[NYTr] Innocent Brazilian Menezes a Victim of London cop Incompetence

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by MichaelP - activ-l

Dail Maily - Oct 1, 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484955&in_page_id=1770

'Here he is!' Court hears dramatic moment 
police marksmen targeted Jean Charles de Menezes

The  dramatic  moment  police marksmen stormed a Tube train and gunned 
down Jean Charles de Menezes was played out in court today.

An Old Bailey jury heard horrific details of the innocent man's death, 
including  the  moment an officer effectively signed his death warrant
by identifying him to armed colleagues with the words "Here he is".

The  Brazilian  electrician  was shot dead after a series of "shocking
and catastrophic" errors by police, the Old Bailey heard today.

He  was  gunned  down  at  point blank range at Stockwell tube station 
after officers mistook him for a suicide bomber.

But  a jury was today told his death could have been prevented but for
a "fundamental  failure"  in  planning  and procedure by Metropolitan 
Police.

This  included  a  firearms  team  turning up four hours late at Mr de 
Menezes'  address - and even stopping for petrol at the crucial moment
the electrician left his house.

In  an  unprecedented  case, the force is on trial over alleged health
and safety breaches, which it is claimed "invited disaster".

The  Old  Bailey  heard  today a detailed account of the moment police 
marksmen confronted the Brazilian.

"As  the  armed  police  entered the carriage, Jean Charles stood up," 
said Clare Montgomery, prosecuting.

"He  was  grabbed  by  a surveillance officer and pushed back into his 
seat.  Two firearms officers leant over him and placed their Glock 9mm 
pistols against Jean Charles' head and fired.

"He  was  shot  seven times quite deliberately in the head and he died 
immediately. He was not involved in terrorism in any way."

Earlier   in  the  day,  police  teams  had  been  carrying  out  a  a 
surveillance operation at Mr de Menezes' address at Scotia Road, south 
London,  on  July  22 2005, which they had linked to July 21 attempted 
bomber Hussain Osman.

But  despite  the  surveillance  being  launched  more than four hours 
earlier, a firearms team had yet to arrive at the house by the time Mr
de Menezes left his home for work at 9.33am, Miss Montgomery told the
court.

In  fact,  they  were  two miles away having stopped for petrol on the 
way.

Surveillance  officers  followed  Mr  de Menezes on two buses and then 
down  into Stockwell Tube station where CCTV pictures showed him being 
tailed.

The  trackers  asked  their  superiors  more  than once if they should 
arrest Mr de Menezes but were told to wait, Miss Montgomery said.

They  did  not  know  that  the  order had been given to "stop" him to 
prevent him boarding the Tube.

CCTV  images shown to the jury showed armed officers, who did not know 
whether  Mr  de  Menezes was the suspect, brandishing their weapons as 
they made their way down to the platform.

As   they   boarded   the  Tube  carriage,  they  were  recognised  by 
surveillance  officers  as  armed  colleagues,  and one identified the 
electrician.

Miss   Montgomery  said  the  "disaster"  of  the  innocent  Brazilian 
electrician's  death  was  "not  the result of a fast-moving operation 
going suddenly and unpredictably awry".

"It  was  the  result  of  fundamental failures to carry out a planned 
operation in a safe and reasonable way," she said.

Miss  Montgomery  told  the  jurors  that  while  some of the officers 
present  when Mr de Menezes was shot would be called to give evidence,
the two who actually killed him would not.

Only those who it was felt would give a "real insight" into the police 
operation that day would be called, she said.

"Those  witnesses  will  prove  the  Crown's  case  that  the police's 
operation on July 22 invited the disaster which occurred."

She  said  the allegation against police was that they carried out the 
investigation and pursuit of a suspected suicide bomber "in such a way 
that the public were exposed to the possibility of danger".

Miss Montgomery added: "We say that the police planned and carried out
an operation that day so badly that the public were needlessly put at
risk, and Jean Charles de Menezes was actually killed as a result."

If  the  force is found guilty it faces an unlimited fine, which could
run into the millions and would be paid by the taxpayer.

In  effect,  the Met is accused of failing to ensure the safety of the 
public by not stopping the electrician from boarding a bus or reaching
the Underground.

A  three  dimensional  computer reconstruction of the shooting and the 
last moments of Mr de Menezes after he left his home to travel to work 
will be shown to jurors.

The  trial  is  expected  to last up to six weeks and is considered by 
senior officers to be a landmark case for policing.

The  outcome  will also be a further test for Met Commissioner Sir Ian 
Blair  who  has  faced criticism over his handling of the aftermath of
the shooting.

Last  year  the Crown Prosecution Service announced that no individual 
officers  would  be  charged  with  either  murder  or manslaughter in 
connection with the shooting.

Instead,  government  lawyers said the Metropolitan Police should face 
criminal charges under the Health and Safety at Work Act.

The  killing took place a day after July 21 2005 when four men went on
the run  after  attempting  to  explode  rucksack  bombs  on  London 
Underground trains and a bus.

The  trial  is  expected to hear evidence from more than 50 witnesses,
the vast majority of them police officers involved in the operation.

Another  of  the  witnesses  is  expected  to  be  a serving member of 
military  special forces who was on attachment to the Met as part of a 
surveillance squad on that day.

However,  Commissioner Sir Ian is not due to give evidence and neither
are the two police firearms officers who carried out the shooting.

The  case  follows  two  major investigations into the shooting by the 
Independent Police Complaints Commission.