The family of a man shot dead by police who [allegedly] mistook a table leg he was carrying for a sawn-off shotgun, claimed yesterday that a coroner had denied them justice. Harry Stanley's widow, Irene, said she would sue the Metropolitan Police, make a formal complaint about the coroner and seek a judicial review of the inquest into her husband's death. Mrs Stanley and her supporters stormed out of St Pancras coroner's court in central London when the coroner ruled out the option of the jury returning an unlawful killing verdict. One shouted "murderers" as they marched out of the court during Dr Stephen Chan's summing-up. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=307759 By Ian Burrell, Home Affairs Correspondent 22 June 2002 --- From Wiki - In May 2005 the High Court decided that there was "insufficient evidence" for the verdict of unlawful killing, overturning it and reinstating the open verdict of the first inquest.[10] Mr Justice Leveson also decided a third inquest should not be held, but added his weight to calls for reform of the inquest system.[11] Glen Smyth described the ruling as "common sense"[12], but the campaign group Inquest was disappointed, saying the verdict sent "a message that families cannot have any confidence in the system. They feel they cannot get justice when a death in custody occurs."[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Stanley ------------------------------------------------- `Perceptions' notes: 1 We hear the man was shot in the head - that means it was almost certainly an intentional, considered killing. Fire-arms officers do not aim for the head `under pressure' because they'd probably miss - they aim for the body - to `put the man down' quickly. Therefore the policemen almost certainly lied after the incident - the most likely explanation is that they'd agreed to kill Harry Stanley before arriving on the scene - to save themselves inconvenience or danger. 2 Inquest juries should be able to decide for themselves. If a coroner - a member of a local elite - tries to restrict or coerce the jury he is corrupt: illegally trying to cover-up for police killers, for instance. We've seen numerous corrupt coroners' "decisions" in recent years and all have tended to cover-up malpractice, fraud, manslaughter and even murder by local authorities, local companies, local elites or agents of the establishment. 3 UK's `Rights Immemorial'(check www.perceptions.couk.com/reactions.txt) forbid judges or coroners interfering with _any_ decision of a jury. Recently judges have illegally given themselves the `power' to overturn our rights immemorial for their own corrupt reasons: protecting members of the elite and their thugs. The High Court cannot legally `overturn' a jury's verdict - but they have! Conclusion? UK's law courts and coroners' courts are corrupt. ------------------------------------------------- See `Rights Immemorial' at www.perceptions.couk.com/reactions.txt - scroll down for details. ------------------------------------------------- evidence file for "LaworJustice" www.perceptions.couk.com/laworjustice.html ------------------------------------------------- FURTHER REFERENCES GO - "search perceptions" - in SEARCH-ENGINE file-ID www.perceptions.couk.com/agin.txt