Please read the NYTimes article, below. The facts seem to be quite clear in the stated results of the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation:
1) Menezes wore no bulky jacket
2) Menezes carried no backpack
3) Menezes did not jump the turnstile
4) Menezes did not run away from police
5) Menezes did not run onto the subway car
6) Menezes was not struggling or running when he was murdered
So let me ask you, (no not YOU Magoo! all you ordinary citizens who think for yourselves): what on earth was the motive for the Police to lie about EVERYTHING? Why should the police LIE TO US? WHY?
Of course the disinfo professionals on UK Indymedia, Magoo and Zorro, will call me a nutter, a conspiracy freak, or whatever schoolyard rubbish they can pull out of their daipers, just because I raise the facts and ask a simple question. But the fact remains: we are being lied to. Someone has declared open season on innocent civilians, declared that we must be slaughtered in cold blood without the tiniest scrap of evidence of wrong-doing, and decided to foment ridiculous lies and cover-ups. Why? All of this is some kind of deliberate policy? Bungling idiocy? Either way, it is patently absurd to allow a policy of slaughtering citizens in cold blood, supposedly to "protect us" to stand! Those responsible for promulgating it, and those responsible for actively lying to the public about the Menezes murder should be stood at the dock and tried!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
London Inquiry Refutes Police in Their Killing of a Suspect
By ALAN COWELL
Published: August 17, 2005
LONDON, Aug. 16 - An official investigation was reported Tuesday to have directly contradicted the police account of the killing of a young Brazilian man after the bombing attempts in London on July 21, including the assertion that he had been fleeing officers when he was shot.
The man, Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27-year-old electrician, was shot several times in front of horrified passengers on July 22 on a subway train at Stockwell station, in South London. The killing came a day after four attackers failed to detonate bombs in what seemed to be a copy of the deadly bombings two weeks earlier, and it intensified an already emotional debate over the introduction of armed police units.
At the time, the police said Mr. Menezes wore a bulky jacket on a hot day, began running from officers despite commands to halt, vaulted the ticket turnstile and ran stumbling onto the subway train.
On Tuesday, however, a news report on British television said an inquiry led by the Independent Police Complaints Commission had contradicted every one of those points. The report said that the officers had misidentified Mr. Menezes as one of the failed July 21 attackers and that he was killed even though he walked into the subway station wearing a light denim jacket, did not vault the turnstile and was sitting on the train when the officers moved in.
Neither the police nor the Independent Police Complaints Commission heading the inquiry denied the news report, but both declined to comment substantively on it.
The killing brought alarm from opponents of arming police units and from Muslim groups who feared that officers were singling them out after the July 7 bombings, in which 52 civilians and 4 bombers were killed.
The events at Stockwell station were said to have been captured on closed circuit television cameras of the type that proved central to identifying the bombers on July 21 at other locations, where their explosives failed to detonate properly.
Initial accounts quoting witnesses said the man had been pursued and shot as part of a "shoot to kill" policy intended to prevent potential bombers from detonating their explosives.
The documents broadcast on Tuesday, however, said that the man had not seemed to react to being followed, and that the officers mistakenly identified him as one of the July 21 bombers just as he boarded the train.
At that point, according to the report, one officer suddenly pinned Mr. Menezes and another shot him. The report quoted an unidentified officer as saying: "I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back onto the seat where he had been previously sitting. I then heard a gunshot very close to my left ear and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage."
In a parallel development, Charles Clarke, the home secretary, said Tuesday that the police had found no direct evidence of a link between the July 7 and July 21 attacks.
Separately on Tuesday, the police in Manchester said they had arrested four people on terrorism charges not related to the July bombings.
1) Menezes wore no bulky jacket
2) Menezes carried no backpack
3) Menezes did not jump the turnstile
4) Menezes did not run away from police
5) Menezes did not run onto the subway car
6) Menezes was not struggling or running when he was murdered
So let me ask you, (no not YOU Magoo! all you ordinary citizens who think for yourselves): what on earth was the motive for the Police to lie about EVERYTHING? Why should the police LIE TO US? WHY?
Of course the disinfo professionals on UK Indymedia, Magoo and Zorro, will call me a nutter, a conspiracy freak, or whatever schoolyard rubbish they can pull out of their daipers, just because I raise the facts and ask a simple question. But the fact remains: we are being lied to. Someone has declared open season on innocent civilians, declared that we must be slaughtered in cold blood without the tiniest scrap of evidence of wrong-doing, and decided to foment ridiculous lies and cover-ups. Why? All of this is some kind of deliberate policy? Bungling idiocy? Either way, it is patently absurd to allow a policy of slaughtering citizens in cold blood, supposedly to "protect us" to stand! Those responsible for promulgating it, and those responsible for actively lying to the public about the Menezes murder should be stood at the dock and tried!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
London Inquiry Refutes Police in Their Killing of a Suspect
By ALAN COWELL
Published: August 17, 2005
LONDON, Aug. 16 - An official investigation was reported Tuesday to have directly contradicted the police account of the killing of a young Brazilian man after the bombing attempts in London on July 21, including the assertion that he had been fleeing officers when he was shot.
The man, Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27-year-old electrician, was shot several times in front of horrified passengers on July 22 on a subway train at Stockwell station, in South London. The killing came a day after four attackers failed to detonate bombs in what seemed to be a copy of the deadly bombings two weeks earlier, and it intensified an already emotional debate over the introduction of armed police units.
At the time, the police said Mr. Menezes wore a bulky jacket on a hot day, began running from officers despite commands to halt, vaulted the ticket turnstile and ran stumbling onto the subway train.
On Tuesday, however, a news report on British television said an inquiry led by the Independent Police Complaints Commission had contradicted every one of those points. The report said that the officers had misidentified Mr. Menezes as one of the failed July 21 attackers and that he was killed even though he walked into the subway station wearing a light denim jacket, did not vault the turnstile and was sitting on the train when the officers moved in.
Neither the police nor the Independent Police Complaints Commission heading the inquiry denied the news report, but both declined to comment substantively on it.
The killing brought alarm from opponents of arming police units and from Muslim groups who feared that officers were singling them out after the July 7 bombings, in which 52 civilians and 4 bombers were killed.
The events at Stockwell station were said to have been captured on closed circuit television cameras of the type that proved central to identifying the bombers on July 21 at other locations, where their explosives failed to detonate properly.
Initial accounts quoting witnesses said the man had been pursued and shot as part of a "shoot to kill" policy intended to prevent potential bombers from detonating their explosives.
The documents broadcast on Tuesday, however, said that the man had not seemed to react to being followed, and that the officers mistakenly identified him as one of the July 21 bombers just as he boarded the train.
At that point, according to the report, one officer suddenly pinned Mr. Menezes and another shot him. The report quoted an unidentified officer as saying: "I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back onto the seat where he had been previously sitting. I then heard a gunshot very close to my left ear and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage."
In a parallel development, Charles Clarke, the home secretary, said Tuesday that the police had found no direct evidence of a link between the July 7 and July 21 attacks.
Separately on Tuesday, the police in Manchester said they had arrested four people on terrorism charges not related to the July bombings.
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 18 comments
whitewash
17.08.2005 16:05
magoo
Read more carefully
17.08.2005 16:49
Only two problems with this:
1. It's not the "stated results" of the IPCC investigation. It's a leak. We're still waiting for the final report, which will be published.
2. If the report shows that it's likely the officers didn't have reasonable suspicion, they'll be prosecuted.
Remind me where the conspiracy was again? It looks much more like the normal functioning of a society that has the behaviour of the police well regulated and scrutinised.
I might remind you, once again, that if it's found that the officers shot De Menezes unreasonably, it neither makes the case for nor against a general shoot to kill policy.
