22Jul05 Jean Charles De Menezes Stockwell tube train murder

[Dstevo]

Previously: 'Open Verdict' in DeMenezes Murder Inquest [ed.]

Could this ‘police officer’ be a soldier?
Michael Smith

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1715192_2,00.html

BRITISH special forces soldiers took part in the operation that led to the shoot-to-kill death of an innocent Brazilian electrician with no connection to the London bombings, defence sources said last week.
Jean Charles de Menezes was tailed by a surveillance team on July 22 as he caught a bus to Stockwell Underground station in south London. He was shot eight times when he fled from his pursuers at the Tube station.



The Ministry of Defence admitted last week that the army provided “technical assistance” to the surveillance operation but insisted the soldiers concerned were “not directly involved” in the shooting.

Press photographs of members of the armed response team taken in the immediate aftermath of the killing show at least one man carrying a special forces weapon that is not issued to SO19, the Metropolitan police firearms unit.

The man, wearing civilian clothes with a blue cap marked “Police”, was carrying a specially modified Heckler & Koch G3K rifle with a shortened barrel and a butt from a PSG-1 sniper rifle fitted to it — a combination used by the SAS.

Another man, dressed in a T-shirt, jeans and trainers, was carrying a Heckler & Koch G36C. Although this weapon is used on occasion by SO19 it appears to be fitted with a target illuminator purchased as an “urgent operational requirement” for UK special forces involved in the war on terror.

The soldiers who took part in the surveillance operation that led to de Menezes’s death included men from a secret undercover unit formed for operations in Northern Ireland, defence sources said.

Known then as 14 Int or the Det, it is reported to have formed the basis of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, the newly created special forces unit stationed alongside the SAS at Hereford. The men include SAS soldiers serving on attachment and are part of a team of around 50 UK special forces that has operated in London since the July 7 bombings in which 56 people died.

Special forces counterterrorist experts have been regularly used to support police at Heathrow since the September 11 attacks. They moved into London a day after the July 7 bombings and have been supporting the police and gathering intelligence to help snare the suspects.

Members of SO19 (technically known as CO19) are trained by SAS and SBS instructors. One key tenet of that training is to ensure that a suicide bomber is killed rather than wounded, which would allow them to trigger a bomb.

The use of multiple shots to the head is the modus operandi of the special forces, whether from the SAS, the SBS or the undercover intelligence operators used in the Stockwell operation. Over the past 30 years the SAS has developed a reputation for never allowing gunmen to remain alive, an attitude shown most graphically during the 1980 Iranian hostages siege and the Gibraltar IRA killings eight years later.

“It is vital to strike fear into the minds of the terrorists,” one former SAS officer said. “In an ongoing situation such as we have now the fear must be directed to the fact that we are watching them and will eventually (get) them. They need to know that they cannot escape.

“We know they are happy to kill themselves but that doesn’t mean they are happy to be killed by others. As long as they evade the police they will think they are in control but the minute they are intercepted they lose control.”

The Ministry of Defence insisted last week that the military involvement was limited in the operation that led to de Menezes’s death. “We would describe it as technical assistance as part of a police-led operation under police control,” a spokeswoman said. “It is a particular military capability that the police can draw on if needed. It was a low-level involvement in support of a police-controlled operation.”

The Det is made up of the army’s best urban surveillance operators using skills honed in Belfast against republican and loyalist terrorists. Its speciality has always been close target reconnaissance: undercover work among civilians, observing terrorists at close quarters, and carrying out covert searches of offices and houses for information and weapons.


The unit was very egalitarian when it operated in Northern Ireland. An operator’s rank was always regarded as less important than his or her capabilities; it was also the only UK special forces unit to use women.
The Det broke into homes to gather intelligence and plant listening devices or hidden cameras. Weapons were left where they were found but “jarked” with tiny transmitters placed inside them that would provide warning should they be moved.

[Wokeman]

London Bombings: Electrical Surge Connected to Menezes Shooting?

F Napoli/Prison Planet | August 3 2005

1. The 21/7 attempt was an inside job too. In order to connect "home-made" bombs, which surprise surprise did not explode (all 4 of them), to the ones used on 7/7, which were actually of military origin.

2. We need to find out in which locations Jean Charles worked at recently. He was not shot seven or eight or nine times in the head as a "mistake". Understand? He was allowed to get onto a BUS, before being herded and THROWN inside a tube carriage PACKED with passengers so they would have an excuse TO kill him. I have made various attempts to inquire from journalists where he worked at recently and all I've been told is - "no information regarding that at the moment".

He was killed because of what he saw or learned.

Some tips - the contradiction between 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. See my point?

Where did Menezes work at prior to his murder?

THAT is what we have to find out. And since I live overseas in Gibraltar, I cannot do that. Even though I've been doing my best to get in touch with his cousin, in vain.

This is my hypothesis - the bombs UNDER the trains or ON the rails, were detonated by a calculated & engineered power surge. That is WHY reports of a power surge along with survivors' reports of an "electrical like discharge" BEFORE the explosions themselves, originated early on. Remember - the truth usually comes out in the first half an hour of an event like this one.

Why would they do it like this? For the simple reason that in this manner, they could have utmost control over the exact time AND location of the blasts, something which could not be achieved with timers, since something might go wrong, a train could be delayed for whatever reason and blow up in the wrong place, for example.

Moreso, because in this manner, no timers tracing back to the real culprits would ever be found. i.e. There were none. The perfect plan & execution (of the train explosions anyway).

Another related matter is Richard Jones, the lying witness who claims he saw the "suicide-bomber" on the bus. If you need more info about his lies, please let me know, I'd be happy to send you material on the subject.

So we need to find out who this Richard Jones really is and where Menezes worked at recently. He did not have a fixed employment but worked contract jobs, remember.

Finding out even the slightest bit of information regarding these two questions, will open up a whole can of whoop ass. Have NO doubt.

All the best.

[xmasdale]

The theory that Jean Charles Menezes was killed because he knew too much is a possible line of enquiry. But there appears to be a contradiction about his movements prior to getting shot. This account says he got on a bus, but also says Richard Jones lied about seeing him on a bus.

Another account I read says he got on a bus in Tulse Hill and travelled in it to Stockwell (he would have come very close to my house on this route). If "police" were following him, why did they wait until he was on an Underground train in Stockwell Station before shooting him? Did they want to maximise the number of witnesses?

A BBC news reported a witness who said he was in the carriage of the train where the luckless Jean Charles was murdered, that the train waited an unusually long time in the station and a big man in the carriage was nervously fiddling with a bag. When Jean Charles arrived, "police" in hot pursuit, the big man joined in with their murder of him.

Another account said he lived with Muslims.

I would like to know more about the lying witness Peter Jones.

Noel

[Andrew Johnson]

JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES FAMILY CAMPAIGN
We have received the following letter from the campaign to get justice for
Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian who was killed by the police on 22
July under a secret shoot-to-kill policy which in no way makes us safer but
has the potential to kill the utterly innocent like Jean Charles. As the
documents leaked to ITV show, the police knew almost instantly after they
had shot Jean Charles seven times in the head that they had killed someone
completely unconnected with any acts of terrorism, either committed or
planned.

Since then there has been a systematic cover up for what was at best an act
of gross incompetence and at worst a crime, for which those responsible must
be held accountable. In so doing the police have been breaking the law, not
least in refusing to allow the Independent Police Complaints Committee
(IPCC) to begin their investigation immediately after Jean Charles's death
occurred. It was five days before the police allowed the IPCC to begin it's
investigation and in that time the police allowed an impression to circulate
in the media that Jean Charles in some way contributed to his own death -- a
view which the police knew to be entirely untrue. At the same time, we now
know from a leaked letter, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian
Blair tried to get the government to stop the IPCC investigation obliged by
law altogether.

On Monday 22 August, exactly one month since Jean Charles was killed, his
family have called a demonstration at Downing Street demanding a public
inquiry and the resignation of Ian Blair (details below). Please spread
this information as widely as possible and join the demonstration if you
can. The family campaign is also urgently seeking donations as it is heavily
in debt. Details of how you can donate are given in the letter from Jean
Charles's family.

LETTER FROM THE JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES FAMILY CAMPAIGN

Dear Friend

The Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign thank you for your support.

It now appears that a catalogue of errors has unfolded regarding Jean
Charles' murder. This includes deliberate and continued misleading of the
public and the family by the Metropolitan Police.

The family are very shocked and distressed by the leaked information but it
verified what the family already knew, that Jean did nothing wrong, that he
was not wearing a bulky jacket or running from the police. The Family
campaign is calling for the sacking of Metropolitan Chief Commissioner Sir
Ian Blair who continued to mislead the public and for an immediate public
inquiry into Jean's murder.

This Monday marks a month from Jean's murder. On this evening the family
campaign will be calling a demonstration.

JUSTICE 4 JEAN DEMONSTRATION

* NO MORE COVER UP
* SACK IAN BLAIR
* PUBLIC INQUIRY NOW

MONDAY 22 AUGUST 6PM
OUTSIDE DOWNING STREET
(nearest tube Westminster)

Contact 07931337890 or
07956210332 for more information

We need as many people as possible to come along. It is only through
continued public support that we can put pressure on the police and
government to take responsibility for what they have done. It is in the
public interest that justice is done for the Menezes family and that those
responsible for his killing are held to account.

URGENT: DONATIONS NEEDED
The family campaign is several thousand pounds in debt, all the money thus
far has been donated by a handful of supporters and friends. The Menezes
family are humble farmers in Brazil and cannot afford to continue the
campaign without urgent financial support.

If you donate any amount of money please send cheques made payable to Jean
Charles de Menezes Family Campaign, PO Box 273, London, E7 or transfer money
to Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign, Account Number: 61455664, sort
code: 40-07-12. HBSC bank, 349 Green St, London, E13 PA5.

We will be circulating a statement from the family tomorrow and an online
petition in due course. We encourage all supporters to write to their MP's
and demand a public enquiry into Jean's killing. Please keep us updated with
any feedback you get from MPs.

Best wishes

Yasmin

Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign

[Wokeman]

AN INNOCENT MAN SHOT DEAD ON THE LONDON TUBE BY POLICE ... since then everything we’ve been told has been wrong

A COVER-UP? AND IF SO … WHY?
By James Cusick
Brazil’s deputy attorney general and a senior official from Brazil’s ministry of justice will tomorrow morning hold discussions in London with members of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Metropolitan Police and senior officials from the Foreign Office. Despite the diplomatic manners that will initially be on show, a Foreign Office source hinted that this will be an “uncomfortable” gathering. It could be very uncomfortable.
On July 22, an innocent Brazilian citizen was gunned down inside a London Underground train during a bungled police operation which followed the second terrorist attack in London. The Metropolitan Police says the shooting was a “tragic mistake”. But behind the public contrition there lies a web of contradictory state ments, deviation from routine procedures, and a mist of confusion that has led to serial calls for the resignation of the Met’s head, Sir Ian Blair. And throughout four weeks of calls for clarity and the truth, has been the odour of a police cover-up that has refused to retreat in its intensity.

The two Brazilian officials, Wagner Goncalves and Marcio Pereira Pinto García, will, above all, be seeking assurances that every detail of the death of Jean Charles de Menezes will be investigated and that they are kept informed. On that basic request the two Brazilians may be disappointed. The IPCC has already hinted that the Brazilians will be told no more than lawyers from the de Menezes family .

The two Brazilians are likely to leave the meeting with the realisation that they may need to be patient in their desire to know the full facts. It could be two years and more before the IPCC publishes its findings. Its report will need to be sent to the official coroner. It will also have to be examined by lawyers at the Crown Prosecution Service. A formal inquest will take place and if there is any prosecution of any officer involved, that will take precedence over the report’s publication. The Home Secretary, if he believes any part of the IPCC’s report compromises national security, could also order an edited version to be made public, with key elements remaining confidential.

That is a lengthy period for a climate of cover-up to endure and Sir Ian Blair knows it. In an interview with the BBC, given at the end of last week, the Met chief said: “Of all the allegations made in the last couple of weeks, the matter I would most want to reject is the concept of a cover-up … 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.”

The Met is currently involved in the largest criminal inquiry in England’s history, centred on the people who lost their lives in the terrorist attack in London on July 7. There are double that number whose lives have been wrecked by the horrors of the attack carried out by four suicide bombers.

Yet despite Sir Ian’s plea that “we cannot let one tragic death outweigh all the others”, the confusion and chaos surrounding the shooting of de Menezes has forced Britain’s senior police officers last Friday to question the use of the shoot-to-kill policy that led to an innocent death.

“Operation Kratos” was the codename for the police policy that gave authority to armed officers from the SO19 firearms squad to kill a suspected suicide bomber if deemed necessary. A suspected suicide bomber would not be targeted with a shot to the body – a shot likely to trigger explosives strapped to a bomber. If a suspect was targeted there would be a lethal shot to the head.

But how did de Menezes get to the point where he was identified, wrongly, as that kind of risk?

Two weeks after the first attacks on July 7 London’s transport network was hit by a second wave of attacks. No bombs were detonated on July 21 and a massive manhunt for four bombers was launched. Police are said to have quickly established the identity of some of the men they were looking for and began monitoring a flat in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill, in south London. The address they believed was linked to the second wave of attacks.

A police surveillance team believed two of the suspected bombers lived in the block, one of them, Hussein Osman. Among the surveillance team in Scotia Road was a soldier from a new “special forces” regiment that had only become operational in April. The Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR) is the first special forces unit to be created in the UK since the end of the second world war. The SRR is based in Hereford, its personnel selected and trained by the SAS.

Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, announced on April 5 in a written Commons answer that “the pursuit of international terrorists” would be the SRR’s priority.

However, the involvement of the SRR in the operation on July 22 was not confined to just one soldier at Scotia Road. According to security sources, SRR personnel were involved in the tailing operation that saw de Menezes leave the block of flats, board a bus, and then enter the tube station at Stockwell. SRR personnel are also believed to have been on the tube train when he was shot.

The SRR soldier at Scotia Road (given the codename Tango 10) used equipment which sent realtime pictures of all who came and went from the flats. Those receiving the pictures could check them against footage of who they were looking for. One security source said: “In this kind of operation you never leave. You need to pee: you use a bottle; if there’s no bottle, tough. You never leave.”

The police account says there is no footage of de Menezes leaving because the SRR soldier had to relieve himself. The police account says he sent out a message calling the man who left [de Menezes] an “ICI” – a white northern European. It was also suggested that “it would be worth someone else having a look”.

Hussein Osman – arrested in Rome and scheduled for deportation to the UK within the next two months – was not an ICI. The CCTV footage of Osman the police held showed an Asian/north African male.

De Menezes took a bus to Stockwell tube station, stopping briefly at Brixton. The surveillance operation logged his every step. An assessment was made on the basis of his demeanour: he was identified as a suspect. By whom? That is still unclear. It is also understood that the senior police officer in charge of the operation, Commander Cressida Dick, had ordered de Menezes at this stage to be detained before he went into the tube station and that he should be alive.

So why was de Menezes not stopped before the station? Suggestions that SO19 officers had yet to arrive in the vicinity of the station are irrelevant if armed SRR personnel were part of the surveillance team tracking the 27-year-old Brazilian.

Details contained in a leaked IPCC draft report given to ITV News last week reveal that the Brazilian walked into the station lobby, picked up a free newspaper, used a travelcard at the ticket barriers, and headed towards the train. Three members of the surveillance team followed de Menezes on to the train and sat alongside him. Another sat near the train’s doors.

The leaked IPCC report says the surveillance team inside the train saw four other armed personnel (said to be from SO19) moving along the platform. The IPCC report says one of the surveillance team – code- named called Hotel Three – saw the men on the platform, and said they were “probably” – but not definitely – “from SO19”. He said he decided to identify the male in the denim jacket [de Menezes] to them. “I placed my foot against the open carriage to prevent it shutting … I shouted, ‘He’s here,’ and indicated to the male in the denim jacket with my right hand. I heard them shouting which indicated the word ‘police’ and turned to face the male in the denim jacket.” The IPCC account says de Menezes stood up and walked towards the armed men. “Hotel Three” decided to intervene.

The report says he wrapped his arms around the young Brazilian and pushed him back into his seat. Hotel Three says he then heard a gunshot close to his ear and he was dragged away on the floor of the train carriage. The report also says that one of the officers from SO19 shot de Menezes seven times in the head and once in the neck. Three other shots were fired and missed.

A security agency source contacted by the Sunday Herald said: “This take-out is the signature of a special forces operation. It is not the way the police usually do things. We know members of SO19 have been receiving training from the SAS, but even so, this has special forces written all over it.”

The IPCC report offers a degree of clarity absent in the “eyewitness” accounts which suggested the suspect had been wearing a padded jacket and had vaulted a ticket barrier.

These accounts are governed not by rational recall but by panic. They reflect public terror and fear. But despite Sir Ian Blair’s insistence that “there was no evidence” that the Met had made up or leaked stories suggesting that the victim was running from the police and had been wearing a bulky jacket and had jumped over a barrier, the initial post-mortem report into de Menezes’s death states the young Brazilian had “vaulted over the ticket barrier”.

A post-mortem report does not take its information from media reports. The police are contacted directly and written accounts are delivered. Details of the barrier being “vaulted” therefore came from the police. Why?

And why at 4pm – five hours after the shooting – when the police would have known they had not killed Hussein Osman but a young Brazilian, did Sir Ian hold a press conference and insist that the shooting was “directly linked” to the anti-terrorist operation?

It took until 5pm the following day, July 23, for Scotland Yard to formally admit that the victim was not linked to the anti-terrorism operation. At 9.30pm Scotland Yard issued the name Jean Charles de Menezes.

However, the day before the admission that there was no anti-terrorism link, Sir Ian wrote to John Gieve, the permanent secretary at the Home Office, arguing that an internal inquiry into the killing should take precedence over an independent investigation. But why was Ian Blair worried that an IPCC investigation could impact on security and intelligence? Was he concerned that it was not just his force’s officers, but also the personnel of the new special forces regiment, the SRR, who would be exposed? He told Gieve that he feared the IPCC would have to inform the family of everything that was found – and “this investigation involves secret intelligence”. It was also believed that any outside investigation could damage the morale of SO19.

Despite the Met chief’s plea, he was over-ruled. The IPCC was brought in. But no explanation has so far been offered as to why it took a further three days for the IPCC investigation team to be given access to the scene of the shooting at Stockwell. In normal procedures, an IPCC team would have been given access “within hours” to preserve evidence.

Despite Sir Ian’s insistence that the Met “do not spin”, the contradictions and confusion point either to a cover-up designed to protect what the Met still believes is valued intelligence material, or to a confused chain of command between police and the clear involvement of special forces personnel from the new Special Reconnaissance Regiment.

De Menezes’s cousin, Alessandro Pereira, certainly has no doubts that the police have not been forthcoming with the truth about the circumstances surrounding the shooting.

“For three weeks we have listened to lie after lie about Jean and about how he was killed,” he said. “I want Ian Blair to think how it felt having to ring Jean’s mother and father … and tell them their son was dead, that he was killed in such a way. The police know Jean was innocent and yet they let my family suffer.”

This was the SRR’s first public test of their operational skills in combating terrorism. It would be highly damaging for the government if a new unit, designed to increase national protection, were found to be incapable of working successfully alongside special armed units of the Met. A full and open public inquiry would answer such questions, but it would also expose a special forces unit to public scrutiny, something the SAS has been able to resist throughout its history.

Like the two Brazilian justice officials expecting answers tomorrow, we may all have to wait much longer for a believable account that helps explain the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.

[Wokeman]

A Plot by a Secretive Section of the Military to kill De Menezes As Part of a Strategy of Tension?

Aangirfan Blog | August 22 2005

The Sunday Herald and the Observer have new revelations about the de Menezes murder.

There has been speculation that all the recent terror incidents in London are part of a 'strategy of tension' similar to that which brought terror to Greece, Italy and Turkey in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

It looks as if there were (at least) two groups who were involved in the pursuit of de Menezes:

1. The police
2. A shadowy military group

Senior sources in the Metropolitan Police have told The Observer (21 August 2005) that

1. their surveillance officers felt that de Menezes was not about to detonate a bomb,
2. was not armed
3. and was not acting suspiciously.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1553440,00.html

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.'

It was only when they were joined by 'armed officers' that things changed.

The Sunday Herald, which often has the best sources on security matters, tells us about the Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR).

http://www.sundayherald.com/51372

The Sunday Herald, 21 August 2005, tells us about the monitoring of the flat in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill, in south London.

The address was said to be linked to alleged bomber Hussein Osman.( Hussain Osman - arrested in Rome )

Among the surveillance team in Scotia Road was a soldier from a new “special forces” regiment -the Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR).

James Cusick, in the Sunday Herald, writes:

"According to security sources, SRR personnel were involved in the tailing operation that saw de Menezes leave the block of flats, board a bus, and then enter the tube station at Stockwell. SRR personnel are also believed to have been on the tube train when he was shot.

"The SRR soldier at Scotia Road (given the codename Tango 10) used equipment which sent realtime pictures of all who came and went from the flats. Those receiving the pictures could check them against footage of who they were looking for. One security source said: 'In this kind of operation you never leave. You need to pee: you use a bottle; if there’s no bottle, tough. You never leave.'

"The police account says there is no footage of de Menezes leaving because the SRR soldier had to relieve himself. The police account says he sent out a message calling the man who left [de Menezes] an 'ICI' – a white northern European...

"Hussein Osman – arrested in Rome and scheduled for deportation to the UK within the next two months – was not an ICI. The CCTV footage of Osman the police held showed an Asian/north African male.

"De Menezes took a bus to Stockwell tube station, stopping briefly at Brixton...

"It is also understood that the senior police officer in charge of the operation, Commander Cressida Dick, had ordered de Menezes at this stage to be detained before he went into the tube station and that he should be alive...

"So why was de Menezes not stopped before the station?"

Both members of the police and the mysterious second group were on the train with de Menezes. Members of the mysterious second group murdered de Menezes.

"A security agency source contacted by the Sunday Herald said: 'This take-out is the signature of a special forces operation. It is not the way the police usually do things.... this has special forces written all over it.'”

The Sunday Herald points out:

"The initial post-mortem report into de Menezes’s death states the young Brazilian had 'vaulted over the ticket barrier'.

"A post-mortem report does not take its information from media reports. The police are contacted directly and written accounts are delivered. Details of the barrier being “vaulted” therefore came from the police. Why?

"And why at 4pm – five hours after the shooting – when the police would have known they had not killed Hussein Osman but a young Brazilian, did Sir Ian hold a press conference and insist that the shooting was 'directly linked' to the anti-terrorist operation?"

What about the de menezes flat? Did Osman really live there?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1553440,00.html

From the Observer, 21 August 2005:

"Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the police intelligence that led to the raid on the block of flats occupied by de Menezes. It was initially suggested that the flat was connected to the man known as Hussein Osman, who was arrested in Italy.

"On the Saturday after the shooting, officers raided the flat in a high-profile operation watched by the world's media. As a result, a man, identified only as 'C', was arrested 'on suspicion of the commission, instigation or preparation of acts of terrorism'. But he was released on 30 July with no charge, raising the possibility that the flats had no connection with the bombings."

Was there a plot to fool the public?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/anthonylarkin.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

A passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man appeared to be wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".The 'man' was Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, who was shot by government agents.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706913.stm

Commuter Anthony Larkin, who was also on the train at Stockwell station, told 5 Live he saw police chasing a man.

"I saw these police officers in uniform and out of uniform shouting 'get down, get down', and I saw this guy who appeared to have a bomb belt and wires coming out and people were panicking and I heard two shots being fired."

Is the Anthony Larkin named above the same as the one named below?

www.cmr.qmul.ac.uk/cmrpeople.php?uid=130
(Accessible via a Google search for Anthony Larkin, cached page)

Mr Tony Larkin Lead scientist, MET police. Forensic scientist Tel: Location: Mile End. Expertise: Forensic Science

http://news.scotsman.com/headlines.cfm?id=211762005

Anthony Larkin, the lead evidence recovery scientist with the Metropolitan Police...


Did elements of the security services hope to fool the public into thinking that the person who was shot was one of the 'bombers' such as Hussain Osman - arrested in Rome .

Hussein Osman, who also uses the name Hamdi Isaac, moved to Rome by Eurostar five days after the 21 July attacks in London. His passport was not checked by the British at Waterloo.


Operation Gladio and the 'strategy of tension' in Italy beginning in 1969.

Operation Gladio was organised by 'fascists' within the security services of the West.

Reportedly, the idea was to kill innocent people and then blame this on others.

Gladio was about keeping the right-wing elite in power.

Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony:

'You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.'

Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti revealed the existence of Gladio in 1991.

Parliamentary investigations in Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have given us a little of the truth.

The book "NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe," by Daniele Ganser documents some of what we know so far.

Run by fascist elements in NATO and Washington, right-wing militias carried out acts of terrorism and electoral subversion in states such as Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Turkey and West Germany.

Gladio was the name used in Italy. In Austria the name was Schwert, Belgium -Sdra 8, Britain - Stay Behind, France - Glaive, Greece -Operation Sheepskin, Holland, Sweden -Sveaborg, Switzerland -P26 and Turkey -Special War Department. [Source: "Operation Gladio." users.westnet.gr/~cgian/gladio.htm]

A Pentagon document, Field Manual FM 30-31B, details the methods for launching terrorist attacks.85 people were killed on August 2, 1980 in the bombing of the Bologna train station.

According to the Italian Senate, after its investigation in 2000, the bombers were later discovered to be "men inside Italian state institutions and ... men linked to the structures of United States intelligence."

The Bologna bomb was part of Gladio's " strategy of tension" - fomenting fear to keep populations in thrall to "strong leaders" who will protect the nation from the ever-present terrorist threat.

The beginning of the 'strategy of tension' in Italy came in Dec. 12, 1969 when a bomb exploded inside the Banca Nazionale dell' Agricoltura in Milan's Piazza Fontana. 16 people were killed and 58 wounded.

FAIR USE NOTICE

[Wokeman]

Tuesday, August 30, 2005
London ritual murder
There are so many crazy new stories about the London shooting, but I've been trying to understand this one in The Guardian:

"Armed police officers fired at Jean Charles de Menezes for over 30 seconds when they killed him at Stockwell tube station, according to a witness statement made to independent investigators and obtained by the Guardian.

The witness says the shots were fired at intervals of three seconds and that she ran for her life fearing terrorists had opened fire on commuters."

The witness was Sue Thomason, a freelance journalist from south London, who apparently correctly said that eleven shots were fired at a time when the actual number of shots was not made public. Some excerpts from her testimony:
"The shots were evenly spaced with about three seconds between the shots, for the first few shots, then a gap of a little longer, then the shots were evenly spaced again."

and:
"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."

and:
"While I was making my way to the escalator I remember hearing more shots coming from behind me. I thought that I would be shot in the back... Half way up the escalator I remember looking behind me and hearing two more shots... "Once I got outside the station my legs went.

I would say there was 10 or 11 shots fired. The shots were . . . evenly spaced out (timewise)."

What the hell?! Remember these were extremely close-range shots to the head. I can understand a panic response when a flurry of shots is fired almost simultaneously, but this timing is just plain weird. It would sound something like this (for those who count seconds by counting Mississippi's!):

BANG

[time space . . . one Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi]

BANG

[time space . . . one Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi]

BANG

[longer time space . . . one Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi . . . four Mississippi . . . five Mississippi]

BANG

[time space . . . one Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi]

BANG

[time space . . . one Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi]


and so on, up to eleven shots, spaced out over a period of thirty seconds.

She says that the two investigators from the Independent Police Complaints Commission who interviewed her used a map of Stockwell tube which had key features in the wrong place, and omitted the number of shots and the intervals between them from her statement until she insisted that this information be included! Her story rings true, as she could confirm the interval based on the time it took for her physical escape from the scene of the crime.


Was this some kind of ritual killing? Did the number of shots and their timing have a meaning to the SAS? Is it like a twenty-one gun salute? Can anyone confirm if similar SAS executions in Ireland had similar characteristics?
ends

[frydays]

from Stockwell shooting inquiry

An ITN television journalist who revealed police blunders leading up to the shooting dead of Jean Charles de Menezes, has been arrested on suspicion of "theft"

The story was hailed as one of the biggest scoops in the history of British television news and ITV has entered it for the Royal Television Society awards. The leak from the IPCC's investigation included witness statements and photographs that undermined early accounts by the Metropolitan police.... An ITV News insider said police seemed to be looking for evidence that money was paid for the statements. The source said no money was paid ..." Guardian

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1694222,00.html

[frydays]

The IPCC report found that 10 hours after the shooting, by which time it was known the dead man was innocent, the Special Branch team attended a debriefing meeting in which they were allowed to make alterations to the log. A line in it was changed from saying the team said Mr Menezes "was Osman" by the insertion of the word "not" - passing the blame to the Scotland Yard team.

The amendments were supposed to be signed and accompanied by an explanation, but this was not done, in an apparent attempt to pass off the revised log as the original. According to the newspaper, the IPCC report concludes: "This looks like an attempt to try to distance Special Branch from the decision [to shoot Mr Menezes]."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article341958.ece

[Mick Meaney]

Policemen face criminal charges over Brazilian’s shooting
Bureau Report

LONDON — British police officers, involved in the killing of an innocent Brazilian in an anti-terrorist operation here in July last, are facing criminal charges over allegations that they tampered with evidence after the shooting incident.

The officials, who oversaw the anti-terrorist operation, will be charged by Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) officials with attempting to pervert the course of justice by disguising the fact that they had mistaken 27-year-old Jean Charles De Menezes for a terrorism suspect, the ‘independent’ reported today.

The disclosure comes three weeks after reports that undercover police deliberately attempted to blame firearms officers for the shooting.

Police surveillance officers allegedly tried to disguise the fact that they had mistaken De Menezes for Hussain Osman, the alleged terrorist being hunted for a failed suicide bombing on the tube.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is planning action over the allegations that special branch officers took part in the cover-up, in which words clearing them of any wrong-doing were written into the police log.

Senior legal sources say that officers who were allegedly involved in altering the log, which detailed the last movements of De Menezes, face charges of obstructing public justice or Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

“This was a deliberate and obvious attempt to smear the firearms officers and there is a great deal of anxiety about it at the MET (Metropolitan Police),” prosecution sources were quoted as saying.

De Menezes’ family has already called for a public inquiry into the killing.

