Mark Duggan Inquest
- Thread starter icebreaker
- Start date
Flagship uberalles
Journeyman
Or incompetent police work?
Diane Flabbott has her say
shes right though
The questions will be
1. Why do so many in our "community" carry guns?
2. Why are there so many teenage male on male murders in our "community" ?
3. Why is violence and gun culture glorified?
4. Why does the rest of britain think these "gangstas" and apologists can go fck themselves?
simmo
Senior Jockey
Interesting - the BBC is reporting that they concluded he threw the gun away when he was surrounded and the Guardian is reporting that they concluded he threw the gun away before the taxi came to a stop.
Which did they actually conclude because the two are completely different things?
Flagship uberalles
Journeyman
The whole thing stinks to me - inconsistencies with the location of the gun, eyewitness accounts contradicting those of the police officers, initial statements that Duggan shot at police which were later retracted - it's a complete mess.
I do not know how they concluded it was a lawful killing despite acknowledging he was not in possession of the gun at the time of being shot - was this because he was clearly a bad egg and deserved it, or because the officer responsible has maintained he thought the suspect was holding a gun? Handy excuse if so, can't exactly be proven either way can it?
simmo
Senior Jockey
Splendid find Gareth - I love a good fact.
I'm interested in this section, which probably holds the key to most of our questions.
1) Did V53 honestly believe or may he honestly have believed, even if that
belief is mistaken, that at the time he fired the fatal shot, that he needed to use force to defend himself or another
which, for me, essentially boils down to a reasonable doubt type question and crucially permits the jury to take V53's word for it.
I'd still be interested to hear why the 2 who claimed to the IPCC to have seen the police planting the evidence were not called at the inquest.
Obviously, there is the conspiracy possibility, but there is also the possibility that they were not even remotely credible. Be interesting to find out the reason though.
I'm interested in this section, which probably holds the key to most of our questions.
1) Did V53 honestly believe or may he honestly have believed, even if that
belief is mistaken, that at the time he fired the fatal shot, that he needed to use force to defend himself or another
which, for me, essentially boils down to a reasonable doubt type question and crucially permits the jury to take V53's word for it.
I'd still be interested to hear why the 2 who claimed to the IPCC to have seen the police planting the evidence were not called at the inquest.
Obviously, there is the conspiracy possibility, but there is also the possibility that they were not even remotely credible. Be interesting to find out the reason though.
Tout Seul
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,628
I would hope that some of those expressing their opinions( predjudices?) above are not called to be on a jury given the task of deliberating on a matter like this. There are rarely simple facts.
You do not know the area, the reputations proudly built up by certain individuals within that area to let people be aware of their capacity and not to cross them. In fact it is their most effective weapon.
That, despite what you see on telly, not all criminals are stupid. Indeed successful??? criminals of necessity can be very clever. Playing at Sherlock Holmes is not going to catch people out.
No prints or DNA on the gun. Feck me! How thick do you think people are? If ,as alleged, he had just bought a gun from a known quartermaster, the one thing he would not have done is to contaminate it. He would have taken the gun, probably inside a appropriate length sock, provided by the QM. Why a sock? Because with one very quick motion one can sling the gun so that it lands some distance away. Mr Watson might opine that it would have a high trajectory, taking it over a fence, for example. Perhaps DNA or pocket material on the sock-who knows?
I know Ferry Lane very well, it's not exactly a lane, and whilst I don't know the exact spot, a reasoned guess is that the police would have sought to make what was a planned interception at a point where there was unlikely to be many bystanders- hopefully for reasons of public safety. If I am right it is not a general walking area and it is highly probable that any witnesses would been local and not more than a handful.
Any local witness would be terrified of possible repercussions if they said anything other than the party line. It would surely not come as a complete surprise that witnesses and sometimes police not infrequently, lie. Not saying they did on this occasion.
Would the police collude to protect a colleague, I have had first hand experience of that and proved that they (including a senior officer) were lying. That said I have a good friend who, until recent retirement was responsible for an area adjacent to Tottenham, and who certainly would have put a stop to any such collusion in his area.
Slightly to a tangent, imo , based on a reasonable amount of interaction, the vast majority of the black community abhor the activities of gang members and the effect these activities have on the wider perception of black/mixed race youth. Those outside the court do not represent the Black community.
You do not know the area, the reputations proudly built up by certain individuals within that area to let people be aware of their capacity and not to cross them. In fact it is their most effective weapon.
That, despite what you see on telly, not all criminals are stupid. Indeed successful??? criminals of necessity can be very clever. Playing at Sherlock Holmes is not going to catch people out.
No prints or DNA on the gun. Feck me! How thick do you think people are? If ,as alleged, he had just bought a gun from a known quartermaster, the one thing he would not have done is to contaminate it. He would have taken the gun, probably inside a appropriate length sock, provided by the QM. Why a sock? Because with one very quick motion one can sling the gun so that it lands some distance away. Mr Watson might opine that it would have a high trajectory, taking it over a fence, for example. Perhaps DNA or pocket material on the sock-who knows?
I know Ferry Lane very well, it's not exactly a lane, and whilst I don't know the exact spot, a reasoned guess is that the police would have sought to make what was a planned interception at a point where there was unlikely to be many bystanders- hopefully for reasons of public safety. If I am right it is not a general walking area and it is highly probable that any witnesses would been local and not more than a handful.
Any local witness would be terrified of possible repercussions if they said anything other than the party line. It would surely not come as a complete surprise that witnesses and sometimes police not infrequently, lie. Not saying they did on this occasion.
Would the police collude to protect a colleague, I have had first hand experience of that and proved that they (including a senior officer) were lying. That said I have a good friend who, until recent retirement was responsible for an area adjacent to Tottenham, and who certainly would have put a stop to any such collusion in his area.
Slightly to a tangent, imo , based on a reasonable amount of interaction, the vast majority of the black community abhor the activities of gang members and the effect these activities have on the wider perception of black/mixed race youth. Those outside the court do not represent the Black community.
Last edited:
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Correct. Anyway, it is risable to suggest that a gun-criminal would engage in gunplay using a weapon inside a sock. It's not feasible, either with the hand inside the sock clutching the gun ( impossible to prime the weapon or "put one in the breech", or throw the safety catch), or outside the sock ( extremely difficult to get the finger inside the trigger guard with the sock covering it). If Duggan did have his gun inside a sock, then it is clear he didn't intend to fire it at that time.
Also, Officer W70 testified that he saw a gun in Duggan's hand -- but not inside a sock.
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Testimony which was contradicted by the evidence of Officer W70 who saw the gun, but not inside a sock ?
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
But I'm saying that any criminal -- if he has intent to use the gun -- will have removed it from the sock before firing it.
If the criminal is paranoid about fingerprints etc, he will be wearing a skin-tight surgical glove when gripping the gun rather than firing it from inside a sock.
Desperate Dan
Senior Jockey
It`s so difficult to believe anything the police say these days particularly in the immediate aftermath of serious incidents. How many times have they been found to be lying?
There is an article in today`s Independent in which they quote from an internal police report. The report concludes, amongst other things, that the Met is still "endemically corrupt." Yes, our own police concluding that our biggest police force is "endemically corrupt." Truly shocking but, unfortunately, not surprising. Indeed, there is strong evidence that the current top man told lies in the aftermath of Hillsboro`.
There is an article in today`s Independent in which they quote from an internal police report. The report concludes, amongst other things, that the Met is still "endemically corrupt." Yes, our own police concluding that our biggest police force is "endemically corrupt." Truly shocking but, unfortunately, not surprising. Indeed, there is strong evidence that the current top man told lies in the aftermath of Hillsboro`.