So after the coroner did not allow a verdict of unlawful killing to be considered, the family walked out, they appealed to the high court, the appeal was turned down, the legal team for the DeMenezes family then withdrew. The family staged a protest at the inquest-
Sir Michael opened proceedings by telling the 11 jurors that the de Menezes family’s legal team, headed by Michael Mansfield QC, would no longer be attending the hearings.
“The first thing you will notice is that Mr Mansfield, Miss [Henrietta] Hill and their instructing solicitors are no longer in their places,” the coroner said. “The evidence and legal submissions are now all over and we have had their assistance throughout these very important stages.
“I understand that from this point they will no longer be here. There is absolutely no difficulty about that. No disrespect is meant by it to anyone.”
At that point the five family members, who were sitting at the back of the court, stood up and removed their coats. They stood silently, revealing white T-shirts with large black lettering, for a few moments as startled court staff watched uncertainly.
The relatives then walked from their seats towards the jury box. Court ushers and security guards hurried forward, intercepted them and ushered the group out of the courtroom through a side door.
The family then issued a statement-
“Today the family both here and in Brazil instructed our lawyers to withdraw from the inquest proceedings. We do this with deep regret and frustration but we feel we have been left with no alternative.
For three and a half years we have had one simple request, that all the evidence be put in front of the jury and for them to be allowed to decide.
We have faced a system which has repeatedly blocked, silenced and stopped all the avenues we have tried in order to get justice. And now we face the situation that after three months, 100 witnesses and a cost of £3 million pounds, the jury is being restricted from considering all the options. We have full confidence in the jury to return a verdict that will deliver justice for Jean. The jury have the legal right to return any verdict they want to and we hope that these 11 ordinary members of the public will do the right thing.
Jean loved living in Britain. One of the reasons he would tell me why liked this country was because it was the home of justice and fairness. We would like to thank the British public for all their support, especially over the last few days.
We do not want any other family to go through what we have gone through. Unless there is justice, the tragic death of Jean could so easily be repeated. Our campaign for justice continues and we hope the jury will do the right thing.”
Now after deliberating for four days the coroner is saying he will accept a majority verdict and has imposed a questionnaire on the jurors, spot the leading questions-
Sir Michael previously took the unconventional step of issuing a “questionnaire” relating to the circumstances surrounding the incident.
After choosing between lawful killing or an open verdict, the jurors must decide:
* Did officer C12 shout the words “armed police” at Mr de Menezes before firing?
* Did Mr de Menezes stand up from his seat before he was grabbed in a bear hug by officer Ivor?
* Did Mr de Menezes move towards C12 before he was grabbed in a bear hug by officer Ivor?
In other words questions that reiterate the police testimony and like the Fox news trick by adding the trusty question mark – Hey I was just asking, little ole innocent butter-wouldn’t-melt me.
I’ll tell ya, If I ever wanted to commit murder I’d want this guy as my friend on the bench, in fact with him in place I’d not even have to waste money on a defence team. But I would guess he does not put out like this for anyone but the big lovely British establishment.
PS. And good to see how honourable the top cop was-
Former Metropolitan police chief Sir Ian Blair was a “cheerleader” for the Labour government who used the cash for honours scandal to secure his position during the de Menezes affair, according Britain’s former top-ranking Asian officer.























9 December, 2008 at 7:31 pm
[...] de Menezes inquest and the various injustices, sell-outs and cover-ups. Instead have at a look at Rick’s blog, he really sums up my feelings about the inquest and the sheer audacity shown by the [...]
9 December, 2008 at 10:53 pm
It will be bril if this jury have the political character and strength to see thro’ the Coroner and stand their ground. As a member of the judiciary he’s not exactly behaving that uncharacteristically – it is the exception to the rule when one behaves other than he is. Yesterday the INDEPENDENT genuinely reported that Scotland Yard to raise funds for itself is to market the NEW SCOTLAND YARD logo commercially. Maybe the marketing will extend to coffins and the kind of weaponry used to blow innocent Menezes to pieces.
10 December, 2008 at 12:12 am
Stalin would be proud of this show trial.
10 December, 2008 at 12:16 am
Hey Ian,
Yes it would be great if they demanded to give a verdict of their choice, as for the judiciary, well like with anything it’s sad to see it live down to its negative stereotype. The plods are getting into branding? Maybe they can have a branded pre printed witness form which exonerates the police of any crime in incidents where they beat or kill people, it’ll save time.
10 December, 2008 at 12:18 am
Whoa, GLH while I was typing. It’s really dispiriting to see the establishment is still so good at at doing this shit.
10 December, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Woohoo…What about these questions?
*Did two firearms officers pump 7 9mm 124 grain hollow point bullets that “immediately incapacitate a suspect” at a range of between 1cm-8cm into the head of an innocent man? Yeah, I know this is an established fact but still it is good to reiterate the point!
* What was the communication like between the firearms and surveillance teams as even ‘Ivor’ (Surveillance) stated that even he was scared for his own safety?
*So the ordinary ‘civilians’ who state they heard no shout of ‘armed police’ are telling porkies?
* Is British justice no justice?
*And have the establishment put the thumb screws on Sir Michael with the warning, ‘you don’t want a Harry Stanley verdict’?
*British police are the best in the world, I don’t believe one of these stories I’ve heard…?
*Does institutionalised racism exist in the cops?
Answers on postcards to Cressida Dick, John MacDowall, Sir Michael Wright…and Jack Straw. And any other top brass and members of the establishment you can think of.
12 December, 2008 at 3:28 am
This is what we get from the so-called “war on terror.” Obama should ban the phrase from use in his administration.
12 December, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Harpy- I think we are all meant to watch ‘The Bill’ and not complain.
GDAEman- Yep the WOT is the greatest gift ever to authoritarians, certainly Obama should drop the whole concept immediately.
12 December, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I can’t help but watch the spin still being applied to this disgrace. C2 and C12 apparently did nothing wrong (other than fail to identify themselves and lie relentlessly). Cressida Dick did nothing wrong (other than have no idea what was going on). The surveillance team did nothing wrong (other than botch one of the easiest identifications in modern history). The Met are still passing this off as acceptable collateral damage and the IPCC are even choosing to be deaf to calls for perjury charges to be brought.
14 December, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Hey cosmodaddy,
Yes and I would say it’s remarkable how receptive most of the media are to the establishment spin, the idea of an organised attempt to commit perjury is not being examined at all.