[Andrew Johnson]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article346374.ece

Charges for police in Tube shooting
Stockwell officers face charge of perverting course of justice after logbook was faked. Marksmen exonerated in CPS inquiry into mistaken shooting of 27-year-old Brazilian electrician
By Sophie Goodchild, Chief Reporter
Published: 19 February 2006
Police officers are facing criminal charges over allegations that they tampered with evidence after shooting dead an innocent Brazilian at a London Underground station, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) officials investigating the killing of 27-year-old Jean Charles de Menezes plan to charge the officers who oversaw the operation with attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The disclosure comes three weeks after reports that undercover police deliberately attempted to blame firearms officers for the shooting.

Police surveillance officers allegedly tried to disguise the fact that they had mistaken Mr de Menezes for Hussain Osman, the alleged terrorist being hunted for a failed suicide bombing on the Tube.

The CPS is planning action over the allegations that Special Branch officers took part in the cover-up, in which words clearing them of any wrong-doing were written into the police log.

Senior legal sources say that officers who were allegedly involved in altering the log, which detailed the last movements of Mr de Menezes, face charges of obstructing public justice or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

One prosecution source said: "This was a deliberate and obvious attempt to smear the firearms officers and there is a great deal of anxiety about it at the Met."

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) report reveals that a log was changed so that it read: "And it was not Osman" instead of "it was Osman". This meant that surveillance officers could claim the marksmen had shot dead the wrong man despite having been warned that he was not who they had thought.

Senior CPS sources have told the IoS that the blame for the shooting lies with Special Branch and the surveillance officers who wrongly identified the Brazilian electrician as a suicide bomber. The original focus of the inquiry into why Mr de Menezes was shot dead by police last year was on the officers who fired the fatal shots. Scotland Yard, the CPS and the IPCC have refused to comment publicly on reports that the surveillance log was tampered with.

However, this newspaper has learnt that documents given to the CPS last month detail the alleged forgery. This is being taken extremely seriously by investigators and is central to the case against the police.

The IoS has also learnt that the CPS is now planning to question a further eight officers in addition to the four who have already been quizzed by the IPCC.

There was a public outcry over the shooting of Mr de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station. The armed officers were acting under controversial new guidelines which allow police to shoot suspected suicide bombers without challenge.

Mr de Menezes' family has called for a public inquiry into the killing. They have already brought a separate case against Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. They allege that he misled the public over comments he made in the aftermath of the Stockwell shooting.

Police officers are facing criminal charges over allegations that they tampered with evidence after shooting dead an innocent Brazilian at a London Underground station, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) officials investigating the killing of 27-year-old Jean Charles de Menezes plan to charge the officers who oversaw the operation with attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The disclosure comes three weeks after reports that undercover police deliberately attempted to blame firearms officers for the shooting.

Police surveillance officers allegedly tried to disguise the fact that they had mistaken Mr de Menezes for Hussain Osman, the alleged terrorist being hunted for a failed suicide bombing on the Tube.

The CPS is planning action over the allegations that Special Branch officers took part in the cover-up, in which words clearing them of any wrong-doing were written into the police log.

Senior legal sources say that officers who were allegedly involved in altering the log, which detailed the last movements of Mr de Menezes, face charges of obstructing public justice or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

One prosecution source said: "This was a deliberate and obvious attempt to smear the firearms officers and there is a great deal of anxiety about it at the Met."

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) report reveals that a log was changed so that it read: "And it was not Osman" instead of "it was Osman". This meant that surveillance officers could claim the marksmen had shot dead the wrong man despite having been warned that he was not who they had thought.
Senior CPS sources have told the IoS that the blame for the shooting lies with Special Branch and the surveillance officers who wrongly identified the Brazilian electrician as a suicide bomber. The original focus of the inquiry into why Mr de Menezes was shot dead by police last year was on the officers who fired the fatal shots. Scotland Yard, the CPS and the IPCC have refused to comment publicly on reports that the surveillance log was tampered with.

However, this newspaper has learnt that documents given to the CPS last month detail the alleged forgery. This is being taken extremely seriously by investigators and is central to the case against the police.

The IoS has also learnt that the CPS is now planning to question a further eight officers in addition to the four who have already been quizzed by the IPCC.

There was a public outcry over the shooting of Mr de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station. The armed officers were acting under controversial new guidelines which allow police to shoot suspected suicide bombers without challenge.

Mr de Menezes' family has called for a public inquiry into the killing. They have already brought a separate case against Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. They allege that he misled the public over comments he made in the aftermath of the Stockwell shooting

[Wokeman]

Saturday, March 11th, 2006
Scotland Yard was at the centre of a new row over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes following allegations that he was the suspect in a rape case.

It has emerged that the 27-year-old electrician, gunned down by armed officers at Stockwell Tube station, is being linked with a sex attack in London.

Officers have contacted lawyers acting for the dead man’s family to ask for permission to examine DNA samples taken after his death. These are understood to be held by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) which has been investigating the shooting and has also been contacted by the Metropolitan Police.

The inquiry is in response to a call, more than six months after the Brazilian’s death, from a rape victim who named Mr de Menezes as her attacker.

Sources close to his family have reacted with fury to the allegations. They accuse the Metropolitan police of deliberately leaking the details of the rape inquiry in an attempt to deflect attention from the investigation into the shooting of Mr de Menezes, who was mistaken for a terrorist by armed officers.

His relatives are already pursuing a complaint against Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police who, they allege, misled the public in the wake of the shooting.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is also considering whether to bring charges against the officers involved in the death of Mr de Menezes.

A source told The Independent on Sunday: “This is a deliberate attempt to deflect the blame. First [the police] tried to say he was a terrorist and now this… he is no longer here to defend himself.”
Last night, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that inquiries were continuing into the alleged rape, which happened in the West End of London.

The Met said in a statement: “The victim of a rape in the West End more than three years ago contacted us earlier this year and provided the name of a suspect. The name was given as that of Jean Charles de Menezes… and inquiries are continuing.”

Mr de Menezes was shot dead by armed officers on 22 July, the day after the failed copycat bombings on the London Underground. Eyewitness accounts of the shooting initially suggested that the Brazilian electrician was a suicide bomber - an impression the police did not try to alter.

