Cocaine found in De Menezes' urine

Seth Brundle

from http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/mhmhcwmhmhcw/
Can someone tell me why it is relevant to reveal that a member of the public shot by police was a coke user. Personally I can't see the connection between snorting it and the police (who initially misled the public) releasing a barrage of hollow point bullets into his head!)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes)

Latchy

No relevence to that case at all, the London police sure fcuked up on that one ....

Mossy Monk

Make him look like a scumbag maybe.

kryogen

yep, tarnish his image is without a doubt the top priority there. shameless tbh

rubadub

Sells papers. A psychotic man drank 3 bottles of whiskey and murdered his family, a cannabis joint butt was also found at the scene. "christ, if he had only stuck to the whiskey..."

Trojan911

kbannon wrote: »

Can someone tell me why it is relevant to reveal that a member of the public shot by police was a coke user. Personally I can't see the connection between snorting it and the police (who initially misled the public) releasing a barrage of hollow point bullets into his head!)

It will add credibility to the police decision to shoot, possibly showing what state he was in before being held & being shot i.e. was he fidgety, sweating, nervous, anxious etc prior to
detention & shooting. These are some of the symptoms cocaine users display.

Real suicide bombers also display some of these symptoms prior to detonation.

TJ911...

Fratton Fred

kbannon wrote: »

from http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/mhmhcwmhmhcw/
Can someone tell me why it is relevant to reveal that a member of the public shot by police was a coke user. Personally I can't see the connection between snorting it and the police (who initially misled the public) releasing a barrage of hollow point bullets into his head!)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes)

it's as relevant as saying the Police released a barrage of hollow point bullets into his head.

It was a tragedy, caused by a police **** up.

I don't think any of us can start to imagine what it was like on that tube train though and before the "Shoot to wound" brigade start up, there is no such thing. You shoot to stop and if you believe that person has a load of explosives wrapped around his body, you shoot him in the head.

As I said, a tragedy.

JohnnyStones

I wonder if the cops that did the shooting took a drugs test afterwards?

if there, anything like some of the copper's i know; :rolleyes:

Huggles

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you shoot him in the head.

5 times?

Fred have you been following this evidence?

The plain clothes officer following had him apprehended and had his arms by his side when CO19 opened fire with no warning.

Trojan911

TheGooner wrote: »

5 times?

A bit excessive all right..

TheGooner wrote: »

The plain clothes officer following had him apprehended and had his arms by his side when CO19 opened fire with no warning.

Still not enough control. The officers concerned would have had an honest held belief that their lives & the lives of others around them was in imminent lethal danger from the information received from the surveillance unit.

TJ911...

Terry

This is the guy who was shot shot because cops thought he might have been a suicide bomber, right?

Absolutely no relevance to the case.

Dave!

Maybe the police saw a bit around his nose and thought it was anthrax (to which he is apparantly not susceptible)...

kryogen

Trojan911 wrote: »

It will add credibility to the police decision to shoot, possibly showing what state he was in before being held & being shot i.e. was he fidgety, sweating, nervous, anxious etc prior to
detention & shooting. These are some of the symptoms cocaine users display.

Real suicide bombers also display some of these symptoms prior to detonation.

TJ911...

i dont think this can be very accurate, there was no trace of cocaine found in his blood, so he had not taken any that morning anyway, i doubt he would have been showing any effects of it..... maybe he started getting nervous and anxious and sweaty when they started firing bullets at him????

Trojan911

kryogen wrote: »

i dont think this can be very accurate, there was no trace of cocaine found in his blood, so he had not taken any that morning anyway, i doubt he would have been showing any effects of it..... maybe he started getting nervous and anxious and sweaty when they started firing bullets at him????

Ya, that's why I said possibly. We will never what exatly happened on that day apart from a man was shot dead allegedly by Police. There was speculation that it was MI5 or SAS that did the shooting but as the Met are in the frame we will have to go with that.

TJ911...

Manic Moran

Trojan911 wrote: »

It will add credibility to the police decision to shoot, possibly showing what state he was in before being held & being shot i.e. was he fidgety, sweating, nervous, anxious etc prior to
detention & shooting. These are some of the symptoms cocaine users display.

