Showing posts with label Jean Charles de Menezes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jean Charles de Menezes. Show all posts

Friday, 2 November 2007

UK police guilty in Brazilian's death

As the late Steve Biko said, "The System will never convict The System" and it's as true in Blairite Britain as it was in Apartheid South Africa. My *opinion* has always been that elements within the police and intelligence services knew exactly what they were doing. The police have basically been found guilty of endangering the public and contravening our draconian Health and Safety laws, not murdering an innocent man on the Underground. British Justice hasn't stirred from the coma it's in.

London's police force was found guilty Thursday of endangering the public during a frantic manhunt for four failed suicide bombers that led to the killing of an innocent Brazilian man on a subway train.

Police had staked out an address belonging to two of the failed bombers at dawn on July 22, 2005. It was less than 24 hours after the attackers' devices failed to ignite on three subway cars and a double-decker bus. Police feared they were set on trying to strike again.

The manhunt unfolded with the British capital already on edge after four suicide bombers killed 52 commuters two weeks earlier.

The officers watching the building trailed Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, out of the apartments, suspecting he was one of the bombers. They followed him onto two buses, into a subway station and finally into a train. There, officers, believing he was a bomber, shot him seven times at close range in front of morning commuters.

On Thursday, a jury found police guilty of breaking health and safety laws. Judge Richard Henriques ordered the Metropolitan Police to pay a total of $1.16 million for breakdowns in the operation.

"One person died and many others were placed in potential danger," Henriques said after the verdict.

The judge acknowledged the manhunt had been "a unique and difficult operation."

"This was very much an isolated breach brought about by quite extraordinary circumstances," he said.

The force had denied the charge, saying the killing was an error, not a crime. Outside London's Central Criminal Court, police chief Ian Blair expressed "my deep regret" over de Menezes' death.

"No police officer set out on that day to shoot an innocent man," he said. "I am certain that this death was the culmination of actions by many hands, all of whom were doing their best to handle a terrible threat facing London on that day — a race against time to find the failed suicide bombers of the day before."

Blair said he had no intention of resigning after the verdict. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he had "full confidence" in the police chief, despite opposition calls for Blair to step down.

Blair did not rule out an appeal.

The Brazilian Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying the government doesn't consider that the decision closes the case.

Full story...

Thursday, 2 August 2007

Met chief was misled over De Menezes shooting, report finds

Talk about nothing more than a slapped wrist. As usual we will never really know what happened. I feel sorry for Jean Charles' family who are still in the dark about what happened and with the arrogance of our system they will probably never know. All we know is that a completely innocent person was shot in the head 7 times while trying to go to work. I have my own theories about this and I still believe that this shooting was somehow connected to the 7/7 London bombings. I don't know why, it's just a feeling. Read some of the other articles on the site about this case by clicking the topic link below.

Britain's most senior counter-terrorism police officer "deliberately" misled his own commissioner about the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an official report has found.

The report by the Independent Police Complaint's Commission will be released at midday today. The Guardian has obtained the full 134-page report, which makes swingeing criticism of the Metropolitan police.

The report says it has "serious concern" over the conduct of assistant commissioner Andy Hayman, and says complaints against him are upheld.

Mr de Menezes, a Brazilian, was shot dead at 10am on July 22 2005 after officers mistook him for a terrorist. The shooting came a day after failed suicide bomb attacks on London's transport system.

The IPCC finds that complaints against Mr Hayman, still in charge of counter terrorism, are substantiated, and gives a clear signal it believes he should face disciplinary action. The Metropolitan Police Authority will now decide what action to take.

Complaints against the commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, are not upheld, but the IPCC finds he was not told about a large amount of evidence suggesting the wrong man had been shot, and did not know until the next day.

Mr Hayman told IPCC investigators he could not remember what he told the Crime Reporters Association on the afternoon of July 22 about the shooting.

The IPCC report disagrees. "There is compelling corroboration that AC Hayman categorically stated at the CRA briefing that the deceased was not one of the four wanted men," it says.

Full story...

Wednesday, 17 January 2007

Did The Government Force BBC To Drop Menezes, 7/7 Docu-Dramas?

New revelations may have influenced decision to can recreations

by Steve Watson


The family of Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent man who was gunned down by British police in the wake of the London bombings, has today accused the BBC of aiding a cover up after plans to film a politically sensitive docu-drama about his murder were unceremoniously dropped. The filiming of a docu-drama about the 7/7 London bombers has also been suddenly abandoned.

The London Guardian reports that the BBC shelved both projects because, despite unearthing "difficult or dark" new evidence, it claims it has given the events enough coverage on news and current affairs programming.

But de Menezes cousin Alex Pereira said:

"They are trying to make people forget what happened. It is all political. If the BBC just wanted to do the right thing, they would show the programme. To show the truth is not illegal, to show how the police treated me is not a crime. But they won't because they want to protect the criminals, the police. All reports say they are innocent in everything they have done. We can't prove there is a cover up but we think it is a cover up .Because it will look bad for the police, they won't do that because the BBC is part of the government."

The move is indeed a strange one given that the BBC had, according to the award-winning producer of the project, previously been touting the drama as "the most important television commission of the year".

So did the government have a hand to play in the decision as Pereira suggests? It is not so far fetched to imagine so, particularly given that the BBC has been on a tight leash ever since the 45 minute warning revelations and the dodgy Iraq dossier business in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq.

The government has certainly gone to great lengths in the past to cover up the murder of de Menezes. It would be no surprise if this was a continuation of that policy.

Full story...

