Monday, 20 October 2008


Pretty soon after innocent Jean Charles de Menezes got blown to bits at STOCKWELL STATION on July 22 2005 a narrative of sorts about what had happened began to emerge. Consistantly - even up to the present time - the cops have claimed that Menezes rejoining a No. 2 bus at Brixton Station on the morning of his police execution was a suspicious act designed to cover up his terrorist intentions. In reality he rejoined the bus onward to STOCKWELL of course because Brixton Station (due to a security alert) that morning was closed. He did NOT rejoin it because he had terrorist intentions and wanted to work a double bluff on survellance cops etc., etc.,

Again the police claimed and still claim that they believed he was trying to work a pro terrorist fast one. There were countless media reports soon after Menezes execution angling that Menezes was trying to work a fast one with the bus change. It's important to note how soon and how consistantly these cynical police claims have been propagated over the period.

By the time that the INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION got onto the plot to investigate what had happened, this Menezes bus change allegation was well known. At the current INQUEST it has come to light that Lambeth Council CCTV cameras show Menezes as part of "a crowd" of persons before he re-joines the No. 2 bus because Brixton Station was closed.

Anyone who knows Brixton Station Victoria Line rush hour commuter-land behaviour knows that the scene there is incredibly busy and so when the news broke that Menezes had been blown away by police who claimed that he'd acted suspiciously at Brixton by rejoining the bus one immediately wondered about a number of things. Firstly, how long had Brixton Station been closed? Maybe it was for some time and that it continued for some time?? Did the police ALREADY know that there'd been a closure due to a security alert? Maybe they did know? Was Menezes only one of many persons having to rejoin buses to wheresoever because of the Station closure? Would be very surprising if he wasn't doing exactly as others were doing.

So you'd expect that the INCOMPETANT POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION as part of its MENEZES investigations would have got its head round this aspect of what occurred on that day.

Last week STOCKWELL TOILET WATCH's Kilroy took this matter up with the IPCC - partly because the question seems never to have got addressed and because CRESSIDA DICK is still stressing the suspicious nature of MENEZES behaviour in re-joining the Brixton bus.

The IPCC are "CAUGHT SHORT" big-time on this one and what follows is the wording of the IPCC response: " Dear Mr C... Thank you for your e mails. As indicated by the Stockwell 1 report, the time, duration and reasons for closure of Brixton underground station was not amongst the matters reported and investigated by IPCC".

The correspondence was copied to Lambeth MP KATE HOEY who replied that "it was a good question"... and in response to the IPCC response she had this to say "I am really surprised by this. Kate".


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home