UK News
De Menezes inquiry: Court hears officer knew suspect wasn't suicide bomber
By Rich Bowden, M&C Staff Writer Oct 15, 2007, 13:23 GMT
Asad Rehman, spokesman for de Menezes family speaks to reporters during a press conference in London, 02 August 2007. Jean Charles de Menezes, 27. EPA/ANDY RAIN
(M&C) - An Old Bailey court has heard the police officer who ordered the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes knew he hadn't been positively identified as a suspect terrorist bomber.
The testimony took place at a court hearing where the Metropolitan police are on trial for endangering the health and safety of the public for their actions -- a charge they deny.
Mr de Menezes was "negatively identified" by surveillance officers as Hussain Osman, who was wanted on suspicion of involvement in a failed terror bombing the day before.
However despite this, Commander Cressida Dick, the leader of the operation, ordered that the 27-year-old Brazilian be followed from his flat onto a bus and to Stockwell tube station where he was killed by police officers who fired seven bullets into his head at close range.
The identification of de Menezes was given in court by a surveillance officer who said,
"There was a point when the senior management group knew that it wasn't Nettletip (Osman's codename). I believe that came across on the radio," he said.
"I can't say what the exact words were but there was a discussion about the situation on the bus and they wanted SO13 anti-terror police to stop the subject and establish intelligence about the residents and flats at Scotia Road."
"If he lived next to the subject he may have been able to tell us things of relevance. It later emerged that they (surveillance) had continued and Cressida Dick asked why the unidentified individual was still being followed if it was not Nettletip."
The surveillance officer said that at no time was Mr de Menezes "positively identified" as Mr Osman. Despite this though the surveillance team followed Mr de Menezes eventually killing him.
The hearing continues.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in UK
- 1. Cambridge beat Oxford in 158th Boat Race after midway halt
- 2. Gas flare at Total's North Sea platform self-extinguishes
- 3. A myth turns 100: Titanic still fascinates world
- 4. Source of North Sea platform gas leak located, says Total
- 5. Efforts under way to stop gas leak on North Sea platform
Older Talkback
page: 1
The amateurish bumbling of the Metropolitan Police is unbelievable. Why is no one on trial for manslaughter here? This trial is a farce - the cowboys who shot this innocent man should be facing a jury. Let the jury decide innocence or guilt of manslaughter - not the Establishment, which automatically protects its own. Perhaps they are all Freemasons.
The elephant in the room is that officers of the Metropolitan Police Service did NOT shoot and kill Mr. de Menezes in Stockwell Tube Station of 22 July 2005. He was shot by members of the SAS and the MET are being forced to carry the can. Once this simple fact is acknowledge, everything falls into place:
- hollow point ammunition is never used by the MET. It is never issued. It is strictly forbidden.
- four-hour delay in deploying the hit squad. The SAS base in Herefordshire is some four hours by road.
- over-kill and total disregard for third-party safety. Research the shooting of three unarmed IRA members in Gibraltar.
- customised HK weaponry. The MET would never be allowed to modify weapons.
- removal of the Tube station surveillance tapes (perverting the course of justice) was part of the SAS attempted cover up when they realised they’d murdered an innocent man. Some tapes were grudging returned to the MET, but the platform tape never surfaced.
So the MET are lying all the way to the grave to protect the SAS. They must be pissed. Although admittedly their surveillance and intelligence left a lot to be desired. Specifically, mistaking Mr. de Menezes for Hussein Osman, a known bomber. So often it's the cover-up that gets um in the end. Let’s hope that’s the case here. Bottom line: It really stinks.
What on earth is being 'negatively identified'. Does this policeman mean it wasn't him? I suspect this is jargon being created to disguise the fact that they knew it wasn't a suicide bomber.
page: 1
SelwynOct 15th, 2007 - 17:40:25
I find this case very difficult to understand. The police being taken to court against the Health & Safety laws, in that they failed to protect the safety of the public.
Is that meant, that, they failed to protect the safety of Mr De Menezes, as surely, he was a member of the public. They certainly failed to look after his H&S.
Or that, during the unlawful killing of Mr Menezes, another innocent member of the public, may of been hit by a stay bullet. A stray 9mm Hollow-point, designed to kill with one round. But it still took 7 rounds to the head, at point blank range, to slay Mr Menezes.
Why is there not a police officer standing in court charged with murder, or at least man slaughter?
And why oh why, are there so many innocent people, shot dead by 'Police Marksmen'.
This sucks, the police should be held accountable, and today is a good day for a hanging!
Report this comment