The inquest jury into the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, famously barred from giving an unlawful killing verdict for undisclosed reasons, at least were able to make clear that based on the abundant evidence presented to them, that they considered the Metropolitan Police marksmen who killed him to be liars. The clear implication of such an indictment was that they committed murder and committed perjury to cover it up. Perjury at the very least is a serious criminal offence, certainly for cops with guns – particularly one with a penchant for using them, but today the Crown Prosecution Service said they didn’t care:
Stephen O’Doherty, the lawyer who led the CPS review, said: “I have now concluded that there is insufficient evidence that any offence was committed by any individual officers in relation to the tragic death of Mr de Menezes.”
The officers, known as Charlie 2 and Charlie 12, told the inquest they had shouted a warning at Mr de Menezes and he had continued moving towards them.
But passengers at the inquest had said this was not the case, and the jury did not accept the officers’ accounts.
Mr O’Doherty said: “Although there were some inconsistencies in what the officers said at the inquest, there were also inconsistencies in what passengers had said.
“I concluded that in the confusion of what occurred on the day, a jury could not be sure that any officer had deliberately given a false account of events.
Except the jury was sure that both men had knowingly lied; they were also clear that whatever inconsistencies may have been present between all witness accounts, that they still flatly contradicted those of the killers. The justifications that Charlie 12 gave under oath for killing him were acknowledged by the jury to be lies, so the question is begged – why would the CPS find that Charlie 12 wasn’t at the very least guilty of perjury?