Jean Charles de Menezes Inquest

From The Guardian

A surveillance officer who was tailing Jean Charles de Menezes said today his team made no identification of the Brazilian as a suspect before he was shot by police marksmen.

He tried and failed several times to get clear sight of the man's face before he boarded a bus to Stockwell London Underground station, he told an inquest into the death.

Despite this his team leader was asked by the police control room to give a "percentage" of how likely it was that the man they were tailing was the suspect suicide bomber police believed him to be.

The officer, known only as Ken, said: "I believe he said that it was impossible to do that but 'for what it's worth I think it's him'."

Once De Menezes arrived at the underground station Ken tried again to see his face and told the jury he got a view of the man's right-hand side for one or two seconds.

He followed him into the tube station, down the escalators and onto a train. He described how he pointed out De Menezes to a team of armed officers who then entered the train.

But he told the jury "there was no identification from grey team (the surveillance team) at any time".

The inquest had heard earlier from the firearms officer who shot De Menezes that a surveillance officer positively identified the young man as failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman.

The officer, using the codename C2 told the court: "I heard them say 'this is definitely our man'."

Ken also told the court that armed officers shouted a warning of "armed police" loud enough for De Menezes to have heard before he was shot.
He said that the firearms team were not inside the train carriage when they gave the warning but were coming through the open doors.

The court had earlier heard from commuters who were sharing the carriage with the shot man that they heard no warning from plain-clothes officers before the shots were fired.

Ralph Livock told the inquest that he had no idea whether the gunmen were police or terrorists when they boarded the Northern Line train on July 22 2005.

His girlfriend Rachel Wilson said: "First I thought they were messing around, then I thought they were terrorists and it was only when I left the carriage and somebody moved me gently out of the way that I figured they must be good guys. Apart from that I just didn't know who they were."

Labels: Evidence

From The Independent

Armed police fired on Jean Charles de Menezes without shouting any warning, a witness told an inquest today.

A commuter said he first thought the gun-wielding plainclothes officers who ran on to a Tube train might be "a group of lads who were just having a laugh".

Ralph Livock said he had no idea that it was anything more serious until one of the armed men fired at Mr de Menezes at point blank range.

Mr Livock and his girlfriend Rachel Wilson were sitting in a Tube carriage opposite the 27-year-old Brazilian on the morning of 22 July 2005, the inquest heard.

The passenger recalled that their train was held up for longer than usual at Stockwell station in south London - and then four casually-dressed men armed with guns got on board.

Nicholas Hilliard QC, counsel to the inquest, asked him: "Did you have any idea who they were?"

Mr Livock said: "Absolutely not."

He went on: "One of my initial thoughts was it was all a game and they were a group of lads who were just having a laugh - a very bad taste laugh but just having a game on the Tube, because they were just dressed in jeans and t-shirts but with firearms."

Mr Hilliard went on to ask: "Had you heard anything said about police?"

Mr Livock replied: "No, certainly not.

"And I remember that specifically because one of the conversations that Rachel and I had afterwards was that we had no idea whether these were police, whether they were terrorists, whether they were somebody else. We just had no idea."

He added: "The thing that made me realise it wasn't a group of lads playing around or something else happening was when the first shot was fired."

Mr de Menezes was shot seven times in the head at point-blank range after being mistaken for failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman.

That morning, Mr Livock got on to a northbound Northern Line train at Clapham North station with Ms Wilson, the inquest heard.

While they were waiting at Stockwell station, he heard shouts from outside the train saying something like, "he's here".

A few seconds later a man holding a pistol entered their carriage and levelled it at Mr de Menezes, who was sitting opposite Ms Wilson, the hearing was told.

Mr Hilliard asked the witness: "Did you hear him saying anything to Mr de Menezes?"

Mr Livock said: "Absolutely not."

Mr Hilliard continued: "Did you hear Mr de Menezes say anything to him?"

The passenger replied: "No, absolutely not at all.

"If anything, Mr de Menezes looked as if he was - I hesitate to say confused, confused isn't really the right adjective.

"He looked as if he was expecting somebody to say something but he didn't look frightened.

"He looked as if he was waiting for somebody to tell him what was going on."

None of the passengers in the Tube train were called to give evidence at the Metropolitan Police's Health and Safety trial over the shooting last year.

This is the first time they have spoken in public about what they saw.

Firearms officers involved in the operation have told the inquest they shouted "armed police" at Mr de Menezes before shooting him.

But giving evidence today, Ms Wilson also insisted she did not hear this and had no idea who the men who killed the Brazilian were.

Mr Hilliard asked her: "Was anything said at any time during the incident to give you a clue as to who they were?"

She replied: "No, and I know this because similar to Ralph's statement, first I thought they were messing around.

"Then I thought they were terrorists and it was only when I left the carriage and somebody moved me gently out of the way that I figured they must be good guys.

"Apart from that, I just didn't know who they were."

Mr Hilliard went on: "Specifically, did you ever hear anybody shout 'armed police'?"

Ms Wilson answered: "If I had heard that, I would have thought they were police, so no."

She said it was only after the shooting, when she saw she had blood on her hands, that she realised how serious the incident was.


From Channel 4 News:


See also:

The Times:
'De Menezes witnesses say police gave no warning'

BBC News:
Menezes police 'gave no warning'

Evening Standard:
'I thought Menezes shooting was prank until I saw the blood'

The Guardian:
Commuters tell of Menezes shooting

Labels: Evidence

From the Press Association

A police marksman was accused of lying to explain why he shot Jean Charles de Menezes.

The highly-trained firearms specialist, using the code name C2, revealed how his gun became jammed as he unloaded six bullets at the innocent Brazilian from point-blank range.

But Michael Mansfield QC, for the de Menezes family, claimed C2's evidence that he heard Mr de Menezes was "definitely our man" had been fabricated.

Mr de Menezes died on July 22 2005 after being shot seven times in the head by C2 and his colleague, C12, who both mistook him for failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman.

Evidence from C2 marked an end to a lengthy wait for the de Menezes family and the Justice4Jean group, who have campaigned to hear evidence from the gunmen since he was shot dead.

Both C2 and C12 spoke of their sorrow for the family and revealed they think about the tragedy "every day" as they came face to face with his mother, brother and cousins for the first time. But, speaking outside court, the Brazilian's mother, Maria Otone de Menezes, 63, accused C2 of being "very cold", adding: "He may have apologised but it certainly didn't seem like he meant it."

C2, who said he was convinced Mr de Menezes was a terrorist about to set off a bomb, told how he never heard the instruction to go to "state red", meaning the firearms teams should intervene to detain the suspect. And he said his Glock pistol "malfunctioned" at the critical moment he opened fire at Stockwell Tube station, south London.

C2, who also revealed he only shouted "armed police" after deciding to shoot, said: "At the time I fired I believed that I, and everyone else, was about to die. From my position I knew that I could not access the brain stem. I could not be certain that of immediate incapacitation. I had to ensure that life was extinct also because of the fact I had a stoppage. I could not be certain if I had lost rounds in the process."

When asked if he had to reload the weapon by hand, he said: "Yes, sir, because of the fact it had malfunctioned."

Mr Mansfield later claimed C2 had only one thing in mind as he stepped inside the station - to "shoot this man as quickly as possible".

Labels: Evidence

From the Telegraph website.

The police marksman who killed Jean Charles de Menezes was accused of "grossly exaggerating" his version of the shooting after realising that he had shot the wrong man, an inquest heard.

The officer, codenamed C12, claimed he shouted "armed police" and only opened fire after Mr de Menezes moved towards him looking like he was about to blow himself up.

But none of six other police officers who were within yards of the shooting heard the marksman issue any warning, an inquest heard.

Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot dead inside Stockwell Tube station in south London on July 22, 2005 after being mistaken for Hussain Osman, one of four would-be suicide bombers who had tried and failed to blow themselves up on the city's transport network the previous day.

C12 admitted that a series of errors and mistaken "assumptions" led to the shooting and that he himself had been in a position to detain Mr de Menezes before he got into the station.

He described sitting in an unmarked car within "striking distance", less than 100 metres away, when Mr de Menezes got off a bus near the station entrance.

But he failed to receive a series of instructions from commanders because radio communications were "awful".

His superiors did not even know he was there and he had failed to tell them, the inquest heard.

C12 said: "Why I did not tell them where I was I just cannot tell you. I was trying to listen to the radio, I had a lot going on, and if that is an error then I apologise for it."

The officer said he did not have with him a picture of the suspect and he didn't know definitely what he looked like.

He also didn't know that surveillance officers had already gone in to the Tube or where they were.

He had picked up snippets of information from his malfunctioning radio and by mobile phone from colleagues.

One of those was that firearms units were "moving though" and that indicated to him that the suspect had been positively identified as a suspected suicide bomber, he said.

But Michael Mansfield QC, representing the De Menezes family, said no surveillance officer could remember saying that and there was no record of it.

He said C12 had made a series of "assumptions" which led to him being consumed by a desire to "get rid of this man".

Mr Mansfield suggested that C12 was "not in control," when he ran in to the station and on to a train.

He suggested that when a surveillance officer pointed to the suspect C12 had made no assessment of the threat he posed before firing at his head.

He said three surveillance officers codenamed Ivor, Geoff and Ken and three firearms officers codenamed C2, C5 and D9 had all entered the carriage when the shooting happened.

Mr Mansfield said: "None of these remembers you shouting 'Armed police'. No civilian in a position to see it suggests that this happened."

He also accused C12 of "embellishing " his story by suggesting that Mr de Menezes was wearing a "bulky" denim jacket.

C12 said: "No, not at all, it happened as I recollect."

He added: "It was the ultimate unknown threat. I was expecting a detonation at any time."

The hearing continues.

See also:

Channel 4 News:

Labels: Evidence

On Friday 24th October, Nitin Sawhney performed his new album "London Undersound" at the BBC Electric Proms. The first song off the album is called 'Days of Fire' and is a personal account of the day that Jean Charles de Menezes was shot. Natty, who performs the song, was on the next tube into Stockwell that day.

Members of the band wore Justice4Jean T-shirts at the performance and you can see a clip of the amazing and powerful performance here ('Days of Fire' begins at 2min 25sec).

Labels: Events

Members of Jean's family attended Saturday's United Families & Friends Campaign remembrance procession in Whitehall.

Photo courtesy of Harpymarx - see report here

See also the following report from ITN:

Labels: Comments from Supporters

After some slippage in the court schedule leading to some confusion over the timings of witnesses, we can now confirm that C12, one of the firearms officers who shot Jean, will be giving evidence tomorrow on Friday 24th October.

The court will start at 9am and will go through till 2pm, with no break for lunch. C12 is likely to be on around 10am after the officer Dingemans.

C12 is likely to continue giving evidence for most of Monday and will be followed by the other shooter, C2, who is likely to continue onto Tuesday.

The Menezes family will be in court for these days.

J4J Campaign

Labels: Evidence

As the firearms officers begin presenting evidence tomorrow, the following is a run though of the CCTV images from Stockwell station, by one of the campaign's supporters.

Labels: Comments from Supporters

This was the first time I had attended the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest and the morning of the 21st started with the continued evidence of “James” the Bronze commander of the Grey surveillance team. This was the team that followed Jean Charles de Menezes from the time he got on a bus in Tulse Hill up until the moment he was shot by armed officers on the tube at Stockwell. I presumed that as one of the senior officers on the ground, James’ evidence would clarify the confusion of what had gone wrong that day but instead I was left with more questions than answers.

Why was such a poor image of Osmond used in the briefing if better ones were available?

Why was James apparently kept in the dark by the Ops room on important issues such as the appointment of a Silver Commander, current orders re SO12 and the position and status of the SO19 team?

Communication was obviously an issue as his answers highlighted more and more things of which he was unaware at the time. To start with I wondered why he had just not asked for clarification or information- especially about the SO19 team. Then it came out that he couldn’t ask them directly for their whereabouts as he didn’t have their number (farcical but true) and when he talked about the one and a half minutes he waited on the phone for Pat to answer the question on whether they should intercept their suspect- I began to understand why he wasn’t relying on the Ops room for answers.

I think the thing that scared me the most listening to the morning of evidence was that far from being an unforeseen catalogue of errors- this was a tragedy just waiting to happen. For example, I had read in the papers the other week about only one copy of the Osmond image being available to the team and presumed there had been a cock-up but according to James this is actually common practice! A surveillance team usually attempts to identify a suspect from memory alone- with the Bronze commander keeping one copy for them to refer to if necessary. Ridiculous as this sounds; there is apparently a very good reason- officers can’t be trusted not to lose any copy they might have. Apparently they would very likely lose their position on the team if this happened and therefore they don’t want to take the risk.

Another example is the lack of formalised language used to convey identification which must surely always present difficulties. Unless a suspect is completely discounted or positively identified, he remains a possible of some sort. In this case, semantics become vital and yet James struggled to remember if he had reported that “it is him” or “it could be him”- which would seem to me a very important distinction. He did suggest that if had known how this identification was going to be used, he might have changed his language but since he admitted he knew SO19 were on their way; he must have appreciated the danger of misidentification.

In general, I was left with the impression of an officer who feels no culpability and who was not concerned where the buck stopped as long as it wasn’t with him. I have a fear that if all the evidence is given in a similar manner, the buck will never stop with anyone.

Jo Easton
Justice4Jean Campaign Supporter

Labels: Comments from Supporters

From the Press Association

Innocent Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead after "obvious failings" by the Metropolitan Police, a senior surveillance officer has admitted.

The Scotland Yard officer, known by the code name James, said the Brazilian electrician could have been stopped safely before he was gunned down by marksmen at Stockwell Tube station, south London.

He then told the inquest into Mr de Menezes's death that his bosses "took too long" in telling his officers whether they should stop him getting on the tube.

During fierce questioning, Michael Mansfield QC, for the de Menezes family, asked James: "What went wrong on that day, do you agree, was a serious lapse in communication between the command at operation or control room and you on the ground?" The officer, who was in one of the police teams pursuing Mr de Menezes, replied: "Sir, there obviously were failings."

James said his officers had the "resources" to have stopped the Brazilian electrician.

Sir Michael Wright, the coroner, asked him: "Having regard to the resources you had, did you think that the combination could have made the stop safely?" James replied: "Yes, I did sir."

But then in the moments after Mr de Menezes got off the bus at Stockwell, he said the operation room were taking "too long" to tell him whether he should stop Mr de Menezes.

He said: "I said, look this is going on too long. I need my telephone, and I said if you don't give me a reply in the next ten seconds I'm going to have to hang up.

"At the end of that period I did hang the telephone up and I then started then to try and place my team in preparation for a tube follow, bearing in mind the amount of time that the subject had been off the bus."

Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot seven times in the head after being mistaken for failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman on July 22 2005. He was tracked by surveillance after leaving a block of flats linked to Osman in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill.

Labels: Evidence

This week the inquest heard from three of the most senior police officers involved in the operation – Trojan 80, Trojan 84 and the Silver Command for the operation, DSI Percer. None of these officers had given evidence at the Health and Safety trial. Together with Cressida Dick, these officers made up the four senior officers the Independent Police Complaints Commission was seriously investigating for disciplinary action.

Flawed firearms strategy

Taken collectively the evidence of these officers paints a disturbing picture of the firearms strategy employed by the Metropolitan police on 22 July 2005. Their evidence revealed more flaws in the strategy and policy that led to Jean's killing. Like much of the evidence heard at the inquest, their evidence has raised more questions that it has answered.

The firearms strategy seems to have been misunderstood by different sections of the Met on the day. Time and again, police witnesses at the inquest have expressed confusion over when the operation that led to Jean's killing moved from being an intelligence gathering one, to a Clydesdale one (where a pre-planned event or place may attract a suicide bomber), to a Kratos one (where there is a spontaneous threat) – or indeed, if it was any of the above.

