On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:50:52 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


No, that's just one of the commuters. I've found plenty of references to
"initial eye witnesses". What's missing is where the "Running, Heavy Coat,
Acting Suspicious, Eluding" was confirmed or attributed to some "Official".

Absent that, then it would appear to me that the *media* took commuter
interviews and have morphed those unofficial descriptions into the official
"Scotland Yard Initial Brief". When in fact, I can't find where a named
official with *any* law enforcement agency involved provided that
information. Now that investigation details have been leaked, it's being
drummed as if S.Y. was attempting a cover-up, when there's really *zero*
indication they had any intention of covering anything up. In fact, by
breifing the victim's family *during* the investigation, it looks like S.Y.
is trying to be completely straight with the facts, as they are verified.
Perhaps the media *has* been duped and is perpetuating non-factual
information that is aggravating an already tragic situation - again, not
through malice, just through shoddy, journalism. And no-one's calling them
on it (except me, of course).

-=jd=-
The ''Guardian'' article above says that Scotland Yard provided those
erroneous details. Scotland Yard is the HQ of the Municipal Police,
ain't it?