Well you make your own stories up to accompany videos anyway.
Why are you so desperate to paint the notion that the police planted the gun as a fantasy concocted by one solitary forum member? Who are you selling that to? Anyone who took the slightest interest in the inquest knows that was a major theme running through it, and the video was put together for the very purpose of demonstrating it.
I believe you know that. You certainly know I know that. So this is just you trying to misinform the uninformed. But I suppose that is to be expected. After all, my previous quote from Hogan-Howe shows him trying to do exactly the same thing.
Why are you so desperate to paint the notion that the police planted the gun as a fantasy concocted by one solitary forum member? Who are you selling that to? Anyone who took the slightest interest in the inquest knows that was a major theme running through it, and the video was put together for the very purpose of demonstrating it.
I believe you know that. You certainly know I know that. So this is just you trying to misinform the uninformed. But I suppose that is to be expected. After all, my previous quote from Hogan-Howe shows him trying to do exactly the same thing.
Everybody here had an opportunity to look at the video. The Jury did too.
And guess what... it doesn't show the planting of a gun.
But it has been explained to you a number of times. The question has been asked a number of times but you can't answer it.
So here it is again:
Where in that video does it show the police taking the gun out of the taxi?
Why are you so desperate to paint the notion that the police planted the gun as a fantasy concocted by one solitary forum member? Who are you selling that to? Anyone who took the slightest interest in the inquest knows that was a major theme running through it, and the video was put together for the very purpose of demonstrating it.
I believe you know that. You certainly know I know that. So this is just you trying to misinform the uninformed. But I suppose that is to be expected. After all, my previous quote from Hogan-Howe shows him trying to do exactly the same thing.
Yes, it was all making up a story to fit a made up scenario. It didn't show the gun being taken from the taxi, nor what the Officers were saying.
Yes, it was all making up a story to fit a made up scenario. It didn't show the gun being taken from the taxi, nor what the Officers were saying.
No, it doesn't show the gun being taken from the taxi. It doesn't show the gun going into the taxi either. Shall we assume the police brought it with them?
What we know is that:
a) Nobody saw Duggan with the gun.
b) The gun was nowhere near him when he was shot.
c) Nobody saw the gun fly over the wall.
d) An officer knew where the gun was before it was found.
e) Another officer was seen standing where the gun was found, again, before it was found.
f) d and e are not merely timing mistakes, the judge himself said these are stark contradictions.
These are the facts of the case which any theory must address. So far I have only heard one that does.
No, it doesn't show the gun being taken from the taxi. It doesn't show the gun going into the taxi either. Shall we assume the police brought it with them?
What we know is that:
a) Nobody saw Duggan with the gun.
b) The gun was nowhere near him when he was shot.
c) Nobody saw the gun fly over the wall.
d) An officer knew where the gun was before it was found.
e) Another officer was seen standing where the gun was found, again, before it was found.
f) d and e are not merely timing mistakes, the judge himself said these are stark contradictions.
These are the facts of the case which any theory must address. So far I have only heard one that does.
As has been explained numerous times. It is accepted that Duggan did have the gun. The guy who supplied it was successfully convicted. That's not even questionable.
However the video still does not show them plant the gun which is a massive flaw in your theory. Your theory is based entirely upon points d and e that you state.
No, it doesn't show the gun being taken from the taxi. It doesn't show the gun going into the taxi either. Shall we assume the police brought it with them?
What we know is that:
a) Nobody saw Duggan with the gun.
b) The gun was nowhere near him when he was shot.
c) Nobody saw the gun fly over the wall.
d) An officer knew where the gun was before it was found.
e) Another officer was seen standing where the gun was found, again, before it was found.
f) d and e are not merely timing mistakes, the judge himself said these are stark contradictions.
These are the facts of the case which any theory must address. So far I have only heard one that does.
