Mark Duggan shooting inquest in London finally starts...

[Fozzie Bear]

BBC are also reporting a unanimous verdict while Guardian are saying 8-2. Does anyone know which is right?

There were 5 verdicts (the 5 questions here: http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdf)

8-2 unlawlful lawful killing. (with two people saying Open Verdict).

10-0 (unanimous) that he had a gun in the taxi prior to being stopped.

 

[Citizen66]

8-2 unlawlful killing. (with two people saying Open Verdict).

You mean 8-2 lawful killing?

 

[Fozzie Bear]

You mean 8-2 lawful killing?

yes, sorry. My subconscious clearly still hankers for justice.

 

[DaveCinzano]

I've just complained about a BBC R4 Today interview with his Aunt. The tone was very hostile and it was insinuated that she wanted a repeat of the riots. BBC are also reporting a unanimous verdict while Guardian are saying 8-2. Does anyone know which is right?

See for yourself:

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdf

 

[DaveCinzano]

The text of the Questions put to the jury, and notes alongside them, is as follows:

Record of an inquest

The following is the record of the inquest (including the statutory determination and, where required, findings) -

1. Name of the deceased (if known):

2. Medical cause of death:

3. How, when and where, and for investigations where section 5(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 applies, in what circumstances the deceased came by his or her death:

Question 1

In the period between midday 3rd August and when state Amber was called at 6.00pm on 4th August 2011, did the MPS and SOCA do the best they realistically could have done to gather and react to intelligence about the possibility of Mr Duggan collecting a gun from Mr Hutchinson Foster?

[] Yes [] No [] Not enough information

If no, what more could have been expected of them?

Question 2

Was the stop conducted in a location and in a way which minimised to the greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force?

[] Yes [] No

Question 3

Did Mr Duggan have the gun with him in the taxi immediately before the stop?

[] Yes [] No

Question 4

How did the gun get to the grass area where it was later found?

Question 5

When Mr Duggan received the fatal shot did he have the gun in his hand?

If you are sure that he did not have the gun in his hand then tick the box accordingly and then go on to consider unlawful killing, lawful killing or an open conclusion:

[] We are sure that he did not have a gun in his hand

If you feel that it was more likely than not that he did have a gun in his hand tick the box accordingly and then go on to consider unlawful killing, lawful killing or an open conclusion:

[] We believe it is more likely than not that he did have a gun in his hand

If you feel that it was more likely than not that he did not have a gun in his hand tick the box accordingly and then go on to consider unlawful killing, lawful killing or an open conclusion:

[] We believe it is more likely than not that he did not have a gun in his hand

===

INQUEST TOUCHING UPON THE DEATH OF MARK DUGGAN

Conclusions - lawful/unlawful killing and open conclusions

Unlawful. You have to be sure that the act was unlawful - that is that it was not done in lawful self defence or defence of another or in order to prevent crime. It is not for V53 to prove that he did act lawfully - before you conclude that his act was unlawful, you must be sure that it was unlawful.

Any person is entitled to use reasonable force to defence himself or another from injury, attack or threat of attack. If V53 may have been defending himself or one of his colleagues then go on to consider two matters:

1) Did V53 honestly believe or may he honestly have believed that at the time he fired the fatal shot that he needed to use force to defend himself or another; if your answer is NO then he cannot have been acting in lawful self defence and you can put that issue to one side; if your answer is YES then go on to consider:

2) Was the force used - the fatal shot - reasonable in all the circumstances? Obviously if someone is under attack from someone he genuinely believes is violent and armed - then that person cannot be expected to weigh up precisely the amount of force needed to prevent that attack. But if he goes over the top and acts out of proportion to the threat then he would not be using reasonable force and his actions would be unlawful.

The question whether the degree of force used by V53 was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as V53 believed them to be - but the degree of force is not to be regarded as reasonable in the circumstances as V53 believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those circumstances.

(Alternatively a police officer may use lawful force to prevent crime. Here two points arise:

1) Did V53 shoot Mark Duggan in order to prevent crime; and
2) Was the force used reasonable or unreasonable in all the circamstances?)

Only if you are sure that Mr Duggan was killed unlawfully will you come to this conclusion and record it as such.

Lawful killing. If you conclude that it was more likely than not that the fatal shot which killed Mark Duggan was the use of lawful force - then you should return a conclusion of lawful killing.

Open conclusion. An open conclusion should be recorded when there is insufficient evidence to the necessary standard of proof for you to record any other “substantive” conclusion as to how Mark Duggan came to his death.

You may record an open conclusion if:

1) You are not satisfied so that you are sure that Mark Duggan was unlawfully killed; and
2) You are not satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mark Duggan was killed lawfully.

Conclusion of the jury as to the death:

[] Unlawful killing [] Lawful killing [] Open conclusion

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's not a conspiracy, that's community policing! Lie after lie after lie after lie.

(the conspiracy bit is waaay too far fetched for this place)

Exactly. The police force is itself one large conspiracy - overreact, cover up, lie (in court where necessary), blame the victim. It's the standard pattern, and they know they will be supported by the system, especially when the victim is a young black man with no job. The family's explanation - that Mark was executed in a premeditated murder - is the one most consistent with the facts where you disregard any 'fact' that only comes from the police.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Exactly. The police force is itself one large conspiracy - overreact, cover up, lie (in court where necessary), blame the victim. It's the standard pattern, and they know they will be supported by the system, especially when the victim is a young black man with no job. The family's explanation - that Mark was executed in a premeditated murder - is the one most consistent with the facts where you disregard any 'fact' that only comes from the police.

Premeditated in what way? The policeman who shot him had decided earlier in the day that he was going to kill him whatever happened or the policeman was ordered to kill him?

 

[brogdale]

The text of the Questions put to the jury, and notes alongside them, is as follows:

Interesting Dave.

There is an obvious imbalance in the degree and depth of 'guidance' given for the 3 conclusions open to the jury, making Lawful very much the easiest option to select by criteria. The steer against unlawful is considerable, and the language and conditions far more demanding:-

You have to be sure that the act was unlawful...

It is not for V53 to prove that he did act lawfully - before you conclude that his act was unlawful, you must be sure that it was unlawful.

Any person is entitled to use reasonable force to defence himself or another from injury

Was the force used - the fatal shot - reasonable in all the circumstances? Obviously if someone is under attack from someone he genuinely believes is violent and armed - then that person cannot be expected to weigh up precisely the amount of force needed to prevent that attack.

Alternatively a police officer may use lawful force to prevent crime.

Only if you are sure that Mr Duggan was killed unlawfully will you come to this conclusion and record it as such.

etc.....but compare that with the very straigtforward/simple "correct" option that the authorities had to get the jury to choose. (If they'd chosen the wrong one then the OB would have had to open investigations into their own and progress towards a possible prosecution.)

Lawful killing. If you conclude that it was more likely than not that the fatal shot which killed Mark Duggan was the use of lawful force - then you should return a conclusion of lawful killing.

Job done.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Premeditated in what way? The policeman who shot him had decided earlier in the day that he was going to kill him whatever happened or the policeman was ordered to kill him?

In a way that sees a gun in a sock available to be planted at the scene.

Maybe they carry one all the time, just in case.

 

[Barking_Mad]

How were the jury members selected, anyone know?

 

[scalyboy]

... The only chain of events Ive been able to come up with that fits what we know for sure (pure speculation of course) is
1. Mark picks up a shoe box with a gun in it, leaves DNA on the box but never touches the gun, puts the box in either boot of taxi or footwell.
2. Rides in the taxi
3. Gets pulled
4. Gets out of the taxi
5. Get shot
6. Someone from police takes the gun and plants it (couldn't plant it on him directly as thats too hot/'straight' copper might see?)...

That sounds plausible to me ska. With regard to the alleged planting of the gun, why not leave it close to his body, rather than 20-30 ft away? Perhaps, as you say, because there were other 'straighter' officers who would have spotted this being done? IIRC somewhere way, way upthread SpookyFrank quoted a sentence (I don't know where he'd taken it from, looked like a witness statement) stating that an officer had been seen walking over to the spot where the gun was later found, then walking back. I haven't got the stamina to trawl back through pages and pages of the thread, but maybe Frank will be along soon to re-post it.

 

[ska invita]

That sounds plausible to me ska. With regard to the alleged planting of the gun, why not leave it close to his body, rather than 20-30 ft away? Perhaps, as you say, because there were other 'straighter' officers who would have spotted this being done? IIRC somewhere way, way upthread SpookyFrank quoted a sentence (I don't know where he'd taken it from, looked like a witness statement) stating that an officer had been seen walking over to the spot where the gun was later found, then walking back. I haven't got the stamina to trawl back through pages and pages of the thread, but maybe Frank will be along soon to re-post it.

There is no way Mark had the gun in his hand and chucked it - theres no DNA on it or sock and no one saw it, no even the many cops.
So after the shooting and ensuing fall-out it would take time for a cop to find the box, find the gun and then do something with it (It couldn't be left in the box as he needed to have it out to justify being shot).
...By which point it would be too late for it to just appear near the body, but can be justified by turning up in the long grass later.

Would like to see Franks link

 

[Pickman's model]

How were the jury members selected, anyone know?

they picked the 10 most credulous people in london

 

[laptop]

There is an obvious imbalance in the degree and depth of 'guidance' given for the 3 conclusions open to the jury, making Lawful very much the easiest option to select by criteria. The steer against unlawful is considerable, and the language and conditions far more demanding:-

Also:

Did V53 honestly believe or may he honestly have believed that at the time he fired the fatal shot that he needed to use force

My emphasis.

I may need to read it again, but it looks as though the jury was told that they could return a verdict of unlawful killing only if they were sure V53 did not hold a certain belief (and it was not "to prevent a crime").

That's a matter on which it is impossible to be sure!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There is no way Mark had the gun in his hand and chucked it - theres no DNA on it or sock and no one saw it, no even the many cops.
So after the shooting and ensuing fall-out it would take time for a cop to find the box, find the gun and then do something with it (It couldn't be left in the box as he needed to have it out to justify being shot).
...By which point it would be too late for it to just appear near the body, but can be justified by turning up in the long grass later.

Would like to see Franks link

Isn't the simpler explanation that Mark never had a gun. The coppers had all the guns.

 

[Tankus]

Were any officers or vehicles present at both scenes ? .The dealer's and Duggans?

 

[ska invita]

Isn't the simpler explanation that Mark never had a gun. The coppers had all the guns.

his DNA was on the shoebox though. i think its likely he had a shoebox which had a gun in a sock in it. I just dont think he ever got to touch the sock/gun

 

[ffsear]

Don't forget as well a separate jury convicted a man of supplying Duggan with a gun on that day.

 

[Pickman's model]

Don't forget as well a separate jury convicted a man of supplying Duggan with a gun on that day.

and you remain persuaded that both juries acted in accordance with the facts of the events

 

[littlebabyjesus]

his DNA was on the shoebox though. i think its likely he had a shoebox which had a gun in a sock in it. I just dont think he ever got to touch the sock/gun

A shoebox with Mark's fingerprints on it is said to have been found in the boot of the cab.

This report of the trial of the man alleged to have supplied the gun to Mark is pretty telling. The first outing in court of the police's perjured testimony.

"The police marksmen were in no doubt that this was as dangerous a position as possible - gun in hand - and he was seen to start to bring it round as if to shoot.

Murdering, lying scumbags.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Don't forget as well a separate jury convicted a man of supplying Duggan with a gun on that day.

Convicted on the basis of lies.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Have the police supplied any evidence that Mark was 'one of the UK's most dangerous criminals'?

The only justification I've seen them give is that he was spending more money than an unemployed person should be spending.

 

[Pickman's model]

Have the police supplied any evidence that Mark was 'one of the UK's most dangerous criminals'?

The only evidence I've seen them give is that he was spending more money than an unemployed person should be spending.

'one of the UK's most dangerous criminals' => not liked by the police.

 

[DotCommunist]

'one of the UK's most dangerous criminals' => not liked by the police.

like when a handcuffed man goes into the kitchen to make a cup of tea and somehow stabs himself to death

 

[Louis MacNeice]

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdf

Page 5 explains why the jury reached the verdict they did; they had little or no choice with the directions they were given by the coroner. BA had it right a long way back in this thread; all the police had to do was maintain that they honestly believed something to be true (that Duggan had a gun in his hand) even if it could be shown to be impossible. The honest belief of the police officer makes it a lawful killing; this is an incredibly dangerous state of affairs and one that hasn't been picked up on by the mainstream media at all.

Louis MacNeice

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Page 5 explains why the jury reached the verdict they did; they had little or no choice with the directions they were given by the coroner. BA had it right a long way back in this thread; all the police had to do was maintain that they honestly believed something to be true (that Duggan had a gun in his hand) even if it could be shown to be impossible. The honest belief of the police officer makes it a lawful killing; this is an incredibly dangerous state of affairs and one that hasn't been picked up on by the mainstream media at all.

Louis MacNeice

That's not quite true. The jury could also have reached the conclusion that the police were lying.

 

[DotCommunist]

That's not quite true. The jury could also have reached the conclusion that the police were lying.

directions are given like they are word of god though, and even though in principle Jury has the say, in practise they do as directed. Or theres a mistrial and they'll select another Jury till the desired result comes in

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Michael Segalov @MikeSegalov
Duggan family have called peaceful mass protest outside Tottenham police station - 2pm Sat 11th Jan. Spread the word and fast. No justice.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Certainly true. But no juror is obliged to believe police testimony, and in this case, the jury accepted that they were lying at various crucial points.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

That's not quite true. The jury could also have reached the conclusion that the police were lying.

Yes they could have done; which is why I said little or no choice. However, in the coroner's directions this alternative is not explicitly given; the space provided for the jury to make a statement that the police were being less than honest, was squeezed to a minimum. The space it opens up for the police to 'act in good faith' is huge and hugely worrying.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice