Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Mark Duggan shooting inquest in London finally starts...

The transcripts are here:

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/hearing-transcripts.htm

...I'm gonna have a trawl through them myself. As I understand it though the officer who shot Duggan stated in court that Duggan was pointing a gun at him.

Hmmm - officer W70 seems to be describing Duggan as pulling out the gun and then somehow teleporting it away by some distance. If plod are telling the truth I can see why they were scared of the bloke.

edit: just so can see what I'm referring to, see 11th December hearing, part 1 line 13 to part 2 line 24 (the 'parts' are probably pages from the original transcript)
 
Last edited:
Have a look at the transcript for 24th September, page 26, line 19. The testimony of a DCI Mick Foote. He reports that the tactical firearms commander at the scene spoke to him minutes after Duggan's shooting. Apparently the firearms commander described the operation as having 'gone as planned'.

That's raised a few eyebrows here at Frank towers, I don't mind telling you.
 
Is this what he said in court (as opposed to before the inquiry...)

The ‘inquiry’ into Mark Duggan's death was a coroner's inquest, which like a criminal trial is a judicial process conducted in a manner clearly prescribed under statute, with clear procedures and clear goals.
 
The ‘inquiry’ into Mark Duggan's death was a coroner's inquest, which like a criminal trial is a judicial process conducted in a manner clearly prescribed under statute, with clear procedures and clear goals.

Scruffy language on my part, soz - not a lawyer, just wanted to separate what was presented at these hearings as opposed to what was flying about in the media..
 
One thing that's clear from these transcripts is that even the met's senior commanders are about as competent as a chimpanzee driving a bulldozer.
 
Scruffy language on my part, soz - not a lawyer, just wanted to separate what was presented at these hearings as opposed to what was flying about in the media..

If you want to help trawl the court transcripts feel free :)
 
It seems more likely that Duggan did have the gun in the car. If only because if I was a plod wanting to fit someone up to make them look like a professional gangster on the way to kill someone I'd have chosen a proper gun, and I'd have made sure Duggan's DNA found its way on to it. I wouldn't rule out a planned execution, but it seems less likely than the now traditional fuck up plus conspiracy scenario.

Also, if this had all been planned it wouldn't have taken them three days to get their statements straight.

I don't doubt for a moment that Mr Duggan had a gun at one point. What I do doubt is that the gun was ever pointed at the police.
 
Tidbit from the Fail:

During the inquest his mother claimed Duggan returned to Tottenham several years later as a ‘well balanced’ man.

What was carefully omitted was the fact the one of Duggan’s uncles was the late Desmond ‘Dessie’ Noonan, whose feared family are ‘major players’ in the Manchester underworld.

See Beating the Fascists thread...

E2A: It seems to me likely that the Fail in its monstering of Mark Duggan has been extensively briefed by the Met. Or, as it may turn out, "rogue" officers. Who of course received no remuneration of any kind...
 
The transcripts are here:

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/hearing-transcripts.htm

...I'm gonna have a trawl through them myself. As I understand it though the officer who shot Duggan stated in court that Duggan was pointing a gun at him.
21 Q. How was he holding his hand?
22 A. Again, may I stand up?

23 THE ASSISTANT CORONER: Yes, please, yes.

24 A. As he's turned to face me, he has an object in his right

25 hand (indicates), Mark Duggan is carrying a handgun in


45



1 his right hand. I can see the handle of the weapon,

2 I can make out the trigger guard, I can make out the

3 barrel and it's side-on to his body and there's a black

4 sock covering that weapon.
24 A. Again because -- the only way I can describe this,
25 there's a line in the sand now or there's a tipping


49







1 point. If Mr Duggan had left the gun like this I would

2 have hoped he would have dropped it, but because he's

3 moved it away from his body I now have an honest held

4 belief he's going to shoot me, because by moving away

5 from his body he can do this (indicates) or he can do

6 this (indicates) in a fraction of a second, whereby

7 I had an honest held belief that he was going to shoot

8 me.
From Oct 15th hearing http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/transcripts/1207.htm
 
He can see the handle, the barrel and the trigger guard. And the gun is covered with a sock. OK.
 
Tidbit from the Fail:

What was carefully omitted was the fact the one of Duggan’s uncles was the late Desmond ‘Dessie’ Noonan, whose feared family are ‘major players’ in the Manchester underworld.

See Beating the Fascists thread...

E2A: It seems to me likely that the Fail in its monstering of Mark Duggan has been extensively briefed by the Met. Or, as it may turn out, "rogue" officers. Who of course received no remuneration of any kind...

Dessie Noonan was also a committed anti-fascist who played a big role in chasing the national front out of manchester.

All of which is irrelevant to Duggan's character of course.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03nv0m9
Listened to this on the way to work. Tory bellend argues that the problem was PR. The police shouldn't of let conflicting stories come out at the start. There should of been one person one narrative. I take from that his solution is for the Met to become better liars.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03nv0m9
Listened to this on the way to work. Tory bellend argues that the problem was PR. The police shouldn't of let conflicting stories come out at the start. There should of been one person one narrative. I take from that his solution is for the Met to become better liars.

I think that would have been fine. There would have been just one story circulating that turned out to be glaringly different to the facts.
 
OK, so perusing the testimony of V53 seems to suggest that Duggan managed to hurl the gun thirty feet after he was shot in the chest. So, even with a hollowpoint round in him, his main concern is still disposing of evidence.

For those that don't know hollowpoint rounds are designed to transfer as much of the impact energy as possible directly to the target, so as to have a greater chance of killing that target with a single round. And after he's taken one of these in his chest, Mark Duggan has time to worry about the fact that the gun he's holding might get him in trouble. More trouble than he's already in. He somehow summons the strength to hurl his weapon away so fast that a man mere yards in front of him fails to see his arm move.

I know I'm going over the same ground a lot here but I'm still utterly dumbfounded that we're being expected to swallow this shit.
 
If you think everything in that Fail article is made up (which is possible :)), why do you think the Met had targeted Duggan? Serious question BTW
I didn't say that I think the Met targetted Duggan. I said that what we know doesn't rule it out.

But yes, best not to give credence to anything the police say about Mark Duggan. If a copper hits you, he will try to make out that you are the violent person and you hit him. If a copper kills you, well, he's going to have to try to make out that you were a killer.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom