de Menezes investigation ignores Ian Blair

We know that information came out some days ago in the Independent about the appalling shooting, then yesterday it has been said that charges are possible, but Ian Blair, "the man ultimately responsible for the implementation of Operation Kratos - the policy of shooting dead suspected suicide bombers - the first use of which resulted in the death of an innocent man" ^Guardian, astonishingly, wasn't even interviewed. More so, this annoucement was drizzled out by the IPCC to the media, indicating the presence of the political machinery of spin. Also note well from today's Guardian:

"The full IPCC report might never be made public." Which is quite astounding.

It is almost inconceivable that Ian Blair wasn't even interviewed considering, Blair actively sought to suspend both the IPCC inquiry ¹ and his own accountability ², following the secret execution policy that he was ultimately responsible for, Operation Kratos, which led to the state-killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. He then presented fraudulent information to the public, while presiding over the a smear campaign of the person his policies killed.

Note also from the Guardian's article the IPCC fudge about the 'missing' CCTV evidence, which was orignally described as having 'gaps'. CCTV mysteriously failing everytime something happens like this should come as no surprise.

A seperate investigation into Ian Blair is still outstanding, so hopefully they will investigate the following then:

"His [Ian Blair's] insistence that the Met is a spin-free zone puzzled many journalists. In the 48 hours after the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, many of them received a series of telephone calls from senior police officers. They gave detailed, off-the-record briefings about the events leading up to the shooting of the 27-year-old Brazilian.

He did not, as Sir Ian had claimed, refuse to obey a challenge - he was not, in fact, challenged at all by police.

That discrepancy could easily be put down to the confusion in the aftermath of the shooting. But in the context of the number of inaccurate briefings given to journalists by senior officers from Scotland Yard, it is much harder to accept that explanation. [...]

...the police realised that they had wrongly targeted and killed an innocent man: it was then that journalists say they started to receive calls from officers at the Met "spinning us lines which would distract attention from the fact that the cops had shot an innocent man"." ^Telegraph
Also one might hope that they stop to ask themselves, why Ian Blair chose to celebritize himself off the back of Jean Charles' murder, while the first IPCC investigation hadn't concluded (presumbably he knew he was already out of the woods by then ?), and why Ian Blair started getting involved in yet another political campaign. Also, they might like to take into account Ian Blair's long and distinguished history of both getting the facts wrong at a major event, and then deciding to withhold what he thinks to be true anyway:

"The present deputy-commissioner of the Met Police, Ian Blair, was already on scene as a detective inspector. We knew each other very well and he turned to me and said, "Peter, I think we've had a bomb explosion here."

I asked him why and he said, "At least one of the casualties has metal deep inside him... but we're not going to go public on it." (Courtesty of Peter "identical bomb drills" Power)

Some time ago, it seemed we might see something of a whitewash on this, and cleverly the IPCC, who although it's investigators are claimed to be independent, is little more than a Home Secretary(regime) selected quango, and they have apparently avoided Ian Blair altogether (although they claim his role in this is not neccessary to explore when you see their 'other' evidence).

And we haven't seen this final report of course (which won't even be the full one according the Guardian), but even aside from the political extermination policies of Operation Kratos that Ian Blair was responsible for (and which he may yet be hung on with this second inquiry), the myriad of questions remain, including:

Why was so much total garbage spun out by Ian Blair about what happened ?

It is a questionable assumption, based on what we know about Blair, and see above, to automatically conclude that Blair wasn't in possession of more facts than he reported. It is also possible that he was simply not able to deal with situation as it unfolded (the Captain Queeg scenario). But even his supporters should ask, why wasn't he in control of the information and the scenario and sufficiently interested in correcting the fraudulent flow of information ? He claims his officers didn't lie to him, so can that be taken as yet another lie ?

Why did he preside over a smear campaign of the person his policies had just killed ?

Why did he rush to suspend his own accountability and the investigation, therefore compromising the latter ? (Well he gives his own reasons for that of course, but are you untroubled by those reasons?) Similarly, why did Blair leap so quickly ("within 2 hours" according to the Guardian) to write that letter, before the police had even confirmed that the person they killed was the suicide bomber (which he wasn't of course) ?

From that, why did Ian Blair then later support buddy and 'diversity officer' Cressida Dick ³ who was in charge of the operation, while the inquiry was still going on ?

"Cressida Dick, the commander in charge of the Met's Trident firearms unit, was responsible for giving orders to shoot to kill. Police marksmen can no longer decide when to fire under Operation Kratos guidelines, which advise officers to shoot suspects in the head without warning." ^Independent

Why did the pathologist’s post mortem report, written in the presence of senior police officers on 27 July — five days after the shooting — still contain a false version of events. ⁴ ?

It states that Jean “vaulted over the ticket barriers” and that he “ran down the stairs of the tube station”.

Why did the New Labour hierarchy first 'secretly' ⁵ support Ian Blair, then come out overtly ⁶ to back him ?

Because they knew the outcome of any inquiry would be a safe bet to hang on to someone who was just too useful an idiot to let go of, with no similarly deranged puppet to replace him with.

But obviously that begs the question how could they know, especially at that stage?

Because either the IPCC via the Home Office were giving a running commentary to the New Labour elite about the inquiry (and who it would and wouldn't scrutinize), and/or were shaping it at their behest.

'David Davis said, "The public expect no stone to be left unturned in this inquiry. The last thing anyone wants is to encourage conspiracy theories about a cover-up."

Lawyers expressed surprise that Sir Ian had not been questioned. They said in an equivalent corporate situation the chief executive would have been interviewed.' ^FT

Jean Charles de Menezes government lies