
I gunned down Jean Charles de Menezes – then was told we'd got wrong man…it was worst moment, says cop in ONLY interview
The capital was on high alert as four suicide bombers were on the run after a failed attack on the transport system the day before, which saw police and MI5 launch the biggest manhunt of modern times.
12
12
12
12
A terrible error led to armed police officers following Brazilian Jean Charles, 27, onto the London Underground at Stockwell, south London on the morning of July 22, 2005.
Two of them – codenamed C2 and C12 - killed him with seven bullets to the head.
Now C2, who fired five shots, has spoken out for the first time to apologise to his family - admitting he wishes he could turn back the clock.
He tells a Netflix documentary which drops today: "I would say to Jean Charles' family I'm sorry, that I and another officer were put in a position where we killed your son.
"I would do anything to roll back time, to have a different set of circumstances where that didn't happen. That should not have happened.'
In the four-part series - Attack on London: Hunting the 7/7 bombers - C2 appears with his face hidden under a baseball cap and a hoodie.
He says: 'I have never spoken about this publicly. This will probably be the only time that I will talk about it, rather than take it to my grave.'
A third firearms officer, Charlie 5, witnessed the killing, and two decades later the events of that fateful morning are burnt into his subconscious.
Just two weeks after four suicide bombers killed 52 commuters and wounded more 700 others on July 7, four terrorists planned to carry out copy-cat bombings on three tube trains and a bus.
But the 21/7 bombers failed to detonate their devices because the hydrogen peroxide mixture they had used as explosive was too weak.
Instead the would-be bombers dumped their backpacks and fled.
A gym membership card left in one of the backpacks led cops to one suspect, Hussein Osman.
Anti-terrorist police and specialist firearms officers quickly had the block of flats in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill under surveillance. Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, also lived there.
'Critical shot'
12
12
12
Police marksman C5, who by then had been on the firearms squad for nearly 10 years, recalls: 'We were told, 'Today you may be called upon to use unusual tactics.'
'I think someone said, 'What do you mean, like critical shot?'
'And he said, 'All I'll say is don't question anything you're told because you will not have the full picture.'
'They gave us already-loaded fresh magazines with hollow-point ammunition.
'We were told that some of the devices could be small, like a suicide vest. It could be a belt with a bomb in it. It could be a coffee jar size that could go in a pocket.
'When we left there, we were under no illusion how dangerous these bombers were.
I have never spoken about this publicly. This will probably be the only time that I will talk about it, rather than take it to my grave
C2
'We were told they were highly motivated, determined and deadly. We were also told we would only be used if one of the subjects was identified as one of the bombers.'
He adds: 'For whatever reason, there had been some sort of cock up in the OP [Operational Support] van.
'Normally they would have had a good opportunity to take a photograph and could have said there and then if it was or wasn't him.'
The other problem was that instructions had to come from a control room at Scotland Yard, instead of the unit's own commanders at SO19 – which led to long delays.
'Edgy'
On the morning of July 22, Jean Charles de Menezes was followed from his home as he boarded a bus to Brixton, where he got off, and then got back on again because the Underground station was closed.
To police surveillance teams he appeared to be acting suspiciously.
He then got off at Stockwell Station, which had been the suicide bombers' point of entry to the Tube network the previous day.
C5 tells The Sun: 'It was looking more and more likely this was the subject. Over the radio he was described as edgy.
'In my head I kept thinking, it's escalating. At some point I felt we would have to intervene.
'Then, of course, we got those immortal words, 'He must not be allowed to get on that Tube under any circumstances'.
In my head I kept thinking, it's escalating. At some point I felt we would have to intervene. Then, of course, we got those immortal words, 'He must not be allowed to get on that Tube under any circumstances'
C5
'We were deployed. As far as we were concerned, it was a positive ID.
'I remember going down the Tube, down the escalators, thinking, we're going to be too late, and the train's going to go in the tunnel, and I'm going to see a big flash, a big explosion.'
C2 remembers: 'He's a minute, maybe two minutes ahead of me. So I had to run.
'I'm thinking I cannot believe that we have allowed this situation to develop.
'We've allowed someone we believe is a suicide bomber into the tube network. To have a device on him. To initiate that device.
'My only way in was to leap over the barrier. I remember chasing down the escalator. I pulled my weapon and I put it behind my back.
