22Jul05 Jean Charles De Menezes Stockwell tube train murder

[Bushwacker]

So it was her word against his, and nothing else. Why then did it ever get to court? Only one possible reason - to try to smear the judge. We are hurtling headlong into fascism under this Bliar government.

I do not really think that holds up, many cases go to court which are effectively one person's word against another. If there was a plot to smear him, a second witness would have made it an open and shut case, no need to hope the single witness would be believed.

From the point of view of the CPS, had it not gone to court, there would have been an outcry that the legal system was looking after its own.

The timeline is against any plot:
16.10.06 First flashing incident
17.10.06 Menezes family apply for judicial review
24.10.06 Second flashing, report made to police.
6.12.06 Menezes family case heard
13.12.06 Lord Justice Richards, sitting with Mr Justice Forbes and Mr Justice Mackay, ruled it was a "reasonable" decision for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the CPS not to order prosecutions on the basis that they were "likely to fail".
19.1.07 Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice Forbes declared that the previous ruling by the High Court denying the right to appeal had raised "points of law of general public importance". They said there were two questions relating to human rights which the House of Lords might consider answering.
19.1.07 Sir Stephen Richards (Lord Justice Richards) identified and arrested.

[Mark Gobell]

Bushy you neve cease to amaze me.

You quote the events as if they are gospel.

How do you even know that they even occurred ?

How do you know she wasn't part of a plot ?

Also, if anyone can find any other instance of a Senior Appeal Court Judge appearing in a magistrates court on criminal charges I'd love to hear about it.

[Bushwacker]

Bushy you neve cease to amaze me.

You quote the events as if they are gospel.

How do you even know that they even occurred ?

How do you know she wasn't part of a plot ?

Also, if anyone can find any other instance of a Senior Appeal Court Judge appearing in a magistrates court on criminal charges I'd love to hear about it.

Marky, I do not know she was not part of a plot, but I pointed out that, if so, it was a very incompetently organised plot, because a second witness would have ensured his conviction. I'll be happy to explain why again if it is not clear to you.

How do you know that Jean Charles de Menezes was shot? Or ever existed? If you go down that route, you will quickly come to a dead end.

Your faith in our judges is largely justified, but I do direct you to Judge Bruce Campbell, in 1983, who was fined £2,000 for smuggling cigarettes and whisky. Other judicial misdemeanours

No doubt you take an interest in the date of his arrest, 19th January, ones and nines to play with there!

[Mark Gobell]

Thanks for the info on the errant judges Bush.

My faith in British justice has been restored somewhat, although 4 cases since 1701 is hardly inspiring !

We both start out from opposing default positions, which I guess is the reason for the gulf between us.

Neither camp can be correct on every occasion.

My default cynicism has served me well, as long as I am prepared to admit that it can be way off at times.

Like now for example, on my "judges never go to magistrates court" stance.

Well, not way off, maybe a cats whisker away from the truth.

If you are prepared to do the same maybe we could all have a party on the half way line.

I find it incredible, that is to say, not credible that the CPS was solely motivated by a likely prosecutorial success.

I would not imagine a case which could be thrown out so easily would normally have made it to court, for ordinary mortals let alone a senior judge.

What's your take on the CPS decision Bushy ?

As I indicated earlier, I am also suspicious of the need for a district judge to nominate himself to decide the case.

No doubt you take an interest in the date of his arrest, 19th January, ones and nines to play with there!

Sure I do.

See this thread

I begin with "everything smells fishy" whereas your olfactory faculties seem to be switched off permanently.

From where do you draw such immovable faith in our world Bushy ?

[blackcat]

I do not really think that holds up, many cases go to court which are effectively one person's word against another. If there was a plot to smear him, a second witness would have made it an open and shut case, no need to hope the single witness would be believed.

I doubt that the cps has taken many cases to court where it is simply one persons word against another's. They should not take any at all, as without any other evidence there is no case to answer. As for a second witness making it "open and shut" I think we will have to agree to differ.

[Bushwacker]

I do not really think that holds up, many cases go to court which are effectively one person's word against another. If there was a plot to smear him, a second witness would have made it an open and shut case, no need to hope the single witness would be believed.

I doubt that the cps has taken many cases to court where it is simply one persons word against another's. They should not take any at all, as without any other evidence there is no case to answer. As for a second witness making it "open and shut" I think we will have to agree to differ.

Many flashing cases will be like that, for obvious reasons, but men are still convicted. Most date rape cases are like that, depending only on whether consent was given or not, which is why the conviction rate is low. Nevertheless, the cases still go to court.

[Bushwacker]

I find it incredible, that is to say, not credible that the CPS was solely motivated by a likely prosecutorial success.

I would not imagine a case which could be thrown out so easily would normally have made it to court, for ordinary mortals let alone a senior judge.

What's your take on the CPS decision Bushy ?

As I said, from the point of view of the CPS, had it not gone to court, there would have been an outcry that the legal system was looking after its own. Similarly, that is no doubt why the DJ decided to sit with two lay magistrates, a very unusual procedure. Much of the business of central London magistrates courts is dealt with by DJs, so that in itself is not unusual.

LJ Richards rejected the Menezes family's application for judicial review in December, a matter of public record and allowed an appeal to the House of Lords on the day of his arrest, another matter of record. There would simply not be time to arrange his arrest on trumped up charges, as xmasdale pointed out earlier, or any point since now it is up to the House of Lords, unless you think it was meant to serve as an object lesson to their lordships?

And all this simply to prevent some firearms officers being prosecuted? They are surely expendable!

[Mark Gobell]

And yet the same CPS decides not to proceed with any charges against real sex offenders, let alone take them to court.

Police caution 600 sex offenders

Victims' charities say convictions are notoriously difficult to secure.

Almost 600 sex offenders in Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire were cautioned instead of being charged in the past five years, a BBC investigation shows.

The true figure is thought to be significantly higher but West Yorkshire Police refused to release its data.

It is the only police force in England not to provide figures for the survey.

Figures obtained from the neighbouring Humberside, North Yorkshire and South Yorkshire forces for 2001 to 2006 include cautions for 15 rape offences.

Humberside Police issued 258 cautions for sexual offences, including 14 rapes, between 2001 and 2006.

South Yorkshire Police cautioned 283 people, including one for rape, and North Yorkshire Police cautioned 50 offenders.

Admission of guilt

A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "Cautions for sexual offences are issued in accordance with national guidance and are issued only after careful consideration has been given to the full circumstances.

"There would need to be evidence and a clear admission of guilt, whilst age, welfare, mental well being and the views of the victim would be taken into account.

"Cautions trigger a requirement to comply with the notification provisions of part two of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (commonly referred to as the sex offenders register)."

West Yorkshire Police said the cost of retrieving data was too high, despite a request made under the Freedom of Information Act.

Freedom of Information Project Officer the Rev Insp Andrew J Earl said: "I can confirm that we do hold this information but unfortunately it is not in an easily retrievable format.

"It has been estimated that the cost of providing you with this information is above the amount to which we are legally required to respond.

"The cost of locating and retrieving the information exceeds the 'appropriate level' as stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004, which currently stands at £480 worth of work."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west ... 733927.stm

and

Cautions for 8,000 sex offenders

Almost 8,000 sex offenders have been cautioned across England in the past five years, rather than being charged.

Offences involving children accounted for more than 1,600 of the cautions, while more than 240 were for rape.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said a caution would be given only if it was the most appropriate course of action.

The government said there were very few cases where cautions were appropriate for rape or offences against children.

'Very careful thought'

Acpo said a caution did not mean the offender was being "let off" as it still brought a criminal record and a caution for a sex crime would also see the offender placed on the sex offenders register.

