Court told de Menezes photo manipulated
- Thread starter danny la rouge
- Start date
Stobart Stopper
Well-Known Member
What I mean is, let's say I got mugged by someone who looked like Jean Charles then they made me do an ID parade which had the other bloke in the room, I'd wonder what the fuck was going on.Bahnhof Strasse said:
Bahnhof Strasse
Let's av ya fuckin' dancin'!
Stobart Stopper said:
*switches on Stob's sarcasm detector
Why do you persist is taking a single aspect of the issue entirely out of context. It is fucking tiresome.tarannau said:
A random patrol did NOT see JCdM randomly walking down the street, call in armed cops and have them shoot him.
A surveillance team went to an address linked to an explosion the previous day. They had a photograph of someone suspected of (a) being involved in causing that explosion and (b) residing / having some connection with that address. A person emerged from the block who they could not positively identify as the suspect or rule out from being the suspect. It was decided to stop him and find out. What happened after that was a fuck-up but the armed officers did NOT shoot "because he looked a bit like Osman".
Could you have called it for sure if you had been the surveillance officer(s)?
(I ask this knowing damn well you will claim you could, it was simple, cops are all cunts ...)
Sitting here in front of a screen with them both on, yes.SpookyFrank said:
But could you be sure that a person you were following at some distance was, or was not, a person depicted in a photo taken some time previously? (Is that the Osman photo the one the surveillance team had at the time, anyway?)
Unless you take into account the context your comments are meaningless.
It wouldn't - but the allegation that they have been "doctored" is simply that - an allegation. It is denied there was anything other than re-sizing so the images could be juxtaposed and altering brightness so as they were comparable. There is no suggestion that anyone has been cought out doing anything underhand - it was admitted from the outset that there had been manipulation to allow the juxtaposition.butchersapron said:
I think it was a waste of time putting the two halves together as I have previously said (not least because you would be a mug not to see "doctoring" allegations coming).
If they were "doctored" secretly, or to mislead, then that was wrong. But I don;t think they were and you are all (yet again) getting carried away about a relatively trivial and meaningless point.
The question is simple: Is it reasonable that a surveillance team could not be sure whether or not JCdM was Osman, from the photograph(s) they had at the time and in the context of a moving surveillance?
Jesus fucking Christ.Bahnhof Strasse said:
It was the surveillance officers who were struggling to decide on identification. The armed officers had the subjet pointed out to them - I doubt the likeness, or not, even crossed their minds.
No. There was a military intelligence (I think) attachment to the surveillance team, something which is not unusual.DrRingDing said:
Bahnhof Strasse
Let's av ya fuckin' dancin'!
So db, if the point of the OP is true, why would the police alter the image of Osman to fit that of JCdM if identification was not really an issue?
But you'd be comparing your recollection of a real person you had seen with a real person in front of you. You would not be trying to decide whether or not for sure that the real person you are following is the one you saw in a photo (which you may or may not be able to refresh your memory of).Stobart Stopper said:
The surveillance team did NOT positively identify him as Osman. They concluded they could NOT be sure that he was not to the extent that he would be simply left to go.
Did they.Fruitloop said:
Source please, cos it sounds like fucking bollocks to me (at least in terms of the UK in the last thirty years ...)
As I have said, I think all that they did was resize / alter the brightness to allow the two halves to be juxtaposed in the way they did.Bahnhof Strasse said:
The only purpose would be to show that it was reasonable for a surveillance team to be unsure one way or the other. Which, I suggest, it patently would be in the context they were doing it.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
detective-boy said:
Why was it done at all? And yes you're right that they deny doing anything other than 're-sizing so the images could be juxtaposed and altering brightness so as they were comparable.' was done - but that *is*changing the image the image, exactly as argued by the expert witness brought into loomk at this - "...making the image brighter has changed the image." (He also said that no primary facial characters has been manipulated).
detective-boy said:Why do you persist is taking a single aspect of the issue entirely out of context. It is fucking tiresome.
A random patrol did NOT see JCdM randomly walking down the street, call in armed cops and have them shoot him.
A surveillance team went to an address linked to an explosion the previous day. They had a photograph of someone suspected of (a) being involved in causing that explosion and (b) residing / having some connection with that address. A person emerged from the block who they could not positively identify as the suspect or rule out from being the suspect. It was decided to stop him and find out. What happened after that was a fuck-up but the armed officers did NOT shoot "because he looked a bit like Osman".
Could you have called it for sure if you had been the surveillance officer(s)?
(I ask this knowing damn well you will claim you could, it was simple, cops are all cunts ...)
Nice straw man again DB and a lovely typical hyperbolic misrepresentation of my views. Is this the bit where I go into a DB style screaming rant then?
Where did I say anything approaching a phrase like a random patrol saw ‘JCdM randomly walking down the street, call in armed cops and have them shoot him’ Instead, I’ve simply pointed out that the likeness between JCdM and the Hussein is so poor than any untrained member of Joe Public could go out and identify a huge number (75 I believe I said) of people who looked more like JCdM within 5 minutes of looking on Brixton High Street. It discredits the police that they'd actual have the temerity to claim such similarity and show a doctored 'likeness' in court.
I think this is the bit where you should apologise for either deliberately misrepresenting my posts or for a lack of verbal comprehension on your part. Instead I suspect you’ll go into wounded martyr mode, all angry smilies and rolleys again, richly claiming that everyone else has got you wrong. It’s getting to be a little bit of a joke.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
I think you're right at that. I also think it's the sort of argument that will certainly lead to an acquittal since the jury will feel the police just couldn't be sure. I however also think that it's a bloody awful argument, for various reasons included those set out by tarannau above.detective-boy said:
What's happening is that at each stage it's being demonstrated that the police couldn't be sure, which is quite true in itself. But that they really ought to have been a lot more sure will be neglected. Because what's happening is that we've had a shooting and we will have a verdict which says that it is all right to have executions based on "not sure".
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
Donna Ferentes said:
Not a new thing, surely. Remember Harry Stanley. The Scotsman shot for sounding Irish and carrying a table leg around with him. What happened to the police who executed him? Did the law eventually catch up with them?
That's what I struggle to understand. All they can possibly be demonstrating is that they look sufficiently similar for a surveillance team to be unsure because that is all that happened.butchersapron said:
No. It's where I again point out that you are completely missing the point (and, unsurprisingly, failing to answer the simple question which I posed and which IS the point in issue).tarannau said:
Come back when you do.
Bahnhof Strasse
Let's av ya fuckin' dancin'!
detective-boy said:
Could there not be another possibility?
One linked to the refusal to deny the immediate smears against him, followed by a continuous campaign of smears against him?
Just a thought.
I believe you when I see it, not before. (And definitely not in the last four years ...)Fruitloop said:
detective-boy said:
Or perhaps, just perhaps, you could stop getting things wrong before flying off the handle and insisting that people contribute in a certain way or not at all. This is, after all, a public bulletin board that you have no authority over.
And, I'm guessoing, from your mealy-mouthed attack, that you haven't the nuts to admit that you blatantly misrepresented my views and posts in favour of making a cheap strawman point. A-fucking again.
To be honest, I think it's irrelevant to the verdict whether or not the person shot was or was not the "proper" suspect.Donna Ferentes said:
If it was being alleged that the police had been negligent in trying to detain some random person based solely on a visual identification, and they had got shot in the process, it clearly would be. But here it is a tiny little bit of the story.
The key issues are why there was no armed support for the surveillance team from the outset (what if he HAD been the bomber and HAD been going out to play and Brixton tube HAD been open ...?); why the communication was such a fuck-up; why the armed officers were deployed in the way they were into an imprecise situation; whether they were, as agents of the organisation, negligent in deploying themselves at the station in the way they did.
I however also think that it's a bloody awful argument, for various reasons included those set out by tarannau above.
What's happening is that at each stage it's being demonstrated that the police couldn't be sure, which is quite true in itself. But that they really ought to have been a lot more sure will be neglected. Because what's happening is that we've had a shooting and we will have a verdict which says that it is all right to have executions based on "not sure".[/QUOTE]
There was no "execution". Why do you feel the need to use such emotive, misleading phraseology? No-one was shot dead because they were Osman - they were shot dead because it was honestly believed they posed an immediate threatDonna Ferentes said:
The point about the identification is that because of the communication cock-ups half the officers (the surveillance ones) knew that they were unsure who it was - it may or may not be Osman - whilst the other half (the armed ones) believed it WAS Osman and that a positive identification had been made (and also that he was considered to be an immediate threat as a suicide bomber, which, in fact, the surveillance team did not think either).
He wasn't shot for "sounding Irish and carrying a table leg". He too was shot because he was considered to be an immediate threat.goldenecitrone said:
When you post things phrased in shite ways like this, do you not realise that you make yourselves look fucking pathetic? IF people were shot by the police for "sounding Irish" or "carrying a table leg" or "looking Brazilian" then why are there not thousands of corpses lying in the streets?
You're claims are simply bollocks and anyone who can count to three without using their fingers can see that. Why do you not try to make your points sensibly and in measured language?
(The officers were repeatedly investigated over many years and, repeatedly, the CPS said there was insufficient evidence to merit charges. As such they are innocent of any crime and, just like anyone else either released uncharged or acquitted after trial, they are entitled to be treated as innocent.)
But, just like all the other "smears", it is irrelevant. It makes virtually no difference to whether or not the operation was conducted as safely as practicable, which is what the court have to decide.Bahnhof Strasse said:
No. I have not misrepresented your views at all. I have stated that you have entirely missed the point. Which you have.tarannau said:
Now how about answering the question on the point instead of having a hissy-fit. Here, I'll post it again, just for convenience:
Well, could you?
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
so you'll be quoting them won't you...Kenny Vermouth said:
besides what are the chances of a second generation immagrant being welcomed into either of those organsiations you fool...
Similar threads
- Poll
