Jean Charles de Menezes

Submitted by Andrew Milner (Japan), Oct 25, 2007 at 02:14

With the verdict on the de Menezes Health and Safety trial still outstanding, one thing is becoming increasingly obvious to me. Namely, that Mr. de Menezes was not shot by members of the Metropolitan Police Service. The MET provided the surveillance and so-called intelligence, but this job was just too dirty for the MET. So for my money it was the SAS (or whatever they call themselves these days). Because; - hollow point ammunition (so-called dum-dum). Regular cops don't use this, they are prohibited from using it, so why would they even have this type of ammunition? - customised weaponry.

No way would the regular police be allowed to modify their own firearms - the exceptional delay in deploying the hard lads with the military training. Took four hours, and that's about the time by road from the SAS base in Hereford. - look at the MO: No shouted warning, excessive ammunition expended. Think back to those three IRA terrorists shot in Gibraltar. Same overkill. Same total disregard for third parties. - examine Ms. Dick's court demeanour. If the above is anything like accurate it really wasn't her fault. She didn't give the order to kill.

After all, neither before or since has there been a case a suicide bomber strapping on the "semtex waistcoat". - why would anyone that screwed up so badly as Ms. Dick be promoted? Obviously she had to kept on side. No, the SAS brushed aside the MET and blew the Brazilian's head off. As soon as they searched his pockets they realised with as almost total certainty they'd killed an innocent man. So straight into cover-up mode.

Remove all the surveillance tapes (this alone is perverting the course of justice) and let the MET carry the can. After all, it was police incompetence that put them in shoot-to-kill mode by wrongly identifying de Menezes as Hussein Osman. And the poor communications environment of the Underground tunnels compounded the problem, effectively preventing them being called off until it was too late. Of course it's the cover-up that will out them in the end. Either that or the white wash will make "Police State" undeniable. What you have is a state within a state.

Remember what Blair (that's Tony, not Ian) said: "I support the police 101%". The police, note well. My government would never do anything that wicked? Well dream on, because they just did. Assume the "in crowd" are already aware of all this and more, but cannot speak out. However, a blog from out of left field may just generate a bit of steam and get the ball rolling.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".