How Could They Get it So Wrong?

That was the headline in yesterday’s Daily Mail as it catalogued what it described as a “tragic trail of police blunders” that led to the shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes. But was his killing really such a mistake, or was it part of a deliberate attempt to ratchet up public fear and confusion?
In the weeks following the shooting, police issued a series of statements that can be seen in retrospect as a cover-up, an attempt to conceal what is already being described as a “judicial execution”. And we are not just talking about one or two discrepancies here but a whole string of official statements that have been contradicted or proven to be utterly baseless.
For example, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting London’s Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair declared that the victim was “directly linked”(1) to terrorist organisations. Hours later however, anti-terrorist officers established that the dead man was completely innocent of any terrorist involvement.
Thereafter, police claimed that de Menezes had emerged from a property that had been under surveillance by anti-terrorist officers. But that too turned out to be flawed after it was disclosed that the police were not sure which flat he had come from and simply assumed that de Menezes was the suspected suicide bomber.
Police also initially suggested that de Menezes looked like a suicide bomber because he was wearing suspiciously bulky winter clothing in July. However, CCTV footage and eyewitness accounts have now revealed that de Menezes was wearing nothing bulkier than a simple denim jacket.
Police also claimed that de Menezes vaulted a ticket barrier to escape his pursuers but that too turned out to be false, as it has now been established that the Brazilian used a pre-paid ticket to pass through the barrier.
Moreover, eyewitness statements that De Menezes simply walked to the train have refuted earlier police statements that he had run down the tube station platform.
Finally, police claims to have identified themselves before grappling with him and then shooting him in the head seven times, have now been called into question by eyewitness statements from a leaked report on the killing.
So how could they get it so wrong? Or did they indeed get it wrong? Could it be that de Menezes killing was premeditated, in a deliberate attempt to ratchet up public fear and confusion in the wake of suicide bombings across London?
Let’s not forget that the men who carried out the killing were trained by Israeli security (2), the very people to have perfected the “targeted assassination”.
Nor should we forget that the controversy now surrounding de Menezes killing maybe used to distract attention from an even greater crime. Namely the supposed 7/7 “suicide bombings” in London, which were not carried out by Muslim extremists but were in fact part of false flag operation to further the “War on Terror”.
Just as the events of 9/11 had been used to propel Anglo-American forces into Afghanistan and Iraq, the events in London on 7/7 may have been staged to prepare the way for the next step in the global war.
However, just as people are beginning to question the official version of events in London on 7/7, the controversy over the de Menezes killing could now be used to obscure what really happened. Heads may roll and London’s Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair may yet be forced to resign – which he will do with good grace, being a high level freemason – as it’s now been revealed that he tried to halt(3) an independent inquiry into the shooting. But all the noise and drama over the shooting will serve to distract from deeper inquiry into the 7/7 attacks: who was really behind them and to what end?
Adding to suspicions that de Menezes killing was indeed premeditated come reports that CCTV cameras at the tube station were not working on the day of the shooting. This was because the day before the shooting police had removed the station’s CCTV camera disks in the process of investigating the earlier 7/7 attacks and not replaced them. Prompting one to wonder whether they had been removed in anticipation of just such an event as de Menezes shooting? Because their removal destroyed any possibility that evidence might later surface to contradict the official version of events. Just as, coincidently the CCTV cameras were “not working” (4) on the number 30 bus on the day of the 7/7 attacks.
Coming in the wake of the 7/7 attacks, one would have thought that London’s transport service would have been extra attentive to the maintenance and monitoring of its CCTV cameras. But no, the Israeli firm responsible for the CCTV cameras on London’s Underground (5) seems to have lapsed on the day of de Menezes killing. So much for London’s much vaunted network of many thousands of CCTV cameras which were supposed to protect Londoners from just such terror attacks.

(1) Man shot dead by police on tube

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

(2) British Cops trained in Israel

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20050724&articleId=732

(3) Police chief tried to intervene on fatal shooting inquiry

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article306614.ece

(4) London Stagecoach Employee Says Bus Bombing Suspicious

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/150705busbombing.htm

(5) Israeli Security to Protect London’s Underground

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=3407