The Ultimate Loss of Civil Liberties: Innocent Man Shot Dead in UK

[arildno]

I fully agree with you that the motivations are very different in the different circumstances Arildno, it is the subsequent coverup that I was drawing a parallel with.

Well, we are in accord when it comes to cover-ups as well.


I think that most cover-ups happen because superior officers of mediocre minds and timorous dispositions become frightened at the prospect that "his" men should be exposed as incompetent (and thereby, himself).
While primarily fearing the consequences to their own careers and standing, they rationalize this, and justify to themselves that it is better that the general public retains the "confidence" in the police, rather than that the public becomes aware of how many incompetents there are who shouldn't have gotten the badge in the first place..


I think the effect of these cover-ups are as you described..

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

This isn't really news. The only thing we haven't heard before is that the police officer did not properly identify the suspect because he was relieving himself at the time, but then those who weren't in pathetic denial at tht time knew the police were taking the pi55 anyway. And I imagine the fools who were defending the police then will continue to defend the police now, since no evidence at the time seemed to make a blind bit of difference to their naive faith.

The real pi55er, though, is the immense amount of time it has taken for this information to be given some institutional authority. The vast majority of the British public simply won't give a flying one anymore, and we are unlikely to witness any worthwhile unsettlement of the masses. As a result, this will have no impact on current policy, or even the collective memory of the country.

So I wouldn't feel too victorious, you conscientious few. The winners are still the ones who plug their fingers in their ears and recite the mantra of the blissful non-thinking: "I'm sure the people we put our faith in acted as well as they could under the circumstances and, though this is a tragedy, it is a necessary one in our fight against... whatever." The burden of proof gets no lighter when every reminder of the dire state of this country's government and institutions gets conveniently forgotten.

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaan, I'm depressed.

 

[arildno]

The real pi55er, though, is the immense amount of time it has taken for this information to be given some institutional authority. .

Or did it, really?
After all, it's a leak we're talking about, from an investigation in "progress"...
It has some ring of veracity, but of authority??

I don't think there are too many who were outraged at the execution of De Menezes who will get overly surprised that the case will be swept under the carpet..

One easy way of doing this, is
a)To pay the De Menezes family a handsome amount (not too much, though; after all, he was only an electrician on an expired visum), pointing out they can't ever get their relative back, however much they would like to.
And why should a poor BRAZILIAN family become puppet figures in a struggle for necessary BRITISH law reform?
Why, indeed should the family let themselves be used in such an internal British struggle?
Why shouldn't they rather desire peace in which they can come to terms with their grief, and let the cash so generously provided by the British government bring some small comfort to them and their children?
b) Secure the De Menezes' family consent that they won't press charges, and go out publicly in the media, saying they first and foremost desire peace&quiet for themselves..



EDIT:
Come to think about it:
I'm not sure if it is necessary to pay off the De Menezes' family anything after all.
They're poor. They won't have any impact either way.

 

[Daminc]

Looks like vindication for those of us who questioned the 'official' version of events at the time.

However there are now several serious issues here;
First the training and screening of armed police which led to the brutal murder of an innocent man then the question of who authorised the shooting and who created and circulated the original fictitious account of the events surrounding it. Next the role of Sir Ian Blair and his attempts to influence the inquiry and finally who leaked the report and why?

There are several points that need to be made:
Firstly, several people here correctly guessed that things weren't what they seemed however I wouldn't say that they have been 'vindicated' because they didn't have all the facts available to them at the time and they were wrong to throw words out like 'murder' without any proof.

Indeed, you yourself are still throwing out "brutal murder of an innocent man" without proof. It may turn out that you are correct but in the meantime you should curb yourself somewhat.

Leaked reports is something my friend and I spoke about a short while ago. It seems that reports, memos, emails etc get 'leaked' all to frequently and we wondered why the government wasn't doing something about this breach of security.

So cut the CRAP about us 'foreigners'.

CRAP?

but then those who weren't in pathetic denial at tht time knew the police were taking the pi55 anyway. And I imagine the fools who were defending the police then will continue to defend the police now, since no evidence at the time seemed to make a blind bit of difference to their naive faith

You mean those of us who were actually waiting for proof? You throw insults about to easily my friend.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Or did it, really?
After all, it's a leak we're talking about, from an investigation in "progress"...
It has some ring of veracity, but of authority??

Insofar as "[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" [www.guardian.co.uk][/URL].

 

[arildno]

Just a minor correction, Daminc:
It wasn't a "guess"; it was the glaring inconsistencies and improbabilities in the police report that showed that it couldn't possibly be telling the truth.

That's quite different from a guess, IMO.

And where could that bomb be hidden in the light denim jacket?
This was murder.

 

[Daminc]

That's your 'opinion' arildno and you're entitled to it.

I hope you're wrong however.

 

[arildno]

Damn! They've changed the text!

Suddenly, there is not a single word from the member of the surveillance team who helped out killing De Menezes, neither is the testimony of the man sitting opposite De Menezes any longer part of the story.

 

[arildno]

That's your 'opinion' arildno and you're entitled to it.

I hope you're wrong however.

I sincerely hope I can get back to this thread and say "Fortunately, in the midst of this awful tragedy, at least we cannot regard this as a murder. I was wrong in stating that"

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

You mean those of us who were actually waiting for proof? You throw insults about to easily my friend.

No, I mean those fools in pathetic denial. Like I said, we've learned nothing particularly new here. The 'proof' you wait for will not come, since the criteria you use to decide what is proven is absurd. The shooter will NOT come forward and say 'Yeah, I didn't really have a reason to shoot him but, man, did I feel good when I did it.' The home office will NOT admit that their shoot-to-kill policy is in any way flawed. So you can safely take the position that, until proven otherwise, the people you pay to protect you and yours are doing a damn fine job and should be given a medal for blowing Menezes' brains out.

Meanwhile the rest of us put the event in context of a police force we already knew was not worth investing a gram of faith in, and assessed that, even without all of the evidence that was not immediately forthcoming, this was not a scenario that could be explained away by mitigating circumstances. The desperate rationalisations, 'well, maybe's and 'what if's never really did much to suggest that the burden of proof was on us to begin with. The point is that, just as many people immediately gathered that this was an indefensible attrocity and made their views known, there were as many defending the actions of the police with no more information, but a heck of a greater leap of faith. You weren't waiting for proof either way, but putting your bias towards the poor excuse for a police force our country has then demanding (and then denying) any evidence that something was fundementally wrong. So don't play the impartial observer card with me. There was never any credible defense of the police's actions to begin with since there was no reasonable suggestion that this man was about to commit any crime, and we learned very early on that the police had misinformed the British public about the details of the build up to the MURDER (dictionary definition: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defence or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law). The desperate attempts to, by default, exonerate the guilty parties in this case were nothing short of foolish, pathetic denial, and anyone feeling insulted by that does not have my sympathies or apologies. It sickened me at the time, it still makes me retch now.

 

[Daminc]

That's a very pretty diatribe. What would you suggest then? Get rid of the police? I mean if they are a bunch of murderers that don't deserve any faith then the alternative is to get rid of them, right?

What should we put in place?

Military? We could set up the whole of Britain similar to what we had in Northern Ireland.

Priests? We could have loads of clergy praying for peace and waiting for their god to stop crime.

Any other suggestions?

 

[The Smoking Man]

That's a very pretty diatribe. What would you suggest then? Get rid of the police? I mean if they are a bunch of murderers that don't deserve any faith then the alternative is to get rid of them, right?

What should we put in place?

Military? We could set up the whole of Britain similar to what we had in Northern Ireland.

Priests? We could have loads of clergy praying for peace and waiting for their god to stop crime.

Any other suggestions?

Prosecute bad apples maybe?

We certainly don't encourage this by giving forgivness or accepting lies at face value..

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

That's a very pretty diatribe. What would you suggest then? Get rid of the police? I mean if they are a bunch of murderers that don't deserve any faith then the alternative is to get rid of them, right?

What should we put in place?

Military? We could set up the whole of Britain similar to what we had in Northern Ireland.

Priests? We could have loads of clergy praying for peace and waiting for their god to stop crime.

Any other suggestions?

Yeah, I have other suggestions. Ones not quite so braindead too.
INTRODUCE A POLICY OF ACCOUNTABILITY!
INTRODUCE A POLICY OF VISIBILITY!

 

[Daminc]

Prosecute bad apples maybe?

Ideally, I'd agree. But could you ever get a fair trail? If they are found 'innocent' the dissenters who have already concluded they are 'guilty' will be very upset and shout 'cover-up'. If they are found guilty the faith in the police drops sharply and the police themselves will second guess everything they do which will make them less effective.

Of course, when the time comes when they are faced with a 'real' terriorist they might hesitate in stopping him/her "just in case they are mistaken" and BOOOM, too late. THEN they'll get sh!t dropped on them for not acting faster (probably by the same people who are giving them sh!t now)

 

[Daminc]

Yeah, I have other suggestions. Ones not quite so braindead too.

I'm sorry, I was trying to talk at your level. Should I type a little clearer perhaps?

 

[arildno]

Ideally, I'd agree. But could you ever get a fair trail? If they are found 'innocent' the dissenters who have already concluded they are 'guilty' will be very upset and shout 'cover-up'.

As for cover-ups, we've already seen evidence of that already, or no?

If they are found guilty the faith in the police drops sharply and the police themselves will second guess everything they do which will make them less effective.

Nope.
It will show that there is a willingness to prosecute bad apples, and acknowledging the simple, unavoidable fact that there exist bad apples in EVERY profession, including the police.
That is, we will get some realism introduced into the area of law management and that is an UNCONDITIONALLY GOOD THING.

It will STRENGTHEN our faith in the police, not weaken it.

 

[Daminc]

It will show that there is a willingness to prosecute bad apples, and acknowledging the simple, unavoidable fact that there exist bad apples in EVERY profession, including the police.
That is, we will get some realism introduced into the area of law management and that is an UNCONDITIONALLY GOOD THING.

It will STRENGTHEN our faith in the police, not weaken it.

That would be more certain IF there wasn't evidence of a cover-up. Now, however, there's going to be a sh1t-storm whichever way it plays out.

 

[Art]

That's a very pretty diatribe. What would you suggest then? Get rid of the police? I mean if they are a bunch of murderers that don't deserve any faith then the alternative is to get rid of them, right?

That's a very silly proposal. Nobody is suggesting getting rid of the police (well except you perhaps?). What people are advocating is prosecuting the police when they break the law the same as anybody else. Per my earlier mail there have been 1000 deaths of people in police custody since 1969 with precisely 0 police convicted of any crime. Something is obviously very wrong with the system of accountability and it is this which needs to be addressed and reformed.

The small number of bad apples in the police force need to be identified, exposed, prosecuted and thrown out to avoid sullying the reputations of the vast majority of police officers who are honest, hardworking people.

 

[arildno]

That would be more certain IF there wasn't evidence of a cover-up. Now, however, there's going to be a sh1t-storm whichever way it plays out.

But who's to blame for the blatant lies of De Menezes running from the police and forcing his way into the tube station??

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I'm sorry, I was trying to talk at your level. Should I type a little clearer perhaps?

Heh heh heh. Where's your stance on 'throwing around insults' now?

No, no need to type clearer. I entirely understood your post. Entirely lacking in any argument against my 'pretty diatribe' you instead utilised the old tried and tested technique of fabricating my opinions for me and, seeing as you were doing so, making them as extremist and absurd as possible. I say go for it. There aren't many people here that would read such balls and attribute it to anything other than your own lack of confidence in your own position.

Your point about how a situation may arise in which, due to the fall-out of this incident, a police officer may one day hesitate and thus allow a real terrorist to detonate his or her bomb is rather bogus. Police do not (or should not) identify a potential terrorist by a good (or bad) guess, but with the support of intelligence. There is never going to be an instance of a cop being in the right place at the right time and serendipitously taking down a terrorist. Any operation will (should) be intelligence driven. This was not the case. Menezes was not a prior suspect, nor was he carrying anything that may have concealed a bomb, nor did he behave in a suspicious or incriminating way. There was nothing to suggest he was intending to commit any form of crime (not even fare-dodging). Such incompetancy is much more likely to be the cause of terrorists getting away with it than any concern of a well-informed police officer that he or she might be the subject of another investigation.

I repeat: preventing further terrorist attacks in our country has to be intelligence-driven. The repercussions of this one case should have no bearing on the policy of the operatives where their suspicions are well-founded. However, as I've stated before, if the intelligence DOES exist, it is difficult to conceive of a situation in which the shoot-to-kill policy would have to be adopted, since the suspect should not have been allowed to position himself in such crowded public places in the first place. In fact, this point is the only thing I have against the shoot-to-kill policy. I'm not against it par se (although clearly I'm against it being used INSTEAD of intelligence, evidence, common sense, etc. as it was in this case), but at the same time I have yet to be convinced that any situation where shoot-to-kill is necessary cannot be avoided beforehand. It goes without saying that if such a hypothetical situation does exist, then I support the policy, but whatever that situation is, it is the ONLY circumstance under which it should be used.

Any argument that, since shoot-to-kill may prevent a terrorist attack, the police should be at liberty to fire seven bullets into an innocent man's brain with no reason or intelligence is pure 'I'm alright Jack' callousness.

 

[Daminc]

That's a very silly proposal.

Of course it was a silly proposal. I thought it was obvious that I was being sarcastic. It seems I wasn't.

1000 deaths of people in police custody since 1969

Prisons are bad places to be in. Suicides, murders, illness and old-age are the primary reasons for death in prison.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

But who's to blame for the blatant lies of De Menezes running from the police and forcing his way into the tube station??

Well, without the afore-mentioned accountability and visibility, we will probably never know in detail. However, the home office have already come under attack for releasing 'misleading' and 'incomplete' information and, regardless of who made it up, the police stated fabrications as fact and did not wait for the results of an investigation. Both parties were too quick to defend the action with what amount to a load of bull, and the reasons for this are clear - it is the INITIAL news reports that form the public position. It is never to soon to forge an impression on the people, even if the information is doubtful. So I'd say the police and the home office in general are to blame. It's certainly reasonable: the police protect their own and this government is addicted to misinformation and spin. You never hear them 'accidentally' misinform the public in a way that incriminates themselves, do you.

 

[Art]

Of course it was a silly proposal. I thought it was obvious that I was being sarcastic. It seems I wasn't.

I thought you were being sarcastic with some of your earlier comments in this thread and discovered you weren't and so this time I assumed you meant it.

Prisons are bad places to be in. Suicides, murders, illness and old-age are the primary reasons for death in prison.

These weren't in prisons. These were in police custody and it is unlikely anybody contracts a fatal illness or dies of old age within hours of being arrested.
This leaves suicide and murder. Suicide in police custody is difficult as when the arresting police aren't actually sitting questioning you, the prisoner is held alone in holding cells with even their shoelaces removed so other than 'willing' oneself to death it is difficult to see how suicide is accomplished.
This leaves murder, which is my point. Of the 1000 people who died in police custody since 1969 there has not been a single police officer convicted of a crime in relation to these deaths.

Here's a typical example;

Last year the Crown Prosecution Service reaffirmed its decision not to prosecute police officers over the death of Shiji Lapite, a Nigerian asylum seeker.

Mr Lapite, 34, died after a struggle with police in Stoke Newington in December 1994, and was found by an inquest to have been unlawfully killed.

However, after re-examining evidence, the CPS upheld its original decision that no action would be brought.

A spokesman said at the time: "In the absence of evidence to show that the actions of the police officers either singly or in concert were a substantial cause of Mr Lapite's death, there is not a realistic prospect of conviction."

At the inquest one police officer admitted kicking Mr Lapite in the head. He was found to have up to 45 injuries, and died from asphyxiation after being held in a neck-hold.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/417079.stm

 

[Daminc]

Heh heh heh. Where's your stance on 'throwing around insults' now?

No, no need to type clearer. I entirely understood your post. Entirely lacking in any argument against my 'pretty diatribe' you instead utilised the old tried and tested technique of fabricating my opinions for me and, seeing as you were doing so, making them as extremist and absurd as possible. I say go for it. There aren't many people here that would read such balls and attribute it to anything other than your own lack of confidence in your own position.

El Hombre Invisible I'll have a go at understanding where you're coming from.

Heh heh heh. Where's your stance on 'throwing around insults' now?

Ref: "I'm sorry, I was trying to talk at your level. Should I type a little clearer perhaps?"

Did you think I was insulting? You do speak very emotively with little to substantiate your 'statements of fact'.

Lets start with:

The 'proof' you wait for will not come, since the criteria you use to decide what is proven is absurd. The shooter will NOT come forward and say 'Yeah, I didn't really have a reason to shoot him but, man, did I feel good when I did it.' The home office will NOT admit that their shoot-to-kill policy is in any way flawed. So you can safely take the position that, until proven otherwise, the people you pay to protect you and yours are doing a damn fine job and should be given a medal for blowing Menezes' brains out.

You don't know what my criteria for proof is. You've never asked me. The comment you made about the shooter coming forward with those comments was a waste of typing.

Meanwhile the rest of us put the event in context of a police force we already knew was not worth investing a gram of faith in, and assessed that, even without all of the evidence that was not immediately forthcoming, this was not a scenario that could be explained away by mitigating circumstances

This comment about including everyone having no faith in the police brought me to ask you for an alternative arrangement.

. You weren't waiting for proof either way, but putting your bias towards the poor excuse for a police force our country has then demanding (and then denying) any evidence that something was fundementally wrong.

Wrong again, I was waiting for proof/evidence before I came to any conclusions. I consider this a rational way of thinking.

So don't play the impartial observer card with me.

I am impartial. It makes no difference to me one way or another how this turns out. I've long since come to the conclusion that justice is simply a fairy tale and when it actually occurs it's usually by accident.

Entirely lacking in any argument against my 'pretty diatribe' you instead utilised the old tried and tested technique of fabricating my opinions for me and, seeing as you were doing so, making them as extremist and absurd as possible.

Really?

Police do not (or should not) identify a potential terrorist by a good (or bad) guess, but with the support of intelligence.

Of course they would have to have faith that the intel was relable yes? And if they were given intel that a person was carrying a bomb they would just shoot him/her, yes? Or perhaps, just perhaps, they may doubt the intel and try to confirm it first.

That'll do for now :)

 

[Daminc]

This leaves suicide and murder.

And man-slaughter.

 

[Art]

And man-slaughter.

This wasn't one of the 4 primary reasons you listed that I responded to but regardless manslaughter is also a crime. The point is do you now agree that there are serious issues around police accountability that needs to be addressed?

 

[Astronuc]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/london_bombings

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. Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27-year-old electrician, was shot eight times last month in front of terrified commuters on a subway train, after undercover police tailed him from a house under surveillance.

Leaks raise sharp questions about police tactics

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.

Very troubling.

 

[Daminc]

I orginally commented thinking those 1000 was related to :

Since 1990, figures compiled by the campaign group Inquest show, there have been 551 deaths in police custody and 992 deaths in prison custody. Although the numbers dying in police care are falling (from a high of 65 in 1998, to 41 in 1999 and 27 in 2000), the trend of numbers of deaths in prison is upward: with 117 deaths in 1997, 134 in 1998, 146 in 1999, and 142 in 2000.

But then you made it clear with "These weren't in prisons."
and "This leaves suicide and murder."
That's why I introduced 'man-slaughter'.

The point is do you now agree that there are serious issues around police accountability that needs to be addressed?

Yes I do, but I'm not sure how public it should be.

 

[Art]

I orginally commented thinking those 1000 was related to :

But then you made it clear with "These weren't in prisons."
and "This leaves suicide and murder."
That's why I introduced 'man-slaughter'.

Here is the quote I posted earlier to which I was referring

TIME OUT

Injustice (Ken Fero & Tariq Mehmood, 2001, UK) With the relatives of Shiji Lapite, Brian Douglas, Ibrahima Sey and Joy Gardner. 100 mins. Documentary.

It's not about Apartheid-era South Africa, and neither is it about the Aboriginal victims of the Western Australian authorities. No, this is about down home, English-style oppression, and it features some of the worst cases of violent death in police custody of modern times. Since David Oluwale became the first black person to die in just this way in the UK in 1969, 1000 others have followed him to a similar end. No police officer has been convicted in relation to any of these cases.

Yes I do, but I'm not sure how public it should be.

In order to restore public confidence in the police force I think it needs to be very public. What are your reservations? If it's because you think it will undermine public confidence I think you will find the police force's credibility is already extremely low with the vast majority of people. Admitting to past wrongdoings and detailing how repetitions will be avoided in the future will go a long way to restoring the public's faith.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Any other suggestions?

Yeah, I have other suggestions. Ones not quite so braindead too.

I'm sorry, I was trying to talk at your level.

Did you think I was insulting? You do speak very emotively with little to substantiate your 'statements of fact'.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb. Which 'statements of fact' do you find unsubstantiated?

You don't know what my criteria for proof is. You've never asked me.

No, and I don't care. Since overwhelming evidence does not constitute 'proof', and that's the best we can hope for, I can take a guess that whatever it is you'll not find it.

The comment you made about the shooter coming forward with those comments was a waste of typing.

Should I type clearer? I was offering it as an example of the proof you will not obtain. And, to put things in perspective, your inference that I would consider replacing police with military or the clergy would define "a waste of typing".

This comment about including everyone having no faith in the police brought me to ask you for an alternative arrangement.

Yes, and I offered one. What's your point?

Wrong again, I was waiting for proof/evidence before I came to any conclusions. I consider this a rational way of thinking.

But your objection was to my reference to the 'foolish' people in 'pathetic denial' who automatically sided with the police. They did not 'wait for proof', but autmoatically exonerated motiveless killers. If you are not among them, then the statement simply doesn't apply to you. Alright?

I am impartial. It makes no difference to me one way or another how this turns out. I've long since come to the conclusion that justice is simply a fairy tale and when it actually occurs it's usually by accident.

Agreed. (Wow!)

Really?

Yes. Really.

Of course they would have to have faith that the intel was relable yes? And if they were given intel that a person was carrying a bomb they would just shoot him/her, yes? Or perhaps, just perhaps, they may doubt the intel and try to confirm it first.

They should confirm it first, yes. If the information is 'there's someone with a bomb on the tube', they shouldn't shoot everyone just in case. But that would not be intelligence. If they know their suspect, and have good grounds, then I have no problem. This was not the case in Menezes killing and should not, as I said, have any repercussions on an actual legitimate operation.

That'll do for now :)

I wonder what you're so smug about.

 

[alexandra]

So I wouldn't feel too victorious, you conscientious few. The winners are still the ones who plug their fingers in their ears and recite the mantra of the blissful non-thinking: "I'm sure the people we put our faith in acted as well as they could under the circumstances and, though this is a tragedy, it is a necessary one in our fight against... whatever." The burden of proof gets no lighter when every reminder of the dire state of this country's government and institutions gets conveniently forgotten.

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaan, I'm depressed.

And worse yet, el hombre, it is not only the UK's government and institutions that are in a dire state - the rot is widespread, unfortunately. Globalised rot, perhaps?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Ideally, I'd agree. But could you ever get a fair trail? If they are found 'innocent' the dissenters who have already concluded they are 'guilty' will be very upset and shout 'cover-up'. If they are found guilty the faith in the police drops sharply and the police themselves will second guess everything they do which will make them less effective.

Of course, when the time comes when they are faced with a 'real' terriorist they might hesitate in stopping him/her "just in case they are mistaken" and BOOOM, too late. THEN they'll get sh!t dropped on them for not acting faster (probably by the same people who are giving them sh!t now)

Ummm ... no.

Instead of being an internal police matter, this will become a public trial and the information presented will be available to see... Transparency.

And what is this about a 'fair trial'? Is this just something that has started to crop up in the last 10 years or so?

 

[Andy]

Everything about this stinks, where did the new evidence come from? Why does it contradict eye witness statements so badly? And how could they shoot him 7 times in the back of his head if he was sat down facing the inside of the train? They wouldn't have been able to get a shot at the back of his head unless they shot through the glass. Eleven shots fired? That eyewitness that i watched on the ITV news on the night of the shooting must have been dyslexic to have thought it was five.

Nothing has ever smelt as bad as this before.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Everything about this stinks, where did the new evidence come from? Why does it contradict eye witness statements so badly? And how could they shoot him 7 times in the back of his head if he was sat down facing the inside of the train? They wouldn't have been able to get a shot at the back of his head unless they shot through the glass. Eleven shots fired? That eyewitness that i watched on the ITV news on the night of the shooting must have been dyslexic to have thought it was five.

Nothing has ever smelt as bad as this before.

Well, the picture of the body wearing a denim jacket attached to the article certainly proves that some of THAT testamony was fabricated.

A count of the bullets left in the gun and expended shell casings would explain the number of bullets. (Panic and an unfamiliarity with fire arms explains the witness)

The testamony of how one of the police grabbing his arms and falling into the seat and then sliding to the floor does not mean they landed in it in a seated position.

The CCTV of him entering the station and picking up a newspaper is another.

Remember that the 'eyewitness' testimonies were gathered from several individuals in different locations and nobody accompanied him through all of this except for the police.

The police were the ones who stated that they identified themselves at the entrance. The witnesses actually stated that they said nothing but put on their police baseball hats.

The police stated that he jumped the gates when he had a pass!

What is happening is that they are reviewing the CCTV record of what happened and debunking the police story.

If you have ever been in the underground, you KNOW every inch is covered by CCTV.

 

[Art]

The Guardian leads with an article showing the Met chief Sir Ian Blair actively tried to coverup the actions of his officers and the subsequent lies by trying to suppress an independent inquiry supposedly on the grounds of national security. When this failed he still tried to block the investigators denying them access to the tube station for 3 days. It seems only after direct intervention from Whitehall was the investigation allowed to commence. IMO Sir Ian Blair's position is fast becoming untenable.

Met chief tried to stop shooting inquiry

Rosie Cowan, Vikram Dodd and Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday August 18, 2005
The Guardian

Britain's top police officer, the Scotland Yard commissioner Sir Ian Blair, attempted to stop an independent external investigation into the shooting of a young Brazilian mistaken for a suicide bomber, it emerged yesterday.
Sir Ian wrote to John Gieve, the permanent secretary at the Home Office, on July 22, the morning Jean Charles de Menezes was shot at short range on the London tube. The commissioner argued for an internal inquiry into the killing on the grounds that the ongoing anti-terrorist investigation took precedence over any independent look into his death.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1551340,00.html
BTW One piece I read suggested that the reason eyewitnesses claimed to see the victim hurdle the turnstyles whilst being chased was because what they actually saw was the a first plain clothes police officer pursuing the suspect being followed by his colleagues. This also explains the confusion over what the victim was wearing. Again the person they thought was being chased was actually a plain clothed police officer. (I'm surprised he wasn't shot for wearing a bulky jacket )