I understood that it was senior officers that changed the notes. Well, that was the impression I got anyway.
You would do well to read through the appropriate passage, then - Chapter 15 (p315-339).
The subject is dealt with in some detail. Officers were instructed on the Sunday not to use their pocket books or CJA forms (as trained). Instead an ad hoc arrangement of recording their 'recollections' for submission to the Taylor Inquiry as "a formal proof of evidence", and in support of the Chief Constable's own evidence, was developed by senior management at SYT in conjunction with the Force's solicitors, Hammond Suddards. Chief Superintendent Terry Wain was tasked with arranging the process, and in a briefing on 26 April he explained to those who would be providing 'recollections' what was required, following a template suggested by the lawyers.
'Recollections' were made on plain paper, not on standard documents like CJA forms. At the same time, the WMP was investigating the SYP's role in the disaster. SYP had anticipated that WMP would interview its officer-witnesses, but WMP indicated it would take written evidence instead. There was concern in the SYP that these written 'recollections' - intended only for Taylor in support of the SYP senior management evidence - might then be used at inquests or disciplinaries. The Force solicitors duly reviewed the 'recollections' before they were sent to WMP.
In the words of Chief Superintendent Donald Denton of the SYP Incident Room, who alongside Peter Metcalf of Hammond Sudards, oversaw the review of 'recollections': "Nothing currently in our possession will be released to W/Mids until it has been vetted by our legal representatives."
The process of taking 'recollections' was expanded to include those of officers from forces other than SYP on duty at Hillsborough; the review and vetting continued into June. The vetting was justified within SYP (e.g. by Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Anderson) on the grounds that statements might be entered into the record during the Inquiry, without being challenged in cross-examination - accordingly a rationale was developed for "editing them for use as a factual statement". Both WMP and the Treasury Department were aware of this vetting process. SYP categorised elements in the 'recollections' to be 'edited' thus (numbers of recollections affected):
▪ Grammatical clarification, redundant language and jargon (194)
▪ Informal or coarse language (22)
▪ Criticisms of the police response or inadequate leadership (116)
▪ Poor communications or inadequate radio contact (48)
▪ Deletion of references to ‘chaos’, ‘fear’, ‘panic’ or ‘confusion’ (23)
▪ Abusive criticism of supporters (33)
ACC Anderson required that officers 'agreed' to the changes. It seems that officers were told that "alterations were made to exclude personal opinion", but that they were not shown their original 'recollections' for comparison when asked to sign off the vetted versions.