Subject: De Menezes Shooting: All the facts point to a cover up - msg#00636

List: culture.discuss.cia-drugs

Date: Prev Next Index Thread: Prev Next Index

De Menezes Shooting: All the facts point to a cover up

Steve Watson/Infowars | August 27 2005

The London Metropolitan Police force is desperately scrambling around trying to cover up the botch job assassination they perpetrated on Jean Charles De Menezes on the London Underground almost five weeks ago. More and more facts are being leaked every day, faster than the Police force can cover them up.

The latest leak came yesterday in the London Guardian. It has emerged that an eyewitness statement made to the investigators, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, immediately after the shooting states that armed police officers fired eleven shots at Jean Charles de Menezes, evenly spaced for over 30 seconds. At the time only the eyewitness reports that were made public stated five or six shots were fired, this then changed up to eight a few days later, now it's eleven.

The account from Sue Thomason, a freelance journalist from south London, gives new detail of the shooting and of the terror witnesses endured. "I recall hearing gunshots... The shooting was coming from the carriage to the left of me. When I heard the gunshots I thought it was terrorists firing into the crowd. I thought about getting behind a seat... After the initial first shots... I left the carriage."

She also says the key detail she gave of the number of shots and the interval between them was missed from her final statement until she insisted it be included. This indicates that the cover up has extended into the IPCC investigation itself.

This is further evidenced by the fact that the IPCC director John Wadham last week spoke of the Metropolitan police's "resistance" to the IPCC running the inquiry. Furthermore it has been announced today also that an inquiry into the leak of IPCC findings about the death of the Brazilian has been demanded by both the Metropolitan Police Federation and the Police Federation.

The two federations last week sent letters to the Home Office calling for a person independent of both the police service and the IPCC to investigate the "unauthorized disclosure" of the documents.

The leaks are continually bringing out facts that directly contradict EVERYTHING the public has been told about the murder of an apparently innocent man. Is it any wonder then that the police want to find out the source of these leaks and cut it off. These leaks may be the only chance to ever discover the truth about what really happened on the 22nd July.

The inquest into 27-year-old De Menezes' death has been adjourned until 23 February to allow the investigators to collate all the evidence and complete their inquiry. As we have seen in the past with the Hutton and Butler inquires, and with the 9/11 commission, these so called independent inquiries are always overseen by the Government and used as a way of ironing out any glaring inconsistencies that have arisen since the event.

CCTV

Reports earlier this week suggested that Police officers and station managers were at odds over the existence of CCTV-footage of the shooting. Police documents submitted to the IPCC stated that "None of the cameras at the scene of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July were working"

Firstly, if that is the case then how can they explain this?:

The police stated that there was no CCTV because disks had been removed to aid the police investigation into suspects in the failed 21 July attacks. But in addition to this they stated that:

"It has also been established that there has been a technical problem with the CCTV equipment on the relevant platform and no footage exists."

How could all four cameras around the platform have failed at the same time? Also, if the cameras had failed, why did the station log book contain no details of the fault? In a statement to The Mail on Sunday, Tube Lines said: "We are not aware of any faults on CCTV cameras at that station on that day. Nothing of that nature has been reported to us."

There is absolutely no doubt that the police are lying in this instance unless the above picture is a fake. There have been no denials of the authenticity of the above picture. Furthermore, the original leaked document describes CCTV footage, which shows Mr de Menezes entering Stockwell station at a "normal walking pace" and descended slowly on an escalator.

The document said: "At some point near the bottom he is seen to run across the concourse and enter the carriage before sitting in an available seat. This suggests that cameras ALL OVER the station were working.

Two days ago an IPPC spokesman said "There is CCTV footage in existence. It is interesting and it will be shown in court one day. I am not speculating about the content."

First it was mysteriously missing and now it's turned up again after public furor. However, parts are still erased from the tape. Would those parts happen to show the brutal murder of an innocent man who the police KNEW was not a suicide bomber? And would those parts further push the real question that no one seems to be asking, if they knew he wasn't a terrorist then why did they kill him?

Members of the Brazilian delegation that has wound up it's flying investigative visit, revealed that some of the CCTV cameras that would have filmed Mr de Menezes being shot may have been out of order. "Apparently there are parts of the film which do not exist," said Ambassador Manoel Gomes Pereira. Also despite being "perplexed" by leaks from the inquiry that contradicted early police and eyewitness reports, the delegation has decided in four days that there is no cover up and has gone home. It seems that the visit was nothing more than a publicity stunt to appease the thousands of angry protesters in Brazil.

