So Professor Pounder has not in fact, added anything useful, one way or the other. His opinion about what a chap can or can't do after being shot is based not on pathology, physiology, or medicine. Just his own imagination. He and the home office pathologist agree on most things; the angle of the fatal chest shot need not have been necessarily as steep as was first indicated, and therefore Duggan might not have been as 'stooped' or hunched down as all that. Also, the arm wound was much nearer to being the same height as the chest wound than previously indicated.
The military expert hasn't been questioned by everyone yet, and is back on Monday, but he has stated that (based on the premise that Duggan had the gun), it was more probable that he threw it before being shot - or was already throwing it and continued to throw after being shot, than deciding to throw afterwards. Which again, I'm pretty sure the court already knew. He did however state that the arm wound was not very disabling or even that painful, in the wider scheme of gunshot injuries; and that someone could continue to run, etc for a few seconds, even after the fatal chest shot.
Someone who works for my firm actually knew Mark personally. He grew up in the area and went to school with some of Mark's affiliates. According to him, Mark "owned Tottenham" - whatever that means.
Except where the gun was found IS relevant. And the opinion of a medical expert and a military expert is that it wouldn't have been easy at all.
Well it would have been very easy to an uninjured person.
The problem we have in this case, is that there are one or two loose ends that won't go away.
a) How did the gun end up where it did ?
b) If Duggan threw it, how come none of the witnesses saw it being thrown ? If they were concentrating on Duggan, as one might expect, then him throwing the gun away, would be part of that observation.
c) If the first shot hit Duggan in the arm whilst he was still holding the gun in, then as soon as he had been hit, it's highly probable that he wouldn't then have had sufficient strength or purchase to then be able to throw the gun the distance it apparently travelled.
d) We don't know at what precise point in time (in relation to V53's shots) the gun had been released by Duggan. If it was before the first shot, then maybe that shot shouldn't have been fired, and definitely the second shot shouldn't. If it was simultaneous with the shot, and V53, as he suggests, had time to re-assess the situation before firing the second shot, it should surely have been apparent to him that the gun was no longer in Duggan's hand, as his hand would be outside his jacket, having completed the throwing motion.
e) wild card ~ we don't know for sure that the gun was even held by Duggan as he exited the vehicle. Although it is the most likely hypothesis, it is not a done deal, as nobody saw the gun being thrown. I'd have to say that with the credible witnesses present, it would be more probable than not, that somebody would have seen the gun being thrown from Duggan's right hand towards the grassed area to his right.
Someone who works for my firm actually knew Mark personally. He grew up in the area and went to school with some of Mark's affiliates. According to him, Mark "owned Tottenham" - whatever that means.
At the time of the shooting the Duggan family said that Mark "works at Stansted Airport", do you know if this was true?
Did you actually read the transcripts or are you guessing, based on press reports?
Yes, I did.
And I found the claims of him being a massive ganglord totally unconvincing. They weren't backed up by any hard evidence - just hearsay.
And then we have the problem of the lack of violent convictions (or much in the way of hardcore criminality at all on his record).
The police have been known to be somewhat unconcerned about telling the truth on oath before.
They've covered up for deaths before.
They've tried to cover up and excuse blatant criminality in their ranks before.
They've closed ranks on bent officers.
I don't trust the word of a police officer on the stand more than I'd trust anyone else. I don't trust men like Duggan either. But as I've said before, I'm not supposed to trust them. I'm supposed to trust the police.
Remember this is the lot who tried to paint Jean Charles de Menezes as a rapist when all else failed.
Your post was too irrational to warrant quoting or replying to. But if you want to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that Duggan didn't live a life of guns and violence, and that the police shouldn't have been trying to lock him up and take away his gun, good luck to you.
Your understanding as to what hearsay is needs some improvement..
Although whether they verified that or just took the family's word for it, is unclear. It reads like it's a statement of fact.
I think she said, or meant, that he had once worked there, as opposed to having a job at the time of his death. Its possible that he did perhaps have a job for a short while when he first left school.
For avoidance of doubt. The word of a police informer is almost ALWAYS considered hearsay unless backed up by clear evidence.
In other words, the police should not do anything with what an informer says and leave the poor criminal alone to commit his crime.
It is really frightening that you once worked for the probation service with such an anti police attitude you have. I dread to think the number of wrong decisions you have made based on the bad cop / poor criminal attitude of yours.
For avoidance of doubt. The word of a police informer is almost ALWAYS considered hearsay unless backed up by clear evidence.
Your posts are becoming increasingly tiresome and childish. If you wish to believe that the police knew nothing about Duggan and just spend their time mounting operations to apprehend random folk, based on the equivalent of gossip from Nellie in the chip shop, then I can't stop you.
Take care though, it might be you next. You never know what someone might be telling them.
Didn't his devoted fiance get nicked for possession of cocaine just before he got shot?
Does that count as evidence?
Not really evidence of him being one of the 48 most violent and feared criminals in Europe - no.
And I am not disputing Duggan was a criminal. What I'm taking issue with is the description of him above. It sounds like someone really over egging the pudding, and, frankly desperate.
The claim that I believe 'the police knew nothing about Duggan and just spend their time mounting operations to apprehend random folk' also sounds desperate (I've never implied such a thing) and actually is more 'tiresome and childish' that my posts.
As for police informants - their information may be useful but only if closer inspection turns up other evidence. Remember informers are usually criminals themselves so their word can't exactly be taken as gospel; and they often have scores to settle or are doing it for cash.
But until hard evidence, their intelligence is hearsay.
So, all that surveillance, all those informers, and you talk about it as 'hearsay'. We know you hate the police but get a grip.
We all have a different position as far as the police are concerned, and are fully entitled to both hold and give our respective views. Making a firm assumption about someone's opinion, and using it to cast doubt on their credibility, is unhelpful to the debate in my view, just as much as saying "we know you worship the police, but get a grip" would be.
We all have a different position as far as the police are concerned, and are fully entitled to both hold and give our respective views. Making a firm assumption about someone's opinion, and using it to cast doubt on their credibility, is unhelpful to the debate in my view, just as much as saying "we know you worship the police, but get a grip" would be.
IMHO.
No assumptions made. It shone out loud and clear in the poster's posts. The poster is not on trial, so my view of their posts matters not a jot.
Now, have you finished being the forum police.
The problem we have had in the past is that people have been all too willing to believe the police at all costs. Lord Denham even said he'd prefer the Birmingham Six to stay in prison even if they were innocent because exposing the police as corrupt would be far more damaging.
We have similar people on this thread I fear.
"Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further."
Yes Lord Denning. It meant all those things - the police WERE guilty of perjury, of corruption, of beating out confessions, of hiding evidence, of perverting the course of justice.
Now someone is going to pop up and say that was back in the 70s. Things are different now. We have PACE. PACE didn't help the Cardiff Three, Winston Silcott, the Taylor sisters and others.
I can't think of a single case of miscarriage of justice which hasn't started with the most abhorrent police misconduct.
The fact is a police officer can tell lies as readily as anyone. But their lies can have horrific consequences. And as we've seen from Hillsborough, Guildford Four and other cases, once one lie is told, others have to follow.
BTW, I'm pretty sure Eddie Gilfoyle will have his name cleared soon. And it will be shown he will have spent the whole of his minimum term in prison as an innocent man purely because of the police. Firstly fitting him up and then hiding exculpatory evidence once they became aware of it.
Comments
The military expert hasn't been questioned by everyone yet, and is back on Monday, but he has stated that (based on the premise that Duggan had the gun), it was more probable that he threw it before being shot - or was already throwing it and continued to throw after being shot, than deciding to throw afterwards. Which again, I'm pretty sure the court already knew. He did however state that the arm wound was not very disabling or even that painful, in the wider scheme of gunshot injuries; and that someone could continue to run, etc for a few seconds, even after the fatal chest shot.
Did you actually read the transcripts or are you guessing, based on press reports?
Well it would have been very easy to an uninjured person.
The problem we have in this case, is that there are one or two loose ends that won't go away.
a) How did the gun end up where it did ?
b) If Duggan threw it, how come none of the witnesses saw it being thrown ? If they were concentrating on Duggan, as one might expect, then him throwing the gun away, would be part of that observation.
c) If the first shot hit Duggan in the arm whilst he was still holding the gun in, then as soon as he had been hit, it's highly probable that he wouldn't then have had sufficient strength or purchase to then be able to throw the gun the distance it apparently travelled.
d) We don't know at what precise point in time (in relation to V53's shots) the gun had been released by Duggan. If it was before the first shot, then maybe that shot shouldn't have been fired, and definitely the second shot shouldn't. If it was simultaneous with the shot, and V53, as he suggests, had time to re-assess the situation before firing the second shot, it should surely have been apparent to him that the gun was no longer in Duggan's hand, as his hand would be outside his jacket, having completed the throwing motion.
e) wild card ~ we don't know for sure that the gun was even held by Duggan as he exited the vehicle. Although it is the most likely hypothesis, it is not a done deal, as nobody saw the gun being thrown. I'd have to say that with the credible witnesses present, it would be more probable than not, that somebody would have seen the gun being thrown from Duggan's right hand towards the grassed area to his right.
f) Too many ifs, buts and maybe's
Apart from the Officer, who knew his background, saying so.
But that was the way you were wording it, hoping those that didn't know better would believe it was untoward.
At the time of the shooting the Duggan family said that Mark "works at Stansted Airport", do you know if this was true?
According to this, yes
Although whether they verified that or just took the family's word for it, is unclear. It reads like it's a statement of fact.
Yes, I did.
And I found the claims of him being a massive ganglord totally unconvincing. They weren't backed up by any hard evidence - just hearsay.
And then we have the problem of the lack of violent convictions (or much in the way of hardcore criminality at all on his record).
The police have been known to be somewhat unconcerned about telling the truth on oath before.
They've covered up for deaths before.
They've tried to cover up and excuse blatant criminality in their ranks before.
They've closed ranks on bent officers.
I don't trust the word of a police officer on the stand more than I'd trust anyone else. I don't trust men like Duggan either. But as I've said before, I'm not supposed to trust them. I'm supposed to trust the police.
Remember this is the lot who tried to paint Jean Charles de Menezes as a rapist when all else failed.
Your post was too irrational to warrant quoting or replying to. But if you want to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that Duggan didn't live a life of guns and violence, and that the police shouldn't have been trying to lock him up and take away his gun, good luck to you.
Your understanding as to what hearsay is needs some improvement..
I think she said, or meant, that he had once worked there, as opposed to having a job at the time of his death. Its possible that he did perhaps have a job for a short while when he first left school.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE. The evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Hearsay+evidence
That is EXACTLY what the officer's evidence consisted of.
It didn't really contain anything more substantial.
So, all that surveillance, all those informers, and you talk about it as 'hearsay'. We know you hate the police but get a grip.
What is the word of an informer?
Read the definition of hearsay again.
In other words, the police should not do anything with what an informer says and leave the poor criminal alone to commit his crime.
It is really frightening that you once worked for the probation service with such an anti police attitude you have. I dread to think the number of wrong decisions you have made based on the bad cop / poor criminal attitude of yours.
Your posts are becoming increasingly tiresome and childish. If you wish to believe that the police knew nothing about Duggan and just spend their time mounting operations to apprehend random folk, based on the equivalent of gossip from Nellie in the chip shop, then I can't stop you.
Take care though, it might be you next. You never know what someone might be telling them.
Didn't his devoted fiance get nicked for possession of cocaine just before he got shot?
Does that count as evidence?
Not really evidence of him being one of the 48 most violent and feared criminals in Europe - no.
And I am not disputing Duggan was a criminal. What I'm taking issue with is the description of him above. It sounds like someone really over egging the pudding, and, frankly desperate.
The claim that I believe 'the police knew nothing about Duggan and just spend their time mounting operations to apprehend random folk' also sounds desperate (I've never implied such a thing) and actually is more 'tiresome and childish' that my posts.
As for police informants - their information may be useful but only if closer inspection turns up other evidence. Remember informers are usually criminals themselves so their word can't exactly be taken as gospel; and they often have scores to settle or are doing it for cash.
But until hard evidence, their intelligence is hearsay.
We all have a different position as far as the police are concerned, and are fully entitled to both hold and give our respective views. Making a firm assumption about someone's opinion, and using it to cast doubt on their credibility, is unhelpful to the debate in my view, just as much as saying "we know you worship the police, but get a grip" would be.
IMHO.
No assumptions made. It shone out loud and clear in the poster's posts. The poster is not on trial, so my view of their posts matters not a jot.
Now, have you finished being the forum police.
We have similar people on this thread I fear.
"Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further."
Yes Lord Denning. It meant all those things - the police WERE guilty of perjury, of corruption, of beating out confessions, of hiding evidence, of perverting the course of justice.
Now someone is going to pop up and say that was back in the 70s. Things are different now. We have PACE. PACE didn't help the Cardiff Three, Winston Silcott, the Taylor sisters and others.
I can't think of a single case of miscarriage of justice which hasn't started with the most abhorrent police misconduct.
The fact is a police officer can tell lies as readily as anyone. But their lies can have horrific consequences. And as we've seen from Hillsborough, Guildford Four and other cases, once one lie is told, others have to follow.
BTW, I'm pretty sure Eddie Gilfoyle will have his name cleared soon. And it will be shown he will have spent the whole of his minimum term in prison as an innocent man purely because of the police. Firstly fitting him up and then hiding exculpatory evidence once they became aware of it.
It will probably always happen from time to time, but that is no reason to tar every Police Officer with the same brush.
You seem to have spent so much time listening to criminals that you believe all they say about the Police.