Surveillance officers searching for Hussein Osman, who was allegedly involved in the failed bombings, had been staking out the flats in Tulse Hill from which Mr de Menezes emerged.

The Independent on Sunday last month revealed that the IPCC report alleges police tried to fake evidence relating to the killing by altering the police log. According to the report an officer outside the flats wrongly identified Mr de Menezesas Osman and firearms officers were dispatched to stop him. Once it was known an innocent man had been killed, the log was altered so that instead of reading “it was Osman”, it read “it was not Osman”.

[alkmyst]

To whom it may concern:

The depths to which elements of the establishment will plunge, in their attempt to tarnish the name of an innocent man, are indicative of the fantasy world in which their consciousness resides.

The psychopaths who purport to be the pillars of society, continue to demonstrate that they are beneath contempt for putting out such diatribe, in a pathetic attempt to deflect attention from the collectively indefensible actions of those involved in the assassination of Jean-Charles de Menezes.

[conspiracy analyst]

A caller who rang in on Galloways new talksport radio hosting on Saturday and Sunday from 8-10pm who stated he was from the army, said that the events leading up to Menezes murder that this was a targeted assasination.

How could the police have allowed a suspected terrorist to enter a tube station and then shoot him when they followed him from his home?

Which leaves open the question what did actually happen?

All versions of the 'official' story seem to be very contradictory, which begs the question, where was he killed, how and why?

Was he selected as he was from a village in Brazil?

In order to justify the police new policy of 'shoot to kill'?

[numeral]

Hussain Osman borrowed a gym card and left it in his non-exploding backpack. It was a forensic goldmine for the MPS.

[Graham]

or he knew too much about 7/7

[numeral]

[alkmyst]

Wokeman wrote:

[Veronica]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5186050.stm

"Senior CPS reviewing lawyer Stephen O'Doherty said the two officers who fired the fatal shots could not be prosecuted for murder or any related offences because they had "genuinely believed" he was a suicide bomber.

"The two officers who fired the fatal shots did so because they thought that Mr de Menezes had been identified to them as a suicide bomber and that, if they did not shoot him, he would blow up the train, killing many people."

Despite mistakes made in planning and communication by officers, there had been "insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against any individual police officer".

bs!

Read this http://www.veronicachapman.com/london77/ASummaryExecutionInLondon.htm

... particularly the section dealing with what happened in the tube carriage.

Jean Charles de Menezes was pinioned ... immobilised ... and then pushed back into his seat before the shots were fired.

There is more than sufficient evidence to suggest that was COLD-BLOODED MURDER.

On the other hand ... did anyone expect a different result? I certainly didn't (I HOPED so in my article ... but didn't EXPECT it. So Gareth Pierce ... where are you?)

[Mal Jones]

Veronica

I would agree that the police’s disinformation and their general handling of the situation after the unfortunate death of Mr de Menezes leaves a sour taste. However, on the day of the shooting the police were in unfamiliar territory and at the time were overloaded with information that they had to sift very quickly and then make a decision. We are all aware of the adage that ‘the worst decision is no decision at all’ and the police had to make a decision whether to allow someone who, by the best available intelligence, was a suicide bomber to board a train or to neutralise him. I know ‘neutralise’ is a euphemism but, as I understand it, the only reliable way to stop someone pressing a button is a bullet in the brain. This was an instance of the police making a decision that had to be made and getting it wrong. Manifold though our police force’s failings may be, they don’t kill people for the sake of it.

While we’re at it spare a thought for the 3 officers who killed Mr de Menezes. They’d had orders to neutralize a potential terrorist, someone who they confidently believed to be wired up with explosives. One officer pinioned Mr de Menezes, probably expecting at any moment to be blown to smithereens while his colleagues, again under orders, shot to kill. These are not the actions of murderers but of brave men carrying out unpleasant orders. One can only imagine their anguish on discovering that they had killed an innocent man. To have this compounded by calls for prosecution is beyond the pale.

Clearly the police have to sharpen their act with regard to intelligence and openness but to drive officers on to the defensive where they are afraid to do an onerous duty for fear of prosecution is to nobody’s benefit.

[Leiff]

I'm not sure the '1974 Health and Safety at Work Act' is the right mechanism for having the police sharpen their act with regard to intelligence and openness.

[paul wright]

It was always impossible to prosecute the killers, because they would then have had to reveal that they weren't SO19 police officers at all, but rather military Special Reconnaissance Regiment dirty tricks guys
And this the dirtiest trick of all - blow the target's head off him with dum dum bullets
And this is how it worked
BLAM - one- two -three-BLAM- one- two - three BLAM -one-two-three and so on and at point blank range some missed
What on earth was going on here?
These were dum dums with large exit holes
You see what I mean?
This was perverted ritual

[Veronica]

Mal,

Sorry, but I cannot agree with just about anything you say.

The police watched his flat for 24 hours beforehand. They followed him when he left home. They had more than enough time to identify him.

With respect, you seem not to have read my article.

WHY WERE THEY WATCHING HIS FLAT?
WHY WERE THEY WATCHING HIS FLAT?
WHY WERE THEY WATCHING HIS FLAT?
WHY WERE THEY WATCHING HIS FLAT?
WHY WERE THEY WATCHING HIS FLAT?

HE WAS A TOTALLY INNOCENT MAN. THEY HAVE ADMITTED THAT He was carrying a copy of The Metro NOT A RUCKSACK. He was wearing a denim jean jacket. They knew he was completely innocent ... yet they killed him in COLD BLOOD.

Read my article. Read what John Gardner said. "I VAS ONLY OBEYINK ORDERS" is NO EXCUSE either morally or legally.

I have not one shred of sympathy for these THUGS.

I hope they rot in hell (or blow each others heads off)

[dodgy]

I'm sure that they had already restrained him, and had dragged him out of the train, kneeling on him whilst he was on the floor, before they placed seven bullets into his head. Doesn't sound very brave to me.

[Abandoned Ego]

When this whole fiasco first came up I can remember watching one of the Orwellian news channels which featured an interview between a police chief and the 'independent investigator'

The ' independent investigator' in an amusingly sharp tone ( if you understand how this game is played ) said to the Police chief........

"I am a Crown appointee......... I will be taking the utmost steps to ensure that we get to the bottom of this matter blablablablabla "

At which point I think I smiled some kinda sad smile to myself whilst somewhere in my subconscious hoping that this guy could live with himself for his obvious self - blasphemy

At that point I knew the investigation was screwed.