Still there's no cover up, just shut up and believe whatever they tell you the latest is. Isn't it cute when the overwhelming benefits of CCTV is rammed down our throats whenever they catch a bad guy but whenever the police get caught covering up their own criminal activities the fantastic cameras mysteriously malfunction! It's just one big coincidence, just like all the cameras strangely malfunctioning right as Diana's Mercedes entered a Pont D'alma tunnel crawling with MI6 agents!

Lies Lies So Many Lies

Sir Ian Blair has lied so many times he has contradicted himself over the issue of the shooting. Blair gave an interview on August 21st in which he admitted he did not know his officers had killed an innocent man until a day after Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead at Stockwell Tube station. Yet THREE DAYS EARLIER on August 18th, it emerged that Blair himself "tried to halt an independent inquiry into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes just hours after the innocent Brazilian's death".

Why would he do this if he knew nothing about it? Sir Ian rejected claims that his attempted blocking of the IPCC was part of a cover-up by saying: "It is important that Londoners hear this: if you were going to define how to do a cover-up you would not write a letter to the permanent secretary of the Home Office, copying it to the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the chairman of the IPCC."

That's precisely what you would do to cover your tracks! Then when the truth surfaced you would use those previous actions to defend yourself, just as Sir Blair has done. He has been unrelenting over the defence of himself and his officers, saying that "Tragic as the death of Mr Menezes is, and we have apologised for it and we take responsibility for it, it is one death out of 57." Yes it is, one unnecessary death.

We Also know that the officers who shot De Menezes KNEW he wasn't a threat at the time they accosted him:

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.''

Ian Blair gave a press briefing just after 3.30pm on the day Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead, on the morning of July 22 at Stockwell station, south London. Separate sources told the London Guardian that by the afternoon of the shooting, senior officers had strong suspicions that the man killed was not a terrorist or connected to attempted attacks on London the previous day.

So why wasn't the Chief of Police immediately told that the man his officers had shot had not been a threat? Why was it over 24 hours before the man in charge of London's entire Police Force was informed of De Menezes' identity?

Now it has emerged that De Menezes' parents were offered £15,000 in compensation for the loss of their son, pointing towards an attempt to buy them off. Initial press reports suggested the figure was much higher, possibly close to half a million pounds. Why would that amount of compensation be offered BEFORE an inquiry has even been completed? Police have denied such offers were made.

The Main discrepancies and false information

If we go back over the main evidence and consider the facts, every indication suggests that a cover up has been perpetrated.

The BBC compiled a comparison of the details made public in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, on 22 July, at Stockwell Tube station in south London, with those that have emerged from the leaked documents. Here it is again to clarify the discrepancies and false information.

IDENTIFICATION

Initial account
Sir Ian Blair said on the day of the shooting that it had been "directly linked to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation".

The man was under observation because he emerged from a block of flats in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill, where police believed a man connected with the four attempted bombings on the London Tube and bus network on 21 July was staying.

They followed him during his bus journey to Stockwell Tube station, where a Scotland Yard spokesman said his "clothing and behaviour" added to their suspicions.

Leaked evidence
Police staking out the flats, where Mr Menezes lived, decided he matched the description of one of the suspects they were seeking, according to the documents.

One officer reportedly said he "checked the photographs" and "thought it would be worth someone else having a look". However, he was unable to video the man for subsequent confirmation because he was "relieving" himself at the time.

By the time Mr Menezes reached Stockwell station, armed police received "positive identification" that the man they were following was one of the suspects.

CLOTHING

Initial account
One eyewitness, Mark Whitby, said Mr Menezes was wearing a thick padded jacket, despite the warm weather, which could have been used to conceal something underneath.

Another witness said he had a black baseball cap and blue fleece.

Scotland Yard had said on the day that his clothing had added to suspicions but had not elaborated further.

Leaked evidence
Some of the leaked documents and accompanying CCTV footage suggest Mr Menezes was wearing a blue denim jacket.

This is also referred to by a member of the police surveillance team who observed him on board a Tube train.

PURSUIT

Initial account
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said after the shooting: "As I understand the situation the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions."

One eyewitness said at the time that Mr Menezes had vaulted over the ticket barriers just inside the entrance to Stockwell station as he was being pursued.

Leaked evidence
CCTV footage is said to show the man walking at normal pace into the station, picking up a copy of a free newspaper and apparently passing through the barriers before descending the escalator to the platform and running to a train.

He boarded a Tube train, paused, looking left and right, and sat in a seat facing the platform.

THE SHOOTING

Initial account
Although police would not give details of the incident because of the independent investigation, they did say shortly after it happened that officers had shot a man dead in Stockwell station.

The following day Scotland Yard admitted Mr Menezes had been shot by mistake and apologised to his family for the "tragedy".

Met chief Sir Ian Blair said his officers had tried to get Mr Menezes under control before shooting him.

A witness spoke of a man jumping on to the stationary train and grabbing a man sitting opposite. As the witness ran off the train he heard four "dull bangs", which he realised were shots.

Another said he saw Mr Menezes run on to the train, "hotly pursued" by what he took to be three plain-clothes police officers. He said they pushed him to the floor and shot him five times.

At the opening of the inquest into his death, police told the coroner Mr Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.

Leaked evidence
In one of the leaked documents, said to be a statement from one of the police surveillance team, the witness describes hearing shouting - including the word "police".

The statement says Mr Menezes stood up and advanced towards the witness and armed police.

He adds: "I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side."

He said he pushed the man back into his seat.

It was only after he had restrained him that he heard a gun shot.

The documents say that a post-mortem examination showed Mr Menezes had been shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, but that three other bullets had missed him.

Of course the main evidence came from the leaked documents of August 17th. Yet there were rumblings of contradictions to the official version of events weeks before this.

As Green authority member Jenny Jones has pointed out, the police did nothing to stop the circulation of false information. In fact they were the ones putting it out.

As The De Menezes family solicitor, Harriet Wistrich has asserted "The police must have been partly responsible for that because it was the information that was given to the pathologist who performed the postmortem examination."

One witness in the carriage, Mark Whitby, 47, said shortly after the shooting that he saw a man who looked Pakistani "hotly pursued by what I knew to be three plain-clothes police officers" and wearing "a coat like you would wear in winter, a sort of padded jacket". How could this witness have thought a denim jacket was a heavy winter coat? And does Jean Charles De Menezes really look like a Pakistani man?

Whitby said the man "looked like a cornered rabbit, like a cornered fox" and "absolutely petrified" when he got on the train. These are clearly lies, as it has been revealed that De Menezes walked calmly onto the train and sat down. This witness must have been either very wrong or he was an intelligence plant, deliberately putting out false information.

I can clearly remember Mr Whitby's account as it was one of the only ones recorded and played and replayed over and over on all the news channels all day long. He also made it very clear that there were five shots fired, again this is not true, there were at least eleven. Mr Whitby has since refused to comment on the latest disclosures.

Incompetence? Not likely

Whilst everyone is distracted by the "cover up", questions still need to be asked concerning the identity of Jean Charles De Menezes.

As we know, the police who followed him were a separate group to the SO19 officers who executed him. The apparent reason he was followed was that he was living in the same block as one of the suspected 21/7 failed bombers. Why would the police Surveil the building for 24 hours without investigating the flat where the bomb suspect lived?

Why would they let a suspect leave? On many other occasions after the bombings we saw how police raided and evacuated areas they believed were home to suspects. In one bizarre raid a man was forced into a "clean suit" on the street. If they thought suspects were in De Menezes' block, why not go in and get them?

Furthermore, why would police allow a bus/tube suicide bombing "suspect" to leave the area, board a bus, then board the tube before confronting him?

At his press conference Sir Ian told reporters: "This operation was directly linked to the ongoing terrorist investigation." This may not have been untrue. On top of all the other supposed "botch ups" concerning De Menezes, are we really to believe over and over that the police and special forces are this incompetent?

Did De Menezes know or see something he was not supposed to? On 7/7 there was contradiction between the statements of the Transport Police, Metronet and the National Grid. The former two declared there WAS a power surge which "caused the explosions". The latter - the National Grid, DENIED there was ever a power surge. Menezes was a contract electrician. Could he have been involved in some sort of work on the London underground?