An impossible situation?

Most worryingly of all this week were Trojan 84's comments about the 'impossible situation' that the firearms officers were in. One could infer from this that given the training they had had, and strategy they thought they were following, that the firearms officers were always going to shoot Jean dead in the circumstances in which they were called in. This is a frightening situation which we hope will be explored further in the inquest. It is one thing sending in armed officers to do an intervention after a partial or full identification, but why was it necessary or proportionate for the armed officers to use lethal force and shoot Jean Charles seven times in the head?

Threshold for identification

DCI Percer's evidence was also illuminating when he said it was still unclear today in the Metropolitan Police what the proportionate threshold of identification was for a Kratos situation. We find it shocking that there appears to be no shared understanding of the threshold for positive identification in such cases or when an intervention by a firearms team should be necessary. This almost paves the way for a similar tragedy to happen again.

Cover up

All of this is made even more difficult to comprehend with the evidence provided by 'Owen' (the control room Deputy Surveillance Co-ordinator) regarding the removal of key information from his notes, which quoted Cressida Dick's as saying Jean could "run onto tube, he's not carrying anything". His actions were condemned this week by the Menezes family. 'This latest cover-up only increases suspicion about what officers were doing that day and whether they are telling the truth.'

The inquest has been taking its toil on the Menezes family who have found the week exhausting, emotional and at times quite distressing. But they are finding the process useful and informative, despite the painful memories it is bringing up of the loss of their loved one. They now await with anticipation the evidence of the firearms officers next week.

Labels: Press Release

On Saturday 25th October, the Menezes family will be attending the tenth annual United Friends and Families Campaign (UFFC) Remembrance Procession in London.

The procession will be setting off at 1pm from Trafalgar Square and moving to Parliament Square. The UFFC is London based coalition of campaigns by the friends and the families of people who have died in police custody, prisons and psychiatric hospitals.

More information about this event will be issued next week. For information about the procession please contact 0845 330 7927

Labels: General Information

The family of Jean Charles de Menezes were sickened to discover further cover up by police officers surrounding his death during today's evidence given at the inquest into Jean Charles' death.

An officer, known only as 'Owen' due to being successfully granted anonymity for the inquest, admitted to deleting a section of notes which would have been potentially vital evidence to any investigative proceedings.

'Owen', who was Deputy Surveillance Co-ordinator for the operation and was present in the operation control room working alongside senior officers including DAC Cressida Dick and D Supt Jon Boucher, wrote up detailed notes of his recollections shortly after Jean's death. These included details of conversations, decisions and commands given by senior officers during the final half hour of Jean's life before his fatal shooting.

The family today learnt that three lines of these original notes were deleted before submission and were not included in his statement or evidence given at the Health & Safety trial. The deleted section detailed disagreement between senior officers about whether to let Jean travel on tube or stop him as he entered Stockwell tube station. 'Owen's' original notes recalled Cressida Dick saying 'Let him run' but then being dissuaded by another senior officer that he should be stopped. This information contradicts the accounts given by senior officers and would clearly have been seen as damaging to the Metropolitan police.

The omission of this information is now likely to be investigated by the IPCC as potentially perverting the course of justice.

Giovani da Silva, Jean's brother, present in court today said:

'Clearly someone is lying. This is not the first time an officer has been found to have changed documentary evidence about the circumstances of my brother's death. This latest cover-up only increases suspicion about what officers were doing that day and whether they are telling the truth. We remain determined to uncover the truth"

Labels: Press Release

From the BBC website

An investigation has begun after a senior officer admitted changing evidence during the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.

The Special Branch officer, named as Owen, said he deleted a line from computer notes which quoted Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission said it would investigate.

Brazilian Mr de Menezes, 27, was killed by police who mistook him for one of the failed 21 July 2005 bombers.

The surveillance officer told the inquest the deleted line claimed Ms Dick had initially said the electrician could "run onto Tube as not carrying anything".

But on Monday he said: "On reflection, I looked at that and thought I cannot actually say that."

An Independent Police Complaints Commission spokesman said: "This matter will be subject to an independent investigation and we are not in a position to comment further at this stage."

Mr de Menezes was shot as he boarded a train at Stockwell Tube station in south London when firearms officers mistook him for Hussain Osman a day after the would-be bomber and three other men had failed in their attacks on the capital's transport.

Labels: Evidence

Today’s witnesses are DCI Merrick Rose, who was the Silver Commander for Portnall Road and who may be able to help with evidence about the failure to deploy a firearms team earlier.

Rose will be followed by ‘Owen’, assistant to DI Whiddett and deputy surveillance co-ordinator. We are expecting his evidence to be particularly interesting…

Following ‘Owen’ will be Chief Inspector Esposito aka Trojan 80, who may be one of the most important witnesses. Espositio was the Tactical Adviser to Cressida Dick

Today, further evidence was given by ‘Pat’, the control room surveillance monitor, which further confirmed his understanding and recollection that Jean was never positively identified as the suspected suicide bomber.

In the afternoon, the court heard evidence from DCI Patrick Mellody, who was in charge of the intelligence gathering exercise overnight from 21 to 22 July 2005 and briefed Commander MacDowell.

Mellody said he was not aware that there were any other photos of the surveillance suspect Hussain Osman other than a gym card - until wedding photos found in the rucksack at Shepherds Bush were published in the newspapers a couple of weeks ago. He did not initiate any other enquiries about Osman at that time prior to the shooting.

Had he done so, it is possible that intelligence may have been able to access very good surveillance photos taken of Osman by Special Branch at a ‘training camp’ in the Lake District a year previously. Mellody said he considered that the photo card of Osman used by surveillance was an excellent source material for that operation. He was also asked whether he was aware that Osman had been reported to the Lambeth Borough Commander – as a suspect individual - at least two years prior to 21 July 2005. He was not…

Labels: Evidence

From the BBC website

A senior police officer involved in the operation that led to the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes has said scenes in the control room were "chaotic".

He told an inquest that surveillance officers pursuing the Brazilian were "struggling" to communicate with their superiors because of the noise.

Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot dead on a train at Stockwell Tube station after being mistaken for a suicide bomber.

The identity of the officer, a detective superintendent, was withheld.

He denied at the Oval cricket ground inquest that his criticisms were prompted by departmental rivalry.

'Immediate threat'

Electrician Mr de Menezes was shot seven times in the head on 22 July 2005 by police who believed he was failed bomber Hussain Osman.

At the time, the officer giving evidence - referred to at the hearing as "Brian" - was carrying out administrative tasks in the Scotland Yard control room.

He was assisting Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick, the officer in charge of the operation to catch Osman.

But he said he was "bypassed" on many details and no one had been identified to him as being in charge.

He went on to say he was not aware Mr de Menezes had been identified when he was shot.

"There were no clear lines of communication," he also said.

"It was noisier than normal. There were a large amount of officers in a small room."

Asked about communication between surveillance officers on the ground in south London and the control room, he said: "I think at times they were struggling.

"The noise levels certainly did not lessen. At times it was difficult to hear people not too far away."

Clear command

Ms Dick, who completed her evidence on Wednesday, told the hearing she was led to believe that Mr de Menezes represented a "real and immediate threat" and was intending to cause an explosion.

Another unnamed officer, identified only as Nick, described the scene as Mr de Menezes got off a bus and made his way towards Stockwell station.

He said it caused "alarm".

"I just remember it was almost like an intake of air within the operations room when it was said 'towards the station'," he said.

"I remember that the commander [Ms Dick] stated that the male could not be allowed into the station.

"She spoke very clearly. It was clear."

He said firearms officers were told by Ms Dick to: "Make the stop."

But asked whether officers were certain the person being followed was suicide bombing suspect Osman, he said: "No sir, the strongest line I heard or was aware of was 'a good possible'.


NOTE ON WiTNESSES
Evidence at today's hearing was given by:

‘Bernard’
Control room surveillance monitor responsible for recording communications from the Scotia Road surveillance operatives until relieved at 8.14am by ‘Pat’.

