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

[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 )

 

[Art]

There is also more than a hint of a suggestion that the police destroyed evidence;

In addition we are told surveillance broke down when one officer went to relieve himself, that mysteriously and culpably no CCTV cameras were working on Stockwell station just two weeks after 7/7. This is appalling.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1551298,00.html and more at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/comment/story/0,16141,1551418,00.html

 

[Daminc]

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.

There's a few reservations that's probably born out of ignorance.

I think I've mentioned before that I was once in the British Army. The Army has it's own police force, laws, internal affairs etc etc and this is for a good reason. Priorities are slightly different and some of the conditions that Army personel find themselves are also different. For example, squaddies are encouraged to fight within certain set boundaries. It develops confidence, the ability to think and react whilst in pain and to be able to adapt in a hostile environment. Fight hard, play hard. The boundaries are "don't strike a superior rank" (unless in the ring), don't lose your temper, don't bully, don't continue fighting after it is obvious that your opponent is beaten. I had a discussion with a guy from the REME once about the Signals reputation of All brains and No brawn. We fought briefly and I won the argument...and then we went for a beer :)

I've never been in the police force but it seems to be regimented similar to the forces. If that is the case then a 'civilian' enquirery would not be able to understand the situation clearly enough to give an accurate assessment.

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 was with them because I go along with the saying "innocent until proven guilty" however, new evidence has made me question the accounts on all sides. I agree there should be a detailed investigation this time and a jury (or independant assessors) should review all the evidence and testimonies before coming to a conclusion to what really happened.

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

Without going through all the text again I think one of the more obvious ones was the reference to the police being 'brutal murderers' or something similar. At the time that comment was made there was no 'real' evidence to substantiate this only your opinion.

 

[arildno]

As this witness statement shows quite clearly, De Menezes did not do anything suspicious prior to his death, nor did he resist the police. This is simply a tale about his EXECUTION:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1739960,00.html

 

[arildno]

Without going through all the text again I think one of the more obvious ones was the reference to the police being 'brutal murderers' or something similar. At the time that comment was made there was no 'real' evidence to substantiate this only your opinion.

Incorrect!
There WAS real, hard evidence:
1. De Menezes was innocent
2. The police report was so glaringly inconsistent THAT IT HAD TO BE A BUNCH OF LIES!
3. The authorities did their best to malign and blacken De Menezes' character

Consider these 3 points together, and a really ugly stink will start wafting into your nostrils.

 

[Daminc]

1. At the time of comment we didn't know that De Menezes was innocent.
2. Various report didn't agree so an investigation was required (that's different from automatically the police lied).
3. The maligning tactic was wrong but predictable. Politicians do it. Newspapers do it. People in forums do it :) Everyone does it to one degree or another. I don't like it or agree with it but it's hardly suprising.

I'm surprised you consider this sort of thing as 'hard evidence'.

 

[arildno]

1. At the time of comment we didn't know that De Menezes was innocent.

That's a lie.
I have no interest discussing this any further with liars like you.

 

[Smurf]

As this witness statement shows quite clearly, De Menezes did not do anything suspicious prior to his death, nor did he resist the police. This is simply a tale about his EXECUTION:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1739960,00.html

That is absolutely horrible. If it wasn't Times I might not believe it to be accurate. Who was the guy, he sounded like he knew what he was talking about, possibly an off-duty officer?

 

[arildno]

That is absolutely horrible. If it wasn't Times I might not believe it to be accurate. Who was the guy, he sounded like he knew what he was talking about, possibly an off-duty officer?

It is from ITV (look at the bottom); The Times has just transcripted the story.

He was one of the surveillance team who followed De Menezes covertly after he'd entered the Stockwell station.

The officer went by the code-name H3 (Hotel 3), if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Smurf]

Ah. Okay it all makes more sense now.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I was with them because I go along with the saying "innocent until proven guilty" however, new evidence has made me question the accounts on all sides. I agree there should be a detailed investigation this time and a jury (or independant assessors) should review all the evidence and testimonies before coming to a conclusion to what really happened.

Well, 'innocent until proven guilty' is not something you're willing to extend to Menezes. Even I would go for 'innocent until overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise' when determining whether a someone was possibly a terrorist, else we may never stop a terrorist attempt. But overwhelming evidence suggested otherwise in the case of the police too. Menezes was not carrying a bomb. He was not a prior suspect. He did not behave out of the ordinary (even if he HAD jumped the turnstyle). And the evidence for police misinformation came fast. For instance, the police claimed he looked Asian. He looks as white as I am. This can't be put down to a mistake - if police are discriminating in this way based on appearance then they should know what the appearance is that they are discriminating against. Like I said, you cannot 'prove' the police guilty when they and the home office have a policy of non-accountibility, misinformation and spin, and unless the home office allow an open public enquiry that may incriminate them (so they won't), we'll probably never even get a complete criticism. Applying 'innocent til proven guilty' to the police and not to Menezes does not suggest you are an 'impartial observer' so much that you are biased towards exonerating the police. I'm not saying I'm any more impartial - I hate the fuggin police in this country as a whole - I'm just saying the holier than thou attitude doesn't really hold.

Without going through all the text again I think one of the more obvious ones was the reference to the police being 'brutal murderers' or something similar. At the time that comment was made there was no 'real' evidence to substantiate this only your opinion.

I said 'murder', never 'brutal murderers' (unless you're going back a looooong time, but even then - it WAS brutal) and I gave a dictionary definition to support the usage of this word. It was in direct response to your comment that using this word is premature. It isn't - it's simply that we dare not apply such a connotative word to the police (notice the definition does not necessitate a crime). I used the term 'mindless killers', but AFTER your accusation regarding my 'statements of fact'. Besides, I won't apologise for my hyperbole any quicker than you would your desperate 'what if's and 'maybe's attempting to support the actions of the police. I'm not hiding how passionately I feel about this, how angry I am, or how distrustful I am of our police service as a whole. If you have a problem, take it with a pinch of salt. But you, on the other hand, were presenting hypothetic justifications for an innocent man having his brains blown out for no reason, and seem to be doing so in what you think is a rational manner. Hyperbole is one thing - your dedication to postulating fictitious justifying scenarios and ignoring the basic facts (e.g. no bomb, or... evidence) and evidence of cover-up is a whole different game.

 

[arildno]

What has pi$$ed me off the most with those eager to justify the police's actions, are that they have deemed De Meneze's innocence as IRRELEVANT!
An innocent man acts differently than a guilty man, and when it is proven that he was in fact innocent, while the police continue to fling slurs at him portraying him as if his actions were highly suspicious, then we have justified reson to believe that the police are lying through their teeth as to what really happened that day.

Hence, De Menezes' innocence has never, ever been irrelevant in this case.

 

[Daminc]

That's a lie.
I have no interest discussing this any further with liars like you.

This comment is uncalled for. I have never lied during this conversation I have just simply stated my opinions based on what I knew at the time.

I said 'murder', never 'brutal murderers' (unless you're going back a looooong time, but even then - it WAS brutal) and I gave a dictionary definition to support the usage of this word.

'Murder' implies a premeditated plan to kill the man. At the time the phase was used there was no evidence of such a plan.

Applying 'innocent til proven guilty' to the police and not to Menezes does not suggest you are an 'impartial observer' so much that you are biased towards exonerating the police. I'm not saying I'm any more impartial - I hate the fuggin police in this country as a whole - I'm just saying the holier than thou attitude doesn't really hold.

I would extend this to Menezes also but I wasn't there and I didn't know all the facts. Personally I would have done things differently. Please don't assume that I would have done the same in this situation.

I try not to hate anyone (although I don't always succeed) but when I try to analyse a situation I try not to listen to my emotions because they are usually either cloud my reasoning or encourage me to do something to make things worse.

I never claimed to be 'holier than thou'. If you knew me you would probably laugh at that statement.

Besides, I won't apologise for my hyperbole any quicker than you would your desperate 'what if's and 'maybe's attempting to support the actions of the police.

I wasn't trying to 'support' the actions of the police. I was trying to understand them.

But you, on the other hand, were presenting hypothetic justifications for an innocent man having his brains blown out for no reason, and seem to be doing so in what you think is a rational manner.

I disagree. I was trying to understand why a man was shot and killed. At the time I wasn't seeking 'justification' and I didn't know he was innocent of anything I simply had the limited amount of information shown to me on the TV.

I never take what I see on TV as fact whether it is a statement by the police or a victims family.

 

[arildno]

You knew within hours of the shooting episode that De Menezes was, in fact, carrying no bomb or any other weapon whatsoever, and HENCE, he was innocent.
you knew this right from the start.

 

[Daminc]

As this witness statement shows quite clearly, De Menezes did not do anything suspicious prior to his death, nor did he resist the police. This is simply a tale about his EXECUTION:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1739960,00.html

Personally, this looks as if there were 2 independent teams in play here. The surveillance man following Menezes and the 3/4 men who were 'searching' for someone (presumely Menezes). The recon man assumed these men were "probably from SO19" so the man did not know them and they weren't part of his surveillance team.

In the beginning I thought the team who shot Menezes were SAS. SO19, I believe are trained by the SAS.

The surveillance man seems to have tried to restrain Menezes in a manner that shows he didn't know Menezes was going to get shot.

then heard a gunshot very close to my ear and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage.

"I shouted 'police' and held up my hands. I was then dragged out of the carriage by an armed officer who appeared to be carrying a long-barrelled weapon.

This also looks like it was 2 separate teams acting in conflict with each others instructions.

I heard several gun shots as I was being dragged on to the floor and out of the carriage.”

This comment seems to agree with your opinion of assassination.

We will know more if we can identify the shooters.

 

[arildno]

Now, I retract my liar's comment, because it might be that you had in mind some other info not available at the time, rather than the knowledge we did have access to (and that I had in mind when I wrote the piece).


However it turns out, it has at the very least been a complete c*ck-up followed by an undignifying aftermath of slurs&lies from persons in the establishment.
I cannot see how Sir Ian Blair can retain his position after this; nor do I see why he shouldn't be deprived of his knighthood*


*he can keep his manhood for all I care, if he's got any

 

[Daminc]

You knew within hours of the shooting episode that De Menezes was, in fact, carrying no bomb or any other weapon whatsoever, and HENCE, he was innocent.
you knew this right from the start.

For one thing, I'm not glued to the TV so I'm not always up-to-date with the case.

For another, I was trying to piece together what was going on that led to Menezes getting killed and in what circumstance would the killers have believed Menezes to be a threat.

Hind-sight is great but it is a gift I do not have. Neither do I have a gift of reading minds and remote viewing. I simply had the TV and a number of people shouting 'Murder' (figurativly speaking). I decided not to jump to conclusions and it seems as if I've been tagged "if you're not with us then you're against us".

 

[Daminc]

Now, I retract my liar's comment, because it might be that you had in mind some other info not available at the time, rather than the knowledge we did have access to (and that I had in mind when I wrote the piece).

Thank you.

And I agree with your assessment that this was a c@ck-up.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

'Murder' implies a premeditated plan to kill the man. At the time the phase was used there was no evidence of such a plan.

This is absurd. I use the word 'murder' and immediately give the definition of the word explicitly, and you're telling me what it IMPLIES?!? How much more explicit can I be other than to give the definition itself?!?

I would extend this to Menezes also but I wasn't there and I didn't know all the facts. Personally I would have done things differently. Please don't assume that I would have done the same in this situation.

No, you repeatedly offered justifications for the actions of the police. Justifying the shooting demands that Menezes, however wrongly, be presumed guilty, not innocent.

I try not to hate anyone (although I don't always succeed) but when I try to analyse a situation I try not to listen to my emotions because they are usually either cloud my reasoning or encourage me to do something to make things worse.

I just disassociate the two. I can hold a reasonable argument and hate someone at the same time.

I never claimed to be 'holier than thou'. If you knew me you would probably laugh at that statement.

You claimed that we should have waited for proof of any kind of wrongdoing on the police part while you were coming up with countless, unproven reasons why the police did the right thing. You were no more impartial than the rest of us - you were just biased towards the police rather than (ahem) justice.

I wasn't trying to 'support' the actions of the police. I was trying to understand them.

I disagree. I was trying to understand why a man was shot and killed. At the time I wasn't seeking 'justification' and I didn't know he was innocent of anything I simply had the limited amount of information shown to me on the TV.

You made several posts justifying the police actions with hypothetical conditions and events leading up to the shooting. Most of us sought to understand by looking at the evidence, e.g. he didn't have a bomb, he had seven bullets in his brain, etc.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I cannot see how Sir Ian Blair can retain his position after this; nor do I see why he shouldn't be deprived of his knighthood.

Ian Blair was largely responsible for forging the public impression that Menezes disobeyed police instruction, so I couldn't agree more. His forced resignation would be a blow to this policy of misinformation and a blow to this arse-about-face MO. The sooner the better.

 

[Daminc]

MURDER (dictionary definition: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defence or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law).

Originally Posted by Daminc
'Murder' implies a premeditated plan to kill the man. At the time the phase was used there was no evidence of such a plan.

This is absurd. I use the word 'murder' and immediately give the definition of the word explicitly, and you're telling me what it IMPLIES?!? How much more explicit can I be other than to give the definition itself?!?

The definition you gave describes what murder is. The context I was speaking of however was the accusation of murder being applied to someone.

No, you repeatedly offered justifications for the actions of the police. Justifying the shooting demands that Menezes, however wrongly, be presumed guilty, not innocent.

I gave possible senarios that may have accounted for what happened, that's all. I didn't have all the facts, I still don't. However, at the time I made the postings the senarios I presented could have been correct given my limited intel. It had absolutly nothing to do with 'justifications'.

I just disassociate the two. I can hold a reasonable argument and hate someone at the same time.

