Witness tells of 30-second shooting of tube suspect (Menezes}

[bemildred]

New evidence has emerged that armed police officers fired at innocent Brazilian terror suspect Jean Charles de Menezes for more than 30 seconds when they killed him on the London underground.

---

Journalist Sue Thomason says the shots were fired at intervals of three seconds and that she and other passengers ran for their lives, fearing terrorists had opened fire on commuters.

---

On August 18, Mr Wadham, a former head of the civil rights group Liberty, said the Metropolitan Police had originally resisted the organisation taking on the investigation.

But he said that the IPCC overcame that in "an important victory for our independence".

Scotsman

[bemildred]

1. Leaked witness statement says police fired 11 times at Brazilian

According to The Guardian, her statement to the IPCC says: "When the Tube was stationary at the platform at Stockwell I recall shouting, it was a male's voice, it may have come from more than one male. People then started to get out of their seats and look in the direction where the shouting was coming from.

"I recall hearing gunshots... The shooting was coming from the carriage to the left of me. When I heard the gunshots I thought it was terrorists firing into the crowd. I thought about getting behind a seat... After the initial first shots I left the carriage."

She described fleeing the train with other commuters and running along the platform to leave the station.

Her statement continues: "While I was making my way to the escalator I remember hearing more shots coming from behind me. I thought that I would be shot in the back... Half way up the escalator I remember looking behind me and hearing two more shots... Once I got outside the station my legs went.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1751842,00.html

[bemildred]

2. Menezes shooting investigators reject complaint

Wadham said Scotland Yard had initially tried to block the IPCC's investigation into the shooting of Menezes, who officers mistakenly thought was a suicide bomber.

"The Metropolitan Police Service initially resisted us taking on the investigation but we overcame that," Wadham said in a strongly worded statement on August 18.

The officer lodged his complaint the following day. On Wednesday, IPCC Chairman Nick Hardwick rejected the complaint as it was not an issue of misconduct.

"People are free to disagree and criticise us, but the content of the complaint doesn't relate to a conduct matter. It was rejected and we are taking no further action," said an IPCC spokeswoman.

Reuters

[whatever4]

3. "fearing terrorists had opened fire on commuters".- because they did nm

[ret5hd]

4. yes, something is so fishy with this incident...

i can't help but remain convinced that it was an assasination...the question remains 'why?'

[whatever4]

5. I agree, the "why" is the big question

You know, sometimes I wish I knew the answers. And sometimes, like with most horror stories, I just don't want to know. Sometimes I wish I was a normal head-in-the-sand American type person.

Why would ordinary, garden-variety police (as opposed to a spook squad) fire on someone so obviously unarmed? What were they told, if any instructions were the cause of this murder, and if that was the case, who told them?

What bothers me is when the story gets so murky, when we all know these incidents receive top priority, and it should be cut and dried. What happened, when, who...these are the details police officers deal with EVERY DAY. It's mutated a few times, since it came out, and that doesn't make any more sense than the murder itself.

I hope it's just as simple as they really did think he was dangerous, or up to something. Or something. What? And then lied to cover it up. Said he had wires hanging out. Said he jumped the gate, and was running. Sad that I hope someone was killed needlessly and accidentally, but if he was targeted and used (for some insane, illegal reason) it's a worse picture. Not any worse for him or his family, of course; he's dead. And they've got to put up with being lied to about it too. Sad, that that's the best case scenario.

Scary that they've done all this when there are witnesses to clearly contradict their facts. That one bothers me too.

Incidentally, I'm having a terrible time posting today. I wonder if the site, or the internet, is being messed with.

I swear, internet is next. Just as soon as they can get around to it. That's another thing I worry about.

[jsamuel]

7. I think the best way to find out "why" is to ask "Who?"

Who killed him? Was it police or military (SAS)? The weapon used is only used by SAS. I think that is where to start asking.

[whatever4]

8. I see, yes I have to agree

I was working off the assumption that it was the London Police that did this, but I'm missing details that make a difference, with the SAS weapon. Since it isn't a given, who did it, I agree with you completely. Who

[Warren Stupidity]

6. "I thought it was terrorists firing into the crowd."

Well it was.

<putting on tinfoil hat>
Here is what I think I know.
1) there were two teams involved. First a rather standard police surveillance operation involving something like 30 detectives was camped out around the apartment building, thought to contain a terrorist cell. Second a SWAT team trained in Kratos tactics - essentially a death squad, was dispatched to intercept and execute de Menezes at the stockwell station.
2) Team one made the initial id of de Menezes as a 'suspect', apparently communicated with metro police command and started following de Menezes as he left the building, boarded the bus, rode the bus to the stockwell train station, got off the bus, and entered the train station. I have seen no report as to how long this trip took. Lets just say it was somewhere between 10 and 30 minutes.
3) de Menezes did nothing other than exit the building to arouse suspicion - he was not dressed inappropriately, he did not act oddly, he did not jump any turnstiles. In fact he appeared to act like a normal commuter going to work
4) team one - the surveillance team - trailing de Menezes from home to train station had at least two opportunities to intercept a 'suspected suicide bomber' while said suspect was out in the open with minimal risk to others - i.e. before boarding the bus and after getting off the bus before entering the station. Instead this team allowed de Menezes, supposedly a suspected suicide bomber, to enter a crowded train station at rush hour.
5) team two was separately dispatched to intercept de Menezes at the stockwell station and ordered to execute him as a suspected suicide bomber under the secret policies in place which, for lack of the official name, I'll just call 'Kratos'. Team two intercept6s de Menezes on the train and executes him without warning while he is seated on the train.

OK - so why does team one let a suspected suicide bomber enter a crowded train station at rush hour?

They don't. They do not think de Menezes is a suspected suicide bomber at all. They think he is a member of the terrorist cell and they are following him to see where he is going.

de Menezes was executed despite the fact that team one did not suspect him of being a suicide bomber.

Why?

My best guess is that an order, from the highest levels, had been given to 'take out' a suspected terrorist in order to 'send a message' to the muslim community in Great Britain.
</putting on tinfoil hat>

<gratuitous insult>
Time for the brave defenders of the realm to show up and disparage us.
</gratuitous insult>

[whatever4]

9. Good one

OK - so why does team one let a suspected suicide bomber enter a crowded train station at rush hour?

yeah, thats nonsensical isn't it. We want to kill the terrorists (I mean stop the terrorists, it's not like it's all one big killing spree, no, not us civilized sorts...) but we don't care what they do to you till we get them, even if they blow you to hell and gone...sure, that's safety and security from terrorism.

Love the </putting> bit, that's great :)