Gareth Pierce, acting as solicitor to the de Menezez family announced this evening on Radio 4's PM programme that Jean Charles did not "vault" the barrier into Stockwell Station, but used his Oyster Card like any one else, and that he was wearing a normal denim jacket and not a padded jacket as suggested by the police.

A plausible explanation as to how this fits in with the popular "he was asking for it" theory would be welcomed from M, Magoo or Liberal.

We most get the CCTV footage released publically so we can see what really happened!

And as unpleasent and distastful as it may be, it would be useful if the family would release photos of the body showing the clothes and the bullet wounds.

I don't know how it would be possible to obtain the footage but the witnesses who were there could request the footage under the data-protection-act.

>Gareth Pierce, acting as solicitor to the de Menezez family announced this evening on Radio 4's PM programme that Jean Charles did not "vault" the barrier into Stockwell Station, but used his Oyster Card like any one else, and that he was wearing a normal denim jacket and not a padded jacket as suggested by the police.


Its funny how you demand to see the CCTV and various other pieces of evidence before you belive anything that opposes your views, but as soon as someone backs up your argument with something that has very little credebility you act like it’s the truth.

How does the solicitor know what happened? Was he there? The independent police complaints commision should recrute him because he obviously knows more than they do. And don’t you think the fact that he’s their solicitor he’s going to be bias?

Gareth will have known these detaild because SHE would have attended the inquest. Basic facts like the movements of the deceased and what he was wearing at the time of death would have been discussed.

The official account of what happened last friday has been riddled with contradictions and contractions so I see no reason to take anything the police and security services say at face value. Nor do I think these organisations have done anything to deserve the benefit of any doubt, in fact, quite the opposite.

On the other hand, Gareth Pierce is a highly successful and well respected human rights lawyer with a whole host of whole host of establishment scalps under her belt. She has a reputation for telling the truth that has been tested in the courts.

The IPCC investigation is "intended" to establish whether the police acted in a negligent or criminal manner and will focus on the actions of the police officers involved and their chain of command. As such, it is a distraction which the Met can use to avoid addressing distressing question. The facts will be established in the inquest - the IPCC will simply sift through the various fantasies of the police.

Hope your office in Thames House has a nice view of the river.

Pierce is not a police lawyer but a human rights one and represents the family in this and other cases. Oh and she is not a bloke!

"M" wasn't able to answer a direct question, so adopted the Thatcher/Blair strategy of trying to attack the messenger instead. So be it.

We know from history that Gareth Pierce is likely to be very sure of herself before making any comment. "M" should do a little research about her.

So I can lick his BATON