Jean Charles De Menez had traces of cocaine in his blood.

[detective-boy]

.... all them little words say a fucking huge lot about you......

And the fact that you slag the place off ... and don't actually go (when there are effectively no barriers, at least insofar as the EU is concerned) says a fucking huge lot more about you.

What is stopping you if this place is so fucking shite?

 

[detective-boy]

If "one or other side's lawyers think it is relevant" then I would like to know why.

It may become apparent later. I have already suggested what I read into the bits that have been reported (to provide a jury with a possible explanation for nervous / jumpy behaviour by JCdM which was reported by the surveillance team and which, otherwise, the jury may conclude had been made up).

Unfortunately if the media do not report the trial proceedings in full detail (which they don't) the only way is to go and sit in the public gallery.

But it is a mistake to confuse "I don't know" with "There is no reason".

 

[SpookyFrank]

It is evidence given in open Court durig a criminal trial.

Do you think we should have all criminal trials conducted in camera ...

I don't think information which has no bearing on the case should be made public in an open court. Is there a dealth penalty for doing coke? Well then.

 

[detective-boy]

it seems fairly obvious that the tactic was to imply that his behaviour was irrational, and thus the shooting was justified.

I agree that the questioning was designed to probe whether or not it could explain him being observed as nervous / jumpy, one of the things the surveillance team noted.

But why do you persist is linking his being shot with this (or any other) single observation. It was a whole combination of things which, taken together, led to the armed officers belief that he was an immediate threat.

The Met is effectively accused of running the operation unsafely - it must explain how it came to shoot an innocent person. And in doing so, like any defendant, it must be allowed to investigate any possible relevant fact.

Bearng in mind the toxicologists answer (they weren't sure whether any symptoms would still be observable so long after ingestion of cocaine) I don't think it will be particularly useful evidence. The defence may well be planning to cal another toxicologist who has a different view, we will see. And what the prosecution / defence / judge make of the evidence we will see when closing speeches are made.

 

[detective-boy]

It might be a routine test but not exactly apposite to the case.

It is standard practice at any special post-mortem (one conducted in any case where there are suspicious circumstances) for a full toxicology test to be done - alcohol and the commonly misused drugs are looked for. More unusual substances would only be looked for if there was a reason to suspect their presence (observed symptoms, witness accounts ...).

The main reason is precisely the one you mentioned: was there another alternative, or contributing, cause of death. This is a key issue in all homicide cases as there has to be an unbroken chain of causation between an act done by a defendant and the death of the victim.

In a shooting case it is rarely relevant but, as here, it may be in relation to some other aspect of the evidence.

There is absolutely nothing unusual about the tests being carried out. And, once they have been, the law (Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996) requires the results to be shared with the defence.

 

[TAE]

It may become apparent later.

Ok, you don't know, that's fine. I was asking if anyone does know.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The main reason is precisely the one you mentioned: was there another alternative, or contributing, cause of death. This is a key issue in all homicide cases as there has to be an unbroken chain of causation between an act done by a defendant and the death of the victim.

You've gotta be fucking kidding me, a cause of death other than seven bullets in his brain? I'm no coroner but I think this may be one case where its safe to make certain assumptions.

 

[TAE]

Perhaps he was allergic to lead ?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Perhaps he was allergic to lead ?

Perhaps he "fell down the stairs" and landed on several bullets which were sitting point upwards on the floor

 

[detective-boy]

You've gotta be fucking kidding me, a cause of death other than seven bullets in his brain? I'm no coroner but I think this may be one case where its safe to make certain assumptions.

Congratulations on your selective quoting technique, managing to somehow miss this line, which immediately followed the one you ridiculed ...

In a shooting case it is rarely relevant but, as here, it may be in relation to some other aspect of the evidence.

 

[Sweaty Betty]

And the fact that you slag the place off ... and don't actually go (when there are effectively no barriers, at least insofar as the EU is concerned) says a fucking huge lot more about you.

What is stopping you if this place is so fucking shite?

who the fuck are you to tell me what i can and cannot say about my country,????

Are we under censorship??? Or have i just pricked your nationalistic bubble mate.......

im off when ive done what ive set out to here....ok>???

 

[SpookyFrank]

In a shooting case it is rarely relevant but, as here, it may be in relation to some other aspect of the evidence.

Such as? Who is being investigated here, DeMenezes or the Police?

 

[Urbanblues]

Such as? Who is being investigated here, DeMenezes or the Police?

If the Old Bill tells the lie long enough, it becomes the truth; innit?

 

[Dillinger4]

who the fuck are you to tell me what i can and cannot say about my country,????

Are we under censorship??? Or have i just pricked your nationalistic bubble mate.......

im off when ive done what ive set out to here....ok>???

Don't you get it Haylz?

BRITAIN: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT

I will get back to you when I figure out of there are any more options.

 

[Yossarian]

Usually emotion or speculation. Rarely, if ever, detail.

Yep, so all print journalism is emotion and speculation, spiced up with lurid headlines? You're a fucking idiot.

