Sir Ronnie Flanagan's response to Mrs Nuala O'Loan's report appears to destroy suggestions that the RUC could have prevented the atrocity, writes Jim Cusack, Security Correspondent.
The 13,000-word PSNI response to the Police Ombudsman contains a litany of rejections and rebuttals of statements made in the report by Mrs Nuala O'Loan on the conduct of the RUC before and after the Omagh bombing.
Throughout yesterday's response there are detailed rebuttals of points made in the Ombudsman's report of last month. The PSNI says the Ombudsman repeatedly failed to understand, or was mistaken in her findings.
It also said she did not afford two key Special Branch officers, now retired, the opportunity to give information before issuing her report.
The PSNI response goes into great detail in rejecting many of the main points in Mrs O'Loan's report, particularly the inherent suggestion that the police failed to heed possible warnings that an attack was about to take place.
Yesterday's response repeatedly stated that Mrs O'Loan and her investigators, mainly former police officers from Britain, simply failed to understand or appreciate information supplied to them about the criminal investigation into the Omagh bombing. It clearly suggests that Mrs O'Loan and her investigators are incapable of grasping the complexities and sensitivities of investigating terrorist crime.
Senior gardaí are known to share this view. The appearance in Omagh yesterday of Assistant Commissioner Kevin Carty and Det Supt Tadgh Foley was seen by other senior gardaí yesterday as indicating support for the PSNI Chief Constable.
The response initially addresses accusations that the RUC ignored "warnings" from the informant, known as "Kevin Fulton" (a pseudonym), and an anonymous caller, 11 days before the bombing.
The Ombudsman, as yesterday's response states, placed heavy reliance on claims from Fulton, suggesting the RUC had not heeded his warning three days before the bombing that the "Real IRA" was "about to move something north over the coming days".
The PSNI response yesterday pointed out that Fulton had been found to be "manufacturing" information for some time beforehand.
On July 23rd, three weeks before the Omagh bombing, Fulton was reported to have told the RUC about a Newry republican who was trying to acquire firearms. On August 4th he also informed an RUC detective that the "Real IRA" was planning a show of strength.
After investigating, the PSNI found Fulton was the one trying to acquire arms, and there was no show of strength.
Fulton's behaviour was "becoming steadily more erratic and counter-productive".
The response rejects the Ombudsman's suggestion that if police had carried out surveillance on "Real IRA" members named by Fulton, this could have prevented an attack. It points out that for the two weeks before the Omagh bombing there was a surveillance operation in place monitoring the two well-known dissidents.
It also rejects criticism of the police response to the other anonymous call, four days before the Omagh bombings, that the "Continuity IRA" was about to launch a gun and rocket attack on police in Omagh. The PSNI rejects the Ombudsman's statement that police did not respond effectively by mounting static checkpoints around Omagh that could have stopped the bombers.
The PSNI asked all its divisional commanders how they would respond to information about a gun and rocket attack. All agreed that they would not deploy static checkpoints - which would provide targets for attackers.
The Ombudsman's report was "not only incorrect and misleading, it is enormously distressing to all those caught up in the atrocity" and a "grave injustice to police officers who acted professionally throughout".