The taxi driver saw a shoebox being handed to Duggan by Hutchinson-Foster, although we don't know for certain what was in the box - we assume it was a gun, but Hutchinson-Foster denied giving Duggan a gun.
A River Island shoe box was apparently retrieved from the taxi. What we don't know is a) whether a gun was ever in it and b) If there was a gun it it, at what stage it was removed from the box. It could easily have been removed before the video started, either by Duggan himself or by a police officer subsequent to Duggan being shot.
No, it doesn't show the gun being taken from the taxi. It doesn't show the gun going into the taxi either. Shall we assume the police brought it with them?
What we know is that:
a) Nobody saw Duggan with the gun.
b) The gun was nowhere near him when he was shot.
c) Nobody saw the gun fly over the wall.
d) An officer knew where the gun was before it was found.
e) Another officer was seen standing where the gun was found, again, before it was found.
f) d and e are not merely timing mistakes, the judge himself said these are stark contradictions.
These are the facts of the case which any theory must address. So far I have only heard one that does.
To cut a long thread short. This debate is being flogged to death. The fact is that duggan had a gun in his car. No law abiding member of the public would carry a gun on them. The police acted lawfully in my opinion. What is sickening is that some saw fit to go rioting across england as a way of protesting. Buildings that had survived the war didnt survive when mindless morons who set them alight. IMO There are some who want their pound of flesh in that they want, no, demand that the someone fall on their sword at the met. Like i said there is NO need whatsoever to carry a gun unless you have criminal intentions. How long before he gets a memorial in the street or his family gets a seat in the lords. NO NO NO Duggan is being portrayed as the victim when he isnt
The previous jury decided that V53 honestly believed he had to shoot.
The next jury will decide whether V53 honestly believed he saw a gun. To do that they will need to consider all over again whether the police planted the gun.
The previous jury decided that V53 honestly believed he had to shoot.
The next jury will decide whether V53 honestly believed he saw a gun. To do that they will need to consider all over again whether the police planted the gun.
The previous jury decided that V53 honestly believed he had to shoot.
The next jury will decide whether V53 honestly believed he saw a gun. To do that they will need to consider all over again whether the police planted the gun.
Didn't you say that the police planted the gun after he was shot? So even if they did that, V53 could still have believed he had a gun in his hand and legally have shot him.
Unless you're now saying the V53 all along knew that Duggan was not armed and he just shot him for the fun of it, told his mates who then quickly took the gun out of the taxi and planted it to make it look like Duggan may have been armed.
Incidentally: I have noticed that RasFas doesn't respond to my posts which means he probably has me on ignore. Just keep not reading those responses you don't like RasFas!
Didn't you say that the police planted the gun after he was shot? So even if they did that, V53 could still have believed he had a gun in his hand and legally have shot him.
Unless you're now saying the V53 all along knew that Duggan was not armed and he just shot him for the fun of it, told his mates who then quickly took the gun out of the taxi and planted it to make it look like Duggan may have been armed.
Incidentally: I have noticed that RasFas doesn't respond to my posts which means he probably has me on ignore. Just keep not reading those responses you don't like RasFas!
If he'd just said he thought he glimpsed a gun, then that would be a fair assumption, but given that he described the found gun in detail, not a likely outcome. .
The IPCC's director of investigations, Moir Stewart, a former senior Met officer, said... "I believe that explainable inconsistencies are more credible than unexplainable consistencies."
Not a big fan of the IPCC, but he is spot on there. I wonder if anyone would have 'seen' the gun thrown had they not conferred.
Not a big fan of the IPCC, but he is spot on there. I wonder if anyone would have 'seen' the gun thrown had they not conferred.
I agree with his quote certainly, though I don't think that is the only point to be considered. The current system requires a trust in the integrity of officers which understandably gets called in to question, particularly when some officers from time to time are found to be dishonest. Unfortunately the poor actions of a few will affect the many.
