Transcript of the Hearing 12 November 2013


           1                                      Tuesday, 12 November 2013

          12   (10.49 am)

          13                         (A short break)

          14   (10.59 am)

          15   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you very much.  We'll ask for

          16       the jury to come in then, please, the camera can be

          17       turned off for a while.

          18                  (In the presence of the jury)

          19   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you very much, members of the

          20       jury, sorry about that little bit of extra exercise but

          21       we are now in a position to press on.

          22   MR UNDERWOOD:  Yes, we are indeed.  Can I call Jacqueline

          23       Landais, please?

          24                 MS JACQUELINE LANDAIS (affirmed)

          25   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you very much.  Come and have




           1       a seat, please.  Once you're ready, you can tell

           2       Mr Underwood all your particulars.

           3   A.  My name's Jacqueline Landais.  I'm a fingerprint expert

           4       currently based at New Scotland Yard.

           5                    Questions by MR UNDERWOOD

           6   MR UNDERWOOD:  Thank you very much.  Let me just ask you

           7       a little bit about your experience.  I think you have

           8       been a fingerprint expert for more than 23 years now; is

           9       that right?

          10   A.  25 now.

          11   Q.  You have completed various training programmes to

          12       advanced fingerprint level; is that so?

          13   A.  That's correct, yes.

          14   Q.  You are registered on the National Register of

          15       Fingerprint Experts; is that right?

          16   A.  Yes, that's correct.

          17   Q.  I want to ask you about some work you did in relation to

          18       a box, a shoe box, we know it as, and to test it for

          19       fingerprints of Mr Duggan.

          20   A.  Yes.

          21   Q.  Is that work you carried out in late 2011?

          22   A.  Yes, it is.

          23   Q.  What I want to do is have a photograph put up on the

          24       screen and ask you about areas 3, 4 and 7.  If we can

          25       focus in on 3 and 4 for a start.




           1   A.  Yes.

           2   Q.  I don't know whether you have a hard copy of this --

           3   A.  I have, yes.

           4   Q.  -- and, if so, whether you prefer looking at that?

           5   A.  I'm okay with this for the moment.

           6   Q.  Good.  Picking up the areas then, are any of those

           7       Mr Duggan's fingerprints, in your opinion?

           8   A.  Yes.  Area 4, which is marked in the blue pen on there

           9       (indicates).

          10   MR UNDERWOOD:  Actually, would you mind awfully standing up

          11       and pointing to it on the large screen so the jury can

          12       see and a cursor can be put over.

          13   A.  This area here is a part of the right palm (indicates)

          14       and this other area where you have the blue mark is the

          15       right middle finger, both of Mark Duggan.

          16   Q.  You found the right finger and part of the palm from

          17       which you have extrapolated the notion the palm was

          18       placed over the box like that (indicates); is that

          19       right?

          20   A.  Yes, because of the rotation of the ridges it was at

          21       a slight angle.

          22   Q.  What are we looking at there in terms of the box?

          23   A.  It's the base of the box, I believe, turned upside down.

          24       I'm just going on -- that's the image that I received so

          25       I don't actually see the box but it looks like the base




           1       turned upside down, so mark on the side and one

           2       underneath.

           3   Q.  In your opinion, what could be inferred from that

           4       placement, in terms of Mr Duggan's handling of the box?

           5   A.  It looks like a lifting or holding action but I cannot

           6       tell from that whether the forefinger -- the middle

           7       finger and the palm were actually made at the same time.

           8       It could have been two touches rather than one.

           9   Q.  Right.  So he's certainly touched that part of the box

          10       possibly to hold it; would that be fair?

          11   A.  Possibly.  It's the base of the box.

          12   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  It's the base of the box?

          13   A.  Yes, that is what it appears to be.

          14   MR UNDERWOOD:  It's more likely this is holding it the right

          15       way from the underneath then?

          16   A.  Yes, yes.  It's in the direction that the hand is --

          17       it's across the bottom of the box.

          18   Q.  Right.  As you say, it's rotated that way because that's

          19       the photograph you've got?

          20   A.  Yes it is, yes.

          21   Q.  Right.  The next area, please?

          22   A.  Area 7 is the right forefinger of Mark Duggan.

          23   Q.  So that's obviously the top of the lid of the box?

          24   A.  Yes, the top of the lid.

          25   Q.  What do you infer from that?




           1   A.  He's touched it with his right hand, that's all I can

           2       say, on the top of the box.

           3   Q.  Right.  Then area 7?

           4   A.  That is area 7.

           5   Q.  Sorry, the other area 7, that's CNA, I think, is it?  Is

           6       there any other fingerprint of his?

           7   A.  There were two treatments completed and it was thought

           8       that the second part -- the second treatment may be

           9       a slightly better image than the first one but, as it

          10       happens, both were identified, one is slightly better

          11       quality than the other.

          12   Q.  Are there any other fingerprints of Mr Duggan's on this

          13       box?

          14   A.  I believe there were just two on the bottom, one on the

          15       top.

          16   MR UNDERWOOD:  Thank you very much.

          17   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Have a seat.  Thank you very much

          18       for helping us.  Mr Straw is going to ask you some more

          19       questions about the fingerprint analysis.

          20                      Questions by MR STRAW

          21   MR STRAW:  Hello, I'm representing Mr Duggan's family.

          22   A.  Mm-hmm.

          23   Q.  Could you have a look, please, at CHF2658?  It should

          24       come up on the screen.

          25   A.  Yes.




           1   Q.  Can you see that?

           2   A.  Yes.

           3   Q.  Brilliant.  Is this a schedule that you created?

           4   A.  Yes, it is.

           5   Q.  Does it contain a description of the different areas of

           6       fingerprinting that you saw?

           7   A.  Yes, it does.

           8   Q.  Looking at area 1, it's got "unidentified" written on

           9       it.

          10   A.  Yes.

          11   Q.  Then area 2, "insufficient", and so on.

          12   A.  Yes.

          13   Q.  Is it right that for some of the areas you identified

          14       the fingerprints as matching samples that you were

          15       given?

          16   A.  It was -- this had been -- the photographs came to us,

          17       they were actually searched on our system and found that

          18       way, rather than the names being given.

          19   Q.  Okay.  Now, "insufficient" for area 2, can you explain

          20       what that means please?

          21   A.  There's not enough ridged detail in the marks applied

          22       for us to be able to make a comparison to say whether it

          23       belonged to anybody, never mind anybody who we were

          24       asked to look at.

          25   Q.  Then in area 1, unidentified, can you explain what that




           1       means?

           2   A.  It means that there was enough there to identify

           3       a person if we had the right set of prints.  They

           4       didn't -- they weren't identified for any names we were

           5       given and they were searched on our system and they

           6       still weren't identified for anybody.  So although they

           7       are identifiable, we do not know who left those marks

           8       there.

           9   Q.  When you say "searched on the system", is that a police

          10       system --

          11   A.  Sorry, our fingerprint database.

          12   Q.  Is that a sort of police system of people who have been

          13       arrested and so on --

          14   A.  Yes.

          15   Q.  -- and convicted of offences and their fingerprints go

          16       on that?

          17   A.  Yes, it is.

          18   Q.  Going on then to a few pictures, could you have a look

          19       at CD29434, please.  Could that be zoomed in, please, so

          20       we can see the box a bit better.

          21           Again, we're looking, would you agree, at the bottom

          22       part of the box?

          23   A.  Yes.

          24   Q.  It's upside down.

          25   A.  Yes.




           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  We must have the box here somewhere?

           2       Do you have the box?

           3   MR STRAW:  That would be useful.

           4   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Let's see the box.  Is that both

           5       bits of the box, the whole box?

           6   MR UNDERWOOD:  I feel lost without my instructing solicitor

           7       and her gloves.

           8   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  It's all right, Ms Day might be able

           9       to provide some gloves, certainly provide a pair of

          10       scissors.

          11   MR UNDERWOOD:  In which case, she can also be the glamorous

          12       assistant, I think, and open the bag.

          13           I have suggested that Ms Landais might like some

          14       gloves as well.

          15   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Of course, when these things have

          16       been forensically treated.

          17   MR STRAW:  Before Ms Landais has it could it be shown around

          18       the jurors as well.

          19   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Don't touch it, members of the jury,

          20       but perhaps if Ms Day opened it up so she held the top

          21       in one hand and the bottom in another.  There we are.

          22       Then you get an idea.

          23             (The exhibit was shown around the jury)

          24   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you very much.  Let's just ask

          25       you then, Ms Landais, to have that there.




           1   A.  Cheers, thank you.

           2             (The exhibit was handed to the witness)

           3   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Perhaps then, in relation to the

           4       bottom of the box, perhaps you could -- it may be

           5       difficult now but certainly put your hand in the way

           6       that you feel could be reconstructed.

           7   A.  (Indicates) I feel -- the palm was across that area

           8       (indicates) and the finger -- it was more -- there's

           9       a crease that I can see on the photograph, so I know

          10       that the finger mark that we identified was right by the

          11       crease, so it depends on the size of the person's hands

          12       and their shape as to whether it could have been done at

          13       one movement or whether it was two touches.  I would say

          14       it's probably two, it's quite a small area.

          15   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  You're holding it that way up but it

          16       doesn't mean that the box wasn't up the other way.

          17   A.  I would say it was held that way, like that (indicates),

          18       so both marks would have been made holding it that way.

          19   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  You are holding it with your left

          20       hand.  You can't help us with the left hand, it's just

          21       the right hand on there, isn't it?

          22   A.  Yes.

          23   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you very much.  Then there's

          24       a mark on the top of the box that you mentioned.

          25   A.  Number 7, which I believe was the right middle finger.




           1       (indicates), so it was just across like that

           2       (indicates).

           3   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  All right.  Thank you very much.

           4       Back to you, Mr Straw.

           5   MR STRAW:  Thank you very much, sir.  The box doesn't look

           6       in particularly good condition anymore.

           7   A.  No.

           8   Q.  Could we have a look at how it was earlier on at

           9       CD20711, please.  So that's with the lid on and the

          10       right way up.  Now, can you point out there the area 4,

          11       Mr Duggan's right palm?

          12   A.  It's -- (Pause)

          13           I can't tell which way round this -- you mean on

          14       this image.

          15   Q.  If you don't mind standing up and pointing at the image?

          16   A.  The image is on the base of the box.  I wouldn't be able

          17       to tell from that photograph which way round the box was

          18       prior to --

          19   Q.  Okay.

          20   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  The image on the base of the box,

          21       could that only be put on there without the lid on it?

          22   A.  Well -- sorry, I haven't seen this before so I need to

          23       see how it fits.

          24   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Take your time.

          25   A.  (Pause)




           1           The box is a bit battered.

           2   MR STRAW:  That's why I went for the older photograph.

           3   A.  It's difficult, I can't tell which way round that would

           4       have been compared to this.

           5   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Take your time.

           6   A.  (Pause)

           7   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Go back to the one with the actual

           8       fingerprints on the base of the box.

           9   A.  Yes, sorry, I wouldn't like to say for definite,

          10       I couldn't --

          11   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  There we are, we are back on that

          12       one.  Looking at that picture, can you reconstruct where

          13       you say the hand --

          14   A.  I can see where the mark is, the problem is where the

          15       box is a bit squashed I cannot see where, on a fresh

          16       box, the line would be where the join is so whether --

          17       it looks like part of that area is on show, but because

          18       of the condition of the box it's quite difficult for me

          19       to tell for definite and because I can't actually see

          20       the mark on here, I can see them on the photographs but

          21       the marks aren't visible on the box anymore so it is --

          22       it's possible, but I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to say

          23       for definite without proper tests to have a look at it

          24       properly.

          25   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Could you just help me, those marks,




           1       as I have asked before, just as you are looking at it,

           2       could they have been put on the bottom of the box with

           3       the top of the bottom fully in situ.

           4   A.  Yes, they could do.  The top of the box does not reach

           5       the bottom of the box so there is a gap there, so there

           6       is a possibility, but I can't say that for definite, it

           7       could be that the mark goes slightly under the lid,

           8       I can't really tell from just looking at it here.

           9   MR STRAW:  At most, even if it was that the lid needed to be

          10       lifted up only a little bit, you could get that print

          11       on, either with --

          12   A.  It is near that area, so it would be possible maybe the

          13       box -- the lid was slightly lifted.

          14   Q.  So you could get that print on if the lid was either

          15       entirely on or slightly lifted?

          16   A.  Quite possibly -- I would think so, yes, because it's

          17       near the top but unfortunately I can't really say for

          18       definite.

          19   Q.  No problem at all.  Just one more question about that

          20       photo we were on before, CD20711, please.  That's

          21       showing the box with the lid on and there there's

          22       a fairly substantial region of the bottom of the box

          23       that you can see visible.

          24   A.  I see that, yes.

          25   Q.  That's the type of region, we don't know which side, but




           1       in terms of tops and bottom, that's the region where the

           2       fingerprint was of Mr Duggan?

           3   A.  Yes, that's the type of area where the mark was left,

           4       yes, it was.

           5   Q.  Going back, please, to CD29434, area 1 there, we see to

           6       the top left of the photo as we're looking at it, who is

           7       that from?

           8   A.  That was unidentified.

           9   Q.  Unidentified, okay.

          10           Next page, please, CD29435.  It's difficult to see

          11       here but it looks to me that we're looking now, again at

          12       the bottom of the box, but we're actually looking inside

          13       it; would you agree?

          14   A.  It's the (indicates) outside edge but at the top.

          15   Q.  Yes, okay just at the bottom of the shot there we can

          16       see into the box itself?

          17   A.  Yes.

          18   Q.  So area 5 there, can you point out approximately on the

          19       shoe box that you've got whereabouts area 5 is?

          20   A.  (Indicates) It's in this corner.

          21   Q.  So towards the top of the bottom of the box now?

          22   A.  Yes.

          23   Q.  Clearly to have put that fingerprint on the box, the lid

          24       would need to be off?

          25   A.  Yes, yes it would.




           1   Q.  Who was that print from?

           2   A.  May I have a quick look at my notes?  I think that was

           3       unidentified.

           4   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, of course.

           5   A.  (Pause)

           6           Yes, that area hasn't been identified for anybody.

           7   MR STRAW:  Okay.  Over the page, please, 29436.  You have

           8       again said there was another -- the last one, I think,

           9       of Mr Duggan's print on this photo and that was also on

          10       the outside of the box.

          11   A.  Yes, number 7.

          12   Q.  There's nothing, is there, to show that he opened the

          13       box?

          14   A.  No.

          15   Q.  All of his prints were on the outside?

          16   A.  Yes.

          17   Q.  Areas 6, 8 and 9 there, which are, again, on the

          18       left-hand side of the box, is it right that those were

          19       also unidentified?

          20   A.  Yes.  6, 8 and 9, yes, they were all unidentified.

          21   Q.  Great.  The last picture, please, which is over the page

          22       again, CD29437, area 11, I'm interested in now.  Now, we

          23       can see that the flap of the box there is opened.

          24   A.  Yes.

          25   Q.  Can you scroll down a little bit, please, Mr Scott?




           1           The note there seems to indicate that the corners of

           2       the box were cut to facilitate photography; do you see

           3       that?

           4   A.  Yes, I do.

           5   Q.  Is that your understanding?

           6   A.  Yes, yes, it is.

           7   Q.  Area 11 now is actually on the inside of the lid, isn't

           8       it?

           9   A.  Yes, it is, it's on the inside.

          10   Q.  Again, to put that there, you would need to open the

          11       box?

          12   A.  Yes.

          13   Q.  Any idea who it's from?

          14   A.  I believe number 11 is unidentified as well.

          15   Q.  Unidentified.  Were you given any of the fingerprints of

          16       the CO19 officers to compare to your samples?

          17   A.  We weren't directly given any police officers' to check,

          18       but we have -- police officers' fingerprints are on our

          19       fingerprint database for elimination purposes and we did

          20       do a search on the database and we didn't get any

          21       identifications on that but we didn't specifically check

          22       anybody -- any named persons.

          23   Q.  Okay.  Do you know whether the CO19 officers who were

          24       involved in this case were on that database?

          25   A.  No, I don't.




           1   Q.  Okay.  So it's possible then that these fingerprints

           2       come from them but we simply have no way of knowing

           3       because the tests haven't been done?

           4   A.  No specific tests were done against any specific named

           5       officers, no.

           6   Q.  One more area of questioning, sorry, I nearly forgot.

           7   A.  Okay.

           8   Q.  CHF1265, please.  This is a transcript from the criminal

           9       trial of Mr Kevin Hutchinson-Foster and there are some

          10       admissions that were made in the trial there, and we can

          11       see there towards the bottom of the page, admission

          12       number 15, describes samples and fingerprints being sent

          13       away for analysis.  Then do you see your name at the

          14       bottom there --

          15   A.  Yes, I do.

          16   Q.  -- number 16, "Jacqueline Landais, an expert in" -- and

          17       it describes there your test on the cardboard box over

          18       the page?

          19   A.  I didn't do any --

          20   Q.  Sorry, it describes the comparison and identification of

          21       persons using the friction --

          22   A.  Yes.

          23   Q.  Then over the next page, 17, it says this -- sorry, this

          24       is 1267:

          25           "17.  The gun ... and the sock ... associated with




           1       it:

           2           "'Were examined to determine whether the

           3       fingerprints of or DNA from Mark Duggan were present.

           4       No prints or DNA attributable to Mark Duggan were

           5       recovered.  At the time that Mr Duggan was shot, he was

           6       not wearing gloves.'"

           7           This comes from the gun, fingerprint analysis on the

           8       gun?

           9   A.  Yes.

          10   Q.  Were you involved in that test?

          11   A.  We did receive five photographs of marks retrieved from

          12       the gun but they were all of insufficient quality for us

          13       to make any comparisons against anybody.

          14   Q.  So is what it says there correct then, that no

          15       fingerprints attributable to Mr Duggan were recovered

          16       from the gun?

          17   A.  No, no.

          18   Q.  When you're doing fingerprint analysis, is it right that

          19       some surfaces retain fingerprints and are better to look

          20       for fingerprints than others?

          21   A.  Yes, that's correct.

          22   Q.  So, for example, a sock: what's that like for retaining

          23       fingerprints?

          24   A.  A sock you wouldn't get a fingerprint -- or very

          25       unlikely to get a fingerprint on a sock, unless it's




           1       made from a very unusual material.

           2   Q.  Whereas a metal surface, like a gun, is that normally

           3       better for looking for fingerprints?

           4   A.  A gun is -- I don't do that part of the analysis, but

           5       guns are very -- there's lots of bits and pieces, little

           6       pieces and little -- small areas that people touch when

           7       there's a gun so they actually -- although they do

           8       retain fingerprints, there's lots of very small areas

           9       that you might get a piece of a fingerprint and you

          10       quite often get very poor marks from guns.

          11   MR STRAW:  Okay.  Thanks very much.

          12   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you, Mr Straw.

          13           I've got Mr Keith coming next.

          14   MR KEITH:  No, thank you.

          15   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Then I have you, Mr Stern.

          16                      Questions by MR STERN

          17   MR STERN:  Thank you, sir.  Can we just understand: you

          18       didn't carry out any DNA tests yourself?

          19   A.  No.

          20   Q.  We are going to hear evidence about that --

          21   A.  Yes.

          22   Q.  -- but so that wasn't anything that you dealt with?

          23   A.  No, it's nothing -- it's only fingerprints.

          24   Q.  So far as the database is concerned, of police officers,

          25       is it your understanding that it contains all police




           1       officers?

           2   A.  I believe so.  Everybody, when they're recruited, has

           3       a set of fingerprints taken.  I don't know if everybody

           4       is on there but that's the idea.

           5   Q.  Right.  So everybody who was recruited gives their

           6       fingerprints and that's on the database and that's the

           7       database that you passed it through --

           8   A.  Yes.

           9   Q.  -- and did that search and there were no identifying

          10       fingerprints on the box?

          11   A.  No.

          12   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  That's all done by computer, isn't

          13       it?

          14   A.  Yes, it is, yes.

          15   MR STERN:  Now I think you said there were five marks on the

          16       gun, did you?

          17   A.  There were five -- I believe it was four different marks

          18       and one was a second treatment and they had

          19       re-photographed the first mark.

          20   Q.  So far as those marks were concerned, they were not

          21       unidentified, they were insufficient; is that correct?

          22   A.  That's correct.  I didn't do the check -- the original

          23       check on the gun.  But prior to coming here, I did have

          24       a re-look at all the marks and there is very little

          25       information on any of those marks and there's nothing




           1       we've been able to make any comparison on at all.

           2   Q.  All right.  That's very helpful, thank you.

           3           Could you just explain the difference between

           4       "insufficient" and "unidentified" so that we understand

           5       that?

           6   A.  "Unidentified" means that there is enough detail in the

           7       mark to be able to identify somebody if we have the

           8       right donor prints; "insufficient" means there is not

           9       enough in the mark left on an exhibit or at a scene for

          10       us to be able to make any identifications against

          11       anybody at all, because there's just not enough detail

          12       for us to be able to examine.

          13   Q.  By detail, as I understand it, you work to a test of

          14       16 ridge characteristics?

          15   A.  Not anymore.

          16   Q.  Not anymore.  Okay, I'm a bit behind.  How many is it

          17       now?

          18   A.  We don't have a number anymore.  It's on our own opinion

          19       as to whether the mark is good enough to make

          20       an identification or not.  So we look at the ridge

          21       detail, we look at the pattern, we look at the

          22       characteristics in there and we'll make an assessment of

          23       each individual mark, depending on the circumstances of

          24       that mark.

          25   Q.  When you say "insufficient", it means it could be more




           1       or less anyone?

           2   A.  It could be.  There's just -- in these particular

           3       insufficient marks, there was -- it looked like a couple

           4       of lines basically, very little detail there at all, and

           5       there was nothing I could use to make any sort of

           6       comparison.

           7   Q.  I wonder if you could just look at CD20781.  This

           8       document, I think, actually has been colour-coded --

           9   A.  Yes.

          10   Q.  -- for the various fingerprints or insufficient prints

          11       that you found?

          12   A.  Yes.

          13   Q.  If we look at the key in the bottom right-hand corner,

          14       although we cannot read it very easily, the red relates

          15       to Kevin Hutchinson-Foster --

          16   A.  Mm-hmm, yes.

          17   Q.  -- the blue is Mark Duggan and the green is a lady who

          18       we'll just call "DC" for the moment, all right?

          19   A.  Mm-hmm.

          20   Q.  She lives, the jury have heard, in Burchell Road.

          21           These are prints that you found, if we could just

          22       come out again from that.  If we start at the top

          23       left-hand corner, we can see the area attributed to

          24       Mark Duggan --

          25   A.  Yes.




           1   Q.  -- or part of it anyway on the bottom of the box.  As

           2       I understand what you're saying, in relation to area 4,

           3       which is the palm print --

           4   A.  Yes.

           5   Q.  You can't say whether that was underneath the lid or

           6       just half on the box, half on the lid or all on the box?

           7   A.  It's just that looking at it here, I can't see the

           8       actual mark, so I wouldn't want to mislead anyone by

           9       saying one way or the other.  It looks like it's

          10       possibly at the very top and the whole area at the top

          11       isn't covered by the lid, but without proper tests

          12       I couldn't really do that here.

          13   Q.  All right.  You've gone through those prints there?

          14   A.  Yes.

          15   Q.  Moving down, if we can, to the left-hand side, we can

          16       see, can we, in area 10, the red code of

          17       Mr Hutchinson-Foster?

          18   A.  Yes, that's correct.

          19   Q.  We've got left palm mark in both of those areas and we

          20       can see, if we close in on the box, that those red

          21       squares relate to his palm prints?

          22   A.  Yes, that's the area on the palm that I believe is where

          23       he's touched it.  So he's touched it with the bottom of

          24       his palm there (indicates).

          25   Q.  How would he hold it in that regard?




           1   A.  I would have -- we're talking -- sort of (indicates) --

           2   Q.  Stand up, there's a big speaker in the way.

           3   A.  Yes, (indicates).

           4   Q.  I see, so like that.  Thank you very much.

           5           There's, on the right-hand side, at the top, we can

           6       see, again, a mark attributed to Mr Hutchinson-Foster

           7       and there are a number of marks that are insufficient

           8       that surround that individual mark.

           9   A.  Yes, that's correct.

          10   Q.  Although they are insufficient, somebody, as we can see

          11       on the left-hand side -- it's you I think, is it -- has

          12       drawn the other fingers?

          13   A.  Yes.  The area we can see here (indicates) -- the one

          14       I've outlined in pink is the one that I've identified.

          15       Either side you can see the shape of the ridges but

          16       unfortunately, there's a shape of the finger but there's

          17       not enough detail in those marks for me to say who they

          18       belong to.

          19   Q.  So if they were all from Mr Hutchinson-Foster, in

          20       relation to one finger the ridge marks have come out

          21       with sufficient detail --

          22   A.  Yes.

          23   Q.  -- but the others, they have not?

          24   A.  Yes, that's correct.

          25   Q.  Then just down to the bottom right-hand side, we can see




           1       that there are prints from the lady who I'll call "DC",

           2       yes?

           3   A.  Yes, that's correct.

           4   Q.  As you'll appreciate, I'm sure, this is a box of boots

           5       or shoes from a well known shop, River Island?

           6   A.  Yes.

           7   Q.  They are, I think, women's boots, if one looks at the

           8       label.

           9   A.  (Pause)

          10           Green medium size 6, they look a bit small for

          11       men's.

          12   Q.  All right.  Again, we can see her finger marks with some

          13       insufficient details in area 13 as well?

          14   A.  Yes, that's correct.

          15   Q.  So, if they had come from a shoe shop they're likely to

          16       have been touched by a number of people, in any event,

          17       aren't they?

          18   A.  Yes, I would imagine so.

          19   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  The unidentified ones are obviously

          20       prints not left by any of those three people.

          21   A.  That's correct.

          22   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Can you work out how many other

          23       people are within the unidentified?  They could all come

          24       from one person or could they come from different ones?

          25   A.  They could have -- no, there's no way for me to be able




           1       to tell that because when you leave the print it might

           2       be the -- it could be the same person but it could be

           3       the right forefinger and the left middle finger and the

           4       right little finger.  So, unless I had a whole set of

           5       prints, I would not be able to tell if it was one person

           6       or several.

           7   MR STERN:  Thank you, sir.

           8   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you.

           9           Right, Mr Glasson?

          10   MR GLASSON:  No, thank you, sir.

          11   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Then I think, unless anybody else is

          12       interested.

          13           No, back to you, Mr Underwood.

          14                Further questions by MR UNDERWOOD

          15   MR UNDERWOOD:  Can I ask you to look at a photograph in the

          16       jury bundle, the red bundle you have on the desk there.

          17       There's a photograph number 21 in the first section.

          18       You can see it on the screen.  Now, this was taken on,

          19       I think, 9 August 2011 when the box had been moved into

          20       the boot of the minicab.

          21   A.  Okay.

          22   Q.  Again, you can see the degree of the base showing

          23       underneath the lid.  Does that help you with where that

          24       palm print was and whether the lid was -- whether it was

          25       capable of being put on there while the lid was in that




           1       situation?

           2   A.  I would prefer -- if I was to be asked to make

           3       a decision on that, I would rather look at it properly

           4       under proper lights because I'm trying to look at it

           5       here and I'm -- from my photographs I'm trying to work

           6       out where the mark is because I cannot actually see it

           7       on the box and the box squashed, so if you wanted me to

           8       say for definite one way or another unfortunately

           9       I cannot.  I don't feel comfortable saying that because

          10       I cannot see what I'm looking at.

          11   MR UNDERWOOD:  If you don't feel comfortable, I'll stop

          12       there.

          13   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  The box has obviously been destroyed

          14       through the forensic process, one way or the other, and

          15       been partially reconstructed --

          16   A.  Yes.

          17   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  -- so it's not in particularly good

          18       condition.

          19   A.  It's a bit squashed.

          20   MR UNDERWOOD:  Thank you very much, that's all I ask.

          21   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you, Ms Landais, for helping

          22       us.  You can either take the gloves with you if you wish

          23       or take them off.  It's a matter entirely for you but

          24       thank you very much for that.  We'll put the box back

          25       into its bag.




           1                      (The witness withdrew)

           2   MR UNDERWOOD:  Mr Tomei, I think, please.

           3   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Right, thank you very much.

           4                     MR FRANCO TOMEI (sworn)

           5   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you very much.  Please have

           6       a seat, sir, and come forward into the witness box and

           7       then Mr Underwood will ask you some questions.

           8                    Questions by MR UNDERWOOD

           9   MR UNDERWOOD:  Good morning, Mr Tomei.  Can I ask your full

          10       names please?

          11   A.  It's Franco Andrea Tomei.

          12   Q.  I think you're an expert in forensic science and in

          13       particular in firearms examination; is that right?

          14   A.  That's correct, yes.

          15   Q.  I think you've been working continuously and exclusively

          16       in this field since 1976?

          17   A.  Yes.

          18   Q.  You started as a forensic scientist in December 1973 and

          19       you were employed in the Metropolitan Police forensic

          20       science laboratory then the Forensic Science Service

          21       after that?

          22   A.  Yes.

          23   Q.  You've been a visiting lecturer for King's College at

          24       the University of London, is that right --

          25   A.  Yes.




           1   Q.  -- in the MSc course in Forensic Science?

           2   A.  Yes.

           3   Q.  I think you were asked on 5 August to recover and

           4       identify the projectile in the radio holster, JMA/10; is

           5       that right --

           6   A.  That's correct, yes.

           7   Q.  -- and then to do further examinations after that?

           8   A.  Yes.

           9   Q.  If I can deal first of all with JMA/10, the harness,

          10       holster, whichever we're calling it, was there a bullet

          11       entry hole in that pouch?

          12   A.  There was, yes.

          13   Q.  Had that bullet struck the handset itself?

          14   A.  It had, yes.  It wasn't in the handset but it had caused

          15       damage from the front all the way through to the back.

          16   Q.  On an initial view, did it look like there was

          17       a deformed metal fragment inside the damaged site?

          18   A.  There was something that looked like -- had the sort of

          19       typical appearance of a lead projectile but it proved to

          20       be part of the internal workings of the radio.

          21   Q.  Did you find a fired bullet in the pouch itself --

          22   A.  Yes.

          23   Q.  -- once you had undone it?

          24   A.  That's correct, yes.

          25   Q.  Was that a nominal 9mm bullet --




           1   A.  It was, yes.

           2   Q.  -- consistent with being fired from a MP5?

           3   A.  It was, yes.

           4   Q.  Then I think you attended the postmortem of Mr Duggan;

           5       is that correct?

           6   A.  I did, yes.

           7   Q.  Did you see there the two gunshot wounds that he had

           8       sustained?

           9   A.  I did.

          10   Q.  One of those, I think, was to the upper right arm?

          11   A.  That's correct, yes.

          12   Q.  Can you describe that for us, please?

          13   A.  It was to the right bicep and -- I'm sorry, obviously,

          14       for the distress this will obviously cause the family,

          15       but the bullet had entered at the top of the right

          16       bicep, exited a little lower down from the right bicep

          17       and there was a wound to the right side of Mr Duggan's

          18       chest, which had not penetrated.

          19           At the time, in discussions with the pathologists,

          20       we speculated that the bullet that had exited the arm

          21       could have potentially struck something in a pocket

          22       because the wound was almost perfectly circular and it

          23       was the sort of thing you might expect if a bullet had

          24       struck a coin but it hadn't penetrated and there was no

          25       coin, but the view was that that third non-penetrating




           1       injury was due to the bullet that had exited the right

           2       arm.

           3   Q.  Okay.  The other wound through the chest, can you just

           4       describe that briefly for us?

           5   A.  It was just to the right side of the front of the chest

           6       and the bullet had clipped or just nicked one of the

           7       ribs then passed through other of Mr Duggan's internal

           8       organs and exited to the left of the centre of the back.

           9   Q.  Did you examine the jacket that Mr Duggan had been

          10       wearing when he was shot?

          11   A.  Yes, I subsequently examined that back at the

          12       laboratory.

          13   Q.  Can we have a look at photograph CD372 on the screen; is

          14       this the state it was in?

          15   A.  Yes.  These were photographs that were taken by

          16       a colleague, but, yes, they give a good representation

          17       of the jacket when it was initially examined.

          18   Q.  Can we look at the top photograph and zoom in on that

          19       and the indications against it.  We see annotations on

          20       the right with lines going across to denote the bullet

          21       holes.  The top one, is that representing the bullet

          22       hole which caused the arm wound?

          23   A.  In my view it is, yes.

          24   Q.  Then we've got two holes towards what is in fact the

          25       left-hand side of the jacket, at the very bottom and




           1       a little further up.

           2   A.  Yes.

           3   Q.  What was your analysis of those holes?

           4   A.  Well, they had the appearance of bullet holes and

           5       I carried out a simple chemical test, which in my view

           6       confirmed that they were.  I think perhaps at this

           7       stage, because the image isn't very clear, I'm going to

           8       stand up --

           9   Q.  Please do?

          10   A.  -- and just try and show with the jacket that I'm

          11       wearing roughly where these holes were.  I'm holding the

          12       left front of my jacket (indicates), one hole was near

          13       the bottom left front, roughly where my thumb is

          14       (indicates), the other hole was further up, roughly

          15       where my index finger is (indicates).

          16           The nature of the holes suggested that they had been

          17       caused by a single projectile, but that the jacket would

          18       have had to have been folded in this position

          19       (indicates).

          20   Q.  So the inside was presenting itself first, start?

          21   A.  So the bullet had entered from the inside surface of the

          22       jacket, exited, entered and then exited the inside

          23       surface of the jacket on the left (indicates) and,

          24       predicated on the fact that only two shots were fired

          25       during the incident, it follows to me that the -- that




           1       the bullet that caused that area of damage was almost

           2       certainly the bullet that caused the right chest wound.

           3       It follows then that, for that to be the case, the left

           4       side of the jacket, folded in the way that I have just

           5       demonstrated, would have to have been overlying the area

           6       of the right-side chest wound at the time the shot was

           7       fired.

           8           As to how it was in that position, how it was made

           9       to be in that position, I can't comment.

          10   Q.  Very well.  Can we have a look at some photographs with

          11       trajectory rods in.  I wonder if I could have that

          12       folder that I was showing you that's now on the chair?

          13       It's my references -- thank you very much -- at CD30531.

          14           What's happened here is that there's been

          15       a reconstruction of sorts with a replica of the jacket

          16       and a mannequin.  If we focus in on the trajectory rod

          17       towards the top there.  Is that a reasonable

          18       representation of how the jacket must have gone to get

          19       the association with that bullet wound?

          20   A.  Yes.  Yes, it is.  I would reiterate though that this is

          21       showing, as I see it, the bullet being held -- the

          22       jacket, rather, being held by the left hand but I have

          23       no way of saying if it was held by the right or the left

          24       hand or whether, in fact, it was being held at all.

          25       But, yes, in that position.




           1   Q.  So absent then any notion of how the jacket was up

           2       there --

           3   A.  The mechanism I cannot account for, I can just account

           4       for the position.

           5   Q.  While we're on these photographs, can I invite you to

           6       look at CD30543.  We'll be getting some further evidence

           7       to the effect that these trajectory rods are fair

           8       representations of the two wound shots and the one we

           9       see that's pretty much horizontal is the arm wound, as

          10       I call it, and the one that's further downwards is the

          11       chest wound; does that accord with your understanding?

          12   A.  Well, the wound to the right bicep -- you'll hear this

          13       phrase used by the pathologists when they attend -- that

          14       all the descriptions that we give from autopsy describe

          15       the body as being in the anatomical position.

          16           Consequently, the wound to the right bicep in the

          17       anatomical position, was downwards, and the anatomical

          18       position would be for the person to be upright, head

          19       erect, arms to the sides, palms forwards.  So if you can

          20       envisage that, then the wound to the right bicep was

          21       downwards.

          22           The trajectory here potentially is showing -- the

          23       trajectory rod rather, the one that's virtually

          24       horizontal, could well be showing two areas of link

          25       damage to the jacket.  But obviously that would very




           1       much depend on how the jacket was positioned for us then

           2       to get that resulting injury to the arm in the downward

           3       direction as I have described it.

           4   Q.  Can I just test that a little further by reference to

           5       what you have seen of this.  You were obviously present

           6       at the autopsy conducted by Dr Poole; is that right?

           7   A.  I was, yes.

           8   Q.  He did not dissect the arm, did he?

           9   A.  I am not sure that he did dissect the arm, no.

          10   Q.  Were you aware that Professor Pounder, who conducted

          11       a second autopsy, did dissect the arm?

          12   A.  No.

          13   Q.  I want to go back to the bullets.  Now, you took the one

          14       bullet out of the pouch, I don't think that was given

          15       an exhibit reference of its own --

          16   A.  No.  Had it been separated for our purposes it would

          17       have just been called part of the other exhibit.

          18   Q.  When we see reference to the bullet from JMA/10 that's

          19       what we're talking about then.

          20   A.  Yes.

          21   Q.  The other bullet, we know, is associated with a plastic

          22       bag inside the minicab and that's called RES/1; is that

          23       right?

          24   A.  Yes.

          25   Q.  You had a look at both of those bullets, did you not?




           1   A.  I didn't look -- I didn't examine in detail the bullet

           2       RES/1, I saw the bullet JMA/10 at the time we recovered

           3       it but I've seen, obviously, photographs subsequently

           4       and they are very good quality.

           5   Q.  You are satisfied both of those were fired from the MP5

           6       that we know fired two shots?

           7   A.  That was carried out by a colleague but I'm aware that

           8       that's what the finding was, yes.

           9   Q.  Your view, at least when you were asked to report on

          10       this, was that the bullet in the bag, RES/1, was

          11       associated with the arm wound; is that right?

          12   A.  That's correct, yes.

          13   Q.  The bullet which had passed through the chest was

          14       associated with the holster?

          15   A.  Yes.

          16   Q.  Have you seen the work that has been done by Key

          17       Forensic --

          18   A.  I have, yes.

          19   Q.  I want to ask you to comment, if I may, on some findings

          20       that they have come up with, to see whether that -- see

          21       what you say about them and then, at the end, ask you

          22       what your view is.

          23           As I think you appreciate, there are six things

          24       which Philip Seaman has reported on in relation to that.

          25       The first is that the bullet RES/1, the one in the bag,




           1       had a pattern on it that it had picked up from somewhere

           2       and the view he took was that it had been picked up from

           3       the back of Mr Duggan's t-shirt because there was

           4       an embroidery on the back of that.

           5   A.  Yes.

           6   Q.  He's done tests and he's been unable to replicate that,

           7       to be fair, on a reconstruction with some material on

           8       a mannequin.  What's your view of that component of his

           9       reason?

          10   A.  I saw Dr Seaman's original report and my first reaction,

          11       when I skimmed through it, was that the appearance of

          12       the pattern seemed quite persuasive on first glance.

          13           Working on that basis, I then had to ask myself

          14       where on the t-shirt that would have come from.

          15       Dr Seaman went through in his notes to say that he had

          16       found an area on the garment and there was an image

          17       presented of that which looked very similar to the

          18       impression on the bullet, although I do not think it was

          19       ever suggested it matched exactly.  But the question

          20       that immediately came to me at that stage was: if the

          21       bullet has struck the area of the garment hard enough

          22       and firmly enough to pick up the pattern, then it should

          23       have penetrated the garment, given that it's the bullet

          24       that seems to have been suggested has gone all the way

          25       through.




           1           Further to that, for the fabric to resist the bullet

           2       enough for that impression to be made -- and I'm sure

           3       there will be images of this subsequently so for the

           4       moment I'll content myself with just describing this --

           5   Q.  We could show you, if you like, pictures of the pattern.

           6   A.  The thing that follows from that for me is that the

           7       fabric would somehow have to have been supported.  That

           8       is to say that it could not have been hanging loose as

           9       it were because I don't think that it would have offered

          10       enough resistance to a bullet to pick up the impression.

          11       So typically we see these fabric impressions on lead,

          12       and lead parts are projectiles, when the fabric has

          13       a degree of support and resistance to penetration as

          14       a result of having something behind it.

          15   Q.  Let's have a look at CS2263.  Just to show the jury what

          16       we're talking about here.  The top photograph, if we can

          17       zoom in on that, is the microscopically observable

          18       indentations on the mushroom bullet; is that right?

          19   A.  I have to say there was another image, which I think had

          20       juxtaposed the whole surface of the bullet and a fabric

          21       area.

          22   Q.  That's over at CS2265.

          23   A.  This is possibly the best one, yes.

          24   Q.  As I say, when you look at that --

          25   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  What are we looking at there?




           1   A.  Sorry, we're looking at the -- if we look at just the

           2       upper image for the moment, we are looking at the

           3       exposed lead portion of the expanded bullet RES/1, and

           4       I believe the left-hand image represents part of the

           5       woven element of the embroidered design on the t-shirt.

           6   MR UNDERWOOD:  His opinion was that those are a reasonable

           7       match?

           8   A.  And they could have originated as a result of contact

           9       with that --

          10   Q.  Sorry, I just want to show you, to be fair, if we go

          11       back to CS2263 and -- this is a photograph of the back

          12       of the t-shirt --

          13   A.  Yes.

          14   Q.  -- with a trajectory rod -- rather the area in which

          15       I think it was suggested that the bullet could have

          16       picked up those marks.

          17   A.  Yes.

          18   Q.  What you were just telling the jury, I think, is that,

          19       while that may or may not be theoretically possible, you

          20       are not going to pick up marks like that just by going

          21       through a loose piece of fabric, is that it?

          22   A.  More importantly, there's another image that shows that

          23       the hole isn't on that embroidered part of the garment,

          24       it's somewhere else.

          25           I think it was suggested that -- when that was




           1       raised, I think it was suggested that it's possible the

           2       fabric had been folded but it still doesn't, for me,

           3       account for why the bullet hasn't penetrated the fabric

           4       in the area that it's picked up the impression.

           5       I cannot see that the bullet can just move sideways.

           6   Q.  Again, to be fair, look at CS2264.  The exit hole,

           7       I think, is indicated by the top line.

           8   A.  Yes.  But that isn't on the embroidered area --

           9   Q.  Right.

          10   A.  -- which for me is something I can't account for, if

          11       that's what's happened.

          12   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  That's the exit hole on the shirt

          13       worn by --

          14   A.  I'm sorry?

          15   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  That's the exit hole on the back of

          16       the shirt.

          17   A.  Apparently, yes.

          18   MR UNDERWOOD:  Dr Seaman also then has taken casts of the

          19       interior of the minicab we bought to see whether any

          20       pattern to the material in the minicab could match the

          21       indentations on the bullet RES/1.  I know you have just

          22       been shown that finding.

          23   A.  Yes.

          24   Q.  I think your original reaction to Dr Seaman's report was

          25       also to say, well, without knowing what was the




           1       construction of the inside of the minicab you couldn't

           2       rule out --

           3   A.  Yes.

           4   Q.  -- that the indentations on RES/1 could have been formed

           5       by contact with that; is that fair?

           6   A.  That's true, yes.

           7   Q.  What's your view about that now?

           8   A.  I've seen the report.  I understand that there was

           9       an area of damage somewhere in the vehicle -- I cannot

          10       remember where now -- and they couldn't rule it in or

          11       out as a possible -- either a projectile strike or

          12       a possible source of the markings.  But beyond that, it

          13       would appear that, in every other sense, the vehicle

          14       could well have been ruled out.

          15   Q.  All right.  Then the third factor that Dr Seaman took

          16       into account was the power left of a bullet having gone

          17       through either the arm or alternatively through the

          18       chest.

          19   A.  Yes.

          20   Q.  I think what you now know is that he's conducted tests

          21       with ballistic gelatin to replicate what force a bullet

          22       would have had having gone through the equivalent of

          23       25 centimetres of someone's body.  His findings were

          24       that a bullet, which replicates the chest wound here,

          25       would have almost no force after it had come out the




           1       back; do you follow that one?

           2   A.  I do, yes.

           3   Q.  How does that affect your conclusion?

           4   A.  The observations I have -- I briefly read through and

           5       have seen the detailed test that Dr Seaman has carried

           6       out and I understand Dr Pounder was present for a lot of

           7       this as well.  The only reservations I have in this

           8       regard concern the ballistic gelatin itself.  For many

           9       years, gelatin of the type that I suspect was used here

          10       has been used for carrying out tests of this sort, but

          11       it was only recently that it was found that it didn't

          12       completely correspond in the way it was first thought.

          13           I know that when tests like this are carried out

          14       now, the ballistic gelatin is made up in a particular

          15       way, at a particular temperature and has to have been

          16       stored at a particular temperature immediately before

          17       use.  That's the only way that you can guarantee that

          18       you get exactly the same performance.

          19           If all that's been adhered to, I would have to

          20       accept those findings.

          21           I'm not sure, though, to what extent the gelatin is

          22       intended to represent an average body mass, as opposed

          23       to muscle, which obviously is going to be different.

          24   Q.  So in order for the jury to get a proper picture of that

          25       I'm going to need to ask Dr Seaman about the preparation




           1       if you like and what it was taken to represent, yes?

           2   A.  It would be helpful, yes.

           3   Q.  That's kind, thank you.

           4           Then there is the fourth matter, which is the fact

           5       that the two bullets -- the RES/1 bullet and the bullet

           6       in at the harness -- had both lost some weight --

           7   A.  Yes.

           8   Q.  -- and that the bullet RES/1 had lost less weight and

           9       that it was reasonable to assume that the weight it lost

          10       corresponded to a fragment left in Mr Duggan's chest; do

          11       you understand that?  That was his reasoning.

          12   A.  I think it actually says that he applies the same level

          13       of probability to either, as I understand it.  I think

          14       he says that he couldn't rule out the possibility

          15       that -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- that it came from

          16       either bullet.

          17   Q.  All right.  It may be that I have misunderstood that.

          18       Obviously, you having read his report, that part of it

          19       does not influence your conclusion; would that be fair?

          20   A.  No, but potentially we'll come on to what my feelings

          21       are about this fragment subsequently.

          22   Q.  Please tell us now.

          23   A.  Well, there are a couple of issues in respect of what

          24       we've just discussed.  If I can go back, before we get

          25       too far away from it, for the remaining energy that the




           1       projectile has being very slight, having penetrated that

           2       depth of gelatin.  With the caveats I have already

           3       mentioned in respect of the gelatin's preparation,

           4       et cetera, leaving that to one side, the one thing,

           5       having read through the report and skimmed through to

           6       the areas that were of interest, what seems to -- I am

           7       not suggesting it's been ignored but it's not mentioned.

           8           I have no doubt, unless something shows me

           9       otherwise, that the wound to the right side of the chest

          10       was caused by the bullet that exited the arm.  It then

          11       would suggest that, having caused that non-penetrating

          12       injury, the bullet that exited the arm failed to

          13       penetrate the chest but then went on to penetrate --

          14       I think it's called Cordura, it's that heavy woven nylon

          15       of the holster -- the pouch --

          16   Q.  Ballistic Nylon, is it?

          17   A.  -- and then almost through the radio set itself.  So the

          18       question I immediately asked myself: if that was the

          19       case, why then didn't it penetrate the chest?

          20           So leaving that to one side, the one thing that

          21       doesn't seem to be taken into account in these tests, in

          22       terms of the remaining energy, is the fact that the

          23       bullet, having struck the side of the chest, will have

          24       lost some energy, comprehensively, and that doesn't seem

          25       to have been taken into account.  Obviously it follows




           1       that, in crude terms, if you fire a snooker ball towards

           2       the cushion on a snooker table, it will rebound at

           3       an angle but it will obviously be going slower after it

           4       rebounds than when it's struck and it's not going slower

           5       by the amount of the distance it's travelled, it's going

           6       slower because it's struck something.

           7   Q.  So, in your opinion, is the jury likely to be helped on

           8       this question by questions to pathologists about the

           9       precise mechanism of that strike?

          10   A.  I think it would help.  If the pathologists cannot

          11       account for that wound any other way then we have to

          12       consider that that's a ricochet and that would obviously

          13       affect the remaining energy that projectile has.

          14   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Can I just ask you, with the arm

          15       perhaps pointing out on your own body, where we're

          16       talking with on the arm and the chest?

          17   A.  Shall I stand up.

          18   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, please Mr Tomei, thank you.

          19   A.  If this is the right bicep, the wounds were here

          20       (indicates).

          21   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Can you turn round so the jury can

          22       see?

          23   A.  In the position that I'm showing with my fingers, this

          24       is a rough view, obviously, and while we're on that

          25       subject, the wound to the right side of the chest that




           1       had not penetrated was around here (indicates), which is

           2       just on the right outer aspect of the chest.  I think

           3       there are other reports that say that the arm has to

           4       have been in a particular position.  So ignore the lower

           5       half of my arm but the upper part of my arm would have

           6       to have been in roughly this sort of position for those

           7       wounds to be coincident.

           8   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Realising the time, we need to have

           9       a break at some stage.  You tell us when.

          10   MR UNDERWOOD:  I've only got a couple more issues, so I'll

          11       probably only be a couple more minutes.

          12   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Do you want to complete your

          13       questions?

          14   MR UNDERWOOD:  If I may.

          15           On that point, I am now going to the fifth factor in

          16       Dr Seaman's analysis, which is that he did a test

          17       through five centimetres of gelatin to attempt to

          18       replicate --

          19   A.  Yes.

          20   Q.  -- a bicep wound.  That allowed enough residual energy

          21       from the bullet to cause damage to a replica of the

          22       radio and holster of the sort you saw, I think?

          23   A.  Yes.

          24   Q.  Is your caution about that then that it's all very well

          25       going through five centimetres of gelatin but that




           1       doesn't take account of the (inaudible) on the chest, as

           2       well as that?

           3   A.  Yes.  Because, as I said, it would strike me as

           4       surprising that, the bullet having enough energy to do

           5       that, why has it not penetrated the chest, and again

           6       going back to the earlier point, assuming that the

           7       pathologists agree that that was the cause of that chest

           8       wound.

           9   Q.  Then the final, the sixth factor, that Dr Seaman had

          10       regard to was that the bullet RES/1, had some fibres

          11       attached to it which he tested and they were consistent

          12       with the t-shirt whereas the bullet that came out of the

          13       holster had no such fibres.  Therefore, he propounds the

          14       theory or propounds that that supports his theory of the

          15       arm strike hitting the radio; what do you say to that?

          16   A.  We go back again to the wound on the right side of the

          17       chest because it would follow that, had the last thing

          18       that bullet struck been the t-shirt, then I would have

          19       expected that the fibres that were on it would be from

          20       that t-shirt.  So had it exited the arm and then gone on

          21       to strike the t-shirt overlying the chest -- at which

          22       point I would suggest it had the potential to pick up

          23       the impressed and embossed embroidery pattern, because

          24       in that area, obviously, the fabric is supported in the

          25       way I described earlier, such that the impression could




           1       be made on the lead bullet -- so my suspicion would be,

           2       if that was the case, then it would suggest that the

           3       bullet struck the right side of the chest and picked up

           4       the fabric or the fibre of the t-shirt impact.

           5   Q.  Did the arm wound go through the t-shirt then?

           6   A.  No, I'm suggesting that the arm wound had gone -- the

           7       projectile that exited the arm wound had then gone on to

           8       strike the t-shirt overlying the chest.  I am not

           9       suggesting it struck the sleeve.

          10   Q.  No, but you are saying it struck the t-shirt, are you?

          11   A.  It must have done if that wound was caused by that

          12       projectile.

          13   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Sorry, we've got the wound going --

          14       you've got a coat on top of the t-shirt.

          15   A.  I'll stand up again.  So if we're correct about this

          16       particular trajectory, the projectile has gone through

          17       the bicep, as I have described earlier (indicates), it's

          18       gone through the jacket in some area around here

          19       (indicates), potentially through the armpit area, and

          20       unless the t-shirt was pulled up exposing the flesh,

          21       then the bullet, having come onto the chest, would have

          22       to have struck the t-shirt.

          23   MR UNDERWOOD:  It didn't go through the t-shirt, did it?

          24   A.  I'm not sure, the t-shirt was not in a good state but it

          25       certainly didn't go through the skin.  It damaged the




           1       skin but it didn't --

           2   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Are there holes in the jacket at

           3       that point?

           4   A.  The area around where that bullet came out is rather

           5       confusing because the jacket is very heavily disrupted

           6       in this area (indicates), there's damage around the

           7       armpit, I think there's the medical cuts and what have

           8       you been made as well.  So interpretation as to where

           9       the bullet went in that area of the jacket has certainly

          10       proved impossible for me.

          11   MR UNDERWOOD:  It's really impossible to say then whether

          12       that bullet would actually have come into contact with

          13       the t-shirt one way or the other.

          14   A.  No, I think it would have had to have hit the t-shirt.

          15   Q.  In order to cause the abrasion, the wound, whatever we

          16       call it, on the chest?

          17   A.  Yes.  Again, I reiterate, as long as we are satisfied

          18       and the pathologists are satisfied, that that wound is

          19       related to a bullet impact.

          20   MR UNDERWOOD:  So again, that's something we can go back to

          21       the pathologist on, in terms of both the arm wound and

          22       whatever one calls the wound on the chest; would that be

          23       right?

          24   A.  Yes.  But keep in mind that I would also suggest that,

          25       if that is the case, then the impression on the nose of




           1       the bullet RES/1 could have come from striking the

           2       embroidered pattern at that point.

           3   Q.  Before I conclude, it will just be sensible of me to get

           4       you to identify your reports so that your reports can go

           5       up to the jury.  Did you initially report on

           6       11 August 2011 --

           7   A.  I believe so, yes.

           8   Q.  -- and produced a further report on 7 December, I think,

           9       2011?

          10   A.  Yes.

          11   Q.  Then another one on 6 March 2013?

          12   A.  Yes.

          13   Q.  Would it be a fair summary of your evidence, having read

          14       Dr Seaman's work, that you stand by your opinions?

          15   A.  Yes.  Simply because of the points I've raised that

          16       haven't been addressed to my satisfaction yet, and

          17       again, predicated on that, two shots fired and that the

          18       chest wound was due to the bullet exiting the right arm.

          19   MR UNDERWOOD:  Very well.  Thank you very much.  There will

          20       obviously be further questions.

          21   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you very much, Mr Tomei.  What

          22       we'll do is have our break now.  I will ask the jury to

          23       leave us for a short time, please.



           3   (12.07 pm)

           4                         (A short break)

           5   (12.26 pm)

           6   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you very much.  Could we have

           7       the jury in then, please.

           8                  (In the presence of the jury)

           9   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you.  Yes, Mr Underwood.

          10   MR UNDERWOOD:  Mr Tomei has indicated there's something else

          11       he would like me to ask him about so I'll do that, if

          12       I may.

          13   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  All right.

          14   MR UNDERWOOD:  It's the mushrooming of the bullet RES/1 and

          15       the possibility that that mushrooming could have been

          16       caused if the bullet had struck a rib; what would you

          17       like to say about that?

          18   A.  Yes.  It's one of the things I considered when I first

          19       saw Dr Seaman's report.  To me, it's unlikely that --

          20       remember the suggestion is the bullet RES1 has struck

          21       Mr Duggan's rib.  There are studies that tend to suggest

          22       that expanding projectiles of this type can have their

          23       ability to expand compromised to a greater or lesser

          24       extent as a result of such an impact.

          25           The one thing that strikes me about the bullet RES1



           1       is that it is perfectly symmetrically mushroomed and

           2       expanded, and I would find that inconsistent with the

           3       fact that it struck a rib and then expanded in the way

           4       that it has.

           5   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Could you just tell us about

           6       mushrooming bullets, generally?

           7   A.  The first thing is that the -- in general usage, the

           8       first thing to have is that the bullets aren't intended

           9       to cause more damage.  The primary aim of an expanding

          10       projectile is that the bullet remains inside the primary

          11       target.

          12           Again, I'm sorry for the way this sounds in the

          13       context of what we're discussing, but the intention is

          14       that when a shot is fired at a particular target, that

          15       the shot remains within that target, does not

          16       over penetrate and go on to strike someone else.  So

          17       that's why we have expanding projectiles --

          18   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  So you have a 9mm bullet which gets

          19       bigger?

          20   A.  Yes.  There is a cavity in the nose of the bullet and

          21       they are often described as dum-dum for historical

          22       reasons.  The idea is that the fluid mass essentially

          23       that the bullet strikes causes this cavity to open up,

          24       present a larger area, causing the bullet to give up its

          25       energy more quickly and to slow down more rapidly and,




           1       again, to reduce the risk of what's called

           2       over penetration.  So that's why we have the expanding

           3       bullets; that's what they are intended to do.

           4           It would seem to be the case that the Americans have

           5       found that striking bone such as a rib, even nicking the

           6       bone, I think the report said, can compromise the

           7       expansion of that bullet.  I am not saying the bullet

           8       wouldn't expand but it strikes me that the bullet RES1

           9       is perfectly symmetrical.  So I would be very surprised

          10       if it would have expanded to that extent having struck

          11       the rib.

          12   MR UNDERWOOD:  In fact, let's look at a photograph of it

          13       that we haven't yet seen.  It's at CS2261.  It sort of

          14       petals out, does it?

          15   A.  It does.  There's possibly a better photograph than that

          16       elsewhere within the bundles that shows the bullet taken

          17       from directly above.

          18   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Is that the front -- top of the

          19       bullet or the bottom of the bullet?

          20   A.  This is the expanded nose of the bullet, so this is

          21       where the hollow cavity would have been and this is

          22       where the material of the bullet would have been at its

          23       thinnest and the part that was designed to expand,

          24       exactly as it has done there.

          25   MR UNDERWOOD:  Very well.  Also over the break, I think,




           1       thanks to Mr Stern, you were shown a photograph of the

           2       arm wound.

           3   A.  Yes.

           4   Q.  Would you like to say anything about the positioning of

           5       the wounds?

           6   A.  Yes.  It's nowhere near as a downward angle as

           7       I demonstrated earlier.  So the image that you showed

           8       with the trajectory rod is much more plausible.  I'm

           9       afraid I relied on a very poor sketch that I'd made at

          10       autopsy and it's misled me, I'm afraid.

          11   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  So the photograph that we have seen

          12       on a number of occasions now, with the trajectory rod in

          13       it, you think that's more or less --

          14   A.  It's more believable to me as being an accurate

          15       representation, yes.

          16   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  More accurate than you thought.

          17   MR UNDERWOOD:  That's very kind.

          18   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Right, there will be some questions

          19       now.

          20           Mr Thomas?

          21   MR THOMAS:  Sir, there's a matter of law I wish to raise

          22       with you.

          23   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  There we are.

          24           Sorry, I am just making a final note of what you

          25       said.


           1           Right, members of the jury, sorry about this, could

           2       you just leave us for a short time, perhaps not go too

           3       far away.  All right.  Thank you.




          12                (The witness returned into court)

          13   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  The jury can come back into court

          14       now, thank you.

          15                  (In the presence of the jury)

          16   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you very much, members of the

          17       jury.  The legal issue has been resolved and we are

          18       happy to have Mr Tomei back in the witness box and

          19       questions to be asked.

          20           Is that for you, Mr Thomas?

          21                   MR FRANCO TOMEI (continued)

          22                      Questions by MR THOMAS

          23   MR THOMAS:  Good afternoon, Mr Tomei.  I represent the loved

          24       ones of Mark Duggan.

          25           I have a few questions for you.  I just want to see



           1       if I can assist the court with just trying to make this

           2       as simple and understandable as possible, for my part if

           3       any, okay?

           4           One of the issues in this case, as you rightly know,

           5       is Mark Duggan was hit with two bullets.

           6   A.  Yes.

           7   Q.  Okay.  One bullet ends up hitting a police officer who's

           8       standing behind Mark --

           9   A.  Yes.

          10   Q.  -- another bullet ends up in the minicab.

          11   A.  Yes.

          12   Q.  Would you agree that the location of those bullets is

          13       important in relation to where Mark is standing?

          14   A.  Yes.  Within limits, and I qualify that by saying that

          15       it's often the case that material is disturbed at scenes

          16       of incidents such as this.  But with that in mind, yes,

          17       in basic terms, it is important, yes.

          18   Q.  Also important, in terms of Mark's positioning, whether

          19       he's upright, whether he's leaning, whether he's on the

          20       ground, that sort of thing?

          21   A.  Yes.

          22   Q.  Yes.  Therefore, your evidence is important to the jury

          23       to try to assist them to understand some of those

          24       matters.

          25   A.  Yes.




           1   Q.  Now, you changed your evidence during the short

           2       adjournment when you were shown a photograph; that is

           3       right, isn't it?

           4   A.  I didn't change my evidence, I made a --

           5   Q.  Let's test it --

           6   A.  I made a mistake in terms of how I remembered the wound

           7       and it's my fault for not looking at an image.

           8   Q.  All right.  I wonder if we can have the image of the

           9       mannequin with the trajectory rods going through it.

          10           I wonder if that image could just be enlarged so we

          11       can see the rods.  Now, you can see that one rod is more

          12       or less horizontal with the ground; do you see that?

          13       That's the one that's under the arm.

          14   A.  Yes.

          15   Q.  The other rod is at a downward angle, entering the right

          16       side of the chest and coming out on the lower left side

          17       of the back, just past the mid-line, yes?

          18   A.  Yes.

          19   Q.  The evidence that we've heard so far is that those rods

          20       illustrate the trajectory, the track wounds, of the

          21       bullets; you understood that, correct?

