   #copyright

Jean Charles de Menezes

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: Recent History

        Jean Charles de Menezes
        Jean Charles de Menezes
   Born 7 January 1978
        Gonzaga, Minas Gerais, Brazil
   Died 22 July 2005
        Stockwell Tube station, London

   Jean Charles de Menezes ( 7 January 1978– 22 July 2005) was a Brazilian
   electrician living in the Tulse Hill area of south London. Menezes was
   shot and killed at Stockwell tube station on the London Underground by
   unnamed Metropolitan Police officers. Police later issued an apology,
   saying that they had mistaken him for a suspect in the previous day's
   failed bombings and acknowledging that Menezes in fact had no
   explosives and was unconnected with the attempted bombings.

Biography

   The son of a bricklayer, Menezes grew up on a farm in Gonzaga, Minas
   Gerais, Brazil. After discovering an early aptitude for electronics, he
   left the farm at age 14 to live with his uncle in São Paulo and further
   his education. At 19 he received a professional diploma from Escola
   Estadual (State School) São Sebastião. He had originally wanted to go
   to the United States of America but was refused a work visa.

   He entered the UK on a tourist visa in 2002, and later obtained a
   student visa valid until June 2003. According to a statement by the
   British Home Office, he did not apply for any extension, and, thus, was
   living illegally in the UK after that time.

   Within four months of his arrival he had a good grasp of the English
   language, and sent money he earned back to his family in Brazil.

   On 22 July 2005 Menezes was shot and killed by Metropolitan Police
   armed officers.

   On 27 July 2005, Menezes' body was flown to Brazil for burial. His
   funeral took place in Gonzaga, Brazil, on 29 July 2005.

   A public memorial service for Menezes was presided over by Cormac
   Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor at Westminster Cathedral around the same time.

Background to the shooting

   Almost all of the facts regarding the Menezes shooting were initially
   disputed by various parties. Contradictory witness accounts, " off the
   record" statements from police, and media speculation added to the
   confusion. An ITV report on 16 August 2005 claimed to contain leaked
   documents from an IPCC investigation which provided additional
   information. For a summary of the facts and events initially disputed,
   see Disputed facts and events.

   On 22 July 2005, London police were searching for four suspects in four
   attempted bombings carried out the previous day; three at Underground
   stations and one on a bus in Hackney. As the perpetrators had not died
   in the failed suicide bombing, a large police investigation began
   immediately, with the aim of tracking them down. A written address
   reportedly had been identified from materials found inside the
   unexploded bags used by the bombers, located within a three-storey
   block of nine flats in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill.

   At around 9:30 a.m., surveillance officers observing the address saw
   Menezes emerge from the communal entrance of the block. The officers
   were watching three men who they claimed were Somali or Ethiopian in
   appearance.

   Menezes, an electrician, lived in one of the flats with two of his
   cousins, and had just received a call to fix a broken fire alarm in
   Kilburn.

   An officer on duty at Scotia Road compared Menezes to the CCTV
   photographs of the bombing suspects from the previous day, and felt "it
   would be worth someone else having a look", but "was in the process of
   relieving [him]self", and was thus unable to immediately turn on a
   video camera to transmit images to Gold Command, the Metropolitan
   Police ("Met") operational headquarters for major incidents. Police
   thought they had positively identified a suicide bomber.

   On the basis of this officer's suspicion, Gold Command authorised
   officers to continue pursuit and surveillance.

   Documents from the independent agency investigation of the shooting
   later concluded that mistakes in police surveillance procedure led to a
   failure to properly identify Menezes early on, leading to rushed
   assumptions and actions later at Stockwell Tube station.

Pursuit and shooting

   Stockwell tube station entrance
   Enlarge
   Stockwell tube station entrance

   The officers followed Menezes for 5 minutes as he walked to a bus-stop
   on Tulse Hill for the Number 2 bus routes. As he boarded a bus, several
   plainclothes police officers boarded, continuing the pursuit.

   At Brixton Station Menezes briefly got off the bus, saw the station was
   closed, and reboarded the bus to continue to Stockwell. The three
   surveillance officers later stated that they were satisfied that they
   had the correct man, as he "had mongolian eyes". Finally the bus
   arrived at Stockwell Tube station, 3.3km (2 miles) away.

   At some point during this journey, the pursuing officers contacted Gold
   Command, and reported that Menezes potentially matched the description
   of two of the previous day's suspects, including Osman Hussain. Based
   on this information, Gold Command authorized "code red" tactics, and
   ordered the surveillance officers to prevent Menezes from boarding a
   train. According to a "senior police source at Scotland Yard", Police
   Commander Cressida Dick told the surveillance team that the man was to
   be "detained as soon as possible", before entering the station. Gold
   Command then transferred control of the operation to SO19, which
   dispatched firearms officers to Stockwell Tube Station.

   At some point Menezes phoned a colleague, Gesio de Avila, saying he
   would be late due to the disruption of public transport caused by the
   previous day's attempted bombings.

   Menezes entered the Tube station at about 10:00 a.m., stopping to pick
   up a free Metro newspaper. He used his Oyster card to pay the fare,
   walked through the barriers, and descended the escalator slowly. He
   then ran across the platform to board the newly-arrived train. Menezes
   boarded the train and found one of the first available seats.

   Three surveillance officers, codenamed Hotel 1, Hotel 3 and Hotel 9,
   followed Menezes onto the train. According to Hotel 3, Menezes sat down
   with a glass panel to his right about two seats in. Hotel 3 then took a
   seat on the left with about two or three people between the
   surveillance officer and Menezes. When the firearms officers arrived on
   the platform, Hotel 3 moved to the door, blocked it from closing with
   their left foot, and shouted 'He's here!' to identify the suspect's
   location.

   The firearms officers boarded the train and challenged the suspect.
   According to Hotel 3, Menezes then stood up and advanced towards the
   officers and Hotel 3, at which point Hotel 3 grabbed him, pinned his
   arms against his torso, and pushed him back into the seat. Although
   Menezes was being restrained, his body was straight and not in a
   natural sitting position. After hearing a shot close to their ear, the
   surveillance officer was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage.
   Hotel 3 then shouted 'Police!' and with hands raised was dragged out of
   the carriage by one of the armed officers who had boarded the train.
   Hotel 3 then heard several gunshots while being dragged out. Two
   officers fired a total of eleven shots according to the number of empty
   shell casings found on the floor of the train afterwards. At close
   range, Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the
   shoulder. He died at the scene. An eyewitness later said that the
   eleven shots were fired over a thirty second period, at three second
   intervals. A separate witness reported hearing five shots, followed at
   an interval by several more shots. It later emerged that dum-dum
   bullets had been employed and a senior police source said that de
   Menezes had been "unrecognisable." Although the bullets are illegal in
   warfare, a Home Office spokesman said "Chief officers can use whatever
   ammunition they consider appropriate for the operational
   circumstances." Immediately after the shooting, the Metropolitan Police
   stated that the shooting was "directly linked" to the investigation of
   the attempted bombings the previous day. It was revealed that police
   policy toward suspected suicide bombers had been revised, instructing
   officers to fire directly toward the head, as British authorities state
   that shooting at the chest could detonate a concealed bomb.

   The SO19 firearms officers involved in the shooting were debriefed and
   drugs and alcohol tests were taken as a standard procedure. The
   officers were taken off duty pending an investigation into the
   shooting.

   Later, a security agency source said: “This take-out is the signature
   of a special forces operation. It is not the way the police usually do
   things. We know members of SO19 have been receiving training from the
   SAS, but even so, this has special forces written all over it.”

Aftermath of the shooting

   The day after the shooting, the Metropolitan Police identified the
   victim as Jean Charles de Menezes, and said that he had not been
   carrying explosives, nor was he connected in any way to the attempted
   bombings. They issued an apology describing the incident as "a tragedy,
   and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."

   Menezes's family condemned the shooting and rejected the apology. His
   grandmother said there was "no reason to think he was a terrorist." It
   was reported that the dead man's family were offered almost £585,000
   compensation.

   His cousin, Alex Alves Pereira, said, "I believe my cousin's death was
   result of police incompetence." Pereira said that police claims
   regarding the incident had been conflicting, and took issue with their
   pursuit of Menezes for an extended period and their allowing the
   "suspected suicide bomber" to board a bus. "Why did they let him get on
   a bus if they are afraid of suicide bombers?… He could have been
   running, but not from the police… When the Underground stops, everybody
   runs to get on the train. That he jumped over the barriers is a lie."

   The Brazilian government released a statement expressing its shock at
   the killing, saying that it looked forward "to receiving the necessary
   explanation from the British authorities on the circumstances which led
   to this tragedy." Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, who had already
   arranged to visit London, said he would seek a meeting with the UK's
   Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. He later met ministers and had a
   telephone conversation with Straw.

   The Muslim Council of Britain expressed immediate concern about the
   apparent existence of a " shoot-to-kill" policy and called on police to
   make clear their reasons for shooting the man dead.

Public reaction

   The reaction of the British public to the shooting was mixed. While
   some sympathised with the need for the police officer in question to
   make a split-second decision, and saw it as a case of collateral
   damage, others condemned the killings as an example of police
   brutality.

   The reaction of the Brazilian public was overwhelmingly negative.
   Protests and demonstrations were held in Brazil, and some Brazilian
   commentators noted that incidents such as Menezes' killing are more
   typical of a developing country such as Brazil than a developed nation
   like the UK.. The level of Brazilian protestation raised criticism with
   some British commentators who noted that extra-judicial executions by
   the police in Brazil are far from rare. An Amnesty International report
   published in 2004 pointed out that official figures show that in 2003
   police shot dead 915 people in São Paulo alone, while 1,195 were killed
   by police in Rio de Janeiro. Amnesty also reported that such deaths
   were rarely investigated. Others questioned whether the United Kingdom
   should use this standard to justify its own failing in this instance.

   A vigil at Stockwell Station was held with some of the relatives on the
   Sunday immediately following the shooting and police apology. Another,
   called by the Stop the War Coalition, was held on the 25 July. They
   state that a thousand people attended and then several hundred people,
   led by a group of Brazilians (some of whom had been friends with Jean
   Charles), began an impromptu demonstration. When they approached
   Westminster they were stopped and turned back by police at Vauxhall
   Bridge, the location of the MI6 building.

   On 23 August 2005 Dania Gorodi, whose sister Michelle Otto was killed
   in the 7 July 2005 London bombings, asked for an end to the criticism
   of Sir Ian Blair over the Menezes shooting, which she felt had moved
   the media focus away from the bombings. "People have lost sight of the
   bigger picture," she said. "We need to support the police right now,
   not crucify one man. This is unprecedented in British history. He [Sir
   Ian] is doing the best he can."

   When on 12 September 2006 the Metropolitan Police Authority promoted
   Commander Cressida Dick to the role of Deputy Assistant Commissioner,
   the family said they were "absolutely disgusted".

Independent Police Complaints Commission inquiry

   Several days after the discovery of the mistaken shooting, it was
   announced that the incident would be subject to an internal
   investigation by officers from Scotland Yard's Directorate of
   Professional Standards and would be referred to the Independent Police
   Complaints Commission (IPCC), as is the case with all fatal police
   shootings.

   In the hours immediately after the shooting, Commissioner Sir Ian Blair
   telephoned the Chairman of the IPCC and wrote a letter to the Home
   Office stating that "the shooting that has just occurred at Stockwell
   is not to be referred to the IPCC and that they will be given no access
   to the scene at the present time." The Commissioner's intent, according
   to the letter later released by the Met under the Freedom of
   Information Act, was to protect the tactics and sources of information
   used in a counter-terrorism operation from public disclosure.

Controversy between the Met and IPCC

   On 18 August, lawyers representing the Menezes family met with the IPCC
   and urged them to conduct a "fast" investigation. After the meeting the
   lawyers, Harriet Wistrich and Gareth Peirce, held a press conference
   where Ms. Peirce stated: "This has been a chaotic mess. What we have
   asked the IPCC to find out is how much is incompetence, negligence or
   gross negligence and how much of it is something sinister."

   On 18 August, the IPCC issued a statement in which they alleged that
   the "Metropolitan Police Service initially resisted us taking on the
   investigation". They also announced that the inquiry was expected to
   last between three and six months. Initial press reports indicated that
   the inquiry was not handed over until 27 July, though the IPCC itself
   announced it took over the inquiry on 25 July.

   In May 2006, the Metropolitan Police Federation released a 12-page
   statement which was highly critical of the IPCC in general, and
   specifically criticized the handling of the "Stockwell inquiry".

Leak of inquiry

   On 16 August 2005 British broadcast network ITV released a report said
   to be based on leaked documents from the IPCC investigation. The report
   conflicted with previous statements by Police Chief Sir Ian Blair. The
   Metropolitan Police and the IPCC refused comment on the allegations
   while the IPCC investigation was ongoing, though an anonymous 'senior
   police source' claimed that the leak was accurate. Lana Vandenberghe,
   the IPCC secretary thought to be responsible for the leak, was
   suspended.

   The IPCC launched an investigation into the leaking of the documents.
   On 21 September Leicestershire Constabulary Serious Crime Unit
   initiated dawn raids on behalf of the IPCC on one Scottish and two
   London residential premises, at which time Vandenberghe was arrested.
   On 5 October two more dawn raids took place, during which ITN
   journalist Neil Garrett and his girlfriend were arrested.

   On 4 May 2006 the Leicestershire Police and the Crown Prosecution
   Service announced that no charges would be filed against Vandenberghe,
   Garrett or his partner.

Completion of Stockwell 1

   According to a press release made on 9 December by the IPCC's chairman
   Nick Hardwick and John Tate, its Director of Legal Services, the
   inquiry's report will list some of the criminal offences that the
   commission thought may have been committed by police. Though without
   having reached any conclusions, they also admitted the commission's
   judgement would be a "lower threshold" than the standard prosecutors
   would apply in making any final decision to prosecute.

   On March 14, 2006, the IPCC announced that the first part of the
   inquiry, known as "Stockwell 1" had been completed and recommendations
   were passed on to the Metropolitan Police Authority and Crown
   Prosecution Service, but the report "[could not] be made public until
   all legal processes have concluded."

Stockwell 2

   "Stockwell 2", the second part of the inquiry, is said to focus on the
   conduct of Sir Ian Blair following the discovery of Menezes' identity,
   and is still continuing.

Brian Paddick

   On 17 March 2006, the Met was threatened with legal action by Deputy
   Assistant Commissioner, Brian Paddick. In evidence to the IPCC, Paddick
   had stated that a member of Sir Ian's private office team believed the
   wrong man had been targeted just six hours after the shooting, contrary
   to the official line taken at the time. When this information became
   public, Scotland Yard issued a statement that the officer making the
   claim (Paddick) "has categorically denied this in his interview with,
   and statement to, the IPCC investigators". The statement continued that
   they "were satisfied that whatever the reasons for this suggestion
   being made, it is simply not true." Paddick's interpretation of this
   statement was that it accused him of lying.

   After a statement was released on 28 March by the Met that it "did not
   intend to imply" a senior officer had misled the probe into the
   shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, Mr. Paddick accepted the
   "clarification" and considered the matter closed.

Result of CPS investigation

   In July 2006, the Crown Prosecution Service announced it would not
   carry forward any charges against any individual involved in the
   shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. The Metropolitan Police will,
   however, face charges under Sections 3 and 33 of the Health and Safety
   at Work Act 1974 for "failing to provide for the health, safety and
   welfare of Jean Charles de Menezes". The decision not to prosecute
   individuals was made on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

   The Metropolitan Police entered a not guilty plea to the charges,
   "after the most careful consideration". The trial date has been set for
   October 2007.

Controversy over police procedure

   Much discussion following the shooting centred around the rules of
   engagement followed by armed police when dealing with suspected suicide
   bombers. Roy Ramm, a former commander of specialist operations for the
   Metropolitan Police, said that the rules had been changed to permit
   officers to " shoot to kill" potential suicide bombers, because a head
   shot is the only way to disable the bomber without risking detonating
   their explosives.

   The possibility of a police confrontation with a suicide bomber in the
   United Kingdom had reportedly been discussed following the terrorist
   attacks of 11 September 2001 in the United States. Based on this
   possibility, new guidelines were developed for identifying,
   confronting, and dealing forcefully with terrorist suspects. These
   guidelines were given the code name " Operation Kratos".

   Based in part on advice from the security forces of Israel and Sri
   Lanka — two countries with experience of suicide bombings — Operation
   Kratos guidelines allegedly state that the head or lower limbs should
   be aimed at when a suspected suicide bomber appears to have no
   intention of surrendering. This is contrary to the usual practice of
   aiming at the torso, which presents the biggest target. A successful
   hit to the torso may detonate an explosive belt.

   Sir Ian Blair appeared on television on 24 July 2005 to accept
   responsibility for the error on the part of the Metropolitan Police,
   and to acknowledge and defend the "shoot to kill" policy, saying:

          "There is no point in shooting at someone's chest because that
          is where the bomb is likely to be. There is no point in shooting
          anywhere else if they fall down and detonate it."

   The Met's commissioner Sir Ian Blair, and his predecessor Lord Stevens,
   had expressed concern about the legal position of police officers who
   might kill suspected suicide bombers. There is no explicit legal
   requirement for armed officers to warn a suspect before firing,
   although guidelines published by the Association of Chief Police
   Officers say that this "should be considered". A potential suicide
   bomber is thought to represent a circumstance where warning the suspect
   may put the public at greater risk because the bomber may detonate his
   explosives after being warned.

   Lord Stevens defended the policy he introduced, despite the error that
   had been made. Azzam Tamimi of the Muslim Association of Britain was
   critical, saying: "I just cannot imagine how someone pinned to the
   ground can be a source of danger." Other leaders of the UK's Muslim
   community took a similar view. Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London,
   defended the police as having acted in the way they thought appropriate
   at the time, and with the aim of protecting the public.

The Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign

   On 16 August 2005, the Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign, also
   known as "Justice4Jean", began calling for a public inquiry into the
   shooting. In 2005, the Justice4Jean campaign stated its aims as being
   to:
     * find out the truth about Jean’s unlawful killing
     * bring those responsible for his death to justice
     * end the ‘Shoot to Kill’ policy and so prevent a similar tragedy
       happening again

   A fourth objective, "to campaign against the rising tide of racism and
   the attack on civil liberties in the UK", was removed from the site in
   a subsequent site redesign, but was present at the site's inception and
   in early press releases.

   As there has been no legal process to assess the lawfulness or
   otherwise of the killing, critics argue that the inclusion of
   'unlawful' in the Campaign's first aim reflects a prejudging of the
   issue. Critics such as Conservative Party London Assemblyman Brian
   Coleman have suggested that the involvement of Asad Rehman, a former
   leader of the Stop the War Coalition and adviser to MP George Galloway,
   in the Justice4Jean campaign shows that the family's campaign had been
   "hijacked" and the death of Menezes was being used to "advance a
   political aim."

   Galloway's secretary said that Rehman was acting in "a personal
   capacity, … not in his role as political adviser". Menezes family
   members Alessandro Pereira and Vivien Figueiredo have stated that "the
   campaign is not using or manipulating us."

   The family campaign has organised three events in 2005:
     * On 29 July 2005, a vigil in Parliament Square and a multifaith
       memorial service at Westminster Cathedral were held at the same
       time as Jean's funeral in Brazil.
     * On 22 August 2005, a petition asking for a public inquiry was
       delivered to Downing Street by Menezes family member Alessandro
       Pereira and members of Justice4Jean. The protestors made their way
       from Downing Street to Scotland Yard, together with the relatives
       of Paul Coker and Azelle Rodney, individuals who also died in
       London police incidents in 2005.
     * On 10 October 2005, the campaign was publicly launched at the
       London School of Economics with Menezes' parents, the family lawyer
       Gareth Peirce, Bianca Jagger, Matthew Taylor MP and Irene Khan from
       Amnesty International.

Similar incidents

   The Metropolitan Police have been involved in a number of other
   incidents in which innocent people have been injured or killed by
   gunshot, such as:
     * 1983 – Stephen Waldorf, shot and injured whilst driving a Mini car.
       Police were looking for escaped prisoner David Martin, believed
       Waldorf's girlfriend Sue Stephens was Martin's girlfriend, and on
       this basis shot Waldorf. Two officers stood trial for attempted
       murder and attempted wounding but were cleared of all charges;
       Waldorf made a full recovery and eventually received £150,000
       compensation.

     * 1999 – Harry Stanley, 46, from Hackney, East London, was shot and
       killed by Metropolitan Police officers who apparently had mistaken
       a chair-leg being carried in a plastic bag for a firearm.

     * On 2 June 2006, two family homes were raided in an operation
       involving 250 police in Forest Gate, east London. Both men who were
       arrested were released without charge. One man, Abdul Kahar, was
       shot in the shoulder by police. The raid was based on faulty
       intelligence.

     * On 2 November 2006 BBC CEEFAX and ITV Teletext reported that one of
       the officers involved in the de Menezes shooting had been involved
       in the killing of another person, this time on Tuesday 31 Oct 2006
       during an alleged armed robbery at the New Romney branch of the
       Nationwide Building Society. The person, later named as Robert
       Bruce Haines, a 41 year old company director from Ashford, Kent,
       was reported as having later died in the William Harvey Hospital
       from multiple gunshot wounds.

   Other UK police forces have been involved in similar incidents:
     * 1988 – the Attorney General announced that eleven RUC officers
       investigated by the Stalker/Sampson inquiry into an alleged "shoot
       to kill" policy would not be prosecuted. International criticism
       followed.
     * 1998 – James Ashley, 39, was shot and killed by Sussex Police while
       naked and unarmed during a drugs raid at his flat in St Leonards in
       East Sussex.

   British military forces have also faced legal consequences in at least
   one similar incident:
     * 1988 – three IRA operatives were shot dead in Gibraltar by SAS
       soldiers, allegedly under a "shoot to kill" policy intended to
       prevent them from operating any detonator on their person. The
       three people killed had no explosives or detonators on them,
       although a timed car bomb was found later. They had been under
       surveillance for some time prior to the incident. The European
       Court of Human Rights held, by majority, that there was an
       opportunity to stop them at an earlier stage without having to
       shoot them and accordingly their right to life had been infringed.

   Use of deadly force in anti-terrorism policies resulted in a similar
   event in the USA:
     * December 2005 – Rigoberto Alpizar was fatally shot at Miami
       International Airport by two United States of America Federal Air
       Marshals in similar circumstances.

Disputed facts and events

   Many of the "disputed" facts in this section were very quickly
   resolved. Some were later demonstated as being patently false and to be
   fabrications of various "eyewitnesses" and journalists.

   Disputed facts include:

Clothing

   With regards to his dress on the day of the shooting The Observer
   reported that he was dressed in "baseball cap, blue fleece and baggy
   trousers." Mark Whitby, a witness to the shooting, told Reuters that he
   observed Menezes wearing a large winter coat, which "looked out of
   place". Vivien Figueiredo, a cousin of Menezes, was later told by
   police that Menezes was wearing a denim jacket on the day of the
   shooting. Anthony Larkin, another eyewitness, told the BBC that Menezes
   appeared to be wearing a " bomb belt with wires coming out."

   Based on these eyewitness reports, press speculation at the time said
   that wearing such heavy clothing on a warm day raised suspicions that
   Menezes was hiding explosives underneath, and was therefore a potential
   suicide bomber. At the time of the shooting, the temperature in London
   (at a Heathrow Airport weather station) was about 17  °C (62  °F).

   No device resembling a bomb belt was reported as found. Menezes was
   also not carrying a tool bag, since he had left it with his work
   colleague the previous evening. According to the report on leaked IPCC
   documents, Menezes was wearing a pair of jeans and a light denim
   jacket. This was confirmed by a photo of his body on the floor of the
   carriage after the shooting.

Police challenge

   Police initially stated that they challenged Menezes and ordered him to
   stop outside Stockwell station. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir
   Ian Blair said in a press conference that a warning was issued prior to
   the shooting. Lee Ruston, an eyewitness who was waiting on the
   platform, said the police did not identify themselves. The Times
   reported "senior police sources" as saying that police policy would not
   require a warning to be given to a suspected suicide bomber before
   lethal action was taken.

   The leaked IPCC documents indicated that Menezes was seated on the
   train carriage when the SO19 armed unit arrived. A shout of 'police'
   may have been made, but the suspect never really had an opportunity to
   respond before he was shot. The leaked documents indicated that he was
   restrained by an unarmed officer before being shot.

Ticket barrier

   Witnesses stated that up to twenty police officers in plain clothes
   pursued Menezes into Stockwell station, that he jumped over the ticket
   barrier, ran down an escalator and tried to jump onto a train. The
   Menezes' family were briefed by the police that their son did not jump
   over the ticket barrier and may have used a Travelcard to pass through.

   The pathologist's post mortem report, which was written in the presence
   of senior police officers five days after the shooting, recorded that
   Jean “vaulted over the ticket barriers” and that he “ran down the
   stairs of the tube station”. By this time the police knew that this
   version of events was incorrect.

   Police initially refused to release CCTV footage while the IPCC
   investigation was ongoing, even to the family. It had been suggested
   that the man reported by eyewitnesses as jumping over the barrier, may
   have been one of the police officers in pursuit.

   According to the leaked IPCC documents, Menezes passed through the
   barrier normally using his pre-paid Oyster card.

CCTV footage

   Initial UK media reports suggested that no CCTV footage was available
   from the Stockwell station, as recording media had not been replaced
   after being removed for examination after the previous day's attempted
   bombings. Other reports stated that faulty cameras on the platform were
   the reason for the lack of video evidence. An anonymous source
   confirmed that CCTV footage was available for the ticket area, but that
   there was a problem with the platform coverage. The source suggested
   that there was no useful CCTV footage from the platform or the train
   carriage.

   Extracts from a later police report stated that examination of the
   platform cameras had produced no footage. It said: "It has been
   established that there has been a technical problem with the CCTV
   equipment on the relevant platform and no footage exists." It also
   reported there was no footage from CCTV in the carriage where Mr.
   Menezes was shot, saying "Although there was on-board CCTV in the
   train, due to previous incidents, the hard drive had been removed and
   not replaced."

   The platform CCTV system is maintained by the Tube Lines consortium in
   charge of maintaining the Northern Line; unofficial sources from inside
   the company insisted that the cameras were in working order. It was
   also reported that London Underground sources insisted that at least
   three of the four cameras trained on the Stockwell Tube platform were
   in full working order, and rejected suggestions that the cameras had
   not been fitted with new tapes after police took away footage from the
   previous day, 21 July, when suspects in the failed bombings caught
   trains there.

Motivations

   Several reasons were initially posited by media sources and family
   members for why Menezes may have run from police, as indicated by
   initial reports. A few weeks prior, he had been attacked by a gang and
   may have relived the situation upon seeing plainclothes officers
   chasing him. Several sources have speculated that irregularities about
   his immigration status may have given him reason to be wary of the
   police. Menezes' student visa had expired, he was working illegally and
   some suggest fearful of being deported by authorities. The Sydney
   Morning Herald reported that a work colleague believed that Menezes ran
   simply because he was late for his job.

   It was later indicated by the leaked IPCC documents that Menezes ran
   across the platform apparently to get a seat on the train, but did not
   know at the time that he was being watched or pursued.

Gunshots

   It was initially stated by police that Menezes was shot five times in
   the head. Mark Whitby, a passenger on the train Menezes had run onto,
   said: "one of [the police officers] was carrying a black handgun—it
   looked like an automatic—He half tripped… they pushed him to the floor,
   bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him." Another
   passenger, Dan Copeland, said: "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." Menezes' cousin Alex
   Pereira, who lived with him, asserted that Menezes had been shot from
   behind: "I pushed my way into the morgue. They wouldn't let me see him.
   His mouth was twisted by the wounds and it looked like he had been shot
   from the back of the neck." Later reports confirmed that Jean Charles
   de Menezes was shot a total of eight times: seven times in the head and
   once in the shoulder.

   The leaked IPCC documents also indicated that an additional three shots
   had missed Menezes. One witness claimed that the shots were evenly
   distributed over a timespan of thirty seconds. However this has not
   been substantiated by other witness reports or the leaked IPCC
   documents.

Involvement of special forces

   Several commentators suggested that special forces may have been
   involved in the shooting. Professor Michael Clarke, Professor of
   Defence Studies at King's College London, went as far as to say that
   unless there had been a major change in policy it was likely that it
   was not the police who had carried out the shooting, but special
   forces:

          "To have bullets pumped into him like this suggests quite a lot
          about him and what the authorities, whoever they are, assumed
          about him. The fact that he was shot in this way strongly
          suggests that it was someone the authorities knew and suspected
          he was carrying explosives on him. […] You don't shoot somebody
          five times if you think you might have made a mistake and may be
          able to arrest him. […] Even Special Branch and SO19 are not
          trained to do this sort of thing. It's plausible that they were
          special forces or elements of special forces."

   Later, on 4 August 2005, The Guardian reported that the newly-created
   Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR), a special forces unit
   specialising in covert surveillance, were involved in the operation
   that led to the shooting. The anonymous Whitehall sources who provided
   the story stressed that the SRR were involved only in
   intelligence-gathering, and that Menezes was shot by armed police not
   by members of the SRR or other soldiers. Defence sources would not
   comment on speculation that SRR soldiers were among the plainclothes
   officers who followed Menezes on to the No. 2 bus. On 21 August, the
   Sunday Herald reported that SRR men are believed to have been in the
   tube train when the shooting occurred.

Unfounded rape allegations

   In February 2006, a woman claimed to police that a man who resembled
   Menezes attacked her in a hotel room on New Year's Eve 2002 in West
   London. Scotland Yard spent several weeks investigating the claim.
   After the claim was made public in March 2006, the Menezes family
   denied the allegations and claimed that the Met was trying to "smear"
   Menezes. Although the family initially resisted giving the claim any
   credibility, a blood sample was eventually taken with their permission
   from Menezes's autopsy. On 25 April 2006 Scotland Yard announced that
   forensic tests on the sample had cleared Menezes.

   Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes"
   This reference article is mainly selected from the English Wikipedia
   with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details
   of authors and sources) and is available under the GNU Free
   Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer.
