Mark Duggan shooting inquest in London finally starts...

[silverfish]

Seeing as he wasn't wearing gloves, & that no prints or dna were found on the gun, or the sock it was wrapped in, then no, he didn't throw it.

Does lack of dna on a sock covered gun mean absolutely that he didn't hoik it? Surely it doesn't prove he didn't touch it.

Caveat I'm not a forensics expert but lack of evidence (dna) doesn't prove a negative ( he didn't touch it) does it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Does lack of dna on a sock covered gun mean absolutely that he didn't hoik it? Surely it doesn't prove he didn't touch it.

Caveat I'm not a forensics expert but lack of evidence (dna) doesn't prove a negative ( he didn't touch it) does it?

No it doesn't. Absence of anybody seeing him do this, added to the lack of dna, though, what does that tell you? 11 coppers and one taxi driver. Every single one reported that they did not see him throw anything out of the car. Indeed, the taxi driver further reported that he did not see him open the box at any stage.

 

[8ball]

Does lack of dna on a sock covered gun mean absolutely that he didn't hoik it? Surely it doesn't prove he didn't touch it.

Caveat I'm not a forensics expert but lack of evidence (dna) doesn't prove a negative ( he didn't touch it) does it?

I don't think it's 100% proof, but given the other deposits (for example, there were deposits on the inside lip of the shoebox) and the force required to chuck a kilo and a bit of metal any distance (try it with a bag of sugar), and the way skin cells tend to stick on fabrics it's not looking great, unless the sock went through a wash cycle as it arced through the air.

There are lots of things that aren't 100% proof in this case, obviously.

Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of them.

Aliens might have had the technoology to transport the gun from one place to another with no one seeing - would be a bitch disproving that one.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How about this, silverfish. Still believe he may have chucked it?

During the inquest the IPCC's mishandling of the crime scene was revealed, including the fact that it gave permission for the mini-cab to be removed before investigating officers had even looked at it or had it forensically searched for evidence. It further transpired that the IPCC failed to respond to crucial independent witnesses, even those who tried to respond to their own urgent witness appeals. The IPCC has chosen not to explore the possibility that the gun was planted at the spot it was found, even though it was 7m from his body and two independent witness gave the IPCC statements – and later testified – that they had seen an officer remove a gun from the mini-cab some minutes after Duggan had been killed. But the most crucial reason why the family and local community will have no faith in the IPCC's investigation is that its lead investigator, Colin Sparrow, revealed to the inquest that he knew Duggan had not fired any gun long before the IPCC began briefing the media that he had shot at police first. It is one thing for the IPCC to have made the mistake, but it still took three weeks to correct a "fact" it knew to be false; and in those intervening days Tottenham, and many other areas, burned.

Source

The police planted the gun there later. I'd be interested to hear you explain how this is not the only reasonable explanation.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The jury's verdict is worth repeating here in its full perversity:

- Police did not do enough to gather and react to intelligence suggesting Mr Duggan might be collecting a gun from Kevin Hutchinson-Foster. (Unanimous)

- Police did carry out the stop in a location and a way that minimised as much as possible the risk of needing ‘lethal force’. (Unanimous)

- Mr Duggan had a gun with him in his taxi immediately before being stopped. (Unanimous)

- Mr Duggan threw the gun on to a nearby patch of grass (1) as soon as his taxi came to a stop (2). (1:9-1 majority/2:8-2 majority)

- Mr Duggan did not have a gun in his hand when he received the fatal gunshot to his chest. (8-2 majority)

- Verdict: Lawful killing. (8-2 majority)

The impression people have that he threw the gun away comes from the jury's verdict, a perverse, idiotic verdict.

Note:
The jury voted 9-1 that he threw the gun away, and 8-2 that he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot. So somebody on that jury voted that he threw a gun away and that he had a gun in his hand when he was shot the second time.

 

[silverfish]

How about this, silverfish. Still believe he may have chucked it?



Source

The police planted the gun there later. I'd be interested to hear you explain how this is not the only reasonable explanation.

Thats a guardian journalists opinion/analysis of the situation. As about as definitive as anyone posting here TBH.

I'm not trying to defend the polices handling/ mishandling/ of information. If the fuckers weren't so slippery and evasive/defensive/proactively offensive about situation they might come out of this type of shit a bit better.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Thats a guardian journalists opinion/analysis of the situation. As about as definitive as anyone posting here TBH.

I'm not trying to defend the polices handling/ mishandling/ of information. If the fuckers weren't so slippery and evasive/defensive/proactively offensive about situation they might come out of this type of shit a bit better.

He's reported facts in the bit I've quoted, not opinion. I agree that it isn't a court transcript, but it is true that nobody has come forward saying that they saw him throw the gun. The jury decided that he did, nonetheless, as how else could it have got where it was? Well, how else?

 

[8ball]

The police planting the gun would seem most likely, but that's just going by the explanation that assumes the minimum amount of lying on their part.
A cynical person might come up with many more possible scenarios.

Those supporting the current verdict are just left with explanations involving fairies, aliens or holographic guns, but it would be silly to entertain such ideas.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The police planting the gun would seem most likely, but that's just going by the explanation that assumes the minimum amount of lying on their part.
A cynical person might come up with many more possible scenarios.

Yep. It is telling that this is the most charitable explanation for the police: that they shot an unarmed man for no good reason - because of a panic, perhaps - and then tried to cover it up by fabricating evidence and lying. That's the most charitable explanation.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Yep. It is telling that this is the most charitable explanation for the police: that they shot an unarmed man for no good reason - because of a panic, perhaps - and then tried to cover it up by fabricating evidence and lying. That's the most charitable explanation.

I think he was holding his phone, like a witness stated, and the pumped up police marksman thought it was a gun and shot him. They then realised he wasn't armed and one of them took the gun out of the taxi and placed it on the ground so they could all claim he had a gun that he had managed to chuck away as he was being shot. Then they all lied to protect their colleague. Thinking about it though, why didn't they all just say they saw him chucking the gun away?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think he was holding his phone, like a witness stated, and the pumped up police marksman thought it was a gun and shot him.

Wishful thinking?

That's where we enter execution territory. They expected him to have a gun. Wanted him to have a gun. And were pumped up to shoot him as soon as they saw it.

How else do you explain mistaking a phone for a gun at relatively close range in daylight?

 

[goldenecitrone]

Maybe we'll find out the truth in 30 years' time and everyone will be shocked at how corrupt the police were, but be thankful that they have cleaned up their act in the intervening years. That's how it seems to work.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Thinking about it though, why didn't they all just say they saw him chucking the gun away?

They ballsed up. Tricky business, covering up. They couldn't even get that right.

Could just have been trying to keep the lies down a bit. If it might be plausible you didn't see it, you just say that you didn't see it. That's all they tried to do with the taxi driver's testimony, in which they established that there was a moment when he was looking away from Mark Duggan and not watching what he was doing. He was clear that he didn't think he had thrown it, though, and they had not established at all that Duggan would have been able to do it without the taxi driver noticing. They just tried to make it plausible - even if still unlikely - that the gun could have been thrown and this not have been noticed by the taxi driver.

 

[Open Sauce]

Ah ok, he'd just been shot. Hadn't realised that.

However, the taxi driver's testimony is a powerful argument to use to demand the ending of elective 'hard stops' of this kind. Along with demanding the disbanding of Operation Trident and the ending of racial profiling.

intelligence led confrontations with criminals known to have weapons in their possession.

What do want them to do?

And how are they out of control?

He wants them to disband trident, he wants more black on black

He's never read this http://www.freelists.org/post/guide.chat/riot-6-street-gang-called-tottenham-mandem

He is the worst conspiracy theorist, clutcihing at anything, like the description of the copper being shot, he only reads between the lines

 

[Open Sauce]

Seeing as he wasn't wearing gloves, & that no prints or dna were found on the gun, or the sock it was wrapped in, then no, he didn't throw it.

Bit hard to leave prints on a sock. What DNA transfer are you expecting?

 

[Open Sauce]

No it doesn't. Absence of anybody seeing him do this, added to the lack of dna, though, what does that tell you? 11 coppers and one taxi driver. Every single one reported that they did not see him throw anything out of the car. Indeed, the taxi driver further reported that he did not see him open the box at any stage.

Witness B in one of his many versions of his testimony describes seeing something go flying.

I think you earlier said he was the only credible witness.

 

[8ball]

What DNA transfer are you expecting?

Same way it got onto the shoebox.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Bit hard to leave prints on a sock.

VMD - vacuum metal deposition. The lifting of finger prints from fabrics.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Same way it got onto the shoebox.

Touch DNA - only requires 7 or 8 skin cells from an object that someone has held.

 

[likesfish]

The witness was over. 100 metres away a football pitch.
Duggan tried to flee armed police never a good idea and will get you shot because the marksmen are primed for target complys you arrest him. Target does something stupid amd attempts to shoot you so you shoot him first.
Target attempts to leg it probably wasnt what they were expecting

 

[TopCat]

I think he was holding his phone, like a witness stated, and the pumped up police marksman thought it was a gun and shot him. They then realised he wasn't armed and one of them took the gun out of the taxi and placed it on the ground so they could all claim he had a gun that he had managed to chuck away as he was being shot. Then they all lied to protect their colleague. Thinking about it though, why didn't they all just say they saw him chucking the gun away?

Why would they not have just taken said gun out of box and dumped it in his lap? Why plant it so far away? It does not make sense.

 

[silverfish]

I presume therefore with all this "planting activity" that the gun was covered in coppers finger prints and DNA?

 

[TopCat]

I presume therefore with all this "planting activity" that the gun was covered in coppers finger prints and DNA?

They made no enquiries about any potential police planting of the gun or box. They tested no police, did not test the box or gun and ignored the issue entirely.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

He wants them to disband trident, he wants more black on black

That's it. I want more black on black. That's the only possible alternative to supporting the police's Trident operation.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

I presume therefore with all this "planting activity" that the gun was covered in coppers finger prints and DNA?

They would have been wearing gloves.

 

[butchersapron]

He wants them to disband trident, he wants more black on black

That's a ludicrous and offensive suggestion - esp when all you needed to do was say that a rise in BoB crime would be the result of disbanding trident (that's not me agreeing with the claim). There was no need for the implication of gleeful hand rubbing racism.

 

[8ball]

I'm not trying to defend the polices handling/ mishandling/ of information. If the fuckers weren't so slippery and evasive/defensive/proactively offensive about situation they might come out of this type of shit a bit better.

Well, it worked for them this time so I'd say there's plenty more to come.

 

[Pickman's model]

Why would they not have just taken said gun out of box and dumped it in his lap? Why plant it so far away? It does not make sense.

you clearly don't have the police mentality

 

[Belushi]

The witness was over. 100 metres away a football pitch.

This doesn't make sense if the witness saw the event from the seventh floor; the only two buildings that tall that you can see the crime scene from are much closer than 100 metres.

 

[silverfish]

They would have been wearing gloves.

were they?