01x04 - Episode 4

[bunniefuu]

[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

t*rror1st b*mber

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 d*ck, 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 sh**t 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 k*lling.

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, sh**ting 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 b*mb 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 sh**t

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 sh**t 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 k*lling

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.

---

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 t*rror1st,

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 k*lled.

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 b*mber.

Either one of the four

or, even worse, someone else.

[people murmuring indistinctly]

Okay, he's saying that

for 24 hours after the sh**ting,

he and all his senior team believed

that the person who was shot

was a suicide b*mber, right?

Even though on the afternoon

of the sh**ting,

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 sh**ting,

and you said that the sh**ting

was directly linked to the ongoing

and expanding anti-t*rror1st 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 k*lled 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-t*rror1st 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 sh**ting,

you, and everyone that advised you,

believed that the man who was shot

was a suicide b*mber.

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 b*ll*ts

to k*ll Jean Charles.

How can the police in the UK use b*ll*ts

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 k*lled 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 k*lled

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 k*lled 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 sh**ting,

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 sh**ting.

She notes that the person shot

was referred to as

"not being one of the four",

meaning one of the four

suspected t*rrorists

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 r*pe a girl?

No, no way.

This is lies.

This is bullshit.

First they k*ll him,

now they want to k*ll 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 sh**t him.

With regard to the r*pe 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 t*rror1st.

Sir Ian Blair has always said

he didn't know an innocent man

had been k*lled 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 sh**ting,

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 r*pe 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 th*gs

and there has still not been

a proper public investigation

into his assassination.

[in English] The IPCC and the CPS

are acting like g*ng 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 m*rder.

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 k*ll 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 sh**ting 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 k*lling.

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 k*ller

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 expl*sive.

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 b*mber,

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 k*ll the man who you thought,

because of the way you interpreted

what you'd been told,

was a suicide b*mber

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 g*n

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 b*mber.

I did make that assessment

And it is my responsibility,

and I accept that.

I k*lled 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 b*mber,

and someone who might be intent

on causing an expl*si*n 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 d*ck,

or should I say now,

Deputy Assistant Commissioner d*ck,

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 d*ck?

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 t*rrorists to our operation.

Right. Erm

DAC d*ck, 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 k*lling to you.

This is so in respect of Charlie 12

and Charlie 2,

concerning their direct involvement

in the sh**ting 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 k*lling

could have only been left to you

if you could be sure

that a specific officer had committed

a very serious crime

such as m*rder 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 k*lling,

leaving them

with just two possible verdicts,

Lawful k*lling 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 sh**ting

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 b*mber

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.