De Menezes murderers escape justice

By now, even the most naive believer in the basic honesty of the British justice system must be vaguely discomforted by the news that yet again, the murderers of Jean Charles de Menezes will not be prosecuted despite an inquest jury returning an open verdict:

The family of Jean Charles de Menezes is to continue their legal battle by suing the Metropolitan police for damages for killing the Brazilian electrician, the Guardian has learned.

Yesterday the family were told that the two police marksmen who shot dead the innocent Brazilian after mistaking him for a terrorist will not face prosecution, despite a jury disbelieving key parts of their account of the killing.

In December a jury at the inquest into the killing returned an open verdict after hearing damning evidence of police blunders that led to the shooting.

He was killed on 22 July 2005 in a tube carriage by officers hunting for suicide bombers who had attacked London’s transport network the
previous day.

The inquest was never supposed to return an open verdict of course, with the coroner carefully attempting to guide the jury to the prefered conclusion, so it’s no wonder it’s now ignored by the crown prosecution service. The de Menezes killing is an embarassement, to be swept under the carpet as soon as possible and damn these ungrateful Brazilians for bringing it up again and again.

Once again, justice for Jean is denied

Jean Charles de Menezes, murdered by police now more than three years ago is once again denied justice, as the coroner in the inquest to his death ruled out a verdict of unlawful killing:

Menezes lying in the carriage after his murder

The family of Jean Charles de Menezes walked out of his inquest yesterday as the coroner ruled the jury was forbidden from considering whether he was unlawfully killed.

Sir Michael Wright said he did not believe the testimony justified him allowing them to return a verdict which was tantamount to accusing police officers of murder or manslaughter.

As the De Menezes family and their supporters walked out the coroner said he knew the jury’s hearts would go out to the dead man’s mother, Maria Otone de Menezes. “But these are emotional reactions, ladies and gentlemen, and you are charged with returning a verdict based on evidence,” he said.

And so the establishment once again take care of its own. Can’t embarass the police, especially after they have been so obliging to the government recently. No wonder Craig Murray is furious, especially about this shitty bit of reasoning from “sir” Michael wright:

But he urged caution on judging anything they viewed as lying too harshly. “You must decide whether the person has lied or made an honest mistake. If you can prove that the witness has lied you should bear … in mind people tell lies for a variety of reasons, not necessarily to put their own part.

“Do please excuse the police for not just murdering Jean, but lying about it and covering up their murder almost from the moment his body hit the floor”. Disgusting, but it fits in with how this case has been treated from the start. This has never been about getting justice for Jean, but about exculpating the police for his murder. It’s an old, old pattern in British policing, which has a shameful record of wrongful killings and people dying in its custody and getting away with it. It’s the other side of the same coin that saw antiterrorist police arrest Damien Green MP. Three years ago the government allowed the police their ritual murder to relieve their frustration, last week we saw the police returning the favour through a nicely staged bit of political intimidation.

Both cases sent a message to the British public. In the de Menezes case it’s “we can and will murder you with impunity if we feel like”, in Green’s case it’s “it doesn’t matter how powerful you are, step out of line and we’ll squash you”. With Green, he himself may “only” suffer a humiliating and frightening arrest and questioning, but to everbody with less clout than him this message comes through loud and clear.

Together these two cases are the clearest indication of police state Britain, but they’re just the tip of the iceberg. As Jamie said, talking about the Green case:

People have a crude idea that a police state involves a leader ordering the cops to arrest his enemies. It’s mainly an environment where the police have expanded powers over the general administration of the state which they can exercise with a large degree of autonomy. Their turf gets bigger, and is defended and expanded more aggressively.

Which is exactly what has happened under New Labour. From the very beginning they’ve used the police and the justice system as a political tool, unleashing a torrent of ill-thought out, unworkable policies to curry favour with the tabloids, an equally large torrent of dodgy statistics and press releases to show the succes of these policies, all topped with the occasional potemkin showpiece of serious policing. After September 11 these tendencies only worsened. Remember the tanks at Heathrow the day before Parliament had to vote on the War on Iraq? Long before the British establishment finally noticed last week therefore the police had been politicised and the murder of Jean charles de Menezes as well as the arrest of Damien Green are a logical outcome of this. New Labour flacks may not even been lying when they insist Green’s arrest was the police’s own idea, but the responsibility is still theirs.

Another de Menezes tragedy could happen again

Cressida Dick. Picture by Paul Grover

Because I haven’t been fired or prosecuted yet, says Cressida Dick (not really):

Facing cross-examination about the shooting for the first time, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick admitted: “I am afraid that I do believe that this or something like this could happen again”.

She added: “The nature of these operations is that they are immediately high risk to all concerned and that is because of the nature of the threat we face from suicide terrorists.

“Our job is to reduce the risk to everybody as best as possible. But I do fear that, in the future, a bomber might not be prevented from setting off a bomb. And equally, I pray it doesn’t happen, but it is possible an innocent member of the public might die like this.”

No responsibility taken by Dick than, who was the person in charge when de Menezes was murdered, but instead the Met’s standard Barbie defense “policing is hard”. No recognition either of the simple fact that these police tactics have not prevented any of the London suicide bombings but do have a hundred percent track record of killing innocent bystanders. Even on its own terms the police tactics did not work, yet the Met still insists they were the right tactics for the circumstances.

What’s more, the first response by the Metropolitian Police when their momentous error became know was to smear de Menezes, even though it was clear immediately after his murder he was not a suicide bomber. Who smeared de Menezes? And why did Dick not protest against this? Are we supposed to just accept the idea that the London police every now and again will murder one of us just because they think it’s necessary?

In olden days, senior commanders who screwed up like Dick or her superior, Ian Blair, did would be given a bottle of whisky and a loaded pistol. Instead one denies all wrongdoing, was even promoted afterwards, while the other was finally forced to resign by Boris Johnson, of all people.

No justice for Jean (did you expect anything else?)

Oh look, it’s another pointless inquest to establish what we already know, that Jean Charles de Menezes was murdered, that his killers got away with it and of course, that this inquest is “not a forum to determine
culpability or compensation, still less to dispense punishment”. It’s not as if anybody important was killed and we can’t have the police be afraid to murder innocent people if they really really believe they’re terrorists…

The inquest will hear from 75 witnesses, including 48 serving police officers who have been granted anonymity, and Tube passengers.

The first police officer will appear later in the week.

Among those who will be speaking for the first time will be policemen codenamed C2 and C12, the two specialist firearms officers who shot Mr de Menezes dead.

Far be it for me to say that this is the perfect opportunity for some spontaneous vigilante justice, but what the hey.

Still no justice for Jean

It’s been three years since Jean Charles de Menezes was brutally murdered by the Metropolitian Police and still nobody has been punished for it. Commissioner “sir” Ian Blair is still in power, Cressida Dick, the officer in charge of the operation that murdered de Menezes was actually promoted and we still don’t know the names of the police agents that actually shot him. Sure, the Metropolitian Police as a whole was found guilty of his murder last year and had to pay some insultingly low fine for it, but as I noted then we still didn’t know the exact details of what lead to Jean’s murder. One year on, and a new report says we still don’t know:

It finds officers involved are yet to be fully debriefed about the events and says legal constraints, due to the inquest to be held in September, may be partly to blame. But it lambasts senior officers it interviewed for accepting the lack of a full explanation from those under their command.

“We were presented with a paradox during our evidence sessions: on the one hand a recognition that undertaking a comprehensive debrief is important and that lessons need to be learnt, and on the other hand a complacent acceptance that, in this case, it has not happened and is unlikely to in the future.

“The scrutiny panel also wishes to emphasise that it is our perception that the MPS has a cultural predisposition to adopt an overly defensive stance when asked to explain how it is responding to criticism and challenge. It is our view that the MPS needs to counter this tendency energetically.”

After the shooting, firearms officers wrote their accounts together, and presented their notes 36 hours after the shooting. The IPCC contrasted this with civilian witnesses who gave their accounts straight away and without consulting other witnesses. The MPA says officers did nothing wrong, but: “The practice of conferring … is open to misinterpretation.”

Thirtysix hours to get their statements straight? That’s not open to misinterpretation, that’s the police protecting its own. It will be interesting to see how that tendency plays out now Ian Blair has been accused of something even the dullest law ‘n order, trust-the-police freak will admit is a crime. It’s telling of the priorities of British politics if “improper financial dealings” were what finally got Blair sacked instead of the murder of an innocent man.