De Menezes execution

by **wintler** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 10:51 am

Hi Starman, Do as you see best with any 'marauding coke-crazed NegraAgua mercenaries' <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"> , but don't forget thats not the only fight or the only way of fighting, or the only alternative to passive compliance. Nondependence, noncooperation, resilience, solidarity, inspiration, healing.. they're all strong roles needing people to occupy them. I wonder if half my (our?) problem is i've had it so easy for so long i don't know what it means to really struggle. Because if i did, theres no lack of hacks - Rosa Parks 'just' wouldn't get off a bus. Cindy Sheehan 'just' wants to talk to George. Thats guts, taking the fight up to the media's maw.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:36 am

SAS trainers denounce ‘gung ho’ armed police Robert Winnett Sunday Times 18 September TWO senior SAS soldiers who trained many of the firearms teams now serving in Britain’s police forces have warned of their concerns about the officers’ skills and psychological suitability for the job. The two SAS officers, who have left active service, claim the police they trained had not been subjected to adequate psychological and physical tests to establish whether or not they were suitable to use firearms. The police officers were often “gung ho” and unfit. The soldiers believe members of the Metropolitan police team that shot dead Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian, on the London Underground in July would have been among those they trained, although they are not certain. The two men have detailed their concerns in a written statement to The Sunday Times. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is expected to study their claims as part of its investigation into how de Menezes, wrongly suspected of being a would-be suicide bomber, came to be shot by a team from the Met’s CO19 firearms unit. Leaked documents from the IPCC showed that de Menezes was not behaving suspiciously, as had been claimed, but was restrained by an officer before 11 bullets were fired at him at close range. Three missed. A spokesman for the IPCC said: “If there are concerns being expressed about the wider issues of selection and training, I’m sure our investigation team would look at the evidence and make recommendations.” The two soldiers describe a number of alarming incidents during police training at the regiment’s base in Hereford. The trainers have no authority to fail police officers they believe are unsuited to the job. One of the soldiers said: “When the tension starts to rise and the adrenaline is flowing, the ‘red mist’ seems to descend on armed police officers who become very trigger-happy. This has been shown time and again in training exercises.” The second soldier said: “We thought that police firearms officers were far more concerned with their personal image, dressing in body armour and looking ‘gung ho’, rather than their professional capabilities. I’m not surprised at the number of mistakes over the years. “There is no assessment of physical fitness, no psychological profiling, nothing. It’s a major problem.” The statement also describes a police training exercise run by the SAS in which an armed terrorist group was threatening to kill a hostage. The police team were to rescue the hostage using minimum force. “I was playing the leader of the armed group and instructed the other members of my group to surrender peacefully once the final assault was initiated. Therefore there was no need for the police to open fire. “But as the police assault group entered the room they began firing at everything. No one had moved; we were all stood with our hands on our heads. “The response would have resulted in the unnecessary deaths of all the make- believe terrorists and the hostage alike. So much for the rule of minimum force.” The SAS officers claim they often found police firearms units to be small “cliques” with professional standards below those found in the military. “In the bar after exercises, the police would still be carrying their pistols and have MP5s (machine guns) slung over their shoulder so they could pose for photos. The first question they always asked was whether we had killed anyone.” They added that many security firms operating in Iraq had a policy of not employing former police firearms officers. Yesterday the Met defended its officers. Superintendent Phil Manns, head of CO19’s specialist firearms unit, said: “The selection and training criteria for our firearms officers is extremely rigorous. We recruit only the very best and most suitable available within the service. All of the officers within CO19 are regularly trained to the highest of standards. “I am proud of the professionalism, skill and judgment displayed by my officers. We are called to support unarmed colleagues or respond to emergency calls from the public between 30 and 40 times a day. Incidents where officers feel it necessary to fire are thankfully rare. This alone refutes an allegation that these officers are not suitable for this role. “The nature of the role done by a member of the SAS and a police officer who carries firearms is incredibly different and should not be compared.”  <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1785932,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...32,00.html</a> Just like I warned, the Metropolitan Police are being shat on. We KNOW the shooter was SAS. We KNOW it was a methodical assassination. We KNOW the IPCC do not comment on allegations while their inquiry is under way. We KNOW the police do not comment on freelance assertions.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:55 pm

What do you get when you cross the Keystone Kops with Monty Python? Further proof of the ornithological lunacy that nowadays governs our lives came last week when a Liverpool man, Steven Harper, was prosecuted for selling a stuffed owl on the internet auction site eBay. Stuffed owls in glass cases were a popular ornament in Victorian times and are still to be found in antique shops. I even have one myself. Yet now we have been made aware that we stuffed owl lovers may be committing a criminal offence, especially if we try to sell them. And the fact that the birds may have been dead for several years will not constitute any form of defence. This was certainly news to Mr Harper who, after pleading guilty, was lucky to be given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £65 costs. After the hearing, the Merseyside Police Wildlife Officer, Andy McWilliams, said: 'The legislation is in place to protect endangered species, whether an animal is alive or dead.' It is good to know that our police, whatever their other failings - such as shooting down innocent Brazilians - are at least doing their bit to uphold the rights of dead stuffed owls. <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1572898,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/p...98,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:14 pm

