Transcript of the Hearing 14 November 2013


           1                                     Thursday, 14 November 2013

           2   (10.00 am)

           3                  (Ex parte hearing in private)

           4   (11.05 am)

           5                         (A short break)

           6   (11.12 am)


           8                  (In the presence of the jury)

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

          10       jury, I am sorry about the delay.  Thank you very much,

          11       Dr Poole, for coming back.  I'm sorry to you about the

          12       delay at the start.  But we are now in a position to

          13       press on where we left off.  Let me just see.

          14       Mr Mansfield, it was you, I think, who was going to

          15       start.

          16                DR SIMON MAURICE POOLE (continued)

          17                    Questions by MR MANSFIELD

          18   MR MANSFIELD:  Good morning, Dr Poole --

          19   A.  Good morning, Mr Mansfield.

          20   Q.  -- although, not for the first time.  May I thank you

          21       and also for the Coroner for allowing the two experts to

          22       meet.  In fact you met this morning, I will come back to

          23       that.

          24           What I would, with your assistance, please, is to

          25       set the scene before we deal with the actual injuries.


           1       Before doing so, I have indicated in advance, I wonder

           2       if the jury might have Professor Pounder's second

           3       postmortem examination report.  I believe there are

           4       copies of that available.  It's the second postmortem

           5       examination carried out by Professor Pounder on

           6       19 August.  (Handed)

           7   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  This will become our next C30.

           8   MR MANSFIELD:  So the jury have the picture here, you do the

           9       first one --

          10   A.  Yes.

          11   Q.  -- on 5 August --

          12   A.  That's right.

          13   Q.  -- Professor Pounder does a second one on 19 August and

          14       the jury will be hearing, probably later today, from

          15       Professor Pounder, so he will be able to go through it.

          16       But there are certain aspects of what he says that you

          17       have had a chance to see; is that not right?

          18   A.  That's correct, yes.

          19   Q.  In addition to that, therefore, what I would liked to,

          20       with your help, having first, as it were, introduced

          21       that particular autopsy report, is for there to be on

          22       screen -- what I want to do, so you can see where I'm

          23       going, it is to set the scene of the shooting itself,

          24       draw some strands together that the jury have heard.

          25           Can I ask you this: you have not been in court




           1       before yesterday, have you?

           2   A.  No, I haven't.

           3   Q.  Have you been reading the transcripts or not?

           4   A.  No, I haven't.

           5   Q.  All right.  So it would also perhaps be helpful for you

           6       if I did this.

           7           The first document I would like up on screen, so the

           8       jury and you can see it, is a document that relates

           9       to -- I am going to call him the shooter -- V53.  The

          10       document number is CE263.

          11           Now, this is a plan.  You will have seen plans like

          12       this before but if it could come up on screen.  CE263,

          13       I don't think the jury have got this particular one.

          14       But if they want to relate it, could we just pause with

          15       that, keep that on screen if you wouldn't mind.  Then,

          16       if the jury could look out -- and Dr Poole I will come

          17       to the second document with you in a moment -- if the

          18       jury would like to look in fair folders at C23D, there's

          19       a version of this plan that they saw a few days ago,

          20       which probably pulls out, C23D.  I pause just to make

          21       sure that that is a plan that is in --

          22   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  That should be the last document

          23       behind the divider 23.

          24   MR MANSFIELD:  Yes.  It should be a plan.  I can see from

          25       some of the files that that's what it is.  The jury will




           1       see by looking at C23D.

           2   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  It came from Mr Bell?

           3   MR MANSFIELD:  I am very much obliged.  Split screen in one

           4       second for everybody else, just for Dr Poole, for

           5       a moment.

           6           On this particular plan -- have you seen this one

           7       before?

           8   A.  I can't recall.  I have certainly seen plans before, but

           9       several, so I can't -- I am not sure if it's this

          10       particular one.

          11   Q.  Don't worry.  If I may just indicate what we're looking

          12       at here.  Not all the cars involved are there but it

          13       doesn't matter for these purposes.  You will see that --

          14       so you know, to the left, if it matters, is Tottenham

          15       Hale, and to the right is obviously in the opposite

          16       direction, towards Walthamstow, but I am just putting it

          17       so you have the context here.

          18           The minicab is marked there, you see, on the roof of

          19       the minicab; do you have that?

          20   A.  Yes, I can see it.

          21   Q.  That's the minicab that we're talking about in this

          22       case.  Then there's a CO19, that's a firearms officer's

          23       car, BMW --

          24   A.  Yes.

          25   Q.  -- just above it on the plan.  Then behind it there's




           1       another BMW; do you see that?

           2   A.  Yes.

           3   Q.  That's another CO19 car.  Then, a little way beyond or

           4       behind is the Land Rover or a control vehicle, that's

           5       also CO19.  There was another one involved in the front

           6       but I am not going to spend time on that.

           7   A.  Okay.

           8   Q.  The shooter, V53, as in fact you can see, I think, just

           9       on the screen there -- his acronym is spelt out, V53 --

          10       placed himself in the box marked "A"; do you see that?

          11   A.  Yes, thank you.

          12   Q.  I accept at once that none of this can be precise to the

          13       last inch or centimetre, so it's a rough position of

          14       where he put himself.

          15   A.  Yes.

          16   Q.  Now, if we could have the split screen, please, because

          17       the jury already have this other document, which is --

          18       what you are going to see alongside is a replication of

          19       this plan but with something else marked on it.

          20           I think it's going to be a lateral -- there we are.

          21       The one I have just been showing you is at the top above

          22       the red line, the demarcation; do you see that?

          23   A.  Yes, thank you.

          24   Q.  The one below has -- well, it's a computer generated

          25       circle; do you see the circle adjacent to the minicab?




           1   A.  Yes.

           2   Q.  Now, that circle arises from a witness who was asked to

           3       deal with blood distribution.  I am going to interpose,

           4       just so it's clear to you, where it's all coming from.

           5       Could we have on screen, and then come back to this,

           6       I hope it's not too difficult.  I do not ask for a split

           7       three ways, but if we could go to CD54, which is

           8       a photograph.  Again, it may be a photograph you have

           9       seen or you may not.  CD54, please.

          10           Have you seen this before?

          11   A.  I don't recall having seen that.

          12   Q.  No, all right.  That is marked up with the blood

          13       distribution on the door of the minicab when it's closed

          14       and being examined; do you follow?

          15   A.  I do, yes.

          16   Q.  Obviously at the scene the door is open after somebody

          17       has got out --

          18   A.  Yes.

          19   Q.  -- in other words, Mr Duggan has got out.  It is in

          20       relation to that distribution on the door when opened

          21       that Mr Bell, so you know where it's coming from,

          22       placed -- can we go back, therefore, to the split

          23       screen, as long as it hasn't been lost for posterity.

          24           I think hopefully -- if I'm going too fast do say?

          25   A.  Can I just ask, the photograph we saw, is that the side




           1       of the car which is adjacent to the kerb?

           2   Q.  Yes.  That's right?

           3   A.  Thank you.

           4   Q.  There's only one door for the passenger to get out of on

           5       this minicab and it's the pavement side, so it's the

           6       nearside.  So when you're looking at the plan, the

           7       circle is approximate to the blood distribution spots on

           8       the door when it's open.

           9   A.  Yes.

          10   Q.  Is that all right?

          11   A.  Yes, I understand.

          12   Q.  I first want to deal with -- it's setting the scene

          13       before we deal with the actual injuries, that's why

          14       I want to put this together.  The distance between the

          15       circle -- do you follow, that's where Duggan -- perhaps

          16       I should preface this.

          17           The blood distribution on the door --

          18   A.  Yes.

          19   Q.  -- is thought -- I cannot put conclusively but almost

          20       conclusively -- to have come from the exit wound on the

          21       rear of Mr Duggan --

          22   A.  Yes.

          23   Q.  -- right?

          24   A.  Yes.

          25   Q.  That's where it's thought to have come from.




           1   A.  I understand.

           2   Q.  That's of the chest wound.

           3   A.  Yes.

           4   Q.  Now, the distance between a person standing, roughly in

           5       the circle, and someone standing roughly in the position

           6       of the shooter, somewhere in the square.

           7   A.  Yes.

           8   Q.  I am going to put this to you, so you have the distances

           9       and the jury have the distances as well.  There are

          10       estimates, but I am going to try to put a reasonable

          11       median figure to you that it's somewhere in the region

          12       just over three metres between the circle and a person

          13       standing in -- somewhere near the middle of A.

          14   A.  Yes.

          15   Q.  The jury, if they wish to check it, have a scale --

          16       perhaps it's not so obvious on the smaller ones -- at

          17       the bottom, and, as the learned Coroner said the other

          18       day, all you have to do is put a piece of paper along

          19       the bottom, measure three metres, and then stick it on

          20       the plan.

          21           So I am going to suggest -- and anyone else can do

          22       the same -- that it's just over three metres.

          23           Now, if you look on the witness box, where you're

          24       sitting, lift up the file, there should be a bit of

          25       black tape there.  It's nothing to do with you, sorry,




           1       I'm using you -- maybe it's still there or been removed?

           2   A.  I see no tape, sorry.

           3   Q.  It's actually stuck to the witness box or it was.

           4       Perhaps it's gone.  A bit further back by your left

           5       elbow -- there.

           6   A.  Tape, yes, sorry.

           7   Q.  If the jury would be very kind, in the middle of the

           8       jury box here, in the second row, there's another bit of

           9       black tape -- sorry, I am not --

          10   A.  Yes, I can see that, yes.

          11   Q.  I am not doing a Paul Daniels or anything.  The distance

          12       between -- so we all have some idea in this court room

          13       of the distances we're dealing with -- before we

          14       actually come to the injuries -- is between -- because

          15       we have the tape, done it this morning -- it's the

          16       distance between the bit of black tape at the side of

          17       the witness box and the bit of black tape at the

          18       beginning of the second row on the desk.  I don't know

          19       whether the jury can all see it.  We'll leave it in

          20       place so others can have a look at it later.

          21           Can I just check everybody can see the black tape on

          22       the witness box and everybody -- could you just put your

          23       finger there again?

          24   A.  (Indicates).

          25   Q.  It's there.  We'll leave it there so everybody can look




           1       at it later if they wish to, and the black tape on the

           2       jury bench is clear.  So we're dealing with physical

           3       space of around about three metres or just over,

           4       somewhere in that region --

           5   A.  Yes.

           6   Q.  -- that the shooter is firing.  Now, there's another

           7       factor in this as well, that it's clear, therefore, if

           8       this scenario is a reasonable one, that Mr Duggan hasn't

           9       moved very far from the open door, possibly one or two

          10       paces, not very far; do you follow?

          11   A.  Yes.

          12   Q.  That's number 1.  Number 2, that the timeframe within

          13       which this is happening is a matter of seconds --

          14   A.  Yes.

          15   Q.  -- possibly three, possibly five, seconds that this is

          16       happening.  I hope that, again, is a reasonable estimate

          17       of the time span.  So that's the time span and the space

          18       span?

          19   A.  Yes.

          20   Q.  So is the picture roughly clear to you, as I have put

          21       it?

          22   A.  Yes, I think I can follow.

          23   Q.  Others may wish to amend it slightly.  That's the

          24       context.

          25   A.  Yes.




           1   Q.  I now want to deal with the injuries.  What I want to do

           2       if, I may, with you is -- I realise you're a pathologist

           3       and you are not here to do anything other than give your

           4       opinion on the pathology here, but in relation -- first

           5       of all, I am not going to deal with the order of the

           6       wounds, first of all, all right, and I appreciate you

           7       said, I think from the beginning, you can't really tell

           8       the order in which they're fired?

           9   A.  No.

          10   Q.  However, another contextual matter: what is clear is

          11       that the two shots were fired in quick succession, with

          12       possibly a second in between each --

          13   A.  Yes.

          14   Q.  -- you appreciate that?

          15   A.  I understand that, yes.

          16   Q.  So in one sense it may not matter but in another sense

          17       it may.

          18   A.  Of course.

          19   Q.  So I'll deal with it, first of all, in the sense of

          20       taking this as a compendious incident in the timeframe

          21       and the space frame we've got here --

          22   A.  Yes.

          23   Q.  -- of two shots in quick succession.  Now, may I take --

          24       not because it necessarily came first, some say it did,

          25       some say it didn't, so I am not dealing with that --




           1       I am just dealing with the chest shot first of all.

           2   A.  Yes.

           3   Q.  Now, I don't know whether the jury have asked to see the

           4       actual wounds in relation to this but, for the moment,

           5       I am not going to actually show photographs of that for

           6       the moment.

           7           Just so the jury can picture it on themselves --

           8       well, particularly the men anyway, that it's roughly

           9       two centimetres -- the entry wound in the chest is

          10       roughly two centimetres above the right nipple; is that

          11       roughly right?

          12   A.  Yes, that's roughly accurate, yes.

          13   Q.  That's where it's going in.  It's going in downwards --

          14   A.  Yes.

          15   Q.  -- right to left.

          16   A.  Yes.

          17   Q.  The jury have seen trajectory records and all the rest

          18       of it --

          19   A.  Yes.

          20   Q.  -- and it comes out of the back to the left of the

          21       mid-line?

          22   A.  Yes.

          23   Q.  I'm concentrating on that particular shot for the

          24       moment.

          25           Another contextual matter I am going to feed into




           1       the scenario, you were aware of the weapon being used,

           2       because you were told --

           3   A.  Yes.

           4   Q.  -- that it was a MP5?

           5   A.  That's right.

           6   Q.  What about the ammunition, were you told about that?

           7   A.  I think I was given a provisional indication of the

           8       calibre of the bullets at the time of the autopsy.

           9       I think it was 9mm.

          10   Q.  Yes, 9mm Parabellum, jacketed hollow point, JHP they are

          11       sometimes called.

          12   A.  Yes.

          13   Q.  Are you aware these have only recently been authorised

          14       and not even all army units use this particular form of

          15       ammunition; were you aware of all that?

          16   A.  I wasn't aware of that, no.

          17   Q.  That's the ammunition and that's the carbine weapon

          18       that's being used.  It's a carbine.

          19   A.  Yes.

          20   Q.  Are you aware that the weapon and the ammunition, the

          21       combination, are intended to cause instantaneous

          22       incapacitation?

          23   A.  Yes, that's my understanding.

          24   Q.  That is your understanding?

          25   A.  Yes.




           1   Q.  What I'm going to suggest to you here is that that is --

           2       sorry, I get fed snippets of other bits of information.

           3           What I want to suggest to you here is, in relation

           4       to the combination of these two shots, but particularly

           5       the chest shot, that is pretty well what's happening:

           6       instantaneous incapacitation.

           7   A.  Yes.

           8   Q.  Right.  Yesterday, what you indicated, was that there

           9       would be instantaneous bleeding --

          10   A.  Yes.

          11   Q.  -- at a high rate --

          12   A.  Yes.

          13   Q.  -- and that this would lead to light-headedness, you

          14       called it -- I think was the description --

          15   A.  That could be a symptom, yes.

          16   Q.  -- within four -- possibly within four seconds?

          17   A.  Possibly, yes.  Yes, within that timeframe.

          18   Q.  Within that timeframe.  Now, that is a precursor to

          19       losing consciousness, isn't it?

          20   A.  Yes.

          21   Q.  Would it be a fair estimate that he would be losing

          22       consciousness within possibly four to six seconds?

          23   A.  Yes, within a very short timeframe.

          24   Q.  Very short time.  It may be we will have to split the

          25       two injuries up but, for the moment, I am just dealing




           1       with them compendiously.  If -- and this is obviously

           2       a question the jury will have to resolve in due

           3       course -- but if he had a gun in his hand --

           4   A.  Yes.

           5   Q.  -- at the time of these two shots successively fired in

           6       whatever order, first of all can you indicate to the

           7       jury what impact it might have on the person holding the

           8       gun?

           9           I'll put to you the scenario: is it likely that he

          10       continues holding it if he's got it or he drops it or

          11       you don't know?

          12   A.  I don't know.

          13   Q.  I'll come to the arm injury in a moment.  In any event,

          14       if he's holding it at the point in which he's virtually

          15       collapsing forward, one of the most obvious

          16       repercussions is that it gets drops there and then.

          17   A.  Yes, I accept that.

          18   Q.  Right, the trajectory and track of this chest wound,

          19       first of all --

          20   A.  Yes.

          21   Q.  You gave evidence earlier in the year, did you not, in

          22       the Kevin Hutchinson-Foster trial?

          23   A.  I did, yes.

          24   Q.  I'm only culling words from there, so these are

          25       essentially your words from a previous trial, that the




           1       track inside the body of Mark Duggan was markedly or

           2       substantially downward.

           3   A.  Yes.

           4   Q.  It means that the person -- Mark Duggan -- incurring

           5       a markedly or substantially downward track inside the

           6       body, at the time he incurs it, there is one of two

           7       possibilities: either the firer is firing down on

           8       somebody or the body itself, Mark Duggan, is bent

           9       forward.

          10   A.  Yes.

          11   Q.  It's one of those two.

          12   A.  Yes.

          13   Q.  Now, we know that the firer wasn't demonstrably on

          14       higher ground or -- he's on the same pavement.  There

          15       may be a slope but he's on the same pavement.

          16   A.  Yes.

          17   Q.  So therefore, would you agree that the obvious inference

          18       to be drawn is that Mark Duggan is substantially bent

          19       forward at this time?

          20   A.  Yes, I would accept that, and also -- I would also

          21       suggest that the weapon was directed downwards slightly

          22       as well.

          23   Q.  A combination of the two things?

          24   A.  Yes, absolutely, I accept that.

          25   Q.  What it does demonstrate is that Mark Duggan wasn't




           1       pretty well in the upright position, was he, when he

           2       incurred that injury?

           3   A.  No, it wouldn't be consistent with that scenario.

           4   Q.  No.  That's the chest injury.

           5   A.  Yes.

           6   Q.  I am not going to, as I say -- unless the jury want to

           7       see the actual injuries.  In fact, of course when you

           8       did the postmortem, photographs were taken, and of

           9       course the body was stripped away for you to look and so

          10       on.

          11   A.  Yes.

          12   Q.  So it's not exactly in the same shape it was originally

          13       once you came to look at it?

          14   A.  Plus -- and the other factor to consider is the

          15       emergency surgery to the chest --

          16   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  At the roadside, yes.

          17   A.  -- as I mentioned yesterday.  Yes, absolutely.

          18   MR MANSFIELD:  However, what I do want to do is to move, if

          19       I may, towards the arm injury.  Now, the first point

          20       about the arm injury is that, in terms of the track of

          21       the injury, it's very different to the track angle of

          22       the one going through the chest above the right nipple

          23       and coming out behind the back.

