It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING - Jean Charles Menenes Killers - NOT RESPONSIBLE - Jury FORCED to return open verdict!!

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
The family regards this is a gross miscarriage of justice.

In London England, the jury in the inquest into the shooting of innocent subway passenger Jean Charles De Menezes - a Brazilian living in London - by crack armed police units during the ensuing chaos after attempted terror attacks on the London subway system a week after the 7th July bombings.

The police lied about the circumstances surrounding the shooting saying initially and openly in the media that Jean Charles had jumped ticket barriers and ran at speed down to the platform area.

Subsequently leaked CCTV footage showed this not to be true - Jean Charles was not acting suspiciously at all - he HAD bought a ticket and walked with other passengers down to the platform.

After the inquest we now have other details.

The police said that his suspicious behaviour had led to them identifying him as a terrorist. This suspicious behaviour it turns out was Jean 'looking around frequently' when he was speaking on his mobile phone.

Also, the officer meant to be tailing the REAL terrorist suspect - who was watching the apartment building under surveillance left his post to answer a call of nature.

On returning a man had exited the building - not having seen where he came from as he was away - the officer took a leap of faith and identified him as the terrorist suspect. This man was Jean Charles.

The killing itself was brutal - Jean Charles was shot over 10 times in the head at point blank range, in front of other passengers - some of whom were sat directly next to him on the train. Many of the bullets, rather disturbingly, didn't actually hit target.

I have never fired a hand gun - is it hard to miss at that range?

Either way - these facts are not in dispute.

No criminal charges were brought against anyone for this situation. I believe it right no one is charged for murder - after all, the men who pulled the trigger were doing their jobs.

But for the lying, to justify a killing which happened through incompetence - many jobs should have been lost and perhaps criminal charges made.

To add insult to injury, the government itself refused to launch an official enquiry into what happened that day - again, removing almost any possibility of anyone having to face any consequences for their actions.

The only investigation was a coroners inquest. Standard in the UK for any death under unclear circumstances.

One week ago, the coronor instructed the jury that they were NOT able to return a verdict of 'unlawful killing' - the only verdict that would put the blame at the door of the police.

This is an outrage. In any kind of trial or inquest, civil or otherwise - the JURY have the LEGAL RIGHT to decided. It is not for a judge or coroner to intervene in this way. The jury were also blocked from releasing their own narrative of events based on the evidence brought to light in the inquest.

This is whitewash - cover-up and another sick example of blue protecting blue at the expense of the safety and right to justice of the public.

It is clear today that the jury would clearly have returned a verdict of unlawful killing had they been 'allowed'. Based on the evidence this was an unlawful killing - police chiefs should be held responsible.

The family are now calling on the IPCC and Crown Prosecution Service to re-examine the case in order to consider criminal or internal investigations. How many of you think this will happen?

Indeed - the UK's 'shoot to kill' policy - in which armed police are sanctioned to 'shoot to kill' without discrimination or authorisation from senior officers on a case by case basis when they feel there is a significant terrorist threat - hasn't even been suspended..

The idea of junior police officers walking around with heavy weapons - with the authorisation to use them resting only on their own discretion - AND - by parliamentary authority - the knowledge that there will be no open investigation into their actions - is terrifying.



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I agree that the officers who did the killing should not be charged for murder. They were probably terrified and had to thiink safety to the public first, so Menezes was psycholigally the enemy if not in reality.

There are massive lessons to be learned about communications in these situations, suppositions cannot be allowed to arise about who knows what.

I think the Jury did well, they obviously cold not accept that this was lawful.

Why the police lied? They were terrified. I personally have my views about more cover up by the inquest by not allowing unlawful killing.

My worry with this is that if we go in trying to sack everyone who lied, we are going to get cover ups again, when what we need to be doing is getting everyone involved in working out what exactly went wrong which requires trust, openness, honesty which is not going to be achieved in a blood frenzy.

This is why I wonder whether the London Mayor, Boris Johnson was too eager to get rid of previous Commissioner Blair to go early, he should have gone today.



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I agree - but the previous commissioner was in it upto his neck and to be honest should have gone as soon as the terror stuff calmed down directly after this incident.

He was a complete coward - anyone with any respect for the job would have taken the fall, this would then have probably taken the emphasis off the guys on the ground who pulled the trigger who I agree were not the ones to blame here. It was a split second decision that I think if any of us had to make we would struggle with and make snap decision.

The real problem that should be alerting us all to a shift in the way authorities are operating is not that this smacks of cover-up - cover-ups happen all the time and have done always.

The issue is that this was done in front of the publics own eyes - and the police's attitude is ' we don't care - we lied - we changed the rules to get away with it - we arn't going to resign our lucrative jobs because we did wrong - hell' it's blindingly obvious we acted inappropriately - BUT THERES NOT A DAMN THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

When authorities can have this much contempt for oversight - we need to act as a nation and say THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I agree with you but what can we do, this whole mess started after the 7/7 bombings and we were in a paranoid blood frenzy then, so the police shot someone innocent. We don't need another metaphorical frenzy (loadsa jobs culled) to get over this one. This started with 60 people killed and sanity has to come in somewhere. I would rather a panel of judges draw up new procedures with evidence in private. The procedural changes could then be published. We're not going to get anyone to talk about anything, especially if they've already done (somewhat rationalistically) 'white' lies, if the job axe is hanging over them, they've got kids and mortgages and stuff in a recession.



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   


I agree this is disgrace, a NATIONAL disgrace

If you would like to help the De Menezes Familm please contact

www.justice4jean.org...

I am sure they would appreciate your prayers and best wishes



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Whilst accepting that Jean-Charles De Menezes did not deserve to die, I think it's only fair to point out that he was an illegal immigrant who had no right whatsoever to be in this country in the first place.

His visa had expired in 2003 and parts on his passport had been forged in an attempt to show that he had 'indefinate leave to remain in the UK', which he most certainly did not have.

Yes, there was some shoddy police work and no-one deserved to die in such a manner but in light of the De Menezes family seeking financial compensation it must be pointed out that if De Menezes himself had been a law abiding person he would not have been here and he wouldn't have been shot and would be alive today in his native country!

I wonder why MSM has consistently refused to report that De Menezes was an illegal immigrant?
PC Brigade again cherry picking selective information to release to the general population.

[edit on 13/12/08 by Freeborn]



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   
That's such a moronic thing to say.

A) It has been WIDELY reported that his visa had expired. That doesn't make him an illegal at all - it simply means he didn't renew his visa. He came here - immigrated into the country - legally.

I stayed a day over in the US when my flight was delayed on the last day of my visa - OK slightly different - but would it somehow add some justification to me being shot by authorities if I had been?

B) How the hell does this in anyway add any kind of justification to the actions that took place. The police clearly had no idea who he was - it could have been your father, son, brother just as easily - whether they were here illegally or whatever.

Think before you speak. The guy had a valid drivers licence as it has been plastered all over Sky News all afternoon - why did the UK authorities issue him with a drivers license valid indefinitely (bearing in mind in the UK a drivers license is proof of citizenship in most cases - i.e. being stopped by the police etc) if his visa was due to expire. Don't lay blame at this poor man's door when clearly the UK authorities had in no way taken any action to enforece the fact that his visa had expired.

UPDATE -

Visa expiration does NOT necessarily mean someone has no right to be here - it simply means they can no longer work and no longer have a right to ENTER the country.

In terms of staying here, it totally depends on the kind of visa. If he had been in the country for a certain amount of time already - he would have leave to stay. This ISN'T the same as INDEFINITE LEAVE to stay - it simply means he can stay in the country - essentially as a tourist - but can not re-enter once he has left OR seek work OR use any welfare provisions.



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
no-one considers whether he was assassinated on purpose then?

couldn't possibly have had links to the SIS ??



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   
His Visa had expired and he was working as an electrician.
Illegal.

If you had bothered to read all of my post instead of cherry picking selected parts you would see that I in no way condoned what happened to the man, merely pointed out that he WAS an illegal immigrant, that may explain why he ran away when questioned / approached.

In light of the security status in London at the time, if an armed policeman challenged me I would have done whatever was asked of me, not run away like he did.

Mr. Menenez is being turned into some sort of martyr by certain parties.
He was no angel.
He had overstayed the duration he was legally entitled to stay here and was working illegally.

Did this man deserve to die?
No, of course not, but the near sanctification of him by the liberal, PC Brigade is ridiculous.

[edit on 14/12/08 by Freeborn]



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Firstly,he DID NOT run away as you state. He walked down to the platform as already mentioned. At the time he was shot, he was already in a bear hug, pinning his arms to his sides, by another officer who was on the train. There was no reason to shoot him.
All the lies from the police after the event, as they went into arse covering overdrive, speaks volumes about the screw up that took place.
Much had also been made after the 7/7 tube bombings of the new police "shoot to kill" policy - in short they needed a body to prove the point.

Cressida Dick, the officer in charge of the operation and the officer that performed the shooting both received praise and promotion even while the lies from the police were being exposed, and before any sort of enquiry.
The police lied, from the Chief Constable on down, and yet nobody is being held accountable for this murder.

The visa issue has absolutely nothing to do with the case and is completely irrelevent.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   
I think we - and the inquest who's results we have now established Jean Charles did not run away from the police at all (security camera evidence shows him walking CALMLY to his train) the police LIED originally saying they shouted POLICE and he RAN - he wasn't even approached until the time he was shot - and as the witnesses on the train have confirmed the police at no time identified themselves as police.

The only 'suspicious' act they describe is Jean Charles standing up upon being confronted with several burly men - not identified as police - guns drawn.

And to be frank - I don't know what I'd do in that situation. Maybe I'd stand - maybe not. He must have been terrified.

So please don't quote more inaccuracies.

Clearly you have some kind of chip on your shoulder about illegal immigrants - not appropriate for this thread my-friend as his legal status is not in dispute - nor is the fact that this is irrelevant to the events of the day.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   
I think we - and the inquest who's results we have now established Jean Charles did not run away from the police at all (security camera evidence shows him walking CALMLY to his train) the police LIED originally saying they shouted POLICE and he RAN - he wasn't even approached until the time he was shot - and as the witnesses on the train have confirmed the police at no time identified themselves as police.

The only 'suspicious' act they describe is Jean Charles standing up upon being confronted with several burly men - not identified as police - guns drawn.

And to be frank - I don't know what I'd do in that situation. Maybe I'd stand - maybe not. He must have been terrified.

So please don't quote more inaccuracies.

Clearly you have some kind of chip on your shoulder about illegal immigrants - not appropriate for this thread my-friend as his legal status is not in dispute - nor is the fact that this is irrelevant to the events of the day.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by redled
I agree that the officers who did the killing should not be charged for murder. They were probably terrified and had to thiink safety to the public first, so Menezes was psycholigally the enemy if not in reality.


Yes, they probably were terrified but that terrifies me because if they're going to get trigger happy whenever they get scared then this could happen again and again. Public safety does not include shooting to kill people that may be innocent.

I also think that if he happened to be as white as me then he wouldn't have been a target anyway. Do all people of colour need to be careful where they look whilst talking on their mobile phones at train stations? Sad and worrying.

Divide and conqueor has worked for centuries and if we can all learn to be suspicious and scared of anyone that doesn't look obviously like a white British person then they're doing a good job of dividing and no doubt conquering will be next. Scared people will roll over and give up all rights just to stay safe.

His only crime was to apparently to run - if he was an illegal immigrant then of course he'd run but being an illegal immigrant doesn't make him a terrorist or worthy of being shot dead. Are we talking about Great Britain here? Since when did we kill illegal immigrants?




top topics



 
3

log in

join