Zorro
Read more carefully
17.08.2005 16:50
Only two problems with this:
1. It's not the "stated results" of the IPCC investigation. It's a leak. We're still waiting for the final report, which will be published.
2. If the report shows that it's likely the officers didn't have reasonable suspicion, they'll be prosecuted.
Remind me where the conspiracy was again? It looks much more like the normal functioning of a society that has the behaviour of the police well regulated and scrutinised.
I might remind you, once again, that if it's found that the officers shot De Menezes unreasonably, it neither makes the case for nor against a general shoot to kill policy.
Zorro
Nothing to say PC Magoo
17.08.2005 16:54
All this information is in the public domain in spite of the enquiry not because of it. The Met had adequate oportunity to set the record straight and didn't. Instead the lied by ommission, allowing the media and the public to beleive a fairy tale about the events in Stockwell Tube Station, one which placed them in the best possible light.
The fact is the police did what the police do best - they lied to cover thier own shoddy, cowardly backs. I hope Commisioner Bliar and the einzatzkommando who pulled the trigger on Charles de Menezez get the book thrown at them and am comforted by the knowledge that if they do get off the hook in life their souls will rot in hell.
ACAB was never truer than it is now.
Skyver Bill
ACAB?
17.08.2005 17:07
Should we sack the coppers that are investigating the 7/7 and 21/7 bombings and preparing evidence against the suspects?
Or should we realise that some kind of police service is a necessary fact of life, but that we need to keep a jolly good eye on them?
Zorro
Nice try Zorro
17.08.2005 17:18
Let's face it, the leaks from the IPCC have holed the police's position on the de Menezez murder well below the waterline and Commissioner Bliar is a truly busted flush. Let's hope both Bliar and the scum who pulled the trigger go away for a very lon time.
Skyver Bill
...
17.08.2005 18:02
You could be right in regard to police lying, but having tried to find the quotes myself I can only find at best vague and/or indirect quotes and most of the points seem to eminate from media interviews with eyewitnesses.
________
”We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005. For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets.
”The man emerged from a block of flats in the Stockwell area that were under police surveillance as part of the investigation into the incidents on
Thursday 21st July. He was then followed by surveillance officers to the Underground station. His clothing and behaviour added to their suspicions.
”The circumstances that led to the man's death are being investigated by officers from the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] Directorate of Professional Standards, and will be referred to the IPCC [Independent Police Complaints Commission] in due course.”
Doesn't specify the clothing. Doesn't specify the behaviour.
Mark Whitby sounds about as credible a witness as Ernest Saunders...
magoo
Who Did The Shooting?
17.08.2005 18:18
Footage Contradicts London Police Reports
Did the CCTV footage positively identify the shooter? Who was he, and who did he work for? Police officers don't just shoot unarmed suspects seven times in the head, and eleven times total (3 missed). Especially not after the suspects are prone on the ground.
What Does Tape Show?
gargoyle aka PsyOps aka lying little shit
17.08.2005 18:46
Facts? You grab at anything that serves you even if you have to switch sides to accomodate it, including the bloody Daily Mail hahahaha! You are a nutter. EVERYTHING that happens is part of some PNAC/Mossad conspiracy to you.
You don't ask simple questions though. You make wild claims with no factual basis.
I'll remind you that you have from the start of this whole debacle you have made no distinctions between police statements, media filler and eyewitness testimonies. All of them blend into "the police lies" in your head. You couldn't give a crap about facts, so long as a link serves your bigotry.
You have ranged from suspecting him being a patsy, to an agent to just some bloke being a sacrificial lamb. With all that shit being thrown at the wall something's got to stick by averages.
" But the fact remains: we are being lied to. Someone has declared open season on innocent civilians, declared that we must be slaughtered in cold blood without the tiniest scrap of evidence of wrong-doing, and decided to foment ridiculous lies and cover-ups."
Yeah but whose lies? I see you have stopped harping on about the IPCC being a whitewash hahahahah! What's being covered up here???
