最新ニュース | フォーラム | イギリスのニュース | 米国のニュース | 全体的なニュース | 政治ニュース | Sci技術のニュース | 戦争及びテロリズムのニュース | スポーツのニュース | マルチメディア | ホームページを置きなさい

新しい! RINFの本屋 | RINF DVDの店

翻訳しなさい:

火曜日、2009年2月17日

あなた自身の現実を作成しなさいか。 潜在意識の秘密は露出した 決して再度にあってはいけない! 知るために仮定されない何を

によって ポールの結束

警官がジーンチャールズde Menezesの殺害のための試験に直面しないこと王冠の実行サービス(CPS)は金曜日を発表した。 CPSはでき事の警察の記述を拒絶した陪審の陪審が12月に与えた存疑評決に続く場合を見直した。 De Menezes's家族は損傷のためのロンドン警視庁を訴えることを発表した。

ジーンチャールズde Menezes、若いブラジルの電気技師は2005年7月22日、56人を殺したロンドンの7月7日の爆撃の後の2週に、完全に撃たれた。 彼は7月壊れる21日の爆撃機の1つと誤解され、彼の平たい箱から反恐怖の役人によって引きずられた。 それらはロンドンの地下の列車、ピンで止められたジーンチャールズにそれから破烈し、7回直接弾道距離で彼を頭部の撃った。

殺害の即時の航跡にde Menezesが行動が疑っている知られていた恐怖の容疑者だったことを提案する媒体のレポートの洪水があった。 彼がStockwellの場所で警察によって挑戦されたとき彼爆弾を隠すかもしれない列車に切符の障壁そして操業を跳躍させた扱いにくいジャケットを身に着けていたことが報告され。

でき事のこの版は完全に偽であるために明らかにされた。 実際は考えた人ように警察にないはっきり彼識別された均一があった次、Hussain Osmanだったことを。 彼は扱いにくい衣類を身に着けていなくて、捕獲を避けるStockwellの場所で切符の障壁または別の方法で飛躍しなかった。 彼は、むしろ、自由な新聞を取り、プラットホームに列車の座席を取る前に歩いた。 目撃者は殺害ことを彼が維持され、前の警察によって挑戦されなかったし、または警告されなかったと言った。

場合の細部を隠し、誰も責任がある保持されなかったことを保障する急速な移動があった。 独立した警察の不平の任務による調査は何も確立しなかった。 One year after the killing, the CPS ruled out prosecuting any of the officers involved on the grounds that there was “insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.” Instead they brought charges against the Metropolitan Police under the Health and Safety at Work Act for failing to provide for de Menezes’s “health, safety and welfare.”

This prosecution explicitly ruled out consideration of the legality of the killing and heard no evidence from officers or witnesses. It served to prevent a closer examination of “Operation Kratos,” the shoot-to-kill policy adopted previously as part of the “war on terror.”

Kratos gives Scotland Yard authority to deploy armed squads and, if necessary, to deliver a “critical head shot” to suspected bombers. As emerged during last year’s inquest, police were prepared to take the “critical shot” without the immediate authority of a senior officer “because of the structures that were in place.” In other words, that authority was already laid down at a higher level.

Although the police appealed against the Health and Safety prosecution, it was little more than a slap on the wrist, as any resultant fines would be borne by the taxpayer. The police were fined £175,000 in 2007, and the CPS resisted calls from the family for a full investigation.

Last year’s three-month inquest was held under pressure from de Menezes’s family, but the coroner, Sir Michael Wright, laid down restrictions. It was, he insisted, a fact-finding inquest, which could not return a verdict inconsistent with the Health and Safety prosecution. Blanket anonymity was granted to police officers wherever requested.

Even with these safeguards, the inquest was revealing of the police operation. Eyewitnesses rejected the police version of events on the train, insisting that de Menezes received no warning and that firearms officers did not identify themselves.

Firearms officers admitted that they wrote their statements after conferring among themselves, and after they knew they had shot the wrong person. No CCTV evidence was supposedly available for Stockwell station, nor was any video surveillance evidence available for de Menezes’s flat. No audio recordings of communication between officers were provided, nor were any records of the briefings given to firearms and surveillance officers. Doubts were also cast on the surveillance log, when it was revealed that an officer had removed a line from his notes which contradicted police claims that Menezes posed a threat.

Wright attempted to limit the damage as far as possible. He told jurors that he would not allow a verdict of unlawful killing. He supported the argument of the police legal teams that the evidence would only support a lawful killing or open verdict. He also accepted their demand that the scope of the jury’s narrative be limited to a set of specific questions to which they could answer only yes, no, or cannot decide. The family’s lawyers noted that the questions were framed in a “highly offensive: and prejudicial way. They included the suggestion that de Menezes might have been in some way to blame for his death because “his innocent behaviour…may have aroused officers’ suspicions.”

Wright dismissed the family’s lawyers arguments that there was sufficient evidence to permit consideration of an unlawful killing (murder) verdict in respect of the two policemen who shot de Menezes, and an unlawful killing (gross negligence, manslaughter) verdict in respect of former commander Cressida Dick, presently deputy assistant commissioner, and two other commanders. Wright appealed to the precedent of the Health and Safety trial, which concluded that Dick bore “no personal culpability.”

Lawyer Gareth Peirce pointed out that the family had highlighted “25 serious and catastrophic failures” on Dick’s part alone. Wright rejected requests that the jury be given a “comprehensive” set of questions and allowed to write a “meaningful” narrative in their own words.

When Wright ruled out a verdict of unlawful killing, members of de Menezes’s family instructed their legal team to cease participating in the inquest and to challenge the decision through legal review. The family protested in the courtroom, wearing t-shirts saying, “Your Legal Right To Decide” and “Unlawful Killing Verdict.” A gagging order was placed on the press and family to prevent them from publicising the legal challenge and the protest, while Wright gave “the wholly misleading impression that the family’s legal counsel were in agreement with his decisions.” Wright rejected requests to adjourn the inquest pending pursuit of the judicial review and proceeded with his summing up. He also issued the list of questions to the jury, effectively ensuring that the challenge could not succeed.

The jury’s verdict was still the most damaging outcome to the Metropolitan Police, given these restrictions. By an eight-to-two majority they presented an open verdict, thereby rejecting the police claims that this was a lawful killing. They rejected claims by the officers that de Menezes had been warned, and criticised the police operation. Harriet Wistrich, the family’s lawyer, called for the prosecution of officers for perjury.

Because of this, the CPS was forced reluctantly to review the inquest evidence. Stephen O’Doherty, a reviewing lawyer, acknowledged that the jury had not accepted the accounts from the two officers who killed de Menezes, identified at the inquest as C2 and C12, and that their evidence had been inconsistent.

O’Doherty said that he considered whether C2 and C12 had acted in self-defence, as it had been claimed that de Menezes stood and moved towards the officers when they entered the train. O’Doherty also considered whether they lied to the inquest about what was said and done prior to the shooting. He concluded that “although there were some inconsistencies in what the officers said…there were also inconsistencies in what passengers had said,” and that “in the confusion of what occurred on the day, a jury could not be sure that any officer had deliberately given a false account of events.”

This is a further attempt to exonerate the police, as the inquest had heard that officers had written up statements after discussions. The misleading written statements by police officers are here made equivalent to the recollections of eyewitnesses not heard publicly before. As the jury indicated, they were pretty sure that officers had given false accounts. They rejected C12’s claim that he had shouted “armed police” prior to firing and disputed police claims that de Menezes approached the officers.

Further, O’Doherty said that he had reconsidered the question of culpability of officers in the police management team and that, “There was no fresh evidence which caused me to change my original decision that there was insufficient evidence to do so.”

Jean Charles de Menezes’s cousin, Vivian Figuierdo, told the press, “We condemn the CPS decision and reject the logic of their argument. The inquest put the truth out there for all the public to see, but the authorities want us to forget the truth to stop us getting justice. But we will never forget.”

Have Your Say: Police will not be prosecuted for Jean Charles de Menezes killing
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report here.

RSS TrackBack URL

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Related News

• Menezes killers won’t be prosecuted
• Armed police untouchable
• Watchdog to report on Menezes killing
• Extraordinary scenes end Jean Charles de Menezes inquest
• Police officers cleared in De Menezes case

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 17th, 2009 at 6:47 pm and is filed under Breaking News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Loading ...

ADVERTISEMENTS

SITE MAPS

7/7 Activism News Afghanistan Alternative-Energy Art Barack Obama BBC Big-Brother Bilderberg Biometrics Bush CCTV Censorship CIA Climate-Change Cover-Up Cults Culture Database-State David-Hicks David-Ray-Griffin Debt Democrats Demos Drugs Education Entertainment Environmental News EU False-Flag FBI Fraud Free-Speech Freemasons G8 Global-News Global-News Globalization Guantanamo Health-News History ID-Cards Internet Iran Iraq Israel John McCain Law Marches Media News MI5 MI6 Microsoft Military MoD Money Music NASA Neocons New World Order NSA Oil Pakistan Podcast Police-State Political News Propaganda Reviews RFID RINF Rumsfeld Science Science & Technology News Secrecy Security Slavery Space Sports Spy Spying Stephen-Lendman Technology Terrorism Tony-Blair Torture TV UK-News UN USA- USA-News Video Voting war War & Terrorism News Warfare Web Development News White-House Wolfowitz World_News Yahoo
2003 - 2005 Archives | 2005 - 2007 Archives | 2007 - 2008 Archives | Current Archives | Past Version