The Killing of Mark Duggan

I'm saying it is a clever investigation, but not thorough, and therefore not good.
And 9 years after the fact. I'm really not quite sure what the point of it is. Although it was made in collaboration with two legal firms who offer "assistance" in looking into police misconduct and a group with a history of protesting against police violence..

"We specialise in representing those who have suffered ill-treatment or abuse of power at the hands of the police and other detaining authorities. Our aim is to achieve accountability and redress for our clients..."
 
Sponsored Links
And 9 years after the fact. I'm really not quite sure what the point of it is. Although it was made in collaboration with two legal firms who offer "assistance" in looking into police misconduct and a group with a history of protesting against police violence..

"We specialise in representing those who have suffered ill-treatment or abuse of power at the hands of the police and other detaining authorities. Our aim is to achieve accountability and redress for our clients..."
Exactly.

No conspiracy. Produced for a reason.
 
Sponsored Links
Given the mods have left this open I would like to draw to the attention commentators of the chuckle brother persuasion the coverage of the video 17 mins in.
 
Busted.lol
Don't think so. Let's see what others say.

Is it evidence of a cover up or just a clever reconstruction/investigation that was not thorough enough and therefore not good enough to change anything.
 
The video is interesting but there are parts I find a bit weird.

As the taxi stopped, why did Duggan immediately open the door and jump out? It doesn't feel like a natural thing to do to me. He was obviously aware of what was occurring before the vehicles finally came to a stop, you would think that he would just sit and let them approach.

Why was Duggen apparently jumping out of the taxi with his hands inside his jacket and one hand - seemingly - in his pocket? This doesn't seem natural at all.

The most likely scenario (IMO) was not put forward on the video; The taxi door was most likely opened well before the vehicles came to a stop. Duggen knew what was occurring and knew he had to get rid of the gun. I reckon he opened the door and threw the gun over the fence several metres before it came to a stop. That would explain why it was at an angle several metres back, and not in line, and also why nobody apparently saw him do it. They were all distracted by the boxing-in maneuver at the time.

The idea of him throwing the gun during the course of being shot is utter nonsense. Why would he do that? Everybody in close proximity would have seen him do it and he would be well aware of that.

Equally, why would an officer take the gun from the taxi and plant it over the fence? The only way that benefits the police version is if they said they saw him throw it - but nobody did.

Personally, I have always thought that police who are attracted to the gun squad are probably the people you would least want in charge of guns.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I have always thought that police who are attracted to the gun squad are probably the people you would least want in charge of guns.

I have known two armed response coppers.

One; a thoroughly nice, quiet, and unassuming guy.

The other: among the most arrogant and self-important pr!cks it would ever be your misfortunate to even be in the vicinity of, let alone have to interact with.


Just like society in general then.
 
And 9 years after the fact. I'm really not quite sure what the point of it is. Although it was made in collaboration with two legal firms who offer "assistance" in looking into police misconduct and a group with a history of protesting against police violence..

"We specialise in representing those who have suffered ill-treatment or abuse of power at the hands of the police and other detaining authorities. Our aim is to achieve accountability and redress for our clients..."
The point of it?

Ever heard of Hillsborough?
 
The cut in the tape was 4 seconds in duration ample time to retrieve the gun. The prosecection evidence ruled out the gun was retrieved from the back of the taxi, non of the police saw a gun being thrown and dugans DNA was not on the gun.
Therefore was he fitted up having being shot in cold blood?
My point was like the op identified how useful such technology could be going forward where those giving evidence have to be more 'honest' in what they witnessed.
 
Fair point, still none the less something that would need to be verified in a case such as this.
Did he have a gun to begin with?
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top