This is just fucking unbelievable. These clowns are being called on their "democratic credentials" and there is nothing there but "I don't remember". This breaks EVERY rule in the book. Parliament? Sovereign? They didn't even KNOW. The policy is sanctioned by none other than Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. And there is nothing that can be done about it, because of the Treason Felony Act. Government ministers 'knew of shoot-to-kill policy three years ago' By Nigel Morris Home Affairs Correspondent Published: 20 September 2005 Tony Blair and David Blunkett were told of a secret shift to a "shoot-to-kill" policy for suspected suicide bombers three years ago, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner John Stevens said yesterday. The tactic has come under fierce criticism after a Brazilian electrician, Jean Charles de Menezes, was shot dead by police marksmen who were hunting the men behind the failed London bombings of 21 July. Anger that Parliament was not told about the policy was fuelled yesterday by the disclosure that the Prime Minister and the former home secretary were informed of the change in tactics. The decision was taken in January 2002 in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in the United States. Mr Blair has previously said he could not remember whether he was officially made aware of the policy change. But when Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington was asked on BBC Radio 4's Today programme if Mr Blair and Mr Blunkett had been told, he replied: "In terms of what the operational decisions were, yes indeed." He added: "Politicians, of course they know and these things are discussed because we have to find the right ways of dealing with them." Lord Stevens, who oversaw the move to the new tactics, admitted the Metropolitan Police Authority was not informed of the policy change and there was no wider discussion or debate. "Maybe we should have discussed it but I think some things we keep secret about because if people know exactly what we are doing they can take action to stop it," he said. Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "If politicians were consulted and asked for their views by John Stevens, then that should have come to Parliament." Downing Street said yesterday it had no record of the Prime Minister being told about the policy change. A spokesman said: "Our position remains the same. This is an operational matter and this is a matter for the police to decide. "Ministers can be informed about such operational matters, but are not consulted as such. We have no record of his being informed and he [Tony Blair] cannot recall being informed." The de Menezes family have demanded that the shoot-to-kill policy is suspended, protesting that it has never been debated in Parliament. But it has been defended by both Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, and Sir Ian Blair, the current Metropolitan Police Commissioner. <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article313788.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...313788.ece</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 9/20/05 6:22 pm

by **antiaristo** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:20 am

Having shut down every opposing voice, including parliament, out of "respect" for the "inquiry", Ian Blair can't stop blabbing. Met chief admits errors over tube shooting · Sir Ian Blair considered quitting over De Menezes · Plans for more on-the-spot justice criticised Owen Bowcott, Rosie Cowan, Alan Travis and Sam Jones Thursday September 22, 2005 The Guardian The Metropolitan police commissioner last night admitted that he "did not do enough" to correct the false rumours that circulated around the media after the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian man shot dead by police at a London tube station in July. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting at Stockwell station on July 22, it was suggested that Mr de Menezes had been killed because he had jumped over a ticket barrier and was wearing a bulky jacket that could have concealed explosives. It later emerged that neither suggestion was true.(1) Sir Ian Blair told the BBC's Hardtalk programme that more could have been done to set the record straight, but he denied misleading Mr de Menezes' family. "I don't think we actively withdrew the misinformation that was about," he said. "We allowed, or we didn't contradict sufficiently, the stuff about Mr Menezes vaulting the barrier(2). I don't think we did enough." But he added: "We told the family from the very beginning there was no coat and no leaping over the barriers." He admitted that he had considered resigning after Mr de Menezes' family called for him to step down. "I certainly did," he said. "But I don't think it was right for the organisation, or for the country, or for London to do that(3). The big job is to defend this country against terrorism." Sir Ian's comments came on the same day as he announced plans to bring soldiers into police firearms units(4) and give officers powers to confiscate driving licences or issue antisocial behaviour orders. His plans provoked alarm among civil liberties groups, but he won qualified support from the Home Office by suggesting that officers should be given radical powers to deliver justice on the spot. Addressing the Police Superintendents' Association conference in Warwickshire, Sir Ian said he believed the police service should be "bold enough to explore whether certain functions can be carried out by people on short-term contracts, partially warranted only to do a certain type of the police job, whether that be surveillance officers, underwater search, financial investigators, mounted branch or, even, firearms officers. "Could we bring staff directly in from the armed services, give them a certain amount of basic training and clear instructions as to their firearms duties, so they would be partially warranted, on a fixed-term contract, to undertake only those duties?"(5) In clarification afterwards, the Met said those recruited would be "people leaving the armed services with proven firearms skills" who would be deployed as firearms officers following "a small amount of additional training". On giving police officers powers to impose interim Asbos or suspend driving licences, Sir Ian said: "Some antisocial activities can be very difficult to deal with through the normal criminal justice system because it takes so long(6) ... but we have to be careful about this. I don't want to see this as a massive widening of powers." His remarks on pay set him on a collision course with rank and file officers by demanding the abolition of the body which negotiates salaries on a national basis. He told delegates: "We should press for the abolition of the Police Negotiating Board and move towards regional agreements around pay and conditions." The director of the civil liberties group Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, accused the commissioner of behaving like Judge Dredd, the post-apocalyptic policeman-cum-executioner in the comic 2000AD. "This is more like summary justice, which has no place in a democracy(7)," she said. A Home Office spokesman said Sir Ian's ideas were "part of the ongoing debate we are having(8 )  about workforce modernisation and the police service". Glen Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, criticised the idea of using soldiers. "There's a vast difference in the way police and soldiers are trained and their roles are very different. The army are trained to cope with war zones. London is not a war zone(9)." <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1575591,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/attack...91,00.html</a> Notes (1)Those statements were made by two police plants. Mark Whitby, who has since gone to ground, and Anthony Larkin, who is a forensic scientist employed by the Met. (2)The “stuff about vaulting the barrier” was in the first police report to the post mortem, submitted five days after Menezes was shot. (3)Ian Blair, a complete and utter failure at everything he has attempted, is absolutely central to protecting the country’s safety. Well I know of one man who might dispute that were he still alive. (4)The militarisation of the police is well under way, same as the United States. The British people gave up the right to carry arms in the 19th century, in return for an unarmed police service. (5)Looks like Her Majesty wants to recruit heavies disguised as normal police. A sort of travelling war zone (6)We have much sympathy here. It’s been more than eight years since the Prince of Wales murdered his wife for power, and STILL the criminal justice system grinds on. Perhaps Blair should talk to Stevens. (7)Poor Shami. She just cannot admit it is not a democracy, but an autocracy under the control of the Queen and her Treason Felony Act. (8 ) Who “we”, paleface? Who is having this conversation, ‘cos it sure ain’t Parliament. (9)A policeman’s lot is not a happy one, happy one (Under the Windsor family). If SHE wants to turn London into a war zone she’ll fucking well do what she wants….. Hence, not a SINGLE PERSON with democratic credentials has ANYTHING to say about this. You see WHY they waited until the day following the award of the 2012 Olympics to blow up a few insignificant subjects? Who would vote for London today???? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 9/22/05 5:26 am

by **rain** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:42 am

poor brits, wonder if any of them understand what just happened. anyway, think I may have figured out why the victim was brazilian. has to do with, among other aspects, this guy <a href="http://twm.co.nz/Harm_bio.html">twm.co.nz/Harm_bio.html</a> and do you have a copy of Maxwell's poem you could post. have a couple of bits slightly relevant, but did you see Chavez said the U.N. should be moved to somewhere like, um ... Jerusalem. oh, and anti, <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)">

by **jenz** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:56 am

this is the standard get out the Home 0ff ice and Downing St use when asked uncomfortable questions. we never seem to get to know who decides what is 'operational' and what is 'policy', and it does seem to be fairly flexible when it comes to buck passing.

by **John Doe II** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 5:37 pm

I'd like to add an article here that might be of interest for you: That eyewitnesses can get things wrong is a well-known fact. Yet, what happened in the case of de Menezes’ death is indeed an extraordinary case of completely wrong eyewitnesses’ accounts that certainly does deserve a closer look. First of all let’s recall what was officially told after the death: As the police was around at the moment of de Menezes’ death all official statements given about the circumstances didn’t rely on witness accounts of civilians but was based on first-hand information by the police itself. A police statement said his "clothing and suspicious behavior at the station added to" officers' suspicions, and Police Chief Ian Blair said de Menezes challenged police and refused to obey ord[/b] <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/25/london.tube.0955/index.html">edition.cnn.com/2005/WORL...index.html</a> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm</a> But today we know that neither his clothing nor his behaviour was suspicious nor was he challenged and reused to obey. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4158832.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4158832.stm</a> Now, let’s turn to the eyewitnesses. The most impressive account is certainly of Anthony Larkin: Commuter Anthony Larkin, who was also on the train at Stockwell station, told 5 Live he saw police chasing a man. "I saw these police officers in uniform and out of uniform shouting 'get down, get down', and I saw this guy who appeared to have a bomb belt and wires coming out  and people were panicking and I heard two shots being fired." <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm</a> This is obviously completely wrong. Maybe he just wanted to gain attention. Anyway. There are more strange eyewitnesses: Teri Godly (very close to de Menezes”) "A tall Asian guy, shaved head, slight beard, with a rucksack got in front of me. Shortly after that, as I was about to get onto the train, eight or nine undercover police with walkie talkies and handguns started screaming at everyone to 'Get out, get out'," she said. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/22/london.eyewitness/index.html">www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/eu...index.html</a> Again: Everything is wrong! De Menezes is white skinned and by no means “asian”-looking. No rucksack, she doesn’t mention that he actually boarded the tube as we know he did. Maybe we can again put this account aside but the surprising detail “asian”. In fact three eyewitnesses speak of “asian”-looking. Why do they all get it so wrong? (This is btw the only detail the eyewitness got wrong that the police didn’t confirm in their own statements). Dan Copeland Londoner Dan Copeland was in the carriage in which the man was shot. He told BBC News: "We were sitting for a few minutes on the platform, then we heard shouting from the concourse between the two platforms. "Then the man burst in through the door to my right and grabbed hold of the pole and a person by the glass partition near the door, diagonally opposite me. "An officer jumped on the door to my left and screamed, 'Everybody out!'  "People just froze in their seats cowering for a few seconds and then leapt up. "As I turned out the door onto the platform, I heard four dull bangs. "I ran past an armed officer who was standing on the platform and ran up the stairs."  <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm</a> Why does Copeland not mention the action of Hotel 3 who was aboard the carriage before de Menezes (a detail btw that has not been explained so far!) and calling “He’s in here”. <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1743478,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...78,00.html</a> And the following detail is simply completely wrong:  the man burst in through the door to my right and grabbed hold of the pole and a person by the glass partition near the door, diagonally opposite me. "An officer jumped on the door to my left and screamed, 'Everybody out!'  Neither did de Menezes “grabbed hold of the pole and a person” nor did an officer enter right afterwards calling “Everybody out!”. Instead a plain-cloth policeman “Hotel 3” called “He’s here” while de Menezes was already sitting. <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1743478,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...78,00.html</a> Q : Some eyewitnesses have described him as a man of Asian appearance. Can you describe the man that you saw ? Well he certainly had dark skin. I didn't really see his face. He jumped on so quickly and as I say his back was turned towards the majority of passengers.  I presume the only person that would have seen his face would be the guy that he grabbed..." <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm#">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm#</a> (click on video and on Copeland) Again two details and again two details wrong. Again he gave his account on the day of the shooting: Neither had de Menezes “dark skin” nor was he turned towards the majority of the passengers. Mark Whitby The most famous one is certainly Mark Whitby who was literally all over the news right after the shooting. For a very strange reason he will also be the only eyewitness that actually described in detail how the victim looked like although many witnesses were in the same carriage as de Menezes. And this is what he said: "I was sitting on the train... I heard a load of noise, people saying, 'Get out, get down'. "I saw an Asian guy. He ran on to the train, he was hotly pursued by three plain clothes officers, one of them was wielding a black handgun. "He half tripped... they pushed him to the floor  and basically unloaded five shots into him," he told BBC News 24. "As [the suspect] got onto the train I looked at his face, he looked sort of left and right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, a cornered fox.  "He looked absolutely petrified and then he sort of tripped, but they were hotly pursuing him, [they] couldn't have been any more than two or three feet behind him at this time and he half tripped and was half pushed to the floor and the policeman nearest to me  had the black automatic pistol in his left hand. "He held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him. "He [the suspect] had a baseball cap on and quite a sort of thickish coat - it was a coat you'd wear in winter, sort of like a padded jacket. "He might have had something concealed under there, I don't know. But it looked sort of out of place with the sort of weather we've been having, the sort of hot humid weather. "He was largely built, he was quite a chubby sort of guy. "I didn't see any guns or anything like that - I didn't see him carrying anything. I didn't even see a bag to be quite honest.  <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm</a> "He looked like a Pakistani but he had a baseball cap on, and quite a thickish coat. It was a coat like you would wear in winter, a sort of padded jacket. It looked out of place in the weather we've been having." Whitby said he had been about five yards away  from where the incident occurred and was "totally distraught" by what he had seen. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/22/london.eyewitness/index.html">www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/eu...index.html</a> "They held it down to him and unloaded five shots into him. I saw it. He's dead, five shots, he's dead." <a href="http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1303&id=1670842005">news.scotsman.com/topics....1670842005</a> Mark Whitby is very close seated to the shooting and he gives many details of what happened and how the victim looked like. But basically all and every detail he gives is simply completely wrong. 1. He describes de Menezes as Asian. Yet, he was white and also describe by his surveillance team as white. 2. He states that he wear a thickish coat. Yet he wore a Denim jacket. Whitby says: “He half tripped... they pushed him to the floor”. Yet, we know by the account of “Hotel 3” that the victim was pushed back into the seat:  I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting ... I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away on to the floor of the carriage."  <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550565,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/attack...65,00.html</a> <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1553440,00.html?gusrc=rss">observer.guardian.co.uk/u...?gusrc=rss</a> 3. Whitby says: “]"As [the suspect] got onto the train I looked at his face, he looked sort of left and right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, a cornered fox”. Yet, we know that de Menezes boarded the tube and sat down calmly. He was unaware that he was being followed. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550565,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/attack...65,00.html</a> 4. Whitby says that he was hotly pursued and the policemen“couldn't have been any more than two or three feet behind him”. This again is not true as de Menezes had time to sit down:  “He sat down with a glass panel to his right about two seats in. I took a seat to his left-hand side on the same carriage and there were about two or three members of the public between me and the male in the denim jacket.” When Hotel Three saw plainclothes CO19 officers arriving on the platform, he stood up and moved to the door of the carriage. “I placed my left foot against the open carriage door to prevent it shutting . . . I shouted ‘He’s here’ and indicated the male in the denim jacket with my right hand.” (…) As Hotel Three later recorded: “He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the [CO19] offic[/b] <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1743478,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...78,00.html</a> 5. Whitby says: “]"They held it down to him and unloaded five shots into him. I saw it.” Yet, de Menezes was shot eleven times (three times he was missed). <a href="http://www.sundayherald.com/51372">www.sundayherald.com/51372</a> Ok. I don’t want to discuss the cognitive capacities of Mark Whitby. Of course eyewitnesses can get it wrong. Yet, it is rather unusual I’d say that they witness exactly the same details the police will confirm. To underline: Mark Whitby spoke to BBC BEFORE the police gave any accounts to the press. Therefore my question:  What are the odds that Mark Whitby not only gets all details wrong but got them exactly as wrong as the police?  This coincidence can’t be explained by assuming that the police relied on Whitby in their official accounts. They had enough eyewitnesses at the location of the shooting themselves. Chris Wells Another central witness that got apparently the story as wrong as the police is Chris Wells: "The next thing I saw was this guy jump over the barriers and the police officers were chasing after him and everyone was just shouting 'Get out, get out,'" Wells said. Christopher Scaglione was also leaving the station when he heard a bang, followed by shouting. "People then started to run and I heard two or three more bangs, like people shooting." <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/22/london.eyewitness/index.html">www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/eu...index.html</a> Yet, as we know de Menezes didn’t jump the barrier. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550565,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/attack...65,00.html</a> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4158832.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4158832.stm</a> Many he took a policeman for the victim but why does the police evoke exactly this kind of behavior by stating: A police statement said his "clothing and suspicious behavior at the station added to" officers' suspicions, and Police Chief Ian Blair said de Menezes challenged police and refused to obey orders. <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/25/london.tube.0955/index.html">edition.cnn.com/2005/WORL...index.html</a> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm</a> And all journals in fact quoted Chris Wells as a proof for the statement of the police. But as already said: Why did the police lie? And why does an eyewitness exactly recall what the police falsely claimed?  And both statements were from 7/7. There are other accounts that seem to be quite accurate but yet fail to mention the crucial detail: Rob Lowe:  "The Tube was stationary and then a man came on who I presume now to be a plain clothes policeman, but at the time I didn't know who he was. "He was looking quite shifty, getting up and sitting back down again. I felt a bit awkward around him. And then he seemed to shout at some people on the other platform who then all came rushing.  "The Tube suddenly filled up with loads of people running down to the end of my carriage. Then I heard probably four or five loud bangs  and saw a bit of smoke. More armed policemen appeared, telling us all to get out of the Tube and people started running off," he said. "It did look like there was somebody on the floor at the end. I didn't know whether it was a bag or a person - but then there were a lot of people around him and then I heard the bangs." <a href="http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1303&id=1670842005">news.scotsman.com/topics....1670842005</a> <a href="http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=1094380">www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/...ID=1094380</a> Rob Lowe must be quite close to the incident as he recalls clearly the behavior of “Hotel 3” but wWhy does Rob Lowe not mention what “Hotel 3” mentioned himself:  As Hotel Three later recorded: “He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the [CO19] officers. I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso pinning his arms to his side. “I then pushed him back onto the seat where he had previously been sitting with right-hand side of my head pressed against the right-hand side of his torso.”  (…) “At this stage his body seemed straight and he was not in a natural sitting position,” recorded Hotel Three. “I then heard a gunshot very close to my ear and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage. I shouted ‘police’ and held up my hands. I was then dragged out of the carriage  by an armed officer who appeared to be carrying a long-barrelled weapon. <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1743478,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...78,00.html</a> There are more eyewitness accounts. Yet the following accounts never give any detail of the shooting or de Menezes physical appearance although many of them were sitting very close to de Menezes: “Fellow passenger” Jason Dines <a href="http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1303&id=1670842005">news.scotsman.com/topics....1670842005</a> Ben Anderson in the next carriage: <a href="http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1303&id=1670842005">news.scotsman.com/topics....1670842005</a> Simon Dixon in the same carriage: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1534654,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/attack...54,00.html</a> Chris Martin at the platform: <a href="http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=1094380">www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/...ID=1094380</a> So, to conclude: What we do have are either eyewitnesses (especially Mark Whitby) who not only got every detail completely wrong but whose accounts correspond exactly with the official storyline of the police after the shooting. Then we have a witness that somehow not mentions the crucial detail that he must have witnessed. Then we have a curious absence of eyewitnesses that actually saw the victim besides Mark Whitby (who describe a clearly different person than de Menezes). And we have many accounts of people who should have seen more as they were in the carriage yet whose accounts lack any important detail. P.S. Let’s not forget that the account of “Hotel 3” has huge problems as well (it has been quoted already). At first he is in charge. He’s the first one in the carriage, knows whom they are looking for and even has the authority to call other policemen at the other platform (sic) to rush over. Then he makes sure de Menezes can’t flee. So far so good. But then: Why is he dragged to the floor and has to defend himself by shouting that he is from the police? Do the people who killed de Menezes not know him?

by **Dreams End** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 5:58 pm

Excellent Summary! In general, witness accounts will DIFFER WILDLY when the errors are due to error or overexcitement. To have so many of the same details be wrong...well, you have laid it out very well. Welcome to RI....

by **antiaristo** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:01 pm

P.S. Let’s not forget that the account of “Hotel 3” has huge problems as well (it has been quoted already). At first he is in charge. He’s the first one in the carriage, knows whom they are looking for and even has the authority to call other policemen at the other platform (sic) to rush over. Then he makes sure de Menezes can’t flee. So far so good. But then: Why is he dragged to the floor and has to defend himself by shouting that he is from the police? Do the people who killed de Menezes not know him? Brilliant observation, Mr Doe! That's the final piece, isn't it? There were TWO teams involved. Honest old PC Plod and his gang. with their broken down communications gear. Then there was the ELITE SAS gang, out on a hunt with a permit from Her Majesty. The ELITE gang disappear with a puff of smoke, and poor old Hotel 3 is left holding the baby. A policeman's lot is not a happy one, happy one.

by **John Doe II** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 6:38 pm

Thanks for the warm welcome! I'd love if the UK press would ask Mark Whitby some interesing questions. Only one asked Whitby: But Mr Whitby says that man - who may have vaulted a ticket barrier - is likely to have been an undercover cop trailing Mr de Menezes."What's been on the news this week is as close to the truth as you're going to get," he told the South London Press."I think the guy I saw being bundled out of the way might have been a surveillance officer who was following him."Mr Whitby, 47, described what he saw: "There was a mass of bodies and I saw a gun being lowered and I heard the shots."Mr de Menezes must have been ahead of the officers. The guy in the thick coat can't have been him." <a href="http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0400lambeth/tm_objectid=15875479&method=full&siteid=50100&headline=-it-must-be-true---says-de-menezes-shooting-witness-name_page.html">icsouthlondon.icnetwork.c..._page.html</a> Funny that it almost sound now as if Whitby saw the guy jumping the barrier although Whitby was inside the carriage. And as we know de Menezes came in alone and not in hot pursuit. So no possibility to mix somebody up....

by **antiaristo** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:58 am

This could have been taken from the archives at RI September 25, 2005 The Sunday Times Slippery of the Yard ROD LIDDLE Watching Sir Ian Blair on television the other evening I began to yearn for that far-off time when our top policemen were, politically speaking, still embedded in the Jurassic era, instead of being — what are the currently fashionable terms for lefties? — enlightened and progressive. I also wished he’d shut his big mouth for five minutes and get on with the business of catching criminals — and in the process killing as few innocent people as possible. But there’s not much chance of that. Someone has told Blair that he is telegenic and he is on our screens almost every evening. Do not be too surprised to see him pop up on Celebrity Wheel of Fortune or as a special guest in Emmerdale one of these days. He was addressing that acute issue of criminal justice, the one which oppresses all of us, which makes us fearful of leaving the safety of our homes: what to do about Kate Moss. He announced that some of his men at the Met would be investigating the supermodel’s apparent predilection for cocaine. Here’s a tip, Kate, girl: don’t wear a puffa jacket for the next few weeks and stay well away from public transport. Blair then extended his job spec, blinked at the cameras and drifted into the sort of territory normally occupied by the more officious senior Church of England primates: that of roving, freelance moral guardian. Why would Moss have her collar felt? Blair explained: “We have to look at the impact of this kind of behaviour on impressionable young people.” Oh, do we? Is that the job of the police? For Blair it was yet another opportunity to show the public that his police force is not merely a blankly neutral instrument designed to deter crime and bring criminals to justice, but an entity forever in tune with public concern, on close personal terms with the zeitgeist. Plus it afforded the man acres of publicity. He must have wanted to keep up with his colleague in north Wales, Richard Brunstrom, who got loads of it for a costly but fruitless police investigation into anti-Welsh remarks made by broadcaster Anne Robinson. This, by the way, is Blair’s own zero tolerance policy: nothing must be allowed to happen without him pontificating about it and insisting his men will investigate. His coppers are probably already out there trying to discover the cause of Freddie Flintoff’s mystery back injury. Meanwhile, on Friday, Manchester police apprehended a suspected terrorist at the city’s airport. They used one of those exciting Taser guns to harmlessly and temporarily disable the man. All is well. I have scoured the newswires for Blair’s view of this operation. I have left the television on all day. But there’s been nothing so far. When a Taser gun was used not so long ago, Blair was out of the blocks very sharpish. The West Midlands police used one to disable another terrorist suspect and again, no life was lost. A dangerous situation was swiftly and harmlessly resolved, just as it was at Manchester airport. Blair appeared on television to say that using a Taser was an “unnecessary risk” and against police guidelines. Five days before, his men had shot dead an innocent man on a Tube train: the rare event of one police chief publicly criticising another force was occasioned by Blair’s overwhelming concern to cover his back. This defines his stewardship of the Met, more than the television appearances, more than the espousal of new Labour-ish political causes, more even than the constant lecturing to the public about how Islam had nothing to do with the London bombings. It is Blair’s swift, public insistence he is not to blame for anything. It’s the sight of a top copper desperately covering his back. When Met police officers killed someone they should not have killed on a Tube train, Blair dissembled for days, when what he should have done was say we made a terrible mistake and I’m very sorry. Instead, he tried, surreptitiously, to delay an investigation into the appalling incident and insisted in front of those ever present cameras that the late Jean Charles de Menezes was dressed like a terrorist, or looked a bit like terrorist, or knew terrorists, or was an illegal immigrant, or was running away — and so on. None of which was true. That’s why I think he criticised the West Midlands police for using a Taser gun instead of emptying eight bullets into the head of their suspect. Last week, under questioning from the BBC’s Stephen Sackur, Blair admitted that the “misinformation” — lies, to you and me — from the Met was a faux pas, upon reflection. “It was a mistake not to have corrected the misinformation. I wish we had done that sooner.” Who’s that “we”, Sir Ian? If you’ll excuse me, isn’t the singular personal pronoun a more useful device in that sentence? Who was it putting out the misinformation, after all? Who knew the truth and when? That’s about the only public issue Sir Ian Blair has not commented upon recently. It is not simply his expedient support for new Labour causes which worries me, it is his acquisition of that other defining new Labour trait — utter slipperiness — which makes him unsuitable for the job of Britain’s top policeman. <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1796022,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...22,00.html</a> Woman held in probe into Tube shooting leak Martin Bright, home affairs editor Sunday September 25, 2005 The Observer A 43-year-old woman has been arrested in connection with the leak of documents from the investigation into the death of Jean-Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian electrician wrongly shot by police as a terrorist suspect after the London bombings in July. Leicestershire Constabulary was asked, as an outside authority, to investigate the leak after ITV News ran details of the inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Commission into the shooting at Stockwell underground station on 22 July. The leaked documents showed that police statements immediately after the shooting were misleading, including comments made by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair. Blair initially claimed that police had shouted a warning before approaching Menezes, but the documents said this was not the case. They also contradicted early reports that the Brazilian was wearing a bulky jacket that could have hidden explosives and that he jumped the ticket barrier at the stations. The police did not admit these reports were misleading until after the leak. The details of the documents, which were broadcast on ITV News on 16 August, showed that Menezes was wearing a light denim jacket and jeans, that he used his Oyster card to pass through the ticket barrier and that no warning was issued before he was shot. The Leicestershire force confirmed that the woman was arrested at one of several London addresses searched on Wednesday. It is not known if she is an employee of the IPCC or ITV News. Neither organisation would comment last night. Shami Chakrabati, director of civil rights campaigners Liberty said: 'We must hope that the investigation into the shooting itself is being pursued with at least as much rigour as these leak inquiries.' On 26 August the IPCC announced its own inquiry into the 'unauthorised disclosure of material by IPCC personnel' in connection with the Menezes shooting. It is being carried out by Bill Taylor, former Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland. <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1577923,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/u...23,00.html</a> Let's hope there are still a few decent Brits that can give that lady some support

by **Peachtree Pam** » Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:21 am

Times Online De Menezes family arrive in UK demanding justice By Sam Knight The family of Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian shot dead by anti-terrorist officers on the Tube, arrived in London this morning ahead of meetings with the team investigating the shooting. Mr De Menezes's parents, Matuzinhos and Maria, flew into Heathrow from Rio with the family of his brother, Giovani Da Silva. During the visit, which is being paid for by the Metropolitan Police, the de Menezes family will go to Stockwell Tube station tomorrow, the scene of the shooting, before meeting members of the Independent Police Complaints Commission on Thursday. The family may also meet Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who has already offered his personal apology over the blunder. Senhora de Menezes told reporters at Heathrow today: "We are searching for justice." Through an interpreter, she added: "I want the police to be punished." The family has called for the resignation of senior police officers, including Sir Ian, over the death of Jean Charles, who was shot seven times in the head on July 22 after he was mistaken by surveillance officers for a suicide bomber. Their anger increased last month when leaked information from the IPCC investigation suggested that the police committed a series of catastrophic mistakes in the moments leading up to the killing. A 43-year-old woman was arrested for supplying the leak last week. The IPCC has promised that the de Menezes family will be the first to see much of the evidence it has uncovered about the shooting in their meeting on Thursday. But Nick Hardwick, chairman of the IPCC, has said there will be some material that cannot be disclosed for reasons of national security. <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1799778,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...78,00.html</a> De Menezes family anger over shooting Tuesday, 27th September 2005, 14:42 Category: Crime and Punishment LIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) - The outraged cousin of the Brazilian man shot dead by police in London today demanded 'murder charges' be brought against the officers responsible for the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station. His comments follow the emergence of damning new details which shed light on the police confusion surrounding the incident and the arrival of Mr de Menezes's family in London. A senior Scotland Yard source reportedly said that within hours of the shooting officers were fully aware they had made a mistake and that Mr De Menezes, who was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, was not connected with terrorism. But it was only the following day that Sir Ian Blair admitted Mr de Menezes was innocent. Officers were briefed on the morning of the shooting that it was likely they would have to carry out the Met's shoot-to-kill policy Operation Kratos. Mr de Menezes was shot after a senior Scotland Yard officer, Commander Cressida Dick, gave orders that he was not to be allowed to board the train. But it has emerged that she was one of three 'gold' commanders able to give orders to shoot-to-kill were involved in the operation confusing the chain of command. The whole surveillance operation also appears to have been bungled. The military officer keeping watch on a block of flats near Stockwell, which was used by terror suspects involved in the 21/7 bombings, was relieving himself behind a tree when Mr de Menezes emerged. He was followed on two buses until he arrived at the station where he was shot. Today Mr De Menezes's cousin, Alessandro Pereira was with the family and said they were extremely angry but were confident that people would support them in pressing charges against Sir Ian Blair and the officers who carried out the controversial shoot to kill orders. "The mistakes are so clear and we are angrier than before. I do not know why the police have carried out such a big cover up. "Everybody knows they have been lying, everybody knows they are liars. I want to ask the police why they carried out this murder. "I want someone to be charged with murder. Both the person who shot Jean and the person who gave the orders. "The family will not stop, people are behind us and we will ask Sir Ian Blair why he lied. "He should be tried for this because he is responsible, he gives the orders, he is to blame." Pereira said that the visit to Stockwell station would be an emotional pilgrimage for his grieving family who are to pursue legal action against the police. "Tomorrow Jean's family will go to where their son was killed. It will be a very emotional day. We will shed our tears and demand something be done. "The family are going to see lawyers today. We will pursue a murder charge, "What else would you expect for a murder? All the officers to blame have disappeared the police think they are above the law that they can just take off. "All the guilty people have vanished but we will track them down because we are in the right here." <a href="http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=KI2718017C&news_headline=de_menezes_family_anger_over_shooting">www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.a...r_shooting</a>

by **antiaristo** » Wed Sep 28, 2005 6:52 am

Officers were briefed on the morning of the shooting that it was likely they would have to carry out the Met's shoot-to-kill policy Operation Kratos. Like I said, SAS gang out on a hunt with a permit from Her Majesty. A few more details from the Independent Shoot-to-kill victim's mother arrives in Britain to be greeted by new claims about son's death By Terry Kirby, Chief Reporter Published: 28 September 2005 The family of Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead by police in London, arrived in Britain yesterday amid new disclosures about when senior Scotland Yard officers first realised they had killed an innocent man. Giovani de Menezes, the victim's brother, said: "We want to know why it happened, what happened, and why the police didn't tell us the true facts." He was speaking at Heathrow, where he arrived with his parents, Matozinhos Otone Da Silva and Maria Otone de Menezes, his wife and their three young children. Mr Menezes's mother said: "We are searching for justice. I want the police to be punished." His father repeated: "Justice, justice, justice." Today, they will visit Stockwell Tube station in south London, where Mr Menezes was shot by officers who believed he was a suspected suicide bomber. The shooting came the day after the failed bomb attacks of 21 July. The family's trip is being funded by the police, although they are being accompanied by their solicitors. Tomorrow, they will meet the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which is investigating the shooting and may also meet Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, whose career depends on the inquiry's outcome. He has admitted considering resignation over the matter. The issues being examined include the precise timing of when senior officers first knew their marksmen had shot an innocent man and whether and to what extent the news was kept from Sir Ian. Reports yesterday claimed that, by 3pm on the day, five hours after the shooting, the Yard knew Mr Menezes was Brazilian and not linked to terrorism, although his precise identity had not been established. Yet Sir Ian told a press conference at 3.45pm that day that the shooting was "directly linked to ongoing terrorist operations" . It was not until 10.30am the following day that Sir Ian was told of the error formally and it was not announced publicly until 5pm, after police had traced his relatives. Other reports yesterday spoke of the "utter confusion" at Scotland Yard while surveillance officers tracked Mr Menezes from his flat in Tulse Hill and on the bus to Stockwell Tube station, which had been used by three of the bombers the previous day. The block of flats was being watched because a suspect was believed to be linked to another flat in the block; the surveillance officer outside had asked colleagues to have a closer look at Mr Menezes because the officer was distracted by having to urinate behind a tree. Because Mr Menezes behaved in such a way as to make officers believe he was using counter-surveillance techniques, armed officers from CO19 were summoned to arrest him. But they arrived too late to detain him outside the station and were forced to pursue him on to a train, where he was identified to them by a surveillance officer. He was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder under the Operation Kratos guidelines for dealing with suicide bombers, which stipulate that officers must aim for the head to prevent detonation of a bomb wrapped around the body. The family are expected to get a full briefing on the progress of the inquiry - due to be completed by Christmas - when they meet IPCC officials tomorrow. The commission has promised that Mr Menezes' relatives will be the first to see much of the evidence it has uncovered about the shooting, although Nick Hardwick, the chairman, has said there will be some material that cannot be disclosed for reasons of national security and because it does not want to prejudice any future action. Mr Hardwick condemned what he called the constant "drip-drip" of leaks to the media about the case. He said: "I am extremely concerned at recent reports in the press about this case and would urge everybody to stop." n A man was arrested yesterday in connection with the attempted terror attacks on London on 21 July. The 36-year-old man was arrested by officers from the anti-terrorist branch on suspicion of assisting an offender and alleged immigration offences. The unanswered questions 1. Why was a surveillance officer watching the front door to a whole block of flats - from which any number of people could emerge - and not the door of the suspect flat itself, which was not the one occupied by Jean Charles de Menezes? 2. Why was the officer forced to relieve himself behind a tree - at the precise moment Mr Menezes came out? He was therefore unable to get a proper look at him, and set off a chain of events by asking colleagues to check. Such officers normally would work from a van with a lavatory; it is not known why one was not deployed, but it is likely that the force's resources would have been severely stretched that morning. 3. Why did the armed officers fail to arrive at Stockwell Tube station and give Mr Menezes a chance to surrender outside? Were they summoned too late, or were they stationed too far away? Why, according to one report yesterday, did they waste time checking a bus outside when they ought to have been told he had already gone underground? 4. What passed between the officers on the ground and the commanding officer at Scotland Yard, Commander Cressida Dick? And who else was in operational command of the incident? Reports yesterday claimed there was confusion involving Commander Dick, Commander John McDowall, in charge of surveillance, and Assistant Commissioner Alan Brown, the head of the overall anti-terror operation. 5. Key questions are raised by the account of one surveillance officer, known as Hotel Three, on board the Tube train. According to leaks of his statement to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, he verbally indicated the suspect to the armed officers before grabbing Mr Menezes around his torso and pinning him to the seat. The armed officer then shot Mr Menezes before dragging his colleague away. His actions were in contravention of the Operation Kratos guidelines in dealing with suicide bombers, which state that officers should not approach them and shoot in the head to kill. Does that mean Hotel Three was unaware of them? Crucially, if he had the suspect under control, why did the firearms officers need to shoot? 6. Further questions have now arisen about events after the shooting. According to some reports, four senior officers told the Met's command group that they knew "within hours" that an innocent man had been shot. One suggestion was that this was only three-quarters of an hour before Sir Ian Blair said on television that the shooting was "directly linked to terrorism". He later said that it was not until 10.30 the following morning that he was formally told that a terrible mistake had been made. Why did it take so long? And if senior officers were sure by the same afternoon, why was Sir Ian not told and a public statement made? Or was he kept in the dark deliberately? <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article315534.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...315534.ece</a> And this one is a bit tabloidy, but the Mirror sells 2 million copies a day. 28 September 2005 MY SON WAS ASSASSINATED AND THE POLICE WHO DID IT ARE COMMON KILLERS WEEPING MUM HITS OUT By Nick Sommerlad And Nathan Yates THE weeping mother of Jean Charles de Menezes yesterday demanded the policemen who shot him dead be tried for murder. And she wants their boss - Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair - to face a manslaughter charge. After flying in from Brazil, Maria de Menezes, 60, said: "My son was assassinated. The policemen who did this are nothing more than common killers. It is up to the British government to punish them." Speaking exclusively to the Daily Mirror she said it was "outrageous" that two firearms officers who killed 27-year-old Jean were sent on holiday after the shooting. She said: "It's unbelievable. They should be arrested immediately and they should be in prison waiting for the judgement. We want to see them punished as killers. "They must be tried in court for murder. They fired 11 shots at Jean. They wanted to kill him. It was certainly no accident. "Ian Blair should be put on trial for corporate manslaughter. He should be punished too. He is the head of police and he is responsible. "He didn't tell the truth. He hid their mistakes and pretended my son was a terrorist. He didn't want to take the blame. On the day this happened he should have told the truth." Maria travelled to Britain from Brazil with her husband Matozinhos da Silva, 66, and son Giovani, 33, three months after Jean was killed at Stockwell Tube station in South London by SO19 firearms officers who mistook him for a terrorist. Asked what he wanted from the two-week visit Mr da Silva repeated: "Justice, justice, justice." Wiping tears from her eyes Maria said: "I am suffering so much I feel like I am dead inside already. "I wouldn't wish this to happen to anybody else in the world. I don't want this to happen to any other mother. "I had to come here for justice but it is very, very hard. This is the last place I want to be after what they did to Jean. "He was such an honest man. He was here to work. He was trying to help build Britain and he was here legally. He was the best son in the world. He supported us and worked every day for his family. "The last time I saw him was three months before he died when he came home on holiday. I told him to be careful. I had a funny feeling inside and I didn't want him to go back but he said, 'Mummy, I have to go to work'. I KEEP seeing him in my mind as a baby and as a boy and as a man. Then I think about him dead and I can't believe it has happened. "I don't want Jean to be forgotten. The police shouldn't be allowed to do this. I have come to make sure it doesn't happen again." Giovani said: "We have come here to find out what happened to Jean. "It has been really hard for us. We are such a close family. My mother has been on tranquillisers since she heard about Jean's death. I don't think she will ever recover. "There is no way we will ever forget Jean. I had only one brother but he was worth a thousand. We talked every day and we shared everything." The family plan to visit the scene of Jean's killing today and re-create his final journey from his flat. Giovani said: "It is going to be very difficult to go to the place where he was killed. "Everything is going to come back and we are going to have to think about those terrible moments. "This was where Jean lost his life and in such an awful way. We are dreading it but we think it is important to go. "The family will be there together and we will think about Jean and talk about him with each other. It is part of the process of grieving for him." The family demanded an end to the police shoot to kill policy drawn up to deal with the terrorist threat. Giovani said: "Shoot to kill is completely wrong. You can't kill somebody without investigating or even knowing who they are. "It must change. We are here to change the law before somebody else gets killed as they go about their business. "Britain is supposed to be a first world country. The British police are famous around the world to be one of the best." He added: "We want to meet the police chief. We want to know why it happened, what happened and why the police didn't tell us the facts." POLICE were watching the house in Tulse Hill, South London, where Jean lived, looking for the suicide bombers behind the second attacks on London on July 21. Jean left for work at 9.30am the next day and was followed by officers from the Met's anti-terror unit. He caught the bus to the Tube station and was shot seven times in the head without warning as he took his seat on the train. Initial reports that we was dressed suspiciously in a winter coat and that he ran from officers and jumped the ticker barrier at the station were shown to be false by leaks from the investigation into his death. It was claimed yesterday that police knew within hours that the killing was a horrific mistake. Scotland Yard sources reportedly claimed officers became concerned as soon as they checked the identification in his wallet and told commanders of their doubts. Senior officers were said to have spoken of "utter confusion" during the operation to follow him, with a series of communications failures contributing to the tragedy. Sir Ian is under attack for claiming he did not know Jean was innocent until the next morning. Five hours after the shooting he told reporters Jean's death was "directly linked" to the capital's largest ever anti-terror operation and suggested he had been challenged by police. Sir Ian is said to be very keen to meet the family but lawyers have voiced concerns as he is an important witness in the case. Jean's family will also visit MPs in Parliament and attend a rally to launch a campaign in his memory. The Independent Police Complaints Commission has promised that the family will be the first to see much of the evidence it has uncovered. Chairman Nick Hardwick called for the speculation surrounding the shooting to stop. He added: "This drip drip of information is unhelpful. It is important that we have a fair and thorough process leading to the truth and so the leaks and speculation must end." <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/printable_version.cfm?objectid=16182238&siteid=94762">www.mirror.co.uk/printabl...teid=94762</a>

by **Peachtree Pam** » Wed Sep 28, 2005 9:01 am

"Because Mr Menezes behaved in such a way as to make officers believe he was using counter-surveillance techniques, armed officers from CO19 were summoned to arrest him." It is unbelieveable what the SAS/Scotland Yard people think they will get away with. Anti, maybe it's true that the UK is even MORE CORRUPT than the US.

De Menezes execution

..

Rupert Murdoch: On Her Majesty's Service

A Policeman's Lot is not a Happy One, Happy One...

Blair morphs into Reagan

Re: The Real Prime Minister Speaks

anti

operational matters

Strange strange eyewitnesses

Re: Strange strange eyewitnesses

Re: Strange strange eyewitnesses

Whitby

Re: Whitby

The family will not give up

Re: The family will not give up

Yet another story/excuse/lie

Who is online