Bad news for Brazilian Electricians

BBC News - Tough times ahead for London's police
Asssistant Commissioner Cressida Dick who was I/C of the operation in 2005 when Jean-Charles Menezes was shot a Stockwell Tube Station looks to have been given the job of being in overall charge of the UKs Anti-terrorist operations.A warning to all those of a swarthy complexion,don't run for the Tube as it could be your last journey.



... and now we will have every Mama-San between Rio & Brasilia sending their sons over in anticipation of the mega £Ks compensation.
An innocent unarmed man was killed at point blank range and no-one was to blame......apparently.So that's alright then.

The jury had the police dead to rights BUT........

Jean Charles de Menezes jury condemns police

Officers found wanting in public examination of shooting

Sean O’Neill, Crime and Security Editor

The Scotland Yard anti-terrorist operation that led to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes was subjected to withering condemnation yesterday by an inquest jury.
In one of the most important public examinations of police conduct, the jurors found the testimony of the officers who shot the young Brazilian to be unreliable and concluded that Metropolitan Police commanders failed their frontline colleagues.
Mr de Menezes, 27, an electrician, was shot seven times in the head by specialist firearms officers who mistook him for a suicide bomber about to blow up a London Tube train.
The jury rejected the Met’s contention that his killing was lawful and that he was the unfortunate victim of an unprecedented situation created by the July 2005 terrorist emergency.

Sir Michael Wright, QC, the coroner, had sparked controversy and cries of “whitewash” when he denied the jury the option of returning an unlawful killing verdict. However, the jurors, sitting in the unusual surroundings of the Oval cricket ground, yesterday delivered an open verdict and used their answers to a series of questions set by the coroner to set out their views.
They did not believe the claims of firearms officers that a warning of “armed police” had been shouted or that Mr de Menezes had advanced threateningly towards the policemen.
The jury also cited a catalogue of failures by the Met, ranging from poor communications between the control room and officers on the ground to not supplying officers with pictures of Hussain Osman, the terrorist whom they wanted. Those failings had contributed to the death of an innocent man.
The jurors also dismissed the notion that Mr de Menezes’s behaviour had seemed suspicious and somehow contributed to officers mistakenly deciding that he was a suicide bomber.

etc etc etc


War Hero
Book Reviewer
An innocent unarmed man was killed at point blank range and no-one was to blame......apparently.So that's alright then.
Not quite true. As a result of testimony during the "Stockwell 1" Enquiry into the circumstances surrounding JCDM's death, a concurrent investigation ("Stockwell 2") was conducted into the conduct of senior officers Sir Ian Blair and Andy Hayman, who were alleged to have made inaccurate statements, thus misleading the public and potentially influencing the IPCC investigation.

Following the findings of the enquiries, the CPS were unable to prosecute any individuals due to insufficient evidence. However the Met Police faced two criminal charges under the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, for "failing to provide for the health, safety and welfare of Jean Charles de Menezes". Although the Met Police pleased not guilty, the Service was found guilty of both offences and fined £175k (with £385k legal costs).

Not a great outcome, but having studied this case for a Uni dissertation recently (and having spoken to a few of the officers involved in the incident) I am of the opinion that it was highly unlikely that it would be possible to prove which individual was responsible for the fatal shot. Cressida Dick, as Gold Commander, had insisted that officers were to detain the suspect rather than eliminate him. A few moments before the shooting, when the firearms team entered the station, Cressida Dick transferred operational control to the armed officers (in accordance with SOPs). As a result of the enquiries, although MPS were heavily criticised for their handling of the case, Cressida Dick was absolved of any "culpable responsibility".

Her recent appointment to replace Yates is appropriate and not controversial, despite what some people outside of the Police may think.
She's probably one of the few at the Met who ain't tainted with contact with NewsCorp.
London Cops on the take whoda thunk it? Still the holiday homes on the Algarve/Cota del Sol do cost a packet eh?
So SPB, you are saying that the woman who said 'the police did no wrong' with regards to the de Menzies shooting has a suitable mindset to run a very important police department. This woman was also involved in the ill advised arrest of MP Damien Green, and in charge of the investigation into MPs expenses scandal, and we all saw how many convictions they let slip through their fingers on that one. Sorry very far from convinced she is the best person for the job.


War Hero
Book Reviewer
I can't see what all the fuss was don't pay the fare you face the consequences.
Hmm, another myth. Do some research on the case before making a pointless comment like that. JCDM used his Oyster card to travel that day. The person who witnesses said jumped the barrier was one of the U/C officers following him.
Hmm, another myth. Do some research on the case before making a pointless comment like that. JCDM used his Oyster card to travel that day. The person who witnesses said jumped the barrier was one of the U/C officers following him.
I believe FG made that post in jest Sarge, hence the smiley.


We have grown accustomed in this country for those in charge not accepting responsibly for disastrous events that happen under their command, so there is nothing new here.
Sgt P, it would have been, and probably still is, quite easy to prove who fired the shots, fatal or not. I'm sure the bullets were retrieved, so just subject them to ballistics testing. All weapons fired leave an individual mark on the bullets fired from it. So do the test, that will tell you which weapon fired the fatal shots and weapon issue records should tell who signed for that weapon. No two weapons leave the same

As an aside I heard a quip on the radio this morning that I think is quite apt. "The Metropolitan Police, the best that money can buy"!!


War Hero
Book Reviewer
Onions: Thanks for the forensic ballistics lesson, the theory of which I am more than familiar with... :roll:

From a legal perspective, CPS were unable to prove which round struck JCDM first, second, third, etc. Hence the inability to prove individual culpable responsibility for his death (especially as firearms officers were acting under lawful authority of a superior) and the subsequent recommendation to charge the Met Police Service as a whole for coporate negligence (see previous post).

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts