The very strange eyewitnesses of de Menezes' death

[John Doe II]

That eyewitnesses can get things wrong is a well-known fact. Yet, what happened in the case of de Menezes’ death is indeed an extraordinary case of completely wrong eyewitnesses’ accounts that certainly does deserve a closer look.

First of all let’s recall what was officially told after the death:
As the police was around at the moment of de Menezes’ death all official statements given about the circumstances didn’t rely on witness accounts of civilians but was based on first-hand information by the police itself.

A police statement said his "clothing and suspicious behavior at the station added to" officers' suspicions, and Police Chief Ian Blair said de Menezes challenged police and refused to obey orders.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/25/london.tube.0955/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

But today we know that neither his clothing nor his behaviour was suspicious nor was he challenged and reused to obey.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4158832.stm


Now, let’s turn to the eyewitnesses.
The most impressive account is certainly of Anthony Larkin:
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."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm

This is obviously completely wrong. Maybe he just wanted to gain attention. Anyway.
There are more strange eyewitnesses:
Teri Godly (very close to de Menezes”)
"A tall Asian guy, shaved head, slight beard, with a rucksack got in front of me. Shortly after that, as I was about to get onto the train, eight or nine undercover police with walkie talkies and handguns started screaming at everyone to 'Get out, get out'," she said.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/22/london.eyewitness/index.html

Again: Everything is wrong!
De Menezes is white skinned and by no means “asian”-looking.
No rucksack, she doesn’t mention that he actually boarded the tube as we know he did.

Maybe we can again put this account aside but the surprising detail “asian”. In fact three eyewitnesses speak of “asian”-looking. Why do they all get it so wrong? (This is btw the only detail the eyewitness got wrong that the police didn’t confirm in their own statements).

Londoner Dan Copeland was in the carriage in which the man was shot.
He told BBC News: "We were sitting for a few minutes on the platform, then we heard shouting from the concourse between the two platforms.
"Then the man burst in through the door to my right and grabbed hold of the pole and a person by the glass partition near the door, diagonally opposite me.
"An officer jumped on the door to my left and screamed, 'Everybody out!'
"People just froze in their seats cowering for a few seconds and then leapt up.
"As I turned out the door onto the platform, I heard four dull bangs.
"I ran past an armed officer who was standing on the platform and ran up the stairs."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

Why does Copeland not mention the action of Hotel 3 who was aboard the carriage before de Menezes (a detail btw that has not been explained so far!) and calling “He’s in here”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1743478,00.html

And the following detail is simply completely wrong:
the man burst in through the door to my right and grabbed hold of the pole and a person by the glass partition near the door, diagonally opposite me.
"An officer jumped on the door to my left and screamed, 'Everybody out!'

Neither did de Menezes “grabbed hold of the pole and a person” nor did an officer enter right afterwards calling “Everybody out!”. Instead a plain-cloth policeman “Hotel 3” called “He’s here” while de Menezes was already sitting.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1743478,00.html

Q : Some eyewitnesses have described him as a man of Asian appearance. Can you describe the man that you saw ?
Well he certainly had dark skin. I didn't really see his face. He jumped on so quickly and as I say his back was turned towards the majority of passengers. I presume the only person that would have seen his face would be the guy that he grabbed..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm#
(click on video and on Copeland)

Again two details and again two details wrong.
Again he gave his account on the day of the shooting:
Neither had de Menezes “dark skin” nor was he turned towards the majority of the passengers.


