23 Nov 2014 03:35:04
{Ed007's Note - As a follow up to what I posted above and Kim saying she was surprised the two Michaels weren't shot dead at the scene by the armed 'police', I had a snoop about and found this report from during their trial.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lee-rigby-murder-trial-police-reveal-dramatic-new-images-and-footage-of-the-moments-two-suspects-are-arrested-8981052.html
I'm going to reprint some parts of the report and point out the glaring errors.
"They were released as a police markswoman told jurors at the Old Bailey that she feared for her life when she was left defenceless as the alleged killer of Fusilier Lee Rigby charged her car waving a machete.
The officer known only as D49 and the driver of a three-strong armed response unit, struggled to pull her gun out of a holster as Michael Adebolajo sprinted towards her car, the court heard. "
So we are to believe that highly trained police officers who we are supposed to trust with protecting us panicked so much she struggled to get her gun out her holster when her and 2 other colleagues were in immediate danger? Note the word machete is used here.
"CCTV footage shown in court showed a machete-wielding man get to within a few feet of D49's car door before he was thrown thrown into the air with the impact of a shot from her colleague sitting in the back seat of the car. "
Now we have a highly trained police officer who can't get her gun out of the holster and her colleague in the back failed to shoot dead from "within a few feet" a man posing that much of a danger her highly trained colleague was so panic-stricken she couldn't get her own gun out it's holster. It's beyond parody, it would be far fetched for a film script so why do people believe it actually happened?
"I saw a flash to my right, when I looked I saw a black male running at me waving both hands up in the air with a chopping motion, " said D49 in a statement read to the court. "I instantly thought he is going to kill me. I could not immediately pull out my Glock… I could see the look in the suspect's eyes. They were so wide I could see the whites of them. "
First off, she doesn't mention the machete, not a big deal but wouldn't a policewomen's statement be more thorough? Perhaps not as she then says "waving both hands up in the air with a chopping motion" still no mention of any machete and if you imagine what she's describing it sounds more like rave dancing than threatening behaviour, remember at this point they have no idea what's occurred. He could have been a witness in a blind panic? D49 is so close to the disco dancing black male she can see the whites of his eyes but her colleague, a highly trained police officer can't/won't shoot him dead?
Wouldn't a lawyer question what hand the machete was in etc. when the suspect was shot, to build up an exact picture of what happened and forensic evidence? You would think so BUT note the part "said D49 in a statement read to the court", D49 wasn't giving evidence, her statement was only read out in court and so she was never cross-examined, she was never there in person.
"The officer in the back of the car, E48, told the court yesterday of his decision to shoot Mr Adebolajo as he charged towards the car. Speaking from behind a screen, he told the court that D49 was "defenceless, she had a pane of glass to protect herself".
Why was E48 behind a screen, why wasn't his statement just read out like his poor little defenceless colleague, who although she was carrying a Glock "only had a pane of glass to protect herself", hardly defenceless is it?
"The second he started sprinting at us still in possession of that knife I made the decision to fire and until he fell away from the vehicle I was still in the frame of mind, he said. "
All through this story, this blade went from being a meat cleaver to a machete and now a knife! I know it's a small point (small point/knife? Get it lol) but shouldn't the police know the difference, or better still wouldn't the weapons be there as evidence? It's not mentioned in this article but I'm sure I read somewhere that they were only shown pictures of "blood soaked weapons".
"It felt like everything went in slow motion, " she said in her statement. "I thought 'Oh my God, he is going to shoot me'. I feared for my life. "
This is good old D49's statement being read out again as evidence in a murder trial the eyes of the world are looking at. This is her talking about the SECOND Michael, so again this highly trained police officer has panicked when faced with danger, doesn't she play the damsel in distress so well? How the hell did her unit ever manage the 35 out of 35 shooting to kills ratio with this panic merchant in the ranks? That's twice in one day she's feared for her life, the poor lass nerves must be shattered!
"Mr Adebolajo told a paramedic who treated him that he believed in sharia law and "should be allowed to have as many women as he wanted, " the court was told yesterday. He kept repeating that British soldiers were raping and killing women in Afghanistan on his way to hospital, according to a statement by paramedic William Woolston. "
So even the paramedics don't get a day off work and claiming court expenses for it as William Woolston only had his statement read out. It must be the truth then eh? It's reported elsewhere that Adebolajo also told Woolston that Allah was his next of kin. So that's the 2 Michaels both had poor little D49 in fear of her life and now one of them is saying he "should be allowed to have as many women as he wanted".
There was a case (can not remember it)and it went to court in the usa and everything the cop described was based on emotion from his emotions to the accused emotions and not on facts, the accused got found guilty and got life but after ten or so years they done a retrial and the new lawyer told the jurors just look at the evidence nothing more nothing less does it add up to what the cop is telling you?
the accused went free.
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
23 Nov 2014 12:06:53
Interesting. As I said, it would make the most sense for the two guys to get killed at the scene. Imagine the positive media publicity for the police etc. And saving an inconvenience of a trial.
Instead they were allowed to survive for some reason and to go on trial. This points to a deeper game.
I would question if the police who arrived were actually properly firearms trained. As you say they had a record of 35 kills in 35 incidents. An outstanding record for marksmen, and highlights how well rained they are. Marksmen need nerves of steel and do not panic. That whole statement is incredible, i'd like to see her service record.
Kim Philby
Agree · 3 · Disagree · 0
The inquire into the "prevention "of murder today seems to be focusing on internet information from unnamed American internet and clearing the spooks.
Seem like the whole story is now being used to help ease through laws governing the internet. Has this always been their intention or is it now a convient time to use incident?
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
25 Nov 2014 18:06:12
Todays bbc very interesting. These 2 do sound like assets in place.
Kim Philby
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
