Suspect: The Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes (2025) s01e04 Episode Script
Episode 4
1
[Dan Rivers on TV]
Documents obtained by ITV News show
that claims Mr. de Menezes
fled from the police,
that he was dressed suspiciously,
and that he was behaving erratically,
are false.
Police believed that a suspected
terrorist bomber
lived in this block of flats behind me.
At 9.30 am Jean Charles left to walk
to the bus stop on a journey to work
that would ultimately end in his death.
None of the police officers
covertly watching outside
was sure he was the man they were after,
but they decided to follow him anyway.
At Stockwell train station,
the commander of the operation,
Cressida Dick, ordered that de Menezes
was to be stopped
from entering the tube network.
Code Red was called.
The firearms officers had now been given
permission to shoot at Jean Charles,
but as they raced after him
into the tube station,
contrary to numerous police reports
since issued,
the documents we've seen point to
a catastrophic failure
of the police surveillance operation
which resulted in a violent
and unnecessary killing.
Dan Rivers, ITV News, Stockwell.
[speaking in Portuguese]
Now maybe we'll get justice.
Who the bloody hell leaked this?
We're looking into it.
[Ian Blair] Well, this is catastrophic.
These were honest mistakes.
The whole thing would have come out
once the IPCC had delivered its findings.
I think what we're facing here
is the perception that,
whatever the truth,
the Met won't face up to its failings.
Nonsense.
What utter nonsense.
- Hey.
- Did you watch the news last night?
Yeah. Yeah.
It's gone mad in here this morning.
They think it's someone
from inside this office.
What do you think about it?
I don't really know.
[Jane] I tell you what I think.
Whoever's done this must have been paid
a lot of money for it.
Why do you think they did it for money?
[Jane] Well, why else would you do it?
I think it's incredibly selfish
what they've done.
Yeah, I suppose so.
I think we have to get our side
of the story out there.
Yes, we can't let this define us.
[Fedorcio] My suggestion would be
the News of the World.
You don't look convinced, Brian.
I'm just not sure now's the time
to try and launch a defense.
It shouldn't be about trying
to protect ourselves.
Sir, shooting an innocent man's
a huge thing.
Well, it's a tragedy, of course it is.
But only two weeks ago,
the whole world was mesmerized
by our responses to two bomb attacks
and by our ability to detect
and prevent others.
Isn't that what we should be
talking about?
[in Portuguese] Why did your police give
no warning that you were coming?
We only heard about this last night.
We wanted to have a lawyer here with us
but it was not possible.
We didn't have the time to.
There are many things
we want to understand.
[in English]
The purpose of this meeting is purely
for us to express our condolences
and to discuss funeral expenses.
Here in your letter,
what does this mean?
Fifteen thousand pounds? Huh?
You want us to take this money
and we don't talk
about Jean Charles anymore?
No, no, the letter was very clear
No, so we don't talk about how you shoot
my brother seven times in the head?
No.
We won't exchange money
for my brother's life.
The money is an ex-gratia payment.
It's to compensate you and your family
for your loss.
It doesn't stop you from taking
legal proceedings in the future.
[speaking Portuguese]
Why did my son have to die?
[in Portuguese] Why did they shoot him
in the head so many times?
He was an innocent boy.
[in English] I'm very sorry
but I cannot discuss the circumstances
of your son's death.
[speaking Portuguese] Those responsible
must be brought to justice.
I think they're trying to pressure us to
agree to something in exchange for money.
If it's true, then it is humiliating.
Humiliating that they think that of us.
I can tell them
that we are going to fight.
We are going to fight for justice
for my brother
until the last day of our lives.
[Wistrich in English] Yesterday,
the family of Jean Charles de Menezes
and we, their lawyers
became aware that virtually
the entire body of information,
either placed, or allowed to remain
in the public domain since his killing
on July 22nd 2005, has been false.
The family asks that the truth
surrounding his death be made public now
as a matter of urgency.
[HR director] Ms. Vandenberghe,
could we have a quiet word, please?
Firstly, Commissioner,
thank you for agreeing to this
at a very difficult time for you
and the Met.
Let's get started.
Okay.
Well, I'd like to start by asking you
about the moment you found out
that the man who'd been shot
at Stockwell Station wasn't a terrorist,
but an innocent man.
Yes, I remember it distinctly.
I was in my office at about 10:30
on the morning of July 23rd,
the day after Mr. de Menezes was shot,
and I was told that an innocent man
had been killed.
My first thought was,
"Houston, we have a problem."
So you didn't know straight away?
No.
The key component was that at that time,
and for the next 24 hours or so,
I, and everybody who advised me,
believed the person shot
was a suicide bomber.
Either one of the four
or, even worse, someone else.
[people murmuring indistinctly]
Okay, he's saying that
for 24 hours after the shooting,
he and all his senior team believed
that the person who was shot
was a suicide bomber, right?
Even though on the afternoon
of the shooting,
two of his closest advisors told me,
"We have shot a Brazilian tourist."
And by three o'clock that afternoon,
we had his wallet,
for God's sake,
with a driving permit in it,
photo ID with the name
Jean Charles de Menezes.
Alan Brown read out the name
Jean Charles de Menezes
in that meeting we had
about community issues.
When was that?
I mean, what was that, about four o'clock?
The public are gonna believe he's lying
or withholding vital information.
This is about credibility.
[sighs] I can't stay quiet, Alf.
Not anymore.
Be careful, Brian.
[knocking on door]
Ah, Brian.
Will this take long?
The first thing to say
is that I am here as a friend.
Is that right?
- Can I sit down?
- Of course.
Ian, you spoke at a press conference
on July 22nd, the day of the shooting,
and you said that the shooting
was directly linked to the ongoing
and expanding anti-terrorist operation.
The timing of this was 3:39 p.m.
What of it?
Well, by then, Moir Stewart
and Caroline Murdoch,
speaking to me just out there,
had already told me that it was
a Brazilian tourist who'd been shot,
clearly implying
that we had killed the wrong guy.
You must have got the wrong time.
I haven't got my timings wrong.
Because I then told Alf Hitchcock
that we had shot a Brazilian tourist.
You're wrong.
The point is, Ian, that up until
that article was published yesterday,
I had managed to convince myself
that Jean Charles being directly linked
to the ongoing anti-terrorist operation
was arguably correct,
given that he had emerged from a building
that was under observation.
That's exactly what I meant.
Yes, yes, yes.
But you've just said
in your News of the World interview
that for 24 hours after the shooting,
you, and everyone that advised you,
believed that the man who was shot
was a suicide bomber.
You see, I'm telling you this, Ian,
because if your team told me on the 22nd
that Jean Charles was a Brazilian tourist,
but they didn't tell you,
then, in my opinion,
they should have.
I'm wondering if you got the wrong day.
I'm wondering if you heard what you heard
on the 23rd, rather than the 22nd.
Alan Brown asked Alf Hitchcock
at a meeting on the afternoon of the 22nd,
to prepare a Community Impact Assessment
on the basis that we'd shot the wrong guy.
The computer system shows
a document being created
just after 5 p.m. on the 22nd.
I distinctly remember being told
on the Saturday morning by Alan Brown
that we had shot the wrong man.
I just thought it was important
that you knew
what I knew.
I'm genuinely trying
to help you here, Ian.
You must do what you have to do.
But we both know the penalty
for not telling the truth.
They used dum-dum bullets
to kill Jean Charles.
How can the police in the UK use bullets
that not even the army is allowed to use?
The police needs to be open
about what they're doing.
And if they act illegally,
they should be punished.
[audience applauding]
The pain of the loss of our cousin
at the hands of the police was immense.
But the fact that the police lied
about what happened,
and tried to cover up the truth
made our pain unbearable.
For Ian Blair to say he did not know
for 24 hours that Jean is innocent
is hard to believe.
We say Jean Charles was killed unlawfully.
The IPCC investigation
should not have been delayed by Ian Blair.
Who knows what evidence
was lost in this period?
[audience applauding]
I thought the family were so dignified,
so full of humility.
Yeah, I was thinking that too.
Watching them tonight, so inspiring.
[applauding]
Shameful! Their behaviour is shameful!
[Erionaldo] They must tell the truth!
No lies!
[radio presenter] When did they know?
That is the key.
Did the Met know only hours
after Jean Charles was killed
that he was an innocent man
and yet still released
misleading press statements
about what had happened?
Home Affairs correspondent
Holly Salisbury,
what do you make of the situation?
[Holly] Well, the problem is
we don't really believe
what the police are telling us anymore.
Trust has been eroded.
And the truth now seems
to have become just a commodity.
Clearly, when we recognized
that we had killed an innocent man,
we could have put the record straight
about the issues around him
jumping over barriers,
heavy coats and so on,
but, in a terrible way at that time,
the Met was transfixed on other things.
It was transfixed on,
"Where are the bombers?"
That was our mistake.
[interviewer] The family of
Jean Charles de Menezes want to know why,
for a number of days after his shooting,
you prevented an independent investigation
into what had happened.
Because we were hunting
for four suicide bombers.
They want to know what evidence was lost
or damaged in that period.
Look, the answer to all of this
is that, you know,
we will have to account for what happened.
We're not looking to blame anybody else.
[banging on door]
[officer] Police!
- [banging continues]
- Police!
One second.
Lana Vandenberghe?
Yeah.
What Hey, what
- We have a warrant to search the premises.
- What are you doing?
What are you looking for?
- Hey
- Lana Vandenberghe, I am arresting you
on suspicion of misconduct
in a public office
and theft from your place of work
- on August 16th.
- Theft? What have I stolen?
You do not have to say anything
but it may harm your defense
if you do not mention when questioned
something that you later rely on in court.
Did you provide ITN with documents
and photographs from restricted files
to help them compile their news report?
No comment.
Do you know Neil Garrett?
No comment.
Did he pay you for this information?
Right, you do realize you could be facing
a long prison sentence here?
When I was arrested, one of the offences
I was accused of was theft.
- Theft of what?
- The documents.
You do know I never signed
the Official Secrets Act.
The theft refers
to the physical documents.
The paper?
The paper and the ink, yeah.
Really?
This is the SO12 surveillance team log
for the 22nd,
which we've finally been able to examine.
I wanna show you page eleven.
As you can see,
two words have been added to the log.
In the text, NT is Nettle Tip,
the suspect,
who was, in fact, Jean Charles de Menezes.
"A split second view of his face
and I believe it was not NT."
So it looks as if somebody has added
the word 'and' and the word 'not',
changing it from "I believe it was NT"
to "And I believe it was not NT."
The whole meaning of the entry
has been changed.
[Bixel] Nobody has admitted
to making the amendments.
Well, there may be a simple explanation
for all this,
but it's just another example
of why we should not have been excluded
from the scene.
[Bixel] Commissioner, we have a note made
by your Chief of Staff Caroline Murdoch,
of a meeting to discuss a press release
which you attended at around 5:30 p.m,
on Friday, 22nd July,
the day of the shooting.
She notes that the person shot
was referred to as
"not being one of the four",
meaning one of the four
suspected terrorists
from the failed explosions the day before.
Assistant Commissioner Hayman then says,
"We need to present this
that he is believed to be.
This is different to confirming
that he is".
What
What does that mean?
Well, I have no memory of it.
That's the first thing to say.
I really don't understand it.
No, I'm genuinely puzzled by it.
I repeatedly pressed Andy Hayman
during the day for information
as to the connection between the dead man
and the previous day's bombings,
and, long into the evening,
he did not provide an answer.
But I can say that I would never preside
over a meeting
where press statements
were designed to deliberately mislead.
[Paddick] Are you kidding me?
[Bixel] I've read your notes.
Chief Superintendent Stewart
accepts discussing with you,
on the afternoon of the 22nd,
a wallet being found
with Brazilian identity documents in it,
but denies saying
that a Brazilian tourist had been shot.
You mistaken about that phrase?
Absolutely not.
The Commissioner insists
he did not know the dead man's identity
when he left work at around 9 o'clock
that evening.
Then my point is a simple one.
Why not?
Why, on one of the most crucial days
in police history,
does the commissioner of
the Metropolitan Police leave his office
still not knowing
who it was his officers had shot?
Or at the very least,
why did no one think to tell him
what was being openly discussed
amongst senior management?
I recently had a meeting
with Brian Paddick
where he brought all this up with me
and I told him that I thought
he was mistaken with his timings.
Tell me, did Brian make notes
of our meeting?
I mean, it was just a quick chat.
Yes, he did.
He made them just after the meeting.
And he has given them to us.
I'd like to read them.
Please.
You gave the Commissioner my notes?
He said that you were
very seriously mistaken
about your recollection of the meeting.
He says he fundamentally disagrees
with your account.
Commissioner, I have to ask
if you know of any reason
why Brian Paddick is saying what he is?
I do have concerns,
and a number of ideas, but
it would be unfair
to make those points here,
so I'll stop at that.
"A number of ideas"?
I honestly have no idea
what he's talking about.
[Patricia] Where did this story come from?
My instinct is that the leak
to the Sunday Mirror
came from a police source.
Jean Charles rape a girl?
No, no way.
This is lies.
This is bullshit.
First they kill him,
now they want to kill his name?
They say the alleged attack took place
more than three years ago,
and the woman involved contacted them
and provided them
with the name of a suspect,
and the name she gave them
was Jean Charles de Menezes.
All they will say at this stage is
inquiries are ongoing.
Of course.
They spread these lies around,
this way they can make everybody forget
what they have done to him.
[Vivian] It is the same when they say
he have cocaine in his body.
I've never seen Jean take cocaine once.
Well, that was ridiculous.
It was such a tiny amount.
But they say it, so they can say
he's a cocaine addict
or something like that,
so it's okay to shoot him.
With regard to the rape accusation,
they're going to ask you one thing.
They're going to want permission
to take DNA samples
taken from Jean Charles' body
after his death.
This is disgusting.
This is too much.
No.
I say go ahead.
[cousin speaking Portuguese]
Seriously, Patricia!
We know without a shadow of a doubt
that Jean is innocent.
[in English]
He would never force himself on a woman.
They probably want us to say no.
Let them do the test.
The BBC has learned
that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner,
Sir Ian Blair, is facing new questions
about exactly when he knew
that an innocent man had been shot dead
on the London Underground.
Jean Charles de Menezes was shot
at Stockwell underground station last July
after he was mistaken for a terrorist.
Sir Ian Blair has always said
he didn't know an innocent man
had been killed until the following day.
Now investigators are studying a claim
that someone
in Sir Ian's private office believed,
as soon as six hours after the shooting,
that the wrong man had been shot.
Thank you.
Commissioner.
Martin.
I've asked Martin to be here.
I thought HR should be present.
I'll come straight to the point.
I believe that someone is leaking
information to the press.
Information that calls into question the
integrity of the Met and me personally.
I believe you are the source, Brian.
Well, I'm not.
I don't know who it was,
but it wasn't me.
Yes, we disagree about what happened
at certain moments.
And I do and have spoken to journalists
from time to time,
but I have absolutely not briefed
against you or the Met
about any of this.
I'm sorry but I don't believe you.
And in any event,
I've lost confidence in you.
I can't have you
at management board meetings,
so I'm moving you
from Territorial Policing
to Management of Police Information
with immediate effect.
Those wishing to turn this tragedy
into something it isn't,
are, I'm afraid,
going to be very disappointed.
[in Portuguese]
He did not rape that woman.
I knew it.
[crowd chanting] Justice!
Justice! Justice!
