Extract from the Mark Duggan Inquest Report (read it in full here http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdf ):-
How did the gun get to the grass area where it was later found?
The Jury, in a majority of 9:1, concluded that Mark Duggan threw the firearm onto the grass.
Of the 9, 8 have concluded that it is more likely than not, that Mark Duggan threw the firearm as soon as the minicab came to a stop and prior to any officers being on the pavement.
1 concluded that Mark Duggan threw the firearm whilst on the pavement and in the process of evading the police.
1 juror was not convinced of any supposition that Mark Duggan threw the firearm from the vehicle or from the pavement because no witnesses gave evidence to this effect.”
Accepting that to be true, though there were no witnesses pro or con, as pointed out by one juror, how, then, can the same jury that concluded Duggan was unarmed when he was shot by the police, also conclude that Duggan was lawfully killed? It makes no sense at all.
Local MP David Lammy says there are questions that need to be answered. Indeed there are, and not just by the police but by the jury, the members of which have declared it legal to shoot dead a man whom they have also declared was unarmed.
Where is the logic in that? Where, indeed, is the sanity?
And consider this, too, from the Guardian last night:-
“V53 and a second officer, W70, told the jury they had both seen Duggan holding a gun but were surprised when they could not find it later.
In fact, a gun, wrapped in a sock, was found on the other side of a fence three to six metres (10-20ft) away from where the fatally injured Duggan fell to the pavement, the jury heard. The gun was capable of being fired but had not been “racked”, so was not ready to fire. (**In other words, there was no bullet in the chamber, which for the first shot from an automatic pistol is loaded by manually operating the slide.)
Neither the gun nor the sock had any DNA or fingerprints from Duggan on it. Gun residue was also absent from the deceased, save for a speck in his back pocket which the jury was told was scientifically irrelevant.”
**My addition, for clarity – Ron.