Elements of the evidence given by ex-drugs squad detective Lendrea Davis to a special Commission of Inquiry were "incredible'' and "untruthful'', according to a report released yesterday.

But the Commissioners also said that Det. Con. Rudolph Richardson -- the officer claimed by Ms Davis to have pressured her to change notes in a drugs case -- was "not a credible witness''.

The three-man Commission of Inquiry, led by former Bermuda Court of Appeal judge Telford Georges, said that there was no evidence to support claims by Ms Davis that she was told when she joined the drugs squad that it was routine practice to sign blank witness statement forms.

The report from the Commission added: "We are satisfied that the practice did not exist in the manner described by WDc. Davis and we find her evidence on this issue untruthful.'' It added: "Indeed, in her evidence she went so far as to state that without her ever having recorded anything on a disc, someone could make a disc or type something on to a computer and print it on one of her signed forms.

"This caused her no unease. She was fresh in the office and this was one of the things she had been told.

"It is inconceivable that WDc. Davis could be so naive. We find her evidence on that issue incredible.'' The Inquiry -- set up in the wake of controversy surrounding the acquittal of then-drugs accused Ellsworth Wilson in June -- accepted that a signature purporting to be Ms Davis' on one of the pages of a nine-page concerning the Wilson case was an obvious forgery. The statement was counter-signed by Det.

Con. Richardson.

The report noted that Ms Davis had said anyone could have added information to her word processor disc and printed it out over a signed blank form.

But the report said that she had taken "obvious care'' with the disc and given it to her lawyer for safekeeping.

The report added: "One explanation for the invention of the practice was to disassociate herself completely from any printed matter bearing her signature, the same explanation underlying her disclaimer of the tape which had been so carefully secured.'' The report admitted the identity of the forger would probably always remain a mystery.

It added: "Dc. Richardson denied that he forged the signature on that page, but he has already established he is not a credible witness. He is clearly not a credible witness.'' Ms Davis also told the Inquiry that Det. Con. Richardson had pressured her to change original notes taken by her to match those of other officers.

The report said: "Exactly what he wished her to change is sometimes unclear, but the reasonable inference is that he wanted her to insert in the notes a record of his having found the two sums of money totalling $1,338 which he had found in Mr. Wilson's pockets.

"He kept insisting that dire consequences would follow if she failed to comply. All the members of the department involved in the matter would lose their jobs.'' But the Commissioners said: "It is difficult to accept that Dc. Richardson could have believed that these consequences would flow from WDc. Davis' refusal to alter her notes. He had been a Policeman for 18 years.'' The report added: "While we cannot conclude with certainty on the evidence that Dc. Richardson's behaviour was intended to create a situation in which the integrity of the evidence in support of the charge against Mr. Wilson would be compromised, that possibility cannot be ruled out in view of the lack of any other credible explanation and the lack of logic in his pattern of conduct.'' The report added that Det. Con. Richardson had maintained that he did not regard the pressure he put on his colleague as wrong because an alteration would merely make the notes a correct record of what actually happened.

But it said: "He refused to acknowledge that the alteration would change the notes so that they would no longer be what they purported to be -- a contemporaneous record of what the note-taker recorded at the time.'' Lendrea Davis