TRAPPED IN A MASONIC WORLD

- 97 -
depression that stayed with him the rest of his life and until he so tragically died. As I have said, I‘ve
either witnessed police brutality or been on the receiving end of it, I know their capabilities and how they
will hurt you, frame you, and how they can get away with almost anything, including murder, as they‘re
licensed to kill, – really!
20. Shoot to Kill
Shoot to Kill Policy in UK - Like many of the subjects I am covering in this book, the youth of today
whether in the UK, USA, Europe or even Ireland itself, have no idea as to what has taken place on their
own streets and not long before they were born, - and I feel it‘s important that that this age group is made
aware of these facts, and that perhaps can help us in maintaining a better future. - In the BBC‘s Panorama
programme - Peter Taylor gave a definitive account of the hugely controversial alleged shoot-to-kill
policy, Operation Kratos, - that led to the tragic killing of a Brazilian man at Stockwell Tube station on the
22nd July 2005. [1] Jean Charles de Menezes was only 27 years old when shot dead by members of the
Metropolitan Police‘s elite CO19 firearms team. Panorama investigated Kratos evolvement, and how the
operation went so drastically wrong. The programme tried to explain what really happened that day, and
interviewed senior Met officers involved in the evolution and implementation of Kratos and filmed of
CO19‘s training, the programme explored the wider issues raised by Stockwell and followed the de
Menezes family from Brazil to London in their quest for justice. [2]
The IPCC, said the officers would not face a police tribunal over the July 22nd 2005 killing [3] of this
totally innocent young man who they shot, not once, twice, three, four, five, six or even seven times, but
eight times in his head, - and that no one has had to answer, or be found accountable for his death. - Two
officers fired a total of eleven shots according to the number of empty shell casings found on the floor of
the train afterwards. Menezes was shot eight times in the head and once in the shoulder at close range, and
died at the scene. An eyewitness later said that the eleven shots were fired over a thirty second period, at
three second intervals. A separate witness reported hearing five shots, followed at an interval by several
more shots. [4]
No officer‘s face charges in which looks like another cover-up as no police officers will be charged
over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, prosecutors announced on the 13/2/2009, following a
review of evidence from the inquest into his death. The decision finally cleared the commanders in the
alleged bungled police operation and the two marksmen involved. An inquest jury found that catastrophic
failures by police led to the killing of de Menezes, who was mistakenly identified as a suicide bomber.
They returned an open verdict - rejecting the option of deciding that de Menezes was lawfully killed. They
also dismissed the accounts of marksmen, known as C2 and C12, who claimed they had shouted a warning
before shooting him, and that he had advanced aggressively towards them. [5]
As other independent witnesses had said; ―...no such thing had occurred, no warning was given by the
police, nor was de Menezes showing any form of aggression towards any of the attacking officers‖. It was
the most damaging outcome possible for the Metropolitan Police after the coroner and Sir Michael Wright,
had earlier ruled out the possibility of an unlawful killing verdict. Then the CPS lawyers, reviewing the
evidence for a second time since the shooting in July 2005, said that; ―No new evidence emerged to
warrant a prosecution‖. Freemason Stephen O‘Doherty, of the CPS Special Crime Division, said: ―I have
now concluded that there is insufficient evidence that any offence was committed by any individual officers
in relation to the tragic death of Mr de Menezes. In reaching this decision, I considered whether the
officers known as C2 and C12 acted in self defence in shooting Mr de Menezes and also whether they lied
to the inquest about what was said and done immediately before the shooting. - The answers the jury
provided to specific questions they were asked by the coroner made it clear, albeit to a civil standard, that
the jury did not accept the officers accounts of what happened.
However, although there were some inconsistencies in what the officers said at the inquest, there were
also inconsistencies in what passengers had said. I concluded that in the confusion of what occurred on
the day, a jury could not be sure that any officer had deliberately given a false account of events. - I also
considered the actions of the individual officers in the police management team on that day and considered
whether there was sufficient evidence to charge any of them with gross negligence manslaughter. There
was no fresh evidence from the inquest which caused me to change my original decision that there was
insufficient evidence to do so. I have today written to the de Menezes family explaining my decision‖. [6]