Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
: I tend to agree with Wallie, the section should be dropped. This is an article on de Menezes, so if the allegations were true, it ''would'' be relevant. Also, I don't agree that being cleared of a crime is offensive, nor that we should remove sections on the basis that they are offensive. But anyway yes, drop it. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 05:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |
: I tend to agree with Wallie, the section should be dropped. This is an article on de Menezes, so if the allegations were true, it ''would'' be relevant. Also, I don't agree that being cleared of a crime is offensive, nor that we should remove sections on the basis that they are offensive. But anyway yes, drop it. [[User:PizzaMargherita|PizzaMargherita]] 05:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |
||
::Thanks guys. I take the point about "London press" and "English nationals". The language is a little off the cuff, and this is only a discussion page. I like the term "red tops" too. I was suprised you mentioned that the Scotsman covered this. However, even they can get desperate for material sometimes and jump on the bandwagon. The offensive bit to which I was referring was the fact there was any mention of the rape in the article at all. I can only assume it was there to put a question mark over Jean Charles's character to somehow justify poice actions. Note that the only reason for an article on Jean Charles is because of the shooting, and only material relating to this topic should be considered. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 08:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |
::Thanks guys. I take the point about "London press" and "English nationals". The language is a little off the cuff, and this is only a discussion page. I like the term "red tops" too. I was suprised you mentioned that the Scotsman covered this. However, even they can get desperate for material sometimes and jump on the bandwagon. The offensive bit to which I was referring was the fact there was any mention of the rape in the article at all. I can only assume it was there to put a question mark over Jean Charles's character to somehow justify poice actions. Note that the only reason for an article on Jean Charles is because of the shooting, and only material relating to this topic should be considered. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 08:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |
||
::Well, it's significant that the family believes that the police's willingness to investigate the rape allegations came from the continuation of the desire to smear JCdM in the press to take some heat off the Met. It did succeed in putting 'a cloud' over JCdM's reputation for a few weeks while some of the most damaging leaked allegations over the shooting were coming out. The way this is mentioned doesn't at all "put a question mark over [JC]'s character", but clearly states that the allegations were proven false... I could go either way on this, but it is a shame to throw away NPOV and verifiable content.''[[User_talk:Kwh|KWH]]'' 16:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
===Rape allegations=== |
|||
On [[March 12]],[[2006]] the [[Sunday Mirror]] reported that [[Scotland Yard]] was investigating a claim made in in [[February]] [[2006]] that de Menezes carried out a [[rape]] in [[2003]].[http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/archive/archive/tm_objectid=16803852%26method=full%26siteid=62484-name_page.html] A woman claimed that a man who resembled de Menezes attacked her in a hotel room on New Year's Eve [[2002]] in [[West London]]. The de Menezes family denied the allegations and claimed that the Met was trying to "smear" de Menezes.<ref name=ScotsmanRape>[http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=375182006] |
|||
</ref> Although the family initially resisted giving the claim any credibility, a blood sample was eventually taken from de Menezes's autopsy. On [[April 25]], [[2006]] Scotland Yard announced that forensic tests had cleared de Menezes and that the allegations were proven false. <ref name=GuardianRapeCleared>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5779346,00.html]</ref> |
|||
<!--alternate source: [http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article350779.ece]--> |
Revision as of 16:28, 6 May 2006
Archive discussion
/Archive1 - Created 27 February 2006
Latest development
Latest development posted at the news section of the Brazil Portal, if it should interest. Regards, Redux 01:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
'Disputed' facts and events
I just feel that there is something seriously misleading about titling like this. First, we aren't stating WHO is disputing what events and facts. Once the leaked documents emerged, they appear to have quickly superseded the previous account. The current verbage seems to suggest there is an on going, or at least notably heated argument over which version was accurate, which there is/was not. --Fangz 01:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree PizzaMargherita 07:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Officers mistook him for bombing suspect?
The second sentence of the article claims that the officers who killed de Menzes mistook him for one of the attempted bombing suspects. Is there any reference for that claim (which follows verbatim)?
- Menezes was shot and killed at Stockwell tube station on the London Underground by unnamed Metropolitan Police officers, who had mistaken him for a suspect in the previous day's failed bombings.
This claim is not made elsewhere in the article. Given that that even the Metropolitan Police have given contradictory statements as to whether officers believed de Menezes to be an existing suspect, and that we do not even know the identity of the officers who actually shot him let alone what their thoughts were at the time, I believe this claim should be removed from the first paragraph.
If there is a source which makes this claim, IMO it should be moved to Jean_Charles_de_Menezes#Pursuit_and_shooting, probably with other views on this matter.
--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 05:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, they monitored his family's conversations in Portuguese, and the very well trained spy agents concluded that they spoke Arabic and the official translation of the conversations from Arabic into English provided conclusive evidence that they were going to bomb the train.--tequendamia 05:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Is this documented? PizzaMargherita 07:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- See above at Introduction, where this was already discussed in much depth... KWH 06:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- I just read all the archives and I don't think a consensus was reached on whether the beliefs of the officers who shot him should be included, and, more crucially, no one there has given a single reference for the claim, "who had mistaken him for a suspect in the previous day's failed bombings".
- IMO we shouldn't be stating as fact the intentions of an individual involved in a suspected crime (especially in the first paragraph and without any reference to someoene even expressing the claim as their opinion), as we really have no idea what the their intentions were (especially as the individuals have not given any indication of what happened or even released their names).
- I wouldn't have a problem with stating different views on this in a disputed facts section, but, as it stands, I believe it is not WP:NPOV and is second guessing the criminal investigation and any future prosecutions. For instance, by assuming the truth of this factoid (that they thought he was one of the suspects from the previous day), many would consider it reasonable to assume that there was a necessary level of recklessness or negligence on the part of the officers in order to secure a criminal conviction at least for manslaughter (because De Menzes didn't look like any of the suspects).
- Is it fair for us to use weasel words in the second sentence of a controversial article to imply that someone who does not (and possibly is not allowed to) defend themselves has committed manslaughter or murder?
- Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 14:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- This seems to depend very much on the meaning you are applying to the words. The officers who set the chain of events in motion were the plainclothes officers on the bus. ("At some point during this journey, the pursuing officers contacted Gold Command, and reported that Menezes potentially matched the description of two of the previous day's suspects, including Osman Hussain.") These officers then followed him into the station and pointed him out to the firearms officers who arrived. The firearms officers shot him. You are correct that we do not know the state of mind of the firearms officers, but they presumably would not have shot Menezes if the plainclothes officers hadn't identified him. So is it reasonable to say, for reason of brevity in an introduction, that a team of officers does an action collectively? Shall we say of a sports team that the team won the game, or shall we say that these several players won the game, a few others sat on the bench, and a few others weren't present? I'm open to another wording as long as it's suitably brief. Perhaps:
- "Menezes was shot and killed at Stockwell tube station on the London Underground by unnamed Metropolitan Police officers, after he was mistaken for a suspect in the previous day's failed bombings."
- (And please note: I was defending the exact same view on this text as you, Joe, back in August 2005 before the leaked IPCC report came out with further details) KWH 02:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I admit I haven't read the leaked IPCC report (and only have a vague idea about its contents) so maybe I should. I brought this up, because, despite not liking to get into arguments over controversial articles, seeing this paragraph has been annoying since August and it still hasn't changed. Regardless of the contents of the report (which, of course, shouldn't be taken as gospel, especially as it was a leak of a work in progress), it seems clear that that it would not be right to say he was "shot by officers who mistook him for" (as the who clause can only refer to the shooters and "mistook for" is defined as "to recognise someone/sthg as someoene sthg/else" and "recognise" means "to perceive with the senses as something/someoene else based on past experience"), so I've changed the wording to what you suggested.
- Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 22:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- This seems to depend very much on the meaning you are applying to the words. The officers who set the chain of events in motion were the plainclothes officers on the bus. ("At some point during this journey, the pursuing officers contacted Gold Command, and reported that Menezes potentially matched the description of two of the previous day's suspects, including Osman Hussain.") These officers then followed him into the station and pointed him out to the firearms officers who arrived. The firearms officers shot him. You are correct that we do not know the state of mind of the firearms officers, but they presumably would not have shot Menezes if the plainclothes officers hadn't identified him. So is it reasonable to say, for reason of brevity in an introduction, that a team of officers does an action collectively? Shall we say of a sports team that the team won the game, or shall we say that these several players won the game, a few others sat on the bench, and a few others weren't present? I'm open to another wording as long as it's suitably brief. Perhaps:
Inaccuracy in biography section
- According to a statement by the British Home Office, he did not apply for an extension, and was living illegally in the UK after that time.
This account is both inaccurate and biased.
I remember quite vividly, although I cannot get hold of the sources, that the Home Office said that the Home Office stamp that Jean Charles de Menezes had on his passport was not in use by the Home Office at the time, thus implying that there was a possibility that he was living in the UK without a valid visa.
I also remember that the IPCC complained about the timing and the nature of this statement from the Home Office, which was uncalled for and not relevant. I think it would be nice to add these very meaningful details, and either way to support this section with references. Can you please help me find them? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 19:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I got them. I was only partially correct, but still I think the current wording in the article is not ideal.
PizzaMargherita 07:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Rape Allegations
I have heard that the rape case has now been closed, however as far as i am aware the DNA sample that was requested by the police was never provided by the family, there are only two reasons i can think the case has been closed, that he was in fact the rapist or another person was caught and charged with the rape. As this was a pre existing alligation which only came to light after the victim saw the pictures of him in the media, its not possible that they were simply made up, the polic had evidence and genetic matierial collected at the time of the rape, so whats going on here??? Was Mr De Menezes a rapist???? —This unsigned comment was added by 82.39.134.72 (talk • contribs) .
- All the sources I can find online don't indicate that the case is closed, but is still under investigation. KWH 02:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Case is closed and Mr de Menezes was cleared of all rape allegations [1]. And such allegations were very 'convenient' so start with, weren't they?!? Slander, slander, slander... I can almost see some chubby fingers crossed, hoping that the allegations would stick.
- Now that the allegations have been thoroughly disproved, I wonder whether they justify a separate section (complete with details as to the supposed circumstances of the "rape".) Should it be reduced to just a couple of sentences in another section (possibly "An innocent man"?). Vilĉjo 22:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Roman Catholic
Why is this category relevant? Why don't we add a "people with dark hair" category then? Besides, do we want to build a database of all Roman catholics? I think somebody tried to do the same with jews in the past and it was decided that it wasn't a nice thing to do. PizzaMargherita 07:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Mark Whitby
Anyone else aware that he managed to get "eyewitness" spots on all the major channels, and yet talked a load of utter crap.
Criticism of Justice4Jean
I've noticed that any criticism of Justice4Jean seems to get removed by anonymous IPs every few months, most recently 9 March: [2] Might keep an eye out for that in the future. KWH 05:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Rape insinuations
Just how sick is this? The man was shot by police, and that is the reason for the article. Now this sort of rubbish is being introduced. Even if the allegations were true, and they are not, they would not be relevant to this article. I doubt any English national would be subjected to this sort of prejudice by the London press. Wallie 23:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have no intention of re-introducing the material you removed and I had no input into it being placed into the article in the first place, so I have no axe to grind, but just for the record - a) There are no "English nationals" only British nationals. b) There is no "London Press" to speak of apart from the Evening Standard. The popular press in Britain consists mostly of national newspapers. c) You obviously know little about British tabloids, the red tops report all sorts of scurrilous stuff no matter what a person's nationality. So these is no kind of prejudice going on here. d) There was an allegation and it was investigated and proven to be false. This was widely reported, not just by the red tops; indeed one of the references was from The Scotsman. Jooler 02:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Wallie, the section should be dropped. This is an article on de Menezes, so if the allegations were true, it would be relevant. Also, I don't agree that being cleared of a crime is offensive, nor that we should remove sections on the basis that they are offensive. But anyway yes, drop it. PizzaMargherita 05:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks guys. I take the point about "London press" and "English nationals". The language is a little off the cuff, and this is only a discussion page. I like the term "red tops" too. I was suprised you mentioned that the Scotsman covered this. However, even they can get desperate for material sometimes and jump on the bandwagon. The offensive bit to which I was referring was the fact there was any mention of the rape in the article at all. I can only assume it was there to put a question mark over Jean Charles's character to somehow justify poice actions. Note that the only reason for an article on Jean Charles is because of the shooting, and only material relating to this topic should be considered. Wallie 08:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's significant that the family believes that the police's willingness to investigate the rape allegations came from the continuation of the desire to smear JCdM in the press to take some heat off the Met. It did succeed in putting 'a cloud' over JCdM's reputation for a few weeks while some of the most damaging leaked allegations over the shooting were coming out. The way this is mentioned doesn't at all "put a question mark over [JC]'s character", but clearly states that the allegations were proven false... I could go either way on this, but it is a shame to throw away NPOV and verifiable content.KWH 16:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Rape allegations
On March 12,2006 the Sunday Mirror reported that Scotland Yard was investigating a claim made in in February 2006 that de Menezes carried out a rape in 2003.[3] A woman claimed that a man who resembled de Menezes attacked her in a hotel room on New Year's Eve 2002 in West London. The de Menezes family denied the allegations and claimed that the Met was trying to "smear" de Menezes.[1] Although the family initially resisted giving the claim any credibility, a blood sample was eventually taken from de Menezes's autopsy. On April 25, 2006 Scotland Yard announced that forensic tests had cleared de Menezes and that the allegations were proven false. [2]