One of my preoccupations in life, and therefore of this blog, is trying to identify and record the kind of legitimate questions which support perfectly healthy and rational scepticism of 'Official Narratives'
I personally don't offer people, here or in real life, much in the way of fully-formed alternative narratives as, much of the time, my doubts arise due to the absence of sufficient information to form any.
My problem with 'Official Narratives' is that they are promoted as being the definitive end of a story and used to justify assertions that no further investigation is required; when I often have grounds to believe nothing could be further from the truth
The inquest into the execution of Jean Charles de Menezes is now, finally, under way
A website has been set up to publish transcripts and other material from the inquest here
It's early days yet but it's already clear that much of the hearing will be preoccupied with the alleged case of mistaken identity which resulted in de Menezes' execution
As it happens, the mainstream media has already decided what happened that day and routinely refers to the reason that Menezes was shot as being because he was mistaken for a known terrorist
There are plenty of inconsistencies in the Official Narrative of that day - surveillence tapes went missing and were erased, log books were retrospectively changed, dubious eye witnesses appeared on television that morning talking about de Menezes wearing heavy clothing and behaving suspiciously, the head of the police went on television claiming that de Menezes was a terrorist long after he would have known otherwise, due process was obstructed...
Everything about that Official Narrative stinks
But here is, what me for is the most disturbing flaw in the Official Narrative...
A possible case of mistaken identity is arguably totally irrelevant and at best secondary to the question of whether shooting someone in public was a criminal act or not
Even if de Menezes was a wanted terrorist, public gunplay would only be justifiable if he was carrying something that could have honestly been mistaken for a bomb
That's the alleged case of mistaken identification that most needs investigating here
I await the inquest's detailed discussion of this question with bated breath
because if it's now OK to blow people away in public for being suspected bombless bombers it's now OK to blow anybody away
In the meantime I'm off to buy some stick-on bullet holes and to top up my Oyster card