With the reports of the the bombs UNDER the trains or ON the rails, is it possible that they were detonated by a calculated & engineered power surge? That would explain reports of a power surge along with survivors' reports of an "electrical like discharge" before the explosions themselves.

We may never know the real facts, but one thing is clear, Special forces do not go around in public killing people considered not to be an immediate threat without a good reason.

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: cia-drugs-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Was this page helpful?

Thread at a glance:

Previous Message by Date: click to view message preview

Romania: In or Out of the Anglo-American Axis?

i say, OUT! -vmann http://globalpolitician.com/articleshow.asp?ID=1145&cid=3 Romania: In or Out of the Anglo-American Axis?Manuela Paraipan - 8/30/2005 From the beginning of his mandate as a President of Romania, Traian Basescu declared himself a supporter of the so-called Axis of Washington-London-Bucharest. The idea was received with a cold attitude by the European powers, especially by the Germans and the French - long time friends of the country. Nonetheless, it became the leit motif of Romania's foreign policy.But apparently the interest for this friendship axis is almost non-existent from both the UK and the USA. When the Romanian authorities asked for a visa-free entry in England and America for the Romanian citizens, the response was a clear and concise 'no'! But, when the Romanian troops were needed in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere on this globe, the answer was "Yes, Sir!"Some felt that there is something wrong with this picture. Is Romania a friend country of the world powers? Or merely their hobbyhorse?For over half a year now, the United States delayed sending an Ambassador in Romania. Ever since Ambassador Crouch ended mission, this official position has been available. Most of the politicians, from both the opposition and the ruling alliance see it to the very least as a sign of indifference towards Romania. What's the point of having an axis, but no Ambassador to work with?A former Foreign Minister, and member of the Commission for Foreign Affairs of the Senate, Teodor Melescanu said "the situation we are confronting with is not one that makes us content. The presence of an Ambassador is very important for the diplomatic contacts between the two countries."Vasile Puscas, opposition deputy and former Minister of European Integration declared "from the point of view of the diplomatic principles, when a state delays the appointment of an Ambassador in other country, it means there is no interest toward that respective country; no geostrategic interest, geopolitic or economic interest. Objectively, between Romania and USA functions the Strategic Partnership that would request the presence of an Ambassador."Anca Petrescu, member of the PRM nationalist party in Parliament believes that "the axis is not compromise, but we should not count only on this axis [?] we should not forget the relations we have developed with other states."Eugen Mihaescu, Vice-President of the Commission of Foreign Affairs in the Senate when asked about this issue said "well, but who is the Romanian Ambassador in Washington? Is the Ambassador of Iliescu! Anyway, the fact that we do not have an American Ambassador in Bucharest is showing the extraordinary interest of the Americans to maintain a good working relation with Romania. Generally speaking, with all the efforts of our young Foreign Minister, the foreign policy of our country is unchanged, frozen into a refrigerator since the times of Gheorghiu Dej, Ceausescu, Iliescu and now, President Basescu."But, besides being ignored by the USA, Romania is not in good terms with its European partners, either. This summer was an agitated one; there were catastrophic floods, political disagreements between the President and the Prime Minister and between the opposition and the ruling alliance; the economy also suffered because of the euro and dollar fluctuation, the increasing number of the unemployed people, and the numerous social and civic frustrations.Olli Rehn, the EU enlargement Commissioner expressed in various circumstances, that if Romania or Bulgaria cannot or do not want to implement the reforms asked by the EU, then their membership should be postponed.If this were to happen, Romania will lose more than 2 billion euro, money offered by the EU for the socio-political and economical reform of the country.In this regard, Mihai Razvan Ungureanu stated that the EU officials in spite of their critiques do not have a plan B in case Romania and Bulgaria fail to join the EU in January 2007. Ungureanu said: "Not even the Brussels bureaucracy has considered the accession of Romania and Bulgaria in 2008. There is much trust that the two states will accomplish missions and become members of the EU in January 1, 2007."Guenther Beckstein, Interior Minister of Bavaria declared to Reuters that the referendums in France and the Netherlands proved that the accelerated enlargement of the European Union would be further criticized by the European citizens. Therefore, the January 2007 or even 2008 is probably premature" for both Romania's and Bulgaria's accession.With a poor Romanian lobby for the accession, with a political class lacking the stamina to urge clear reforms, with a justice obedient to the interests of various politicians and mafia bosses, the chances of seeing an European Romanian any time soon are indeed very low. Manuela Paraipan received a Political Science degree in Romania, concentrating on Arab/Muslim domestic and external policy. She has been published in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, World Security Network (WSN), World Press, Yemen Times and other publications. She has also been invited as a speaker at multiple political conferences. In addition to Romanian and English, Ms. Paraipan speaks French, Spanish and Italian. Her web site can be found at www.manuelaparaipan.org YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: cia-drugs-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Next Message by Date: click to view message preview

