The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 45: 21 August 2005 Part 1 'Shoot To Kill - Dizzying Twists

One Month On From 21 July

Part 1: 'Shoot To Kill - Dizzying Twists'

Part 2: 'Realism And Denial'

Contents

Part 1: 'Shoot To Kill'

Kept In The Dark

Surveillance And Firearms Fall Out

Inquiry

Mysteries And Explanations

Note

SHOOT TO KILL - DIZZYING TWISTS

The Stockwell 'shoot to kill' controversy takes some sharp turns in the British papers today, and all that is certain is that there will be more twists in the road before a full accounting is made for the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.

It transpires today that the offer of money to the de Menezes family by the Metropolitan police was (a) much smaller than first claimed (£15,000 not £560,000/$1m), (b) part of a larger financial package offering to pay for the family's funeral and travel expenses. 'The £15,000 offer, the letter stressed, was an ex gratia payment "paid without any consideration of legal liability or responsibility'. In other words, the payments would not bar them from taking legal action against the police, or, on the other hand, amount to an admission of criminal wrongdoing by the Metropolitan Police. (Independent on Sunday, page 10)

KEPT IN THE DARK

Sir Ian Blair, the head of the Met, claims not to have been told that Mr de Menezes was innocent of any terrorist connection until 10.30am the day after the shooting, over 12 hours after he made his public statement on the matter, referring to Mr de Menezes' suspicious 'clothing and behaviour'. (News of the World interview)

SURVEILLANCE AND FIREARMS FALL OUT

The Observer leads with a story claiming that the 'Police knew Brazilian was 'not bomb risk'' '. The question is 'which police'? This report claims that there is a rift between the observation group trailing Mr de Menezes and the armed group which shot him dead:

'Senior sources in the Metropolitan Police have told The Observer that members of the surveillance team who followed de Menezes into Stockwell underground station in London felt that he was not about to detonate a bomb, was not armed and was not acting suspiciously. It was only when they were joined by armed officers that his threat was deemed so great that he was shot seven times.'

'Sources said that the surveillance officers wanted to detain de Menezes, but were told to hand over the operation to the firearms team.'

'The two teams have fallen out over the circumstances surrounding the incident, raising fresh questions about how the operation was handled.'

'A police source said: "There is no way those three guys would have been on the train carriage with him [de Menezes] if they believed he was carrying a bomb. Nothing he did gave the surveillance team the impression that he was carrying a device." '

'... Members of the firearms unit are said to be furious that de Menezes was not properly identified when he left his flat, the first problem in the chain of events that led to the Brazilian's death.'

'Specialist officers with the firearms team active that day had received training in how to deal with suicide bombers. A key element was advice that a potential bomber will detonate at the first inkling he has been identified. They are trained to react at the first sign of any action.'

'The Observer now understands that seconds before the firearms team entered the tube train carriage, a member of the surveillance squad using the codename Hotel 3 moved to the doorway and shouted: 'He's in here.' De Menezes, in all likelihood alarmed by the activity, stood and moved towards the doorway. He was grabbed and pushed back to his seat. The first shots were then fired while Hotel 3 was holding him.'

We will have to wait months and possibly years before a full account of this incident is given (the firearms group have not yet given their version of events), but it seems at this point highly likely that the death of Mr de Menezes came about because, on the one hand, the armed officers sent down into the Underground were unaware of the judgement of the surveillance group, and reacted instantaneously to the developing situation as if he was a suspected bomber, and, on the other, the surveillance group broke their cover and shouted to attract the attention of the firearms group precisely because they believed Mr de Menezes posed no threat.

INQUIRY

Yesterday we discussed the Northern Ireland-related 'shoot to kill' controversy and referred in passing to the Thames Television programme 'Death on the Rock' on the shooting dead of three unarmed IRA members on Gibraltar.

