The mother of Jean Charles de Menezes was very angry, because the jury
was ordered by the Court to "NOT DECIDE" on the guilt, or innocence, of the
London Police Officers who had killed her son in 2005.

Jury was told it was none of their business to judge how police operated.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/menezes

Quote:

The Guardian, Editorial, Saturday 13 December 2008

De Menezes inquest

"Half-answered questions"

"Put aside any emotion," the coroner told the jury when he sent them out to consider their verdict in the De Menezes inquest. It took them six long days to reach that verdict, and they would scarcely be human if they really had suspended all emotion during that time. After all, they have listened to seven weeks of evidence from 100 witnesses into the 2005 shooting of the blameless Brazilian 27-year-old Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell underground station. As well as contemplating his family's loss, they had heard of the horror of witnesses and watched the firearms officers who dispatched the bullets shed tears. Though highly charged, the proceedings had seemed a model of what an inquest is supposed to be, with new information uncovered and extensive cross-examinations that left the jury well placed to establish the facts on behalf of the public.

As in the 2004 Hutton inquiry into the death of the weapons expert Dr David Kelly, however, a seemingly forensic process has come to a whimpering conclusion. At the last minute, the jurors' options were curtailed. In summing up, coroner Sir Michael Wright decreed that the evidence could not support a verdict of unlawful killing, and said the jury must either declare the killing lawful or return an open verdict, as they did in the end yesterday. Sir Michael also curtailed the scope for the jury to provide their own "narrative" of events, restricting them to giving yes or no answers to a dozen specific questions.

The restrictions no doubt reflected a proper regard for the plight of the Metropolitan police in July 2005. Enforcing the law firmly and fairly is a difficult task at the best of times, but on the 22nd day of that month it was bordering on the impossible. Two weeks before, four suicide bombers had claimed dozens of lives on three London tube trains and a bus; the previous day another four bombers had tried and failed to cause similar carnage. Officers had every reason to fear for the lives of the public, to say nothing of their own. Those who have not faced similar pressure do not know how they would react, making it hard for them to sit in judgement.

That is a powerful argument against an unlawful killing verdict, which would have automatically prompted fresh consideration of criminal homicide charges against the firearms officers, or else charges of negligence against their superiors. It does not follow, though, that the jury should not have been free to consider the option - and still less that they should have been constrained in spelling out the facts. For insofar as the jurors did give their version of events - through answering the coroner's questions - they suggested police blundering and misconduct that went beyond errors in the heat of the moment. Reports by independent witnesses persuaded most jurors that the armed police were not telling the truth when they claimed they had shouted a warning. The majority also dismissed the police claim that Mr de Menezes had run towards them, and said that the failure to provide the available photographs to officers had contributed to his death. Coming on top of the failings exposed when the Met was prosecuted on health and safety grounds, yesterday's findings are damning. In arguing that the killing was lawful, the police have insisted throughout that they did nothing wrong. Their account has been found wanting, but no automatic consequence flows from an open verdict. The anxiety is that the lessons will not be learned.

English justice is struggling to find a way of holding to account officers who kill in the course of their duty. The government, committed to reform coroners' courts, must ditch dangerous plans for private inquests, and should instead safeguard the right of juries to let in the light, and give them new powers to deem when human rights have been breached - as those of Mr de Menezes so flagrantly were. The armed police do tough work. But the public needs reassurance that there is a system in place that ensures innocent life is never lost lightly.

"Letters: The Guardian, Saturday 13 December 2008"

Verdicts on the De Menezes inquest

I can't think of a more stark example of the British legal system being biased in favour of the state than in the summing up of the coroner, Sir Michael Wright, during the inquest into the shooting of the innocent man Jean Charles de Menezes. The jury were directed to put aside the feelings of Jean's mother, Mr Wright said "these are emotional reactions, ladies and gentlemen, and you are charged with returning a verdict based on evidence" (De Menezes family walk out of inquest as coroner rules he was not unlawfully killed, December 3).

It would seem though that Mr Wright does accept that emotional reactions are valid, and should be taken into account by the jury, but only if those emotional reactions are those of the police. When completing his summing up, Mr Wright suggested that when addressing the apparent inconsistencies between evidence provided by the firearms officers and civilian witnesses, the jury recall the moment that "This tough, fit, highly trained, mature man broke down in tears and this fact may assist you in assessing the depth of the emotional experience that he was going through here when he was reliving the terrible events of July 22."

Lucy Masters - London

In ruling out a verdict of unlawful killing at the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest, coroner Sir Michael Wright called on the jury to "put aside any emotion". It is time to abandon this naive, patronising and outdated direction, so beloved of the legal profession. The separation of reason and emotion is a false dichotomy. In his 1994 book Descartes' Error, the neurologist and professor of neuroscience Antonio Damasio shows that emotion is crucial to human intelligence. And recent experiments by Sarah Brosnan, Dr HC Schiff and Franz de Waal strongly suggest that a sense of fairness is present in chimpanzees.

Hamish Birchall - London

I sympathise fully with the De Menezes family and their decision to walk out of the inquest. I, and others from the families of my daughter Olivia and her friend Charlie Thompson, were very tempted to do the same at the inquest into their deaths on December 3 2005 on the pedestrian crossing at Elsenham Station. Despite two major reports and evidence given at the inquest into the failings of Network Rail and its predecessors to take action which could have prevented what happened, the jury were instructed by the coroner to return a verdict of accidental death - their function had been no more than a rubber stamp. In our case, we were further frustrated by the intervention of Network Rail's lawyers from bringing some legitimate evidence forward. The system in coroner's courts is a waste of jurors' time - and compounds the distress of bereaved families. It is time for a radical overhaul if it is to mean anything or have any purpose.

Chris Bazlinton - Farnham, Hertfordshire

The De Menezes inquest jury were not permitted to consider returning a verdict of unlawful killing. Can a keener legal mind than mine explain how it can be legal to make such a stipulation? Has a judge ever ordered a criminal jury to return any verdict it likes, so long as it is "not guilty"? Do inquests have more arcane rules, less attuned to justice? I always assumed the opposite was true. Until yesterday's open verdict I had hoped that the jury would uphold the great British tradition of clear-sighted and courageous decision-making by refusing to return any verdict at all.

Graham O'Reilly - Aulnay-sous-Bois, France

Princess Diana, killed in a car crash - unlawful killing. Six passengers and four crew killed when a man drives his Land Rover off the M62 on to the Selby rail line - unlawful killing. Man throws his son from the roof of a Greek hotel - unlawful killing. A UK soldier is killed in Iraq when a US pilot opens fire on him - unlawful killing. BBC journalist Kate Peyton shot - unlawful killing. Two policemen shoot an innocent man seven times in the head on a train in front of witness who say no warning was given - not unlawful killing. Could someone please explain?

Dan Tanzey - Thornton Cleveleys, Lancashire

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/13/menezes-police
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/13/menezes-police-inque...

Quote:

Princess Diana, killed in a car crash - unlawful killing. Six passengers and four crew killed when a man drives his Land Rover off the M62 on to the Selby rail line - unlawful killing. Man throws his son from the roof of a Greek hotel - unlawful killing. A UK soldier is killed in Iraq when a US pilot opens fire on him - unlawful killing. BBC journalist Kate Peyton shot - unlawful killing. Two policemen shoot an innocent man seven times in the head on a train in front of witness who say no warning was given - not unlawful killing. Could someone please explain?

Dan Tanzey - Thornton Cleveleys, Lancashire

He makes a valid point. If he was a British citizen would they still have labelled it as not unlawful killing? I think not. I think its absolutely disgusting to see stuff like this happening in this day and age. I think they should educate the police, army and judges on different ethnic groups an religions maybe that will make them more tolerant and open minded people.

Oh an another thing why did they need to shoot him 7 times? Thats inhumane! I think 1 or 2 bullets would have done the job.

Salam

Naz wrote:

Oh an another thing why did they need to shoot him 7 times?
Thats inhumane!
I think 1 or 2 bullets would have done the job.

You are right Naz.

It was indeed an inhumane killing of De Menezes as witnessed by
many people in London on 22 July 2005.

Most of the accounts published had been censored by Tony Blair in 2005.

The truth is that the police could not kill him with just one shot.

He was a tough Brazilian boy.

First shot did not even effect him
Second shot made his his blood to gush
Third shot awakened him to reality
Fouth shot and he fell train's floor
Fifth shot forced his eyes to close
Sixth shot made him tremble with pain
Seventh bullet forever took his beautiful soul

Without doubt, this was a terrible cruetly inflicted upon the young innocent boy.

Omrow

Omrow the poet.

ofcourse the poem is wrong. I will call that poetic licence.

He was not shot standing up - he was tackled to the ground, pinned down and then shot.

Its not a poem. But you may put it in the next issue.

And what you said is police version of events. Jury said they are lying.

The Lamp wrote:

What if the jury disobeyed the judge? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it true that the judge has no right to question a jury's verdict?

How can you disobey the judge? Hes there to direct the jury if he shows his own personal opinion then my guess is that he cant continue to direct the jury.

You wrote:

Omrow the poet.

ofcourse the poem is wrong. I will call that poetic licence.

He was not shot standing up - he was tackled to the ground, pinned down and then shot.

:shock: OMG thats even worse.