NEW INFO ON LONDON TUBE SLAUGHTER
gibla74
182 Posts
New claims emerge over Menezes death ?? Brazilian was held before being shot?? Police failed to identify him?? He made no attempt to run away Rosie Cowan, Duncan Campbell and Vikram DoddWednesday August 17, 2005The Guardian The young Brazilian shot dead by police on a London tube train in mistake for a suicide bomber had already been overpowered by a surveillance officer before he was killed, according to secret documents revealed last night.It also emerged in the leaked documents that early allegations that he was running away from police at the time of the shooting were untrue and that he appeared unaware that he was being followed.Relatives and the dead man's legal team expressed shock and outrage at the revelations. Scotland Yard has continued to justify a shoot-to-kill policy.Jean Charles de Menezes died after being shot on a tube train at Stockwell station in south London on July 22, the morning after the failed bomb attacks in London.But the evidence given to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) by police officers and eyewitnesses and leaked to ITV News shows that far from leaping a ticket barrier and fleeing from police, as was initially reported, he was filmed on CCTV calmly entering the station and picking up a free newspaper before boarding the train.It has now emerged that Mr de Menezes:?? was never properly identified because a police officer was relieving himself at the very moment he was leaving his home;?? was unaware he was being followed;?? was not wearing a heavy padded jacket or belt as reports at the time suggested;?? never ran from the police;?? and did not jump the ticket barrier.But the revelation that will prove most uncomfortable for Scotland Yard was that the 27-year-old electrician had already been restrained by a surveillance officer before being shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.The documents reveal that a member of the surveillance team, who sat nearby, grabbed Mr de Menezes before he was shot: "I heard shouting which included the word 'police' and turned to face the male in the denim jacket."He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the CO19 [firearms squad] 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 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."The leaked documents and pictures showed the failures in the police operation from the time Mr de Menezes left home.A surveillance officer admitted in a witness statement that he was unable to positively identify Mr de Menezes as a suspect because the officer had been relieving himself when the Brazilian left the block of flats where he lived.The police were on a high state of alert because of the July 7 and July 21 bombings, and had been briefed that they may be called upon to carry out new tactics - shooting dead suspected suicide bombers in order to avoid another atrocity.The IPCC investigation report states that the firearms unit had been told that "unusual tactics" might 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".But it now appears, that contrary to earlier claims, Mr de Menezes was oblivious to the stakeout operation. On the morning of July 22, police officers were in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill, watching a property they believed contained one or more of the would-be bombers who had tried to detonate four bombs on London transport less than 24 hours before.One firearms officer is quoted as saying: "The current strategy around the address was as follows: no subject coming out of the address would be allowed to run and that an interception should take place as soon as possible away from the address trying not to compromise it."But the report shows that there was a failure in the surveillance operation and officers wrongly believed Mr de Menezes could have been one of two suspects.The leaked papers state: "De Menezes was observed walking to a bus stop and then boarded a bus, travelling to Stockwell tube station."During the course of this, his description and demeanour was assessed and it was believed he matched the identity of one of the suspected wanted for terrorist offences ... the information was passed through the operations centre and gold command made the decision and gave appropriate instructions that de Menezes was to be prevented from entering the tube system. At this stage the operation moved to code red tactic, responsibility was handed over to CO19."CCTV footage shows Mr de Menezes was not wearing a padded jacket, as originally claimed, and that he walked calmly through the barriers at Stockwell station, collecting a free newspaper before going down the escalator. Only then did he run to catch the train.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."A senior police source last night told the Guardian that the leaked documents and statements gave an accurate picture of what was known so far about the shooting. But the IPCC refused to confirm the documents were genuine adding: "Our priority is to disclose any findings direct to the family, who will clearly be distressed that they have received information on television concerning his death."The home secretary, Charles Clarke, said: "It is critically important for the integrity of the independent police investigating process that no pressure is put upon the IPCC before their full report is published and that no comment is made until that time."Harriet Wistrich, lawyer for the family, said: "There is incompetence on the part of those watching the suspect and a serious breakdown of communication."Asad Rehman, spokesman for the family's campaign, called for a public inquiry. "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."
Comments
I think Tony should apologize.
I agree. Even in this current climate it's beyond shocking that something like this could happen.
If this shit turns out to be true, I think a lot of Strutters who were all up on some, "dude was an idiot and deserved it" will shortly be eating much crow.
number 1, number 2 or the no pants dance?
Why? I don't think anyone was saying that with the understanding/assumption that the facts were any different than how they had been reported. Obviously, this is terrible and I don't think anyone would say "dude was an idiot and deserved it" if it had been reported with the "revised" information above.
Im outraged over the whole situation. The worst part is that people seem to think it was justified. Fuck the polic who did it, The Government that continues to defend it, and fuck any moronic motherfucker out there who agrees.
Given the "facts" available at the time it seemed the guy had provoked a lot of suspicion at a time when London was seriously unnerved. Of course, if people had known that the police had made up the whole cover story, including fabricating eye witness reports, that would have made a difference. The story put out made it seem as if the police had no choice. No-one said the guy deserved it.
The real question is how did they know the guy was from the building they were supervising if no one was there to see him leave said building? If they had recognized him from previous survelliance they should have known he wasn't the one already.
Maybe the cop monitorin' the buildin' went to take a piss or crap and then when he returned, couldn't confirm whether or not de Menezes was actually a suspect...
Based on what I've heard on the BBC, personnel internal to Scotland Yard are pretty much concedin' that it was a complete f*ckup from surveillance on down despite the official/public euphemistic usage of the term tragedy...
What's also troublin' is that de Menezes ran to catch the train after disembarkin' from the escalator - now how many of you out there have done the same takin' BART, le metro, MARTA, NYC subway, etc.? That doesn't strike me as suspicious behavior either...
If this shit turns out to be true, I think a lot of Strutters who were all up on some, "dude was an idiot and deserved it" will shortly be eating much crow.
how many and WHO??
I, for one.
I was pretty hard on O for attacking the London Police. I pointed out that Portland Police do worse on the regular, and I was in no position to critisize the London Police who were dealing with suicide bombers.
Portland Police traffic stops in the last 2 years have lead to 2 deaths of unarmed motorists, and in one case a cooperative motorist.
Judging from the above article, the London Police F Up extended down a long line and is unexcussable.
Dan
exactly. I was definitely one of the people saying that the cops were just doing their job. But that was based on the VERY first reports, that dude had explosives on him. Based on how the facts have come to light I definitely see things differently. But you as a writer should know that all we know is what we're told and obviously we react to that.
Police knew Brazilian was 'not bomb risk'[/b]
Met chief was told of 'difficulty' over fatal shooting ?? Police offer to pay de Menezes family ??15,000
Tony Thompson, Martin Bright , Gaby Hinsliff and Tom Phillips in Gonzaga, Brazil
Sunday August 21, 2005
The Observer
Police officers from the team involved in the fatal shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes did not believe he posed 'an immediate threat'.
Senior sources in the Metropolitan Police have told The Observer that members of the surveillance team who followed de Menezes into Stockwell underground station in London felt that he was not about to detonate a bomb, was not armed and was not acting suspiciously. It was only when they were joined by armed officers that his threat was deemed so great that he was shot seven times.[/b]
Sources said that the surveillance officers wanted to detain de Menezes, but were told to hand over the operation to the firearms team.
The two teams have fallen out over the circumstances surrounding the incident, raising fresh questions about how the operation was handled.
A police source said: 'There is no way those three guys would have been on the train carriage with him [de Menezes] if they believed he was carrying a bomb. Nothing he did gave the surveillance team the impression that he was carrying a device.'[/b]
Last night, Metropolitan Police chief Sir Ian Blair admitted he was told that shooting created 'a difficulty'.[/b]
In an interview with the News of the World, Blair said that an officer came to him the day after the shooting and said the equivalent of 'Houston, we have a problem'.[/b]
'He didn't use those words but he said "We have some difficulty here, there is a lack of connection". 'I thought "That's dreadful, what are we going to do about that?".'
The Observer can also reveal that the de Menezes family was offered ??15,000 after the shooting. The ex gratia payment, which does not affect legal action by the family or compensation, is a fraction of the $1 million (??560,000) reported to have been offered the family. Police yesterday denied they had made the offer, which the family has described as 'offensive'.
Members of the firearms unit are said to be furious that de Menezes was not properly identified when he left his flat, the first problem in the chain of events that led to the Brazilian's death.
Specialist officers with the firearms team active that day had received training in how to deal with suicide bombers. A key element was advice that a potential bomber will detonate at the first inkling he has been identified. They are trained to react at the first sign of any action.
The Observer now understands that seconds before the firearms team entered the tube train carriage, a member of the surveillance squad using the codename Hotel 3 moved to the doorway and shouted: 'He's in here.' De Menezes, in all likelihood alarmed by the activity, stood and moved towards the doorway. He was grabbed and pushed back to his seat. The first shots were then fired while Hotel 3 was holding him.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is to investigate if the firearms officers, with only seconds to decide whether to shoot, mistakenly interpreted de Menezes's movement as an aggressive act.
For the firearms officers involved in the death to avoid any legal action, they will have to state that they believed their lives and those of the passengers were in immediate danger. Such a view is unlikely to be supported by members of the surveillance unit.
For reasons as yet unclear, members of the firearms team have yet to submit their own account of the events to the IPCC. The two members of the team believed to have fired the fatal shots are known to have gone on holiday immediately after the shooting.[/b]
In one case, the holiday had been pre-booked, in the other the leave was authorised by Blair, who yesterday received the backing of the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke: 'I am very happy with the conduct, not only of Sir Ian Blair, but the whole Metropolitan Police in relation to this inquiry.'
Meanwhile, questions have been raised about the accuracy of the police intelligence that led to the raid on the block of flats occupied by de Menezes. It was initially suggested that the flat was connected to the man known as Hussein Osman, who was arrested in Italy. On the Saturday after the shooting, officers raided the flat in a high-profile operation watched by the world's media. As a result, a man, identified only as 'C', was arrested 'on suspicion of the commission, instigation or preparation of acts of terrorism'. But he was released on 30 July with no charge, raising the possibility that the flats had no connection with the bombings.
The IPCC is also expected to look into selective briefings to the media over the days following the shootings.
The parents of de Menezes said they have rejected all financial offers made by the police. 'I feel hurt and offended,' Jean's mother, Maria Otoni de Menezes, told The Observer this weekend. 'I didn't think it was right to talk about money so soon after my son's death.'
One document seen by The Observer and handed to the family on 1 August by the Met's assistant deputy commissioner, John Yates, sets out a final settlement, on top of an agreement to pay repatriation and legal fees. 'The MPS offers ??15,000 by way of compensation to you for the death of Jean Charles,' says the document, dated 27 July. 'This ... extra gratia paymen ... means it is paid without any consideration of legal liability or responsibility.'
15,000 pounds, that's like, what, around $110,000? Hell no. That shit is insulting.
UK pounds 15,000 = US $ 27,000
I'm wonderin' why the 2 cops in question weren't placed on official leave and kept in the city for further verification/questionin' (as much as possible) instead of lettin' 'em traipse off away on holiday...
That is beyond fucking insulting. Why don't they just give them gift certificates to McDonald's.
That shit isn't shocking tho (money, "vacations", cover-up), that's American standard over here.
Co-sign.
Even IF dude WAS acting like an idiot (which it seems abundantly clear now that he was not), it still doesn't mean the police were justified in shooting him. It doesn't surprise me that in times when people are on-edge and/or fearful, that situations like this occur. Reminds me of Malcolm X and his 'chickens is coming home to roost' rant.
Join me for some crow. I agreed with you back then. O looked at the same news we looked at and said
i went in too based on the reports and being in london on the tube at the time, it wasn't a pleasant time. and they had 'witnesses' being interviewed live (that backed up the official reports) before the official reports had been made, who were those people?? turns out to be lies, sir ian b-liar must go, and if tony b-liar keeps backing him up he has to go too. if the original reported situation had occurred the actions would have been 'justified' although i hesitate to use that word for a killing i can't think of a better one right now. it was a very hot day, the description sounded like the guy was going along with the pattern of the bombers do far... although as i say, we have all been conned.
this creates a doubly bad situation, by continuing defending the lies, the b-liars are putting the public and the police at greater risk (love or hate em they are needed but they must be within the law not this kind of revolting activity), and there can be no justice for the family of the murdered man.and ??15K is a gross insult beyond words.
if all this means i eat crow so be it -P
In retrospect, it's interesting reading this and this to see the assumptions that some folks made.
There is such a thing as healthy scepticism.
Its not a payment made to prevent the family suing the Met.
The 15K pounds actually isn't to cover travel expenses, which I'm of the impression also is bein' absorbed by the authorities; it's offered by the London Metropolitan Police Force as compensation for the killin', but you are correct that it doesn't obviate any pendin' lawsuits for a larger settlement...