Today the Independent on Sunday has Roger Bolton, the producer of that programme (and many other epic moments in British television) contributing a piece entitled, 'Shoot-to-kill: expect the official version to be inaccurate' (page 19 or paid-for access here), drawing some comparisons between the two incidents. He is heartened by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation of the Stockwell shooting, and suggests that, 'we can now be reasonably sure that an independent inquiry will be properly carried out and that justice may well be done'.

Others are not so confident, calling for a full public inquiry, including the de Menezes family, and Michael Portillo, former Conservative Defence Minister, a somewhat odd coalition.

MYSTERIES AND EXPLANATIONS

Why did the Metropolitan Police try to stop the IPCC taking over the investigation of the shooting? A plausible explanation has emerged:

Ian Blair 'refuses to attack the IPCC, explaining the background to claims that he was reluctant to hand over the investigation to them. He reveals a letter was written to the IPCC and Permanent Secretary at 11am on Friday, July 22—less than an hour after Mr de Menezes, 27, died. Sir Ian says: "The key component was that at that time—and for the next 24 hours—I and everybody who advised me believed the person who was shot was a suicide bomber." '

'It also contained concerns that if the dead man was a suicide bomber then certain information would have to be kept from the family—flying in the face of the IPCC's obligation to keep such families informed. Sir Ian says: "That was a legitimate stance for a Met Police Commissioner." ' (News of the World interview)

'In an interview with BBC Radio 4's Talking Politics, he said: "The IPCC has a duty, which I respect, to inform the family of everything they find, and this is an investigation involving secret intelligence."

'He said that he asked the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office how to reconcile these disparate interests: "Where do these two fit together? Permanent Secretary, what would you advise?" '

'Sir Ian continued: "We had a series of discussions in which all of those people were invited and handed it over to the IPCC after these points were considered. That is not a cover-up; it is a responsible action by a senior official." ' (Sunday Telegraph, page 16, not in the online version)

The implication is that some provision was made for preserving the confidentiality of certain categories of information, which should not be disclosed to the de Menezes family.

Why did the Met not correct the misleading claims made in the first hours after the shooting? Another plausible explanation has emerged from the police:

'A spokesman for Sir Ian, however, emphatically denies that the Met could have corrected any inaccuracies there "might have been in any briefing". "We handed over the investigation to the IPCC on Monday evening," he said. "The protocols state quite clearly that 'once the IPCC is running an investigation, the media strategy and handling for that investigation becomes a matter for the IPCC.'

'All press statements should be sent out by the IPCC on IPCC paper, all media interviews carried out by IPCC and all media events will be branded IPCC events.' We weren't allowed to issue anything correcting the errors - however much we wanted to." ' (Sunday Telegraph, page 17)

'Scotland Yard detectives are... irritated that they are being attacked for not publicly correcting misleading suggestions from witnesses that Mr de Menezes was wearing a bulky coat and vaulted the ticket barrier.'

'One police officer said: "Nick Hardwick, the IPCC chairman, told everyone to shut up and await the outcome of the inquiry - so we did".' (Telegraph, yesterday)

There is still leaves the period between 10.30am on Saturday, when the Commissioner says he learnt that there might be a problem with the story he had given on the day Mr de Menezes was shot, and Monday evening, when the investigation was handed over.

There is a way of reconciling this conflict. If the investigation was effectively handed over to the IPCC straight away, granting them media control, but documents needed to be typed into the central computer for several days, and so weren't ready for the IPCC till Monday evening, when formal control passed over.

At this point, however, no one is going to give the police the benefit of the doubt.

We can be confident that the truth will out eventually. Gareth Pierce is the solicitor for the de Menezes family.

NOTE

Because of other time commitments, unless there are major developments in this story, the JNV Media Review will from now on be focused on terrorism, foreign policy issues, repressive laws, and Islamophobia, which are our core concerns.

The Justice4Jean campaign website is here: they are holding a demonstration tomorrow, Monday 22 August at 6pm at Downing Street.

Part 2: 'Realism And Denial'

JNV welcomes feedback.