This video is called JEAN CHARLES (Henrique Goldman, 2009) – Full Movie. The tragic true story of Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian shot dead by British police in 2005 at the height of the London terrorist alerts.
Another video from Britain used to say about itself:
The killing of Jean-Charles de Menezes, featuring a contrast of false case details in colour against known true case details in black and white. It was selected for screening at the Academy of Machinima Arts & Sciences 2005 Machinima Film Festival and shown on the IFC.
By Marcus Morgan and Paul Mitchell in Britain:
Britain: Eyewitnesses reveal Jean Charles De Menezes shot without warning
18 November 2008
“I remember that his eyes were closed and I remember that he had … you know, it’s a hard thing to try to explain but his eyes were closed and he looked almost calm, which again I hesitate to say that, but … I guess he had a gun pressed, and there wasn’t very much he could do about it.”
This haunting recollection of commuter Anna Dunwoodie was one of several eyewitness accounts recently heard at the public inquest into the death of innocent Brazilian immigrant electrician Jean Charles de Menezes, which revealed more inconsistencies and contradictions in the official police version of his killing.
No commuters were called to give evidence at last year’s Metropolitan Police health and safety trial over the shooting. This is the first time they have told their stories in public. It is also the first time the two officers who shot de Menezes have given evidence. The inquest has been adjourned until December 1, when the coroner will begin summing up the evidence.
Britain: More revelations about secret shoot-to-kill policy at de Menezes inquest: here.
CORONER RULES OUT ‘UNLAWFUL KILLING’ VERDICT – in de Menezes inquest: here.
Update 5 December 2008: here.
Jean Charles de Menezes: Shot, then slandered and still no justice: here. And here.
DE MENEZES INQUEST ‘A WHITEWASH’: here.
‘Action must be taken against the officers responsible for my cousin’s death’ says relative of Jean Charles De Menezes: here.
Britain: Jury verdict over killing of Jean Charles de Menezes demolishes police lies: here.
Ricky Bishop was a young black father and volunteer fitness trainer who died in 2001 after being detained at Brixton police station: here.
Dear Kitty. Some blog 
Feature: De Menezes murder – The cover-up
————————————————————–
The family of Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian electrician shot
dead in cold blood by London police on a subway train in July 2005,
walked out of his inquest today after the judge refused to permit the
jury to find that he had been unlawfully killed.
The following interview with Patricia da Silva Armani Charles as the
inquest opened recalls the murder of her cousin and how the British
system has struggled to admit London’s own shoot-to-kill policy.
————————————————————–
On July 22, 2005, Jean Charles was shot to death on a tube train at
Stockwell station by an anti-terrorist unit that was investigating the
failed explosions on London’s transport system the previous day.
He had been covertly trailed by a police surveillance team as he left
his home and made his way to work as an electrician. No attempt was
made to detain him en route. At Stockwell station, some 26 minutes
later, he was followed onto a train where, without warning,
plainclothes, armed police officers grabbed Jean Charles, pinned him to
the seat and pumped 11 bullets at point blank range into his body —
directly into his head.
Even though it was quickly established that Jean Charles was innocent,
police and government spokesmen and the media continued to claim that a
suicide bomber had been shot. It subsequently transpired that claims
that Jean Charles had behaved “suspiciously” and had sought to evade
arrest–all used to justify the police’s decision to open fire–were
lies.
Nonetheless, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) rejected any criminal
proceedings against any of the officers directly involved in the
shooting and those who commanded them, claiming that there was
“insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.”
Instead, last November, the police were found guilty under the Health
and Safety at Work Act 1974 of “failing to provide for the health,
safety and welfare” of Jean Charles.
This was despite the fact that the only justification for targeting
Jean Charles was that he lived in the same block of apartments as
someone under surveillance and had “Mongolian eyes” and the campaign of
misinformation by the police in the hours following the shooting.
The coroner’s inquest is to be a purely “fact-finding” investigation,
with the coroner, Sir Michael Wright, having told the jury that it is
not a trial and is not supposed to apportion blame. The de Menezes
family is, however, seeking a verdict of unlawful killing in order to
pressure the CPS into prosecuting police officers involved in the
killing.
Q: What are your memories of Jean Charles? What was he like?
Patricia: I remember Jean Charles as my best friend. He was very good
with the family a hard-working man. He was my first cousin. My uncle,
his father, was the brother of my Mum. We lived in different parts of
the country. I lived in Sao Pao and he lived in Gonzaga. But every
year, my family went to Gonzaga on holidays, and we always met on
different family occasions. We were very close.
Q: What made him come to England?
Patricia: For a better life. And to send money back to my aunt and my
uncle back home.
Q: How did you first hear about the shooting?
Patricia: We were told that Jean Charles had been arrested. I was at
work at that time.
He was an electrician, working in a building. At night, he worked
washing up in a restaurant. I was a cleaner. I finished work and went
back to my house. I met another cousin, who was very upset. She looked
desperate.
She said, “Patricia, you have to calm down, because Jean Charles has
been arrested.” I said, “Why? He hasn’t done anything.” They told me he
had been accused of being a terrorist. I said, “What? That is not
possible.” And I called Alex, another cousin, who was at the police
station in Brixton. And he told me, “You should sit down because it is
bad news, I think Jean Charles is dead. You should come to the police
station.” I said, “You are lying, he cannot be dead.”
When I got to the police station, other cousins were there. I said,
“Alex, what is happening?” And he said, “They do not assist us, they
don’t help. They told us to go to hell.” So I said, “Well, now we are
here, we are helping. So why won’t they talk to us?”
Q: How long was it between when Jean Charles was shot and when you
were told about it?
Patricia: 27 hours. He was shot in the morning on Friday, and all day
the press were saying the police have killed a terrorist. And I
thought, oh, they have shot a terrorist! OK? And when we were told Jean
Charles had been arrested, we didn’t connect it because the shooting
had happened one day before. Terrible!
That day Jean Charles had not come home, but I thought he had gone out,
to the bar, to a party, with his girlfriend… I went to work the
following day, and when I got back, my cousins were in my home to tell
me that he had been arrested. I did not connect it, because they had
been telling lies, lies, all the time.
Q: What did you think when the police came out with all these lies
about him running, wearing a thick black jacket, and having jumped over
the ticket machines? This after telling you he had been shot. What were
you thinking at the time?
Patricia: I knew it was all lies, because I knew Jean Charles. He had
been here four years, and many times he had been stopped by the police,
many times. And he had no black jacket, no black jacket. And I was
thinking, it is a lie, it is a lie.
Q: Do you believe that you are going to get justice?
Patricia: I hope that at this enquiry we will get the answer to our
questions. How was it that Jean Charles was allowed to go all the way
to Stockwell Station? The journey from the flat to Stockwell Station is
a long way. Why didn’t the police stop him before? Why did the police
let him get on the bus if they thought he was a terrorist? Why did the
police let him inside the Metro? If they thought he had bomb, why did
they let him carry on his journey? Did they know he was not a
terrorist? This is my question, why?
We want to know the truth, why was he killed in that way.
Q: Do you think this will come out of the inquest?
Patricia: Maybe. I hope, but we fear another cover-up. We fear the
inquest will not show the truth. But I am hoping, do you understand? I
am hoping.
Q: The Independent Police Complaints Commission report that has come
out has exonerated the police. They let the police go. They say they’ve
done their job. In no case of a shooting of innocent people has any
policeman ever been charged. The Crown Prosecution Service was also a
cover-up. The only thing the police have been charged with is breaching
Health and Safety regulations. Do you think the inquest is going to
change that?
Patricia: Yes, yes, I know. It is all a cover-up. I think nothing
happens in these cases because… This fine on the police… this doesn’t
work, the police have to pay to the state, but the state is the police
and the police are the state.
Q: Do you think that the killing of Jean Charles was part of a
broader attack on democratic rights? What do you think of the role of
the police today?
Patricia: I think it will be bad if they don’t punish the police,
because if they don’t punish them it could happen again.
Q: Do you think that the rights of people in this country are under
attack?
Patricia: Yes, I believe that the human rights, social rights and
democratic rights of people in this country are being undermined, are
under attack. That’s wrong, because it is not their fault but the fault
of people with power.
Q: The inquest is going to be a long one, but the police have been
granted anonymity. They will be behind a screen in one part of the Oval
cricket ground, giving evidence, and the family and everybody else will
be at the other side. So how do you think truth will prevail?
Patricia: This is what worries us, scares us, that it is starting with
this anonymity. We, the family can see their faces. But we will not
know their names or anything about them. And the public, which for me
is the most important thing, won’t even be able to see their faces.
Q: This shows it is political, not just mistakes by individuals, but
the whole state defending its own. You are confronting not individual
policemen, but the state apparatus defending its right to kill.
Patricia: I agree with what you say, because if the public cannot see
even the faces of the officers, they can carry on. They will do it,
because we know that the police’s shoot-to-kill policy is continuing.
This policy gives them the right to kill, me, or you.
Q: How do we stop that from happening again?
Patricia: The public must know the truth, the public must understand
what happened. If there is no punishment, then it will happen again. I
don’t think arresting them is the solution. They are not competent to
do the work as a police force. I don’t ask for much. I don’t agree with
those who say, oh you have to arrest, you have to kill, you have to do
this or that. No, no, no, those policemen must be expelled from the
police force because they have not the competence to do their job.
Q: Do you think that those who would replace them will not do the
same if ordered to? The policy of shoot-to-kill is determined by
individuals.
Patricia: This has to end. They need more training, better training.
But I don’t think that the policy of shoot-to-kill will finish just by
training. I think that the day the United States stops thinking that
they have to own the world, to stop invading other peoples, I think
many things will get better. And yes, Britain, too.
Q: When are the rest of the family coming over?
Patricia: My aunt and cousin, Jean Charles’s mother and brother, are
coming on October 4. They will not be here for the opening of the
inquest. Myself, my cousin Alexandro and other members of the family
will be there. We would like you to come, but I don’t know if it is
possible because there is only room for 150 people, I am not sure if
this includes all the press. But the proceedings will be reported on a
web site.
Q: This is very conscious and deliberate.
Patricia: Yes. When I heard the inquest was going to be held at the
Oval, I thought great, great. The public, lots of people will be able
to assist and see what happens. And then I was told, no, they are not
opening up the Oval, just a small room. They want to control
everything.
From; Irish Republican News
LikeLike
Pingback: Death of London G20 demonstrator | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Dodgy police facial recognition software in Britain | Dear Kitty. Some blog