Real suicide bombers also display some of these symptoms prior to detonation.

TJ911...

Whilst this may be true, I am unsure as to how much of a difference it would have made to the PC if the guy was fidgety/sweating/etc or not. Blame has already been laid and accepted, I can't see how the release of this information can help anything.

5 times?

What, once would have been OK, but five is overdoing it?

NTM

monkey tennis

Jesus, now that's zero tolerance! :eek:

Trojan911

Iv'e only just read the link. A pathologist told the court....

He said the toxicology report showed that as well as cocaine in the urine, 0.44 milligrams of benzoylecognine per ml were found in the blood.

Ronald Thwaites QC, defending, asked if cocaine had the potential to cause “abnormal or unusual behaviour”.

Dr Shorrock said: “It is a euphoric drug. It is a drug that lifts your mind, it is a stimulant drug.

“It can make you do things that to somebody who hadn’t used the drug might seem inappropriate and it can make people behave aggressively.”

But the pathologist added that the effects would not necessarily be the same for every individual.

That's probably the reason why it was released...

TJ911...

Eoin

kryogen wrote:

yep, tarnish his image is without a doubt the top priority there. shameless tbh

Had the police released this information before the trial? Or is it just one piece of evidence from what I am sure is a lengthy trial, that the media have seized on? Bit premature to call it a smear campaign at this stage.

DonJose

When armed police tell you to stop, especially a couple of days after dozens of people were killed in suicide bombings, you f**king stop.

whiskeyman

latchyco wrote: »

No relevence to that case at all, the London police sure fcuked up on that one ....

Terry wrote: »

Absolutely no relevance to the case.

It has TOTAL relevance because of the below... didn't you read this bit in the link at all??

Trojan911 wrote: »

Iv'e only just read the link. A pathologist told the court....

He said the toxicology report showed that as well as cocaine in the urine, 0.44 milligrams of benzoylecognine per ml were found in the blood.

Ronald Thwaites QC, defending, asked if cocaine had the potential to cause “abnormal or unusual behaviour”.

Dr Shorrock said: “It is a euphoric drug. It is a drug that lifts your mind, it is a stimulant drug.

“It can make you do things that to somebody who hadn’t used the drug might seem inappropriate and it can make people behave aggressively.”

Something like this may have influenced the victims behaviour, and has to be taken into account. There's not a hope in hell it's a smear campaign. All the Met can do is damage limitation from this case.
It was right to be brought up in court, however the issue here should really be how the media report it.

Seth Brundle

Trojan911 wrote: »

It will add credibility to the police decision to shoot, possibly showing what state he was in before being held & being shot i.e. was he fidgety, sweating, nervous, anxious etc prior to
detention & shooting. These are some of the symptoms cocaine users display.

Real suicide bombers also display some of these symptoms prior to detonation.

TJ911...

As IM sure do many others on a train. Maybe they all should have been shot!

TheGooner wrote: »

5 times?

Fred have you been following this evidence?

The plain clothes officer following had him apprehended and had his arms by his side when CO19 opened fire with no warning.

There were apparently 11 shots fired:
7 into the front of his head*
1 into his shoulder
3 missed De Menezes
It should also be pointed out that (according to wikipedia) these bullets are illegal in warfare (under the Hague convention 1899) but widely used in law enforcement.

* his cousin claims to have seen him being shot from the rear.

DonJose wrote: »

When armed police tell you to stop, especially a couple of days after dozens of people were killed in suicide bombings, you f**king stop.

He had been stopped. He was sitting in his seat when he was seemingly restrained by an undercover officer. There is no record or witness to the claim that police shouted 'police' or 'stop' or whatever but even if there was, he didn't have time to do anything.

Manic Moran

After reading the whole article, it is only right that all the facts be brought out in court. Whether or not it is a ) relevant and b) effective to the Met's legal defense strikes me as being something for the jury to decide.

NTM

Huggles

Manic Moran wrote: »

What, once would have been OK, but five is overdoing it?

NTM

If you read what I quoted the user said you shoot to stop. Surely one shot in the head is enough to stop...thats why i said 5 times.

Trojan911

kbannon wrote: »

As IM sure do many others on a train. Maybe they all should have been shot!