The most famous one is certainly Mark Whitby who was literally all over the news right after the shooting. For a very strange reason he will also be the only eyewitness that actually described in detail how the victim looked like although many witnesses were in the same carriage as de Menezes.
And this is what he said:
"I was sitting on the train... I heard a load of noise, people saying, 'Get out, get down'.
"I saw an Asian guy. He ran on to the train, he was hotly pursued by three plain clothes officers, one of them was wielding a black handgun.
"He half tripped... they pushed him to the floor and basically unloaded five shots into him," he told BBC News 24.
"As got onto the train I looked at his face, he looked sort of left and right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, a cornered fox.
"He looked absolutely petrified and then he sort of tripped, but they were hotly pursuing him, couldn't have been any more than two or three feet behind him at this time and he half tripped and was half pushed to the floor and the policeman nearest to me had the black automatic pistol in his left hand.
"He held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him.
"He 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.
"He might have had something concealed under there, I don't know. But it looked sort of out of place with the sort of weather we've been having, the sort of hot humid weather.
"He was largely built, he was quite a chubby sort of guy.
"I didn't see any guns or anything like that - I didn't see him carrying anything. I didn't even see a bag to be quite honest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm

"He looked like a Pakistani but he had a baseball cap on, and quite a thickish coat. It was a coat like you would wear in winter, a sort of padded jacket. It looked out of place in the weather we've been having."
Whitby said he had been about five yards away from where the incident occurred and was "totally distraught" by what he had seen.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/22/london.eyewitness/index.html

"They held it down to him and unloaded five shots into him. I saw it. He's dead, five shots, he's dead."
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1303&id=1670842005


Mark Whitby is very close seated to the shooting and he gives many details of what happened and how the victim looked like. But basically all and every detail he gives is simply completely wrong.

1. He describes de Menezes as Asian. Yet, he was white and also describe by his surveillance team as white.

2. He states that he wear a thickish coat. Yet he wore a Denim jacket.
Whitby says: “He half tripped... they pushed him to the floor”. Yet, we know by the account of “Hotel 3” that the victim was pushed back into the seat:
I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting ... I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away on to the floor of the carriage."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550565,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1553440,00.html?gusrc=rss

3. Whitby says: “]"As got onto the train I looked at his face, he looked sort of left and right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, a cornered fox”.
Yet, we know that de Menezes boarded the tube and sat down calmly. He was unaware that he was being followed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550565,00.html

4. Whitby says that he was hotly pursued and the policemen“couldn't have been any more than two or three feet behind him”. This again is not true as de Menezes had time to sit down:
“He sat down with a glass panel to his right about two seats in. I took a seat to his left-hand side on the same carriage and there were about two or three members of the public between me and the male in the denim jacket.”
When Hotel Three saw plainclothes CO19 officers arriving on the platform, he stood up and moved to the door of the carriage.
“I placed my left foot against the open carriage door to prevent it shutting . . . I shouted ‘He’s here’ and indicated the male in the denim jacket with my right hand.” (…)
As Hotel Three later recorded: “He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the officers.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1743478,00.html

5. Whitby says: “]"They held it down to him and unloaded five shots into him. I saw it.” Yet, de Menezes was shot eleven times (three times he was missed).
http://www.sundayherald.com/51372

Ok. I don’t want to discuss the cognitive capacities of Mark Whitby. Of course eyewitnesses can get it wrong. Yet, it is rather unusual I’d say that they witness exactly the same details the police will confirm. To underline: Mark Whitby spoke to BBC BEFORE the police gave any accounts to the press.
Therefore my question:
What are the odds that Mark Whitby not only gets all details wrong but got them exactly as wrong as the police?

This coincidence can’t be explained by assuming that the police relied on Whitby in their official accounts. They had enough eyewitnesses at the location of the shooting themselves.

Another central witness that got apparently the story as wrong as the police is Chris Wells:
"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,'" Wells said.
Christopher Scaglione was also leaving the station when he heard a bang, followed by shouting.
"People then started to run and I heard two or three more bangs, like people shooting."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/22/london.eyewitness/index.html

Yet, as we know de Menezes didn’t jump the barrier.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550565,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4158832.stm

Many he took a policeman for the victim but why does the police evoke exactly this kind of behavior by stating:
A police statement said his "clothing and suspicious behavior at the station added to" officers' suspicions, and Police Chief Ian Blair said de Menezes challenged police and refused to obey orders.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/25/london.tube.0955/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

And all journals in fact quoted Chris Wells as a proof for the statement of the police. But as already said: Why did the police lie?
And why does an eyewitness exactly recall what the police falsely claimed? And both statements were from 7/7.

There are other accounts that seem to be quite accurate but yet fail to mention the crucial detail:
Rob Lowe:
"The Tube was stationary and then a man came on who I presume now to be a plain clothes policeman, but at the time I didn't know who he was.
"He was looking quite shifty, getting up and sitting back down again. I felt a bit awkward around him. And then he seemed to shout at some people on the other platform who then all came rushing.
"The Tube suddenly filled up with loads of people running down to the end of my carriage. Then I heard probably four or five loud bangs and saw a bit of smoke. More armed policemen appeared, telling us all to get out of the Tube and people started running off," he said.
"It did look like there was somebody on the floor at the end. I didn't know whether it was a bag or a person - but then there were a lot of people around him and then I heard the bangs."
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1303&id=1670842005
http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=1094380

Rob Lowe must be quite close to the incident as he recalls clearly the behavior of “Hotel 3” but wWhy does Rob Lowe not mention what “Hotel 3” mentioned himself:
As Hotel Three later recorded: “He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the officers. I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso pinning his arms to his side.
“I then pushed him back onto the seat where he had previously been sitting with right-hand side of my head pressed against the right-hand side of his torso.” (…)
“At this stage his body seemed straight and he was not in a natural sitting position,” recorded Hotel Three. “I then heard a gunshot very close to my ear and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage. I shouted ‘police’ and held up my hands. I was then dragged out of the carriage by an armed officer who appeared to be carrying a long-barrelled weapon.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1743478,00.html


There are more eyewitness accounts. Yet the following accounts never give any detail of the shooting or de Menezes physical appearance although many of them were sitting very close to de Menezes:

“Fellow passenger” Jason Dines
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1303&id=1670842005

Ben Anderson in the next carriage:
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1303&id=1670842005

Simon Dixon in the same carriage:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1534654,00.html

Chris Martin at the platform:
http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=1094380


So, to conclude:
What we do have are either eyewitnesses (especially Mark Whitby) who not only got every detail completely wrong but whose accounts correspond exactly with the official storyline of the police after the shooting.
Then we have a witness that somehow not mentions the crucial detail that he must have witnessed.
Then we have a curious absence of eyewitnesses that actually saw the victim besides Mark Whitby (who describe a clearly different person than de Menezes).
And we have many accounts of people who should have seen more as they were in the carriage yet whose accounts lack any important detail.

[sabra]

1. great analysis!

reco'd

[whatever4]

2. A part of me

wants to think this entire action was designed to distract and divide those that suspect our governments (US, Britain, others) of lying about what they're doing and why they do it. Exactly as they caused the Iraq war; fixing the intelligence.

Maybe this was all designed to get, and keep, the attention of the conspiracy theorists. And while it clearly didn't happen as they're saying, they may well like the fact that so many are trying to figure out exactly how and why. It may have been the entire reason.

Whilst they go about other covert operations that in NO way stand out in the news, even for those that follow such things.

This one was too easy to see, this cover up. So, even that isn't what it seems, imho. Something is obviously fishy, and I'd think that's the reason for it. There was no other reason to gun a man down, but for what publicity it would bring.

Humans are chess pieces to the one's that say they defend our safety.

[smurfygirl]

3. wow

this is great how you put on this together....recomended

[Eloriel]

4. Nominated! Great work. Thanks. n/t

[mike_c]

5. kicked and nominated....

:kick:

[RBHam]

6. The kid knew too much.....

After 9-11, legislation was passed in Britain allowing intrusive measures...I've heard through sources that two of the Muslim men vacationed alone TOGETHER on a kayaking trip to Wales, shared one room in a hotel, and seemed "close" to locals who remember them.

So consider:

Through the internet, MI-6 found a small group of Muslim men who were gay...They blackmailed them, you know the stigma against gays in Muslim culture, and set them up for the Charing Cross bombing (the same day, there was a security operation simulating a train bombing one station away, they could have been told this was "official" and they would be safe, that the bombs were fakes...co-incidentally, you'll recall that Cynthia McKinney has brought to light that there were simulated war games involving terror scenarios on 9-11, has confonted Rummy and Myers in open session about this...curious?)...

Anyway, DeMenzes may well have been a confidant of one of the set up Muslims and may have been spotted talking to him that day at those row-houses...

It all makes sense then.

Consider Hotel 13 - the fly in the ointment - a legit cop. Contradicting all the so-called "eye-witness" accounts...

He is "DRAGGED AWAY" by these MI-6 guys even though he has complete control of the situation. the guy was immobilized.

DeMenzesawas simply executed. before he could talk. and i bet any info he may have had on him has disappeared.

Hotel 13 is the key. I'll bet he doesn't sleep well at nights.

Consider the plethora of fraudulent eyewitness. The detail about a furtive Asian man in a bulky coat - when ALL of that was bullshit and seemed planted to back up the "official story"..

Can anyone add anymore?

2+2=4

[John Doe II]

19. Well observed

Hotel 3's account is strange to say the least:
He is the first in the carriage. He is part of the game as he apparnently knows clearly whom they are looking for and he has the authority to call other policmen on the other platform (sic) to come fast. He makes sure that de Menezes can't flee, holds him.
So far everything makes sense.

But why is he dragged to the floor?
Why does he have to defend himself shouting that he's a policeman?
If the people killing de Menezes wouldn't know Hote 3 why then would they have followed his call to enter the carriage?

Anybody here to make sense of this as well?

[RBHam]

7. Now THIS deserves a nomination!

Kicked quick.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. Just an FYI, in England it's not uncommon...

for "Asian" to refer to east Asia, as in dark skinned. Americans almost always think of "Asian" as being Chnese/Japanese/Korean.

[John Doe II]

9. white-skinned

But de Menezes was not dark-skinned at all.

The police account says there is no footage of de Menezes leaving because the SRR soldier had to relieve himself. The police account says he sent out a message calling the man who left an “ICI” – a white northern European. It was also suggested that “it would be worth someone else having a look”.
http://www.sundayherald.com/51372

And this fits with all photos of de Menezes.
"Asian" is therefore simply completely wrong.
This wouldn't be too important if not three witness made this statement.

[RBHam]

10. How could this guy have gotten it so wrong?

Larkin(MI 6 plant):

"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."

This complete fiction, we now know, but was widely reported internationally as fact, because it backed up the official story THEY wanted you to believe...

remarkable

[jsamuel]

11. wow, Mark Whitby got it wrong... but exactly wrong as the police story...

hmmmm....

to say the least...

[LisaL]

12. Doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Remember Wa sniper and witness describing Arab looking men getting into a white van? Everything was a lie made up by the "witness" on his own.

[jsamuel]

14. hmm... that comparison isn't a very good one to me

[tgnyc]

18. Kick. That's hot.

[LisaL]

13. Doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Remember Wa sniper and witness describing Arab looking men getting into a white van? Everything was a lie made up by the "witness" on his own.

[John Doe II]

15. If

the whole issue would be that one witness (Whitby) got one detail wrong this would really be not worth bothering. But I'm afraid he got ALL details wrong. And he got it exactly as wrong as the police. And nobody real got any important detail correct.

[LisaL]

24. But in Wa sniper cases, there were many witnesses describing

white vans leaving the scene. Sometimes many people get it wrong.

