Robin Wilton's esoterica

Very disturbing news has started to emerge about the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian resident of London killed by police on July 22nd. (See also my blog entry here.) Here are links to three of the reports from today's media: BBC News online The Guardian newspaper The Times newspaper As before, I have to qualify this: this information comes from leaked documents allegedly describing evidence given to the Independent Police Complaints Commission enquiry into the shooting. Naturally, as that enquiry is still in progress, neither the IPCC, the Home Office nor Scotland Yard will comment on the leak. If you remember, the information which was given out at the time included the following factors cited in support of the shooting: 1 - He emerged from a building which they had under surveillance in the wake of other recent attacks; 2 - He was of generally "Mediterranean" appearance (and yes, I know, neither Brazil nor Pakistan are Mediterranean countries...); 3 - He was wearing a padded jacket despite the warm (for the UK) weather; 4 - He ran for it when challenged, heading down into the underground and onto a train. And I noted at the time that... These factors now seem to have the following explanations:
1 - coincidence 2 - he was Brazilian 3 - unclear (perhaps see 2...) 4 - his visa had expired. Since that time, Mr de Menezes' family has denied that his visa had expired, casting doubt on the question of whether he had a strong reason to want to steer clear of the police. Disturbingly, the leaked documents and supporting photographic/CCTV evidence are now also said seriously to undermine this and the other factors cited. 1 - Although he emerged from a building under surveillance, the officer who should have been in a position to identify him as a suspect (or not) was 'taking a leak' at the time; 2 - The "armed team had been given photographs of alleged bombers, yet no one realised that Mr de Menezes bore no resemblance to them" (from the Times article); 3 - He was not in fact wearing inappropriately bulky clothing; 4 - He apparently entered the tube station calmly and normally, and was already seated on the train when challenged and shot. He didn't 'vault the ticket barriers' but used his season ticket in the normal way. Clearly the full truth has yet to come out, and that raises three critical questions: First, how can the IPCC evidence be so damningly at odds with the version originally put out by the police? Second, what effect will this have on public faith in the enforcement of the even more stringent anti-terrorist measures recently brought forward by the UK government? Third, what are we to make of the catastrophic failure in operational control, if the leaked details are accurate? Remember that, in the context of the London bombings on 7/7 and the attempted bombings on 21/7, the argument being put forward was that "if a suicide bomb attack is imminent, the bomber has to be incapacitated at once". Thus the repeated shots to the victim's head. But here's the real nub of it (from the Guardian article): The IPCC investigation report states that the firearms unit had been told that "unusual tactics" might be required and if they "were deployed to intercept a subject and there was an opportunity to challenge, but if the subject was non-compliant, a critical shot may be taken". Note the phrase "an opportunity to challenge". According to the leaked reports, Mr Menezes was shadowed onto the train by an undercover officer, both of them took seats, and then an undercover officer 'guided four armed officers onto the train'. Mr Menezes was physically restrained and then shot. As I said originally - I would not want to have to make the decisions which those officers made on the day; however, this account is inconsistent with the version we were allowed to believe at the time. There does seem to have been "an opportunity to challenge", and this calls into doubt whether the apparent threat was so immediate as to justify immediate incapacitation. As I say, the truth clearly is yet to emerge, but this episode, however I look at it, leaves a foul taste in the mouth.