          24   A.  That's correct.

          25   Q.  In other words, that for this one to have occurred in




           1       this way, the recipient, Mark Duggan, must have been,

           2       and I'm going to put it -- pretty well standing upright

           3       because it's running parallel to the pavement; do you

           4       agree?

           5   A.  Yes, that would be an acceptable scenario, yes.

           6   Q.  The reason that I put it to you, and to this extent --

           7       so the family have been warned, and they know I'm going

           8       to do this, so I do it, so they know.  There are going

           9       to be two photographs to be scanned of the work that

          10       Dr Poole did on the arm at the time.

          11   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  The jury have asked for photographs,

          12       as I have indicated to you, so the jury are keen to see

          13       that.  So it's just a question if anybody in the public

          14       gallery does not wish to see this, then now will be the

          15       time to leave, for a short time.  We'll let you know as

          16       soon as questions move on.

          17   MR MANSFIELD:  I am much obliged to Mr Underwood.  What he

          18       has indicated is that the jury will be provided with

          19       whatever photographs they do require of these injuries

          20       but these two, I can put up now.  Shall I give them to

          21       someone who can scan them and put them on the --

          22   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Put them on the document scanner,

          23       I do not know if there's --

          24   MR MANSFIELD:  I'll pause, I think the person responsible is

          25       just outside.




           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Here he is, good.

           2   MR MANSFIELD:  Just while we are waiting, I think these

           3       photographs the jury are about to see are of the right

           4       arm --

           5   A.  Yes.

           6   Q.  -- taken at the time you were doing your autopsy.

           7   A.  Yes.

           8   Q.  I don't know which one is coming up first, it does not

           9       really matter.  There is one.  Now, I think the piece of

          10       metal that's going through -- somewhat like a skewer

          11       unfortunately -- you call that a probe?

          12   A.  It is a probe, that's correct, yes.

          13   Q.  You would do that, would you not?

          14   A.  Yes.

          15   Q.  Your point about doing it is to show, partly, the track

          16       through the arm --

          17   A.  Yes.

          18   Q.  -- and also that it is -- I think you call it

          19       a communicating wound?

          20   A.  Yes, they link.

          21   Q.  They link?

          22   A.  Yes.

          23   Q.  One can therefore see that.  Now, could we just have the

          24       other photograph as well.  That just shows the track.

          25       The other photograph is without the probe but with the




           1       measurement, in other words you use that type of right

           2       angle ruler to make the measurement?

           3   A.  Yes.

           4   Q.  So the distance -- I'm asking you this precisely because

           5       of a witness the other day who demonstrated to the jury

           6       something completely different, so that's why I just

           7       want to ask you.

           8           If you measure the distance between the two, do you

           9       do it from the inner edges or do you do it roughly from

          10       the centre or how do you did it?

          11   A.  I usually do it from the centre of the two injuries.

          12   Q.  Doing that, do you have a measurement from the centre of

          13       one to the centre of the other?

          14   A.  I did give it in my statement.

          15   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  You have it before you, in your

          16       statement.

          17   A.  Would you like me to --

          18   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, please.  We have your statement

          19       too so we can find it, but you'll know where it is so

          20       you can tell us.

          21   MR MANSFIELD:  If you want to find the page, it's page 6

          22       which is 672, but page 6 where you deal with the arm at

          23       the bottom:

          24           "The wound tunnelled superficially for ..."

          25   A.  Yes, thank you.




           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Do you see that?

           2   A.  Yes, I do, thank you.  I have said it's tunnelled

           3       superficially for a distance of 35 millimetres or three

           4       and a half centimetres, by which I mean the distance

           5       between those two is that dimension.

           6   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  The entry wound is which one and the

           7       exit wound is which one on the photograph?  Just point

           8       it out.

           9   A.  Let me just check.  (Pause)

          10           So, on the photograph, if I point at the screen.

          11   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, please.

          12   A.  That's what I have described as the ellipsoid, so

          13       I think that's the entry wound (indicates).  The other

          14       injury, the more untidy or ragged appearance, is the

          15       exit wound.

          16   MR MANSFIELD:  Just so the jury may understand, I hope

          17       I have this right, when the -- I know you don't -- you

          18       didn't take the actual photograph?

          19   A.  No, it would be a police photographer, yes.

          20   Q.  In order to take the photograph to demonstrate the

          21       track, as you have done, and measure, and so on, the

          22       right arm is, in fact, in this photograph extended in

          23       some way, isn't it?

          24   A.  Abducted away from the body.

          25   Q.  Abducted.  So you have the aspect of the arm facing the




           1       camera?

           2   A.  That's right.

           3   Q.  However, I just want to continue with this.  There is --

           4       I am not asking for the next injury to be shown,

           5       although there are photographs of it and if the jury

           6       wish to see it, there are photographs of the injury --

           7       well perhaps before I move on.  This is a few

           8       centimetres -- the pathology of Professor Pounder has

           9       given an indication of the precise distances from the

          10       armpit.  He's measured slightly different to you, hasn't

          11       he?

          12   A.  Yes.  I think, with regard -- I often refer to heel

          13       heights.

          14   Q.  You do heel?

          15   A.  I believe the Professor uses a top of the shoulder.

          16   Q.  Top of the shoulder.  I am not going to argue about who

          17       does what, when and why.

          18           So the jury have an idea themselves roughly where

          19       this one is coming -- in other words it's roughly on

          20       Professor Pounder's armpit measurements, the entry wound

          21       that we see there is about nine centimetres below the

          22       right armpit --

          23   A.  Yes.

          24   Q.  -- the exit wound is half a centimetre lower --

          25   A.  Yes.




           1   Q.  -- and then, I'm coming to the next one, which is

           2       13 centimetres from the armpit?

           3   A.  Yes.

           4   Q.  That one is not on that photograph.  So the third injury

           5       associated with this one bullet -- those can be taken

           6       off screen unless anyone wants them up for longer.

           7           So the third injury, 13 centimetres below the right

           8       armpit, is on the side of the chest; is that right?

           9   A.  Yes, that's correct.

          10   Q.  It's just -- would it be fair to say it's a grazing,

          11       superficial wound?

          12   A.  Yes.

          13   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Do we have a photograph of that?

          14   MR MANSFIELD:  We do actually.  Well, we'll put it up, as

          15       long as nobody is -- I hope I've got the right

          16       photograph.  This one.

          17   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  What are we actually looking at

          18       there?

          19           Sorry, I'm asking the witness.

          20   MR MANSFIELD:  It needs to be clearer.  I have another one

          21       with the ruler on, there we are.  Perhaps a little bit

          22       better.

          23           I'm sorry to tax you with these matters so long ago.

          24       Is that the side of the right chest?

          25   A.  Yes, the right side of the chest wall.




           1   Q.  That's what it looks like, 13 centimetres below the

           2       armpit.

           3   A.  Yes.

           4   Q.  I've been pointing on my body.  Could you very kindly

           5       stand up -- I don't want to overdo this but if you could

           6       take off your jacket.  I think this has happened before

           7       but with someone else.  It's then just a little bit

           8       easier -- don't worry I am not asking for the shirt to

           9       be removed as well.

          10           If you could turn to the Coroner first and then the

          11       jury as to roughly where the other injury is.

          12   A.  (Indicates) of that order, so 13 centimetres between the

          13       top of the shoulder, that's the fixed anatomical

          14       reference point, and I believe Professor Pounder --

          15   MR MANSFIELD:  I think it was from underneath the armpit?

          16   A.  All right.

          17   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  That's where it was because you saw

          18       it?

          19   A.  That approximate position.

          20   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Just spin round to the jury.

          21   A.  Where my finger is (indicates).

          22   MR MANSFIELD:  I think everybody has seen that, I'm much

          23       obliged.

          24   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you very much.

          25   MR MANSFIELD:  Now.




           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Could I ask you whether want to have

           2       any other photographs or can we tell the people outside

           3       that they can come into court if they wish to?

           4   MR MANSFIELD:  No, I don't need any other photographs.

           5   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  I'll let the public know that they

           6       can come in now.

           7   MR MANSFIELD:  I am still concentrating on this particular

           8       injury.  For these purposes, I have been referring to

           9       what is C30 in the jury bundle, so they have it.  It's

          10       Professor Pounder's second autopsy on the 19th.

          11           I am not asking that they calculate but they will

          12       see, under gunshot wounds, some of the measurements that

          13       I've been using come from there, particularly over the

          14       page, after:

          15           "... ragged irregular margins with prominent tissue

          16       tags medially.  The exit wound ... 9.5cm below the

          17       armpit."

          18           That's on the second page of the report at the top.

          19   A.  Yes, thank you.

          20   Q.  That's where they're coming from.  Then his paragraph:

          21           "Situated on the lateral aspect of the right chest

          22       wall ..."

          23           That's the one you have just shown, isn't it?

          24   A.  Yes.

          25   Q.  25 from the top of the shoulder, however 13 below the




           1       armpit.  So those are the figures, so the jury know

           2       where it's all coming from.

           3           Now, in relation to this series of injuries, the one

           4       to the arm, that is not the chest but the one with the

           5       entry and exit wound, I want to go back to that.  At the

           6       top paragraph, is it right that this morning you very

           7       kindly sat down with Professor Pounder to discover what

           8       it is he did and why came to certain conclusions?

           9   A.  Yes, that's right.

          10   Q.  Would it be fair to say, because I am not going to ask

          11       for Professor Pounder's photographs in relation to this

          12       to be put up, but there was a large measure of agreement

          13       between the two of you?

          14   A.  Yes, that's fair to say.

          15   Q.  I am going to try to summarise it.  What he did, on the

          16       second autopsy was -- he uses the word reflect there:

          17           "On reflection of the skin ..."

          18   A.  Yes.

          19   Q.  It's the seventh line down in that top paragraph:

          20           "On reflection of the skin ..."

          21           What you appreciate he did, this is not something

          22       you did, and it's not a criticism --

          23   A.  No, I understand.

          24   Q.  -- he did and you didn't.  Once you reflect the skin, in

          25       a sense you are dissecting what's underneath.




           1   A.  Absolutely.

           2   Q.  What you see underneath is muscle?

           3   A.  Yes.

           4   Q.  Then what you are able to do is to infer the state of

           5       the arm, by which I mean possibly its position.

           6   A.  Possibly, yes.

           7   Q.  Possibly -- I'm not, obviously, going further than

           8       that -- possibly the position of the arm before the shot

           9       as well as after.

          10   A.  Absolutely.

          11   Q.  Do you agree that what he discerned was that there was

          12       considerably more injury or trauma to the muscle

          13       underlying, than was at first visible by merely just

          14       looking at the wounds?

          15   A.  Yes, I accept that.

          16   Q.  I think it's not particularly in this report but in

          17       other reports described as tearing of the muscle?

          18   A.  Yes.

          19   Q.  So I put it to you and I think you have heard him say it

          20       this morning, what he discerned was that the -- because

          21       that -- this is the bicep, is it not?

          22   A.  The biceps muscle, yes.

          23   Q.  The bicep muscle, where the injury is, and the bicep

          24       muscle controls certain activity, does it not?

          25   A.  Yes.




           1   Q.  What is the activity that it controls in the arm?

           2   A.  It controls movement of the arm at the shoulder and the

           3       elbow joints.

           4   Q.  So two joints?

           5   A.  Yes.

           6   Q.  It controls that?

           7   A.  Yes.

           8   Q.  Would it be right to say that a fair inference from the

           9       photographs that he took of what he saw when he

          10       reflected the skin, a fair inference is that the muscle

          11       was contracted at the time.

          12   A.  That is possible, yes.

          13   Q.  That is possible.

          14   A.  Yes.

          15   Q.  What that means is that -- or one of the repercussions

          16       of that -- is that the arm was bent?

          17   A.  To some degree, yes.

          18   Q.  To some degree?

          19   A.  Yes.

          20   Q.  I appreciate you cannot be precise.  Could you, either

          21       by -- could you, by standing up, just give the margin of

          22       bending of the elbow that we're talking about here, that

          23       it could have been bent -- in other words, the range of

          24       bending, without being totally precise as exactly

          25       whenever it is; do you follow?




           1   A.  Yes.  I would stress it's hard to predict what the

           2       result of the injury would be, the functional result on

           3       the movement of the arm, given it's a relatively small

           4       area of damage.  It's very hard to estimate but --

           5   Q.  If you are speculating and you cannot do it, please

           6       don't.

           7   A.  I think I would be speculating a little too much.

           8   Q.  I do not want to put you in a difficult position.  Thank

           9       you for giving some idea that it's difficult to go

          10       further.

          11   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Do have a seat again.

          12   MR MANSFIELD:  Sorry, it was just in case you could give it.

          13           If you move back up the arm, in order to align the

          14       entry, exit and chest, you've actually got to -- not in

          15       the photograph -- and it's not photographed -- you have

          16       to rotate the arm in order to align the two -- entry,

          17       exit and chest together, do you not?

          18   A.  Yes, that's correct.

          19   Q.  So, again, if you wouldn't mind standing to do it, so

          20       the jury exactly know what it is.  Sorry, it's a very

          21       busy time in the witness box today.  Could you just turn

          22       towards the Coroner to show what it is you have to do to

          23       line up the shots.

          24   A.  The arm would have to rotate medially, so that's in

          25       towards the body.




           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  In front of the body?

           2   A.  Not necessarily.

           3   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Alongside?

           4   A.  That kind of movement (indicates).

           5   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Could you turn round?

           6   A.  It's easier to demonstrate with the elbow, the joint

           7       flexed at the elbow.  I am not saying the elbow was

           8       flexed but it's an inward movement or a turning movement

           9       if you like, so that part of your upper arm turns in

          10       slightly (indicates).

          11   MR MANSFIELD:  In terms of the upper arm, it turns --

          12       I think the jury now have the picture -- it turns, in

          13       order to align them --

          14   A.  Yes.

          15   Q.  Do sit down.  The two positions you naturally adopted,

          16       one was -- I am not saying you're saying that's how it

          17       was --

          18   A.  Yes.

          19   Q.  -- one of them was the arm comes across the body with

          20       the palm facing backwards, in other words to the rear of

          21       the body or the other one is it's down by the side?

          22   A.  Yes.

          23   Q.  It's one of those two, all right.  Sorry, just to go on

          24       about the entry, exit and alignment with the chest, in

          25       order for that to be produced, those three wounds with




           1       the track and all the rest of it, the upper arm has to

           2       be pretty close to the body, doesn't it?

           3   A.  Yes.

           4   Q.  Because what we do know -- I am not asking again for the

           5       photograph of this -- that he's wearing -- are you

           6       familiar with a puffa jacket?

           7   A.  I am, yes.

           8   Q.  When you did the autopsy the clothing wasn't there, was

           9       it?

          10   A.  It had been removed.

          11   Q.  Did you get to see it later?

          12   A.  Yes, I did have an opportunity to see it, yes.

          13   Q.  You know when I talk about a puffa jacket you know the

          14       precise one I am talking about in this case?

          15   A.  Yes, I do.

          16   Q.  So, in other words, although the puffa jacket might have

          17       bulk on it, if you understand me --

          18   A.  Yes.

          19   Q.  -- you might stand with your arms out a bit -- in fact,

          20       on a Puffa jacket, to get those injuries the arm would

          21       have to be close in to the body, pushing the jacket into

          22       the body?

          23   A.  Yes, to compress the fabric, yes.

          24   Q.  Right.  Still on the arm injury.  In relation just to

          25       that, because of the injury to the muscle, which you




           1       have seen on the photographs, do you agree that that in

           2       itself would have an effect on the ability to move the

           3       arm in the usual way?

           4   A.  Yes, I think that's a reasonable inference.

           5   Q.  Yes.  In any event, would this also be reasonable -- and

           6       if it's outside your ambit, please say so -- but the

           7       result also of the arm injury is that it would be, even

           8       though you might be able to move it a bit, it's going to

           9       be very painful, isn't it?

          10   A.  I would expect there to be some sort of pain, yes.

          11   Q.  Well, a little bit more than that, it would be very

          12       painful, that sort of injury?

          13   A.  Yes, in normal circumstances, I would expect severe

          14       pain, yes.

          15   MR MANSFIELD:  Severe pain, thank you.  I am much obliged.

          16   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you very much.  I think the

          17       next person then to ask questions is Mr Stern.

          18   MR STERN:  I was looking to Mr Thomas.

          19   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  No, there's no other questions.

          20                      Questions by MR STERN

          21   MR STERN:  Dr Poole, I wonder if we could just first of all

          22       look, please, at CD115.

          23   A.  Where can I find that, please.

          24   Q.  It will come up on the screen?

          25   A.  Thank you.




           1   Q.  That was a briefing note for you, the Home Office

           2       pathologist, in relation to this case.

           3   A.  Yes, I do recognise that, thank you.

           4   Q.  Can we see, in the third paragraph down:

           5           "A non-police issue hand gun was recovered from the

           6       scene wrapped in a sock.  A police officer allegedly

           7       believed that he had been shot and a bullet was found

           8       lodged in his police radio/radio harness.

           9           "The officer discharged his MP5 rifle twice at

          10       Mr Duggan.  He subsequently fell to the floor ..."

          11           Et cetera.

          12   A.  Yes.

          13   Q.  Can I ask you where you got the notion of the double

          14       tap?

          15   A.  As I said yesterday, I think -- this is purely from

          16       memory because I do not think it is in my original

          17       notes -- that it was information I got at the time of

          18       the original briefing, at the time of autopsy.

          19   Q.  That's what I wondered.  Because you have certainly not

          20       made that clear in any of your notes, have you?

          21   A.  No.  As I said, I didn't record that in writing.

          22   Q.  I think Mr Mansfield has put to you that there was about

          23       a second between the shots.

          24   A.  That's right.

          25   Q.  That would obviously not therefore be anywhere like




           1       a double tap?

           2   A.  No.  I think that would be a longer period, a double tap

           3       being much more rapid.

           4   Q.  Yes.  Can we, first of all, look at page 667, CS667,

           5       which I think the jury have, which sets out some of your

           6       qualifications.

           7   A.  Yes, they have, yes.

           8   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Sorry Mr Stern, I didn't realise the

           9       time.  Are you going to be lengthy or can we complete

          10       this witness within five or ten minutes?  It's just

          11       a question about the mid-morning break.  I know those in

          12       front of me have been working since earlier on this

          13       morning.

          14   MR STERN:  Not within five or ten minutes, I'm afraid, no.

          15   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  I think in fairness then, I think

          16       what we will do is have our short break now.  So,

          17       members of the jury, thank you very much.

          23   (12.00 pm)

          24                         (A short break)

          25   (12.17 pm)





           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Right, we'll have the jury in now,

           2       please.

           3                  (In the presence of the jury)

           4   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you very much.  Yes, Mr Stern,

           5       you were asking questions.