'Pat'
Control room monitor responsible for recording communications from the Scotia Road surveillance operatives throughout surveillance of Jean.

‘Brian’
Operations manager in control room from 8am.

‘Nick’
Special Branch (SO12) ‘Silver firearms liaison officer’ in control room, responsible for liaising with Chief Inspector Esposito (aka Trojan 80, the firearms tactical adviser to Commander Cressida Dick, and in control room throughout the surveillance of Jean), the Silver commanders at each address and the SO12 surveillance team leaders.

Labels: Evidence

Yesterday, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick gave evidence at the inquest and made a number of statements that Jean's family feel are shocking.

We have therefore tried to translate her comments into plain English, so no-one can be confused about the full meaning of her statements.


"One thing that clearly went wrong was that we didn't manage as a nation to prevent those attacks."

The failure to prevent the 7/7 bomb attacks was a failure of the British public as much as the security services' intelligence, so everyone stands responsible for the loss of Jean's life.

"He was extremely unfortunate to live in the same block as Hussain Osman, desperately unfortunate to look very like Hussain Osman, and the things he did in all innocence, the way he behaved getting on and off the bus, contributed to our assessment - my assessment - of him as a bomber."

Jean lived in the same block of flats as a suspected suicide bomber, Hussain Osman. If you also happen to be a non-white male of similar age to a terror suspect, we will interpret anything you do as suspicious and we could shoot you.

"But if you are asking me did we do anything wrong or unreasonable, then I don't think we did."

It is perfectly reasonable to shoot an innocent member of the public who looks vaguely like our suspect and lives in the same block of flats as they do.

Labels: Evidence

Labels: Evidence

ADVANCE NOTICE

Jean Charles de Menezes' mother Maria Otone de Menezes, 63, and his brother Giovani de Menezes, 36 have arrived in London from Brazil and will be attending the inquest into his death from Monday 6 October.

On Monday, they will arrive via the Alex Stewart Gate at the Oval Cricket Ground at approximately 9.15am where there will be an opportunity to take pictures and film the family arriving at the court.

Evidence emerging from the inquest has already raised more questions that it has answered about the botched operation that led to an innocent man being shot. Police officers continue to contradict each other on key points of evidence but the family are hopeful that as proceedings continue, a clearer picture will emerge under questioning by their legal representatives.

Next week the inquest is expected to hear evidence from those in the control room during the surveillance of Jean Charles including:

Cressida Dick
The DSO in overall command of the operation and

CI Esposito (known as Trojan 80 in the Health and Safety trial)
Cressida Dick's firearms tactical advisor, who was in the control room throughout the surveillance of Jean Charles

A spokesperson for the Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign said,

"Jean's mother and brother are coming to the UK to finally come face to face with their son's killers and hope that through the inquest, some justice can be done. However it has been highly alarming and extremely insulting for the bereaved Menezes family to hear evidence at the inquest from senior officers in the Metropolitan police that they did nothing wrong and that a similar tragedy could happen again. This continued rebuttal of any wrong doing on their part only adds to the shameful perception that the Metropolitan Police has no regrets and shows no remorse about deliberately killing an innocent man. We hope they will not continue such an offensive approach in front of Jean's mother"

Labels: Press Release

Statement on behalf of the Menezes family

The Menezes family is shocked by the news of Sir Ian Blair's resignation, as it comes in the middle of the inquest into Jean's death.

As head of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair should have been ultimately accountable for the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. We believe he certainly bears responsibility for the lies told about Jean and the cover up by the police in the aftermath of the shooting. He even tried to stop the IPCC investigating our cousin's death. The lack of accountability of the country's most senior police officer is one of the most shocking aspects of this tragedy.

For Sir Ian Blair to state that he has resigned 'not because of any failures or pressures of the office' therefore reinforces our belief that he and the Metropolitan Police still refuse to accept full responsibility for Jean's death.

For the family, Sir Ian Blair resigning does not change anything. Our focus is on the inquest where we hope we can find out the whole truth about Jean's killing. We await the verdict and findings and hope it will bring us closer to justice and for steps to be taken to ensure that no other family has to suffer the anguish we have over the last 3 years.

Labels: Press Release

It could happen again, says senior police officer

A killing like that of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot in the head by police on a London Underground train, could happen again, a senior police officer involved in leading the operation has told the inquest into Jean Charles' death.

So far the jury has been given a crash course on police procedures, learning about "Gold" and "Silver" levels of command, designated senior officers(DSO), and the respective roles of SO12(Special Branch), SO13 (Anti-Terrorist branch) and CO19/SO 19 (Firearms) officers.

The inquest has heard from Deputy Assistant Commissioner John McDowall who was "Gold" in charge of the police operation which led to Jean Charles de Menezes' death on July 22, 2005, that he held a briefing for senior officers on the 16th floor at New Scotland Yard that morning, where he set out a strategy for surveillance of premises at 21 Scotia Road, Tulse Hill, after evidence had linked a suspect bomber called Hussein Osman to that address. McDowall said that although he told officers what he wanted, he did not give any direct orders, leaving that to the "Silvers".

DAC McDowell said he had not been aware that no.21 was not a house, but one flat in a block of nine with a common entrance. We have heard how a surveillance team which found this watched people leaving the block that morning before an officer codenamed "Frank" signalled that one person - Jean Charles - "might be worth somebody having a second look".

As we know, the police did not intercept Jean Charles, but followed him as he took a bus to Stockwell. We have now learned he passed two of the plain-clothes surveillance team to enter the station, and went down to catch a train, unaware that he was being followed, and a firearms team was brought in to chase after and kill him.

We watched CCTV footage plainly showing that Jean Charles was not wearing bulky clothing that might conceal an explosive device, as was initially claimed, nor did he leap the ticket barrier and rush down the escalator. That was the firearms officers. They had been issued with special hollowed ammunition designed to cause maximum damage, and they aimed at the head because this is the way they are trained to stop a suicide bomber, But the question remains - if the police feared the man they were pursuing was a suicide bomber, and their main concern was to protect the public, how come they made no attempt to prevent him reaching the tube train?

On Wednesday we heard from Detective Chief Superintendent Jon Boucher, who had been Anti-Terrorist squad officer in the control room at Scotland Yard, advising Commander Cressida Dick. They were watching two addresses linked to the bombing suspects, though it was unlikely the bombers would return to these places, and in fact, the man they were after was not there.

The strategy they had discussed required that "...upon being identified and located subjects will be arrested at the earliest point." DCS Boucher claimed that 'Pat' who was receiving messages from the surveillance team had reported a positive identification of the subject - ie. Jean Charles, though Michael Mansfield pointed out that this was not what the surveillance officer 'Frank' had actually said, and what's more 'Pat' would deny it. Boucher and the control team seem to have changed their minds twice about this, though in the records Jean Charles was referred to throughout as "unidentified male" .

Boucher said he had thought the subject would be stopped at the entrance to Stockwell station. He said he had no detailed knowledge of where teams where during the operation, and there was no map on the wall of the control room. But he denied suggestions it was noisy and chaotic. He also denied knowledge that a wallet with Jean Charles ID had been found on the seat where he was shot. We may remember how at this time it was being reported, and claimed by Sir Ian Blair, that police had killed a terrorist.

Perhaps the most interesting - and chilling - bit came at the end of Boucher's evidence, when Michael Mansfield invited him as a senior officer to say what he thought had gone wrong with the operation.

"I am not sure anything did actually go wrong", DCS Boucher replied. What had they learned or changed? They now had better recording of discussions and decisions taken. Had he misunderstood the question? Coroner Sir Michael White and Michael Mansfield both put it to him again. But Boucher's answer did not alter. "I don't think anything went wrong, sir..."

Michael Mansfield: "On that basis, there is a real risk that it could happen again."

Boucher: "There is sir, yes."

As I write, the news come that Commissioner Sir Ian Blair has been sacked. Whether this is an admission of anything or a removal of piece from the board, the inquest continues.

Charlie Pottins
Justice4Jean Campaign Supporter