[Marxism] Statement From Lawyers Of Brazilian Killed By Police On London Tube
Jscotlive at aol.com
Jscotlive at aol.com
Wed Aug 17 12:52:03 MDT 2005
In the British news yesterday and today, it has emerged that London Met lied
about circumstances surrounding the execution of Jean Charles de Menezes
recently on a London tube train. The police claimed that they attempted to
apprehend de Menezes but that he ran and jumped over the barrier. This is false.
Eyewitness accounts have revealed that at no point was he aware he was being
followed. A decision was made early on in surveillance operation to kill him.
Press Statement #2
Jean Charles de Menezes
Response to the evidence made public during the last 24 hours as to the true
circumstances of the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.
Yesterday the family of Jean Charles de Menezes and we, their lawyers,
became aware through the press that virtually the entire body of information
either placed, or allowed to remain, in the public domain since Jean Charles
de Menezes was killed on July 22nd 2005, has been false.
Insofar as the claim of the existence of an official inquiry has contributed
to or provided for a situation in which a blanket of secrecy has covered the
true facts, and lies and scenarios have been allowed to hold good, we on
behalf of the family suggest that claim has constituted a grave public
In consequence, we ask now that the nature and pace and ultimate objectives
of any investigation change. The de Menezes family ask for only one outcome
and that that be swift, that is that the entire truth surrounding Jean
Charles death be made public now as a matter of urgency.
The public interest coincides completely with the interests of the family.
>From the beginning the most senior of police officers and government
ministers including the Prime Minister, claimed the death of Jean Charles to
be an unfortunate accident occurring in the context of an entirely
legitimate, justifiable, lawful and necessary policy. In the context of the
lies now revealed, that claim has become even less sustainable and even more
alarming. It is inconceivable that the true facts as revealed yesterday,
were not made known to senior police and ministers immediately; for any to
have made comments publicly without first informing themselves of the true
facts would have been entirely reckless and wrong.
>From the outset the family have raised a number of obvious questions
1. How was Jean Charles de Menezes first identified as a suspect and on
2. Why was he allowed to board a bus without challenge if he was indeed a
3. Why was he allowed to continue his journey unchallenged if he was a
4. Why was he allowed to board an underground train if he was a suspect?
5. When did police identify themselves to him and how?
6. What opportunities were afforded for alternative action other than
7. What alternative means of incapacitating a suspect were available on
day; if alternative means were not available why not, and if they were why
were they not used?
8. Where did a “shoot to kill” policy emanate from and on what claimed
basis? What public debate and democratic accountability surrounded the
coming into being of that policy?
9. Why was the suggestion that five bullets were fired allowed to
as a public assertion, uncorrected, when there were eight (seven to the
10. Why were members of the de Menezes family in the UK, having been
homeless by the securing of Jean Charles’ residence, placed inaccessibly in
a hotel by the police and the telephones in their rooms ordered to be cut
off by the police so that they could not contact Brazil.
11. Why did police officers actively lobby Brazilian officials here to
dissuade Jean Charles’ parents (without a telephone in Brazil) from
obtaining a second post mortem?
12. Why was the pathologist at the post mortem conducted on July 27th,
which senior investigating police officers were present) told the following:
“This man’s death occurred as part of the emergency relating to the
of bombs on public transport in London. On the morning of the 22nd July 2005
he was pursued by armed police officers as a result of surveillance. He was
followed into Stockwell Tube Station where he vaulted over the ticket
barrier. He ran downstairs and onto a tube train where it appears that he
stumbled. The officers then immobilised him and a number of shots were
fired. At the present time I am not sure as to any further details.”
13. Why was he not told of the true facts which clearly by then must
14. What CCTV footage from the outside and inside of Stockwell
station and from within the underground train exists? If there is none, why
is there none?
In the light of many of the questions above having been answered during the
last 24 hours by information clearly already in the possession of the
police, we emphasise that we are unable to have confidence in any of the
investigative processes that are now on offer in this case. We point in
particular to the failure of the police, in breach of their statutory duty,
to invite the IPPC to commence its investigations from the first moment of
the shootings on July 22nd. A fatal delay of several days, we understand,
occurred thereafter during which time we are unaware that the IPPC itself
proactively attempted to intervene. We have the gravest of concerns.
1. First that evidence may not have been appropriately retrieved by
independent investigators and may now have permanently disappeared. We point
in particular to the unresolved question as to whether any CCTV footage of
the station or the train does in fact exist and was retrieved.
2. We observe that a number of written statements by police officers in
direct contradiction to what was previously understood are being revealed
through the press; one in particular points to the fact that Jean Charles de
Menezes was never in fact, appropriately identified as a suspect from the
time of his leaving the house.
3. We do not know whether police officers who appear already to have made
statements in this inquiry have made statements under caution and are being
treated as suspects in relation to a proper investigation of an unlawful
killing, or are being treated instead as only witnesses and not suspected of
any level of involvement in what at its lowest must be gross negligence (a
potential ground for an accusation of unlawful killing).
4. We do not know at what levels police officers, including senior police
officers, are being interviewed and whether under caution or not. We do not
know who is being interviewed and by whom?
5. We do not know whether these include senior police, past and present
appeared to believe, wrongly, that they were entitled to order a blanket
“shoot to kill” practice.
In these circumstances, on behalf of the family, we suggest that a
different, urgent, and open inquiry and public debate take place. It is
neither sane nor responsible to have issues of such enormous public
importance, as well as of such pain to the family concerned, to be allowed
to drift towards an unspecified date at an unspecified and perhaps
inappropriate hearing in the future which may too late consider itself to be
too limited in any event to consider the important issues that have to be
raised here and now.
We underline as a reminder, that immense public debate took place
immediately after the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. All of that
debate took place and was allowed to take place on entirely wrong factual
assumptions. We are now in a very different situation. Someone with official
access has, it appears, been sufficiently disturbed by that dangerous
position, to make internal documents public. In these circumstances, we and
the family of Jean Charles de Menezes regard the action of revealing those
documents as a true public service and ask that that initiative not now be
undermined by renewed secrecy, delay and inactivity on the part of those
with responsibility for investigation.
More information about the Marxism