Saturday, July 30, 2005

Jean Charles de Menezes shot by the police

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm

Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind the London attacks. Jean Charles de Menezes was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1535565,00.html

The 27-year-old Brazilian-born electrician, Jean Charles de Menezes, had been due in Kilburn, to help fit a fire alarm...

"He rang me ... saying that he would be a little late because the tube lines weren't working properly," said Gesio de Avila, a builder and close friend who Mr De Menezes had been due to meet that morning for the fire alarm job...

Mr Menezes had been stopped twice by police in the past, said his cousin, who said that was a normal occurrence for young Brazilian men in London...

~~~

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2005/07/shoot-to-kill.html

The following is from Xymphora:

...In the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, the authorities pursued him from a place of relatively few people into a crowded subway train, apparently made no attempt to fire at him until he was on the ground (witnesses reported no shots until the five fatal ones), and only killed him when he was closely surrounded by a number of official shooters.

In other words, they followed absolutely no part of the protocol apparently learned from the Israelis on how to deal with suicide bombers.

Had he been a real suicide bomber, they had given him ample time to set off his bomb, forced him to a place where the bomb would have done the maximum harm, and might even have accidentally triggered the bomb by their firing at him at close range, surrounded by policemen who would have been victims of the bomb.

I'm always suspicious when I read elaborate explanations for official behavior that don't match what the officials actually did.

There is still no logical explanation of how Jean Charles de Menezes even ended up under police surveillance.

Officials claim that he was living in an apartment in the same building or in a building close to the building which the police were watching as the residence of someone suspected of being connected to the bombings.

At least, that's the Official Story. It makes no sense.

Did they not know what the person they were supposedly watching actually looked like?

Would any person living in the building, or even in the area of the building, become a suspect?...

If they thought he was a suicide bomber, why did they let him walk into a subway station? Why did they only challenge him - if in fact they did - or run after him after he was in a place where he could do real damage?

The Official Story has so many holes in it that it appears that at least part of it was made up after the fact, in order to justify what seems to be an unjustifiable shooting.

~~~

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2005/07/more-they-tell-us-less-we-know.html

The following is from Xymphora:

1. The police were staking out the block of flats in which he was living because the address had been found in documents left in one of the abandoned rucksacks that didn't blow up in the last series of attacks. That's a good place to leave the address of your safe house!

2. There were eight separate flats in the block, and he did not look like any of the suspects, but the police decided to follow him anyway.

3. Although they feared he might be a suicide bomber, they let him get on a bus!

4. For some reason, they decided he must not be allowed to get on the subway platform, even though it was fine for him to take a ten-minute bus ride.

5. His cousin, Alex Alves, claimed in one account that the victim was "playing around with a friend in a game of chase outside the station", although the police story is that he was alone (and playing around in a game of chase is an interesting thing to do before you go and blow yourself up).

6. They claim they gave a shouted warning to him - odd if they really thought he was going to blow himself up so quickly that shoot-to-kill was necessary - although witnesses heard no such warning.

7. The latest version is that he was shot eight times at close range, seven times in the head and once in the shoulder (although this is inconsistent with the original reports of five shots and inconsistent with the report of Alex Pereira, another cousin - ? - who saw the body when he identified it).

If a coroner saw a corpse shot seven times in the head at close range, he would assume that the shooter was extremely angry and emotionally involved, and that this was a crime of passion. The overkill is inconsistent with a professional shooter, and was potentially dangerous as an errant shot could have set off the bombs the victim supposedly carried. As usual, the more they tell us the less we know.

~~~

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1537457,00.html

The Guardian, July 28, 2005, quotes Vivien Figueiredo, the cousin of Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead in the head.

According to Figueiredo, Menezes was not wearing a heavy jacket that might have concealed a bomb, and did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by armed plainclothes police.

Figueiredo said that the first reports were wrong.

"He used a travel card," she said.

"He had no bulky jacket, he was wearing a jeans jacket."

"My cousin was an honest and hard working person," said Ms Figueiredo who shared a flat with him in Tulse Hill, south London.

Another cousin, Patricia da Silva Armani, 21, said he was in Britain legally to work and study, giving him no reason to fear the police.

Scotland Yard initially claimed he wore a bulky jacket and jumped the barrier when police identified themselves and ordered him to stop.

The same day the Met commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, said the shooting was "directly linked" to the unprecedented anti-terror operation on London's streets.

~~~

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home