           6   MR STERN:  Yes, thank you, sir.

           7           Dr Poole, I was about to look at the first part of

           8       your statement at page 667.  We can see that you have

           9       a First Class Honours Degree and a Diploma in Medical

          10       Jurisprudence and you are a Fellow of the Royal College

          11       of Pathologists and you are a Home Office pathologist

          12       and have been so since 2007?

          13   A.  That's right.

          14   Q.  You have given, I think, opinions on a number of

          15       occasions, have you, in relation to various matters to

          16       do with your sphere of expertise?

          17   A.  I have, yes.

          18   Q.  Are you an independent expert?

          19   A.  Yes, I am.

          20   Q.  You have not been instructed by anyone of the parties

          21       here or anything like that?

          22   A.  No, I was instructed to perform the postmortem by the

          23       Coroner, Mr Walker.

          24   Q.  Could we just understand this: you carried out the

          25       autopsy on 5 August and you started at about 5 o'clock




           1       and concluded at 9.30 in the evening?

           2   A.  Yes.

           3   Q.  Then, at page 669 of your report, we can see the

           4       circumstances set out there -- or the "Brief

           5       circumstances of death", it's under the heading of.

           6   A.  Yes.

           7   Q.  I do not think I need to go through that again but at

           8       the bottom we can see that you measured the height of

           9       Mark Duggan at 178 centimetres, 5 foot 10 --

          10   A.  Yes.

          11   Q.  -- and that he was of slim build --

          12   A.  Yes.

          13   Q.  -- about 10 stone.

          14   A.  That's correct.

          15   Q.  10 stone 12?

          16   A.  Yes, just under 11 stone.

          17   Q.  Yes.  Could we look at 672.  I want to ask you about the

          18       chest wound.  That was the wound that was fatal, the

          19       other wound was not life threatening.

          20   A.  Survivable, I would say, yes.

          21   Q.  Now, the entry level that you have got is

          22       149 centimetres, which, for anybody who still prefers

          23       it, 4 foot 10-ish.

          24   A.  Yes.

          25   Q.  Now, I think I may have inadvertently said




           1       140 centimetres yesterday or the day before, sir, for

           2       which I apologise, but I've got that from the transcript

           3       in the evidence.  It may be that it's a typing error.

           4       It says 140 centimetres above the height of the heel but

           5       149 is how you measured it from, as it were, lying down,

           6       prone?

           7   A.  Yes.  Supine, in fact, rather than prone.

           8   Q.  A thoracotomy, without going into too much detail,

           9       obviously distorts the point of entry?

          10   A.  That's the case, yes.

          11   Q.  I think you were asked at one point about the

          12       possibility of the point of entry in fact being

          13       136.8 centimetres above the heel.

          14   A.  I can't recall when -- I might have been but I cannot

          15       recall the occasion.

          16   Q.  No, all right.  It's at CD4483.  It's an email from

          17       someone called Andrew Postlethwaite.  You may have it.

          18   A.  Yes, I do recall now, thank you.

          19   Q.  At this stage, these individuals, I am not sure which

          20       company it's from, were trying to do some sort of three

          21       dimensional model that may not matter very much?

          22   A.  Yes.

          23   Q.  The point about that is, in order to do so, and to try

          24       and replicate the exit and entry, they found difficulty

          25       and therefore their measurements was 136.8 centimetres




           1       and you were being asked whether or not that was

           2       a realistic proposition?

           3   A.  Yes.  Yes, I understand.

           4   Q.  I think you replied to that, on 24 August, saying that

           5       that might account for the discrepancy?

           6   A.  It might do, yes.

           7   Q.  So obviously it's difficult now, being precise about

           8       this, but the point of entry on Mr Duggan's -- I'm going

           9       to call it the chest wound --

          10   A.  Yes.

          11   Q.  -- and I am not going to call the one on the side of the

          12       chest -- I'm going to call that the graze, if I may, so

          13       we don't get confused.

          14   A.  For distinction, yes.  Thank you.

          15   Q.  The chest wound may have been somewhere between

          16       136.8 centimetres and 149 centimetres.

          17   A.  Yes, I accept that.

          18   Q.  So between 4 foot 6 approximately and 4 foot 10, or

          19       thereabouts.

          20   A.  Yes.

          21   Q.  The exit wound was 124 centimetres; does that not fall

          22       foul of the same problem?

          23   A.  Yes, I think that measurement would be less prone to

          24       error because the thoracotomy was at the front of the

          25       chest and the anatomy at the back was relatively




           1       undisturbed.

           2   Q.  So that's about 4 foot 1.  So does it follow that if the

           3       entry wound was in fact 4 foot 6 and the exit wound

           4       4 foot 1, the angle would not be quite as deep as

           5       45 degrees or will it remain 45 degrees?

           6   A.  It will be less steep, should I say.  I couldn't put

           7       a precise degree on it but I think the inference would

           8       be correct to say that it would be less steep if the

           9       entry wound was lower.

          10   Q.  Like Mr Mansfield, I do not want you to guess but would

          11       you be able to give any sort of estimate?

          12   A.  I'm afraid I can't.

          13   Q.  All right, but obviously that is a fairly significant

          14       difference, isn't it?  It would be -- I think the

          15       difference would be about five inches, as opposed to

          16       nine inches?

          17   A.  I would accept that's a considerable difference, yes.

          18   Q.  Now, the injury to the upper right arm.

          19   A.  Yes.

          20   Q.  As you've gone through them -- I won't go through them

          21       again -- the jury have either a picture or will have

          22       a picture of it, it's a communicating wound, as we can

          23       see.

          24   A.  That's right.

          25   Q.  That injury, on the upper part, is 144 centimetres --




           1   A.  Yes.

           2   Q.  -- from the heel, so that's about 4 foot 9?

           3   A.  Yes.

           4   Q.  Would that have suffered in any way from the thoracotomy

           5       or not?

           6   A.  I think it would be relatively unaffected.

           7   Q.  As you have already told us, the wound tunnelled,

           8       superficially, for about 35 millimetres --

           9   A.  Yes.

          10   Q.  -- and communicated with the other injury at about

          11       141 centimetres?

          12   A.  Yes.

          13   Q.  So that would be about 4 foot 8 from heel?

          14   A.  Yes, a little bit lower.

          15   Q.  It's right, isn't it, I think, that that injury to the

          16       bicep has a slight right to left track?

          17   A.  Yes, that's my estimate, I agree.

          18   Q.  You concluded, as does everyone else, I think, that that

          19       was connected to the right chest graze?

          20   A.  Yes.

          21   Q.  I don't mean to diminish it but just so we can

          22       distinguish between the chest shot and the chest

          23       graze -- the chest injury, rather?

          24   A.  Yes, it was relatively superficial compared to the fatal

          25       wound.




           1   Q.  In order to align them up, I think there would have to

           2       be an angle downward of I think Professor Pounder puts

           3       it about 15 degrees?

           4   A.  Yes, quite shallow.

           5   Q.  Quite shallow but you accept that sort of degree, do

           6       you?

           7   A.  Yes, I would.

           8   Q.  Downwards of the shoulder -- did I say "shot"?  I meant

           9       shoulder.  The wound in the upper arm entered the

          10       outside --

          11   A.  Yes.

          12   Q.  -- exited on the inside --

          13   A.  Inner face, yes.

          14   Q.  -- and then entered but superficially the graze on the

          15       chest?

          16   A.  Yes.

          17   Q.  They were separate entry and exit wounds in the sense

          18       that there were three wounds, three separate wounds?

          19   A.  Yes, but all related, in my view, yes.

          20   Q.  All right.  Does it follow from that, because they are

          21       related, that the top part of the arm, the upper arm,

          22       must have been close to the chest wounding, chest graze?

          23   A.  Yes, I think that's a reasonable inference, yes.

          24   Q.  Does it also follow that the shoulder must be dipped

          25       slightly in order to ally up the injury to the other




           1       graze, which is slightly lower?

           2   A.  Yes, there could have been a slight drop in the

           3       shoulder, yes.

           4   Q.  Does it also follow that the upper arm must have been

           5       slightly forward of that chest graze?

           6   A.  Yes, it could have been, yes.

           7   Q.  Now, you've been asked a number of questions about the

           8       muscle in the bicep and whether it's likely that the

           9       muscle was taut at the time.

          10   A.  Yes.

          11   Q.  I think what you can say is this, can you not, that it

          12       would be consistent with the lower part of the arm being

          13       horizontal across the chest to some extent?

          14   A.  Yes, it would be consist with that scenario.

          15   Q.  If it's right that the muscle in the bicep was taut, it

          16       would be more consistent to have it across, or

          17       horizontal, rather than vertical?

          18   A.  Yes.  If the biceps muscle was in a state of tension,

          19       which I assume you mean by "taut" --

          20   Q.  Yes.

          21   A.  -- contraction.  Yes, one of the effects, as I said

          22       earlier, would be to flex the elbow, so it might be in

          23       the position as you indicated.

          24   Q.  Now, the extent of the effect of any gunshot wound to

          25       the arm is of course unknown?




           1   A.  Yes.

           2   Q.  It can't be decided pathologically, can it?

           3   A.  In my view not, no.

           4   Q.  Obviously individuals who are in adrenaline state often

           5       don't even notice that they've been shot and/or stabbed

           6       or injured in any way?

           7   A.  Yes, that has been described in survivors, I accept

           8       that.

           9   Q.  We do know, on the evidence of W70, that after both

          10       shots had been fired, Mark Duggan raised his arms to his

          11       chest?

          12   A.  I understand.

          13   Q.  So albeit it may be painful, one is still able to move

          14       one's arms --

          15   A.  Yes.

          16   Q.  -- or arm.  Am I right in saying it would be outside the

          17       sphere of expertise of a pathologist to be able to give,

          18       in this case, evidence in relation to the order of the

          19       shots fired?

          20   A.  I would consider it beyond my realm of expertise.

          21   Q.  As a pathologist?

          22   A.  And my state of experience as well, yes.

          23   Q.  Likewise the order of the injuries?

          24   A.  Likewise, yes.

          25   Q.  Is there any way of telling scientifically, as




           1       a pathologist, what Mr Duggan was capable of doing and

           2       whether he could have thrown it or not?

           3   A.  I can't comment on that.

           4   Q.  You've told us, I think, that it is not possible to make

           5       or provide a reliable answer to the question of where

           6       Mark Duggan's lower arm was once he had been shot in the

           7       arm?

           8   A.  Yes.  I can't give a precise indication as to his

           9       posture.

          10   Q.  What we can say is that the top part, or the upper arm,

          11       was rotated more inwardly --

          12   A.  Yes, I accept that.

          13   Q.  -- that it's likely that he was down, to some extent --

          14   A.  Yes.

          15   Q.  -- or the arm was slightly down --

          16   A.  Yes.

          17   Q.  -- and that if the muscle -- I'm using the wrong word --

          18       if the muscle was -- tension -- then it's likely that

          19       the arm was across the -- in some way, across the body?

          20   A.  Yes, that would be consistent.

          21   Q.  But the lower arm, how independent -- and the hand --

          22       you demonstrated the hand but what about the lower arm?

          23   A.  The lower arm -- it's purely on pathology, it's not

          24       possible to be dogmatic about the relative of the

          25       joints.  As I indicated yesterday, the elbow, or rather




           1       the lower arm and the hand has a large degree of

           2       independent movement from the upper arm, so purely on

           3       a medical perspective it's very hard to indicate the

           4       positions.

           5   Q.  No, I understand that.  Did you say it's independent?

           6   A.  Well, they are obviously joined and linked but the

           7       degree of functional movement is quite independent.

           8   Q.  Now, I wonder if we could just look at the photograph

           9       that is CE09.  You saw this morning where the blood

          10       spatter was --

          11   A.  Yes.

          12   Q.  -- and where it was that it was suggested that Mark

          13       Duggan may be at the time at which that blood spatter

          14       occurred --

          15   A.  Yes.

          16   Q.  -- which was to the left of that circle.  Ignore that

          17       circle that's there at the moment, all right?

          18   A.  Yes.

          19   Q.  Perhaps we had better go back and look at that one to

          20       refresh our memory, sorry I have forgotten which number

          21       it is.

          22           We can see that that is where it was said that it's

          23       likely -- obviously one cannot be certain -- but likely

          24       that Mark Duggan was when the blood spatter went onto

          25       the minicab.




           1   A.  Yes.

           2   Q.  It was also suggested that the chest shot must have

           3       been -- or was most likely to have been -- the one that

           4       caused that?

           5   A.  Yes.

           6   Q.  If we look then -- just before we move, sorry -- you

           7       were also asked about the trajectory of the shot in

           8       relation to the arm, and that is obviously a much more

           9       horizontal line --

          10   A.  Yes, yes.

          11   Q.  -- than the chest shot?

          12   A.  Yes.

          13   Q.  I wonder if we could have a look at that photograph

          14       again, please.  Thank you.

          15           The officer who received the injury to the radio is

          16       standing approximately where that black circle is.

          17   A.  Yes.

          18   Q.  If it's right that the shot to the arm was at that

          19       point, it would follow, would it not, that Mark Duggan

          20       would have to be at least level with where that black

          21       dot is.

          22   A.  Yes, that would be a reasonable inference.

          23   Q.  We know, as I say, that he received the chest shot,

          24       because of the blood spatter, nearer to the minicab.

          25   A.  Yes.




           1   Q.  Would it have been possible for him to continue moving

           2       in a fairly ordered fashion following having been shot

           3       in the chest?

           4   A.  I think in general terms, a surprising degree of

           5       post-injury activity is recognised.  From a pathological

           6       perspective, it's actually quite unusual for people to

           7       die instantly following a wound, even of that severity.

           8           So perhaps I can say in my answer that a degree of

           9       post-injury activity such as movement, voluntary

          10       movement, would be possible after a wound of that kind,

          11       although I would always defer to any witness evidence

          12       with respect to the degree of activity or collapse after

          13       injury.  I think that would be a far better indication.

          14   Q.  Witness evidence, as opposed to expert evidence, do you

          15       mean?

          16   A.  Yes, eyewitness evidence.

          17   Q.  Eyewitness evidence, yes.  So you said that someone

          18       would not begin to lose consciousness, if I have

          19       understood your evidence correctly, somewhere between

          20       four and ten seconds?

          21   A.  They might not do.

          22   Q.  They could carry on presumably for longer?

          23   A.  Yes, yes.

          24   Q.  From that spot that we can see, roughly where that black

          25       circle is, you can see, further to the right, obviously




           1       further away from the photographer, where the officers

           2       are carrying out first aid on Mark Duggan.

           3   A.  Yes.

           4   Q.  Again, is that consistent with his ability to move in

           5       a diagonal fashion from the minicab to the railings even

           6       if he had been shot on two occasions?

           7   A.  It appears to be a very short distance between the CPR

           8       attempts and that circle so, yes, somebody could

           9       potentially stagger or take a few voluntary steps that

          10       short distance.

          11   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  I think there is some evidence that

          12       he had been moved there actually.  The circle is what

          13       the officer W42 said, it's his position, so obviously it

          14       will be a matter for the jury.  These aren't necessarily

          15       taken as givens.

          16           That's the way it's been presented, Mr Stern.  It

          17       looks like it was actually incontrovertible, it's not.

          18   MR MANSFIELD:  It's not and there's evidence about him being

          19       taken to the ground.

          20   MR STERN:  I accept that.  I am merely dealing with what

          21       we've got at the moment rather than rehearsing all the

          22       evidence.

          23           I think that's all I wanted to ask you.  If you

          24       wouldn't mind, sorry.  (Pause)

          25           Yes, thank you very much.




           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you, Mr Stern.  Did you have

           2       any questions, Mr Keith?

           3   MR KEITH:  No.

           4   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Mr Butt?

           5   MR BUTT:  No, thank you.

           6   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Mr Glasson?

           7   MR GLASSON:  No, thank you.

           8   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Mr Underwood?

           9   MR UNDERWOOD:  Nothing arising out of that, thank you.

          10   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you very much, Dr Poole, for

          11       assisting the jury.  Sorry you've been here two days,

          12       but it's been very helpful.

          13   A.  Not at all.

          14   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  That concludes your evidence, you

          15       are free to go, although you are welcome to stay if you

          16       wish to.

          17   A.  Thank you.

          18                      (The witness withdrew)

          19   MR UNDERWOOD:  Professor Pounder, please.

          20            PROFESSOR DERRICK JOHN POUNDER (affirmed)

          21   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Have a seat then, would you, please.

          22   A.  Thank you.

          23                    Questions by MR UNDERWOOD

          24   MR UNDERWOOD:  Good morning, Professor.

          25   A.  Good morning.




           1   Q.  Can you give us your full names, please?

           2   A.  Derrick John Pounder.

           3   Q.  You are a pathologist, I gather?

           4   A.  Yes.

           5   Q.  Time being as short as it is, I am going to ask the jury

           6       to have a copy of your CV, as well as reports that you

           7       have provided.  Perhaps the Coroner could see those

           8       first before they go up.  (Handed)

           9   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes.  Thank you very much.  Yes,

          10       that's fine.  Thank you very much.

          11   MR UNDERWOOD:  I think the jury already has, at C30 --

          12   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  This will become part of C30.

          13   MR UNDERWOOD:  It will indeed.  There's a postmortem report,

          14       which was handed up by my learned friend Mr Mansfield

          15       earlier today.  There's then a document entitled

          16       "Opinion of Professor Derrick Pounder" and attached to

          17       that is the CV; is that right?

          18   A.  That's correct, yes.

          19   Q.  Professor, I mean no disrespect at all by this, taking

          20       it as briefly as I possibly can, with your CV.  There's

          21       a CV that runs to 13 pages but, in very short, you're

          22       a Professor of Forensic Medicine at the University of

          23       Dundee, I think?

          24   A.  That's correct.

          25   Q.  That's a post you have had since 1987?




           1   A.  Yes.

           2   Q.  You have a medical degree and specialist qualifications

           3       in the field of pathology?

           4   A.  Yes.

           5   Q.  You have performed medico-legal autopsies since 1975?

           6   A.  That's correct.

           7   Q.  You have been a specialist consultant since 1980?

           8   A.  Yes.

           9   Q.  You're a member of the Forensic Advisory Group of the

          10       International Committee of the Red Cross?

          11   A.  Yes.

          12   Q.  You have assisted Amnesty International --

          13   A.  Yes.

          14   Q.  -- the Council of Europe --

          15   A.  That's correct.

          16   Q.  -- the UN --

          17   A.  Yes.

          18   Q.  -- and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in

          19       Europe?

          20   A.  Yes.

          21   Q.  You have participated in investigations of police and

          22       military shootings in a large number of countries; is

          23       that right?

          24   A.  Yes.

          25   Q.  You have expertise, I think, in the forensic pathology




           1       of gunshot wounds?

           2   A.  That's correct.

           3   Q.  I will, again if you'll forgive me, take it no further

           4       than that, given the jury have a copy of your CV.

           5           In terms of your involvement in this, I think you

           6       were asked to do a second autopsy on behalf of the

           7       Duggan family; is that right?

           8   A.  I was asked initially to advise solicitors acting for

           9       the family and out of that arose a request to perform

          10       a second autopsy.

          11   Q.  That's the reason why the second postmortem examination

          12       report, which was handed up earlier, came into being; is

          13       that right?

          14   A.  That's correct.

          15   Q.  Subsequently, I think on the request of the Coroner, you

          16       produced a report which is your opinion; is that right?

          17   A.  No, I think the opinion report arose as a result of a --

          18       I think a joint request, as I understand it.

          19   Q.  The Coroner and the IPCC?

          20   A.  That's correct.

          21   Q.  If we can deal first of all with your second postmortem

          22       report; do you have a hard copy?

          23   A.  I do.

          24   Q.  The jury obviously have it.  For the purposes of the

          25       record it's CD29109, perhaps we can have that up on




           1       screen.  We'll be seeing from that that you conducted

           2       this postmortem on 19 August 2011; is that correct?

           3   A.  Yes.

           4   Q.  Picking it up at the bottom of the first page, under

           5       "Gunshot wounds", you deal with the right upper arm

           6       wound and the relationship between the holes and what

           7       you did.

           8           Can you tell us there, please, in fairly

           9       straightforward terms, what that wound consisted of?

          10   A.  Well, there was a wound to the inside of the mid-part of

          11       the upper arm over the biceps muscle.  That's the muscle

          12       that people show off when they want to show how muscular

          13       they are.  There were two wounds -- one where the bullet

          14       went in, one where the bullet came out -- very close

          15       together, just tracking underneath the skin and damaging

          16       the underlying muscle.

          17   Q.  There was an associated wound, was there, on the chest,

          18       of a rather superficial nature?

          19   A.  Yes.  There was a somewhat unusual wound on the chest,

          20       it was much larger to the wound on the arm.  It was

          21       about four centimetres in diameter compared to

          22       two centimetres in diameter for the largest wound on the

          23       arm, but it was superficial, that's to say it had taken

          24       off the surface of the skin but it hadn't gone deeper.

          25       It hadn't gone deep into fat, it hadn't exposed the




           1       muscle, and it hadn't exposed or damaged bone.

           2   Q.  Did you attempt to line the various wounds up, the

           3       two -- the entry and exit wound on the bicep and that

           4       superficial wound?

           5   A.  I did.

           6   Q.  What was the result of that?

           7   A.  Well, looking at the entry wound and the exit wound to

           8       the arm, the exit wound was slightly lower than the

           9       entry wound compared with a person standing up now, so

          10       the trajectory was slightly downwards.  But the wounds

          11       to the arm were much higher then the wound to the chest

          12       if you followed the line between the entry and the exit.

          13           So in order to line up the entry, the exit and the

          14       chest, I lowered the shoulder and that brought them into

          15       alignment.

          16           It would be the equivalent of if you were simply

          17       standing or sitting and you dropped your shoulder, that

          18       natural position would bring it into alignment.

          19   Q.  So the first thing we get from this then is a drop of

          20       the shoulder, 15 degrees or so, yes?

          21   A.  Yes, I estimated it, looking at it, at approximately

          22       15 degrees.

          23   Q.  Could you also tell the relationship between arm and

          24       chest in terms of abduction?

          25   A.  Yes.  When we look at the body after death, the arms are




           1       lying by the side and in a natural position.  As you

           2       looked at the body, the entry and the exit wound, if you

           3       follow them through, would mean that the bullet would

           4       have gone into the chest.  So clearly the arm wasn't in

           5       that position at the time of the shot.  Since the bullet

           6       went across the chest and grazed the chest.

           7           The upper part of the arm is a bit like a rolling

           8       pin and it rolls (indicates).  It's possible to roll it

           9       inwards and if you did that to the arm, which I did,

          10       then the entry wound and the exit wound would align with

          11       the wound to the chest.  So it means that at the time

          12       the shot was received Mark Duggan's upper arm was

          13       reasonably close to the chest and his upper arm was

          14       turned in the way it would be if you were standing

          15       upright and you let your hand hang by your side with the

          16       back of the hand facing forwards.

          17   Q.  At that stage -- we'll come to your opinion later on --

          18       did you give any consideration to whether the elbow was

          19       crooked?

          20   A.  At that point, no.

          21   Q.  So if we then move on to the other wound, what we're all

          22       calling the chest wound, you've heard, I think, Dr Poole

          23       give evidence in its entirety.

          24   A.  I did.

          25   Q.  You heard then that there was debate about the angle,




           1       the downward angle, of that chest wound --

           2   A.  Yes.

           3   Q.  -- and the degree to which the thoracotomy may have

           4       disrupted measurements about that.

           5   A.  Yes.

           6   Q.  When you measured that wound, did you take account of

           7       the thoracotomy?

           8   A.  When I looked at the wound, the thoracotomy had been

           9       resutured.  Since I performed my autopsy after the first

          10       autopsy, the technicians in the mortuary reconstituted

          11       the body and sewed up all of the injuries produced at

          12       autopsy and the thoracotomy, so I was able to look at it

          13       almost as if he was without the thoracotomy.  I say

          14       "almost as if" because obviously I had the opposite

          15       problem, when the thoracotomy was stitched up, it

          16       shortened it.

          17   Q.  So, having regard to that, what sort of degree of

          18       downward angle did you evaluate there being in that

          19       wound?

          20   A.  I estimated that to be 45 degrees and the way I did that

          21       was I turned Mark Duggan's body on its side, so I could

          22       look side-on to the body.  I put my -- one hand on the

          23       entry wound to the chest, my other hand on the back

          24       wound to the chest and I looked at the angle between

          25       them.  I would add that when I did get the copy of




           1       Dr Poole's report, I tried to do some estimates of what

           2       the angle would have been according to his report and my

           3       best guesstimate, if you like, would be about

           4       30 degrees, based upon his report.

           5   Q.  Right.  Having reconsidered it in the light of his

           6       report, what's your feeling about that angle now?

           7   A.  Well, I think that if you want a broad guideline, it's

           8       between 30 degrees and 45 degrees, and I would say

           9       closer to the 45 degrees than the 30 degrees.

          10   Q.  Thank you very much.  Unless anybody wants me to, I am

          11       not going to go into any more details on your findings

          12       in the autopsy itself and move on to your opinion, which

          13       is at our page CD29113.

          14           We know there's a subsequent opinion based on

          15       some -- a supplementary opinion, I should say -- based

          16       on ballistics tests which you attended, I think; is that

          17       right?

          18   A.  That's correct.  These were tests by Dr Seaman.

          19   Q.  Just take it in sequence though, at the time of the

          20       opinion we're looking at here, you received a whole lot

          21       of documentation, which we see in your page 2 and

          22       page 3; is that right?

          23   A.  That's correct.

          24   Q.  Can I ask you to develop what you say at paragraph 3 on

          25       page 3 about all death investigations requiring




           1       integration of evidence which can be obtained from

           2       various sources?

           3   A.  Yes.  I've written:

           4           "All death investigations require an integration of

           5       evidence ..."

           6           The way I teach it to medical students and to law

           7       students is that the result of the investigation is like

           8       the seat of a stool, so all the questions that you want

           9       to ask -- who died, when they died, where they died,

          10       what was the cause of death, what were the circumstances

          11       of death and what happened -- are the seat of that

          12       stool, and the three legs of the three-legged stool are

          13       the examination of the body and everything that's on the

          14       body, including clothing, the examination of the scene

          15       of death and all the information you can gain from the

          16       scene of death, and then witness statements.

          17           What we try to do is triangulate between the three

          18       sources of information.  So one source of information

          19       may give you some very firm idea about a particular

          20       issue, and then you look to the other two sources to

          21       triangulate and see whether you can confirm it, and

          22       slowly you move between the three sources of

          23       information, building up a picture of firm pieces of

          24       evidence so that you can develop the death

          25       investigation.




           1   Q.  If we go over to your page 4, our page CD29115, you set

           2       out at paragraph 5 what it is that you gathered from the

           3       information about the way in which Mark Duggan exited,

           4       the nature of the pavement and, at paragraph 6, the two

           5       shots.

           6           Then, at the bottom half of paragraph 6, you take

           7       into account the jacketed hollow point ammunition, and

           8       you say that the ballistics of that type of ammunition

           9       differs from the full metal jacketed ammunition.

          10           Is that because a full jacketed bullet will not

          11       mushroom on contact with the body, will generally make

          12       a smaller hole?

          13   A.  Yes.  It's not designed to mushroom or fragment.  It may

          14       do but it's not designed to, whereas the hollow point is

          15       specifically designed to mushroom.

          16   Q.  You deal at paragraph 7 with what is presumably

          17       a combination of your own findings and also of what

          18       you've been told, is that right, that the two bullets

          19       had struck Mr Duggan and you deal with the wounds?

          20   A.  Yes.

          21   Q.  Then if we go over to your page 5, you deal with the

          22       bullets.  The first one, at the top of the page, is:

          23           "A fired bullet found within the minicab [RES/1]

          24       showed features on ballistic testing [that's from

          25       Mr Seaman] which indicated that it was the bullet which




           1       had passed through the chest.  The other bullet struck

           2       the inside of the right upper arm in the area of the

           3       biceps muscle and exited again close by to then continue

           4       on its trajectory beyond and behind Mark Duggan."

           5           Now, you've got -- at that stage you got from work

           6       done by Dr Seaman that the chest wound bullet was the

           7       one that ended up in the car and that the arm wound

           8       bullet was the one that ended up in the pouch and radio

           9       of the other officer; is that right?

          10   A.  That's correct.

          11   Q.  Did you deploy any of your own expertise onto that issue

          12       at any point?

          13   A.  Yes.  When I initially received documents, which were

          14       the police statements about the circumstances, and also

          15       the line drawings about the scene, I came to the

          16       conclusion that the bullet that went through the chest

          17       was the bullet that must have gone into the minicab and

          18       that the bullet that went through the arm must have been

          19       the bullet that hit the police officer.  I did that for

          20       a variety of reasons unrelated to the forensic science

          21       reasons which Dr Seaman developed.

          22   Q.  Can you tell us what your reasoning was, please?

          23   A.  Well, based on two essential issues: the first, the

          24       trajectory of the bullets and, secondly, the amount of

          25       energy or expected energy, the bullets would have after




           1       they exited Mark Duggan.

           2           So, first of all, the trajectories.  I know that the

           3       court has seen the mannequins with the rods in place.

           4       They are a good representation of the trajectory of the

           5       bullet before it hit Mark Duggan, passing through Mark

           6       Duggan, and then where it went after exiting Mark

           7       Duggan.

           8           So one of them, the one to the arm, is fired by

           9       someone in a standing position with a rifle more or less

          10       at shoulder level (indicates).  It passes under the

          11       shoulder of Mark Duggan and the police officer behind

          12       was hit in the radio, which was under his shoulder.  So

          13       the natural inference would be that would be a best bet

          14       to go for first as the bullet that struck the radio.

          15   Q.  Can I just interrupt you there and ask you about

          16       something we've been hearing from a ballistics expert,

          17       about whether the arm wound and the strike of the chest

          18       would have taken much energy from the bullet?

          19   A.  It would have taken a substantial amount of energy from

          20       the bullet but far less than half the energy.  I can't

          21       say precisely how much but I can give you a way of

          22       gauging it.

          23           When the bullet is fired into ballistic gelatin, and

          24       this is what Dr Seaman did, it travels within that

          25       gelatin for a little under 40 centimetres before it




           1       comes to a natural stop.

           2           So the inference is, if a bullet struck a body, it

           3       would travel for about 40 centimetres and then it would

           4       come to a halt, having used up all its energy.

           5           The bullet wound to the arm has a depth of about

           6       four centimetres and then there's the additional injury

           7       to the skin, which wouldn't use up so much energy, since

           8       it's gone across the surface of the skin rather than

           9       penetrating.  So we're looking at considerably less than

          10       half the energy of the bullet, but how much precisely

          11       I wouldn't like to put a figure on.

          12   Q.  Is there anything else you want to say on your reasoning

          13       about which bullet caused which wound?

          14   A.  Yes.  If we were then to turn to the chest wound, the

          15       chest wound is markedly downwards and, irrespective of

          16       whether we talk 30 degrees or 45 degrees, when the

          17       bullet is coming out the back, it's going down, at quite

          18       a marked angle.

          19           Even if Mark was bent over, as he must have been,

          20       the bullet would still be going down.  It's come out of

          21       the chest, if he was in an upright position, at about

          22       4 foot 1 inch.  Then it's going down quite markedly.  It

          23       would have to ricochet off the ground or ricochet off

          24       some object to come up again to strike somebody under

          25       the radio.  There's no evidence of any ricochet.




           1           So there's a natural inference that one bullet is

           2       a good fit for hitting the radio, the other bullet would

           3       be a very difficult fit indeed, and also, that bullet

           4       has passed through 30 centimetres of Mark Duggan, and,

           5       if you remember, I said that the bullet in the ballistic

           6       gelatin travels just under 40 centimetres before it

           7       comes to a stop.

           8           So that bullet would have very little energy left

           9       indeed, and probably wouldn't do any serious damage to

          10       anyone who was hit by it.

          11   MR UNDERWOOD:  Thank you.  That might be a convenient

          12       moment.

          13   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes.  Thank you very much.  What

          14       we'll do is have our mid-day break at this point.  So if

          15       you just wait there for a moment, Professor Pounder,

          16       we'll let the jury gather up their files and cameras off

          17       and then the jury can then leave us.

          22   (1.01 pm)

          23                     (The short adjournment)

          24   (2.00 pm)

          25   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Right.  We'll have the jury in then,



           1       please.

           2                  (In the presence of the jury)

           3   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you, Professor Pounder, you

           4       are still under the affirmation that you took this

           5       morning.  Mr Underwood was midway in his questions.

           6   MR UNDERWOOD:  Professor, we have dealt with which shot

           7       caused which wound question.  There's something I wanted

           8       to ask you about of the trajectory of the chest wound

           9       and the question of whether it might have been deflected

          10       by striking a rib; have you formed a view on that?

          11   A.  I have, yes.  As a general rule, a bullet striking bone

          12       is not deflected, at least substantially.  In other

          13       words, if we performed an autopsy and a bullet had

          14       struck bone we wouldn't notice in performing the

          15       autopsy.  People who study the physics of it tell us

          16       there's a slight deflection.

          17           In this case, the bullet didn't strike the rib full

          18       on.  It just nicked the rib, caught the edge of it, and

          19       by catching the edge of it it fractured the rib, just

          20       the same way you might hit the edge of a dinner plate

          21       and run a crack across the entire dinner plate.  That

          22       would not deflect the bullet at all.

          23   Q.  Was any work done on that in the tests, the ballistic

          24       tests, which you were present at, after you compiled

          25       this report?




           1   A.  Yes.  Dr Seaman and his colleague took a piece of pork

           2       with pig ribs in and, using the same type of weapon and

           3       the same type of ammunition, fired into the piece of

           4       pork with the pig ribs, and struck three ribs.  One of

           5       them was an almost perfect replica of the injury to the

           6       rib seen in Mark Duggan.  The other two fully penetrated

           7       the ribs full on.

           8   Q.  Was there any deflection from any of those?

           9   A.  There was no deflection from the bullet which nicked the

          10       rib and produced the fracture, as seen in Mark Duggan.

          11       There was some minor deflection from the two bullets

          12       which struck the ribs full on.

          13   Q.  Having discussed which bullet caused which wound, I want

          14       to ask you whether you formed a view about which bullet

          15       was fired first.  We're on page 6 of your opinion here,

          16       paragraph 10.

          17   A.  Right.  Well, let me begin by reiterating what Dr Poole

          18       said.  From a perspective of pathology alone, in this

          19       case, we can't tell which wound was received first.

          20       Sometimes we can, in specific circumstances, but in this

          21       case we can't.

          22   Q.  Can I just ask you about that.  When you say from the

          23       perspective of pathology alone, do you mean that if you

          24       were simply concentrating on what you observed in the

          25       postmortem you couldn't tell, or are you saying that




           1       a pathologist cannot tell?

           2   A.  No, I'm saying if the only source of information is the

           3       body and the gunshot wounds to the body, then we can't

           4       tell.

           5           If we take that information, as a pathologist, as

           6       a death investigator with pathology skills, if you like,

           7       and integrate it with other information then we may be

           8       able to tell, it's not guaranteed but we may be able to

           9       tell.

          10   Q.  What are the factors here that went into any opinion

          11       forming on your part?

          12   A.  The key factors are really the eye witness statements

          13       and that is the statements of the police officers.

          14   Q.  What is your conclusion about the order of shots?

          15   A.  My conclusion is that the first shot it to the arm, that

          16       is the non-lethal shot, and the second shot was to the

          17       chest, that is the lethal shot.

          18   Q.  That's contrary to what V53 says, as you appreciate, the

          19       shooter.  Which of the witnesses is that consistent with

          20       in your view?

          21   A.  Well, first of all, I should say, in looking at what the

          22       witnesses are saying, I've been looking at the

          23       statements which they made, I think, two days after the

          24       event, and some subsequent statements made to the IPCC.

          25       So I developed my opinion based upon those statements.




           1       I appreciate that accounts are somewhat different at the

           2       present time, so there has been a change.

           3           However, in fairness to the shooter -- I'm sorry,

           4       I forget --

           5   Q.  V53 we're calling him.

           6   A.  In his initial statement, he said that the shot went to

           7       the chest but he was asked to clarify that by the IPCC

           8       in November of last year and he wrote what I thought was

           9       a very fair and frank statement where he said he

          10       couldn't be 100 per cent sure but that's what he

          11       thought.  I took the view that he had simply got it

          12       wrong.

          13   Q.  Is there anything in W42's account, the man who was

          14       receiving the bullet in the radio?

          15   A.  Yes.  Again, I appreciate that what's in the initial

          16       statement to the IPCC, two days after the event, is not

          17       precisely the same as his evidence to this Inquest,

          18       since I have read the transcript of it.  But, sir, if we

          19       start with what was in his initial statement, he

          20       essentially says that there was a simultaneous event.

          21       He heard the gunshot, he saw Mark Duggan's jacket

          22       explode and he felt the pain and it all happened at the

          23       same time, he couldn't distinguish the sequence, it was

          24       instantaneous.

          25           Two shots were fired and, on the evidence, there was




           1       a gap between the shots.

           2   MR STERN:  Sorry to rise, I am just a little bit concerned

           3       about this because what, as I understand it, is

           4       happening -- Professor Pounder, if I may say so, is

           5       being very helpful with his view, but what we are

           6       essentially doing now is having his understanding of

           7       what various statements, or the limited number of

           8       statements --

           9   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  I was getting a little bit

          10       concerned.  I thought we might have more pathology

          11       involved in some of this.  I was waiting for something.

          12   MR STERN:  Well, I'll resume --

          13   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  No, you are right to advise caution

          14       because obviously it's the jury that are going to come

          15       to their factual conclusions.

          16   MR UNDERWOOD:  Professor, you have told us you have taken

          17       account in part of the witness accounts you've read,

          18       including transcripts of the evidence given to the jury.

          19       Are there any other factors in your professional opinion

          20       which lead to a conclusion about the sequence of shots?

          21   A.  Yes.  Pathology, because I'm linking the witness

          22       statements with the pathology.  The first shot -- let me

          23       start again.

          24           The shot to the arm is a shot which occurred when he

          25       was more or less upright.  He may have been leaning




           1       forward slightly, as a person might be doing if they're

           2       running, but he wasn't significantly bent forward.

           3           So the second -- the other shot, the chest shot,

           4       certainly occurred when he was significantly bent

           5       forward.

           6           If we look at what the witnesses say, in terms of

           7       his overall body position throughout the brief sequence

           8       of events, he starts more or less upright, moving off.

           9       After the shots, he's crumbling to his knees.

          10   Q.  Sorry, scientifically, is it more likely that a person

          11       who's been shot once or twice in this form will be going

          12       down or up?

          13   A.  It's much more likely that someone who's shot will

          14       collapse rather than rise up.  That's not to say that

          15       someone couldn't rise up, physically, and, if they were

          16       determined to do so, then they could do so.  It's not

          17       something that one can exclude.

          18   Q.  Can we consider the shot to the chest, the chest wound.

          19       It struck both lungs, I think, is that right --

          20   A.  That's correct.

          21   Q.  -- as well as the aorta --

          22   A.  Yes.

          23   Q.  -- amongst other things.  We have discussed the effect

          24       of the wound to the aorta and how quickly that would

          25       make somebody lose consciousness, as you have heard, and




           1       light-headed and so on and so on?  What about the effect

           2       to the strike to the lungs?

           3   A.  It's necessary to appreciate that the mushroom bullet is

           4       about -- just under two centimetres in diameter when

           5       it's mushroomed so the bullet starts at nine millimetres

           6       in diameter and when it mushrooms it becomes twice the

           7       size.  But the damage that occurs is not simply a hole

           8       two centimetres in diameter.  The bullet is travelling

           9       so fast, it's going at 870 miles an hour, that it does

          10       so much damage in terms of energy release.  It pushes

          11       the tissues aside and it creates a cavity much larger

          12       than the size of the bullet and it crushes those tissues

          13       and destroys those tissues.  So at the end when we look

          14       at the wound at autopsy, the wound itself may be

          15       four centimetres in diameter but even that is less than

          16       the diameter of the wound that was produced when the

          17       bullet passed through the body.

          18           That damage is extensive to the lungs and it

          19       disturbs the air passages, so someone trying to breathe

          20       in now has a hole in both lungs and the air that they

          21       take in passes outside the lungs and between the lungs

          22       and the chest wall, effectively they can't breathe.

          23       This is pneumothorax and I think that probably you heard

          24       about it from clinicians who attended the resuscitation.

          25   Q.  Would this be a bit like being winded?




           1   A.  It's more like being suffocated than being winded, you

           2       just can't breathe.  In other words, it would be like

           3       someone who had such a severe asthma attack that they

           4       felt they couldn't get air into their lungs and

           5       literally, in this situation, you cannot get air into

           6       your lungs.  They won't function.

           7           So that is combined with the pain from the damage to

           8       all of the tissues as the bullet is passed.  Not only

           9       the damage to the skin and the muscle but also to the

          10       lungs themselves and the surface to the lungs, so it

          11       would be the kind of pain someone has when they have

          12       pleurisy, a lung infection with irritation of the

          13       surface of the lung.

          14   Q.  In your opinion, in terms of -- let's take which of the

          15       shots was first for the moment.  If the chest shot was

          16       the first shot and Mr Duggan was leaning forward

          17       somewhat, is it more likely than not that he would go

          18       further down than up?

          19   A.  It's much more likely that he would go forward and it

          20       would be much more common for someone with a breathing

          21       problem or a chest pain to spontaneously bend forward.

          22   Q.  Again, let's talk about the effect of the arm wound, if

          23       we may.  First of all, just how much damage was there to

          24       the bicep?

          25   A.  The damage to the biceps muscle was on the surface of




           1       the muscle, and it was about four millimetres deep, so

           2       relatively shallow, but over a wide area.  So the area,

           3       total area covered was a maximum of about three

           4       centimetres in width and about seven centimetres in

           5       length, although not a square, more a triangle, seven

           6       centimetres in length, with the base three centimetres

           7       in width.

           8   Q.  Would there have been a cavitation effect there?

           9   A.  Yes.  This damaging effect, where the bullet releases so

          10       much energy that it pushes the tissues aside, would have

          11       occurred in the arm as well.  That's almost certainly

          12       the reason why, between the two bullet holes on the arm,

          13       there's a graze.  You will have seen it in the pictures

          14       as a brown mark.  That graze is from the tissues being

          15       pushed away so that the skin is pushed away and has

          16       struck against the clothing and the impact is so severe

          17       that it's grazed the skin.

          18   Q.  Still on the question of that wound, can you draw any

          19       reasonable inferences about how the elbow was bent and

          20       what the hand was doing?

          21   A.  Yes.  My view is this: the wound to the muscle has torn

          22       the muscle where the bullet has passed.  The cavitation

          23       effect has produced further damage to the muscle around

          24       that.  But beyond that, there are small strips of muscle

          25       which are also damaged and have retracted, like a piece




           1       of elastic being released.  That suggests to me that the

           2       time the muscle was struck, it was contracted, in other

           3       words it was shortened and bulkier.  The bullet has

           4       struck it and it's released the muscle, like releasing

           5       pieces of elastic, and that that's what we're seeing.

           6           So the inference is that the biceps muscle was

           7       contracted at the time the shot was sustained.

           8   Q.  So we established earlier on from your first analysis

           9       that, even if the arm had been straight downwards, then

          10       the back of the hand would be facing forwards in order

          11       for you to have the rotation of the arm, which was

          12       consistent with the bullet holes; is that right?

          13   A.  That's correct.

          14   Q.  Now, if you add some degree of flex at the elbow, what

          15       does it do to the hand?

          16   A.  Well, we have fixed the position of the upper arm, so

          17       it's close to the chest, and turned.  In that position,

          18       we can then bend the elbow to any extent we like, so the

          19       range of possibilities is the hand to the chin or

          20       perhaps the hand in front of the thigh, and I think

          21       the -- the issue that was put to Dr Poole was is it

          22       consistent with being across the waistband and, yes, of

          23       course it is.

          24   Q.  You are gesturing with the back of your hand facing

          25       forward there.  Is that because that's your finding or




           1       is that pure chance?

           2   A.  No, that's the finding but, in fairness, I should say

           3       that there is some possibility to turn the palm slightly

           4       upwards.  What you can't do is turn the palm forwards

           5       and still maintain the position of the upper arm.  So

           6       the back of the hand has to be more or less forwards.

           7   Q.  Could the gun have been pointing forwards?

           8   A.  Well, in that position, no.  Because in order to -- if

           9       someone was holding a gun in that position (indicates),

          10       in order to move the arm forward, you have to rotate the

          11       upper arm.  You simply can't point forward without

          12       rotating the upper arm.

          13   Q.  Theoretically, could it just have been a movement of the

          14       wrist?

          15   A.  Well, you can get it 45 degrees, I think.  You wouldn't

          16       be able to point the weapon at a person to whom you were

          17       face to face.

          18   Q.  Now, we've got your opinion on the order of shots and

          19       which shot caused which wound and your view about where

          20       the arm and hand were likely to have been at the time of

          21       the arm shot.

          22           Assume for the moment that when Mr Duggan was shot

          23       in the arm, he had a gun in his hand, can anything in

          24       your experience account for that gun then moving

          25       anywhere between 10 and 20-odd feet away?




           1   A.  Well, I think you have to break down that issue into

           2       several parts.  First of all, there's the physical

           3       ability to throw the gun after sustaining the wounds.

           4       There's no doubt that that would be physically possible,

           5       despite having sustained a wound which was lethal,

           6       devastating and painful.

           7           He would not have lost consciousness for probably

           8       four to ten seconds after the lethal wound, so there's

           9       an interval of time in which it could be achieved, and

          10       although there was damage to the biceps muscle of the

          11       right arm, and that would make bending the arm painful

          12       and turning the hand face up, palm up, painful, it would

          13       still be possible physically to hurl a weapon, palm

          14       down, with an extended arm.

          15           So it is possible.  It's not very likely that

          16       someone would do that, physically, because of the pain

          17       and so on, but it's certainly possible.

          18           The second element is psychological.  The main

          19       factor is whether someone has the desire, the

          20       willpower --

          21   MR STERN:  Sorry to interrupt again, but I think we may be

          22       straying slightly out of the expertise of the witness

          23       again.

          24   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  I'm not so sure about this actually.

          25   MR STERN:  Psychological, for a pathologist?




           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  I think he's more than

           2       a pathologist.

           3   MR STERN:  I do not mean to undermine him in any shape or

           4       form, I do not mean it critically.

           5   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  You tell us from what experience you

           6       are basing your conclusions experience, Mr Pounder, when

           7       we're dealing with psychology.  You talked about not

           8       very likely because of the pain that's obviously

           9       within --

          10   A.  I wasn't intending to go beyond more or less what I've

          11       already said.  I'm basing it upon what we know about

          12       shooting incidents involving the police, for example, in

          13       North America, which is well documented in the

          14       literature, and what we know about what happens on the

          15       battlefield and circumstances like that, which is

          16       information that I have knowledge of from investigations

          17       of similar deaths in other jurisdictions.  But I'm not

          18       intending to in any way pretend that I'm a psychologist.

          19   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Please, let's continue,

          20       Mr Underwood.

          21   MR UNDERWOOD:  I want to move on to the position of the

          22       bullet holes in the jacket.  It seems, if I may say so,

          23       fairly clear, that Mr Duggan must have been holding --

          24       or rather that the folds of the lower left part of his

          25       jacket were presented over the upper right chest for




           1       them to have been shot through.  Is that relevant to

           2       your analysis?

           3   A.  It is, yes, in terms of developing a view about his

           4       precise body position when he received the wound to the

           5       chest which killed him.

           6   Q.  What does it suggest to you?

           7   A.  Well, it suggests to me that, not only was he

           8       significantly bent forward at the time, but that likely,

           9       either his arm --

          10   MR THOMAS:  Sorry, sir, I wonder if the professor could

          11       stand up so we can see.

          12   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Sorry, would you be so kind,

          13       Professor Pounder?

          14   A.  What the forensic scientist tells us is that the jacket

          15       was turned upside down (indicates) so that the inside of

          16       the left lower corner was over the right upper chest

          17       and, by implication, that the right side of the jacket

          18       was open, because there's no bullet hole through the

          19       right side (indicates).

          20           In order to achieve that, and also on the back, to

          21       move the hole in the jacket, which is on the right side,

          22       over to the left side, where the hole to the body and

          23       the t-shirt is, we have to pull the whole garment

          24       around, twist it (indicates).  So we are not simply

          25       moving the corner to the right side of the chest, we're




           1       twisting the whole garment (indicates) and that suggests

           2       a force which could be achieved, if the arm was

           3       underneath the jacket or could be achieved with some

           4       difficulty, but if you put your hand in the jacket

           5       pocket, as you normally would, turn the palm forwards

           6       and do that (indicates), then that's reproducible every

           7       time.

           8   MR UNDERWOOD:  When that chest shot was fired, what was the

           9       relationship between the shooter and Mr Duggan, as far

          10       as you can infer?

          11   A.  Well, there's one more piece of information from the

          12       pathology which is relevant.  We've said that the

          13       downward trajectory in the body indicates that Mark

          14       Duggan was markedly bent forward.  But the trajectory is

          15       not only markedly downwards, it's markedly from right to

          16       left, it goes in the front of the chest on the right

          17       side and comes out the back on the left side.

          18           So if he's still facing the shooter, then -- if

          19       I could stand up again?

          20   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, please.

          21   A.  Not only does he have to be bent forward (indicates),

          22       but his body has to be twisted to get the alignment.

          23       You might achieve that in one of two ways: firstly by

          24       simply turning the body (indicates) or, secondly, by

          25       simply putting your right foot in front of your left




           1       foot, as if in a stumble, and then bending (indicates)

           2       and the body naturally twists, or it could be

           3       a combination of the two.  So it suggests a bent and

           4       a twisted action at the time of the shooting.

           5   MR UNDERWOOD:  Thank you.  I want to move on to the

           6       supplemental opinion which you provided after the

           7       ballistics tests were done.  We have that.  It's our

           8       CD30547, dated 2 September this year.  Can I just ask

           9       you, in general terms, what was your part in the

          10       ballistics test?

          11   A.  I went along to observe the ballistics testing and

          12       I also supplied the pork and ribs that were used in the

          13       experiment.

          14   Q.  What was your purpose in attending?

          15   A.  I was interested to see several things: first of all, to

          16       see the weapon; secondly, to see the ammunition;

          17       thirdly, to see what the bullet looked like after it was

          18       fired; fourthly, to examine the clothing of Mark Duggan,

          19       which were in the possession of Dr Seaman; and to

          20       observe the experiments which were intended, as far as

          21       possible, to reproduce two scenarios, a shot going

          22       through the body of Mark Duggan and then hitting the

          23       police radio, or, alternatively, a shot going through

          24       the arm of Mark Duggan and then hitting the police

          25       radio.




           1   Q.  In consequence of what you saw there, did you alter any

           2       of your views?

           3   A.  No.

           4   Q.  Were your views supported by any of this?

           5   A.  Yes.  Well, Dr Seaman will, I think, give his evidence.

           6       The experiments in my view, are compelling, that the

           7       bullet that would have gone through the chest of Mark

           8       Duggan could not have caused the damage that we see to

           9       the police radio.  But the bullet through the arm could

          10       have caused that damage.  That is good evidence,

          11       practical evidence, that the bullet that went through

          12       the arm was the one that hit the radio.

          13   MR UNDERWOOD:  Thank you very much, Professor, if you wait

          14       there, please.

          15   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, I think, Mr Stern.

          16                      Questions by MR STERN

          17   MR STERN:  Yes, I think I have been elected to go first

          18       because, Professor Pounder, I think you were instructed

          19       by the family and therefore the family are going last,

          20       as I understand it.

          21   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  I think you were instructed by lots

          22       of people, were you not, Professor, I think the IPCC,

          23       perhaps even the Coroner, originally.

          24   A.  Indeed.

          25   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  I think you've been instructed by




           1       many.

           2   MR STERN:  I think originally you were instructed by the

           3       family, I think that's the point, isn't it?

           4   A.  Originally I was asked to advise the family, yes, and

           5       that's how I came to do the second autopsy.

           6   Q.  Can we understand, I think it's probably something

           7       I should have asked Dr Poole but if you could just help

           8       people generally about one or two things about

           9       pathology.

          10           As I understand it, you have, like other

          11       pathologists not examined a body in life and have not

          12       done so since 1975, I think you put in your documents?

          13   A.  Well, I've not practised clinical medicine since 1975.

          14       I have examined living people with injuries since then.

          15       I haven't examined and treated people in the sense that

          16       you would understand a GP or a physician in a hospital.

          17   Q.  That's what I meant, thank you for clarifying that.

          18           You are not an expert in firearms or ballistics?

          19   A.  I am not, no.

          20   Q.  Forgive me asking this but you are satisfied that you're

          21       independent?

          22   A.  I am indeed.

          23   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Actually, we have not got all the

          24       documents the jury should have.  I think we omitted to

          25       put in the CV.




           1   MR UNDERWOOD:  I'm so sorry, I intended that to go up.

           2   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  I think they are available, I was

           3       told.  So I think if there's any question about

           4       Professor Pounder's background perhaps the jury ought to

           5       have the whole CV.

           6   MR STERN:  I thought they already had it.

           7   MR UNDERWOOD:  It's my fault, sorry.

           8   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Perhaps the jury ought to have that.

           9       (Handed)

          10   MR STERN:  Certainly.  Let me make it clear, I am not

          11       suggesting for a moment that you are not an expert,

          12       absolutely not, and I am, may I say, very grateful that

          13       you have made matters very clear, to me anyway.

          14   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  We'll make sure the jury have that

          15       13-page document of CV.

          16           Right, thank you very much.

          17           Yes then, Mr Stern?

          18   MR STERN:  I see people are looking at it.  I don't know if

          19       they want a minute to look at it.

          20   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  No, that's --

          21   MR STERN:  Can I just ask you this: you have not, I think,

          22       looked at any of the transcripts of the evidence?

          23   A.  Are you speaking of the Inquest transcripts?

          24   Q.  Yes.

          25   A.  Yes.




           1   Q.  You have read some of the transcripts?

           2   A.  Yes, I read the transcripts of the main police

           3       witnesses.  I have also read the transcript of the

           4       police officer who was responsible for training,

           5       I think.  I have read the transcript of the taxi driver.

           6   Q.  Right.  Who's asked you to read all of those?

           7   A.  Well, I did it on my own initiative, out of interest in

           8       the case.

           9   Q.  Just so we're clear about height.  So far as the chest

          10       wound is concerned, we have this difference that you

          11       have accepted, and perhaps we need not go over that

          12       again, in terms of the effect of the thoracotomy.

          13   A.  Yes.

          14   Q.  The bullet hit the radio of W42 at about 4 feet from the

          15       ground.

          16   A.  Yes.

          17   Q.  W42 was standing more or less upright --

          18   A.  Yes.

          19   Q.  -- but side on to Mr Duggan.

          20   A.  That's my understanding.

          21   Q.  Obviously, he was looking at the back of Mr Duggan.

          22   A.  Yes, he would have been.

          23   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  We have no information about

          24       footwear or anything like that.

          25   MR STERN:  Of W42?




           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Of anybody, in as much as height of

           2       footwear.  If we're talking about trying to work out

           3       some rather more precise calculation.

           4   MR STERN:  I've said approximately 4 foot, I hope that's

           5       good enough and you agree that's sufficiently adequate.

           6   A.  Yes.

           7   Q.  Mark Duggan, as I understand it, on the arm wound, which

           8       you say is the wound that would have been caused as

           9       a result of the strike to the radio -- would have led to

          10       the strike on the radio --

          11   A.  Yes.

          12   Q.  -- was hit at about 4 foot 9 inches.  Therefore,

          13       obviously, it follows, does it not, that he must have

          14       been bent down to some extent during the course of that?

          15   A.  That would have been one factor, yes.

          16   Q.  You say one factor, he must have been lower than or

          17       level with the 4 foot of the radio?

          18   A.  I was agreeing with you.  I was only indicating that

          19       it's possible to have other factors there.

