Oh, for fuck's sake....

[pecunium]

The coroner's jury in the death of Jean de Menenzes is forbidden from considering a verdict of, "unlawful killing."

It's a fine distinction, to be sure... after all the cops were following orders, so the killing must have been lawful, right?

It's actually worse than that. If I understand the article the judge has decided, for the jury, that they coulnd't be sure a cop had commited a crime,"All interested persons agree that a verdict of unlawful killing could only be left to you if you could be sure that a specific officer had committed a very serious crime - murder or manslaughter."

I am sure some interested persons are of just such an opinion. SOme of them might even be sitting on that jury.

Just in case that little bit of directed whitewash wasn't enough, Sir Michael also warned jurors that they must not attach any criminal or civil fault to any individuals.

Maybe it's a quirk of the system, after all the people who pulled the trigger are known, but not by name... that's been kept secret, they are merely C2, and C12. So the person who shot him isn't really known, and so can't be named. Or something.

Jurors were also asked to consider which of a number of factors contributed to the Brazilian's death.

Among those were:

* The pressure on police after the 7 July London bombings
* A failure by police to ensure that Mr de Menezes was stopped before he reached the Underground
* The innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes increasing suspicion
* Shortcomings in the communications system between various police teams involved in the operation


Well... no shit. All of those things contributed, but more to the point what contributed was the cops seem to have done damn all to actually treat de Menezes as if he were the sort of threat they said he was after the shooting. From the testimonies at the trial of the guy in charge (if it can be said anyone was really in charge of the thing), it seems to me that the call was made, as soon as he came out, to kill him. At none of the points in which they could have done something intelligent; like, you know, arrested him before he got on the tube, did they do anything but watch him head to places where the risk increased.

But the verdict said he bore no personal culpability, and this judge, Sir Micheal Wright, has decided that means no criminal, nor civil, blame can attach to anyone.

Here's hoping they leave it, "open".

Comments

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Not always, we don't offer Murder One with special circumstances to every jury considereing a homicide, nor do we allow "justifiable homicide" to those juries weighing a charge of murder.

But in cases like this, where the question isn't one of guilt, but rather offense, yes, I think that sort of limitation is out of order, and converts the jury from a finder of fact to a rubber stamp of cover-up.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

British Coroner's Juries are a bit different from a trial jury, or a US Grand Jury. They used to be able to do some of the things that a Grand Jury can still do, such as bringing in a verdict of murder by a named person, but "unlawful killing" has replaced that.