Jury in Inquest of de Menezes told what verdict to deliver!

[Blasphemous]

The coroner, former high court judge Sir Michael Wright, began his summing up the seven weeks of evidence in the de Menezes Inquest by telling jurors they would be allowed to return only a verdict of lawful killing or an open verdict.

With all the evidence considered, a verdict of unlawful killing could not be supported, he said.

It really isn't like me to get so involved in these things but this case really has touched a nerve with me. After all we have heard with regard to the blatant lies that the Police have told in this case, the family of Jean Charles de Menezes have been made to suffer further by the fact that the Coroner will not allow the jury to make their own decision on the verdict to be delivered. I'd be absolutely amazed if they don't now come back with an Open Verdict, the only real option left to them. I am disgusted at this order made by the Coroner.

The coroner told the hearing the jury should not be able to "return a verdict which found any individual or institution criminally or civilly liable". This included both the elite firearms officers, who shot De Menezes dead inside a tube carriage, identified at the inquest only as C12 and C2, as well as senior officers involved in the "management and conduct of the operation", he added.

'elite firearms officers' I hate to think how an ordinary firearms officer would react!

The firearms officer testified that after a warning had been shouted, De Menezes's actions had made him fear he was carrying a bomb

That bomb would be in the bag that he wasn't carrying that you said he was, would it?

Several passengers on the same carriage contradicted this account, saying they had heard no warnings, and that De Menezes gave no significant reaction to the police's arrival.

However, Wright added, even if the jury found the officers had lied, they would not be able to blame them for the death. "Many people tell lies for a variety of reasons … [including] to mitigate the impact of what might be a … tragic mistake," he said

.... or to save your own or your commanding officer's arse? If we cannot trust the Police to tell the true and the facts, who can we trust?

I feel like this has given carte blanche to the Police to do whatever they see fit in a situation and they will be protected no matter what. It sickens me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/02/menezes-police-inquest

 

[hairyben]

To learn from your mistakes you must first accept them, and understand what you have done wrong.

Personally & without prejudice, I think that placing such restrictions on a jury is a violation of the course of justice. It's the kind mockery mugabe would be proud of, equally deluded and arrogant are those who think this sham will help the polices case in the public eye.

 

[holmslaw]

I also thought the coroners instruction strange.

But it seems its down to legal definitions, unlawful killing implies manslaughter or murder. Apparently neither offence can be applied to the individuals that shot him because they acted within the law.

Quite frankly, I don't understand what the fuss is about, everyone knows it was cock up, the police have apologised. And whatever the verdict, his family will be entitled to compensation for what was an horrendous accident.

The cause of it all was a bunch of terrorists - they are the guilty ones.

 

[Stivino]

I think the cause of him being dead is that he was shot through the head by a cop, nothing to do with terrorists.

 

[holmslaw]

nothing to do with terrorists.

Yeah, happens everyday on the tube, cop gets on the train and shoots someone in the head.

 

[ellal]

To rule out unlawful killing is bizarre...

After all, he was killed and if you don't believe it was lawful then what's the opposite?

Can't really be an open verdict, as we know (from reports) what happened!

There wasn't much point in the jury sitting there for over 2 months was there!

Still, the government are trying to sort that one out - they want any 'difficult' inquiries held behind closed doors!

 

[JonB]

Totally agree with hairyben. The "Jury" should be allowed to give their own verdict. Unlawful killing I would suspect. No point at all in having a jury if they can't decide the outcome.
JonB

 

[Norcon]

I don't think Jean Charles de Menezes realized the gravity of the sitution he was in. It sounds as though he didn't listen to the officers warnings very well or didn't understand them but what those police did was unforgivable IMHO.
Was apprephended at gunpoint by police once with a revolver held to my head and spreadeagled over the bonnet of my vehicle and its not a very nice experience.

 

[tim west]

If they were "acting within the law" then the law stinks!

 

[blondini]

Here is the written verdict direction issued to the jury by Sir Michael Wright:

You have to decide between two available short-term verdicts:

1) LAWFUL KILLING
On the facts of this case, you should return a verdict of lawful killing if you find that officers C2 and C12, when they shot Mr de Menezes, were acting in lawful defence of themselves and/or others.

