De Menezes execution

by **antiaristo** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:43 am

Hi Pam, Classic "limited hangout" by Rupert's Rag, don't you think? Trying to give Blair the status of victim. And no mention of the military contingent. But the final eleven lines ARE interesting in that they show very little support for this policy WHICH IS BLAIR'S BABY. Again, I get the sense of strong pressure from below. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Many senior officers are, however, privately concerned about the legal basis of the policy.<hr></blockquote> I'll bet they are. The fact of the matter is that this has never even entered parliament. THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THIS POLICY. There is only the promise by the Queen that infractors will not be punished. So let's punish as many as possible, eh?

by **antiaristo** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:32 am

Pam, This is from today's Observer. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Ministers at war over Iraq abuse claims Mark Townsend Sunday October 16, 2005 The Observer Details of an extraordinary row between two members of Tony Blair's cabinet are revealed today in a series of confidential letters seen by The Observer In the correspondence the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, repeatedly raises concerns with the then Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, over the ability of the army to investigate claims of abuse against British soldiers in Iraq. In one letter Goldsmith states: 'I am extremely concerned at the conduct of investigations carried out in a number of the cases which have been referred to the APA [Army Prosecuting Authority] arising out of the Iraq conflict.' Asking Hoon to conduct a review into the way in which the army investigates abuse allegations, he writes: 'It is important that justice is seen to be done, no matter what the rank of the individuals involved.' But Hoon, who is now Leader of the House of Commons, dismisses the move as 'unnecessary', explaining that a review has already been commissioned into the army's investigations. In reply, Goldsmith says that not only is he unaware of the review but he has also not been notified of its recommendations. 'We have previously discussed my concerns about the commanding officer's ability to drop charges before matters have been considered by the APA,' Goldsmith writes. The letters, dated between November last year and March, were released in court last week in a case brought by the Ministry of Defence against a High Court ruling that British troops abroad are bound by the Human Rights Act, which bans torture or degrading treatment of prisoners. Considerable concern centres around one of the most controversial cases, the death of hotel worker Baha Mousa while in the custody of British troops in Basra. A letter from Goldsmith to Hoon relating to the case, dated 3 March, 2005, outlines his fears that the initial investigation into the case appears to have been flawed. It reveals that, although the incident occurred on 14 to 16 September 2003, the matter was not referred to army prosecutors until more than nine months later. Six men, including a colonel, have been charged in connection with the incident with a date for the trial yet to be announced. Another letter, again from Goldsmith to Hoon, reveals that army prosecutors asked military police to carry out further investigations. Yet it seems the instructions, 'for whatever reason, were not effectively carried out', and it took the intervention of a senior APA official to ensure that the extra inquiries were carried out. A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said that all necessary investigations into the Mousa case were completed as requested. He said: 'The letter shows the Attorney-General did have some concerns about the investigation. It was right for him to refer to these in correspondence with the defence secretary. 'As the letter shows, Major General Howell, as the Army Prosecuting Authority, quite properly discussed his concerns with the military police and made clear what further investigations should be conducted.'<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1593315,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/u...15,00.html</a> So when Ian Blair tried to stop the inquiry he was trying to invoke the powers of a military commander. As an aside that power comes directly from the commander in chief, Elizabeth Windsor.

