Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes

On 22 July 2005, the Metropolitan Police ("the Met") were searching for four suspects in four attempted bombings carried out the previous day; three at Underground stations and one on a bus in Hackney. As the perpetrators had not died in the failed suicide bombing, a large police investigation and manhunt began immediately. An address in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill, was written on a gym membership card that was found inside one of the unexploded bags used by the bombers.

Menezes, an electrician, lived in one of the flats with two of his cousins, and had just received a call to fix a broken fire alarm in Kilburn. At around 9:30 a.m., officers carrying out surveillance saw Menezes emerge from the communal entrance of the block.

An officer on duty at Scotia Road, referred to as "Frank" in the Stockwell 1 report, compared Menezes to the CCTV photographs of the bombing suspects from the previous day, and felt he warranted further attention. As the officer was allegedly urinating, he was unable to immediately film the suspect to transmit images to Gold Command, the Metropolitan Police operational headquarters for major incidents. The inquest transcript confirms that "Frank" was a soldier on secondment to the undercover surveillance unit.[8]

On the basis of Frank's suspicion, the Met's Gold Commander Cressida Dick authorised officers to continue pursuit and surveillance, and ordered that the suspect be prevented from entering the Tube system.

Documents from the independent agency investigation of the shooting later concluded that mistakes in police surveillance procedure led to a failure to properly identify Menezes early on, leading to rushed assumptions and actions later at Stockwell tube station.[9]

The officers followed Menezes to a bus-stop for the number 2 bus on Tulse Hill where several plainclothes police officers boarded. Menezes briefly got off the bus at Brixton station. Seeing a notice that the station was closed due to a security alert because of the previous day's attempted bombings, he made a telephone call and reboarded the bus towards Stockwell.

Unaware the station was closed, the surveillance officers said they believed that Menezes's behaviour suggested that he might have been one of the previous day's failed bomb suspects. Officers claimed that Menezes' behaviour appeared "suspicious".[10] They later stated that they were satisfied that they had the correct man, noting that he "had Mongolian eyes".[11] At some point during this journey towards Stockwell station, 3.3 kilometres (2.1 mi) away, 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.[12] Based on this information, Gold Command authorised "code red" tactics, and ordered the surveillance officers to prevent Menezes from boarding a train. According to a "senior police source at Scotland Yard", Police Commander Cressida Dick told the surveillance team that the man was to be "detained as soon as possible", before entering the station.[13] Gold Command then transferred control of the operation to Specialist Firearms Command (known as "CO19" or "SO19"), which dispatched firearms officers to Stockwell tube station.

Stockwell tube station entrance

Menezes entered the tube station at about 10:00 a.m., stopping to pick up a free newspaper. He used his Oyster card to pay the fare, walked through the barriers, and descended the escalator. He then ran across the platform to board the newly arrived train. Menezes boarded the train and found one of the first available seats.

Three surveillance officers, codenamed Hotel 1, Hotel 3 and Hotel 9, followed Menezes onto the train. According to Hotel 3, Menezes sat down with a glass panel to his right about two seats in. Hotel 3 then took a seat on the left with about two or three passengers between Menezes and himself. When the firearms officers arrived on the platform, Hotel 3 moved to the door, blocked it from closing with his left foot, and shouted "He's here!" to identify the suspect's location.

The firearms officers boarded the train and it was initially claimed they challenged the suspect, though later reports indicate he was not challenged.[14] According to Hotel 3, Menezes then stood up and moved towards the officers and Hotel 3, at which point Hotel 3 grabbed him, pinned his arms against his torso, and pushed him back into the seat. Although Menezes was being restrained, his body was straight and not in a natural sitting position. Hotel 3 heard a shot close to his ear, and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage. He shouted "Police!" and with hands raised was dragged out of the carriage by one of the armed officers who had boarded the train. Hotel 3 then heard several gunshots while being dragged out.[15]

Two officers fired a total of eleven shots according to the number of empty shell casings found on the floor of the train afterwards. Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder at close range and died at the scene. An eyewitness later said that the eleven shots were fired over a thirty-second period, at three-second intervals.[16] A separate witness reported hearing five shots, followed at an interval by several more shots.[17]

Immediately after the shooting, the Metropolitan Police stated that the shooting was "directly linked" to the investigation of the attempted bombings the previous day. It was revealed that police policy towards suspected suicide bombers had been revised and that officers had been ordered to fire directly towards suspects' heads, the theory according to British authorities being that shooting at the chest could conceivably detonate a concealed bomb.[18]

The SO19 firearms officers involved in the shooting were debriefed and drugs and alcohol tests were taken as per standard procedure. The officers were taken off duty pending an investigation into the shooting. One security agency source said later that members of SO19 received training from the SAS. He said the operation was not typical of the police and bore the hallmarks of a special forces operation.[19]

It emerged that hollow-point bullets had been employed and a senior police source said that Menezes's body had been "unrecognisable". These bullets are widely used in law enforcement, where it may often be necessary to quickly stop an armed assailant while minimising the risk of collateral damage posed by the use of full metal jacket ammunition. A full metal jacket bullet is more likely to exit the target while still retaining lethal force. A Home Office spokesman said, "Chief officers can use whatever ammunition they consider appropriate for the operational circumstances."[20]

The day after the shooting, the Metropolitan Police identified the victim as Jean Charles de Menezes and said that he had not been carrying explosives, nor was he connected in any way to the attempted bombings. They issued an apology describing the incident as "a tragedy, and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets".

The Menezes family condemned the shooting and rejected the apology. His grandmother said there was "no reason to think he was a terrorist". Although it was initially reported that they were offered almost £585,000 compensation,[21] the Menezes family eventually received £100,000 in compensation from the Metropolitan Police.[22][23]

His cousin, Alex Alves Pereira, said: "I believe my cousin's death was result of police incompetence." Pereira said that police claims regarding the incident had been conflicting, and took issue with their pursuit of Menezes for an extended period and their allowing the "suspected suicide bomber" to board a bus. "Why did they let him get on a bus if they are afraid of suicide bombers?... He could have been running, but not from the police... When the Underground stops, everybody runs to get on the train. That he jumped over the barriers is a lie."[24]

The Brazilian government released a statement expressing its shock at the killing, saying that it looked forward "to receiving the necessary explanation from the British authorities on the circumstances which led to this tragedy." Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, who had already arranged to visit London, said he would seek a meeting with the UK's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. He later met ministers and had a telephone conversation with Straw.

The Muslim Council of Britain expressed immediate concern about the apparent existence of a "shoot-to-kill" policy and called on police to make clear their reasons for shooting the man dead.

On 27 July 2005, Menezes's body was flown to Brazil for burial. His funeral took place in Gonzaga on 29 July 2005.[25] A public requiem mass for Menezes, attended by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, was held at Westminster Cathedral around the same time.[26]

A vigil at Stockwell Station was held with some of the relatives on the Sunday immediately following the shooting and police apology. Another, called by the Stop the War Coalition, was held on 25 July. They state that a thousand people attended and then several hundred people, led by a group of Brazilians (some of whom had been friends with Jean Charles), began an impromptu demonstration.

On 23 August 2005, Dania Gorodi, a Romanian immigrant, the sister of victim Michelle Otto who was killed in the 7 July 2005 London bombings, asked for an end to the criticism of Sir Ian Blair over the Menezes shooting, which she felt had moved the media focus away from the bombings.[27] "People have lost sight of the bigger picture", she said. "We need to support the police right now, not crucify one man. This is unprecedented in British history. He [Sir Ian] is doing the best he can."[28]

When, on 12 September 2006, the Metropolitan Police Authority promoted Commander Cressida Dick to the role of Deputy Assistant Commissioner, the family said they were 'absolutely disgusted'.[29] The family also criticised the awarding of the Queen's Police Medal to Commander Dick in the 2010 New Year's Day honours.[30]

On 29 September 2008, performance artist Mark McGowan "re-enacted" the killing at Stockwell station, to protest against the then-current lack of response. He was quoted as saying that "People are distracted by things like The X Factor and Christmas, so I'm doing this as a reaction."[31][32]

Senior Scotland Yard officer Deputy Assistant Commissioner Alan Given, who had operational responsibilities in relation to the officers who had actually killed Menezes, said "... when it came to the Stockwell shooting, there was a sense that it was no different from an incident such as police shooting a bank robber".[33]

On the day of Menezes's death, at his mid-afternoon press conference, Sir Ian Blair, stated: "I need to make clear that any death is deeply regrettable".[34]

The reaction of the Brazilian public was overwhelmingly negative. Protests and demonstrations were held in Brazil.[35] His cousin called Menezes's death a "third-world error".[36]

On 18 August, lawyers representing the Menezes family met with the IPCC and urged them to conduct a "fast" investigation. The lawyers, Harriet Wistrich and Gareth Peirce, held a press conference where they lamented the "chaotic mess". They stated their desire to ask the IPCC "to find out ... how much is incompetence, negligence or gross negligence and how much of it is something sinister".[38]

On 18 August, the IPCC issued a statement in which it said that the Metropolitan Police was initially opposed to them taking on the investigation.[39] It also announced that the inquiry was expected to last between three and six months. The IPCC announced it took over the inquiry on 25 July;[40] however, the inquiry was not handed over until 27 July.[41]

The police lobbied MPs to try to influence the inquiry into the shooting. Unsolicited e-mails were sent by Nick Williams, the acting inspector at the Metropolitan Police's Diamond Support Group, to Labour MPs.[42] The Met declined repeated requests by the IPCC to disclose hundreds of pages of internal papers that gave the Met's private assessment of the operation, including discussions about how much compensation the Met thought it should pay to the Menezes family; the risk that individual officers might face murder or manslaughter charges; the vulnerability of Blair and the Met to an action for civil damages; and whether Special Branch officers altered surveillance logs.[43]

In May 2006, the Metropolitan Police Federation, a staff association that represents the interests of police officers, released a 12-page statement which was highly critical of the IPCC in general, and specifically criticised the handling of the "Stockwell inquiry".[44]

On 16 August 2005, British television network ITV released a report said to be based on leaked documents from the IPCC investigation which conflicted with previous statements by police chief Sir Ian Blair.[45] The Met and the IPCC refused to comment on the allegations while the IPCC investigation was ongoing, though an anonymous "senior police source" claimed that the leak was accurate.

Lana Vandenberghe, the IPCC secretary thought to be responsible for the leak, was suspended.[46] The IPCC launched an investigation into the leaking of the documents. On 21 September, Leicester Constabulary Serious Crime Unit initiated dawn raids on behalf of the IPCC on one Scottish and two London residential premises, at which time Vandenberghe was arrested. Two more dawn raids took place on 5 October, during which ITN journalist Neil Garrett and his girlfriend were arrested.[47] On 4 May 2006, Leicestershire Police and the Crown Prosecution Service announced that no charges would be filed against Vandenberghe, Garrett or his partner.[48]

According to a press release made on 9 December by the IPCC's chairman Nick Hardwick and John Tate, its Director of Legal Services, the inquiry's report would list some of the criminal offences that the commission thought may have been committed by police. Though without having reached any conclusions, they also admitted the commission's judgement would be a "lower threshold" than the standard prosecutors would apply in making any final decision to prosecute.[49]

On 14 March 2006, the IPCC announced that the first part of the inquiry, known as "Stockwell 1" had been completed and recommendations were passed on to the Metropolitan Police Authority and Crown Prosecution Service, but the report "[could not] be made public until all legal processes have concluded".[50]

The report was published on 8 November 2007.[1]

"Stockwell 2", the second part of the inquiry, focuses on the conduct of Sir Ian Blair and Andrew Hayman following the discovery of Menezes's identity, and was released on 2 August 2007.[51] The allegations were that MPS officers "made or concurred with inaccurate public statements concerning the circumstances of the death. The alleged inaccurate information included statements that Mr de Menezes had been wearing clothing and behaving in a manner which aroused suspicions."[51]

On 17 March 2006, the Met was threatened with legal action by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick. In evidence to the IPCC, Paddick had stated that a member of Sir Ian's private office team believed the wrong man had been targeted just six hours after the shooting, contrary to the official line taken at the time.[52] When this information became public, Scotland Yard issued a statement that the officer making the claim (Paddick) "has categorically denied this in his interview with, and statement to, the IPCC investigators". The statement continued that they "were satisfied that whatever the reasons for this suggestion being made, it is simply not true." Paddick's interpretation of this statement was that it accused him of lying.[53]

After a statement was released on 28 March by the Met that it "did not intend to imply" a senior officer had misled the probe into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, Paddick accepted the 'clarification' and considered the matter closed.[54]

In a substantial campaigning Daily Telegraph interview (17 November 2007 – "I know how to make Londoners feel safe") which Paddick gave to support his suitability to become Mayor, he said "Policing is a dangerous job, we should trust the professional judgement of officers on the front line. We shouldn't prosecute them or their bosses if they decide to put their lives on the line for the public".

On 13 October 2008, at an inquest into the death, a police surveillance officer admitted that he had deleted a computer record of Cressida Dick's instruction that they could allow Menezes to "run on to Tube as [he was] not carrying anything." At the inquest he told the court that "On reflection, I looked at that and thought I cannot actually say that." The IPCC announced that it would investigate the matter "[at its] highest level of investigation".[55]

On 10 June 2015, the Menezes family took the British government to the European Court of Human Rights over the decision not to prosecute anyone involved in the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. The legal challenge was mounted under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding state deprivation of life and use of force.[84][85]

On 30 March 2016, the Grand Chamber held—by a majority of 13 to 4—that there had been no violation of Article 2:[86][87]

…the Court considered that all aspects of the authorities' responsibility for the fatal shooting had been thoroughly investigated […] The decision not to prosecute any individual officer was not due to any failings in the investigation or the State's tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts; rather, it was due to the fact that, following a thorough investigation, a prosecutor had considered all the facts of the case and concluded that there was insufficient evidence against any individual officer to prosecute.[88]

Dissenting judges highlighted concerns about the objective reasonableness of the "honest belief, perceived for good reasons" justifying the use of force; that officers were permitted to write their notes up together; that the threshold for prosecution was more stringent than in other states; and the incongruity that no individual was subject to disciplinary action despite a finding of institutional criminal responsibility under the Health and Safety Act.[89]

With regard to his dress on the day of the shooting The Observer reported that he was dressed in "baseball cap, blue fleece and baggy trousers". Mark Whitby, a witness to the shooting, told Reuters that he observed Menezes wearing a large winter coat, which "looked out of place".[102] Vivien Figueiredo, a cousin of Menezes, was later told by police that Menezes was wearing a denim jacket on the day of the shooting.[103] Anthony Larkin, another eyewitness, told the BBC that Menezes appeared to be wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".[104]

Based on these eyewitness reports, press speculation at the time said that wearing such heavy clothing on a warm day raised suspicions that Menezes was hiding explosives underneath, and was therefore a potential suicide bomber. At the time of the shooting, the temperature in London (at a Heathrow Airport weather station) was about 17 °C (62 °F).[105]

No device resembling a bomb belt was reported as found. Menezes was also not carrying a tool bag, since he had left it with his colleague the previous evening. According to the report on leaked IPCC documents, Menezes was wearing a pair of jeans and a light denim jacket. This was confirmed by a photo of his body on the floor of the carriage after the shooting.[106]

Police initially stated that they challenged Menezes and ordered him to stop outside Stockwell station. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said in a later press conference that a warning was issued prior to the shooting. Lee Ruston, an eyewitness who was waiting on the platform, said the police did not identify themselves. The Times reported "senior police sources" as saying that police policy would not require a warning to be given to a suspected suicide bomber before lethal action was taken.[107]

The leaked IPCC documents indicated that Menezes was seated on the train carriage when the SO19 armed unit arrived. A shout of "police" may have been made, but the suspect had no opportunity to respond before he was shot. The leaked documents indicated that he was restrained by an undercover officer before being shot.

During the 2008 inquest into Menezes's death, passengers who were travelling in the same carriage also contradicted police accounts, saying that they heard no warnings and that Menezes gave no significant reaction to arrival of the policemen. One passenger said that Menezes appeared calm even as a gun was held to his head, and was clear that the police officers did not shout any warnings before shooting him.[108]

Witnesses stated that up to twenty police officers in plain clothes pursued Menezes into Stockwell station, that he jumped over the ticket barrier, ran down an escalator and tried to jump onto a train.[109] The Menezes family was briefed by the police that their son did not jump over the ticket barrier and used a Travelcard to pass through; this was subsequently confirmed by CCTV recordings shown at the Metropolitan Police trial.[103]

The pathologist's post mortem report, which was written five days after the shooting, recorded that Menezes "vaulted over the ticket barriers" and that he "ran down the stairs of the tube station". Dr Kenneth Shorrock later told the inquest that he had been given this information by police during a "walk-through" with officers at Stockwell Tube Station but he could not remember who had given him this incorrect information, which had also featured in earliest eyewitness reports.[110]

It had been suggested that the man reported by eyewitnesses as jumping over the barrier may have been one of the police officers in pursuit.[111]

Initial UK media reports suggested that no CCTV footage was available from the Stockwell station, as recording media had not been replaced after being removed for examination after the previous day's attempted bombings. Other reports stated that faulty cameras on the platform were the reason for the lack of video evidence. An anonymous source confirmed that CCTV footage was available for the ticket area, but that there was a problem with the platform coverage. The source suggested that there was no useful CCTV footage from the platform or the train carriage.[112]

Extracts from a later police report stated that examination of the platform cameras had produced no footage. It said: "It has been established that there has been a technical problem with the CCTV equipment on the relevant platform and no footage exists." The platform CCTV system is maintained by the Tube Lines consortium in charge of maintaining the Northern Line. The company made a statement to The Mail on Sunday insisting that the cameras were in working order.[113]

During the inquest, evidence confirmed that the video tapes had been changed by a station supervisor in three video recorders monitoring the station CCTV at 3:09 am on the morning of the shooting. These machines emit an audible noise if they are not receiving an audio/video signal, but there was no indication the supervisor heard an alarm. Three days later the equipment was tested and it was found that a cable transmitting the CCTV images to the video recorders had been damaged or cut, possibly during refurbishment work (the cable may have been severed when a workman stepped on it); the following day a communications expert confirmed that the alarm was sounding as a result of this loss of signal.[114]

The same police report also reported there was no footage from CCTV in the carriage where Menezes was shot, stating: "Although there was on-board CCTV in the train, due to previous incidents [the 7 July bombings], the hard drive had been removed and not replaced."

CCTV footage from the #2 bus Menezes caught to the station was also shown during the inquest; it too, was incomplete. The IPCC claimed this was due to excessive vibration, which prevented several cameras on the bus from working.[115]

Several reasons were initially posited by media sources and family members for why Menezes may have run from police, as indicated by initial reports. A few weeks earlier, he had been attacked by a gang and may have perceived that he was in a similar situation upon seeing plainclothes officers chasing him. Several sources have speculated that irregularities about his immigration status may have given him reason to be wary of the police;[116] evidence that emerged during the course of the criminal trial into the Health and Safety charge showed that Menezes was lawfully in the country on 22 July 2005. This is mentioned in the Stockwell One report, at footnote 4 on page 21.[1] The Sydney Morning Herald reported that a colleague believed that Menezes ran simply because he was late for his job.[117] It was later indicated by the leaked IPCC documents that Menezes may have run across the platform to get a seat on the train, and did not know at the time that he was being watched or pursued.

It was initially stated by police that Menezes was shot five times in the head. Mark Whitby, a passenger on the train Menezes had run onto, said: "one of [the police officers] was carrying a black handgun—it looked like an automatic—He half tripped… they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him." Another passenger, Dan Copeland, said: "an officer jumped on the door to my left and screamed, 'Everybody out!' People just froze in their seats cowering for a few seconds and then leapt up. As I turned out the door on to the platform, I heard four dull bangs."[118] Menezes's cousin Alex Pereira, who lived with him, asserted that Menezes had been shot from behind: "I pushed my way into the morgue. They wouldn't let me see him. His mouth was twisted by the wounds and it looked like he had been shot from the back of the neck." Later reports confirmed that Jean Charles de Menezes was shot a total of eight times: seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.[119]

The leaked IPCC documents also indicated that an additional three shots had missed Menezes. One witness claimed that the shots were evenly distributed over a timespan of thirty seconds. This has not been substantiated by other witness reports or the leaked IPCC documents.[120]

Several commentators suggested that special forces may have been involved in the shooting. Professor Michael Clarke, Professor of Defence Studies at King's College London, went as far as to say that unless there had been a major change in policy it was likely that it was not the police who had carried out the shooting, but special forces:

To have bullets pumped into him like this suggests quite a lot about him and what the authorities, whoever they are, assumed about him. The fact that he was shot in this way strongly suggests that it was someone the authorities knew and suspected he was carrying explosives on him. […] You don't shoot somebody five times if you think you might have made a mistake and may be able to arrest him. […] Even Special Branch and SO19 are not trained to do this sort of thing. It's plausible that they were special forces or elements of special forces.[66]

On 4 August 2005, The Guardian reported that the newly created Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR), a special forces unit specialising in covert surveillance, were involved in the operation that led to the shooting. The anonymous Whitehall sources who provided the story stressed that the SRR were involved only in intelligence gathering, and that Menezes was shot by armed police not by members of the SRR or other soldiers. Defence sources would not comment on speculation that SRR soldiers were among the plainclothes officers who followed Menezes onto the No. 2 bus.[121] On 21 August, the Sunday Herald reported that SRR men are believed to have been in the tube train when the shooting occurred.[19]

Stockwell One states, of the SO12 surveillance teams: (p. 28)

"During July 2005 each surveillance team had a member of the military attached to them. Those soldiers were unarmed."[1]

In the transcript of the 2008 inquest, some of the soldiers' testimonies are recorded, including that of "Hotel 11"[122] and that of "Frank".[123]

In February 2006, a woman claimed to police that a man who resembled Menezes had attacked her in a hotel room on New Year's Eve 2002 in west London. Scotland Yard spent several weeks investigating the claim. After the claim was made public in March 2006, the Menezes family denied the allegation and claimed that the Metropolitan Police were trying to smear Menezes.[124] Although the family initially denied the request, a blood sample was eventually taken with their permission from Menezes's autopsy. On 25 April 2006 Scotland Yard announced that forensic tests on the sample had cleared Menezes.[125]

The Panorama episode "Stockwell – Countdown to Killing", shown on BBC One 8 March 2006, investigated and partially dramatised the shooting.

The shooting was the subject of an hour-long "factual drama"[129] titled Stockwell, first broadcast on the UK terrestrial channel ITV1 on 21 January 2009 at 9 pm.

Line of Duty creator Jed Mercurio has said the series was inspired by the shooting of Menezes.[130]

A film about Menezes's life, titled Jean Charles, was filmed in 2008 and directed by Henrique Goldman. Selton Mello portrays Menezes and Vanessa Giácomo portrays his cousin. The movie debuted in Brazil, on 26 June 2009.[131]

The documentary play Stockwell opened in July 2009 at the Landor Theatre in Clapham in London. This play featured actors reading scripts edited by playwright Kieron Barry from transcripts of the inquest.[132]

This Much Is True, written by Paul Unwin (co-creator of the BBC television show Casualty) and Sarah Beck, is a documentary stage play following the journeys of those caught in the wake of the shooting, weaving together testimony from Menezes's family, Justice4Jean campaigners, senior police officers and lawyers. The production ran at Theatre503 in Battersea from 27 October to 21 November 2009.[133][134]

"Hollow Point", from the album Handmade Life, a song about the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, was written by the English folk musician, songwriter and composer Chris Wood. "Hollow Point" won Song of the Year at the 2011 BBC Radio 2 Folk Awards, where Wood also won Folk Singer of the Year.[135]

During The Wall Live tour, Roger Waters added an acoustic coda to "Another Brick in the Wall (Part 2)" with additional lyrics in honour of Menezes. This song is part of the Roger Waters The Wall 2015 live release and called "The Ballad of Jean Charles de Menezes".[136] An animation is projected on to the wall showing a silhouette of an underground train pulling into a station, The train comes to a stop and on the vocal narrative at end of "Another Brick in the Wall (Part 2)" finishes with the line "stand still laddie", shots are heard and flashes of light seen in one carriage. The projection on the main circular screen then changes to a photo of Jean Charles de Menezes for the additional coda to the song.