2) OPEN VERDICT
If, having considered all the evidence, you consider that the necessary elements of a lawful killing verdict are not established as being more likely than not, you should return an open verdict.

THE QUESTIONNAIRE
You must answer "yes", "no" or "cannot decide".
1) Did officer C12 shout the words "armed police" at Mr de Menezes before firing?
2) Did Mr de Menezes stand up from his seat before he was grabbed in a bear-hug by officer Ivor?
3) Did Mr de Menezes move towards C12 before he was grabbed in a bear hug by officer Ivor?

FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION
4) Do you consider that any of the following factors caused or contributed to the death of Mr de Menezes?
a) The suicide attacks and attempted attacks of July 2005 and the pressure placed upon the Metropolitan Police in responding to the threat.
b) A failure to obtain and provide better photographic images of the suspect, Hussain Osman, for the surveillance team.
c) A failure by the police to ensure that Mr de Menezes was stopped before he reached public transport.
d) The general difficulty in providing an identification of the man under surveillance (Mr de Menezes) in the time available and in the circumstances after he had left the block at Scotia Road.
e) The innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes which increased the suspicions of some officers.
f) The fact that the views of the surveillance officers regarding identification were not accurately communicated to the command team and the firearms officers.
g) The fact that the position of the cars containing the firearms officers was not accurately known to the command team as the firearms officers were approaching Stockwell station.
h) Any significant shortcomings in the communications system as it was operating on the day between the various police teams on the ground and with New Scotland Yard.
i) A failure to conclude, at the time, that surveillance officers should still be used to carry out the stop of Mr de Menezes at Stockwell station even after it was reported that specialist firearms officers could perform the stop.

IMO an open verdict will be returned, but that will not be the end of the matter. I believe the officers who shot him were misdirected and given authority to do so by an incompetent command and control system. I believe that is where the blame lies.

 

[tim west]

It has to be the person at the front line who makes a final judgement surely?
Any command cannot control to such a fine degree and thats what training of these officers is all about after all isn't it?

Are these officers either badly trained, not human or worse still gunho happy that they cannot make a fair decision over whether a person is subdued or not?

Perhaps the first or maybe the second bullet in the brain should tell most people that that person is not getting up again!

God help us all that these officers are not hiding behind the excuses of having to make a split second decision to hide a non feeling or arrogant person whose been waiting all their career for the chance to "lawfully" pump a bullet into someone.

 

[esra_ptrap]

I wonder if everyone would be so righteous if the officers had hesitated, he HAD been a terrorist and 100's of innocent passengers had lost their lives?

I don't condone this shooting by any means but I don't believe it was unlawful either as the officers on the scene were acting on crap information they had been given.

A mistake pure and simple IMO and it won't be the last in the "fight against terror".

 

[ellal]

God help us all that these officers are not hiding behind the excuses of having to make a split second decision to hide a non feeling or arrogant person whose been waiting all their career for the chance to "lawfully" pump a bullet into someone.

Some may even get a second chance to do that...

The ones who pumped those bullets into his head are I believe still on 'active duty'!

 

[ellal]

I wonder if everyone would be so righteous if the officers had hesitated, he HAD been a terrorist and 100's of innocent passengers had lost their lives?

The classic 'what if' argument...

Plod loves that argument, as it absolves them of any responsibility..

'What if' that was you or yours they shot?...

 

[blondini]

It has to be the person at the front line who makes a final judgement surely?
Any command cannot control to such a fine degree and thats what training of these officers is all about after all isn't it?

Ponder

f) The fact that the views of the surveillance officers regarding identification were not accurately communicated to the command team and the firearms officers.

The surveillance officers were armed for self defence, they would have been able to shoot if there had been a direct threat to life.

The firearms officers thought they had been told that the man being followed was definately the failed suicide bomber, but the surveillance team following the man weren't that certain of his identity. As the firearms team scrambled to catch up they were given authority to use lethal force in the way that they did.

Anyone who came out of that building that day was to be followed and stopped for questioning...