Friday, 18 August 2006

The timing is political

We should be sceptical about this alleged plot, and wary of politicians who seek to benefit

by Craig Murray


Nine days on, nobody has been charged with any crime. For there to be no clear evidence yet on something that was "imminent" and would bring "mass murder on an unbelievable scale" is, to say the least, peculiar. A 24th person, arrested amid much fanfare on Tuesday, was quietly released without charge the following day.

Media analysis has been full of information from police and security sources. By and large journalists are honourable in this kind of reporting. Their sources, unfortunately, are not - viz the non-existent ricin, the Forest Gate "chemical weapons vest", or Jean Charles de Menezes leaping the barriers. Unlike the herd of security experts, I have had the highest security clearance; I have done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis; and I have been inside the spin machine. And I am very sceptical about the story that has been spun.

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not have passports. It could be pretty difficult to convince a jury that these individuals were about to go through with suicide bombings, whatever they bragged about on the net.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for more than a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information from people desperate to stop or avert torture. What you don't get is the truth.

We also have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing arrests the weekend before they were made. Why? Both in domestic trouble, they longed for a chance to change the story. The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a chance. Comparisons with 9/11 were all over front pages.

And we have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, the home secretary, warning us all in advance of the evil that threatens us and complaining that some people "don't get" why we have to abandon traditional liberties.

Full story...

Monday, 22 August 2005

A plot by a secretive section of the military to kill De Menezes as part of a strategy of tension?

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 LarkinLead 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.

Full story...

Monday, 8 August 2005

7/7 Bombings Final Word: Her Majesty's Terrorist Network

The chaps at propagandamatrix.com are to be commended for their dilligent following of this story. It's because of them that a lot of the story has emerged and we owe them a debt of gratitude. Make sure you visit their site and buy one of their t-shirts!

Only conspiracy theorists would believe the government wasn't involved

by Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones


The wealth of evidence that has emerged in the month following the 7/7 London bombings only leads us to one clear conclusion, that the attacks had to have been orchestrated by or with help from the very highest levels of British intelligence.

The latest piece of evidence to suggest that the official story is a fraud focuses again on the contention that the bombs were placed under the trains and were not detonated by suicide bombers wearing backpacks.

The first eyewitness to report this was Bruce Lait, a victim of the Aldgate Station bombing.

He told the Cambridge Evening News,

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag."

Now another credible source, Guardian journalist Mark Honigsbaum, talked to eyewitnesses at the Edgware Road bombing, who essentially described the same thing.

Eyewitnesses told Honigsbaum that "tiles, the covers on the floor of the train, suddenly flew up, raised up."

How could the floor of the train raise up from a bomb supposedly in the backpack of an individual seated in the carriage, above the floor?

The victims then heard "an almighty crash" as a train traveling in the opposite direction collided, clearly indicating that the train had derailed due to the bomb being placed under the carriage.

Click here to hear the audio.

For individuals to plant bombs underneath trains and secure them in place without being caught, they would need to secure access to the trains. In this scenario, London Underground could have been told that a dummy device was to be placed underneath the train as part of an exercise to test security an alertness. When the real attacks happened some LU officials would have been alarmed but their suspicions would have dampened when it was revealed that the bombs were carried in backpacks, meaning that the drill was just a strange 'coincidence'.

The fact that the bombs were actually planted underneath the trains could have easily been buried in an avalanche of official announcements to the contrary.

On the other hand the backpack bombs could have just been the diversionary blasts to enable patsies to be framed, just like the planes flying into the towers acted as the diversionary cover for the explosives planted inside the World Trade Center.

The fact that the ID's of all the so-called suicide bombers were found in pristine condition right next to where the bombs went off strongly suggests the planting of evidence to frame patsies. The ID's would have had a very good chance of surviving if the bomb was not in the backpack with them, but underneath the train.

The drill scenario would have provided culpability cover if investigators started asking questions about objects underneath the carriage.

As we have exhaustively documented, such a drill did take place on the morning of 7/7.

A consultancy agency with government and police connections was running an exercise for an unnamed company that revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as happened in real life on the morning of July 7th.

On a BBC Radio 5 interview that aired on the evening of the 7th, the host interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, which bills itself as a 'crisis management' advice company, better known to you and I as a PR firm.

Peter Power was a former Scotland Yard official, working at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch.

Power told the host that at the exact same time that the London bombings were taking place, his company was running a 1,000 person strong exercise which drilled the London Underground being bombed at the exact same locations, at the exact same times, as happened in real life.

How can anyone credibly claim that this was sheer coincidence when pieced together with the rest of the evidence?

Our original article on this matter is the top link on Google when you type in 'London bombing' - above BBC, CNN and ABC News, proof of how much attention this article received.

Our suspicions were aroused just hours after the bombing when it was reported by Associated Press that Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had received a warning from the Israeli Embassy not to leave his hotel for a speech he was to give that morning. The location of the speech was right next to the site of one of the bombings.

Despite debunking attempts from much of the establishment press, Associated Press never retracted the story and later Mossad admitted that it was true.

The so-called claim of responsibility for the attack was made by a group that is known to not physically exist and which at best is one guy sitting at a computer posting messages on a forum.

And yet the establishment media still report Al-Qaeda responsibility for the attack as if it were the gospel truth.

Exactly what evidence have we seen to even agree with the contention that four men with rucksack bombs carried out this attack? Four grainy CCTV pictures of dark skinned men with rucksacks? Should we not question this evidence especially when verified witnesses on two of the three trains that were bombed said that the bombs were underneath the train and that they saw no men with rucksacks even in the area?

Questions about the attacks are never ending.

Why was it reported that the explosives used were military in origin but then the story changed to say they were homemade? Can explosive experts not tell the difference or was the story changed for a reason?

Why would a man with an 8-month old baby, another who was only interested in sports, and another who taught disabled children, want to kill themselves, other innocent people and cause so much carnage in the process?

Even the establishment media started speculating that the bombers were duped into killing themselves by someone else.

Why did the cameras on the targeted bus malfunction that day? Why was the bus diverted from its usual route? We personally visited the site of the bus bombing at Tavistock Place and verified that no number 30 bus travels down that road.

What are we to make of claims by Stagecoach bus employees who say that a different group of contractors inspected the CCTV cameras in the days before the bombings and that they took two entire days to carry out tasks which normally take just hours to complete.

What is the reason behind Alan Greenspan's decision to flush nearly $40 billion in liquidity into financial markets two days before the attack? Was this an attempt to preemptively head off a run on the markets? If Greenspan had information about a terror attack then why didn't the people on the trains and buses get the same warning?

Who were the individuals that profited from short-selling the British Pound in the ten days before the attack? The pound fell 6% for no particular reason. Fortunes were made after the pound dropped even further in the aftermath of the attacks. This directly mirrors short selling of United and American Airline stocks in the days before 9/11. These suspicious transactions led directly to the CIA.

Why was an innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, shot in the head eight times at Stockwell tube station? Why did the police change their story, from saying Menezes was wearing a heavy jacket to admitting it was a lightweight denim jacket? Why did the media initially report that Menezes was shot in the stomach but then change the story when it was pointed out that it would be stupid to shoot suspected suicide bombers in the very place that the bomb would be.

Was Menezes shot because he knew something about the drills? Menezes was an electrician by trade. Did he have damaging knowledge of why the bombings were reported as an electrical surge for over an hour?

Why did Tony Blair immediately reject a public inquiry into how and why the bombings took place? In Britain, there is a public inquiry for every event, no matter how insignificant, and yet after Britain's biggest tragedy since the blitz, Blair shuts the door. What is he frightened of?

The final nail in the coffin regarding inside involvement emerged when it was admitted that the so-called mastermind of both the 7/7 and 7/21 attacks, Haroon Rashid Aswat, is a British Intelligence Asset.

Terror expert John Loftus told Fox News,

"Back in 1999 he came to America. The Justice Department wanted to indict him in Seattle because him and his buddy were trying to set up a terrorist training school in Oregon... we've just learned that the headquarters of the US Justice Department ordered the Seattle prosecutors not to touch Aswat... , apparently Aswat was working for British intelligence."

The mastermind of the London bombings was under the direction and protection of MI6. How much more obvious does it need to be that criminal elements of the intelligence agencies were involved in this attack?

Related: London Bombings Data Page

Friday, 5 August 2005

Why There Is No Inquiry into the London Bombings

by Trowbridge H. Ford

Obey! Whenever something dramatic happens in a country - whether it be an assassination of an important figure, an unexpected war with another nation, or a devastating attack on some treasured symbol - the public expects not only the perpetrators to be punished but also an official explanation of why it happened. It is all very necessary for the public to maintain trust in the officials it has chosen to lead it, and in the very government it has given its allegiance to, and supports with its taxes.

When the Japanese attack on Hawaii on December 7, 1941, for example, occurred, the American people did not expect FDR's government to claim that it was all some terrible mistake which could be resolved by negotiations, or something not worth fighting for. The public anticipated a no-nonsense reply from Washington, and the President did not disappoint it, calling upon a joint session of Congress to declare war on Japan because of its infamy, and appointing Secretary of State Frank Knox to investigate the causes of the terrible tragedy rather than just dismiss it as a ludicrous diversion.

While the Japanese militarists thought that America would throw in the towel when its jewel, the Pacific Fleet, was struck a "mortal blow" while at anchor in Pearl Harbor, Washington behaved in just the manner Japanese fleet commander, Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto, predicted - waking from its slumbers, and initiating a war of revenge no matter what while punishing the commanders on the scene, Vice Admiral Husband Kimmel, and General Walter Short, for their alleged dereliction of duty in allowing it to happen. Roosevelt's government had not taken seriously the possibility of the Japanese, a nation of "little yellow men", starting a war with Washington, but now there would be Hell to pay for their foolishness.

Still, Washingon had time and interest in investigations into the tragedy. While the Knox one was followed by another finely-balanced military one during the war, headed by Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts, and another one right after its end, headed by FDR loyalist and Vice President Alben Barkley, they all come up with the expected whitewash which exonerated the policy-makers in the nation's capital, and tarnished the reputations of the commanders on the scene. Roberts was the judge who changed sides on the constitutionality of FDR's New Deal legislation, especially social security and the National Labor Relations Board, preventing the President from having to pack the Supreme Court with judges of a more liberal stripe.

Kimmel and Short were repeatedly held accountable for the disaster though they had never been clearly informed about its possibility, and their responsibility in preventing it, especially steps which might have minimized its impact. About the intelligence failure, Christopher Andrew wrote in For the President's Eyes Only: "Not a single Japanese decrypt available in Washington pointed to an attack on Pearl Harbor." (p. 120) It took nearly another half-century for the officers to receive some kind of rehabilitation, though they were never granted the court-martials they demanded in order to clear their names.

When President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and Jack Ruby conveniently silenced his alleged killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, there was no talk of just moving on since the whole matter had now been resolved. Actually, there were already too many investigations under way with Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade initiating a murder prosecution of the sleazy night club operator, and Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr opening an inquiry, headed by later Watergate prosecutor Leon Jaworski, into the failure of law-enforcement agencies, especially Hoover's FBI, in preventing it. LBJ appointed the now infamous Warren Commission to clear up the mess - what threatened an international confrontation because of alleged complicity of Moscow and Havana in the murder.

While we all know now that its investigation was a complete fiasco - another whitewash of what had happened - because of the even greater risk of the public learning the truth, the Commission went through the motions of establishing LHO's guilt, while ruling out of hand any other explanations of the assassination for fear that it would lead to the conspiracy in the heart of America's secret government which had assassinated the President. The Commission had to tailor all the evidence to fit the premise the Oswald alone had done it, and, of course, this led to many distortions and omissions which subsequent inquiries, especially the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s, have been unable to deal with.

Even when British WMD expert Dr. David Kelly was killed in July 2002, apparently by his own hand, Prime Minister Tony Blair could not treat it merely as a personal matter which could be best resolved by a coroner's inquest, given what the public already knew. It was Kelly's insights into Iraq's WMD - what had become the centerpiece of books that Judith Miller and Thomas Mangold had written on the subject - which had become the hooks that Washington and London had hung their pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein on. Kelly was certain when they wrote their books that the Iraqi dictator had the missiles and the biological agents, particularly anthrax, to hit Israel within 45 minutes of the opening of any hostilities against his regime.

Thanks to UN Resolution 1441 which forced Iraq to make an accounting of what had happened to its WMD, and to allow its weapons inspectors back into the country to search for any secret stores, Washington and London learned that Iraq no longer had the capability that Kelly was so sure of. Consequently, they had to fix the evidence to justify Saddam's ouster (aka the Downing Street Memo), and fight the war under the pretext that Saddam would launch an WMD attack against Israel. The only trouble with the strategy was that Kelly soon learned of his errors, and started talking to BBC reporters, especially Andrew Gillian, about how he had been fooled.

As soon as the MOD, MI6, and Downing Street learned of Kelly's liberties, thanks to feedback from Judy Miller about his future plans on the matter - they outed him to the public in the hope of at least discrediting him, if not destroying him. Miller was deeply involved in covering up the fixing of intelligence to justify the war, contending in her NYT's columns that Saddam had
destroyed some of his WMD right before the war, shipped the rest to Syria, and had joined Al-Qaeda.

Once the Mossad fourn-man kidon helping MI5 fight Britain's terrorisim, it seems, learned of Kelly's outing, it mounted a boat mission on The Thames near Harrowdown Hill to assassinate Kelly - what was made to look like a suicide while he was taking a walk. The plan was to bushwack him, once he was alone in a secluded area, and stuff him with enough of his wife's pain-killers to render him unconscious, leaving him then to die an apparent natural death.

The only trouble with the plot was that Kelly, most suspicious of threats against him, was not surprised by the kidon. He broke away from it when confronted, and ran through a most wooded area, causing significant bruising and leisons to his legs. When he was finally caught, he still put up a struggle, causing bruises to his chest, scratches on his head, and a welt on his lower lip while the kidon was trying to stuff the pain-killer down his throat - which he continually vomitted back up.

In desperation, and in the dark, the squad finally held the left arm down long enough under a torch to open up the less important artery in his wrist. By this time, Kelly was barely conscious. He was then moved from the scene to where the body was found - and there was no evidence of a struggle - and left to die, after being stuffed with more pain-killer which he still managed to vomit back up.

Of course, the Prime Minister could not allow any coroner's inquest in the case - as it was most likely to come up with a verdict of foul play, or at least an open one - so he had the Lord Chancellor appoint a judicial inquiry, under Lord Hutton, into the death. Hutton was the British equivalent of Justice Roberts - FDR's judge who was just itching for a fight with the Japs when the attacks on Hawaii occurred. Hutton, as Northern Ireland's Attorney General, had made a similar career for himself by bringing its war on terror into line with what policy makers in Whitehall wanted through the establishment of Diplock courts - jury-less trials in which convictions were largely based upon the testimony of informer witnesses and coerced confessions.

Hutton delegated his primary responsibility - determining the cause of Kelly's death - to Professor Keith Hawton, the noted expert on suicide. Hawton had prescribed in writing that 30 tablets of a similar pain-killer would be sufficient to kill a person - advice the kidon had followed to a tee when it stole them from Mrs.Kelly's supply, and stuffed them down Kelly's gullet. In sum, the inquiry's verdict was a foregone conclusion.

It was completely out of character when the 7/7 bombings occurred in London that the Prime Minister dismissed calls for special inquiries into them as a "ludicrous diversion" unless officialdom cannot be helped by any biased investigation of them - what seems to be the case. With the four suicide bombers having pulled off a perfect conspiracy while dying in the process (For more on this, see my articles about Lord Stevens and the actual conspiracy in my archive.), there is little that can be gained by having even a most biased inquiry as there are no easy scapegoats to blame, as what happens with more traditional surprises.

Actually, any investigation would just air all kinds of evidence of official incompetence and
malfeasance in the matter. Ever since MI5 was given primary responsibility in stopping terrorism in October 1992, it has increasingly been expanding its relationships with other agencies, particularly Scotland Yard's Anti-Terrorist Unit aka SO13, the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), and Israel's Mossad, in the hope of taking their measure, particularly the Provisional IRA and Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network. The Security Service - being primarily interested in catching the masterminds of terrorism rather than just its foot soldiers - became increasingly involved in developing double agents within various suspected groups in the hope of achieving results which would satisfy all its associates.

Of course, Britain has long been a sanctuary for terrorists, emigrants, and asylum seekers. During the 19th and 20th centuries, many freedom-fighters - especially of nations under the yoke of the Austrian, Russian, and German empires in Eastern Europe, most notably Hungary's Louis Kossuth and Italy's Guiseppe Mazzini - sought refuge in London. While this process slowly wound down with the collapse of the Cold War and the formation of the European Union, people in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia increasingly joined the ranks of those seeking refuge in Britain, thanks to the collapse of its own empire, Israel's wars of expansion, and Western efforts to control the flow of oil - a process which diluted Britain's social cohesion.

All the politically-involved emigrant groups - except for Irish Republicans, though even they were giving up their strategy of an armed struggle to gain independence of Northern Ireland from Britain - were committed to the so-called "covenant of security" which meant that they would never attack their fellow Britons, though there was little cause for them to do so. Consequently, Muslim groups became ideal recruits for special operations Britain had planned with America and Israel. MI5's T Branch, responsible for combatting domestic terrorism, saw this as an good way of keeping up with G Branch, whose mandate was international terrorism, when it came to funds, personnel, and missions, especially now that PIRA terrorism was drying up.

Little wonder that when Washington was looking for freedom-fighters and moles in the fight against Greater Serbia in Bosnia-Hertzegovina, shoring up Kosovo and Albania, and defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan, MI6 was most eager to oblige, and T Branch did what it could to help out. The center of Britain's recruitment efforts was the Finsbury mosque where the fiery Abu Qatada aka Captain Hook and Omar Uthman Abu Omar held forth on the need of jihadists to combat Western evils, and his assistant Haroon Rashid Awat signed up anyone willing to go. Huge sums were desposited in London banks and elsewhere to help fund the covert activities of his Al-Muhajiroun ('The Emigrants' in arabic) in laying the groundwork for rolling back Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan (Operation Gateway).

All this planning and good work went down the drain, though, when the 9/11 attacks occurred. Instead of Al-Qaeda's hijackers being harmlessly exposed to the world as the CIA and NORAD shut down the hijacked planes without loss - what would constitute an act of war, justifying the end of the Taliban for harboring such terrorists - the hijackers turned out to be suicide bombers, making all-out war with Osama and his supporters inevitable and immediate. Those who were not killed outright in the lightening strike on Afghanistan were killed by the hundreds, or perhaps thousands, in its aftermath. Those who were not killed were then imprisoned indefinitely wherever they could and forced to tell all they knew about the others. Al-Qaeda was like a plague, or a rogue state which had to be eradicated completely.

At first, this meant massive roundups in individual countries, and renditions of more likely middleman to countries like Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan for the full treatment when it came to interrogation. The Coalition, as T Branch had done in Northern Ireland, was looking for supergrasses, coerced informants, who would tell all about the movement. "Christopher Black, the first IRA supergrass," Caroline Kennedy-Pipe wrote in The Origins of the Present Troubles in Northern Ireland, "implicated thirty-eight people in his testimony." (p. 144) With Saddam Hussein's regime already marked out for destruction, it was just a question of time before Osama and his supporters would follow.

When these assumptions started proving unlikely if not impossible despite the roundups and renditions of likely suspects, the Coalition started outing its supergrasses, and implicating their associates in all kinds of terrorism. Abu Omar, the Intelligence and Democratic Security Service's (SISD) supergrass in Italy, became such an attractive source that the CIA kidnapped him in February 2003, and rendered him to Egypt for interrogation because the Agency did not think that SISD was getting everything out of him it could. Anzar's Higher Defense Intelligence Center ((CESID) in Spain locked up Syrian-born Edin Barakat Yarkas aka Abu Dahdah indefinitely on suspicion of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. And in December 2001 Abu Qatada disappeared from his house in Acton, apparently having become a supergrass for the British security services.

In Britain, Abu Qatada's supergrass efforts turned out worse than those of Black and the Irish National Liberation Army's Henry Kirkpatrick back in Ulster in the 1980s. While convictions, based upon their informer testimony, were increasingly thrown out by the courts, Qatada's efforts resulted in little more than the sending to jail the "Portland Seven" - guys who had been led to Afghanistan by his assistant Aswat after their effort to establish a terrorist training ground in Bly, Oregon had failed. After that, Aswat himself went underground. Then Qatada's testimony that asylum-seeker and psychopath Kamel Bourgoss was establishing a ricin ring in Manchester, despite the roundup of 200 suspect associates, only resulted in the murder of Special Branch detective Stephen Oake when they failed to restrain him after making an arrest.

Still, Qatada was so effective in persuading T Branch that he knew all about what the terrorists at his mosque were planning that it agreed to conduct Operation Crevis in November 2003 to catch them. (For more on this, see my articles about Lord Stevens and the 7/7 bombings in the Trowbridge Archive.) Suicide bombers Asif Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif, member of Qatada's mosque, has just blown up Mike's Bar outside Tel Aviv, and security officials believed that similar terrorists would flock to his calls. MI5, with the help of Canadian counterterrorists, supplied the mastermind and bomb expert Mohammad Monim Khawaja to the false flag operation, and Qatada himself was expected to supply the necessary recruits through his cellphone calls, and what they generated among Britain's increasingly disaffected Muslims.

Well, Operation Crevis was completely upstaged by what Abu Dahdah's followers pulled off in Madrid on 3/11 - what was such a devastating blow to Aznar's government that it not only lost at the polls three days later, but also destroyed all the government's deliberations leading up to and after the attacks, as Socialist Prime Minister José Rodrigues Zapatero recently testified before the parliamentary commission investigating the tragedy. The evidence would show that GCHQ, Britain's signal intelligence system, was so intrigued by the "chatter" that Operation Crevis was creating that it persuaded Spanish counterterrorists that the real threat was in Britain, and that Madrid would only have to worry about a demonstration bombing by ETA, the Basque separatist group - what Aznar persisted in claiming his own counterterrorist people maintained.