The difference being the others were not under surveillance.

TJ911...

Eoin

kbannon wrote: »

As IM sure do many others on a train. Maybe they all should have been shot!

There were apparently 11 shots fired:
7 into the front of his head*
1 into his shoulder
3 missed De Menezes
It should also be pointed out that (according to wikipedia) these bullets are illegal in warfare (under the Hague convention 1899) but widely used in law enforcement.

* his cousin claims to have seen him being shot from the rear.
He had been stopped. He was sitting in his seat when he was seemingly restrained by an undercover officer. There is no record or witness to the claim that police shouted 'police' or 'stop' or whatever but even if there was, he didn't have time to do anything.

Was the point of the thread whether he should have been shot or not, or that testimony from the coroner was heard in court, and reported on?

Seth Brundle

I started the thread because I don't see how whether or not cocaine was in his system is relevant to the investigation.

Eoin

kbannon wrote: »

I started the thread because I don't see how whether or not cocaine was in his system is relevant to the investigation.

Everything and anything could be relevant to the investigation - none of us are in a position to judge waht a coroner should or should not be saying in court.

Gyalist

DonJose wrote: »

When armed police tell you to stop, especially a couple of days after dozens of people were killed in suicide bombings, you f**king stop.

There has never been any evidence that the police told him to stop. In fact, all the evidence so far is to the contrary. He walked normally into the station, didn't jump the ticket barrier as was as first reported either.

Wertz

Ha, was just about to come on and post the same thread.
What an insipid and unnecessary attack on a man who died in such circumstances...his family didn't rally need to know that part and it has no relevance at all IMO....I mean what, are they trying to say he was on a paranoid one and that that's what made him run (and get shot)?
Or is it just character assasination so the Met can try and drag their arse out of the fire soemwhat on the whole blunder?

Eoin

So, who should decide what facts are not relevant in an investigation?

Wertz

The coroner obviously and for that he needs to presented with those facts...but does the public?
I'm in no position to estimate how much coke he took to lead to the level of the metabolite the expert witness refers to, but then he doesn't mention it either. The very fact that there's cocaine in the urine means it was taken in the last 24 hrs...but I don't see any evidence presented concluding roughly the dose that is indicated by the level of the metabolite.
I mention this because I like some others on here will have done some moderate amount of charley in the past and most of us will have managed to get out of bed the next day and be regular enough to pass ourselves off as a "normal" member of society....unless that is we've done a ridiculous amount or have a fiendish regular habit.
By not drawing any conclussion as to what dosage De Menezes may have taken, you somewhat slur his character in the eyes of the judge, when it may just have been a gram or less, which isn't going to leave you looking like the mess that they are seemingly trying to make him out to be.
... so why should this be released to the public eye, since the guy is not the one on trial here....or is he?

Latchy

The cops screwed up by not indentfying the suspect in the first place, .Apparently there was no senior policemen in charge at the time of the events leading up to the victims death, and it was officers acting on incorrect information, but can understand the pressure an armed policeman is under because he thinks he is dealing with a potential suicide bomber .

Eoin

So, the whole investigation should be behind closed doors? I don't think that would be any more comforting to the public.

Manic Moran

so why should this be released to the public eye, since the guy is not the one on trial here....or is he?

Unless there's cause for the case to be held in camra, or otherwise witnesses or evidence need to be kept secret, the default position in British law is that all proceedings are held in public, to ensure transparancy. They don't do a press announcement, there are reporters in the courtroom scribbling down notes in short-hand.

If you read what I quoted the user said you shoot to stop. Surely one shot in the head is enough to stop...thats why i said 5 times

No harm in making sure, I guess. Though rare, there have been instances of persons shot in the head who have survived. There was a notable case in Iraq two years ago of a US soldier shot square in the head by a pistol at close range under the helmet, but kept going to kill his shooter in close quarters. It's not a case where you've got a guy coming towards you with a knife and you just want to shoot enough times that the guy isn't going to make it to you. This was a case of "I want to be bloody sure he can't as much as close his hand around a trigger" which leaves very little wiggle room.

NTM

Wertz

eoin_s wrote: »

So, the whole investigation should be behind closed doors? I don't think that would be any more comforting to the public.

No probably not...and I see where you're going, I can't have my cake and eat it.
But the data presented by the pathologist doesn't show a conclusive determining of the dosage level involved, so how can conclussions be drawn such as what the guy said under examination (implying that it may have affected his behaviour)?
Perhaps when the prosecution gets to examine him, we'll hear the other side of the story...and maybe find out that it wasn't really the sneachta that ended up turning his head into a practice target.
But by that time the Sun or someone will have us all* believing that cocaine turns you into a suicide bomber...



*Idiots that read it

Savman

The way I understood it, he jumped the ticket barrier and ran from a bunch of guys with guns. I'm sure they were shouting "armed police" or something similar. Why the hell did he run?

In the climate at the time, I can see why they took no chances but then again it was a senseless killing.

I don't really know where I stand on this tbh.

Mr.Micro

The Police messed it up and will never admit it ,so they bring in a thing about drugs as this may sway the public and give credence to alleged erratic behaviour by the victim, or the victims non response to Police warnings .At the very least it puts doubt in the mind of a jury and judge ,hence increases the chances of the cops getting off.In the UK they have this cover all approach where it is often decided at high level that IT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST to pursue a case or investigation ,as the public must not loose faith in the law or the enforcers.It is virtually impossible for the cops to do wrong . A disgrace and a travesty .

Eoin

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The Police messed it up and will never admit it ,so they bring in a thing about drugs as this may sway the public and give credence to alleged erratic behaviour by the victim, or the victims non response to Police warnings .At the very least it puts doubt in the mind of a jury and judge ,hence increases the chances of the cops getting off.In the UK they have this cover all approach where it is often decided at high level that IT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST to pursue a case or investigation ,as the public must not loose faith in the law or the enforcers.It is virtually impossible for the cops to do wrong . A disgrace and a travesty .

It's the pathologist who said about the drugs, although the Police Force lawyer who asked about it.

>>IT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST to pursue a case or investigation
They are pursuing it at this very time, hence the thread.

Why not wait for the outcome of the investigation before venting all this conspiracy rubbish.

eth0_

kbannon wrote: »

from http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/mhmhcwmhmhcw/
Can someone tell me why it is relevant to reveal that a member of the public shot by police was a coke user. Personally I can't see the connection between snorting it and the police (who initially misled the public) releasing a barrage of hollow point bullets into his head!)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes)

Smacks of a smear campaign to me. The poor guy's family have suffered enough!

As for saying it would have made him agitated - there is zero evidence of him behaving strangely, he walked into the train station like a normal commuter - which he was!

And couldn't the byproduct of cocaine found in his urine have come from something innocuous, like a dental anaesthetic?

Manic Moran

Savman wrote: »

The way I understood it, he jumped the ticket barrier and ran from a bunch of guys with guns. I'm sure they were shouting "armed police" or something similar. Why the hell did he run?

That was the initial claim in the media, however they got it. Subsequent investigations found that this claim was not particularly well founded in truth. (Actually, I think it was later determined to be utterly false)

NTM

Mr.Micro

eoin_s wrote: »

It's the pathologist who said about the drugs, although the Police Force lawyer who asked about it.

>>IT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST to pursue a case or investigation
They are pursuing it at this very time, hence the thread.

Why not wait for the outcome of the investigation before venting all this conspiracy rubbish.

Read my post slowly maybe you will understand it then.
This case is a health and safety issue the original case against the police never got off the ground .GOT THAT .

Eoin

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Read my post slowly maybe you will understand it then.
This case is a health and safety issue the original case against the police never got off the ground .GOT THAT .

Try stringing a coherent sentence together. GOT THAT?

Mr.Micro

eoin_s wrote: »

Try stringing a coherent sentence together. GOT THAT?

Is that the best you can come back with .Burst your bubble did I?Its a court case( not an investigation), into health and safety breaches . Get your facts before you start posting .

Trojan911

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The Police messed it up and will never admit it

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-07/2005-07-24-voa11.cfm?CFID=219483144&CFTOKEN=13177218

Ian Blair, Met Chief on Sky News 24 July 2005 (two days after shooting).

"The Metropolitan Police accepts the full responsibility for this. And to the family, I can only express our deep regrets," he said.


TJ911...

rubadub

Trojan911 wrote: »

It will add credibility to the police decision to shoot, possibly showing what state he was in before being held & being shot i.e. was he fidgety, sweating, nervous, anxious etc prior to
detention & shooting. These are some of the symptoms cocaine users display.

And symptoms of heavy caffeine use too. But if abnormal amounts of caffeine were in his blood I doubt it would have made the newspapers.

Could be an attempt to be smear due to it being illegal- sure whats the harm just another scumbag junkie killed.

Fratton Fred

TheGooner wrote: »

If you read what I quoted the user said you shoot to stop. Surely one shot in the head is enough to stop...thats why i said 5 times.

You never shoot someone once, ask any armed officer. two shots is the usual requirement to stop someone, there were officers so one of them fired three times.

as I said, none of us can imagine what the london underground was like at the time, or the pressure on the police.

it was a total tragic screw up.

The judge needs all the evidence, cocaine in De Menezes blood is something to be considered and either taken into consideration or discounted.

Mr.Micro

"The Metropolitan Police accepts the full responsibility for this. And to the family, I can only express our deep regrets," he said.


TJ911...[/QUOTE]

Yes but the individual Police Officers were not to be prosecuted it was decided later. The Police had to say something after covering up the situation and telling lies for 2 days after the tragic incident.In hindsight the matter was closed apart from the health and safety case on now against the Met.Police where further discredtitation of Mr.Menzes appears to be taking place .He is not here to dispute any evidence.

Dinxminx

Oh, well if he was using cocaine that makes ALL the difference... No loss to the world there! The police were dead right to shoot him!


:rolleyes:

On 22 July last year the operation climaxed with the tragic killing of 27-year-old Jean Charles de Menezes, while sitting in a carriage deep under ground at Stockwell tube station in London.

The young Brazilian was totally innocent, shot seven times in the head by two undercover officers from Scotland Yard's elite firearms unit known as CO19

I asked Chief Inspector Martin Rush, who runs the Met's firearms training centre at Gravesend, whether his officers actually have to see a suicide jacket, or what they think may be a suicide jacket, before they open fire.

"No", he replied.

This is not the case in Israel where suicide bombers have been a fact of life for many years.

I put the same question to Major General Mickey Levy, the police commander in Jerusalem between 2000 and 2004, who dealt with 42 suicide bombers.

He said his officers had to be sure they could see a suicide vest or explosives before they opened fire.

So if the CO19 officers did not see any bomb, why did they open fire and how, if at all, were they authorised to do so?

F*ckwits, in fairness; trying to drag the guy's name through the mud to make themselves look less guilty. :mad:

Trojan911

The young Brazilian was totally innocent, shot seven times in the head by two undercover officers from Scotland Yard's elite firearms unit known as CO19

Interesting quote from that anonymous excert you placed in your post. CO19 is long gone & was replaced by SO19 many years ago. That's one item they have incorrectly reported, I wonder what else is incorrect?

TJ911...

Fratton Fred

Good job the Met Police didn't use Israel's tactics. They would also have bulldozed his family's home and launched a rocket attack against Rio.:rolleyes:

aidan24326

DonJose wrote: »

When armed police tell you to stop, especially a couple of days after dozens of people were killed in suicide bombings, you f**king stop.

Yeah damn right you do, which suggests to me that he wasn't given much of a chance, they just went ahead and shot him. Now if they firmly believed he was a suicide bomber that's not surprising, the real fcukup here was the ridiculously bad intelligence info. They actually put more than 5 bullets in his head, not just 5. Why is that relevant you may ask? Well it's a sign that the officers on the scene panicked, which is exactly what armed officers are not supposed to do. There wasn't necessarily anything deliberately malevolent but at the very least it was total incompetence.

This stuff about him having cocaine in his blood is absolutely irrelevant and is just the police trying to paint him in a bad light, oh he may not have been a terrorist but he was a junkie so now we feel a bit better, one more druggie off the streets. Don't be surprised if they make up more sh1t about him, or make some 'discovery' that links him to terror after all. They've been shown to be blatant liars already.