De Menezes - judge tells jury what it must find

SickBoy | 02.12.2008 16:27 | Repression

the judge has decided on the verdict in the De Menezes case

The Judge at the inquest into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes has decided that the jury cannot return a verdict of 'unlawful killing', even if they think that is most likely what happened.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20081202/tuk-menezes-unlawful-killing-verdict-rul-dba1618.html

Once again the state has procribed its own version of events to fit into its 'all cops are heroes' take on anything the police do.
The whole point of a jury is that members of the public can make up their minds on contentious issues which should not be left to a judge or anyone else who may be thought to be biased.

I have not seen one report on mainline news media which does not state that

'the innocent Brazilian was gunned down on a south London Tube train when mistaken for a suicide bomber'

ie the media accept and report this before anything else is mentioned, otherwise they may have to accept that there may be trigger-happy or even murderous cops running about the streets.

A sad day for anyone who might have believed in justice in the UK.

My deep apologies to the family, my thoughts are with you.

SickBoy

Comments

Hide 2 hidden comments or hide all comments

Biggest Injustice of the century

02.12.2008 16:38

Sure the state has murdered lots of people in the past but this one surely has to take the top award for a blatant (social) injustice, to follow an unarmed man into a tube station and onto a train and execute him in front of other passengers and then pour out a whole pile of lies like this.
They can quite simply do what they like and get away with murder with dozens of people witness to it ..

Respect to the dead man and his family

Blair Peach

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

No surprise

02.12.2008 16:48

that this has come about,after all it`s taken three long years to get this inquest in the public domain. It seems to me that what is being dictated is that the public have had thier small slice of democracy now find the killers not guilty,I don`t/can`t quite see it any other way.
We need to take to the streets!

Winston Smith

No surprise

02.12.2008 16:48

Winston Smith

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

No surprise

02.12.2008 16:57

to me that what is basically being said is exonerate the murdering police or at least return a verdict of lawful killing(can there be such a thing,surely murder is murder?).
In a week when MP`s are banged up for telling the truth (a unprobality in itself) do we really beleive that we live in a democracy. Direct democracy now,take the streets!

Winston Smith

I really hope

02.12.2008 18:27

I really hope that the jury will have the courage to defy this ruling and return a verdict according to the evidence they have heard, or refuse to return any verdict until this ruling is overturned. But I suspect that if they do they may well find themselves threatened with action for contempt.

There really is no point in having a jury at all if they are not going to be allowed to return the verdict they think is appropriate. This ruling can be challenged in the High Court which could then force another inquest, but prolonging the court proceedings just adds to the family's suffering. They are entitled to see justice done and are entitled to see it as soon as is reasonably practical.

Sir Michael Wright is behaving in a disgraceful way.

Mike

British Justice AGAIN shows its true face

02.12.2008 18:52

I heard this only recently today and it is shocking to find a judge telling a jury what they can or cannot find - it rather negates the point of having a jury. The facts are that so many people have affirmed that the police were out of control, no warning was given, there were serious operational blunders and this man was murdered by derranged police personnel hiding behind uniforms, code names, the state and goodness knows what else.
I have said many times and say again now the justice system in this country is a sick joke, police are just cheap bullying murderers and cowards and the episode with mr Menezes is one of many that can leaveany thinking person ashamed to be British. the police get away with far too much far too often as I know from my own experience of the bullying cowards from Brighton who ill treated and fitted me up a while back. There is no genuine mode of censor against state sanctioned bullies and murderers.
On the UFFC demo in London I met some of the menezes family and was struck by their courage and dignity - the murder of Mr menezes is shocking and the issues it raises will not go away even for a stage managed inquest - we need a genuine revolutionary protest movement, too many borders have been crossed and sooner or later there must be the declaration No! Enough is enough!

George Coombs
mail e-mail: georgecmbs@tiscali.co.uk

disgrace

02.12.2008 19:01

I heard this on BBBC Radio 4 lunchtime news.

Sir Michael Wright said that having heard all the evidence, a verdict of unlawful killing was "not justified".

Sir Michael's ruling came as he began his summing up of the case today.

"In directing you that you cannot return a verdict of unlawful killing, I am not saying that nothing went wrong in a police operation which resulted in the killing of an innocent man," he told the hearing.

But in narrowing down the choice of verdict, he added: "All interested persons agree that a verdict of unlawful killing could only be left to you if you could be sure that a specific officer had committed a very serious crime - murder or manslaughter."

Sir Michael also warned jurors that they must not attach any criminal or civil fault to any individuals.

The jury should ignore their instruction (which is their right) and vote according to how they view the evidence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7760684.stm

Keith

Embarrassed to be British

02.12.2008 20:58

This is adding insult to injury.The jury should rebel. If a doctor or nurse accidentally killed someone in the duties it would be manslaughter, yet police, who were totally and utterly incompetent from the top downwards, cannot be found guilty of murder or manslaughter. None of the top officers had the guts to admit their mistakes which led to an innocent man losing his life. He was just going about his business, shot numerous times and no one is to BLAME! Yet another whitewash to add to the long list of others. One rule for them , another for us. This country is a disgrace, a totalitarian state where the state can literally get away with murder.

anon

To be fair to the judge

02.12.2008 23:54

There were many, many faults that led to the De Menezes shooting but to lay them all on the heads of two men who were told, at a moments notice, that the man in front of them was a terrorist who would kill everybody in the station unless they had the courage to keep shooting until he stopped owuld be more then a little unjust.

Thomas Pride

The real facts

03.12.2008 00:28

Thomas claims that those who think an unlawful killing verdict should be available to the jury would relate it to, "two men who were told, at a moments notice, that the man in front of them was a terrorist who would kill everybody in the station unless they had the courage to keep shooting until he stopped". It is clear that he has not read the evidence given at the inquest and is perhaps basing an assertion on press reports of long ago.

It is perfectly clear from the evidence given at the inquest that the gunmen had been on duty for several hours before the murder, during which time they had been briefed twice. This wasn't an unplanned last second event. A strategy had been set in place early in the morning, but was not followed at Stockwell (the strategy was followed at the other address and nobody was murdered).

The gunmen were also not told that their victim was a terrorist. They assumed this, but there was no basis for that assumption. The gunmen actually claimed that when they went down the escalator they were intending to arrest their victim. They claim they did not go down the escalator intending to keep shooting until he stopped.

The gunmen didn't provide any evidence of their courage either. The only police officers who acted with courage were the surveillance ones.

Having read the evidence it is clear that there is only one verdict the jury should return, unlawful killing.

It is also clear that Jean Charles was murdered. That does not mean that all the responsibility for the murder lies with the gunmen, or even that most of the responsibility lies with the gunmen. Some of the responsibility for the murder does lie with the gunmen, a little responsibility lies with the surveillance officers, but most of the responsibility for the murder lies with those who came up with the tactics and who were supposedly in charge on the day.

A N Other

So then...

03.12.2008 02:20

will corporate manslaughter also not count as unlawful killing, so long as any company director can say "I didn't mean to get the wrong guyI"

Glumone

What a farce!

03.12.2008 10:58

The whole procedure whereby a judge can tell a jury (at an inquest or otherwise) what conclusions are open to it is ridiculous. You've either got a jury system or you havent...

phatts

Open verdict?

04.12.2008 02:23

Directions like this to a jury are common in inquests.

Whilst the jury rebelling would be great, they still have the option of an open verdict, which would be powerful. It would create the possibility of another inquest if additional evidence could be presented. An unlawful killing verdict would have obliged the cops to investigate further with a view to charges being brought. An open verdict wouldn't have quite the same force, but it would create substantial pressure on them. It'll be hard for plod to just to say it's all done and dusted with an open verdict hanging like a bloody great question mark in the sky over New Scotland Yard.

I know all this is extra hard for the family, but there's a long way to go on this murder yet. Only a verdict of lawful killing would be a real setback, so let's hope the jury hasn't been cowed enough to go for that one.

Stroppyoldgit

The rank and pestilent odour of Freemasons.

04.12.2008 11:32

This appears to have all the hallmarks of a cover up on the part of Freemasons in the Police and Judiciary. I expect that the judge is one of the "Brothers", using his influence to cover up the malfeasance and murder on the part of the Police.

This is the standard practice in cases of this type. A, compliant, Masonic judge is appointed to control the verdict and deliver the outcome the authorities want. This happened in the North Wales child abuse cases. The investigation was headed by Waterhouse, a prominent mason. He delivered and kept well known names out of the press. A senior politician and member of the House of Lords was one of the worst abusers. A little known fact is that many officers in North Wales Police (also masons) were also frequent abusers of the children in care homes.

I know of other cases where coroners have bent over backwards, given false details to deliver the verdict required by the powers that be. One example would be that of Dr David Kelly.

I believe the family of Jean Charles de Menenzes can ask for Judicial Review and go to the European Court of Human Rights. It says it all, after the experience they have been through, that they are now put through this.

The British Esatblishment is sick and rotten to the core. Change it and "by any means necessary".

Jolly Roger

police state AGAIN AGAIN and AGAIN

04.12.2008 14:32

RESPECT TO CHARLES AND IS FAMILY .......the only solution TAKE THE STREETS we shudnt have afraid of our goverment THE GOVERMENT shud have afraid of us .......MANY PEOPLE JUST WAITING FOR THE SPARCKLE after that many cities will burn ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,YOU ARE THE SEED FREE IT @NTI

anon otherwise they shoot me

Hide 2 hidden comments or hide all comments