Charlie 5 says: 'It was a nightmare scenario because we all knew we'd lose radio comms.
'C2 and C12 were in front of me. We were not shouting 'Armed police'.'
Charlie 5 admits: 'I've been involved in quite a few shooting incidents but nothing like this.
'It was one of those days where you had to step into the arena, deal with what was in front of you and do what needed to be done.'
'Numb'
The underground carriage was still standing at the platform. C5 entered through the single door at the end.
He says: 'At the inquest there was only about 17 people shown in the carriage at the time but it was absolutely jam-packed.
'It had been sitting on the platform for probably four or five minutes, and people just kept getting on.
'I remember having to push my way through people moving through the carriage trying to identify the suspect, looking, where is he?
'As I got to the doors my two colleagues were there, so I knew I was in the right carriage. I was aware of someone standing up to the left.'
Shots rang out. C2 says: 'A surveillance officer already in the carriage indicated who the subject was.
'I was convinced we were about to die. I fired and so did my colleague Charlie 12, and I kept firing until I was absolutely certain there was no further threat.
'I could not believe what had just happened. To be frank I was numb with shock because of the horror of what had occurred.
'There was a relief that we were still standing and we had stopped an attack.'
I was convinced we were about to die. I fired and so did my colleague Charlie 12, and I kept firing until I was absolutely certain there was no further threat
C2
C5 adds: 'When the gunshot rang out my first thought was, we were going to blow up. This is it, there's an explosion, we're going to die.
'Then, a fraction of a second later, I thought, we're still here. It was a strange feeling. I felt kind of euphoric. It was weird, this adrenaline feeling of like, we have survived.
'But there was no celebration or anything. We knew we had taken a life. It's a horrible thing.
'I felt for both the officers, C2 and C12, what they had to do.
'In that time, everybody was running off the Tube in mass panic, they were running and leaving their phones.
'We felt we were going on war footing from the bombings. We were under attack. And, you know, I think everyone else did as well.
'People had a heightened sense of what was going on around them. Could there be another bombing and could they be victims of it?'
'Something was not right'
C2 was taken away from the scene in an unmarked police car, while C5 volunteered to stay to help an explosives officer in plain clothes check the body for bombs.
Charlie 5 remembers: 'There were no devices. We laid him on the ground so I could check for vital signs.
'He found a wallet and it had ID in it. The name on the ID was Jean Charles de Menezes.
'It wasn't the name of the subject, so along with the fact that he didn't have a device on him things just didn't seem to add up for me at that time.
'I didn't want to say this to anybody because I didn't want to start rumours, but in the back of my mind I started to feel something was not right.'
C2 says: 'By the time I'd got home I was aware there was speculation regarding the identity of the person I had killed. I didn't get any sleep, and I still had massive tinnitus, a very, very loud ringing in my ears.
"Next day I caught the Tube back to work and I was called into the chief superintendent's office. He told me that the man I shot was completely innocent.
'I can't describe how I felt, it was the worst feeling ever. I killed an innocent man and I now know who that man is.
I can't describe how I felt, it was the worst feeling ever. I killed an innocent man and I now know who that man is
C2
"I am responsible, and I accept responsibility. As a firearms officer ultimately the decision to use force is yours.
"But why were we in that position? Those people in command put me in that position, they also have to answer."
The Crown Prosecution Service decided not to charge either C12 or C2 with any offence and they returned to duty.
C5, who retired from the police in 2013, says: 'Twenty years on I think about this frequently. It's always in the news somewhere. It is burnt into my subconscious.
'I don't think I have PTSD over it. I was a seasoned firearms officer. My training experience part-prepared me for mentally dealing with things.
'It has taken a lot of processing over the years. I think people forget, we're family men and we're trying to protect the public, not harm them.'
The Metropolitan Police made changes in the wake of the tragic shooting at Stockwell.
C5 says: 'There's a lot more fail-safe put in place in identifying suspects and communications have improved.
'Could it happen again? 'There's always a human element of errors so yes, it's possible, but hopefully not with all the fail-safe they have now.'
Attack on London: Hunting the 7/7 bombers is on Netflix from July 1.
12
12
12
12

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Saudi Arabian student, 20, stabbed to death outside apartments 'was on his third summer in Cambridge' and known as a 'nice kid'
A Saudi Arabian student was spending his third summer in Cambridge when he was stabbed to death, the Daily Mail understands. Mohammed Algasim, 20, died on Saturday night outside luxury apartments in Mill Park, in what police have described as an 'unprovoked attack'. Paramedics battled to save his life for more than 30 minutes but he was pronounced dead at 12.01am. The student was on a 10-week placement at EF International Language Campuses Cambridge - a private school offering English language courses to overseas students. The school told the Daily Mail in a statement today: 'We are deeply saddened by what has happened. 'At this time, we are focused on supporting our students, staff and Mohammed's family.' Local Natalie Ahluwalia revealed how Mr Algasim had been leaning against a tree in the square and chatting with four or five of his friends just hours before he died. Today, his grief-stricken family travelled to the city and prayed near where floral tributes have been laid. The Daily Mail has been told they arrived in order to organise the repatriation of Mr Algasim to his native country in order for him to be buried, according to his Muslim religion. Ms Ahluwalia, a 39-year-old mother, told the Daily Mail: 'The students come here every summer when the university students leave. I don't know them personally, but they are part of our community. 'Mohammed and his friends used to spend time here in this square. There's never any trouble at all. They're really nice kids. They just sit out and socialise. 'I saw him in the evening, at about 8.30pm on Friday night as I was going to the mosque. He was there, leaning up against a tree, with four or five boys. He was chatting. 'They come here to make friends with each other and socialise. They're lovely, kind and polite.' She had come home from the mosque and was in her flat with her son when Mohammed was killed. She said: 'I heard this screaming. A girl was screaming. It was an endless scream.' Chas Corrigan, 21, from Cambridge, has been charged with murder and possession of a knife in a public place. He appeared before Peterborough Magistrates' Court yesterday and was remanded in custody. Mr Algasim's heartbroken family yesterday paid tribute to 'a young man brimming with enthusiasm, brimming with chivalry and courage'. His uncle, Majed Abalkhail, also spoke out to say he hopes the tragic death will 'prompt serious reflection on public safety and the protection of innocent lives'. He told The National that 'many people' in the UK and abroad had expressed growing concerns about a 'rise in violent crime' in Britain. Mr Abalkhail added: 'We believe the country is no longer a safe destination for students or tourists.' The doting uncle went on to describe his nephew as a 'calm, kind-hearted young man, loved and respected by everyone who knew him'. In a statement, Mr Alqassem's family said: 'He was a dutiful son, a loving brother, and the leader of the family in spirit, not in appearance. 'He was cheerful, chivalrous, pure of heart, quick to give, and passionate about others. 'Over time, he became the family's charisma, leaving behind an unforgettable legacy in every gathering. 'He was his father's support, his familiar companion, and the assistant to his uncles and maternal uncles. 'He was the most compassionate person to ever visit a mother's heart and the closest to his sisters' embrace.' Floral tributes have been left on the pavement outside one of the buildings as mourners pay their respects to the student. A message, on a piece of paper taped to a barrier behind the tributes, said 'may your soul be at peace' and had heart shapes drawn on it. It also said 'inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un', which is an Arabic phrase meaning 'to God we belong and to Him we return'.


Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Pitiful justice from the FCA: It took far too long to put Woodford in the stocks, says ALEX BRUMMER
How jolly good it is that financial justice has finally caught up with disgraced investment guru Neil Woodford and his irresponsible and deceitful management of the collapsed Woodford Equity Investment Fund (WEIF). There is satisfaction to be drawn from the ban imposed on Woodford from holding senior management roles and looking after retail investors' cash. Moreover, Woodford personally will have to cough up £5.8million in fines and his eponymous investment firm some £40million. Yet the process of delivering verdicts for Woodford savers (including this writer), which started when Andrew Bailey was chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), has been exasperating. It has taken six long years to reach this point, and one fears that there will be victims of Woodford's nefarious behaviour who will have missed out on seeing the regulator swing into action. And it is not over yet since Woodford, lawyered to the hilt, is taking the matter to the Upper Tribunal, the FCA's equivalent of the High Court. That means more delays. Much of the material in the voluminous decision documents relating to Woodford Investment Management and WEIF emerged at the time. It was known, for instance, that Woodford sought to cover up a lack of liquidity in his funds by transferring assets to the obscure Guernsey stock exchange. He also sought to shift the blame for what happened to corporate director Link. The FCA found them jointly culpable and Link, now controlled from Down Under, has already paid £230million in restitution for its error. The rules-based system under which the FCA operates needs to be preserved if retail investors and professionals, such as Kent County Council, are to be protected. What is intolerable is the bureaucratic faffing which has taken so long to put Woodford in the stocks. In the interim, Woodford still offers his services as a financial adviser. The FCA has also failed, thus far, to establish how it was that some 300,000 people who invested in Woodford funds were exposed through the Hargreaves Lansdown (HL) platform and its own fund of funds. HL is now owned by a consortium of private equity investors led by CVC. That is no excuse for escaping culpability and facing up to HL's responsibility for misleading savers. Musical chairs Often it is said that the main duty of the chairman is to fire the chief executive. At Diageo, Sir John Manzoni, who took over as chairman early this year, lost little time in disposing of one of the FTSE 100's small gang of women bosses, Debra Crew. Admittedly, at the time, Diageo's share price was in sharp retreat, falling by 30 per cent. Authoritative accounts suggest that Crew was ambushed. When she questioned the assertiveness of finance director Nik Jhangiani with Manzoni, she signed her own resignation letter. The latest results show that, were it not for the Trump tariffs – which cannot be blamed on Crew – the underlying picture was much better than thought with organic sales up 1.7 per cent at £15.1billion. The vital North American market was still robust with sales up 1.5 per cent. This is despite the trend of Gen Z turning away from alcohol. Where does this, one wonders, leave Murray Auchincloss, chief executive of BP, in another part of the corporate forest? New chairman Albert Manifold has ordered a review of the business and costs, and he hasn't even been seated. What that means for the sensible Auchincloss strategy, already under fire from activist Elliott, one shudders to think. Tech leakage No board of directors would dare turn down a bid premium of 104.9 per cent unless it came from the Ayatollah himself. So British scientific instrument maker Spectris has been able to sit back as private equity ghouls Advent and KKR fight it out for control, with the latter back in the driving seat. If the sharp minds at Advent and KKR were able to see the value, where were the British analysts and buy-side investors as Spectris languished in the lower reaches of the FTSE 250? And doesn't a Labour government, committed to a high-tech future for the UK, worry about the escape of British intellectual property overseas? It should do.


Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Woodford fined £46m and banned from top City roles: Ex-fund manager branded 'not fit and proper' by watchdog
The financial watchdog has fined Neil Woodford and his company £46million and banned the disgraced fund manager from holding top City jobs. The former star stock picker 'made unreasonable and inappropriate investment decisions' before his fund collapsed and left thousands of investors trapped, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) found. In a damning verdict, it yesterday hit Woodford with a £5.9million charge and his company with a £40million penalty. And the regulator said the money manager's 'lack of competence, capability and reputation' meant he was 'not a fit and proper person' to hold senior management roles or control retail investor funds. It comes six years after more than 300,000 investors were left with around £3.7billion stuck in the Woodford Equity Income fund in one of the UK's biggest retail investment scandals. The FCA said Woodford 'did not react appropriately as the fund's value declined, its liquidity worsened, and more investors withdrew their money'. The regulator accused Woodford of holding a 'defective and unreasonably narrow understanding of his responsibilities'. Campaigners have urged the Government to strip Woodford of the CBE he received in 2023 for services to the economy. But in a statement through his lawyers, Woodford said he will fight the decision and blamed the regulator and the fund's manager Link for the collapse and investor losses. The penalty and ban are dependent on the outcome of the appeal process. At the crux of the scandal was a lump of illiquid investments made by Woodford, meaning they were difficult to rapidly turn into cash. When investors started pulling out their money, it was the more liquid investments that were sold first to fund the withdrawals. But that was unfair to those who kept their money invested, because they were left with a disproportionate share of the remaining illiquid assets before being locked out of the fund. Woodford Investment Management (WIM) insisted that his new venture – a subscription service that costs up to £840 a year – would not be affected. A spokesman for WIM and Woodford said: 'We believe the appeal process will shed much needed light on the events leading to and following the fund's suspension, including the regulator's role in those events.'