De Menezes killed without warning in London

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.


Update 5 December 2008: here.

Jean Charles de Menezes: Shot, then slandered and still no justice: here. And 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.

3 thoughts on “De Menezes killed without warning in London

  1. 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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    From; Irish Republican News


  2. Pingback: Death of London G20 demonstrator | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  3. Pingback: Dodgy police facial recognition software in Britain | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.