I don't really understand your second sentence though, are you suggesting that had the officers not conferred, some would have said they saw the gun thrown and some might say they hadn't? That certainly could be the case if a story was being concocted. However if you're suggesting that by being allowed to confer they concocted a story, then surely they would have concocted a believable one and would have said they saw it thrown, as opposed to the the current situation?
The idea of conferring is to get as much information out into the open, and recorded properly for evidential reasons.
Of course, elements will always believe this is a sinister way of covering things up.
If everyone had to give statements without this process, stuff would be missed, through no sinister purpose, and stories would be ripped to shreds anyway.
I have been to plenty of after event de briefings, and have never heard anyone suggest making stuff up. I've found people mentioning things that I was aware of, but had skipped my mind.
You just have to look at the conveyor belt on the Generation Game to see that everyone seeing the same thing will not give the same accounts of what they saw afterwards.
I agree with his quote certainly, though I don't think that is the only point to be considered. The current system requires a trust in the integrity of officers which understandably gets called in to question, particularly when some officers from time to time are found to be dishonest. Unfortunately the poor actions of a few will affect the many.
I don't really understand your second sentence though, are you suggesting that had the officers not conferred, some would have said they saw the gun thrown and some might say they hadn't? That certainly could be the case if a story was being concocted. However if you're suggesting that by being allowed to confer they concocted a story, then surely they would have concocted a believable one and would have said they saw it thrown, as opposed to the the current situation?
Assuming it wasn't thrown at all and you know that, what are you most likely to get away with?
a) I saw it thrown after the second shot.
b) I saw it thrown but I can't remember when.
c) I didn't see it thrown but it must have been.
I imagine it must have been tempting to try to concoct a story in which someone saw it being thrown, perhaps around b) above. That's why I wonder if someone would have said that had they not conferred. But the logistics of telling such a lie would be hugely complicated and risky. As it turned out the inquest would have exposed it. They made the right choice with c).
The idea of conferring is to get as much information out into the open, and recorded properly for evidential reasons.
Of course, elements will always believe this is a sinister way of covering things up.
If everyone had to give statements without this process, stuff would be missed, through no sinister purpose, and stories would be ripped to shreds anyway.
I have been to plenty of after event de briefings, and have never heard anyone suggest making stuff up. I've found people mentioning things that I was aware of, but had skipped my mind.
You just have to look at the conveyor belt on the Generation Game to see that everyone seeing the same thing will not give the same accounts of what they saw afterwards.
Isn't that why every relevant witness is called to give evidence?
No individual is expected to know every fact. They are only expected to know what they saw, what they thought etc. If they get it wrong the chances are someone else will get it right. Surely that's better than everyone getting it wrong?
One of the things that's obvious in the Duggan case is that the police conferred with regard to how many shots were fired. This is exactly the scenario where explainable inconsistencies would have been better than inexplicable consistency. That they all deny conferring on that point only raises further suspicion as to why they were all so consistent in saying on the night that they heard several shots, and 3 days later they were equally consistent in remembering they heard two. You don't have to be too much of a cynic to conclude that they collectively decided to allow for the possibility that Duggan fired his gun.
There may well be some merit to conferring, but it's clearly outweighed by the potential for abuse, and I think that's reason enough to have that privilege withdrawn.
Conferring on statements after such an incident should not happen. Again, the police want to be treated better than anyone else. They want it to be automatically assumed (before any independent investigation) that their actions are necessarily beyond reproach.
DP says he is unaware of any stories being significantly changed after conferring. Well this is one of them. Many officers 'remembered' in their statements consistent facts which were untrue. The same 'facts' which were simply wrong.
And then we have situations like Sean Rigg where there looks to have been collusion in the statements to the point of absolute lies running along the lines of perverting the course of justice.
If DP is unaware of such things happening, then he doesn't know much about many controversial cases.
The claim of the officer quoted that officers will just refuse to answer questions and give 'no comment' interviews is pretty worthless. Because that is effectively what they do now. They refuse to be questionned, giving written statements instead.
Isn't that why every relevant witness is called to give evidence?
No individual is expected to know every fact. They are only expected to know what they saw, what they thought etc. If they get it wrong the chances are someone else will get it right. Surely that's better than everyone getting it wrong?
Yes, other witnesses are called to give evidence, but they have statements taken from them first by Police officers, who are trained to get as much information out of them as they can. First accounts are normally lacking in a great detail that they actually know.
With the Police, they have to make their own statements, and it can be a great help to remembering all you saw and heard, same as other witnesses.
If you didn't see or hear something someone else did, you don't put it in your statement.
Some people simply take the stance that all Police are crooks, and that these collaborations are to lie. It's nonsense.
Of course, there have been cases of dishonesty, but that would happen anyway.
If Officers give statements straight after an event, should they be able to make additional statements if they remember something else? Of course they should be able to, but what will the allegations be that follow that?
Yes, other witnesses are called to give evidence, but they have statements taken from them first by Police officers, who are trained to get as much information out of them as they can. First accounts are normally lacking in a great detail that they actually know.
With the Police, they have to make their own statements, and it can be a great help to remembering all you saw and heard, same as other witnesses.
If you didn't see or hear something someone else did, you don't put it in your statement.
Some people simply take the stance that all Police are crooks, and that these collaborations are to lie. It's nonsense.
Of course, there have been cases of dishonesty, but that would happen anyway.
If Officers give statements straight after an event, should they be able to make additional statements if they remember something else? Of course they should be able to, but what will the allegations be that follow that?
I can see both sides you have good people and you do have dishonest ones and I don't think there's many of them but they do exist and the worry is always there that what if this group of conferring officers are giving false evidence. If a group of witnesses want to confer about what they have witnessed would you never be at least a little bit worried about whether their statements were true?
I can see both sides you have good people and you do have dishonest ones and I don't think there's many of them but they do exist and the worry is always there that what if this group of conferring officers are giving false evidence. If a group of witnesses want to confer about what they have witnessed would you never be at least a little bit worried about whether their statements were true?
As I said it is about getting all the information. If people are thinking it is about lying and cheating it is a sad state of affairs. Witnesses are interviewed by people trained to get the information, although it can often be some time after the event, and people who know each other will confer.
The Police are expected to be able to give a full account of what they did when acting together. If the statements all have bite missing, that they can actually give evidence about, it will be picked apart, and if they give additional statements to cover that, it will be attacked. Much the same as they are attacked as it is.
As I said it is about getting all the information. If people are thinking it is about lying and cheating it is a sad state of affairs. Witnesses are interviewed by people trained to get the information, although it can often be some time after the event, and people who know each other will confer.
The Police are expected to be able to give a full account of what they did when acting together. If the statements all have bite missing, that they can actually give evidence about, it will be picked apart, and if they give additional statements to cover that, it will be attacked. Much the same as they are attacked as it is.
I don't think most people want to believe that a police officer would lie but it's a reality that it happens not often but still happens. If you want to get statements from a group of witnesses and they ask to confer before giving it then would you be a little bit worried? It's not that you are accusing them of lying and thinking it's all about cheating but people do lie sometimes and if they are allowed to confer that's just going to increase the worry that they are colluding about something. I must have missed what is the reason for officers being allowed to confer before giving statements?
If Officers give statements straight after an event, should they be able to make additional statements if they remember something else? Of course they should be able to, but what will the allegations be that follow that?
If I recall one officer in the Duggan case made 7 statements! That shouldn't be necessary. That was because he refused to be interviewed, and he wasn't adequately answering the questions asked of him.
There's a big difference between remembering something you previously omitted, and remembering something quite differently to how you remembered it before. The allegations you speak of only follow the latter, and apply to everyone.
There's no good reason why police officers should not have statements taken from them individually like any other witness.
