The Pursuit, Killing of a Suspected Terrorist

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

How was Jean Charles de Menezes first identified as a suspect and on what basis?


WHAT IS KNOWN: The police, who were searching for four men suspected of trying to detonate explosives on London’s transport system on July 21, had placed a block of apartments on Scotia Road in south London, under observation as a result of information found at one of the bomb scenes.


They believed that the nine apartments contained one or more of the alleged terrorists.


At around 9:30 a.m. on July 22, de Menezes left the block and went to a nearby bus stop. Police saw him and, judging him to be of Asian appearance, suspected him to be one of the terrorists.


No positive identification was made because an officer was “relieving himself” at the time. According to the documents, the officer said: “As he walked out of my line of vision I checked the photographs and transmitted that it would be worth someone else having a look. I should point out that as I observed this male exiting the block I was in the process of relieving myself. At this time I was not able to transmit my observations and switch on the video camera at the same time. There is therefore no video footage of this male.”


Why was he allowed to board a bus without challenge if he was indeed a suspect?


WHAT IS KNOWN: One of the leaked witness accounts says: “De Menezes was observed walking to a bus stop and then boarded a bus, traveling to Stockwell station. During the course of this, his description and demeanor was assessed and it was believed he matched the identity of one of the suspects wanted for terrorist offences.”


Why was he allowed to continue his journey unchallenged if he was a suspect?


WHAT IS KNOWN: De Menezes was not intercepted on the bus. It is believed he was followed by plain-clothes police officers and was allowed to travel in the hope that he could lead them to other suspects. In fact, he traveled to Stockwell Tube station. At some point it was decided that he should be prevented from getting on a train. This decision will have been taken by Commander Cressida Dick, 44, the Oxford-educated member of the Specialist Crimes Directorate. She was the ‘Gold Commander’ running the operation from Scotland Yard.


Why was he allowed to board an Underground train if he was a suspect?


WHAT IS KNOWN: De Menezes used his Oyster travel card to enter the station and made his way to the platform, where a train was already waiting to leave. He got on and sat down. It is possible that armed response teams had arrived too late to stop him getting into the station.


When did police identify themselves to him and how?


WHAT IS KNOWN: All the officers were in casual clothes. However, a member of the surveillance team has said in a witness statement: “I heard shouting which included the word ‘police’ and turned to face the male in the denim jacket. He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the SO19 officers. I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting. I then heard a gunshot very close to my left ear and was dragged away on to the floor.” The instructions issued to armed surveillance teams, known as the Operation Kratos guidelines, state, however: “It is vital that you take no action that would alert a suspect to the fact that they have been identified by police.”


What opportunities were afforded for alternative action?


WHAT IS KNOWN: If armed officers, in pursuit of a suspected suicide bomber, believe he is about to detonate a bomb or if he refuses to comply with police requests, he can be shot in the head. Kratos guidelines say that a shot to the body could detonate any device strapped to the torso.


What other means of incapacitating a suspect were available on that day? If alternative means were not available, why not? If they were, why were they not used?


WHAT IS KNOWN: The S019 officers who followed de Menezes are members of an armed unit and carry pistols and automatic weapons. When one of the London bomb suspects was arrested in the West Midlands the following week, he was incapacitated using a Taser weapon that fires an electric charge of 50,000 volts into the victim without killing him. Sir Ian Blair, however, made it clear that he did not favor such a tactic. He said: “It was an incredible risk to use a Taser on a suicide bomber because the Taser itself could set it off, and that is not the policy. I can’t imagine how that was used. We use Tasers in London regularly, but a Taser sends electric currents into the body of somebody; if there is a bomb on that body, then the bomb can go off.”


Where did a “shoot to kill” policy emanate from and on what claimed legal basis? What public debate and democratic accountability surrounded the coming into being of that policy?


WHAT IS KNOWN: It has always been the case that if armed police feel their lives are in danger they must shoot to kill. In the light of the terrorist threat these guidelines were refined by a former Metropolitan police commissioner, Lord Stevens. He said: “We are living in unique times of unique evil, at war with an enemy of unspeakable brutality, and I have no doubt that now, more than ever, the principle is right despite the chance, tragically, of error.” Sir Ian, who took over the post earlier this year, concurred. He said the policy was the “least worst” way of tackling suicide bombers and refused to rule out other innocent people being shot in similar circumstances. “I am not certain the tactic we have is the right tactic, but it is the best we have found so far.”


Why was the suggestion that five bullets were fired allowed to continue as a public assertion, uncorrected, when there were eight?


WHAT IS KNOWN: Only when the inquest was opened into de Menezes’s death did it become known that more than five shots had been fired. He was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder. It has now been disclosed that a total of 11 shots were fired by two police officers. The other three bullets missed their target.


Why did Scotland Yard allow a number of assertions, now known to be untrue, to stay in the public domain?


WHAT IS KNOWN: Earlier statements that de Menezes was wearing a winter coat at the height of summer, thereby arousing police suspicions, continued to be repeated for several days even though he was, in fact, wearing a denim jacket. The original suggestion that he was wearing a heavy fleece seems to have come from a witness on the train, Mark Whitby, but this was never corrected by police. It was also suggested, initially in a statement issued by Scotland Yard, that “he vaulted over the ticket barrier, ran downstairs and on a Tube where it appears he stumbled.” It now transpires that he was acting like a commuter, using his travel pass, and only hurrying toward the train to avoid missing it. According to the family’s lawyers, the pathologist conducting the post mortem examination on de Menezes’s body was told five days later that he had vaulted the ticket barrier and run, even though CCTV cameras show he made his way slowly down the escalator. “Why was he not told the true facts which clearly by then [July 27] must have been available,” the lawyers asked.


The New York Sun

© 2025 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use