It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

De Menezes Shooting; Report altered due too "threatened legal action"

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   

De Menezes Shooting; Report altered due too "threatened legal action"


uk.reuters.com

London's police chief is expected to be cleared of lying in a report released on Thursday into the aftermath of the fatal shooting of an innocent Brazilian man mistaken for a suicide bomber, police sources said.

A report into police actions following the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes has been altered because of threatened legal action, the police watchdog says.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
uk.reuters.com
news.bbc.co.uk

www.timesonline.co.uk...

[edit on 1-8-2007 by shrunkensimon]

[edit on 1-8-2007 by shrunkensimon]

[edit on 1-8-2007 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
No suprise here. Im not sure how they managed this, despite it being quite blatently obvious that Menezes was assassinated..

I have linked to two seperate articles, both came out today, both concerning the De Menezes shooting, but two different slightly stories, which i thought was odd.

I really hope the Menezes family keep pushing for the truth. My heart is with them.

uk.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 1-8-2007 by shrunkensimon]



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

No suprise here. Im not sure how they managed this, despite it being quite blatently obvious that Menezes was assassinated..

[edit on 1-8-2007 by shrunkensimon]


I'd be fascinated as to how you know that De Menezes was so 'obviously assassinated?' and the reasons for his so 'obvious assassinatition'
Are you saying he was an agent or something?, if not what was the reason for his assassination



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
This was a horrible crime. I wonder what this man knew ? I suspect that he knew one/some of the "bus bombers" (that were framed) and it was critical that he was killed before he fully realized the importance of his information.

Their ability to control information is slowly unraveling, I expect nothing less than drastic action on "their" part to reign us all back in.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
I'd be fascinated as to how you know that De Menezes was so 'obviously assassinated?


The consistent media lies about what really occured.. first he was running, then he was wearing bulky clothing, then he jumped the ticket barrier, then none of it was caught on CCTV, and perhaps most importantly the number of times he was shot..

All those points are distortions of the truth, and in the case of the CCTV, a outright lie. I have the CCTV images saved to my HDD, which were leaked by ITV (BBC eat your heart out) showing him coming through teh station entrance, and also his body after being shot several times.

The excuse that they had "mistaken his identity".. that is a falacy in itself. To think they identify people wrongly, especially when concerning a terrorist threat.

There is no such thing as "bad intelligence". Information does not lie, but the people who push it do.

Menezes knew something about the false flag operation of 7/7, IMHO. He needed to be silenced.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
So I'll take that as a 'dont know then' shall I?



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
So I'll take that as a 'dont know then' shall I?


Menezes was assassinated, and i explained why. All the evidence points to an assassination. If you can't see that, go away, do some research/open your mind, then come back.

And what is your problem? Stop trolling around threads and acting, well, like a troll. You keep challenging people on what they state, yet you provide nothing of your own, except your "lattern theory" for describing away UFO's.

Im not going to waste my time arguing with someone who has no intention of learning.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
HMMMM So Im not allowed to post on various threads eh? Did it pass you by that I was right about the Lanterns? You were wrong then, live with it. Taking a quick look at the posts you make would seem to make you the bigger troll what with your conspiracy theories about everything

You explained nothing about why Menezes died, merely a diatribe on your hatefullness of the police and authorities. You dont work for the Daily mail do you?
You state he 'knew something about 7/7' how do you know that? or was it, like the rest of the stuff you posted, pure speculation?
Is everyone supposed to simply sit around and believe everything that you believe simply because you said it and because you seem to adore conspiracy theories which you expound on most every thread you post to?

Menezes died because of a combined and systematic series of failures. It started with the fear by the police that there was going to be another bomber and ended with the muck up by the Cief Inspector, but he wasnt assassinated, I havent seen anyone other than yourself and one or two tabloid reporters suggesting a conspiracy to assasinate and anything other than a complete mess up would be a lie.

Now lets see who has any intention of learning.






[edit on 1/8/07 by Chorlton]



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   
www.voltairenet.org...

www.edstrong.blog-city.com...

www.infowars.net...


And no, your lantern explanation is bunk as far as im concerned. Nice to know you *ignore*



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

And no, your lantern explanation is bunk as far as im concerned. Nice to know you *ignore*


Not my explanation, the explanation of the actual people who let the lanterns off. You didnt see that, and the report in the paper also explaining what they were?

You are given evidence for a phenomenon yet you still wont accept even that?. I mean theres really no point in anything else is there if you wish to continue inventing things even when you are told what caused it.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 08:01 AM
link   
www.guardian.co.uk...

IPCC: how the De Menezes shooting unfolded

The IPCC's Stockwell Two report finds that, by 3pm on the day of the shooting - less than five hours after Jean Charles de Menezes was shot - senior police officers had "strong suspicions" that a Brazilian national had been killed.

The summary of events also makes it clear that the IPCC investigators understand that De Menezes "did not refuse to obey a challenge prior to being shot and was not wearing any clothing that could be classed as suspicious".


OK, so now they're admitting they lied.. but how much will come of this?



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Even a simple look into this killing can easily show he was assassinated.

The man was gunned down at close range by elements of the British police force. He had no weapons, he had no bombs, there were no indications of criminal intent.

He was murdered because he knew too much. But like Will Smith in the movie "Enemy of the State" I doubt De Mendes was aware he knew such vital information.


De Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder at close range, and died at the scene. An eyewitness later said that the eleven shots were fired over a thirty second period, at three second intervals.


wikipedia

Seven times in the head ? Are you freaking serious...

[edit on 2-8-2007 by discomfit]

[edit on 2-8-2007 by discomfit]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I am not to high up on this story and I do not want to be but I will give what I remember seeing on ATS about him..

They said he ran was carrying stuff. In the end people were said to have seen cops execution style kill him with I think 3 bullets to the head.


Sounds like assassination to me.

::EDIT::

Forgot to add at close range.. sorry.

[edit on 8/2/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
They said he ran was carrying stuff.


I can't be 100% certain, but i do seem to recall he stopped to pick up a free newspaper (London Metro?) before passing through the ticket barriers.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

I honestly can not believe the outcome of this..

Once again, my heart is with the Menezes family. Having a family member die is one thing, but to have one assassinated, and then no justice coming about... just thinking about how they must feel brings a tear to my eye. I hope the truth is brought too light, and soon.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
He was carrying a backpack if I recall, and you could put this in context with im being assasinated, they killed an innocent bystander, may I also point, maybe the head of the London Police is getting away with this, but A top anti-terror officer mislead not only the News Channels but also the public...


After the shooting, there were reports about Mr Menezes in the media which turned out not to be true - such as that he was wearing a bulky jacket - and the IPCC considered whether the Met was responsible.



In a statement, the Metropolitan Police apologised for "errors in both internal and external communication".


Im sorry but the apology does not count for the fact that the police killed an innocent bystander.... That apologys is a slap in the face towards the Menzies Family who have been through hell trying to brng those responsible for his murder to court.

It is an absolute disgrace that he, who is mentioned in the article, has not resigned, he completely lied to the news channels and the public, he should either resign or be sacked.




top topics



 
1

log in

join