Turkeys dont vote for christmas.

[alwun]

I agree with dh. The manner or 'style' of the killing, had it been executed, as it were, by you or me, would have been trumpeted around the gutter press as the work of a mad psycho-sexual killer. The continuous, three-second intervals between eleven shots means the murderers shot for some thirty seconds - at point blank range whilst their victim was pinioned. 'Sick cowardly perverted executioners' the headlines would have raged. This has all the hallmarks of the new-style 'message killings' - the message being 'we are the paramilitary metropolitian kill-squad, and we can shoot you anytime, anyhow and of course anywhere we choose, and there's not a single double-damn thing you can do about it.' Except, I believe they got the wrong man. It should, of course, have been a muslim who was executed. The subsequent Forest Gate was an 'improvement' in that respect, although although, despite being shot in the chest, again at point blank range, the intended victim survived.

[insidejob]

I agree with dh and I am clueless as to where Mal gets his information from.

Following the Panorama programme on March 8, 2006, it looks clear that MI5 wanted De Menezes dead. The question is why.

The Met Police had nothing to do with his killing. Because Commissioner Sir Ian Blair has been taking the flak for MI5, nothing will happen to him. It is the Police commander, Cresida Dick who will take the blame.

The Panorama programme skated over:
- what order Cresida Dick gave to firearm officers and other officers;
- who incorrectly identified De Menezes.

The key clues to the MI5 killing are:
- the unbelievable claim that the so-called Special Reconnaissance Regiment could not identify De Menezes when he first left the block of flats;
- the involvement of Special Branch, who changed log records;
- allowing De Menezes to take two buses without the reconnaissance officers being able to identify him;
- the delay of the tube train in which De Menezes was sitting and eventually shot.

We can surmise that what actually happened was that:
- the apparently newly created Special Reconnaissance Regiment is really the SAS;
- there were two chains of command – the official one under Cresida Dick and the unofficial one under MI5
- Cresida Dick gave orders to apprehend De Menezes;
- MI5 had already given orders to the SAS to kill him;
- SAS used their own training (not Operation Kratos) to kill De Menezes – this is done through use of multiple shots;
- MI5 and SAS knew De Menezes would make his way to Stockwell tube, Cresida Dick did not
- the train was deliberately delayed, wittingly or unwittingly, in order to allow the SAS to move in for the kill;
- Ian Blair delayed the involvement of the Independent Police Complaints Commission because their powers only related to the police and he didn’t want the police to take all the blame;
- Ian Blair had no idea as to why MI5 wanted De Menezes dead (although, he may have his suspicions now);
- there is a secret row going on between the Anti-Terrorist officers and Sir Ian Blair and between the police and MI5/Ministry of Defence – the police officers on the ground have no intention of taking the blame.

Panorama did not explain why the Special Reconnaissance Regiment was involved. It did not attempt to explain why Special Branch was involved. Special Branch is under the control of MI5 and police chief constables have no power over them. It did not attempt to explain what orders Cresida Dick gave her officers, although it stated that the police positively identified De Menezes as one of the 21/7 bombers. Newspaper reports have stated that Cresida Dick ordered apprehension not assassination. It did not explain why the train hung around long enough for the ‘firearm officers’ to get to it. Was it by accident that the train hung around for what was at least two minutes? I don’t believe it. Panorama did not positively identify the gym card that supposedly led them to De Menezes’ flat as belonging to one of the 21/7 bombers. It did not say whether one of the bombers lived in the block of flats – this means he didn’t.

Operation Kratos is an irrelevant diversion. Radio communication between officers in the tube is an irrelevant diversion. Special Branch changed logs to put the blame on the police and away from the SAS. They were probably two Regiment/SAS officers and not one and they would not have switched off the video surveillance – as the programme stated which is totally ridiculous. It may be that some SO19 Anti-Terrorist officers were among SAS firearms officers. It is likely that the SO19 reconnaissance officers following De Menezes were told by the SAS that he was a 21/7 bomber but they did not believe him. This would explain why they allowed him to go all the way to Stockwell. SO19 probably identified him as someone not carrying weapons and this was communicated to Cresida Dick. Dick therefore thought apprehension was what should happen. It is likely that the disinformation campaign against De Menezes came from MI5 and Sir Ian Blair went along with it.

The fact that the Met has ratified Kratos, which is their terrorist and suicide bombing strategy for firearms officers, probably means that they have decided to do without the MoD/SAS in future.

There is nothing in the circumstances of the death that suggests it was a ‘tragic mistake’. Police witnesses and Panorama suggests there was no hesitation at all when the ‘firearms officers’ approached De Menezes – they just shot him. This suggests that had already been given orders to do so. But why kill De Menezes?

The SAS would not have decided this themselves. SAS are, though, used by MI5 and MI6 for its missions. It was MI5 who were really in charge of the SAS officers. Why would they want De Menezes killed?

[John White]

"in the split second he had available to him, Mr De Menzes bitterly regretted the inadvertant breach of health and safety law which had led to the cold glint of metal inches from his face as hands grabbed him from behind. And then 7 bulletts were fired from point blank range, destroying his cranium and liquidating his brain"

If its not manslaughter: then its murder: its certainly not a breach of health and safety: and its damned well not legal

The truth, I suspect, is that no "policemans" hand was on that trigger: it was pulled by someone more "special" than that

This is the utter bankruptcy of any ethical or moral pretension by the state;

Its a public execution, and obvious and blatent cover up, exposed as utter lies in the media..yet almost a year on: no real consequences

Never forget: Never

[xmasdale]

[ian neal]

As with 9/11 and 7/7 the official story is chock full of holes, inconsistencies, contradictions and questions.

Just how can Ian Blair be so unbelievably incompetent that he did not know that they had shot an innocent man by the time he gave his first press conference? The truth that he was not a suicide bomber and not the man they believed they were supposedly trailing would have been obvious to all at the scene within the first 5 minutes. So how come Blair is incapable of asking the obvious questions and determining this truth before he goes into a press conference and pronounces the man to be a probable terrorist? Dodgy as f*ck

Full public inquiry now.

http://www.justice4jean.com/