Jury declares open verdict on Brazilian man de Menezes shot by London police [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Jury declares open verdict on Brazilian man de Menezes shot by London police

Action Jackson
12-12-2008, 01:20 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7764882.stm

Open verdict at Menezes inquest

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

Two officers shot Mr de Menezes seven times as he sat on a train at Stockwell Underground station, south London. They thought he was a suicide bomber.

The jury returned the verdict after deliberating for a week.

The family had earlier withdrawn from the inquest after the coroner said the jury could not return a verdict of unlawful death at the hands of police.

Sir Michael Wright, the coroner at the three-month-long inquest at the Oval Cricket Ground in London, said the facts did not justify allowing the jury to consider an unlawful killing.

A majority of the jury said that they did not believe officers had shouted "armed police" before opening fire

Key people at the Menezes inquest

Throughout the inquest, Metropolitan Police officers told the hearings they honestly believed the Brazilian was one of the four failed bombers who attempted to strike London on 21 July 2005.

Mr de Menezes' family and supporters challenged this version of events, saying they wanted answers to why surveillance officers could not identify the man they were following - and why two specialist officers shot the electrician at close range.

Sir Michael also asked the jury of 10 to tell him whether or not a series of events on 22 July 2005 contributed to the 27-year-old's death.

A majority of the jury said that they did not believe officers had shouted "armed police" before opening fire.

Turning to Mr de Menezes' actions, they said they believed he had stood up from his seat before being shot - but they did not believe he had moved towards the first officer to open fire.


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


Jean Charles de Menezes inquest records open verdict

Inquest heard from 100 witnesses including officers who shot De Menezes on tube carriage at Stockwell on July 22 2005


An open verdict was recorded today over the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was gunned down by firearms officers on the London underground having been mistaken for a suicide bomber.

The coroner, Sir Michael Wright, had ruled out a verdict of unlawful killing, leaving the jury with a choice between lawful killing or an open verdict.

The inquest at the Oval cricket ground, south 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.

its.like.that
12-12-2008, 01:26 PM
wow

UK = USA these days it seems...

Should both be blown up.

scoobs
12-12-2008, 01:29 PM
I think it's disgraceful that the jury were told they would not be allowed to consider a verdict of unlawful killing.

alfonsojose
12-12-2008, 02:29 PM
:eek: :o So embarrasinng

Zirconek
12-12-2008, 04:45 PM
Meanwhile, in Brazil, a policeman was found not guilty by killing a 3 years old kid, named João Roberto Amorim Soares. The policeman (William de Paula) was only sentenced (a light sentence) for hurting his mother and her other son. The policeman fired 17 shots at her vehicle. Another policeman/murderer is yet to go to trial. The policemen were in a persecution, the woman noticed and stopped her car, when she realised they were approaching with guns in their hands, she threw a child bag through the window to show they werelooking for the wrong car, but they fired the car anyway.

:o

JolánGagó
12-12-2008, 04:52 PM
Disgraceful, shameful ending for that farse of a trial.

buddyholly
12-12-2008, 06:37 PM
I blame the terrorists for creating the situation.

Clara Bow
12-12-2008, 06:42 PM
I think it's disgraceful that the jury were told they would not be allowed to consider a verdict of unlawful killing.

I am a moron so that could contribute to my confusion- but why did the coroner say that they could not return a certain type of verdict. He just determined how the victim died, etc.- or does the coroner in the British court system do more?

Henry Chinaski
12-12-2008, 07:05 PM
well Britain is making progress at least. If this happened in Northern Ireland in the 70's the cops would've received knighthoods on the spot.

buddyholly
12-12-2008, 07:09 PM
well Britain is making progress at least. If this happened in Northern Ireland in the 70's the cops would've received knighthoods on the spot.

And deservedly so!

scoobs
12-12-2008, 07:21 PM
I am a moron so that could contribute to my confusion- but why did the coroner say that they could not return a certain type of verdict. He just determined how the victim died, etc.- or does the coroner in the British court system do more?
Well the inquest was to determine the exact cause of the death, in terms of the decisions taken and the events that led directly to the shooting.

Why the coroner directed the jury that they couldn't consider this to be an unlawful killing I don't know. Probably some technical legal point but it does rather make the whole thing look farcical.

zeleni
12-12-2008, 09:07 PM
Greeks know the way how to fix problems with police abuse of power.:drive:

Action Jackson
12-13-2008, 09:38 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-reckless-incompetent-and-lethal-policing-1064488.html

Leading article: Reckless, incompetent and lethal policing

The anger and frustration of the de Menezes family are perfectly justified

Saturday, 13 December 2008

The jury at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes was forbidden by the coroner to rule that this was a case of unlawful killing by the Metropolitan Police.

That, in the view of the legal team representing the Brazilian electrician, meant that the possibility of justice was denied even before the jury returned its verdict. Despite this, the conclusions of the 10 jurors yesterday could scarcely have been more damning of the conduct of the police, both during this disgraceful affair and subsequently. The open verdict returned by the jury represents an emphatic rejection of the police case that Mr de Menezes was lawfully killed.

The jury's interpretation of what happened on the stationary Tube train at Stockwell station thee and a half years ago is disturbing. The jurors said they did not believe officers had shouted "armed police" before opening fire on Mr de Menezes, despite claims from those involved that they had given such a warning. None of the witnesses on that train recalled the officers identifying themselves. The jury also agreed that, while Mr de Menezes had stood up before being shot, he did not move towards the officers in a threatening manner; again a contradiction of the testimony offered by the police.

What we have, therefore, is a picture of armed police officers bursting on to a train and, without warning or provocation, shooting an innocent man seven times in the head and neck. The other inescapable implication of the jurors' verdict is that these same police officers dissembled to the inquest.

Yet this is just the beginning of the scandal. The jury also found that serious police operational failings contributed to the death Mr de Menezes. It emerged in the course of the inquest that the surveillance operation was a shambles. Officers watching the suspect's residence were not in possession of a decent photograph of the target. The officer closest to the flat was relieving himself as Mr de Menezes left the property. The inquest also heard that one surveillance team member had altered his log to say that he had not positively identified the subject as the bomber, though his original entry indicated the opposite.

There was also a fatal breakdown in communication between surveillance officers, the firearms team and the command office at Scotland Yard. One of the firearms officers told the jury he heard surveillance officers positively identify the suspect over the radio. The surveillance officer in question contradicted this in court.

The jury identified all these cock-ups as contributory factors to the disaster. It also rejected the argument of the police that the behaviour of Mr de Menezes and the general difficulty in providing a positive identification in time contributed to the killing. According to the jury, the police could, and should, have done better. There are no excuses.

The anger the de Menezes family feels towards the Metropolitan Police is justified; so is their frustration with the British legal establishment. The rest of us should be deeply concerned too. We now know, beyond any doubt, that Mr de Menezes was merely going about his daily business, giving no cause for suspicion, when he was killed. The disturbing reality is that he could have been any one of us.

The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, yesterday argued that the case "reminds us of the extremely demanding circumstances under which the police work to protect us from further terrorist attack". Actually, what the case reminds us of is the fact that the no police firearms officer has been convicted for shooting a member of the public in the past 15 years, despite some 30 fatalities, many of them in questionable circumstances. It reminds us that the police saw fit to introduce the Operation Kratos guidelines for dealing with suspected suicide bombers (shots to the head and no verbal warning) in secret. There was no public consultation or political consent. We found out about this radical change in operating procedure only when it had claimed its first innocent casualty in the form of Mr de Menezes.

As our politicians are fond of telling us, we are policed by consent in this country. Yet that consent has been stretched dangerously thin in recent years. There is an increasing suspicion of the police among the public and the sense that they are not truly accountable is growing. The killing of Jean Charles de Menezes and the disgraceful behaviour of the police in its wake have merely alienated us further from those who are charged with upholding our safety.

JolánGagó
12-13-2008, 06:52 PM
What a disgraceful sad reality. That's what happens when people give away their liberties in exchange for some kind of "protection". Societies like herds, wolves as shepherds.

reggie1
12-20-2008, 11:26 PM
I agree that the Jury should have been allowed to come to their own decision. There was a feeling of absolute panic in this country at the time of the shooting and this is what made the police "trigger happy" in my opinion. Such a tragedy. The victim's mother was on t.v the other day and my heart went out to her, nobody ever should have to bury their child.