The Killing of Mark Duggan

You'd think so, perhaps they hadn't got all their ducks all in a row.
Not even the cop who found it said he saw him throw it. That makes no sense whatsoever, if planted.
 
Sponsored Links
If the rozzers didn't see the gun being launched, they'd expect he was still armed.

Even if they did see him lob it, they didn't know he wasn't otherwise armed.
So why plant the gun in the field, much better for their case if he's found with a gun on him.
 
Which witness statements?

AFAIK, no-one claims to have witnessed this.
There was no video evidence what we're debating is a reconstruction of witness statements.
Just checking everybody is on the same page.
 
Sponsored Links
So why plant the gun in the field, much better for their case if he's found with a gun on him.
This is really the primary reason why the gun had to have been thrown by Duggan and not planted. If plod planted it, why in the field? It serves no benefit to them that it was in the field unless one of them said they saw him chuck it. Much better to tuck it under the body.

I see no doubt that Duggan threw it over the fence and I stick with that happening before the vehicles came to a stop, and that's why none of the plod saw it. He would have opened the door and thrown it 4 or 5 metres before the stop and then hopped out of the car like 'what me gov' what have I done'? Only problem is that trigger happy V50...something got out of control and started seeing barrels and triggers and stuff and before he knew it he'd tapped out a couple of rounds and Duggan - and his plod mate - were down.
 
Something dodgy...You never shoot without a clear firing line as the people behind are just as much in the in the target zone as a person is in front of the target. Two people were inline with the target...the cab driver and the other officer....who was hit by the firing officer....hmmmmmm
To me, this suggests as Duggan came out the car he appeared to be making towards the officer that shot him. Did this officer feel he was about to be attacked and shot accordingly?

The reconstruction was undoubtedly clever but it left a lot of unanswered questions to even begin to change my mind over the official investigation and result.

For example.

No record of what verbal instructions that were given and followed or ignored.

No information as to when the door opened.

No disagreement that Duggan had collected a gun, so it had to be somewhere.

Agreed that he had his hands half hidden, inside jacket or its pockets.

There was no disagreement that the officer that fired the shots felt he took the correct action.


Not enough for any conspiracy theory in my eyes.
 
The speaker at the meeting at the end was convinced lies had been told.
 
It was rather brief to ascertain. It seemed a summing up of what the meeting had been discussing.
 
There was no video evidence what we're debating is a reconstruction of witness statements.

With gaps that the video producers have filled in from their bias / perspective / narrative (delete whichever, to suit your own view).
 
The speaker at the meeting at the end was convinced lies had been told.

Put it this way, and in my honest opinion.

If the question of "Who would you trust more; MD, or the rozzers?", my answer would be "I trust MD less".
 
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.
Lol. You couldn't be more wrong.
Gun trained police fellas I've done work for are calm, patient blokes. They were selected out of a field of applicants.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top