Ocean
The Living Force
http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/COGNITIVE-DISSONANCE-A-La-by-Jon-C-081206-263.html
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: A Last Ditch Defence for the Assassins of Jean Charles de Menezes
OpEdNews / 06-12-2008
Sir Michael Wright was Oxford educated, and after tutelage from Lord Griffiths and a distinguished career, became Chairman of the Bar of England and Wales in 1983. Promoted to the Queen’s Bench division of the High Court of Justice in 1990, he retired from the position in 2003, but still remains active in the courts.
Although sitting on many cases, one of his most notable involvements was in the British Tobacco Company Litigation case of 1999, starring Imperial Tobacco and Gallaher, versus 53 cancer-afflicted smokers. The collapse of that case came about by the judgement of Justice Wright, firstly on his ruling that 8 of the plaintiffs had left it too late to put in their claim, and then his view that even cases filed on time were unlikely to succeed, saying:
“Taking a broad view, it seems to be plainly legitimate to say that the prospects of success in this litigation on behalf of any plaintiff are by no means self evident.”
A few months later, in February 2000, one of the solicitors who took part in the unsuccessful litigation, Martyn Day, of Leigh, Day and Co. spoke to the House of Commons Health Select Committee about the case, whilst giving evidence.
“Judges in this country”, he said, “are keen to protect the industry's interests, while successive governments have colluded with tobacco firms and have failed to curb their unethical practices.”
Thus, knowing that Sir Michael is such a proven “team player”, the world should have been little surprised at his new ruling on 2nd December 2008 in the brutal police slaying of Jean Charles de Menezes, that : “…having heard all the evidence, a verdict of unlawful killing is not justified."
Sir Michael thus directed the jury to only give a verdict of lawful killing or an open verdict, releasing both officers and their commander from any blame, even though much new evidence had come to light, including multiple instances where they had attempted to cover up the crime.
One of the most shocking of these was of Officer “Owen” who deleted some of his notes a few days before the trial, saying:
"I have removed a line I believed was wrong and gave a totally false impression."
Luckily for his Commander, Cressida Dick, who was promoted even before this chilling murder investigation was even brought to court.
Meanwhile, on December 4th, the aggrieved relatives of Jean Charles protested against the jury ‘direction’ by standing up in court and removing their coats to reveal T-shirts printed with “UNLAWFUL KILLING VERDICT” and “YOUR LEGAL RIGHT TO DECIDE”, before being ejected.
A day later, on the 5th, Sir Michael told the jury to “ignore” the courtroom protest by the relatives of Jean Charles.
He stated that it was "wrong for anyone to try to put pressure on a jury and it should not have happened."
According to the Law Dictionary, http://dictionary.law.com :
Jury Tampering is :
n. the crime of attempting to influence a jury through any means other than presenting evidence and argument in court
What kind of legal jiggery-pokery, what dark hocus-pocus must be woven over the eyes of honest people that they would consider that Sir Michael’s jury verdict direction is not covered in his statement that it is "wrong for anyone to try to put pressure on a jury and it should not have happened."?
Answers on the back of a £3 million cheque soon to be taken out of your pocket…
-----------
References:
http://www.crownofficechambers.com/cvs.asp?id=125
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/02/profile-sir-michael-wright-de-menezes
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1115080
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/smoking/136301.stm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0999/is_/ai_60058142
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/oct/13/jean-charles-menezes-inquest-evidence
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7766825.stm
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: A Last Ditch Defence for the Assassins of Jean Charles de Menezes
OpEdNews / 06-12-2008
Sir Michael Wright was Oxford educated, and after tutelage from Lord Griffiths and a distinguished career, became Chairman of the Bar of England and Wales in 1983. Promoted to the Queen’s Bench division of the High Court of Justice in 1990, he retired from the position in 2003, but still remains active in the courts.
Although sitting on many cases, one of his most notable involvements was in the British Tobacco Company Litigation case of 1999, starring Imperial Tobacco and Gallaher, versus 53 cancer-afflicted smokers. The collapse of that case came about by the judgement of Justice Wright, firstly on his ruling that 8 of the plaintiffs had left it too late to put in their claim, and then his view that even cases filed on time were unlikely to succeed, saying:
“Taking a broad view, it seems to be plainly legitimate to say that the prospects of success in this litigation on behalf of any plaintiff are by no means self evident.”
A few months later, in February 2000, one of the solicitors who took part in the unsuccessful litigation, Martyn Day, of Leigh, Day and Co. spoke to the House of Commons Health Select Committee about the case, whilst giving evidence.
“Judges in this country”, he said, “are keen to protect the industry's interests, while successive governments have colluded with tobacco firms and have failed to curb their unethical practices.”
Thus, knowing that Sir Michael is such a proven “team player”, the world should have been little surprised at his new ruling on 2nd December 2008 in the brutal police slaying of Jean Charles de Menezes, that : “…having heard all the evidence, a verdict of unlawful killing is not justified."
Sir Michael thus directed the jury to only give a verdict of lawful killing or an open verdict, releasing both officers and their commander from any blame, even though much new evidence had come to light, including multiple instances where they had attempted to cover up the crime.
One of the most shocking of these was of Officer “Owen” who deleted some of his notes a few days before the trial, saying:
"I have removed a line I believed was wrong and gave a totally false impression."
Luckily for his Commander, Cressida Dick, who was promoted even before this chilling murder investigation was even brought to court.
Meanwhile, on December 4th, the aggrieved relatives of Jean Charles protested against the jury ‘direction’ by standing up in court and removing their coats to reveal T-shirts printed with “UNLAWFUL KILLING VERDICT” and “YOUR LEGAL RIGHT TO DECIDE”, before being ejected.
A day later, on the 5th, Sir Michael told the jury to “ignore” the courtroom protest by the relatives of Jean Charles.
He stated that it was "wrong for anyone to try to put pressure on a jury and it should not have happened."
According to the Law Dictionary, http://dictionary.law.com :
Jury Tampering is :
n. the crime of attempting to influence a jury through any means other than presenting evidence and argument in court
What kind of legal jiggery-pokery, what dark hocus-pocus must be woven over the eyes of honest people that they would consider that Sir Michael’s jury verdict direction is not covered in his statement that it is "wrong for anyone to try to put pressure on a jury and it should not have happened."?
Answers on the back of a £3 million cheque soon to be taken out of your pocket…
-----------
References:
http://www.crownofficechambers.com/cvs.asp?id=125
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/02/profile-sir-michael-wright-de-menezes
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1115080
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/smoking/136301.stm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0999/is_/ai_60058142
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/oct/13/jean-charles-menezes-inquest-evidence
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7766825.stm
