LONDON, 21 August 2005 — Scotland Yard came under renewed pressure yesterday when the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, the 27-year-old Brazilian electrician mistakenly killed by anti-terror police on the London Underground a day after the failed suicide bombings on July 21, rejected a $1 million compensation offer, which they said was an insult, and was “blood money”.
The parents of Jean Charles, Matozinho and Maria de Menezes, told the Daily Mail that they rejected the offer “as an insult. We will not be bought off. We will not be silenced. This is not about money, this is about justice.”
Maria de Menezes confirmed she is planning to come to London to ask Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, face-to-face why he told lies about her son.
According to the paper, Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates flew to Brazil two weeks ago to make the initial offer of payment.
However, Scotland Yard refused to confirm whether the $1 million compensation offer was made, but a police statement confirmed that “the only discussions we have had so far with the family of Jean Charles de Menezes have been about initial expenses. We would not go into details. Every case is different. This case is obviously unique but any case involving compensation is judged at the relevant time.”
De Menezes, who was mistaken for the fifth failed 7/21 suicide bomber Osman Hussain and lived in the same block of flats in Stockwell, was shot seven times in the head and one in the shoulder by armed anti-terror police after he boarded a tube train at Stockwell station. He died instantly.
Since then, Scotland Yard’s “shoot-to-kill” policy has come under fire, and yesterday the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) confirmed the police are carrying out an internal investigation into and review of the policy.
Len Duvall, chairman of the MPA, conceded there “is growing pressure from opinion-formers and politicians” for a public inquiry into the shooting and the policy. I have no objection to further scrutiny of the policy. If greater oversight of operations provides public reassurance then that can only be a good thing,” he said.
