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 terrorist bomber
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 Dick, 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 shoot 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 killing.
Dan Rivers, ITV News, Stockwell.
Now maybe we'll get justice.
Who the bloody hell leaked this?
We're looking into it.
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.
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?
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.
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, shooting 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 bomb attacks
and by our ability to detect and prevent others.
Isn't that what we should be talking about?
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.
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 shoot 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.
Why did my son have to die?
Why did they shoot him in the head so many times?
He was an innocent boy.
I'm very sorry
but I cannot discuss the circumstances of your son's death.
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.
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 killing
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 terrorist,
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 killed.
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 bomber.
Either one of the four
or, even worse, someone else.
Okay, he's saying that for 24 hours after the shooting,
he and all his senior team believed
that the person who was shot was a suicide bomber, right?
Even though on the afternoon of the shooting,
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.
I can't stay quiet, Alf.
Not anymore.
Be careful, Brian.
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 shooting,
and you said that the shooting was directly linked to the ongoing
and expanding anti-terrorist 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 killed 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-terrorist 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 shooting,
you, and everyone that advised you,
believed that the man who was shot was a suicide bomber.
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 bullets to kill Jean Charles.
How can the police in the UK use bullets 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.
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 killed unlawfully.
The IPCC investigation should not have been delayed by Ian Blair.
Who knows what evidence was lost in this period?
I thought the family were so dignified, so full of humility.
Yeah, I was thinking that too. Watching them tonight, so inspiring.
Shameful! Their behaviour is shameful!
They must tell the truth!
No lies!
When did they know?
That is the key.
Did the Met know only hours after Jean Charles was killed
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?
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 killed 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.
The family of Jean Charles de Menezes want to know why,
for a number of days after his shooting,
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.
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.
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.
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 shooting.
She notes that the person shot was referred to as
"not being one of the four",
meaning one of the four suspected terrorists
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.
Are you kidding me?
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.
Where did this story come from?
My instinct is that the leak to the Sunday Mirror
came from a police source.
Jean Charles rape a girl?
No, no way.
This is lies.
This is bullshit.
First they kill him, now they want to kill 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.
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 shoot him.
With regard to the rape 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.
Seriously, Patricia!
We know without a shadow of a doubt that Jean is innocent.
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 terrorist.
Sir Ian Blair has always said
he didn't know an innocent man had been killed 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 shooting,
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.
He did not rape that woman.
I knew it.
Justice! Justice! Justice!
Our family believe it is disgraceful
that over a year has passed since Jean was shot by those police thugs
and there has still not been a proper public investigation
into his assassination.
The IPCC and the CPS are acting like gang members,
trying to cover up the actions of their bosses, the police.
It's clear they want to hide the truth from everybody.
We know the justice system is flawed
and we are asking the British government
to open a public inquiry into Jean's murder.
Justice! Justice!
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 kill an innocent man.
So, what will the family do next?
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?
Three years after the shooting 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 killing.
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?
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.
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 killer 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 explosive.
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.
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."
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.
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 bomber,
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.
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 kill the man who you thought,
because of the way you interpreted what you'd been told,
was a suicide bomber 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 gun 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 bomber.
I did make that assessment...
And it is my responsibility, and I accept that.
I killed 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.
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 bomber,
and someone who might be intent on causing an explosion 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 Dick,
or should I say now, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Dick,
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 Dick?
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.
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 terrorists to our operation.
Right. Erm...
DAC Dick, 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 killing to you.
This is so in respect of Charlie 12 and Charlie 2,
concerning their direct involvement in the shooting 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.
A verdict of unlawful killing...
could have only been left to you if you could be sure
that a specific officer had committed a very serious crime
such as murder 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 killing,
leaving them with just two possible verdicts,
Lawful Killing 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?
A majority, by eight to two.
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.
Did Mr. de Menezes move towards officer C12
before he was grabbed in a bear hug by the surveillance officer Ivor?
No. Unanimous.
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.
A failure by the police to ensure that Mr. de Menezes was stopped
before he reached public transport?
Yes, sir. Unanimous.
That the views of the surveillance officers
regarding identification were not accurately communicated
to the command team and the firearms officers?
Yes. Unanimous.
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.
Thank you.
Scotland Yard Commissioner Sir Ian Blair today
apologized to the family,
but also said the shooting 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 bomber 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.