When they can so easily arrange for one judge sitting alone in the High court to quash ..
'Inquest Jury' verdicts of 'Unlawfully killed' 

Criminal Prosecution Service ( CPS) treat an 'Unlawfully Killed' verdict of an ..... 'Inquest jury' ..... as rubbish ..... and never charge the police officers

 Unlawfully killed (Inquest jury verdicts) -- Christopher Alder -- Alton Manning -- Shiji Lapite -- Richard O'Brien  --  Oliver Pryce -- Ibrahima Sey  

Leon Patterson (Inquest Jury Verdict of 'Unlawfully killed' quashed)
Harry Stanley (Inquest Jury Verdict of 'Unlawfully killed'  quashed)
Roger Sylvester (Inquest Jury Verdict of 'Unlawfully killed' quashed)

 CS Gas deaths   -- Mark Bell -- Frank Roberts -- Ibrahima Sey -- Eric Smith

 Misadventure - Open - Accident (Inquest jury verdicts) --  Brian Douglas -- Glen Howard -- Mr Blair Peach -- Eric Smith--
Kenneth Severin ---- Dennis Stevens 

Any 'Police Officer or a Person of an Authority or the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)' up to the DPP
that do not prosecute or submit evidence against a police officer
when there is evidence and just cause to do so, must be charged with
PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

17 May 2000  In the Royal Courts of Justice the Lord Chief Justice ruled that the decision of the: 
Director of Public Prosecutions David Calvert-Smith -  NOT to commence any criminal proceedings against any of the prison officers involved in the restraint related death of black prisoner Alton Manning at the private Blakenhurst Prison on 8 December 1995 was unsustainable in law.

July 1997 the then DPP, Dame Barbara Mills QC, suffered acute embarrassment in the High Court when she was unable to justify her refusal to prosecute police officers in 3 separate cases (Lapite, O’Brien and Treadaway)

When the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is criticized in any way then you know why the police have no fear of being charged for any 'Deaths in custody.

What the police and the Criminal Prosecution Service ( CPS) do not tell the public is:

1. When the police arrest anyone AND THAT PERSON IS NOT GUILTY of the offence they are being arrested for. 

2. THAT PERSON IS UNLAWFULLY ARRESTED. 

When a person is killed who is not guilty of any offence

The police have committed a 'Criminal offence.' Therefore the person is 'UNLAWFULLY KILLED.'

1. Prevent the IPCC from conducting an inquiry
   18 August 2005 Scotland Yard "initially resisted" the investigation into the shooting of Jean C de Menezes , the Independent Police Complaints Commission has said. 

   The inquiry was not formally handed over to the IPCC until five days later after 
   Jean C de Menezes  was shot dead by police at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July. 

   In the 5 days the police including Sir Ian Blair issued many 'False' statements why police shot   Jean C de Menezes 
   Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman "misled" the public.
   

2. Police and the 'Blue Wall Of Silence.' Withhold and tamper with evidence. In All cases of a death in custody
 
3. Police will always say I thought my life was in danger This 'LAME EXCUSE' IS GIVEN EVERY TIME AN INNOCENT PERSON IS SHOT AND KILLED knowing that if they are proved to be -- 'lying' -- they will still not be charged and convicted. This 'LAME EXCUSE' is also given for other deaths in custody

   The cases of  Harry Stanley - James Ashley - Jean C de Menezes  .. Too many other cases to list

   NO POLICE OFFICER HAS EVER BEEN KILLED WEARING A BULLET PROOF JACKET AND HELMET

4. Police IMMEDIATELY start the ..... 'SMEAR CAMPAIGN' ..... to Blacken' the victims name and character.

   Police and the CPS discredit the victim character by spreading lies such as they are dealing in drugs or had a gun. This is very common in many cases when police unlawfully kill someone. 

   The cases of  James Ashley, (Shiji) Lapite, and Roger Sylvester are only four of just about everybody. 
   The police even say a man's brother grabbed the policeman's gun and shot his brother. 

   Dick Fedorcio, head of the Metropolitan Police Press Bureau, finally issued a public apology to the family of Roger Sylvester for the inaccurate and wholly misleading press release they issued on 14 January 1999.

   The case of. Mohammed Abdul Kahar - One of 3 innocent man shot as a terrorists - Two were shot and killed

The police to divert attention away from them shooting another innocent man said (------------------) were found on his computer.
I am not printing what the police say they found. 