by **antiaristo** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:07 am

Pam, This is what we are up against. Shot dead by police 30. Officers convicted 0 No charges for policemen who killed man carrying table leg By Robert Verkaik and Jason Bennetto Published: 21 October 2005 The Attorney General was accused of bowing to political pressure last night after it emerged that no police officer will be prosecuted for shooting dead a man armed with a wooden table leg. The killing of Harry Stanley, a painter and decorator from east London, raises concern about whether the criminal justice system is capable of holding police officers to account for shooting dead members of the public. In the past 12 years no police officer has been successfully prosecuted for any of the 30 fatalities caused by police marksmen. Concern over police officers' accountability for their use of firearms has been heightened by the controversy surrounding the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Underground station in London on 22 July. The Brazilian was shot dead after marksmen wrongly suspected he was a suicide bomber. Last night, human rights campaigners accused the Crown Prosecution Service of giving the police immunity in gun death cases, while Mr Stanley's widow said she was "devastated" at the outcome of the inquiry. The Justice for Harry Stanley campaign said: "The CPS and the Attorney General have illustrated very clearly that the police not only have the right to shoot to kill, but they will be afforded total immunity from prosecution. This is clearly the most serious attack not just on the Stanley family but a warning to all the other families whose loved ones are shot dead, while going about their everyday business." Lawyers for the family and the group Inquest said they suspected the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, may have influenced the decision not to bring charges against any officers. Daniel Machover, who represents Mr Stanley's widow, Irene, said he had " genuine concern that Lord Goldsmith's input may have influenced or determined the final decision". He added: "What we know is that there was dialogue between the DPP and the Attorney General and a lot of to-ing and fro-ing before the family and police were told of the decision." Deborah Coles, a co-director of Inquest, said: "You must ask whether or not there is a political policy at play in these cases and whether there was a political context in which this particular decision was made." Last night, the Attorney General denied there was any political interference in the decision. A spokesperson for the Attorney General said: "The decision not to prosecute was taken by an experienced Crown Prosecution Service lawyer on the advice of leading counsel and was reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Attorney General was consulted and agreed with the CPS decision. It is absolutely wrong and misleading to suggest that there was any political influence. It is standard practice for the DPP to consult the Attorney in high-profile or complex cases." The death of Mr Stanley, 46, from Hackney, east London, has become one of the most controversial police shootings of modern times. The unarmed father-of-three was shot in the head and hand on a London street in September 1999 while walking home after a table leg he had in a bag was mistaken for a gun. Chief Inspector Neil Sharman, 42, and PC Kevin Fagan, 38, firearms officers with the Metropolitan Police, were arrested in June this year on suspicion of murder, gross negligence, manslaughter and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and bailed in connection with the case. The arrests followed new forensic evidence that contradicted the officers' accounts of the shooting and indicated that Mr Stanley was shot while facing away from the marksmen. The two officers told an inquest in 2004 that Mr Stanley had turned around "in a slow, deliberate, fluid motion" and pointed his wrapped-up table leg at PC Fagan, adopting a classic firing posture. This prompted Ch Insp Sharman to open fire, hitting Mr Stanley in the head. A forensic scientist found that Mr Stanley had been shot in the rear side of his head - which indicated that he was not facing the officers at the point of impact. A bullet hole had also gone through the back of Mr Stanley's jacket, through the shoulder, suggesting he had his back turned on the officers. Mr Stanley was shot dead after someone telephoned the police and told them they had seen an Irishman with a sawn-off shotgun in a bag. Mr Stanley, who was originally from Lanarkshire, Scotland, was carrying a blue plastic bag with a coffee-table leg inside, which had been repaired by his brother. The inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing, which was overturned in the High Court. The CPS, however, decided yesterday that there was " insufficient evidence" to bring any charges against the officers. Two specialists, one hired by the Police Federation, the other by Surrey Police, the investigating force, said the forensic evidence did not prove that the officers were lying. In a statement issued yesterday the CPS said there was not enough evidence to rebut the officers' accounts that they were acting in self-defence. The CPS did, however, say it was "arguable that the officers' haste and lack of planning led them to breach their duty of care to Mr Stanley and cause his death". After yesterday's decision not to bring charges, the dead man's widow promised to "keep fighting" for justice for her husband. Irene Stanley, who is consulting lawyers about a possible challenge to the CPS decision in the High Court and the European Court of Human Rights, said: " What happened today was an injustice. I am devastated by it, though I half expected it. I am going to keep fighting but can't say more until I receive legal advice. I am also disgusted that I first heard of the CPS decision at 7.30am because of a leak to a tabloid newspaper." Ms Coles said public confidence in the criminal justice system would be severely undermined. She said it now appeared that British justice " puts police officers above the law". She added: "At a time when there is a massive increase of the number of armed police on our streets, it is imperative that the public have confidence in their ability to act professionally and safely." The 30 victims JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES, 27 Shot dead by police on 22 July 2005 after being mistaken for a suicide bomber. PROSECUTIONS: Officers suspended until the investigation result is published. PHILIP PROUT, 53 Shot by a police marksman after a baton gun failed to fire, in Cornwall in May 2004. PROSECUTIONS: The CPS decided there was insufficient evidence to charge the officers. DEREK BENNETT, 29 In July 2001, police shot him four times in the back in Brixton, south London. He had been holding a gun-shaped cigarette lighter to a man's head. PROSECUTIONS: CPS found insufficient evidence to prosecute. JAMES ASHLEY, 39 Shot during a police drugs raid on his house in Sussex in 1998. Ashley was unarmed, naked and with his girlfriend. PROSECUTIONS: Officer who fired the shot found not guilty of murder or manslaughter. CRAIG KING, 32 Bouncer from Greater Manchester was shot by police on 11 September this year. PROSECUTIONS: No officers have been charged. JOHN SCOTT, 42 Killed in Northumberland in July after he fired a gun as police broke up a disturbance. PROSECUTIONS: None AZELLE RODNEY, 24 Shot in Edgware in April after bullets were fired into car of suspected drug dealers. PROSECUTIONS: None SIMON MURDEN, 26 Killed in Hull in March after brandishing a sword. PROSECUTIONS: None KEITH LARKINS, 33 Former mental patient shot in June at Heathrow after brandishing a blank pistol at police. PROSECUTIONS: None DAVID EWIN, 38 Former robber killed in London in March 1995 in a stolen car. PROSECUTIONS: Officer tried and cleared of murder. NICHOLAS PALMER, 23 Shot by police in south London in 2004. Failed to answer bail after arrest on arms offences. PROSECUTIONS: None COLIN O'CONNOR, 39 Thief shot in 2003 in Bedfordshire after being caught with a pistol in a stolen Jaguar. PROSECUTION: None FOSTA THOMPSON, 20 Jamaican shot in Bristol after defying police in 2002. PROSECUTION: None JASON GIFFORD, 27 Shot in 2002 in Aylesbury after he confronted officers with a sword and shotgun PROSECUTION: None MICHAEL MALSBURY, 62 shot in 2001 running out of his house in Harrow firing at police. PROSECUTION: None STEVEN DICKSON, 30 Shot in 2001 waving a home-made shotgun in Derbyshire. PROSECUTION: None ANDREW KERNAN, 37 Schizophrenic with sword shot in Liverpool in 2001. PROSECUTION: None PATRICK O'DONNELL, 19 Killed in 2000 after taking his mother and girlfriend hostage in north London. PROSECUTION: None KIRK DAVIES, 30 Former soldier was shot in West Yorkshire in September 2000 after he threatened an officer with an air rifle. PROSECUTION: None HARRY STANLEY, 46 Shot by police in 1999. PROSECUTION: None DEREK BATEMAN, 47 Shot in Surrey in 1999 after girlfriend told officers he was armed and was threatening to shoot her, or himself. PROSECUTION: None ANTONY KITTS, 20 Shot in Falmouth in 1999, threatening police with an air rifle thought to be a shotgun. PROSECUTIONS: None MICHAEL FITZGERALD, 32 Shot in Bedford in 1998 aiming a replica Colt 45 at police. PROSECUTIONS: None DAVID HOWELL, 41 Psychiatric patient shot in 1996 at a Co-op supermarket. PROSECUTIONS: None DIARMUID O'NEILL, 27 Unarmed IRA suspect shot in raid in west London. PROSECUTIONS: None JAMES BRADY, 21 Shot in 1995 in police ambush at village near Newcastle. PROSECUTIONS: None ROBERT DIXON, 45 Wild West fan fired at police, but gun may have been replica. PROSECUTIONS: None DAVID STONE, 35 Killed in 1993, carrying pistol in north London. PROSECUTIONS: None IAN HAY, 39 Mentally ill farmer shot in Devon in 1993 after police tried to investigate gunshot reports. PROSECUTIONS: None DAVID LUCKHURST, 46 Publican in Hertfordshire shot in 1993 after he fired rifle at officers in siege at home. PROSECUTIONS: None <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article321142.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...321142.ece</a>

by **Byrne** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:02 pm

Pathologist could be struck off medical register. The Home Office pathologist (Dr Kenneth Shorrock) is accused of changing his conclusions in the post-mortem examination of Gladys Allen, who bled to death at Dewsbury and District Hospital, West Yorkshire, in January 2000. See <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/4214870.stm" target="top">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/4214870.stm</a> & <a href="http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1303&id=1895482005" target="top">news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1303&id=1895482005</a> It seems strange that a pathologist who is/was under investigation himself by the General Medical Council in respect of claims that his (Dr Shorrock's) actions were unprofessional, unreasonable and likely to bring the medical profession into disrepute, was chosen to conduct the post-mortem examination of Jean Charles de Menezes who was shot dead at Stockwell Underground Station by police/special forces on july 2nd 2005. The news article revealing the pending GMC enquiries was dated 5th September 2005. Maybe he was 'fingered' round about July 22nd - Probably a case of you say what we want you to say else we'll have you for that monkey business regarding the death of Gladys Allen & your career's up the creek.

by **michael meiring** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:14 pm

Byrne. have you ever seemed to notice how a home office/government pathologist seems to get wheeled in for 'a home result' verdict? It happened in the kelly case, all other evidence pointing against a suicide seemed to be brushed aside and ignored? The same in the public pieterson 'death on the staircase' circus, the usa's equivalent government pathologist wheeled in for the 'home run' verdict. It was embarrasing watching that crooks testimony. Still, freedom and democracy eh. I especially liked the way the brazillian 'police/investigators' were rushed to london to congragulate their british counterparts on the lies and deceptions spun, and to somehow convey legitamacy in the cold blooded murder of one of their own innocent citizens hunted down and murdered like a fox cub. Still we can all sleep easy in the knowledge its our hard earned taxes which fund these killing fields, or platforms in this case.

by **Peachtree Pam** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:43 am

<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1861022,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...22,00.html</a> Order to kill was ‘never given’ By Stewart Tendler Police chief denies using vital code word before London bomb suspect was shot THE police chief who headed the bungled operation that led to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes says that she never issued the special code word to kill him. Senhor de Menezes, a Brazilian electrician, died as eight shots were pumped into him in a Northern Line carriage at Stockwell Underground station in South London on July 22 after unfounded suspicions that he was a suicide bomber. He died under rules set out in Operation Kratos, the national strategy for dealing with suspected suicide bombers. Police commanders can authorise marksmen to stop a suspect they believe is a would-be bomber by shooting him or her in the head. The Kratos rules require the police commander to issue a code word to the police teams telling them that they should take the ultimate sanction. Scotland Yard sources say that Commander Cressida Dick, 44, the Oxford graduate who was “gold command” of the operation, maintains that she never gave the seven-letter word. Ms Dick has told colleagues she did tell the officers following Senhor de Menezes that they must “stop him getting on the Tube at all costs”, but nothing more. Police have admitted that there were difficulties keeping in contact with the police teams once they went underground at the station and the two marksmen from the CO19 unit believe that they were authorised to kill Senhor de Menezes. Investigators from the Independent Police Complaints Commission have been unable to use the radio transmissions to the marksmen to discover exactly what was said because they were not recorded, unlike 999 calls, which are kept. But the IPCC team should have police logs of the operation that will record all decisions that were taken. They are also investigating the briefings before the operation and the failures in intelligence that put an innocent man in jeopardy. It is not clear if there is one code word used for all Kratos operations or whether it changes each time. The IPCC will also want to know the basis of the briefings, who gave them, what was said about authorisation and when. Senior Yard officers are already forecasting that the IPCC inquiry will reveal serious organisational and communications failures, which may raise new questions about the overall responsibility of Sir Ian Blair, the Commissoner of the Metropolitan Police. Ten officers including Ms Dick have been served with police regulation warnings that they may face disciplinary action. They include the CO19 officers and Special Branch officers involved in the operation. The IPCC has also identified a group of “significant” witnesses who are being questioned. These are likely to include up to a dozen other officers, including the chain of command between Scotland Yard and the operation in South London. Leaked witness statements from officers who took part in the operation have disclosed that Senhor de Menezes was restrained before being shot. Documents and photographs from the IPCC investigation also showed that one of the undercover team meant to be identifying the shot man was relieving himself as Senhor de Menezes left his flat and could not tell whether the police had traced one of the alleged bombers.

by **antiaristo** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:39 pm

Getting away with murder

The IPCC criticises one senior officer for withholding information. But that hardly settles the issue of the unlawful killing of Jean Charles de Menezes.

August 1, 2007 8:00 PM | Printable version

The IPCC's final report, released today, into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes confirms that all police officers involved are to be cleared. The chief anti-terrorist officer, Andy Hayman, is "heavily criticised" for not telling his boss what really happened on July 22 2005. Sir Ian Blair, also cleared, apparently didn't know the true story until the next day, despite the pair having a briefing just hours after the shooting. This contradicts Sir Ian's denials that he was kept in the dark when he spoke on the Today programme in December 2005. But then this whole saga is riddled with contradictions, as the police have shamefully attempted to cover up what really happened and clear themselves of any blame.

We were misled to believe that De Menezes was wearing a bulky jacket containing explosives and that he leapt over the ticket barriers at Stockwell tube station, and ran down the escalators ignoring police calls to stop. In reality he couldn't have behaved more normally, even pausing to pick up a paper, before using his ticket to pass through the barriers.

Sir Ian said on the day: "As I understand the situation, the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions" and a Scotland Yard statement added: "His clothing and his behaviour at the station added to their suspicions." Of course, it turned out Sir Ian's understanding was a complete and utter misunderstanding, and that the police's suspicions were just wrong. Attempts to exonerate themselves by pointing to the "unprecedented challenges" they faced with four suicide bombers on the loose, were not good enough.

For the uncovering of what really happened we have to thank Lana Vandenberghe, who paid the price for revealing the truth, as her leak formed the basis of an ITV News investigation into the shooting of De Menezes.

She lost her job at the IPCC, was evicted by her landlady, arrested and treated harshly by the police. The harassment caused by the whole episode turned her into a recluse. She wasn't the only one. ITV News producer Neil Garrett and his girlfriend - the link between Vandenberghe and Garrett - were arrested.
They both spent hours in a cell and were bailed on a few occasions. While inside, Garrett's pregnant girlfriend was deprived of food and drink, and given a blanket full of lice. Unknown to him at the time, Garrett's flat was raided and turned upside down. But thanks to these individuals, and despite the police's attempts at obfuscation, the public now know that De Menezes looked anything but a terrorist, and was just an innocent man like anyone of us, caught up in the irresponsible actions of the police.

The 11 other police officers involved were cleared in May this year. In this final report, three officers have ensured the IPCC have re-edited it, removing criticisms made against them, after complaints about the IPCC "breaching procedural rules". Officers involved also edited the official log, but the CPS is not going to press charges. A police source said: "There is a sense that the IPCC, having failed to recommend any action against any of the officers involved in the shooting, itself needed a scapegoat."

Try telling this to the mother and father of Jean Charles de Menezes. The suggestion there was no scapegoat for July 22 is yet another example of the police shirking responsibility in this case. Try telling them that criticisms of three officers had to be withdrawn because the IPCC hadn't correctly followed its guidelines. What guidelines did the police follow on that July 22 morning and in its aftermath? What guidelines did they follow when dealing with Vandenberghe, Garrett, and his girlfriend?

This miscarriage of justice will blow over soon, once the dust quickly settles on this final report. The shrine to De Menezes at Stockwell tube station must remain, so people will never forget how an innocent man was killed, and that those responsible are continuing to police the streets of London.

[Note from CifEditor: this piece, first published last night, at 20:00 on August 1, was slightly updated following today's release of the (heavily trailed) IPCC report.]

What's of real value are the comments. There are about 170 at the moment. You can get a sense for how most people now view "their" police.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dav ... der_1.html

(embedded links in original)

De Menezes execution

Re: Met chief may resign

Re: An interesting parallel

What Chance Justice?

Just came across this....

have u noticed how a..

Order to kill was never given

Who is online