MI5 did what it could to cover up the scandal by having its agent 'Gould' flush the young Muslim pasties in Crawley and West London to Pakistan, but they refused to flee. While Scotland Yard, thanks to continuing scare-mongering by its Chief Commissioner, Sir John Stevens, went through the motions of taking 'the plot' seriously, claiming that it had prevented a serious terrorist attack, the whole thing was simply dropped.

As in Northern Ireland, Operation Crevis's use of supergrasses had most unexpected consequences, especially since the wars in Iraq and on terror were simlpy getting worse. While security officials were giving the widest berth possible to all those connected in the slightest way to it, some of them, especially Mohammad Kayoun Khan, became increasingly radicalized by what they had been through, and were now experiencing. He even went to Pakistan and Israel to see what it was all about - what opened his eyes to what the West was really engaged in with its secret operations and lies. He had little trouble recruiting three like-minded Muslims to become martyrs - like what Northern Ireland's hunger strikers within the Maze Prison became, and what Prime Minister Thatcher had approved the use of supergrasses to stop.

While I have little to add to what I have already written about this conspiracy, one should note that the Security Service and Scotland Yard's Anti-Terrorist-Unit turned a completely blind eye on the whole process - vetting Khan apparently and deciding that he was not a threat. Thanks to Lord Stevens again, the security services were absolutely obsessed with the idea that only a "white convert" - reminiscent of what Washington thought about the Japanese before Pearl Harbor - could supply the needed planning, and bomb-making expertise for a coordinated urban attack. Actually, the bombs were made from readily-available peroxide compounds which anyone reading the internet could put together, and set to explode by synchronized mobile phones, provided they were kept cool until shortly before detonation.

This misconception by the British counterterrorists resulted in the reimprisonment of Shankill Road bomber Sean Kelly back in Northern Ireland in October 1993 four weeks before the July attacks in London in the expectation that this prevented all possibilities of a repeat of what happened in Madrid. In fact, the security services were so confident that they had everything under control that they reduced the threat level from "severe" to "substantial" after Kelly re-entered prison.

When the 7/7 attacks still occurred, the Blair government could not simply do what Aznar's did after 3/11. Instead of scrubbing the record clean - what was bound to leak out, and would certainly end in Blair's political humiliation and ouster - it had to create a new legend which would cover up the first attacks while apparently reassuring the public that everything was essentially okay. Its answer was a replay two weeks later, perhaps put together by "Gould" in order to make amends, in which a "copy-cat" operation had all the desired effects without any casualties. The mission was planned so that the coordinatesd bombs did not explode either because the explosive had become inert or was simply flour.

Then the Brits went hog-wild with their new Security Regiment, built from remnants of the 14 Intelligence Company from Northern Ireland, while one of the pseuo-bombers, Hussain Osman aka Hamdi Isaac, was allowed to escape to Italy. The special team following Jean Charles de Menezes had complete discretion in how to handle his surveillance, and when it became confused, as it had in at least seven or eight other occasions, it shot him dead - not to cover up anything but to establish that the counterterrorists had finally accomplished something. Osman, in Italy, was allowed to sing to the press about the operation not wanting to kill anyone - what so reassured the British public about the possibilities of future 7/7s that Scotland Yard was obliged to deny his claims.

MI5 had even tried to bring Aswat into the picture by having him come to Britain, and call one of the pseudo-bombers the night before the attacks before departing, hoping that this would fit him out as the mastermind of both attacks. Unfortunately, the South African Secret Service had spotted him there on 7/7, and counterterrorist expert John Loftus disclosed to Fox News that Aswat had been an MI6 asset for years.

As this is all slowly played out by Scotland Yard, and in the courts, the public will soon lose interest, and the Prime Minister can rest assured that Aznar's fate does not await him.

Thursday, 4 August 2005

London Bombings: Electrical Surge Connected to Menezes Shooting?

This one is VERY interesting, when de Menezes was shot my first thought was that it had all the hall-marks of an execution, I still think so. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this idea but we need to find out. Despite the seemingly incredulous nature of the article below the fact that they were trying to killing de Menezes makes more sense given the evidence than the idea that they shot him by accident thinking he was a suicide bomber.

by F Napoli and Prison Planet

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.

Full story...

Friday, 29 July 2005

Shooting to kill needs no warning

UPDATE, THE SECOND: Now our glorious police have killed a Grandmother, accidentally of course but that's what you get when you MANHANDLE A 74 YEAR OLD WOMAN. Two women and a 12 year old boy harrassed by police to the extent that one of them dies. Has our constabulary lost all sense of reason? How the hell could they think that these people were a threat? What the FUCK is happening to this country? Has everyone gone stark-staring bonkers???

UPDATE: They just shot someone else. Would everybody STOP getting shot!

This is just great, the controls of the fascist police state are complete. You can now get shot for being suspected of being a suicide bomber. We have one innocent Brazillian dead and now many more could be shot for no reason whatsoever. This government is totally out of control, am I the only one who can see that? This is no longer a democracy, this is a police state where you can be shot for wearing a big jacket and sprinting for the train.

But then our police were trained in Israel so what the hell do you expect!?


Police have been given permission to shoot dead suspected suicide bombers without any verbal warning, the Guardian has learned.

The killing of an innocent Brazilian man in a London underground station on Friday has focused attention on new guidelines to defend against terror attacks.

Operation Kratos tactics say suicide bombers who are about to explode their devices can be shot in the head.

There is still confusion over whether Jean Charles de Menezes, who was shot eight times, received a verbal warning.

A police source has told the Guardian that there is no need for officers to verbally warn a suspect before opening fire.

The source said: "If the firearms team are reasonably certain the person is a suicide bomber then there is no need to issue any warning.

