chief Inspector as Plumstead Police< 7> Station and that docket would have been kept up to< 8> date, as an informants docket should be. The only< 9> paper that was discovered later was the informants<10> letter for a reward. I don't know where it went. I<11> know it was in existence and I know the docket was,<12> in fact, registered through the DCI at Plumstead,<13> what happened to it then I don't know.<14> Q. Which DCI are you talking about?<15> A. His name escapes me at the moment.<16> Q. Is it Owen?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. You say that all the dockets written by you in<19> each of the meetings, and there are quite a number of<20> them, quite a number have been isolated by Kent, half<21> a dozen meetings or more have been isolated?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. And not a single docket has come to light and<24> you say that is not your responsibility, you handed<25> them in?

. P-3066 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. Of course besides handing in dockets you would< 3> have to be, of course, conveying information to other< 4> people. Did the dockets just go to Mr Owens or did< 5> they go to him after you communicated the contents to< 6> Mr Crampton or Mr Weeden or whoever it was?< 7> A. The contents and information would be fed in< 8> through the murder squad to the docket.< 9> Q. Would it not go on the HOLMES computer?<10> A. It should have done.<11> Q. You see the only -- you probably are aware now<12> what the only ones are, this message 40 and another<13> one, 152 and another one, 276 appear to be the only<14> material that got on to the HOLMES; do you follow?<15> A. I know you are saying, they should have gone on<16> the HOLMES.<17> Q. They should have been. Not only have they gone<18> missing but let us just examine the system here, you<19> see: when you have had a meeting, let us say the one<20> that you claim you have at 4.30 on the Saturday<21> before the briefing meeting at 5.00 on Saturday 24th?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. That would be written up at the time by you,<24> would it?<25> A. No, I believe it was written at the time by

. P-3067 DAVIDSON

< 1> Mr Budgen.< 2> Q. What would happen to the docket written by< 3> Mr Budgen or yourself, would you keep it with you and< 4> at the end of the day hand it to Inspector Owens or< 5> would you keep it until a week later and then hand< 6> it?< 7> A. No it would go through the murder squad and then< 8> be taken across to Mr Owens.< 9> Q. Who is in the same building?<10> A. No at a different police station.<11> Q. You take it into the incident room, effectively,<12> yourself?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. You hand it in?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. Who to?<17> A. Probably the researcher or the inputer.<18> Q. Indexer?<19> A. It would go in as part of the murder office<20> meetings, they would go in at that stage. They<21> wouldn't be actions specifically drawn up because of<22> the informant unless there was a different action,<23> but any meetings of them would go in as an<24> information docket to the murder squad and on to his<25> docket. I don't know what happened to them all.

. P-3068 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. Really in this whole matter what you are quite< 2> unable to explain is how these various dockets, save< 3> for 3 messages, how these various dockets do not end< 4> up on the HOLMES system, which is in play by this< 5> stage and how they do not end up in on HOLMES and< 6> they do not end up on any file, you cannot explain< 7> it?< 8> A. I can't explain it. I can explain the fact that< 9> as a result of doing that I put in a reward docket<10> for Grant and that managed to find itself back again.<11> Q. Yes.<12> A. That was -- yes.<13> Q. I am more concerned with what this man was<14> telling you on the various meetings; do you follow?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. If the message that is on the screen at the<17> moment which is the first of the three that are<18> recorded, the one for Friday, 23rd, if this is a<19> message that you were told about the following day,<20> before you had your meeting at 4.30 with the man who<21> had been asked to come back, did it occur to you that<22> there was something missing from this message? There<23> is a bit more to it if you want to read the bottom<24> bit. That is the end of it?<25> A. Yes. What is missing, no, I don't -- I can't

. P-3069 DAVIDSON

< 1> think what you are getting at, sir, perhaps you could< 2> prompt me.< 3> Q. I could, but you are the officer in charge of< 4> outside enquiries and I would suggest to you the most< 5> important question is missing?< 6> A. Where the information came from.< 7> Q. Exactly. Having read it, if that is the way it< 8> worked, did you say to Mr Budgen: "Well now, this man< 9> is extremely important", for reasons we have already<10> gone into, did you ask him how he knows all this?<11> A. I would have asked him myself, sir.<12> Q. No, before we get?<13> A. I don't remember whether I would or not.<14> Q. Did Mr Budgen say: "He just won't tell us. I<15> have really pressed him hard and he won't tell us"?<16> A. I don't remember that conversation, sir.<17> Q. You do not recall Mr Budgen before you see this<18> man at 4.30 saying ----<19> A. I don't remember seeing Mr Budgen before I saw<20> him with this man at 4.30. I remember getting sent<21> down to see him.<22> Q. Mr Bullock, or whoever it is who is explaining<23> this message to you, you do not recall anybody saying<24> to you before you met him for the first time on the<25> Saturday afternoon on your chronology of events, you

. P-3070 DAVIDSON

< 1> do not recall anybody saying: "Look, he just won't< 2> tell you how he knows this"?< 3> A. No, I don't remember anyone telling me.< 4> Q. What you say, to come straight to the point, is< 5> that in this meeting at 4.30 on the Saturday and< 6> subsequent meetings you pressed Mr Grant very hard< 7> for the source; is that right?< 8> A. Yes, sir. As hard as I could without putting< 9> him off, yes.<10> Q. I am going to suggest to you that you were given<11> the source and it was a very important source, had it<12> been followed up around this date, the 24th. You<13> were told the source, were you not?<14> A. No, sir, no we weren't.<15> Q. I am going to try and do this without<16> embarrassing or compromising anyone in public. I do<17> not want to mention any names at all. Have you now<18> seen what it is that Grant told Kent when he was seen<19> by the Kent officers?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. You have?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. Do you recognise that he is saying to the Kent<24> officers that he told you, you being the officers<25> dealing with him, the source, first of all he is

. P-3071 DAVIDSON

< 1> saying he gave you a name?< 2> A. Sir, had he given us a name we would have< 3> written it down and followed it up. He didn't give< 4> us a name, he refused it, and his recollection is< 5> wrong because I think I know where he got the source< 6> now.< 7> Q. Yes, I am not concerned with where you think?< 8> A. It is not what he recollects or he didn't tell< 9> us what he recollects, but he was seen four or five<10> years later to say what he told us. He has got it<11> wrong, sir.<12> Q. On subsequent occasions that he has been seen,<13> and he has been seen more than once, I am not going<14> through all the occasions, but accept it from me that<15> on all the occasions he has been seen since he has<16> been quite willing to tell those seeing him where the<17> information came from in the first place and may I<18> complete the picture, where it came from, who that<19> person was with who gave him the information, where<20> it was when he, that is Grant, heard about this<21> information, where it was, and when it was?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. In fact everything?<24> A. Yes, sir<25> Q. There is no indication, can we move on for a

. P-3072 DAVIDSON

< 1> moment to the next message which is yours. 152 on< 2> the 27th. That would be paragraph 12, 2, 13, so it< 3> will be it is the PCA, it is the same report,< 4> paragraph 12, 2, 13. I do not have a PCA reference< 5> at the top. It is message 152. It is the next page< 6> in fact: That is it. I am using this because it is< 7> a little easier to follow. This is where the message< 8> 152 on 27th April relating to you occurs. Do you< 9> see?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. Just for the sake of clarity if you can help,<12> between the Saturday 24th and this occurrence on or<13> about 27th, had you met with him on other occasions<14> in between?<15> A. I don't think so, sir.<16> Q. This is another occasion where you indicate that<17> you did, in fact, press him for the source of his<18> information?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. Do you agree on the messages that do exist, you<21> have already seen one and this is a second there is<22> only one more to go, on none of those messages is<23> there a hint of you asking any questions about the<24> source of the original information, let alone<25> discovering or a refusal, let us put it that way, a

. P-3073 DAVIDSON

< 1> refusal by Mr Grant, is there?< 2> A. There is no message, nothing to indicate that,< 3> but I would always ask an informant especially in< 4> this case where he got evidence from.< 5> Q. Yes?< 6> A. Very good potential evidence would have been< 7> lost.< 8> Q. I am suggesting that you did not put it down, do< 9> you follow, you were told by Mr Grant and you did not<10> put it down?<11> A. What you are saying is that I didn't put this<12> down, I didn't ask him, therefore I didn't write it<13> down. You are also suggesting I didn't put that<14> other information down which I have read the other<15> day which was very very good information and, in<16> fact, I think one of the persons mentioned in that<17> was in fact named from another source and chased up<18> throughout the enquiry. I would have put down<19> everything he said. There is not a lot of point of<20> meeting an informant and not writing down what he<21> says to follow up. I followed up everything.<22> Q. Unless, Mr Davidson, to put it bluntly you<23> really did not want this informant's material to be<24> effectively followed up. Do you follow the point?<25> A. I can see what you are suggesting, sir, and I

. P-3074 DAVIDSON

< 1> would always give my all in every murder. I don't< 2> like your suggestion, sir. I would give everything< 3> in every murder to solve it and I don't like the fact< 4> you are inferring I would do anything different in< 5> this. Once again, sir, he is accusing me of racism< 6> and bad racism.< 7> Q. A refusal by an informant, Mr Davidson, is an< 8> important matter, a refusal of a source?< 9> A. No, sir necessarily, sir. Why do people need to<10> know that he has refused, they would know I would<11> ask. They don't need to know he is refused that would<12> put him as a bad informant not a good one.<13> Q. Did you tell senior officers that he was<14> refusing?<15> A. The senior officer would ask straightaway, yes I<16> would tell them, I wouldn't write it down though.<17> Q. They have been interviewed as well about this?<18> A. I have no doubt they have, sir.<19> Q. I will ask you to be----<20> A. Another thing I wouldn't do is get the source<21> and not tell him. Why would I do that, sir, because<22> I didn't want to clear up this murder. That is a<23> terrible accusation, sir. I sorry, I don't want to<24> sit and take this, sir. Do I have to sit here? He<25> is accusing me of trying to stop this murder by

. P-3075 DAVIDSON

< 1> racism. I have been in loads of incidents----< 2> THE CHAIRMAN: Just stop for the moment.< 3> THE WITNESS: I won't have that, sir, he is accusing< 4> me of racism openly in a Public Inquiry.< 5> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Davidson, you must take a pause if< 6> you will. You must know what the suggestion that is< 7> made in this case is.< 8> THE WITNESS: I have never been accused directly of< 9> racism, sir, and I don't accept it.<10> MR MANSFIELD: I want to ask you this so that you can<11> see exactly where it comes from. First there is a<12> preliminary question. This relates to the officer<13> called Mr Weeden who you had been working with before<14> you went away on your golfing break, or whatever it<15> was, you appreciate the -- Mr Weeden?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. Was there a problem with Mr Budgen on this<18> enquiry?<19> A. In what way, sir?<20> Q. Was he viewed -- it is difficult to use an<21> adjective -- with suspicion by senior officers?<22> A. He may have been by Mr Bullock.<23> Q. He may have been?<24> A. Mr Bullock asked me to go and check what<25> Budgen's informant was like.

. P-3076 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. He is known as "Budgie"?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. You are known "OJ"?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. Was there a reason for that?< 6> A. It is a nickname I have, sir.< 7> Q. It may not be relevant, we will leave it. You< 8> had to check on Budgie. Sorry what is it you had to< 9> check, and it was Mr Bullock asking you to do this?<10> A. Check with his informant to see how good he was,<11> the informant because ----<12> Q. Which one are we talking about?<13> A. "Grant".<14> Q. You were pretty clear he was a good informant?<15> A. After I checked up on the various bits of<16> information yes, sir, not initially.<17> Q. It is not the problem with Grant, I want to know<18> whether or not in fact Mr Budgen was being viewed<19> himself with suspicion and that therefore Mr Budgen<20> had to be watched?<21> A. I don't think he had to be watched, no it was<22> just a case of----<23> Q. What?<24> A. Perhaps it was thought that his mouth ran away<25> with himself occasionally and therefore everything

. P-3077 DAVIDSON

< 1> had to be checked as regards informants. This looked< 2> like good information and it needed to be checked< 3> out. I can't go into why Mr Bullock would ask me to< 4> do with Mr Budgen. Mr Bullock asked me to check the< 5> informant that DC Budgen was seeing.< 6> Q. That is, if I may put it, that is one aspect.< 7> That is checking an informant. You can see the page,< 8> (PCA00420101) please. If you just you see this is an< 9> interview with Mr Weeden and you can see that first<10> answer on the page there. "Mr Weeden: If I remember"?<11> A. Yes I see it, sir.<12> Q. "He did query whether he was experienced in<13> something." "Did Mr Crampton have any view on<14> Budgen?" "He did mention something at the briefing on<15> the Monday." Were you at the briefing on the Monday?<16> A. No, sir.<17> Q. You were not.<18> A. No that would be, I would imagine, the briefing<19> at Catford between the senior officers, the<20> superintendents and the chief superintendents where<21> they would hand over the murder.<22> Q. "I can't remember the circumstances which led to<23> it but he did just indicate to me that perhaps he<24> might need watching some, you know watching over but<25> to be quite honest I can't recall now what the thing

. P-3078 DAVIDSON

< 1> was that led to that; and because of the activity< 2> during the week I really didn't have a lot of< 3> opportunity of making assessments of the officer with< 4> me for a very short time."< 5> Were you aware that he had been singled out in< 6> any way by Mr Crampton?< 7> A. No, sir.< 8> Q. You were not?< 9> A. No, sir.<10> Q. Then it goes on you say in terms Mr Crampton<11> give you "an idea to watch Budgen." "Did he give you<12> that in relation to any other officer?" "I can't<13> remember." "So it appears Budgen is being singled out<14> by Mr Crampton for you to watch?""Yeah, I am sure<15> there was a comment<16> of that sort."<17> Were you aware that senior officers were<18> watching Budgen?<19> A. No, sir.<20> Q. You were not?<21> A. No, sir.<22> Q. Is there any possibility that perhaps Mr Budgen<23> was rather too eager over this information from Grant<24> and had to be held back?<25> A. I can't actually answer that, sir.

. P-3079 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. He did not remain with the squad for very long< 2> -- I am sorry, this enquiry for very long did he,< 3> Mr Budgen?< 4> A. I can't remember when he went off it, no, sir.< 5> Q. It was about a week or so later, in other words< 6> two or three weeks at the most he was on it. The< 7> date I have in mind is around May 9th. That is the< 8> date he gives. It is the date he gives for ending< 9> his participation. Do you follow?<10> A. It would be after the arrests.<11> Q. Yes it is, two days after the arrests. Is there<12> any reason why he does not continue on this enquiry?<13> A. No not that I can think of unless something came<14> up, he was either finished his time on the squad or<15> there was another incident came up. There is loads<16> of reasons why officers come off and on squads.<17> Q. Did it come as a surprise to you that he was<18> removed from this and put on to something else?<19> A. I can't remember when he went off, sir. I don't<20> remember what I was doing myself at the time.<21> Q. Can I just go back to this particular<22> information in relation to Grant. Could we go back<23> to<24> (PCA00500166) please.<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-3080 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. By this time on 27th, it was very clear that you< 2> had, not only from this source but other sources, you< 3> had the name of the Acourts being put up very< 4> clearly?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. Plus an address, plus a description?< 7> A. For the Acourts yes, sir.< 8> Q. For the Acourts. I am not suggesting this was< 9> detailed to you but somebody obviously quickly had to<10> do some work on the Acourts to find out as much as<11> possible about them?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. By 27th, had you discovered any connection<14> between the Acourts and anyone else?<15> A. I can't honestly remember, sir. There was an<16> awful lot happened very early on in the enquiry and<17> it could be we did have connections between them and<18> others or whatever. I honestly don't remember the<19> sequence. Early on we became aware of the Acourts<20> and others.<21> Q. The others that I want to ask you about<22> specifically which you had got from the message the<23> day before and I will come back to this in a moment<24> because the name is mentioned on your message here<25> Norris, David Norris?

