Andrew MacGregor

Professional Witnesses

In any government covert operation manufactured to push the general population to follow a preset agenda, there is a need for at least one Professional witness. This is the so-called man on the street, who ‘just happened’ to be at the right place at the right time, is able to be interviewed by the media, and his story follows in the main, the government line. In the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996, that person was Rob Atkins. In the London Bombing of 7/7 it appears to be Richard Jones. In regard to the assassination of Jean Charles De Menezes, Mark Whitby appears to qualify as the professional witness.

What is of interest though is if Mark Whitby was a ‘Professional Witness’ then there had to be some major planning and the right scenario had to be prepared, and that takes time. With this in mind let us first examine the statements made by Whitby to the BBC. Please remember that these were the only statements shown around the world including Australia, where I watched them. The fact that Whitby was the only witness to be presented by the media at this time is a definite sign that the media was being controlled as there were other witnesses who made statements, but none of them were given the focus that Whitby had.

“One Witness, Mark Whitby, told BBC news the man appeared not to be carrying anything but was wearing a thick coat that looked padded.” “He looked like a Pakistani but he had a baseball cap on, and quite a thickish coat like you would wear in winter, a sort of padded jacket. It looked out of place in the weather we’ve been having.”

And if you look at the accompanying photograph of Mark Whitby being interviewed by the BBC you will see two men standing immediately behind Mark Whitby who are both wearing jacket type vests, which immediately negates the comment about the coat Menezes was wearing.

“As the man got on the train I looked at his face. He looked from left to right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, like a cornered fox. He looked absolutely petrified,” said Whitby. “He sort of tripped but they were hotly pursuing him and couldn’t have been more than two or three feet behind him at this time.” “He half-tripped, was half-pushed to the floor. The policeman nearest to me had the black automatic pistol in his left hand, he held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him.” “Whitby said he had been about five yards away from where the incident occurred and was ‘totally distraught’ by what he had seen.” “Whitby said a young Asian man was shot five times after being chased into a train carriage by three men.”

Please notice the detail here. Whitby states that, ‘As the man got on the train he looked from left to right, he looked like a cornered rabbit, a cornered fox, he was petrified.’ Now just how does a man being pursued and running, board a train? Does he jump onto the train, does he leap? He certainly brakes his stride, as there is a different surface to contend with, by with all his descriptive work of the ‘Asian’ being pursued, Whitby states that the man simply got on the train.

Then Whitby states that the man looked from left to right as he got on the train! I beg your pardon? Just when did Menezes get an opportunity to do make that action? According to Whitby, Menezes is running for the train being hotly pursued by three plain-clothes policemen, and as he boarded the train he tripped. Thus this statement by Whitby is not factual. In fact Whitby is noticing far too much of what is occurring as per his statements within a very short time frame, mere seconds in fact.

Mark Whitby is supposedly seated in the train carriage, facing in the direction of the Station platform. The train has other passengers on it, and there would be some who should have obscured his vision. Furthermore, he is seeing this action either through a window and or the open doorway, but whatever there must be part of this action that would have been obscured, by these surroundings, yet Mark Whitby firstly notices the running ‘Asian’, then he notices the three pursuing plainclothes policemen, and automatically knows that they are policemen. Then he notices that whilst the first two policemen are not encumbering themselves with a firearm, the last of the three policemen has a black automatic pistol in his left hand, a Glock, incidentally. So as Whitby states as Menezes enters the carriage he looks left to right, but also he half trips, is half-pushed to the floor.

Rightio, try doing a mad dash to catch a train, and then trip as you are entering the carriageway. Just how far will your inertia carry you with that trip? What is the likelihood that you would collide with the opposite doors? By the way, do the trains still have those posts and rails in the centre of the doorways to assist little old ladies from falling over whilst entering and leaving the carriage?

So now we have Menezes half-tripped on the floor of the carriage, and then the first two plainclothes policemen grab him from either side and hold him down. In other words the policemen spreadeagled Menezes on the floor of the carriage in the doorway, and then the third policeman enters the carriage and fires ‘five’ shots into Menezes head. Actually it was supposedly seven shots to the head and one shot to the upper body. The first shot to the head would have met with some resistance so its force would have been diluted somewhat, as it turned Menezes brain into jelly. However the subsequent shots would have met little resistance until they struck the metal floor underneath the body, and I would imagine there could have been a ricochet or two if the rounds used were anything but lead. Whatever, there would have been more loud noises other than the actual gunshots.

We finally get another piece of information from Mark Whitby when we are told; “He said 10 to 15 police officers armed with pistols and sub-machine guns had run down the platform as he was helping an elderly woman away from the train.”

In other words the reinforcements arrived within minutes of the event, right on cue.

So just what else can we add to what mark Whitby has informed the world that is incorrect. Let us firstly look at parts of an article by Mark Honigsbaum from the Guardian, and I’ll précis the first bit.

“Vivian Figueiredo, 22, said that the first reports of how her 27-year-old cousin had come to be killed in mistake for a suicide bomber on Friday at Stockwell tube station were wrong. “He used a travel card,” she said. “he had no bulky jacket, he was wearing a jeans jacket.”

Figueiredo’s statement is corroborated by a CCTV photograph of the deceased showing that he was wearing a denim jacket.

“The same day the Met Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, said, the shooting was “directly linked” to the unprecedented anti-terror operation on London’s streets. The following day Sir Ian apologised when detectives established that the Brazilian electrician, on his way to a job in north-west London, was not connected to attempts to blow up three underground trains and a bus in the capital.”

So in his own words, Mark Whitby who was 5 yards away couldn’t distinguish the difference between a padded coat and a denim jacket, but was able to see the fear in his eyes.

Now let’s refer to a CNN article on the 23rd July.

“During a news conference following Fridays shooting, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair said, “this shooting is directly linked to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation.”

“De Menezes on Friday left a South London apartment building that had been under surveillance as part of the investigation into Thursday’s attempted bombings. Officers followed him to the Stockwell Underground Station. The man’s “clothing and suspicious behaviour at the station added to their suspicions,” a police statement said. He challenged police and refused to obey orders before he was shot and killed Friday morning, Blair said”

In other words, a police surveillance team set up because of the previous days attempted bombings at an apartment building decide to follow a ‘white’ suspect from his home, to a bus, to the Stockwell Railway Station, and they are suspicious of him because of his clothing, i.e. he was wearing a padded coat, which turned out to be a denim jacket, and his suspicious behaviour, i.e. running to catch a train.

What must be noted here is that there is not one iota of evidence that police challenged Menezes prior to his assassination. There is also no evidence whatsoever that Menezes refused to obey police orders. In fact there is ample evidence that police didn’t give any orders prior to shooting Menezes, they simply jumped on him and shot him and then stated that he was a suspected suicide bomber due to the coat that he wasn’t wearing.

Now let us go to an article by Mike Whitney published on the 19th August and titled “Shoot to Kill”; Blair’s first Trophy.

“Blair (Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair) insisted that his officers had no choice but to use “lethal force”. All lies. In fact, according to eyewitness accounts, de Menezes was actually held down and shot while sitting quietly with his newspaper. Police Chief Blair knew from the very beginning that de Menezes was not wearing a “thick, padded coat which could hide explosives”, “did not run from police”, “did not vault the barrier at the underground Tube,” “had used his Tube Pass” to board the subway, and “had taken a seat before being grabbed by an officer”. All of these fabrications were leaked to the press and never refuted by Scotland yard for more than 3 days, until the truth began to surface.

How do we know that Blair knew the real facts of the case? Because at least 12 members of the various police units who were present at the crime scene had to report directly to Blair.

May I clear up a grey area here? The witness, Chris Wells told the UK’s Press Association he was leaving Stockwell Station when he saw a man being pursued inside by at least 20 armed police. “The next thing I saw was this guy jump over the barriers and the police officers were chasing after him and everybody was just shouting ‘Get out, get out,” Wells said.

These ‘20’ armed police officers are the same group of men that Mark Whitby mentions as he was escorting the elderly lady from the train, and I would presume the person believed to have been chased was actually the leader of this group of policemen. To make the suggestion that de Menezes had actually jumped the barrier was rather naughty of the Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair.

So now let us consider some of what Steve Watson/Infowars\ August 27 2005 tells us.

“The account from Sue Thomason, a freelance journalist from South London, gives new detail of the shooting and of the terror witnesses endured. “I recall hearing gunshots…The shooting was coming from the carriage to the left of me. When I heard the gunshots I thought it was terrorists firing into the crowd. I thought about getting behind a seat…After the initial first shots…I left the carriage.” She also says the key detail she gave the number of shots and the interval between them was missed from her final statement until she insisted it be included.”

Reports earlier this week suggested that Police Officers and Station managers were at odds over the existence of CCTV- footage of the shooting. Police documents submitted to the IPCC stated that “None of the cameras at the scene of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube Station on 22 July were working”

“There is absolutely no doubt that the police are lying in this instance, unless the above picture is a fake. There have been no denials of the authenticity of the above picture. Furthermore, the original leaked document describes CCTV footage which shows Mr de Menezes entering Stockwell station at a “normal walking pace” and descended slowly on an escalator. The document said: “At some point near the bottom he is seen to run across the concourse and enter the carriage before sitting at an available seat. This suggests that cameras ALL OVER the station were working.”

In a paragraph titled, Leaked evidence; CCTV footage is said to show the man walking at normal pace into the station, picking up a copy of a free newspaper and apparently passing through the barriers before descending the escalator to the platform and running to a train. He boarded a Tube train, paused, looking left and right, and sat in a seat facing the platform.

More Leaked evidence; In one of the leaked documents, said to be a statement from one of the police surveillance team, the witness describes hearing shouting – including the word “police”. The statement says Mr de Menezes stood up and advanced towards the witness and armed police. He adds: “I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side.” He said he pushed the man back into his seat. It was only after he had restrained him that he heard a gun shot, The documents say that a post-mortem examination showed Mr Menezes had been shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, but three other bullets had missed him.

Conclusion:

What I find very interesting here is that there is no mention of the surveillance team on the CCTV. That must be considered a major part in de Menezes assassination. We can now demonstrate the Mark Whitby’s evidence is so badly flawed that he must be a professional witness. The padded coat being in fact a denim jacket, the cornered rabbit or fox, is pure fiction, but there is even more. Whitby states that de Menezes was not carrying anything, but he was, he was carrying a newspaper. Whitby says de Menezes was being pursued, but he was not, there is not iota of evidence that supports any of Whitby’s claims. What is also interesting is that not one statement of the passengers within the carriage where de Menezes was assassinated has been released. By the way, it was an interesting ploy of Mark Whitby to escort the little old lady from the terror at Stockwell Tube Station. By doing so he will have convinced her that he was on the train near her, and she would swear to that in any court, so Mark Whitby now has one witness that can place him on the train. No other witness would remember him not being there. Tis a lovely ploy. Also there is another very interesting aspect.

There have been some claims that the actual surveillance team was replaced at Stockwell Station by the squad that murdered de Menezes. From what we can gather one of the police witnesses, the policeman who grabbed hold of de Menezes just prior to de Menezes being shot eight times was part of a surveillance team, and thus has to be the team that followed de Menezes from his home all the way to Stockwell Tube Station.

So just how was Whitby able to be at Stockwell Tube Station to ‘witness’ the murder? It is a simple matter, and please do not be put off by the association of de Menezes with the bombs of the 21st July. De Menezes was always related to the 7/7 bombs. Jean Charles de Menezes was a contract electrician. At the time of his murder he was on his way to a job on the other side of London, and the police would have known this, in fact I would suggest that they organised the job to get de Menezes in a position where they could assassinate him. The surveillance squad was to follow him to ensure that he was going where he was required to go, and Whitby would have been waiting. It was a pure set-up.