The results were revealed after inquiries to every police force in England by the BBC News website, many of them made using the Freedom of Information Act.

Every force provided figures except West Yorkshire Police, which said it would be too expensive to search for the results.

There are very few circumstances indeed where a caution for rape or offences against children is the most appropriate sanction

Crimes dealt with by a caution included offences as varied as rape, downloading child porn, bigamy, exploitation of prostitution, indecent exposure, sexual offences against animals, sexual grooming and familial sex offences (incest).

Of the offences against children dealt with by a caution, more than 350 were cases involving a victim aged under 13.

Terrence Grange, Acpo lead for sexual offences and Chief Constable of Dyfed Powys Police, said: "Every decision made to prosecute or issue a caution is reached after very careful thought and consideration.

"Every incident will be treated on its own merit, taking into account the circumstances of the incident and the people involved.

"A caution will only be given if it is agreed to be the most appropriate course of action. These decisions are usually taken after full consultation with our partners."

Admission of guilt

Acpo said the age, welfare, mental well-being and views of the victim would be taken into account as would the severity of an attack.

It said circumstances where a caution would be given for rape could include cases where the victim does not turn up to give evidence in court.

CAUTION FACTS

An admission of guilt is needed for a caution.
Admitting guilt means being put on the sex offenders register.
The caution will show up on a search of criminal records.
The CPS decides how to handle rape cases.
The CPS says cautions are only used in exceptional cases.
Rape carries a maximum life sentence.

How police cautions work

Acpo also said cautions were likely to be given in cases where, for example, a 16-year-old boy had consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, who may be in the same class at school as him.

This would be a criminal offence - unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 - but would usually not be pursued through the courts.

But it said in any situation there would have to be a clear admission of guilt. It left the offender with a criminal record and - in the case of a sex offence - the need to go on the sex offenders register.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said: "The government is committed to securing more convictions in rape cases and has commissioned the child sex offender review to ensure that children are better protected from paedophiles.

"There are very few circumstances indeed where a caution for rape or offences against children is the most appropriate sanction.

"Use of cautions is a matter for the police but in exceptional circumstances - for instance where the victim does not want to proceed with a prosecution."

Women Against Rape said cautions felt like a setback for victims

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both said the number of sex offenders being cautioned was far too high - and blamed the policies of the government.

Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, said: "It is bad enough that so many offenders are getting away with effectively no punishment. It is outrageous that this is happening in very serious cases of sexual assault involving children.

"This is a direct consequence of Labour pursuing a policy of getting detections by the easiest possible route even if it means keeping thousands of serious offenders out of the justice system.

"The appalling effect it has on public safety of some of the most vulnerable in our country is something Labour should be truly ashamed of."

'Alarming evidence'

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on home affairs, said: "There are many circumstances in which the police rightly use cautions, but the public will be shocked to learn that it is taking place on such a large scale for such serious offences.

"This is part and parcel of a wider trend pushed by Tony Blair for the police to bypass traditional justice in favour of fixed penalty notices and other measures outside the courts.

It is a slap in the face when the man is let off with merely a caution, a huge setback when you are trying to rebuild your life

Women Against Rape

"There is also alarming evidence that these shortcuts to justice are being used in increasing numbers so that the police can meet the rigid and arbitrary targets imposed by this government.

"We need urgent clarification whether this is the result of the perverse pressure placed upon the police by government targets."

The campaign group Women Against Rape said: "It takes an enormous effort for a traumatised woman who has been sexually assaulted to come forward.

"It is a slap in the face when the man is let off with merely a caution, a huge setback when you are trying to rebuild your life.

"Getting justice is essential to recovery after rape - cautions confirm that the authorities hardly count what happened to you as serious.

"Although there are some circumstances where a caution is appropriate, for example, where the perpetrator is very young, little comparable concern has been shown to teenagers convicted of non-violent crimes, for example those criminalised for graffiti and truancy via the use of Asbos."

Jim Gamble, head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, who generated controversy earlier this month when he suggested not all paedophiles should be jailed, said it was important child sex offenders were dealt with properly.

He said: "Everybody doesn't go to prison, but let's make sure the right people do because that's the best way to protect our children.

"[A caution] is admitting you're guilty. It's being put on the sex offenders register and thereafter being monitored."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6717997.stm

Unless, of course you are a Senior Appeals Court Judge who has given the wrong decision in a state sanctioned execution of an innocent man, in which case we'll take you to court and at least drag your name through the mud.

Bushy.

If I wanted something on you, do you think it would be wise for me to wait until you made the wrong decision ?

Would it better for me to make sure I had something on you just in case you made the wrong decision ?

And as for your assertion that firearms officers are expendable perhaps you could explain why none of them have been erm "expended" in any way ?

[Bushwacker]

Far be it from me to defend the actions of the CPS, or to justify cautioning in so many cases.

I have made my points, accept them or not as you think fit.

[karlos]

Far be it from me to defend the actions of the CPS, or to justify cautioning in so many cases. I have made my points, accept them or not as you think fit.

Bushwacker, do you honestly believe, that on a packed underground train a passenger can whip out his togger and NOBODY sees it?
And as usual the cctv has disappeared.
Read what the victim judge said. He asked the Transport police to get the CCTV immediately upon the allegation being made because he knew he was innocent, instead they did not get the cctv so it was not presented as evidence for his defence. By law they have to keep the cctv on digital hard drive format for a MINIMUM OF 30 DAYS.

As Mark Gobell states quite eloquently, the CPS does not take take cases to court even when people are caught red handed and in very severe circumstances including children and repeat offenders, the normal course of action would have been NOT to prosecute.
The story is so far fetched.
But the margin of truth in our society is getting less and less.

Boris Berezovsky sued a newspaper and won a big ayout because the paper stated he was a Russian Mafia member. I hope this judge takes them to the cleaners. He is an innocent man and this woman must be prosecuted because she has lowered the margin of truth.

the judge was 'fitted up'

I doubt that the cps has taken many cases to court where it is simply one persons word against another's. They should not take any at all, as without any other evidence there is no case to answer.

Blackcat i agree with you 100%. NO case is taken to court on one person's say so. NEVER.
Not even rape. You need forensics like a doctors report, and probable cause like they met up, and motive like rejection, and antecedants like stalking, and oportunity - right time right place.
They made this poor judge bring his underpants to court. This was not a court case this was a public humiliation.Why not make the 'lady' describe his genitalia like they do in most flashing incidents. You see this trial fits no logical pattern.
Blackcat, i just saw fixtures and guess where my team's first game is?

[blackcat]

Blackcat, i just saw fixtures and guess where my team's first game is?

Let me be the first to commiserate with you on your first defeat of the season.

[karlos]

Remember
theres only one keano
and he aint yours

[xmasdale]

I presume those last two posts are about running after a ball in a muddy field and trying to get it between two posts. As a footballphobe I object to such posts.

[Mark Gobell]

They think it's all over !

It might not be yet . . .

This, from the Wimbledon Guardian, courtesy of http://www.julyseventh.co.uk

http://www.wimbledonguardian.co.uk/news ... _judge.php

New flashing allegations against top judge

By Dan Menhinnitt

A senior judge cleared of flashing a commuter on a train could face further questioning after two more women have come forward with similar accusations.

Sir Stephen Richards, 56, who brandished a pair of his briefs in court as part of his defence, was found not guilty of two counts of indecent exposure last week.

But the British Transport Police, who were criticised by magistrates at the City of Westminster Magistrate's Court for failing to investigate the matter properly, confirmed yesterday it is investigating two alleged incidents of a similar nature.

The BTP will not comment further - but it is believed the alleged incidents took place on a train between Raynes Park and Waterloo - the same service involved in earlier claims.

One of the claimants, a woman from New Zealand, is thought to have approached police after seeing media coverage of last week's trial.

The other claimant, also a woman, is believed to work in the city.

Officers could question Sir Stephen, from Wimbledon, in the next few days.

The court of appeals judge was accused of flashing at a woman on two occasions on a train between Wimbledon and Waterloo on 16 October and 24 October last year.

During the married dad-of-three's two-day trial presented a pair of his close-fitting Calvin Klein briefs to demonstrate the difficulty he would have had in exposing himself in them.

Sir Stephen, a former King's College School pupil, oversaw the case brought by the family of Jean Charles de Menezes the Brazilian gunned down on a Tube train in 2005 after being mistaken by police for a suicide bomber.


4:40pm Monday 18th June 2007

[conspiracy analyst]

I presume those last two posts are about running after a ball in a muddy field and trying to get it between two posts. As a footballphobe I object to such posts.

Been watching Eastenders too much.
They have also banned all football banter despite the fact that most common people will mention football in a pub once in a while...

[conspiracy analyst]

They think it's all over !

It might not be yet . . .

This, from the Wimbledon Guardian, courtesy of http://www.julyseventh.co.uk

http://www.wimbledonguardian.co.uk/news ... _judge.php

May get double jeapordy widely recognised as well as getting rid of a judge who dared to have an independent opinion on the De Menezes case.

This circus may have just started...

[Mark Gobell]

I'm quite troubled that nobody has bothered to post anything about this.

On 2.8.7 the IPCC published it's report called Stockwell 2, that exonerated Sir Ian Blair of any wrong doing into the media feeds that created the story of Jean Charles' execution on 22.7.5.

The IPCC's report implicates Andrew Hayman instead, who took up his post as Assistant Commissioner, Special Operations on 1.2.2005

The head of the Metropolitan police, Sir Ian Blair, was also appointed on 1st February 2005

The IPCC Stockwell 2 report arrives after an interval of 911 days of both appointments.

[spiv]

Mark, see here??

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... highlight=

[Louise]

I find it absolutely disgusting that noone was severly punished over this incident.

This was a MURDER of an innocent man and nothing happened to anyone.

Then the police lied through their teeth about what happend, it proves how much you can trust and put faith in the police dosen't it.

Then the people who did it got away with it scot free, it makes my blood boil.

I woudn't be surprised if a few backhanders got passed around so they could get away with it.

It stinks rotten.

There's nothing i hate worse than police corruption .

I really feel for the family of the poor man that was shot .

The man was probably dead after the second shot if not the first, why did they continue to pump his head with bullets?.

[spiv]

Ahhhh... Louise, you're asking the same questions many of us, the public, are asking - at least that is, the public who have woken up to the lies of all this fictional "war on terror" nonsense.

But needless to say our Government and their law enforcement lackies of all senior positions seem, in the pursuit of their black agendas, to be as bent and corrupt as those we expect in any banana republic!!!

[karlos]

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,

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 7 times at the Tube station.

The Ministry of Defence admitted 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.

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.

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.

Left out of the IPCC report.

[Cruise4]

or Murderers as they used to be called!

[TonyGosling]

Here's the rogues gallery from today's Grauiniad.
The Guardian have entirely missed out key figure Peter Power, architect of the disasterous Gold, Silver and Bronze command structure
To quote wikipedia:

A small team led by Inspector Peter Power quickly decided that three essential roles were more important than numerous ranks in these situations and set about creating and promulgating a new structure with an eponymous title that was soon rolled out across all UK Police Forces and became the ubiquitous command standard it is today.

Key figures in the De Menezes case
Monday October 1, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/menezes/story ... 68,00.html
Guardian Unlimited

Jean Charles de Menezes
The 27-year-old Brazilian arrived in the UK from Brazil in 2002 and started work as an electrician. He had grown up in the town of Gonzaga in the state of Minas Gerais.
On July 22 2005 he was shot dead at Stockwell underground station in south London after armed police officers mistook him for one of four would-be suicide bombers who had tried to attack the capital's transport system the previous day.

Sir Ian Blair

Appointed Met commissioner in February 2005, Oxford-educated Sir Ian has been at the forefront of attempts to modernise the police service. But Britain's top officer has also been dogged by controversy and was severely criticised for not knowing that police had shot dead an innocent man until 24 hours after De Menezes was killed.

Andy Hayman

The tough-talking detective joined the police in 1978 in Essex. He became chief constable of Norfolk before returning to London in 2005 as assistant commissioner for specialist operations. Mr Hayman briefed reporters on the day of the shooting that the dead man was not one of the July 21 suspects.
A report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) later found that by 3pm on the day of the shooting - less than five hours after De Menezes was shot - senior Metropolitan police officers had "strong suspicions" that a Brazilian national had been killed. It added that Mr Hayman had failed to pass on those suspicions to Sir Ian.

Brian Paddick
Absolutely NOT a suspect - indeed he was removed from the case as he attempted to pursue the truth AND was prepard to dish the dirt on crooked police assassins such as Dick (below)
The openly gay moderniser, whose grandfather was also a police officer, was made deputy assistant commissioner of the Met in 2003. Following De Menezes's shooting he told the IPCC that members of staff in the commissioner's office feared on July 22 that an innocent man had been shot. Parts of his account are disputed.

Professional Murderer Cressida Dick 4 Brains

The senior officer in charge of the operation that lead to the death of De Menezes. It is thought she authorised the order to shoot. Ms Dick was born and brought up in Oxford where she was educated at Oxford high school before continuing her higher education at the city's prestigious Balliol College. Ms Dick was promoted to deputy assistant commissioner in September last year.

Described (!mis-spelt!) on the Met. Police website as
http://www.met.police.uk/scd/about/c_dick.htm
Name: Commander Cressida Dick
Position: Head of Criminal Networks

[paul wright]

Dick is of course, as Brian Gerrish points out, a Common Purpose graduate
However, the point is , that although they may have worn baseball caps with 'POLICE' emblazoned across the front, the killers of de Menezes were in fact 14Int or SRR, ie military psychopaths, as is admitted the surveillence officer at Menezes apartment was, who was supposedly taking a leak when Charles left the building.
That's why the people concerned can never be brought to book and senior police officers would be sacrificed rather than the perpetrators
I doubt SO19 trained police would more or less blow someone's head off at close range in the way this murder occurred

[conspiracy analyst]

Dick is of course, as Brian Gerrish points out, a Common Purpose graduate
However, the point is , that although they may have worn baseball caps with 'POLICE' emblazoned across the front, the killers of de Menezes were in fact 14Int or SRR, ie military psychopaths, as is admitted the surveillence officer at Menezes apartment was, who was supposedly taking a leak when Charles left the building.
That's why the people concerned can never be brought to book and senior police officers would be sacrificed rather than the perpetrators
I doubt SO19 trained police would more or less blow someone's head off at close range in the way this murder occurred

There are so many versions of how De Menezes was killed that begs a fundamental question why is it we have to believe the latest or last version?

As far as I am concerned I cannot believe any part of it as it has changed so many times. This person could have been bumped off in Brazil for all I know. The emphasis over the last day or two has been about a gun being pulled on the driver of the train.

Who was this driver and what did he witness? Where are the eyewitnesses on the platform where it is alleged De Menezes was shot? Why have nono come forward with an ...eye-witness account?

Is this what is on the cards? Another eye-witness account?

[TonyGosling]

Police used dum-dum bullets on Brazilian shot at tube station
http://www.guardian.co.uk/menezes/story ... 28,00.html


Vikram Dodd
Wednesday November 16, 2005
The Guardian

The Brazilian man killed by police who mistook him for a terrorist was left "unrecognisable" after being shot eight times by officers using "dum-dum" style bullets that are banned from use in warfare.

The Guardian understands from senior police sources that the thinking was that use of the bullets would minimise the chance of people in the immediate area of a shooting being injured by the bullets exiting from a suspected suicide bomber. Hollow point bullets are more likely to disintegrate in the body of the shot person, but they also inflict more damage.

A senior source told the Guardian that Jean Charles de Menezes was "unrecognisable" after the shooting because of the severity of the injuries the hollow tip bullets inflicted.

Reaction to the news from leading British Muslim groups was critical of the police. Azad Ali, chair of the Muslim Safety Forum and a key figure in relations between police and the Muslim community, said: "If this is true this will further exacerbate the community's already heightened concern about the police's approach. This will reinforce the view of Jean Charles de Menezes's family that this was an execution."

Massoud Shadjareh, chair of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said: "It shows the degree that the Met has become a law unto itself and should not be allowed in a civilised society."

The revelation about the type of bullets used came on the day Ian Blair hoped to kick-start his controversial commissionership by delivering the flagship Richard Dimbleby lecture for the BBC on the future of the police service.

A Home Office spokesman said: "Chief officers can use whatever ammunition they consider appropriate for the operational circumstances."

[conspiracy analyst]

Police used dum-dum bullets on Brazilian shot at tube station
http://www.guardian.co.uk/menezes/story ... 28,00.html


Vikram Dodd
Wednesday November 16, 2005
The Guardian

The Brazilian man killed by police who mistook him for a terrorist was left "unrecognisable" after being shot eight times by officers using "dum-dum" style bullets that are banned from use in warfare.

The Guardian understands from senior police sources that the thinking was that use of the bullets would minimise the chance of people in the immediate area of a shooting being injured by the bullets exiting from a suspected suicide bomber. Hollow point bullets are more likely to disintegrate in the body of the shot person, but they also inflict more damage.

A senior source told the Guardian that Jean Charles de Menezes was "unrecognisable" after the shooting because of the severity of the injuries the hollow tip bullets inflicted.

Reaction to the news from leading British Muslim groups was critical of the police. Azad Ali, chair of the Muslim Safety Forum and a key figure in relations between police and the Muslim community, said: "If this is true this will further exacerbate the community's already heightened concern about the police's approach. This will reinforce the view of Jean Charles de Menezes's family that this was an execution."

Massoud Shadjareh, chair of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said: "It shows the degree that the Met has become a law unto itself and should not be allowed in a civilised society."

The revelation about the type of bullets used came on the day Ian Blair hoped to kick-start his controversial commissionership by delivering the flagship Richard Dimbleby lecture for the BBC on the future of the police service.

A Home Office spokesman said: "Chief officers can use whatever ammunition they consider appropriate for the operational circumstances."

An article is created which allegedly is a news story.
We have a senior police source.
Again another senior source.
Then we have a chair of a Forum which collaborates with the police.
Then we have Ian Blair.

4 sources 3 of which are from the police.
If this is a news story I am an astronaut.

[TonyGosling]

This is the trouble, you're right on it. Because of the way officialdom operates the conduits for official info. are open to abuse. On this occasion you'll find the Guardian and simultaneously the Telegraph probably got some genuine leaked information. Possibly deliberately leaked to spread fear amongst the public???

The it works is with regular briefings/press conferences to which almost all press are invited by a press release.

They began excluding all but registered reporters from party conferences and have now begun excluding genuine reporters, usually freelancers, from police and government press conferences too. Because the institution doesn't like what they write or broadcast.

So you have a two tier system.
1. the official press conference
2. unofficially departments and cops leak hot stuff to specific journalists as 'favours' and occasionally they are genuinely whistleblowing. These encounters, a la Gilligan and Kelly, are kept under close surveillance, particularly the 'for the people' journalists, and monitored by MI5 or 6. A genuine whistleblower detected doing this is likely to be flagged up and bullied into resigning.

