NEWS: Documents Released About Brazilian Mistakenly Shot On 22/7

Originally posted by shaunybaby
So why when the police gave their official statement, this is not an officer in the street, this is the head of the london police, they corroborated with the eye witness statements, of the bulky jacket, the vaulting of the ticket barrier and the running from police and failing to stop when shouted at?

I didn't see that bit on what I saw, I apologise. I can only speculate but he did say to 'his knowledge' and I don't know what information he would have based his statement on at that point and if they would have used the statements made by the eyewitnesses (who obviously were wrong as their stories stuck up for the police and the police report crucifies themselves).

I don't know how quickly the different departments communicate with each other and the whole process is longwinded and takes more time than the media and public allow. So it could be that he based it on eyewitness acounts, the officers may have initially exaggerated, there may have been a cover up until it was all put together... Who knows... Without goign over his whole speech again, which I don't have access too, I can't even attempt to personally come to any conclusion.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
so why when the police gave their official statement, this is not an officer in the street, this is the head of the london police, they corroborated with the eye witness statements, of the bulky jacket, the vaulting of the ticket barrier and the running from police and failing to stop when shouted at?

Got a link for that? Because the only thing I saw Ian Blair say was: "as I understand the situation the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions."

As Agent Smith said, most of the other elements of the story came from immediate eye witnesses, not the police. The most important is a guy called Mark Whitby, who gave his account on TV within an hour or so of the shooting. It's summarised at news.bbc.co.uk... and there's more if you click the Video link (follow the "Related" link for the Whitby interview).

Originally posted by ashmok
Got a link for that? Because the only thing I saw Ian Blair say was: "as I understand the situation the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions."

not sure of a link, im just remembering it from when i saw it on tv. they may or may not have said about the jacket and ticket vaulting, yet they still said the man refused to acknowlege the police's orders, which is a lie...there were no orders given the brazilian man.

from bbc news, eye witness statement:

"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.

how in the world can you mistake a denim jacket for a 'coat you'd wear in winter', 'thickish coat', or 'padded jacket'.

too many lies for my liking.

This whole thing has been fishy from the get go. I don't think it will surprise people who have been keeping an eye on the developments because it has been crying out "cover-up" for a while now, this should just prove it.
Makes me sick. I look forward to reading this document, and i just hope it acts as a slap in the face to the general public, making them realise that the people they should be able to trust are more than willing to blatantly lie to their face relentlessly.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
too many lies for my liking.

Not ones that originated with the police or were confirmed by them, though.

Originally posted by ashmok

Originally posted by shaunybaby
too many lies for my liking.

Not ones that originated with the police or were confirmed by them, though.

most arose from eyewitnesses and were taken by mainstream media as fact.

this one man was basically taking the p**s.

news.bbc.co.uk...

normally with conspiracies its usually hearsay, yet with this we have one story of events that has almost been completly wrong. i was sure something was up when i first heard the story and events unfolding, let alone with all this new evidence.

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by ashmok
Got a link for that? Because the only thing I saw Ian Blair say was: "as I understand the situation the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions."

not sure of a link, im just remembering it from when i saw it on tv. they may or may not have said about the jacket and ticket vaulting, yet they still said the man refused to acknowlege the police's orders, which is a lie...there were no orders given the brazilian man.

i sure i saw it too for what its worth, he had a press conference where he confirmed different things about the killing, even the 'heavy' jacket if i recall.
i could be mistaken though, id need to see it again

just researching in to some old articles etc:

this video of an eye witness statement on bbc is very confusing, as he says the brazialian man jumped/ran on to the train and grabbed another passenger. however, he also says in the end he didn't 'see' the shots. so what he saw could have been the plain clothed officers grab the passenger (brazilian man) who was sitting down.

news.bbc.co.uk...#

This is the rough story that was accepted as fact after the events; also can be seen in this article on bbc.co.uk:

news.bbc.co.uk...

1: Jean Charles de Menezes leaves a house under surveillance and arrives at Stockwell station
2: Witnesses say he vaults the automatic ticket barriers and heads for the platforms
3: He then ran down an escalator after being approached by up to 20 plain-clothed police officers and tried to board a train
4: He apparently refuses to obey police instructions and after running onto a northbound Northern line train, he is shot dead

even after the events took place everyone was still confused:

Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said the shooting was "directly linked" to the ongoing London bombs inquiry.
Police have said it is not yet clear if he was one of four bombing suspects shown on newly released CCTV footage.

source: news.bbc.co.uk...#

it was thought it was directly linked, however this was then retracted when new information was available. and it's not wonder they couldn't identify the man as he probably had no face.

"They brought in the air ambulance. They did everything they can to revive him. He died at the scene."

not surprising that the man died at the scence...

Why couldn't the police have used non lethal force like a tazar, pepper spray or a nightstick? even pistol whipping would be better than shooting him

Why couldn't they have fired a warning shot if didn't pose an immediate threat with a firearm or visible explosive device??

I think that if the police shot him in cold blood without following procedures etc.. that the officers responsible should be charged with murder just like anyone else would be

the firearm unit were given the go-ahead to kill, without 100% clarification. the intelligence and surveillence teams ''assumed'' this was one of their suspects. however, in this sort of job you cannot assume anything. there was almost no procedure followed by the firearm unit. the enquiry will lead to more evidence coming to light, and more truths coming out.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
just researching in to some old articles etc:

this video of an eye witness statement on bbc is very confusing,

i was watching these, very odd.

did you ever happen to see a bbc investigation into Labour's election spin?
planting 'members of the public' and the like.
If you did you'll know what im suggesting
i hope this new sort of spin hasnt gone this far

one of them suggests he had a 'bomb' belt on, with wires coming out!

come on

Originally posted by AdamJ
did you ever happen to see a bbc investigation into Labour's election spin?
planting 'members of the public' and the like.
If you did you'll know what im suggesting
i hope this new sort of spin hasnt gone this far

Yep, i seen that and know what you are getting at. I thought the exact same thing. It does seem a bit too far, not to mention a bit too risky, but if a government are willing to plant supporters to get themselves elected, wouldn't they be willing to plant witnesses to get there stories believed?
As disappointing as it sounds, i would not put such a sleazy tactic past them.

At the risk of being banned by those who assert I blame everything that happens on the NWO, I would suggest that this is not an accident or an overreaction, but that this guy was pinned down and shot. That the CCTV was conveniently off. That every bit of the official reaction was a now undisputed lie
This person had something - who knows what? - he was an electrician and the initial stories of 7/7 were of electrical surges and disruption on various parts of the London Underground leading up to the time of the bombings
Has anyone got his work history yet
He was on his way to sort out a fire alarm problem
Could he have had some connection to the Underground network?

my mind has moved on to beginning to question that as well.
the lies were so quick to appear and so deep, ie: the 'running' thing has absolutely nothing to do with his death, but it was turned into some sort of issue.
this could be deeper than it appears at the moment.

the guy seems innocent enough, surely his family in england would make a huge fuss if they knew something he might have been involved with, but who knows.

This whole thing is a damn shame. Of course, the situation is both delicate and complicated, not the platitudinous smear against British law enforcement that some seem to construe it as... but it's a nasty bit of business just the same.

Here's hoping this never happens again

One thing can not be denied.

Untruths were told and then unreasonably perpetuated.

And anyone that believes that an entirely bogus impression of the events of that morning was perpetuated accidently is naive in my opinion.

Fact is some witnesses must have seen him not leap the barrier as that infact was the case and yet those witnesses were not available to the press.

Fact is some witnesses must have seen he was not wearing a heavy winter coat as that was the case and yet those witnesses were not available to the press.

The national and international press carried these untruths and I think under the circumstances where an entirely innocent man has been shot the police have a moral obligation to correct those untruths as soon as possible instead of allowing lies to be perpetuated.

I remember soon after the event that news broadcasts were saying that all witnesses were being being held and questioned and yet these rumours started to emerge within the hour. So why were some selected witnesses briefing the press and giving a completely false impression.

Regardless, between now and then this should have come out already.

Two points here.

1/ The BBC say that the police (not witnesses) "suggested" he jumped the barrier.

2/ The BBC say that the police (not witnesses) said he wore a winter coat.

Seems more like police briefing the press at the time and passing it off as witness statements to me.

Ian Blair has admitted he's under pressure to go.

[edit on 17-8-2005 by John bull 1]

Originally posted by Frosty
This immigrant would have been able to adequatly defend himself (with a concealed gun), except by law he was not able to and had to die a tragic death.

Yup, Im sure whipping out a gun would have been a great thing to do, the only thing that would have happened is more people would have died.

He died a tragic death, if he pulled out a gun, he would have died a deserved death and a criminal.

Originally posted by John bull 1
Two points here.

1/ The BBC say that the police (not witnesses) "suggested" he jumped the barrier.

2/ The BBC say that the police (not witnesses) said he wore a winter coat.

cheers for that john bull, i was almost certain police had said that at one point.

i actually wish i were there that day, just so that i would 'know' really what happened.

so far the independent group investigating have not commented on the leaked documents and nor have the police. i think if these were outright lies in the leaked documents, someone would have stepped forward to say so.

the eyewitness statements that most of us heard seemed to be the ones that sounded most like a scene from a movie. vaulting the ticket barrier, running, being pushed down, bundled on by police, acting suspicious with a bulky coat...just all exaggerations, and frankly just what the news loves to hear.

still would be nice to know 'why' the witnesses lied. were they genuinly confused?