8. Where did a "shoot to kill" policy emanate from and on what claimed legal basis? What public debate and democratic accountability surrounded the coming into being of that policy?

9. Why was the suggestion that five bullets were fired allowed to continue as a public assertion, uncorrected, when there were eight (seven to the head)?

10. Why were members of the de Menezes family in the UK, having been made homeless by the securing of Jean Charles’ residence, placed inaccessibly in a hotel by the police and the telephones in their rooms ordered to be cut off by the police so that they could not contact Brazil.

11. Why did police officers actively lobby Brazilian officials here to dissuade Jean Charles’ parents (without a telephone in Brazil) from obtaining a second post mortem?

12. Why was the pathologist at the post mortem conducted on July 27th, (at which senior investigating police officers were present) told the following:

"This man’s death occurred as part of the emergency relating to the planting of bombs on public transport in London. On the morning of the 22nd July 2005 he was pursued by armed police officers as a result of surveillance. He was followed into Stockwell Tube Station where he vaulted over the ticket barrier. He ran downstairs and onto a tube train where it appears that he stumbled. The officers then immobilised him and a number of shots were fired. At the present time I am not sure as to any further details."

13. Why was he not told of the true facts which clearly by then must have been available.

14. What CCTV footage from the outside and inside of Stockwell underground station and from within the underground train exists? If there is none, why is there none?

In the light of many of the questions above having been answered during the last 24 hours by information clearly already in the possession of the police, we emphasise that we are unable to have confidence in any of the investigative processes that are now on offer in this case. We point in particular to the failure of the police, in breach of their statutory duty, to invite the IPPC to commence its investigations from the first moment of the shootings on July 22nd. A fatal delay of several days, we understand, occurred thereafter during which time we are unaware that the IPPC itself proactively attempted to intervene. We have the gravest of concerns.

1. First that evidence may not have been appropriately retrieved by independent investigators and may now have permanently disappeared. We point in particular to the unresolved question as to whether any CCTV footage of the station or the train does in fact exist and was retrieved.

2. We observe that a number of written statements by police officers in direct contradiction to what was previously understood are being revealed through the press; one in particular points to the fact that Jean Charles de Menezes was never in fact, appropriately identified as a suspect from the time of his leaving the house.

3. We do not know whether police officers who appear already to have made statements in this inquiry have made statements under caution and are being treated as suspects in relation to a proper investigation of an unlawful killing, or are being treated instead as only witnesses and not suspected of any level of involvement in what at its lowest must be gross negligence (a potential ground for an accusation of unlawful killing).

4. We do not know at what levels police officers, including senior police officers, are being interviewed and whether under caution or not. We do not know who is being interviewed and by whom?

5. We do not know whether these include senior police, past and present who appeared to believe, wrongly, that they were entitled to order a blanket "shoot to kill" practice.

In these circumstances, on behalf of the family, we suggest that a different, urgent, and open inquiry and public debate take place. It is neither sane nor responsible to have issues of such enormous public importance, as well as of such pain to the family concerned, to be allowed to drift towards an unspecified date at an unspecified and perhaps inappropriate hearing in the future which may too late consider itself to be too limited in any event to consider the important issues that have to be raised here and now.

We underline as a reminder, that immense public debate took place immediately after the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. All of that debate took place and was allowed to take place on entirely wrong factual assumptions. We are now in a very different situation. Someone with official access has, it appears, been sufficiently disturbed by that dangerous position, to make internal documents public. In these circumstances, we and the family of Jean Charles de Menezes regard the action of revealing those documents as a true public service and ask that that initiative not now be undermined by renewed secrecy, delay and inactivity on the part of those with responsibility for investigation.

The original version of 'events' seem to have been garnered
from witness statements which were amplified through the media
after all, apparently, it wasn't an empty tube carraige..[was it?]

Mark Whitby being one obvious example, who appeared on TV
and in the press, many times

i find it difficult to believe that witness statements were not
taken at the scene of the
Menezes shooting by the police

If Whitby is a real witness ...why is he on the media,
straight after the incident?

surely this would be prejudicing any legal matters arising
and the police would need his statements on these events...

Whitby being paraded on the media would prejudice a jury
[not that we can expect on in this country, these days]
as we have seen it seems to have been used
to bolster and corroborate evidence given to the coroner
by those responsible


I'm still left with the question

if these people tracking Menezes thought he was a suicide bomber

why let him board a bus...twice

and stroll down through the station, down the escalators
and onto the train

according to the 'leaked document'
he had several plain clothes operatives around him on the tube...
several seats away... and by the doors

even the latest reports of the memos are contradictory
with some saying CCTV was not available and
some saying there is CCTV evidence to show what happened

we also have contradictions in that some reports
are asserting Menezes was shot
while sitting in his seat

and some saying

according to the news reports
after he was identified by an undercover officer
to the armed response unit
he got up and walked towards firearms
officers at the door
and was then held and shot


i find it incredible that the News media are still obfuscating and presenting
made up rubbish based on hearsay

whilst now News media are reporting the leak and the contradictory stories as if
they had absolutely nothing to do with this process of
confusion and smearing of facts/fiction

not forgetting the strange unverified 'leaked press advisory'

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urgent Release For All Press

Talking Points for man mistakenly killed by UK police. The following points should be emphasised in your reports:

The dead man is to be referred to as the "suspect" and never the "victim". The intent of these talking points is to cast suspicision onto the dead man and direct any criticism away from the police.

He was not Caucasian. Preferably he was of Asian or Arab appearance.

Do not just mention that he was (mistakenly) taken for a suicide bomber, but describe suicide bombings in detail. Especially the aftermath. The intention should be to frighten the reader.

Remind the reader what would (never say "might") have happened if the suspect "had" been a suicide bomber and the police had "not" shot him. Exaggerate. Imply that he had a rucksack of the same colour, size, and design as preferred by real suicide bombers.

Blame the terrorists for his death and be sympathetic towards the police at all times.

When describing the man use imagary drawn only from the CCTV pictures of the real bombers. Conjour up the image of a suicide bomber.

Mention but do not discuss his innocence. Mention it only when necessary.

Belittle the suspect. Describe him in negative terms as poorly dressed, unshaven, and nervous, but also as a physically intimidating man, burly, agile, fit, dangerous.

It should not be written that he "failed" to obey police as failure may be construed as meaning that there was some other possible reason for his not stoping than presumed guilt. Avoid passive associations by describing his actions only with action words commonly associated with guilt such as "refused" or "resisted". Give conflicting eye-witness accounts of the actual moments of the shooting so as to protect officers.

One witness thought he saw a "bomb-belt" on the suspect. Quote this witness extensively and as often as possible. Offer no speculation or implication that he may have been mistaken (which of course he was). Use his observation as if it was the sworn testimony of an expert in suicide bombings requiring no further comment.

The police began following the suspect after he left an apartment in the same block in which another apartment was under surveillance. Use this in such a way as to connect him to the bombers (by describing the apartment block as a "house", for example). Do not speculate that the police may have followed the wrong man.

Bury the information that the real bombers are still on the loose by mentioning some vague arrests but do not give details as those arrested in the early days of such crises invariably turn out to be innocent.

Avoid mention of the suspect's family (especially if it turns out he had a wife and kids) but report in depth on how sorry the police are. Use words like "regret" and "tragic".

Assert that the way in which the suspect "dived or fell to ground" was cause for suspicion in itself. Never connect this to the simultaneous shouting by armed police for every one to "get down" as this may contradict prior assertions that he refused to obey the police.

Report it as if "the regulations" required the police to shoot him.

Report that there will be an internal enquiry as if this is a magnanimous police gesture as opposed to mere routine. Report on the process but not the substance of the enquiry, and phrase process descriptions in terms of thoroughness, accountability, and above all sufficiency. Avoid mention of previous police-shootings that have resulted in public enquiries.

Don't mention the war.

Generate debate on the circumstances in which the police *should* shoot to kill, and avoid moral or legal issues. Frame the debate in terms of terrorism only and dismiss mistaken-identity arguments as left-wing or liberal.

If the suspect turns out to be non-muslim you should still continue to question muslim clerics on matters related to terrorism.

If the suspect does turn out to be muslim connect muslim sympathy or sorrow over his death with radical extremism.

Use the tiniest flaw in the suspect's character (drugs, fare-dodging, infidelity, etc) as ultimate justification. For example, "If he hadn't have been deaf, he would have heard the police and still be alive today..."

Utterly groundless speculation is allowed to be presented as fact only when it results in a positive image for HMG.

All other topics, speculation, criticisms of the police, or discussions, are forbidden.

 http://www.anyboard.net/soc/ag4x/posts/1115.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of course we have no way of knowing if this press advisory is true...
if it isn't it still remains an excellent piece of media observation

as all the above criteria in the 'press advisory '
seem to have been fullfilled by a Compliant News Media
regarding the various versions of the truth being propagated
and the obvious linking of Menezes with visa problems
and his 'heavy coat' , suspicious' mannerisms
running away from the scene etc



background: original stories and events

 http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/sniper.html
i am not ruling an assassination by special forces out
[deal with it]