De Menezes shooting: Waiting for the Facts

In the aftermath of the murder, a cascade of misinformation and lies from the very top down. From Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair to the trigger-happy plain-clothes shooters identified only as "carrying a long-barrelled weapon", the actions that day have been exposed as a cover-up of the events that resulted in the extra-judicial execution of an innocent man.

De Menezes shooting: Waiting for the Facts

freedomfiles
Joined: 07 May 2006, 23:31

21 Aug 2006, 23:57 #1

De Menezes shooting: why you'll have to wait for facts
Jul 25 2006
http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/01 ... _page.html

THE circumstances that led to the police shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes will not be made public until next year.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) told a meeting of Lambeth's Community and Police Consultative Group (CPCG) it would not release its report into the killing of the Brazilian at Stockwell Tube station on July 22 last year until after the Metropolitan Police is tried for health and safety breaches surrounding his death.

The electrician, from Tulse Hill, was shot dead by armed police when he boarded a train at the station. Police believed he was a suicide bomber.

Last week, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said the officers involved in the killing would not be charged over his death.

The IPCC report is expected to be critical of the police tactics and actions that led to Jean Charles's death.

But IPCC chairman Nick Hardwick told those gathered at a special meeting of the CPCG on Thursday it would not be made public until after the health and safety trial.

He said: "I understand that people want to know what happened and I know how frustrating it is for them to have to wait.

"But we have to follow the legal process. "We cannot release the report prior to the trial because it could prejudice the trial.

"A lot of detail of what happened will be discussed in the trial.We expect that to take place next year.People are not going to have to wait too long now to hear what happened."

CPS lawyers turned down an invitation to the meeting in Brixton to explain their decision not to charge individual officers,saying it could jeopardise the upcoming trial.

A solicitor for the family of Jean Charles is considering challenging the CPS decision not to charge.
Reply

The Antagonist
Joined: 25 Nov 2005, 11:41

22 Aug 2006, 00:34 #2

freedomfiles @ Aug 22 2006, 12:57 AM wrote:De Menezes shooting: why you'll have to wait for facts
Jul 25 2006
http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/01 ... _page.html

....

But IPCC chairman Nick Hardwick told those gathered at a special meeting of the CPCG on Thursday it would not be made public until after the health and safety trial.

He said: "I understand that people want to know what happened and I know how frustrating it is for them to have to wait.

"But we have to follow the legal process. "We cannot release the report prior to the trial because it could prejudice the trial.
Follow the legal process? The legal process of summary judgement and extra-judicial execution?
"The problem with always being a conformist is that when you try to change the system from within, it's not you who changes the system; it's the system that will eventually change you." -- Immortal Technique

"The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses." -- Malcolm X

"The eternal fight is not many battles fought on one level, but one great battle fought on many different levels." -- The Antagonist

"Truth does not fear investigation." -- Unknown
Reply

truthseeker
Joined: 11 May 2006, 14:55

22 Aug 2006, 09:19 #3

freedomfiles @ Aug 21 2006, 11:57 PM wrote: "We cannot release the report prior to the trial because it could prejudice the trial.

CPS lawyers turned down an invitation to the meeting in Brixton to explain their decision not to charge individual officers,saying it could jeopardise the upcoming trial.
So police have the right to expect sub-judice, but civilian terrorist suspects can expect to be branded 'terrorist', 'plotters' and 'bombers'.

How a society can reach a point where we cannot view the report of a criminal investigation for fear it may prejudice what is essential an industrial hearing, yet police happily tell us they have found 'martyr videos' in suspects houses. How can the police define them as 'martyr videos' surely that is a courts job to decide.

It is also worth noting that the police have instigated a new mantra in tandem with the CPS, that Menezes was reaching for his pocket and that was why he was shot. The CPS gave this as one of the reason for not persuing a criminal prosecution, weird I thought hat would be a fact for the courts to establish. It is also curious that we are not allowed to hear anything from the IPCC report, well except things like this that work in favour of the police in advance of the H&S trial.
Reply

Bridget
Joined: 26 Nov 2005, 01:46

22 Aug 2006, 10:03 #4

Much of the evidence can be heard at the inquest which Harret Wistrich, JCdM's family's solictor is asking to be held before the H&S case is heard.
Insult added to injury

The handling of the inquiry into the Stockwell shooting is prolonging the family's pain

Harriet Wistrich and Asad Rehman
Thursday July 20, 2006
The Guardian

The family of Jean Charles de Menezes has waited almost a year to find out that no officer will be charged in relation to his shooting. How can someone have been killed so deliberately and no individual be held accountable?

Some say that the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to charge the Metropolitan police under health and safety legislation is at least a step forward from the usual impunity offered in police shootings. But such a prosecution could prove a bad outcome for the family. Not only is it a woefully inadequate response to the gravity of the crime, but it adds insult to injury by denying the family access to the evidence of how Jean died for another year or more. The prosecution conducted by the CPS will mean that the family only have access to the evidence at the same time as the rest of the world. All under a law which does not allow for anyone to be held accountable for their actions, and does not require the police commissioner to account for his organisation's policies.

For this reason the family will push for the inquest to take place before any health and safety prosecution. Evidence collected by the Independent Police Complaints Commission would therefore be disclosed and the family's legal representatives could cross-examine witnesses at the inquest.

The CPS's three-page letter of justification for its decision also raises more questions than it answers. It is asserted that the evidence supports the firearms officers' account that they believed they were confronted with a suicide bomber who was about to detonate explosives. The account, which has not been tested in interview (it is believed the officers declined to answer questions) and is contradicted by other witnesses, means that self defence cannot be disproved. Even if it is true, no consideration is given to whether the officers acted negligently or recklessly. If they were told Jean was a suspected "suicide bomber", what made them think that he posed a threat at that moment? By the time he was identified, he was dead.

A Panorama programme screened last March revealed that even the Israeli army (which trained the Met to deal with suicide bombers) requires officers to consider all other options before shooting to kill. On the same day the programme was aired, the Association of Chief Police Officers chose to release their revised policy on dealing with suicide terrorists. They state: "While it is normally the decision of the firearms officer whether or not to shoot, in circumstances involving suicide terrorism, a shot may be fired on the command of a senior officer who alone is in possession of sufficient information to justify lethal force." It remains unclear whether such a command was given.

One thing is clear: Jean was not killed as a result of a "split-second" decision; the police had 35 minutes to decide if he was their man. He died as a result of a fundamental change in policing policy which was never subject to any parliamentary scrutiny.

Some in the police service wish to portray Jean's death as either a mistake or the price we must get used to paying because the rules of the game have changed. But by allowing the bullets that ended his life to also claim the fundamental principles of the right to life, justice, truth and equality, we allow the impression that these rights do not apply to those with dark skins or beards. And that undermines our only real weapon against those who wish to harm us: a united British community.

· Asad Rehman is a spokesman for the Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign; Harriet Wistrich is a solicitor acting for the family.
Guardian
�To those who are afraid of the truth, I wish to offer a few scary truths; and to those who are not afraid of the truth, I wish to offer proof that the terrorism of truth is the only one that can be of benefit to the proletariat.� -- On Terrorism and the State, Gianfranco Sanguinetti
Reply