London Underground under attack? [merged thread]

murphaph

.....that is according to ITV news tonight who have reportedly obtained the report into the Brazilian's shooting dead. He did not vault any ticket barrier, he did not run down the stairs. He was acting quite normally. They showed pictures of his body lying on the carriage floor. He was wearing a denim jacket, not a thick padded one as previously thought. This whole thing stinks.

hawkmoon269

murphaph wrote:

This whole thing stinks.

Agreed. If you or me or any member of the public lied to police, e.g. in the context of making a false statement, we would be prosecuted and probably go to prison.

We now know that the London police misled the public about this man.

What sanctions will they face?

Oh I forgot, it's the "War on Terra" and if you're not with us, you're agin us, etc. :rolleyes:

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

gurramok

Also, he was shot while sat down on train while there was no identification that he was a suspect at all by the original surveillance officer.
It looks like the original story put out by the Met was one big lie to cover up a killing mistake.

murphaph

gurramok wrote:

Also, he was shot while sat down on train while there was no identification that he was a suspect at all by the original surveillance officer.
It looks like the original story put out by the Met was one big lie to cover up a killing mistake.

I'm not sure the Met actually said anything at the time. They kept pretty quiet about it did they not? Preferring to wait for the report? If it's as ITV make out, heads will have to roll because if it's as reported, they just shot him in the head 7 times with no real reason.

gurramok

murphaph wrote:

I'm not sure the Met actually said anything at the time. They kept pretty quiet about it did they not? Preferring to wait for the report? If it's as ITV make out, heads will have to roll because if it's as reported, they just shot him in the head 7 times with no real reason.

According to ITN themselves ITN, the police did report that the victim was wearing a heavy jacket and ran when challenged. Also from BBC BBC

Now the leak is saying the victim was held by a 'community officer' and as he was sat down by this officer, the SO19 officer shot him ALOT !
Maybe the report was deliberately leaked to soften the news over time ?

Something is rotten in the London Met !

Zaph0d

A friend of mine was in a pub in the UK the day DeMenezes was shot. He said there was a cheer from everyone like a goal had been scored.
Here are some snippits form the BBC's coverage that day:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

BBC wrote:

Police have said they shot a man dead at Stockwell Tube station in south London after he was challenged and refused to obey an order...shooting was "directly linked" to the ongoing London bombs inquiry...He was followed by surveillance officers to Stockwell station, where his clothing and behaviour added to their suspicions...Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man appeared to be wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out". ...One person says the man vaulted the automatic ticket barriers as he made his way to the platforms...Police challenge the man but he apparently refuses to obey instructions and after running onto a northbound Northern line train, he is shot dead

mike65

Story here

CONTRADICTIONS

Police - de Menezes wearing suspicious clothing
Evidence to inquiry - Wearing only thin denim jacket

Police - Acting suspiciously on way to Stockwell station
Evidence - to inquiry Nothing odd in his behaviour

Police - Challenged at station and refused to obey instructions
Evidence - Challenged for first time while seated on train

Police - de Menezes vaulted ticket barrier to escape
Evidence - Did not vault. Ran only to catch train

Police - Eight shots fired into him
Evidence - Eleven shots fired, three missed

Well it was already bad enough as someone running the op clearly screwed up but now it looks like supression of facts. Resigning matter? Yes but will
Labour minister Charles Clarke be strong enough or even interested? He's being very bullish since this all kicked off.

Mike.

Mike.

Flukey

Come on, be honest, are you really surprised? From the moment the shooting was first reported it sounded dodgy, especially with the witness account that the guy on the train was giving, compared to the official version.

Hobbes

Should be opened as a murder investigation, at least those cops who lied should be looking at jail time.

mycroft

Zaph0d wrote:

A friend of mine was in a pub in the UK the day DeMenezes was shot. He said there was a cheer from everyone like a goal had been scored.
Here are some snippits form the BBC's coverage that day:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

I was in work with three english blokes when news filtered through, and they cheered, I just thought "hang about, if this happened thirty years ago would they be cheering if I was in the room"

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

It is the problem with these anti-terrorism measures, the police, for all their training, are human and will panic and f**k up ... the poor man was being held down and it should have been obvious that he couldn't have a suicide pack on him, but the fire-arms officers were running high on addrenaline and convinced he was a bomber and panicked and shot him.

If there was ever a reason never to have armed officers on airlines this is it.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Should be opened as a murder investigation, at least those cops who lied should be looking at jail time.

I doubt there can be any escape for them if this is the case,as looks likely.
Unlike terrorists, they cannot escape the implimentation of the law.

mycroft wrote:

I was in work with three english blokes when news filtered through, and they cheered, I just thought "hang about, if this happened thirty years ago would they be cheering if I was in the room"

Probably.
That mentality is a human reaction,you may or may not have it yourself if it was the Dart that was bombed by the LVF for example.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

I doubt there can be any escape for them if this is the case,as looks likely.

I'm pretty sure there can be loads of avenues of escape. The question is whether or not the Met will make use of any of them, or hang these guys out to dry. That, in my opinion, will depend on stuff we don't yet know...the why of this event.

Unlike terrorists, they cannot escape the implimentation of the law.
Probably.

Course they can. For a start - just like on this forum - it has to be proven that these men were lieing - that they knew what they were saying was incorrect, and were deliberately trying to mislead. This may or may not be difficult to prove. We can tell that what they said wasn't correct....but can we prove that they were aware of same when they said it?

There was an excellent documentary shown on Swiss TV recently. A bunch of school leavers were set up to witness a staged three-car accident, after which they were questioned about their recall. Overall accuracy was in the high-20-percent region. They repeated the test with police. The result - less than 1% better overall than the average ppl. In otherwords, more than 2 of 3 observations made by police at what they believed to be an accident were inaccurate.

We're talking "difficult" observations here....like the colour of people's hair, what they were wearing, the make and colour of the three cars in the crash...and so on.

So were these people lying? Or did they simply accept inaccurate testimony from police officers who believed they were telling it like it was?

I think - if nothing else - ppl shoudl reread over the initial threads on this topic and remind themselves how quick so many were to jump to what now appear to be incorrect assumptions. Then ask yourself why we're doing it again.

jc

murphaph

Could you imagine the terror in the poor guys eyes. He knew absolutely nothing until he was inside the train, probably seated, when he's pounced upon and shot. It's fcuking tragic and somebody should pay because this was a fcuk up of the highest order.

ITV showed clips of all the 'eye witnesses' relaying what they'd (not) seen on the day of the killing. It's like they just filled in huge gaps in the story themselves for no apparent reason. Weird fcuking people.

mike65

Fair points Bonkey.

Something else that makes one wonder about eye witness reports comes from this incident - one fella was interviewed who said he was about 10 feet
form the shooting. He talked of 5 shots and De Menzeses being pinned to the ground. Report here

selected quotes

"He [the suspect] had a baseball cap on and quite a sort of thickish coat - it was a coat you'd wear in winter, sort of like a padded jacket.

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."

from Sky originally via metefilter

Chris Wells, a 28-year-old company manager, said he was travelling on the Victoria Line towards Vauxhall when he left the train at Stockwell. He saw about 20 police officers, some of them armed, rushing into the station before a man jumped over the barriers with police giving chase. He said: "There were at least 20 officers and they were carrying big black guns. The next thing I saw was this guy jump over the barriers and the police officers were chasing after him and everyone was just shouting 'get out, get out'."

Exellent wiki page here.

Mike.

RedPlanet

He was shot seven times in the head!
That detail alone speaks volumes.
Sick f*ckers.

pete

Jean Charles de Menezes died after being shot on a tube train at Stockwell station in south London on July 22, the morning after the failed bomb attacks in London.

But the evidence given to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) by police officers and eyewitnesses and leaked to ITV News shows that far from leaping a ticket barrier and fleeing from police, as was initially reported, he was filmed on CCTV calmly entering the station and picking up a free newspaper before boarding the train.

It has now emerged that Mr de Menezes:

· was never properly identified because a police officer was relieving himself at the very moment he was leaving his home;

· was unaware he was being followed;

· was not wearing a heavy padded jacket or belt as reports at the time suggested;

· never ran from the police;

· and did not jump the ticket barrier.

But the revelation that will prove most uncomfortable for Scotland Yard was that the 27-year-old electrician had already been restrained by a surveillance officer before being shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550565,00.html

murphaph

According to ITV news this lunchtime, Sir Ian Blair (Met commissioner) initially asked the home office for an internal met inquiry into the incident. Charles Clarke refused and now pressure may be mounting on Blair to resign.

shatters a few misconceptions like (1) police will lie(it appears from these leaks that they aren't as they are incriminating themselves-however cctv would have shown much of this too.
(2)That the police involved are not accountable-clearly thanks to an independent complaints commission they are.Though I await the actual outcome of the report and action taken if any before I make up my mind on this.

Merging this with Murphaphs thread so it is all together in the one thread.

gurramok

bonkey wrote:

I think - if nothing else - ppl shoudl reread over the initial threads on this topic and remind themselves how quick so many were to jump to what now appear to be incorrect assumptions. Then ask yourself why we're doing it again.

jc

Yes, its quite amazing the amount of views and reactions on the start of this thread that there were posters who trusted the police version of events at the time and some praised them for executing the man. (not naming any names:) )

Inquiries do work wonders and hopefully all facts will emerge rather than 'versions' of said events.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

I'm pretty sure there can be loads of avenues of escape. The question is whether or not the Met will make use of any of them, or hang these guys out to dry. That, in my opinion, will depend on stuff we don't yet know...the why of this event.

