A bad day for Alex Jones, a worse day for De Menezes' family

[Undesired Walrus]

Footage has been released of De Menezes' last moments at Stockwell Tube Station.(Frame 16 of 25) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7073125.stm)

Well, Didn't Alex Jones say some claptrap in Terrorstorm about the CCTV not working in Stockwell Tube, and the security service not releasing it? Well, here it is, in full colour.

Quite harrowing to watch, especially when he stops to get a Metro Newspaper.

This, CTers, is why you need to wait time for things to reveal themselves. You cannot be 'now now now' all the time.

What do you have to say for yourself Mr Jones?

[bofors]

Footage has been released of De Menezes' last moments at Stockwell Tube Station.(Frame 16 of 25) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7073125.stm)

Well, Didn't Alex Jones say some claptrap in Terrorstorm about the CCTV not working in Stockwell Tube, and the security service not releasing it? Well, here it is, in full colour.

Quite harrowing to watch, especially when he stops to get a Metro Newspaper.

This, CTers, is why you need to wait time for things to reveal themselves. You cannot be 'now now now' all the time.

What do you have to say for yourself Mr Jones?

I will speak for Alex Jones here. In short, he said:

(1) that the English authorities lied when stating their CCTV system was not working.

(2) that the released CCTV footage showed among other things that de Menezes did not leap over a turnstyle nor was he wearing a thick heavy jacket (as the English authorities claimed).

If you doubt me, try watching Terrorstorm again. Otherwise, please get your facts straight before starting yet another moronic "debunking" / denying thread here at JREF.

[Brainache]

...
What do you have to say for yourself Mr Jones?

Let me guess: "It's fake".

[uk_dave]

Personally, I don't give a toss what alex jones says or thinks about anything.

[bofors]

Personally, I don't give a toss what alex jones says or thinks about anything.

Really, then why are you posting here?

Is it perhaps that you are concerned about 7/7?

[uk_dave]

Really, then why are you posting here?

Is it perhaps that you are concerned about 7/7?

huh? 7/7 has nothing whatsoever to do with the puerile nonsense spouted by an emotionally retarded right wing american 'shock jock'.

The graphic linked to by UW was, however, interesting, disturbing, powerful and informative.

[PhantomWolf]

Really, then why are you posting here?

Is it perhaps that you are concerned about 7/7?

What the heck does the De Meneze's shooting have to do with 7/7 except that the bombings made the Police so on edge they reacted poorly and in a way over the top manner. If anything the De Meneze's shooting is a pointer to it having really been what the was claimed because if it wasn't, the police wouldn't have been acting like a bunch of scared vigilantes that day.

[Undesired Walrus]

that the released CCTV footage showed among other things that de Menezes did not leap over a turnstyle nor was he wearing a thick heavy jacket (as the English authorities claimed).


As eyewitnesses claimed. They confused him with the police who followed suit.

Regardless, your reference to a 'turnstyle' and 'English' is somewhat comical.

[beachnut]

Jones spews nut case ideas; perfect for 9/11 truth! Hearsay junk and lies - Alex Jones is a perfect truther, not a clue about 9/11.

[CptColumbo]

I still love that documentary where he said that he was like Galileo being imprisoned for claiming the Earth was round. Not only does it show his delusions of grandeur, but he also got his historical reference wrong.

[Undesired Walrus]

Really, then why are you posting here?

Is it perhaps that you are concerned about 7/7?

Oh ok, this will be interesting. Do you want to take me up on July 7th and 21st 2005 history?

[TerryUK]

Footage has been released of De Menezes' last moments at Stockwell Tube Station.(Frame 16 of 25) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7073125.stm)

Well, Didn't Alex Jones say some claptrap in Terrorstorm about the CCTV not working in Stockwell Tube, and the security service not releasing it? Well, here it is, in full colour.



I don't know what Jones said.
But, if I remember correctly, the police claimed that CCTV footage of the relevant platform, and onboard train cameras were blank, or not operating, or defective...
As I understand it, the cameras inside each train compartment, and also on the platform, should have been functioning.

[MetalliSociety]

I will speak for Alex Jones here. In short, he said:

(1) that the English authorities lied when stating their CCTV system was not working.

(2) that the released CCTV footage showed among other things that de Menezes did not leap over a turnstyle nor was he wearing a thick heavy jacket (as the English authorities claimed).

If you doubt me, try watching Terrorstorm again. Otherwise, please get your facts straight before starting yet another moronic "debunking" / denying thread here at JREF.

Coming from someone that got beat down over what he claimed as a fake photo, whicch turned out to be the original anyways.

Take everything he says with a grain of salt.

"I proudly proclaim to not read the NIST Report, yet i'll tear it apart!" Doesn't make much sense does it?

[TerryUK]

Footage has been released of De Menezes' last moments at Stockwell Tube Station.(Frame 16 of 25) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7073125.stm)

Well, Didn't Alex Jones say some claptrap in Terrorstorm about the CCTV not working in Stockwell Tube, and the security service not releasing it? Well, here it is, in full colour.

Quite harrowing to watch, especially when he stops to get a Metro Newspaper.

This, CTers, is why you need to wait time for things to reveal themselves. You cannot be 'now now now' all the time.

What do you have to say for yourself Mr Jones?

Well, it looks like Jones is right about this...

The link you provide to " DeMenezes last moments" has a misleading title.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article307649.ece
Cameras on the platform and the train were not operational, officers told the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). The submission by the Metropolitan Police, obtained by ITV News, puts officers at odds with a statement from Tube Lines, the company operating the station.

The police document says: "Stockwell station and environs has been surveyed and all existing CCTV has been seized.
"During the course of this it has been established that although there was onboard CCTV in the train, due to previous incidents the harddrive has been removed and not replaced.
"It has also been established that there has been a technical problem with the CCTV equipment on the relevant platform and no footage exists."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/diary/story/0,,2103522,00.html
In dismissing the appeal brought by the family of Jean Charles de Menezes last year, Lord Justice Stephen Richards upheld the Crown Prosecution Service's decision not to charge any police officers in connection with the Brazilian's death because there was insufficient evidence against them - the closed-circuit television footage that might have proved, one way or the other, whether or not they were guilty of murder being unavailable because of "faults" in the cameras at Stockwell station.

[gumboot]

I have to admit I'm confused here...

The authorities said the CCTV cameras on the platform and in the train were not working. The footage in this flash presentation is from outside the barriers, on the inside of the barriers, and looking down the escalators. None of it is from the platform or train.

So what exactly does this reveal?

(Incidentally I found the flash presentation itself quite fascinating. It seems there was a major communication disaster when the surveillance team were saying he was not the target but other surveillance teams were still following, and the armed team was responding to their reports).

One last thing... the court was harshly critical of the police for both shooting a civilian, and for allowing him to get onto a bus and then train.

So they seem to simultaneously be saying "You shouldn't have shot him" and "you should have shot him sooner". That doesn't really make sense to me.

-Gumboot

[Big Les]

I have to admit I'm confused here...

The authorities said the CCTV cameras on the platform and in the train were not working. The footage in this flash presentation is from outside the barriers, on the inside of the barriers, and looking down the escalators. None of it is from the platform or train.

So what exactly does this reveal?

(Incidentally I found the flash presentation itself quite fascinating. It seems there was a major communication disaster when the surveillance team were saying he was not the target but other surveillance teams were still following, and the armed team was responding to their reports).

One last thing... the court was harshly critical of the police for both shooting a civilian, and for allowing him to get onto a bus and then train.

So they seem to simultaneously be saying "You shouldn't have shot him" and "you should have shot him sooner". That doesn't really make sense to me.

-Gumboot

Considering the stated aim of the operation was to arrest the bomber, and that it would only evolve to an Op KRATOS situation during the operation, they must be saying that the police should have detained de Menezes outside his flat, en route, or before he got to the tube station, not shot him before then.

There was never any declaration of a KRATOS (lethal incapacitating force) operation, and never any positive ID. So what you had were two firearms officers going by misleading information from surveillance that was badly relayed by command, and taking matters into their own hands. I was initially of the opinion that the shooters were the only ones free of culpability in this, but it's now clear that they were at least as responsible, if not the most responsible, for this man's death.

CCTV-wise, this contradicts nothing in the main IPCC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_11_07_stockwell1.pdf), nor from the Met Police themselves. The footage comes from cameras not down for maintenance or otherwise inoperative. Even I thought the number of duff cameras was pretty suspicious, but independent investigation and expert technical analysis has concluded that none of the cameras were deliberately interfered with. If anything it just shows how flawed and badly serviced the CCTV network is. All of this points to massive incompetence with weak attempts at cover-up rather than any kind of false flag or conspiracy-related operation.

To be honest I was a bit disappointed at the level of response to my thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98227) on the long-awaited Stockwell 1 report (CTists, please read that before commenting, or your opinion is worth precisely nowt). I expect it's because those who've been following the case know most of it already, and because the conclusions are fairly clear-cut (scared vigilantes about sums it up - it's disgusting).

[Big Les]

I might as well reply to this, though others have pretty much dealt with your comments already.

I will speak for Alex Jones here. In short, he said:

(1) that the English authorities lied when stating their CCTV system was not working.

Nope, the IPCC report shows that significant relevant parts of the CCTV network were non-functional at the time. Thus the "English authorities" or rather the Metropolitan Police Service, did no such thing. They did much to be criticised that day, this is not one of them.

(2) that the released CCTV footage showed among other things that de Menezes did not leap over a turnstyle nor was he wearing a thick heavy jacket (as the English authorities claimed).

He's right, but it's not exactly stunning insight. Those two myths originated with civilian eyewitnesses who mistook SO12 and CO19 officers for bombers. The press and police both ran with those reports initially, before it became apparent that neither was true. The police were involved in a "cover-up" as far as an altered log entry, denial of entry to the crime scene to the IPCC, and in perpetuating what they may well have known were incorrect claims about de Menezes appearance and behaviour. Their actions are unforgiveable, but they are attempts to mitigate incompetence, not pre-meditated murder or false flag.

[Kiosk]

It amazes me that twoofers are trying to pick up on this case. This case illustrates perfectly why:

a.) there was no conspiracy related to the 7/7 bombings (other posts in this thread have explained why)
b.) the secrecy of any such conspiracy would be doomed to failure.

The Metropolitan Police take a lot of flak, and they have indeed behaved disgracefully (or with appalling and sometimes lethal incompetence) on many occasions. As is true of pretty much all big-city police forces, anywhere in the world - it's almost inevitable that there will be at least some level of incompetence or corruption in any organisation of this kind. The difference is, in the free world we get to hear about it. Those responsible often, though not always, squirm off the hook - that's politics - but the idea that this stuff is kept secret as part of some kind of conspiracy is clearly nonsense. It's plastered across the front pages of British newspapers all the time.

When police overstep the mark in carrying out the orders of government, then government will sometimes attempt to cover for them - again, a phenomenon that occurs in pretty much every country in the world. When police zero in on an innocent man because of procedural incompetence, pump seven bullets into him in front of the public, then attempt to spread confusion and uncertainty about the circumstances while smearing the character of the innocent man with lies and rumour, they get themselves a new hole ripped. When, in the 1960s and 70s, widespread corruption was found in CID, and specifically the London vice squad - a genuine conspiracy, of sorts - the officers involved were fired and prosecuted, after a flood of outraged press commentary. When the media does collude with the "powers that be" (for example over the conduct of the police during the British miners' strike in the 1980s), it is for the papers' own political convenience, not as part of some sinister plot. And it always comes out in the end.

The entire British media has been howling about the de Menezes case since 2005. The right wing papers are interested because they hate Ian Blair, head of the Met, who they perceive as a "progressive". The left wing papers are interested because an innocent man was shot dead in London as part of the hamfisted War on Terror, and the police did not behave honourably in the aftermath. There hasn't been a single voice in the media defending the shooting, much less a cover up. So much for conspiracy.

[Undesired Walrus]

All this said though, It is interesting how the person who really caused the death of Menezes was the chap intending to kill the day before, and has never been given the justified blame;

Hussain Osman.

The way I see it, no matter how incompetent the Met acted, Menezes was the single person to be indirectly killed in the 21/7 bombings.

[Big Les]

I see where you're coming from UW, but although Osman's actions set the ball rolling as it were, every single other avoidable mistake was that of the MPS. They can't be allowed the "it was a difficult time" excuse, nor that of "the bombers forced us into it" - the stakes are just too high. Sure, lessons have been learned, but the catalogue of errors is just astounding.

Bottom line; de Menezes was inadvertently killed by the state because he was a bit swarthy. That's reprehensible.