'Open Verdict' in De Menezes case

[hibsbollah]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/12/de-menezes-dramatic-scenes

The jury at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes today rejected Scotland Yard's claim that he was lawfully killed as part of an anti-terrorism operation.

Banned by the coroner, Sir Michael Wright, from returning a verdict of unlawful killing, the five men and five women returned an open verdict – the most critical that was available to them.

In a series of answers to a list of crucial questions, they dismissed the testimony of the senior firearms officer who shot De Menezes, suggesting they did not believe that he was acting in self defence.

The jury found that the firearms officer, C12, did not shout "armed police (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/police)" before shooting De Menezes and that the Brazilian did not move towards him aggressively, prompting the fatal shot.

The inquest at the Oval cricket ground, south London (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/london), heard from 100 witnesses, including the two specialist firearms officers, known in court as C12 and C2, who shot De Menezes dead at point-blank range on a tube carriage at Stockwell station on July 22 2005.

De Menezes was shot after being mistaken for the failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman.

The inquest was the first time the public had been given a full account of the shooting from key witnesses who were in the train carriage.
The shooting came two weeks after London was rocked by the July 7 bombings, which killed 52 people. On July 21 a second gang of Islamist extremists set off homemade rucksack bombs on London's transport system but the devices failed to explode.

As counter-terrorist police searched the city for the escaped would-be suicide bombers, De Menezes was mistaken for Osman and shot dead.
After seven weeks of evidence, the coroner told the 11 jurors to cast aside any emotion over the shooting. They were told to disregard protests from the De Menezes family and supporters.

[SlickShoes]

So what does that actually mean for this guys killers? They have been basically found guilty of murdering him but will receive no punishment?

[hibsbollah]

So what does that actually mean for this guys killers? They have been basically found guilty of murdering him but will receive no punishment?

Because the unlawful killing verdict was not available to the jury, its largely irrelevant what they decided. It looks like a blatant stitch-up, and what must be one of the most disreputable police forces in the world get away with it. Imagine the outcry if an innocent Briton was shot like that by Brazilian police and nothing was done?:bitchy:

[Pete]

Because the unlawful killing verdict was not available to the jury, its largely irrelevant what they decided. It looks like a blatant stitch-up, and what must be one of the most disreputable police forces in the world get away with it. Imagine the outcry if an innocent Briton was shot like that by Brazilian police and nothing was done?:bitchy:

To tell you the truth I'm getting sick to death of hearing about this.

The police were acting in the best interests of the public immediately after a major terrorist incident. Mistakes get made in these situations and an innocent man got killed. That's unfortunate.

The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't in that situation. If that was a suicide bomber and there was hesitation then how many lives would have been lost? No doubt the same bleating mob would be slating the police for "not following procedure".

What makes you think the met police is one of the most "disreputable" in the world? Do you know anything about any other police force in any other country? Do you have any idea what the police in Brazil get up to? If that guy who was here illegally was shot in his home country how much of an outcry do you think there would be?

None. It would have been swept under the carpet like all those street kids that go missing. I cringe that people like the de menezes are allowed to drag our whole force from top to bottom through the courts when in any other country they would get short shrift. Only in Britain....the most tolerant country in the world.

[GhostofBolivar]

To tell you the truth I'm getting sick to death of hearing about this.

The police were acting in the best interests of the public immediately after a major terrorist incident. Mistakes get made in these situations and an innocent man got killed. That's unfortunate.

The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't in that situation. If that was a suicide bomber and there was hesitation then how many lives would have been lost? No doubt the same bleating mob would be slating the police for "not following procedure".

What makes you think the met police is one of the most "disreputable" in the world? Do you know anything about any other police force in any other country? Do you have any idea what the police in Brazil get up to? If that guy who was here illegally was shot in his home country how much of an outcry do you think there would be?

None. It would have been swept under the carpet like all those street kids that go missing. I cringe that people like the de menezes are allowed to drag our whole force from top to bottom through the courts when in any other country they would get short shrift. Only in Britain....the most tolerant country in the world.

It's a classic. People don't care about human rights because theirs have never been abused. Aren't you even slightly worried that the Met admitted there is nothing to stop this from happening again? Or that the jury in the inquest found that eye witnesses to the shooting gave more reliable statements than the police?

The family have a right to know what happened and why. As do the public. The police need to make changes to their handling of these types of incidents and an idependent, open inquest is exactly the right place to start the process.

It's not about 'tolerance' either. It's about making sure the police are accountable in their actions. That they don't do things like this (http://www.khrp.org/content/view/177/84/), or this. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/world/americas/30colombia.html?_r=1)

And no. Maybe there wouldn't be a huge outcry in other countries. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be one here, either.

[LiverpoolHibs]

To tell you the truth I'm getting sick to death of hearing about this.

The police were acting in the best interests of the public immediately after a major terrorist incident. Mistakes get made in these situations and an innocent man got killed. That's unfortunate.

The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't in that situation. If that was a suicide bomber and there was hesitation then how many lives would have been lost? No doubt the same bleating mob would be slating the police for "not following procedure".

Do you know all the details of the case, and how ****lessly the police acted? And the pretty much certain evidence of collusion between the officers in question?


What makes you think the met police is one of the most "disreputable" in the world? Do you know anything about any other police force in any other country? Do you have any idea what the police in Brazil get up to? If that guy who was here illegally was shot in his home country how much of an outcry do you think there would be?

He was here legally, not that I think that has any bearing on anything whatsoever.


None. It would have been swept under the carpet like all those street kids that go missing. I cringe that people like the de menezes are allowed to drag our whole force from top to bottom through the courts when in any other country they would get short shrift. Only in Britain....the most tolerant country in the world.

What do you mean by 'people like De Menezes'?

Yeah, how blody dare his family look for some accountability over the extra-judicial execution of their relation - the thoughtless *******s.

Unbelievable.

[hibsbollah]

To tell you the truth I'm getting sick to death of hearing about this.

The police were acting in the best interests of the public immediately after a major terrorist incident. Mistakes get made in these situations and an innocent man got killed. That's unfortunate.

The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't in that situation. If that was a suicide bomber and there was hesitation then how many lives would have been lost? No doubt the same bleating mob would be slating the police for "not following procedure".

What makes you think the met police is one of the most "disreputable" in the world? Do you know anything about any other police force in any other country? Do you have any idea what the police in Brazil get up to? If that guy who was here illegally was shot in his home country how much of an outcry do you think there would be?

None. It would have been swept under the carpet like all those street kids that go missing. I cringe that people like the de menezes are allowed to drag our whole force from top to bottom through the courts when in any other country they would get short shrift. Only in Britain....the most tolerant country in the world.

What a ridiculous post:bitchy:

The Met fed a steady drip drip of lies through the media. First we were told he hurdled the tube barricades. This was proven to be a lie. Then we were told he ran away, proven to be a lie. Then we were told he was wearing a 'bulky jacket' with wires poking out of it. CCTV proved otherwise. Then the officer who shot him said he shouted a warning. At least 6 witnesses said under oath nothing was shouted. So the officer lied under oath as well. We were also fed such useful pieces of information that 'small traces of cocaine was found in his blood'. Perhaps true, but irrelevant to him getting executed. We were told he was an illegal immigrant. Also lies.

As to the Mets track record, have you heard of the Guildford Four? the Soho corruption of the 1960s? Steven Lawrence? 1980s Abuse of the Stop and Search laws? the list goes on and on.

I just hope the de Menezes family eventually get some peace, and hopefully one day justice.

[Pretty Boy]

To tell you the truth I'm getting sick to death of hearing about this.

The police were acting in the best interests of the public immediately after a major terrorist incident. Mistakes get made in these situations and an innocent man got killed. That's unfortunate.

The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't in that situation. If that was a suicide bomber and there was hesitation then how many lives would have been lost? No doubt the same bleating mob would be slating the police for "not following procedure".

