Tragic Mistake: The Shocking True Story Behind the Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes

by

In a chilling account, I delve into “Suspect: The Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes,” a film that paints a heartbreaking portrait of an innocent life taken prematurely by the Metropolitan Police. This gripping tale follows the shockwaves of grief and chaos that ripple through the family and friends of this unfortunate soul, offering a poignant glimpse into the profound impact such a tragedy can have on a community.

The true crime drama hails from the pen of screenwriter Jeff Pope, a writer known for delving into complex and delicate subjects such as the criminal activities of fallen broadcasting figure Jimmy Savile, as seen in BBC One’s The Reckoning.

Here, he turns his gaze to the Met’s shooting of an innocent Brazilian electrician in July 2005.

The Metropolitan Police has conveyed a profound sense of remorse over the passing of Jean Charles de Menezes, yet neither their words nor the modest compensation provided to his relatives have begun to heal the immense pain they’ve endured.

Upon hearing about her son’s unfair and dreadful outcome, Jean’s mother, Maria, expressed that it was deeply distressing for her, causing her to tremble. She even felt as if she had momentarily ceased to exist at that point.” (via The Guardian)

The dramatisation is available to stream on Disney Plus from Wednesday 30th April 2025.

Suspect: The Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes true story

Incident: The incident known as “The Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes” revolves around the fatal shooting of a 27-year-old individual by the police, who mistakenly thought he was a potential terrorist.

In response to the devastating 7/7 bombings in London during July 2005 that claimed the lives of 56 individuals (including the perpetrators themselves) and left over 700 others wounded, the Metropolitan Police force was put on heightened vigilance.

Almost immediately after the tragic event, there was an attempt for another attack on the 21st of July that same month, but it didn’t succeed because the explosives being used by the potential bombers malfunctioned.

The next day, authorities launched a search for the culprits who had fled after committing their crimes, as it was discovered that one suspect was linked to the same South London apartment building where de Menezes was living.

A police officer monitoring the building noticed the electrician leaving for work, mistakenly thinking he resembled two individuals caught on surveillance cameras during the unsuccessful attack the day before.

As de Menezes made his daily commute, he was followed by security personnel while using the bus. Later, during a stop on the Northern line train at Stockwell station, he encountered armed police officers.

Or, more concisely:

During his journey to work, de Menezes was trailed by surveillance agents on the bus and subsequently faced off with firearm-carrying officers when their train halted at Stockwell station.

There’s been disagreement about the exact sequence of events leading up to Mr. de Menezes’ death, particularly concerning the behavior of the police officers present and whether they clearly announced their presence as officers before taking action.

Pope explained to TopMob magazine that it wasn’t primarily about uncovering astonishing discoveries. Instead, the focus was on organizing the findings from previous investigations, making sense of them, and navigating through the complexities.

For instance, consider a scenario where officers claimed they shouted, “Police with weapons!” However, 17 bystanders asserted otherwise. The ambiguity largely lies in the audience determining the truth based on these conflicting accounts.

Regardless of who they were, there’s debate over whether de Menezes could have reacted or defended himself before getting shot in that situation.

Upon further examination, it was uncovered that there were more discrepancies in the story, one being a widespread misunderstanding about Jean Charles de Menezes leaping over the turnstiles at the tube station. In truth, he simply swiped his Oyster card.

Pope went on to express his astonishment, stating, “I learned that nothing I thought I remembered was accurate. It was just the armed officers, pursuing him, who were jumping over obstacles.

The screenwriter characterizes the ambiguity regarding specific aspects of the case, such as the missing CCTV footage from the bus or subway station, as giving off a “questionable odor,” pointing out that there are simply too many unanswered questions.

The Pope explained the intensity of the response as a result of the “intense fear and suspicion” that arose among officers in the wake of the 7/7 attack and the thwarted bombings on the 21st of July.

He shared with TopMob Magazine, “I’m positive the individuals involved believed Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrorist when they went down onto that platform. The general sentiment then was, ‘We’ve caught one of them!’

On the next day, it was officially verified that de Menezes, indeed, was entirely innocent. The Metropolitan Police termed the unfortunate event as a “tragedy,” and expressed their “sorrow” over the situation.

The incident sparked significant criticism towards the Metropolitan Police, particularly Commissioner Ian Blair and Gold Commander Cressida Dick at that time. This criticism was echoed not only in the United Kingdom but also in Brazil. As a result, demonstrations and vigils were held shortly following the event.

Regarding Dick, who gave the order for the chase and eventually held the position of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Pope remarked: “Had they surrendered, we wouldn’t be in this situation now. Why couldn’t she apologize? What was the harm?

They frequently choose ‘regret’ instead of ‘remorse,’ and this difference is significant to me.

Following a protracted four-year court case, the de Menezes family received around £100,000 in compensation as a result of Jean Charles’s passing. However, his brother Giovanni expressed to TopMob magazine that this settlement did not address or resolve any issues.

As a passionate movie enthusiast reflecting on a heartrending real-life story, I find myself reminiscing a decade after Jean’s untimely demise. In our quest for justice, my family and I took our plea to the European Court of Human Rights. We contested the British government’s choice not to bring anyone to account for Jean’s murder, citing Article 2 – the right to life, which we believed had been egregiously violated in this case.

The court decided against the family, stating in a collective agreement (13:4), that “the choice not to bring charges against any specific officer wasn’t based on flaws in the investigation or the State condoning or conspiring with illegal actions.

Read More

2025-04-30 13:11