This is true, but then your implication is that miscarriages of justice are highly unlikely, whereas we know (Guildford 4, Birmingham 6 spring immediately to mind) that they do happen and may, for all we know, happen quite frequently. In all these cases, there will have been a jury who spent a long time listening to the evidence and were directed by an eminent person. But it didn't stop them making the wrong decision. As has often been pointed out on here, courts and trials are all a bit of a game. Sometimes you win that game when you shouldn't have, and sometimes you lose when you shouldn't have.
exactly…..look at the lawson trial recently….it was about the theft of money……but soon turned into a charade about drugs where the sole purpose was to introduce an lament of doubt... interesting you quote the guilford 4 birmingham six……now who was the barrister in those cases……funny that more to the point how did he pop up here in this trial……but given his history and high profile case winning…why didn't he succeed in this one then?…….and all on legal aid…..:wink:
You know that works both ways, right? As in "definitely saw the sock-covered gun and was even able to describe seeing the barrel of the gun sticking out of the hole in the sock" as well as "adamant that Duggan had a BlackBerry in one hand, and that both of his hands were held above head height in a gesture of surrender as he was gunned down."
sure it works both ways and sure duggan had a blackberry model t4035t in black with a red twisted line down the side in his hand can just as equally be wrong………..but it doesn't mean they are lying fabricating playing with the due process or committing perjury. how about you are you seeing it from both sides want to accept two contrasting views……….or are there none so blind as them that don't want to see………..except for the jury obviously…..
I personally think that there is enough conflicting evidence in this case to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we are not being told the whole truth about what happened on that day. That's why it brings me back to the statement made above: "Whatever he was, whatever transpired, the police cannot take life, even in error, mislead the public as to how it occurred – as has been proved – and move on without satisfactory explanation or repercussion."
Because two people have different views, does that automatically mean one is lying? Can it be a case of 100% certain, but wrong? Is that lying? BTW the biggest issue is not the being shot, well it is but you know what I mean, its the fact than none of the highly trained and experienced officers seems to have a cohesive story which matvhes the absolute facts (as reported). Now, anyone can claim 'there's stuff not reported' but how did the gun get there, physically its seems impossible, when was it found, from where. Alas this smacks of wholesale coverup and deception by those on scene, all of them, which by its nature means no policeman can be trusted to do the right thing where the circumstances dictate it drops a colleague in the shit. True or false, thats how it appears to the layman, and is a very sad fact :frown:
Does anyone know how far away from the incident that witness B actually was? Only thing I've read so far was that he was on the ninth floor of some flats. We all assume that the IPCC were informed by the Met that Mr Duggan shot first, as this makes most sense, however, the IPCC only apologise for their own lies. They do not state that they were given incorrect info by the Met, and I am confident that the IPCC would be very happy to pass the buck if this was indeed the case. Personally, if and for me its a big if, there was a cover up then I would expect it to be a much tighter cover up than the one some folk are happy to think has been foisted upon us. Surely, someone would say " I saw him throw it" etc etc, not leave these little holes in chain of events? I fully expect there to be said holes in the evidence, as that is the case in most highly charged incidents. People miss things, and only when there is a cover up are these things 'sorted'. I cannot agree with the Bradders that to most the police cannot be trusted, but it's his opinion and he is more than welcome to it.
The full transcript for all the inquest is on the Internet, the cabbie's evidence was given on the 14th October. He states he didn't see anything in Mark Duggan's hands be it a gun, sock or phone.
I don't know about holes in the story or holes in the sock.........but is it stating the obvious where the holes are.....
I never said most police cant be trusted. I said, given whats reported, if push comes to shove a layman ( common man in the street) would be fair in assuming in those circumstances coppers cant be trusted. Its very different.
So, you do trust the police in general, other than if they might drop themselves in the sticky stuff then they will cheat and lie and then you wouldn't trust them? Or, you do indeed trust them to cheat and lie their way out of trouble, and in your opinion the common man also feels the same ie, police do cheat and lie to avoid prosecution or cheat and lie to stop a prosecution on another police officer.
Righto, I've read the taxi drivers version. He does indeed state he never saw the gun, and that he saw Mr Duggan did not make any threatening gestures. He also explains that he never saw the gun whilst Mr Duggan was in the vehicle. He never saw the gun thrown etc. However, if we accept this, as indeed I suppose we have to, how do we explain that he got the wrong officer pulling the trigger and that actually, he never saw Mr Duggan shot? Do we accept that in the heat of the moment his brain processed things differently? It is agreed that a certain officer pulled the trigger, so if the taxi driver gets this vitally important part wrong, how can we trust anything else he says?
The mystery witness B, who was at least 100-150 metres from the scene allegedly told a reporter (not a police officer) that Mr Duggan was holding a gun. Although, on oath he disagrees that he changed his mind about it actually being a phone and that he did not mention a gun to the press man. So, who is lying there? I've got decent eyesight, but I can't see that someone is definitely holding a phone from 100-150 metres away. What was the lighting like where the incident took place. I appreciate it was August so sunset wasn't till around 9:00pm.
Do we understand that some police officers have refused to be interviewed by the IPCC, or am I misunderstanding this? Why wouldn't they agree to be interviewed?
Thats the way I read it. Does seem most odd, however, who are these officers, are they actually connected with the shooting or are the IPCC just on a fishing trip?
I was expressing a trail of thought many may have as reported. My opinion is you can trust most coppers most of the time
