22Jul05 Jean Charles De Menezes Stockwell tube train murder

[blackcat]

It makes a change from finding child pornography on his pc.

[Mark Gobell]

If the conspiratorial viewpoint has any merit it leads to an interesting view of the way that affairs of state and the judiciary are being run.

Indeed, a critique based upon the idea that a senior judge could be the target of a smear attempt by the police or their home office and/or intel masters is very revealing.

Whilst it is easy and understandable to view the entire state machine as one big homogenous globule of "them" vis-a-vis "us", clefts like this would support the notion that the current drive toward a policy of free to murder, quasi military police state is being resisted by the "liberal" judges who seem to be very off message.

Dispensing the wrong kind of "justice" might prove to be very damaging for one's career.

Does Lord Justice Richards not belong to a Lodge ?

[Westgate]

Actually he was just revealing his own shortcomings!

[Reflecter]

I think its a stitch up for certain, though obviously cant prove it. Now whilst I hope there is some, Id rather not see the CCTV

[John White]

I think its a stitch up for certain, though obviously cant prove it. Now whilst I hope there is some, Id rather not see the CCTV

Yeah, I caught the wiff of fish about this to

[conspiracy analyst]

to allow the De Menezes murder to be investigated further.

He would obviously have to be stopped in his tracks. The question is whether he knew this would happen beforehand or whether he was stitched up.

Only time will tell, if he isn't pensioned off in the meantime and the case re-assigned.

[TonyGosling]

the cover-up and protection of the killers continues...

Menezes' High Court judge exposes himself in public
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7614

Officer in charge of Menezes killing promoted
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7349

BBC scraps de Menezes killing film
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=6513

Electrical Surge Connected to Menezes Shooting
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=114

11 Police officers in the clear over Tube shooting
Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 774492.ece

Police [independent, remember, independent] watchdogs have cleared Scotland Yard officers of any disciplinary offence over the Stockwell shooting but the senior woman in charge could still face action.

The Independent Police Complaints Commmission is expected to announce today that a decision on Commander Cressida Dick, and a number of officers who were advising her, will wait until the end of the Yard’s trial under health and safety laws over the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. This is due to start in the autumn.

Last night, one source close to the Scotland Yard told The Times: “The IPCC is going to say various officers are OK but they will reserve their position on a number of others and wait until the end of the trial.”

Penalties imposed in police disciplinary hearings, which are normally in private, can range from an admonition or warning to loss of pay, a reduction in rank or dismissal. If a charge was brought against Ms Dick, it would be heard by the Metropolitan Police Authority because of her rank.

Mr de Menezes, 27, a Brazilian electrician, was killed on July 22, 2005, during a botched counter-terrorist operation the day after the collapse of an alleged attack on London’s transport system. He was shot eight times as he sat in a carriage at the station after being wrongly identified as a terror suspect and followed by a Scotland Yard team fearing a fresh attack on the Underground system.

The IPCC issued warnings of possible disciplinary action to nearly a dozen Scotland Yard officers who took part in the operation at Stockwell station in South London.

One investigation by the IPCC nicknamed Stockwell One has looked at the shooting and another, dubbed Stockwell Two, has examined complaints about what Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and Scotland Yard said afterwards.

The report on the actual shooting was passed to the CPS last year and the force now faces a trial this autumn.

Eleven officers were named in Stockwell One including the marksmen deployed on July 22 under the “Kratos” rules, which allow a “shoot-to-kill” policy for suicide bombers. Commander Dick, now a Deputy Assistant Commissioner, was the officer with the power to authorise the use of shoot-to-kill force to stop a suspected bomber. She had several middle-ranking officers acting as technical advisers.

She was questioned by the IPCC investigators, but other officers submitted statements and employed their right to remain silent.

Documents and photographs from the investigation alleged that one of the undercover team meant to be identifying the shot man was relieving himself as Mr de Menezes left his flat. The IPCC also discovered that a Special Branch logbook had apparently been altered to hide that he had been identified wrongly.

[Mark Gobell]

Jean Charles de Menezes murderers will not face disciplinary tribunal.

