danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
The answers to those questions suggest to me at least that the jury might have used the verdict that wasn't available to them had it not been ruled out.
de Menezes killing: open verdict
- Thread starter dessiato
- Start date
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
hang on! but i'm sure the reports all said when they were sent out that a narrative verdict explicitly WAS one of the verdicts they could return??
could be a coroner in serious trouble.
e2a: aah, no, seems it was only on here someone said they could do so. still should be a coroner in serious doodah tho
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Looks like there are lots of mistakes the plod made that led directly to an innocent man's death. But the police are not responsible for his death. Makes perfect sense.
And what kind of stupid crap is this:
That's classic that, 'he was acting all innocent so we shot him'. What was he doing, looking up at the ceiling with his hands in his pockets and whistling? Did everyone else on the tube look guilty of something, is that why they were spared?
And what kind of stupid crap is this:
That's classic that, 'he was acting all innocent so we shot him'. What was he doing, looking up at the ceiling with his hands in his pockets and whistling? Did everyone else on the tube look guilty of something, is that why they were spared?
grubby local
tapir wanker
As i understand it, they were restricted only to answering the set questions in a yes/no/don't know scenario.
And is it just me, but wtf does this question mean?
4. Do you consider that any of the following factors caused or contributed to the death of Mr de Menezes;
"The innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes increasing suspicion." ANSWER: NO
gx
eta: clearly not just me then SpookyFrank!
And is it just me, but wtf does this question mean?
4. Do you consider that any of the following factors caused or contributed to the death of Mr de Menezes;
"The innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes increasing suspicion." ANSWER: NO
gx
eta: clearly not just me then SpookyFrank!
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I believe the point of the question was: do you think that the police could fairly be said to have taken his in fact innocent behaviour for something more sinister?
To which the jury answered: no.
grubby local
tapir wanker
Press release from family campaign:
"Today is a very important day for our family and campaign for justice. We have spoken to Jean's family in Brazil and they like us feel vindicated by the jury's verdict. The jury's verdict is a damning indictment of the multiple failures of the police and the lies they told. It is clear from the verdict today that the jury could have gone further had they not been gagged by the Coroner. We maintain that Jean Charles de Menezes was unlawfully killed" – Patricia Armani Da Silva, cousin of Jean Charles on behalf of all of the family.
The family's legal team argued that evidence heard by the jury provided sufficient grounds for the jury to return unlawful killing (murder) in respect of the two police shooters, C12 and C2 as well unlawful killing (gross negligence manslaughter) in respect of the actions of three of the command team. We also submitted that, in accordance with Article 2 (ECHR) the jury should be permitted to return a meaningful narrative verdict that could identify all the police failings that caused or contributed to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.
The five legal teams representing supposedly separate interests of the police combined ranks to oppose our submissions, maintain that the evidence only supported a lawful killing or open verdict. The coroner ruled in favour of the police. As a consequence the family sought to challenge the decision, lodging an urgent application at the High Court. Mr Justice Silber considered the challenge in relation to the narrative verdict only but ruled that the coroner had a wide discretion and he would not interfere with his ruling.
The family considered that the coroner had effectively gagged the jury. Any verdict returned by them would have at best limited meaning and would not have the effect of holding the police accountable for any failings. At that stage, having exhausted all legal avenues, the family instructed their legal team to cease participating in the inquest proceedings.
We have lodged grounds to appeal the decision of Mr Justice Silber and our judicial review challenge of the coroner's decision in respect of unlawful killing remains to be considered.
To date, not one police officer involved has been held personally accountable for failings that led to the death of Jean Charles. In fact the two most senior officers in the command team have been promoted. The law as it stands, effectively provides legal immunity for police officers who shoot innocent people in the cause of protecting the public.
This case raises questions of critical constitutional importance. Should our armed police service be protected from meaningful criticism (let alone criminal sanction) or are the public entitled to go about their day to day business free from the fear that they could be shot dead without warning if mistaken for a suspected terrorist?"
For further background information visit: inquest.justice4jean.org
Justice4Jean campaign
"Today is a very important day for our family and campaign for justice. We have spoken to Jean's family in Brazil and they like us feel vindicated by the jury's verdict. The jury's verdict is a damning indictment of the multiple failures of the police and the lies they told. It is clear from the verdict today that the jury could have gone further had they not been gagged by the Coroner. We maintain that Jean Charles de Menezes was unlawfully killed" – Patricia Armani Da Silva, cousin of Jean Charles on behalf of all of the family.
The family's legal team argued that evidence heard by the jury provided sufficient grounds for the jury to return unlawful killing (murder) in respect of the two police shooters, C12 and C2 as well unlawful killing (gross negligence manslaughter) in respect of the actions of three of the command team. We also submitted that, in accordance with Article 2 (ECHR) the jury should be permitted to return a meaningful narrative verdict that could identify all the police failings that caused or contributed to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.
The five legal teams representing supposedly separate interests of the police combined ranks to oppose our submissions, maintain that the evidence only supported a lawful killing or open verdict. The coroner ruled in favour of the police. As a consequence the family sought to challenge the decision, lodging an urgent application at the High Court. Mr Justice Silber considered the challenge in relation to the narrative verdict only but ruled that the coroner had a wide discretion and he would not interfere with his ruling.
The family considered that the coroner had effectively gagged the jury. Any verdict returned by them would have at best limited meaning and would not have the effect of holding the police accountable for any failings. At that stage, having exhausted all legal avenues, the family instructed their legal team to cease participating in the inquest proceedings.
We have lodged grounds to appeal the decision of Mr Justice Silber and our judicial review challenge of the coroner's decision in respect of unlawful killing remains to be considered.
To date, not one police officer involved has been held personally accountable for failings that led to the death of Jean Charles. In fact the two most senior officers in the command team have been promoted. The law as it stands, effectively provides legal immunity for police officers who shoot innocent people in the cause of protecting the public.
This case raises questions of critical constitutional importance. Should our armed police service be protected from meaningful criticism (let alone criminal sanction) or are the public entitled to go about their day to day business free from the fear that they could be shot dead without warning if mistaken for a suspected terrorist?"
For further background information visit: inquest.justice4jean.org
Justice4Jean campaign
Someone wrote a little missive to one of the paper's letters pages comparing the greek shooting to the DeMenezes affair. In Greece, two policemen swiftly arrested, minister in charge resigned, riots rocked the country.
In Britain the police went in full smear mode, implying that he was an illegal immigrant who deserved it somehow. Nobody resigns (well, Blair eventually, but with no contrition), police say they could have done 'nothing' differently, everyone remains on full pensions with mild slaps on the wrist. Rather grating that.
In Britain the police went in full smear mode, implying that he was an illegal immigrant who deserved it somehow. Nobody resigns (well, Blair eventually, but with no contrition), police say they could have done 'nothing' differently, everyone remains on full pensions with mild slaps on the wrist. Rather grating that.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
purves grundy
ambient clown remix
Given these valid criticisms (given my fragments of legal knowledge), why are the family so pleased with the verdict? 
likesfish
You can't park here sir
Someone wrote a little missive to one of the paper's letters pages comparing the greek shooting to the DeMenezes affair. In Greece, two policemen swiftly arrested, minister in charge resigned, riots rocked the country.
greek one two coppers took it into there heads to shoot the kid
DeMenezes finely honed anti terrorist Operation not, loads of coppers invovled nobody going rouge total cock up
there was nobody for steaming in and shooting the terrorist there were loads and loads of cock ups the shooters did think they were dealing with a terrorist
The Police Fucked up
likesfish
You can't park here sir
Given these valid criticisms (given my fragments of legal knowledge), why are the family so pleased with the verdict?
cause they have probably had the whole thing explained to them an Open verdict is just as damming to the police as Unlawful killing.
How the fuck they thought asking for a lawful killing verdict was going to wash no idea. it was obvious they fucked up
the police deserve to lose this one and they have its technically a whitewash but only technically the media the public know they fucked this one up big style.
the only saving grace was the whole operation was so shambolic the poor sods who opened fire can't be hung out to take the blame.
Someone wrote a little missive to one of the paper's letters pages comparing the greek shooting to the DeMenezes affair. In Greece, two policemen swiftly arrested, minister in charge resigned, riots rocked the country.
greek one two coppers took it into there heads to shoot the kid
DeMenezes finely honed anti terrorist Operation not
there was nobody for steaming in and shooting the terrorist there were loads and loads of cock ups the shooters did think they were dealing with a terrorist
The Police Fucked up
I can't speak for the Greek Police - maybe they thought he was armed and needed to be stopped as well.
The police over here certainly fucked it up, but given the ambiguous commands they seem to have taken it upon themselves to execute someone on shaky knowledge, lying about their actions in court subsequently to make Menezes seem more threatening. Every one of those fuckers involved in the incompetency should face some kind of prosecution, or at least see their pension suffer. After all, people were keen to see the head of Haringey Social Services crucified and booted out with no salary, and she wasn't even as nearly directly involved. Instead we've had Cressida Dick promoted. Ridiculous doesn't come into it.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
that's what they said. and lied about as well.
Worse than that, actually - didn't Cressida get promoted?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
well they couldn't flat out lie and say it wasn't.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Makes me think that were it not for the comments of the judge then a verdict of unlawful killing would have undoubtedly been returned. Nice work judge....
grubby local
tapir wanker
excellent ... bbc focussing on shoot to kill and operation Kratos, drawn up in secret.
gx
gx
As long as there's not a kill an innocent man going to work option. Then try to deny it.
Well, let's face it: the general public could have come up with an equally plausible plan involving running around in panic and shooting innocent people. Hell, they may have even spotted the racial difference and the lack of important pretend objects, like bulky jackets for example.
Hmmmm, very sensible. After all that was the plan and all
As you're here I refer you to post # 52. What do you have to say.
I would say that legally the statement is complete tripe
Well of course you would pdxm;8469899.
the number being?
THE JURY'S KEY ANSWERS
Did officers shout 'armed police'? NO
Did Mr de Menezes move towards officers? NO
Did difficulty in identifying the man under surveillance lead to his death? NO
Did the behaviour of Mr de Menezes increasing suspicion among officers lead to his death? NO
It's explained for you here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7761652.stm
Did officers shout 'armed police'? NO
Did Mr de Menezes move towards officers? NO
Did difficulty in identifying the man under surveillance lead to his death? NO
Did the behaviour of Mr de Menezes increasing suspicion among officers lead to his death? NO
It's explained for you here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7761652.stm
And this has what to do with the question of murder? Did you perhaps read any of the coroners reasoning?
Similar threads
