Jean Charles de Menezes Inquest

Although the Coroner's summing up was scheduled to start on 1st December it has been delayed as further submissions on verdicts are taking place on 1st.

For Justice4Jean supporters who are unfamilar with the inquest system, at an inquest a Coroner has the power to decide what verdicts can be left for a jury to consider. He can leave short form verdicts such as 'unlawful', 'lawful' or 'open' but also has the option of leaving what is known as as a 'narrative verdict' whereby the jury have the option of answering a set of agreed questions or where a jury can return a verdict where in their own words they can comment on the evidence they have heard.

After his summing up, a Coroner will direct the jury over these possible verdicts that he believes they should consider. Though if course as jury's are the 'finders of fact' in an inquest, that is to say they are the ones who have to decide on the evidence, it is ultimately up to them what they choose to return.

After 3 and 1/2 years of cover ups, lies, let down's by the state bodies who have been investigating the death such as the CPS and IPCC, the Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign believes it is essential that the jury are able to fully comment on all the evidence in order to deliver a meaningful result.

We await the Coroner's decision with anticipation.

J4J Campaign

Labels: General Information

Labels: General Information

This morning members of the Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign marked Sir Ian’s Blair’s last day by delivering him a leaving present of a large blown up indictment. The indictment listed six acts Blair has been guilty of during his time in office.

Members of the campaign read the indictment outside New Scotland Yard and unveiled a 3 metre long banner which contained a picture of Jean Charles and the message “Sir Ian Blair – This is your legacy”. The indictment was accepted by officers at New Scotland Yard.

A spokesperson for the Justice4Jean Campaign said,

“We are delivering this indictment as a reminder of Blair’s failings over the Menezes shooting and to ensure that his successor understands that until there is justice for the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, this case will continue to blight the Metropolitan Police Service.

It is particularly pertinent that we delivered this indictment today as next week the jury at the inquest return to begin deliberating their verdict. We hope the jury will be given the opportunity to consider a verdict which is appropriate to the injustice of the killing and that these ordinary members of the public deliver a verdict which will finally allow some justice to prevail over this tragedy”

You can download a copy of the indictment here [PDF, 2Mb]

For further information please contact 07709656251 or 07931337890 or email justice4jean@gmail.com

Labels: Press Release

The Justice4Jean campaign wholeheratedly supports calls for the estimated £4m cost of the inquest into Jean's death to be met by the central government and the Metropolitan Police Authority.

Under Ministry of Justice rules, four local councils - Lewisham, Greenwich, Southwark and Lambeth - will share the costs, which will ultimately be borne by local council tax payers. However, Jean's death has important implications for national policy and practice on policing and anti-terrorism, which has required a lengthy inquest and a venue suitable for the level of national and international interest it has attracted.

The government should make an exception for what is an exceptional situation and reimburse the four local councils for the financial burden they face.

J4J campaign

Labels: Press Release

We would imagine that, in the midst of the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, publications aimed at and widely read by serving police officers would show greater sensitivity in the way they talk about fatal shootings by the police.

But evidently not. The magazine Police Review, in its 14 November edition, decided that the introduction of new rules preventing firearms officers from conferring after a shooting was best illustrated by this appalling cartoon.

Is this how the police view Jean's death too - as little more than the extermination of vermin?

E-mails of complaint to the Police Review Editor, Chris Herbert, at chris.herbert@janes.com

J4J campaign

Labels: Urgent Action

A YouTube presentation by one of our supporters.

Labels: Comments from Supporters

The Menezes family responded with 'dismay' to evidence heard during the final day of evidence at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Evidence given by DI Kevin Southworth, an SO13 anti-terror branch officer, revealed that police had significant intelligence about Hussain Osman prior to the 22nd of July 2005 including a report of suspicions by a member of a local mosque. He also revealed that further photographs of Osman were available - but there were delays in obtaining them because the police were using an office-hours only contact in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).

Alessandro Pereira, cousin of Jean Charles De Menezes, today said:

"If the police had acted on all the intelligence they had about Osman before July 22nd, then it could have prevented the misidentification of Jean and he would never have been shot. This new information adds to our personal devastation and dismay at the police."

Ends

Notes to editors:

1. After today's close of evidence, the jury have been sent out until the 1st of December. The family's legal team will now be making their submission as to the verdict that should be left to the jury.

2. For more information contact Justice4Jean campaign: 07944069956.

Labels: Press Release

From the BBC website

A police firearms chief has said that "very little changed" after the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Chief Supt William Tillbrook told an inquest that training for marksmen at Scotland Yard had remained "broadly the same" since the Brazilian was killed.

But he said police looked at how they could improve every day.

Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot on a train at Stockwell Tube Station, south London, after police mistook him for one of the failed 21 July 2005 bombers.

The inquest has heard officers had thought the electrician was failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman when he was shot at close range on the day after the attempted attacks.

Mr Tillbrook told the hearing at the Oval Cricket Ground, south London: "There were tactics available to my staff which would remain broadly the same.

"I really do not wish it to appear arrogant in any way that we think we have got it absolutely perfect. We all look at what we do every day to see if, in any way, we can improve.

"If I sounded either defensive or arrogant, it really was not meant to and I understand why the family would wish to ensure there would not be a repeat."

The inquest continues.

Labels: Evidence

Evidence at the inquest is likely to finish on Monday 10th November. At inquests there are no closing speeches and so it will be for the Coroner to sum up the evidence for the jury.Before then ,the jury will then be sent out for a few weeks whilst various legal discussions happen between the lawyers for all the interested parties and the Coroner.

The way inquest proceedings work, each of the sets of lawyers will first make written submissions to the coroner about which verdicts they would like left for the jury. Then they will make oral submissions (argue these points in court) and then the coroner will decide which verdicts he will leave. Should any of the interested parties disagree with what the coroner leaves they can challenge any decision through judicial review proceedings.

The inquest will therefore be closed from the 11th November until 20th/21st November when oral submissions will take place. These proceedings will take place in public but reporting restrictions will apply. The jury will not be present.

After the verdicts have been decided, the Coroner will then take some time to prepare his summing up. He has scheduled this to begin on 1^st December. We expect the summing up to take 2 or 3 days.

J4J Campaign

Labels: General Information

From the BBC website

Orders given by a police chief in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes were "ambiguous", former senior officer Brian Paddick has told an inquest.

He was referring to an order by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick to "arrest him [de Menezes], but whatever you do, don't let him get on the Tube".

Mr de Menezes was killed in 2005 after being mistaken for a suicide bomber.

Separately, a pathologist said police had led him to believe the Brazilian had "vaulted" over a Tube barrier.

The Brazilian was shot seven times in the head at close range on 22 July 2005 after being mistaken for failed 21 July suicide bomber Hussain Osman at Stockwell Tube Station.

During the inquest Michael Mansfield QC, representing the de Menezes family, said firearms officers interpreted Ms Dick's command as "he must be stopped before he gets on the Tube".

Ex-deputy assistant commissioner Mr Paddick replied: "I think in the scenario that we had, where you have got a DSO, you have got officers with unusual ammunition, you have got a suspected suicide bomber, that order is ambiguous and it could mean one or two things depending on your frame of mind as to how you interpret it."

Mr Paddick, appearing for the first time in the witness box, also said Ms Dick should only have been concerned with ordering a critical shot at Mr de Menezes.

The inquest has heard how Ms Dick made a series of orders as surveillance officers followed the innocent Brazilian through south London.

Mr Paddick said: "My understanding of the role of the DSO (designated senior officer) is to make decisions around when officers are confronted by a suicide bomber who is suspected of being about to detonate a device."

Dr Kenneth Shorrock, who also gave evidence at the inquest, said he was told the Brazilian jumped over a barrier before "stumbling" down an escalator.

The pathologist said he was given the wrong information during a "walk-through" with officers.

Dr Shorrock carried out post-mortem examinations on Mr de Menezes and in the hours after the shooting he said he was given a "walk-through" with officers at the scene.

When asked why there were "significant errors" in his initial report, he said: "This was what was told to me.

"What happened at that time was that there were a lot of officers present and we were taken through.

"I did not write anything down. I did not make any note of who told me what - but, at the next opportunity that I had, I got my Dictaphone."

Dr Shorrock said he was not sure who told him Mr de Menezes had "vaulted" the barrier in the moments before his death.

He also said he "cannot recall" if other interested parties were at the station during the walk-through.

"The senior investigation officer had input and I spoke to him, but I spoke to a number of people."

He told the jury at the Oval cricket ground, south London, that "it was a long day" but rejected suggestions he was influenced by media reports, insisting he had made the notes before he had seen any news items.

In evidence earlier in the day, Dr Shorrock said Mr de Menezes would not have survived any of four bullet wounds to his brain.

"Pathologists never say never, nor will any doctors, but you can survive a gunshot wound to the head if it goes into a part of the brain which is not desperately important," he said.

"But in this case they went in around the region above and behind the ear and they went through the centre of the brain."

"Not only would death have been instantaneous, but clearly once the first bullet hit his head and went in he would have had no perception of what was going on."

Mr De Menezes also suffered a gunshot wound to his back.

The inquest continues.

See also

Daily Telegraph:
Jean Charles De Menezes inquest: pathologist 'misinformed by police'


The Times:
Menezes police shoot to kill orders were unclear, inquest told

ITN News:

Menezes officers 'misled pathologist'

Labels: Evidence

From The Guardian

The driver of the underground train on which Jean Charles de Menezes was killed believed the police who shot dead the young Brazilian were terrorists, an inquest heard today.

Quincy Akpesiri Oji ran across live tracks into a tunnel to escape from the police, who he believed were "fanatics" shooting at passengers.

"I got to the Stockwell tube station just before 10am," Akpesiri Oji said in a statement read to the inquest into de Menezes's death. "When I got there the light was red. This was unusual.

"I then heard people screaming and I looked at the monitor at the front of the train. I heard gunshots. There were about 15 of them. I think there were about 15 shots.

"I saw one of the men with a large gun shooting and I thought they were fanatics and they were shooting at people on the carriage. I have run into the dark tunnel."

The driver spoke of his fear, saying that the tracks were live and trains were approaching nearby.

He added: "I stood there with my back against the wall for about 20 seconds. Someone flashed a light into the tunnel. I said, 'Please do not shoot - I am the driver.'"

De Menezes was shot seven times in the head shortly after he got onto the train at Stockwell station in south London early on July 22, 2005.

Police killed the 27-year-old, mistakenly believing he was Hussein Osman, one of a group of would-be suicide bombers who had attempted to set off bombs on a number of tube trains and a bus the previous day.

Police involved in the operation have told the inquest – being held at Oval cricket ground, near Stockwell - that they had shouted warnings to de Menezes, identifying themselves. One officer said the Brazilian then stood up and walked towards them, prompting fears he was about to detonate a bomb.

However, a series of passengers travelling on the carriage where de Menezes was shot have contradicted this account, saying they heard no warnings and that de Menezes gave no significant reaction to the policemen's arrival.

One passenger, Anna Dunwoodie, said yesterday that the young electrician appeared calm as a gun was held to his head. She was "very, very clear" officers did not shout any warnings before shooting him dead.

Later, the inquest heard from a scientific expert who said de Menezes had taken cocaine less than 12 hours before his death but added that it was impossible to know whether this might have affected his behaviour.

Explaining the possible effect of trace amounts of cocaine in de Menezes's system, Graham Mould, a drugs expert at Royal Surrey County Hospital, said the Brazilian could have been in a state of "dysphoria", meaning depressed or anxious.

"There may have been an element of agitation as well," he said. "Whether this would lead to unusual behaviour which caused the police to act as they did, I would suggest, is difficult to say."

Another expert, Dr Franco Tomei, explained that tests showed de Menezes was killed as he was pinned down to his seat.

"When the shots were first sustained, Jean Charles was probably pushed over on his left side. His head would have been horizontal," he said, adding that a single bullet would have been enough to incapacitate him in that position.

See also:

Daily Telegraph:
Driver believed police marksmen were 'fanatics' shooting passengers

ITN News:

Labels: Evidence

From the BBC website

A commuter who was sitting near Jean Charles de Menezes on a Tube train has told his inquest that police gave no warning before killing him.

Anna Dunwoodie said she believed officers were "out of control" and gave off a "sense of panic" before shooting.

She claimed that the innocent 27-year-old appeared calm as a gun was held to his head.

Mr de Menezes was killed in 2005 in south London by police who mistook him for a failed 21 July suicide bomber.

Ms Dunwoodie was sitting two or three seats to the left of Mr de Menezes when he boarded the train at Stockwell Tube Station, south London on 22 July 2005.

She told the inquest that, at the time, she thought the firearms officers pursuing Mr de Menezes were members of a gang.

She said she did not hear officers shout any warning at the electrician.

"I would like to say that on whether I heard anything from police officers, I am very, very clear. I had absolutely no idea who they were and had they shouted I would have latched on to that," she said.

She described the scene on the train as one of panic:

"I think it was the man, who I now know to be a surveillance officer, (who) really seemed to be frightened or hyped up and when he was calling the other men they seemed... you know, when people are full of adrenalin and they move quickly and their movements are a bit jerky.

"I felt they were a bit out of control, that's what it felt like."

'Shaken up'

Discussing the moments before Mr Menezes' death, Ms Dunwoodie said he had closed his eyes and looked "almost calm".

"I guess he had a gun pressed to his head and there was not anything he could do about it", she said.

She told the jury at the Oval cricket ground that the police then shouted among themselves before the first shots "came very suddenly".

"My first thoughts were that it was someone firing a stun gun.

"There was a break and it was my memory that there were more shots."

She then explained how she was still "shaken up" when giving interviews to the police afterwards.

She said: "I was really under pressure to look at a memory that was very recent and frightening."

A surveillance officer, using the code name Ivor, had previously told the inquest that Mr de Menezes had stood up and walked towards him as police challenged him.

But Ms Dunwoodie, who had been reading a book on the train, said she did not recall that happening.

She said she felt "most frightened" of Ivor - who had also sat near her on the train.

She said: "He did make me feel very nervous. My attention was drawn to him. He seemed to have stuff in his bag and there seemed to be a metallic noise."

'Something illegal'

She said Ivor then ran toward the door opposite herself and she later heard him shouting "there he is" while pointing at Mr de Menezes.

Ms Dunwoodie added that she thought Ivor - whom it had previously emerged, had also been mistaken by police as their suspect - was her main threat.

After the shooting she told how she thought "something illegal" had happened and said her first impulse was to call the police to let them know.

Two eyewitnesses who sat near the carriage doors where firearms officers opened fire also said they had no recollection of any warnings from armed police.

Robert Preston said he only heard police shouting "get down, get down".

"It was quite a general statement and it could have applied to me," he said.

Mark Whitby, a fellow passenger, added that that was all he heard too.

He said: "There was not one mention of armed police."

Labels: Evidence

The end of the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes is now approaching and we we expect evidence to finish in the next two weeks.

In the week begining the 3rd November we will hear from more civilian witnesses who saw Jean being killed, they will be giving evidence on Monday. This will be followed by forensic experts and the pathologist on Tuesday and then on Wednesday, Brian Paddick, former Deputy Assistant Commissioner at the Metropolitan Police will be giving evidence.

Labels: General Information

Last week was the most charged of the inquest so far with the two firearms officers who killed Jean and the civilian witnesses to the shooting giving evidence for the first time.

As has been widely reported, the two accounts disagreed on a number of key points, most notably whether the police gave Jean a warning before they shot him. The issue over whether a warning was given could be one of the points the jury might consider when deliberating the lawfulness or otherwise of the shooting.

Initially, sitting in court and listening to the firearms officers evidence felt like a welcome relief. The tone initially seemed different from the previous weeks of senior officer after senior officer coming to the Oval and insisting nothing went wrong and that the same thing would happen again. It seemed C12 (the first firearms officer) had a slightly more sensitive approach and that he was aware of what a terrible mistake had been made and what he was responsible for. But it didn’t take long for his evidence and that of C2 (the second firearms officers) to slide into the typical defensive response from police officers involved in a death in custody, failing to have any self awareness and seeking to blame Jean’s death on his own actions. According to them, this seems to pin on Jean’s alleged ‘aggressive’ behaviour of , err, standing up.

As the C12’s evidence went on, the public bit of the court I was sat in descended into a bit of playground. Strangers in the public gallery would start giving each other eye contact with every gasp of disbelief which shortly turned into jest. Despite the gravity of the situation, the 15 odd people in the public court (there were more in the annex) couldn’t help but burst out laughing at some of the claims that were being put forward. Considering the horrific nature of what we were listening to it really was hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

By the time C2 came on the atmosphere changed. His language and tone was so similar to C12’s, sometimes using almost exactly the same phrases and sentences, that the over riding feeling was that of apparent collaboration between the two of them. Indeed, this was was Mike Mansfield put to them, that they got together after the shooting and wrote up their notes together once they knew they had killed an innocent man. Over the years, this has been an ongoing problem in trying to have proper investigations into deaths in custody and only a week earlier the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) agreed to ban such practices.

But later in the week, hearing the civilian witnesses give evidence could not have been more different. As Jean’s mother, Maria Otone, said ‘finally, I have a version of events I can believe in’. The civilian witnesses have given the proceedings a sense of normality. No controlled language, no police or legal jargon, no excuses. Just ordinary people describing what they saw and how they felt. It is hard not to empathise with these poor people who had to witness something so horrific and have had to stay silent for so long. I can only imagine how traumatic it must have been and it must have felt a huge relief to finally be able to say what they saw. Their accounts made Jean seem human and the shooting even more terrible. The way they described Jean Charles looking confused in the seconds before his death, as if he expected someone to tell him what was going on, was incredibly powerful for me. With every tiny detail of the case having been gone over time and time again, it can be easy to forget that in the middle of it all was a man, a real human being, just like these civilian witnesses, just like anyone of us, who probably had no idea what was going on or what was about to happen seconds before he had 7 bullets put in his head by Metropolitan police officers.

Yasmin
J4J Campaign

Labels: Comments from Supporters