I take your point to a large extent.I'm actually uneasy commenting too much without sight of the full report.
That said the avenues of escape that you mention probably arise out of the extent to which the MET and the Home office/UK govt close ranks to protect them for whatever reason,if they do that.
That would be subject to public opinion and circumstances I think.
For example-no more attacks in the next few months and the public might favour more scrutiny of what went on(more than they do now at whatever level that is).
More bombs and the anger/frustration/fear may dissapate that concern somewhat to the level of say Reexamine your procedures guys and try not let it happen again

Course they can. For a start - just like on this forum - it has to be proven that these men were lieing - that they knew what they were saying was incorrect, and were deliberately trying to mislead. This may or may not be difficult to prove. We can tell that what they said wasn't correct....but can we prove that they were aware of same when they said it?

At this stage without going back on the whole thread,I am only certain that a lot of the withnesses quoted were getting it wrong.

There was an excellent documentary shown on Swiss TV recently. A bunch of school leavers were set up to witness a staged three-car accident, after which they were questioned about their recall. Overall accuracy was in the high-20-percent region. They repeated the test with police. The result - less than 1% better overall than the average ppl. In otherwords, more than 2 of 3 observations made by police at what they believed to be an accident were inaccurate.

We're talking "difficult" observations here....like the colour of people's hair, what they were wearing, the make and colour of the three cars in the crash...and so on.

So were these people lying? Or did they simply accept inaccurate testimony from police officers who believed they were telling it like it was?

Good point.

I think - if nothing else - ppl shoudl reread over the initial threads on this topic and remind themselves how quick so many were to jump to what now appear to be incorrect assumptions. Then ask yourself why we're doing it again.

jc

I am mindfull of that,It's why I use "if" whereas what followed is an opinion based on that "if".It's one of several opinions or conjectures during the course of a discussion,there will be more and there were more.But I am unseasy attaching too much credence to any of them untill I see the full report/evidence and action taken if any.

That said my initial line that you commented on bonkey could have been phrased better by me.The kernal of what I wanted to say was this event gets transparency and the mechanisms are there to ensure the transparency.
Theres none of that voluntarally with most acts of terrorism.

A Dub in Glasgo

This is even worse than the original statements from the met. If confirmed, charges should be brought against all people involved.

Hobbes

I see that he was only a suspect because a gym card which was tracked to the suicide bombers had the same address. Saw nothing of if he actually lived there.

donkeyrobot

i have been reading this thread and, as others have mentioned, its amazing how some posters have completely changed their tunes in regards to the issue of the police doing the right thing or not!! Interesting read.

Memnoch

This story continues to take more and more interesting turns... The following article on the BBC highlights some interesting points...

Investigation papers leaked to the media this week seemed to contradict initial police statements and eyewitness accounts of events.

i hope the full information is disclosed to the public about the incident, for the sake of justice if nothing else, no more whitewashes please!

And the IPCC has said Scotland Yard "initially resisted" the regulator's attempts to launch an investigation into the shooting.

big surprise...

In an interview with the London Evening Standard on Thursday, Sir Ian said people had to be careful about attributing statements to the police.
"We have looked at what we have actually said about this incident. The number of features about heavyweight coats or hopping over barriers have never been said or confirmed by the Metropolitan Police Service.

so they london cops never lead us to believe that the guy was wearing a bulky coat/jacker or jumped over barriers, that idea just materialised from thin air and the police just didn't happen to notice it or care to point out that it wasn't true to all the media reporting the incident.

Graphic photos of Mr Menezes' dead body lying on the floor of the Tube train have appeared in most of Brazil's newspapers.

The papers also reported claims from the leaked documents that the Brazilian electrician had not fled from police as initially claimed, nor had he hurdled a ticket barrier.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out as more information is revealed.

What price should those of society play when they murder the innocent? If we as a society are absolved of murder, then we have no moral high ground or claim of civilization over terrorists who also kill innocents.

Justice should be for all.

Hobbes

Seems to be a comedy of errors.

- Family claim they are being bought off, but Police deny it. Yet the family have a letter which says otherwise.

- The coroner is currently under investigation in another case for changing the evidence.

oscarBravo

Memnoch wrote:

so they london cops never lead us to believe that the guy was wearing a bulky coat/jacker or jumped over barriers, that idea just materialised from thin air and the police just didn't happen to notice it or care to point out that it wasn't true to all the media reporting the incident.

Oh, come on - you're going to criticise the police for not coming straight out and contradicting eyewitness accounts?

The police have a lot of questions to answer, but this is just silly.

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

Oh, come on - you're going to criticise the police for not coming straight out and contradicting eyewitness accounts?

The police have a lot of questions to answer, but this is just silly.

Seems very reasonable to expect the police not to allow inaccurate versions to fester for weeks. Pure coincidence that the inaccurate version put the police action in a better light, don't you think?