It stinks

Monday, 12th November 2007

Reading the Independent Police Complaints Commission report on the shooting of Jean-Charles de Menezes leaves me scratching my head a bit. There are many startling, alarming or baffling things it records about that debacle and its immediate aftermath. But I have to say that my overall impression is that I just don’t believe that this account represents the truth about what actually happened that morning.

First and foremost is the revelation in that report, which has been missed in every single news story but which I record in my Mail column today, that Chief Inspector ZT recorded in his decision log 42 minutes after the shooting that he was told that the decision to block the IPCC investigation — an initial breach of statutory duty for which it is arguable Sir Ian Blair should face legal action — was taken on the authority of the Commissioner and the Prime Minister (my emphasis; par 17.21). Of course, this may not be true. Chief Inspector ZT may have got the wrong end of the stick. Or maybe whoever said this to him wasn’t telling the truth. But if it is true — and surely people should be urgently asking about this?—it raises various questions.

We are expected to believe, from the chronological narrative of the two IPCC reports, that although de Menezes was shot dead at 1006 it was not until around 1500 that the police searched the body and found his identification in his wallet. (Sir Ian maintains that no-one told him anything about the identity of de Menezes until the following morning). Is it really likely that, if the police shoot dead a man on the basis that they believe he is a terrorist, they will not immediately look for identification on the body to ensure they have shot the person they think they have shot? Is it really likely that they would wait for almost five hours before doing so? And is it likely that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner would ring the Prime Minister straight after such a shooting and tell him that he intends to thwart an IPCC investigation on the (legally mistaken) grounds that this would prejudice sensitive information in an ongoing anti-terrorist operation -- without knowing whether the man his men had shot was indeed a terrorism suspect? If so, what does that tell us about Sir Ian's competence?

Next, there is the curious account of the officer who was reported in the trial to have failed to get a proper look at de Menezes as he left his block of flats that morning because the officer was relieving himself. The IPCC report describes this part of the drama thus:

[Par] 12.9 At 09:33hrs ’Frank’ needed to urinate in a plastic container while inside the observation van. At this time he saw a male person exit the flats. He described the person as IC/1 (Identity Code 1- White) 5’8”, dark hair, beard / stubble, blue denim jacket, blue jeans and wearing trainers. He checked the photographs of the suspects that he had been provided with and transmitted over the radio to his colleagues that ‘it would be worth somebody else having a look’. He was unable to switch on the video camera while using his radio. The person sighted coming out of the flats was Jean Charles DE MENEZES…

But then in the conclusion of the report we are told this:

[Par} 20.39 At 09:33hrs Jean Charles DE MENEZES left his flat. ’Frank’, was unable to take any video coverage owing to the need to urinate. He did however transmit a comment after checking the photographs of the suspects that ‘It would be worth somebody close having a look’.

So was ‘Frank’ unable to switch on the video camera because he was relieving himself (par 20.39), or because he was using the radio (par 12.9)? Why don’t these accounts match up? A small detail, perhaps — but there are many other details that don't ring true; and so you can’t help feeling by the end of this report that just possibly not everyone involved has told the truth here.

Previous Back to Melanie Phillips Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (3)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

dearieme

November 13th, 2007 11:50am

Perhaps the explanation is that he didn't have three hands.

Simon Barnett

November 15th, 2007 7:00pm

"Is it really likely that, if the police shoot dead a man on the basis that they believe he is a terrorist, they will not immediately look for identification on the body to ensure they have shot the person they think they have shot?" Yes. I for one would be highly reticent with regards approaching the body of a suspected terrorist that might still be wearing a home-made suicide vest. Even without the possibility of said supposed terrorist detonating such a device it is worth noting that TAPT, the peroxide based explosive of choice for the Jihadi, is extremely volatile. Personally I would be prepared to wait for just as long as it took for the bomb squad to declare the scene safe before I went fishing about in the victims pockets. Mistakes were made. We should learn from them and move on. Maybe that process will require accountability at the highest level, and maybe that will include Blairs departure. That decision should be made at an operational level, not a political one. But I for one am glad that there are still police officers willing to run towards a man they believe (however erroneously) might explode at any moment (just as I am horrified that there are "police" that would watch a boy drown). I am further glad that even in a post 9/11 climate we have yet had only one such cock up. Bazils own record of 800 fatal police shootings per year is much less enviable. In summation, let us be critical, but let us be so in an effort to minimise the chances of this sort of tradgedy recurring, whilst realising that such situations may, even with the best management and resources, be sometimes unavoidable. Let's take into account that the Police do a difficult job in near impossible circumstances, and that by over vilifying them here we run the risk that we may discredit and therefore damage the first line of defence against the Jihad on the streets of this country.

Simon Barnett

November 16th, 2007 4:46pm

Perhaps in future we miught avoid such tradgedies by asking the terrorists wore uniforms whilst waging their war against us (as per the strictures of the Geneva convention). Perhaps if they might also consider ceasing to use the general population as a human shield and collateral damage as an exercise in propoganda that would be nice too. Whatever blame attaches to the Met from this incident, the responsibility remains squarely with the terrorists.

Most read
Most commented on

1 The liberal centre’s continuing confusion on challenging the BNP - David Blackburn (57)

2 Letting his opinions be known - James Forsyth (54)

3 Elected police commissioners are a test of whether the Tories are serious or not about their agenda - James Forsyth (52)

4 There are moral absolutes: aspects of Sharia are barbaric - David Blackburn (50)

5 The day ends on a sour note for Labour - Peter Hoskin (42)

Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'Londonistan', published by Encounter and Gibson Square.

For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here