Any colour, as long as it’s black

December 2nd, 2008 § 0 comments


The jury at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes will not be able to consider a verdict of unlawful killing, the coroner has said.

Sir Michael Wright said that having heard all the evidence, a verdict of unlawful killing was “not justified”.

The title is obviously based on what Henry Ford told his customers with regard to the colour they could have their Model T painted.
The jury in the inquest have been told a similar thing, any verdict as long as it isn’t the polices fault.
The jury can return an open or narrative verdict or one of lawful killing. Oh, the narrative must not blame the police. It wasn’t their fault you see. They weren’t there. Hadn’t been to Stockwell for a couple of days actually. Ask Dave. He’ll tell you. The police were with him. All day.

The jury must place the fault at the feet of either Jean Charles de Menezes, the victim, or on absolutley no one at all because Cressida Dick, and that is a Disney villian name if ever I heard one, the police chief bore “no personal culpability” at the trial of the Met that found them guilty of, an understated charge, of Endangering the Public under Health and Safety. Where or not Cressida is personally responsible or not, I don’t know, but the police as a body are.

Lets look at the facts:
The rozzers have been found guilty of endangering the public but the inquest cannot find that a man was killed by that transgression (is that the proper use of that word?). If the inquest did find that de Menezes was killed by the police breaking H & S law, then that would mean the police were guilty of unlawfully killing someone.

  1. A jury cannot return a verdict of unlawful killing of a man the police shot dead after wrongly identifying him
  2. the police were found guilty of ‘endangering the public’, under H&S law
  3. as a direct result of the police ‘endangering the public’ a man has died.
  4. if a man is wrongly jailed, due to mistaken identity, would he be lawfully imprisoned? No, of course not.

According to my logic, items 2 & 3 points to police being responsible for Jean Charles death and item shows he was unlawfully killed.
This means that the jury are being told to return a false verdict.
Jean Charles de Menezes didn’t die from misadventure.
Or by an accident.
Or by suicide.
Or from natural causes.
Or because he was on a wanted list.

Or from a long rambling story that doesn’t involve the words ‘identity’, ‘mistaken’, ‘shoot’, ‘police’ or ‘sniper’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What's this?

You are currently reading Any colour, as long as it’s black at Sim-O.