Our family believe it is disgraceful
that over a year has passed
since Jean was shot by those police thugs
and there has still not been
a proper public investigation
into his assassination.
[in English] The IPCC and the CPS
are acting like gang members,
trying to cover up the actions
of their bosses, the police.
It's clear they want to hide the truth
from everybody.
[in Portuguese]
We know the justice system is flawed
and we are asking the British government
to open a public inquiry
into Jean's murder.
Justice! Justice!
[in English] Patricia,
I'd like you to meet somebody.
This is Lana Vandenberghe.
She's the woman from the IPCC who
I know who she is.
You're the whistleblower.
Thank you for telling the truth.
Thank you, thank you.
- Hi.
- Hi.
I was so nervous to meet you.
What you did was very brave.
Do you know what's going to happen to you?
You know, I only just found out that
I'm not going to face criminal charges.
I'm glad they didn't put you in prison
just for telling the truth.
Well, the ones that should be in prison
are the ones that lie about
why they kill an innocent man.
So, what will the family do next?
[Vivian] Keep fighting.
But with no police facing charges,
our only hope is the inquest
into Jean's death.
This is our best chance for justice.
This is not the police
investigating the police.
This time there will be a jury.
Brian, thank you so much for coming.
- Of course.
- Let me introduce you to a few people.
Yes, please.
- George, it's Brian.
- Hi, George. Brian Paddick.
I've heard you're going to resign.
It's a good idea.
- I met you in
- I work in the mayor's office.
- I remember you. Brian.
- Yeah, hello.
Hi.
So, why is it a good idea I should resign?
Well, someone
from the Commissioner's office
phoned our office on the afternoon
of the day Jean Charles was shot
to say they'd shot the wrong man.
- Friday, 22nd?
- Yeah.
Thought you should know.
Yes. Yes. He's just told me
he's certain of the date.
He couldn't be sure
who made the call though.
Interesting.
Perhaps we should have seized the records
of all telephone calls made
from the Commissioner's office
on the Friday.
Are you telling me you didn't?
[news reporters] Three years after
the shooting by police officers
of an innocent young man,
Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes
the inquest into what happened
finally gets underway today.
It's in the unlikely setting
of the Oval cricket ground
as it was decided Southwark Coroners Court
was too small.
Over the next seven weeks
Over the next seven weeks,
a jury will be asked to decide
how Jean Charles came to be shot dead
during a police surveillance operation.
And whether what happened that day
amounted to an unlawful killing.
Could you tell the jury,
after all the briefings that you'd had,
what it felt like
as you ran along the platform
that morning
and got as far
as the next set of open doors?
[Charlie 12] I wasn't running.
It was a controlled, purposeful walk.
And I remember thinking we were gonna be
coming up against totally unknown threat,
the highest possible threat
that certainly I could ever imagine.
Okay, now tell us what happened
as you entered the carriage.
Sir, can I just pause for a moment?
I know obviously where we're leading to.
[clears throat]
I'm a family man myself,
and to lose a son or any member
of your family in this situation,
I just couldn't imagine.
So, I offer my sincere condolences.
I really, really respectfully do that.
Thank you very much.
What I suggest was in your mind was,
once you knew he was identified
as a potential mass killer
from the day before,
that was it.
You were down the escalators,
in the carriage, and he's dead.
This couldn't be further from the truth.
Let me take you now
through your statement,
made the following day.
You say as you entered the tube carriage,
"The male immediately looked
in my direction and stood up.
I was aware of the male wearing
a bulky denim jacket".
That's not quite
the right order of things.
The jacket actually appeared bulky to me
whilst he was sitting down,
not when he was standing up.
"The male immediately looked
in my direction and stood up".
So he's standing up,
or is he sitting down?
As I've just said,
the bulkiness of the jacket
was what I perceived
when he was sitting down.
You see, you're having to say that
because you now recognize, don't you,
that he wasn't wearing a bulky jacket
that might be consistent
with hiding an explosive.
The snapshot I had was him sitting down
and that it was a bulky jacket.
But you don't make any distinction
between standing and sitting
and the bulkiness of the jacket
in your statement.
You only do so now,
when the inconsistency is pointed out.
I can only say it's a mistake
in my statement writing,
as I have just explained to you.
And did you discuss this
with your fellow officer, C2?
I can't recall, sir.
This incident, it happened
over a very short space of time,
and the initial impression I had
was that the jacket appeared bulky.
And that's just on the basis
of a fraction of a second glimpse.
What did he do after he'd been pointed to
by the surveillance officer?
Well, he turned and looked at us,
he stood up very quickly,
and he advanced towards us
with his hands down at his side.
But, sir
can I take the opportunity
to acknowledge the family.
Because, well
I'm very aware about
what I'm about to describe.
And I find it very distressing.
But I completely respect and understand
how difficult it is for them.
[Hilliard] Thank you very much.
Now back to your statement.
"I shouted 'Armed Police'
and brought my weapon to bear on him.
He continued to close me down."
[Charlie 12] That was
the perception that I had,
that he wanted to get as close to me
as possible before detonation.
So a lot of this depends on
whether you did shout "Armed Police,"
and whether you did bring your weapon
up to bear on him,
and whether he effectively closed you down
and you thought he was going to detonate?
That is what happened, sir, yes.
[Mansfield] I'm going to suggest to you
in the clearest terms, it didn't.
I would like you to think carefully.
Could this be subject
to perceptual distortion
and you just got it all wrong?
No, sir.
Now, why did you shout "Armed Police"?
Because if you thought
he was a suicide bomber,
the one thing you don't do is warn
the person because they might detonate.
I think I just reverted back
to my training.
It was just an instant reaction
for me to challenge.
[Mansfield] Before you came into
the witness box,
did you either listen to
or read the evidence
your fellow officer C12 gave yesterday?
Yes, I did, sir.
Have you been influenced by what he said,
in what you have said today?
Absolutely not. No, sir.
- What, there's no possibility of that?
- No, sir.
Not even to the adoption by you of phrases
he used in evidence
that do not appear in your statement?
No, sir.
You went straight down the escalator
that morning
with one object in mind, didn't you?
No, sir.
That object was, I suggest,
to kill the man who you thought,
because of the way you interpreted
what you'd been told,
was a suicide bomber
who was about to blow up the train.
No, sir.
When I first saw him
I described to you
what I saw with his jacket,
he turned and looked at us.
He stood up quickly.
He then advanced towards us.
I believed at that time
that he was a threat.
I believed that he was about
to blow up the train.
I thought I was gonna die.
I don't want to be rude to you
or offensive,
but you do seem to be
in automatic mode, as it were,
just repeating various things.
Absolutely not. No, sir.
So, the surveillance officer, Ivor,
is by the partition
He doesn't hear you shout "Armed Police."
Another surveillance officer, Geoff,
he doesn't hear you say "Armed Police."
Ken, another surveillance officer,
he doesn't describe this scenario
of "Armed Police,"
a raised gun
and a man continuing to go forward.
And, of course,
there are a number of civilians
in the carriage, 17 in total.
No civilian, who is in a position
to see what happened,
says they heard or saw
the scenario you describe.
I'm going to suggest, the truth
of the situation was you were pumped up
and just wanted to dispatch this man
altogether, irrespective.
- He's here.
- Absolutely not. No, sir.
And that what you failed to do, dismally,
was after you entered the tube station,
you had an obligation
to make an independent assessment,
even if you thought the man
was a suicide bomber.
I did make that assessment
And it is my responsibility,
and I accept that.
I killed an innocent man
and I've gotta live with that
for the rest of my life.
Do you think, one final time,
that you could be wrong,
and that you've made
a serious mistake of assessment?
No, I don't.
What happened on that day
under your authority and responsibility
was a chain of events that spiralled
out of your control so disastrously,
and I'm gonna use the colloquial phrase,
so that you may understand,
that essentially from the beginning,
you were sprinting to catch up
with something that had not been
properly organized that morning.