What makes you think the met police is one of the most "disreputable" in the world? Do you know anything about any other police force in any other country? Do you have any idea what the police in Brazil get up to? If that guy who was here illegally was shot in his home country how much of an outcry do you think there would be?

None. It would have been swept under the carpet like all those street kids that go missing. I cringe that people like the de menezes are allowed to drag our whole force from top to bottom through the courts when in any other country they would get short shrift. Only in Britain....the most tolerant country in the world.

What an absolutely ridiculous post.

The police did not follow procedure. The jury rejected their claims that they shouted a warning, they rejected their claims that an innocent man moved towards them in a threatening manner and they rejected their claims that he reached for an unidentified object inside his jacket.

From my reading of this case Jean Charles De Menezes was shot dead because he was wearing a thick jacket in summer and because he had brown skin.

The Met had surveillance placed on the wrong man for months and then proceeded to shoot him dead, this is not acting in the best interests of the public and making a mistake in the heat of the moment, this is a horrendously inept and pathetic situation to occur.

Also Jean Charles De Menezes was hear perfectly legally, not that it should make any difference whatsoever when it comes to being murdered by the police force.

And 'people like the Menezes'? What the hell have they done wrong, their son, brother, nephew etc was murdered, shot not once but 7 times by the police force for absolutely nothing and you try to paint them as the bad guys. Seriously get a grip.

And finally i for one am glad we have this kind of accountability in Britain, if you wish to live in a country where people like the Menezes get swept under the carpet then you must be seriously mad. The most tolerant country in the world? Maybe and thankfully.

[steakbake]

Given that the jury had the stronger alternative of unlawful killing removed from their power, they came up with the right decision.

Do you not think that we should all be able to expect from our Police authorities that they will give an honest account of any incident with an impartial and non-political view? And that we should rely on the Police that they will give this information on time, accurately and without trying to doctor the account of events to suit their own ends?

Instead, they chose to whitewash the whole thing, throw doubt on the character of JCDM even to the point of doctoring a photograph and officially telling half truths and down right lies to muddy the waters. They also manage to seriously prejudice the outcome of the Independent Police Complaints' Authoritiy own first inquiry. Thankfully, their attempts to influence the second enquiry didn't work out.

JCDM did not run from the police, he did not jump a barrier, he did not make a move towards the armed officers and he didn't deserve to die. You didn't need this inquiry's findings to know that much.

The whole affair from start to finish should serve as a wake up to people who blithely think that we should never question the actions of the authorities.

[JimBHibees]

Given that the jury had the stronger alternative of unlawful killing removed from their power, they came up with the right decision.

Do you not think that we should all be able to expect from our Police authorities that they will give an honest account of any incident with an impartial and non-political view? And that we should rely on the Police that they will give this information on time, accurately and without trying to doctor the account of events to suit their own ends?

Instead, they chose to whitewash the whole thing, throw doubt on the character of JCDM even to the point of doctoring a photograph and officially telling half truths and down right lies to muddy the waters. They also manage to seriously prejudice the outcome of the Independent Police Complaints' Authoritiy own first inquiry. Thankfully, their attempts to influence the second enquiry didn't work out.

JCDM did not run from the police, he did not jump a barrier, he did not make a move towards the armed officers and he didn't deserve to die. You didn't need this inquiry's findings to know that much.

The whole affair from start to finish should serve as a wake up to people who blithely think that we should never question the actions of the authorities.

Yep the doctoring of the photo was unbelieveable to be honest and it is amazing that no-one has been brought to book for it. Well maybe not amazing. The Head guy was happy to feed the public half truths in the days following the murder. He didnt jump the barrier, he wasnt wearing a heavy coat, he wasnt given a warning all of which sum up the total arrogance and vindictiveness of the authorities in this country.

How about admitting to a mistake for once.

[AndyP]

Yep the doctoring of the photo was unbelieveable to be honest and it is amazing that no-one has been brought to book for it. Well maybe not amazing. The Head guy was happy to feed the public half truths in the days following the murder. He didnt jump the barrier, he wasnt wearing a heavy coat, he wasnt given a warning all of which sum up the total arrogance and vindictiveness of the authorities in this country.

How about admitting to a mistake for once.

Actually I was thinking that, had the Met put their hands up straight away to making a mistake there would have been less of an outcry. The killing of JCDM was a tragic accident but there is no way they could have arrested the guy especially if he had been wearing a suicide vest, the det switch is usually attached to the palm of the hand and any warning may have caused it to be detonated.

[Pete]

Actually I was thinking that, had the Met put their hands up straight away to making a mistake there would have been less of an outcry. The killing of JCDM was a tragic accident but there is no way they could have arrested the guy especially if he had been wearing a suicide vest, the det switch is usually attached to the palm of the hand and any warning may have caused it to be detonated.

Perhaps this is what should have happened but they probably knew what would have happened to the officers involved. It would be some form of admission of guilt and they would probably be in jail by now. Human rights lawyers would eat them alive.

Those who are meant to look at these cases objectively have no idea what it's like to serve in the police force during such times. Those officers were acting in the best interests of the public at the time and are only human.
I would ask those who question what happened how they would react but they wouldn't have a clue. It's more about challenging the system....it's as if they're still at university.

Even if there was a set protocol for dealing with such incidents do you honestly believe it to be correct? You're supposed to announce who you are to a suspected suicide bomber? It was the aftermath of the london terror attacks and the officers in question were misguided at best. We can probably all now say what the best thing to do would be but right then at that moment...I bet there was confusion from top to bottom.

If you want the police to be held accountable for a mistake like this then you can get lost. No matter what age you are you are showing your immaturity. You're going to have to grow up and accept that this was exceptional circumstances and the police were INITIALLY acting in the best interests of the general public.

100% accountability will ever be achievable...but I trust that the police are on my side and trying to stop these bad *******s.

[GhostofBolivar]

Perhaps this is what should have happened but they probably knew what would have happened to the officers involved. It would be some form of admission of guilt and they would probably be in jail by now. Human rights lawyers would eat them alive.

Those who are meant to look at these cases objectively have no idea what it's like to serve in the police force during such times. Those officers were acting in the best interests of the public at the time and are only human.
I would ask those who question what happened how they would react but they wouldn't have a clue. It's more about challenging the system....it's as if they're still at university.

Even if there was a set protocol for dealing with such incidents do you honestly believe it to be correct? You're supposed to announce who you are to a suspected suicide bomber? It was the aftermath of the london terror attacks and the officers in question were misguided at best. We can probably all now say what the best thing to do would be but right then at that moment...I bet there was confusion from top to bottom.

If you want the police to be held accountable for a mistake like this then you can get lost. No matter what age you are you are showing your immaturity. You're going to have to grow up and accept that this was exceptional circumstances and the police were INITIALLY acting in the best interests of the general public.

100% accountability will ever be achievable...but I trust that the police are on my side and trying to stop these bad *******s.

Well no.

While I don't believe the incident was anything other than a tragic accident, there were serious errors of judgement by those in command and control of the operation that they should be held accountable for, because an innocent man died. Instead the OC was promoted. Why?

Also, I'm very interested in the testimony of the officers involved and the witnesses. Did the police lie under oath to make it look like a 'good' shooting?

I, for one, would like to know.

[Pretty Boy]

Perhaps this is what should have happened but they probably knew what would have happened to the officers involved. It would be some form of admission of guilt and they would probably be in jail by now. Human rights lawyers would eat them alive.

Those who are meant to look at these cases objectively have no idea what it's like to serve in the police force during such times. Those officers were acting in the best interests of the public at the time and are only human.
I would ask those who question what happened how they would react but they wouldn't have a clue. It's more about challenging the system....it's as if they're still at university.

Even if there was a set protocol for dealing with such incidents do you honestly believe it to be correct? You're supposed to announce who you are to a suspected suicide bomber? It was the aftermath of the london terror attacks and the officers in question were misguided at best. We can probably all now say what the best thing to do would be but right then at that moment...I bet there was confusion from top to bottom.

If you want the police to be held accountable for a mistake like this then you can get lost. No matter what age you are you are showing your immaturity. You're going to have to grow up and accept that this was exceptional circumstances and the police were INITIALLY acting in the best interests of the general public.

100% accountability will ever be achievable...but I trust that the police are on my side and trying to stop these bad *******s.

None of this is the point though. If the police made an announcement ASAP that they had made a tragic mistake and the officers would be dealt with i think the anger would have been far less. Instead they broke several laws trying to cover their backs. They doctored a photograph used as evidence, they spread numerous untruths about the status of Jean Charles De Menezes in this country, they lied about his actions numerous times including under oath and they lied about the officers actions again under oath.

As for trusting the police are on my side to root out terrorism, of course they are, that does not mean the death of an innocent man should be swept under the carpet and ignored. Would you feel the same if it was one of your own family?

[AndyP]

Perhaps this is what should have happened but they probably knew what would have happened to the officers involved. It would be some form of admission of guilt and they would probably be in jail by now. Human rights lawyers would eat them alive.

Not necessarily, IF the officers have acted within their rules of engagement then they are pretty safe from prosecution, the lead up to the shooting could be held into question IMO but probably not the act of shooting.




Those who are meant to look at these cases objectively have no idea what it's like to serve in the police force during such times. Those officers were acting in the best interests of the public at the time and are only human.
I would ask those who question what happened how they would react but they wouldn't have a clue. It's more about challenging the system....it's as if they're still at university.

Even if there was a set protocol for dealing with such incidents do you honestly believe it to be correct? You're supposed to announce who you are to a suspected suicide bomber? It was the aftermath of the london terror attacks and the officers in question were misguided at best. We can probably all now say what the best thing to do would be but right then at that moment...I bet there was confusion from top to bottom.

If you want the police to be held accountable for a mistake like this then you can get lost. No matter what age you are you are showing your immaturity. You're going to have to grow up and accept that this was exceptional circumstances and the police were INITIALLY acting in the best interests of the general public.

100% accountability will ever be achievable...but I trust that the police are on my side and trying to stop these bad *******s.

For me it's not the guys who were/are on the ground that need the investigattion but the officers higher up the intelligence chain who are drip feeding this information down the line. After ANY fatal shooting involving the police their should be a full investigation, not to blame people but perhaps just to keep the publics perception of the force as a positive one

[hibsbollah]

Perhaps this is what should have happened but they probably knew what would have happened to the officers involved. It would be some form of admission of guilt and they would probably be in jail by now. Human rights lawyers would eat them alive.

Those who are meant to look at these cases objectively have no idea what it's like to serve in the police force during such times. Those officers were acting in the best interests of the public at the time and are only human.
I would ask those who question what happened how they would react but they wouldn't have a clue. It's more about challenging the system....it's as if they're still at university.

Even if there was a set protocol for dealing with such incidents do you honestly believe it to be correct? You're supposed to announce who you are to a suspected suicide bomber? It was the aftermath of the london terror attacks and the officers in question were misguided at best. We can probably all now say what the best thing to do would be but right then at that moment...I bet there was confusion from top to bottom.

If you want the police to be held accountable for a mistake like this then you can get lost. No matter what age you are you are showing your immaturity. You're going to have to grow up and accept that this was exceptional circumstances and the police were INITIALLY acting in the best interests of the general public.

100% accountability will ever be achievable...but I trust that the police are on my side and trying to stop these bad *******s.

It sounds like you want the police to be above the law of the land...Zimbabwe style:rolleyes:

[Pete]

Fair enough.

Maybe I did miss the point slightly...but come on, look at the time of the postings.:greengrin

The police were wrong to lie about the circumstances and doctor evidence. In an ideal world they should have immediately put their hands up and admitted their mistake.

It's just the percieved agenda of the de Menezes that got me. It's as if they weren't going to be satisfied untill the officers involved were burnt at the stake and all the top brass hand in their resignation. However, they had just lost their relative in terrible circumstances and I can't even imagine how they are feeling so it's understandable.

There should be some form of accountability and discipline but it should only go so far. The people doing the jobs are there to protect us...and it's as if some people are portraying them as marauding bandits who shoot innocent people just for the sake of it.

I just hope a line is drawen under this whole thing, lessons are learned and everyone involved can begin to move on.

[hibsbollah]

Interesting radio interview on this subject on 'Taking A Stand' on Radio 4 now-repeated tonight 9.30pm (23rd December). Lana Vandenberghe who worked for the IPCC and blew the whistle on the mistruths coming out of the Met. After listening to this interview there is no doubt in my mind that if this woman hadnt leaked the story to the press we would never have known the truth, which is pretty shocking. She claims that Ian Blair himself ordered the misinformation campaign.

[--------]

There should be some form of accountability and discipline but it should only go so far. The people doing the jobs are there to protect us...and it's as if some people are portraying them as marauding bandits who shoot innocent people just for the sake of it.

I just hope a line is drawn under this whole thing, lessons are learned and everyone involved can begin to move on.


Are you Tony Blair? You sure sound like him.

Have you by any chance heard of Harry Stanley?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1501062/Widow-devastated-by-police-shooting-decision.html

He was shot by two Met firearms officers for carrying a chair-leg in a threatening manner. His family haven't received an adequate or believable explanation for his shooting, any more than the De Menezes family have. Once again, the police officers tell one story, independent eye-witnesses tell another.

Or Azelle Rodney?

http://www.underthecarpet.co.uk/Pages/NewsArticle.php?num=5452

The Met have shot too many people in doubtful circumstances. I very much doubt that any Police Department in the States could carry out as many bad kills as the Met has without a major investigation into their procedures.

But then, CDM was Brazilian (that's coloured). Harry S was Glaswegian (that's nearly Irish). And Azelle Rodney was black (so he doesn't count).

They're all "people like that".

If I were living in London right now, I'd be more worried about the treatment I might receive from the plods than about being blown up by a terrorist. You see, I'm Scots (see Harry Stanley); I carry a back-pack from time to time (see J-C De Menezes); and I often travel in a car with other people (see Azelle Rodney). So I must be a bad one, right?

[Betty Boop]

Are you Tony Blair? You sure sound like him.

Have you by any chance heard of Harry Stanley?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1501062/Widow-devastated-by-police-shooting-decision.html

He was shot by two Met firearms officers for carrying a chair-leg in a threatening manner. His family haven't received an adequate or believable explanation for his shooting, any more than the De Menezes family have. Once again, the police officers tell one story, independent eye-witnesses tell another.

Or Azelle Rodney?

http://www.underthecarpet.co.uk/Pages/NewsArticle.php?num=5452

The Met have shot too many people in doubtful circumstances. I very much doubt that any Police Department in the States could carry out as many bad kills as the Met has without a major investigation into their procedures.

But then, CDM was Brazilian (that's coloured). Harry S was Glaswegian (that's nearly Irish). And Azelle Rodney was black (so he doesn't count).

They're all "people like that".

If I were living in London right now, I'd be more worried about the treatment I might receive from the plods than about being blown up by a terrorist. You see, I'm Scots (see Harry Stanley); I carry a back-pack from time to time (see J-C De Menezes); and I often travel in a car with other people (see Azelle Rodney). So I must be a bad one, right?
Can I just add these two guys, one of which was shot by armed officers, then when they were released without charge, had their name smeared and accused of having child porn on their computer. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jun/10/politics.terrorism

[--------]

Can I just add these two guys, one of which was shot by armed officers, then when they were released without charge, had their name smeared and accused of having child porn on their computer. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jun/10/politics.terrorism



You certainly may.

A fine upstanding bunch of lads, the Met. I suppose the brothers should have been grateful that they were still alive to be defamed.

Abdul Kahar and Abdul Koyair - aren't those, well, not quite native British names? In fact, isn't that the sort of names that towel-heads have?

So they're "those kind of people" too.

So they don't count.


"What will we do with this one, Sergeant Dixon of Dock Green?"

"Now you've told him my name?" :cool2: