A Summary Execution In London.

By Veronica Chapman, 26th August, 2005

 

Preface.

The BBC has analysed the events leading up to the 22nd July 2005, creating a timeline of events which culminated in the cold-blooded killing of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes.

It is based on information obtained from a preliminary investigation carried out by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). The BBC is in possession of this information because it was ‘leaked’. Presumably it was leaked by someone, within the IPCC, who retains a sense of ‘justice’.

Obviously the BBC consider their timeline ‘hangs together’ in some logical manner. This is only true provided certain highly relevant facts are completely ignored. This article attempts to piece together all the known facts and, in doing so, contends that a ‘summary execution’, a public assassination, actually took place.

 

The BBC Timeline.

First of all, the BBC explains that, on the day before (on the 21st July), “London's transport network was plunged into chaos with stations cleared after attempted bombings on Tube trains at Oval, Warren Street and Shepherd's Bush Underground stations and on a number 26 bus in Bethnal Green

Almost an exact ‘copy cat’ of the 7/7 London Bombings, although – this time – the ‘bombs themselves failed to go off’ (only the detonators ignited).

After this, we are told, “A manhunt is launched for four men suspected of attempting the bombings, later named as Yassin Hassan Omar, Ibrahim Muktar Said, Ramzi Mohamed and Hussain Osman”.

Well – that’s mighty swift work, Scotland Yard. Amazing how they have no idea about an attack but – as soon as it happens – they know almost everything. They know all the names, and even have pictures of the suspects!

Of course, they will argue that they have all of the information about these people on record but – until a crime is actually committed – they cannot (by law) apprehend them.

Of course this is true, but it is a very limited argument, is it not?

While it is perfectly understandable that the agencies of law and order have many suspects listed, including details, identifications, aliases, and photographs etc. – it does not explain how these can be singled out, and reduced to 4 names, at the drop of a hat.

Let’s proceed a bit further. The BBC then moves its timeline to the 22nd July, and informs us “Police have been monitoring a flat in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill, south London, which they believe is linked to the failed bombings”.

Now Mr. Jean Charles de Menezes lived at that address, and his name is nowhere to be found in the list of four ‘suspects’ - the ‘targets of the manhunt’. So he is not ‘one of those suspects’. At least, not one that was announced publicly.

So why was his address being watched? Presumably the addresses of the four ‘suspects’ were being watched (the BBC makes no mention), but the question still remains – why was Mr. de Menezes being watched? The BBC makes no attempt at any kind of explanation. In fact absolutely no explanation has been forthcoming in relation to this question. The only explanation for the cold-blooded termination of Mr. de Menezes life is the vague “it was an accident - a case of mistaken identity”.

Now set that against his home being watched in the 24 hour period between 21st and 22nd July. The police had 24 hours to get his identity right. And we have already seen that they can ‘come up with identities at the drop of a hat’.

It seems as though our stalwart forces of law and order can be exceptionally efficient (whenever they feel like it), and exceptionally inefficient (whenever they feel like it). Is that not a reasonable impression?

Let’s see what the BBC says next: “At 0930 BST Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27-year-old Brazilian electrician, is seen walking to a bus stop and boarding a bus heading to Stockwell Tube station. According to a leaked report officers believe his "description and demeanour" matches one of two terror suspects, including the alleged Shepherd's Bush would-be bomber Hussain Osman.

Mr. Osman has been quoted as being a Pakistani. Mr. de Menezes was a Brazilian. Mr. Osman is not quoted as living at Mr. de Menezes’ address. I submit that, unless someone is completely thick, it would be difficult to mistake a Brazilian (almost white) for a Pakistani. In size, shape, demeanour – and most particularly – vocal accent. We are expected to believe that while Mr. de Menezes was tracked boarding a bus, riding on the bus, walking to the Tube Station, picking up a local newspaper, descending the elevator, he did not utter one vocal sound in all that time. Or, at least, not within earshot of those tracking him.

I would be very surprised, however, if Mr. de Menzes had maintained this utter silence when the police marksmen (later) pushed him out of his seat, within the confines of the tube carriage. But we will come to all of that.

Here is what we are told Hussain Osman looks like:

 

Here is a picture of Jean Charles de Menezes:

 

Yes, I can see how easily they would be mistaken  - they were both 27 years old, and wore singlets. And they both have faces, arms, legs, and a torso. They both have ears, and a reasonably short haircut.

But the BBC has more valuable insights for us. We are told that “One surveillance officer at the Tulse Hill address says he ‘checked the photographs’ and thinks it is ‘worth someone else having a look’. He is quoted in the leaked report saying that he was unable to transmit his observations and turn on his video camera at the same time. ‘I was in the process of relieving myself.’

So, by virtue of a call of nature, this officer is exonerated. It still doesn’t explain why he was watching Mr. de Menezes’ residence in the first place.

The timeline now moves on: “By 1000 BST CCTV footage shows Mr Menezes entering the Tube station at a ‘normal walking pace’. One eyewitness widely quoted on the day, Christopher Wells, describes the suspect vaulting over ticket barriers, pursued by police. But the leaked evidence suggests he picked up a free newspaper and slowly descended on an escalator.

Subsequently this is followed with: “Interviewed by a newspaper a week after the shooting, Mr Wells says the person he saw hurdling the barriers must have been a police officer. Another witness, Mark Whitby, told BBC News on the day that he had seen the victim run onto the train pursued by three men, that he had half-tripped getting onto the carriage, been pushed to the floor and then shot. But the leaked documents say Mr Menezes ran across the concourse to catch a train, boarded, looked left and right and then sat down on the first available seat. Mr Whitby also suggested Mr Menezes was wearing a padded jacket, despite the warm weather, while the leaked papers suggest the Brazilian was wearing a light denim jacket. A photo of Mr Menezes body was also among the leaked documents. It does not show a heavy jacket. ”.

So much for relying on eye witness observations, then.

Either Mr. Wells is a fool, or a liar. I don’t think there can be much doubt in Mr. Whitby’s case.

In between those two segments of the timeline, the BBC imparted the following jewel “The BBC has learned that there was a shortage of CCTV footage for the incident as discs for the cameras had been removed the previous day by officers investigating the 21 July attacks, and not replaced.”.

In another article I explain “CCTV Footage”, what it is, and how it is controlled – which is not by the police. The ‘discs’ would not have been ‘removed by officers investigating the 21 July attacks’ – they would have been removed by Tube Lines staff. It is highly likely that they would have been replaced by those staff as standard procedure. The reasons for this are explained in that article.

But then, the BBC has already explained that the relevant CCTV footage existed, and what it showed. The BBC’s timeline has already explained Mr de Menezes’ demeanour, his actions, and what he was wearing, and this is confirmed by the picture of his dead body. It has also explained how Mr de Menezes caught the train.

What is not explained, however, is one very serious question, which is: If Mr. de Menezes was a suspected ‘bomber’, then where was his bomb concealed? He wasn’t carrying a rucksack, and was wearing a thin denim jacket. The BBC timeline reiterates this fact: “A photo of Mr Menezes body was also among the leaked documents. It does not show a heavy jacket.”.

And his ‘demeanour’, caught on camera, was ‘perfectly natural’. So (presumably) it would have had a ‘natural look’ to those following him, would it not?

So, the next question is: If he was suspected, then why was he not arrested? And questioned? In order to establish his ‘associates’?

(Perhaps I should point out here that in yet another article I explain how there never were any ‘suicide bombers’ at all. Even on 7/7.

And, furthermore, it should be noted that the ‘mastermind’ of 7/7 and 21/7, Haroon Rashid Aswat, is a known, well established, and highly protected, MI6 agent. This does not mean that MI6 were behind the London Bombings per se - it simply means that the suspect, bandied about in the mainstream media, is a well known MI6 ‘asset’. Or at least that is so according to John Loftus, a terrorism expert and a former prosecutor for the US Justice Department).

The timeline continues “After Mr Menezes sat down, armed officers were ‘provided with positive identification’, the leaked document says. Following shouts including the word ‘police’, Mr Menezes gets up and advances towards the SO19 officers, a surveillance officer is quoted to have said. ”.

As I explain in my CCTV article, the CCTV system does not provide any form of audio trail, so we are left with these statements as information.

However, as mentioned previously, a Brazilian and a Pakistani do not speak with the same accent, and should be readily distinguishable audibly. So what ‘positive identification’ could Mr. de Menezes have possibly provided, such as to identify himself as Mr. Osman?

And then Mr. de Menezes ‘gets up and advances towards the SO19 officers’. Presumably he was about to rip them up - all armed three of them - with his bare hands, and eat them, I guess. They must have been terrified out of their lives at what this Electrical Contractor, wearing a jean jacket, wielding an up-to-date copy of the “Metro”, could do (in the confines of a tube carriage).

But, of course, they didn’t know he was an Electrical Contractor on his way to work. They were under the impression he was a fanatical Pakistani. And a fanatical Pakistani with a Brazilian accent … wearing a jean jacket … well … it’s weird, isn’t it? It must have been a prime example of  “The Police Marksman’s Dilemma” (see Conclusions, below).

The timeline continues: “A member of the surveillance team describes grabbing him and holding him down. According to the report, he said: ‘I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side’.

Well, that was exceedingly brave of the surveillance team member. (What a good job he didn’t need a call of nature at the time). And, what’s more, he knew about the denim jacket. That shows their eyesight wasn’t so bad, after all.

