Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Death in Stockwell: the unanswered questions (Menezes)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-13-05 08:28 PM
Original message
Death in Stockwell: the unanswered questions (Menezes)
He wasn't wearing a heavy jacket. He used his card to get into the station. He didn't vault the barrier. And now police say there are no CCTV pictures to reveal the truth. So why did plainclothes officers shoot young Jean Charles de Menezes seven times in the head, thinking he posed a terror threat? Special report by Tony Thompson, and Tom Phillips in Brazil.

When armed police surrounded the home of Muktar Said-Ibrahim in London's north Kensington earlier this month and ordered him outside, the 27-year-old had only one question: 'How do I know you're not going to shoot me like that guy at Stockwell tube station?' As a suspect in the failed bombings of 21 July, he was perhaps right to be nervous.

A week earlier a Brazilian electrician called Jean Charles de Menezes had been shot and killed by armed police less than 24 hours after the attempted bomb attacks. Everyone was nervous. What would the police do next?

Now an Observer investigation has raised fresh questions about the death of de Menezes, whose killing is being investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The Observer has discovered that a key element of the investigation will be scrutiny of a delay in calling an armed team to arrest de Menezes, which meant he had already entered the station by the time the officers arrived.

Observer.Guardian
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lockdown Donating Member (576 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-13-05 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. Right, the CCTV cameras weren't working.
They must think we're fucking stupid. That or the cover up is desperate. Both probably.

Evidence of this hold-up should have been provided by CCTV footage from dozens of cameras covering the Stockwell ticket hall, escalators, platforms and train carriages.

However, police now say most of the cameras were not working. Yet pictures are available of a bombing suspect leaving another station nearby, and after the 7 July attacks tube boses could have been expected to make extra efforts to see that all their cameras were in action.

...

Hundreds of hours of CCTV were made available and sifted through in record time in order to release images to the public. CCTV footage had also proved crucial in identifying the suspects in the 7 July attacks. The Observer can reveal that police even found footage from train carriages showing the bombers at the moment of detonation.


Ian Blair and his predecessor are always praising the benefits of CCTV, London Underground has 6000 cameras, and we're supposed to believe that most of the cameras in Stockwell station were fucked at a time when London was on full alert.

That's not the only official line in there that stinks, for another the claim that senior commanders were out of contact and the decision was all down to the officers on the scene contradicts earlier reports and reeks of cover up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Desperate and stupid go together amazingly often. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lockdown Donating Member (576 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. For example


Lord Stevens, ex-head of London Police, who implemented the shoot-to-kill guidelines, loves to foam in the Murdoch gutter press about the "pure evil" we face and the repressive laws needed to combat it, and who reasons that the only way to deal with potential suicide bombers is to "instantly, utterly" destroy their brain without warning. Wonder how many junkets it took for him to reach that conclusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarcojon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-13-05 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
2. Very important article
This story continues to shock and dismay me. Now we're supposed to believe that, with all the scrutiny, the cameras weren't working?

Please post this in GD where it will be seen by more people.

Nominated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
3. Kick!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lockdown Donating Member (576 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
6. A good round up from a few days ago
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/seymour100805.html

It includes this bit on some CCTV that was working:

Police initially claimed that the man had been wearing a "bulky top" which could have concealed a bomb, and that they had intervened as he tried to approach Stockwell tube station. Yet, CCTV evidence examined by the Independent Police Complaints Commission confirmed that he had not been wearing a bulky top or coat, but a denim jacket which would not have been out of place on a day when the top temperature was 17C. They also claimed that he had fled, vaulted the ticket gates, and dashed down the escalator stairs. Again, the CCTV footage shows him using his travelcard to get through the ticket gates as normal. As the Sunday Times reports, all of these misleading details were fed to journalists in unofficial police briefings following the shooting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 06:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC