Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Murderers also lie



"I so direct you that the evidence in this case, taken at its highest, would not justify my leaving verdicts of unlawful killing to you."

"I'm not saying that nothing went wrong in a police operation which resulted in the killing of an innocent man"

"All interested persons agree that a verdict of unlawful killing could only be left to you if you could be sure that a specific officer had committed a very serious crime: murder or manslaughter,"

"Many people tell lies for a variety of reasons … [including] to mitigate the impact of what might be a … tragic mistake"

"Put aside any emotion - put them to one side."




.

16 comments:

The Antagonist said...

That's nothing, play a small violin for murderers....

The coroner reminded the jury of the moment that “Charlie 12”, one of the policemen who shot Mr de Menezes, broke down in tears during his evidence.

This tough, fit, highly trained, mature man broke down in tears and this fact may assist you....

Stef said...

What really disgusts me is the way the media unswervingly support the unproven official narrative by constantly banging on with subliminal lines like...

The Guardian...

Police mistakenly believed he was Hussain Osman, one of a group of would-be suicide bombers, who had attempted to set off bombs on a number of tube trains and a bus the previous day

The Times...

Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot dead on board a Tube train at Stockwell, South London, on the day after four would-be bombers tried to set off suicide devices on the transport network. The young electrician was shot seven times in the head after police officers mistook him for one of the bombers.

etc etc they all do it

The Police say they mistakenly believed he was Hussain Osman

The young electrician was shot seven times in the head after police officers say they mistook him for one of the bombers

When the people doing the saying are, even by the admission of the official coroner, liars that official narrative counts for fucking squat

Stef said...

and how many people still have the sense to see through the programming

five? ten out of hundred?


absolutely disgraceful

The Antagonist said...

Never mind the fact that "the bombers" weren't bombers. That little factoid might make the murder of an innocent man even less OK.

If anyone remembered it.

"The [21/7] jury were told a further charge of conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life, faced by each man, was now being left off the indictment."BBC

spartacus said...

Never mind the fact that "the bombers" weren't bombers. That little factoid might make the murder of an innocent man even less OK.

If anyone remembered it.


I remember!

spartacus spartacus said...

I remember!

S said...

What is the fooken point of having an inquest & then not allowing the jury to decide on an 'unlawful killing (by agents of the state)' verdict?

The same thing happened with the Diana inquest.

What a sham

The Antagonist said...

Panem et circenses

not anonymous said...

What is the fooken point of having an inquest & then not allowing the jury to decide on an 'unlawful killing (by agents of the state)' verdict?

the point is that they can show us the public,that they can do whatever the fuck they like.,,,an investigation was crazy from the beginning,,the plods aint gonna arrest themselves now are they!

just like the 911 commission,,,one load of bollocks

Anonymous said...

Apparently its fine for the police to shoot\use excessive violence on people if "they're under pressure in difficult circumstances". Damned apologists, thats why we're in a fucking authoritarian police state, fools...

Soon enough these people will have their bubbles shattered if they haven't already. They'll still blindly think giving the state and police more powers is fine.

paul said...

Well, if I had anything to do with it every officer who fired would be in prison for life for murder. Every other officer involved at every stage of this operation would be in prison for accessory to murder, conspiracy to commit murder and obstruction of justice.
Fortunately for them, I dont.

Stef said...

I'd settle for a straight inquiry, with a straight judge and straight lawyers

Fortunately for them, I live in a fantasy world

Anonymous said...

Anyone know who De Menzes was working for in London?

Stef said...

I'm sure I saw a government press release, published a few hours after his execution, which implied that he was engaged in the underground drug crazed cannibal child molestation industry

Subsequently, of course, there has been some Loontalk that he was, in fact, a government employee who was subject to compulsory, and very public, redundancy

Personally, I haven't seen biff all evidence either way

And, as discussed at length on this blog previously, none of that really matters when it comes to being really, really fucked off that someone who clearly wasn't carrying a bomb was shot in the face repeatedly and the perpetrators have been permitted to lie through their fucking teeth ever since and even, in some cases, promoted

Alex Fear said...

Don't forget Steph,

Nobody did anything wrong, ie. not even any rhetorical "lessons learned" yet it could happen again.

That's what f***ing scares me. I use the tube practically everyday and basically Cressida Prick says there's a chance I could be executed when and if the police deem it necessary.

Oh we all know that this only applies to terrorists though! Just like all the anti-terror laws are only used in connection with acts of terrorism - eg. banking in Iceland, leaking public information, photography, wearing anti-blair t-shirts, bearing a non-resemblence to a terrorist etc etc...

Stef said...

You know, for a moment there I had forgot

and you're right, going forward, that is the scariest part of this wretched business