 

[Dillinger4]

Yep, so all print journalism is emotion and speculation, spiced up with lurid headlines? You're a fucking idiot.

He is ex police though.

 

[Urbanblues]

He is ex police though.

Yeh, but he just couldn't let it go.

 

[detective-boy]

who the fuck are you to tell me what i can and cannot say about my country,????

I'm not "telling you" anything. I'm merely enquiring why you don't just fuck off, seeing as it's apparently so shite. I'm sure it would contribute to a general improvement about the place ...

 

[detective-boy]

Such as?

Er ... such as the aspect of the case the Court have decided it's relevant to. You really do have comprehension difficulties, don't you?

 

[detective-boy]

Yep, so all print journalism is emotion and speculation, spiced up with lurid headlines? You're a fucking idiot.

Where did I say "all". But a very significant amount, perhaps most, is.

Jumping to unjustified conclusions? ... Who's the fucking idiot?

 

[TAE]

Yep, so all print journalism is emotion and speculation, spiced up with lurid headlines? You're a fucking idiot.

Come on, a lot of it is exactly that. Look at the Maddy Madness.

A lot of the rest is simply quoting officials and presenting their claims as fact.

 

[Urbanblues]

Er ... such as the aspect of the case the Court have decided it's relevant to. You really do have comprehension difficulties, don't you?

Ah, but did you leave the Bill, cos you had apprehension difficulties, innit?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Er ... such as the aspect of the case the Court have decided it's relevant to. You really do have comprehension difficulties, don't you?

Give me an example of what that might be. 'Cause I can't think of any way it would have any bearing whatsoever on the behaviour of the police...

...go on, admit that it's a cheap smear.

 

[detective-boy]

Give me an example of what that might be.

1. Read the thread, I already have.
2. Observe how it is being used in Court (the reports have clearly indicated it's potential relevance.

How can evidence called in criminal proceedings (which is only ever allowed if the Judge agrees there is some relevance) be a "cheap smear".

 

[muckypup]

And the fact that you slag the place off ... and don't actually go (when there are effectively no barriers, at least insofar as the EU is concerned) says a fucking huge lot more about you.

What is stopping you if this place is so fucking shite?

Responsibility is why. The responsibility of the individual to foster a healthy climate of doubt and uncertainty.The very stuff, I believe, of justice and democracy.

Responsibility to denounce nonsensical actions, wherever they may occur, but in particular with regards to the sheer power of official institutions as credible voices. Who often have the effect of creating certainty about an issue, and certainty has been the one ingredient which has presided over many human catastrophes in the course of history.

And that is why, my dear detective_boy, Haylz must remain here in the UK and people like you would be suited to countries where discourse in dictated by the State and its institutions.

 

[DexterTCN]

I thought we already were in Europe?

I want to know if the Brazilian guy had traces of drugs. I also want to know about the guys who shot him in the face. Did they get any tests? Have they been the subject of any concern?

Had there been any concern about Jean Charles previously? What was the trail that led to him, as professionals were, supposedly?

I sure as fuck know that I'm concerned at the whole thing. I'm concerned at the witnesses on the day saying he had wires sticking out of him and was running away, which turned out to be lies. And the comments of the Chief himself saying he was definitely a danger. That's the Chief saying it. That concerns me.

I'm concerned that the cctv stuff was taken away by the police and has never been seen again iirc. I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but I'm pretty sure that if they acted properly then the cameras would have recorded that, spare me any protestations.

 

[detective-boy]

Had there been any concern about Jean Charles previously? What was the trail that led to him, as professionals were, supposedly?

None at all, so far as I am aware. And nothing led to JCdM ... it led to a block of flats where Osman was believed to be living. JCdM emerged from that block and looked sufficiently similar for the surveillance team to be unsure as to whether it was Osman or not without stopping them. No-one, no-one at all, knew that it was JCdM as an individual until after the shooting.

I'm concerned that the cctv stuff was taken away by the police and has never been seen again iirc.

That would be the CCTV that is being used in Court then? The CCTV that bits are being released to the media as the trial progresses? ...

 

[Das Uberdog]

Do they need a fucking post mortem?

Hmmm... y'know, this corpse looks suspiciously like someone shot it in the back of the head 8 times, Jim...

As far as I was aware, in situations where the cause of death was almost a cert (and not related to drug abuse) toxicology reports aren't normally needed, huh?

and as for the Police being able to control the media - if you know anything about your job you'll know they have influence.

 

[detective-boy]

As far as I was aware, in situations where the cause of death was almost a cert (and not related to drug abuse) toxicology reports aren't normally needed, huh?

You were aware wrong then.

And you'd make a fucking shit investigator if you immediately assumed that the obvious cause of death was the only cause of death.

 

[bluestreak]

DB, I think you're on the wrong side on this one. Your willingness to explain police procedure to those ignorant of it is useful, believe me, but on this one you're running the risk of justifying their behaviour. They've fucked up and you're trying to pretend that everything was done by the book. It blatantly wasn't. Just as they're creating a back-story that implies his behaviour was suspicious rather than normal, you're colluding with that. They cited this stuff in defence, in court. You know what that means.