Now, do you follow that?
I follow it.
I don't accept it.
Please understand
Everybody is human.
We all make mistakes.
It's very pleasant when people say,
"I have made a mistake."
You are really not prepared to say
that any mistake was made here, are you?
No.
What I am trying to portray, sir, is,
on any operation,
some things that
in an ideal world would happen,
don't happen.
You don't think
the Met did anything wrong?
If you ask me whether anybody did
anything wrong or unreasonable
on the operation
I don't think they did.
[Mansfield] If the Met did nothing wrong,
then what did go wrong
on the 22nd of July?
Well, sir, you've started then,
I would start with two weeks before that.
I think one thing that clearly went wrong
was that we, as a nation,
did not manage to prevent those attacks
on the 7th of July,
or indeed Hussain Osman's
and others' attempts on the 21st.
Mr. de Menezes
was extraordinarily unfortunate
to live in the same block as Hussain Osman
had lived in,
and he was desperately unfortunate
to look very like Hussain Osman.
There was the fact that the
first surveillance officer was indisposed
and only able to get
a relatively short glance at him.
Some of the things he did
in all innocence, the way he behaved,
the way he got off the bus
and back on the bus,
the fact that three of the bombers
from the day before
had entered Stockwell station,
all of this contributed
to our assessment
My assessment of him as a bomber,
and someone who might be intent
on causing an explosion today.
So he was desperately unfortunate
to look very like Hussain Osman?
Yes.
But he didn't, did he?
I know that is what
the Metropolitan Police
would have us to believe.
Now, I accept that this has nothing
to do with you, Commander Dick,
or should I say now,
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Dick,
but if you and the jury could turn
your attention to the screen.
You will see a composite picture
created by the Metropolitan Police
for the recent
Health and Safety proceedings.
It shows half of each man's face,
Jean Charles on the right,
and is intended to show
how similar they are.
But it has been manipulated.
Jean Charles' face has been elongated
to make the noses fit,
and the picture has been brightened
so that it washes out
some clear differences.
This shows us, I suggest,
how desperate the Metropolitan Police are
to persuade us that Hussain Osman
and Jean Charles de Menezes look alike.
Now, if I told you
that the evidence before this jury
is that no surveillance officer says
there was a positive identification
of the suspect as Nettle Tip,
that their identification
never went beyond "possible,"
does that come as a shock?
I know what I was being told,
and I know what that made me think.
And were you aware
that there are photographs available
that could have been given
to the surveillance team,
photographs that were found
in Hussain Osman's rucksack
the day before?
Clear photographs,
rather than the fuzzy photocopies
they were issued with that morning?
I was not aware of that, sir,
until maybe three weeks ago
when I was shown some correspondence.
These are the wedding photographs?
They're on the screen now.
So, up until this inquest,
nobody had told you
about these photographs,
which could have been distributed
to the surveillance team
to give them a much better chance
of eliminating as a suspect
the man they were following,
Jean Charles de Menezes?
No, sir.
Where were the firearms officers
that morning, DAC Dick?
You were misled, weren't you?
They were not in a position to deal
with the suspect when he got off the bus,
when you thought they were.
Do you accept even now,
that you were misled?
No, sir, I don't.
I accept that,
with the benefit of hindsight,
it is clear that they did not arrive,
we have seen that on the video
at the tube station,
until a minute behind him.
I don't accept that I was misled.
[Mansfield] Then,
what has gone wrong here?
I think you could turn that on its head
and say they did incredibly well
to get there in that time,
given what was going on.
Of course, Mr. de Menezes
wouldn't have been on the bus
if you hadn't taken the decision
not to suspend the bus services
near Scotia Road that morning.
Do you now accept that
that was a mistake?
I don't, sir, no.
My thinking was that
suspending the buses may have alerted
the terrorists to our operation.
Right. Erm
DAC Dick, I come back to that question
I asked you initially.
What do you think went wrong?
I mean, apart from
the surveillance officer needing
to relieve himself,
your answer had everything to do
with Jean Charles de Menezes
and absolutely nothing to do
with the police.
It was all his fault.
I certainly did not intend that.
But the Met even had a pathologist tell us
how minute traces of cocaine in his blood
may have made Jean Charles anxious
and paranoid in the carriage that morning.
His fault.
Is there a problem within
the Metropolitan Police hierarchy
about admitting when things go wrong?
No.
Is there within you a problem
about admitting when things go wrong?
I regard myself as somebody
who will always take full responsibility
for what I have done.
I regret tremendously
that Mr. de Menezes died,
but I don't look back and think
I made irrational decisions,
unreasonable decisions,
and nor do I think anybody else did.
Members of the jury,
before you consider your verdict,
I have to tell you
that the conclusion I have come to
is that the evidence in this case,
taken at its highest,
would not justify my leaving verdicts
of unlawful killing to you.
This is so in respect of Charlie 12
and Charlie 2,
concerning their direct involvement
in the shooting of Mr. de Menezes.
This is also in respect
of any of the particular senior officers
in relation to their management
and conduct of the operation.
- [audience members clamouring]
- A verdict of unlawful killing
could have only been left to you
if you could be sure
that a specific officer had committed
a very serious crime
such as murder or manslaughter.
And I don't believe that the evidence
we have heard passes that threshold.
There was uproar in court yesterday
when the coroner, Sir Michael Wright,
told the jury they could not return
a verdict of unlawful killing,
leaving them
with just two possible verdicts,
Lawful Killing or an Open verdict,
which would suggest the jury
were not satisfied
that the force used
by the police was justified.
As Sir Michael continued his summing up
to the jury today,
proceedings were interrupted
by a silent protest
from Mr. de Menezes' family.
They say he has presided over
a complete whitewash,
but he says he will ask the jury
a series of questions after the verdict
to help explain
how Mr. de Menezes died.
Forewoman of the jury,
I am now going to ask you
for your verdict.
Open verdict.
That is unanimous or a majority verdict?
[jury foreman] A majority,
by eight to two.
[Sir Wright] We now move on to the series
of questions I asked you to decide upon.
Could you indicate please
if your decisions are unanimous
or by majority.
Did the firearms officer Charlie 12
shout the words "Armed Police"
at Mr. de Menezes before he fired?
No. And that is unanimous.
[Sir Wright] Did Mr. de Menezes
move towards officer C12
before he was grabbed in a bear hug
by the surveillance officer Ivor?
[jury foreman] No. Unanimous.
[Sir Wright] Do you consider
that any of the following factors
caused or contributed to the death
of Mr. de Menezes:
A failure to obtain and provide
better photographic images of the suspect
Hussain Osman for the surveillance team?
Yes. Unanimous.
[Sir Wright] A failure by the police to
ensure that Mr. de Menezes was stopped
before he reached public transport?
[jury foreman] Yes, sir. Unanimous.
[Sir Wright] That the views
of the surveillance officers
regarding identification
were not accurately communicated
to the command team
and the firearms officers?
Yes. Unanimous.
[Sir Wright] Did the suicide attacks
and attempted attacks of July 2005
place pressure
upon the Metropolitan Police
in responding to the threat?
Cannot decide, sir.
Did the behaviour of Mr. de Menezes,
though entirely innocent, play a role
by increasing the suspicions
of some officers?
No. Majority eight to two.
That concludes your verdict. Thank you.
[jury foreman] Thank you.
[inaudible]
[reporter] Scotland Yard Commissioner
Sir Ian Blair today
apologized to the family,
but also said the shooting
had to be put into context.
So we have to consider what would have
happened if these officers had not shot
and that man had been a suicide bomber
and got on the tube, and the doors closed,
with the officers
having taken the wrong decision.
That would have been absolutely dreadful.
The most important thing I can do
is to, you know, offer our regrets,
but then we have to move on
in the biggest operation
the Metropolitan Police
has ever undertaken.
[Dan Rivers on TV]
Documents obtained by ITV News show
that claims Mr. de Menezes
fled from the police,
that he was dressed suspiciously,
and that he was behaving erratically,
are false.
Police believed that a suspected
terrorist bomber
lived in this block of flats behind me.
At 9.30 am Jean Charles left to walk
to the bus stop on a journey to work
that would ultimately end in his death.
None of the police officers
covertly watching outside
was sure he was the man they were after,
but they decided to follow him anyway.
At Stockwell train station,
the commander of the operation,
Cressida Dick, ordered that de Menezes
was to be stopped
from entering the tube network.
Code Red was called.
The firearms officers had now been given
permission to shoot at Jean Charles,
but as they raced after him
into the tube station,
contrary to numerous police reports
since issued,
the documents we've seen point to
a catastrophic failure
of the police surveillance operation
which resulted in a violent
and unnecessary killing.
Dan Rivers, ITV News, Stockwell.
[speaking in Portuguese]
Now maybe we'll get justice.
Who the bloody hell leaked this?
We're looking into it.
[Ian Blair] Well, this is catastrophic.
These were honest mistakes.
The whole thing would have come out
once the IPCC had delivered its findings.
I think what we're facing here
is the perception that,
whatever the truth,
the Met won't face up to its failings.
Nonsense.
What utter nonsense.
- Hey.
- Did you watch the news last night?
Yeah. Yeah.
It's gone mad in here this morning.
They think it's someone
from inside this office.
What do you think about it?
I don't really know.
[Jane] I tell you what I think.
Whoever's done this must have been paid
a lot of money for it.
Why do you think they did it for money?
[Jane] Well, why else would you do it?
I think it's incredibly selfish
what they've done.
Yeah, I suppose so.
I think we have to get our side
of the story out there.
Yes, we can't let this define us.
[Fedorcio] My suggestion would be
the News of the World.
You don't look convinced, Brian.
I'm just not sure now's the time
to try and launch a defense.
It shouldn't be about trying
to protect ourselves.
Sir, shooting an innocent man's
a huge thing.
Well, it's a tragedy, of course it is.
But only two weeks ago,
the whole world was mesmerized
by our responses to two bomb attacks
and by our ability to detect
and prevent others.
Isn't that what we should be
talking about?
[in Portuguese] Why did your police give
no warning that you were coming?
We only heard about this last night.
We wanted to have a lawyer here with us
but it was not possible.
We didn't have the time to.
There are many things
we want to understand.
[in English]
The purpose of this meeting is purely
for us to express our condolences
and to discuss funeral expenses.
Here in your letter,
what does this mean?
Fifteen thousand pounds? Huh?
You want us to take this money
and we don't talk
about Jean Charles anymore?
No, no, the letter was very clear
No, so we don't talk about how you shoot
my brother seven times in the head?
No.
We won't exchange money
for my brother's life.
The money is an ex-gratia payment.
It's to compensate you and your family
for your loss.
It doesn't stop you from taking
legal proceedings in the future.
[speaking Portuguese]
Why did my son have to die?
[in Portuguese] Why did they shoot him
in the head so many times?
He was an innocent boy.
[in English] I'm very sorry
but I cannot discuss the circumstances
of your son's death.
[speaking Portuguese] Those responsible
must be brought to justice.
I think they're trying to pressure us to
agree to something in exchange for money.
If it's true, then it is humiliating.
Humiliating that they think that of us.
I can tell them
that we are going to fight.
We are going to fight for justice
for my brother
until the last day of our lives.
[Wistrich in English] Yesterday,
the family of Jean Charles de Menezes
and we, their lawyers
became aware that virtually
the entire body of information,
either placed, or allowed to remain
in the public domain since his killing
on July 22nd 2005, has been false.
The family asks that the truth
surrounding his death be made public now
as a matter of urgency.
[HR director] Ms. Vandenberghe,
could we have a quiet word, please?
Firstly, Commissioner,
thank you for agreeing to this
at a very difficult time for you
and the Met.
Let's get started.
Okay.
Well, I'd like to start by asking you
about the moment you found out
that the man who'd been shot
at Stockwell Station wasn't a terrorist,
but an innocent man.
Yes, I remember it distinctly.
I was in my office at about 10:30
on the morning of July 23rd,
the day after Mr. de Menezes was shot,
and I was told that an innocent man
had been killed.
My first thought was,
"Houston, we have a problem."
So you didn't know straight away?
No.
The key component was that at that time,
and for the next 24 hours or so,
I, and everybody who advised me,
believed the person shot
was a suicide bomber.
Either one of the four
or, even worse, someone else.
[people murmuring indistinctly]
Okay, he's saying that
for 24 hours after the shooting,
he and all his senior team believed
that the person who was shot
was a suicide bomber, right?
Even though on the afternoon
of the shooting,
two of his closest advisors told me,
"We have shot a Brazilian tourist."
And by three o'clock that afternoon,
we had his wallet,
for God's sake,
with a driving permit in it,
photo ID with the name
Jean Charles de Menezes.
Alan Brown read out the name
Jean Charles de Menezes
in that meeting we had
about community issues.
When was that?
I mean, what was that, about four o'clock?
The public are gonna believe he's lying
or withholding vital information.
This is about credibility.
[sighs] I can't stay quiet, Alf.
Not anymore.
Be careful, Brian.
[knocking on door]
Ah, Brian.
Will this take long?
The first thing to say
is that I am here as a friend.
Is that right?
- Can I sit down?
- Of course.
Ian, you spoke at a press conference
on July 22nd, the day of the shooting,
and you said that the shooting
was directly linked to the ongoing
and expanding anti-terrorist operation.
The timing of this was 3:39 p.m.
What of it?
Well, by then, Moir Stewart
and Caroline Murdoch,
speaking to me just out there,
had already told me that it was
a Brazilian tourist who'd been shot,
clearly implying
that we had killed the wrong guy.
You must have got the wrong time.
I haven't got my timings wrong.
Because I then told Alf Hitchcock
that we had shot a Brazilian tourist.
You're wrong.
The point is, Ian, that up until
that article was published yesterday,
I had managed to convince myself
that Jean Charles being directly linked
to the ongoing anti-terrorist operation
was arguably correct,
given that he had emerged from a building
that was under observation.
That's exactly what I meant.
Yes, yes, yes.
But you've just said
in your News of the World interview
that for 24 hours after the shooting,
you, and everyone that advised you,
believed that the man who was shot
was a suicide bomber.
You see, I'm telling you this, Ian,
because if your team told me on the 22nd
that Jean Charles was a Brazilian tourist,
but they didn't tell you,
then, in my opinion,
they should have.
I'm wondering if you got the wrong day.
I'm wondering if you heard what you heard
on the 23rd, rather than the 22nd.
Alan Brown asked Alf Hitchcock
at a meeting on the afternoon of the 22nd,
to prepare a Community Impact Assessment
on the basis that we'd shot the wrong guy.
The computer system shows
a document being created
just after 5 p.m. on the 22nd.
I distinctly remember being told
on the Saturday morning by Alan Brown
that we had shot the wrong man.
I just thought it was important
that you knew
what I knew.
I'm genuinely trying
to help you here, Ian.
You must do what you have to do.
But we both know the penalty
for not telling the truth.
They used dum-dum bullets
to kill Jean Charles.
How can the police in the UK use bullets
that not even the army is allowed to use?
The police needs to be open
about what they're doing.
And if they act illegally,
they should be punished.
[audience applauding]
The pain of the loss of our cousin
at the hands of the police was immense.
But the fact that the police lied
about what happened,
and tried to cover up the truth
made our pain unbearable.
For Ian Blair to say he did not know
for 24 hours that Jean is innocent
is hard to believe.
We say Jean Charles was killed unlawfully.
