<p>Well, I watched the BBC in the immediate aftermath and they reported from witnesses statements and speculation, including info about who shouted what and turnstyle jumping.</p>
<p>Exactly, Cheers. And without doubt, the police interviewed many of the same eyewitnesses as the the media, and reported what they found as well. What’s significant is that the very next day, police investigators blew those stories out of the water, and placed blame on the department. Which can hardly be considered a cover-up.</p>
<p>But police claimed that there was no video - when in fact there was:</p>
<p>August 14:
<a href=“http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1548808,00.html[/url]”>Death in Stockwell: the unanswered questions | 7 July London attacks | The Guardian;
<p>August 17
<a href=“Police under pressure over Menezes leak | UK news | The Guardian”>Police under pressure over Menezes leak | UK news | The Guardian;
<p>The coverup is in concealing/denying the existence of the tapes. As soon as the identity of the victim was revealed, the police had to admit they were mistaken -there obviously was no connection between the Brazilian student and the terrorists they were looking for. But they covered up important details to make the killing look justifiable, by leaving the false implication that the student had acted in a way that was suspicious.</p>
<p>
That implication was dispelled quite some time ago, whatever the issue with the surveillance video may turn out to mean.</p>
<p>Driver - this thread proves you wrong - all you have to do is go back to post #62 - July 28th - to see the effect of the previous “official” version of events -(“this guy got shot by his own stupidity.”)</p>
<p>Between that time and now there was almost no press coverage - so basically what the cops got away with was leaving one impression: tragic, but understandable mistake in the public’s mind – as opposed to the truth - which lies somewhere between total, bumbling, idiotic negligence and deliberate murder, depending on how much you want to fault the police for authorizing the summary execution of an innocent man who they had mistaken for someone else who did not look very much like him. </p>
<p>The police didn’t release the videotapes now, either - that was a leak to the press. </p>
<p>Its a difference in spin, and the spin control is something that can make or break a career – as well as control the scope of a criminal investigation.</p>
<p>Actually, calmom, all you have to do is go back to Cheers’ post #48 of 7/25, as I pointed out earlier. The original police press conference was debunked right out of the gate. Was there confusion in the aftermath? Sure. Were some individual officers trying to “spin?” Probably. Institutional coverup, as has been alleged by the Grassy Knoll residents? No evidence, so far.</p>
<p><a href=“The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines;
<p><a href=“http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article306614.ece[/url]”>http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article306614.ece</a></p>
<p>paragraph 8</p>
<p>and yes, I read the WHOLE thing…</p>
<p>From today’s Independent:
Former Cabinet minister Frank Dobson last night said that Sir Ian’s position was “very difficult” because he was partly responsible for people being misled, including Prime Minister Tony Blair. “The public and everyone had been misled by the police not correcting the story that first came out,” he told BBC2’s Newsnight.</p>
<p>The further details of the incident are bizarre. <a href=“http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article306614.ece[/url]”>http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article306614.ece</a></p>