We were told that the CCTV footage of the fatal incident was not available because the media from the cameras had been removed before the shooting so that detectives could examine them for clues relating to the failed 21/7 bombings.
Not so. The tapes were ‘blank’.
According to the print edition of tonight’s Evening Standard:
Senior Tube sources have told the Evening Standard that three CCTV cameras trained on the platform at Stockwell station were in full working order. The source spoke out after it emerged that police had returned the tapes taken from the cameras saying” “These are no good to us. They are blank.”
A station log book has no reported faults concerning the CCTV cameras which would have been expected to record the crucial moments as Mr. de Menezes approach the train on 22 July.
Ok, so the cameras were working but the tapes are…blank. Of course just because everything else the authorities have said (the victim ran from the police, he was wearing an unseasonable padded jacket, he jumped the ticket barriers, he was not restrained when he was shot dead) has been a lie, we should not jump to the conclusion that the videos from these fully functional cameras were blank because some member of The Plod put them in a machine and pressed ‘ERASE’, right? I mean, without any evidence that would be jumping to conclusions, right?
I don’t see how Sir Ian Blair, head of the Met., can survive this. This is a major scandal.
Holy crap! I mean I usually pooh-pooh conspiricy theories and libertarian rantings against the police but SERIOUSLY, HOLY CRAP! This isn’t subtle.
Modern forensics are plenty good enough to recover data from an erased tape. Unfortunately, guess who’s in charge of the forensics?
The anarchic moral of this story is that one justice system is never enough. Ironically, by sheer fluke this case actually does involve more than one justice system. Specifically, the Brazilian one.
I wonder if the Brazilians can ship one of their own boffins over to take a look at those tapes?
This is actually genuinely scary stuff.
Julian,
You are assuming the tapes returned are indeed the ones that were given to the police. Lord knows I don’t usually give the piggies much credit, but I can see them being a bit smarter than to hand back the originals if they at all can possibly get away with it.
Julian Morrison wrote:
“Modern forensics are plenty good enough to recover data from an erased tape. Unfortunately, guess who’s in charge of the forensics?”
There are private companies and individuals that can do this too. However, they first have to have the real tape, and I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if the cops “returned” blank tapes of the right brand and melted down the real ones.
Lets not forget that when the familes said they were offered compensation which was immediatly denied by the Met, then a couple of hours later of course we found out they had in fact offered them compensation. It’s like they can’t tell the truth about anything.
Private forensic companies tend to get a lot of work from government departments. I can’t honestly see them being likely to queer their pitch on future contracts…
About the compensation thing, they’re not strictly lying, they’re playing word games. What they offered was “out of the goodness of their hearts”, with no admission of fault nor even regret. In other words, about the most insulting sort of deniable hush money possible. I’m not in the least suprised it was turned down.
I don’t know why everyone is so surprised about the CCTVs – the Met have plenty form for fitting up the evidence for this sort of thing. (Another reason why the IPCC was set up).
I started out by subscribing to a “pys-op” conspiracy theory (Mets took out JC, after assuming he was a Muslim, to get quick PR victory and send message to other would-be bombers). Now I am beginning to think it is just plain incompetence.
scenario= Surveillance squad reports in they are following suspect, told not to arrest, in case dangerous, wait for gun squad “but on no account let him board tube”. But gun squad is late so JC gets on tube with surveillance following. Officers from gun squad rush to underground, surveillance squad finds him on train, immobilises him in head lock while another cop blocks foot in train door and yells here he is. Gun squad, super hyped now at prospect of suicide bomber fleeing rush on train and unload their guns into him.
Naturally if the tapes show this they will have been found to be “faulty”.
Incidentally I don’t blame Sir Ian Blair – if you have renegades on your staff – and setting up operating units with special unchallenged privileges tends to lead to this – then they may not tell you what they are doing and will almost certainly close ranks and conceal what happened when they are caught out in some failed op.
The question is of course how safe the rest of us are with this bunch of loons running Operation Kratos. Don’t imagine this hasn’t occurred to the government, I suspect Commander PC has been told he has a month to sort it out or else…..
Incidentally it was announced tonight the inquest has been reconvened to hear IPCC evidence. Didn’t the the police tell the last inquest that JC had failed to respond to challenge, vaulted barriers etc? The pathologist (?) who carried autoposy on JC is also facing hearing to strike him off for omitting vital evidence in another case. Can anyone confirm this?