[John Doe II]

16. And

:kick:

[LibertyorDeath]

17. Great Post ! Recommend

Come on in the waters fine

http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm23


http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/

[gratuitous]

20. Why do I feel like I just walked onto the set of "The Third Man"?

And who is that standing in the shadows in the doorway?

[k-robjoe]

21. Hi John Doe II

:)
Don´t know if you´ve seen this one...
http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0358.html

[John Doe II]

22. Hi K-robjoe

Haven't seen this article but just had a quick glance and it seems to be VERY good! Will certainly read it tomorrow!

Thanks!
:toast:

[John Doe II]

31. Seriously: Are you joking Mr. Whitby?

Here is what Whitby wrote after everybody realized that his famous account was simply wrong:

But Mr Whitby says that man - who may have vaulted a ticket barrier - is likely to have been an undercover cop trailing Mr de Menezes.

(...)

"I think the guy I saw being bundled out of the way might have been a surveillance officer who was following him."

Mr Whitby, 47, described what he saw: "There was a mass of bodies and I saw a gun being lowered and I heard the shots.

"Mr de Menezes must have been ahead of the officers. The guy in the thick coat can't have been him."
http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200southlondonheadlines/tm_objectid=15875479%26method=full%26siteid=50100-name_page.html


Seriously: Whitb y was in the carriage:
How can you mistake a person that was shot?
Whitby creates the impression he is talking about the scene where de Menezes was said to have jumped the barrier. But Whitby was in the carriage. He didn't see this above mentioned scene.

His sentence "Mr de Menezes must have been ahead of the officers."
makes simply no sense at all.

[Karenina]

23. I've been waiting for this.

;-)

[fujiyama]

25. Eyewitness accounts are generally not the most reliable

That's why it's especially disturbing to think about several that were sentenced to death under Bush in Texas (though I'm sure this is by no means oeculiar to Texas and happens wherever the DP is still administered). I recall hearing atleast one case where a man was put to death because of one eyewitness.

Although in the case of the person that saw a "bomb belt" it may have been Mr. Meneze's supplies considering he's an electrician. Also, some South Asians are light skinned.

[ninty]

28. I agree

and would take you statement and say that many eyewitness accounts are extremly unreliable. What people think they see can be altered very easily through suggestion whether it be someone talking about the incident with you, or through watching and reading the mainstream media. The reality can be shifted to make sense and coencide with what is supposed to have happened.

[John Doe II]

29. I disagree

Though I in general I agree with the statement that eyewitness can be unreliable (as I stated in the introduction). But this is not the point. The point is that Whitby got it not only wrong in every single detail. He got it exactly as wrong as the police. Three people didn't get de Menezes skin colour wrong. They all got it wrong the same way: Asian. One eyewitness has a complete blank for the crucial moments and several eyewitnesses who should have seen something reveal no detail. Rather strange.
And shifting accounts by suggestions. All accounts were done right after the shooting. They were basically the first information journalists got.

[Taxloss]

26. The aberrant witness reports on the De Menezes killing are fascinating.

It's interesting that while one gang of conspiracy theorists on DU are prepared to accept the testimony of a single witness at Edgware Road as gospel, these accounts are treated as they should be: deeply suspect.

[Woody Box]

30. Flatly wrong

The Menezes witness accounts are not deeply suspect, they are completely wrong, as John Doe II has shown.

The Edgware Road witness might be wrong, too, but his version is not refuted by video footage and/or contradicting witness accounts (there are none). No reason to take his testimony as "gospel" - what does that mean, anyway :shrug: - but to be deeply suspicious, he lacks a motive to lie.

As opposed to this guy, it is easy to find a motive for The Menezes witnesses: to cover-up a cold-blooded murder.

[ConcernedCanuk]

27. I wonder , , , is it possible, TWO people were "offed" ?

.
.
.

and one body disappeared for some reason?

Could there be a motive to not have the "real" target discovered?

It's the consistencies in the other "description" that started me wondering

Well,

that and the mass of research done here!


something is amiss for sure