A bomb or a fish supper?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Aug 2005, 14:20

xxxx wrote: Yes if by all you mean the story they so diligently leaked.

No I meant in the context in which you said it, as I'm sure you realise.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 22 Aug 2005, 16:23

I think the point is that the police quickly found out that the eye witness statements making claims about bulky jackets and bomb wires were incorrect yet they did nothing to disabuse the public until forced to by the leak. They wanted to have the continuing support of the public and knew that it would quickly dissipate when it was revealed that they had made a cock-up of monumental proportions.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Aug 2005, 16:54

dccairns wrote:I think the point is that the police quickly found out that the eye witness statements making claims about bulky jackets and bomb wires were incorrect

No, my issue is with xxxx statement about the Police making it all up. "the presence of mind to make all of those things up". I feel xxxx may have an an issue with your use of the term eye witness, he prefers bystander, a quick review of the likes of The Bible, sorry The Guardian, Telegraph, Times, BBC etc indicates that the commonly used and accepted term is eye witness. None of them appear to have had any bystanders at the scene.

dccairns wrote:yet they did nothing to disabuse the public until forced to by the leak.

Even now, I'm not sure the Police have disabused the public. As far as I am aware the police do not go around publicly rubbishing eye witness reports. In fact they spend a great deal of time and effort trying to encourage witnesses to come forward.

It is their job to report things as they saw it happening, in this case they seem to have done a pretty good job, especially considering you are all using their report as a source and quoting it verbatim

The police informed the public and the family within 36 hours of the shooting, that they had erred. They admitted it but did not go into detail. Sub-judice will have been one reason why not. They are now subject to an inquiry into why it happened, I doubt the inquiry is going to find that they made the pursuit and outfits up.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 23 Aug 2005, 12:45

xxxx wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
didn't run away from the police, didn't ignore their instructions, didn't vault the barrier, wasn't wearing a padded jacket, didn't trip and fall over, and officers weren't "forced" to fire the shots.
It makes you glow with pride that, in such difficult circumstances, the police had the presence of mind to make all these things up.

It was an off the cuff comment, but I stand by every word.

The eyewitnesses didn't make anything up, they just recounted what they thought they saw. The police made things up, after the fact, which they knew to be untrue.

Scotsman 17 aug
"Eye-witnesses and police sources said he was wearing a bulky jacket."
Herald 17 aug
Scotland Yard's original claims ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ that Mr de Menezes was wearing a heavily-padded jacket and that he ran when challenged and vaulted the ticket barrier at Stockwell Tube station to reach a train ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ have already been discredited.
Times 24 july
The officers are thought to have feared that Menezes, who was wearing a quilted jacket on a summer's day, might have been concealing a bomb. No explosives were found on him.
Within hours of the shooting, however, senior officers were saying they were "very confident" the man had been one of the four bombers who attempted to set off explosives in London on Thursday.
Then, as it emerged that the Brazilian was not one of the four, officers suggested he was still linked to the bombings.

ITN News 19 aug
TV News has obtained a copy of the post-mortem examination report and the Brazilian's family are demanding to know why a pathologist was told Mr de Menezes had jumped over a barrier and ran away from officers.
Scotsman 18 aug
"An IPCC spokesman said the inquiry may be widened to look at whether the police deliberately misled the public"

It just goes on and on. Why do I say the police made it up? Well, it has to do with the unusual nature of the crime. The police were present at all times during its execution. They were best placed to give a clear statement of the facts, no matter how embarassing.

Instead , as the telegraph article I cited, they assiduously chose to promulgate an incorrect version. One where a man acting and dressed suspiciously is followed and after witnessing him vaulting the turnstile and running on to the train was shot. Thanks to the leak of the IPPC information we now know this to be untrue (interestingly the leaked material cites CCTV evidence which the police claimed didn't exist but london transport has confirmed).

The police claimed they were following a man wearing a bulky jacket.
This is made up because they were following a man not wearing a bulky jacket but a light denim one. There are no other sources for the events before he entered the station. He wasn't wearing a bulky jacket. They must have made it up.

The police claimed and informed the pathologist that de menezes vaulted the turnstile. They were there and de menenzes didn't vault the turnstile. As this was cited as one of the actions that led them to shoot the man, they must have seen it happen. Only it didn't happen. So they made it up.

Its no use hiding behind 'eyewitnesses' who think they saw de menenzes vault a turnstile. The police did not say they were alerted by an eyewitness that a man had vaulted the turnstile. To support their story they must have seen it. It didn't happen. They made it up

There was no warning. Not 'eyewitnesses' to that and retracted later. As it didn't happen someone had to make it up. I say someone in the police.

The Herald suggests the inquiry will take 2 years. I imagine this thread will go on even longer.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Aug 2005, 14:39

xxxx wrote:The Herald suggests the inquiry will take 2 years. I imagine this thread will go on even longer.

Well if it does, I for one will be neither a bystander nor an eyewitness, I am bored with it. How about a truce and see how the inquiry goes?

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 23 Aug 2005, 14:54

Porty wrote:
xxxx wrote:The Herald suggests the inquiry will take 2 years. I imagine this thread will go on even longer.
Well if it does, I for one will be neither a bystander nor an eyewitness, I am bored with it. How about a truce and see how the inquiry goes?

And so say all of us...well I can only speak for myself actually...but hear hear and all that

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 23 Aug 2005, 15:28

Fine. I don't think there's much more left to be said by me. All good fun though

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Aug 2005, 15:38

xxxx wrote: All good fun though

Yes.......but if i should see you in a denim jacket....................

rathbone · Post by **rathbone** » 23 Aug 2005, 16:03

Peace breaks out! Well done.

Just out of interest, the following is a quote from Will Rogers, dated 1935:

" Now folks, all I know is what little news I read every day in the paper and it seems that never a day passes in New York without some innocent bystander being shot. You stand around this town long enough and be innocent and somebody's gonna shoot ya."

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 23 Aug 2005, 21:05

If the bystander lives are they an eyewitness..........................!

Only Joking

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 24 Aug 2005, 10:54

Porty wrote:Don't worry about the argument cards. Gemini has several hundred other offences that had to be taken into consideration.

Which means, I have still a long way to go, to catch up with you

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 14 Sep 2005, 20:28

I was 'interested' to note last night on the beeb news that Jean Charles was referred to as the 'suspected suicide bomber shot by police'

Looks like the forces of cover up are hard at work and having an effect on lazy journalists. Give it another month or so and the poor chap will have become the 'suicide bomber shot by police'

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 15 Sep 2005, 14:08

mr magnolia wrote: Give it another month or so and the poor chap will have become the 'suicide bomber shot by police'

Tut, tut Mr M, surely you can come up with better than that? If i worked as a spinner for the Police I would go for.

"Suicidal bomber shoots himself"

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 15 Sep 2005, 14:29

That's stage 3.