more lies about jean charles

[Donna Ferentes]

The trial isn't there to determine most of those issues, is it?

As well you know.

But that wasn't the point I was making, was it?

As well you know.

 

[untethered]

But that wasn't the point I was making, was it?

As well you know.

Then why perpetuate the notion that perhaps the police should say, "We got it wrong. We were totally rubbish at surveillance, shot the wrong chap and then attempted a ham-fisted cover-up?" as a result of or during this trial?

 

[bluestreak]

Counsel are there neither to lie nor to tell the truth, but to present their client's case as they have been instructed.

It may be that what the police's counsel says isn't actually true, but that's a very different matter from him deliberately trying to deceive the court.

You really are a fucking eel.

Look, either HE or THE POLICE are using this tactic to try and wriggle out of it. You too are a wriggler. Someone is telling lies to the jury.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Then why perpetuate the notion that perhaps the police should say, "We got it wrong. We were totally rubbish at surveillance, shot the wrong chap and then attempted a ham-fisted cover-up?" as a result of or during this trial?

You'll have to draw my attention to the bit where I specified "as a result of or during this trial".

 

[untethered]

You really are a f- eel.

Look, either HE or THE POLICE are using this tactic to try and wriggle out of it. You too are a wriggler. Someone is telling lies to the jury.

Are they? Are they really trying to deceive the court by saying things they know to not be true?

I think you'll find that there are many sides to every complex story and the purpose of the court is to use its judgement to decide which elements presented by the various witnesses are most likely to form a coherent narrative.

Beyond that, of course, the issue remains whether this narrative involves a breach of the law on the part of the defendant on this specific charge.

 

[untethered]

You'll have to draw my attention to the bit where I specified "as a result of or during this trial".

I'm sure you're bright enough to realise that the police wouldn't want to prejudice any future legal action by doing such a thing.

 

[jæd]

You really are a fucking eel.

Look, either HE or THE POLICE are using this tactic to try and wriggle out of it. You too are a wriggler. Someone is telling lies to the jury.

Um... Do you actually know how a trial works...?

 

[bluestreak]

Are they? Are they really trying to deceive the court by saying things they know to not be true?

I think you'll find that there are many sides to every complex story and the purpose of the court is to use its judgement to decide which elements presented by the various witnesses are most likely to form a coherent narrative.

Beyond that, of course, the issue remains whether this narrative involves a breach of the law on the part of the defendant on this specific charge.

You're either charmingly naive like a small child, or deeply deeply unpleasant.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I'm sure you're bright enough to realise that the police wouldn't want to prejudice any future legal action by doing such a thing.

I'm sure you're bright enough to realise that not only may there be other motives involved but it is in fact perfectly in order for people to accept blame regardless of the future consequences.

 

[detective-boy]

Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead because he acted in an "aggressive and threatening manner" when challenged by police, a court has heard.

You missed the next three words "... as interpreted by the police".

No one is saying he was aggressive or threatening, just that the actions he took were interpreted in that way from the perspective of the officers. As I ahev previously posted repeatedly in relation to the Harry Stanley issue, there is potential for communication problems (verbal and non-verbal) in a challenge where the officer is talking with one picture in their mind and the suspect is responding with another. (In the Stanley case "Drop the gun" would mean nothing to someone who did not have a gun). This is an important lesson to be learned and an important issue to be addressed. Don't allow it to be lost in an avalanche of allegations that it is lies or an attempt to smear - it is an explanation of the perception of the officers at the time and we need to work to make sure that they are mega-aware of the potential issues involved if we want to avoid such situations again.

 

[bluestreak]

Um... Do you actually know how a trial works...?

Maybe not. I think the trouble is i was brought up to trust the police as good people, not as people who will fuck up and blame the victim for their own death.

 

[bluestreak]

You missed the next three words "... as interpreted by the police".

right, so it's a presentation thing.

Where can I find the full text?

 

[detective-boy]

It's certainly making the Met look like a bunch of amateurs with a shoot to kill policy.

They are explaining what happened to lead to the decision to shoot. You complain when no explanation is given. Why complain when one is? No-one is saying that the outcome was right, all that is being attempted is to explain how it came to pass.

 

[tarannau]

So the officers honestly thought he was being 'aggressive' in the few shocked seconds when he tried to stagger to his feet from the chair? It seems doubtful he could even react. Be honest for once DB....

It's shameful that they even tried to pull this in court - I know it's the nature of confrontational jury trials, but I wouldn't be able to sleep easily at night if I was Thwaites.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

They are explaining what happened to lead to the decision to shoot. You complain when no explanation is given. Why complain when one is? No-one is saying that the outcome was right, all that is being attempted is to explain how it came to pass.

Because there is a reasonable suspicion, if you will, that the explanation is on the post hoc side.

 

[untethered]

It's shameful that they even tried to pull this in court - I know it's the nature of confrontational jury trials, but I wouldn't be able to sleep easily at night if I was Thwaites.

So where do you think counsel's responsibilities lie?

Is his client entitled to representation or is he just on a freelance gig?

 

[detective-boy]

I've got a sudden urge to find out where Mr Thwaites lives

Ron Thwaites has had a long career defending all sorts of guilty as fuck crims. He wouldn't have been my choice as defence counsel for the Met, nor would I have encouraged him to take the line he has taken in some of his suggestions as to why things may have happened (but I suspect he has done his own thing and not been actively encouraged in that respect anyway). I would far rather the defence had simply set out the facts and kept their suggestions to themselves.

 

[bluestreak]

I think the trouble is that there isn't an attempt to find out the truth, because no-one wants to take the blame. This isn't about justice, it's about beating the rap.

 

[detective-boy]

I thought he wasn't given the chance to comply?

As far as I know there was no warning shouted (if you do and it's a suicide bomber the next thing that happens is a big bang ...). But, at some stage, he would obviously have been aware of armed officers approaching - whether they know they were targetting him or not is not clear (nor will it ever be I don't suppose). What is being talked about as "a failure to comply" is standing up and moving towards the officers, albeit only a few feet or inches before being grabbed.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I think the trouble is that there isn't an attempt to find out the truth, because no-one wants to take the blame. This isn't about justice, it's about beating the rap.

Quite. And you can understand it, but it's not what we want and need when we're talking about public servants with guns or with the power to order their use.

 

[detective-boy]

Seems to me the rules were designed with criminals in mind, not the possibility of innocent behaviour.

Not the rules as such, but I think there is a need to review the training officers get in terms of verbal and non-verbal communication in a challenge situation - I certainly never got any input on how different perceptions can lead to different understanding.

 

[tarannau]

A counsel shoudl represent their clients effectively and honestly. To my mind that means not dragging a dead man's name through the mud, alleging somehow that was an aggressive type, presuming that he must obviously be running because of a faxed passport stamp

Franky Cressida Dick's comments to the court were equally laughable and, let's face it, dishonest. To stand in court, particularly after the doctored photo scandal and claim that Menezes and Osman were 'extraordinarily' alike in the cold light of day in court beggars belief.

Let's have a look again for posterity.

(he's the one in the middle by the way. Looks more Denzel Washington than DeMenezes)
May I either suggest Cressida Dick: (A) Buys some spectacles, (B) Buys an honest backbone (C) Never plays Guess Who?

 

[detective-boy]

Someone is telling lies to the jury.

No. They're taking the facts of what happened and explaining how they were perceived. That is not a lie.

 

[untethered]

No. They're taking the facts of what happened and explaining how they were perceived. That is not a lie.

What you fail to understand is that there's a single, simple Truth which Everyone Knows and you either agree with it or you're lying.

 

[detective-boy]

I'm sure you're bright enough to realise that not only may there be other motives involved but it is in fact perfectly in order for people to accept blame regardless of the future consequences.

Sadly the legal advice that the police and other large organisations receive is exactly the opposite ... (and you, from your car insurance company too, as it happens ... "Never admit liability, no matter how fucking obvious it may seem). I was constantly pissing off legal branch with apologies and explanations issued promptly when things had gone wrong ... not once did we end up with a civil claim, not least (I suspect) because a prompt apology and explanation had been provided.

 

[untethered]

Let's have a look again for posterity.

(he's the one in the middle by the way. Looks more Denzel Washington than DeMenezes)
May I either suggest Cressida Dick: (A) Buys some spectacles, (B) Buys an honest backbone (C) Never plays Guess Who?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those photos of the bombers were taken after their arrests. Before their arrests, at the time when they were still at large and Mr de Menezes was still alive, they only had low-quality CCTV images which made it very hard, for example, to judge skin tone easily.

 

[detective-boy]

Where can I find the full text?

You can't, unless a media outlet chooses to release it. I guess you could commission a transcript of the trial as a member of the public ... if you've got a few grand to spare.

I understand the point you are making but I really don't think anyone is saying JCdM was the author of his own misfortune, they are simply telling the Court how things were perceived by the officer firing the shots (an important issue as central to the H&S charge is how the officer came to be there and how they came to have whatever information they had and whether any other "reasonably practicable" steps could have been taken which may have changed that).

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Sadly the legal advice that the police and other large organisations receive is exactly the opposite ... (and you, from your car insurance company too, as it happens ... "Never admit liability, no matter how fucking obvious it may seem).

That's so, no doubt. But one problem (among many others) is that there wasn't just a negative reaction, a refusal to accept responsibility, there was a positive attempt to do things that should not have been done (re: logbooks, photos, briefings etc). Not to mention the aggressive "how dare anybody complain given that we put ourselves at risk" response. All in all it's not really the reaction of a force wiling to face up to what happened and why.

 

[bluestreak]

What challenge was made to him and how did he react?

The challenge was, unless I'm mistaken and please correct me if i am.

Challenge: 'ARMED POLICE'.

Response: He started to rise from his chair.


Fucking hell mate, if you think presenting this as 'he acted in an "aggressive and threatening manner" when challenged by police' or that anyone could reasonably differentiate his behaviour as being more inline with a suicide bomber rather than a communter and that isn't a fucking lie then I think that you must live in a different world to the rest of us.

 

[tarannau]

I've seen plenty of photos of both and believe me when I say that I look far more like Jean Charles than Osman ever can.

Bear in mind that this was in Stockwell/Brixton, where us mixed race types are far from a minority. I've said it before and I'll say it agian - within 10 minutes of waiting outside Brixton tube and you'd find at least 75 people who looked more like JCDM than Osman.

If Cressida Dick, a supposed DAC, can't honestly see the difference then she's traipsing dangerously close to 'all them darkies look the same' territory. Insultingly so in fact.