Coroner Sir Michael Wright has instructed the jury at the inquest of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, shot by police at Stockwell tube station in 2005, that the only two verdicts they can choose between are ‘lawful killing’ or an open verdict.
He has ruled out ‘unlawful killing’ because that would mean the police officers in question were guilty of either manslaughter (ie murder without intent) or murder.
Which surely they were.
De Menezes was shot seven times in the head, without a prior warning according to witnesses on the train.
How that can be lawful only Sir Michael can know.
The jury should bring in a verdict of unlawful killing and tell establishment stooge Sir Michael where to get off.
We’ve flattered ourselves in the UK for years that we had a pragmatic, sensible and impartial justice system.
Does anyone still believe that?
[Image Attribution: ruSSeLL hiGGs]
4 Comments
thank you, thank you so much!!! This seems to be the only site that actually questions the sanity of this decision, and that also allows user to post comments. This ruling is simply unacceptable, and clearly justice has not been served. What comes out of this farce of an inquest is that the Police are all-powerful, and can shoot down anyone without fear of retribution. I have lost ALL faith and respect in this government, and I hope something tragic (but “lawful”!!) happens to Wright. A very sad day indeed for justice. Poor Jean-Charles, gunned down like a dog, while his killers enjoy the full protection of this police state. Revolution, here I come!
I hope and pray that *someone* on the coroner’s jury has heard of the concept of “jury nullification”.
That is to say, the jury can return any finding they please, including “unlawful killing”, and the coroner can’t do a damn thing about it.
Some hope…
I would also like to say that I appreciate seeing a critical article on this decision. Why there aren’t more critical opinions published on this matter, I don’t understand.
I’ll repeat what I’ve said before on another comment board:
Consider the case of Baby P where inaction of the government indirectly caused the death of an innocent. The public and press have screamed for the heads government officials involved. Then consider the case of Jean Charles de Menezes. Here, direct action of government has caused the death of an innocent. Not only have individuals not been held accountable, we now have folks being instructed to not consider the lawfulness of an instance of manslaughter. That is should be accepted as collateral damage by the government keeping us safe from “the bad guys.”
Still no trace of any comment on the main medias like the Times et al…
A technical glitch maybe? How convenient to some…
This is a parody of justice like we have seen happening only in banana republics until now, what a farce!
Shame on you UK, this is no longer the country I used to love and respect thanks to people like the cynical ‘Sir’ Michael Wright. Don’t you have any ethics or dignity left?
You are an insult to this beacon of civilisation, democracy and fairness that this very country was supposed to incarnate - let alone to the Menezes family who have just seen their child UNLAWFULLY killed for the third time now.
This ‘Sir’ Michael Wright should be dismissed if not tried for high treason, for all the bad he did to this country’s image and morality.
Come on, give us some lessons now about things like the Politkovskaia trial in Russia if you dare…
Recession, and now deception and diffamation.
Rule Britannia…