"Why? All of this is some kind of deliberate policy? Bungling idiocy? Either way, it is patently absurd to allow a policy of slaughtering citizens in cold blood, supposedly to "protect us" to stand! "
Good god. You mean you don't have an answer linking it to PNAC already hahahaha!
"Those responsible for promulgating it, and those responsible for actively lying to the public about the Menezes murder should be stood at the dock and tried!"
Including you?
Let me remind you of your sordid lying eh?
You make everything up as you go along and I expect you'll change your story again once the IPCC report is out and all testimonies are heard.
Again, liar!
magoo
what's in a name?
17.08.2005 19:07
Mark gets around!
Hardly the most distinctive name around. Whitby is a small costal town up north as featured in Bram Stoker's Dracula.
magoo
Dear What Does Tape Show?
17.08.2005 19:18
There won't be any tape to be seen because as always there was some problem with CCTV cameras and the photograph we see in the papers today could well turn out to become an other "British soldier urinating on an Iraqi".
Do you remember that Psyop and how it did work. The Mirror and all that.
Who tells me it is De Menenzes that is on the picture. Can you recognize him ? Who leaked all that and for what reason ?
There are plenty of leaks about the various enquiries but they are just leaks. Nothing is officially confirmed.
cautious
as predicted Magoo has gone ballistic
17.08.2005 19:43
the original poster of this thread, gargoyle, has nothing to do the the other threads that Magoo has linked to in his latest (and one hardly need point out typically obnoxious, vile and psychotically violent) comment.
further, the "facts" that were referred to are factual accounts of a leaked report from IPCC. of course we look forward to seeing the full official report. if the official report states that Menezes was wearing a bulky jacket, carrying a pack, jumped a turnstile, ran away when called, then i will be very surprised. but even so, if that IS in the official report I will be glad to retract the basic claim made: that the police either (a) lied, or (b) allowed false stories to promulgate about what happened to Menezes doing nothing to correct them. For example, if Ian Blair or any other official came out and said something to the effect that "the investigation is ongoing and the current stories about the appearance of the deceased and his actions appearing in the press should be considered speculative at best" it would be a different matter. instead the press went wild with the story of a "terrorist suspect," who in POINT OF FACT, MAGOO, you insufferable ASS, was a completely innocent bystander.
it is you, Magoo, not me, who grabs at any ridiculous thread you can to defame anyone and everyone who questions the govt role here. first you said "what about the whitewash?" well, others on UK IMC might have said something about the IPCC investigation ending up as a white-wash, but i was not among them. in fact, i was waiting to hear what their investigation revealed. not spending every second breathless and spewing venom at anyone who suggested that the "story" about the "terrorist" coming from the press was balderdash. no, Magoo, that over-agitated agit-prop disinfo tool of the establishment was you, foaming at the mouth as usual.
it's just a flipping shame that people have to wade through your bile to get information and commentary. all i can say is: everybody, learn when to turn on the BULLSH** filters and decide for yourself who is taking cheap pot-shots and who is dealing with stated facts.
gargoyle
the leak is damage control
17.08.2005 20:02
and now observe the news media
assert that it was all a big accident
it is also asserted that
they thought Menezes was Osman Hussein
one of the July 21st 'fake bombers'
because they were both using a Gym pass or something
so incredibly daft its maddening.
then we have yet more xenophobic psyops- seeking to demonise
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"One of the clinching factors in the mistaken identification appears to have been the fact that some of the officers agreed Mr de Menezes had the 'same Mongolian eyes' as one of the terror suspects." -
-----------------------------------------------------------------
this is all to let these nutjobs get the accidental death verdict
and prejudice the coming
case
it is damage limitation designed to distract and confuse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IPCC Statement: Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes
We do not know from which organisation or from whom the documents shown on television this evening have come.
The IPCC investigation into the shooting of Mr de Menezes is continuing. Our priority is to disclose any findings direct to the family, who will clearly be distressed that they have received information on television concerning his death.
The IPCC made it clear that we would not speculate or release partial information about the investigation, and that others should not do so. That remains the case.
The IPCC operates a very high degree of security for all such investigations which we regularly review. - www.ipcc.gov.uk -end-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
and maybe Iain Blair falling on his sword...
anyone but those at the top, like the obviously mentally ill Blair [and Junta], eh?
the second 'attacks' on the 21st July were NOT suicide bombs, Osman Hussein has said since that these devices were designed just to scare people.
the CCTV if it is to be believed, has the bombers walking away from the devices
otherwise they would have been caught red handed with flour all over them
yes...you read that right, FLOUR
-----------------------------------------------------------------
My Tube bomb only had flour in it, says suspect
(Filed: 04/08/2005)
Hamdi Issac, the July 21 London bomb suspect held in custody in Rome, reportedly claimed yesterday that his backpack contained only flour and was designed merely to frighten. Issac, known in Britain as Hussain Osman, was said to have "morally repented" for his alleged involvement in the abortive terrorist attacks. - telegraph
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Surely the Police / intelligence services involved in 'tracking' Menezes
would have known the dubious make-up of this '2nd wave of bombs' even a day later...
oh yes we are being spun another yarn - that these boys were SO17 & NOT the DET
14th Intelligence special ops dirty tricks brigade
The whole 'Leaked Memo' Psyop is yet again another example of distraction
away from the sickening possibility, that these special forces
were deliberately targetting and silencing Menezes as part of a death-squad operation
so why were they silencing this ELECTRICIAN?
[hint: power surge initially reported as blasts hit
and stockwell tube northern line closed on 7-7-2005
at 6:30 until 8:30 in the morning]
pc
Facts are stubborn things
17.08.2005 20:35
We said that the reports of a man wearing a bulky jacket, vaulting the ticket barrier, pushing passengers out of the way and wearing wires (police radio, anyone) were likely to be describing an undercover policeman.
"Oh no," said some. "Witnesses saw it was a terrorist - didn't you read it in The Sun? Why did he run if he was innocent? And anyway, the police are working under very difficult conditions. They are really heroes - don't you watch BBC? I heard the experts say so on Sky. Didn't you hear Charles Clarke congratulate the officers? I'm not a willing dupe - I'm just well informed by AOL Time Warner!"
Who needs conspiracy theories when the cold, hard facts are this unbelievable? The only way it could be worse would be for "Heinrich" Blunkett to take over again at the Home Office.
Unimpressed
Comments Deleted
17.08.2005 20:35
Anyway, in short the person gargoyle (me), had nothing to do with the posts Magoo claims are related to me or to psy-ops (not me).
Further, what I refered to were facts as reported in the New York Times, purported to be leaked from the IPCC report. Of course those may not prove to be the facts given in the final report. In which case I will only stand corrected about the Menezes "story." On the other hand, if the final IPCC report says that Menezes was wearing a bulky jacket, a backpack, jumped turnstiles and ran away from the police I will be very surprised! And it has nothing to do with my statements about the use of "shoot to kill" policies when they result in the murder of totally innocent citizens. Those statements stand.
Cry and whimper as he may, no psychotic and violent posts by Magoo will change reality.
Let the readers filter out the mayhem and decide: do you want officials to have the say on when to murder your mates then cover it up when they've obviously screwed up? Do you want them to get off without so much as a reprimand?
Or, as in Magoo's world, do you want to have your head blown off, willy nilly, just to be "safe" from "ze bad terrorists." Let any rational person decide this one.
Magoo, you pathetic sicko. I know you won't let this go. But you are digging a hole to China, jacko. climb in it and go away, won't you?
gargolye
Magoo.
17.08.2005 22:21
first thing in the morning to answer your question.
Thank you.
Good luck.
Jimjam
Jimjam
Oh for Heaven's Sake...
17.08.2005 23:33
Paranoid Pete
Really
18.08.2005 05:39
The Bile, I Mean