Trouble is that these secret beriefings over lunch at some posh London gaff can be lies just as easily as they can be genuine leaks.

It's all done on trust but at the present time the scales are swinging away from the advantage of press and public and towards the lies of the spooks and the establishment.

An article is created which allegedly is a news story.
We have a senior police source.
Again another senior source.
Then we have a chair of a Forum which collaborates with the police.
Then we have Ian Blair.

4 sources 3 of which are from the police.
If this is a news story I am an astronaut.

[conspiracy analyst]

This is bit is interesting.
Whilst De Menezes was allegedly under surveillance and some reports have stated that he was followed from his home now we have the distinction being created between a firearms unit and the police surveillance team.

It obviously begs the question why was he followed and not arrested prior to entering the tube station?

Made up stories which change everytime some stagemanaged event occurs relating to the event.

Officer in De Menezes case tells court: 'We did our best'
By James Macintyre
Published: 04 October 2007

The Scotland Yard commander who launched the surveillance operation that led to the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes sought to defend the police yesterday, saying: "we did our best".

The Metropolitan Police denies breaking health and safety laws when officers shot Mr de Menezes seven times at point blank range inside Stockwell Tube station on 22 July 2005, after mistaking him for a suicide bomber.

On the third day of the prosecution at the Old Bailey, Commander John McDowell blamed the "difficult circumstances" at the time of the shooting, which came the day after an attempted "second wave" of suicide bombings on London Transport following the July 7 attacks that killed 52 commuters.

Mr McDowell was the "gold" commander who sent a surveillance team to the block of flats in Scotia Road, south London, where they believed they would find Hussain Osman, who was involved in the attempted attacks the previous day. The prosecution has sought to demonstrate that as well as killing an innocent man, the police put the public at risk by allowing their target to board two buses and a Tube train.

Mr McDowell told the jury: "I have since that time constantly thought about what other potential tactics or strategy might have been available to me because of the outcome of this tragic set of circumstances. I have done that on a weekly, if not daily, basis. I remain of the view that I and we did our best that morning to mitigate what was clearly a threat to the public in very difficult circumstances." Clare Montgomery QC, for the prosecution, asked why, despite Mr McDowell launching the operation at about 5am, the firearms team had still not arrived at the flats by the time Mr de Menezes, 27, left for work more than four hours later.

Asked by Mr Justice Henriques if this delay was an "acceptable passage of time", Mr McDowell said it was the "quickest time that that team could be assembled and deployed with all the considerations that were bearing upon us that morning".

The judge then asked: "Could that have been done differently?" Mr McDowell replied: "With hindsight, it is entirely conceivable it could have been."

The jury was shown photographs of Osman and Mr de Menezes to compare. Ronald Thwaites, QC, for the defence, asked: "How can the police be criticised for their lack of certainty about the identification of Mr de Menezes?... [Not] every mistake is a crime."

Detective Chief Superintendent Timothy White, who had earlier authorised firearms to be used to detain the suspected bombers, told the court that the pursuit of the failed bombers was the most dangerous operation police had been involved in.

"We never faced a suicide bomber or a manhunt of this significance in police history," Det Ch Supt White said.

The judge asked him if there were circumstances under which the suspects might not be immediately arrested. "With public safety paramount and the positive identification of a suicide bomber, we'd do our utmost to detain that person," he replied.

The hearing continues.

[frydays]

Speaking from behind a screen to protect their precious anonymity, senior terrorist police have been queueing up this week to say things like "the general public wasn't placed in any danger" and "in retrospect, there's nothing we'd have done differently" and "if you look at him from this angle, there is something a bit Arab about his face".

It's an insult to this man's family that no charges have been brought and no officer sacked. He was shot eight times in the head for picking up his copy of Metro and taking the tube to work. The truth about this fatal mistake was cynically withheld from the public and a smear campaign was instigated against the victim and his family.