Is Bird Flu Pandemic Chicken Little Scenario?

Is Bird Flu Pandemic Chicken Little Scenario? Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | August 29 2005 In 2003 it was SARS, the deadly virus that caused lethal pneumonia and lung failure was sweeping the globe and it was only a matter of time before the west would succumb to its devastating wrath. It never happened. The number of SARS cases never topped 1000, none of which were proven to be anything more than traditional lung infections. SARS has been replaced by a new enemy, an enemy that may require martial law, quarantines and forced vaccinations - H5N1 - the dreaded bird flu. Are we right to be concerned or is this just another fearmongering campaign to make millions for big pharma and keep us under the suffocating 'protection' of Big Brother nanny state? In October of last year, the head of the Russian Virology Institute, Academician Dmitry Lvov said at a press conference, ?Up to one billion people could die around the whole world in six months." ?We are half a step away from a worldwide pandemic catastrophe." A catastrophe didn't happen that year and it didn't happen after six months, or eight months. Thank God it didn't happen, but for people like Ted Turner, Jacques-Yves Cousteau and Prince Philip, one billion deaths isn't necessarily a bad thing for humanity. "The simplest answer is that the world's population should be about two billion, and we've got about six billion now," Turner told E Magazine, an environmentalist publication. Turner (pictured) went even further in an interview with Audubon magazine. "A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." In a 1991 interview with the UNESCO Courier, Jacques-Yves Cousteau, the famous Emmy award winning film producer who went on to be a kingpin of the environmental movement said, "It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day." That works out to 127,750,000 people per year, and 1.27 billion people over 10 years. in the foreword to his 1986 book If I Were an Animal, Prince Philip wrote, "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation." So the elite are very concerned about their noble effort to cull the population for the greater good. Should we therefore be alarmed by a London Times article which reports, "Britain?s elite have been selected as priority cases to receive scarce pills and vaccinations at the taxpayers? expense if the country is hit by a deadly bird flu outbreak." Is this a red flag or is it simply a means of creating a false scarcity so that everyone runs out and buys the antidote fearing an imminent outbreak? We should be wise to remember that the revelation that the Bush cabinet was on Cipro, the anthrax fighting antibiotic, only emerged in the media after the anthrax attack was in process, not before. Therefore it seems more likely that this is a ruse to line the pockets of the government affiliated pharmaceutical companies. One thing is clear, if this outbreak did occur then the justification to suspend Constitutional rights will be flaunted to its maximum exposure. Back in April President Bush added pandemic influenza to the list of diseases for which quarantine is authorized. China's zealous martial law tactics in dealing with SARS, home detention, curfews, mandatory vaccinations, restriction of travel, are the model for what could unfold in the US. The federal blueprint for the exact same scenario was released and picked up by the Associated Press a year ago. This will make ID cards and airport security checks look like a tea party. This is a slow process of conditioning the public to accept mandatory vaccinations and restrictions on mobility under a rule of martial law. The ball started rolling back in 2001 when the Model States Emergency Health Powers Act was passed, which allows for total government takeover of every industry, vehicle, building, location, distribution process, you name it. And when this flu pandemic happens who will we blame? Surely not US scientists playing around with the deadly 1918 Spanish flu virus at "less than the maximum level of containment" according to the New Scientist magazine. At present, bird flu fearmongering seems highly likely to be a chicken little scenario. But if it does happen just think for yourself about what the elite have already said on the record about depopulation and add to that the fact that the elite were the first to be protected against any possible bird flu pandemic. ------------------------ Related: Global Flu Pandemic: Medical Martial Law Related: Bird flu: we're all going to die YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: cia-drugs-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Previous Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Next Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Loading Comments...