So at this point Mr. de Menezes’ arms are pinned to his side. I, myself, generally find that if my arms are pinned to my side, I can’t do very much except nod my head. If I’m being held, then I might be able to kick my legs a bit. But setting off a ‘suicide bomb’ could prove a little difficult, depending on where the detonating control was located. I presume I would have concealed it in a pocket, since I wasn’t carrying a rucksack. Getting my hands inside a pocket, while my arms were tightly pinned to my sides would (for me) be quite a task.

So, in this state they arrested Mr. de Menezes, handcuffed him, and carted him down to the local nick for questioning.

Oh! No! They didn’t! According to the BBC’s timeline “I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting ... I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away on to the floor of the carriage.

Pushed him back into his seat. Didn’t handcuff him? Didn’t arrest him? Well, that was certainly an original way to do it. This surveillance team member certainly knows how to “think outside the box”, and his creativity is par excellance.

Then, the follow-up to this gunshot ‘very close to his left ear’ (but obviously not as frightening as the Brazilian/Pakistani with a rolled up newspaper), was that: “Mr Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, according to the post-mortem examination.

The BBC timeline then adds: “Three other bullets missed their target.”. I think this comment more or less speaks for itself. It’s hard to hit a someone’s head when that head no longer exists.

Apart from all the other obvious questions, the one that arises from this is: Eight times (+ three misses)? What are the words I’m looking for to describe this cold-blooded murder? How about ‘reasonable force’ – are those the words? No, I think not. How about ‘gratuitous violence’? Yes, that’s certainly much more like it, but even so doesn’t really describe what was done to Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Station on July 22nd, 2005 at the hands of a bunch of ‘legalised’ thugs.

 

Conclusion.

I leave you to read the rest of this so-called timeline. Primarily it comprises the method by which Sir Ian Blair attempted to cover up the situation – presumably on the basis that he would only have the BBC to deal with – as opposed to Truth Seekers within the general public at large.

Much of this information has only come to light due to the efforts of the de Menezes’ family lawyers, who insisted on an independent investigation. If Sir Ian (and Tony) Blair had had their way, there would not have been an independent investigation.

What happened to Jean Charles de Menezes had all the hallmarks of a public assassination. A ‘silencing’ operation, Mafia-style. The only difference being that the Mafia would only use three bullets to make super-duper-sure, whereas SO19 marksmen need eight (+ three misses).

Perhaps it is worth recalling that Mr. de Menezes’ profession: Electrical Contractor. And remembering that the London Underground Network utilises a certain amount of ‘electrics’. Perhaps this is the connection. As I explain in my article on the London Bombings, the bombs were placed underneath the carriages. Perhaps Mr. de Menezes, during the course of his work, saw them being planted, and saw who planted them, and realised that they were from a Government agency.

This is, of course, pure conjecture on my part, and I’m not saying that it was the case. All I am saying is that it is an explanation that fits all the facts we have been presented with, and would explain absolutely everything, including the surveillance on his home, the to-ing and fro-ing of  information released via news items (as a cover-up/damage limitation was being created), and the actions of the SO19 officers at the scene.

If you read the BBC timeline for yourself, you may be distracted by a sub-heading entitled “The Police Marksman’s Dilemma”. If you follow that link you will find a list of other incidents where innocent people have been shot, and killed, by what is known as the ‘shoot-to-kill policy’. (You will also find the BBC whitewashing this ‘policy’).

However the point to note, is the word ‘policy’. Not ‘law’, but ‘policy’. John Gardner, Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford University, has this to say (Prof. Gardner subsequently removed the article, but I preserved a copy on my own website):

(1) There is no general legal duty to assist the police or to obey police instructions. Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 QB 414.

(2) There are special police powers to arrest and search. But there is no special police licence to injure or kill. If they injure or kill, the police need to rely on the same law as the rest of us.

(3) The law allows those who use force in prevention of crime to use only necessary and proportionate force. Jack Straw and Sir Ian Blair say that officers are under great pressure. But this is no excuse. In law, as in morality, being under extra pressure gives us no extra latitude for error in judging how much force is proportionate or necessary. R v Clegg [1995] 1 A.C. 482.

(4) Arguably, the police should be held to higher standards of calm under pressure than the rest of us. Certainly not lower!

(5) The necessity and proportionality of the police use of force is to be judged on the facts as they believed them to be: R v Williams 78 Cr. App R 276. This does create latitude for factual error. In my view it creates too much latitude. The test should be reasonable belief. The police may be prejudiced like the rest of us, and may treat the fact that someone is dark-skinned as one reason to believe that he is a suicide bomber. But in court this reason should not count.

(6) It is no defence in law that the killing was authorised by a superior officer. A superior officer who authorises an unlawful killing is an accomplice [my emphasis, and see my explanation immediately below]. R v Clegg [1995] 1 A.C. 482.

[This is derived from the difference between authority and responsibility. Authority can be delegated, whereas responsibility can only ever be shared. It therefore means that if the police marksmen are guilty, then so were all those above them in the chain of command, through Sir Ian Blair, and upwards via Home Secretary Charles Clarke, and therefore including Tony Blair himself. And, by the by, anyone who supports them]

(7) The fact that those involved were police officers is irrelevant to the question of whether to prosecute them. It is a basic requirement of the Rule of Law that, when suspected of crimes, officials are subject to the same policies and procedures as the rest of us.

(8) Some people say: Blame the terrorists, not the police. But blame is not a zero-sum game. The fact that one is responding to faulty actions doesn't mean one is incapable of being at fault oneself. We may blame Tony Blair for helping to create the conditions in which bombing appeals to people, without subtracting any blame from the bombers. We may also blame the bombers for creating the conditions in which the police act under pressure, without subtracting blame from the police if they overreact. Everyone is responsible for their own faulty actions, never mind the contribution of others. This is the moral position as well as the position in criminal law.

You may also note, if you read carefully, that even under this abdominal ‘shoot-to-kill policy’, the police are required to assess the effects of each shot, before loosing off another bullet. On the 22nd July there were, therefore, 10 ‘assessments’ needed. We are left to wonder how much ‘assessment’ actually took place.

At the time of writing, this matter is not sub judice. No-one has been arrested and charged with anything. The police officers concerned have been given leave, or moved to ‘non-firearms’ duties. Not even suspended. And, in any case, no policeman has ever been found guilty of murder during the course of his duty. On the other hand, if they are suspended for killing someone carrying a wooden table leg in a plastic bag, their colleagues are allowed to go on ‘unofficial strike’ in support. George Orwell discussed ‘doublethink’ at some length in his novel 1984.

You may or may not be comforted to know that this is not the forces of law and order at work. It is nothing more than ‘legalised thuggery’, except that it isn’t legal, and doesn’t stay within its own morally-bankrupt rules.

One can only hope that this will be established by the family’s lawyers. It may be that the officer who has been sent on leave was told “Take a break son. You did what you were told, so you’re rock solid. This will all blow over … take my word for it”. Well, au contraire, I sincerely hope. If these lawyers are as good as the reputation that precedes them, then they will bring forward similar arguments to John Gardner. Everyone has the moral and legal responsibility for their own actions.

You may feel some degree of sympathy for the officers. To refuse an order to do something that was ‘questionable’ would mean facing immediate suspension. Well, au contraire once again, I think. He merely needs to know his rights, and understand the law and to be conversant with morality. He could say “No, I will not do that, even under orders, because I believe it to be immoral and illegal, and I’m responsible for my own actions. And, if I do it on your orders, then you are an accomplice to this, Sarg. And if you suspend me, then I will argue this in a court of law. And, furthermore, if you task anyone else with this, I’ll write out a complaint against you, citing the points I just made. I suggest you say this same thing to your superior officer”.

However that would, of course, have taken a degree of boldness and courage. A lot more than pumping eight shots (+ three misses) into an unarmed Brazilian.

Easy for me to say? Twice in my life I have been sacked for refusing to do something not, in my opinion, quite moral. I underwent a term in prison for refusing to pay the Poll Tax. Yes, I had the responsibility of a mortgage and small children at the time. And yet, I have no regrets.  Yes, it’s easy for me to say but then – I’ve ‘been there’.

From the word ‘go’ it has been admitted that Mr. de Menezes was ‘innocent’. This has never been retracted. If that was known immediately, then why was it so difficult to establish before he was shot? After he was shot he was obviously unable to personally contribute anything to his own status in this respect. Consequently the establishment of his guilt or innocence must have relied on prior factors.

And, a final note: Beware if this turns into the ‘Hutton-style Inquiry’ that Sir Ian Blair is intent on pushing for. The reasons are this:

1)    A ‘Hutton-style Inquiry’ would run without the power of subpoena;

2)    It would run without witness statements made under oath;

3)    It would run without any inalienable right to cross-examinations;

4)    It would therefore be a ‘perjurer’s paradise’, and under the Access to Justice Act 1999, could (and I’m sure would) be used to subsume the Coroner’s Verdict to its eventual conclusions. Precisely as happened in the case of Dr. David Kelly.

If a ‘Hutton-style’ Inquiry takes place, then you can rest assured that a large sum of money will be spent to ensure that everyone concerned gets ‘away with it’ completely. A full critique of this method of ‘subduing justice’ can be found on my website.