          22   A.  Yes.  Let me pause there briefly.  I think I said at the

          23       time I don't think I have any issues with the downward

          24       angled rod, but I think I may have said at the time that

          25       there was a suggestion that it had gone through the




           1       holes or the damaged site on the jacket, but I accept

           2       what you're saying, yes.

           3   Q.  Right.  Just so we're clear and we're clear in relation

           4       to the evidence that you gave earlier on, I want to see

           5       what your evidence is now, you having seen and been

           6       reminded of the injury to the arm.

           7   A.  Yes.

           8   Q.  When you initially described that injury to the arm,

           9       I think you indicated it like that (indicates).

          10   A.  I did, yes.

          11   Q.  If everybody can see what I'm doing, that's how you

          12       indicated the injury to the arm (indicates).

          13   A.  Yes.

          14   Q.  You indicated that it was your belief that that injury

          15       was more of a downward injury.

          16   A.  Yes.

          17   Q.  You have now seen the photograph to Mark Duggan's bicep.

          18   A.  Yes.

          19   Q.  In fact, the injury, if you could just confirm this --

          20       I don't want to cause the family distress and show

          21       an image that we don't need to show -- so you have just

          22       seen the image, can you just confirm this?

          23   A.  Yes.

          24   Q.  The injury is not like that, one entry there and one

          25       entry there, the image -- the entry is there and there




           1       (indicates).

           2   A.  I can't see your other hand.  What I will say is that --

           3   Q.  Can you see it now (indicates)?

           4   A.  There is a very slight downward angle but nowhere near

           5       as much as I indicated originally.

           6   Q.  Can you see my thumb now?

           7   A.  Yes, but I cannot see your other finger.  You are making

           8       that look almost horizontal.  It's slightly downwards

           9       but it is towards horizontal, yes.

          10   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Downwards in which way?  We are now

          11       more pinching our hands round, rather than that way.

          12   A.  If I can try again.

          13   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, please.

          14   A.  There would appear to be one wound here (indicates) and

          15       the other wound is the right distance away but it is

          16       slightly lower, but nowhere near as far as I had

          17       indicated originally.  So it's closer to the horizontal

          18       but it is still very slightly downwards, very slightly

          19       downwards.

          20   MR THOMAS:  Sir, would you just give me one moment.

          21   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, of course.

          22   MR THOMAS:  (Pause)

          23           I want you to have a look at that photograph again.

          24       Again, if I can do this without showing the distressing

          25       image, and that's how I intend to do it.  I wonder if




           1       you can have a look at the photograph, just for

           2       yourself.  I am going to hand it up now.  (Handed)

           3           It's the image with the yellow Post-it.  If you

           4       could just look at that very carefully to yourself.

           5   A.  (Pause)

           6           Yes.

           7   Q.  Right.  Now, what I'm suggesting is -- I wonder if the

           8       Judge could just see that image as well.

           9   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, of course.  (Handed)

          10           Yes.  Okay.  Do you want the witness to have it

          11       back?

          12   MR THOMAS:  May I have the image back myself, please?

          13       (Handed)

          14           I am going to suggest to you that there is no

          15       discernible downward angle on that bicep, it's more or

          16       less horizontal; do you accept that?

          17   A.  To me there appears to be a very slight downward angle.

          18       But, as I have said before, nowhere near as much as

          19       I had originally indicated but very slight, I fully

          20       accept that.

          21   Q.  I'm going to put the suggestion very clearly, this may

          22       be a matter ultimately for the jury to decide

          23       themselves, but there is no discernible angle on that

          24       wound from where it enters one side of the bicep and

          25       where it exits the other side of the bicep.  That's what




           1       I'm suggesting to you; do you accept that?

           2   A.  I have said it a number of times now.  There appears to

           3       be a very slight downward bias.

           4   Q.  A very slight downward bias?

           5   A.  Yes.  It's the same form of words I've used already.

           6   Q.  All right.  Let's have a look at the trajectory rods

           7       again, if we could.  So, the evidence that we've heard

           8       so far is, and this is from the shooter, V53, is that he

           9       remains constant, in other words he's got his gun in the

          10       aim position --

          11   A.  You're indicating that he's firing the gun from his

          12       shoulder.

          13   Q.  That's what he indicated to us (indicates) --

          14   A.  Okay, thank you.

          15   Q.  -- in that sort of position (indicates).

          16   A.  Yes.

          17   Q.  Yes.  He's got his gun in the aim position and he fires

          18       off both shots and he doesn't change his position; do

          19       you follow?

          20   A.  Yes.

          21   Q.  Right.  Now, if we can deal with the first -- this is

          22       the horizontal trajectory, okay?  You would agree that

          23       if V53 remains in a constant position, the -- it would

          24       have to be Mark Duggan who was changing positions for

          25       one shot to be in a horizontal line and a second shot to




           1       be in a markedly downward direction; would you agree

           2       with that?

           3   A.  That presupposes that the angle that we're showing here

           4       for the torso is correct.  It would follow that the arm

           5       has to be in a particular position, if we're correct

           6       about the wound to the side of the chest being

           7       coincident with the arm.  So that is, in a sense, fixed.

           8           In respect of the downward trajectory, and

           9       I deliberately asked you the question if the officer was

          10       firing from the shoulder -- if that -- if the torso was

          11       in this position for the downward shot, then it would

          12       suggest that the shot was fired from a substantial

          13       height above, which to me looks unnatural or

          14       implausible, so I'm just going to say that the position

          15       of the torso has to have been in a different position

          16       for that shot.

          17   Q.  Yes.

          18   A.  Because you are asking me "the only thing that could

          19       have changed was", so that's where I'm going.

          20   Q.  Can I make it clear that I am not suggesting that Mark

          21       Duggan was in that position as we are seeing in the

          22       photograph, that's not my suggestion.  My question is

          23       a very simple and straightforward one: just using where

          24       we can see the angles of the bullets entering and

          25       passing through Mark Duggan's body, if the officer




           1       remains constant, and I have demonstrated what the

           2       officer's evidence is, the person who has to be moving

           3       and changing their position has to be Mark Duggan?

           4   A.  Yes.

           5   Q.  Right.  Let's take the arm shot.  I'm going to suggest

           6       to you, from the way the trajectory is, that -- I don't

           7       think you disagree with this -- the arm shot, the bullet

           8       that passes through the arm is the one that hits the

           9       officer's radio behind him; correct?

          10   A.  No.

          11   Q.  You don't accept that?

          12   A.  No, my view is completely the opposite.

          13   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  We are hearing lots of evidence.

          14   A.  Of course.

          15   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Your conclusions are based on what

          16       you have told us looking at the bullets, the marks and

          17       matters of that nature.

          18   A.  My original conclusion was that the bullet that struck

          19       the radio was most likely the one that went through

          20       Mr Duggan's chest and exited his back.

          21   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes.

          22   A.  That's my --

          23   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  On your examination of your

          24       material.

          25   A.  Yes.




           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Obviously there's a whole load of

           2       other --

           3   A.  No, I've just been asked to agree with my view that it's

           4       the one that's gone through the arm, which it --

           5   MR THOMAS:  Just so everybody is clear, just in case they

           6       were unclear, you say on your evidence -- you say that

           7       the -- where we can see the downward trajectory --

           8   A.  Yes.

           9   Q.  -- that is the bullet that hits the radio --

          10   A.  Yes.

          11   Q.  -- and where we see the horizontal trajectory, that is

          12       the bullet that ends up in the plastic bag in the car?

          13   A.  Yes.

          14   Q.  Can I test that?

          15   A.  Of course.

          16   Q.  Would you accept this: the bullet that passes through

          17       the chest and comes out of the back passes through more

          18       of Mark's body mass?

          19   A.  Yes.  Yes.

          20   Q.  The bullet that passes under the arm passes through less

          21       of Mark's body mass?

          22   A.  Yes.

          23   Q.  When a bullet passes through substantially more body

          24       mass, what happens to the energy of that bullet?

          25   A.  It depends on the shape of the bullet.




           1   Q.  Well, assuming that the -- that you're using the same

           2       ammunition.

           3   A.  In simple terms, then you would expect the one that

           4       travels more to lose more energy.

           5   Q.  Yes.  In other words, the bullet that passes through

           6       a lot more body mass loses more energy, in other words

           7       it slows down.  By the time it ends up where it ends up,

           8       it has less force, correct?  That's schoolboy/schoolgirl

           9       physics.

          10   A.  If we go back to what I said earlier, it depends on the

          11       shape of the bullet and if the two bullets are the same

          12       shape then yes, that's the case.  I just wanted to

          13       remind you of what one of my views is -- is that the

          14       bullet that's mushroomed very evenly has obviously given

          15       up lots of energy as a result of that expansion, that's

          16       what it's supposed to do.  The bullet that's gone

          17       through Mr Duggan's torso has struck a rib.  It's nicked

          18       a rib, it hasn't gone through the rib, it's just damaged

          19       a rib.  It's my opinion that that caused the bullet not

          20       to mushroom in the way it should.

          21           Now, if it hasn't mushroomed to the same extent as

          22       the other one, then it has the potential that it will

          23       not give up as much energy.  I understand exactly what

          24       you're saying, but we have to work on the assumption,

          25       from what you're saying, that both bullets expanded in




           1       exactly the same way, but I don't believe they did.

           2   Q.  All right.  Can I ask you this: so part of your opinion

           3       is based on the fact that -- can we just have the

           4       trajectory rods picture up again because I think it just

           5       helps.

           6           So part of your opinion is based on the fact that

           7       one bullet was mushroomed; is that right?

           8   A.  Yes, mushroomed to the extent -- I think, because when

           9       I went back in after the break, I wanted to make the

          10       point that the expansion was very symmetrical and was,

          11       in a sense, perfect for what the bullet was supposed to

          12       do.  I made the point, and it was the point that

          13       I wanted to make, that I didn't feel that it would

          14       expand in that way, having struck the rib.

          15   Q.  Right.  Just so we're clear on this.  If we look at the

          16       two rods, the one under the arm and the one travelling

          17       downwards from the upper chest to the lower back --

          18   A.  Yes.

          19   Q.  -- you are saying that the one under the arm was the

          20       bullet that mushroomed?

          21   A.  Yes.

          22   Q.  Right.  Now, were you aware of the experiments that

          23       Mr Seaman has done in relation to firing similar

          24       ammunition through pigs?

          25   A.  I saw the report this morning, yes.




           1   Q.  Because I believe the evidence, in relation to the

           2       mushrooming that we are likely to hear, is that when

           3       these experiments were done firing through the torsos of

           4       pigs -- and I understand the reason why they use pig

           5       torsos is that it's a fairly similar replica to see

           6       how -- to see the reaction of the bullets as they would

           7       be on a human being.

           8   A.  I would add to that -- and again, I'm sorry for the way

           9       this sounds, but the pig has to be extremely fresh,

          10       freshly killed.

          11   Q.  We can ask Dr Seaman about that when he comes to give

          12       evidence.

          13   A.  I just mention it because it is an important factor.

          14   Q.  We can so Dr Seaman about that when he comes to give his

          15       evidence.

          16           Were you aware that when the experiments were done,

          17       using -- firing and hitting the ribs of pigs, there was

          18       the mushroom effect on each occasion?  So the mushroom

          19       effect that you say that you wouldn't have expected

          20       because a rib had been hit or ricocheted, that's exactly

          21       what happened when Dr Seaman reproduced this on several

          22       occasions?

          23   A.  Well, I didn't say that the projectile wouldn't

          24       mushroom.  I said that I didn't think it would mushroom

          25       to the same extent or it would not mushroom perfectly.




           1           The other factor to have in mind here is -- again,

           2       it's how much tissue there was on the pigs between the

           3       rib and the outside.  So how much tissue did it actually

           4       go through?  Did it go through half a centimetre, did it

           5       go through two centimetres?  Because that would affect

           6       the degree of expansion of the bullet even before it got

           7       to the rib.  But if it didn't penetrate much tissue then

           8       the expansion wouldn't have started to any great extent,

           9       so that would be another factor that I would need to see

          10       and would need to have been taken into account.

          11   Q.  Let me move on.  So that deals with the mushrooming and

          12       whether or not you get mushrooming when it hits the rib

          13       or not --

          14   A.  Not whether or not you get mushrooming --

          15   Q.  To the same extent?

          16   A.  Exactly, yes.  Thank you.

          17   Q.  I am going to suggest the evidence is of Mr Seaman is

          18       that you do get mushrooming to the extent that you have

          19       here.  But we'll put at that had to one side.  Let's

          20       move on.

          21   A.  Yes.

          22   Q.  Can I deal then with the fibres.  I just want to tie

          23       this up in the jury's mind, just so they understand what

          24       fibres we are talking about on which bullet, just so

          25       it's absolutely clear.




           1           The fibres that you were discussing earlier on were

           2       found on the bullet with the mushroom effect, correct?

           3   A.  I'm going to repeat this because obviously I haven't

           4       examined any fibres but I think it was suggested that

           5       fibres from the t-shirt were found on the bullet RES/1.

           6       Is that the mushroom bullet?

           7   Q.  Yes.

           8   A.  Okay.

           9   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  RES/1 is the bullet in the bag --

          10   MR THOMAS:  Yes, exactly.

          11   A.  Yes.

          12   Q.  Just so everybody is clear, so there is no confusion --

          13   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  -- not in the holster.

          14   MR THOMAS:  -- the two bullets are RES/1, that's the one in

          15       the bag in the minicab, and JMA/10, that's the one that

          16       hit -- well, that's the one that was outside the -- and

          17       hit the radio --

          18   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  And the holster.

          19   A.  Yes.

          20   MR THOMAS:  -- and the holster.  So those are the two

          21       bullets that we are talking about.  Again, just for

          22       absolute clarity, the suggestion is fibres -- I'll come

          23       to where the fibres may have come from -- the fibres

          24       were found on RES/1, that is the mushroom bullet.

          25   A.  Yes.




           1   Q.  Okay.

           2   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Just be careful -- you say both

           3       bullets would mushroom but you're talking about one

           4       that's mushroomed symmetrically?

           5   A.  I just made the point that RES/1 has mushroomed

           6       perfectly symmetrically and, as I said before, I would

           7       have -- I would be surprised if it would mushroom that

           8       perfectly had it struck a rib.

           9   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Struck a rib, yes.

          10   A.  That's as much as I'm told.

          11   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  That's what I wanted to make

          12       absolutely sure.

          13   MR THOMAS:  I note the time.

          14   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  It's important evidence and we're

          15       following it and I'm sure Mr Tomei would be very happy

          16       to come and give evidence at 2 o'clock.  I think that

          17       would be a convenient moment then, in that event.

          18           So thank you very much for all your concentration,

          19       members of the jury, I'll ask for the cameras to be

          20       turned off.  If you would like to leave us for the hour

          21       break.




           4   (1.02 pm)

           5                     (The short adjournment)

           6   (2.00 pm)

           7   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Right.  Do you want the jury in?

           8       Right, we'll have the jury in now, please.

           9                  (In the presence of the jury)

          10   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Right.  Thank you very much, members

          11       of the jury.

          12           Mr Tomei, you are still under the oath, affirmation

          13       that you took earlier, and Mr Thomas has more questions.

          14           Mr Thomas?

          15   MR THOMAS:  Can I just come back to one of the questions

          16       that I asked you just before lunch.  It was in relation

          17       to the loss of energy if the bullet passes through

          18       a mass.  You made the point that it depends on the

          19       bullet; do you remember saying that?

          20   A.  On the shape.

          21   Q.  It depends on the shape of the bullet.  Did you not

          22       examine the bullets in this case?

          23   A.  I saw the bullet that came out of the radio but I didn't

          24       do a detailed examination of the bullet that was --

          25   Q.  You didn't do a detailed examination of the bullet --



           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  You saw the bullet from the radio,

           2       as you told us.  Please continue.

           3   A.  No, as I said, I saw photographs of it and a photograph

           4       with a scale, not the image that's been shown here,

           5       a different photograph.

           6   MR THOMAS:  Did you not ask whether the ammunition was the

           7       same.

           8   A.  I'm sorry?

           9   Q.  Did you not ask whether the ammunition was the same?

          10   A.  I don't understand the question.  The same as what,

          11       sorry?

          12   Q.  The same bullets, there were two bullets.

          13   A.  My understanding was that they were the same, yes.

          14   Q.  Okay.  So when I put to you earlier on, just before

          15       lunch, about bullets passing through mass and the

          16       greater the mass, the more energy is going to be used up

          17       and it would slow the bullet down and you added "Well,

          18       it depends on the types of bullets" --

          19   A.  No, I'll say it again: it depends on the shape of the

          20       bullet.

          21   Q.  Did you not ask whether these bullets were the same

          22       ammunition therefore the same shape?

          23   A.  Right, I'll say this again: as far as I'm aware, the

          24       ammunition is the same, but I go back to the point

          25       I made earlier, which is that I think the shapes of the



           1       bullets as they penetrated was different, not because

           2       the bullets were different, but because of the way they

           3       behaved as a result of what they had struck.

           4   Q.  I see.

           5   A.  That's what I was trying to get across.

           6   Q.  All right, okay.

           7   A.  As I say, my view is that the potential for the bullet

           8       that went through the torso to expand fully may have

           9       been compromised by striking the rib.

          10   Q.  Okay.  Help me with this: did you see the t-shirt?

          11   A.  No, I didn't examine it.

          12   Q.  Did you see photos of the t-shirt?

          13   A.  I think I may well have done, yes.

          14   Q.  Do you have your report?

          15   A.  Yes, but I didn't examine the t-shirt.

          16   Q.  No.  Do you have your reports?

          17   A.  I have my reports, yes.

          18   Q.  Can you just fish out your reports?

          19   A.  You mean my statements?

          20   Q.  Well --

          21   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, I think so.  Once you have got

          22       your statements there, no doubt Mr Thomas will point you

          23       to what he wants to refer to you.

          24   MR THOMAS:  You've got your statements/reports there.  Can

          25       you tell us whether or not you examined the photographs



           1       of the t-shirt?

           2   A.  Did I examine --

           3   Q.  Did you look at the photographs of the t-shirt?

           4   A.  I have certainly seen photographs of the t-shirt but

           5       that's not the same as examining it.  So I haven't had

           6       a detailed look at the t-shirt.

           7   Q.  Do you remember what the t-shirt looked like?

           8   A.  (Pause)

           9           Vaguely, yes.

          10   Q.  Do you remember if there was anything distinctive about

          11       the t-shirt?

          12   A.  There's the embroidered pattern which was -- covered

          13       a large area of the back, from what I can remember.

          14   Q.  Okay.  Can I then come onto the issue in relation to the

          15       fibres.  Again, just so we're clear, we're talking about

          16       the mushroomed RES/1 bullet.  This is the bullet which

          17       you believe went through the arm, because of the

          18       mushroom type shape, and you said that -- you believed

          19       that it wouldn't have had that typical mushroom feature

          20       if it had gone through the mass, for the reasons that

          21       you have already given, yes?

          22   A.  If it had struck the bone.

          23   Q.  Yes.  Now, fibres were found on that bullet RES/1, yes?

          24       You know about the fibres that have been found?

          25   A.  No, I've been told today that fibres were found.




           1   Q.  Okay.  Can I just put to you that examination in

           2       relation to that particular bullet?

           3   A.  Yes.

           4   Q.  Sir, if you wish to follow, I'm just putting just the

           5       evidence in relation to the fibres and it's CD029913.

           6           Can I just read this to you?

           7   A.  Of course, yes.

           8   Q.  Okay.  So:

           9           "RES/1, bullet from the taxi" --

          10           I wonder if that can be got up on the screen.  It's

          11       the very last paragraph on that page:

          12           "A number of fibres (some forming small tufts) and

          13       a large tuft of fibres were noted in the circled area on

          14       the taping RES/1.  A total of 14 fibres and the larger

          15       tuft of fibres were recovered from the adhesive tape and

          16       compared with the fabrics comprising the 'bird' logo on

          17       the rear of the t-shirt ..."

          18           Just pause there, when we come to it I'm going to

          19       ask for a picture of the t-shirt to be put up so we know

          20       what we're talking about.  It's my understanding that

          21       Mark Duggan's t-shirt had a distinctive pattern on the

          22       back of the t-shirt, in the shape of a bird --

          23   A.  Yes.

          24   Q.  -- which is JMA/22:

          25           "... and the dark fabrics (within the lining) of the




           1       puffa jacket (JMA/24).

           2           "Eight of the individual fibres were found to be

           3       indistinguishable in colour and microscopic appearance

           4       from the two types of fibre comprising the dark panels

           5       of the 'bird' logo.  The tufts of fibres and the two

           6       individual fibres were found to be indistinguishable in

           7       colour and microscopic appearance from the black lining

           8       fabric contained within the quilted layers of the jacket

           9       body and sleeves."

          10           Just pause there so examine what this is saying so

          11       far.

          12           So, on the mushroom bullet, or RES/1, 14 fibres were

          13       extracted using a tape, adhesive tape.  Of those

          14       14 fibres, two were found to be indistinguishable from

          15       fibres from the puffa jacket.  Let's just pause there

          16       and examine that.  Whether it went through the arm or

          17       whether the bullet went through the back is -- and

          18       there's puffa jacket fibres -- would be neutral because

          19       you've got puffa fibres on the arm, you've got puffa

          20       fibres on the back.

          21   A.  Yes.

          22   Q.  So those two fibres, from the jacket, are neutral, they

          23       don't tell us where the entry and exit wounds are; do

          24       you follow?

          25   A.  Yes.




           1   Q.  Okay.  Let's look at the remaining fibres.  So what this

           2       is saying -- what this report, this is Mr Seaman's

           3       report -- is that eight of the fibres were

           4       indistinguishable in colour and microscopic appearance

           5       from the logo which is on the rear of the t-shirt.

           6           We read on, the middle paragraph he says:

           7           "Four fibres, some comprising groups of fibres were

           8       found to be of a synthetic fibre and very pale in

           9       colour.  The possible source for these fibres has not

          10       been determined and hence I am unable to comment further

          11       with regard to the source of these fibres."

          12           So those four fibres don't show us anything.  Then

          13       he goes on to say this:

          14           "In addition, pale turquoise green coloured cotton

          15       fibres with adhering green print pigment in recovered

          16       from the bullet RES/1.  These fibres and associated

          17       pigment were found to be microscopically

          18       indistinguishable with the corresponding fibre type and

          19       material comprised within the 'bird' logo and the

          20       underlying fabric at the back of the t-shirt."

          21           Pause there.  In other words, it's my understanding

          22       that the fibres on the mushroom bullet, RES/1, contained

          23       two types of fibres which microscopically are

          24       indistinguishable from the back of the logo.

          25           Now, having put that to you, when you were




           1       postulating earlier on that the bullet must have gone

           2       under the arm, this is the mushroom bullet, it must have

           3       gone under the arm, you said that's because the

           4       t-shirt -- that could explain the fibres on the t-shirt?

           5   A.  Yes.

           6   Q.  There's a problem with that, may I suggest?  Under the

           7       arm you don't have the logo; do you follow?

           8   A.  Yes.

           9   Q.  Does that cause you to change your opinion as to which

          10       bullet struck where?

          11   A.  No, and the reason is that I don't know to what extent

          12       the t-shirt was being twisted -- because we've already

          13       heard that there is the potential for the jacket to have

          14       been substantially twisted and held about 90 degrees out

          15       of line from the way it would be worn normally.

          16           Now, I don't know how tightly the t-shirt fitted

          17       Mr Duggan.  I don't know what was happening at the time

          18       and how Mr Duggan was moving.  I don't know whether

          19       Mr Duggan was doing anything himself that could have

          20       contributed to the t-shirt moving, such that the logo

          21       could, and I am not suggesting the logo came round to

          22       the front, but the logo could have moved sufficiently

          23       far round on his torso that it overlay the area that's

          24       got the wound.

          25           So I cannot rule it -- I understand exactly what




           1       you're saying, but without knowing all those other

           2       elements, I still can't rule that out.

           3   Q.  Right.  So let me just take stock.  I wonder if we can,

           4       just so we can know what we're talking about, can we put

           5       up CD23492, you can see the bird.

           6   A.  Yes.

           7   Q.  You can see the areas of the dark coloured panels,

           8       right, you can see the areas of the dark logo of the

           9       bird --

          10   A.  Yes.

          11   Q.  -- are not extensive, it doesn't cover the whole back.

          12   A.  No.

          13   Q.  So on your postulation, Mark's t-shirt, where we can see

          14       the dark areas of the bird, would have to have literally

          15       come right under his armpit.  That's what you're saying.

          16   A.  I don't know the exact area that the fibres were

          17       identified as having come from.

          18   Q.  Well, we can see dark fibres.  We don't need to know the

          19       exact area.  We can see that the dark parts of the bird

          20       are not extensive compared to the rest of the t-shirt.

          21   A.  Yes.

          22   Q.  In fact, the holes are actually marked.

          23   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  I was just going to ask Mr Tomei

          24       just to stand up and point to those holes of relevance.

          25   A.  Yes, I can see that, yes.




           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Can you help us by pointing for the

           2       jury and for my --

           3   A.  One is in here somewhere (indicates) and the other is up

           4       here near the armpit.

           5   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  There's one within the bird, is

           6       there?

           7   A.  Apparently, yes.

           8   MR THOMAS:  Does that cause you to change your opinion then?

           9   A.  (Pause)

          10           I -- on the surface, yes, it would.  But I would

          11       still like to know more about the very nature of the

          12       fibres that were recovered and as to whether or not they

          13       can be associated with a particular part of the design.

          14   Q.  Forgive me, you have just told -- did you not point to

          15       a hole under the arm?

          16   A.  Yes.  I can't see what else is there though.

          17       I appreciate it's not a major part of the pattern.

          18       I don't know to what extent this blue portion is

          19       embroidered or whether it's printed.

          20   Q.  Mr Tomei, the evidence that you are being presented with

          21       is overwhelmingly suggesting that RES/1 was the bullet

          22       that went through the body mass.

          23   A.  Based on what you have told me about the fibres, it

          24       sounds as if that may well be the case.

          25   Q.  It's more likely though, isn't it?




           1   A.  I know but there are other factors that I have

           2       considered when I have come to my conclusion.

           3   Q.  You appreciate that your job as an expert is to help the

           4       court?

           5   A.  That's what I'm trying to do.

           6   Q.  You have actually said in your report -- can I take you

           7       to -- can we turn to CS -- can we have this up on the

           8       screen -- 266.  This is your witness statement that you

           9       did on 1 December 2011, correct?

          10   A.  Well, it's a transcript, it's not my original but yes.

          11   Q.  All right, it's a transcript of your witness statement

          12       that you did on 1 December 2011, correct?

          13   A.  It appears to be, yes.  I'm just looking for the

          14       original which I hopefully have here, yes.  I have the

          15       original, yes, it's fine.

          16   Q.  Can we turn to page 269 and can we look at the second to

          17       last paragraph.  If we can just blow that up.  Can you

          18       read out what you've said in the second to last

          19       paragraph, out loud for us to hear?

          20   A.  Again, the second -- my assessments and interpretations?

          21   Q.  No, page 269, second to last paragraph beginning

          22       "I will"?

          23   A.  "I will be happy" -- essentially this is what I was

          24       going to say:

          25           "I will be happy to reconsider these findings in the




           1       light of any other facts emerging and being made known

           2       to me."

           3   Q.  Isn't that what's been happening that, as an expert, you

           4       were initially presented with a set of facts, you did

           5       your best and you formed an opinion, and more

           6       information, more tests, have been coming to light

           7       showing that your original opinion is not right.

           8   A.  It certainly weakens my original opinion.  But what

           9       you're presenting me with tends to ignore the other

          10       factors which I haven't discussed at this stage, which

          11       led me to the conclusion I came to in the first place.

          12   Q.  Dr Tomei --

          13   A.  No, Mr, please don't --

          14   Q.  Sorry, Mr Tomei.  The reality is, firstly, you've got

          15       the body mass.

          16   A.  Mm-hmm.

          17   Q.  I have suggested to you about the speeds and everything.

          18       There's one thing I haven't asked you.  The holster that

          19       was struck --

          20   A.  The pouch?

          21   Q.  The pouch, which the radio was in.

          22   A.  Mm-hmm.

          23   Q.  What was the damage to that?

          24   A.  The projectile had gone through the pouch and -- the

          25       bullet wasn't in the radio, but the radio had been




           1       damaged to the extent that I considered whether or not

           2       the bullet had just forced its way out of the back but

           3       I have ruled that out.  But it had stopped within the

           4       radio and then seemingly dropped out.

           5   Q.  Sorry, I'm going to come onto the radio in a moment.

           6       But this is all to do with the energy, the speed and the

           7       force.  So you've got a pouch, what's the material that

           8       the pouch is made out of?

           9   A.  I think it's a woven nylon, I don't pretend to know what

          10       it's actually called.  Generically we've actually called

          11       it Cordura, I think that was a proprietary name, but

          12       it's a substantial woven nylon.

          13   Q.  Substantial woven nylon.  The bullet had penetrated

          14       that --

          15   A.  Yes.

          16   Q.  -- and had gone through and embedded in the radio --

          17   A.  Yes.

          18   Q.  -- and you were unsure as to whether or not it had

          19       passed through the radio?

          20   A.  It hadn't, as it turned out, yes.

          21   Q.  So not only had it gone through the initial outer part

          22       of the pouch, it had gone through the radio?

          23   A.  No, no, I said "it hadn't": it had not gone through the

          24       radio.

          25   Q.  Two more matters, if I may, just --




           1   A.  While we are on the subject of penetration to the radio,

           2       in case we get too far away from it, and I'm sorry to

           3       keep coming back to the same thing but I do think it's

           4       a significant consideration.

           5           I have said before that if the evidence is that --

           6       and I say that with respect to the pathologist -- the

           7       injury to the right side of the chest is due to

           8       a projectile strike, and the suggestion would be, from

           9       the discussion we've had -- is that the bullet that's

          10       gone through the arm has then gone into the radio, yes?

          11       If that wound to the right side of the chest is due to

          12       the bullet that exited the arm, I still cannot

          13       understand how the bullet failed to penetrate the chest

          14       but in the way you've been suggesting, had sufficient

          15       force to penetrate thick nylon and a radio.

          16           So we come back to that final point.  My argument

          17       falls if that wound has nothing to do with the bullet.

          18   Q.  The pathologist may well say that it was a skim injury.

          19   A.  I --

          20   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  We will see what happens when we see

          21       the evidence.

          22   A.  With respect, there is an important element to this.

          23   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  You tell us what you want us to

          24       hear.

          25   A.  I understand what you are saying, which is that




           1       potentially the bullet has grazed and has not struck

           2       right on, so would be less prone to penetrate.  But

           3       typically those injuries, in my experience, have

           4       a completely different appearance to the injury we see.

           5   MR THOMAS:  You are not a pathologist though, are you?

           6   A.  I know but I have seen lots of gunshot injuries in

           7       36 years.

           8   Q.  We'll wait for the pathologist to deal with that.  Let

           9       me deal with a couple of other matters that I wanted to

          10       raise with you.

          11           Can we have the mannequin with the trajectories back

          12       up on the screen.

          13           Now, do you remember earlier on I said to you the

          14       evidence -- the one thing that remained constant was

          15       V53's position.  He says that he had his weapon in that

          16       aim position and he doesn't move.

          17   A.  Yes.

          18   Q.  You quite fairly made the point that, in relation to the

          19       chest shot, that's the -- where we can see the

          20       trajectory rod going down --

          21   A.  Yes.

          22   Q.  -- for that bullet to have entered Mark, Mark would have

          23       had to have been leaning forward?

          24   A.  I'll go one step beyond that, and you may come back on

          25       this, but I don't know the relative height of the




           1       officer firing the gun and Mark, I don't know that.  If

           2       we assume an average, without anyone being extremely

           3       tall or extremely short, then, because of -- you can see

           4       where the rod is.  You would have to work on the premise

           5       that, if we say the gun was where the end of the rod is,

           6       then the gun would have to have been held at a marked

           7       angle downwards so it would have had to have been high

           8       up.  So all I'm saying is that this isn't -- can't be

           9       a final position --

          10   Q.  No.

          11   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Hang on a minute.  What's being

          12       suggested here, I think, obviously, is that what you do

          13       is you bring the two lines together, so in between the

          14       two shots.  I know your evidence is not about which one

          15       was first and which one was second.

          16   A.  No.

          17   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  No one has asked you about that and

          18       I'm certain you're not going to --

          19   A.  I'll wait to see where you take me.

          20   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  The position is that obviously

          21       between the two shots Mr Duggan has either gone down or

          22       he's come up.

          23   A.  I understand that, yes.

          24   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  That's the way.  Because you have to

          25       bring those two lines together.




           1   A.  I understand.

           2   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  That's really the impact of that

           3       picture.  All right, thank you.

           4   MR THOMAS:  Now, assuming -- and I appreciate what you have

           5       said about the relative heights and all the rest of

           6       it -- assuming that there is no appreciable distinction

           7       between heights, if the shooter has his gun in

           8       a horizontal position, and I am just concentrating on

           9       the chest shot -- this is the one, as we can see on the

          10       mannequin --

          11   A.  Yes.

          12   Q.  -- Mr Duggan would have to be in a bent forward

          13       position, that's obvious; you would accept that, yes?

          14   A.  Yes.

          15   Q.  Just help me with this.  We have had some evidence in

          16       relation to the shots and the heights of the shots.  If

          17       I can just start with the exit wound in relation to the

          18       back shot.  So this is the shot that's going down and

          19       the exit wound.  That's been measured at 124 centimetres

          20       or 49 inches, yes?

          21   A.  This is the entry or the exit?

          22   Q.  The exit wound.

          23   A.  Yes, okay.

          24   Q.  I wonder if Mr Scott could just wiggle the mouse over it

          25       so we all know what we're talking about.  That one there




           1       (indicates).

           2           W42, he's the officer that's shot in the radio, when

           3       he's shot in the radio, he was here and we got him to

           4       measure the height of the radio.

           5   A.  For my benefit, can you tell me where the radio was

           6       being worn because I don't know any of this?

           7   Q.  Under his armpit.

           8   A.  Thank you.

           9   Q.  He has a radio holster there (indicates), yes?

          10   A.  Yes.

          11   Q.  When he came to court, we got him to measure the height

          12       of that and that came to 4-foot, 48-inches.  There is

          13       some distance between W42 and Mark Duggan.  He's not --

          14       do you follow, he's not standing immediately behind Mark

          15       Duggan?

          16   A.  Okay.

          17   Q.  Bearing in mind the angle that we can see, and bearing

          18       in mind that W42 is a distance behind him, what could be

          19       your explanation for the exit wound being at 49-inches

          20       from above the ground and the bullet wound hitting W42

          21       at 48-inches, in other words, there's a difference of

          22       an inch, and they are some way away.

          23   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  If you feel unable to help us about

          24       this, Mr Tomei --

          25   A.  No, I understand exactly what you're saying.  The only




           1       thing I wouldn't know with any certainty is whether or

           2       not the officer who sustained the bullet impact was

           3       himself standing upright or whether he was crouching

           4       down, whether he was leaning forward.  I don't know what

           5       position he was in beyond the fact that you tell me he

           6       was behind.

           7   Q.  He says he's standing up.

           8   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  There's a lot of other things within

           9       your factual postulation which are not necessarily

          10       correct, Mr Thomas.  I think it would be unfair to put

          11       Mr Tomei --

          12   MR THOMAS:  I shall move on.  Two more matters then I've

          13       finished.

          14           The pattern on the RES/1, there were some

          15       indentations on the bullet?

          16   A.  Yes.

          17   Q.  Again, I just need to -- Mr Underwood touched upon in

          18       this morning, about the indentations being consistent

          19       with the logo on the back of the t-shirt.

          20   A.  Yes.

          21   Q.  Right.  Now, can I just be clear: why do you say that

          22       RES/1, with the indentations which are similar to the

          23       back of the t-shirt -- why do you dismiss that?

          24   A.  I don't think I have dismissed it.  In a sense, I've

          25       tried to understand how it is that -- I went through




           1       this earlier today, I'm happy to cover it again -- and

           2       that is that for those indentations to be impressed into

           3       the lead of the bullet -- we know lead is quite -- it's

           4       a metal, but it's soft, but I cannot envisage how fabric

           5       which is not being supported -- and I mean supported on

           6       one side, it's effectively a loose fabric, isn't it,

           7       because we are not saying Mark was up against something

           8       when he received the shot.  So the fabric is just

           9       hanging.  I can't envisage how that would be impressed

          10       onto the bullet --

          11   Q.  Let me assist.

          12   A.  Please.

          13   Q.  Let me assist.  The one thing we do know --

          14   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  I hope you mean by asking questions.

          15   MR THOMAS:  I'm putting to the witness evidence that we've

          16       heard so far in this Inquest in relation to the

          17       fabric -- the position of the coat and the position of

          18       the fabric.

          19   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Right.

          20   MR THOMAS:  We have been told that there is a bullet wound

          21       in the part of the fabric which is higher up the chest,

          22       yes?

          23   A.  On the jacket.

          24   Q.  On the jacket, yes.  That might be possible -- I'll just

          25       see what you think about that -- if Mark's hand was




           1       either in his pocket at the time he was shot.  So if his

           2       hand is in his pocket or if his hand is under his jacket

           3       and he's brought it up; do you follow?

           4   A.  I am not going to speculate -- I said this morning that

           5       I can comment on the fact that the jacket had to --

           6       again, predicated on two shots being fired only and the

           7       damage I saw in that area of the jacket, means the

           8       jacket had to have been in a certain position at the

           9       time it was struck.  But I -- unless I see a jacket on

          10       an appropriately sized mannequin, I'm not going to give

          11       any opinions as to how the jacket got into that position

          12       because that goes --

          13   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  You cannot talk about the hands

          14       either?

          15   A.  -- that goes so far beyond my remit.

          16   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  I think we'll move on.

          17   MR THOMAS:  So be it, we'll leave that for other experts, to

          18       see if they can assist us on that.  Just so we're clear,

          19       if there is an explanation, a credible explanation, for

          20       how the t-shirt might have been pulled tight, taut, you

          21       would be prepared to accept that?

          22   A.  Again, I would like to try it out but I can understand

          23       if the t-shirt was pulled sufficiently taut then I can

          24       accept that might result in that being produced on the

          25       bullet.




           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  The fact of having a jacket on the

           2       other side of the t-shirt is not enough?

           3   A.  Personally, I do not think that would be enough.

           4   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  The jury might be fascinated with

           5       the bullet actually picking up a fabric pattern on it,

           6       is that something you have come across before?

           7   A.  It happens quite a lot but it tends to happen only in

           8       those situations where the bullet is travelling from

           9       this direction and the fabric it goes through is

          10       supported, and we say "supported" because it means

          11       there's something solid enough behind it for the fabric

          12       to impart the impression on the bullet before the bullet

          13       passes through.

          14   MR THOMAS:  Or the t-shirt being pulled taut?

          15   A.  It's relative, but I would not discount it as

          16       a possibility, but I would have to say it would have to

          17       be extremely taut, I would think.

          18   MR THOMAS:  Finally, can we have the mannequin photograph

          19       back up.  Now, I am not asking you about the sequence of

          20       the shots, right, because you don't give evidence in

          21       relation to which shot was fired first or otherwise,

          22       right, but I just want to run through this with you.

          23       Let's assume that the chest shot is the first shot,

          24       okay?  You've already agreed that, if the chest shot was

          25       the first shot, Mark Duggan would have to have been bent




           1       forward.

           2   A.  I didn't say "if it was the first shot".  I said he

           3       would have to have been bent forward to sustain the

           4       chest shot.  I didn't say that that was the reason it

           5       was the first shot.

           6   Q.  No, no, sorry, my fault, I'll rephrase.

           7   A.  Please.

           8   Q.  For the chest shot to have been sustained with that

           9       angle, Mark Duggan would have had to have been bent

          10       forward.

          11   A.  Again, assuming the officer was standing upright and had

          12       the gun at his shoulder, yes.

          13   Q.  Now, if the chest shot was the first shot, that would

          14       have to mean, if Mark is in -- if the officer is

          15       standing up, arm horizontal, Mark leaning forward, for

          16       Mark to sustain the arm shot, if the arm shot is the

          17       second shot, you would have had to have stood upright,

          18       wouldn't he?

          19   A.  Well, again, the arm could have gone into a different

          20       position, so -- the arm has any number of positions it

          21       could be in.  Potentially, it would support the view

          22       then that the wound to the side of the chest was related

          23       to the arm wound because then, yes, he would have had to

          24       have stood up.

          25   MR THOMAS:  Thank you.




           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes.  I've got Mr Keith down as the

           2       next person.

           3   MR KEITH:  No, thank you very much.

           4   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Mr Stern, you have some questions

           5       for Mr Tomei?

           6                      Questions by MR STERN

           7   MR STERN:  Can we start by looking at the jacket and trying

           8       to understand about the holes that are in the jacket,

           9       first of all?

          10           Could we look at 24213.  You deal with this, just so

          11       I can help you to tell me about this.  It's at CS2269 if

          12       you want to follow in your statement?

          13   A.  It's okay.  So far, so good.

          14   Q.  So far so good.  You say the hole to the left front, and

          15       obviously it's right as we look at it --

          16   A.  Yes.

          17   Q.  -- the holster to the left.  It's not that easy to see

          18       on any of these pictures but I wonder if you could just

          19       point to where it is that you say the hole is.

          20   A.  There's one in this area (indicates) and one here

          21       (indicates), which is near the corner of the pocket.

          22   Q.  So they are to the front.  Obviously there will be

          23       a hole on the inside that matches those holes?

          24   A.  Yes.

          25   Q.  I wonder if we could just look at CD27864.  I think you




           1       looked at this document, didn't you?

           2   A.  I did, yes.

           3   Q.  Hole 9 and hole 10, are they the two holes that we are

           4       concerned with that we just looked at on the jacket?

           5   A.  Yes.

           6   Q.  Hole 9, we have the front inner surface showing 45 times

           7       T1; what is that?

           8   A.  This is gunshot residues.  This isn't really my field,

           9       but they are a particular type of firearms discharge

          10       residue which I think Ms Shaw will be able to deal with.

          11   Q.  It's not so much the type I'm asking you about but the

          12       quantity.

          13   A.  Again --

          14   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Please answer.

          15   MR STERN:  If you cannot answer, please say so.

          16   A.  I'm conscious of the fact that the more there is, the

          17       more likely it is to be one side or other of the

          18       garment.  So if that's where we're going.

          19   Q.  That's what I was hoping -- yes, that's where we are

          20       going.

          21   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Do you feel happy with this or would

          22       you much rather leave it to someone else?

          23   A.  I think perhaps the easiest thing for me to do would be

          24       for me to just go straight into this.  This is in my

          25       hand.




           1   MR STERN:  It is in your hand?

           2   A.  Yes.  I scribbled that on when I saw the report because

           3       these looked inconsistent, in as much as these results

           4       seem to be saying that the entry sides (?) were both on

           5       the same side of the jacket, which they cannot be.  So

           6       I think that sums it up in a nutshell.  That's what that

           7       result seems to be indicating, so the best person who

           8       can address why these findings are presented as they are

           9       is Ms Shaw.

          10   Q.  You went through the holding of the jacket or how the

          11       jacket was -- let's put it that way, rather neutrally --

          12       quite quickly.  Is it your view that the shot at the

          13       base of the jacket, if we can have that page back again,

          14       24213, was the first point of entry?

          15   A.  Yes, and the bullet had entered from the other side, the

          16       other surface -- from the inside surface of the jacket

          17       as I demonstrated earlier when I stood up.

          18   Q.  You did it a little quickly for me, sorry, I'm a bit

          19       slow about this.  It was from the inside part of the

          20       jacket?

          21   A.  So the hole is around here somewhere (indicates).

          22   Q.  Yes.

          23   A.  But my view is that the bullet had entered from this

          24       side (indicates), so you would expect lots of discharge

          25       particles here and lots of discharge particles here, as




           1       the bullet went through.  But I think the report seems

           2       to be suggesting there are more discharge particles on

           3       one surface than the other, which seems to -- it doesn't

           4       contradict it because it, in a sense, contradicts

           5       itself.  Because you have lots of discharge particles on

           6       one side of the jacket and not the other, which --

           7   Q.  Just before you sit down, sorry to make you -- I do not

           8       want you to keep -- so we've got an entry to the inside

           9       part of that jacket.  Let's not worry about where the

          10       other bit goes.  It then goes through a whole where you

          11       are holding it?

          12   A.  It penetrates and then makes another whole here.

          13   Q.  Then where does it go?

          14   A.  Then it comes out of the other side and, in my view,

          15       produces the chest wound (indicates).

          16   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  We overlay that onto the chest

          17       wound?

          18   A.  Yes.  I'm holding it like this but, as I have said

          19       before, I have no way of knowing.

          20   MR STERN:  I understand that but you are just demonstrating

          21       the position it must have been in.  How it got there is

          22       of course another matter.

          23   A.  Yes.

          24   Q.  The position is over the right chest wound, is it?

          25   A.  Yes.




           1   Q.  Is there no hole on the right part of the puffa jacket

           2       that matches that hole on the right part of the chest?

           3   A.  Not that I saw.  But the puffa jacket in that area is

           4       substantially damaged and I couldn't find a discrete

           5       hold that I could associate with that.

           6   Q.  If we look at the reverse of the jacket, CD24214 again,

           7       forget about the arm ones for the moment, I am just

           8       concentrating on what caused the chest shot.  There is

           9       the exit hole --

          10   A.  Yes.

          11   Q.  -- of the chest wound, can you point to it?

          12   A.  It's here (indicates) and it's very obvious, even from

          13       this photograph, that it's on the right-hand side,

          14       whereas the wound is roughly over here, on the left-hand

          15       side.  But if I can go back to my demonstration with the

          16       jacket, that's not inconsistent with the jacket doing

          17       that (indicates) because obviously that that then would

          18       pull the back of the jacket round.

          19   Q.  Exactly.  It's entirely consistent with the jacket being

          20       pulled round, whether it was or not is another matter

          21       but it's entirely consistent with the jacket being

          22       pulled round --

          23   A.  Yes.

          24   Q.  -- from the left to the right and the lower part of the

          25       jacket covering the right part, or side, of the




           1       individual --

           2   A.  Yes.

           3   Q.  -- and that the right part of the jacket would then have

           4       moved over to the left-hand side where the exit shot

           5       was --

           6   A.  Yes.

           7   Q.  -- on the bullet.  All right?

           8           Can I just ask if we could have what's been called

           9       the trajectory rods up on the screen, please.  Can you

          10       just help us before we all get into a misleading picture

          11       about this.  All that one can show, in relation to this,

          12       is the track of the bullet as it enters and exits the

          13       body.

          14   A.  Yes.

          15   Q.  The rods, although they stick out in that fashion and

          16       try to show a trajectory, the reality is that there are

          17       any one of a number of ways in which the bullet can

          18       enter a particular part of the body, and all one can say

          19       really is that it was from the front that the shot was

          20       fired?

          21   A.  Yes.  I go back to the point I made earlier, which is

          22       that all we know in respect of the measurements is they

          23       are made, as I have described, in this anatomical

          24       position, and obviously, given it's a dynamic situation,

          25       as to how accurately this represents any stage of the




           1       incident I couldn't say.

           2   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Is that right, that all you can say

           3       is it comes from the front, or can you give a --

           4   A.  No, it's come from the front, it's gone through the

           5       torso at a particular angle --

           6   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  I'm sorry, when you look at the

           7       angle on the torso, the more body mass you have going

           8       through, the more definite you can be about the angle,

           9       I suppose.

          10   A.  There wasn't -- from what I can recollect, there was

          11       very little deviation due to the rib injury but, again,

          12       Dr Poole might touch on that at the time.

          13   MR STERN:  What we cannot say, categorically, is that the

          14       bullet travelled in line with that rod there?

          15   A.  Well, that was the bullet's path -- we'll stick just

          16       with the torso for the moment because it's the easiest

          17       one to understand, in a sense.

          18   Q.  Yes, of course.  When you say "torso"?

          19   A.  The chest wound.

          20   Q.  The chest wound, yes.

          21   A.  Then that's the path the bullet would have taken.  But

          22       as we heard earlier, the angle that the body -- that

          23       part of the body would have made at the time the shot

          24       was fired, I believe would have to have been leaning

          25       somewhat further forward than it is in this image




           1       otherwise we finish up, as I said, with the muzzle of

           2       the weapon having to be quite high, an unnaturally high

           3       position, then pointing downwards.

           4   Q.  So if the officer was standing, it would be likely that

           5       the body of the -- you have said this a number of

           6       times -- that the individual who's being shot would be

           7       at a lower level?

           8   A.  Has to be.

           9   Q.  Has to be, yes.  The entry wound, according to the

          10       pathologist -- and I merely make this as a point because

          11       we have to be careful about this for reasons that

          12       I won't trouble you with, but we'll have to come back to

          13       when we have the pathologist -- but the entry wound to

          14       the chest was 140 centimetres, I think, as my learned

          15       friend Mr Thomas has already indicated, which is

          16       4 foot 7, and the entry wound to the arm was

          17       144 centimetres, which is 4 foot 8.  So the point of

          18       entry, for both the arm and the chest, is pretty much

          19       the same?

          20   A.  Yes.

          21   Q.  Height of entry, I should say.

          22   A.  Yes, yes.

          23   Q.  But the arm, on the face of it, about an inch higher?

          24       I'm dealing in inches rather than centimetres but four

          25       centimetres?




           1   A.  An inch and a half, an inch and a quarter.

           2   Q.  The marks on the bullet RES/1, which is the one that

           3       you've been asked quite a lot of questions about --

           4   A.  Yes.

           5   Q.  -- I am not going to go through all the questions from

           6       Mr Underwood and Mr Thomas all over again because that's

           7       just not helpful.

           8           In relation to that bullet, did you consider whether

           9       there was any damage to the vehicle?

          10   A.  Well, firstly, I never attended the scene, that's the

          11       first thing.

          12           I don't know whether I said it earlier, but when

          13       I first saw Dr Seaman's report that mentioned his view

          14       as to the origin of the marks, I think I suggested at

          15       the time "Has anyone considered that it could have

          16       struck the inside of the vehicle at some point?"

          17       knowing -- having had a number of cars in my life,

          18       I know that the textured surfaces can sometimes have

          19       that sort of appearance to them.  So I just put that out

          20       at the time as a suggestion and said "Would it be worth

          21       looking at the vehicle?"

          22           By that stage, obviously, I was out of the Forensic

          23       Science Service, so the work was done by others, and, to

          24       be fair, I was given the opportunity to attend but

          25       I thought my presence wouldn't have been helpful so




           1       I declined that offer.

           2   Q.  But if the damage to the bullet were caused by some sort

           3       of ricochet within the vehicle, would you expect to see

           4       some considerable damage in the vehicle or not?

           5   A.  (Pause)

           6           As I've said, this bullet, if I'm correct, has not

           7       penetrated the chest but has then ricocheted from the

           8       chest.  So it's lost energy as a result of mushrooming,

           9       it's potentially lost energy as a result of the

          10       ricochet, it might still be travelling fast enough to

          11       pick up an impression from something, something either

          12       solid or something supported, if it was a fabric, but it

          13       wouldn't necessarily cause any damage to something

          14       inside a car.  Some of the plastics that are used now

          15       are quite tough and, given that the bullet was in the

          16       form it was in, potentially had lost lots of energy,

          17       then it need not have caused any damage, not to a hard

          18       surface anyway.

          19   Q.  When you say a hard surface --

          20   A.  Like a plastic.

          21   Q.  Hard plastic, not as in chairs or car seats?

          22   A.  The seat structures are, in my experience, quite hard

          23       plastics, having seen bullet damage to them, and it

          24       takes quite a substantial impact to penetrate them.  But

          25       it might penetrate a fabric and pick up a mark, but even




           1       that --

           2   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  That's leaving a mark.  Would it

           3       also pick up a mark on itself of the bullet as we've

           4       seen the marks.

           5   A.  As I said, if it was a hard enough surface or it was

           6       a fabric surface that was sufficiently well supported,

           7       it could conceivably pick up a mark without causing any

           8       damage.

           9   MR STERN:  Does it come to this.  As I say, you've been

          10       asked lots of questions by Mr Underwood and Mr Thomas

          11       about all the factors that Dr Seaman points to, which

          12       comes to an opposite conclusion to the one you come to.

          13   A.  Yes.  As I said, there were other factors that I've

          14       considered as well, which we haven't discussed, which

          15       led me to my original conclusion.  I've seen nothing to

          16       change my mind completely yet about those other factors.

          17   Q.  Is the position this, that you accept there is

          18       an alternative viewpoint --

          19   A.  Yes, of course.

          20   Q.  -- and that Dr Seaman's view is a reasonable view?

          21   A.  Aside from the factors that I have said I find difficult

          22       to understand, as inconsistencies in a sense, yes, it is

          23       a reasonable view, yes.

          24   MR STERN:  Yes, thank you.

          25   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you very much, Mr Stern.




           1           Let's just see if we have any other questions.

           2       Mr Glasson?

           3   MR GLASSON:  No.

           4   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  No one else.

           5           Right then, Mr Underwood?

           6   MR UNDERWOOD:  Nothing from me.

           7   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  As I have had a little note from the

           8       jury, can you help us at all about blood spatter.  We

           9       have had a witness talking about blood spatter on the

          10       side of the vehicle with the bullet passing through the

          11       body.  Is that within your expertise?  If not, then

          12       please --

          13   A.  No, it isn't, I'm afraid.

          14   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  No, that's fine.  Well, thank you

          15       very much, Mr Tomei.  That concludes your evidence.  I'm

          16       sorry you have been here a bit longer than you perhaps

          17       anticipated but thank you for your assisting us, you are

          18       now free to go.

          19                      (The witness withdrew)

          20   MR UNDERWOOD:  Mr Richards, please.

          21   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Right, thank you.

          22                     MR IAN RICHARDS (sworn)

          23   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you very much if you would

          24       like to come forward and have a seat, please.

          25                    Questions by MR UNDERWOOD




           1   MR UNDERWOOD:  Good afternoon, Mr Richards.  You will have

           2       gathered that my name's Underwood and I'm counsel to the

           3       Inquest.  May I ask your full names, please?

           4   A.  It's Ian Christopher Richards.

           5   Q.  Like me, you have a soft voice; would you mind bringing

           6       the microphone closer to you?

           7   A.  Ian Christopher Richards.

           8   Q.  I think you're a forensic scientist; is that right?

           9   A.  I'm a forensic photographer and fingerprint development

          10       specialist.

          11   Q.  I think you were working in the Forensic Science Service

          12       from 1999 onwards?

          13   A.  That's correct.

          14   Q.  You've got a National Diploma in photography and

          15       a Higher National Diploma in digital imagining?

          16   A.  That's correct.

          17   Q.  You were asked to look, I think, at what we call the

          18       shoe box and also the empty magazine from the Bruni; is

          19       that right?

          20   A.  That's correct.

          21   Q.  What was the purpose, first of all, of you looking at

          22       the shoe box?

          23   A.  The purpose of that was to locate any fingerprints or

          24       enhance anything which we couldn't see immediately

          25       through chemical treatments and then to photograph any




           1       subsequent marks found.

           2   Q.  For various reasons we're calling the witnesses out of

           3       order today and we have heard evidence of the

           4       fingerprint analysis that was carried out on the box

           5       itself.  You were the one responsible for capturing the

           6       fingerprints, were you, on the box?

           7   A.  Yes, I was, yes.

           8   Q.  According to your experience and expertise, were they

           9       captured to their best possible advantage?

          10   A.  They were, yes.

          11   Q.  The only other matter I want to ask you about then is

          12       the magazine of the Bruni.  What were you looking for on

          13       that?

          14   A.  That was also just primarily a fingerprint examination

          15       and also -- may I refer to my notes?

          16   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, please.

          17   A.  I seem to remember it was examined under DNA precautions

          18       so part of the examination was to see if there was any

          19       opportunities to sample for DNA from the magazine as

          20       well.

          21   MR UNDERWOOD:  So fingerprints and the potential for DNA,

          22       that was the purpose; what was the result?

          23   A.  No fingerprints at all.  There was some ridge detail

          24       found on there, which I deemed to be insufficient,

          25       a very small area, and that particular area of ridge




           1       detail was then sampled and retained for DNA analysis.

           2   Q.  If I were to show you a Bruni and the magazine, and how

           3       one would have to handle it in order to check to see

           4       whether the magazine had anything in it, would that

           5       assist you about where fingerprints might have been

           6       placed?

           7   A.  Yes, yes.

           8   Q.  This one is not an exhibit, so one can actually do it --

           9       do you know how to drop the magazine on this?

          10   A.  Possibly, yes.

          11   Q.  The button here.  (Handed)

          12   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  This is a replica starting pistol?

          13   MR UNDERWOOD:  In fact, it's a real starting pistol.

          14           Assume for the moment that this was in a sock but

          15       the sock did not cover the base of the hand grip.  If

          16       one were pressing it to release the magazine, you would

          17       handle the magazine how?

          18   A.  (Indicates) Possibly like this.  To remove it, you mean?

          19   Q.  Yes.  So if anybody had done that, would you expect

          20       fingerprints to show up or not?

          21   A.  Magazines -- the surfaces of these magazines probably

          22       have the best opportunity for finding marks on firearms.

          23       As you can see, they are normally very smooth and also

          24       have the benefit, if they have been touched, they are

          25       protected whilst they are inside, whereas a lot of the




           1       other surfaces like the rough surfaces here, aren't the

           2       best.  So magazines are quite good surfaces for finger

           3       marks.

           4   MR UNDERWOOD:  That's all I want to ask you, thank you very

           5       much.  Other people may want to ask you more.

           6   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Any questions? Mr Straw?  Mr Thomas?

           7   MR MANSFIELD:  No.

           8   MR STERN:  No, thank you, sir.

           9   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Mr Keith?

          10   MR KEITH:  No, thank you.

          11   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Mr Glasson?

          12   MR GLASSON:  No.

          13   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  No, there are no questions for you.

          14   MR UNDERWOOD:  There's nothing arising.

          15   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  I have none either.  So thank you

          16       very much.  I'm sorry you had to wait a while but you

          17       have had the opportunity of looking at our exhibit.

          18       Thank you very much indeed.

          19                      (The witness withdrew)

          20   MR UNDERWOOD:  One other witness was warned to attend today

          21       but hasn't, in which event I am out of witnesses.

          22   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Members of the jury, that allows me

          23       then to thank you for your services for today.  There

          24       are other matters we can usefully be doing in court in

          25       any event.




           1           Can I just say this to you, you have picked up

           2       through, not the last witness who has not been

           3       challenged about his findings, but from the previous

           4       witness that you will also be hearing from another

           5       expert who does not agree with the conclusions.

           6           This is perfectly natural and marvellous.  As you

           7       know, this is an Inquest by jury, it's not an Inquest by

           8       expert, or indeed an Inquest by Coroner.  You are the

           9       ones who are going to come to your conclusions about the

          10       truth or otherwise concerning the various assertions,

          11       for example, which was the first shot fired, if you need

          12       to conclude that, where and what position that Mr Duggan

          13       was in when he was shot and various things of that

          14       nature.  That's all for you.

          15           Expert evidence is there really just to assist you.

          16       It's not to substitute for your decision, it's to assist

          17       you in your decision and I shall be saying to you when

          18       I sum the case up.  Obviously you look at the expert.

          19       If the expert evidence is there and you want to follow

          20       it and accept it, all well and good, but it's open to

          21       you to say "Well, no, I don't accept what Mr or Dr or

          22       Professor says about that" and come to other

          23       conclusions.

          24           As I say, it's not an Inquest dictated to you by

          25       expert.  What we're doing now is calling these various




           1       experts who do have knowledge in certain areas to help

           2       you really in coming to your conclusions.  As I say,

           3       it's not a substitute for your conclusions, they are

           4       there to assist.  So I'm very happy for you to send in

           5       a note as you have just done, to see whether this

           6       particular expert could help about that, and clearly he

           7       couldn't, but that's all part of the process that we are

           8       involved in in this hearing.

           9           So I think we might have more expert evidence

          10       tomorrow --

          11   MR UNDERWOOD:  We certainly will.

          12   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  -- for you to consider.  We'll see

          13       how we get on with that.  But we are making good

          14       progress in this hearing, so the reason that you can now

          15       go home at 3 o'clock is we have run out of witnesses

          16       because we are making good progress, so there we are.

          17       It's not all bad.

          18           Thank you very much indeed.  If you would like to

          19       leave us and be ready for 10.30 tomorrow morning,

          20       please.



           6       (The Inquest adjourned until 10.00 am on Wednesday,

           7                        13 November 2013)

               Housekeeping .........................................1
               Submissions by MR MANSFIELD ..........................2
               MS JACQUELINE LANDAIS (affirmed) .....................5
                   Questions by MR UNDERWOOD ........................6
                   Questions by MR STRAW ............................9
                   Questions by MR STERN ...........................22
                   Further questions by MR UNDERWOOD ...............29
               MR FRANCO TOMEI (sworn) .............................31
                   Questions by MR UNDERWOOD .......................31
                   Discussion re evidence ..........................59
               MR FRANCO TOMEI (continued) .........................62
                   Questions by MR THOMAS ..........................62
                   Questions by MR STERN ..........................101
               MR IAN RICHARDS (sworn) ............................112
                   Questions by MR UNDERWOOD ......................112