In what may be a new tactic, the trial of someone who was not present when Mark Duggan was shot dead by the Metropolitan Police is now being used to used to make claims about what actually happened at the incident:
Your analysis of the situation is spot on.
In what can only be seen as an additional assault on a man who is not here to defend himself, what is occurring is that the Metropolitan Police force is using this trial as an opportunity to whitewash/distort history with a new version of events that exonerate the officers that murdered Mark Duggan. There seems to be a belief that we are incapable of recognising an absolute abuse of police power if it can be shown that the victim was not a squeaky clean individual.
Recent versions of the fairytale includes gems like;
"As he pivoted... at the same time he very quickly drew out his right hand from the left hand side of his waistband and he was holding a self-loading pistol or handgun."
The officer said he heard two shots to his left as Mr Duggan drew his right hand out of his jacket.
He said he caught hold of Mr Duggan's wrists as he fell to his knees and shouted: "Where's the gun?" but failed to find one and started first aid.
When Stuart Denney, QC for the defence, asked him: "Where was the gun?", W70 replied: "I have no idea".
Some how we are expected to believe that officers shot a man with a gun in his hand, moments later an officer caught hold of the murdered mans wrists but in a flash of magic << pooof>> the gun vanished?
Then to add more more razamatazz to the proceedings;
The officer (W70) also told the court he omitted the fact Mr Duggan was armed from his initial statement after meeting lawyers and Police Federation representatives
Did you get that?
In a fatal shooting incident where one of his buddies would need his eyewitness account to justify why he shot an 'armed' man he decided to submit a false account of the incident in the police report on the instructions of lawyers and federation reps to get his colleagues into trouble.
If he's admitting this on oath then can we assume the (officer W70) will face disciplinary action or at least an IPCC investigation into his attempt to pervert the course of justice or is absolutely no-one taking note of what is happening other than the immediate family, friends and concerned community members.