Mistakes led to tube shooting

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

ITV News has obtained secret documents and photographs that detail why police shot Jean Charles De Menezes dead on the tube.

(...)

The crucial mistake that ultimately led to his death was made at 9.30am when Jean Charles left his flat in Scotia Road, South London.

Surveillance officers wrongly believed he could have been Hussain Osman, one of the prime suspects, or another terrorist suspect.

By 10am that morning, elite firearms officers were provided with what they describe as "positive identification" and shot De Menezes eight times in the head and upper body.

http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1677571

He was not carrying any bags.
He was not wearing a "bulky" coat but a denim jacket.
He was calm, used his swipe card on the barrier & even picked up a free newspaper.
He began to run to catch a train.
The police didn't give any warnings.

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. So much for the cool stiff upper lip, analytical approach

of those crazy bastards. Are they all stupid? Yes they are all stupid.

[guruoo]

8. These guys could moonlight...

for the mob.

[henslee]

2. That reads like a scenario in 1984.

[MisterP]

6. actually, Fahrenheit 451--although I think this was just a dress rehearsal

(like Guernica...)
Dictatorships are always clean and modern and filled with excuses ("but France doesn't have any freedom of speech or religion either, and that's a good thing!")

[PunkPop]

3. It was all lies.

The bulky jacket. Jumping over the barrier. Running FROM the police. All of it.

The guy was murdered - plain and simple.

[JohnyCanuck]

4. If they lie so readily about things like that,

how many other lies do you think the MOFOs pawn off on the public that we never find out about.

[malaise]

56. That simple

but it doesn't matter to them - collateral damage.

[endarkenment]

5. So finally, as I have said all along

the mistake that Jean Charles de Menezes made was to walk out the wrong door being not quite white enough. Bang, you're dead.


Tony bLiar: "get me a dead terrorist." Grovelling subservient bureaucrat: "of course sir, as you wish".

[alarcojon]

7. Many of us felt this at the time

and, as the evidence trickled out, our feelings turned into almost certainty.

I saw a story here the other day that mentioned that the surveillance cameras that would have caught the incident weren't working. How big a fuck-up, or lie, is that?

Any apologists for the police still out there? I'm willing to listen.

[Henny Penny]

13. I think the reason this has come out is that the cameras were

working and more importantly, the family found out that they were working.

I can't say how depressing it is that the lies told about this guy wearing a bulky jacket, jumping the barrier, running away etc were so readily accepted and so widely circulated.

I saw a report on this on c4 news at 19.00 here, and still more than 2 hours later, it has not made the bbc news website.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[lockdown]

20. Good old auntie beeb,

who fed so many of the Menezes lies in the first place. Got in half an hour back and saw this news on the Web, still not a peep on BBC News 24 in that time.

Here's video of the C4 report:

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=550

And a report in The Times, while I'm on:

The Brazilian electrician mistakenly killed by police in the aftermath of the second London bombings was being restrained by an officer before he was shot eight times as he was sitting on a Tube train, it emerged tonight.

Witness statements and photographs from an independent police investigation leaked to ITV News also show that Jean Charles de Menezes did not run away from police at Stockwell Tube station in South London and was wearing only a denim jacket before he was shot dead on July 22.

The evidence contradicts claims from the Metropolitan Police at the time that the Brazilian’s "clothing and his behaviour at the station added to their suspicions", that he vaulted the ticket barrier and was wearing a heavy overcoat, which could have concealed a bomb.

It also emerged that one of the undercover team keeping Senhor de Menezes’s home under surveillance was relieving himself instead of filming the operation, so officers could not tell if they had tracked down one of the alleged bombers.

...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1738370,00.html

[uppityperson]

123. BBC link to comparison chart-Initial report vs Leaked info

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4158832.stm

[nascarblue]

127. Wow, I can't believe the BBC published that...

After all, they were at the forefront of the disinfo campaign.

I believe alot of this story that was initially reported was driven by Sky News. The brand new Sky News was praised repeatedly for their coverage of the London bombings. Critics said repeatedly that Sky consistently scooped the BBC.

And who owns Sky News? Rupert Murdoch.

[IndianaGreen]

193. Bush and Blair are liars!

Why do we continue to believe whatever they say, and demand proof to the contrary? The burden of proof should always be on Bush and Blair. Their record is one of deception, outright lies, and murder.

[KDLarsen]

205. Read an article in the paper today about the cameras

The Police are saying they weren't working, but the Tube people are saying that nothing seemed to be wrong with them and referred to the Police for comments...

On edit: Most of the article I read, was from the article that uppityperson linked to, even the graphics were the same.

[TankLV]

225. I want every single DU'r apologist who dismissed us who KNEW the truth

and tried to reason with them to APOLOGIZE to each and every one of us for their smarmy and condescending comments and ridicule.

But the only sound we will hear is the sound of crickets chirping.

[beam me up scottie]

229. .

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Name removed]

236. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

244. I think you'll find

that the theory that Rudi Giuliani and Tony Blair had a brown person killed in order to divert attention from Karl Rove has yet to be proven.

Or the theory that De Menezes discovered a MIHOP on the London bombings and was killed by the mysterious Scotland Yard paramilitary group who are controlled by the BFEE.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

9. Prediction:

They weren't *strictly* cops. They were SpecOps.

[endarkenment]

25. that has already been confirmed.

[beam me up scottie]

31. By whom?

[endarkenment]

38. this is tiresome

google kratos

I'm sorry I even got started on this again. Waste of space arguing with the deliberately deceived. Have fun.

[beam me up scottie]

41. bye

:hi:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

211. Kratos Industrial Machinery?

Kratos Industrial Machinery makes and services Maglev and digital control
turbomolecular pumps, dry pumps,l and other process equipment.

[Blue_Tires]

32. Special Air Service?? n/t

[bemildred]

10. No shit? nt

[jsamuel]

11. How could they mistake this guy for the other?!

COME ON!

Brazilian for someone from I think Pakistan?

[Henny Penny]

15. Does anyone have a pic of the alleged MI6 operative that was

arrested in SA?

[jsamuel]

29. ++> Why did they wait until the subway to apprehend or kill him then?

[Mairead]

51. Well, they're both male, about the same age, short hair, same number of

eyes, noses, ears, and mouths, both walked upright....

That's a lot of similarlity, when you think about it. And the biggest similarity of course was neither had an 'English rose' complexion.

[Karenina]

55. Actually, IIRC the guy on the right

was a Somali suspect from the 7/21 action. The surveillance team DID have pictures of their suspect, but NOW we know a team member was taking a piss when Jean Charles exited the building. JOB ONE on that day was, SEND A MESSAGE. EXECUTE A "DARKIE."

[still_one]

12. so many people were so quick to excuse this "understandable"

As Franklin said, when you want security over liberty, you will have neither liberty or security

[AuntieM1957]

44. Well said... there can be no liberty when it is sacrified in the name

of "safety".

I've been appalled by the large numbers of people with whom I normally see eye to eye who are EAGER to give up their rights.

Sheep.

[malaise]

57. Many people here were upset with those of us

who suspected something was really wrong here. Brown/black people of the world our lives are in danger.

[still_one]

71. that's right

in fact I was rhetorically attacked for being so naive.

It reminded me of the attitude here after 9/11, even before they knew what happened, people were assuming it was Iraq, and we should attack them.

Yes, people of color are the most vulnerable, but we are all in great danger:


First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller

[TankLV]

226. Yep - I demand an apology from all the DU apologists.

But all I hear is the sound of crickets.

[beam me up scottie]

231. Actually, that's the sound of people laughing.

Just so you know...
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[TankLV]

237. Only in your small mind, honey.

[still_one]

14. Thanks for the update. The camera never blinks

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

17. Who in particular are "freeptard apologists"?

[endarkenment]

21. They know who they are.

Every last one of them who jumped all over us for getting this right, for actually analyzing the contradictions in the reports and piecing together what happened. Every one of them who came up with excuse after excuse why it is perfectly fine for a supposed liberal democracy to summarily execute people on the streets of their cities. They know who they are.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

22. Do you have any links of people saying it is fine to execute people?

I must have missed that, thanks.

[endarkenment]

24. Just search the discussions

There were quite a few 'ticking bomb' rationalizations for why this was acceptable. Quite a few 'well what else could they do' excuses. How that differs from 'it is fine to summarily execute people' will have to be up to you to explain.

[beam me up scottie]

33. You haven't provided proof of your claims.

How can he explain anything without the facts?

[endarkenment]

35. well you're all showing up so there is no need. eom.

[beam me up scottie]

36. Explain.

[endarkenment]

40. First I didn't call anyone anything

'name deleted' did that, so you will have to track her down and demand that she provide all the evidence. Secondly, I actually am not interested in explaining to people who have now had every single bit of justification for this episode exposed as a blatant lie, why they ought to be outraged, or why we were not jumping to conclusions. Screw that. You want to live in your comfort world with your pleasant explanations for what is going on around you, fine with me.

[beam me up scottie]

42. So you cannot provide names ?

Every one of them who came up with excuse after excuse why it is perfectly fine for a supposed liberal democracy to summarily execute people on the streets of their cities. They know who they are

[Mairead]

52. Check the DU rules: it's NOT OKAY to provide names. (nt)

[beam me up scottie]

59. I believe my point was made.

:evilgrin:

[sendero]

129. Yes...

... but probably not the point you wanted to make.

[beam me up scottie]

133. The point that you should have evidence to back up your accusations ?

That does seem to upset some folks, doesn't it?

[TankLV]

227. No, it is you who are tiresome. You are being deliberatly difficult.

I will put you in the apologist camp - still.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[beam me up scottie]

232. See post #229

Oh, and you might want to learn how to spell or use spell-check before you attempt to insult someone.

[TankLV]

239. It's easy to point out how pathetic you are just by yourself, honey.

Sorry if I make a spelling mistake - that certainly negates everything I've said.

Riiiight.

[TankLV]

238. Exactly.

[AuntieM1957]

45. right after it happened there were many spirited discussions

there was one fairly determined and vocal argument that "something" must have been hidden - that it would turn out the guy was associated with the terrorists.

others really seemed to think that it was okay to have shot him - because he was stupid to wear a coat (nevermind it was spring in England, and probably a bit chill to him).

the argument was that it was for the greater good - the only way to handle the threat.

seems to be these folks were afraid, some were in the UK, and emotion overruled intellect.

And to my way of thinking, that type of over-emotion is what lead to this young man's death, and if unchecked will kill others.

As earlier posted, paraphrasing Ben Franklin - there cannot be a tradeoff between civil liberties and security. If we lay down one to obtain the other, we will have neither.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

54. From what I remember

there was little information to go on immediately when it happened. There was just the police's word for it and little else to go on. Obviously as time went on, there were huge contradictions and speculations in the media and this led to all sorts of speculations on DU.

I remember that there were posters who immediately suspected foul play (without any evidence at the time) and those who trusted the police (and were willing to give the police the benefit of the doubt). Neither of those two "camps" were starting from a vestige of ultimate knowledge. The former based their judgments on the fiasco of the Iraq War and their mistrust of Tony Blair. The latter based their judgment on the rarity of "shoot-to-kill" instances in Great Britain.

At least we're closer to the truth: that it appears De Menezes was murdered as a result of a shoot-to-kill policy and as a result of mistaken identity.

There is now more evidence to support this new hypothesis rather than the original theory supported by the lies that the police originally told to cover their backs, and also the "Rudi Guiliani/Tony Blair had a brown person killed to divert attention from Karl Rove" theory that I saw theorised on DU.

[beam me up scottie]

61. Not so fast.

MIHOP has made an appearance on the thread.
What a shock.
The PCTs never miss an opportunity to exploit a tragedy to further the paranoia meme.
Who does that remind me of?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

64. Yeah I noticed

:crazy:

[Sterling]

130. In your world most DUers are PCT's

What ever.

[beam me up scottie]

131. Nope, most DUers are too intelligent to fall for baseless propaganda.

There are exceptions, of course...

[lockdown]

65. Photographic memory

Yeah, wild Rudi & Karl theories, that's what derailed so many de Menezes threads...

[beam me up scottie]

66. No, that would have been the rampant paranoia

of everybody except other PCTs.

Remember, none of us can be trusted.

[lockdown]

67. None of us can be trusted

except the BBC and the police.

[Warren Stupidity]

79. Just to be clear on this

It is not permitted or it is bad form or something to call people 'freeptard apologists' but it is quite alright for you to call your opponents 'pcts' or 'mihopers', right?

Do keep up your defense of public summary execution of innocents.

[beam me up scottie]

80. Hey, you figured it out.

You're so smart.

[Warren Stupidity]

82. In this case smart or stupid

we got it right. Completely right. You still can't seem to accept that. Oh well.

[beam me up scottie]

83. Really? What didn't I accept?

The conspiracy theory or that the shooting was a mistake?
I accepted the one that, so far, has evidence to back it up.

Sorry to disappoint you, I know how important this was.

[lockdown]

85. What conspiracy theory?

I think you need some new CPAN modules.

[beam me up scottie]

88. Pick one, there are certainly plenty to choose from.

My favorite one is that it was a planned execution:

"a death squad was released to intercept de Menezes and execute him"

[lockdown]

89. Well it was.

The Metropolitan Police SO19 tactical firearms unit were told to kill de Menezes, not apprehend him or assess whether he was a suicide bomber or not, just to kill him. As per the guidelines that have been known about for some time.

[beam me up scottie]

91. Wrong.

[lockdown]

92. link?

:D

[beam me up scottie]

93. .

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1794292005

[lockdown]

96. That doesn't go into the guidelines at all

The most relevant bit is this:

While none of the officers was sure he was the suspect, they followed him as he caught a bus towards Stockwell. By this time, the officers became convinced he was the terrorist suspect and senior commanders declared a "Code Red" - handing the operation over to officers at the Metropolitan Police SO19 tactical firearms unit, who were given the task of apprehending Mr de Menezes - with permission to shoot if necessary.

SO19 was told he must not be allowed to enter a station, but the delay in identification meant Mr de Menezes had already gone into Stockwell Tube station when officers arrived. CCTV captured Mr de Menezes entering the station at a "normal walking pace", even collecting a free Metro newspaper, and slowly descending on an escalator.

You do realise the officers referred to as unsure are different officers, part of the surveillance team? Or are you going to cherry pick specific words like apprehend from thousands of articles that don't go into all the details in one piece? Please yourself.

[beam me up scottie]

97. You were wrong about orders to execute him, admit it.

Your own link shows you were wrong.

Your post:

"The Metropolitan Police SO19 tactical firearms unit were told to kill de Menezes, not apprehend him or assess whether he was a suicide bomber or not, just to kill him."

The leaked report:

...handing the operation over to officers at the Metropolitan Police SO19 tactical firearms unit, who were given the task of apprehending Mr de Menezes - with permission to shoot if necessary.

Or are you going to say somebody else typed your post?

[lockdown]

100. That doesn't go into the guidelines at all

You obviously didn't understand #96.

[beam me up scottie]

102. Read the posts and weep.

85. You: "What conspiracy theory?
I think you need some new CPAN modules."
***************

88. Me: "Pick one, there are certainly plenty to choose from.
My favorite one is that it was a planned execution:
"a death squad was released to intercept de Menezes and execute him""
***************

89. You: "Well it was.
The Metropolitan Police SO19 tactical firearms unit were told to kill de Menezes, not apprehend him or assess whether he was a suicide bomber or not, just to kill him. As per the guidelines that have been known about for some time."
**************

91. Me: "Wrong."
**************

92. You: "link?"
**************

93. Me: .
"http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1794292005"
**************

Your post #96 has absolutely nothing to do with your previous statement which was WRONG.

I'll post both again, for emphasis:

97. You were wrong about orders to execute him, admit it.
Your own link shows you were wrong.

Your post:

"The Metropolitan Police SO19 tactical firearms unit were told to kill de Menezes, not apprehend him or assess whether he was a suicide bomber or not, just to kill him."

The leaked report:

...handing the operation over to officers at the Metropolitan Police SO19 tactical firearms unit, who were given the task of apprehending Mr de Menezes - with permission to shoot if necessary.


Or are you going to say somebody else typed your post?

...guidelines?

[lockdown]

104. Two pathetic snips of what I said in a row

Well, it's late here, I'm done, but do go on...

[beam me up scottie]

105. Nighty night!

:evilgrin:

[Frederik]

150. Wow, it doesn't say

"they were ordered to kill him, no matter what happened" in the leaked report! Case closed! They were only meaning to have a chat with him, and then unfortunate circumstances led them to shoot him eight times while forcing him down in his chair, without giving any warnings first! :rofl:

Seriously though, you must be joking?

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Frederik]

160. Wow, you did get it

"Honestly, it's not fair to expect others to continuously explain every little thing."

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Henny Penny]

169. A death squad was released to kill someone....

they just got the wrong guy.

[beam me up scottie]

170. Baseless paranoid speculation.

Unless, of course, you have proof.

[Warren Stupidity]

81. That the police were lying

was patently obvious the sunday after the shooting.

"there was little information to go on immediately when it happened. There was just the police's word for it and little else to go on."

No actually there was quite a lot to go on. Your bunch just wouldn't listen to those of us who pointed out the massive contradictions in the spew coming from the government. Quite a few of us pieced together pretty much exactly what had happened. We certainly have speculated over motive, but we got the actual facts of the case completely right. By the way the government lied repeatedly and deliberately. Have you not even wondered why?

Your side still cannot seem to accept that the state executed de Menezes on orders per policy without warning or any attempt to detain him, or even it seems any attempt to try to determine if he presented any threat at all, let alone that he was the right person. Your side cannot seem to accept that a trained team - a death squad was released to intercept de Menezes and execute him. Odd, your faith in the state, what with your name and everything.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

94. You seem to attribute opinions to me that I don't hold

I accept the fact that Menezes was killed on a badly-implemented and/or mistaken shoot-to-kill if necessary policy, without a proper attempt to arrest him, or question him. This I don't doubt. I'm also confused about what the "your side" business is all about.

My own personal view at the time was to wait and see until evidence comes to light of what really happened, rather than jump to conclusions from gut-reaction. This view does not contradict libertarian socialism and it doesn't mean I'm surrendering to the state.

I believe in evidence before passing judgment. This is why I didn't immediately condemn the police at the time without evidence (though I felt very uncomfortable by the circumstance of the death) nor did I presume De Menezes was indeed guilty at the time.

Gut-reactions are unwise to work from. The police had a gut-reaction and executed De Menezes suspecting a terrorist but without evidence, they jumped to a bloody erroneous conclusion and I absolutely condemn this shoot-to-kill policy. Gut-reactions without evidence are never a good thing no matter on what scale. You might be right sometimes, but it can be very bad when you're not. This is why it must be avoided.

[jwcomer]

142. What is libertarian socialism? n/t

[Anarcho-Socialist]

143. Wikipedia has a good article on its definition...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

[TankLV]

230. Wrong. There was plenty of evidence to support what we were saying.

That the police were acting criminally. NONE of their statements added up - ALL of their statements were refuted by other eyewitnesses and the illogic of their excuses at the time. WE were able to put 2+2 together for the correct answer. In spite of US doing that - and there was an awful lot of info out there at the time - the apologists and excuse makers were ridiculing US and closing their eyes and ears and minds to all the mounting evidencd to the contrary. This latest proof is just the nail in the coffin.

Just like the photos of the Iraqi prisoner torture by US SOLDIERS!

[beam me up scottie]

233. Drama ?

How original.

[Taxloss]

26. No apology here.

You were wrong to immediately leap to conclusions.

On edit:

You were also wrong to berate us for simply trusting the Police side of the story in the absence of any firm evidence other than the police account, which it now seems was a pack of lies.

You were also wrong to use the expressions "death squad" and "public execution".

You were wrong to make racial insinuations about the killing.

And you were and are wrong to refer to people who defended the police in the immediate aftermath of the killing, as "freeptard apologist" - not to mention in breach of DU rules.

It turns out that I was wrong to defend the police based on an account that was mostly lies. I'm happy to say that, and it's been a learning experience to say the least. But apologise to you? Not a chance.

On edit, again: TankLV, if some of these things do not apply to you, then consider them applied to those who are guilty of the things I mention. If you can make grotesque generalisations, so can I.

[endarkenment]

28. wow

so then it is still not a 'death squad' and still not a 'public execution'?

Wake up.

[jwcomer]

34. No it isn't.

Death squad's carry out political assassinations, which this wasn't.
Public execution - that's where, for example, you hang someone at an annouced time and location and invite the public to come out and watch.

So no, this isn't either one. Not by standard definitions. Instead you could call it a travesty of justice.

There are three groups who shoulder responsibility for this man's death. 1) The terrorist who are the source of the hysteria. 2) the policy makers who allowed a shoot to kill order on anything less than confirmation of a bomb being carried. 3) The negligence of the officers and of the Gold Command. And, IMHO, in that order.

If there is justice in the UK there should be a lot of people fired over this and quite possibly indicted as well.

[PunkPop]

37. Reverse the order and you'd be closer to correct.

n/t

[jwcomer]

39. It's subjective. There is no correct. n/t

[Frederik]

135. It was a public execution by a death squad.

Face it.

[Taxloss]

146. ... And your proof is?

"There is incompetence on the part of those watching the suspect and a serious breakdown of communication."

Doesn't sound like a Death Squad to me.

"This was not an accident," he said. "It was serious neglect. Clearly, there was a failure both in police intelligence and on an operational level."

Incompetence, failure, neglect, breakdown ... this was a grotesque blunder, not a "Death Squad".

But who were these establishment stooges, attempting a cover-up?

Well, the first quote was from Harriet Wistrich, lawyer for the De Menezes family. The second was from Asad Rehman, a spokesman for the family's campaign.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1550504,00.html

This was a terrible, terrible fuckup. Not a "Death Squad".

Face it.

[Frederik]

149. Shoot-to-kill policy

A specialized police branch with a "license to kill" just like double-O seven, is what I would call a death squad. The "failure" referred to was getting the wrong guy, or a guy with the wrong profile, not the killing in itself. A man in a denim jacket not carrying a bag or a rucksack shot seven times in the neck and once in the shoulder while sitting down and being held down by the "police"/SAS. Oops, sorry about that old chap. It was serious neglect on our part, really. Thought you were someone else.

It is rather obvious what the orders were here.

[Karenina]

151. Hey Taxloss, if you would so kindly indulge

the thoughts of a "middle-aged woman with an upper class accent" whose skin more resembles a Cadbury bar, denying me the "equal protection under the law" one of our dear Brit posters has claimed for herself...

There is a collective unconscious of those of us who have been "profiled" throughout life. It is a 6th sense, a SURVIVAL technique we've had to develop to wend our ways through the "dominant culture." When the POLICY morphs into "SHOOT FIRST," ask questions later, OUR consternation knows no bounds. When the school shootings occurred in the U.S. can you imagine how many darker skinned parents PRAYED that the
perpetrator was NOT "BLACK" knowing THEIR children would be subjected to collective punishment?

A STENCH arose from the execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in the first moments, one with which WE are familiar and recognize. WE are demonized in any way possible. You lot have NO investment in recognizing us as individuals, nor do many care to. Case in point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4375711#4375721

[Taxloss]

158. I would be the last to claim that our Police are innocent of racism.

Such a statement would be palpably untrue.

But who are "you lot"?

[Mairead]

207. In the parlance of US women, those speakers were "making nice"

Note that their statements were very general and assigned no personal responsibility to anyone. They're not full-strength indictments, nor are meant to be. Everyone can agree such general statements, which undercuts the ability of the guilty to shift focus by claiming the speakers were overstating the case.

But the facts are that with no evidence AT ALL beyond him being non-AS and leaving a building being surveilled, they shot him dead as their first choice of action.

That doesn't sound like the action of people concerned with the rights of their victim, or the possibility that they might make an irreversible mistake.

[Taxloss]

251. The IPCC investigation will clear a lot of this up.

I now feel there should be a public inquiry, particularly into the respective roles of Cressida Dick and Ian Blair. There is a large and growing amount of pressure for such an inquiry. As it stands, it seems the shooting officer may be tried for murder. As he should be.

Is that enough?

[Name removed]

235. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taxloss]

249. It's this kind of rational argument that has characterised the De Menezes

threads. And it's precisely this kind of reasoned, tolerant comment that puts your version of events in such a calm, solemn light.

I defended the police; true. I have stopped doing so.

Whose message was deleted, by the way?

Incidentally, little of what you were saying at the time has been shown to be true. Details such as the jacket you knew about at the same time I knew about them. What you and other friendly types like you were saying at the time was that London was stalked by fascists Nazi racist death squads calmly executing civilians based on racial information in order to spread terror - all these things were and are untrue. This was a horrible, horrible accident, it seems, a massive malfunction in procedure. Even De Menezes family claims nothing else.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

253. Those with glass houses should not throw bricks

It must swell one's ego to be right for once. Although a more sensible person would shy away from Schadenfreude, however you don't feel like you need to.

The police did something indefensible. I know that because I waited for evidence to come to light rather than lurch into an elaborate theory on the spot and hope it turns out to be true.

Let me just remind you of something to accentuate my point:

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1609906&mesg_id=1610053

Thread title: London Blast Thread #3 - 40 reported dead in London blasts

Quote: TankLV - “Just what we needed to take the heat off Rove, the Memos, and the entire crime family.” “Can anybody spell MIHOP?”

You can evidently see from the above what happens when you lurch into a theory without evidence.

How's your MIHOP theory going by the way? Do you feel the need to apologise?

------------
At least I can say one thing positive and it is that the truth came out, an investigation is underway. Can you confidently say that had the same thing happened in the U.S. that there would have been: an apology by the police, an internal investigation and a civil lawsuit from the family?

[still_one]

18. Remember when everyone was so sure that the Iranian president

was one of the people who was involved in taking over the U.S. embassy?

remember when people thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or when they thought there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq?

WHY DOESN'T THE FUC*ING MEDIA DO THEIR JOB!!!

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

19. More:

Mr de Menezes was seen to board the train through the middle doors before pausing, looking left and right, then sitting down in either the second or third seat facing the platform.

A man sitting opposite him is quoted as saying: "Within a few seconds I saw a man coming into the double doors to my left. He was pointing a small black handgun towards a person sitting opposite me. He pointed the gun at the right hand side of the man's head. The gun was within 12 inches of the man's head when the first shot was fired."

http://headlines.virgin.net/story/HHH/A10001041124213637A00

It also emerged that one of the undercover team keeping Senhor de Menezes’s home under surveillance was relieving himself instead of filming the operation, so officers could not tell if they had tracked down one of the alleged bombers.

His advice was "it would be worth someone else having a look" to ensure they had the right man. No other officer apparently did take a picture of him even though he had to take a bus journey to the station.

Even so, Gold Command at the Yard which was running this operation, declared a "code red" and handed responsibility to CO19 - the firearms team. The armed team had been given photographs of the alleged bombers, yet no one realised that Senhor de Menezes bore no resemblance to any of those men.

The investigation report states that the firearms unit of the police had been told that "unusual tactics" may be required and if they "were deployed to intercept a subject and there was an opportunity to challenge, but if the subject was non compliant, a critical shot may be taken."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1738370,00.html

[Demeter]

23. I Don't Think That's What Is Meant By "FALSE POSITIVE"

Would it have killed them to ask for ID?

[jsamuel]

30. apparently it killed him

[slackmaster]

27. Poor target selection comes to mind

That qualifies as a mistake.

[AuntieM1957]

46. IMHO, shoot first ask questions later

might be a mistake.

screw that, it's a mistake.

Let me talk Texan here. They fucked up big time. Anyone who can't see that is wearing a shit hat.

[beam me up scottie]

62. Who said it wasn't a mistake?

Other than the people who believe this was a scheduled execution carried out by a death squad representing a racist regime, that is.

[AuntieM1957]

72. blah blah blah blah

:boring:

[beam me up scottie]

75. Texan for "I was just shooting off my mouth with nothing to back it up"?

[jbnow]

43. Even if he had a heavier coat

and ran from a bunch of guys with guns yelling at him to stop and jumped a barrier to escape them it still was all so wrong. Especially considering they'd let him ride the bus already and considering they had him down, he hadn't exploded when knocked to the ground and there were sufficient police to hold down his arms and so on.

I blamed it on the tension of the time and that adrenalin rush like we see in police hear after a chase. Still thought it was murder.

But this is even colder. They might have thought he was the bad guy but with no bag or jacket or suspicious behavior they had no reason to think he was a danger at that point.
The victim looks a lot more like my Italian relatives then he does the man they were looking for... but since when is shots to the head the accepted means of apprehension?

[lockdown]

47. One surveillance officer said he had "distinctive Mongolian eyes"

That's what journalist Michael Crick just said on BBC Newsnight.

[lockdown]

77. Link with quote

A second officer also failed to give a positive identification but claimed the suspect had "distinctive Mongolian eyes".

While none of the officers was sure he was the suspect, they followed him as he caught a bus towards Stockwell. By this time, the officers became convinced he was the terrorist suspect and senior commanders declared a "Code Red" - handing the operation over to officers at the Metropolitan Police SO19 tactical firearms unit, who were given the task of apprehending Mr de Menezes - with permission to shoot if necessary.

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1794292005

Incredible.

[daleo]

84. My family has this trait

Even though we are half Scottish and half Norwegian, we exhibit an eye shape sometimes called "the Mongolian fold", I think. My wife says my ancestors probably intermarried with Laplanders at some time in the past. I guess I am just saying that racial or ethnic profiling can scoop up anybody in its path. Not only is it unfair and prejudiced, it isn't even reliable.

[lockdown]

86. Exactly

It's testament to how messed up such profiling is.

[Mairead]

208. I have the same Scots/Norse ethnicity and the same type of eyes

And our family also attributes it to having some Sami in our makeup.

I certainly hope I'm never shot dead because of it.

[daleo]

48. I expected that the story had lots of untruths

But I thought maybe something might be true.

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

49. Is this more misinfo? Why shoot a defenseless man eight times???

If they have lied so readily up till now, why should we now believe this was a "mistake" rather than an assassination of someone who knew too much (perhaps because he figured out that this was a LIHOP or MIHOP)? What shred of evidence contradicts this possibility?

[daleo]

50. After reading the article, it seems clear this was a hit

It seems obvious to me that the security agents thought they had a suspect and intended to kill him all along, to "send a message". That would be bad enough, but botching it this badly is amazing. Someone should go to jail over this.

[Mairead]

53. Yes, everyone in the chain of command should lose their job and pension

and do prison time for this most inexcusable abuse of power.

I'd prefer that the two Blairs and the Home Secretary also be sacked, but that of course is too much to expect. After all, as Mussolini said after running over a child, what's one child to the life of the state.

[malaise]

58. Bliar may promote them

I guess if that poor man's mother or girlfriend protest his slaughter, they too will be aiding terrorists. Bliar's cops were the terrorists here. This planet is sick, sick, sick. Who are these people in charge?

[beam me up scottie]

63. That's ridiculous.

There is no evidence that there will be repercussions against the victim's family.
And on what do you base your opinion that those involved will be promoted?

[beam me up scottie]

60. To "send a message"?

Where is the obvious evidence of this ?
I must have missed that.

[daleo]

87. That is speculation, obviously

They seem to have tracked this man, then executed him in broad daylight when he presented no danger. To me, this is most likely explained as a "send a message to the terrorists" killing by the state.

Assuming the article is correct, we now know that most of the claims made by the police (he wore a heavy suicide bomber coat, he was running, he jumped the turnstile, he acted suspiciously, etc.) are bogus. I don't see what is left, unless one assumes the security agent was just a psychotic killer.

The British security apparatus was known to do this sort of thing in its conflict with the IRA - there is a celebrated incident from the Island of Gibraltar, for example, which was condemned by the European Court of Human Rights.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/61/009.html

[beam me up scottie]

90. Occams razor.

[daleo]

95. Repeating the phrase "Occam's Razor" doesn't add anything.

You should specify what precisely you think the simpler explanation is.

[beam me up scottie]

98. Did you read the leaked report?

Because your claim:

It seems obvious to me that the security agents thought they had a suspect and intended to kill him all along, to "send a message"

assumes facts not in evidence and is not a logical assumption.

Inventing motive is not the simpler explanation.

[daleo]

101. Well, what is your simpler explanation.

I proposed a theory of motive, what is your's? The absence of a theory is not a simpler theory. At this point I don't even know what the police explanation is anymore.

I didn't read the leaked report - just the article. I would certainly be willing to read it though, if I had a copy.

Speculating about the news on an internet site devoted to the news hardly seems like an unreasonable activity.

[beam me up scottie]

103. The simpler explanation,

is that it was a mistake.

Speculating about conspiracy when there is evidence of none may be reasonable activity but it is still speculation.

Occam's razor.

Here's a link to a longer article about the leaked report:

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1794292005

[daleo]

106. Well, let's wait and see what the police say then.

I think "a mistake" will seem rather strained if the leaked documents are correct, but I am certainly willing to wait and debate it as further information comes in. Thanks for the link.

[beam me up scottie]

107. Agreed.

Hopefully we won't need to wait for months as they had anticipated.
The fallout from the leaked documents may cause the investigators to pick up the pace.
I really hope the family was given advance notice of the leak.
It would be terrible to hear it on the news first.

[Frederik]

136. "Logical assumption"

There is nothing logical about "Occam's razor". There is no logical necessity in the "simpler" explanation being the more probable, even leaving aside the subjective nature of what is "simple". It's nothing more than a convenient catch phrase for the intellectually lazy.

"Inventing motive" ??

Only the good merciful Lord can know what exactly is a person's motives for doing what he or she does. We mortals are left to speculate.

[beam me up scottie]

139. Intellectually lazy? Like those that need to use a god in their argument?

Oh brother.

[Frederik]

152. Hmm, I didn't use God in my argument

except rhetorically, as I don't believe in His existence. Let me rephrase it in a way which might make it simpler to understand for you:

Nobody knows what a person's motives are.

[beam me up scottie]

154. Wow, very good. You agree about inventing motives.

I thought I was going to have to explain it all over again for you.

I get so tired of phony confusion from the peanut gallery.

[Frederik]

161. So you do agree

that a human being can't ever possibly know what another person's motives are? Talking about motives is "inventing" motives. Yet we talk about motives, all the time. It's a legitimate subject of conversation.

[beam me up scottie]

168. You really should book that course.

I don't know how else to interpret your inability to read this statement:

"Speculating about conspiracy when there is evidence of none may be reasonable activity but it is still speculation."

You are engaging in speculation.

But you and the other peeps argue as if it were fact, and that is what has been addressed in my posts.

If one is unable to tell the difference between fact and fiction, that is ignorance.

If one is able to tell the difference, and argues one as the other, that is retrospective falsification.

[lockdown]

68. "critical head shot … prior to challenge"

Guidelines issued since the September 11 attacks emphasise that police must not to challenge suicide bombers or identify themselves for fear of prompting the bomber to detonate his device. Instead, they may fire a "critical head shot … prior to challenge".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/17/nmenez17.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/17/ixnewstop.html

Nothing new, but it's still only speculation till the BBC pronounce otherwise, of course.

