Jean Charles

December 21, 2008

COURT Menezes 1

We, here at The Twining Chronicles, have been reading the blog entry of Stressed Out Cop  in relation to Stockwell Head and this tragedy. Stressed Out Cop quite rightly states that the Foremost Operational Officer’s involved were under no illusion that the suspect they were dealing with was the failed terrorist Osman. They therefore did what they were tasked to do. This is really important. The removal of unlawful killing as an option available to the jury was an absolute necessity in this instance.

Stressed Out Cop also intimates that the promotion of Cressida Dick thereafter did not send the right message. Cannily this senior officer has remained quiet ever since and Ken Livingstone believes this officer has the ability to make the Commissioner one day.  Transprency did not transpire in the evidence of Dick. And the buck stops there. Any person with dignity would accept some responsibility, not fly in the face by suggesting that they would do nothing different if it happened again. 

Stressed Out Cop raises further matters; for example that this was a Corporate cock up and that Islamic terrorism as a cause of Jean Charles’s death must also take major responsibility here. Let’s not beat about the bush; the community also bears a responsibility. The dignified response of Dick, instead of being silent, may be to resign.



  1. She shouldn’t of had to offer to resign, she should of been sacked. The whole fiasco was cock up big time and she was in charge giving the orders. She still should be sacked.

  2. So what sort of illusion was it that they were dealing with a bomb?

  3. What I was trying to say was that the officer’s at the time thought they were dealing with Osman. He and others had just failed to activate terrorists bombs. The illusion was Jean Charles was not Osman, but the officer’s honestly believed the man they were dealing with was Osman.

  4. I think you are trying to say – they were under the illusion that Jean Charles was Osman.

    The task was to stop and detain him. It is not lawful to shoot and kill a person, even someone who has attempted mass murder, unless that person is posing an immediate threat to life and limb.

    The officers who fired the fatal shots claim they “honestly believed” the man they were dealing with was about to detonate an explosive device. What kind of hidden undetectable device could that possibly have been? Is their claim at all credible?

    If those questions were put to a jury I think it most unlikely they would decide this was anything less than unlawful killing.

  5. He wasn’t carrying anything or wearing a back pack so why not stop him at earliest opportunity with or without confirmation if they had right person or order from above. It just looks as if there was a shoot to kill no matter what but command failed to check they had right suspect let alone confirmed offender. No one can make excuses, there was a big time cock up, heads should roll.

  6. Unlawful killing is unlawful. I am not sure that the officer’s involved received all the information that they needed. That’s why unlawful killing was taken out in my opinion. The lack of information was due to circumstance, intelligence, neglect perhaps on behalf of the Commander and technical failures.

  7. Why did they not stop him earlier?

    Here at last year’s Old Bailey trial is the surveillance team leader venting his frustration:-

    “I came on the radio and asked them a question: ‘Do you want me to detain the subject before he goes down to the tube?’

    “My instructions were to wait. I told them we had got to make a decision and we have probably about twenty seconds. I said again: ‘Do you want this man detained?’

    “I said ‘If you don’t give me any answer he is going to be down in the tube and we will lose radio contact.’ I don’t know how many times I asked that question. It was at least three times. I just got ‘wait, wait, wait.’ I started to get tetchy and put down the telephone.”

  8. There was a massive mistake and therefore the person in charge of the operation is where the buck stops, Dick should now be in the queue with the Woolworths workers. The whole operation was of such importance to national safety that everyone involved should have been 100% on the ball, some were but those in charge as usual were insulated from reality in their luxurious offices.

  9. The SFO team were told very specifically that they would ONLY be sent in IF the target was confirmed and that they had to trust that information as they would not have the time to question or confirm it if they are tasked. They were tasked to ‘stop’ De Menezes after he had gone in the station and the command team failed to decide on whether or not to let the surveillance team stop him. As far as the SFO’s were concerned he WAS Osman, they were given this confirmation by being tasked and they acted on it. That is why the coroner removed the possibility of an unlawful killing verdict because the men who shot De Menezes were (as far as they were concerned at the time) were acting lawfully.

    The failure was with the command team by not acting quickly enough when opportunities to do so presented themselves and by not getting all the information possible. I have been on jobs were we have been told repeatedly to ‘wait wait wait’ when we could have very easily taken action on scene and every time it protracted the incident and even caused injuries to officers and members of the public.

    Personally I think the jury should have had all options. The outcome was always going to be appealed anyway as the family aren’t going to be happy until they have one or all of the SFO’s in prison which is never going to happen, at least at that rate the inquest wouldn’t have been called a whitewash by the public at the first hurdle. The fact that the officers on the ground did not act illegally with the information that they had would have meant the verdict would have been quashed anyway.

    If the same incident had happened in Brazil they would have been told to do one a long time ago let alone having millions of public funding or an inquiry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: