An open verdict isn't a whitewash. It means the rozzers haven't got away with the whitewash they were hoping to get by blatant lying. Their most significant lies have been found to be not true. "Would a police officer tell a lie, members of the jury?" as one nasty judge once put it to a jury. Answer in this case -YES!

This is a victory, though an incomplete one and it's right to call it a hobbled verdict. The legal proceedings go on and it may be the right conclusion will never be reached. I'm not holding my breath.

Meantime, solidarity to all the relatives and friends of Jean Charles.

this just about hits the nail on the head - hope the author doesn't mind it's being reproduced here

 http://thecurmudgeonly.blogspot.com/2008/12/entirely-matter-for-you.html

It's as close as they could possibly get to a whitewash in the circumstances. But, if you follow the news and you've been around long enough to remember far enough back, the police are always allowed to get away with murder. How many times have they killed people(or come close to killing them) in dubious circumstances, and no prosecution, and often no full inquest, has followed? Cherry Groce, John Shorthouse, Stephen Waldorf, Harry Roberts...
No member of the judiciary was going to break with tradition and actually allow a jury to decide that the police have unlawfully killed some-one.

received this by the excellent  http://4wardever.org newsletter.
subscribe for free here:  http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=1652045&loc=en_US

----------------------------------

INQUEST PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release 12 December 2008

STATEMENT ON THE VERDICT OF THE INQUEST INTO JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES

Deborah Coles, Co-Director of INQUEST said:

“Nothing is more serious in a democracy than the deliberate use of lethal force by the state and it should be subject to the most rigorous and transparent public scrutiny. Despite the coroner’s attempt to undermine and frustrate the vital democratic role of this inquest jury by restricting their options they have returned a damning verdict rejecting the police version of events, the lawfulness of the shooting and the policies and procedures within which they were operating.

Respect for human rights and the rule of law are essential in a free and democratic society. This is critical when faced with the challenge of terrorism. The death of an innocent man and the failure to hold police to account exposes a culture of impunity. It throws into disrepute the current investigatory mechanisms that follow the use of lethal force by the state. This is a worrying trend in the context of the recent attempt by the government to curtail independent investigations with proposals for non jury, secret inquests into some contentious deaths. Proposals to reform the inquest system will be included in the forthcoming Coroners and Justice Bill but will not address the fundamental issues raised by this inquest.”

The jury at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes returned an open verdict.

The coroner also asked the jury to answer a number of key questions.

1. "Did firearms officer C12 shout armed police?" ANSWER: NO

2. "Did Mr de Menezes stand up from his seat before he was grabbed in a bear hug by officer Ivor?" ANSWER: YES

3. "Did Mr de Menezes move towards C12 before he was grabbed in a bear hug by Ivor?" ANSWER: NO

4. Do you consider that any of the following factors caused or contributed to the death of Mr de Menezes;

a. "The pressure on police after the suicide attacks in July 2005." ANSWER: CANNOT DECIDE

b. "A failure to obtain and provide better photographic images of failed bomber Hussain Osman to surveillance officers." ANSWER: YES

c. "A failure by police to ensure that Mr de Menezes was stopped before he reached public transport." ANSWER: YES

d. "The general difficulty in providing identification of the man under surveillance in the time available." ANSWER: NO

e. "The innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes increasing suspicion." ANSWER: NO

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

g. "The fact that the position of the cars containing the firearms officers was not accurately known by the command team as firearms teams were approaching Stockwell Tube." ANSWER: YES

h. "Shortcomings in the communications system between various police teams on the ground." ANSWER: YES

i. "Failure to conclude at the time that surveillance officers could have been used to carry out the stop on Mr de Menezes at Stockwell." ANSWER: YES

Spartaca is right. And Blair Peach, and many others.

Point of an open verdict, though, is that they HAVEN'T got away with it. Not yet. Probably will in the end, of course, but first comes a lot more squirming and -let's hope- more lies exposed.

Now, as to the offences of perjury and / or perverting the course of justice which this inquest has revealed, I'm sure the Met will be feeling some collars soon. Was that Santa Claus just flitting past my window? Errr....no I think it was a pig.

spartaca: The Harry Roberts I know and love was a cop killer who took out 3 cops and is still alive, so I'm not sure why you list him as a victim of the police, unless there is another less well known Harry Roberts I don't know about.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Stanley
 http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr090206_stanley.htm