The police always try to Blacken a person name.
So why should anyone believe them this time. No charges were made - which proves my point.
The police should at least be charged with defamation of the mans character.

UNTRUE POLICE STATEMENTS SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS 'PERJURY'   

Any written statement should be under oath that the facts are correct in every detail and true and if found to be a lie the officer charged with PERJURY.

The experience of bereaved families is that police shy away from treating their fellow officers as criminal suspects who have obvious motivations to lie and tell half-truths. (I would doubt if they tell half truths)

5. There is non-disclosure of police evidence. Witness details are withheld 
   (Yes the police still do all they can to prevent evidence being made known to families of people that are killed) Too many cases to list
6. The police, DPP, CPS, coroners and judges  can and will ignore all the Scientific Forensic and other  evidence against the police.
   The case of  Harry Stanley - Christopher Alder - Too many other cases to list
7. Police will not preserve the arresting officer's uniforms or the crime scene as evidence.
   The cases of Roger Sylvester and Christopher Alder are just two case of so many.
   Christopher Alder clothes were burnt by the police before any forensic tests could be carried out

The police then have their uniforms --- DRY CLEANED -- Before a full Forensic tests could be carried out.
If this is not the act of guilty police officers I don't know what is
8. The Police and the CPS will ignore independent witness statements or are they are not called to give evidence.
   The cases of Roger Sylvester  and  Richard Joseph O’Brien and James Ashley are only three of many
9. The police and the CPS will also ignore and refuse all requests for a 'Public inquiry' when a man or women is killed by the police.
10. Or police just lie or refuse to say what  happened. The cases of  Christopher Alder -- Jean Charles de Menezes and Harry Stanley are just three cases where police lie to cover up the facts how innocent people are killed.
    Harry Stanley The Independent Police Complaints Commission  (IPCC) said the accounts of the two officers "Lacked credibility
    Roger Sylvester 14th Jan 1999 Scotland Yard issued false press reports. 
    Roger Sylvester 19th Jan 1999 Home Office pathologist also issued false press reports.
    
    Sarah Thomas Police are withholding all information as to how Sarah Thomas died.

    Christopher Alder  5 Officers  refused to answer 150 questions how and why Christopher Alder was left to die.

    Judge Sir Michael Astill 
    In a high profile court case where the accused a suspected terrorist refused to answer question said "If you refuse to answer the questions you were being asked at that time without good cause, the jury may draw such inferences as appear proper from your failure to do so, do you understand?" 
    The man was found guilty 

When police 'Refuse to answer questions' this court ruling doesn't apply

11. Alton Manning An inquest exposed a catalogue of lies told by officers and management at HMP Blakenhurst
    in their attempt to cover up their responsibility for  Alton Manning death.
12. The police and the CPS will issue untrue statements. In almost all deaths in custody
13. Issue a statement the victim was wanted for a crime. Even though this is untrue.
    The case of James Ashley is one of many
    David Calvert-Smith QC (DPP)  refused to prosecute any of the officers involved.
14. 'Public interest immunity certificate' will be placed on reports by the PCA, meaning it will remain secret. 
    The cases of Harry Stanley  and Joy Gardner  and Chris Alder and Sarah Thomas are just four.
    James Ashley The report from Kent Police was kept secret but was known to be highly critical of the way the armed raid was conducted. 
15. The Prison Service will not disclose details of their internal inquiry.
16. Threaten to arrest any bystander that tells the police to stop using the force that kills an innocent man. Richard Joseph O’Brien
17. Crown lawyer will suggest that members of the family are responsible for some of the victims injuries. Richard Joseph O’Brien -- Alison O’Brien widow of Richard said: “I am disgusted at them trying to shift the blame unto a child.
    The police will do any thing and blame anybody for the unexplainable injuries (31 separate areas of injuries)

18. Police and the Crown Prosecution Services (CPS) decide what evidence the defence has access to. 
19. The police make an initial assessment of what evidence undermines their  prosecution and suppresses it.. 
20. CPS lawyers make a further judgment and decide what should be disclosed to the defence.
    (Which in ....  'Real life' .... means what evidence to withhold from the defence and the bereaved families that is useful to convict a police officer of an offence)
21. This is why police are not charged for years (or never) ... for causing the death of anyone who is killed in police custody.
22. This also gives police officers responsible for a death in custody time to retire on Full Pension

