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

[Donna Ferentes]

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.

Yeah.

There's reasons for everything and people make mistakes. But when there's people being shot dead there's got to be a pretty severe limit to how far we can say "look, you can see how it might have looked suspicious". There's a real danger of allowing the detail to obscure the bigger picture. A chap who wasn't dangerous enough to keep under proper surveillance, or keep off the buses, in Tulse Hill, was dangerous enough to be shot dead in Stockwell In all likelihood nobody is going to be held accountable for this and the best we're going to get is "couldn't be helped". A lot of people will draw the conclusion that the police can shoot people dead as a consequence of their own mistakes and you can't get justice when they do it. And I think those people will be right.

 

[SpookyFrank]

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.

Perhaps the cocaine had weakened his heart and he suffered a fatal myocardial infarction brought on by the shock of hearing the gunfire, and in fact died a handfull of milliseconds before the marked improvement in cranial ventilation which our brave boys in blue were kind enough to provide him with. Or perhaps he had been dead for several hours before they shot him. I'd like to say I think the police would have considerably more luck tracking a dead man, but on current evidence I reckon that would be giving them too much credit.

Normally you'd be right, but it's really quite absurd to claim an ancilliary cause of death in a case of multiple gunshot wounds to the head. You may have made several pertinent points about this whole fiasco, the above post isn't one of them. It is in fact insulting and can be read as nothing more than an excuse for the continuing misconduct of the police on this issue.#

Do you honestly believe what you are saying?

 

[detective-boy]

Normally you'd be right, but it's really quite absurd to claim an ancilliary cause of death in a case of multiple gunshot wounds to the head.

I'm not claiming an ancillary cause of death in this case (as you would know if you read the posts I have previously made). I am explaining why it would be negligent not to make toxicology tests as part of a standard post mortem examination, as Das Uberdog was claiming:

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?

I love the "almost a cert" bit especially ...

 

[detective-boy]

They cited this stuff in defence, in court. You know what that means.

Are you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to raise things in their defence?

And please find me a post (any post, since it actually happened) where I say that there wasn't a fuck-up?

 

[detective-boy]

There's a real danger of allowing the detail to obscure the bigger picture.

There's an even bigger danger of allowing emotion and prejudice to obscure it. Sadly the detail (as with almost any criminal trial, matters). And it matters even more if you are ever to find out what did go wrong that day and to make improvements so that it does not happen again.

Contrary to what some posters clearly think, the police did not go out that day intending to kill anyone who looked a bit like the suspect. That is patently fucking obvious to anyone who can count to three without using their fingers (Otherwise where are all the other bodies littering the streets? How come the actual suspects were arrested (by officers from the same "trigger-happy" CO19 unit) without being shot dead?). To find out what went wrong every aspect must be considered in detail.

 

[bluestreak]

Are you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to raise things in their defence?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Or, perhaps I am saying that when you use an argument in defence you are perhaps insinuating that such a thing is a mitigating factor. Otherwise it wouldn't have been brought up. It was brought up, therefore the defence QC must be trying to impress on the jury that it was a factor involved in the execution and relying on the lack of knowledge of drugs and their effects amongst the population, as well as the mental link between criminality and de Menezes (and by extenstion the police doing their job). You know and I know that unless he was a coke fiend it is unlikely to have had any effect on him in the morning - they are retro-fitting a story to suit their defence, rather than actually being honest with us.

And please find me a post (any post, since it actually happened) where I say that there wasn't a fuck-up?

I guess that, because you appear to hold the same believes as Ian Blair and the rest of the police in that JCdM's death was inevitable and unavoidable and that no individual, manager, team, or identifiable body within the Police force are culpable for any errors that led to his death, or that if they were it is acceptable collateral damage in The War Against Terror TM and not worth punishing or getting upset about. I make this claim based on my opinion that you are going far beyond explaining procedure and law and are actively defending the methods used by the Police to avoid responsibility for his death.

 

[detective-boy]

You know and I know that unless he was a coke fiend it is unlikely to have had any effect on him in the morning - they are retro-fitting a story to suit their defence, rather than actually being honest with us.

I think you misunderstand the trial process and are reading way too much into this, to be honest. In any trial, either side may call any evidence they want, provided it is relevant (the judge decides if it isn't). The prosecution have a legal duty to either call, or disclose to the defence, ALL relevant evidence, whether or not it advances their case. The defence do not have any such duty in return - they only call what suits them.

This evidence was given by a PROSECTION witness. The defence lawyer cross-examined on the evidence, to see how strong it was in terms of the only use that will be made of it - namely that it may have explained why an innocent man could be observed as appearing nervous. The answers he got were, to be honest, not very useful to that end - the toxicologist did not know whether or not any physiological effect would still be observable with the blood / urine results at the level reported.

It will be for the Prosecution to tell the jury the evidence is shit and to ignore it (if they see fit and can justify it) and the Defence to make use of it and emphasise it (likewise) in their closing speeches. It will be for the judge to deal with any perceived excess on either side in his summing-up. To be honest it wouldn't surprise me if no-one makes any major point about it and the jury ignore it altogether.

If the police had introduced the evidence from scratch, through a witness they had called, you may have some justification for an argument that they were trying to muddy the waters. As all they have done is cross-examine a witness called by the prosecution, then I think you are wrong.

I make this claim based on my opinion that you are going far beyond explaining procedure and law and are actively defending the methods used by the Police to avoid responsibility for his death.

If you actually read the posts I have made on the subject, from the start, you would not be able to justify your opinion. All I am doing is explaining how what is happening in Court is entirely consistent with standard criminal trial practice and is not, despite the hysterical postings of some, any sort of conspiracy or cover up. Please read my posts before making unfounded allegations.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Contrary to what some posters clearly think, the police did not go out that day intending to kill anyone who looked a bit like the suspect.

I couldn't agree more. However, bearing in mind that killing was a clear possibility, the standards of practice involved, professional and organisational, should have been a lot higher either than they actually were, or even than the court defence wishes to say they were.

 

[bluestreak]

Was a prosectution witness? Hmm, I was under the impression he was a defence witness.

I'll deal with that later when I've ascertained if I'm wrong or not, and how wrong I am!

However I will ask you to clear up for me what your opinion is in terms of responsibility; i.e. whose fault is it that JCdM died, who should take responsibility, how should they be punished, and have the Police been honest and behaved properly throughout the investigation?

 

[detective-boy]

However, bearing in mind that killing was a clear possibility, the standards of practice involved, professional and organisational, should have been a lot higher either than they actually were, or even than the court defence wishes to say they were.

I agree (which is why I have repeatedly posted to the effect that it is quite right and proper that this trial is taking place as the organisation fucked up, and why I will have absolutely no problem if they are found guilty - I agree with the prosecution that there is more than enough evidence).

And, of course, the defence will seek to portray the evidence as being insufficient to convict - that it their job - to test and challenge it!

 

[detective-boy]

Was a prosectution witness? Hmm, I was under the impression he was a defence witness.

I'll deal with that later when I've ascertained if I'm wrong or not, and how wrong I am!

However I will ask you to clear up for me what your opinion is in terms of responsibility; i.e. whose fault is it that JCdM died, who should take responsibility, how should they be punished, and have the Police been honest and behaved properly throughout the investigation?

As far as I am aware the trial is still in the prosecution phase - all the witnesses during that phase are called by the prosecution either for their own purposes, or because they know that if they didn't the defence would and they would rather retain the control of leading the witnesses throught their evidence in chief (first impressions on the jury being important). The defence do, however, get to cross-examine each witness, to focus on each thing of interest to their purposes or to bring out stuff which has not been mentioned in the evidence in chief. Most of the stuff about the cocaine effects (or lack of them) came from cross examination of the prosecution witness by the defence barrister. I have been unable to work out why the prosecution produced the compilation photo, or if it was produced in response to cross-examination (that would be unusual unless the prosecution didn't know it existed, something I would find very hard to believe).

It is not at all unusual for a witness to have some aspects of evidence of more use to the prosecution and some of more use to the defence. In such cases the prosecution traditionally call the witnesses themselves. In this case, where many / most of the prosecution witnesses will be employees of the defendant organisation it will be even more likely that each witness will be giving evidence for and against the prosecution case in equal measure.

As for who's fault it is - it's the MPS's fault as an organisation. I do not know or suspect anything that would lead me to disagree with the IPCC / CPS decision that there was insufficient evidence to pin the whole blame on any particular officer(s) - it seems plain to me that it was a combination of things, some of which could have been avoided, some which were simply fate. I agree totally that this prosecution should be taking place (if the law of corporate manslaughter was such that such a charge could be tried, I would have supported that prosecution too (I have explained why it can't, not said that I agree that it shouldn't - I've regularly posted of my opinion that corporate manslaughter should be extended to apply in such cases).

If they are found guilty, the organisation will be fined - that is the only sentence the Court can give. The IPCC will then consider whether or not there should be disciplinary offences (in relation to the conduct of the operation - they have, so far as I recall, already said there will be none in relation to the armed officers and the actual shooting) - I have insufficient information to know whether or not I think such charges are meritted - I would certainly not be surprised if there were. If there were serious failings and that was proven in disciplinary hearings I would have no issue with officers (even very senior ones) being sacked or required to resign but it reamins to be seen what, if any, disciplinary charges are recommended and proven. Even if there are no disciplinary findings, I would expect there to be one or more resignations at senior level if the organisation is convicted. I cannot see how it could be justified not to do so if there is conviction of such a serious failing in a core duty - maintaining the safety of the public.

And have they been honest and behaved properly during the investigation - for the most part certainly. The IPCC make very little comment about any suspected lack of support and they have thoroughly tested all the accounts given. There was one DI who declined to name who told him the wrong man had been shot that I noticed when I scanned the bits of the Stockwell 2 report I was interested in the other day and I am sure there have been other bits and pieces but, broadly speaking, I have seen no evidence to the contrary, nor heard any one (IPCC, CPS, prosecution) suggesting otherwise. We will know more when the trail finishes and the speeches are made.

Most of the things which have been paraded as evidence of underhand tactics are, as I have tried to explain, nothing more that standard things which happen, in the way they happen in any criminal trial. And I have no problem with the Met defence solicitors and barristers defending their client to the best of their ability - in just the same way I have absolutely no problem with the defence defending the nastiest, most guilty as fuck, "ordinary" defendant. There are things which I may not have played that way if I had been in charge - but it is an issue of choosing different tactics within the rules rather than anything wrong, like bending the rules, or cheating in some way.

 

[Sweaty Betty]

nice!!!

whens your next poxy flounce?