Comments
Why are you so desperate to paint the notion that the police planted the gun as a fantasy concocted by one solitary forum member? Who are you selling that to? Anyone who took the slightest interest in the inquest knows that was a major theme running through it, and the video was put together for the very purpose of demonstrating it.
I believe you know that. You certainly know I know that. So this is just you trying to misinform the uninformed. But I suppose that is to be expected. After all, my previous quote from Hogan-Howe shows him trying to do exactly the same thing.
Everybody here had an opportunity to look at the video. The Jury did too.
And guess what... it doesn't show the planting of a gun.
But it has been explained to you a number of times. The question has been asked a number of times but you can't answer it.
So here it is again:
Where in that video does it show the police taking the gun out of the taxi?
In your own time.....
Yes, it was all making up a story to fit a made up scenario. It didn't show the gun being taken from the taxi, nor what the Officers were saying.
No, it doesn't show the gun being taken from the taxi. It doesn't show the gun going into the taxi either. Shall we assume the police brought it with them?
What we know is that:
a) Nobody saw Duggan with the gun.
b) The gun was nowhere near him when he was shot.
c) Nobody saw the gun fly over the wall.
d) An officer knew where the gun was before it was found.
e) Another officer was seen standing where the gun was found, again, before it was found.
f) d and e are not merely timing mistakes, the judge himself said these are stark contradictions.
These are the facts of the case which any theory must address. So far I have only heard one that does.
As has been explained numerous times. It is accepted that Duggan did have the gun. The guy who supplied it was successfully convicted. That's not even questionable.
However the video still does not show them plant the gun which is a massive flaw in your theory. Your theory is based entirely upon points d and e that you state.
The taxi driver saw a shoebox being handed to Duggan by Hutchinson-Foster, although we don't know for certain what was in the box - we assume it was a gun, but Hutchinson-Foster denied giving Duggan a gun.
A River Island shoe box was apparently retrieved from the taxi. What we don't know is a) whether a gun was ever in it and b) If there was a gun it it, at what stage it was removed from the box. It could easily have been removed before the video started, either by Duggan himself or by a police officer subsequent to Duggan being shot.
What did the jury decide?
Don't you mean 'what will the jury decide'?
The previous jury decided that V53 honestly believed he had to shoot.
The next jury will decide whether V53 honestly believed he saw a gun. To do that they will need to consider all over again whether the police planted the gun.
IF there is another jury.
Didn't you say that the police planted the gun after he was shot? So even if they did that, V53 could still have believed he had a gun in his hand and legally have shot him.
Unless you're now saying the V53 all along knew that Duggan was not armed and he just shot him for the fun of it, told his mates who then quickly took the gun out of the taxi and planted it to make it look like Duggan may have been armed.
Incidentally: I have noticed that RasFas doesn't respond to my posts which means he probably has me on ignore. Just keep not reading those responses you don't like RasFas!
If he'd just said he thought he glimpsed a gun, then that would be a fair assumption, but given that he described the found gun in detail, not a likely outcome. .
True enough. But whether there is or not, questions still have to be answered.
"The jury made their decision" is not the answer.
Not a big fan of the IPCC, but he is spot on there. I wonder if anyone would have 'seen' the gun thrown had they not conferred.
I agree with his quote certainly, though I don't think that is the only point to be considered. The current system requires a trust in the integrity of officers which understandably gets called in to question, particularly when some officers from time to time are found to be dishonest. Unfortunately the poor actions of a few will affect the many.
I don't really understand your second sentence though, are you suggesting that had the officers not conferred, some would have said they saw the gun thrown and some might say they hadn't? That certainly could be the case if a story was being concocted. However if you're suggesting that by being allowed to confer they concocted a story, then surely they would have concocted a believable one and would have said they saw it thrown, as opposed to the the current situation?
Of course, elements will always believe this is a sinister way of covering things up.
If everyone had to give statements without this process, stuff would be missed, through no sinister purpose, and stories would be ripped to shreds anyway.
I have been to plenty of after event de briefings, and have never heard anyone suggest making stuff up. I've found people mentioning things that I was aware of, but had skipped my mind.
You just have to look at the conveyor belt on the Generation Game to see that everyone seeing the same thing will not give the same accounts of what they saw afterwards.
Assuming it wasn't thrown at all and you know that, what are you most likely to get away with?
a) I saw it thrown after the second shot.
b) I saw it thrown but I can't remember when.
c) I didn't see it thrown but it must have been.
I imagine it must have been tempting to try to concoct a story in which someone saw it being thrown, perhaps around b) above. That's why I wonder if someone would have said that had they not conferred. But the logistics of telling such a lie would be hugely complicated and risky. As it turned out the inquest would have exposed it. They made the right choice with c).
Isn't that why every relevant witness is called to give evidence?
No individual is expected to know every fact. They are only expected to know what they saw, what they thought etc. If they get it wrong the chances are someone else will get it right. Surely that's better than everyone getting it wrong?
There may well be some merit to conferring, but it's clearly outweighed by the potential for abuse, and I think that's reason enough to have that privilege withdrawn.
DP says he is unaware of any stories being significantly changed after conferring. Well this is one of them. Many officers 'remembered' in their statements consistent facts which were untrue. The same 'facts' which were simply wrong.
And then we have situations like Sean Rigg where there looks to have been collusion in the statements to the point of absolute lies running along the lines of perverting the course of justice.
If DP is unaware of such things happening, then he doesn't know much about many controversial cases.
The claim of the officer quoted that officers will just refuse to answer questions and give 'no comment' interviews is pretty worthless. Because that is effectively what they do now. They refuse to be questionned, giving written statements instead.
Yes, other witnesses are called to give evidence, but they have statements taken from them first by Police officers, who are trained to get as much information out of them as they can. First accounts are normally lacking in a great detail that they actually know.
With the Police, they have to make their own statements, and it can be a great help to remembering all you saw and heard, same as other witnesses.
If you didn't see or hear something someone else did, you don't put it in your statement.
Some people simply take the stance that all Police are crooks, and that these collaborations are to lie. It's nonsense.
Of course, there have been cases of dishonesty, but that would happen anyway.
If Officers give statements straight after an event, should they be able to make additional statements if they remember something else? Of course they should be able to, but what will the allegations be that follow that?
I can see both sides you have good people and you do have dishonest ones and I don't think there's many of them but they do exist and the worry is always there that what if this group of conferring officers are giving false evidence. If a group of witnesses want to confer about what they have witnessed would you never be at least a little bit worried about whether their statements were true?
As I said it is about getting all the information. If people are thinking it is about lying and cheating it is a sad state of affairs. Witnesses are interviewed by people trained to get the information, although it can often be some time after the event, and people who know each other will confer.
The Police are expected to be able to give a full account of what they did when acting together. If the statements all have bite missing, that they can actually give evidence about, it will be picked apart, and if they give additional statements to cover that, it will be attacked. Much the same as they are attacked as it is.
I don't think most people want to believe that a police officer would lie but it's a reality that it happens not often but still happens. If you want to get statements from a group of witnesses and they ask to confer before giving it then would you be a little bit worried? It's not that you are accusing them of lying and thinking it's all about cheating but people do lie sometimes and if they are allowed to confer that's just going to increase the worry that they are colluding about something. I must have missed what is the reason for officers being allowed to confer before giving statements?
If I recall one officer in the Duggan case made 7 statements! That shouldn't be necessary. That was because he refused to be interviewed, and he wasn't adequately answering the questions asked of him.
There's a big difference between remembering something you previously omitted, and remembering something quite differently to how you remembered it before. The allegations you speak of only follow the latter, and apply to everyone.
There's no good reason why police officers should not have statements taken from them individually like any other witness.