. P-3081 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. By the 27th at the very least, did you know that< 3> name by reputation?< 4> A. I couldn't tell you when I knew that, but< 5> certainly by reputation I may have done, sir.< 6> Q. I want to ask you carefully----< 7> A. Not that particular Norris.< 8> Q. No.< 9> A. I knew the name Norris inasmuch as there was two<10> at that time. One is dead and one is, I think, still<11> incarcerated in prison.<12> Q. I will not ask for the reference but Mr Crampton<13> when interviewed indicated that the two lots of<14> Norrises, particularly the father of this one, was<15> extremely well known amongst police officers. That<16> is how he put it?<17> A. I had never come across him at all in my service<18> but I may well have been aware of the name Norris.<19> Q. I am not suggesting you necessarily had come<20> across him but do you agree when you first came on to<21> this that the name Norris would have rung a great<22> number of bells, would it not?<23> A. It didn't in fact, sir, with me.<24> Q. It did not?<25> A. No, I first of all thought it was the other

. P-3082 DAVIDSON

< 1> Norris and when I discovered it wasn't I didn't know< 2> this one.< 3> Q. Well, you certainly knew that it was not the< 4> other Norris?< 5> A. No, the family, I thought it was connected with< 6> the family, that Norris family and discovered it< 7> wasn't. So I didn't know his father at all.< 8> Q. But you knew by reputation about Cliff Norris?< 9> A. No, I didn't. It was an area of London I hadn't<10> worked, sir, he wasn't that famous.<11> Q. Was he not?<12> A. No. He was in Eltham but he wasn't here.<13> Q. I want to make it plain to you what Mr Crampton<14> is saying and I want to see whether you agree with<15> it, is that it is a fairly well known family going<16> back over a number of years particularly the father<17> of young David Norris; and amongst police officers,<18> it was known?<19> A. I have no doubt there is a lot of police<20> officers that knew him, I am talking about<21> individually myself.<22> Q. When you saw the name, Norris, the only family<23> that came to mind where was the one where there had<24> been a death?<25> A. Yes because Mr Crampton had been on that

. P-3083 DAVIDSON

< 1> enquiry.< 2> Q. You asked Mr Crampton is it that Norris and he< 3> told you no, it is the other lot?< 4> A. No, I didn't ask Mr Crampton that.< 5> Q. Why not?< 6> A. I don't know, sir.< 7> Q. Here you are dealing with the key person?< 8> A. I don't think Mr Crampton was there when I got< 9> the name Norris but he may have been.<10> Q. Mr Crampton was on the first weekend?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. You read, you said, this message the very first<13> one, you read this message when you first came on or<14> were told about it by one of the officers?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. And Crampton stays in charge until the Monday?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. Are you saying you did not ask Mr Crampton:<19> Look, is this Norris the one in that other case or<20> something else?<21> A. I didn't ask him that. I became aware, I don't<22> know where I got it from, that it wasn't that family.<23> Q. I want to ask you about your message in<24> particular, because I am going to suggest there is<25> another key witness I am going to do it without

. P-3084 DAVIDSON

< 1> compromising anybody. First part of your message< 2> about what you were told, having met -- was Mr Budgen< 3> with you, that is the first thing?< 4> A. For this one I believe so.< 5> Q. You believe he was?< 6> A. I believe so, yes.< 7> Q. Would this message -- I can only ask you about< 8> this one -- be a reflection of the docket that was< 9> written out on this occasion or would it be you<10> writing out a message based on a docket or what, how<11> did it work?<12> A. As a result of the enquiries I made on the<13> Sunday to Stacey Benefield, we had agreed that when<14> we saw Grant again we would register him as a<15> registered informant and, therefore, bring into play<16> all the checks, background checks, etc, before<17> someone becomes a registered informant and a docket<18> would be made up. Now I believe in actual fact it<19> was Mr Budgen who filled in the various details for<20> the docket.<21> Q. For this one?<22> A. I don't know if he wrote this message or not<23> this is typed. If I can see the original I can tell<24> you whether it was mine or not, sir.<25> Q. I do not know whether it is the original?

. P-3085 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. The way it is written it appears to be my hand< 2> in as much as the expressions.< 3> Q. It is message 152, it is (PCA00470403)?< 4> A. That is my writing, sir. I would have written< 5> that, yes.< 6> Q. What I want to ask you is, did you write that< 7> based on a docket?< 8> A. I see what you are getting at whether I would< 9> write that and put it in a docket, I can't remember<10> which came first.<11> THE CHAIRMAN: Can we see the top?<12> A. I can't remember which would come first. That<13> would go in to the information room, into the murder<14> room, and then go on the docket.<15> THE CHAIRMAN: You cannot remember what time you saw<16> him, I am sure?<17> A. 8.40 pm I saw him, or the time I put it in, so<18> it would be earlier. I think in my duty state it was<19> roundabout 7 o'clock, I am not sure. It would be on<20> the duty state what time I saw him; and also on the<21> duty state will be when I actually took the docket<22> over to Plumstead.<23> Q. I want to ask you about -- as we have this one<24> on screen we will use this one -- part of this<25> message. If you look to begin with you are dealing

. P-3086 DAVIDSON

< 1> with somebody who had been approached and all the< 2> rest of it, I am not dealing with that part of it for< 3> the moment?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. Then there is a part of it "Grant then went on< 6> to say that he may have found a witness." Right, have< 7> we got that bit?< 8> A. Yes, sir, I have.< 9> Q. I think there is no objection because it, in<10> fact although it is redacted?<11> THE CHAIRMAN: You have checked this, have you?<12> MR MANSFIELD: Yes, I have. This is the sentence I<13> want to ask you about. I can do it this way, I will<14> be very careful, what I want to ask you is this: He<15> was giving you information about somebody else and,<16> effectively, the nature of the attack is underneath<17> that black redaction, are you able to help or not?<18> A. I can't remember exactly, but I --<19> THE CHAIRMAN: The right thing would be for the<20> officer to see the unredacted part, but be very<21> careful not to disclose anything.<22> MR LAWSON: That is the typescript version. Bear in<23> mind the words preceding reference to the witness<24> being on a bus are the ones that are redacted.<25> A. (Pause). Yes, sir.

. P-3087 DAVIDSON

< 1> MR MANSFIELD: This is somebody who is on a bus, but< 2> all I need to confirm with you is that there is a< 3> description there underneath of the stabbing and I do< 4> not mean where in the road it took place, but where< 5> on the body and who did what; is that right?< 6> A. Yes, sir.< 7> Q. It names, effectively, Neil Acourt stabbing him< 8> and David Norris stabbing him, does it not?< 9> A. Yes, it names Neil and David, yes, sir.<10> Q. It would not have been difficult for you to work<11> out, given that you had already got those names, that<12> is who he is talking about?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. So this person, Grant, appears to have found<15> somebody who actually saw the stabbing or part of it?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. This is extremely important, is it not?<18> A. Yes, sir.<19> Q. Up to that point had there been any publicity<20> about the fact that Stephen had suffered two stab<21> wounds?<22> A. No, sir.<23> Q. No. So receiving on the 27th somebody who is<24> able to describe two stab wounds must mean, must it<25> not, that this person once again was either close to

. P-3088 DAVIDSON

< 1> the action himself or at one removed, to be getting< 2> it so quickly; do you follow?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. You agree with that?< 5> A. I agree with that, yes, sir.< 6> Q. I want to just ask you about a person on a bus?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. I would like you to see, please, (MET00830144).< 9> I think there is no issue, at least to this extent,<10> we can refer to the witness on the bus as B?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. That is how he is known and that is the<13> person ----<14> THE CHAIRMAN: Just pause, you do know his who he is.<15> THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.<16> MR MANSFIELD: I am not going to reveal who he really<17> is, but that it was clear, or became clear, that the<18> person who he was talking about, that is Grant, was<19> talking about, was this person B; is that right?<20> A. I don't know what you mean, sir. He named the<21> person.<22> Q. Yes, in other words, that when Grant was telling<23> you on the 27th that there was somebody on a bus and<24> giving a description of the assault, the person in<25> fact you came to understand was that person was B?

. P-3089 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. I have got the action that is on the screen at< 3> the moment. There are two elements to this: there is< 4> the first one which deals with Casserly, may I come< 5> back to that. If you look further down the page you< 6> will see 55, 17.45 and so on and then 19.5 at 12.30?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. This is raised, it would appear, from a message< 9> to 52, is that right, this particular action?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. Is that right?<12> A. I believe so, sir.<13> Q. The date for the message is 5th May?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. Undoubtedly what was being sought here was for<16> you to see B?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. There is a delay even on this, in other words,<19> if you do not get to see, having got some information<20> about somebody on a bus on the 27th, the person on<21> the bus, if it is the right one, was not seen until<22> 19th May, do you see the date?<23> A. I see that, sir.<24> Q. First of all, the question I ask you is this:<25> What is the delay for finally tracking down and

. P-3090 DAVIDSON

< 1> seeing this person?< 2> A. I can't properly tell you, sir. I can say I was< 3> given that action, the action was allocated to me on< 4> the 6th in fact, according to this, and I believe< 5> that was the day I came on in the afternoon and we< 6> were briefed to do the arrests the next day. The< 7> delay between the arresting of them and me actually< 8> getting to see this lad, I can't remember what it< 9> was, sir, or why it was. I appreciate from that<10> message on the 27th I would have thought it would be<11> very important, but it only came out to me nearly a<12> fortnight later.<13> Q. Again, I am going to suggest to you that<14> Mr Grant had told you who it was because he came back<15> to you having said that he may have a witness, he<16> came back and gave you the name of the witness, did<17> he not?<18> A. I believe he gave me a name and a street. I<19> think I remember making enquiries in that street and<20> coming across to this lad.<21> Q. When did you do that?<22> A. I don't know, sir.<23> Q. Again, if you agree that he did give you that<24> name, a name?<25> A. I think it was a Christian name, but I managed

. P-3091 DAVIDSON

< 1> to find out who it was.< 2> Q. Right.< 3> A. How long it took me and when I done it, I don't< 4> know, sir.< 5> Q. Again, hopefully I am not dealing on the< 6> periphery, we are dealing with a key witness, who is< 7> claiming to have seen something no one in the public< 8> domain knew about, two stabbings?< 9> A. On the result, if you read the result, it says<10> there is a comment by me about the actual witness,<11> sir. I saw him twice: once with Canavan and the<12> second time with Hughes. That wouldn't be on that<13> date. That would be the date of the result going<14> in. When I actually saw him, I couldn't tell you<15> without going through all the paperwork, but if you<16> are with me it wasn't just on the 19th I saw him. I<17> had seen him and then I went back with someone else<18> to see him and asked another officer to see him.<19> Q. What has happened here is, I suggest, is that a<20> crucial potential witness has basically been written<21> off. He is regarded as a write-off, is he not?<22> A. Eventually he was by me, yes, sir, after I had<23> seen him twice and had somebody else check him out.<24> His mother, when I saw him, suggested that the lad<25> was open to suggestion and therefore I had to tread

. P-3092 DAVIDSON

< 1> very carefully and she said he likes to get himself< 2> in the public eye and he will tell you anything to< 3> suit you. He gave the wrong venue for the murder.< 4> He got it completely wrong and it was apparent that< 5> he was a very dangerous witness in as much as you< 6> could have got anything you wanted out of him by< 7> suggestion. I don't believe that he knew what he was< 8> talking about, sir, but that is my opinion and that< 9> was at the time.<10> Q. He eventually came to give evidence about what<11> he says he saw from the bus, do you appreciate that?<12> He gave evidence about these matters later?<13> A. I don't know anything about that, sir.<14> Q. In a nutshell, what he claimed to have seen off<15> the top of a bus was a group running out of a road<16> nearby as the bus went by and he named ----<17> A. What he told me is he saw him outside a pub<18> which was about 500 yards up the road. They spilled<19> out of the pub fighting, blacks and whites together.<20> I made enquiries in the pub, it never happened, it<21> didn't happen. We couldn't find anybody else on the<22> bus that saw it. I was told by his mother he told<23> lies. He couldn't firm it up in anyway at all and<24> when he told me he didn't give me the venue of the<25> murder. It is very, very important, he was running

. P-3093 DAVIDSON

< 1> about with all these lads that heard all sorts of< 2> stories and I was told this was the type of thing he< 3> done and I have got to be very very careful.< 4> Q. Did you get from him that there were two< 5> stabbings when you saw him?< 6> A. No, sir.< 7> Q. Did you ask him about that?< 8> A. I would have done, sir.< 9> Q. What was his reply to that?<10> A. I cannot remember, sir.<11> Q. If you get somebody who may in fact have seen<12> the murder, but put it at a different place and time,<13> they may be afraid?<14> A. He was, of his age, very young tender and his<15> mother saying he was a liar, he lies about the time<16> of day it is, then I was aware of all those things<17> and I would have asked him all the relevant<18> questions, suffice to say that at the end of it I put<19> him down as undoubtedly a Walter Mitty. I wouldn't<20> do that lightly sir.<21> Q. Do you have a record of the conversation and<22> meetings with this man?<23> A. I have nothing, sir.<24> Q. Why do you not have any record of the meetings<25> with B and what he said and what you asked and your

. P-3094 DAVIDSON

< 1> assessment ----< 2> THE CHAIRMAN: What you mean is did you make any note< 3> at the time, not now.< 4> THE WITNESS: At the time I would have sat and< 5> chatted to him with a view to taking a statement and< 6> I would have assessed early or, not early on, after a< 7> while that he was a Walter Mitty. I went to see him< 8> a second time because other information came in, so< 9> there must have been a period of time in between when<10> I went back again. Have I any notes, no, sir. If<11> they are in the murder squad I would have them. If<12> they weren't in the murder squad, I wouldn't have<13> them.<14> Q. All we have on your assessment of this message?<15> A. That came from somewhere, sir. I didn't type<16> that, I have written that somewhere, so someone has<17> that somewhere.<18> Q. The notes of your meetings with this, what you<19> asked, what was being said by him and so on, a key<20> witness in this case potentially?<21> A. He wasn't a key witness. He was potentially a<22> key witnesses, but very, very early it became<23> apparent he was a Walter Mitty, sir.<24> Q. Have you seen a report commissioned by the<25> Kent Inquiry into the information and how it was

. P-3095 DAVIDSON

< 1> handled; are you aware of it?< 2> A. I am aware -- I don't know if I have seen what< 3> you are talking about, sir.< 4> Q. If people have copies of this report so that you< 5> may see it. It is March 1998 and it is page 49< 6> dealing with witness B. I do not know whether you< 7> have had a chance to read this report at all?< 8> MR LAWSON: This was the report prepared on the< 9> HOLMES system as commissioned by the Inquiry.<10> THE CHAIRMAN: I certainly do not have that in mind<11> at the moment, no.<12> MR LAWSON: We will have to get some copies of that.<13> THE CHAIRMAN: We will do that after lunch.<14> MR MANSFIELD: May I just put something to you: They<15> are observations by a very senior officer who has<16> analysed how these informants were dealt with and<17> their relationship to HOLMES. I have asked about<18> that already and what goes into the system. Can I<19> read you two observations and you can see the full<20> context over lunch if you wish. The first<21> observation is page 49:<22> "Quite clearly witness B has not been an easy<23> witness to deal with, but I find it hard to accept<24> that the detail of his original comments to DS<25> Davidson could be so lightly dismissed." It goes on

. P-3096 DAVIDSON

< 1> to deal with HOLMES. Then very much the same comment< 2> is made on the next page:< 3> "A disturbing feature of the willingness of< 4> this investigation to accept that witness was< 5> unreliable has been the lack of any determined effort< 6> to find corroboration for what he was actually< 7> saying. There was always going to be difficulty with< 8> this because the initial write-off had been so brief< 9> and so negative." Those are observations about your<10> comments and the ramifications of your comments on B,<11> do you follow?<12> A. I can see what the man is getting at, yes, sir.<13> Q. He has a point, does he not?<14> A. No, sir. I didn't treat this lightly. When I<15> received this information I was elated that we<16> possibly had a witness. I spent a long time tracing<17> the witness because I had only a name in a street in<18> an area. Eventually found a witness, found the<19> mother and was very deflated with what I found and I<20> treated that as I would anything. I gave that my<21> all, hoping I was going to have a witness. I wanted<22> to find a witness to this murder. I believed the<23> people responsible, or allegedly responsible, were<24> the ones that were named. I was determined to find<25> this witness and I was very very disappointed with

. P-3097 DAVIDSON

< 1> the outcome of this witness.< 2> Q. I want to before lunch raise two other people< 3> whose names I have mentioned to you before. There is< 4> no secrecy about them: Michelle Casserly and< 5> Emma Cook. The page is still there, (MET00830144).< 6> Michelle Casserly, rather like Emma Cook, was a close< 7> associate of the named suspects, was she not?< 8> A. She believed she was, yes, sir.< 9> Q. Did you believe she was?<10> A. I believe she knew them.<11> Q. Yes. Although the statement has not been read,<12> you eventually went to her premises and recovered a<13> document, did you not?<14> A. Yes, sir, I went to -- it wasn't her premises,<15> it was other premises.<16> Q. Can I put it in a nutshell: what you had<17> discovered was that she had been telling school<18> friends effectively that she knew who had done the<19> stabbing?<20> A. That's correct, sir.<21> Q. I have to ask you this openly because I really<22> do not know the answer to this: Did you get to the<23> diary through that or did you have specific<24> information about the presence of the diary?<25> A. I honestly can't remember, sir.

. P-3098 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. Your statement, you see, about these matters, do< 2> you want to see it or not?< 3> A. No, I don't think it would clarify it at all. I< 4> don't remember where the information came from that< 5> she kept a diary and I don't remember where the< 6> information came of where the diary was kept, but it< 7> came in and as a result we recovered the diary, not< 8> from her house though.< 9> Q. I can summarise it. The statement you made<10> about this is dated 7th June and it indicates it was<11> 28th May in the evening that you went to an address<12> which is redacted?<13> A. Yes, I remember that.<14> Q. You saw Tara Casserly with her mother and her<15> sister Michelle was there; is that right?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. You searched Michelle's bedroom?<18> A. There was a bedroom searched. I didn't actually<19> think it was at Michelle's home address.<20> Q. The importance of this diary is that not only<21> had she been telling people who had done it, she had<22> written in the diary -- and I have a photocopy of it<23> here, but it is (MET00770118), could that come up on<24> the screen, please. She had written there in the<25> diary for the April/May period, but at the bottom

. P-3099 DAVIDSON

< 1> under the week of the 25th the words: "Acourts< 2> stabbed", do you see that: "Black boy up Well Hall< 3> Road"?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. "Jamie and Neil"?< 6> A. Yes, sir.< 7> Q. "Gary, David"?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. "Lukey"?<10> A. Lucky I think it was, but the way she had it was<11> Lukey -- no, sorry, it would be Lukey, sir.<12> Q. Lukey. In other words, she has written in the<13> diary Jamie Acourt, Neil Acourt, Gary Dobson,<14> David Norris, effectively, although the Norris is not<15> there, but you had had a David and Lukey, apparently<16> Luke Knight?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. Therefore, this particular individual, despite<19> youth and all the rest of it and association, could<20> potentially be an extremely important, at least<21> informant, could she not?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. But like B, no statement was ever taken from<24> Michelle Casserly, was it?<25> A. I couldn't tell, sir. If you say it wasn't, it

. P-3100 DAVIDSON

< 1> wasn't.< 2> Q. Was it not your responsibility particularly to,< 3> as it were, follow up Casserly?< 4> A. When I went to see Casserly, it was earlier on< 5> in the inquiry than the end of May, like four weeks< 6> after the arrest. I had seen her earlier on in the< 7> inquiry and I told you what she said to me in front< 8> of her mother. She was hardly likely then to sit< 9> down and make a statement.<10> Q. It is a question of how you deal with people who<11> might be hostile?<12> A. Yes, sir, I appreciate that and in that case I<13> tried my best. However, when someone is so hostile<14> without you opening your mouth, just because I am a<15> policeman, that was the only reason she was hostile,<16> I hadn't opened my mouth. Mr Grant, I gave him a<17> hard time, different ball game, sir. I am talking<18> about a skin head turning up at a police station when<19> a black has been murdered and wanting to know what is<20> happening. I had to treat him on both fronts whether<21> he was a genuine informant, whether he was somebody<22> in that perhaps his mates were involved and he wasn't<23> really going to tell us. However, very quickly you<24> will see that I had him, I met him a few times, I<25> registered him, I took him for drinks, I spoke to him

. P-3101 DAVIDSON

< 1> and I turned him into what I thought, until the< 2> police sent him a 50 pound note, I was turning him< 3> into an informant. As by the by, when you walk in< 4> and somebody tells you exactly what they think of you< 5> before you open your mouth, would you then say to< 6> them -- I wouldn't repeat in here the words she used< 7> on me.< 8> Q. You accept, do you, that you agree, you used the< 9> words a moment ago, I just want to pick up on them,<10> you did give Grant a hard time?<11> A. Yeah, I gave what he termed a hard time. I<12> investigated thoroughly what he was saying to me at<13> the time.<14> Q. Can we have (MET00830114) which is the Casserly<15> part of this. This is you, this is 4th May. It is<16> around time of dealing with B before the arrest, do<17> you see that. Your name is there, Davidson, surname,<18> telephone: "As a result of actions I met", that is<19> you?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. "And spoke with Mrs Casserly"?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. "And with both her daughters", and Michelle is<24> named?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-3102 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. Then Michelle names someone else. I am not< 2> going to say anything more, other than she mentions,< 3> what is now a hieroglyphic K?< 4> A. Yes, sir. This wasn't in the first visit. I< 5> must have said something right to her to turn her< 6> into somebody who was going to tell me something.< 7> Q. The real position here is there was another< 8> witness Michelle with an opportunity missed to get a< 9> statement or at least or possibly hard information<10> about how she knew or thought she knew that these<11> people committed the murder, do you follow?<12> A. Yes, sir. I would have asked her that; I would<13> have gone through that. My whole purpose for seeing<14> these people was to try and get witnesses, to try and<15> get evidence for the murder, to try and clear up a<16> very vicious murder.<17> Q. I am suggesting to you -- I do not think there<18> is any dispute -- no statement from Michelle Casserly<19> and you would deny ----<20> A. That would only have been because she refused to<21> make one in the presence of her mother. That is all,<22> sir. She was a juvenile. Her mother was there. If<23> she refused to make a statement there is not a lot I<24> can do about it.<25> Q. Is there any record that you know of indicating

. P-3103 DAVIDSON

< 1> that you asked her?< 2> A. I wouldn't make a record of that. It would be< 3> one of the things that would go in -- the officer< 4> would have said to me -- I will finish my answer,< 5> sir.< 6> Q. I have not asked the question, Mr Davidson. Is< 7> there any record of you anywhere asking her how she< 8> knew who had done the murder?< 9> A. There probably would be a record in the minds of<10> the senior officers and the persons present during<11> the meeting. Is there a paper record, you tell me.<12> I don't know.<13> Q. No. Would that be a convenient moment?<14> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, it would. Are you leaving<15> witness B? It is simply that it ought to be recorded<16> that eventually he gave evidence at the magistrates'<17> court where his evidence was undermined. That is the<18> position, and so he could not be relied on as a<19> reliable witness.<20> MR MANSFIELD: May I qualify that. He was to be<21> relied upon in the trial in relation to what he saw.<22> It is the identity of one of the four that he was<23> undermined about.<24> THE CHAIRMAN: You were unable to rely upon this<25> witness at the trial.

. P-3104 DAVIDSON

< 1> MR MANSFIELD: We did not get that far.< 2> THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it should be left just< 3> in the air, that is all.< 4> MR MANSFIELD: May I say so far as that is concerned,< 5> B was regarded as a reliable witness in terms of what< 6> he saw. The fact that he was unable at a much later< 7> stage to identify one of two people who he varied< 8> between is another matter.< 9> THE CHAIRMAN: We will have to investigate that<10> later. Thank you. Officer, you are still of course<11> bound not to talk to people, but in view of what you<12> said to me earlier about your position, I understand,<13> of course, your reaction, but it is very important<14> that we must illicit all the facts and counsel is<15> entitled to ask questions that he is.<16> THE WITNESS: He is not entitled to call me a racist.<17> THE CHAIRMAN: I want you to remind yourself of the<18> notice that was given because you have had an<19> indication that the questions might be along these<20> lines. I do not know how long Mr Mansfield will go<21> on, but we must illicit all the facts we can.<22> THE WITNESS: I will give every assistance in this<23> Inquiry in any way at all and I would be wrong not<24> to, but I do object to be calling a racist.<25> THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that, but both the

. P-3105 DAVIDSON

< 1> questions and answers must be kept as factual as< 2> possible so we try to illicit the truth without too< 3> much emotion being involved.< 4> <(The Luncheon Adjournment)< 5> MR MANSFIELD: Mr Davidson, we were just dealing with< 6> a particular action. Could it be put back up then I< 7> can continue,(MET00830144) please. This was dealing< 8> with witness B at the bottom of the page, then< 9> Casserly and the diary and so on, and I dealt with<10> that.<11> You will see on this particular record, dated<12> 4th May, that you were being told on or about that<13> date, possibly before, but around that date, about<14> another witness we have called K; do you see that?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. Were you asked, you yourself, specifically to<17> get a statement from K?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. As well as a number of other things?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. I am just concentrating on K. You are<22> indicating that Grant had never revealed the name of<23> his source at any time?<24> A. Not to me, sir.<25> Q. Just before I go on with K, I have made the

. P-3106 DAVIDSON

< 1> suggestion clear to you that he did, I just want you< 2> to think carefully whether Grant had ever told you< 3> anything about K?< 4> A. I can't remember him telling me anything about< 5> K.< 6> Q. Could I have interposed here something that you< 7> said on Friday?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. This is the record of what your evidence is, it<10> is page 2947 of the evidence, please. I do not know<11> whether that can be put on the screen or not -- it<12> cannot be put on the screen.<13> I want to see if this will help you. You said<14> something like this, this is a quick note I made as<15> it went up: "I remember actually making myself busy<16> throughout the estate trying to find them."<17> Do you remember saying something about this?<18> A. Yes, sir.<19> Q. You were being asked about white, you are being<20> asked about K?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. Do you remember?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> THE CHAIRMAN: There is no sensitivity about that name<25> now is there. No, thank you.

. P-3107 DAVIDSON

< 1> MS WEEKES: I think we should keep K.< 2> MR MANSFIELD: That is my error, shall we keep K< 3> because there may be.< 4> Yes. This answer was in relation to K and you< 5> went on to say this: "Because of information< 6> received", this is about K, "both from Grant and< 7> other sources that I believed he had become a very< 8> relevant witness and I was making myself busy", and< 9> so on. That is what you said on Friday?<10> A. Then I can only say I cannot remember him giving<11> me any information on K.<12> Q. That is why I picked the answer up particularly,<13> because on your account he has never told you<14> anything about K, but there you are on Friday<15> indicating that you were making yourself busy on the<16> estate because of things you had been told by Grant<17> about K. Is that wrong?<18> A. I honestly cannot remember, sir. If he had told<19> me something about K it would have been on a message,<20> but, of course the messages are not there. I would<21> have written it down; I would have followed it up.<22> There would have been an action to show me following<23> it up originating from somewhere. If there is an<24> action originating from Grant's information then he<25> told me about K, I don't remember him ever telling me

. P-3108 DAVIDSON

< 1> about K. He certainly did not tell me K was his< 2> source.< 3> Q. I appreciate that. You have maintained< 4> throughout that it had not come from him. I wanted< 5> to ask you in particular about that answer you made< 6> on Friday.< 7> Can we go back to the message which is here,< 8> because I am going to make the suggestion clear about< 9> K as well, but in fact first of all there is a delay<10> before actually getting around to seeing K, is there<11> not?<12> A. I could not tell you, sir. I do not remember<13> seeing him.<14> Q. You do not?<15> A. I don't know if I saw him or not.<16> Q. I would like you to think about this. He is, I<17> would submit to you again, another central witness,<18> because if you look at the message there?<19> A. Yes, I remember the information of what he had<20> allegedly seen.<21> Q. What you were being told from another source on<22> this occasion, it is in the message there in front of<23> you, that K had gone to the Acourts' address that<24> night and he had seen various people there,<25> including, according to this note, on this record,

. P-3109 DAVIDSON

< 1> the two Acourts, something else I cannot read, and< 2> Dobson -- probably Norris, yes, Norris and Dobson.< 3> Do you follow? He had seen all of the relevant< 4> people at the relevant time, at 102?< 5> A. According to the information yes, sir.< 6> Q. Yes. You say you now do not recollect going to< 7> see K?< 8> A. I don't remember whether I saw K or not at all.< 9> Q. Would you look at (MET00830154), do you see<10> that?<11> A. That is the same message.<12> Q. Sorry to take a little bit of time on this, it<13> is the same message, but it has a different context<14> here, you see?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. Because your name is there, Davidson, this is<17> the bit that is different, witness K, knowledge of<18> suspects and so on, and if you go down to the bottom<19> of this, do you see 18th of the 5th?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. It has your name?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. It appears you are the one that goes to see him?<24> A. That appears to be the result for researching<25> K. The result is just research K, I have his name,

. P-3110 DAVIDSON

< 1> his age, his address, his description, his< 2> association, believed in various things and simple< 3> action, acts about and age, but there is nothing< 4> there that says I saw him. That is a result of< 5> research, sir, as far as I can see.< 6> Q. I want to pursue this because, again, he is< 7> somebody else, I have been through all of them, no< 8> statement is taken from him?< 9> A. I don't know if I saw him.<10> Q. I appreciate you are saying that you do not know<11> whether you saw him.<12> I know there are bits redacted here. It may be<13> they are names and addresses as such and I am not<14> asking for those to be disclosed. I do not know<15> whether there is something under the redaction that<16> might indicate it was you who saw him or whether this<17> was a result of you or someone; can you help?<18> A. No, if see the 4 points to the action: attend<19> and take a statement of witness K, trace and<20> interview an 11 year old, interview 21, re knowledge<21> of the Acourts, research K. This look as though it<22> is the result of the research number 4. Whether that<23> is because somebody else dealt with the first one or<24> not, I don't know. I just do not remember ever<25> talking to witness K.

. P-3111 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. All right. I make the position clear, I suggest< 2> again this is another case in which an important< 3> witness has been written off -- in fact I am going< 4> suggest, written off by you?< 5> A. No, sir.< 6> Q. Can you help about this?< 7> A. I told you what I think that is, sir.< 8> Q. (PCA00320013), please. This is a meeting on the< 9> 5th, do you follow, very close to the time you saw<10> the Casserlys on the 4th. Do you see what it says<11> there?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. "Saw K. Did go to 102 after murder." Is that<14> right, it is under your name?<15> A. It is under my name, I don't remember it, sir.<16> Q. No. I would like you to think, that is why I<17> was asking for your help about this?<18> A. I honestly can't remember seeing him, sir.<19> Q. It is rather important because if he is going<20> there shortly after the murder and he sees somebody<21> with his top off, et cetera, the overall suggestion<22> could well be that one of these four or five who were<23> at the address, if he saw them, is changing clothes<24> and not going to bed. It is a question of maybe<25> getting rid of bloody clothes. That is the real

. P-3112 DAVIDSON

< 1> point.< 2> A. The thing I read from here, this is just me< 3> reading it, I have no recollection, but it looks as< 4> though I saw the witness, he did go to 102 after the< 5> murder, he saw the two Acourts and Dobson, one had< 6> his top off and he ran out of the house, this would< 7> be K, mother and boyfriend to speak to him.< 8> Q. Yes?< 9> A. I have not got a great recollection there, but I<10> think he did run away from me, sir.<11> Q. Did you ask whether it might be possible to --<12> did you ask K himself?<13> A. I can't remember talking to him, sir.<14> Q. You see, again, I just read you part of the<15> report, it is the same point on this witness. This<16> again is the Burgess Report, page 49, round about the<17> same time as dealing with B.<18> May I put to you one observation, which you can<19> see if you wish the full context, about this part of<20> it, that is witness K. "Its right off is very<21> negative in my view", that is the write off at the<22> bottom of the action we were just looking at before.<23> "Very negative leaving as many questions<24> unanswered as are answered."<25> Then the officer, Burgess, interestingly he

. P-3113 DAVIDSON

< 1> describes witness K who was 22 years old at the time< 2> of having a mental age of 12 or 13, it is put down as< 3> 14. This officer was one of the interviewing< 4> officers for Dobson. He has assumed that it is you< 5> that is in fact not only seeing K but making these< 6> observations that "he is simple, acts about 14" and< 7> so on. Were you putting that into the system?< 8> A. I may well have done, sir, I cannot honestly< 9> recall. What I can recall is on Friday or at some<10> time I saw an action that had me harassing K by his<11> stepfather.<12> Q. Yes?<13> A. Therefore I would have been trying to get a hold<14> of him but I don't remember actually talking to him.<15> Whether I did talk to him and he ran out of the<16> house, as that says there and I had never seen him<17> again, I don't know.<18> Q. That was the context in which I put the note I<19> have of one of your answers about, that you were<20> asked about harassment and you were saying, you<21> called it you were busying yourself about the estate<22> because of information and it was at that point you<23> linked that to Grant. Do you follow?<24> A. Yes, sir.<25> Q. That is the context. So the position now is

. P-3114 DAVIDSON

< 1> that of course you just do not remember seeing K, you< 2> do not remember whether you did or did not, you may< 3> have put these comments into the system about him< 4> being "simple", can you help about whether you ever< 5> asked him for a statement. You, I mean?< 6> A. Sir, I have said I don't remember talking to him< 7> therefore I find it very hard to remember whether I< 8> asked him for a statement or not. I do not remember< 9> talking to K at all.<10> Q. How do you explain the meeting notes that I have<11> shown you that are there still on the screen?<12> A. According to the meeting notes I probably did<13> meet him. That is probably saying that. I probably<14> did go to see him. He ran out of the house. This is<15> probably true, I don't remember it, sir, no matter<16> what you say I cannot make up what I don't remember.<17> Q. Very well.<18> MR EGAN: I am sorry to interrupt Mr Mansfield and I<19> do it, I hope he accepts this merely to assist but on<20> two occasions it has been put to the witness that in<21> those circumstances no statement was taken from K. I<22> do not know whether my learned friend, Mr Mansfield,<23> is going move on to it but a statement was put from K<24> and it ought to be (PCA00380362). I apologise if I<25> am wrong about this. It has been said----

. P-3115 DAVIDSON

< 1> THE CHAIRMAN: Had we better look it?< 2> MR EGAN: I think we should.< 3> THE CHAIRMAN: Hang on.< 4> MR EGAN: The witness, in my submission, cannot be< 5> expected to remember this sort of thing and if it is< 6> put to him on two occasions that statements have not< 7> been taken----< 8> MR MANSFIELD: I was going to come to this because I< 9> am dealing with a stage much earlier in May. I am<10> going to come to the statement because of<11> observations made by the Report.<12> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Mansfield, the only trouble is I was<13> under the impression that you were suggesting that he<14> had never taken a statement.<15> MR MANSFIELD: It is in this early period.<16> THE CHAIRMAN: In that case you should specify that<17> because I was under the false impression myself. Be<18> careful to specify the time you are dealing with.<19> MR MANSFIELD: Sir, I hope I have made it clear that I<20> am dealing with May when the witness first came up.<21> THE CHAIRMAN: This statement is dated May so you must<22> be more specific than that.<23> MR MANSFIELD: 17th May 1993 witness K.<24> THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.<25> Q. If you go to the bottom it is taken by you?

. P-3116 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. This is after the arrests?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. And it is the day before the entry on< 5> (MET00830154), which we were just looking at. In< 6> other words, "simple, 14" and so on. Do you follow?< 7> A. If you show me again I will follow you, I don't< 8> know what you are talking about.< 9> Q. The message we were just looking at after lunch<10> at the bottom there it has the 18th and you said you<11> were sure whether you put that into the system, do<12> you follow?<13> A. Yes, sir. Therefore it should have read<14> somewhere "statement taken".<15> Q. I appreciate that and you have been----<16> A. You told me I said that. I don't remember<17> taking it, I still don't remember. I have read the<18> statement, I still don't remember taking it.<19> Q. Just go back to the statement, could we please,<20> the statement itself, which is the 17th, the day<21> before?<22> A. The statement----<23> Q. In order to take that statement you obviously<24> must have seen him somewhere?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-3117 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. Where did see him to do that, can you help?< 2> A. No, sir.< 3> Q. I appreciate that a long time has passed by now< 4> as I tried to point out this witness was important?< 5> A. I will say it once more, I don't remember< 6> speaking to this witness. I can't help you any< 7> further than that, sir.< 8> Q. Can I ask you this: was it not clear to the team< 9> that it was thought on the back of this statement<10> that in fact it was not the full truth and he had<11> more to say. Do you want to read it through?<12> A. I have read it through and I would imagine with<13> everything I have now found today that if I had known<14> that at the time I would have thought there was more<15> to be taken from this witness, yes.<16> Q. Right. In his case, was he afforded any kind of<17> help, protection and so on?<18> A. I can only repeat what I said for about the<19> sixth times, sir, I don't remember talking to this<20> witness and I don't remember taking----<21> Q. Really there is no point in me pursuing this?<22> A. I wouldn't think so, sir.<23> Q. Any further with you, you have no other<24> recollections?<25> A. No, sir.

. P-3118 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. Can I pass to another witness, potential witness< 2> arising out of this enquiry, not far removed from the< 3> one we have just been dealing with, that is Emma< 4> Cook. Do you recall her?< 5> A. I recall the name, sir.< 6> Q. Do you recall dealings with her?< 7> A. No, sir.< 8> Q. Do you recall that she is a close associate of< 9> the suspects?<10> A. No, sir.<11> Q. (MET00830016) please. Could it just go down to<12> the section which has got I think -- yes, there it<13> is. Could you just read that glance over it and tell<14> me whether that is something that you did, something<15> you were told?<16> A. I don't actually remember the incident. The<17> writing of this strikes a note, so I must have been<18> the one who done this. I don't remember, sir.<19> Q. The point is prior to any arrests, this is what<20> I was trying to convey to you, in that 10 minutes<21> after lunch. Prior to any arrest on the 7th, you did<22> not appear to have, you certainly did not have a<23> statement from the last one, that is K, you did not<24> have a statement from Michelle Casserly as such, did<25> you?

. P-3119 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. No, sir.< 2> Q. No. You do not have it. Here again somebody< 3> right at the centre of it, it would appear, she is< 4> apparently walking right by where it is all< 5> happening, according to this?< 6> A. According to this he was not prepared to allow< 7> his daughter to make a statement.< 8> Q. I appreciate that----< 9> A. If a father does not let his a daughter make a<10> statement I cannot take a statement from his<11> daughter.<12> Q. I want to examine with you the extent to which,<13> the details to Emma Cook plainly is giving, even on<14> the face of it, is that she is there at the scene<15> passing both the black boys before the incident and<16> others. That is what seem to be said, is it not?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. She is plainly important?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. If she is not able to give a statement at that<21> point you need to get as much information as you can<22> from her about who else she had seen. She is saying<23> she knows the Acourts, the Lambs, David Norris,<24> Dobson?<25> A. She said she did he not see anyone who she

. P-3120 DAVIDSON

< 1> recognised. She knows the Acourts, the Lambs, Norris< 2> and Dobson. She did not see anyone who she< 3> recognised. She knows the Acourts, the Lambs, Norris< 4> and Dobson. That is pretty clear, sir, that she did< 5> not see them.< 6> Q. That is what she is saying?< 7> A. Yes, that is what he is saying.< 8> Q. Did you believe that?< 9> A. I can't remember, sir.<10> Q. Did you give her a hard --<11> A. I can't remember talking to her.<12> Q. When Mr Grant comes in you give him a hard time<13> according to your----<14> A. Mr Grant was dealt with as a potential<15> informant/person who could have been involved in the<16> murder. Emma Cook came later on in the enquiry and<17> in front of her father I would hardly give someone a<18> hard time.<19> Q. I appreciate but you want would want to ask some<20> questions which would suggest you would like her<21> help?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. How much time did you spend with the Cook<24> family?<25> A. I have no idea, sir.

. P-3121 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. Did you go and see them more than once or can't< 2> you remember?< 3> A. Sir, I told you at the start, I can't remember< 4> talking to her at all.< 5> Q. You really do not remember much about K and your< 6> contact with him despite the records. You do not< 7> remember much about Emma Cook. Is that right?< 8> A. That is correct, sir.< 9> Q. Let us deal with Mr Benefield who you took a<10> statement from, somebody else you did take a<11> statement from?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. I just want to pick up on something you said on<14> Friday in relation to him?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. Do you say there was difficulty with Benefield?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. What do you say the difficulty was with him?<19> A. It was a reluctance to get involved, sir.<20> Q. He gives you a statement?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. Does he say he is willing to, as it were, back<23> it up?<24> A. Yes, sir.<25> Q. He says that at the time that you see him?

. P-3122 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. Perhaps just so again you be see the document< 3> itself, let us get these -- his statement it is< 4> (PCA003800157) to (PCA003800158). This is a< 5> statement you have already seen it once, 25th April?< 6> A. Yes, sir.< 7> Q. Do you agree there is nothing in the statement< 8> suggesting that, for example, there is any difficulty< 9> here, it just ends: "I am willing to assist police<10> in this matter and attend court if necessary."<11> A. At the bottom of the statement, sir?<12> Q. That is the very last statement there. Do you<13> have that?<14> A. No, sir, I have "further to my original<15> statement regarding an assault."<16> Q. Sorry, you should have -- do you have it now?<17> A. Yes, sir I have that.<18> Q. "I am willing to assist police in this matter and<19> attend court if necessary"?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. You agreed on Friday that by the end of the<22> weekend which is by the time you have taken this<23> statement, which is 25th, there was plenty of<24> evidence or material upon which, let us put it that<25> way, plenty of material upon which an arrest could

. P-3123 DAVIDSON

< 1> take place?< 2> A. There was sufficient material in my mind.< 3> Q. Yes?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. Did you discuss with the senior officers, at< 6> that point it with would have been Mr Crampton but he< 7> is about to give over on the Monday, in any event the< 8> deputy, Mr Bullock, did you discuss with either of< 9> them the possibility of an arrest?<10> A. Not that I can recall, sir.<11> Q. Having gone to the trouble of getting the<12> Benefield statement, did you not think well----<13> A. I discussed the arrest -- I thought you were<14> talking about the murder, sir, you said there was<15> sufficient evidence to arrest for the murder was that<16> what you are talking about or this?<17> Q. Either in fact?<18> A. I discussed this certainly.<19> Q. This being the assault on Benefield?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. Right?<22> A. A decision was made by them not to arrest at<23> that time.<24> Q. By whom not to arrest?<25> A. I presume the senior -- I don't know who was

. P-3124 DAVIDSON

< 1> there, sir -- wait a minute, it would have been< 2> Mr Bullock in accordance with one or other two senior< 3> officers.< 4> Q. What I want to put to you is: given there was< 5> evidence to arrest on the Benefield matter as well as< 6> evidence, I suggest, to arrest by the end of the< 7> weekend on the Lawrence murder as well you would< 8> agree, would you not, that delay is very unfortunate< 9> unless there is very good reasons?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. Right. Did you say to any of the senior<12> officers in charge of outside information, well I<13> really do think we better get on with this. We ought<14> to arrest on the murder at the very least or, if not<15> the murder, on the Benefield matter, because then we<16> might get some of them in custody, prevent them<17> colluding to make up their accounts, to prevent them<18> getting rid of evidence. Did you ever have that<19> discussion with Mr Crampton?<20> A. I would never suggest to him or Mr Weeden as to<21> how they did their job.<22> Q. I am not suggesting ----<23> A. No, you are saying did I say to them is it time<24> they done their arrests, no. I would give my<25> information in and would allow them to decide when

. P-3125 DAVIDSON

< 1> arrests were made.< 2> Q. Did they tell you why they were not going to< 3> arrest?< 4> A. I didn't ask them and they didn't tell me, no.< 5> Q. You did not ask and they did not tell you?< 6> A. No, sir.< 7> Q. If it is going to be suggested -- and I do not< 8> know whether the senior officers will suggest this --< 9> that the reason that they did not, if they are going<10> to suggest this, that there was a concern about<11> Benefield, if that is their reason put forward -- we<12> will wait and see if it is -- concern for his welfare<13> and so on, was any arrangement come to with Benefield<14> by you at this time, I do not mean later, I mean at<15> this time the statement is taken on the Sunday that<16> he can have anonymity or a change address or whatever<17> it happens to be?<18> A. At the time I was taking the statement?<19> Q. Yes.<20> A. There is a possibility I did mention that.<21> Q. I would like it clear. Were there reassurances<22> given?<23> A. There would be reassurances given he would be<24> looked after.<25> Q. How did he receive those reassurances?

. P-3126 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. I can't remember.< 2> Q. Beyond reassurances, was he provided with any< 3> other possibility that if this was going to proceed< 4> he might need to move and we would find another house< 5> for him?< 6> A. I would think so, yes.< 7> Q. It was at that time?< 8> A. Yes, I would think so.< 9> Q. The possibility of arresting, if that was in<10> place, would certainly still be there, would it not?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. In addition to the Benefield aspect of this, I<13> just want to ask you about this: if the reason for<14> not arresting is not that, but something else,<15> namely, surveillance, that is what I want to come to,<16> are you saying that throughout the period of time<17> prior to the arrests that you did not know about any<18> surveillance at all?<19> A. It is hazy now. I was not aware of -- I<20> certainly was not aware of the photograph, as I<21> mentioned earlier.<22> Q. I appreciate you said that.<23> A. I can't remember any surveillance before the<24> arrests.<25> Q. That is why I asked you very carefully about

. P-3127 DAVIDSON

< 1> this team of people that you are working with, people< 2> you knew, Mr Weeden, it is his time, during< 3> Mr Weeden's time as the senior officer that the< 4> surveillance is taking place. Do you follow?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. He is the officer you have worked with before.< 7> Are you saying at no stage did he tell you, first of< 8> all, that they were doing surveillance?< 9> A. I don't remember at all.<10> Q. It is quite unreal?<11> A. It is quite unbelievable at this stage.<12> Q. It is unbelievable, you would accept that?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. Even if he does not show you the photographs or<15> tell you that there are photographs to be seen, you<16> would expect at the very least that he would tell<17> you: "Listen, first day out, we have achieved an<18> amazing amount. We have seen most of these people<19> together". Were you ever told that?<20> A. No, sir.<21> Q. So you are not even told the product of the<22> surveillance, never mind that there were photos?<23> A. No, sir.<24> Q. There must have come a time when you realised<25> there had been surveillance?

. P-3128 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. Yes, sir. In my mind I do remember something< 2> about surveillance but, and I say this, as regards< 3> the photograph I only found out about that a few< 4> weeks before the this Inquiry.< 5> Q. Did anybody explain to you how it could possibly< 6> be that you have been kept in so much of the dark, if< 7> I can put it that way?< 8> A. There is nobody to explain to me.< 9> Q. I appreciate now it is a different ----<10> A. It is only recently I found out about the<11> photograph.<12> Q. The surveillance, learning about the<13> surveillance came earlier?<14> A. Yes, I can't recall, sir. I can't help you on<15> that at all.<16> Q. You see, I am going to ask you this, it would be<17> quicker if you could have -- has the surveillance<18> schedule got a PCA number. I do not think it has.<19> I will do it this way and there are particular<20> reasons why I want to ask about this: You are not<21> told about the surveillance, you do not think. You<22> are not told about the product of the surveillance<23> and you do not see the photographs. By the time of<24> seeing Dobson, had you at the very least made a<25> connection between Acourts, the name Stuart and

. P-3129 DAVIDSON

< 1> Norris?< 2> A. No, sir.< 3> Q. No?< 4> A. Not that I can remember.< 5> Q. They are related, you see?< 6> A. Yes, sir.< 7> Q. I am not suggesting because you are related you< 8> necessarily do X, Y and Z. It is a connection< 9> between 102 and the infamous Cliff Norris, as it<10> turns out?<11> A. I didn't even know there was a connection<12> between 102 and Cliff Norris.<13> Q. You did not?<14> A. No.<15> Q. Between 102 and the name Norris?<16> A. No, sir.<17> Q. You did not know that?<18> A. I don't know, you are telling me now.<19> Q. One of the earliest messages, in fact the very<20> first message that came into the police was that<21> Norris and Acourt were at 102. You knew that?<22> A. I knew that Norris was supposed to be with<23> Acourt.<24> Q. Yes, so?<25> A. I don't know any connection between them other

. P-3130 DAVIDSON

< 1> than -- I thought you were saying there was a< 2> connection between David Norris's father and the< 3> Acourts.< 4> Q. The link between David Norris and his family,< 5> the Stuart family and the Acourt family, they are< 6> related?< 7> A. I didn't know that, sir.< 8> Q. You didn't know that. The reason I am< 9> mentioning Stuart, Stuart is a name, surely, you knew<10> something about?<11> A. Only after the arrest, this Stuart had turned up<12> at the house.<13> Q. Stuart had turned up at the house?<14> A. A Stuart had turned up at the house.<15> Q. There is more than one, there is three of them<16> in fact, did you know that?<17> A. No, sir.<18> Q. You did not know that?<19> A. No, sir.<20> Q. I am only going to deal with one day, 26th<21> April, when it was first being mounted, the<22> surveillance, and I am going to suggest there was a<23> wealth of information here that was gathered by those<24> who were there, leaving aside plastic bags, which I<25> gather you knew nothing about?

. P-3131 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. No, sir.< 2> Q. You did not know about that?< 3> A. I heard something about that.< 4> Q. That is since?< 5> A. Not at the time, no.< 6> Q. Leave that to one side. On 26th April, do you< 7> see that sheet of paper there?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. This is just a summary of what was seen. If you<10> just run your eye down you will see some interesting<11> names appear pretty soon after they set up their<12> camera. There is a motor vehicle with a registration<13> plate given, the number is. Then there is the name<14> Zak Stuart, do you see that?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. Cousin of Acourts. I suggest this is one of the<17> Stuarts that is related to Norris, do you follow?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. But you did not know any of this?<20> A. No, sir.<21> Q. Jamie Acourt is on the pavement. Neil Acourt is<22> outside a bit later on. Then there is Jamie again,<23> Neil, then up turns Gary Dobson, the person you are<24> deputed to interview?<25> A. Yes.

. P-3132 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. You go on, there is a second album continuing< 2> later on, another motor vehicle owned by, the name is< 3> given. That is not a name that is unfamiliar to you,< 4> Darren Davis?< 5> A. I have never heard that name.< 6> Q. Cousin of David Norris?< 7> A. No, I have never seen this document.< 8> Q. It is the material that is on it. This document< 9> has been compiled since?<10> A. I appreciate it refers to a document I have not<11> seen.<12> Q. I appreciate you have not seen it. I am doing<13> it this way because it is quicker. I am not even<14> getting the photographs out for to you see. What is<15> clear is that Norris is there again, M to 0, a series<16> of photos including him; Dobson is at the rear of the<17> vehicle with Norris?<18> A. Yes, sir.<19> Q. It could not be more important, could it?<20> A. As I said on Friday, sir, I would have been very<21> very pleased to have that information on the lines of<22> where I was taking the interview.<23> Q. I just want to turn to the interviewing of<24> Dobson and believe you me, I am not going through the<25> whole of it. I want to do it in this way:

. P-3133 DAVIDSON

< 1> You have accepted that there were two themes to< 2> your interview where Dobson became very irritated and< 3> anxious. One of them was that he might be thought to< 4> be a racist and it is in that context that you< 5> consoled him by saying you did not treat this as a< 6> racist incident?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. Do you remember all that?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. The second area which he got very agitated about<11> was in relation, several times, the whole suggestion<12> you were making that he, Dobson, associated with<13> Norris. For a long time he would not give the name<14> at all. Then you talked about Dave and then<15> eventually he said, effectively, "I know a Norris",<16> do you remember?<17> A. I don't remember the (inaudible). I remember<18> pushing through for that.<19> Q. Pushing through for that. There came a point in<20> the interview where he -- this is the only page I<21> want to refer you to at the moment so you can see<22> where it comes -- there comes a point 00460370, it is<23> the third interview, do you see the middle of that<24> page: "The Dave we are talking about, and I think we<25> have messed around long enough, is David Norris".

. P-3134 DAVIDSON

< 1> Answer: "I don't know who mean. I have heard< 2> the name. I have heard the name, but I don't know< 3> who he is".< 4> "You do know David Norris."< 5> "I don't know David Norris, I know the name."< 6> "You have been seen with him time and time< 7> again. He is Neil's best mate, isn't he?"< 8> " Not that I know of, no, I do know the name< 9> David Norris, but I might have seen him, but I don't<10> know him."<11> "You might have seen him. You were with him on<12> Thursday 22nd, you were seen with him.<13> "Have you proof to say I was with him on that<14> night?" That is the 22nd.<15> Then over the page, it is (PCA00460371), halfway<16> down the page:<17> "I don't even know David Norris. I know of a<18> David Norris." Do you see?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. That is all I want to show you about this.<21> There are many other references about the Norris<22> topic. Did you come out of these interviews at any<23> time and say to the senior officers: Look here, I am<24> getting nowhere here. He is denying knowing David<25> Norris." The senior officer saying: "That is

. P-3135 DAVIDSON

< 1> fortunate, we have a photograph of them together."< 2> Did that ever happen?< 3> A. No, sir.< 4> Q. Why did you not come out of the ----< 5> A. I might have come out of the interview saying he< 6> was denying seeing David Norris, but never said I had< 7> a photograph.< 8> Q. Did you at any stage say to a senior< 9> officer: "Do you have any other information that can<10> help me with this interview?" Here is this man and<11> he has put off the whole name Norris for ages?<12> A. I don't remember what I said, but I would have<13> reported back how I was getting on and I am quite<14> sure I would have said to them that I think he is<15> ready to go and he is denying knowledge of David<16> Norris, or words to that effect. At no time did they<17> tell me they had evidence of association.<18> Q. Who would you be relating this to, in order<19> words, your progress in the interview? Who would be<20> the person dealing with it?<21> A. Probably back to the Main Incident Room, whoever<22> was collating the information.<23> Q. That is collating it.<24> A. I do not know whether I would speak to them or<25> any senior officer directly. I don't remember who I

. P-3136 DAVIDSON

< 1> spoke to, but I know I would have phoned in as the< 2> interviews were going on, also to find out how the< 3> others were getting on.< 4> Q. Essentially it would be Mr Weeden would it?< 5> A. If he was there.< 6> Q. Dobson was the key to this inquiry in terms of< 7> interview?< 8> A. You are asking me whether I spoke to him direct,< 9> I don't know. He may have been speaking to somebody<10> else. I would have been spoken to somebody in the<11> incident room on that affect. Who it was, I don't<12> know.<13> Q. Do you agree that the whole emphasis on this was<14> one, you got information Dobson was the weak link,<15> you got that from Grant right early on?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. You are deputed to do that because you are<18> thought as the one who might get through the crack,<19> as it were?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. Thirdly, the senior officers would be wanting to<22> know how you are getting on so they could get the<23> interviews with the others prepared?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. It is quite clear that they would be monitoring

. P-3137 DAVIDSON

< 1> your interviews, do you not agree, with care?< 2> A. I would hope they were, and the other interviews< 3> with the same care, yes, sir.< 4> Q. So the position can be summarised, there is much< 5> more on the surveillance than that because the name< 6> Zak Stuart comes up, again along with some of the< 7> others on slightly later observations. You are< 8> saying by the time you come to the end of your< 9> interviewing period, at no stage is anyone showing<10> you anything that relates to this surveillance.<11> Nothing?<12> A. That is correct, sir.<13> Q. Not a word?<14> A. That is correct, sir.<15> Q. There were two other areas of inquiry I want to<16> ask you about, where I suggest, again, there was<17> delay by you. I want your help about it. Perhaps<18> the easiest thing is for to you see your statement<19> about it.<20> This relates to information coming from two<21> police officers, do you remember?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. The two police officers were May and Ashwell.<24> Your statement, in fact, I think only deals with one<25> of them. Witness 0010217, please, towards the bottom

. P-3138 DAVIDSON

< 1> please, DS May, do you see that?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. Right. Plainly where you get information from< 4> another police officer the chances are, certainly in< 5> police circles, it may be regarded as slightly more< 6> important, maybe?< 7> A. Not necessarily, sir, no. I know what you are< 8> talking about. If a policeman phoned me I would take< 9> notice of it.<10> Q. You would take notice of it. I want to know the<11> extent to which at any time while were you doing<12> outside enquiries you were concerned about the<13> existence of a fifth or sixth person who had been<14> described by Duwayne Brooks and others, who is now<15> known the "blonde offender". Were you conscious of<16> that?<17> A. No, the only time I remember a blonde being<18> mentioned was from Grant's information, which you<19> reminded me of it today.<20> Q. From Grant?<21> A. He said "the 4th person is blonde" I don't<22> remember anything else about a blonde in that.<23> Q. Well, eye witness then?<24> A. That is what I am remembering, sir.<25> Q. You do not remember. I am going to assume that

. P-3139 DAVIDSON

< 1> if you read those other statements you would have< 2> recognised that Grant had picked up on something that< 3> the eye witnesses, about the only description of< 4> anyone in any detail is somebody known as the "blonde< 5> offender". So would you want to track down if you< 6> could anybody who might match that description, do< 7> you follow?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. Obviously how they come to be involved. "DS<10> May", this is your statement, okay, at the bottom of<11> 217, "contacted the police station on 4th and 5th and<12> mentioned two names Zak, Punt and Blue." Do you see<13> that?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. Did they mean anything to you because you have<16> agreed, I think, were you deputed to deal with this?<17> A. Did they mean anything to me at that time as<18> they came in?<19> Q. Yes.<20> A. I don't remember, sir.<21> Q. Do you recall that the solicitor on behalf of<22> Lawrences, Imran Khan, had provided the police with<23> names similar to those before this date?<24> A. I am aware of something about that, whether I<25> was aware at the time, I don't know, sir.

. P-3140 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. All right I am interested in what you did about< 2> it, you see. The Inquiry was allocated to you< 3> according to your statement and you subsequently< 4> spoke to DS May by telephone. Is that right, did< 5> you?< 6> A. To my recollection, yes, sir.< 7> Q. What did May tell you?< 8> A. I can't remember.< 9> Q. Do you remember anything about----<10> A. What I remember is, as I said here, they asked<11> about his identity the informant, how good he was,<12> the source of information, he would not give me the<13> informer's identity, he told me there was no further<14> information. He lead me to believe it was secondhand<15> in any event, it was something that had been<16> overheard in a pub or something to that effect.<17> Q. You indicate in this statement towards the<18> bottom: "I believe I spoke to DS May"?<19> A. I made this statement just a couple of weeks<20> ago, sir, 5 years later to the best of my<21> recollection.<22> Q. Could that be entirely wrong that you did not do<23> that and that that is a mistake just, for example, is<24> that possible?<25> A. It could be entirely wrong yes, sir.

. P-3141 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. It could be entirely wrong?< 2> A. This is only my recollection.< 3> Q. You see the officer concerned, that is Mr May< 4> has in fact been asked about it himself. Have you< 5> seen his statement or been told what he says about< 6> it?< 7> A. No, sir.< 8> Q. So have the officers been asked, the senior< 9> officers, Mr Bullock and so on, have been asked about<10> this. Do you know that?<11> A. No, sir.<12> Q. You see the senior officers say it was deputed<13> to you and there was nothing coming back from you<14> about all of this, is that right, that is to do with<15> the May information?<16> A. I don't know when I closed the action or I<17> remember checking up on the action I was given.<18> Q. Yes?<19> A. I remember, I am sure I spoke to DS May at least<20> twice. I left messages for him several times but<21> other than that, that is my recollection of what<22> happened, sir.<23> Q. Well I just want to show you, if I may, just one<24> page of Mr May in particular it is (PCA00300302). It<25> is halfway down the first page, you can see if you

. P-3142 DAVIDSON

< 1> wish it all about his contacting and so on. He goes< 2> to Eltham and he also telephones. "When I visited",< 3> do you see that "the incident room at Eltham, I was< 4> not asked to task my own informant. I didn't see the< 5> senior investigating officer. The impression I was< 6> given by the enquiry team was they had a good idea< 7> who was responsible for the offence and the persons< 8> named by my informant were not connected with the< 9> murder. Whilst I was in the incident room I recall a<10> member of the team stated there was also a similar<11> murder. A call was put into the Deptford incident<12> room passing the information I had given to Eltham.<13> I did not receive any fed back from the Deptford or<14> Eltham teams." Is that right?<15> A. No, sir.<16> Q. "I can recall one phone call when I was a<17> uniformed Inspector at Sevenoaks Police Station, I<18> had a telephone call from the Stephen Lawrence<19> Inquiry team asking whether I had any further<20> information" and<21> so on?<22> A. What he is saying is he did not receive any<23> feedback but he did receive a phone call which agrees<24> with what I said. I phoned them and asked them if<25> they had any further information, would he be

. P-3143 DAVIDSON

< 1> prepared to identify his informant and he said no on< 2> both counts. He went onto say further things. My< 3> recollection is pretty well right.< 4> MR EGAN: There is a contemporaneous record of near< 5> contemporaneous record these phone calls at 830129 in< 6> the messages or the actions that could more properly< 7> be put to the witness. Perhaps if we look at 830129< 8> we will see. I am very concerned that something from< 9> Mr May is put to him -- MET sorry.<10> THE CHAIRMAN: Wait a minute, lets see.<11> MR EGAN: If you move down the page there is another<12> one as well at (MET00820203). These are matters<13> frankly that can be put to the witness rather than<14> putting what Mr May says years later with respect.<15> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Mansfield, I do not know how far<16> this particular part of the suggestion made to this<17> officer is going to help. There are the<18> contemporaneous notes.<19> MR MANSFIELD: In relation to both of these two, this<20> is what are you telling those in charge of the system<21> you have you done, is that right?<22> A. Yes, I am telling them I done that at the time,<23> sir. Rightly as pointed out, Mr May is telling 5<24> years later, what I didn't do.<25> Q. Were you told, the reason I am asking about

. P-3144 DAVIDSON

< 1> these two, that is Blue and Zak and so on, were you< 2> at this stage made aware that there was a connection< 3> between the Stewarts, Norris and Acourts and that one< 4> of them might match, in description terms, one of the< 5> assailants?< 6> A. No, I was made aware that a Stewart had arrived< 7> at their address. I may have been aware there was< 8> some family connection between the Stewarts and the< 9> Acourts but until today I didn't know there was a<10> connection between the Stewarts, Acourts and the<11> Norrises.<12> Q. Did you ever tell the officer who took this over<13> and continued with Mr May: look, this has nothing to<14> do with this enquiry at all, there is a reason for<15> asking that question, did you say anything like that<16> to Mr Hughes so he would think that the information<17> coming from the officer called May had nothing to do<18> with the Lawrence thing?<19> A. I don't remember saying that, I would----<20> Q. I am not putting to you?<21> A. I would hardly say we would pass it on if it had<22> nothing to do with----<23> Q. Exactly.<24> A. So I don't remember saying that.<25> Q. You do not remember saying that.

. P-3145 DAVIDSON

< 1> I want to ask you about one other area in terms< 2> of information from a police officer and that is in< 3> relation to an officer called Ashwell. Do you recall< 4> that?< 5> A. I remember the name Ashwell.< 6> Q. Were you deputed to follow that through?< 7> A. You will need tell me that, sir.< 8> Q. Can I first of all show you Mr Ashwell's< 9> statement which is (PCA00300303)?<10> A. Perhaps if you would showed me the action first,<11> sir, that would let me know if I was deputed to<12> deal...<13> Q. No 6 Regional Crime and so on he says, he had a<14> registered informant and gives the name there.<15> Was that a name that rings a bell. Do you see<16> that, Betty Widows?<17> A. No, it does not ring a bell.<18> Q. It does not. He is a saying at the bottom of<19> the page although he "thought the information had<20> been obtained through rumour and speculation and the<21> informant had not witnesses the incident, I have no<22> recollection of a member of the Stephen Lawrence<23> murder enquiry team either asking to see myself or<24> the informant and have no recollection of being asked<25> to specifically task the informant."

. P-3146 DAVIDSON

< 1> First of all, do you recollect having any< 2> dealings with this aspect of the matter. That is the< 3> Ashwell?< 4> A. No, sir.< 5> THE CHAIRMAN: The best points are made now, are they< 6> not.< 7> MR MANSFIELD: Yes, they are.< 8> MR EGAN: In fairness to the witness there is an< 9> action in the contemporaneous----<10> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Egan, if you think it necessary you<11> will refer to it.<12> MR MANSFIELD: It is "MET00850094".<13> The final matter is this and it is returning to<14> the Grant, it so to do with his registration<15> effectively this: you went to Greenwich Police<16> Station?<17> A. Did I deal with this by the way, you have asked<18> me about it, did I deal with it?<19> Q. I am going leave it.<20> A. I would rather it was not left.<21> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Egan will deal with it when he asks<22> you some questions. Do not worry I will remember<23> that it has not been referred to.<24> MR MANSFIELD: The man, Mr Grant, I just want to ask<25> you this and his registration?

. P-3147 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. You went to Greenwich to register him as an< 3> informant in relation to the locality or in some< 4> other way?< 5> A. There was no area or system whereby you could< 6> register an informant purely on a murder because of< 7> the information that was given, he had to be< 8> registered properly, checked on properly and that< 9> would have been done at the local police station or a<10> local police station to the area. Therefore, it was<11> taken down to Plumstead which was away from the<12> Eltham but that was also the senior station I believe<13> at the time. Therefore, it has gone through the<14> senior officer there as a matter of course.<15> Q. The reason I am asking, you are probably aware,<16> Kent could not find any registration documents?<17> A. I am aware of that, sir.<18> Q. Now you do you say that you, as it were----<19> A. With Mr Budgen the two of us went to Plumstead<20> and handed it to----<21> Q. And filled it in?<22> A. No, we filled it in before we went and done the<23> in-force checks et cetera and handed it to, I was<24> with Mr Owens.<25> Q. It is the same of officer----

. P-3148 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. I remember seeing it. I remember then seeing it< 2> because I had never meet with Owens before or since.< 3> Q. That is at one level. That has gone missing< 4> along with the dockets et cetera. A further stage is< 5> registering informants at New Scotland Yard with the< 6> Met generally?< 7> A. What are you asking me, sir?< 8> Q. Did this happen?< 9> A. It would happen on the in-force. What happens,<10> sir, in the first instance an informant is checked on<11> with various checks, you were told that the other<12> day, once that is carried out the informant's details<13> go to a local senior officer, CID officer, a DCI like<14> to register and keep the docket. The contents of the<15> docket then goes forward to the Area Chief<16> Superintendent which would be in this case, at the<17> start, Mr Illsley. Then if necessary they would be<18> docketed up at the Yard but only if necessary.<19> Q. Let us just take it as far as?<20> A. The name would go up the Yard.<21> Q. What should have happened here is, with regard<22> to Grant, on what you are saying happened is that<23> once you have gone to Greenwich the registration of<24> Grant and his potentials should actually go before<25> Mr Illsley at some point?

. P-3149 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. I would say it must have done, sir, inasmuch as< 2> you cannot get a reward for an informant in the< 3> Metropolitan Police, sir, unless he is a registered< 4> informant sir, at that time you couldn't. Therefore< 5> when I applied for a reward during this enquiry for< 6> Grant I would never have been paid without the< 7> documents being there. As it was he was not paid< 8> because it was a derisory amount but that is another< 9> matter. That would not have been given unless the<10> proper names and checks were there. They do not give<11> out to anonymous names to detective sergeants to give<12> to somebody they don't know.<13> Q. Besides Mr Illsley who else would have known?<14> A. There would have been a name at the Yard or<15> should have been a name at the Yard although<16> Mr Illsley can give at his level and probably did at<17> that time and may have changed at that time.<18> Q. Who is the name at the Yard?<19> A. There would be a register of names at the Yard<20> but it may have changed at that time. Definitely<21> Mr Illsley would have had a record of that.<22> MR MANSFIELD: Yes, thank you.<23> THE CHAIRMAN: How long will be, Mr Gompertz, it is<24> simply a question of when we take the break?<25> MR GOMPERTZ: I shall be 20 minutes.

. P-3150 DAVIDSON

< 1> THE CHAIRMAN: We better take a break now. We will< 2> break until 3.10.< 3> <(Short Adjournment)< 4> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR GOMPERTZ< 5> Q. Mr Davidson, a few questions on behalf of the< 6> Commissioner: Judging by the answers you gave to< 7> Mr Mansfield this morning, you feel strongly on< 8> issues of race; is that right?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. There can be little doubt from what you said<11> that you hold your own views as to what is or is not<12> a racial incident and a racially motivated incident;<13> would that be right?<14> A. That is correct, sir.<15> Q. Of course, you are perfectly entitled to hold<16> your own views. What I want to ask you first is<17> this: Did you know that, for example, officers<18> concerned with raise relations in the area and the<19> Racial Incident Unit were alerted and informed of the<20> murder at a very early stage, long before you even<21> joined the Inquiry?<22> A. No, sir.<23> Q. You did not know that Sergeant Solley and Police<24> Constable Fisher were informed by Superintendent<25> Philpot?

. P-3151 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. No, sir.< 2> Q. Early on the Friday?< 3> A. I knew that Mr Philpot had some input to the< 4> Inquiry, but no, sir.< 5> Q. No. Equally, I do not suppose you knew what was< 6> said at the press conference which was convened and< 7> held for, I think, about 2.30 on the Friday< 8> afternoon?< 9> A. No, sir.<10> Q. We are trying to get chapter and verse on that,<11> but meanwhile perhaps I can just quote to you a<12> sentence from the statement of Mr Neville Lawrence<13> which we have been given, I am looking at page 14:<14> "It was clear by Friday that Stephen was<15> murdered because he was black. When we were at the<16> press conference people were saying that it was a<17> racist murder." Did you know that at any stage?<18> A. No, sir.<19> Q. Very well. Because whatever your views and I am<20> not criticising you, it is not my function to do<21> that, whatever your views about the matter, this<22> incident, I suggest, was treated as a racially<23> motivated crime from a very early stage?<24> A. I have no doubt about that, sir. It was covered<25> in all the press, the media, everybody was aware of

. P-3152 DAVIDSON

< 1> the incident and it was labelled by everybody as a< 2> racist murder, et cetera. I merely carried out my< 3> duties on the murder squad on directions.< 4> Q. Thank you very much indeed. Let me move on to< 5> the next topic which is the other really serious or< 6> most serious allegation which may be made in this< 7> Inquiry, namely, that of corruption. Did you have< 8> anything whatever to do with, first of all, the< 9> Norris family?<10> A. My dealings with the Norris family in this whole<11> Inquiry was at one stage I interviewed, although you<12> could not call it that, I spoke with David Norris as<13> a result of the alleged attempt murder on<14> Stacey Benefield, which lasted only a few minutes and<15> he never said anything.<16> My next dealings was, in fact, the arrest of his<17> father. Mr Mellish had set up an operation to trace,<18> locate and arrest his father who was wanted on an<19> outstanding warrant by customs. At that stage I had<20> left him under enquiry and was working with the South<21> East Regional Crime Squad.<22> I was called into assist in a place in Roberts<23> Bridge. I in fact arrested his father.<24> Q. That is Clifford Norris?<25> A. Yes, in possession of a two loaded firearms and

. P-3153 DAVIDSON

< 1> on a search of his holiday home where he was living< 2> was found an Uzi sub-machine gun with a silencer,< 3> which is a very, very vicious weapon. That was my< 4> own dealings -- that and the subsequent interviews< 5> and arrest and in fact customs took over the whole< 6> inquiry.< 7> Q. So far as Clifford Norris concerned, in< 8> consequence of arrest that you made, was he put on< 9> trial?<10> A. He was, sir.<11> Q. With what result?<12> A. I believe he was found guilty and somebody told<13> me he got 8 years, but I am not sure of the outcome,<14> sir. I had other dealings, not directly with the<15> Norris's, but as result of Stacey Benefield and<16> Matthew Farnham allegedly meeting Mr Norris, some<17> money allegedly went across to the lads to stop them<18> giving evidence on this or the attempted murder<19> inquiry, which they spent but still gave evidence,<20> and they were moved into safe premises.<21> Q. That was an investigation into the activities of<22> a man called Duar?<23> A. Yes, a man called Raymond Duar ----<24> Q. We do not want to get sidetracked.<25> A. That was all of the issues I had to deal with

. P-3154 DAVIDSON

< 1> the Norris family.< 2> Q. At the time you joined the Inquiry Team< 3> investigating Stephen Lawrence's murder, had you had< 4> any dealings of any kind with Mr Clifford Norris?< 5> A. No, sir.< 6> Q. Or indeed with any member of his family?< 7> A. Not to my knowledge, sir.< 8> Q. What about the Acourts, had you had any dealings< 9> with them prior to joining the murder team?<10> A. No, sir, I had never heard of them.<11> Q. The Stuart family?<12> A. The same, sir, no dealings whatsoever.<13> Q. If it be suggested in any shape or form that you<14> held back deliberately for corrupt reasons, what do<15> you say about that?<16> A. I refute it completely, sir.<17> Q. Let us go on to one or two of the specific<18> matters where it was suggested that you did not<19> follow matters up as you should have: First of all<20> Michelle Casserly. It was suggested that no<21> statement was taken from her and you said that she<22> refused to provide one; is that right?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. Can you tell us this: that if a witness, not an<25> informant, refuses to provide a statement, is it

. P-3155 DAVIDSON

< 1> common practice for another officer then to see< 2> whether he can, as it were, do any better?< 3> A. Yes, in these circumstance that would be common< 4> practice, yes.< 5> Q. I wonder if we can look at (PCA00380367)< 6> please. This is a statement made in the original< 7> investigation by Sergeant Kirkpatrick from whom we< 8> have already heard?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. If we can look at it, we can see it is dated<11> 3rd June and we can see that he says on 28th May he<12> and Doel went to Greenwich Police Station to speak to<13> Michelle Casserly regarding the notes made in her<14> diary that had been seized on a previous search?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. You have given evidence about that aspect of the<17> matter. I am not going to read it all. There then<18> follows an account, hearsay account, by<19> Sergeant Kirkpatrick of what she was telling him, so<20> it seems; do you follow?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. He did not succeed in getting a statement out of<23> her either?<24> A. That is correct, sir.<25> Q. Would it be normal in those circumstances for

. P-3156 DAVIDSON

< 1> him to do the second best thing, which is to record< 2> in hearsay form what she told him?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. That is what he has done?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. So what do you say about the suggestion that< 7> Michelle Casserly, a potentially important line of< 8> inquiry, was simply not pursued?< 9> A. It was certainly pursued, sir, and it could not<10> have been pursued by me, she did not like me at all,<11> sir.<12> Q. Yes. Let us go on to witness B, in respect of<13> whom likewise it was suggested that he was, in<14> effect, written off, and if we can just go back to<15> (MET00830144) please. If you go down to the bottom<16> of the document, you will remember your description<17> of him as a Walter Mitty. You say you saw him twice,<18> once with DC Canavan and a second time with DC<19> Hughes.<20> Pausing there, do you recollect which DC Hughes<21> that was; was that Martin Hughes?<22> A. That would be Martin Hughes, I believe, Martin<23> Hughes.<24> Q. There is at least one other Hughes concerned<25> with this investigation whose name is Keith?

. P-3157 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. I don't know a Keith Hughes, sir.< 2> Q. So probably Martin, he is still to come, so we< 3> can ask him about that.< 4> "Because of other information I then asked that< 5> DS Kirkpatrick see him".< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. You then you go on to say: "He tells a story of< 8> a fight he saw. The circumstances are such that he< 9> only thinks he saw this. He told people that he saw<10> the murder, but completely gets the venue wrong. No<11> statement taken."<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. Let us just analyse that. You saw him once on<14> your own; right?<15> A. No, I saw him once with Canavan, sir.<16> Q. Quite right, once with Canavan, second time with<17> Hughes and then again Sergeant Kirkpatrick sees him;<18> is that the position?<19> A. Yes, that is correct.<20> Q. The account that he was giving was of an<21> incident way up by the Welcome Inn?<22> A. That is correct, sir.<23> Q. Which you knew had no resemblance to reality?<24> A. No, sir.<25> Q. Can we look now, please, at (PCA00390344) and we

. P-3158 DAVIDSON

< 1> see this is a statement made by witness B on< 2> 16th November 1993. If we just look at the first< 3> part of it. He says: "On 5th November I made a< 4> statement concerning an incident that happened on< 5> 22nd April. What I told the police in that statement< 6> is true." I do not think we need go to that< 7> statement. The position is that he made a statement< 8> on the 5th and this is a follow up to explain certain< 9> matters.<10> He says this: "I have been spoken to on several<11> occasions since 22nd April 1993 by police and prior<12> to making my statement that is the one on the 5th had<13> not told the truth. The only reason for this was<14> fear for the safety of myself and my family." Then<15> he proceeds to amplify his earlier statement.<16> In a sense, you were right, were you not, that<17> what he was originally telling the police was not<18> true and was invented for some reason?<19> A. Yes, sir, that coupled with the fact that his<20> mother told me that he was the type of person that<21> would tell lies just to bring attention to himself<22> led me to believe he was a Walter Mitty.<23> Q. Thank you. Let us go on to witness K, who<24> again, it was suggested was written off by you. Can<25> we go to (PCA00320013). Although you may not know

. P-3159 DAVIDSON

< 1> this, there is some doubt as to the precise status of< 2> these typed notes, this is the page that was put to< 3> you earlier. You see your name at the top: "Saw K.< 4> Did go to 102 after murder. Saw two Acourt and< 5> Dobson, one had his top off. He ran out of house.< 6> Mother and boyfriend to speak to him."< 7> Can you from recollection recall whether you had< 8> or had not seen K before that date, or do you need< 9> some assistance?<10> A. No, sir, as I said before, I can't remember<11> dealing, talking or doing anything with witness K.<12> Q. Yes.<13> A. I am sorry about that, but I can not remember.<14> Q. I regret there is slight problem because I would<15> like to show the witness his duty state for the<16> 4th May and unhappily in two places there is a<17> redaction which should have been made and which has<18> been missed. I do not know whether it is possible<19> for anybody to pass the document (PCA00320257)?<20> THE CHAIRMAN: I thought we already looked at it on<21> the screen.<22> MR GOMPERTZ: Not for these days.<23> THE CHAIRMAN: Not this one.<24> MR GOMPERTZ: What I have passed you is your duty<25> state for 4th May; is that right?

. P-3160 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. You see that, amongst other entries, there is< 3> one at 2.55, just take your lead from me here,< 4> please, that you went to what is obviously an< 5> address, I think that has been redacted, re a name< 6> which is the name of K. Is that right?< 7> A. That is correct, sir.< 8> Q. Then if you look to the right-hand column,< 9> rather later in the day, did you return to that<10> address at 6.30?<11> A. If that is the redacted address, yes, sir.<12> Q. Take it from me that that is an address, and<13> there is again a reference to K to the right of the<14> redaction, is there not?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. Thank you. On the face of it, I do not know<17> whether you can help us as to whether this is right<18> or not, it looks as though you certainly went to that<19> address. Did you see K there on either or both of<20> those occasions?<21> A. I am afraid I cannot help you there, sir. It<22> would show me booking out with the intention of<23> seeing him on both occasions, but whether I saw him<24> or not -- I cannot remember ever dealing with him.<25> Q. If you combine your duty state, what you are

. P-3161 DAVIDSON

< 1> looking at now, with what is on the screen for the< 2> next day, 5th May, it does rather look as though you< 3> did see K, would you agree or not?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. If you cannot remember, you cannot remember?< 6> A. I can't, sir.< 7> Q. Thank you very much indeed. Emma Cook you dealt< 8> with. I do not think I can take that any further.< 9> What that came down to was that her father would not<10> allow her to make a statement?<11> A. That is correct, sir.<12> Q. Finally, I hope it is finally, can we look,<13> please, at (PCA00470334) in relation to DS May's<14> informant. You were asked various questions about<15> what had been done in relation to him earlier?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. This is, I think, a document, an action 798,<18> which is allocated on 10th September to DC Hughes, do<19> you see that?<20> A. Yes, this would come from the review team, sir.<21> Q. From what?<22> A. Review team, yes, sir.<23> Q. Quite right. We can see the result of the<24> action in handwriting, and I ask you about it because<25> your name is mentioned there: "Spoke to DS Davidson

. P-3162 DAVIDSON

< 1> who stated he spoke to DS May on "20/8" it looks< 2> like, is it?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. "Was told there was no further information from< 5> the informant"?< 6> A. That is correct, sir.< 7> Q. Do you recollect contacting DS May and getting< 8> that information?< 9> A. No, sir.<10> Q. Then I appreciate that the rest of the message<11> is not yours really, it is DC Hughes, is it not?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. We may as well look at it while we have it out:<14> "I attempted to contact him at RCS Northfleet to<15> find now promoted, message left" and so on. Then the<16> meat of it "I spoke to Inspector May who states that<17> he has spoken to the informant recently and that he<18> now believes the information he supplied did not<19> refer to the Lawrence Inquiry but to a murder that<20> had occurred at about the same time in Deptford"?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> MR GOMPERTZ: Yes. That is all I want to ask you.<23> Thank you very much.<24> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR DOYLE<25> Q. Mr Davidson, I ask questions on behalf of the

. P-3163 DAVIDSON

< 1> senior investigating officers?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. You have been asked a number of questions by< 4> Mr Mansfield about the decisions of Mr Crampton and< 5> Mr Weeden?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. You have been asked a number of questions which< 8> are perhaps directed towards when, why and how?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. I do not propose to ask you a single question<11> about those matters, not least because the gentlemen<12> will appear to give their own answers to this<13> Inquiry?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. I want to deal please with one area, that is the<16> question of the problems that you faced, the<17> day-to-day problems that you faced trying to see and<18> speak to witnesses?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. When I use the word "witnesses" perhaps one<21> ought to say "and non-witnesses"?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. Although we have concentrated understandably on<24> the prime suspects in this case, can you confirm that<25> within the first 14 days of this investigation 28

. P-3164 DAVIDSON

< 1> names had been put up as suspects for this terrible< 2> crime?< 3> A. I can't give you an expect number but there was< 4> a lot of names put up sir, yes.< 5> Q. One of the difficulties that the team met from< 6> the outset was that if they were going to try and< 7> sieve and evaluate this information, they were going< 8> to have to deal with a large number of very young< 9> people?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. Perhaps unusually in a murder Inquiry, a large<12> number of those whom it was said may or may not have<13> information were themselves juveniles?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. And that presented, did it not, two<16> difficulties: because the degree to which a witness<17> was prepared to assist could almost be measured,<18> could it not, in direct proposition to; A, the<19> influence of his or her parent. Do you agree?<20> A. Could be yes, sir.<21> Q. And; B, the extent to which that particular<22> child felt fear or intimidation?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. So it became a familiar pattern, did it not,<25> that efforts to try to speak to young people were

. P-3165 DAVIDSON

< 1> understandably questioned by some, not all, some of< 2> their parents?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. We know because you told us during your evidence< 5> particularly in relation to Pearson, you were faced< 6> with almost a fait accompli from his father?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. He has to live and walk the estate?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. I do not know, had you seen the statement of B<11> made in November of 1993?<12> A. I may have seen it recently, sir, I can't<13> remember.<14> Q. Did you know from what has just been put to you<15> that if his account of matters is true that because<16> of fear and intimidation he sat on the truth for 7<17> months?<18> A. I cannot comment on that, sir, I never read his<19> statement.<20> Q. One of the things that the senior investigating<21> officers did do in relation to officers who had<22> failed through best efforts to obtain information<23> from juveniles was to retask other officers to see if<24> they could try and succeed?<25> A. This would be the norm, sir.

. P-3166 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. It was not a question of giving up?< 2> A. No, sir there was never a question of giving up< 3> on this enquiry.< 4> Q. I want to deal with one witness in particular: I< 5> was going deal with B but Mr Gompertz has dealt with< 6> B and it is Michelle Casserly. Did you know that she< 7> was seen at some length by the solicitors< 8> representing Mr and Mrs Lawrence on 28th November< 9> 1995?<10> A. No, sir.<11> Q. Have you had the benefit of seeing the<12> attendance note and the notes of the meeting with<13> that young girl?<14> A. No, sir.<15> Q. Let us have a look. First of all, can we look<16> at the attendance not please at (PCA00340003). Can<17> you see it there on your screen?<18> A. Yes, sir.<19> Q. 28th November, 1995 re Lawrence. It is, in<20> fact, I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong,<21> the attendance note of the a member of the firm<22> called JR Jones called Karen Thatcher. That is just<23> to establish what the document is.<24> If we can go to the next page, please, let us<25> look at paragraph 3:

. P-3167 DAVIDSON

< 1> "I then spoke with Michelle Casserly at length.< 2> The notes relating to that meeting are attached to< 3> this attendance note. In essence she is unable to< 4> assist us with reasons as to why anyone would suggest< 5> that she knew anything about who had committed< 6> the murder.< 7> "She says that she told me that her only< 8> knowledge was as a direct result of rumour in the< 9> area and that no one had ever confessed the murder to<10> her.<11> "I went through the statements of her various<12> school friends with her and she expressed surprise at<13> the contents of those statements. She could provide<14> no explanation whatsoever as to why her friends would<15> provide such detailed statements to us. She said that<16> she quite simply did not inform them of the matters<17> detailed in their statements.<18> "This was in stark contrast to her explanation<19> relating to the diary where she told me that she had<20> simply written the names of the boys into the diary<21> because they were the substance of rumour and there<22> was no other reason for her writing them in her<23> diary." You have not seen that before?<24> A. I have never seen that before, no, sir.<25> Q. Let us look at the note of the meeting 34, page

. P-3168 DAVIDSON

< 1> 6 please: you see towards the top there sighting of< 2> defendants?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. This is a note of what Michelle Casserly is< 5> saying?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. "I did not see the Acourts at all on the day that< 8> Stephen Lawrence was murdered. It is not true that I< 9> have ever told anyone I saw the Acourts at about 9 pm<10> that evening and also at about 12 when they had<11> changed their clothing. I did not see them at all<12> that day."<13> Then the next entry is headed "diary".<14> "I have been shown a photocopy of the entry made<15> in my diary. The entry made is in my writing and I<16> can confirm that I made the entry."<17> We have seen it during the course of your<18> cross-examination?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. "I have been asked why I wrote the names in the<21> diary I have to say that I don't really know why. I<22> think that I may have written the names in there<23> because I knew those people because everyone was<24> saying that the Acourts and the others had committed<25> the murder. It is not every day someone gets

. P-3169 DAVIDSON

< 1> murdered and I think that is why I write it.< 2> "I was surprised that the Acourts and others< 3> were named as the murderers of Stephen Lawrence." Do< 4> you see that?< 5> A. I see that, yes.< 6> Q. (PCA00340010), please, which is a continuation< 7> of the note: go to the bottom of the page, please.< 8> The last paragraph:< 9> "I have been asked why anyone might say that I<10> knew who committed the murder. I have to say that it<11> is not right that I said that the Acourts or anyone<12> else had committed the murder. If I did say anything<13> it was just that I told my friends what other people<14> were telling me that the Acourts and the others had<15> committed the murder. I don't think I would have<16> said anything else apart from that I didn't know<17> anything else."<18> Then if we go to the next page please, the top:<19> "I have seen the entry in my diary and I have<20> been told what Katie Lynch says about the entry and<21> what she said I said to her in the science lesson. I<22> will say more about this shortly but I want to just<23> say now that I think that person over exaggerates<24> everything. I remember Katie saying that she knew<25> Stephen Lawrence, I don't think that she did know

. P-3170 DAVIDSON

< 1> Stephen Lawrence. I think that Kevin Lunden knew a< 2> friend of Stephen Lawrences."< 3> You have not seen that before?< 4> A. No, sir.< 5> Q. No reason why you should have?< 6> A. No, sir.< 7> Q. That is an example, is it not, perhaps a stark< 8> example that frequently when in due course young< 9> people were motivated to speak it was to reject as<10> inaccurate or misplaced information that had been<11> attributed to them by others?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> MR DOYLE: Thank you.<14> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR YEARWOOD<15> Q. Mr Davidson, I put questions to you on behalf of<16> the Commission for Racial Equality?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. Can I start this way, can you tell me what is<19> your definition of a racist murder?<20> A. A racist murder would be where a man of mixed<21> race or colour is murdered by white people and the<22> reason for that murder is because of his colour or<23> race.<24> Q. How do you distinguish the definition you give<25> us from the facts of the Stephen Lawrences murder?

. P-3171 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. In the fact that these five thugs, on the face< 2> of it, or four thugs or how many there was.< 3> Q. Five to six?< 4> A. Five to six, or whatever, who killed Stephen< 5> were white and there was one, I believe, racial< 6> comment made.< 7> However, I did not base my argument on that. I< 8> base my argument on the fact that the previous< 9> actions of these lads, thugs, not lads, was to attack<10> at will anyone who happened to be there, sir.<11> Stacey Benefield is 6 foot and white. He was<12> stabbed almost in a similar manner than Stephen, let<13> me finish, sir, because but for the intervention of<14> the surgeon he would have been dead, the sword, knife<15> implement hit his sternum.<16> Lee Pearson, although he would not give a<17> statement, was stabbed allegedly by the Acourts.<18> Lee Pearson is white, he was stabbed because he was<19> there.<20> If have you a gang stabbing people because they<21> are there I say that they are motive is that of<22> thuggery and a murderous intent other than race. It<23> happens that Stephen was black but I don't think that<24> was the reason he was killed.<25> Q. You say "other than race", now do you accept

. P-3172 DAVIDSON

< 1> that one could have a racist thug?< 2> A. Of course, sir, and it does not put beyond the< 3> possibility that these thugs are racist as well, in< 4> addition. But, sir, can I say that even if they< 5> were, there was not -- I could not have worked< 6> harder, nor would I work any less whether it was< 7> racist or non-racist, I give 100 per cent. Murder is< 8> the most heinous crime a detective can deal with it< 9> and it matters not to me whether or not it was<10> racist, sir.<11> Q. I will deal now with your classifications at the<12> moment, are you now accepting that this group of five<13> or six may well have been outside of being thugs also<14> be racist?<15> A. I have no doubt they were probably racist as<16> well, sir, what I am saying the incident in my mind<17> was not a racist incident, as a thuggery incident.<18> The fact that the thugs were racist do not make it a<19> racist incident. That is my definition and I will<20> deal, as I said, with any murder in exactly the same<21> way, sir.<22> Q. Let us approach that, firstly, in respect of the<23> question of definitions. I think what you said is<24> that although you had not in fact been on any race<25> awareness courses, that you read up on the subject;

. P-3173 DAVIDSON

< 1> is that right?< 2> A. I would have been aware of the subject, by that< 3> time I had 25 years in the police.< 4> Q. Were you aware of the AGPO definition of a< 5> racial incident?< 6> A. I would have been aware at some stage of it.< 7> Q. Would you accept that the Stephen Lawrence< 8> murder would fall well within that definition?< 9> A. If the senior officers dealing with the murder<10> decided -- I was not there when the murder was<11> reported. If the senior officers decided it was a<12> racial incident, they would deal with it as a racial<13> incident.<14> Q. You dealt with some very important and crucial<15> witness as part of this investigation?<16> A. Yes, and had I known it was racial incident I<17> would not have done it any differently.<18> Q. What I am hoping to examine is your frame of<19> mind, how you felt about Stephen Lawrence and his<20> murder?<21> A. How I felt and how I feel: I felt that Stephen<22> was a young good upstanding lad who was murdered by<23> thugs in the street, in the streets of London, in an<24> area where we should have cleared that murder up, not<25> through any fault of mine was that not cleared up. I

. P-3174 DAVIDSON

< 1> still feel very, very strongly about that murder. I< 2> feel more strongly about that murder than being< 3> called a racist today and there is nothing much< 4> stronger to upset me than calling me a racist.< 5> Q. Can we also agree this much: The murder was< 6> unprovoked?< 7> A. Certainly, sir.< 8> Q. Can we also agree that there is no motive< 9> outside of Stephen's race which explains the attack<10> upon him?<11> A. If you want to label it as a motive, sir, label<12> it, but those thugs would have killed Stephen had he<13> been white, green, blue or yellow. He had to be<14> there.<15> Q. We shall have a look at that, but do you know<16> any other motive outside of Stephen's ----?<17> A. Pure thuggery.<18> Q. Pure thuggery?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. Let us have a look, you have drawn up two<21> examples and I shall take it in chronological order.<22> Lee Pearson, being a stabbing outside of the kebab<23> shop on Tudor Parade?<24> A. Yes, sir.<25> Q. That happened back in December 1991, but a

. P-3175 DAVIDSON

< 1> statement was not given until, I think, 30th April< 2> 1993?< 3> A. I don't think a statement was ever given.< 4> Q. I think a statement was in fact given,< 5> (PCA00390314), it was not signed?< 6> A. He would not sign the statement.< 7> Q. But it is right that Lee Pearson knew the< 8> Acourts who were in fact accused of that stabbing;< 9> that is right, is it not?<10> A. Did he know them at the time I was speaking to<11> him. He knew them at the time he was stabbed which<12> was two years earlier.<13> Q. At the time he was scabbed back in December<14> 1991, Lee Pearson knew both Neil and Jamie Acourt?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. In addition, it is right, is it not, that there<17> was someone in the Pearson's company, someone by the<18> name of Ross?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. There was some antecedent history of animosity<21> between Ross and the Acourts, was there not?<22> A. That was the allegation, yes, sir.<23> Q. It appears that outside of one, the fact that<24> there they were white, there may have been some other<25> motive for that attack on Lee Pearson?

. P-3176 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. I am with you, sir. What I am saying is they< 2> would have scabbed anybody.< 3> Q. Hold on ----< 4> A. I am with you. There was another reason.< 5> Q. We are looking at motive. You have said that< 6> they are simply a bunch of thugs?< 7> A. Yes, I believe that.< 8> Q. I am not denying that. What I am trying to< 9> distinguish, if you bear with me for a moment ----<10> A. There was a motive for this.<11> Q. The differences between, what I suggest to you<12> the Lawrence case, where I think you accepted it was<13> totally unprovoked?<14> A. Completely, sir.<15> Q. We are dealing with the Pearson case in which<16> there may well have been a background?<17> A. There may well have been another reason.<18> Q. Because the parties knew each other and there<19> was this other person?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. If we come forward in time, did you know of two<22> brothers called the Whitham brothers?<23> A. Sorry, sir?<24> Q. Whitham brothers?<25> A. No, sir.

. P-3177 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. That was a case back in May of 1992 where it is< 2> said that Jamie Acourt, David Norris and Luke Knight< 3> had, in fact, attacked those two brothers. You knew< 4> nothing of that?< 5> A. This is news to me.< 6> Q. I will not take you through that because if you< 7> do not, you probably will not appreciate the< 8> distinction?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. The other case you make mention of is?<11> A. Stacey Benefield.<12> Q. Stacey Benefield.<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. Stacey Benefield, I believe he is someone you<15> spent sometime with?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. You know something about the background to the<18> Stacey Benefield case?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. Would this much be right: that at the background<21> of that case there was a suggestion that the person<22> with Stacey Benefield was someone bay the name of<23> Farnham?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. Farnham had, in fact, owed one of the Acourts

. P-3178 DAVIDSON

< 1> money in respect of drugs?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. Equally, therefore, in the case of Benefield< 4> there may well have been aback a background to that< 5> attack?< 6> A. I believe in the cases you brought up that there< 7> was a bit of a fight of some description between this< 8> Alec Ross and the Acourts and I believe in the< 9> Benefield stabbing there was animosity between<10> Farnham and the Acourts. However, Lee Pearson had no<11> background of a fight with Alec Ross or them, nor did<12> Stacey Benefield. He moved in as peacemaker and was<13> stabbed for being there.<14> Q. He was a friend; he was all part of the group?<15> A. If that is enough to stab him, that is the type<16> of thug they are. That is what I am saying.<17> Q. In addition, Benefield also knew the Acourts and<18> David Norris for some period of time as well. They<19> were known to each other?<20> A. I don't know if he knew David Norris before he<21> stabbed him. My recollection was that that was the<22> first time he met this David, but he certainly knew<23> the Acourts.<24> Q. Neil Acourt was one of those felt responsible<25> for the attack on Benefield?

. P-3179 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. He knew the Acourts. I don't think he knew< 2> David Norris before he stabbed him.< 3> Q. I will have a look at that. We are not speaking< 4> here of an attack, let us say, stranger upon< 5> stranger, are we?< 6> A. No, sir.< 7> Q. No. You mentioned earlier, I think it is only< 8> recently, you got to know the case of Kevin London?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. Here was another black youth, age 16?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. He had a white girlfriend, I think her name was<13> Katie Lynch?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. Likewise, he was threatened, was he not, in<16> Bishop Road in Eltham?<17> A. Allegedly, yes, sir.<18> Q. By Gary Dobson?<19> A. Allegedly.<20> Q. Again, quite frankly, the only apparent reason<21> was that he was courting a young, white girl?<22> A. If you say so, sir. The fact is that that was<23> never ever brought to light. We do not know the<24> reasons that Dobson allegedly threatened<25> Kevin London. If you say it was for that, I will go

. P-3180 DAVIDSON

< 1> along with you.< 2> Q. Can we agree this: that was in fact courting a< 3> young, white girl. He is black, he was courting a< 4> young, white girl?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. Can we agree this: Dobson and his little gang< 7> had very strong views, I suggest, about mixed< 8> partnerships?< 9> A. If you know that, sir, I would agree with you.<10> They were thugs and they are probably racists as<11> well.<12> Q. I will bear that in mind, now that we have gone<13> through to some extent the history and what I suggest<14> to you are marked differences between the Stephen<15> Lawrence murder and these other cases on which you<16> rely, do you now accept that this was indeed a racist<17> murder?<18> A. It is only my opinion; it is only my opinion. I<19> believe that had Stephen been there and been white he<20> would also have been attacked. They were out to<21> attack someone that night, but if you say it was only<22> because of his colour I will agree with you, sir. It<23> is only my opinion. The people that done this were<24> thugs and very, very bad people, and I think they<25> picked on him because he was there. There was no

. P-3181 DAVIDSON

< 1> other reason.< 2> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.< 3> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR EGAN< 4> Q. I represent a number of officers including< 5> yourself, Mr Davidson, so can I just ask you one or< 6> two matters, please, in relation to not as many< 7> because most of the ground has been covered: On that< 8> matter Mr Yearwood has just been asking you questions< 9> about, whether it was a race attack or not, could I<10> just ask that we look at your interview of Gary<11> Dobson, please, at (PCA00460358).<12> You will remember being asked questions about<13> this by Mr Mansfield and if you just move down the<14> page a little, you will see that Dobson who was<15> answering questions started to get worried about it<16> being suggested he was racist?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. You enter into a conversation, I suggest, or an<19> interrogation with him based on the fact that that is<20> secondary to the fact that it is a murder; fair?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. Over the page, please, at the bottom: "That<23> makes me look like I don't like blacks. At the end<24> of the day even if you did say that, even if<25> everything else we said is true I doubt if you would

. P-3182 DAVIDSON

< 1> be charged with that." Over the page he says: "I am< 2> not saying because that makes me look like I am< 3> racist."< 4> "And the murder of Stephen Lawrence doesn't?"< 5> "Well I ain't racist", says Dobson, and goes on< 6> to develop the theme.< 7> Can I ask you to go over to the next page to the< 8> nub of this. He says that it has been in the papers< 9> that it is racist. You say the following:<10> "Personally I don't think it was particularly a<11> racist attack. What I found out with you and your<12> gang was they could have been yellow, green, blue,<13> black or white into somebody. He just happened to be<14> there at the wrong time and a gang of thugs, you and<15> your mates, one of them seems to be a (inaudible),<16> with a knife decides to plunge a knife into<17> somebody. Nothing to do with colour", says the other<18> officer.<19> "The fact that there was a comment about him<20> being a nigger or being a black bastard or something<21> along that lines which is regarded as a racist<22> comment by everyone is pretty racist."<23> The other officer says: "I think that is purely<24> incidental." You go on to say: "Put it into context,<25> I think it is incidental because there are a number

. P-3183 DAVIDSON

< 1> of stabbings we believe that you lot have been< 2> involved in have been black, white, green or blue. I< 3> don't think you are racist, I just think you like< 4> stabbing people."< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. Was that based on your knowledge -- you said you< 7> did not know about the Whitham case. Mr Yearwood< 8> quite rightly asked you they were in fact two white< 9> brothers as well, but based on the fact that the<10> Benefield case, setting aside argument as to whether<11> Mr Farnham may have entered into an argument or<12> suggested he deserved what he got, Benefield was a<13> totally innocent participant in that he was stabbed<14> for no reason at all?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. I am not going to ask, but I am sure we all<17> remember Benefield's statement. He more or less came<18> back. It was a question of before they left they<19> stabbed him with a sword?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. Was that what operated on your mind?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. Right. Some quick matters, please, about your<24> meetings with James Grant. I am not going to ask for<25> us to look at your duty state which we saw in detail

. P-3184 DAVIDSON

< 1> on Friday. At 4.30 you say a meeting with an< 2> informant. Could I ask you to look at Mr Bullock's< 3> notes, please, at (PCA00320003), please, thank you.< 4> This, of course, may or may not be a< 5> contemporaneous meeting. It seems to be disclosed< 6> matters that were discussed between 5 pm and 6.50 pm< 7> as we see from the top. Can I ask you to go down to< 8> the heading "re male informant"?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. "Information supplied re named suspects, Acourt<11> twins, Norris and non-letters, including these above<12> and additionally Lee Dobson?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. Does that seem to have been you and possibly<15> Mr Budgen discussing the results of your meeting at<16> 4.30?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. Thank you. I am not going to ask you about the<19> other meeting on 27th, I think that has been covered.<20> The second matter, I have four matters to deal<21> with, please: you were asked questions about<22> Mr Budgen, had you worked with him before?<23> A. Not to my recollection, no, sir.<24> Q. You made a comment about what other officers had<25> said about him -- that is at page 373 today for

. P-3185 DAVIDSON

< 1> anyone's, note -- but I just want to ask you this,< 2> please, your evidence, please, was Budgen a very much< 3> less experienced detective officer than you were?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. Sparing your own blushes, did you get the< 6> feeling that Mr Bullock wanted you to check on what< 7> Mr Budgen had done and was doing in respect of James< 8> Grant --< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. -- because he regarded the information from<11> James Grant, he and indeed the SIO, as potentially<12> important and worthy of follow up by one of his<13> better men?<14> A. Could well have been, sir.<15> Q. We can ask him about that.<16> Now, it was suggested to you this morning, as I<17> understood it, that Mr Budgen may have been spirited<18> off this Inquiry because he was getting a bit too<19> near the truth, do you remember that suggestion being<20> put this morning?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. You dealt with it and I understood your evidence<23> you suggest that was a non-sensical suggestion?<24> A. Yes, sir.<25> Q. Were you aware that Mr Budgen was given

. P-3186 DAVIDSON

< 1> information by Mr Grant on 6th May 1993 about people< 2> in the Acourt house hiding knives underneath< 3> floorboards?< 4> A. When I was made aware of that I can't recall but< 5> I have been made aware of that through this Inquiry.< 6> Q. A very well known message, I am not going to ask< 7> for it to be put up, but the message itself is rather< 8> different from Mr Bullock's note about it, we have< 9> seen and discussed that. Mr Budgen went along to the<10> Acourts house, did he not?<11> A. I believe so, yes.<12> Q. He was part of the search party there?<13> A. I believe so.<14> Q. You were not, were you?<15> A. No, sir.<16> Q. I do not know what is going to be suggested to<17> Mr Budgen in respect of that.<18> Are you aware when Mr Budgen actually left the<19> Inquiry?<20> A. No, sir.<21> Q. No. It was, I suggest, some -- I am not quite<22> sure, I have just been passed documents, I think it<23> was 8th May, which, of course, was a day after the<24> arrests?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-3187 DAVIDSON

< 1> Q. Was it 10th May? Thank you, Mr Doyle, so three< 2> days after the arrest.< 3> I am very grateful to Mr Doyle and Ms Woodley< 4> for this information. Perhaps we can look at it now,< 5> (PCA00450206), as from Monday, 10th May the following< 6> officers, I think, come in; is that right?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. We see the reasons if we just track down. Then< 9> could I ask you to move to page 0208, the next but<10> one, we see six officers going out?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. Six in and six out?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. Thank you. As I say, we will see what is put to<15> Mr Budgen then tomorrow.<16> Just dealing with any suggestion that you were<17> in any way pulling your punches or trying to inhibit<18> this Inquiry and stop people like Norris or Acourt<19> being prosecuted, it is undoubtedly right that<20> Benefield had illicit approaches made to him?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. A very serious incident involving the payment of<23> money, whether he spent it or not?<24> A. Yes, sir.<25> Q. In an effort to pervert the course of justice in

. P-3188 DAVIDSON

< 1> respect of those extant proceedings?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. Mr Benefield was seen and interviewed and gave a< 4> statement about that, was he not?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. There were a number of reasons for that, were< 7> there not, I suggest. Shall I suggest what they were< 8> --< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. -- rather than leave you up in the air as maybe<11> has happened earlier on today:<12> One was to make sure that the very serious<13> allegation of Benefield did not collapse, was to keep<14> it on track, was it not?<15> The other was, possibly, to get the perpetrators<16> for these very serious attempt to pervert the course<17> of justice.<18> You took the statement from Benefield where he<19> admitted that he had had an illicit approach made to<20> him, did you not?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. I think it was, in fact, Mr Hughes, we will all<23> remember in the last couple of weeks, who gave<24> evidence about further things. There were various<25> checks made to make sure you could support what he

. P-3189 DAVIDSON

< 1> was saying about the money he was paid, people going< 2> around making themselves busy, as he had been< 3> spending money, £50 notes?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. Why did you do that?< 6> A. To prove the statement, sir, to corroborate what< 7> he was saying.< 8> Q. You did not want Norris to get off, did you?< 9> A. No, sir.<10> Q. You ended up arresting the father?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. And we know what happened to him?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. Thank you. You were asked a number of questions<15> and fortunately most of these matters have been dealt<16> with by Mr Gompertz and Mr Doyle. Could I just deal<17> finally the matter of K, the follow up on that.<18> Could we have is it (MET00880051), please.<19> This is a case where the witness K -- these are<20> the actual actions when it was a question of re<21> interviewing, have you seen this document before?<22> A. I have not sir, no.<23> Q. He was subsequently seen, in fact the parent<24> refused to allow her son to be interviewed and then<25> there was a further check on that. All right?

. P-3190 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. That is K?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. Perhaps of significance Lee Pearson, could we< 5> have (MET00830172) please. Could you track down,< 6> please. This is 172. Thank you. Sorry, my fault.< 7> There is you on 20th May: "Result", I am not< 8> dealing the earlier matters, "Lee Pearson< 9> interviewed, completed but not signed". Your<10> recollection was right, he completed a statement and<11> he refused to sign it?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. Did you do your best to try and to get him to<14> sign it?<15> A. Yes, sir, I visited the house on several<16> occasions and they refused to sign it.<17> Q. Is there only so far a police officer can go in<18> getting people to sign and put detail into<19> statements?<20> A. We can only rely on cajoling and coaxing them.<21> I tried everything possible that I knew of and it<22> didn't work, sir.<23> Q. It was suggested you were not trying hard enough<24> in relation to some witnesses and querying the pitch<25> in relation to others?

. P-3191 DAVIDSON

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. Can you only do your best to try and make sure< 3> that potential witnesses give and accurate and< 4> truthful evidence?< 5> A. I gave everything to this Inquiry, sir. I tried< 6> very hard with all of the witnesses,, I managed to< 7> get, as I thought, a case against David Norris,< 8> albeit for attempted murder. I managed to later on< 9> be the one who arrested his father and so release one<10> of the fears of the estate.<11> I made myself available to all of the kids in<12> the estate. I went in and out of houses, they got to<13> know me, a lot of them got to hate me, a lot of them<14> got to trust me. No matter what I tried the ones<15> that counted where I failed was not through lack of<16> trying.<17> Q. We know that David Norris never faced -- that is<18> comment, I will move on, if I can.<19> Then the contemporaneous records that do exist<20> of your contacts with Sergeant May and DS Ashwell,<21> could we look at (MET00830129), please.<22> THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think a great deal is going to<23> turn on those two for myself.<24> MR EGAN: I know you and your colleagues have the<25> point. In fairness to the officer, it is all very

. P-3192 DAVIDSON

< 1> well putting May's statement to him but there are< 2> contemporaneous records of him speaking to May< 3> himself, which were put at the time. I submit on his< 4> behalf that is a relevant and material matter for you< 5> to take into account and ought to have been put.< 6> I think Ashwell's record ought to be< 7> put, (MET00850094). Thank you. These are a digest< 8> of actions of you liaising with DS Ashwell?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. We can we have these in the records and I need<11> not ask you in detail. We see, for example, there<12> you are on 24th June:<13> "DS Davidson, partial result. No further useful<14> info from DS Ashwell despite calls from this office.<15> He left it."<16> That simply refers to Ashwell himself saying if<17> there was any update he would be in touch.<18> He states he only got the name McKenna from his<19> informant.<20> Then a partial result.<21> Then result: "Liaised with DS Davidson who<22> stated he spoke to DS Ashwell 20th August." We have<23> already seen the very short digest of what appeared<24> in the document Mr Gompertz put to you.<25> In fact in relation to Kevin Lunden a lot of

. P-3193 DAVIDSON

< 1> people have put matters to you relying on your< 2> memory. You did not know that Kevin Lunden was black< 3> at the time of the Dobson interview. Do you< 4> recollect Dobson told you and you said, "I didn't< 5> even know he was black."< 6> A. I thought I said that but I was corrected today.< 7> Q. You were wrongly correct, could you look t< 8> (PCA00460361), please?< 9> A. Therefore I repeat what I said earlier on, I<10> didn't know that Kevin Lunden was black at that time.<11> Q. Yes.<12> MR EGAN: Thank you very much.<13> MR MANSFIELD: There a further reference 00460347<14> where it is put by the officer the Kevin Lunden.<15> <QUESTIONED BY BISHOP SENTAMU<16> Q. Mr Davidson, I am sorry to keep go over matters<17> which other people have gone over, I hope you excuse<18> my appearing to be repetitious like a gramaphone<19> stuck in a grove.<20> When you went to interview Dobson you had been<21> told by Grant that he was the most likely candidate<22> to actually crack so the senior investigating officer<23> put the best man to do this particular interview?<24> A. In his opinion.<25> Q. In his opinion. You said to us on Friday, and

. P-3194 DAVIDSON

< 1> you repeated again here, that as the interview went< 2> along had you produced a photograph that would have< 3> actually been an aid to you, so you had an armory of< 4> trying to establish a relationship?< 5> A. I was trying to prove in any way at all that< 6> Dobson was lying. One of the things he was lying< 7> about and I still think he was lying about, and I< 8> know he was lying about was his association with< 9> David Norris at that time. Had I been aware of a<10> photograph at that time then I think it may well have<11> made a difference. It may not have made a difference<12> but if there was a photograph at that time and it was<13> not made available to me I would like to know why,<14> sir. That surely would have helped me.<15> Q. Your suggestion of the relationship at that time<16> seemed to be describing him as that you are<17> consistently suggesting that particular relationship,<18> were you not?<19> A. He was both agitated about the fact of the<20> Kevin Lunden thing on the racist angle and the fact<21> of David Norris and being associated with the man. I<22> thought that if I could break him in either context<23> and prove a lie it may have helped in further<24> interviews.<25> Q. Why did you suddenly drop your other possible

. P-3195 DAVIDSON

< 1> armory by suggesting to him that this was not racist,< 2> when again from Mr Gompertz as far as the people who< 3> had framed the charge were trying to allay to the< 4> press conference, they made it clear this was a< 5> racially motivated, why did you allow your< 6> private----< 7> A. It was not a case of allowing my private< 8> feelings to come in, sir, it was an interview< 9> technique, albeit it may have been and still is my<10> private feelings, it was an interview technique I was<11> attempting on Dobson by saying to him, I am accepting<12> it is not racist but what I am interested in is<13> Norris killing him.<14> I was trying to take him way from the fear of<15> the racism side of the charge because somewhere in<16> his mind it seemed to be worse to be a racist than a<17> murderer and it was an interview technique.<18> Q. Having not succeeded on the Dobson element why<19> did you not revert back, since this was purely<20> technique, okay I may now believe you are a racist,<21> why did you not return to that?<22> A. Perhaps I should have in hindsight, sir. I<23> believe that by interviewing Dobson and calling him a<24> racist he would have shut up, clammed up. I had him<25> talking, I had him worried, I believe I had him on

. P-3196 DAVIDSON

< 1> the edge of telling lies and proving a lie. If I< 2> have done it wrong then in hindsight I apologise.< 3> Q. I think not at the beginning, I think you were< 4> probably right not to do it at the beginning but if< 5> you got nowhere with him on Dobson why did you< 6> then----< 7> A. I still think if I had gone back in and said,< 8> you are a racist and pushed that he would have shut< 9> up, sir. He was more worried about racism than a<10> murder for some unknown reason.<11> BISHOP SENTAMU: Thank you very much.<12> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. You have been<13> there a very long time and I am grateful for your<14> attendance and your evidence is now finished.<15> <(The Witness Withdrew)<16> MR LAWSON: Thank you very much I took the liberty of<17> releasing the next witness.<18> THE CHAIRMAN: We call him first thing tomorrow.<19> MR LAWSON: I can give notice that will be Mr Budgen<20> first, Martin Hughes second and currently it is<21> proposed DS Bevan.<22> THE CHAIRMAN: I hope by sensible arrangement we can<23> catch up on those witness and achieve them all<24> tomorrow.<25> I hope everyone noted that, all your heads are

. P-3197 DAVIDSON

< 1> down at the moment. Thank you very much we will< 2> adjourn now until 10 o'clock tomorrow.< 3> Whenever I say that somebody wishes to raise< 4> something.< 5> MR GOMPERTZ: A week ago, sir, you said in postponing< 6> the evidence of Detective Sergeant Bevan and< 7> Detective Constable Holden that it would be wrong to< 8> deal with their evidence until the entire statement< 9> of Mr Duwayne Brooks was available and previously you<10> had ordered, as I understood it, that such statement<11> should be delivered by the end of the week following<12> the Easter break. That period has expired and we, at<13> least, do not have the balance of the statement in<14> our hands.<15> If it was wrong to deal with the evidence of<16> Bevan and Holden a week ago without the balance of<17> that statement then it remains wrong.<18> THE CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr Gompertz circumstances<19> change. It does not seem to me likely that Mr Brooks<20> is going to give evidence, so we will call those two<21> witnesses. I hope I will be given the courtesy of a<22> sight of the medical report very soon.<23> <(The Inquiry Adjourned at 4.20)<24><25>

. P-3198 DAVIDSON