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.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
