The Lives of others

In the dim and distant past when Left / Right political arguments seemed real and endless discussions ensued about ideological semantics I knew people in Dublin who resplended in titles such as “Secretary of the Irish / East German Friendship Society.” The East Germany they referred to was not the “corrupt capitalist lackey” of West Germany but the splendidly entitled DDR – the German Democratic Republic. To these stalwarts of communist orthodoxy the Berlin Wall was “The Great Anti-Fascist Protection Barrier (!)” and calling East Germany a “Police State” was a “slander on Socialist Realism” etc; etc; Now, none of this rang true at the time and does so even less today. Those “friends of the East German people” (they loved the people you understand, they were never commies) moved onto solidarity with Cuba and then when the Cuban’s lost interest in them (around the time Russian money disappeared) they became involved with “Think Tanks” and “Progressive Journals” on the reasonable grounds that they have never had an original or progressive thought in their lives, indeed prior to that their thoughts had been about different types of tanks used to “correct the errors of the masses.”









The Great Anti-Fascist Protection Barrier - The beginning and the end



Now the German Left Wing has been much maligned and in the 20th Century has had reasonable grounds for angst. They were massacred by right wing thugs in the Weimar Republic (obit; Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht) and those who survived were systematically exterminated and driven into exile by the Nazi’s, indeed the left wing were the first people that Hitler practiced his coercion and extermination policies on whilst the world was happy enough to look away. After the war it was not difficult to think communism was the way forward and many idealists gravitated to the Soviet Zone to set up what was to be the DDR. Early West Germany was not an attractive state with many “cleansed” Nazis still in place and a corrupt political elite largely directed by the Western Occupying powers, but one was to eventually to find its feet and sense of purpose and for the East, after the Worker’s Uprising in June 1953 suppressed with Soviet tanks it became a Soviet satellite fearful of its own people.







This is the world examined as the endgame of the East German State was approaching in this film. The Lives of Others (original German: Das Leben der Anderen) is a German film, marking the feature film debut of writer and director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck. It is set in the hyper paranoid East Germany before the Fall of the Berlin Wall when East Germany's Secret Police listened to your secrets and maintained an army of up to 400,000 informers. In 1984 East Berlin, an agent of the secret police, conducting surveillance on a writer and his lover, finds himself becoming increasingly absorbed by their lives.



With The Lives of Others, von Donnersmarck won the 2007 Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. The film had earlier won seven Deutscher Filmpreis awards – including best film, best director, best screenplay, best actor, and best supporting actor – after having set a new record with 11 nominations. It was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 64th Golden Globe Awards. The thriller/drama involves the monitoring of the cultural scene of East Berlin by agents of the Stasi, the GDR's secret police. It stars Ulrich Mühe as Stasi Captain Gerd Wiesler, Ulrich Tukur as his chief Anton Grubitz, Sebastian Koch as the playwright Georg Dreymann, and Martina Gedeck as Dreymann's lover, a prominent actress named Christa-Maria Sieland.







It is a tribute to the richness of the film that one cannot say for sure who the hero is. The most prominent figure is Gerd Wiesler (Ulrich Mühe), yet if you passed him on the street you wouldn’t give him a second glance, or even a first. He would spot you, however, and file you away in a drawer at the back of his mind. Wiesler, based in East Berlin, is a captain in the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, better known as the Stasi - the state security service, which, by the mid-nineteen-eighties, employed more than ninety thousand personnel. In addition, a modest hundred and seventy thousand East Germans became unofficial employees, called upon to snoop and snitch for the honour or, in practical terms, the survival of the state.







The German DVD of this film was recalled due to some statements director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck made in his audio commentary about the alleged activities of politician Gregor Gysi and actress Jenny Gröllmann as official agents (IM) for the "Staatssicherheit" (secret police of former East Germany).







The movie tells the story of Stasi agent Wiesler (brilliant Ulrich Mühe), who follows his guidelines with chilling accuracy. His newest assignment is to wiretapping famed author Georg Dreymann (Sebastian Koch) and his companion, actress Christa-Maria Sieland (Martina Gedeck). Listening to their conversations, he gets more and more caught in their lives. Wiesler, as he is played here by Ulrich Mühe, is not an individual, but a symbol for the whole system, where people did everything they were told to do. Clad only in gray and brown, filmed in stark and cold light, he's at first not capable of feelings. On the other hand Dreymann and Sieland represent the anti-Establishment, the intellectuals, who were severely hunted, arrested and killed by the government.



The most frightening aspect here is the banality of it all. The offices are bleak, the people talk about bugging operations etc. with a frightening causality. These men in grey look, talk and behave like boring civil servants, and their approach, the "normality" of their job makes it terribly chilling. Director Florian Henckel-Donnersmarck is also able to recreate a feeling of constant observance and spying. In a disturbing scene a harmless joke becomes the center of suspicion and fear. We can glimpse how it must have been for citizens of the DDR, to live with constant suppression of their free will and opinion. As important it is, not to forget the good things and memories people might have of their past, it's also important not to forget or to reduce the impact and fear that this regime put on their people for 40 years.



This is a powerful film which turns into a suspenseful thriller with a complex and powerful moral drive. Were there people like Wiesler in the Stasi? Some of its victims say not. However, von Donnersmarck and Ulrich Mühe persuade us of that possibility without suggesting such figures were common. But as it unwraps the complex layers of personal motivation, loyalty and betrayal far from being alienated from the characters we are drawn to them as we recognise in their responses to a controlling system echoes of our own possible responses in a similar situation where the individual is always subservient.







The Lives of Others subtly evokes a vindictive society that exists by turning citizens against each other in the interests of national unity and collective security. It serves as a major warning to us and our elected leaders about where overzealousness and a lack of respect for individuals and their liberties can lead.



The subtitle of the German Version “Sonate vom guten Menschen” – Sonata for a Good Man is both the title of the piece of piano music given to Dreymann by his great friend Jerska, a director who has lost his reason to live after being blacklisted and the title of the valedictory book published by Dreymann after German re-unification in honour of the Stasi agent Wiesler who makes a moral choice to help his target but not in time to prevent Christa-Maria Sieland running under a car and being killed distraught that she has betrayed her lover to the Stasi.







At Dreyman's 40th birthday party, Jerska gives Dreyman a gift of sheet music to a piece titled "Sonata for A Good Man" (German: Sonate vom guten Menschen). Shortly afterward, Jerska commits suicide; this finally spurs Dreyman into speaking out publicly against the regime. Dreyman arranges through friends with West Germany's weekly magazine Der Spiegel to anonymously publish an article on suicide rates in the GDR. While the GDR publishes detailed statistics on many things, it has not published any information on suicide rates since the 1970s, presumably because they are embarrassingly high.



After unification Dreymann publishes a novel "Sonata for A Good Man" (the name of the sonata given to him by Jerska shortly before Jerska's suicide). Wiesler sees the book advertised in a bookstore, and finds that it is dedicated "To HGW XX/7, (His Stasi Code Name) with gratitude". Wiesler had been consigned to the bowels of the Stasi HQ for his disloyalty and after unification has a rubbish job delivering newspapers. He goes to buy the book and, when asked if he wants it gift wrapped, he responds quietly with a double entendre, "No; it's for me..."



A powerful and thoughtful movie wonderfully acted, tersely directed and shot with an art direction of meticulous meanness and coldness.





Berlin - Checkpoint Charlie

The Lives of others

In the dim and distant past when Left / Right political arguments seemed real and endless discussions ensued about ideological semantics I knew people in Dublin who resplended in titles such as “Secretary of the Irish / East German Friendship Society.” The East Germany they referred to was not the “corrupt capitalist lackey” of West Germany but the splendidly entitled DDR – the German Democratic Republic. To these stalwarts of communist orthodoxy the Berlin Wall was “The Great Anti-Fascist Protection Barrier (!)” and calling East Germany a “Police State” was a “slander on Socialist Realism” etc; etc; Now, none of this rang true at the time and does so even less today. Those “friends of the East German people” (they loved the people you understand, they were never commies) moved onto solidarity with Cuba and then when the Cuban’s lost interest in them (around the time Russian money disappeared) they became involved with “Think Tanks” and “Progressive Journals” on the reasonable grounds that they have never had an original or progressive thought in their lives, indeed prior to that their thoughts had been about different types of tanks used to “correct the errors of the masses.”









The Great Anti-Fascist Protection Barrier - The beginning and the end



Now the German Left Wing has been much maligned and in the 20th Century has had reasonable grounds for angst. They were massacred by right wing thugs in the Weimar Republic (obit; Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht) and those who survived were systematically exterminated and driven into exile by the Nazi’s, indeed the left wing were the first people that Hitler practiced his coercion and extermination policies on whilst the world was happy enough to look away. After the war it was not difficult to think communism was the way forward and many idealists gravitated to the Soviet Zone to set up what was to be the DDR. Early West Germany was not an attractive state with many “cleansed” Nazis still in place and a corrupt political elite largely directed by the Western Occupying powers, but one was to eventually to find its feet and sense of purpose and for the East, after the Worker’s Uprising in June 1953 suppressed with Soviet tanks it became a Soviet satellite fearful of its own people.







This is the world examined as the endgame of the East German State was approaching in this film. The Lives of Others (original German: Das Leben der Anderen) is a German film, marking the feature film debut of writer and director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck. It is set in the hyper paranoid East Germany before the Fall of the Berlin Wall when East Germany's Secret Police listened to your secrets and maintained an army of up to 400,000 informers. In 1984 East Berlin, an agent of the secret police, conducting surveillance on a writer and his lover, finds himself becoming increasingly absorbed by their lives.



With The Lives of Others, von Donnersmarck won the 2007 Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. The film had earlier won seven Deutscher Filmpreis awards – including best film, best director, best screenplay, best actor, and best supporting actor – after having set a new record with 11 nominations. It was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 64th Golden Globe Awards. The thriller/drama involves the monitoring of the cultural scene of East Berlin by agents of the Stasi, the GDR's secret police. It stars Ulrich Mühe as Stasi Captain Gerd Wiesler, Ulrich Tukur as his chief Anton Grubitz, Sebastian Koch as the playwright Georg Dreymann, and Martina Gedeck as Dreymann's lover, a prominent actress named Christa-Maria Sieland.







It is a tribute to the richness of the film that one cannot say for sure who the hero is. The most prominent figure is Gerd Wiesler (Ulrich Mühe), yet if you passed him on the street you wouldn’t give him a second glance, or even a first. He would spot you, however, and file you away in a drawer at the back of his mind. Wiesler, based in East Berlin, is a captain in the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, better known as the Stasi - the state security service, which, by the mid-nineteen-eighties, employed more than ninety thousand personnel. In addition, a modest hundred and seventy thousand East Germans became unofficial employees, called upon to snoop and snitch for the honour or, in practical terms, the survival of the state.







The German DVD of this film was recalled due to some statements director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck made in his audio commentary about the alleged activities of politician Gregor Gysi and actress Jenny Gröllmann as official agents (IM) for the "Staatssicherheit" (secret police of former East Germany).







The movie tells the story of Stasi agent Wiesler (brilliant Ulrich Mühe), who follows his guidelines with chilling accuracy. His newest assignment is to wiretapping famed author Georg Dreymann (Sebastian Koch) and his companion, actress Christa-Maria Sieland (Martina Gedeck). Listening to their conversations, he gets more and more caught in their lives. Wiesler, as he is played here by Ulrich Mühe, is not an individual, but a symbol for the whole system, where people did everything they were told to do. Clad only in gray and brown, filmed in stark and cold light, he's at first not capable of feelings. On the other hand Dreymann and Sieland represent the anti-Establishment, the intellectuals, who were severely hunted, arrested and killed by the government.



The most frightening aspect here is the banality of it all. The offices are bleak, the people talk about bugging operations etc. with a frightening causality. These men in grey look, talk and behave like boring civil servants, and their approach, the "normality" of their job makes it terribly chilling. Director Florian Henckel-Donnersmarck is also able to recreate a feeling of constant observance and spying. In a disturbing scene a harmless joke becomes the center of suspicion and fear. We can glimpse how it must have been for citizens of the DDR, to live with constant suppression of their free will and opinion. As important it is, not to forget the good things and memories people might have of their past, it's also important not to forget or to reduce the impact and fear that this regime put on their people for 40 years.



This is a powerful film which turns into a suspenseful thriller with a complex and powerful moral drive. Were there people like Wiesler in the Stasi? Some of its victims say not. However, von Donnersmarck and Ulrich Mühe persuade us of that possibility without suggesting such figures were common. But as it unwraps the complex layers of personal motivation, loyalty and betrayal far from being alienated from the characters we are drawn to them as we recognise in their responses to a controlling system echoes of our own possible responses in a similar situation where the individual is always subservient.







The Lives of Others subtly evokes a vindictive society that exists by turning citizens against each other in the interests of national unity and collective security. It serves as a major warning to us and our elected leaders about where overzealousness and a lack of respect for individuals and their liberties can lead.



The subtitle of the German Version “Sonate vom guten Menschen” – Sonata for a Good Man is both the title of the piece of piano music given to Dreymann by his great friend Jerska, a director who has lost his reason to live after being blacklisted and the title of the valedictory book published by Dreymann after German re-unification in honour of the Stasi agent Wiesler who makes a moral choice to help his target but not in time to prevent Christa-Maria Sieland running under a car and being killed distraught that she has betrayed her lover to the Stasi.







At Dreyman's 40th birthday party, Jerska gives Dreyman a gift of sheet music to a piece titled "Sonata for A Good Man" (German: Sonate vom guten Menschen). Shortly afterward, Jerska commits suicide; this finally spurs Dreyman into speaking out publicly against the regime. Dreyman arranges through friends with West Germany's weekly magazine Der Spiegel to anonymously publish an article on suicide rates in the GDR. While the GDR publishes detailed statistics on many things, it has not published any information on suicide rates since the 1970s, presumably because they are embarrassingly high.



After unification Dreymann publishes a novel "Sonata for A Good Man" (the name of the sonata given to him by Jerska shortly before Jerska's suicide). Wiesler sees the book advertised in a bookstore, and finds that it is dedicated "To HGW XX/7, (His Stasi Code Name) with gratitude". Wiesler had been consigned to the bowels of the Stasi HQ for his disloyalty and after unification has a rubbish job delivering newspapers. He goes to buy the book and, when asked if he wants it gift wrapped, he responds quietly with a double entendre, "No; it's for me..."



A powerful and thoughtful movie wonderfully acted, tersely directed and shot with an art direction of meticulous meanness and coldness.





Berlin - Checkpoint Charlie

Our White House at the National Book Festival!

OUR WHITE HOUSE:Looking In, Looking Out at the
Library of Congress National Book Festival!!

NCBLA Vice-Presidents Katherine Paterson and Steven Kellogg, with special guest Jon Scieszka, the Library of Congress Children's Book Ambassador, and NCBLA President Mary Brigid Barrettwill discuss NCBLA's new book Our White House: Looking In, Looking Out at the LOC National Book Festival. The Festival takes place Saturday, September 27, 2008 on the National Mall in Washington D.C., between 3rd and 7th streets from 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The festival is free and open to the public.

Katherine, Steven, Jon, and Mary Brigid are looking forward to sharing Our White House with Book Festival middle grade readers, their friends, family, and all who share an interest in our nation's rich history!

Katherine, Steven, Jon, and Mary Brigid have also participated in the Festival's great educational outreach project, the 2008 National Book Festival Young Readers Toolkit, now available online at www.loc.gov/bookfest/2008/toolkit/. Bringing the festival into libraries, schools and homes across the country, the Toolkit features information about National Book Festival authors who write for children and teens, podcasts of their readings, teaching tools and activities for kids. This interactive resource also shows educators, parents and children how they can host their own book festival.

For more information about the LOC Book Festival go to:
http://www.loc.gov/bookfest/

For Katherine's toolkit interview, go to:
http://www.loc.gov/bookfest/2008/toolkit/authors/bio_kpaterson.html

For Steven Kellogg's toolkit interview, go to:
http://www.loc.gov/bookfest/2008/toolkit/authors/bio_skellogg.html

For Jon Scieszka's toolkit interview, go to:
http://www.loc.gov/bookfest/2008/toolkit/authors/bio_jscieszka.html

For Mary Brigid Barrett's toolkit interview, go to:
http://www.loc.gov/bookfest/2008/toolkit/authors/bio_mbbarrett.html

And discover all the great festival author/illustrator toolkit interviews at:
http://www.loc.gov/bookfest/2008/toolkit/

Stay granted for Troy Davis!

Troy and his Mother

Just an hour and a half before Troy Davis' scheduled execution last night, the US Supreme Court stepped in and granted a stay until Monday September 29th! The court will decide whether or not to hear Davis' appeal on Monday.

Thank you to all who took action with us to stop this injustice. We hope the US Supreme Court makes the right decision next week. In the mean time, please continue to contact the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles as they can grant clemency at any time.

For updates, please visit http://www.amnestyusa.org/troy
Thanks for you support!

US Supreme Court Order

(ORDER LIST: 554 U.S.)
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
08-66 DAVIS, TROY A. V. GEORGIA
(O8A241)
The application for stay of execution of sentence of death
presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is
granted pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of
certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be
denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event
the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall
terminate upon the issuance of the mandate of this Court.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

'Where is the justice for me?'
The case of Troy Davis, facing execution in Georgia

I think this country would be much better off if we did not have capital punishment... I really think it's a very unfortunate part of our judicial system and I would feel much, much better if more states would really consider whether they think the benefits outweigh the very serious potential injustice, because in these cases the emotions are very, very high on both sides and to have stakes as high as you do in these cases, there is a special potential for error.

US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens

Introduction

Troy Anthony Davis has been on death row in Georgia for more than 15 years for the murder of a police officer he maintains he did not commit. Given that all but three of the witnesses who testified against Troy Davis at his trial have since recanted or contradicted their testimony amidst allegations that some of it had been made under police duress, there are serious and as yet unanswered questions surrounding the reliability of his conviction and the state's conduct in obtaining it. As the case currently stands, the government's pursuit of the death penalty contravenes international safeguards which prohibit the execution of anyone whose guilt is not based on "clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts".

Amnesty International does not know if Troy Davis is guilty or innocent of the crime for which he is facing execution. As an abolitionist organization, it opposes his death sentence either way. It nevertheless believes that this is one in a long line of cases in the USA that should give even ardent supporters of the death penalty pause for thought. For it provides further evidence of the danger, inherent in the death penalty, of irrevocable error. As the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court wrote in 1993, "It is an unalterable fact that our judicial system, like the human beings who administer it, is fallible." Or as a US federal judge said in 2006, "The assessment of the death penalty, however well designed the system for doing so, remains a human endeavour with a consequent risk of error that may not be remediable."

The case of Troy Davis is a reminder of the legal hurdles that death row inmates must overcome in the USA in order to obtain remedies in the appeal courts. In this regard, Amnesty International fears that Troy Davis' avenues for judicial relief have been all but closed off. In particular, he is caught in a trap set by US Congress a decade ago when it withdrew funding from post-conviction defender organizations in 1995 and passed the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996.


Troy and his Sisters


This report outlines the case of Troy Davis. Executive clemency will be his last hope if the courts prove unwilling or unable to provide a meaningful remedy. Time is running out.

The inescapable risk of error

A legal regime relying on the death penalty will inevitably execute innocent people -- not too often, one hopes, but undoubtedly sometimes. Mistakes will be made because it is simply not possible to do something this difficult perfectly, all the time. Any honest proponent of capital punishment must face this fact.

Thirty years after the USA resumed executions, any notion that the US capital justice system is free from error or inequity should by now have been dispelled. A landmark study published in 2000, for example, concluded that US death sentences are "persistently and systematically fraught with error". The study revealed that appeal courts had found serious errors -- those requiring a judicial remedy -- in 68 per cent of cases. The most common errors in US capital cases were "(1) egregiously incompetent defense lawyers who didn't even look for - and demonstrably missed - important evidence that the defendant was innocent or did not deserve to die; and (2) police or prosecutors who did discover that kind of evidence but suppressed it, again keeping it from the jury." The study expressed "grave doubt" as to whether the courts catch all such error.

In Troy Davis' case, his appeal lawyers have argued that his trial counsel failed to conduct an adequate investigation of the state's evidence, including allegations that some witnesses had been coerced by the police, or to present full and effective witness testimony of their own (the prosecution presented 30 witnesses in total, the defence presented six). They have also claimed that the state presented perjured testimony as well as evidence tainted by a police investigation which had used coercive tactics, including against children taken into custody for questioning. As shown below, alleged police coercion is a common theme that emerges from the affidavits that various witnesses have provided since the trial when recanting earlier statements.

Perhaps the starkest indicator of the fallibility of the US capital justice system is the fact that since the US Supreme Court approved new death penalty laws in 1976, more than 100 individuals have been released from death rows around the country on grounds of innocence. The cases of people like Anthony Porter -- who came 48 hours from execution in 1998 after more than 16 years on death row in Illinois before being proved innocent by a group of journalism students who happened to study his case -- stand as an indictment of a flawed system. In April 2002 in Illinois, the 14-member Commission appointed by the governor to examine that state's capital justice system in view of the number of wrongful convictions in capital cases there, reported that it was "unanimous in the belief that no system, given human nature and frailties, could ever be devised or constructed that would work perfectly and guarantee absolutely that no innocent person is ever again sentenced to death".


US Supreme Court

In similar vein, in January 2007, after a process in which it held five public hearings and took evidence from a wide range of witnesses, a Death Penalty Study Commission established by the New Jersey legislature recommended abolition of the death penalty in that state. The Commission had failed to find any compelling evidence that the death penalty served any legitimate penological purpose, and it concluded that only abolition could eliminate the risk of irreversible arbitrariness and error. New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission Report, January 2007.

Yet still some maintain that exonerations of condemned inmates are a sign of the system working. Among those who have perpetuated this myth is US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Such exonerations, he has contended, demonstrate "not the failure of the system but its success". Justice Scalia added:

"Like other human institutions, courts and juries are not perfect. One cannot have a system of criminal punishment without accepting the possibility that someone will be punished mistakenly. That is a truism, not a revelation. But with regard to the punishment of death in the current American system, that possibility has been reduced to an insignificant minimum."

It is disturbing that anyone, let alone a Justice of the Supreme Court, should consider as "insignificant" the risk of wrongful convictions in capital cases given what is known about the repeated failures of the system. The risk was not insignificant to the more than 100 individuals sentenced to death since 1976 who spent, on average, more than nine years between conviction and exoneration.(11) Factors that contributed to these wrongful convictions include prosecutorial or police misconduct and inadequate legal representation.

Of particular relevance in Troy Davis's case is the question of the reliability of the witness testimony used by the state to send him to death row. The problem of unreliable witness testimony as a source of error in capital cases has long been recognized. For example, a major study published in 1987 found that:

"By far the most frequent cause of erroneous convictions in our catalogue of 350 cases was error by witnesses; more than half of the cases (193) involved errors of this sort. Sometimes such errors occurred in conjunction with other errors, but often they were the primary or even the sole cause of the wrongful conviction. In one-third of the cases (117), the erroneous witness testimony was in fact perjured."

In addition, "clear injustices perpetrated by the police compose nearly a quarter of the errors" identified in this study. The majority of the error attributable to the police came in the form of coerced statements, with the remainder accounted for by negligence and over-zealous police work. Such misconduct was a major contributor to the wrongful conviction of four Illinois death row inmates, who were pardoned by the state governor in 2003 on the basis that their confessions had been tortured out of them by the police. The final report of the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission, released on 2 January 2007, noted the fallibility of eyewitness testimony in reaching the conclusion that "the penological interest in executing a small number of persons guilty of murder is not sufficiently compelling to justify the risk of making an irreversible mistake". For these and other reasons, the Commission has recommended abolition of the death penalty in New Jersey.

The problem of unreliable witness testimony, some of it exacerbated or caused by police misconduct, has been illustrated in a number of the other cases of those released since 1976 from death rows in the USA on the grounds of innocence. For example:

Thomas Gladish, Richard Greer, Ronald Keine and Clarence Smith were exonerated in 1976 in New Mexico two years after being sentenced to death. A newspaper investigation uncovered perjury by the prosecution's key witness, perjured identification given under police pressure, and the use of poorly administered lie detector tests.


The way we were - Electric Chair at Sing Sing

Earl Charles was sentenced to death in Georgia in 1975 and was on death row for three years before being exonerated. At his trial, two eyewitnesses identified him as the murderer. However, it was later revealed that the police had used suggestive photo line-up techniques and not revealed that the eyewitnesses had pointed to others in the line-up as possible suspects.

Larry Hicks was acquitted at a retrial in 1980, two years after being sentenced to death in Indiana. At the retrial, evidence showed that eyewitness testimony that had been used against him at the original trial had been perjured.

Anthony Brown was acquitted at a retrial in Florida in 1986. Three years earlier he had been sentenced to death on the basis of evidence from a co-defendant who received a life sentence. At the retrial, the co-defendant admitted that his original testimony had been perjured.

Neil Ferber was released in 1986, almost four years after he was sentenced to death in Pennsylvania. The state declined to retry him after, among other things, it emerged that a jailhouse informant had given perjured testimony at the first trial.
Timothy Hennis was acquitted at a retrial in North Carolina in 1989, three years after being sentenced to death for murder. At the retrial, the defence discredited the witnesses who had testified at the original trial and pointed to a neighbour of Hennis who could have been responsible for the crime.

Charles Smith was acquitted in 1991 in Indiana, eight years after being sentenced to death. At the retrial, the defence presented evidence that witnesses at his original trial had given perjured testimony.

Federico Macias was sentenced to death in Texas in 1984 on the basis of the testimony of a co-defendant and jailhouse informants. His conviction was overturned, a grand jury refused to indict him again because of lack of evidence. He was released in 1993.

Walter McMillian was released in Alabama in 1993, six years after being sentenced to death. His conviction was overturned after it was shown that three of the state's witnesses had given perjured testimony.

Ronald Williamson was released in 1999. He was sentenced to death in Oklahoma in 1987. Among other things, his trial lawyer had failed to question the motive of a jailhouse informant who alleged that Williamson had confessed to the murder.
Steve Manning had charges against him dropped in 2000. He had been sentenced to death in Illinois in 1993 on the basis of the word of a jailhouse informant who testified that Manning had confessed to him in jail.

Charles Fain was released in August 2001 after charges against him were dropped. He had been sentenced to death in Idaho in 1983. The evidence against him included the word of two jailhouse informants, who said that Fain had confessed to the murder.
Joseph Amrine was released in Missouri in 2003, 17 years after being sentenced to death for murder on the basis of the testimony of fellow inmates, who later recanted their testimony.(16)

Alan Gell was acquitted in North Carolina in 2004, six years after being sentenced to death. At his retrial, the defence presented evidence that the state's two key witnesses had lied at the original trial.

Stay granted for Troy Davis!

Troy and his Mother

Just an hour and a half before Troy Davis' scheduled execution last night, the US Supreme Court stepped in and granted a stay until Monday September 29th! The court will decide whether or not to hear Davis' appeal on Monday.

Thank you to all who took action with us to stop this injustice. We hope the US Supreme Court makes the right decision next week. In the mean time, please continue to contact the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles as they can grant clemency at any time.

For updates, please visit http://www.amnestyusa.org/troy
Thanks for you support!

US Supreme Court Order

(ORDER LIST: 554 U.S.)
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
08-66 DAVIS, TROY A. V. GEORGIA
(O8A241)
The application for stay of execution of sentence of death
presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is
granted pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of
certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be
denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event
the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall
terminate upon the issuance of the mandate of this Court.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

'Where is the justice for me?'
The case of Troy Davis, facing execution in Georgia

I think this country would be much better off if we did not have capital punishment... I really think it's a very unfortunate part of our judicial system and I would feel much, much better if more states would really consider whether they think the benefits outweigh the very serious potential injustice, because in these cases the emotions are very, very high on both sides and to have stakes as high as you do in these cases, there is a special potential for error.

US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens

Introduction

Troy Anthony Davis has been on death row in Georgia for more than 15 years for the murder of a police officer he maintains he did not commit. Given that all but three of the witnesses who testified against Troy Davis at his trial have since recanted or contradicted their testimony amidst allegations that some of it had been made under police duress, there are serious and as yet unanswered questions surrounding the reliability of his conviction and the state's conduct in obtaining it. As the case currently stands, the government's pursuit of the death penalty contravenes international safeguards which prohibit the execution of anyone whose guilt is not based on "clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts".

Amnesty International does not know if Troy Davis is guilty or innocent of the crime for which he is facing execution. As an abolitionist organization, it opposes his death sentence either way. It nevertheless believes that this is one in a long line of cases in the USA that should give even ardent supporters of the death penalty pause for thought. For it provides further evidence of the danger, inherent in the death penalty, of irrevocable error. As the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court wrote in 1993, "It is an unalterable fact that our judicial system, like the human beings who administer it, is fallible." Or as a US federal judge said in 2006, "The assessment of the death penalty, however well designed the system for doing so, remains a human endeavour with a consequent risk of error that may not be remediable."

The case of Troy Davis is a reminder of the legal hurdles that death row inmates must overcome in the USA in order to obtain remedies in the appeal courts. In this regard, Amnesty International fears that Troy Davis' avenues for judicial relief have been all but closed off. In particular, he is caught in a trap set by US Congress a decade ago when it withdrew funding from post-conviction defender organizations in 1995 and passed the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996.


Troy and his Sisters


This report outlines the case of Troy Davis. Executive clemency will be his last hope if the courts prove unwilling or unable to provide a meaningful remedy. Time is running out.

The inescapable risk of error

A legal regime relying on the death penalty will inevitably execute innocent people -- not too often, one hopes, but undoubtedly sometimes. Mistakes will be made because it is simply not possible to do something this difficult perfectly, all the time. Any honest proponent of capital punishment must face this fact.

Thirty years after the USA resumed executions, any notion that the US capital justice system is free from error or inequity should by now have been dispelled. A landmark study published in 2000, for example, concluded that US death sentences are "persistently and systematically fraught with error". The study revealed that appeal courts had found serious errors -- those requiring a judicial remedy -- in 68 per cent of cases. The most common errors in US capital cases were "(1) egregiously incompetent defense lawyers who didn't even look for - and demonstrably missed - important evidence that the defendant was innocent or did not deserve to die; and (2) police or prosecutors who did discover that kind of evidence but suppressed it, again keeping it from the jury." The study expressed "grave doubt" as to whether the courts catch all such error.

In Troy Davis' case, his appeal lawyers have argued that his trial counsel failed to conduct an adequate investigation of the state's evidence, including allegations that some witnesses had been coerced by the police, or to present full and effective witness testimony of their own (the prosecution presented 30 witnesses in total, the defence presented six). They have also claimed that the state presented perjured testimony as well as evidence tainted by a police investigation which had used coercive tactics, including against children taken into custody for questioning. As shown below, alleged police coercion is a common theme that emerges from the affidavits that various witnesses have provided since the trial when recanting earlier statements.

Perhaps the starkest indicator of the fallibility of the US capital justice system is the fact that since the US Supreme Court approved new death penalty laws in 1976, more than 100 individuals have been released from death rows around the country on grounds of innocence. The cases of people like Anthony Porter -- who came 48 hours from execution in 1998 after more than 16 years on death row in Illinois before being proved innocent by a group of journalism students who happened to study his case -- stand as an indictment of a flawed system. In April 2002 in Illinois, the 14-member Commission appointed by the governor to examine that state's capital justice system in view of the number of wrongful convictions in capital cases there, reported that it was "unanimous in the belief that no system, given human nature and frailties, could ever be devised or constructed that would work perfectly and guarantee absolutely that no innocent person is ever again sentenced to death".


US Supreme Court

In similar vein, in January 2007, after a process in which it held five public hearings and took evidence from a wide range of witnesses, a Death Penalty Study Commission established by the New Jersey legislature recommended abolition of the death penalty in that state. The Commission had failed to find any compelling evidence that the death penalty served any legitimate penological purpose, and it concluded that only abolition could eliminate the risk of irreversible arbitrariness and error. New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission Report, January 2007.

Yet still some maintain that exonerations of condemned inmates are a sign of the system working. Among those who have perpetuated this myth is US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Such exonerations, he has contended, demonstrate "not the failure of the system but its success". Justice Scalia added:

"Like other human institutions, courts and juries are not perfect. One cannot have a system of criminal punishment without accepting the possibility that someone will be punished mistakenly. That is a truism, not a revelation. But with regard to the punishment of death in the current American system, that possibility has been reduced to an insignificant minimum."

It is disturbing that anyone, let alone a Justice of the Supreme Court, should consider as "insignificant" the risk of wrongful convictions in capital cases given what is known about the repeated failures of the system. The risk was not insignificant to the more than 100 individuals sentenced to death since 1976 who spent, on average, more than nine years between conviction and exoneration.(11) Factors that contributed to these wrongful convictions include prosecutorial or police misconduct and inadequate legal representation.

Of particular relevance in Troy Davis's case is the question of the reliability of the witness testimony used by the state to send him to death row. The problem of unreliable witness testimony as a source of error in capital cases has long been recognized. For example, a major study published in 1987 found that:

"By far the most frequent cause of erroneous convictions in our catalogue of 350 cases was error by witnesses; more than half of the cases (193) involved errors of this sort. Sometimes such errors occurred in conjunction with other errors, but often they were the primary or even the sole cause of the wrongful conviction. In one-third of the cases (117), the erroneous witness testimony was in fact perjured."

In addition, "clear injustices perpetrated by the police compose nearly a quarter of the errors" identified in this study. The majority of the error attributable to the police came in the form of coerced statements, with the remainder accounted for by negligence and over-zealous police work. Such misconduct was a major contributor to the wrongful conviction of four Illinois death row inmates, who were pardoned by the state governor in 2003 on the basis that their confessions had been tortured out of them by the police. The final report of the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission, released on 2 January 2007, noted the fallibility of eyewitness testimony in reaching the conclusion that "the penological interest in executing a small number of persons guilty of murder is not sufficiently compelling to justify the risk of making an irreversible mistake". For these and other reasons, the Commission has recommended abolition of the death penalty in New Jersey.

The problem of unreliable witness testimony, some of it exacerbated or caused by police misconduct, has been illustrated in a number of the other cases of those released since 1976 from death rows in the USA on the grounds of innocence. For example:

Thomas Gladish, Richard Greer, Ronald Keine and Clarence Smith were exonerated in 1976 in New Mexico two years after being sentenced to death. A newspaper investigation uncovered perjury by the prosecution's key witness, perjured identification given under police pressure, and the use of poorly administered lie detector tests.


The way we were - Electric Chair at Sing Sing

Earl Charles was sentenced to death in Georgia in 1975 and was on death row for three years before being exonerated. At his trial, two eyewitnesses identified him as the murderer. However, it was later revealed that the police had used suggestive photo line-up techniques and not revealed that the eyewitnesses had pointed to others in the line-up as possible suspects.

Larry Hicks was acquitted at a retrial in 1980, two years after being sentenced to death in Indiana. At the retrial, evidence showed that eyewitness testimony that had been used against him at the original trial had been perjured.

Anthony Brown was acquitted at a retrial in Florida in 1986. Three years earlier he had been sentenced to death on the basis of evidence from a co-defendant who received a life sentence. At the retrial, the co-defendant admitted that his original testimony had been perjured.

Neil Ferber was released in 1986, almost four years after he was sentenced to death in Pennsylvania. The state declined to retry him after, among other things, it emerged that a jailhouse informant had given perjured testimony at the first trial.
Timothy Hennis was acquitted at a retrial in North Carolina in 1989, three years after being sentenced to death for murder. At the retrial, the defence discredited the witnesses who had testified at the original trial and pointed to a neighbour of Hennis who could have been responsible for the crime.

Charles Smith was acquitted in 1991 in Indiana, eight years after being sentenced to death. At the retrial, the defence presented evidence that witnesses at his original trial had given perjured testimony.

Federico Macias was sentenced to death in Texas in 1984 on the basis of the testimony of a co-defendant and jailhouse informants. His conviction was overturned, a grand jury refused to indict him again because of lack of evidence. He was released in 1993.

Walter McMillian was released in Alabama in 1993, six years after being sentenced to death. His conviction was overturned after it was shown that three of the state's witnesses had given perjured testimony.

Ronald Williamson was released in 1999. He was sentenced to death in Oklahoma in 1987. Among other things, his trial lawyer had failed to question the motive of a jailhouse informant who alleged that Williamson had confessed to the murder.
Steve Manning had charges against him dropped in 2000. He had been sentenced to death in Illinois in 1993 on the basis of the word of a jailhouse informant who testified that Manning had confessed to him in jail.

Charles Fain was released in August 2001 after charges against him were dropped. He had been sentenced to death in Idaho in 1983. The evidence against him included the word of two jailhouse informants, who said that Fain had confessed to the murder.
Joseph Amrine was released in Missouri in 2003, 17 years after being sentenced to death for murder on the basis of the testimony of fellow inmates, who later recanted their testimony.(16)

Alan Gell was acquitted in North Carolina in 2004, six years after being sentenced to death. At his retrial, the defence presented evidence that the state's two key witnesses had lied at the original trial.

OUR WHITE HOUSE LOOKING IN LOOKING OUT: AUTHOR APPEARANCE!

Our White House Contributors
Katherine Paterson,
Steven Kellogg,
Lynda Johnson Robb, and
Mary Brigid Barrett at
Politics and Prose
Book Store
in Washington D. C. this Friday!


Come By, Visit, Chat and Take at Look at
Our White House: Looking In, Looking Out!

On Friday afternoon, September 26 at 4:30 P.M. hear
award-winning authors Katherine Paterson and Steven
Kellogg, along with Our White House contributors Lynda
Johnson Robb and Mary Brigid Barrett read from their
contribution to Our White House: Looking In, Looking Out!
Then stay and participate in a discussion of Our White House,
an anthology of original art, poetry, and prose that uses the
White House to tell the story of America!

Katherine Paterson, twice the winner of both the National Book
Award and the Newbery Award and Steven Kellogg, an award
winning author and illustrator, are two of the most
's book creators in America. Lynda Johnson Robb is
Reading is Fundemental's Chairman Emerita, former First Lady
of Virginia, and daughter of President Lyndon Baines Johnson and
First Lady Claudia "Lady Bird" Johnson. Mary Brigid Barrett is an
author, illustrator, teacher, and the president of the National
Children's Book and Literacy Alliances the literacy organization
that, with 108 gifted contributors and publisher Candlewick Press,
has created Our White House Looking In, Looking Out, a creativetour de force that will energize and inspire young readers on their journeys to becoming the civic leaders of tomorrow!

For more information about the NCBLA event at Politics
and Prose, go to:
http://www.booksite.com/texis/scripts/
community/eventdetail.html?
sid=1425&cal=3&eventid=489df7d765
For more information about Our White House: Looking In, Looking Out go to:
http://www.thencbla.org/ncblanews.html

A Death in London

Jean Charles de Menezes


Jurors in the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest today stood in silence at the spot where the 27-year-old Brazilian was shot dead by police marksmen. The six-woman, five-man panel was retracing Mr de Menezes's final steps and went to Stockwell Tube station where the shooting took place.

They filed through the ticket hall, down the escalator and onto platform two where Mr de Menezes had planned to take a northbound Northern line train. The jurors barely exchanged a word and coroner Sir Michael Wright did not speak throughout the 10-minute visit. The silence was only broken when a train full of passengers thundered through the station without stopping at the platform.

While Northern line trains were not stopping at the station, the Victoria line continued to operate as normal. On their way in and out of the station a court official pointed out the points the jurors were passing on their printed itinerary. The second day of the inquest into the death of the electrician on 22 July 2005 was set aside for a tour of key locations in the ill-fated police operation.

A convoy of coaches left the Oval cricket ground where the hearings are taking place with a police escort. The coroner travelled with the jury in the front coach, followed by legal teams travelling with the de Menezes family in the second and a media bus bringing up the rear. The visit to Stockwell was scheduled for an off-peak time on the 23rd December 2008 to minimise disruption for commuters.

In his opening yesterday, the coroner told of the confusion which existed before two firearms officers shot Mr de Menezes after mistaking him for failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman who had been on the run since attempting to detonate his bomb on the Tube the day before. Two weeks earlier, British-born al Qaeda bombers had succeeded in blowing up three Tube trains and a bus on a day of carnage in the capital.

Jurors have been told how firearm officers made a split second decision to kill the suspect. Sir Michael told the court that they had been convinced Mr de Menezes was Osman who was carrying out a second suicide bomb attack and could only be stopped by an "instant kill".

The coroner emphasised Mr de Menezes was entirely innocent.


Jurors at Stockwell Tube


----------------------------------------------------------------


From DaithaiC 16th October 2007


The Death of Jean Charles de Menezes

Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead by Metropolitan Police firearms officers at Stockwell Tube station, London, on July 22nd. 2005. Bizarrely the Met(as the Metropolitan Police or Scotland Yard are commonly known) is being prosecuted under English Law not for Murder or Manslaughter but under Health and Safety legislation for failing to protect the health of Jean Charles de Menezes and members of the public who were exposed to danger in the operation. Indeed.

The details revealed so far in court are of a 27 year old electrician peacefully going to work unaware he was being trailed, not being intercepted as a possible suspect, getting on and off two buses, wearing jeans and a T-shirt and a light jacket with no baggage or possibility of concealing anything on his person, going routinely through station barriers and pausing to pick up a free newspaper, taking his seat on a tube train.



There he was held without challenge by a police officer who immobilised him by holding his arms around him in a vice like grip whilst his two colleagues fired 7 special "124 grain" dum-dum style bullets into his head at point blank range. The details of this killing have appalled and dismayed the public in equal measure and common sense would suggest these feelings will not be addressed by a prosecution under "Health and Safety" legislation - this being somewhat beyond satire. I think we can take it as read that if you kill somebody wrongly you have not protected their "Health and Safety."

Scotland Yard have real issues to answer about the apparent ineptness of the operation and about the large amount of uncorrected disinformation disseminated afterwards from the Commissioner downwards that this innocent persons' killing was "related to the ongoing terrorist situation", that he behaved suspiciously, ran away from officers, vaulted over ticket barriers and was wearing "bulky clothing". As none of this was true, where did it come from?

Hindsight is a great teacher, it is always a pity we don't have it beforehand, but there is another side to this sad story. Fifteen days previously on the 7th July 2005 4 suicide bombers had detonated 3 bombs on the Tube and one on a London bus. They killed 52 people (and themselves) in the biggest mass murder in peacetime Britain. The roll call of the dead is heart rending encompassing a typical cross section of Londoner's going about their day, young and old from every continent, colour and religious persuasion including a 19 year old Muslim girl on the threshold of her life. Of the 4 "brave" martyrs one was a 19 year old Jamaican Muslim convert who lived near me in Aylesbury and who took 26 lives on a Piccadilly Line train between Russell Square and King's Cross. What did a 19 year old know about life and what sort of crypto fascism justifies this cruel obscenity towards people you do not know but look in the eye before killing and maiming them? Maimed indeed for as well as the dead there were over 300 injured, some who lost limbs and eyes and some who will never live independent lives again.



I was in London that day and for a number of days afterwards spent afternoons and evenings helping people cope with the transport disruption. Two things were palpable. one was the great determination that London would not be brought to its knees by what happened, there was the quiet unseen courage of the Tube and Bus drivers who climbed into cabs at dawn the next morning and in their own way said "let's Roll!". The sense of determination was shared by the public who displayed stoic courage by insisting on going about their everyday business and not being terrorised even if it meant walking halfway across London to work.

Nerves were of course there under the surface but they had recovered somewhat when exactly 2 weeks later on the 21st July 2005 there was almost a carbon copy attempt of 4 suicide bomb attacks on the transport system in London by fanatics equally determined to destroy their fellow unknown human beings. This second attempt nearly succeeded and only failed because they had made a small error in the formulation of the homemade but deadly explosives they attempted to detonate. This second attempt was a great shock to the system, to the morale of Londoner's and no doubt to the security services who felt they had bottomed out all the leads and had stabilised the situation.

Now along with all of London they were looking into the abyss and not knowing what they were looking at or where the next threat would come from. What is happening and how many more are out there? - was the general public feeling. It was Jean Charles de Menezes great misfortune that he lived in a block of flats which was also the address of Hussain Osman, one of the failed suicide bombers from the day before and he was not entirely dissimilar in appearance given the limited identification information the police had to go on.

No doubt these court proceedings and further inevitable investigations will draw their own conclusions and I'm not attempting to anticipate them, but I make two observations of my own.

One is that society as a whole is not pacifist. We expect that the welfare of all is protected and logically that means we assent to people killing on our behalf. So we agree an Army is maintained and we expect it to kill and its troops to accept the possibility they will also be killed in combat. If an embassy is besieged, if a plane is hijacked or if a deranged gunman walks down the street killing at will we expect somebody to deal with the threat on our behalf. And if a suicide bomber is apprehended before he can blow us up we expect they will be killed. On the morning of the 22nd July 2005, the Met, a civilian police force had called in all the help it could get from the Defence and Security services and was trying to cover an impossible number of bases not knowing where the next threat was or where it would come from. Wherever fault lays in this sorry story it does lay with the three armed officers acting under orders who entered a Tube train to stop what they thought was Hussain Osman detonating a bomb.

The second point is who those of us who live and work in London felt that morning. Shamefully, I can remember my reaction was "Good on them, they got one!" and I can tell you in feeling that I was in a majority of, well, everybody. For at that stage, below the surface, there was a palpable sense of fear about town. And that is the point of the sheer obscenity and ruthless cruelty the suicide bomber. It desensitises all of us and for the sake of our protection makes us accept in our heart that which we would not normally accept in our head.

That desensitivity is something we all must fight against because otherwise the bomber has won and that must and will never happen. In this case it means we must, however difficult it may seem, try to do two things. Respect the memory of Jean Charles de Menezes and the grief of his family and respect the courage of the Police Officers who, out of a profound sense of public duty, did the unthinkable on all our behalves.

See also;

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2007/12/policemans-lot.html

A Death in London

Jean Charles de Menezes


Jurors in the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest today stood in silence at the spot where the 27-year-old Brazilian was shot dead by police marksmen. The six-woman, five-man panel was retracing Mr de Menezes's final steps and went to Stockwell Tube station where the shooting took place.

They filed through the ticket hall, down the escalator and onto platform two where Mr de Menezes had planned to take a northbound Northern line train. The jurors barely exchanged a word and coroner Sir Michael Wright did not speak throughout the 10-minute visit. The silence was only broken when a train full of passengers thundered through the station without stopping at the platform.

While Northern line trains were not stopping at the station, the Victoria line continued to operate as normal. On their way in and out of the station a court official pointed out the points the jurors were passing on their printed itinerary. The second day of the inquest into the death of the electrician on 22 July 2005 was set aside for a tour of key locations in the ill-fated police operation.

A convoy of coaches left the Oval cricket ground where the hearings are taking place with a police escort. The coroner travelled with the jury in the front coach, followed by legal teams travelling with the de Menezes family in the second and a media bus bringing up the rear. The visit to Stockwell was scheduled for an off-peak time on the 23rd December 2008 to minimise disruption for commuters.

In his opening yesterday, the coroner told of the confusion which existed before two firearms officers shot Mr de Menezes after mistaking him for failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman who had been on the run since attempting to detonate his bomb on the Tube the day before. Two weeks earlier, British-born al Qaeda bombers had succeeded in blowing up three Tube trains and a bus on a day of carnage in the capital.

Jurors have been told how firearm officers made a split second decision to kill the suspect. Sir Michael told the court that they had been convinced Mr de Menezes was Osman who was carrying out a second suicide bomb attack and could only be stopped by an "instant kill".

The coroner emphasised Mr de Menezes was entirely innocent.


Jurors at Stockwell Tube


----------------------------------------------------------------


From DaithaiC 16th October 2007


The Death of Jean Charles de Menezes

Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead by Metropolitan Police firearms officers at Stockwell Tube station, London, on July 22nd. 2005. Bizarrely the Met(as the Metropolitan Police or Scotland Yard are commonly known) is being prosecuted under English Law not for Murder or Manslaughter but under Health and Safety legislation for failing to protect the health of Jean Charles de Menezes and members of the public who were exposed to danger in the operation. Indeed.

The details revealed so far in court are of a 27 year old electrician peacefully going to work unaware he was being trailed, not being intercepted as a possible suspect, getting on and off two buses, wearing jeans and a T-shirt and a light jacket with no baggage or possibility of concealing anything on his person, going routinely through station barriers and pausing to pick up a free newspaper, taking his seat on a tube train.



There he was held without challenge by a police officer who immobilised him by holding his arms around him in a vice like grip whilst his two colleagues fired 7 special "124 grain" dum-dum style bullets into his head at point blank range. The details of this killing have appalled and dismayed the public in equal measure and common sense would suggest these feelings will not be addressed by a prosecution under "Health and Safety" legislation - this being somewhat beyond satire. I think we can take it as read that if you kill somebody wrongly you have not protected their "Health and Safety."

Scotland Yard have real issues to answer about the apparent ineptness of the operation and about the large amount of uncorrected disinformation disseminated afterwards from the Commissioner downwards that this innocent persons' killing was "related to the ongoing terrorist situation", that he behaved suspiciously, ran away from officers, vaulted over ticket barriers and was wearing "bulky clothing". As none of this was true, where did it come from?

Hindsight is a great teacher, it is always a pity we don't have it beforehand, but there is another side to this sad story. Fifteen days previously on the 7th July 2005 4 suicide bombers had detonated 3 bombs on the Tube and one on a London bus. They killed 52 people (and themselves) in the biggest mass murder in peacetime Britain. The roll call of the dead is heart rending encompassing a typical cross section of Londoner's going about their day, young and old from every continent, colour and religious persuasion including a 19 year old Muslim girl on the threshold of her life. Of the 4 "brave" martyrs one was a 19 year old Jamaican Muslim convert who lived near me in Aylesbury and who took 26 lives on a Piccadilly Line train between Russell Square and King's Cross. What did a 19 year old know about life and what sort of crypto fascism justifies this cruel obscenity towards people you do not know but look in the eye before killing and maiming them? Maimed indeed for as well as the dead there were over 300 injured, some who lost limbs and eyes and some who will never live independent lives again.



I was in London that day and for a number of days afterwards spent afternoons and evenings helping people cope with the transport disruption. Two things were palpable. one was the great determination that London would not be brought to its knees by what happened, there was the quiet unseen courage of the Tube and Bus drivers who climbed into cabs at dawn the next morning and in their own way said "let's Roll!". The sense of determination was shared by the public who displayed stoic courage by insisting on going about their everyday business and not being terrorised even if it meant walking halfway across London to work.

Nerves were of course there under the surface but they had recovered somewhat when exactly 2 weeks later on the 21st July 2005 there was almost a carbon copy attempt of 4 suicide bomb attacks on the transport system in London by fanatics equally determined to destroy their fellow unknown human beings. This second attempt nearly succeeded and only failed because they had made a small error in the formulation of the homemade but deadly explosives they attempted to detonate. This second attempt was a great shock to the system, to the morale of Londoner's and no doubt to the security services who felt they had bottomed out all the leads and had stabilised the situation.

Now along with all of London they were looking into the abyss and not knowing what they were looking at or where the next threat would come from. What is happening and how many more are out there? - was the general public feeling. It was Jean Charles de Menezes great misfortune that he lived in a block of flats which was also the address of Hussain Osman, one of the failed suicide bombers from the day before and he was not entirely dissimilar in appearance given the limited identification information the police had to go on.

No doubt these court proceedings and further inevitable investigations will draw their own conclusions and I'm not attempting to anticipate them, but I make two observations of my own.

One is that society as a whole is not pacifist. We expect that the welfare of all is protected and logically that means we assent to people killing on our behalf. So we agree an Army is maintained and we expect it to kill and its troops to accept the possibility they will also be killed in combat. If an embassy is besieged, if a plane is hijacked or if a deranged gunman walks down the street killing at will we expect somebody to deal with the threat on our behalf. And if a suicide bomber is apprehended before he can blow us up we expect they will be killed. On the morning of the 22nd July 2005, the Met, a civilian police force had called in all the help it could get from the Defence and Security services and was trying to cover an impossible number of bases not knowing where the next threat was or where it would come from. Wherever fault lays in this sorry story it does lay with the three armed officers acting under orders who entered a Tube train to stop what they thought was Hussain Osman detonating a bomb.

The second point is who those of us who live and work in London felt that morning. Shamefully, I can remember my reaction was "Good on them, they got one!" and I can tell you in feeling that I was in a majority of, well, everybody. For at that stage, below the surface, there was a palpable sense of fear about town. And that is the point of the sheer obscenity and ruthless cruelty the suicide bomber. It desensitises all of us and for the sake of our protection makes us accept in our heart that which we would not normally accept in our head.

That desensitivity is something we all must fight against because otherwise the bomber has won and that must and will never happen. In this case it means we must, however difficult it may seem, try to do two things. Respect the memory of Jean Charles de Menezes and the grief of his family and respect the courage of the Police Officers who, out of a profound sense of public duty, did the unthinkable on all our behalves.

See also;

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2007/12/policemans-lot.html