Again, I am sure you are already aware of these issues, but nevertheless, in addition to the concerns I expressed yesterday, we now learn that 'fresh pictures suggested he [the battering officer] had removed his shoulder number and covered his face with a balaclava before hitting Tomlinson'. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/g20-ian-tomlinson-police) Of course, this implicates not only that officer, but also the colleagues and force who allowed him to operate unidentifiably.See my letter about police battery of Ian Tomlinson for definitions/descriptions of those crimes. I would repeat that these are only my unprofessional perception of the acts.
(Obviously, this is nothing to do with potentially crucial undercover work per se, but an official, uniformed anonymity he had clearly hoped would shield him from identification, criticism and prosecution for the kinds of acts he has been videoed committing (and which, were it not for his finally handing himself in, would have tarnished the reputation of the entire service).)
There is also talk of yet other, as yet unproved, assaults on this individual (and in the circumstances, it is inconceivable that there were not others on other individuals). Alongside that, the violent dispersal of the peaceful camp under cover of dark and lack of media presence suggests suspect, if not entirely illegal, action.
Disturbingly, 'from the moment of Mr Tomlinson's death, the police misled the news media, and in some cases lied, about what happened.... Statements were issued on and off the record about the Tomlinson incident, omitting details that must have been known to the police and including false claims. Police representatives subsequently tried to stop reporters doing their jobs, misrepresenting the views of the Tomlinson family. The IPCC misled the media about the case too. And what kind of independent body is it whose first reaction to the Guardian's evidence on Tuesday night was to call at our offices (accompanied by a City of London policeman) and ask for it to be taken off the website?' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/09/ian-tomlinson-g20-police-assault)
Furthermore, it is now apparent that the IPCC asked at least one witness, Alan Edwards, leading questions. Edwards stated: "When I spoke to the lady at the IPCC she asked what happened when [Tomlinson] fell over. I said: 'He didn't fall, he was pushed.'" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson-g201) These serious, documented allegations implicate not only the officer and his immediate colleagues, but also the entire force, and even the independent watchdog, in obstructing and perverting the course of justice (in what may be a case of manslaughter). Previously I drew an analogy with Greece; but perhaps I ought to have drawn one with Turkey.
[This was also posted over on Human Rights Archaeology, but I removed it because it was not related to my research.]