"Experience from other parts of the world shows that if a suicide bomber knows they are being followed by police, they will detonate."

Yesterday, Barbara Wilding, the chief constable of South Wales police and one of the architects of the shoot-to-kill policy, said old guidelines telling officers to fire at the upper chest were redundant in the face of the dangers posed by suicide bombers.

She told the BBC that criminal law still governed officers' actions: "We always have to be able to answer, have we used reasonable force in the light of intelligence of the situation and the risk?"

The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, said there had been 250 incidents since the attacks when police thought they may have been dealing with a suicide bomber. And he indicated that on seven occasions police had been on the brink of acting.

"I know there have been 250 incidents since July 7 where we have considered whether we are seeing a suicide bomber," he said. "I know that when I last saw it there had been seven times when we have got as close to calling it as 'that' and we haven't."

Full story...

Thursday, 28 July 2005

London Bombing Aftermath: The Spin Continues

by Paul Joseph Watson

Since the Friday shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent man with no links to terrorism or suicide bombers, we have been subjected to further spin and misdirection in an attempt to stifle real questions about the 7/7 bombing.

The original bombing story has been permanently removed from the front pages of the nation's newspapers. Publications like the London Mirror were starting to ask serious questions about how the alleged bombers were set up by another group and were unaware of the fact that they would be killed in the blasts.

As this website has consistently claimed, the 7/7 alleged bombers were hired as the unwitting fall guys for an operation of which the planning and execution was organized at the very highest levels of the parallel British government.

The dupes were told they were part of a drill to test security provisions in dealing with suicide bombers. The men booked return tickets, pay and display tickets for their cars, expected to be paid handsomely and to have helped protect their country before returning to their homes in Leeds.

We received an interesting e mail from an individual who was listening to BBC Radio Five on the day of the bombings.

I thought I'd follow up on what you've obviously been getting from England regarding the recruitment of volunteers for terror drills. I heard the same thing with a notable differnce. I heard this on BBC Radio 5 Live on 7/7.

My honest recollection is that it was broadcast somewhere around lunchtime. They mentioned that Transport for London (the people running the underground) in conjunction with the Dept. of Transport would run drills where fake devices would be placed on the network and the staff reponse times measured in terms of locating them.

To the best of my re-collection they did not really elaborate any further on this, but the shock I felt was real when I started to think 9/11 and the CIA, NRO planes as weapons wargames and the USAF's hi-jack field training exercises.

Please note also that the Sky News Foreign News Editor Tim Marshall reported seeing British Army soldiers/bomb disposal people in the Charing Cross area at around 1100 - 1115 hours. When his interview (by mobile phone) was over the news anchor read a brief Army statement "...Civil Contingency Support Measures are now in place".

The anchorman then said "...Army on the streets of London trying to manage this major terrorist situation."

The time was 1118 hours when said this.

Other websites have also echoed claims that Muslims were being recruited for drills on the London Underground.

Of course the biggest smoking gun of them all is the fact that there was a drill at the exact same time targeting the exact same locations in the London Underground.

Channel 4 News attempted to dismiss our investigation into this by claiming that it was an inquest that was only relevent up until the identity of the 'bombers' was made public. This is plainly a ridiculous claim. Just because some grainy CCTV footage of four men is released does not make an event that has been calculated to be an astronomically impossible coincidence irrelevent. Furthermore, the fact that the four men pictured were on the scene at the time of the bombings does not mean that the exercise is unrelated. In fact, from the very start we have consistently emphasized the fact that the alleged bombers and the exercise are directly related.

Yet more evidence as to the bombers' unwitting role in the horrific reality of the attack has emerged.

Eyewitness Bruce Lait was yards away from the bomb that exploded at Aldgate East station. The following is what he told the Cambridge Evening News.

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag."

For individuals to plant bombs underneath trains and secure them in place without being caught, they would need to secure access to the trains. In this scenario, London Underground could have been told that a dummy device was to be placed underneath the train as part of an exercise to test security an alertness. When the real attacks happened some LU officials would have been alarmed but their suspicions would have dampened when it was revealed that the bombs were carried in backpacks, meaning that the drill was just a strange 'coincidence'.

The fact that the bombs were actually planted underneath the trains could have easily been buried in an avalanche of official announcements to the contrary.

On the other hand the backback bombs could have just been the diversionary blasts to enable patsies to be framed, just like the planes flying into the towers acted as the diversionary cover for the explosives planted inside the WorldTrade Center.

The 7/21 copycat bombings have succeeded in monopolizing media coverage and taking attention away from the highly suspicious 7/7 bombings. The fact that all four bombings were badly planned and failed suggests that there was no inside involvement.

Full story...

Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket

Ok, so why the hell was this poor guy shot? They let him get on a bus thinking he was a suicide bomber and then shot him before he got on a tube train. They say he had a big jacket on: he didn't. They say he vaulted the barrier: he didn't. The wrestled him to the ground and unloaded an entire magazine into him based on the fact that he came out of a building that had a flat in it that was once occupied by someone connected to the bombings. Now it turns out most of what they told us was bollocks anyway. Any talk of the officers concerned being sanctioned? Any reprimands? ANY FUCKING JAIL SENTENCES??? NO! Why? Because in the words of the immortal Bantu Stephen Biko "The System will never convict The System."

These are the actions of a fascist police state, not one of the world's oldest democracies! Wake the fuck up people!


Relatives say Met admits that, contrary to reports, electrician did not leap tube station barrier

Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead in the head, 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, his cousin said yesterday.

Speaking at a press conference after a meeting with the Metropolitan police, Vivien Figueiredo, 22, said that the first reports of how her 27-year-old cousin had come to be killed in mistake for a suicide bomber on Friday at Stockwell tube station were wrong.

Article continues
"He used a travel card," she said. "He had no bulky jacket, he was wearing a jeans jacket. But even if he was wearing a bulky jacket that wouldn't be an excuse to kill him."

Flanked by the de Menezes family's solicitor, Gareth Peirce, and by Bianca Jagger, the anti-Iraq war campaigner, she condemned the shoot-to-kill policy which had led to her cousin's death and vowed that what she called the "crime" would not go unpunished.

"My cousin was an honest and hard working person," said Ms Figueiredo who shared a flat with him in Tulse Hill, south London. "Although we are living in circumstances similar to a war, we should not be exterminating people unjustly."

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. "An innocent man has been killed as though he was a terrorist," she said. "An incredibly grave error was committed by the British police."

Mr de Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder at 10am last Friday after being followed from Tulse Hill. 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.

The following day Sir Ian apologised when detectives established that the Brazilian electrician, on his way to a job in north-west London, was not connected to attempts to blow up three underground trains and a bus in the capital.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission has began an inquiry which is expected to take several months. Yesterday it emerged one armed officer involved has been given leave, and two have been moved to non-firearm duties. Ms Figuerdo condemned Sir Ian's decision to authorise the leave, saying she wanted to see the man who shot her cousin, and he should be in jail.

The body of Mr de Menezes is being flown to Brazil tonight for a funeral tomorrow. Simultaneously, a memorial service will be held at Westminster Cathedral, with TV coverage beamed live to Brazil.

Ms Peirce condemned Sir Ian's statements on the case, saying there had been a "regrettable rush to judgment".

Full story...

Tuesday, 26 July 2005

Brazilian was shot eight times, inquest told

So, our glorious police let him get on a bus thinking he might be a suicide bomber. There are doubts about the verbal warning given, one witness reports hearing no warning. Now we find out that the pigs emptied an entire magazine into him after after pinning him to the ground. Great job guys! Super, splendid bit of police-work there! The armed bacon at the station makes me feel so much better knowing that they could shoot me for sprinting to catch my train!

Inquiry by police complaints authority to look at all ranks involved, including those who gave orders

Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian man killed by police after being mistaken for a suicide bomber, was shot eight times at Stockwell Tube station on Friday, not five times as had previously been reported.

The details of the number of rounds emptied into the 27-year-old Brazilian electrician after his pursuit through Stockwell station by an armed plainclothes squad emerged at the opening of an inquest into his death yesterday.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission also began an inquiry into the shooting yesterday.

The commission's chairman, Nick Hardwick, told the Guardian the investigation would look at "officers of all ranks", potentially including those who authorised special shoot-to-kill tactics against suicide bombers.

Mr Hardwick said: "It would be wrong to look at people [just] on the frontline, you have to look at who gave the orders and who is in the chain of command."

He added he was confident of getting access to all police documents and personnel involved.

Southwark coroner's court heard that Mr De Menezes, who arrived in Britain three years ago on a student visa, had been on the way to a job in Kilburn, north-west London, when he was challenged and pursued by armed police. He was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.

Witnesses to the shooting last Friday spoke of hearing five shots.

The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, had initially said the shooting was "directly linked" to anti-terror operations. But detectives later established he was not connected to attempts to blow up three underground trains and a bus in the capital the day before.

At a Downing Street news conference yesterday Tony Blair said he was "desperately sorry" for the death of Mr De Menezes but that police were working in very difficult circumstances.

"I think it is important that we give them every support and that we understand that had the circumstances been different and, for example, this had turned out to be a terrorist and they had failed to take that action, they would have been criticised the other way," he said.

"At the same time therefore, in expressing our sorrow and deep sympathy for the death that has happened, it is important that we allow the police and support them in doing the job they have to do in order to protect people in this country."

The prime minister's apology came amid conflicting reports on whether Mr De Menezes' student visa, which allows people to work for a small number of hours, had expired, hence his failure to stop when challenged by police. The Home Office said it was unable to comment on the claims, which were reported by the BBC yesterday and attributed to security sources. Normally, a student visa would expire within two years.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights organisation Liberty, said she was "disgusted" by the suggestion that someone's immigration status might have any relevance to the value of their life, adding that Liberty had been at pains to reserve judgment on the Stockwell shooting pending the outcome of an independent investigation.

Full story...

Monday, 25 July 2005

Public doubts grow over shoot-to-kill

I am so angry about this, every time I see the news reports I can feel my blood boiling. An innocent man is dead! What I want to know is if this poor guy was such a threat, why the FUCK did those murderous bastards in the police let him get on a fucking bus at Tulse Hill and travel to Stockwell before deciding to pump 5 shots into him?! Why did they pin him down and then shoot him, surely they had him restrained. Why did a witness not hear the police warning Jean that they were armed police? The whole thing stinks of incompetance! Reports say the family is suing the police, good! I hope they win a very large amount of money!

Public opinion over the police's controversial shoot-to-kill policy has wavered dramatically since an innocent man was shot dead in London last Friday.

Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, a Brazilian electrician on his way to work, was shot by police as he tried to get on a train at Stockwell Tube station on Friday.

He had been followed from a block of flats which was under surveillance, but he turned out to have no connection to terrorism.

A poll on the Mail online on Friday and Saturday showed that 84 per cent of readers were in favour of the shoot-to-kill policy in respect of suspected suicide bombers, compared with 16 per cent against.

But a second poll started on Sunday showed a dramatic swing in opinion. At 10.30am on Monday, only 68 per cent of readers were in favour of the policy, compared with 32 per cent against.

Full story...

Final minutes of the innocent man mistaken for a terrorist