Posted on 08/16/2005 4:20:27 PM PDT by Shermy
The Brazilian electrician mistakenly killed by police in the aftermath of the second London bombings was being restrained by an officer before he was shot eight times as he was sitting on a Tube train, it emerged tonight.
Witness statements and photographs from an independent police investigation leaked to ITV News also show that Jean Charles de Menezes did not run away from police at Stockwell Tube station in South London and was wearing only a denim jacket before he was shot dead on July 22.
The evidence contradicts claims from the Metropolitan Police at the time that the Brazilian’s "clothing and his behaviour at the station added to their [officers’] suspicions", that he vaulted the ticket barrier and was wearing a heavy overcoat, which could have concealed a bomb.
It also emerged that one of the undercover team keeping Senhor de Menezes’s home under surveillance was relieving himself instead of filming the operation, so officers could not tell if they had tracked down one of the alleged bombers.
His advice was "it would be worth someone else having a look" to ensure they had the right man. No other officer apparently did take a picture of him even though he had to take a bus journey to the station.
Even so, Gold Command at the Yard which was running this operation, declared a "code red" and handed responsibility to CO19 - the firearms team. The armed team had been given photographs of the alleged bombers, yet no one realised that Senhor de Menezes bore no resemblance to any of those men.
The investigation report states that the firearms unit of the police had been told that "unusual tactics" may be required and if they "were deployed to intercept a subject and there was an opportunity to challenge, but if the subject was non compliant, a critical shot may be taken."
CCTV footage clearly shows that Senhor de Menezes was wearing a thin denim jacket so he could not be concealing a bomb and nor was he carrying any bag.
Far from running to avoid police who were tailing him, the electrician did not realise anyone was following him. He used his season ticket and did not vault the barrier. He only began to run when he saw a train pull into the station and as many commuters do he quickened his pace to catch it.
At this point a surveillance officer guided four armed police into the same carriage in which Senhor de Menezes took his seat.
A man sitting opposite him is quoted as saying: "Within a few seconds I saw a man coming into the double doors to my left. He was pointing a small black handgun towards a person sitting opposite me.
"He pointed the gun at the right hand side of the man's head. The gun was within 12 inches of the man's head when the first shot was fired."
The report also reveals for the first time that a member of the surveillance team, who sat nearby, got involved and grabbed Senhor de Menezes before he was shot: "I heard shouting which included the word ‘police’ and turned to face the male in the denim jacket.
"He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the CO19 officers …I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side.
"I then pushed him back onto the seat where he had been previously sitting … I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage."
Photographs showed how Senhor de Menezes was shot at virtually point blank range as he was still in his seat. A coroner said he was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.
Mark Oaten, Home Affairs Spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said: "If true, these preliminary findings will create obvious concerns. It is in the best interests of the police and the community for the full report and any recommendations, to be published as quickly as possible."
Terrible case of mistaken identity, if true.
But if they had a REAL terrorist on their hands, they couldn't wait; you have only seconds before the terrorist--a man who has already prepared himself to die--detonates his bomb.
In that case, you have no resort but to kill him at once.
So, who's lying?
"But if they had a REAL terrorist on their hands, they couldn't wait"
The police were first spinning that the man had a thick jacket, creating speculation a Brazilian would think an English summer cold. Untrue.
Said he was running away from them. Untrue.
Etc.
Its the London Times.
"So, who's lying?"
The police spokesmen were. Get it?
Smart to get this out now, when things are still tense.
and the source of the leak is impeccable of course?
A darker skinned guy with black hair running away from the cops after terrorist attacks. It doen't take much to side with the cops on this one.
"A darker skinned guy with black hair running away from the cops"
He wasn't running away from the cops.
"If a "thin" jacket is not capable of hiding anything, then WHY do TSA screeners pat down T-shirt and cut-off wearing people when the buckles on the sandals set off the beeper?"
The point being the police spokesmen said it was a thick coat which was supposedly unusual for the climate.
Apparently they made up the "vaulting" element of the first story out of whole cloth.
I heard somewhere that the guy was running from undercover cops, i.e., guys that looked like civilians waving guns. I'd run too.
Have you heard this? Or was it something I imagined.
That sounds about right for how these chain reactions start in tense situations: somebody was "relieving himself." I'm not being sarcastic. When situations get that tense, the most trival thing can set off a deadly event.
The man did not run. Police did not ask him to stop. He had done nothing suspicious up to that point other than be non-white and live in a suspect apartment building.
They showed pictures of the man lying dead in the train car. His jacket was totally ordinary. I wear one similar to that daily (it never really gets warm in Scotland). The man had done nothing wrong it seems like.
CCTV footage shows the man walking normally into the station. He was even casual enough to pick up a free copy of the Metro newspaper (I read one daily myself as I use public transport). The cameras show he did not vault the turnstile, he used a prepaid ticket. He only ran when he saw the train pulling up.
Think about it. The end result was that the man was innocent. This is not being disputed by anyone. If the man was innocent, this version of events makes a lot more sense than an innocent man running from police, vaulting the turnstile and leaping into the train.
I noted this on another thread but it bears repeating: If you want reality to conform to a preconceived notion, you have lost objectivity. Better to let reality be what it is and if it makes 'your side' look bad, so be it.
Mistakes do happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.