Then you're a stronger man than I.




gotta go...I'll catch up tomorrow.

 

[Spin_Network]

It certainly backs the criticisms we posted here when it initially happened!

There was NO CCTV film of the incedent, no doubt the fact that it was removed the previous (to the day in question of the unauthorized killing), will further strengthen your obvious distrust of UK police?..even though it was removed for the purpose of the earlier bombings. I think the poilice are not responsable fro the replacing of CCTV video..C-D discs, I think it is the security companies job to keep CCTV in operation.

The removal of the CCTV footage was a bonafide operation, totally unconnected to this incedent, but there will be many who will just smell a rat, or conspiracy cover-up.

Count me out on this one, until I hear the whole available facts, I am just going to conclude the obvious, it was death by accidental mistaken identity, I do not think the police knew who the victim was?..if they knew him, then they would have known he was innocent..if they knew him..then they would have to have pretty strong reasons to take him out, just for fun?

I think this forum has a lot of far-eastern users, who have been obviouslly used to living in condition that instigate a deep distrust of everything "Official", the "Party-Line" cover-ups must be an everyday experience.

Not so in the UK I am sorry to say!..but this is not to say that there has not been any great unjustice, or cover-ups to many, I am sure it has occured, but under these tragic circumstances, I tend to think there were extreme stressfull circumstances, that had a direct baring on the Tragic Killing.

 

[arildno]

Spin Network; just a question:
Is your first name Ostrich?

 

[The Smoking Man]

There was NO CCTV film of the incedent, no doubt the fact that it was removed the previous (to the day in question of the unauthorized killing), will further strengthen your obvious distrust of UK police?..even though it was removed for the purpose of the earlier bombings. I think the poilice are not responsable fro the replacing of CCTV video..C-D discs, I think it is the security companies job to keep CCTV in operation.

The removal of the CCTV footage was a bonafide operation, totally unconnected to this incedent, but there will be many who will just smell a rat, or conspiracy cover-up.

Count me out on this one, until I hear the whole available facts, I am just going to conclude the obvious, it was death by accidental mistaken identity, I do not think the police knew who the victim was?..if they knew him, then they would have known he was innocent..if they knew him..then they would have to have pretty strong reasons to take him out, just for fun?

I think this forum has a lot of far-eastern users, who have been obviouslly used to living in condition that instigate a deep distrust of everything "Official", the "Party-Line" cover-ups must be an everyday experience.

Not so in the UK I am sorry to say!..but this is not to say that there has not been any great unjustice, or cover-ups to many, I am sure it has occured, but under these tragic circumstances, I tend to think there were extreme stressfull circumstances, that had a direct baring on the Tragic Killing.

Hmmm ... "Baby/bathwater ... oh migod where do I draw the line!"

How about the freakin' picture of him laying on the ground in a blue jean jacket ... where is the heavy padded coat he was wearing?

arildno, I think you're right however he doesn't have his head particularly 'in the sand'.

They removed the tape in the heat of a terror alert and mysteriously DIDN'T REPLACE IT. THE DAY BEFORE A SUSPICIOUS SHOOTING!?

Dude, there are so many lies that have been 'spun' about this and have been directly refuted that the official explanation so far will have to be filed in the fiction stacks in the public library.

And another thing... You are totally off the mark when it comes to China. China has no need to 'cover anything up'. China would just say, 'yeah we shot him ... so what?' Do you think they fear losing the next election or something? THIS IS A WESTERN PROBLEM not Chinese. Has common sense eluded you thus far in your life?

 

[outsider]

He then ran down an escalator and tried to board a train before being shot, witnesses say. Civil rights groups have called for a full inquiry.

He was not an innocent man... (I have no proof, but)... law abiding citizens do not run from authority. I'm not saying that he should've been shot, but given the current circumstances... I can understand. This will be a lesson to people who want to run from the law.

Disclaimer: I can say what I say because I have been on the receiving end of police brutality and racial profiling. I don't fully agree with it, but in all situations, I understood what the reasons were. I never ran from the police because I knew I had nothing to hide. Anyone, especially criminal minds, should know better than to run from authorities while innocent.

 

[outsider]

oh.. and tragedy nothing... if the guy actually had been a bomber and something did occur on the train, someone would ask the bobby why he didn't shoot if he did suspect. A really tough call... a life was lost... that is definitely regretable... the authorities should speak up for what they believe. Which is that:

"he ran... and that from now on, if you run from authorities, this may be your fate... so let us do our jobs... we are trained... and are here to protect the public from threats."

it was a regretable judgement... but that was judgement... while hindsight is 50/50

The discretion is in the hands of the police... they need to understand the responsibility of the power.