ForumGarden

This article seems to give quite a detailed account that the police officer who killed Duggan was In no doubt that he was In danger....

Man convicted of supplying gun to Mark Duggan | UK news | guardian.co.uk

oscar;1418429 wrote: This article seems to give quite a detailed account that the police officer who killed Duggan was In no doubt that he was In danger....

Man convicted of supplying gun to Mark Duggan | UK news | guardian.co.uk


Trouble is it bears no resemblance to the witness statements taken at the time and breaches all rules about officers discussing the event before writing their statements.

Bryn Mawr;1418458 wrote: Trouble is it bears no resemblance to the witness statements taken at the time and breaches all rules about officers discussing the event before writing their statements.
The thing that stood out to me was If the police witnessed the gun being handed to Duggan In a shoe-box 15 minutes prior, why were Duggan's dabs on the gun ? If that's the case, he must have taken the gun out of the shoe-box.

The gun was found yards away from him behind a fence on the open grass... that would kind of tie In with the gun flying out of his hand as he was hit In the chest.

oscar;1418473 wrote: The thing that stood out to me was If the police witnessed the gun being handed to Duggan In a shoe-box 15 minutes prior, why were Duggan's dabs on the gun ? If that's the case, he must have taken the gun out of the shoe-box.

The gun was found yards away from him behind a fence on the open grass... that would kind of tie In with the gun flying out of his hand as he was hit In the chest.


Yet the expert witness specifically stated that the final position of the gun was not consistant with the Police evidence :-

Prof Jonathan Clasper, an expert in bioengineering and a former army colonel from Imperial College London, said an involuntary movement by Duggan, occurring after he was shot, would not explain why the gun was found 10-14ft (3-4 metres) away from where he fell.

Another expert witness, Dr Simon Poole, said the two bullet wounds Duggan sustained raised questions about the position he was in when shot, and may not be consistent with the police account that he was facing officers.

Bryn Mawr;1418477 wrote: Yet the expert witness specifically stated that the final position of the gun was not consistant with the Police evidence :- Just a thought..... but In circumstances such as that, when the target has been hit, doesn't another officer Immediately disarm them and throw the weapon away from them for absolute safety ?

oscar;1418479 wrote: Just a thought..... but In circumstances such as that, when the target has been hit, doesn't another officer Immediately disarm them and throw the weapon away from them for absolute safety ?


Then, having first agreed their testamony between them, why did none of the officers say that they had done so?

As soon as they admitted to conferring before writing their statements their evidence became worthless.

Bryn Mawr;1418481 wrote: Then, having first agreed their testamony between them, why did none of the officers say that they had done so?

As soon as they admitted to conferring before writing their statements their evidence became worthless. I have to admit that part Is worrying.

oscar;1418482 wrote: I have to admit that part Is worrying.


The whole reason for the strict rules against it is to prevent police evidents beeing deemed inadmissable. As it is, any guilty verdict that might be returned will be dismissed as a whitewash. They might jail him but they will never convince large swaithes of the public that he did it due to their stupidity - they deserve to be struck off the force for riding roughshod over their own rules.

Bryn Mawr;1418486 wrote: The whole reason for the strict rules against it is to prevent police evidents beeing deemed inadmissable. As it is, any guilty verdict that might be returned will be dismissed as a whitewash. They might jail him but they will never convince large swaithes of the public that he did it due to their stupidity - they deserve to be struck off the force for riding roughshod over their own rules.


It'll be very Interesting to see the outcome of the Inquest.

oscar;1418479 wrote: Just a thought..... but In circumstances such as that, when the target has been hit, doesn't another officer Immediately disarm them and throw the weapon away from them for absolute safety ?


No . Nobody throws any weapon anywhere. And it was a person shot ...not a target.

Bryn Mawr;1418458 wrote: Trouble is it bears no resemblance to the witness statements taken at the time and breaches all rules about officers discussing the event before writing their statements.


What utter drivel. There is no rules about not conferring.

There is guidelines on what can be conferred upon and it should be noted and a court / inquest informed.

Only_Me;1418775 wrote: What utter drivel. There is no rules about not conferring.

There is guidelines on what can be conferred upon and it should be noted and a court / inquest informed.


Hello Only me and welcome to the forum

The confliction It appears I down to what eye witness's claim they saw against what the police say happened.

When there are cases like this It always reminds me of when I was at college one day.

With no warning whatsoever, our class was led outside for what we were told was a fire drill. As we got outside, In the car park, there was an armed robbery taking place and armed police officers apprehending the suspects. There was a lot of screaming and shouting with people running around manically.

When we got back Inside we were told It was a mock up and our exercise was to make written statements about exactly what we'd seen.

We spent two hours thinking and writing and at the end, the police came In and told us what exactly had taken place and In what order. When we were asked to then compare our statements, I think every single person In that room had written a different account. I can remember many had stated the wrong man had the wrong gun etc etc. Most of us could not pinpoint who was standing where, who shouted what, who aimed what and who did what. None of us accurately described the suspects.

When people critisie the police in situations like this the will always assume the public witness had It spot on and that from my own experience Is far more difficult thatn Imaginable when you're actually presented without warning such a situation.

Only_Me;1418775 wrote: What utter drivel. There is no rules about not conferring.

There is guidelines on what can be conferred upon and it should be noted and a court / inquest informed.


Fair enough, this is what I was remembering :-

During the subsequent Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation, the officers involved conferred in recording their accounts. Although the practice was still permitted by the Association of Chief Police Officers, judicial review was sought on the grounds that, in permitting joint note compilation, the commission had breached article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights by making an effective investigation into the death impossible. The conferring process, it was argued, must have contaminated, and therefore stultified any realistic scrutiny of, each officer’s account.


What I misremembered, or never heard, was the outcome :-

In the wake of that stricture, ACPO has amended the conferring provisions of the Manual of Guidance on Police Use of Firearms to state that, in general, there is no need for officers to confer with each other before writing up their notes about what happened and what was in their minds at the time force was used. However, it goes on to state that where conferring is necessary officers must, to ensure transparency and maintain public confidence, record the fact that some discussion has taken place, highlighting the time, date and place of conferring, the issues discussed and with whom, and the reasons for such discussion. To what extent this may have potential consequences for evidence gathering in other contexts – as the IPCC has acknowledged it may – is uncertain for the time being.


The issues raised by police officers ­conferring on their notes | The Law Gazette

However, I stand by what I said, by conferring the police officers have made any statement that Duggan was guilty unbelievable by the general public. The impression of collusion and the disparity between the police and public statements have convinced sufficient of the population that the investigation is a whitewash to render the outcome worthless.

Only_Me;1418775 wrote: What utter drivel. There is no rules about not conferring.

There is guidelines on what can be conferred upon and it should be noted and a court / inquest informed.


Fair enough, this is what I was remembering :-

During the subsequent Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation, the officers involved conferred in recording their accounts. Although the practice was still permitted by the Association of Chief Police Officers, judicial review was sought on the grounds that, in permitting joint note compilation, the commission had breached article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights by making an effective investigation into the death impossible. The conferring process, it was argued, must have contaminated, and therefore stultified any realistic scrutiny of, each officer’s account.


What I misremembered, or never heard, was the outcome :-

In the wake of that stricture, ACPO has amended the conferring provisions of the Manual of Guidance on Police Use of Firearms to state that, in general, there is no need for officers to confer with each other before writing up their notes about what happened and what was in their minds at the time force was used. However, it goes on to state that where conferring is necessary officers must, to ensure transparency and maintain public confidence, record the fact that some discussion has taken place, highlighting the time, date and place of conferring, the issues discussed and with whom, and the reasons for such discussion. To what extent this may have potential consequences for evidence gathering in other contexts – as the IPCC has acknowledged it may – is uncertain for the time being.


The issues raised by police officers ­conferring on their notes | The Law Gazette

However, I stand by what I said, by conferring the police officers have made any statement that Duggan was guilty unbelievable by the general public. The impression of collusion and the disparity between the police and public statements have convinced sufficient of the population that the investigation is a whitewash to render the outcome worthless.

Jut out of Interest Bryn..... why do the police have to be liars resulting In a whitewash of this case and why are civilian witness statement so wholly accurate ?

oscar;1418823 wrote: Jut out of Interest Bryn..... why do the police have to be liars resulting In a whitewash of this case and why are civilian witness statement so wholly accurate ?


They don't. Nowhere have I said that *has* to be the case - what I have said is that, by colluding, the police have cast enough doubt over their testimony that, combined with the disparity to the civilian statements, the results will be seen as a whitewash by a large number of people.

Bryn Mawr;1418833 wrote: They don't. Nowhere have I said that *has* to be the case - what I have said is that, by colluding, the police have cast enough doubt over their testimony that, combined with the disparity to the civilian statements, the results will be seen as a whitewash by a large number of people.


How do we know that civilians didn't confer? I've certainly known It before....

the thing that stands out to me Is Duggan's dabs on the gun after he Immediately got Into the taxi after being given the gun in a shoe box.... he must have handled the gun and the car was being watched for 15 minutes until the police forced the car to stop.

Only_Me;1418775 wrote: What utter drivel. There is no rules about not conferring.

There is guidelines on what can be conferred upon and it should be noted and a court / inquest informed.


Conferring and corroberating is one thing, collaberating is quite another.

fuzzywuzzy;1418855 wrote: Conferring and corroberating is one thing, collaberating is quite another.


Yes, they are completely different and no where has it been proved that they lied in any accounts.

I'll let you have a look at Perceptual Distortion and study done by an expert called Bill Lewinski

This isnt just a reply to you but to also what has been written above. I'll clarify now that I am a cop with 20 years + service in a variety of roles including Firearms - take that as you will but I'll freely admit to feeling a bit sensative to this topic due to what I can see is the unfair and unfounded accusations / misinformation about Police involved in such an incident.

What has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt by a jury of 12 members of the public is that Kevin Hutchinson Foster gave Mark Duggan a gun in a shoe box.

The Inquest coming up later this year will then decide whether the shooting was lawful.

The IPCC are insistant that conferring is ended and that Officers are interviewed (which is recorded on tape/video). This is a massive step towards dealing with those Officers as suspects and a route that should it be taken would likely stop many very good Officers becoming volunteers for this role.

Don't forget that, Firearms Officers are volunteers who go through an incredible amount of training before they go out on the streets and all is done before shots are fired and it is incredibly rare - 2000 to 2009, 10 year period The Met Firearms Unit (London alone) deployed to 130,000 Spontaneous Firearms Incidents and also attended and dealt with 30,000 Pre-planned Firearms incidents. Of that 160,000 incidents. police resorted to firing shots on 28 occasions - I'll let someone with more maths savvy than me work out the ridiculously small percentage. 28 times is 28 times too many but all is done at an incident to resolve it without shots being fired.

Of the shots that are fired then it should be investigated in an open manner which instills the public trust but what many people tend to forget is that it was the Person who was shot that caused the Firearms Officers to take their actions not the Officers thinking lets go and shoot someone today.



Everone has the right to make opinions on a subject such as this but would ask that consideration be given to the sources of your information - Media - and how wrong they can be at times.