8ball
Decolonise colons!
They tend to when planting evidence.
Mark Duggan shooting inquest in London finally starts...
- Thread starter TopCat
- Start date
They tend to when planting evidence.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Perhaps they did only find the gun 10 minutes after the shooting, as two witnesses testified. In which case, perhaps they couldn't easily place it next to the body.
There are lots of perhapses in this, such is the density of the lies. And perhaps the family is right to think of this as an execution:
So what was the intelligence that led to the police following him that day? Had MD been set up by the police, who got the informant to persuade him to pick up a gun so that the police could shoot him dead? It clears up a few things if this is true.
There are lots of perhapses in this, such is the density of the lies. And perhaps the family is right to think of this as an execution:
So what was the intelligence that led to the police following him that day? Had MD been set up by the police, who got the informant to persuade him to pick up a gun so that the police could shoot him dead? It clears up a few things if this is true.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
It's far more economical than most explanations. Wonder if this will get re-visited in a civil case.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
I think more likely is that a confidential informant, under pressure to assist his handlers with better results, told Duggan that he had info that the murderers of his cousin were coming to kill him and that he should protect himself. He then suggests that a weapon can be obtained from Hutchinson and then tells the police all about it. The police then kill Duggan and lie about all of it.
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
http://justice4mark.tumblr.com/post...e-from-carole-duggan-to-all-who-came-to-marks
A message from Carole Duggan to all who came to Mark’s vigil
A message from Carole Duggan to all who came to Mark’s vigil
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, that makes sense.
silverfish
Sprinkling glitter on turds
Fucking hell, there's some spectacular flights of fancy going on round here.You need to stop watching Spooks, pull yourselves away from the fiction department of Waterstones and stop giving the police so much credit as arch manipulators
I'm off to fabricate my alcan titfer
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I take it you're sticking with the holographic gun story, then.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
They did not test for police DNA or prints. Read the transcripts.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Skin fragments, sweat, transmission of any other trace evidence Duggan had on his hands (it doesn't have to be DNA, just things with the same chemical signature that can be cross-confirmed between Duggan and the sock), all of which transfer to fabric rather well. I could cite you many cases where trace evidence found on fabric has secured convictions, but I'm sure you know this anyway.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Are you reading the same thread as me? Two possible versions above involve an informer setting Duggan up or the police getting the informer to set him up, or perhaps it was a combination of the two: informer and police both keen on the idea. That's not particularly 'arch manipulators' and one version has the police themselves being manipulated.
You need to stop watching Spooks, pull yourselves away from the fiction department of Waterstones and stop giving the police so much credit as arch manipulators
I'm off to fabricate my alcan titfer
Such versions have the virtue of fitting with what we know and explaining certain behaviours. It's not so fanciful - we know there has to have been an informer, and who better to put the police onto something than the person who arranged it?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I don't know about these individual coppers, but operational protocol includes wearing gloves, which would be far less likely to leave trace evidence on the sock than bare skin would.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Because doing so gives them two justifications for opening fire "in the heat of the moment" - he had a weapon in his hand and/or was attempting to flee/dispose of the evidence.
There's also an issue as to whether finding the gun on Duggan - given that he was originally maligned as having opened fire - with a single unspent cartridge in it, and no possible way to forensically-imply it had fired a shot already, would have made the deception way too obvious. As it is, the story that went before the inquest introduced enough doubt that the police skated.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
At risk of incurring the ire of silverfish, the police appear to have had every opportunity to plant the bullet in the gun. They had motive to, I think, in their attempt to portray MD as a murderous gangster on his way to do something criminal. I'm certainly not taking it as having been demonstrated that the police did not put the bullet in the gun themselves.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I doubt his experience of the Met is as extensive as most London posters, and his attempt to quantify people as "Spooks"-viewers and fiction-lovers is a tactic often used by people to rubbish others.
Of course not. I'm merely making the point that the original "he shot first" story, aside from any other defect, would have been blown apart by Duggan being found with the gun in his posession (no powder residue on Duggan's hands and clothing, no spent cartridge with definitive forensic markings (from the firing pin and barrel of Duggans' gun) found on or near Duggan), whereas the whole "he drew the weapon/he tried to chuck it" schtick gives the OB some licence to claim that they felt under threat and reacted accordingly.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
TBh the confusion here seems likely to just be the result of lots of officers all busy covering up, but having different ideas about how that cover up is supposed to happen. They then could not disentangle the thing to make one coherent story, so relied on the general confusion to get away with it. And it has worked so far, to the extent that, in the face of such contradictions, the jury decided to make up its own story for which they had been presented with no evidence at all (that Duggan chucked the gun from the taxi as it came to a stop).
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Why should the police and witnesses initially agree on what happened? Individuals see the same event differently. Various angles. Tricks of memory etc.
Opposing football fans dispute a penalty - even when they see identical and repeated footage!
How much more difficult in the chaotic heat of the moment - a moment you can't replay.
mack
Fact Me Till I Fart
Sorry if this has been discussed - but I've read that the gun was found between 10 and 30 feet away from where he was shot - do they not photograph the scene and the weapons/empty shell casings etc. etc. as they lay on the ground - like in the movies?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
There is usually a very good reason why the police agree with one another.
Last edited:
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
You are not dealing with my point.
I am fully aware that they probably get together later to 'compare notes'.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
are you sure? i think a loaded m16 weighs something like 7lb loaded, less than 3.5kg. e2a: 4kg loaded.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
When I checked it was 750g. But I may have got the wrong gun.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You have yourself missed the point if you think others are arguing that there ought to be some kind of super-consistency about the eyewitness reports.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
I am pointing out that it's difficult to be sure what went on.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
long story short: cops shot dead an unarmed man.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
No i am not sure.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
And lied about why and how...
Similar threads