The IPCC investigation
should not have been delayed by Ian Blair.
Who knows what evidence
was lost in this period?
[audience applauding]
I thought the family were so dignified,
so full of humility.
Yeah, I was thinking that too.
Watching them tonight, so inspiring.
[applauding]
Shameful! Their behaviour is shameful!
[Erionaldo] They must tell the truth!
No lies!
[radio presenter] When did they know?
That is the key.
Did the Met know only hours
after Jean Charles was killed
that he was an innocent man
and yet still released
misleading press statements
about what had happened?
Home Affairs correspondent
Holly Salisbury,
what do you make of the situation?
[Holly] Well, the problem is
we don't really believe
what the police are telling us anymore.
Trust has been eroded.
And the truth now seems
to have become just a commodity.
Clearly, when we recognized
that we had killed an innocent man,
we could have put the record straight
about the issues around him
jumping over barriers,
heavy coats and so on,
but, in a terrible way at that time,
the Met was transfixed on other things.
It was transfixed on,
"Where are the bombers?"
That was our mistake.
[interviewer] The family of
Jean Charles de Menezes want to know why,
for a number of days after his shooting,
you prevented an independent investigation
into what had happened.
Because we were hunting
for four suicide bombers.
They want to know what evidence was lost
or damaged in that period.
Look, the answer to all of this
is that, you know,
we will have to account for what happened.
We're not looking to blame anybody else.
[banging on door]
[officer] Police!
- [banging continues]
- Police!
One second.
Lana Vandenberghe?
Yeah.
What Hey, what
- We have a warrant to search the premises.
- What are you doing?
What are you looking for?
- Hey
- Lana Vandenberghe, I am arresting you
on suspicion of misconduct
in a public office
and theft from your place of work
- on August 16th.
- Theft? What have I stolen?
You do not have to say anything
but it may harm your defense
if you do not mention when questioned
something that you later rely on in court.
Did you provide ITN with documents
and photographs from restricted files
to help them compile their news report?
No comment.
Do you know Neil Garrett?
No comment.
Did he pay you for this information?
Right, you do realize you could be facing
a long prison sentence here?
When I was arrested, one of the offences
I was accused of was theft.
- Theft of what?
- The documents.
You do know I never signed
the Official Secrets Act.
The theft refers
to the physical documents.
The paper?
The paper and the ink, yeah.
Really?
This is the SO12 surveillance team log
for the 22nd,
which we've finally been able to examine.
I wanna show you page eleven.
As you can see,
two words have been added to the log.
In the text, NT is Nettle Tip,
the suspect,
who was, in fact, Jean Charles de Menezes.
"A split second view of his face
and I believe it was not NT."
So it looks as if somebody has added
the word 'and' and the word 'not',
changing it from "I believe it was NT"
to "And I believe it was not NT."
The whole meaning of the entry
has been changed.
[Bixel] Nobody has admitted
to making the amendments.
Well, there may be a simple explanation
for all this,
but it's just another example
of why we should not have been excluded
from the scene.
[Bixel] Commissioner, we have a note made
by your Chief of Staff Caroline Murdoch,
of a meeting to discuss a press release
which you attended at around 5:30 p.m,
on Friday, 22nd July,
the day of the shooting.
She notes that the person shot
was referred to as
"not being one of the four",
meaning one of the four
suspected terrorists
from the failed explosions the day before.
Assistant Commissioner Hayman then says,
"We need to present this
that he is believed to be.
This is different to confirming
that he is".
What
What does that mean?
Well, I have no memory of it.
That's the first thing to say.
I really don't understand it.
No, I'm genuinely puzzled by it.
I repeatedly pressed Andy Hayman
during the day for information
as to the connection between the dead man
and the previous day's bombings,
and, long into the evening,
he did not provide an answer.
But I can say that I would never preside
over a meeting
where press statements
were designed to deliberately mislead.
[Paddick] Are you kidding me?
[Bixel] I've read your notes.
Chief Superintendent Stewart
accepts discussing with you,
on the afternoon of the 22nd,
a wallet being found
with Brazilian identity documents in it,
but denies saying
that a Brazilian tourist had been shot.
You mistaken about that phrase?
Absolutely not.
The Commissioner insists
he did not know the dead man's identity
when he left work at around 9 o'clock
that evening.
Then my point is a simple one.
Why not?
Why, on one of the most crucial days
in police history,
does the commissioner of
the Metropolitan Police leave his office
still not knowing
who it was his officers had shot?
Or at the very least,
why did no one think to tell him
what was being openly discussed
amongst senior management?
I recently had a meeting
with Brian Paddick
where he brought all this up with me
and I told him that I thought
he was mistaken with his timings.
Tell me, did Brian make notes
of our meeting?
I mean, it was just a quick chat.
Yes, he did.
He made them just after the meeting.
And he has given them to us.
I'd like to read them.
Please.
You gave the Commissioner my notes?
He said that you were
very seriously mistaken
about your recollection of the meeting.
He says he fundamentally disagrees
with your account.
Commissioner, I have to ask
if you know of any reason
why Brian Paddick is saying what he is?
I do have concerns,
and a number of ideas, but
it would be unfair
to make those points here,
so I'll stop at that.
"A number of ideas"?
I honestly have no idea
what he's talking about.
[Patricia] Where did this story come from?
My instinct is that the leak
to the Sunday Mirror
came from a police source.
Jean Charles rape a girl?
No, no way.
This is lies.
This is bullshit.
First they kill him,
now they want to kill his name?
They say the alleged attack took place
more than three years ago,
and the woman involved contacted them
and provided them
with the name of a suspect,
and the name she gave them
was Jean Charles de Menezes.
All they will say at this stage is
inquiries are ongoing.
Of course.
They spread these lies around,
this way they can make everybody forget
what they have done to him.
[Vivian] It is the same when they say
he have cocaine in his body.
I've never seen Jean take cocaine once.
Well, that was ridiculous.
It was such a tiny amount.
But they say it, so they can say
he's a cocaine addict
or something like that,
so it's okay to shoot him.
With regard to the rape accusation,
they're going to ask you one thing.
They're going to want permission
to take DNA samples
taken from Jean Charles' body
after his death.
This is disgusting.
This is too much.
No.
I say go ahead.
[cousin speaking Portuguese]
Seriously, Patricia!
We know without a shadow of a doubt
that Jean is innocent.
[in English]
He would never force himself on a woman.
They probably want us to say no.
Let them do the test.
The BBC has learned
that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner,
Sir Ian Blair, is facing new questions
about exactly when he knew
that an innocent man had been shot dead
on the London Underground.
Jean Charles de Menezes was shot
at Stockwell underground station last July
after he was mistaken for a terrorist.
Sir Ian Blair has always said
he didn't know an innocent man
had been killed until the following day.
Now investigators are studying a claim
that someone
in Sir Ian's private office believed,
as soon as six hours after the shooting,
that the wrong man had been shot.
Thank you.
Commissioner.
Martin.
I've asked Martin to be here.
I thought HR should be present.
I'll come straight to the point.
I believe that someone is leaking
information to the press.
Information that calls into question the
integrity of the Met and me personally.
I believe you are the source, Brian.
Well, I'm not.
I don't know who it was,
but it wasn't me.
Yes, we disagree about what happened
at certain moments.
And I do and have spoken to journalists
from time to time,
but I have absolutely not briefed
against you or the Met
about any of this.
I'm sorry but I don't believe you.
And in any event,
I've lost confidence in you.
I can't have you
at management board meetings,
so I'm moving you
from Territorial Policing
to Management of Police Information
with immediate effect.
Those wishing to turn this tragedy
into something it isn't,
are, I'm afraid,
going to be very disappointed.
[in Portuguese]
He did not rape that woman.
I knew it.
[crowd chanting] Justice!
Justice! Justice!