This from the IPCC

Jean Charles de Menezes: IPCC Makes Decision on Shooting Discipline

The front-line firearms and surveillance officers involved in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Underground Station on 22 July 2005 will not face a disciplinary tribunal the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) announced today (Friday 11 May).

The decision affects 11 of the 15 officers served with Regulation 9 notices. However, one of the 11, a surveillance officer, should receive management advice in relation to action he took after the incident. No decision about whether the commanders and tactical advisors involved in the incident should face disciplinary action will be made until after the trial of the Office of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for an alleged offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974). The trial is expected to begin in October 2007.

IPCC Chair, Nick Hardwick, notified Mr de Menezes’ family, the Metropolitan Police Service and the Metropolitan Police Authority of his decision this morning. He explained his decision as follows:

"I have considered the decisions on discipline I have to make very carefully. This has included examination of the detailed representations I have received from the MPS, MPA and lawyers representing the family of Mr de Menezes. I have consulted the Crown Prosecution Service.

"In reviewing the original material I am struck again by the challenge facing officers of the MPS following the carnage on 7 July 2005 (the extent to which any organisational failures by the MPS exacerbated that challenge on this occasion will be determined by the forthcoming health and safety trial). Set along side this is the fate of Jean Charles and the anguish of his family. He was shot in the head seven times by MPS officers on his way to work. He was entirely innocent. I cannot see anything he could or could not have consciously done differently that would have allowed him to escape. The grief and anger of his family is entirely understandable and as I have been powerfully reminded - remains unassuaged.

"I would not do anything lightly that adds to that grief or anger. Nevertheless, I do not believe there is anything to be gained by delaying decisions, however difficult and unwelcome for the family, where I do not see any realistic prospect of anything emerging that might change those decisions.”

Mr Hardwick went on to say:

"I have considered first of all whether on the basis of the evidence I have available to me there is reasonable prospect of disciplinary charges being upheld for each of the officers. I must make my decision on the basis of the evidence I have before me now.

"In considering the disciplinary issues I have looked at the evidence I have available to me now in relation to three time periods:

"Firstly, the incident itself from when Mr de Menezes was seen leaving the communal entrance to his flat in Scotia Road to when he was shot;

"Secondly, what was said by the officers involved after the incident;

"Thirdly, the planning and preparation that preceded the incident.”

In relation to the incident itself and what was said by the officers after the incident, Mr Hardwick said “on the basis of the evidence I have available to me now or any development that might reasonably be foreseen, I have concluded that there is no realistic prospect of disciplinary charges being upheld against any of the firearms or surveillance officers involved.”

In relation to the planning and preparation of the operation he said:

“I want to stress that the fact I am not yet ready to reach a conclusion about the conduct of the commanding officers and their tactical advisers in relation to the planning, preparation or control of the operation should not be assumed to give any indication of what my eventual decision will be.”

“However, I am conscious that the CPS has concluded that the organisational failings were so serious as to warrant charges under the Health and Safety Act.

“The CPS charges do not preclude individual failures in the planning, preparation and command of the incident amounting to misconduct.

“At this stage therefore, I think it is premature for me to consider the issues arising from the planning, preparation or control of the incident.


-ends-


Notes To Editors:

1. The IPCC’s Chair, Nick Hardwick, will not be doing any interviews in relation to this matter.

2. Any enquiries relating to the forthcoming health and safety trial should be directed to Annabelle McMillan at the CPS Press Office on 020 7796 8102.

Issued by: Rachael Collins, IPCC Press Officer on 020 7166 3142 or the duty out-of-hours press officer on 07717 851157.

[scubadiver]

Beat me to it!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6646537.stm

Eleven officers involved in the shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes will not face disciplinary action, the BBC has learned.

They were among 15 officers interviewed by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

No decisions have yet been made on the four most senior officers investigated.

Mr Menezes, 27, was shot eight times at Stockwell Underground station after being mistaken for a bomber a day after the failed London attacks in 2005.

[Mark Gobell]

The family of Jean Charles de Menezes formally launched the Justice for Jean Campaign at the London School of Economics on October 10th 2005

Today's slap in the face comes 1 day and 19 months after the Justice for Jean Campaign was launched and after an interval of 1 year, 9 months and 11 days since Jean Charles' funeral in Brazil on 29th July 2005

[Ravenmoon]

No surprise there then

[Long Tooth]

Disgraceful, but not a suprise. what is a suprise, its taken the authorities nearly two years to 'investigate' the De Menezes murder and not one suspect is named, yet within hours of 9/11, we are led to believe that the 'investigation' and 'evidence' points to 19 arabs etc etc.

[Mark Gobell]

Ah that's an easy one to answer.

You see, the murderers who executed Jean Charles de Menezes worked for the state and are paid with our taxes.

Whereas the patsies for 9/11 worked for the state and were paid with taxes for years but they also belonged to a tribe that was about to be made the enemy in an unending war of terror.

[Mark Gobell]

Sir Stephen Richards is in court again today, 11.6.7, this time as a defendant.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/stor ... 32,00.html

He was appointed Lord Justice of Appeal on 4.11.5

His trial begins having been in office for 1 week and 19 months as an Appeal Court Judge.

[Mark Gobell]

From The Times

June 9, 2007

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 907057.ece

Judge and magistrates will hear flashing case

Frances Gibb, Legal Editor

The trial next week of a Court of Appeal judge accused of flashing will be heard by a rare panel of a judge sitting with two magistrates because of the sensitivity of the case.

Timothy Workman, the most senior district judge for magistrates’ courts in England and Wales, has decided to preside over the trial of Sir Stephen Richards with two lay magistrates. His decision, after consultation with the deputy Lord Chief Justice, Sir Igor Judge, is an indication of the highly unusual nature of the case.

Peter Veits, president of the Justices’ Clerks’ Society, said yesterday: “This is unusual but clearly Judge Workman has exercised his discretion to sit with a panel because of the nature of this particular case.

“If the matter had gone to the crown court, then the judge would be directing a jury. But in the magistrates’ court, Judge Workman would be the sole arbiter of facts – deciding both guilt and innocence, and sentence, all on his own.”

Sir Stephen Richards has been accused of two counts of exposure for which the maximum penalty in the magistrates’ court is six months’ jail or a fine of £5,000. The case at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court is expected to last two days, with prosecution and defence using Queen’s Counsel – again, unusual in the magistrates’ court. Peter Wright, QC, has been instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service and David Fisher for Sir Stephen.

Sir Stephen, 56, denies the charges that were brought in March. He has not been sitting on cases in court since but has been working on paper applications and appeals. He remains on his salary of £184,000 a year. He has also stood down from the chairmanship of the board of governors of King’s College School, London, pending the trial. The judge, who is married with three children, was arrested in an undercover operation after a complaint by an alleged woman victim. He was detained after the woman picked him out on a train from Wimbledon to Central London.

British Transport Police have said that the allegations relate to two separate incidents last October involving the same woman complainant.

Senior judges cannot be removed from office except by a vote of both Houses of Parliament.

[TonyGosling]

'Judge flashed at me twice in eight days on rush-hour train'
12.06.07
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... article.do

A city worker told a court yesterday that one of Britain's most senior judges twice exposed himself to her as she travelled to work on a train.

The woman claimed Lord Justice Richards, 56, boxed her into a corner on the packed commuter service before the incidents took place.

She said that on the first occasion she assumed he must have left his flies open by mistake because he looked like a "very kind man".

But when it happened again days later, she reported the incidents to British Transport Police, and turned detective by taking pictures of the man on her mobile phone and trying to follow him.

Scroll down for more


The senior judge is accused of flashing at a female passenger on two separate occasions


The woman, who is in her 20s but cannot be named for legal reasons, later identified the man during an undercover police operation as the Right Honourable Sir Stephen Richards.

But Richards, a married fatherof-three who sits in the Court of Appeal, told officers it must be a case of "mistaken identity" and insisted it was "not conduct he would engage in" as a member of society or of the judiciary.

Yesterday, Richards, of Wimbledon, appeared at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court to deny two charges of indecent exposure.



He arrived holding hands with his wife Lucy.

The first incident is alleged to have happened on October 16 last year as the woman was travelling from Raynes Park, South West London, to Waterloo.

She claimed Richards, who was wearing a three-quarter-length trench coat, got on at Wimbledon.

"A gentleman was standing quite close to me but that could have been because it was quite busy," she said.

"I was standing near the door with my back to a glass panel and he was at right angles to me, boxing me in.

"I was just reading my newspaper when I noticed that he had exposed his genitals. I didn't really want to look too much because I was quite embarrassed, but I recall it was just the flies that were undone, not the buckle or the belt.

"His genitals were out of his trousers. I couldn't see any undergarments.

"He was very well dressed, very presentable, and looked like a very kind man which was why I thought this was an accident.

"Because I was embarrassed and nothing like this had happened to me before, I just assumed this was an accident so I didn't want to draw attention to this incident and potentially embarrass this gentleman as well."

Scroll down for more ...



Lord Justice Richards with his supportive wife


She did not report the incident, but told the court the same thing happened just over a week later on October 24, when the same man got on at Wimbledon.

"I think he recognised me so he started to make his way over to where I was in the carriage," she said. "It was the same position where he was standing boxing me in but this time not as close.

"I saw that he had exposed himself again in the same manner as last time where he had opened his flies and exposed his genitals through the gap.

"I took my phone out and pretended to be writing a message. It was my intention to unnerve him a little so he would stop what he was doing.

"He turned away from me and moved towards the centre of the carriage. The way he was behaving probably confirms that it was deliberate."

At Waterloo, she allowed the man to get off the train first, then took two pictures of him on her phone, before reporting the incidents to police the next day.

On October 26, she saw the same man on the train. He was standing closely behind a blonde woman in her 20s.

"I noticed that he bent down to put his bag down and ruffled his coat, which would not look out of the ordinary to anyone else," said the woman.

This time, she took more photographs then decided to follow him along Waterloo Bridge and towards the Strand. She lost the man as he was walking "towards the Courts of Justice area".

In December, she saw him again and informed police he was wearing a different three-quarter coat.

Then on January 19 this year, she pointed out the man at Wimbledon station to undercover police. Richards was arrested.

Peter Wright QC, prosecuting, said: "It is the prosecution case that this was no mistaken identification.

"Sadly, and for what we say must be unfathomable reasons, Sir Stephen took the risk of behaving in this way on a crowded commuter train on two occasions to this young woman."

The trial continues.

[Mark Gobell]

Similar thread

[Mark Gobell]

Top Judge Cleared Of Flashing At Woman

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,, ... 68,00.html

Updated: 14:39, Wednesday June 13, 2007

One of Britain's most senior judges has been found not guilty of exposing himself to a woman on two busy commuter trains.

Cleared: Senior judge Sir Stephen Richards, who sits in the Court of Appeal, was cleared of the allegations at City of Westminster Magistrates Court.

The 56-year-old, a married father-of-three, had denied "intentionally exposing his genitals intending that someone would see them and would be caused alarm or distress".

He was accused of flashing at a woman on two occasions on a train between Wimbledon and Waterloo on October 16 and October 24 last year.

After hearing the evidence, senior district judge Timothy Workman said the case came down to his word against hers.

The woman, a City worker in her 20s, gave "clear, dignified and truthful evidence", Mr Workman said.

But there was "insufficient evidence" to back up her identification of Sir Stephen.

Giving evidence on Tuesday, Sir Stephen said he could not "perceive deriving any form of gratification" from such an act.

Mr Workman said that "sadly" the British Transport Police had failed to investigate the allegation promptly or thoroughly.

He ruled: "Had they done so, they would have been able to obtain closed circuit television from the train on October 24 and probably on October 16.

"That evidence may well have supported her identification and, equally, may have exonerated Sir Stephen."

Outside court, Sir Stephen said: "Throughout this case I have put my trust in the legal process and I'm delighted it has enabled me to clear my name."

[TonyGosling]

The De Menezes case connection
So he's been aquitted today. Could this entire case, as supported by the crooked CPS, have been at attack on Richards for daring to help the De Menezes family?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... E&refer=uk
As a Court of Appeal judge he routinely hears some of the
most high profile cases in the U.K. He recently heard an appeal
brought by Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian man shot dead
by police who mistook him for a suicide bomber.

[Mark Gobell]

Yes.

That's my take on it.

He was arrested on 19.1 - the same day that he ruled that the De Menezes case raised point of Human Rights Law which the House of Lords may like to respond to, for alleged offences committed the previous October.

Interesting and very unusual that the District Judge "used his discretion" and sat on the Magistrates Bench today.

[xmasdale]

deleted

[xmasdale]

deleted

[xmasdale]

We don't know the details of the defence case. If this was an allegation of just one woman, it could be that she was put up to it and is lying. I wouldn't have thought that mobile phone photos of the man, unless she actually managed to photograph his genitals, would be sufficient evidence to convict.

But people, even respectable pillars of society, do sometimes do incredibly stupid and dangerous things in order to get a thrill.

I saw a newspaper billboard last night with the headline, "Judge exposes his briefs," and had to chuckle.

At first thoughts it seemed too much of a co-incidence it was the Menezes case judge and that his arrest was on the same day he made a ruling on that case. But then that would hardly have given anyone time to concoct evidence and photographs to set up a whole case against him.

The important thing to remember is that people are innocent unless proven guilty, like the alleged London bombers.

I conclude neither the case against the judge is proven, nor the case that he was set up. It would be interesting to know if he had made a habit of delivering judgements which upset the PTB.

[Mark Gobell]

Agreed Noel.

The Judge (in a magistrates court) criticised the police for the time lapse and lack of corroborating evidence produced because of it.

OTOH how many instances of a Senior Appeal Court Judge appearing in a magistrates court do we have to go on.

My default and cynical position would be that 99.9% of similar potential cases involving any member of the judiciary would probably never be charged let alone make it to magistrates court.

[conspiracy analyst]

Magistrate court? Or was he forced into one? Its like commiting gbh and being asked to be convicted by traffic wardens. With their history it will always be an open and shut case.

Without a judge and jury the magistrate could be manipulated.
Or the judge has already been pensioned off and this is just a farce.

Either which way a case of such magnitude with his face all over every paper prior to judgement implies hes out of the De Menezes case.

I find it hard to believe a man can be convicted on the basis of an alleged exposure for which the only evidence is that he is picked out in a line up. By that instance being a judge and in public profile the woman could be related to any member of society the judge has sent down.

If not all evidence points in one and only one direction. Its a frame up.

[xmasdale]

Agreed Noel.

The Judge (in a magistrates court) criticised the police for the time lapse and lack of corroborating evidence produced because of it.

OTOH how many instances of a Senior Appeal Court Judge appearing in a magistrates court do we have to go on.

My default and cynical position would be that 99.9% of similar potential cases involving any member of the judiciary would probably never be charged let alone make it to magistrates court.

I don't find it particularly odd that, if judges have the right to sit in a magistrates court, one should do so in a case where a colleague was on trial. The accused would have mates on the bench who would want to see him aquitted and one of them would have been assigned to ensure that no magistrate made a fool of the judiciary by convicting a judge.

In my youth I spent a lot of time in the home of and on holiday with a judge who was a family friend. He was always sounding off about his opinions on the legal system, particularly after a couple of glasses of wine or beer. One thing I learnt from him was that judges don't have much faith in magistrates. Would they risk seeing a judge convicted by one?

[Bushwacker]

On a point of information, the position of District Judge (Magistrates Court) is what used to be called a stipendiary magistrate, that is a legally qualified professional who sits alone in a magistrates court, as opposed to a bench of, usually three, lay magistrates. What was unusual in this case was not that the District Judge sat in a magistrates court, that is where he usually sits, but that he decided to sit with two lay magistrates to make up a bench of three. I assume that he felt that was better than having one professional judge judging another. As it is a summary only matter, it could not be heard in a Crown Court with a jury.

[karlos]

If not all evidence points in one and only one direction. Its a frame up.

i agree with the above.
All of us have traveled on the tube, are you honestly telling me that a guy dressed in an upmarket suit probably pinstripe carrying a briefcase and umbrella no doubt and on occasion wearing 3/4 length overcoat could be standing their with his c*** hanging out and NOBODY notices except her.
On more than one occasion.
It is balderdash

This was blackmail against a judge to either make him swing one way or another.
Excuse the pun.

Normally this kind of case NEVER proceeds.
You have no evidence only hearsay.
I saw his plonker poking out is not evidence, not on a packed commuter train and no cctv no photo no eye witnesses.

Remember "Flashing" has to deliberate, with every crime there has to be intent. If an old man accidently forgets his flies nobody can say that is flashing. The fact that the cps took this very flimsy and dubious case on means they were putting the boot in to the judge. Most of the time a person has to be nearly dead for the cps to take the case seriously.

Britain is becoming a facist state. If they are now trying to nobble the honest judges...............

I don't find it particularly odd that, if judges have the right to sit in a magistrates court, one should do so in a case where a colleague was on trial. The accused would have mates on the bench who would want to see him aquitted and one of them would have been assigned to ensure that no magistrate made a fool of the judiciary by convicting a judge.

To clarify this point in case someone is unclear.
EVERY criminal case has to be heard in front of a magistrate at the beginning. The magistrate can be either a salaried qualified magistrate or a lay bench of volunteer magistrates or a mixture of the two.
The magistrate has to decide whether to remand the defendant, whether the case should be refered to a specialist court or a higher court such as the crown court.
In the case of say an individual "importuning in a public place" first the villain is interviewed, the evidence is processsed and the CPS decide whether to proceed. They need to produce some sort of specimen prima facea case.
The magistrate can be your next door neighbour a friend and enemy anyone.
There is very tiny chance that the magistrate who is at the bottom end of the food chain would even know of the judge let alone have met him.
And indeed it is only in cases of less than 12 months in jail that a magistrate usually has jurisdiction. The judge had the right to have the case moved up to the crown court where the case would be harder to prove.
There is nothing wrong with the court procedure.
What is wrong is that they brought a very embarrasing allegation to court in the first place with no evidence and against a respected learned judge.

Parallel example.
When a lady in texas accused george bush of raping her not only did the case not move forward despite all the witness statements and filings and procedures being followed. But there was a media blackout AND the lady in question was bumped off (made to look like a suicide).
This High court judge in reality we should have only learnt of this if he had been found guilty and convicted.

This whole thing was a hatchet job against the judge.

Human rights ACT
a person has the right to privacy
This judge can rightfully sue the living daylights out of the cps.
But if any of you ever watched JUdge John Deed on tv that used to have plotlines of M15 agents leaning on the judges to make them go and be replaced by a different judge who was to their liking.

Baroness Butler Sloss is another example which is why Al Fayed wanted her gone because she was trying every angle to avoid the jury hearing the evidence.
As i stated above it looks like the legal system - the cornerstone of ANY democracy is under attack. And the toad in the hole incident is only one of probably many to come. Problem is the left wingers probably get fooled into thinking that outing bad judges is a good thing. But the judge is not bad. He is good that is why he said what he did regarding Jean Charles De Menezes human rights.

I would like to see his accuser charged with perjury, perverting the course of justice and harrasement ( she admitted following him and photographing him several times.) And i hope he sues her as an example.

[Bushwacker]

[You have no evidence only hearsay.
I saw his plonker poking out is not evidence, not on a packed commuter train and no cctv no photo no eye witnesses.

Sorry, that is not correct. The complainant gave direct evidence, not hearsay. She was an eye witness. However, it was uncorroborated evidence of identity, which courts are always very wary about, and he was acquited on the basis that the case had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[blackcat]

So it was her word against his, and nothing else. Why then did it ever get to court? Only one possible reason - to try to smear the judge. We are hurtling headlong into fascism under this Bliar government.