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?
Cosmodaddy 
You have ignored or are unaware of the difference between civil law, in which verdicts are returned on the balance of probabilities, and criminal law, on which verdicts are returned on the basis of certainty beyond reasonable doubt.
O’Doherty says there is insufficient evidence to convict and he’s obviously right.
You claim here that the jury was sure that the police lied. They were not asked that question. A civil jury is not required to be sure of anything in order to return a verdict, only to make a decision on the balance of probabilities, just as I make a decision that, on the balance of probabilities, your failure to take notice of the distinciton between two kinds of verdict is due to ignorance.
That’s a semantic difference, not a difference related to what actually happened. The verdict weren’t allowed to return a verdict of unlawful killing, but they issued a statement indicating their belief that C12 and C2 lied. It doesn’t matter that they weren’t asked the question – they issued the statement based on the evidence placed before them during the inquest and reacted accordingly.
Ignorance? That’s not the way to convince someone of your point Tony. O’Doherty was ‘obviously’ right? Were you just not paying attention or something?
More legal bullshit from those in power so as to protect the status quo. Rose Davis the London East End wife who with others in the mid 70’s campaigned succesfully to get her then husband George freed from a 20 years prison sentence has just been buried. Her husband still had almost 15 years still to serve after having had his Appeal refused. Five months later he was suddenly released by Royal prerogative, informed that his conviction was unsafe and officially advised that he was still NOT innocent, and the House of Commons was similarly advised by the Home Secretary – my point is that those running things laughably make it up as they go along. Not officially innocent though freed from a 2o year unsafe police fit up. Clever clever points about legal niceties are a bullshit bore.
If you’re unable to understand my point there is little reason to continue this discussion. Others will get it, though.
Just suppose the jury had been allowed to return a verdict of “unlawful killing”, and had done so. There would still not be sufficient evidence to convict. This (and I weary of having to repeat myself on this obvious point) is because a civil verdict of unlawful killing does not require the same standards as a criminal verdict of murder
Ian, the George Davis decision of 1976 was made by Roy Jenkins as Home Secretary, not the courts, Davis had appealed and the appeal failed. It’s an anomalous case for that reason.
Pingback: Another Foundation to the Police State « Cosmodaddy
Tony I acknowledged your point and indeed fully understood it. It doesn’t matter that the jury weren’t asked the question about perjury – they weren’t allowed to return a verdict on unlawful killing for wholly unacceptable reasons, and found a way to sidestep just the points you mentioned. You point out a difference in law, but it’s a semantic difference.
There’s a difference between my saying “on balance of probabilities, they lied”, and “beyond reasonable doubt, they murdered.” To write that off as a semantic quibble or a point of law is disingenuous.
My point’s disingenuity is neither here nor there.
It’s indeed a semantic quibble because I’m talking about the demonstrably proven reality. The cops lied, the passengers proved it, the jury acknowledged it. For the CPS to write that off purely because of legal niceties ensures that justice isn’t done.
You’re still falsely claiming that this is a matter of “legal niceties”. I’ll leave it there.
Tony Sidaway I pretty well know the ins and outs of the George Davis decision – your points are naive and a touch cretinous – it was establishment hocus pocus bullshit and ought to recognised as such. I can’t see any value in your legalistic points. I never said the May 76 Davis decision was made by the courts – no instead other ultra devious methods were resorted to. If those of us in the Davis Campaign had solely relied on the courts we’d have got nowhere – the courts had already produced the testicularios. uAMPAIGN iF THIOS EOI
This was a murder organised and legalised by Central Government carried out by Police Officers, many of whom have undergone the Common Purpose training programme which was a centralised new labour initiative to have our “leaders” across public and private sectors networking and helping each other out to control us.
Menezes death was probably designed to demonstrate just how far their power stretches.
It literally could be any one of us next.
Pingback: Advocacy in Darlington » Justice for Jean? I don’t think so.
@Chris close Or it could have been caused by poor training, poor planning, and poor communication. Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice.
The state is than in the position for having to try one of it’s own officers for it’s failings and cannot find him guilty because he was acting within the bounds of his authority. Giving a policeman a gun is the same as sanctioning occasional it’s use. That is not murder, it’s execution. The state does not depose itself for a faulty execution it apologizes and offers to pick up the burial and buy a nice plaque