Our family believe it is disgraceful
that over a year has passed
since Jean was shot by those police thugs
and there has still not been
a proper public investigation
into his assassination.
[in English] The IPCC and the CPS
are acting like gang members,
trying to cover up the actions
of their bosses, the police.
It's clear they want to hide the truth
from everybody.
[in Portuguese]
We know the justice system is flawed
and we are asking the British government
to open a public inquiry
into Jean's murder.
Justice! Justice!
[in English] Patricia,
I'd like you to meet somebody.
This is Lana Vandenberghe.
She's the woman from the IPCC who
I know who she is.
You're the whistleblower.
Thank you for telling the truth.
Thank you, thank you.
- Hi.
- Hi.
I was so nervous to meet you.
What you did was very brave.
Do you know what's going to happen to you?
You know, I only just found out that
I'm not going to face criminal charges.
I'm glad they didn't put you in prison
just for telling the truth.
Well, the ones that should be in prison
are the ones that lie about
why they kill an innocent man.
So, what will the family do next?
[Vivian] Keep fighting.
But with no police facing charges,
our only hope is the inquest
into Jean's death.
This is our best chance for justice.
This is not the police
investigating the police.
This time there will be a jury.
Brian, thank you so much for coming.
- Of course.
- Let me introduce you to a few people.
Yes, please.
- George, it's Brian.
- Hi, George. Brian Paddick.
I've heard you're going to resign.
It's a good idea.
- I met you in
- I work in the mayor's office.
- I remember you. Brian.
- Yeah, hello.
Hi.
So, why is it a good idea I should resign?
Well, someone
from the Commissioner's office
phoned our office on the afternoon
of the day Jean Charles was shot
to say they'd shot the wrong man.
- Friday, 22nd?
- Yeah.
Thought you should know.
Yes. Yes. He's just told me
he's certain of the date.
He couldn't be sure
who made the call though.
Interesting.
Perhaps we should have seized the records
of all telephone calls made
from the Commissioner's office
on the Friday.
Are you telling me you didn't?
[news reporters] Three years after
the shooting by police officers
of an innocent young man,
Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes
the inquest into what happened
finally gets underway today.
It's in the unlikely setting
of the Oval cricket ground
as it was decided Southwark Coroners Court
was too small.
Over the next seven weeks
Over the next seven weeks,
a jury will be asked to decide
how Jean Charles came to be shot dead
during a police surveillance operation.
And whether what happened that day
amounted to an unlawful killing.
Could you tell the jury,
after all the briefings that you'd had,
what it felt like
as you ran along the platform
that morning
and got as far
as the next set of open doors?
[Charlie 12] I wasn't running.
It was a controlled, purposeful walk.
And I remember thinking we were gonna be
coming up against totally unknown threat,
the highest possible threat
that certainly I could ever imagine.
Okay, now tell us what happened
as you entered the carriage.
Sir, can I just pause for a moment?
I know obviously where we're leading to.
[clears throat]
I'm a family man myself,
and to lose a son or any member
of your family in this situation,
I just couldn't imagine.
So, I offer my sincere condolences.
I really, really respectfully do that.
Thank you very much.
What I suggest was in your mind was,
once you knew he was identified
as a potential mass killer
from the day before,
that was it.
You were down the escalators,
in the carriage, and he's dead.
This couldn't be further from the truth.
Let me take you now
through your statement,
made the following day.
You say as you entered the tube carriage,
"The male immediately looked
in my direction and stood up.
I was aware of the male wearing
a bulky denim jacket".
That's not quite
the right order of things.
The jacket actually appeared bulky to me
whilst he was sitting down,
not when he was standing up.
"The male immediately looked
in my direction and stood up".
So he's standing up,
or is he sitting down?
As I've just said,
the bulkiness of the jacket
was what I perceived
when he was sitting down.
You see, you're having to say that
because you now recognize, don't you,
that he wasn't wearing a bulky jacket
that might be consistent
with hiding an explosive.
The snapshot I had was him sitting down
and that it was a bulky jacket.
But you don't make any distinction
between standing and sitting
and the bulkiness of the jacket
in your statement.
You only do so now,
when the inconsistency is pointed out.
I can only say it's a mistake
in my statement writing,
as I have just explained to you.
And did you discuss this
with your fellow officer, C2?
I can't recall, sir.
This incident, it happened
over a very short space of time,
and the initial impression I had
was that the jacket appeared bulky.
And that's just on the basis
of a fraction of a second glimpse.
What did he do after he'd been pointed to
by the surveillance officer?
Well, he turned and looked at us,
he stood up very quickly,
and he advanced towards us
with his hands down at his side.
But, sir
can I take the opportunity
to acknowledge the family.
Because, well
I'm very aware about
what I'm about to describe.
And I find it very distressing.
But I completely respect and understand
how difficult it is for them.
[Hilliard] Thank you very much.
Now back to your statement.
"I shouted 'Armed Police'
and brought my weapon to bear on him.
He continued to close me down."
[Charlie 12] That was
the perception that I had,
that he wanted to get as close to me
as possible before detonation.
So a lot of this depends on
whether you did shout "Armed Police,"
and whether you did bring your weapon
up to bear on him,
and whether he effectively closed you down
and you thought he was going to detonate?
That is what happened, sir, yes.
[Mansfield] I'm going to suggest to you
in the clearest terms, it didn't.
I would like you to think carefully.
Could this be subject
to perceptual distortion
and you just got it all wrong?
No, sir.
Now, why did you shout "Armed Police"?
Because if you thought
he was a suicide bomber,
the one thing you don't do is warn
the person because they might detonate.
I think I just reverted back
to my training.
It was just an instant reaction
for me to challenge.
[Mansfield] Before you came into
the witness box,
did you either listen to
or read the evidence
your fellow officer C12 gave yesterday?
Yes, I did, sir.
Have you been influenced by what he said,
in what you have said today?
Absolutely not. No, sir.
- What, there's no possibility of that?
- No, sir.
Not even to the adoption by you of phrases
he used in evidence
that do not appear in your statement?
No, sir.
You went straight down the escalator
that morning
with one object in mind, didn't you?
No, sir.
That object was, I suggest,
to kill the man who you thought,
because of the way you interpreted
what you'd been told,
was a suicide bomber
who was about to blow up the train.
No, sir.
When I first saw him
I described to you
what I saw with his jacket,
he turned and looked at us.
He stood up quickly.
He then advanced towards us.
I believed at that time
that he was a threat.
I believed that he was about
to blow up the train.
I thought I was gonna die.
I don't want to be rude to you
or offensive,
but you do seem to be
in automatic mode, as it were,
just repeating various things.
Absolutely not. No, sir.
So, the surveillance officer, Ivor,
is by the partition
He doesn't hear you shout "Armed Police."
Another surveillance officer, Geoff,
he doesn't hear you say "Armed Police."
Ken, another surveillance officer,
he doesn't describe this scenario
of "Armed Police,"
a raised gun
and a man continuing to go forward.
And, of course,
there are a number of civilians
in the carriage, 17 in total.
No civilian, who is in a position
to see what happened,
says they heard or saw
the scenario you describe.
I'm going to suggest, the truth
of the situation was you were pumped up
and just wanted to dispatch this man
altogether, irrespective.
- He's here.
- Absolutely not. No, sir.
And that what you failed to do, dismally,
was after you entered the tube station,
you had an obligation
to make an independent assessment,
even if you thought the man
was a suicide bomber.
I did make that assessment
And it is my responsibility,
and I accept that.
I killed an innocent man
and I've gotta live with that
for the rest of my life.
Do you think, one final time,
that you could be wrong,
and that you've made
a serious mistake of assessment?
No, I don't.
What happened on that day
under your authority and responsibility
was a chain of events that spiralled
out of your control so disastrously,
and I'm gonna use the colloquial phrase,
so that you may understand,
that essentially from the beginning,
you were sprinting to catch up
with something that had not been
properly organized that morning.
Now, do you follow that?
I follow it.
I don't accept it.
Please understand
Everybody is human.
We all make mistakes.
It's very pleasant when people say,
"I have made a mistake."
You are really not prepared to say
that any mistake was made here, are you?
No.
What I am trying to portray, sir, is,
on any operation,
some things that
in an ideal world would happen,
don't happen.
You don't think
the Met did anything wrong?
If you ask me whether anybody did
anything wrong or unreasonable
on the operation
I don't think they did.
[Mansfield] If the Met did nothing wrong,
then what did go wrong
on the 22nd of July?
Well, sir, you've started then,
I would start with two weeks before that.
I think one thing that clearly went wrong
was that we, as a nation,
did not manage to prevent those attacks
on the 7th of July,
or indeed Hussain Osman's
and others' attempts on the 21st.
Mr. de Menezes
was extraordinarily unfortunate
to live in the same block as Hussain Osman
had lived in,
and he was desperately unfortunate
to look very like Hussain Osman.
There was the fact that the
first surveillance officer was indisposed
and only able to get
a relatively short glance at him.
Some of the things he did
in all innocence, the way he behaved,
the way he got off the bus
and back on the bus,
the fact that three of the bombers
from the day before
had entered Stockwell station,
all of this contributed
to our assessment
My assessment of him as a bomber,
and someone who might be intent
on causing an explosion today.
So he was desperately unfortunate
to look very like Hussain Osman?
Yes.
But he didn't, did he?
I know that is what
the Metropolitan Police
would have us to believe.
Now, I accept that this has nothing
to do with you, Commander Dick,
or should I say now,
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Dick,
but if you and the jury could turn
your attention to the screen.
You will see a composite picture
created by the Metropolitan Police
for the recent
Health and Safety proceedings.
It shows half of each man's face,
Jean Charles on the right,
and is intended to show
how similar they are.
But it has been manipulated.
Jean Charles' face has been elongated
to make the noses fit,
and the picture has been brightened
so that it washes out
some clear differences.
This shows us, I suggest,
how desperate the Metropolitan Police are
to persuade us that Hussain Osman
and Jean Charles de Menezes look alike.
Now, if I told you
that the evidence before this jury
is that no surveillance officer says
there was a positive identification
of the suspect as Nettle Tip,
that their identification
never went beyond "possible,"
does that come as a shock?
I know what I was being told,
and I know what that made me think.
And were you aware
that there are photographs available
that could have been given
to the surveillance team,
photographs that were found
in Hussain Osman's rucksack
the day before?
Clear photographs,
rather than the fuzzy photocopies
they were issued with that morning?
I was not aware of that, sir,
until maybe three weeks ago
when I was shown some correspondence.
These are the wedding photographs?
They're on the screen now.
So, up until this inquest,
nobody had told you
about these photographs,
which could have been distributed
to the surveillance team
to give them a much better chance
of eliminating as a suspect
the man they were following,
Jean Charles de Menezes?
No, sir.
Where were the firearms officers
that morning, DAC Dick?
You were misled, weren't you?
They were not in a position to deal
with the suspect when he got off the bus,
when you thought they were.
Do you accept even now,
that you were misled?
No, sir, I don't.
I accept that,
with the benefit of hindsight,
it is clear that they did not arrive,
we have seen that on the video
at the tube station,
until a minute behind him.
I don't accept that I was misled.
[Mansfield] Then,
what has gone wrong here?
I think you could turn that on its head
and say they did incredibly well
to get there in that time,
given what was going on.
Of course, Mr. de Menezes
wouldn't have been on the bus
if you hadn't taken the decision
not to suspend the bus services
near Scotia Road that morning.
Do you now accept that
that was a mistake?
I don't, sir, no.
My thinking was that
suspending the buses may have alerted
the terrorists to our operation.
Right. Erm
DAC Dick, I come back to that question
I asked you initially.
What do you think went wrong?
I mean, apart from
the surveillance officer needing
to relieve himself,
your answer had everything to do
with Jean Charles de Menezes
and absolutely nothing to do
with the police.
It was all his fault.
I certainly did not intend that.
But the Met even had a pathologist tell us
how minute traces of cocaine in his blood
may have made Jean Charles anxious
and paranoid in the carriage that morning.
His fault.
Is there a problem within
the Metropolitan Police hierarchy
about admitting when things go wrong?
No.
Is there within you a problem
about admitting when things go wrong?
I regard myself as somebody
who will always take full responsibility
for what I have done.
I regret tremendously
that Mr. de Menezes died,
but I don't look back and think
I made irrational decisions,
unreasonable decisions,
and nor do I think anybody else did.
Members of the jury,
before you consider your verdict,
I have to tell you
that the conclusion I have come to
is that the evidence in this case,
taken at its highest,
would not justify my leaving verdicts
of unlawful killing to you.
This is so in respect of Charlie 12
and Charlie 2,
concerning their direct involvement
in the shooting of Mr. de Menezes.
This is also in respect
of any of the particular senior officers
in relation to their management
and conduct of the operation.
- [audience members clamouring]
- A verdict of unlawful killing
could have only been left to you
if you could be sure
that a specific officer had committed
a very serious crime
such as murder or manslaughter.
And I don't believe that the evidence
we have heard passes that threshold.
There was uproar in court yesterday
when the coroner, Sir Michael Wright,
told the jury they could not return
a verdict of unlawful killing,
leaving them
with just two possible verdicts,
Lawful Killing or an Open verdict,
which would suggest the jury
were not satisfied
that the force used
by the police was justified.
As Sir Michael continued his summing up
to the jury today,
proceedings were interrupted
by a silent protest
from Mr. de Menezes' family.
They say he has presided over
a complete whitewash,
but he says he will ask the jury
a series of questions after the verdict
to help explain
how Mr. de Menezes died.
Forewoman of the jury,
I am now going to ask you
for your verdict.
Open verdict.
That is unanimous or a majority verdict?
[jury foreman] A majority,
by eight to two.
[Sir Wright] We now move on to the series
of questions I asked you to decide upon.
Could you indicate please
if your decisions are unanimous
or by majority.
Did the firearms officer Charlie 12
shout the words "Armed Police"
at Mr. de Menezes before he fired?
No. And that is unanimous.
[Sir Wright] Did Mr. de Menezes
move towards officer C12
before he was grabbed in a bear hug
by the surveillance officer Ivor?
[jury foreman] No. Unanimous.
[Sir Wright] Do you consider
that any of the following factors
caused or contributed to the death
of Mr. de Menezes:
A failure to obtain and provide
better photographic images of the suspect
Hussain Osman for the surveillance team?
Yes. Unanimous.
[Sir Wright] A failure by the police to
ensure that Mr. de Menezes was stopped
before he reached public transport?
[jury foreman] Yes, sir. Unanimous.
[Sir Wright] That the views
of the surveillance officers
regarding identification
were not accurately communicated
to the command team
and the firearms officers?
Yes. Unanimous.
[Sir Wright] Did the suicide attacks
and attempted attacks of July 2005
place pressure
upon the Metropolitan Police
in responding to the threat?
Cannot decide, sir.
Did the behaviour of Mr. de Menezes,
though entirely innocent, play a role
by increasing the suspicions
of some officers?
No. Majority eight to two.
That concludes your verdict. Thank you.
[jury foreman] Thank you.
[inaudible]
[reporter] Scotland Yard Commissioner
Sir Ian Blair today
apologized to the family,
but also said the shooting
had to be put into context.
So we have to consider what would have
happened if these officers had not shot
and that man had been a suicide bomber
and got on the tube, and the doors closed,
with the officers
having taken the wrong decision.
That would have been absolutely dreadful.
The most important thing I can do
is to, you know, offer our regrets,
but then we have to move on
in the biggest operation
the Metropolitan Police
has ever undertaken.