Finally I read somewhere that Sir Ian is a top freemason. I have nothing against freemasons (my best friends etc…) but wasn’t there a ruling after the scandals in the Met of the 1970s that freemasons could not be Chief Constable?
roxette
Oh dear, I can see Mr de Havilland making another appearance on the BBC’s namin’ ‘n shamin’ list!
(Link)
It’s interesting to watch the MSM trying to spin this one back at bloggers.
I do hope they have the good grace to wince when they read what we think of the corporation!
Bet you someone has a copy…
Jullian: “I wonder if the Brazilians can ship one of their own boffins over to take a look at those tapes?” It looks like they have shipped two.
Yeah, right ‘course cops only fit up people dun they. I mean, like – stands to reason dun it?
No they don’t have ‘plenty form’ for that, West Midlands RCS maybe does, but not the Met. Oh, and there has ALWAYS been an IPCC – just in differing forms.
One question I haven’t seen mention of anywhere regarding the statement that the CCTV media had been removed for reviewing of the previous day’s footage is would that be standard procedure to remove media and leave cameras with no media to record the current day’s events? The statement became highly suspicious at that point and was then added to by no MSM interviewer or reporter asking this obvious question that I’m sure would have been thought up by almost any schoolkid.
Always been an independent police complaints body? Predecessor to the IPCC -are we talking the Police Complaints Authority here?. That had very little control or influence over the Met. Remember the Morris Inquiry?. I seem to recall it calling for ” a root and branch reform of the way the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is managed.” Among its recommendations were:A fundamental review of how the MPS investigates complaints against its officers and Greater scrutiny of the MPS’s work by the Police Authority. Before that wasn’t there Operation Gallery led by Sir Ian himself to root out corruption and what was Sir Robert Mark up to earlier? perhaps you could remind me.
Meanwhile gnarled hack Michael Crick was wheeled onto Newsnight to night to say the police had just announced that they had briefed the family with the correct version of what happened (ie the IPCC version) on 24th July so why were they bleating about lies being circulated? (His sub text was the police had been honest all along and their opponents should all shut up.)
Hello? JC’s cousins announced at their first press conference that their police liaison officer had told them that JC was wearing a denim jacket, did not vault the barrier etc – and they asked why the Met was not making this clear but allowing a flawed and untrue version of events to circulate. (Indeed the Telegraph at the weekend said senior police officers had been phoning them all week spinning stories which showed JC in a light which had made it valid for the police to suspect him).
Michael Crick also said the visiting Brazilian delegation had stated publicly that they did not believe there was any cover up. I wonder if that was before or after the Evening Standard item about the CCTV cameras.
I dunno, maybe Mr Crick is writing Sir Ian’s biography…….
rockette
You have to consider the implications of releasing tapes of agents in action. Even if their identities are not directly revealed there may well be security implications. Dont lose sight of the fact that these are men dedicated to protecting civilians and frequently risk their lives to do so
FH
Well thanks for that FH. I don’t know what came over us.
i dont know if you have ever been placed in a situation like the one with Menzies, i havnt so mayb im missing something, but i was under the impression that there was reason to believe that he had a bomb. You know, the running away and teh big coat in the hight of summer.
If you had to choose between killing one man or the likelyhood of him killing 50, what would you choose.
you have 1 second to choose, mind you
id cut these guys a small amount of slack
fh
rockette writes:
“I dunno, maybe Mr Crick is writing Sir Ian’s biography”
As someone else suggested earlier, there is certainly something strange going on with the BBC’s coverage of this story. Crick isn’t known for his pro-establishment stance. Nor is ITN known for… well, anything at all, really.
Let’s have all official CCTV cameras linked up to the internet. That way, any which unfortunately break down can be resolved to ensure that the evidence which would no doubt clear police officers can be preserved.
“i was under the impression that there was reason to believe that he had a bomb. You know, the running away and teh big coat in the hight of summer.”
All this has been contradicted.But the main point is where did Mr Menezes change from a surveillance target to a suspected bomber,whilst he was being followed during his ten minute walk,on the bus they let him get on, near the tube station,in the entrance to the station,walking to the train,on the platform????????
Why did they let him get that far???
fh wrote: i havnt so mayb im missing something
Er, yeah. The guys here were initially supportive because of the reasons you quoted. But when the facts turned out to be very different (i.e. none of the things you mention were true), so the ‘benefit of the doubt’ was withdrawn.
fh’s comments illustrate why it was so important for the police to get their initial story into the public’s mind without contradiction. I wonder how many people are thinking “Oh, that Brazilian bloke with the heavy coat who ran away when he was challenged, what were the police meant to do?”.