------  If all the above fails to stop the investigation  ------ The Criminal Prosecution Service ( CPS) WILL AS ALWAYS --- SAY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO CHARGE ANY POLICE OFFICER

1. 24th July 1997 - This confirms the CPS and DPP protect the police from prosecution.
   Today in the High Court the DPP was forced to concede that the decision not to prosecute police officers involved in the death of Irishman Richard O’Brien was biased
2. July 19997 Lord Justice Rose accused the CPS of taking a "flawed approach" in its decision not to prosecute four former members of the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad.
   Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Jowitt quashed the DPP Dame B Mills decision and invited her to reconsider whether all or any of the police officers should be prosecuted.
3. 9th Aug 1999 Judge Gerald Butler has criticized the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for failing to take action over a number of .... 'Deaths in police custody.' ....  Judge Gerald Butler attacked the agency's decision making system.
   He also called for the CPS to give serious consideration to publishing its reasons for deciding not to prosecute police officers in cases involving deaths in custody, especially where an inquest jury had returned a verdict of unlawful killing
4. 13 January, 2000 - European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, says the existing (PCA) Police Complaints Authority appears ill-equipped to act as an independent watchdog. The Strasbourg-based committee claims there are "serious questions" about the independence and impartiality of the procedures used to process complaints about police misconduct.
   The court found Dame Barbara Mills QC former DPP Director public prosecutions Head of the CPS had acted unlawfully in deciding there was insufficient evidence to prosecute police officers in two cases of deaths in custody of Shiji Lapite and Richard O'Brien
 
5. 'Narrow remit' ... of the inquest 'Will prevent full consideration of what happened.
   In Real life this means that the 'Inquest jury' will not be able to give a verdict how an innocent person was killed
   But one jury at least did ignore this and they also gave an "unlawfully killed verdict'
   Which as usual was later quashed at the request of the police
6. CPS ignore the evidence from numerous eminent pathologists
7. The  police refused to release details of all complaints.  In the case of Roger Sylvester and many more
8. Police and the CPS will delay any enquires for years. In every case for a death in custody.
9. Alter the evidence in written statements. This has been proved many times.
10. Pages REMOVED from note books.  In the case of Roger Sylvester
    July 25, 2001 - Official police watchdog yesterday condemned Scotland Yard for keeping secret the punishment it had imposed on an officer charged with destroying two pages from his notebook. -  In the case of Roger Sylvester 
11. Refuse an inquest or a public inquiry into the death, or at least delay one for years.
12. Even when inquest juries have been misdirected by a coroner  to stop police being held responsible. Second inquests are often refused on grounds of cost, or refused anyway.
 
13. Many 'Juries' are (unlawfully) told NOT TO CONSIDER a verdict of .... UNLAWFULLY KILLED.
    Too many cases to list, it is very common for the --- Coroner and a Judge ---to instruct the 'Inquest Jury' Not To Consider an Unlawfully Killed verdict. The cases of Glen Howard - Dennis Stevens - John Leo O’Reilly - are just three of very many.

14.  

    In English law a judge cannot tell a jury what verdict to give. (That is why we have a jury) But judges do ignore the law -- and will tell a jury what verdict to give -- and they get away with this because in many cases the JURY IS NOT TOLD --- THEY CAN IGNORE THE VERDICT THE JUDGE WANTS and give a verdict on the evidence given in the court

    
    
15. The jury was directed by the coroner to return a verdict of accidental death. This biased (unlawful) verdict was quashed.
    In the case of John Leo O’Reilly 12 October 1994
16. Crucial ballistics evidence was not allowed to be presented as evidence and the coroner Dr Chan did not allow the jury to return a verdict of unlawful killing. Harry Stanley
    Just one of so many where the coroner will tell the jury what verdict he wants. But the jury in some cases have ignored the coroner instructions.
 
17. A High Court judge can also ignore evidence from experts and say there was "insufficient evidence" for an Unlawfully killed verdict and refused the right to appeal. In at least 3 cases a judge ... (sitting alone) ...overturned an Unlawfully killed jury verdict.
18. The judge at a Crown Court trial at a Crown Court trial can (illegally) stop proceedings and instruct the jury to dismiss all charges before all the evidence is heard. This happens in many cases to stop police being convicted. 
    Chris Alder is just one case.
    
    IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF A JUDGE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY WHAT VERDICT TO GIVE.
    That is why we have a jury. But in many cases the judge does tell a jury what verdict to give or what verdict they cannot give.
    This is unlawful but it is ignored by the Highest judge in England Lord Phillips to stop police being convicted of killing innocent people in police custody.
19. In only one or two case has a 'Jury' ignored the verdict the judge wants and given a verdict on the evidence they have heard.
    
20. The only time police officers are charged and found guilty of killing innocent people is when they kill someone in their own family. 

Role of judge and jury: the decision of the House of Lords in Wang [2005] UKHL 9; 10th February 2005 Role of a judge and jury is clearly defined The judge directs, or instructs, the jury in respect of the relevant law  The decision of all factual questions, including the application of the law  is a matter exclusively for the jury and the judge should make it clear that whatever views he may express or be thought to express,   it is for them (the jury) and not for him (the judge) to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

 

This is English LAW - When the police kill innocent men, women and children. THE LAW IS THERE TO PROTECT THE POLICE NOT TO SEE JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIM OR THEIR FAMILY Who represents the family in an English court when an innocent man or women is killed by the police NOT THE POLICE and the Criminal Prosecution Service ( CPS) - they have always refused to charge the officer/s

  

If all the above fails - A judge sitting alone will quash an 'Unlawfully Killed' Inquest jury verdict

 

THE POLICE WILL NEVER EXCEPT an 'Inquest Jury' verdict of 'Unlawfully Killed.' The police have always got an 'Unlawfully Killed.' verdict overturned Except once

The law is a charade 

POLICE MAKE A MOCKERY OF THE LAW when the police and 'ONE JUDGE'  sitting alone in a court 

Can easily overturn the 'Unlawfully Killed' inquest jury verdict and give a 'verdict the police ask for' ...
Which shows contempt for the people killed and their families and English law.

1. Speaking outside the High Court Roger Sylvester's father Rupert Sylvester said.
   Right now 'ONE JUDGE' HAS REPLACED THE JURY 
   "This is a cynical attempt by police officers to overturn a verdict they don't like. 
   The jury verdict of Unlawfully killed was later quashed.
 
2. Since the Magna Carta (negotiated between King John's government and his subjects in 1215AD)
   We have had a jury system in England which states 'lawful judgment of his peers' (the peers are the jury).
3. If  the family do get an 'Unlawfully killed' inquest jury verdict. There is no need for the police to worry. 
4. The police have in every case except one found a judge to overturn a jury verdict of 'Unlawfully killed' when police kill innocent people.
 
5. The High court judge ... can and will ... ignore all the evidence against the police
   
6. Even when the police statement of events can be proved to be lies.
   A High court judge can ignore expert evidence that shows police have lied about what happened
7. The High court judge will quash the 'Unlawfully killed' inquest jury verdict to a verdict the police preferred..
8. 22nd May 2001 Mrs Justice Rafferty Sitting alone in court.' and the CPS offering no evidence (against the police), Dismissed all charges against police officers to STOP criminal charges going to the Crown court and the evidence heard and a VERDICT BY A JURY.

Judge Sir Michael Astill in a court case where the accused refused to answer question said "If you refuse to answer the questions you were being asked at that time without good cause, the jury may draw such inferences as appear proper from your failure to do so, do you understand?" He was found guilty
 (This rule of law obviously doesn't apply if your a policeman)

5 officers refused to answer 150 questions how and why Christopher Alder was left to die on a police station floor

A Judge in a very high profile English case said, "If you prove the defendant has lied .... what are you left with."  Then the defendant was found guilty.
(This rule of law obviously doesn't apply if your a policeman) 

Harry Stanley Police lied
Editor notes I wonder how long police can go on spreading the distortions and misrepresentations of facts without the public condemning police who can perjure themselves without penalty. 

Editor Notes Untrue statements should be classified as 'PERJURY.' In EVERY case where innocent people are killed by the police  they issue untrue statements, which are found to be a pack of lies. But no police officer is ever punished or dismissed or charged with 'Slander.' Which shows the type of police they want in the police force and they will be protected from being charged with any offence.

Edmund Lawson QC and the Judge Mr Justice Leveson show contempt for  the Magna Carta that has been the foundation and due process of law and the judgement of his peers. For the benefit of  Edmund Lawson QC and the Judge Mr Justice Leveson judgement of his peers refers to the JURY Not one judge sitting alone behind closed doors.  Edmund Lawson QC ---- Has confirmed that 'Unlawfully killed' verdict is murder by the police Further more Edmund Lawson QC and the Judge Mr Justice Leveson are telling every school child over 9yo they have never heard of the 'Magna Carta' and what it represents. Edmund Lawson QC  has confirmed what so many families have known for years. ***** English police murder innocent people ***** 27 April, 2005 Edmund Lawson QC, representing Ch Insp Sharman (who shot and killed an innocent man Mr Harry Stanley) asked the High Court to quash the second 'Inquest Jury' verdict.   He said an  'Unlawful killed' verdict amounted to "murder by the police" and should NOT HAVE BEEN LEFT TO A JURY TO DECIDE.  A barrister who has never heard of the Magna Carta and what it represents??????? The Judge Mr Justice Leveson 'Following the unwritten - Criminal Prosecution Service ( CPS) version of English law'     People must NOT know police shoot and kill innocent people quashed the Unlawfully killed verdict against the police.    Edmund Lawson QC doesn't say the same when people are rightly convicted for causing a death of a police officer and that verdict is by a jury.   In the financial year 1996-7. Edmund Lawson QC was listed as having received between £450,000 and £499,000 from criminal LEGAL AID WORK (which means his fees are paid by the taxpayer)

The Police the PCA the DPP the CPS and the CCP  have lost all credibility - (Not that they ever had any.) 

1. The Criminal Prosecution Service ( CPS) have no credibility to carry out an impartial investigation prosecutions when police officers are involved in a death in custody

2. To come to the same conclusion of any law abiding person with a trustworthy mind

3. The Criminal Prosecution Service ( CPS) must be barred from any enquires, investigation and court proceedings.

4. Or action to reject or prosecute any police officer who are involved in a death in custody or other serious offences

5. Especially when an inquest court and jury gives a verdict of unlawfully killed.

UNLAWFUL ARREST - What the police and the Criminal Prosecution Service ( CPS) do not tell the public is:  WHEN THE POLICE KILL ANYONE ..... AND THAT PERSON IS NOT GUILTY OF ANY OFFENCE That person is 'UNLAWFULLY ARRESTED' ....  Therefore the victim has been 'UNLAWFULLY KILLED' ....  Therefore THE POLICE HAVE COMMITTED A CRIMINAL OFFENCE  Only once were two police officers convicted for killing an innocent man  This is why English Law 'WILL NEVER AGAIN LET A JURY' decide on the evidence if police are guilty of killing innocent men, women and children 1969 David Oluwale Two police officers guilty for his death Inspector Geoffrey Ellerker and Sergeant Kenneth Kitching  The trial judge  'Ordered' the jury to find both officers 'NOT' guilty  of the manslaughter of David Oluwale      But the jury ignored this ruling and found Inspector Geoffrey Ellerker and Sergeant Kenneth Kitching guilty   Inspector Geoffrey Ellerker is found guilty and sentenced to three years in prison  Sergeant Kenneth Kitching is found guilty and sentenced to four years in prison  Because the law can never again trust a jury to give a verdict the judge wants.  The police and CPS for years will now .... 'Deny  Deny Deny' .... there is any evidence to charge any more police officers for the death in custody of an innocent man women or child     ************************************************************************************** THE POLICE and the courts MAKE A MOCKERY OF THE LAW THE POLICE and the courts MAKE A MOCKERY OF THE LAW THE POLICE and the courts MAKE A MOCKERY OF THE LAW The judge ---- (UNLAWFULLY) stops the trial - To stop police being convicted  The Judge ... 'Will now ... stop a trial before all 'The Evidence Is Heard' . (This is unlawful in English law) and orders the jury to acquit the accused police officers    At least 2 cases where this has happened are:   Christopher Alder : Mr Justice Roderick Evans (against the law of the Magna Carta) Unlawfully instructed the jury to acquit 5 police offices of manslaughter and neglect of duty. BEFORE ALL THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN James Ashley : Judge Mrs Rafferty (against the law of the Magna Carta) Unlawfully instructed the jury to acquit the police officers. BEFORE ALL THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN The coroner ---- will (UNLAWFULLY) order the 'Inquest jury' NOT TO CONSIDER AN ...... 'UNLAWFULLY KILLED' verdict ----  UNLAWFULLY KILLED 'Inquest jury' verdicts QUASHED for innocent people killed by the police.  The police and ONE JUDGE sitting behind CLOSED DOORS  Can and will quash the 'Inquest jury' verdict of UNLAWFULLY KILLED To STOP THE POLICE BEING CHARGED WITH manslaughter or murder  THE INQUEST CORONERS JURY AND THE CROWN COURT JURY Citizens sworn to give a true verdict according to the evidence presented in a court of law. From the date of the Magna Carta  which was (negotiated between King John's government and his subjects in 1215AD) In English law it is ---  NOT the 'Judge or Coroner' --- who decides on a guilty or not guilty verdict it's the 'JURY'. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A 'JURY'  But the courts MAKE A MOCKERY OF THE LAW By ordering the 'Inquest Jury' NOT TO GIVE A VERDICT of 'UNLAWFULLY KILLED Unlawfully killed (Inquest jury verdicts .......'OVERTURNED' ...... by .... 'ONE' HIGH COURT JUDGE sitting alone  Leon Patterson 'Unlawfully killed' (Inquest Jury Verdict quashed)  changed to Misadventure to which neglect contributed. Harry Stanley father of 3 children Biased 'Open verdict' from the Coroner Dr Stephen Chan - Changed to 'Unlawfully killed'  Then the police and a judge sitting alone behind closed doors reverse the 'Unlawfully killed' verdict back to 'Open Verdict' Roger Sylvester 'Unlawfully killed' (Inquest Jury Verdict quashed) **************************************************** Christopher Alder 37yo- Falklands veteran who was also decorated for his service with the Army in Northern Ireland 9 April 2001 Hull police officers failed to overturn the unanimous 'Inquest jury verdict' of 'UNLAWFULLY KILLED' verdict by the 'Inquest jury.  The High Court refused to overturn the 'Unlawfully killed' verdict of the Inquest jury **************************************************** Trials ended on judges' orders ------- Can now face an appeal  25 May 2000 DECISIONS by judges to stop trials and acquit defendants. Jack Straw announced that a right of appeal against "judge-directed acquittal" is to be considered by the Law Commission The Law Commission "will look at decisions made by a judge that are adverse to the prosecution and which lead to a trial being stopped, before the jury has been asked to consider the evidence". Double jeopardy law ushered out  Monday 4th April, 2005 The Court of Appeal can now quash an acquittal  (a Not Guilty verdict) and order a retrial when "new and compelling" evidence is produced. It applies to 30 serious crimes - including murder, rape, Class A drug offences and war crimes I hope this includes biased acquittals by a judge --- before ALL THE EVIDENCE IS HEARD by the JURY --- so that judges can and will stop police officers being convicted for murder or the manslaughter of innocent men and women.

 

The comments above are taken from Coroner and Crown court proceedings and reports of police procedures .... so all are true facts.

Deborah Coles and Daniel Machover - Friday June 8, 2001

1. The experience of bereaved families is that police shy away from treating their fellow officers as criminal suspects who have obvious motivations to lie and tell half-truths. (I would doubt even a half truth)
2. A frequent complaint is that police try to assassinate the character of a family's loved one to deflect attention. (How the innocent person was killed)
3. The worst treatment is sometimes at the hands of a "family liaison officer" who sees it as their job to investigate the victim and their family. 

Relatives should be able to question police officers character 

 
1. The police and their relatives 'SHOULD BE QUESTIONED'  about the officers' Drug or Alcohol intake their mood or movements on the day an innocent person was killed.
2. Has he been involved in the shooting of anyone before
3. Does the officer have or had family relation problems, with their son, daughter, wife or in-laws
4. Had the officer had a row with his family before going to work.
5. Was he in a bad mood that day
6. Has he any money problems - which has made them angry
 
7. Families will never know if the policeman who killed their, (father, son, daughter or wife or family member) had any complaints made against them for assault of a similar nature whether it was substantiated or not by any investigation. because we all know what the PCA do to stop any charges being made against any police officers.
 
8. Indeed, police are likely to rely on their "right to silence," a tactic they despise when they deal with "ordinary" suspects.
 
9. Families sometimes look to the Crown Prosecution Service for justice and fair play.
10. But the CPS relies on a working relationship with the police.  
11. The police and the CPS will for years ...... Deny - Deny - Deny ...... in every case  ..... there is any evidence to charge any police officer, when an innocent person dies in police custody.
 
12. Who represents the family in an English court when an innocent man or women is killed by the police
    NOT THE POLICE and the CPS - they have always refused to charge the officer/s for any death in police custody