[jmc777]

254. ...they may fire a "critical head shot … prior to challenge".

So they shoot the person in the head and then shout "STOP POLICE!".....? Sounds reasonable!

[cal04]

69. Fears over Menezes death 'leak'

Investigators looking into how police mistook a Brazilian man for a suicide bomber and shot him, are concerned over an alleged leak of sensitive documents. The documents seem to cast doubt over the police's version of the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot dead at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July.

BBC home affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford said the leaked documents appeared to be witness and police statements given to the IPCC.

He said the statements suggest Mr de Menezes had walked into Stockwell Tube station, picked up a free newspaper, walked through ticket barriers and had started to run when he saw a train arriving. In the immediate aftermath of the incident, police said Mr de Menezes had been acting suspiciously and suggested he had vaulted the ticket barriers.

Police also said the Brazilian electrician had worn a large winter-style coat - but the leaked version suggested he had in fact worn a denim jacket. The leaked version said Mr de Menezes was being restrained by a community officer when he was shot by armed police, our correspondent added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4157892.stm

[cal04]

73. Brazilian Mistaken for Bombing Suspect Was Tackled by Police

Brazilian Mistaken for Bombing Suspect Was Tackled by Police Before Being Shot

The television station said that witness accounts included in an investigation report into the shooting said Menezes was seated on the train before being shot.
ITV said the report included quotes from a police surveillance officer describing how he wrapped his arms around Menezes as he sat.

"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 onto the floor of the carriage." ITV said the report came from an official investigation into Menezes' death.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission, who have been charged with investigating the shooting, refused on Tuesday to comment on the veracity of the documents. "We do not know from which organization or from whom the documents shown on television this evening have come," the commission said in a statement. Metropolitan Police said they could not make any comment while the police complaints commission investigation was ongoing.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBHHB6VGCE.html

[lockdown]

70. "Leaks raise sharp questions about police tactics"

What is the role of the gold commander referred to in the document?

According to the documents, once surveillance officers believed they had identified Mr de Menezes as a terrorist, a gold commander was informed and special tactics were deployed.

That morning the gold commander was Commander Cressida Dick, who was monitoring the fast-moving developments. The gold commander in such a terrorist operation would not be directly involved in the investigation, to give as much critical distance as possible, as she would have to make a life and death decision.

The reason such a senior officer was in charge was because the police had developed special and controversial tactics, Operation Kratos, to deal with the terrorist threat.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550669,00.html

[lockdown]

74. Commander Cressida Dick

An early police source claimed a "deputy assistant commissioner or above" made the decision, which is higher than Commander.

Highest ranks in order:
Commissioner
Deputy Commissioner
Assistant Commissioners
Deputy Assistant Commissioners
Commanders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_Assistant_Commissioner

[Placebo]

76. Absolutely unbelievable.

I'm speechless.

[Matilda]

78. Those people who still think it's necessary and right to give police

and security organisations extra powers need to read this and start
thinking.

Even if all the justifications given by the police had been true,
we were still left with the fact that a man who was under restraint
was then shot seven times in the head. That alone is an over-
reaction, and this is something people should take into account when
they advocate extra powers for police.

Police and even special operators are human and fallible, which
means they're not necessarily smarter than the average bear, and
a little power can go to their heads. They also unfortunately tend
to be predominantly right-wing and pro-establishment, which means
there's often an inbuilt bias towards anybody who appears to them
to be even slightly radical.

[LibertyorDeath]

99. Great post..... thanx

Recommended.
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[okieinpain]

108. uh, that is murder. someone should be on their way to jail.

[Sven77]

109. Mistakes led to tube shooting

Mistakes led to tube shooting
11.05PM, Tue Aug 16 2005

ITV News has obtained secret documents and photographs that detail why police shot Jean Charles De Menezes dead on the tube.

The Brazilian electrician was killed on 22 July, the day after the series of failed bombings on the tube and bus network.

The crucial mistake that ultimately led to his death was made at 9.30am when Jean Charles left his flat in Scotia Road, South London.

http://www.itn.co.uk/news/1677571.html

found link through http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/170805policelied.htm

[Garbo 2004]

110. What's interesting is how these accounts contradict the eyewitness

widely quoted in the media after the event. He was interviewed on TV shortly after the shooting.

Remember the guy who gave a vivid account of how Menezes was running, looked terrified, tripped and fell into the train? And then was shot as he lay there? Said he was wearing a padded jacket, out of season? His name is Whitby and his account is included in this article, for example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/23/nshot23.xml

Now according to the leaked info, Menezes was wearing the denim jacket friends said he always wore, he wasn't chased into the car and was just sitting in a seat minding his own business when he was grabbed and shot.

I sort of wish some media person would contact Whitby to go over his witness statements again in the light of this report.

[QuettaKid]

132. Normally I would say it was confusion

on the part of the witness, you know how eyewitness accounts are usually wrong because of the flurry of the moment and what have you, but I recall distinctly that this particular eyewitness was supposed to be an off duty journalist. Not sure for who though...

[Frederik]

134. One witness is a copper

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man appeared to be wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706913.stm

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."

.................................

Same guy?:

www.cmr.qmul.ac.uk/cmrpeople.php?uid=130 (Accessible via a Google search for Anthony Larkin, cached page)

Mr Tony Larkin

Lead scientist, MET police. Forensic scientist
Tel:
Location: Mile End, ,
Email:
Expertise: Forensic Science

news.scotsman.com/headlin...=211762005
Anthony Larkin, the lead evidence recovery scientist with the Metropolitan Police, said an attempt had also been made to wash the blood out of the boot of the white Nissan Almera.

...Mr Larkin, 38, said he had carried out more than 400 crime scene investigations and more than a dozen cases where bodies had been transported in car boots."

[mogster]

111. Some points to why this is horrifying news

1. The Met chief covered it up, with help from authorities.
There can be no doubt about this, they must have had the evidence we now see at a much earlier time.

2. The Met chief said 'This could happen again.' Now, what did he mean? Did he know the real facts about the shooting when implying that this was an excusable incident?

3. The racist implications. I know this isn't popular, but when you pick out a terrorist today, the very fact that makes him suspicious are his skin color, his foreign clothing etc. Are the harsh doctrine used in this case being amplified by the fact that the suspect are not white?

4. The release of the leak. Yes, this is no coincidence.
Tody the big news will be the pullout from Gaza. If I wanted to pick a day to leak this extremely disturbing info, I would have chosen this day; good forewarning of a news story that is bound to take all attention.

So, are we gonna discuss this in a civil manner or beat each other over the head with sticks? ;-)

Remember, the point here isn't that the police shot an innocent man. That has happened before, and will happen again.

It is the cover-up and the lies served from top civil servants in the name of the 'war' on terror.

[oscarmitre]

112. There's an old saying about which you should choose

between "conspiracy" and "cockup". Generally speaking you should choose "cockup".

If this was a conspiracy to kill a terrorist in cold blood then they cocked it up big time.

If the British Govt had ordered this do you think (1) it would have gone like this and (2) they would want any independent inquiry to find against the officers involved?

If they wanted to kill a suspected terrorist I would think they would have found a less public place to do it and a less obvious way to execute the man.

For mine there's no conspiracy. There looks to be a major cockup by the people on the ground who will, if the inquiry finds that, be in the shit and will face criminal charges.

I will be happy to be convinced otherwise.

[mogster]

113. Leak disputes Menezes death story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4157892.stm

Leaked documents appear to contradict the official account of how police mistook a Brazilian man for a suicide bomber and shot him.

(snip)

The documents, including witness statements, also suggest Mr de Menezes did not hurdle the barrier at Stockwell tube station, as first reports previously suggested, and was not wearing a padded jacket that could have concealed a bomb.

(snip)

The latest documents suggest Mr de Menezes had walked into Stockwell Tube station, picked up a free newspaper, walked through ticket barriers, had started to run when he saw a train arriving and was sitting down in a train when he was shot.

In the immediate aftermath of the incident, police said Mr de Menezes had been acting suspiciously and suggested he had vaulted the ticket barriers.
-------------------------

This is just so shocking.

[Brundle_Fly]

114. so the brits are

going to just start randomly gunning down people for no reason whatsoever.

ugh this planet.

[wli]

115. the death squads appear to be out in force, as expected n/t

[blueintenn]

137. We are exporting W's America overseas.

A society where rogue police can roam the streets like so many hungry dogs looking for a slow and defenseless victim to feed upon. God help us all.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

116. This is a dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1705773&mesg_id=1705773

[jsamuel]

117. true, but this is from BBC

[mogster]

118. Thanks, AS

I didn't see that other thread.

[bdot]

119. Man killed on London Subway last month was 'acting normally' - ITV News

I didn't see this posted this morning. It's about 3 hours old on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/08/17/police.shooting/index.html

"ITV News, citing documents and photographs, reported that de Menezes was not carrying any bags when he entered the Stockwell Tube station and was wearing a denim jacket, rather than a bulky coat as police had previously said.

De Menezes walked at a normal pace, did not vault any barriers and even stopped to pick up a newspaper, ITV News reported.

He descended to the train slowly on an escalator, then ran toward the open subway car and took a seat, according to ITV, which based its account on a document outlining what was captured on surveillance footage.

At about the same time, armed officers were provided with positive identification that de Menezes was either Hamdi Issac, also known as Osman Hussain, one of the suspected bombers from the day before, or another suspect, at which point he was shot, ITV News reported.

According to the network, the crucial mistake that led to de Menezes' death may have occurred that morning as he left his apartment, when surveillance officers spotted him and he was misidentified as a possible terrorist.

London police were authorized to shoot and kill suspects they believed might try to set off more subway bombs. Shortly after de Menezes' death, police justified their actions by saying he was acting suspiciously and tried to run from officers, forcing detectives to make a split-second decision to shoot him."

[acmavm]

120. What lying sacks of shit we have in both the US and Britain. Cowards

hide behind lies.

[RetroLounge]

121. Yeah, where are those pathetic defenders of those cops now?

RL

[Nihil]

122. Hello! Did someone call?

Speaking purely for myself, I'm still waiting for the IPCC report to
come out ... same as I was when I last wasted time in pointless debate
with people who still know no more than I do.

If/when the evidence is presented that the armed officer killed an
innocent civilian in cold blood, I will happily join with you all in
demanding that all of the people responsible are identified, charged,
prosecuted and punished as appropriate (though possibly not with the
demands for hanging, drawing & quartering that I expect around here).

In the meantime, I will continue to sit back, listen & read.
Please bear in mind that unsubstantiated material is unsubstantiated
material, whether it supports your argument or not. I seem to recall
some issue with incomplete or misleading documents that were "leaked"
on both sides of the Atlantic in the last few years so I'd prefer to
read the "juicy exclusives" in context wherever possible.

FWIW, even though it looks pretty clear-cut now, I still stand by
my original comments attempting to present the other side of the
argument and also my refusal to join the hysterical lynch-mob.
If that makes me "pathetic" in your eyes then fine.

Nihil

[Minstrel Boy]

124. Footage Contradicts London Police Reports

?

Footage Contradicts London Police Reports

MICHAEL McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 2 minutes ago

LONDON - A Brazilian shot to death a day after botched bombings in London had walked casually onto a train before being gunned down by undercover officers, according to leaked footage that appeared to contradict earlier police reports that said the man disobeyed police orders.

...

Police first said the shooting was related to the failed bombings on the London transit system July 21 — two weeks after four suspected suicide bombers blew themselves up in three Underground stations and aboard one double-decker bus.

Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, called the death regrettable, but said it appeared "the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions."

Citing security footage, a British television station reported Tuesday that Menezes entered the Stockwell subway station at a normal walking pace, stopping to pick up a newspaper before boarding a train and taking a seat.

...

Associated Press

[MadisonProgressive]

125. OPPS!

[nascarblue]

126. I was heckled for saying this on DU last month...

How typical. Can anyone name one single terrorist story that hasn't been later rebuked? The real terrorists are the CIA, MI6, and Mossad.

[Romulus]

128. still waiting to hear how

in a city "on the edge" after 7/7,

a city in near lockdown due to police "swarming" the transit system to prevent further terrorism,

that a suspected suicide bomber,

being tailed by a SF kill team in contact with and under control of the highest levels of UK law enforcement,

would be able to enter a subway station,

supposedly being already guarded by a "swarm" of uniformed officers?

Anyone? :shrug:

And now there's this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050817/ap_on_re_eu/britain_bombings_brazilian_4

A police spokeswoman also refused to explain what Blair meant when he said it appeared Menezes disobeyed orders. She noted, however, that police never said Menezes had tried to vault the barriers at the Underground station or tried to run from police.

:wtf:

[benburch]

138. We interrupt this thread...

[lumpy]

140. The mistake that was made is

that assasinations are condoned by so-called democratic nations; killing people without due process of trial, legal representation, and innocent before proven guilty. No better than terrorists.

[Swede]

141. I figured in would be a case of mistaken identity.

Frightened cops with guns often lead to tragic mistakes.

[lumpy]

144. The 'mistake' was ordering the officers

to shoot to kill an unidentified man. The mistake is condoning assasination to alleve public fear.

[Swede]

148. So they do it in front of witnesses and cameras?

Eight shots sounds like scared cop to me.

[Frederik]

153. The mistake was shooting the wrong guy

They thought he was someone else. If he had been who they thought he was, they would probably have proudly displayed the CCTV shots.

[beam me up scottie]

156. Wow. Excellent example of baseless paranoid speculation.

I'm going to cite your post next time someone needs a reference.

[Frederik]

162. Please do

:hi:

[alcibiades_mystery]

194. I agree: scared cops...and they should be cashiered immediately

If these people cannot behave professionally, they should lose their jobs. being scared to the point of blasting an innocent man reading a newspaper on a train is insane scared, and unfit for police work.

[Henny Penny]

197. and it sounds like a pretty professional "hard stop" to me.

Bear in mind that this was not one trigger happy guy losing it... this was one officer (that we know of) holding the victim whilst a second pumped eight shots into him from close range.

This is something they train for.

[bemildred]

145. Leaked document disputes Menezes death story

---

The documents, from the probe into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes and leaked to ITV news, suggest the he was restrained before shot by officers. Menezes was killed at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July.

---

The latest documents suggest Menezes had walked into Stockwell Tube station, picked up a free newspaper, walked through ticket barriers, had started to run when he saw a train arriving and was sitting down in a train when he was shot.

---

The leaked version said Menezes was being restrained by a community officer when he was shot by armed police. The IPCC would not comment on the details of the leak.

The commission said the family "will clearly be distressed that they have received information on television concerning his death".

Daily Star

[go freedom]

147. The steroid monkeys got permission to kill...

And they couldn't wait.

[beam me up scottie]

159. Oh brother.

:eyes:

Drama.

How quaint.

[Fluffdaddy]

157. Sad

[daleo]

164. Assuming the leaked documents are true

It is hard to see what the police "mistake" could possibly be (in the sense of a legitimate, understandable mistake). The suspect's arms were pinned, and he was wearing only a denim jacket. The claim that he seemed ready to detonate a suicide bomb seems hard to credit now. That leaves a "trigger happy cop" theory - but since the suspect wasn't armed, and had his arms pinned, it is difficult to credit that either. Why would the officer be trigger happy in those circumstances?

At this point I think the officer would have to claim something along the lines "I thought I saw the suspect make a dangerous movement", when nobody around him thought the same thing (he was pinned and helpless, and the clothing was not the sort that would hide a suicide bomb). At the very least this would imply a tremendous level of negligence - police are not supposed to use deadly force without being reasonably sure that it is a last resort.

The fact that they had been tailing him, and therefore were not coming to the situation unexpectedly is also a point against the police version (e.g. they knew what he was really wearing all along). Also, the fact that the police seem to have lied about a lot of significant details is not a point in their favor. When parties lie about an event it is often taken to imply a consciousness of guilt, in law.

[bemildred]

165. I was thinking a few too many hits on the crack pipe.

Or maybe overdoing it a bit on the PCP.

But on second thought, I like your "send a message" theory, it fits the general level of incompetence that we can confirm that they would be thinking that stupidly in the first place.

[daleo]

166. As is often the case, the choices are unpalatable.

Either extreme incompetence or actual malfeasance by authorities.

[beam me up scottie]

172. Based on the evidence, it was a mistake.

You are inferring it was a planned event, which is baseless speculation.

The leaked documents and statements indicate errors.

But it's apparently much more exciting to make up stories than to face the facts.

Of course, now I'm speculating about why you are making up stories, but I cannot think of another reason why someone would want to peddle paranoia.

[bemildred]

176. Can you read?

That has nothing to do with what he said, with his argument.
What do you mean by "planned event"? Do you think they just pick out and kill people in the tube for a lark? They ran him down and killed with forethought, that seems clear enough. He is pointing out that they could or should have known by the time they shot him that he was not an imminent threat, which is the basis of all the excuses made so far.

[beam me up scottie]

178. Can you?

You obviously haven't read the articles.

[bemildred]

186. Bwaaahaaahaaa. I asked first.

Do you ever present an argument, or just pretend everybody that disagrees with you is nuts?

[beam me up scottie]

187. Actually, it's a valid question.

You said you believe in the "send a message" theory and I would like to know how you came to that conclusion.
It couldn't have been from reading the reports.

Unless you were just kidding.
It's hard to tell.

[bemildred]

189. "Like" is not "believe".

I "believe" it was a fuckup, and tend to believe it was a crime, although one can still argue about who the perps were and what the crime was, exactly, and I find the idea that it was to "send a message" credible, for the reasons he discussed.

And you still ignored his argument, and I expect you will continue to do that, on the theory of inertia.

[beam me up scottie]

190. What argument?

That this was not "a legitimate, understandable mistake"?
As opposed to what?
An illegitimate, not understandable mistake?

[bemildred]

209. I rest my case. nt

[daleo]

184. You are saying it was a mistake, which seems like baseless speculation too

At this point it is baseless speculation because the police haven't even responded to the new evidence.

What was the mistake? Shooting the suspect when his arms were pinned in the middle of the subway car?

When you make a mistake, it is equivalent to saying "I did action X, which I didn't intend to do" or "I did action X, which it turns out I had no reason to, or bad reasons for". In this case that amounts to:

"I shot the unarmed man in cold blood, which I didn't intend to do" - basically impossible unless the officer is claiming his gun misfired 9 times.
or
"I shot the unarmed man in cold blood, but I thought he was armed and a danger to me and others" - basically impossible unless the officer is claiming he saw something nobody else did (like a gun or a bomb belt), and felt he had to respond to it immediately with deadly force.

Nonetheless, version 2 will probably be proffered at the inquest. It will cause the least fuss, and lots of people will accept it, because they want to. The shooter will probably get off with nothing more than a letter of reprimand on his file, or something like that.

I think the mistake was probably a mistake in identification. I don't necessarily think it was on orders from Number 10 Downing Street or anything. It could well have been the quintessential rogue cops or rogue elements within the security apparatus. Organizations like that aren't monolithic. Had they shot anyone who was connected with the subway bombings, very little objection would have been raised.

[beam me up scottie]

188. Is this going to turn into a definition duel ?

I'm sure you know the definition of the word "mistake".
It's fairly broad.

Do you really think that documents from the investigation should be considered speculation because the police didn't comment on them?

I doubt it.
I think you're being obtuse because I called you on your theory.
But at least I'm willing to admit that is speculation.

[daleo]

191. I am looking forward to the inquiry and trial

At that point the officers involved will have to explain just what their mistake was. A good prosecutor will expect a very detailed explanation of the event. We will know more then, presumably.

Here are some questions that the BBC's legal affairs analyst Jon Silverman outlined:

"If, as suggested, the strategy was to arrest anyone emerging from the Tulse Hill address as soon as possible and the Gold Commander instructed that the target was not to be allowed to enter the Tube, why did the eventual "hard stop", as it is known, take place underground?

At what point was a positive identification made, given that video surveillance was apparently compromised because an officer was attending a call of nature?

And, perhaps most critical of all, what decision-making process led to the fatal shooting if, as claimed, one officer had pinned Mr de Menezes in his seat?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4159412.stm

Presumably, the claimed mistake occurred in one or more of these steps. The third question is the key one, I think. I would hate to be in the position of trying to explain that on the stand.

[beam me up scottie]

192. You should read the article in The Guardian.

They seem to have much more information than just a few hours ago.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1551401,00.html

The two eye witness accounts are very troubling.
None of the papers seem willing to speculate on why their accounts are so different than the documents that were leaked.

[daleo]

167. This BBC article is a pretty good one.

It sums up the questions nicely.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4159412.stm

[Henny Penny]

171. Its all looking pretty murky....and history repeating itself???

The latest development comes as a variety of intelligence, police and army sources confirmed that “dirty war” tactics honed in Northern Ireland’s Troubles are now being brought to bear against Islamic terrorists in mainland Britain.

Techniques used by the SAS-trained 14th Intelligence Company – also known as The Det – in tracking and killing terrorists are being taught to British police firearms teams such as SO19 and to MI5.

The methods of British military intelligence’s Force Research Unit (FRU) and its successor outfit, the Joint Support Group (JSG), in recruiting and handling double-agents in terror cells are also being taught to MI5 and Special Branch. The FRU is infamous in Ulster because of its history of collusion with terrorist organisations which resulted in the assassinations of innocent civilians.

Former and current members of the FRU, the Det and the JSG have also been headhunted by Special Branch and MI5 as specialist marksmen, watchers and agent-handlers.

http://www.sundayherald.com/50951

[beam me up scottie]

177. History is right. Your article is from 24 July.

If you want to engage in conspiracy mongering, you really should use up to date sources.

[Matilda]

179. I don't see conspiracy, but I do see incompetence.

Leaving aside for a moment all questions of why de Menezes was
targeted in the first place, one irrefutable fact stands out: a
man who was already restrained - and who they must have seen was
not wearing a bomb belt - was shot seven times in the head. Why?

It makes me really uneasy that trained law enforcement officers
should over-react in this way - it looks highly emotional, and
that shouldn't happen. Even if he'd been guilty, this would still
bother me.

[beam me up scottie]

180. Exactly. The evidence indicates incompetence.

Gross incompetence.

There is nothing in these reports that indicates that this was a "public execution" in order to "send a message".

Why do some people feel the need to incorrectly use terms like 'death squad', 'public execution' and 'assassination' repeatedly?

They have already chosen an outcome and are using speculation to try to shoehorn the events.

[jsamuel]

181. Well, there was at least a conspiracy to make it look less incompetent

They spread all that false info to the press.

[beam me up scottie]

182. Bingo. "there was at least a conspiracy to make it look less incompetent"

These reports seem prove that without a doubt.
That there was a cover-up doesn't even qualify as a conspiracy anymore.
It should be accepted as fact, IMO.

[alcibiades_mystery]

195. I'm not a conspiracy theory guy

But conspiracies CAN BE facts. Your post seems to indicate that something is either a conspiracy or a fact. That's silly. Unless you just left out the word theory by accident?

[beam me up scottie]

196. Are you talking about the quote in the subject line?

I quoted the poster I was responding to.
If not, I have no idea what you're talking about.
:shrug:

[alcibiades_mystery]

198. I'm quoting you directly, boss

To wit:

"That there was a cover-up doesn't even qualify as a conspiracy anymore.
It should be accepted as fact, IMO."

Is there any other interpretation to this than "conspiracies are not facts"? I don't see one.

[beam me up scottie]

210. Here ya go:

con·spir·a·cy
Pronunciation Key (kn-spîr-s)
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.
************************************

fact
Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

[alcibiades_mystery]

212. It's good that you learned the definitions

Previously, you did not appear to know them. Congrats.

[beam me up scottie]

213. They were for you, since you think conspiracy is fact.

Perhaps you should go over them one more time.

If not, let me know and I will try to explain the difference between apples and oranges.
;)

[alcibiades_mystery]

215. Some conspiracies are facts.

Or, to be more precise, there can be a fact of conspiracy. And some are imagined. Existential quantifier.

I certainly don't need you to explain anything. You're the one who expressed yourself so poorly in the first post of this conversation.

[beam me up scottie]

216. I have never stated that CTs don't contain facts.

It's what is done with them that makes the theory credible or not.

But you don't really want to hear that, do you?
I wouldn't want to ruin your nitpick of my post.

[alcibiades_mystery]

218. It was a nitpick

to be sure.

You should have said "The cover up isn't even a theory anymore. It is a fact now." That was my only point. And you're not ruining anything. I'm actually wondering why you've spent so long defending it with your extremely unpleasant attitude. But I guess I should just remember not to deal with you anymore. The sad thing is that I agree with your larger point: this was a result of unprofessional behavior and incompetence at the worst level, and not some deliberate message or anything like that. Yes. Correct. Otherwise, I'll go ahead and let you play your petty internet debates with the others, as I'm pretty much sick of you.

[beam me up scottie]

220. Lemme get this straight:

1. You agree that it was a nitpick and
2. You agree with my point

But yet you wonder why I defended it with my "unpleasant attitude", call the debate petty and then state that you are sick of me.

:spray:

Oh my FSM!!!

That is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time!!!

The nitpicker is accusing her target of being petty!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[alcibiades_mystery]

222. Yes, it is petty

It was a friendly comment until you decided that any response to you at all requires flames, which seems your general practice.

Yuck it up, but it's just sad.

[beam me up scottie]

228. Nice try, but in my experience, when you call someone "boss",

you're not looking for friendly conversation.

And your personal attack on me in your last post is indicative of your cheerful disposition.

Have a nice day! :hi:

[alcibiades_mystery]

234. Nice try yourself

The word "boss" appeared in my response to your snark, not in my original friendly post. Ta ta, chief.

[beam me up scottie]

241. My second post asked for clarification because I didn't understand your op

And a quick perusal of your other posts confirms my theory.

Friendly ???

[Karenina]

250. Psssst.... A_M

Think someone can "afford" a vacation in Paris after this? ;-)

[beam me up scottie]

252. Why hello Karenina

Long time no see.
Since the minuteman threads, I believe.
Do you have something you want to say to me?

[Darranar]

173. No. The "crucial mistake" was killing him. n/t

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

174. Police chief 'tried to scupper inquiry into Tube shooting'

SIR IAN BLAIR, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, tried to delay an independent inquiry into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes hours after his death. Sir Ian claimed that an inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Commission would impede the police’s counter-terrorist investigations.

But Scotland Yard’s attempt was rejected by the Home Office, which told Sir Ian that it would be illegal and destroy the credibility of the IPCC.

The details emerged as a bitter row grew between the commissioner and Nick Hardwick, the head of the IPCC, over the leaks from the inquiry’s interim report on Tuesday.

The Times has learnt that Sir Ian has written to Mr Hardwick demanding that a police force from outside London should be called in to investigate how material highly damaging to Scotland Yard reached ITV.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1740286,00.html

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

175. 'Offficers gagged us' claim family of de Menezes

THE family of Jean Charles de Menezes claimed last night that Scotland Yard had tried to bully and gag them and that the police gave a misleading account to a pathologist about how the 27-year-old died.

Lawyers said that if these accusations were proved, more officers could face possible charges along with the police marksmen. Alex Alvez Pereira, a cousin of Mr de Menezes, demanded that the marksmen should face murder charges, along with those who gave the order to shoot.

A list of allegations made by the family amounts to what their lawyers claim was a deliberate “blanket of secrecy and a cover-up” by Scotland Yard.

The parents of Mr de Menezes have called for the police officers who were involved in the death of their son to be punished. “These police officers killed him and they have to be punished,” a sobbing Senhora Maria Otoni de Menezes s

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1739956,00.html

[LisaL]

183. IMO, they should face murder charges.

They made a mistake? Well, I believe people should pay for their mistakes, especially if those mistakes involve murder.

[daleo]

185. I agree, a trial could clear the air.

If the shooter made some kind of dreadful mistake, then let's see him explain it on the stand. And let's seem him stick to the story under cross examination, and when all the forensic evidence is made public and he is being grilled by a (presumably) hostile crown prosecutor.

It would be grossly negligent homicide (i.e. manslaughter), at least, which should result in substantial jail time. If he was acting under orders, it would probably come out then, as he may not want to take the fall. If he says he wasn't acting under shoot to kill orders, and sticks to his story throughout a trial, then that will be good enough for most people. Me included.

[Matilda]

199. Agreed.

Suspending them or even demoting them just isn't good enough.
Something has to be done to give the public some confidence that
they're not all likely targets.

Bad enough that we all have to think about terrorists these days,
without the additional worry of cops going berserk.

[beam me up scottie]

200. Fatal mistakes that cost de Menezes his life

Fatal mistakes that cost de Menezes his life
Duncan Campbell and Mark Honigsbaum
Thursday August 18, 2005
The Guardian

At 6.04am on July 22, a surveillance team consisting of undercover police officers and at least one soldier on secondment to the Met arrived to stake out 21 Scotia Road, the entrance to an apartment block in Stockwell, south London. The team had been led to the address by the discovery of a membership card for a south London gym at the scene of the botched attack at Shepherd's Bush underground station the previous day.

The card belonged to Hussein Osman, whose extradition from Italy to Britain in connection with the attempted attack was approved in Rome yesterday. The police had also discovered that a car connected to a "suspected terrorist training camp in Cambria (Wales)" was registered at the same address. For these reasons, the police thought Osman might have been in the flat with another suspect.

One member of the team, using the call sign Tango Ten, began watching the flat at 6.30am. A soldier who had been with the Met for a year, he was equipped with a mini-DV camera which was not permanently recording in order to conserve its batteries. His job was to film people entering and leaving and then compare them against photographs of the suspects.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1551401,00.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

201. The witnesses statements sharply contradict the police statements

The witnesses have de Menezes running from cops. The police statements have him running to catch the train, then sitting calmly on the train for a few moments before the cops attack him. Strange stuff, this.

[Kagemusha]

202. Why would it be strange?

Witnesses look behind the guy and see cops. Guy isn't looking behind himself and doesn't see cops, who make no effort to ID themselves.

It's all about the point of view.

[Trevelyan]

203. A Smirking Chimpster said she was listening to the BBC the night of the

London bombing half asleep and they kept talking about electrical surges then a power outage. Prison Planet.com has an interesting article about the bombs being set off by electrical charges and the fact that Menezes was an electrician.

:( :mad: :grr: :kick: :cry: :banghead:

[beam me up scottie]

214. Prison Planet?

Please tell me you're kidding.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

243. Prison Planet isn't all bad. They do have a webpage on "Operation...

...Mockingbird" which is quite extensive:

Operation Mockingbird
<http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_01_03_03_mockingbird.html>

IMHO, Wikipedia is the only site that has done a better job describing "Operation Mockingbird":

Operation Mockingbird
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird>

I learned a long time ago, despite intense criticism, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[beam me up scottie]

246. What do you think of that particular theory?

The one the other poster mentioned?

I realize there is truth to be found at pp and other CT websites.
What is questionable is how it's used.

[Nihil]

206. Good point

I couldn't see how the two reports could be reconciled but you've
probably explained it there.

[LisaL]

224. The reports do not reconcile.

What they published at first was that he was running, then fell, they caught him and shot him. I don't see how it can be true, as he was inside the train when he was shot.
I think the witness was lying, or mistaken, or whatever, because it doesn't match up.

[daleo]

240. I don't think that witness will swear to these claims on the stand

Else we probably wouldn't be seeing contrary evidence in the leaked documents. For one reason or another, the first witness reports (running, jumping turnstiles, bomb wires, etc.) don't seem like they will be verified in a legal venue, so they are probably best ignored at this point.

[LisaL]

247. People sure are freaks. Just like that guy with a greek airliner, that

made up text messaging stuff from his poor departed cousin that was "frozen solid". Some people will do anything for their 15 minutes of fame.

[LisaL]

223. He was in the train when he was shot.

Pictures clearly show a dead guy on the floor inside the train.
I don't know who those witnesses were that saw him running, but they had to be lying,as he was shot inside the train, not outside.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

242. From what I heard on the network news last night, he walked onto....

...the train, sat down, and then was attacked. This came from the official UK police inquiry.

[LisaL]

245. That witness must have been lying, then.

The one that described him running from the police, looking like the scared rabbit, then falling down and being shot. WTF people make things like this up?
Sure sounds like the guy never even realized the police was after him. Right until the time they shot him dead.

[beam me up scottie]

248. There were three eyewitnesses with contradictory accounts

quoted in that article.

One is curious.
Three is bizarre.

[salin]

204. Overheard in Indianapolis (per CBS reporting of this)

red area of the city: "*gasp*, that's awful"... "frightening,..."

Yup - frightening indeed. And starting to make some folks think... "How could this happen?" - and that line of thinking leads to other questioning.

Truley awful event. Glad that it got the initial hype - only in the sense that the tragedy is getting broad, broad airing NOW. Otherwise - noone would be paying attention. OR beginning to think.

Deep condolences to his family, I can not begin to imagine..

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

217. Met 'resisted' de Menezes inquiry (say IPCC)

Scotland Yard "initially resisted" the independent police watchdog leading the inquiry into the fatal shooting by police of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, it was confirmed today.

John Wadham, the deputy chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), said the dispute had "caused a delay" in the watchdog taking part but insisted it had "worked hard to recover the lost ground".

Senior police and Whitehall sources had confirmed as much to the Guardian yesterday but Mr Wadham's statement is the first official and on-the-record confirmation. He described the IPCC being in charge of the inquiry as "an important victory for our independence".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1551648,00.html

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

219. Interview with Sir Ian Blair

"I think to me there's a key in all this, in terms of how the Met responded to the events at Stockwell and the whole anti-terrorist operation, and that's to try and put them in context. The death of Mr de Menezes was, as I said to the police authority, a tragedy. We've apologised to the family and we await the investigation by the IPCC. That death is one among 57 and when I read the comment in the Evening Standard today saying the death of Mr de Menezes, and our response to it, will define my Commissionership and the next five years of the Met, I don't agree.

"I think what will define that in the eyes of the public, in the emails and everything we get, is certainly our response to the two bomb attacks and our ability to prevent and detect others. It seems to me a very short memory from the July 29 where the entire world was mesmerised by the way the Met was handling the arrests in West London.

"I don't diminish the significance of the death, but as I've said before, it has to be put in context, and secondly it has to be the fact that Mr de Menezes' death, although the Metropolitan Police Service takes responsibility for it, is intricately linked to the circumstances in which London found itself and those who were prepared to use suicide as a weapon on the tubes.

(...)

"That is not a cover up, and I don't really need to say anything more on that. But those allegations, I have to say, do strike at the integrity of this office and the integrity of the Metropolitan Police and I fundamentally reject them. And we then had a full and frank exchange of views in meetings and everything else as you would expect, and then the third point we looked very carefully at what has been said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1551929,00.html

[daleo]

221. Did the police shoot 56 other people?

"That death is one among 57..."

Yes I am being sarcastic. That death was very different from the 56 killed in the subway bombings. The idea that this man presented any sort of immediate danger (or a danger at all, as it turns out) has been debunked by the new evidence. Blair continues to sew confusion.

On edit - Interestingly, the article has Blair himself allude to Operation Kratos.

[Moderator]

255. Lock

This thread is no longer breaking news and the arguments are just going round and round.