The Met Police seem to have learned the lessons of the Reichstag fire pretty well.
As to Michael Crick on Newsnight, as I have said, the BBC are bending over backwards not to make waves over this. I guess no-one wants to be this year’s Dyke or Gilligan. The Beeb has learned its lesson. We are in year 8 of the project. Pragmatists know they have to conform. If you are disloyal to the Dear Leader you might just end up dead in a forest clearing next to your blunt penknife.
It seems also, that there was a CCTV system inside the train, but its hard drive had been “removed” so no data is available from it.
All these concurrent failures are more than a bit suspicious, no?
sark
if he had been carrying a bomb would you still believe that the police were wrong to shoot him?
You are saying that because there was no bomb it was wrong.
It was either wrong or not REGARDLESS of weather or not he was carrying a bomb.
fh, you need to go back and read this, then this and finally this before adding more comments as all this has been discussed at great length.
The policy of shooting dead a person reasonably thought to be a suicide bomber is probably the correct one. But in this case, there seems to be no good reason to reasonably suspect the hapless Brazilian was a suicice bomber. THAT is the issue.
I hate to be picky, but Julian (to whom I mean no offence) should look up the meaning of the word forensic before he starts talking about things like “modern forensics”.
To save the trouble, forensic literally means “for the court”. Thus all evidence collected for court purposes is forensic. However, it is not all scientific.
Otherwise “forensic science” would be tautological.
I think he meant to write ‘modern scientific techniques’.
Sorry, but the incorrect use of the word ‘forensic’ (the BBC is one of the worst offenders) really irritates me!
fh,
If Mr Menezes was thought to be carrying a bomb,why was he allowed to get as far as he did.
The whole argument about shooting someone carrying a bomb is specious since all the bombers in this country have been anonymous and clandestine.
The chances of armed police catching a verifiable bomber in the act are slim.How often are the police there in time to catch a potential murderer? If terrorists are captured it will be in a raid at a “safe house” in the early hours of the morning
It now appears, from tonight’s Evening Standard, that the officers directly involved in this sad affair are to be hung out to dry by the “establishment” (the manipulatory Crass Ides of Dickless) to the extent that they may now be facing criminal charges.
Amazing how quickly politicians forget about the events of 7/7 and 21/7 isn’t it?
It also now appears that St Jean-Charles-Le-Martyr got off the bus in Brixon at 9:47 and reboarded at 9:49.
(Link)
Excellent link, Verity! Thanks for that. I’m growing a little tired of “nuanced” responses to Islamic fascism and Rotty’s more robust position seems closer to my inclination. I’ll keep an eye on that one.
Verity,
If one travels regularly by public transport there is a wonderful and bountiful cavalcade of human derangement whirling by constantly.In London it is eccentricity writ large.
No I think there were thoughs of Dame Cressida Dick,perhaps even Baroness Dick were floating through the air whilst hard decisions were being made.It was a sloppy operation.
Don’t buy it, Peter. Something about this guy does not ring true.
No, Verity. You desperately _want_ to believe something about de Menezes doesn’t ring true, that he did something to bring death upon himself. Because then you can glide on smugly through your life, certain that you and your friends, being the Right Sort of People, will never have to fear being pulled from your daily life and having a last moment of terror as your head is filled with bullets by agents of the state.
Wha’…?
It’s the only conclusion I can draw from your ludicrous insistence that there’s something odd about things like a Brazilian emigrating to the UK to look for better opportunities.
Something is running around under the carpet. What is it?
tavella – just as an aside, as opposed to Stazi-style “agents of the state”, would it be better to have my head filled with bullets by “enemies of the state”? … as in oh, off the top of my head, given that the top of my head would be gone anyway, Muslim terrorists?
My friends, who are The Right Sort of People, and I are, between sips of a rather droll – not to say downright hysterical – Merlot, gagging to know.
Who sent you, tavella?
It now appears, from tonight’s Evening Standard, that the officers directly involved in this sad affair are to be hung out to dry by the “establishment” (the manipulatory Crass Ides of Dickless) to the extent that they may now be facing criminal charges.
Mm.
Are the supervisors who allowed their subordinates to commit possibly criminal acts also going to be hung out to dry?
Methinks that if gross incompetence is what caused this, it is not confined to the poor guys who pulled the trigger.
Assuming the CCTV tapes are used in rotation you should be able to prove whether the returned tape was ever used in rotation by applying the same forensic technique. The cops might be smart enough to substitute a blank tape, but maybe not smart enough to substitute a blank tape that used to have CCTV footage from the same camera.
Actually, yes, I’d find it a lot worse to be killed by police than terrorists; terrorists I’m allowed to fight back against, or at least flee from. In the case of police, either option would merely be used as posthumous justification for the murder, even if they had intended to execute it no matter my actions. Which was the case for poor de Menezes, as far as can be told.
As for who sent me — what a strange question. I’ve been lurking and following the story, and your accumulated will to be obtuse finally tipped me over into posting.
Deleted. This commenter has been banned for previously posting under multiple personalities.
Victorino says “he was a dark-skinned young man” … strange then, that his description by the police, on the record, when they were surveilling the building was “young white man”.
” Dr” Victorino de la Vega writes;
“the Met seems to be learning real fast the exemplary teachings of US “snake eaters” and other Israeli paratroopers…”
Is there no way of ridding ourselves of this repellent Nazi?
Some of the bloggers I read claim that editing their comments and re-directing any links back to their website tends to drive them off.
Apparently the motivation of many trolls is to get attention (and hits on their site), once they figure out that they’re being laughed at and no hits will be forthcoming, they tend to go away.
So replacing his comment with something utterly contrary to what he wrote and re-directing the link to his homepage to something else (whitehouse.gov, Disney.com, japanese enema pr0n…) will probably do the trick.
Strange how the police managed to execute a perfectly innocent man but took great care to preserve the life of the (presumed) real would-be bombers. One would like to think that it was merely another example of bumbling police incompetence a la shooting a man dead in the back dead because he was carrying a chair leg, Stephen Waldorf etc etc ad infinitum. However, the involvement of the seriously creepy ‘Sir’ Ian Blair points to something altogether more sinister than just another Laurel and Hardy style police cock-up that we are all used to.
That fact that freemason Blair was at pains to point out that the shoot-to-kill policy would stay, and also that further innocent lives would be lost, was a calculated message to us all. The message was very plain:-
‘We can execute anyone, no matter how innocent and uninvolved, at any time and there’s nothing you can do about it.’
The arrogance with which this freemason directed the cover-up merely indicated his utter contempt for us.
If an innocent Muslim had been murdered in this way, there would have been riots in Leeds and Bradford, deafening uproar throughout the country and the shoot-to-kill policy IMMEDIATELY revoked.
Now the reason for all this? Fear.
The Blair/Blair regime needs us to be in a constant state of fear for them to be able to get through all their fascist measures, like the ID card/biometric system. If we under attack surely we ‘need’ 24 hour surveillance?
As well as a host of other ‘security’ measures and laws necessary for our ‘protection’?
It’s Big Brother time, George was just twenty years out. We have always been at war with Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussain. Haven’t we?
The one sure way to avoid the risk of being shot by British police is to stay out of range, essentially not set foot in the UK. Now that’s a win-win outcome. Guess I got the jump on you there, guys. Naturally this extends to all areas where British forces are deployed. But this would be like expelling the law-abiding citizens and leaving the criminals running the asylum. Considering the citizen (subject) to police officer ratio, say 450:1, seems far more reasonable that the police should leave the country rather than the rest of the world be flooded with 60 million Brits. Iraq would be the perfect destination: They could waste as many civilians as they like. No tedious paperwork and no one would bat an eyelid. Those with a math background may wish to rework this calculation. What’s the matter? Don’t you infidels have a sense of humour?
In view of the SAS trainers’ comments on members of police firearms units, the risk being accidently murdered by British police is greater than you might suppose.
– “When the tension starts to rise and the adrenaline is flowing, the ‘red mist’ seems to descend on armed police officers who become very trigger-happy:”
– “We thought that police firearms officers were far more concerned with their personal image, dressing in body armour and looking ‘gung ho’, rather than their professional capabilities. I’m not surprised at the number of mistakes over the years.
– “There is no assessment of physical fitness, no psychological profiling, nothing. It’s a major problem.” The first question often asked of trainers was, “Have you killed anyone?
So there’s you go. As a non-firearms country, Brits. never grew up with guns, and as a result are too immature to be trusted with them, even the police. Or should that be, especially the police. Contrast this with the US. When there last November, I “topped up” by putting several 100 bullets down the range, simply displaying a driving licence. In the UK I’d be looking at three-to-five at Her Majesty’s pleasure, although quite what pleasure … When the police came to practice at Bisley they were literally laughed off the range. Besides being very poor shots, their safety procedure discipline was virtually non-existent.