          20   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Which you've explained.  One of them

          21       being there the dip of the shoulder and things of that

          22       nature.

          23   A.  Yes, and I was also thinking the rise of the ground

          24       because there is a rise to the ground, which would mean

          25       that the police officer who received the gunshot, who




           1       was standing behind Mark Duggan, was slightly higher

           2       than Mark Duggan, which means that the bullet would hit

           3       him lower on his body than he would have been hit had he

           4       been standing on level ground.

           5   MR STERN:  Yes.  Now, the entry wound for the chest was

           6       about 4 foot 6 to 4 foot 10, again I hope you don't mind

           7       me dealing in feet and inches.

           8   A.  Yes, that's --

           9   Q.  It's 136.8 to 149 centimetres; we have a pretty broad

          10       range, yes?

          11   A.  Yes.

          12   Q.  So the point of entry for the arm and for the chest is

          13       obviously the arm is lower than the chest?

          14   A.  Yes.

          15   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  We are talking measurements and

          16       measurements on the body, not measurements from the

          17       ground up?  You agree with that, don't you?

          18   A.  I do.

          19   MR STERN:  It's impossible to know exactly where anyone is

          20       because you can be sitting on the ground and then be

          21       struck in the chest and the notion that you are, as it

          22       were, hit 4 foot 6 from the ground is not in accordance

          23       with reality, is it, if you've been sitting on the

          24       ground, if you see what I mean.

          25   A.  I absolutely agree.  We have to look at the distances




           1       above ground relative to what the witnesses say was the

           2       approximate body position.

           3   Q.  So, he could not have been upright then, could he, when

           4       he was struck in the arm?

           5   A.  Take me through your logic again, if you would.

           6   Q.  He's 4 foot there (indicates).  He was 5 foot 10, so

           7       obviously he must have been lower than the standing

           8       upright?

           9   A.  Sorry, you've lost me.

          10   Q.  If he was standing upright, the bullet would not have

          11       hit him at 4 foot, would it?

          12   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Who are we talking about?

          13   MR STERN:  Mark Duggan.

          14   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Did it hit him at 4 foot?

          15   MR STERN:  Yes.  I think that's what we have just

          16       established.

          17   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  You just said 4 foot 9 inches.

          18   MR STERN:  Sorry, where W42 was 4 foot, hit him in the

          19       shoulder at 4 foot.  Mark Duggan was hit at 4 foot 9 and

          20       therefore obviously must have been, because he was

          21       5 foot 10 must have been to some extent reduced

          22       downwards.  Am I not speaking logically?

          23   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  No.

          24   A.  I am not quite following you, I do apologise.

          25   MR STERN:  No, no, I'm sure it's me.




           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  I'm sure it's him too!  You tell us

           2       what your evidence is, Professor, about this.  You see

           3       what Mr Stern is trying to understand so you help him.

           4   A.  Well, if we imagine all three individuals standing on

           5       a flat surface, the shooter, I understand, is over

           6       6 foot.  Mark Duggan is 5 foot 10.  The police officer

           7       who was hit in the radio is, I think, is 6 foot 2.

           8   MR STERN:  No, he's way under 5 foot -- sorry, 5 foot 6.

           9   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Do you want Mr Thomas' measurement?

          10   MR STERN:  Sorry, 5 foot 7.

          11   A.  So we have the three individuals.  The shooter is tall,

          12       and he's firing from the shoulder, which means that the

          13       butt of the weapon is on the shoulder and the barrel of

          14       the weapon has to be above the shoulder because he's

          15       looking down the sight.

          16   Q.  That's fair.

          17   A.  So in order to strike Mark Duggan in the arm, the shot

          18       has to be downwards.  It can't be parallel with the

          19       ground, imagining the ground flat.

          20           However, it's a sloping ground so now we effectively

          21       raise Mark Duggan, because of the slope, and the angle

          22       that the shot is fired at is less of a downwards angle.

          23   Q.  Yes, but what we have is the officer behind him is

          24       struck at 4 foot and Mark Duggan is struck at 4 foot 9.

          25       So I'm just suggesting, therefore, that must mean that




           1       he must be lower than his 4 foot 9 height?

           2   A.  I follow you precisely now, thank you.  Yes, I'm sorry

           3       I was so slow.

           4   Q.  No, it's entirely my fault, you are being more

           5       apologetic than you need to.  It's entirely my fault, as

           6       the Coroner has already made clear.

           7   A.  You are quite correct.  There must be some forward

           8       bending there.

           9   Q.  Yes.  I think that probably would have been a better way

          10       of putting it.

          11   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  You have a 15 per cent -- degree of

          12       angle, you believe, within the wound itself, as much as

          13       you were able to see.

          14   A.  The wound as measured on the arm, from the heel, is

          15       precise -- in other words, Dr Poole has measured it

          16       carefully -- but it's not accurate.  That is to say it

          17       does not necessarily represent the situation in life,

          18       because the shoulder sits on muscle and ligaments which

          19       attach it to the main part of the body, to the torso,

          20       and we all know that we can lift and lower our arm and

          21       shoulder without actually moving the chest itself.  So

          22       those kinds of movements of the arm are possibilities

          23       which make measurements from the heel to a wound on the

          24       arm potentially inaccurate.

          25           There's that leeway, if you like, which you have to




           1       take into account.  That doesn't at all detract from my

           2       agreement with you that he's leaning forwards, yes.

           3       I think that's reasonable.

           4   Q.  All right.  Just looking at page 29118, if people have

           5       it, just so that they can follow the point that I'm

           6       making, we're talking about the upper arm, and you make

           7       the point that the upper arm was medially rotated.  Also

           8       one has to take into account of course the fact that the

           9       individual could be turned slightly and is not directly

          10       face on.

          11   A.  I think those are two different issues, how he's face on

          12       to the shooter.

          13           The medial rotation is a matter which is determined

          14       from the three gunshot holes to the body.  We have three

          15       holes to the body and we have to line them up in

          16       a straight line.  It doesn't matter where the shooter

          17       is, that's a requirement.  In lining them up, we fix the

          18       position of the upper arm.  Beyond that, if you then

          19       wish to ask the question "Where is the shooter, relative

          20       to Mark Duggan?" then approximately to his right.

          21   Q.  To his right?

          22   A.  In front but slightly to his right.

          23   Q.  Right.  Carry on to paragraph 13, you say:

          24           "... the arm was not necessarily hanging by the

          25       side ..."




           1           By which you mean the lower arm, presumably?

           2   A.  Yes.

           3   Q.  "... since the elbow could have been bent in any

           4       position so long as the back of the arm was facing more

           5       forwards than backwards."

           6           So what we have, because you then go on to say that

           7       the extended tears strongly suggest the muscle was

           8       contracted that the time the bullet struck, which is

           9       consistent, as you have already said, with the arm being

          10       across the chest in some form?

          11   A.  Yes.

          12   Q.  Do you accept also from what Dr Poole said that the

          13       right arm would be slightly proud of the chest in order

          14       to get the entrance, exit and then entrance to the

          15       chest?

          16   A.  Yes.  I think -- probably if I stand up.

          17   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, please.

          18   MR STERN:  That would be helpful.

          19   A.  As I would reconstruct it, it's this kind of position

          20       (indicates).  Now, the forearm I'm taking as an average,

          21       so I'm --

          22   Q.  I understand that.

          23   A.  But the upper arm is slightly forward, not very much

          24       (indicates), in order to achieve the position.

          25   Q.  Is there anything that you disagree with, so far as




           1       Dr Poole is concerned, with any of his evidence?

           2   A.  I think there are nuances and strengths of emphasis and

           3       degrees of certainty, if you like, where we would

           4       differ, but I don't see anything of great substance.

           5   Q.  All right.  The way that you put the effect of the

           6       gunshot to the arm at paragraph 16 was that the tear to

           7       the biceps muscle, which would have made any further use

           8       of that muscle painful, you say:

           9           "The associated injury to the right side of the

          10       chest would have been painful and may have temporarily

          11       winded him."

          12           So that could have a winding effect, the arm -- what

          13       I am going to call the arm injury, and the associated

          14       arm injury.

          15   A.  Yes, it could.  It would be like, if you like, being hit

          16       on the side of the chest by a baseball or a bat or

          17       whatever.

          18   Q.  I was going to say most of us know what it's like to

          19       feel winded from sport or something.  So it's that sort

          20       of feeling, that's what you were talking about --

          21   A.  Yes.

          22   Q.  -- and that makes you want to double up to some extent,

          23       doesn't it?

          24   A.  Yes, I think the natural reaction to that is to bend

          25       over and perhaps clutch the chest --




           1   Q.  Yes.  Because what we do know is that W70, if his

           2       evidence is accepted by the jury -- is that Mark Duggan

           3       raised his hands at the point after he had been shot

           4       twice.

           5   A.  Yes.  I understand.

           6   Q.  Do you agree also that adrenaline can have quite

           7       an important effect on an individual in the same way

           8       that Dr Poole did?

           9   A.  It can have an important effect.  I think that there's

          10       a relative phenomena here.  Adrenaline is not going to

          11       overcome the type of severity of pain that we are

          12       speaking of here, not in terms of the arm, but in terms

          13       of the principal chest wound.

          14   Q.  Obviously everything here was dealt with in a very few

          15       seconds.

          16   A.  So I understand.

          17   Q.  As I understand it, you've got the time period as

          18       between four and ten seconds, but obviously that is very

          19       much a sort of general time, isn't it?  It could be

          20       longer, it could be --

          21   A.  It wouldn't be much longer than ten seconds.  I think

          22       that -- some of the literature would stretch it to 12,

          23       ten seconds is a fair maximum.  Most people would

          24       succumb well under that.  The average would probably be

          25       in the order of five to six seconds, four seconds would




           1       be early-ish, anything less than four seconds would be

           2       very early and somewhat unusual.

           3   Q.  So far as the actual shots are concerned and the

           4       positions of everything, that, you accept, is ultimately

           5       a question of evidence for the jury?

           6   A.  Absolutely.

           7   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Can I just go back to what Mr Stern

           8       was talking about, the raising of the right arm, the

           9       hand.  Could you help us about that --

          10   A.  After being injured?

          11   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  -- after being injured?

          12   A.  Yes.  The biceps muscle does two things.  It bends the

          13       elbow, but it's not the only muscle that bends the

          14       elbow, so that without the biceps muscle you could still

          15       bend the elbow.  So the amount of stress imposed on it

          16       by bending the elbow might not be sufficiently severe in

          17       terms of pain that would prevent somebody from doing it.

          18           It also, when the elbow -- also when the elbow is

          19       bent it allows you to turn the palm of your hand

          20       upwards, and it's the principal muscle that does that

          21       when the elbow is bent.  So you can actually feel this

          22       on yourself.  If you hold the biceps, put your arm out

          23       (indicates), right arm out, left palm on the inside of

          24       the upper arm, that's the biceps, you can bend it, you

          25       can feel the biceps contract and now, if you turn the




           1       palm of your hand toward yourself you feel it contract

           2       even more so it's very easy to demonstrate on oneself.

           3           So that movement would be really painful because

           4       it's mobilising the entire strength of the biceps.  So

           5       in the issues before the court, someone would not then

           6       attempt to perhaps throw a weapon like that.

           7           However, with the arm fully extended, the biceps

           8       plays little or no role in turning the palm upwards,

           9       other muscles do it (indicates).  So its role has some

          10       nuances.  I don't think, despite all of that, that it's

          11       really helpful in terms of in resolving the physical

          12       possibility of throwing the weapon.

          13   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Not so much on that, as this one

          14       witness talking about the two hands coming up.

          15   A.  The arm coming up, yes.  I mean, there's nothing --

          16       there's nothing in the damage to the biceps muscle which

          17       would cast doubt on that statement.

          18   MR STERN:  As you have said, it would have been physically

          19       impossible to have thrown the gun.  Obviously it's

          20       a matter for interpretation as to how that happened,

          21       which is a matter of evidence rather than scientific

          22       evidence.

          23   A.  Yes.  It's a matter of interpretation at the end of the

          24       day whether he would have or did or whatever.

          25   Q.  I think "did" rather than "would have".  "Would have" is




           1       a factor which will always remain unknown, but "did",

           2       "did have", "did" is of course a factual question.

           3   A.  Yes.

           4   MR STERN:  Yes, thank you.

           5   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you Mr Stern.

           6           Mr Keith?  Mr Butt?

           7   MR BUTT:  No, thank you, sir.

           8   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Mr Glasson?

           9   MR GLASSON:  No, thank you, sir.

          10   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Mr Mansfield?

          11                    Questions by MR MANSFIELD

          12   MR MANSFIELD:  I am going to start with the last question,

          13       if I may, the question of "did".

          14           You have read the transcripts in this case.  Are you

          15       aware of any evidence, from anyone, suggesting who was

          16       at the scene, an eyewitness standing right there, that

          17       the gun was thrown?

          18   A.  No.

          19   Q.  No.  Have you looked at the gun in this case?

          20   A.  The pistol?

          21   Q.  Yes.

          22   A.  No.  I've only seen it shown in the court.  I've not

          23       handled it at all.

          24   Q.  The jury have seen -- don't worry, it's completely

          25       unloaded.




           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  It's a starting pistol anyway.

           2   MR MANSFIELD:  I would like you to have that for the first

           3       time because it's the question -- I want to ask you

           4       about the arm injury, as well as the other injury, in

           5       the context of the weight we're dealing with here,

           6       please.  (Handed)

           7           Do I take it you have not actually felt the weight

           8       of this before?

           9   A.  That's correct.

          10   Q.  I think the jury have felt it but sometimes you can

          11       forget so I'm wondering, sir, if you approve, could it

          12       just be handed round quickly again?

          13   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  The jury did weigh the original

          14       exhibit, I know, with a bag, but this is a copy exhibit.

          15       But it might be -- those who wish to.  Don't feel you

          16       have to handle it if you don't, it can be passed on.  If

          17       any of you wish to, please feel free to do so.

          18           (The replica gun was passed around the jury)

          19   MR MANSFIELD:  I'm reminded that the original that was

          20       handed round did not have the magazine in it.

          21   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  No, it didn't.

          22   MR MANSFIELD:  Bearing in mind the injuries you have

          23       described and the weight of that weapon, what

          24       observations would you make?

          25   A.  Well, I think that the weapon is sufficiently heavy that




           1       it would require considerable muscular effort on the

           2       part of myself, without an injury, to throw it any

           3       distance.  I think it would impose, obviously, a great

           4       deal of pain on someone with a biceps wound.  If they

           5       were to use the biceps muscle in the hand movement to

           6       throw it.

           7   Q.  So if you put the two together, would it be a fair way

           8       of putting it, that it's extremely unlikely in the light

           9       of these injuries and the weight of that weapon, that

          10       Mark Duggan would have been able to throw it.  The

          11       distance involved which is now measured at 7.34 metres?

          12   A.  I wouldn't like to say it was impossible because --

          13   Q.  I didn't actually say that.  I was trying to put it

          14       fairly.  I obviously would want to go that far but I'm

          15       putting it one stage below.  Would you think it is

          16       a fair observation to make, in the light of the injuries

          17       and the weight of that weapon, that it is extremely

          18       unlikely?

          19   A.  Well, I would say it was very unlikely, I wouldn't like

          20       to say extremely.  I think it's very unlikely, it's

          21       within -- of course, within the realm of possibility.

          22   Q.  I want to, in the same context as these questions, if

          23       you would -- if we could have page 29122, please.  This

          24       is paragraph 23.  Do you have the opinion in front of

          25       you?  Paragraph 23, page 11 of your report.  The page




           1       number that is we have that can come up on screen is

           2       29122; do you have paragraph 23?

           3   A.  I do, yes.

           4   Q.  Because there you put it in another way:

           5           "Taken in the round I cannot conceive of how Duggan

           6       might have thrown the gun to the place it was found,

           7       unobserved by the police, given his body position as

           8       reconstructed, his injuries and the evidence suggesting

           9       that he was collapsing to the ground."

          10           So there's a number of other factors that you put

          11       into this.  So I want to repeat the question in the

          12       light of all those other factors.  I want to suggest to

          13       you it was impossible.

          14   A.  Yes, I can't -- personally I can't see how it could have

          15       happened.

          16   Q.  The reconstruction of the body.  I would like you to

          17       have a look, therefore, at -- because you said the

          18       models or the mannequins do represent the position.  If

          19       we can have 30538, CD30538.  We do have copies of this

          20       one in the light of this witness' evidence.  I wonder if

          21       this particular one could be circulated or put in the

          22       jury bundle, unless there's objection.

          23   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  I don't see any.

          24   MR MANSFIELD:  We have given them already.  (Handed)

          25   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  They have copies already.  Let me




           1       have a look, please.  Thank you.  We'll put this in the

           2       next part of our jury bundles then.  C31.

           3   MR MANSFIELD:  So C31 for these.  I am just dealing with the

           4       top one at the moment, I hope it's the same in

           5       everybody's, 30538.

           6   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  The one on the screen.

           7   MR MANSFIELD:  Yes, the one on the screen.  When you

           8       indicated to my learned friends earlier a moment ago

           9       about the bent and twisted situation as a result of the

          10       injuries, does that represent the bent and twisted

          11       description you gave?

          12   A.  No, I think it's just the bent, it's not the twisted.

          13   Q.  So if you look on the others, it may be that none of

          14       them particularly -- does the second one, which is 539,

          15       show the twisted?

          16   A.  No.  I've seen the photographs before and none of them

          17       show the twisting.  They all address the issue of the

          18       downward trajectory of the bullet, but don't address the

          19       issue of the sideways trajectory.

          20   Q.  Right.  So, again, I don't know whether you can

          21       demonstrate it in the witness box.  So the twisting you

          22       would want the jury to bear in mind, in addition to the

          23       model.  Can you stand and show the twist as well as the

          24       bend?

          25   A.  Yes.  If I do it first for the Coroner.




           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, thank you.

           2   A.  So if, looking at the Coroner, the Coroner is the

           3       shooter, then we're looking at a body position which is

           4       like that (indicates).  Bent forward, twisted to my left

           5       and leading with my right shoulder and my right arm.

           6   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Do that for the jury, please.

           7   A.  (Indicates).

           8   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you very much, Professor.

           9   MR MANSFIELD:  Just -- I'm working backwards, as it happens.

          10       So that's the bending and the twisting.  Now, you've

          11       indicated that the arm injury, as far as you're

          12       concerned, comes first, and you have given some of the

          13       reasons for that, I don't go through all of that.  If

          14       the arm injury therefore comes first, working on that

          15       basis, then the -- I want you to look at, so you know

          16       where I'm getting it from, CD1521, and there's

          17       a particular paragraph in a letter and the way you have

          18       worded it.

          19           It's CD1521, the second page of a letter you wrote

          20       to instructing solicitors in October 2012.  It's the

          21       paragraph which is third up from the bottom.  I am going

          22       to read it as it's written:

          23           "Following sustaining the shot to the arm, Duggan

          24       must have bent forwards, as indicated by the trajectory

          25       of the second shot, which the police witnesses suggest




           1       was sustained about a second after the first.  At the

           2       same time, the injury to his right biceps muscle may

           3       have caused his previously bent elbow to straighten so

           4       that his right arm fell outwards and downwards.  The

           5       associated bullet slap to the right side of his chest

           6       likely winded him."

           7           Now, do you see what you've written there?

           8   A.  Yes.

           9   Q.  Therefore, if we look at 538, the model, for a moment,

          10       that image you have there, it may not show entirely the

          11       twist that you have talked about, but it shows the bend,

          12       it shows the right arm coming down, do you see, and the

          13       left arm going up with the jacket; do you see that?

          14   A.  I do, yes.

          15   Q.  So the sequence of events here is, on your account, shot

          16       under the right armpit goes through, hits radio.  Right

          17       arm goes down, or may have gone down, in exactly the way

          18       it is in 538.

          19   A.  Yes, that kind of imagery.  I don't think I could say

          20       exactly.

          21   Q.  All right.  In an approximate to the way it's described.

          22       What you've added at the end of that is the slap injury

          23       to the right side of the chest which we have discussed

          24       today is likely to have winded him, which would cause,

          25       again, someone to start bending?




           1   A.  Yes.

           2   Q.  Now, moving to the second -- so that's the beginning of

           3       it.  The second shot, as you've described it, to the

           4       chest -- I think you've worded it, it's on the same

           5       page, sorry to go back to that, CD1521, the second shot.

           6       In the paragraph above the one we have just looked at,

           7       again a letter in 2012, you describe the 45 degrees --

           8       it's the fourth line down -- which you've qualified

           9       today, 30, perhaps, to 45:

          10           "This trajectory of the bullet in the body makes it

          11       impossible for Duggan to have been shot when standing

          12       upright."

          13           Now, I'm going to use words you have used today,

          14       more or less upright.  Is that still your position, even

          15       with the 30-degree amendment or qualification, if it's

          16       as much as that, the position is impossible for him to

          17       have been standing more or less upright?

          18   A.  That's correct.

          19   Q.  Right.  Now, I want to deal with it this way round.  It

          20       can't have been, on your account, the first shot, the

          21       one that went to the chest, but if it had been the first

          22       shot, and then taking into account the trajectory and

          23       the track of the bullet for the arm, he would have had

          24       to have come back up again, would he not?

          25   A.  Yes.




           1   Q.  There is no witness that indicates any such suggestion

           2       of him coming back up again; are you aware of that?

           3   A.  I've not read anything in the witness statements about

           4       that.

           5   Q.  All right.  So, would this be fair --

           6   MR STERN:  Sorry to interrupt, I don't want to interrupt but

           7       V53 did say that -- did describe somebody --

           8   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  He described a turning motion.

           9   MR STERN:  -- and coming up a little.

          10   MR MANSFIELD:  Yes.  What V53 -- I am much obliged to my

          11       learned friend -- what V53 did in that very same -- he

          12       stood up and indicated the first shot, which he thought

          13       was the chest, and he did this (indicates).  He was

          14       standing, as I am now, facing, as you are, and he hit

          15       his right shoulder and he went back.  That was the first

          16       shot that he described, and he didn't describe, after

          17       that, that Duggan came back up into that position; do

          18       you follow?

          19   A.  Yes.

          20   Q.  There's no other witness in the case that suggests that

          21       between the shots, one second or perhaps a little more,

          22       that Duggan came back up again to allow for the arm

          23       trajectory; do you follow?

          24   A.  I do.

          25   Q.  All right.  Therefore, is it a fair and reasonable




           1       inference that what actually happened in this case was

           2       that Duggan, more or less upright, was shot under the

           3       armpit, he was winded and his right arm began to drop

           4       and he began to, as it were, fold his arms in one sense

           5       across his body because the next shot went through the

           6       chest and from there on he's collapsing?

           7   A.  Yes, I think that's a fair summary.

           8   MR MANSFIELD:  Thank you.

           9   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Would the pain to the first shot

          10       give him an instinctive reaction to come up with his

          11       left hand or anything of that nature?

          12   A.  Not the arm injury but the chest injury would -- I mean,

          13       I think it would be common experience that if you have

          14       a sudden pain in your chest you have an inclination to

          15       bend and move your hand to the area of pain.

          16   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, thank you.

          17           Mr Thomas, you have some questions?

          18                      Questions by MR THOMAS

          19   MR THOMAS:  Just a couple.  Just so there's no doubt as to

          20       what V53's evidence is, I want to put this to you so you

          21       can deal with it from a pathological point of view in

          22       relation to some of the questions you've been asked.

          23           A question from me: I think you have described your

          24       height -- this is me questioning V53, the shooter --

          25       sorry, sir, if you want to follow, it's --




           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  No, no.

           2   MR THOMAS:  -- page 146 on the day that V53 gave his

           3       evidence, which was -- if you just bear with me --

           4       15 October.

           5   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Right, thank you.

           6   MR THOMAS:  I asked V53:

           7           "Question: Right now I think you describe your

           8       height as about 6 foot 2?

           9           "Answer: 6 foot 2, there or thereabouts.

          10           Question: There or thereabouts.  I think we may hear

          11       evidence that Mark Duggan was about six foot tall,

          12       something like that.

          13           "Answer: Okay, sir.

          14           "Question: Your evidence is that when Mark Duggan

          15       came out and pivoted 180, he was more or less upright;

          16       that's the evidence you gave this morning.

          17           "Answer: Yes.

          18           "Question: Can I just go through the science with

          19       you?

          20           "Answer: Of course you can, please do."

          21           Then I got Mr Straw to demonstrate.  I am not going

          22       to ask Mr Straw to do the demonstration but I think we

          23       remember the demonstration.

          24           Now, bearing in mind the shots and the wound tracks

          25       that you saw, I want to put this to you.  Assume for one




           1       moment -- just assume for one moment, that the first

           2       shot was the chest shot, okay?  Just assume that just

           3       for one moment.

           4           Looking at the science, the pathological evidence,

           5       would we have had that angle on the chest shot if Mark

           6       Duggan was more or less upright?

           7   A.  No, that would be impossible.

           8   Q.  Is there any doubt in your mind, from a pathologist's

           9       point of view?

          10   A.  No.

          11   Q.  Sorry, just so I'm clear: from a pathologist's point of

          12       view, when Mark Duggan was shot in the chest, you are

          13       telling this jury that he could not have been more or

          14       less upright?

          15   A.  That's correct.

          16   Q.  Thank you.  Second question, and final question: the arm

          17       shot.  You see, again, what V53 is saying is that when

          18       Mark Duggan is shot in the chest, more or less upright,

          19       that causes Mark Duggan -- he said that Mark Duggan was

          20       going for his waist -- sorry, where is the -- do you

          21       have the -- can I have the -- (Replica gun handed)

          22           Because you weren't in court, I want to demonstrate

          23       what V53 showed us in relation to the sequence of the

          24       shots that he discharged and why he discharged them, in

          25       other words what Mark Duggan was allegedly doing at the




           1       time he shot him; do you follow?

           2   A.  I do.

           3   Q.  Right.  So V53, chest shot first, okay: why did you

           4       shoot him in the chest, what was he doing to justify

           5       being shot in the chest?

           6           He says that Mark Duggan was -- had got out of the

           7       minicab, moved perhaps maybe one step, two steps,

           8       pivoted 180 degrees and was doing this sort of motion

           9       (indicates).  He saw the gun in a sock, his hand was

          10       coming round like that, first shot, okay, which he said

          11       was the chest shot, which then causes -- "Why did you

          12       shoot him the second time?" -- then causes, when he does

          13       the chest shot he does that (indicates); do you follow?

          14   A.  Yes.

          15   Q.  Now, in relation to the -- you have already said that he

          16       wasn't upright, or it would have been impossible for the

          17       chest shot to have been upright, but what do you say

          18       about the arm -- the pathology of the arm injury and

          19       this (indicates).

          20   A.  Well, with the arm injury, you can't point forward.

          21   Q.  Just explain to the jury why.

          22   A.  The key is the gunshot to the upper arm.  We know that

          23       when that exited the upper arm it just grazed across the

          24       surface of the skin towards the back of the armpit.  So

          25       we know the position of the upper arm when that gunshot




           1       was sustained.

           2           In order to achieve that, we have to turn the upper

           3       arm inwards, in the same way as if you were standing

           4       upright with your thumb forward, you would turn the back

           5       of your hand forward and that turns your the upper arm

           6       (indicates).  The upper arm has to stay in that

           7       position.

           8           Once it's in that position, if you then grip it

           9       yourself and hold it still, you simply can't move your

          10       forearm towards the front.  In order to get the forearm

          11       to the front, you have to also rotate the upper arm, and

          12       that would mean that the bullet would have gone into the

          13       chest rather than grazed the chest.

          14   Q.  So, likely or unlikely, the demonstration that I have

          15       just shown you?

          16   A.  Unlikely.

          17   MR THOMAS:  That's all I ask.

          18                  Further questions by MR STERN

          19   MR STERN:  May I just ask two matters that arise from the

          20       gun exhibition that we have had.

          21   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  If you wish.

          22   MR STERN:  Thank you very much.

          23           First of all, can I just ask you about this: the

          24       upper arm pathology shows the point at which the bullet

          25       hit?




           1   A.  That's correct.

           2   Q.  Obviously, it is not instantaneous with the decision to

           3       shoot.

           4   A.  No.

           5   Q.  What happened prior to that or the visible part of the

           6       arm before that, obviously the pathology doesn't tell

           7       us.

           8   A.  No.

           9   Q.  Secondly, the ability to throw a gun, which you were

          10       asked about, you have used yourself as an example, but

          11       obviously you have not carried out any tests in that

          12       regard --

          13   A.  That's quite correct.

          14   Q.  -- velocity of throw needed?

          15   A.  I haven't any physics knowledge of that, if that's what

          16       you're speaking about.

          17   Q.  You carried no tests whatsoever?

          18   A.  None whatsoever.

          19   Q.  So it's a purely subjective view, is it, that you have

          20       given it us?

          21   A.  No, it's based upon the damage to the chest and the

          22       damage to the arm.  I was asked in general, in terms of

          23       physical ability to do that.

          24   Q.  Yes.  You have told us it wouldn't be impossible but

          25       obviously it would depend on the strength of the




           1       individual?

           2   A.  I think it would depend primarily on the willpower to do

           3       it.  If someone was absolutely determined and had the

           4       physical strength, then they might achieve it.

           5   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Might achieve a throw?  What would

           6       happened if they had the determination to shoot the

           7       firearm that they had in their hand, they had time to do

           8       that, didn't they, before they passed out, four to ten

           9       seconds?

          10   A.  Yes.  I mean, this whole issue of what someone is able

          11       to do after being shot and sustaining an inevitably

          12       lethal wound, which is extremely painful, is

          13       an important one for the police, because there are

          14       instances in North America where people have sustained

          15       these kinds of wounds and then gone on to assault the

          16       police in their dying moments.  That's also well

          17       described on the battlefield as well.  So these things

          18       are possible.

          19           I mean, for example -- I should say in this case, if

          20       Mark Duggan had the willpower to do it, and the

          21       determination to do it, he could have moved forward and

          22       assaulted the police officer who shot him.  It's

          23       physically possible.

          24   MR STERN:  Physically possible but obviously whether he

          25       could have done, that is known only to his own




           1       willpower.

           2   A.  Absolutely.

           3   MR STERN:  All right.  Thank you.  Thank you, sir.

           4   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, Mr Underwood?

           5   MR UNDERWOOD:  Nothing from me, thank you.

           6   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Right.  Thank you very much then,

           7       Professor Pounder, for coming forward and assisting the

           8       jury.  Thank you very much indeed for your time in the

           9       box.  What we will do now is shall we have our afternoon

          10       break and press on with a little bit more evidence after

          11       that.

          12           Members of the jury, if you would like to then leave

          13       us for a short time.

          17   (3.18 pm)

          18                         (A short break)

          19   (3.36 pm)

          20   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, could we have the jury in then,

          21       please?

          22                  (In the presence of the jury)

          23   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you very much.  Yes then,

          24       Mr Underwood.

          25   MR UNDERWOOD:  Professor Clasper, please.





           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Right, Professor, would you come

           2       forward, please?

           3            PROFESSOR JONATHAN CHARLES CLASPER (sworn)

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

           5       thank you for waiting around today.  I know you've been

           6       at the back of court.

           7                    Questions by MR UNDERWOOD

           8   MR UNDERWOOD:  Good afternoon Professor.  Can you give us

           9       your full name please?

          10   A.  Jonathan Charles Clasper.

          11   Q.  We've only got about an hour so I'm only going to go

          12       very shortly through your qualifications.

          13   A.  Yes.

          14   Q.  I think you are a Professor and a Colonel in the army;

          15       is that right?

          16   A.  Yes.

          17   Q.  I think the shortest way to do this is to hand up

          18       reports/statements of yours to the jury, if I can ask

          19       for that to be done now?

          20   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Thank you very much.  You have

          21       copies of your reports there, have you?

          22   A.  I have, yes.

          23   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Marvellous, thank you very much,

          24       I'll ask for that to be done.

          25   MR UNDERWOOD:  So much for the quick way.




           1   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Let's do the slow way and see what

           2       happens.

           3   MR UNDERWOOD:  We'll do the slow way.

           4   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  They should be there.

           5   MR UNDERWOOD:  I think you are a consultant in orthopaedic

           6       surgery at Frimley Park Hospital; is that right?

           7   A.  I am, yes.

           8   Q.  Professor of Trauma and Orthopaedics and a visiting

           9       Professor in Bioengineering at Imperial College London?

          10   A.  That's correct, yes.

          11   Q.  Your qualifications go back to Glasgow University in

          12       July 1986?

          13   A.  That's when I qualified as a doctor, yes.

          14   Q.  Then running through Fellow of the Royal College of

          15       Surgeons in October 1997?

          16   A.  In Edinburgh, yes, in orthopaedics.

          17   Q.  A DPhil at St Peter's, Oxford in 2001.

          18   A.  Yes.

          19   Q.  Various other qualifications --

          20   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  We have now found copies of

          21       Professor Clasper's statements.  Let's just make sure

          22       that we're all working from the same.  (Handed)

          23           Yes, this is CD5053, through the witness statements

          24       and the report.

          25           Right, thank you, yes.  These are not actually in




           1       date order put together but there we are, because

           2       I believe your first statement is in 2012 --

           3   MR UNDERWOOD:  Yes.

           4   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  -- on 4 May.

           5   MR UNDERWOOD:  Exactly.  I think the first statement you

           6       made about this matter was 4 May 2012; is that right,

           7       Professor?

           8   A.  Yes, that's correct.

           9   Q.  It's our CS704.

          10   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Once the jury have got hold of this,

          11       this will now become C32 in our jury bundles, but the

          12       first document we should be looking at is halfway

          13       through really at CS0704, which we're now looking at,

          14       the qualifications and background of Professor Clasper.

          15   MR UNDERWOOD:  We are.  I have skipped through the first

          16       page.  I want to go onto the second page, your military

          17       experience.  You did basic military training at

          18       Sandhurst, I think.

          19   A.  Yes.

          20   Q.  Additional medical training at Millbank in London.

          21   A.  Yes.

          22   Q.  You were Regimental Medical Officer on an operational

          23       tour of Northern Ireland for just over 18 months between

          24       1988 and 1990 --

          25   A.  Correct.




           1   Q.  -- solely responsible for providing general practice,

           2       basic emergency and accident care for about 1,000 men.

           3   A.  Yes.

           4   Q.  Then 1991, Gulf War, you were five months as

           5       a resuscitation officer in Saudi Arabia.

           6   A.  That's correct, yes.

           7   Q.  Then in Bosnia you did six months as a resuscitation

           8       officer and assistant surgeon to the British forces in

           9       1992.

          10   A.  Yes.

          11   Q.  Then you have completed operational tours as the sole

          12       orthopaedic surgeon in Kosovo, Bosnia and Sierra Leone.

          13   A.  Correct.

          14   Q.  Deployed to Oman and Afghanistan in 2001 --

          15   A.  Correct.

          16   Q.  -- conducting advanced, life saving surgery to deployed

          17       British forces.

          18   A.  Yes.

          19   Q.  Served in the 2003 Gulf conflict in charge of the

          20       orthopaedic division of 202 Field Hospital.

          21   A.  Yes.

          22   Q.  In September to October 2008 you were the sole

          23       orthopaedic surgeon in a busy period, euphemistically

          24       called, in Afghanistan --

          25   A.  Correct, yes.




           1   Q.  -- dealing not just orthopaedics but thoracic and

           2       abdominal surgery.

           3   A.  Yes.

           4   Q.  You then returned in August 2011 to Afghanistan as the

           5       senior orthopaedic surgeon in a joint US and UK team of

           6       five orthopaedic surgeons?

           7   A.  Correct, yes.

           8   Q.  Going over the top of page 3, again perhaps understating

           9       it, that involved the assessment and management of

          10       casualties who had suffered gunshot wounds?

          11   A.  Yes.

          12   Q.  You then deal with your relevant research experience.

          13       Can I just pick this up, second paragraph of page 3.

          14       You say that you were the first Defence Professor in

          15       Trauma and Orthopedics and responsible for the

          16       orthopaedic research focus of the armed forces.  You've

          17       established research links with Imperial to study high

          18       strain biometrics, one the founding members of Imperial

          19       Blast which is a multidisciplinary group of clinicians,

          20       scientists and engineers collaborating to study of

          21       affects of high strain rates on biological structures.

          22   A.  Yes.

          23   Q.  Tell us what that is about, the bioengineering, what's

          24       the field?

          25   A.  Bioengineering is looking at -- basically it's using




           1       engineering principles on biological tissue,

           2       particularly the body, so looking at the effects of

           3       forces and strains how they might produce injury,

           4       fracture, how they might produce arthritis.  The high

           5       strain rate is how you deal with high forces, so you're

           6       looking at explosive injuries, high speed gunshots.

           7   Q.  Then, again -- I hope I will be forgiven for dealing

           8       very briefly with this -- we have several pages of

           9       publications of yours --

          10   A.  Yes.

          11   Q.  -- including, for example at page 4, Field Surgery

          12       Pocket Book; Limb Injuries In Ballistic Trauma; Military

          13       Trauma; Blast and Ballistic Injury; Management of

          14       Extremity Injuries in Ballistic Trauma; et cetera.

          15   A.  Yes.

          16   Q.  Jumping now to page 10, the reason you got involved in

          17       this was that you were asked by the IPCC to report on

          18       certain matters; is that right?

          19   A.  That's correct, yes.

          20   Q.  Picking it up at page 10, third paragraph, you say:

          21           "I was instructed that, taking into account the

          22       material provided, I was asked for an expert opinion on

          23       the following questions ..."

          24           There's a premise then:

          25           "Assuming the firearm was in Mr Duggan's




           1       possession ..."

           2           Was that your assumption?

           3   A.  No, I was asked to assume he had he was holding

           4       a handgun.

           5   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Could you sit a little bit forwards

           6       so we can pick up on the microphone because that would

           7       help us a little bit better.

           8   MR UNDERWOOD:  Sorry, I think you said you asked to assume.

           9   A.  I was asked to assume that he was holding a pistol and

          10       then I was asked events after that.

          11   Q.  Right.  So everything that you have done is predicated

          12       on that assumption which you've been given; is that

          13       fair?

          14   A.  That's correct, yes, sir.

          15   Q.  You were asked then four things:

          16           "1.  Is there a medical or physiological explanation

          17       for where the firearm was found, relative to the

          18       position of Mr Duggan's body?

          19           "2.  In particular, could Mr Duggan through

          20       voluntary or involuntary movements, have thrown the gun

          21       before or after he was shot, including after he was shot

          22       the second time?

          23           "3.  What other possible physiological explanations

          24       could there be for the distance between the firearm and

          25       Mr Duggan's body?




           1           "4.  Based on the evidence we have provided to you,

           2       can any conclusions be reached concerning the position

           3       Mr Duggan's body was in when he was shot, both the first

           4       and second time?"

           5           That was the brief, was it?

           6   A.  That was the initial brief, yes.

           7   Q.  If we go through your pages 11 and 12 you set out all

           8       the materials you took into account; is that fair?

           9   A.  Yes.

          10   Q.  Picking it out on our page 715, your page 12, you start

          11       at the bottom with "The Issues Addressed" and the first

          12       of those is:

          13           "Is there a medical or physiological explanation for

          14       where the firearm was found, relative to the position of

          15       Mr Duggan's body."

          16           Now, do we take it from that you were never asked to

          17       work on a premise of the distance between Mr Duggan when

          18       he was shot and where the firearm ended up?

          19   A.  I was instructed that the firearm was found

          20       approximately 14 feet from him and I wasn't told whether

          21       that was when he was shot or when he subsequently was --

          22       where he subsequently lay.  But I was given the distance

          23       of 14 feet and asked could I come up with an explanation

          24       as to how it managed to get 14 feet if no one else

          25       touched it or was involved.




           1   Q.  We'll obviously come to the answers you gave in a moment

           2       but have you been following any of the evidence apart

           3       from the last day?

           4   A.  Not at this Inquest, no.

           5   Q.  If you were to learn that the distance between Mr Duggan

           6       when he was first shot, and the firearm was about 21 or

           7       22 feet, would that make any difference to your

           8       findings?

           9   A.  It wouldn't make a big difference, no.

          10   Q.  Moving on then to what you said here, you said:

          11           "Assuming that the firearm was in Mr Duggan's

          12       possession, in my opinion the weapon was thrown, which

          13       I define as propelled with some force through the air in

          14       a particular direction."

          15           You take that from the witness statements.  So all

          16       you're doing there, if I get this right, is excluding

          17       the possibility that it was, somehow or other, kicked or

          18       got there by other mechanism?

          19   A.  No, the impression I got when I was instructed by the

          20       IPCC is they were concerned that -- they were interested

          21       in whether there was some medical reason, effectively

          22       an involuntary movement -- could a spasm -- I think

          23       people had visions, as seen in the television of shot

          24       people get sent backwards, things get flying and I think

          25       they were looking for an explanation: could have been




           1       holding a weapon, could he have been shot, could

           2       something like that have happened to cause this weapon

           3       to go 14 feet, as I was told, and the answer is no.

           4   Q.  If we go over to your page 13, at 4.2 you say, in

           5       addressing the question:

           6           "In particular, could Mr Duggan, through voluntary

           7       or involuntary movements, have thrown the gun before or

           8       after he was shot, including after he was shot the

           9       second time?"

          10           You say:

          11           "Based on the material provided to me, in my opinion

          12       Mr Duggan did not through involuntary movements throw

          13       the gun."

          14   A.  That's predominantly based on postmortem rather than

          15       witness statements, and the extent of his injuries.

          16   Q.  Can you amplify that for us?

          17   A.  It is possible to go into spasm and do things and have

          18       involuntary movement, you would expect to see someone

          19       shot in the head, shot in the spine, potentially, or

          20       possibly significant limb injury around the shoulder,

          21       and he had no evidence of that in the postmortem

          22       findings.

          23   Q.  Is that still true, as far as you're concerned, having

          24       heard the evidence of --

          25   A.  Yes.




           1   Q.  -- thank you very much -- today.

           2           Then, in the middle of that page, you say:

           3           "Assuming the firearm was in Mr Duggan's possession

           4       and he was solely responsible for the stated final

           5       position of that firearm, in my opinion he threw it

           6       voluntarily."

           7           That's just the same as saying it wasn't a spasm, is

           8       it?

           9   A.  Yes.  If he had it, if he was solely responsible, it was

          10       a voluntary movement.

          11   Q.  You go on to say:

          12           "I am not aware of any specific evidence that can be

          13       utilised to determine, with certainty, whether Mr Duggan

          14       threw the gun before or after he was shot, or was

          15       throwing the firearm at the time he was shot.  However,

          16       I'm aware of the nature and consequences of both gunshot

          17       wounds that Mr Duggan sustained.  The nature is based on

          18       the written and photographic records of the postmortem,

          19       and the consequences are based on my personal experience

          20       of treating gunshot wounds and also my experience of

          21       review of the records of many victims of gunshots.

          22       Based on these, in my opinion, in the balance of

          23       probabilities, Mr Duggan did not throw the firearm after

          24       he was shot."

          25           Again, discriminate between him being shot in




           1       mid-throw and him throwing after he was shot, there you

           2       are just talking about whatever he was doing with the

           3       gun, if he had it before he was shot.  If the gun was in

           4       his hand at the time of shooting, you are then saying

           5       that he didn't throw it, on the balance of

           6       probabilities, after he was shot; is that fair?

           7   A.  Yes, he could have been throwing it when he was shot and

           8       continued to throw it but, in my opinion, he could not

           9       have been shot and then made a decision and thrown it.

          10   Q.  Then you address at 4.3, at the bottom of this page,

          11       what other possible physiological explanations could

          12       there be for the distance between the firearm and

          13       Mr Duggan's body.  In essence, at the top, you say none.

          14   A.  None.

          15   Q.  Then you are asked at 4.4:

          16           "Based on the evidence we have provided to you, can

          17       any conclusions be reached concerning the position

          18       Mr Duggan's body was in when he was shot, both the first

          19       and second time?"

          20           You go on to say that they are bullet wounds and the

          21       likelihood is that the front ones are entry wounds and

          22       the back ones are exit wounds; is that right?

          23   A.  Yes.

          24   Q.  Then you say:

          25           "In my opinion it is not possible to say, with




           1       certainty, which of the two wounds was the result of

           2       which shot.  Based on both the postmortem report and the

           3       pictures provided to me it is evident the wound to the

           4       chest result in a fracture of a rib almost immediately

           5       after the bullet penetrated the skin.  In my experience

           6       when a bone is struck and fractured by a projectile it

           7       can be deflected, and therefore it is not possible to be

           8       certain about the position or orientation of Mr Duggan's

           9       body when he was shot in the chest, other than to say it

          10       entered from the front."

          11           Has anything you have heard changed that view?

          12   A.  No.  I disagree with what I've heard, in fact.

          13       I maintain my opinion.

          14   Q.  In your view, it's just not possible to say anymore than

          15       that; is that fair?

          16   A.  I've seen bullets strike bone and be deviated

          17       90 degrees, so --

          18   Q.  What sort of bone?

          19   A.  Spine, femur -- so thigh bone, spine, and because of the

          20       shape of the rib, I've actually -- I have seen someone

          21       who -- a bullet has hit a rib and it's run round the

          22       inside of the rib, so it's actually gone round like

          23       a track.  I've seen that happen in helmets as well.

          24       It's impossible to be certain what happens when a bullet

          25       strikes something hard.




           1   Q.  When you say you have seen that --

           2   A.  Yes.

           3   Q.  -- how have you determined that?

           4   A.  I've treated someone who was shot in the neck, we've

           5       seen X-ray evidence -- we know where the entry wound

           6       was, we saw X-ray evidence of debris from the bullet

           7       when it's struck the front of his spine and the bullet

           8       itself had moved down about six centimetres down the

           9       middle, and he survived.

          10           I've also seen a bullet hit a femur, the bullet

          11       break up and the fragments go down the back of the leg,

          12       not go through the leg.

          13   Q.  At least on the first of those, the patient was lucky

          14       enough to survive; is that right?

          15   A.  Yes.

          16   Q.  Had those people been unlucky enough to die would that

          17       evidence have been evident postmortem?

          18   A.  On X-ray, yes.

          19   Q.  Then if we go down right at the bottom of page 14 of 15,

          20       you say:

          21           "The postmortem report ..."

          22           That's Dr Poole's, is it?

          23   A.  Yes.

          24   Q.  "... states that the two wounds to the upper arm

          25       communicated and the track was superficial.  As such, in




           1       my opinion, it's less likely that this projectile was

           2       deflected.  Based on this evidence, in my opinion,

           3       Mr Duggan's right arm was held close to his chest when

           4       he was shot.  In addition it's my opinion that, on the

           5       balance of probabilities, Mr Duggan's right arm was held

           6       in a rotated position, such that the palm of his hand

           7       was facing relatively posterior or backwards, rather

           8       than anteriorly.  I am unable to give an opinion on

           9       whether his elbow was bent or straight at the time

          10       Mr Duggan was shot."

          11           Is that still your view?

          12   A.  Yes.

          13   Q.  Can you comment on what you heard from Professor Pounder

          14       on the muscle contraction, if you like, around the wound

          15       to the bicep?

          16   A.  Quite clearly, I was not at the postmortem, either

          17       postmortem, so Dr Poole and Professor Pounder have that

          18       advantage over me.  However, I have treated

          19       a considerable number of biceps and muscle injuries.

          20       The muscle injury they describe and the pictures they

          21       show, that is not a significant muscle injury.  It is

          22       a relatively low energy transfer injury, so it's

          23       unlikely there was significant cavitation and it's

          24       unlikely that the bullet lost much energy, so therefore

          25       the muscle could still work afterwards and I would




           1       suggest it's probably on the basis of that damage very

           2       difficult, if not impossible, to predict what position

           3       the elbow was in when it struck.

           4   Q.  Can we just clarify this, because Dr Poole didn't see

           5       the muscle.  It's only Professor Pounder who saw that at

           6       the autopsy.  The specific evidence is that in a man who

           7       died within some seconds of that injury being inflicted

           8       on him that there is this, as it were, retraction.  Is

           9       that something which you've, first of all, seen in

          10       living patients?

          11   A.  I've seen muscle retraction but the bullet has then

          12       entered the muscle.  This bullet didn't particularly

          13       enter the muscle.  Professor Pounder talked about

          14       a four-millimetre depth of injury, that's a graze across

          15       the muscle, that's not significant damage to the muscle,

          16       so there cannot have been that many fibres of the muscle

          17       divided, based on his written postmortem finding.

          18   Q.  Would there be a difference in retraction between

          19       somebody who has dies within seconds of this and

          20       somebody who has survived and you are operating on them?

          21   A.  It would depend on what they had done.  If they haven't

          22       moved the arm, if you partially damage the arm and you

          23       continue to use it and you can continue to use it, it's

          24       not as painful as has been suggested, then you can

          25       damage it further.




           1   Q.  I think, to be fair, the painful part of this was

           2       suggested to be the slap, if you like, on the chest, the

           3       winding; would you accept that?

           4   A.  Again, that may not be that painful, initially.

           5   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Does it make any difference, ask the

           6       jury, about the type of bullet when we are talking about

           7       deviation and hitting the bone.

           8   A.  Terms of the design of the bullet, no, sir.  It depends

           9       on the energy the bullet gives out.  Police bullets are

          10       designed to release energy very, very quickly once they

          11       enter the body, so they would give out more energy, but

          12       it's the actual energy deposited in the person or in the

          13       tissue that's the important thing, not the weapon or the

          14       bullet itself.

          15   MR UNDERWOOD:  On that, would it be fair to assume that all

          16       your military experience would be of bullets that don't

          17       mushroom?

          18   A.  No -- yes, sorry.  Yes, they don't mushroom, but I have

          19       experience of bullets that break up.

          20   Q.  Sorry, I missed that.

          21   A.  I've got experience of bullets that break up.  I've also

          22       worked in America with homemade bullets, but I haven't

          23       dealt with many, if any, police-type bullets that

          24       mushroom.

          25   Q.  The purpose, of course, of the non-jacketed point of the




           1       police ammunition is that the bullet will expand

           2       sufficiently in the body so it doesn't come out the

           3       other sides; is that right?

           4   A.  Yes, it's designed to deposit all the energy in the body

           5       or as much as possible.

           6   Q.  Whereas, you were telling me earlier, the purpose of

           7       military ammunition is that it flies true --

           8   A.  Yes.

           9   Q.  -- and for a great distance?

          10   A.  It's designed to be accurate and kill people at long

          11       distances.

          12   Q.  So it's not designed to expend its energy when it hits

          13       somebody?

          14   A.  It's not designed to but it's travelling so fast that it

          15       frequently does, especially if it strikes bone.

          16   Q.  To pick up the jury's point, if I fired two bullets at

          17       the same object, one of which was not jacketed, so will

          18       expand, and the other is fully jacketed, so it won't

          19       expand, will they have different effects on the interior

          20       of the object that I strike?

          21   A.  It depends on what they strike and the angle they strike

          22       in.  It's very difficult, it's all about the angle.  You

          23       can lose a lot of energy by just hitting skin if you hit

          24       it at the wrong angle and it will deposit energy there.

          25       Low energy rounds, particularly the mushrooming ones --




           1       I don't know enough about them to know when they start

           2       mushrooming but, in general, bullets that tumble, in

           3       military, do so after five centimetres.  So if you go

           4       through a structure that's less than five centimetres

           5       and offer no resistance, a bullet will go straight

           6       through and low energy rounds can do that 9mm rounds can

           7       do that.

           8   Q.  That's military rounds, we're talking about, is it?

           9   A.  Military rounds.  I do not have specific experience of

          10       the police ones but they may not mushroom.  It's

          11       difficult to guarantee the effects of bullets --

          12   Q.  That's something we can ask somebody who has done that

          13       work.

          14   A.  That's something to ask an expert in police bullets.

          15   Q.  Then if we could just track through your on this.

          16       I think you were next asked to look at this on

          17       21 July 2012.  It's our CS719, I'm not sure in what

          18       order --

          19   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  That comes next in the jury --

          20   MR UNDERWOOD:  That was to address the statement of the

          21       minicab driver, is that right?  Initially, halfway

          22       down -- it's your statement of 21 July 2012.

          23   A.  It was two things -- the second statement was two

          24       things: one was taking into account the minicab driver's

          25       statement, the other was they wanted me to expand on




           1       this fact about could he -- on throwing a weapon when he

           2       was shot.

           3   Q.  We pick that up in page 3 do we at 4.2:

           4           "Is it more likely that Mr Duggan: (i) threw the

           5       firearm before he was shot; or (ii) was in the process

           6       of throwing it when he was shot?"

           7           You then deal with a paper about loss of

           8       consciousness after the complete loss of blood supply to

           9       the brain in a man.  You say:

          10           "On the basis of this, in my opinion, Mr Duggan

          11       would not have lost consciousness immediately after

          12       being shot and therefore could have been in the process

          13       of throwing the firearm, and could have been capable of

          14       completing the throw."

          15   A.  Yes.

          16   Q.  This is all, again -- there's a premise here, is there?

          17   A.  This is all assuming that he held the gun and, as things

          18       moved on, all assuming that, not only did he hold the

          19       gun, but he was throwing the gun.

          20   Q.  Again, that's not your assumption?

          21   A.  I was told to assume these things.

          22   Q.  All you were being asked there then was, on the

          23       assumption that Mr Duggan started with a gun in his

          24       hand --

          25   A.  Could he have done this, yes.




           1   Q.  Exactly, and if he was in the course of throwing it, was

           2       there sufficient time between the shots and his death

           3       for him to have carried on doing it?

           4   A.  Complete the throw, yes.

           5   Q.  Again, you give timings there for loss of consciousness.

           6       Help us on that, if you would.  Do you disagree with

           7       what Professor Pounder says about the length of time it

           8       would take for the aorta wound in particular to impact

           9       on somebody?

          10   A.  The loss of consciousness is due to interruption of the

          11       blood supply to the brain, so if you completely cut off

          12       the blood supply to the brain you will lose

          13       consciousness in about five seconds.

          14           Looking at the postmortem features of Mr Duggan's

          15       wounds he may have maintained a blood supply to his

          16       brain for up to five seconds so, in fact, it might have

          17       been between five and ten seconds before he lost

          18       consciousness after the chest wound, which is consistent

          19       with what I've heard today, four to ten to 12 seconds.

          20       You cannot be any more exact than approximately five to

          21       ten seconds.

          22   Q.  Thank you very much.  Then you were next asked to

          23       revisit this I think on 25 September 2012 in a further

          24       statement we have at CS723.  There you were given some

          25       witness statements of bystanders, I think, would that be




           1       fair --

           2   A.  Yes.

           3   Q.  -- to which the short answer is that you had nothing to

           4       add?

           5   A.  No.  My opinion is not based on witness statements.

           6       It's -- some of my findings are consistent with witness

           7       statements but my statements are based on injuries to

           8       Mr Duggan, what he might or might not have been doing

           9       and what could happen around about the time of the

          10       shooting and his death.

          11   Q.  Then we get to the next stage in your involvement,

          12       3 October 2012, a report which we have at CS725.  There

          13       you were asked more about the likelihood of

          14       an involuntary movement, and you say:

          15           "In my opinion it is very unlikely that

          16       an involuntary movement was responsible for the find

          17       position of the firearm."

          18           That's still the case, I take it?

          19   A.  Yes.  That was as a result of being called for the

          20       defence in the trial of Mr Hutchinson-Foster.

          21   Q.  Then:

          22           "I have further been asked if, in my opinion, if

          23       Mr Duggan had been holding the firearm, was he pointing

          24       it forward as if to shoot someone."

          25           You say:




           1           "In my opinion, at the time he was shot in the arm,

           2       he was not pointing the firearm forwards."

           3           Can you expand on that for us?

           4   A.  It's to do with the entry and exit wound to the arm and

           5       the rotation, some of which had been raised today.  The

           6       important thing is not the dimensions and the

           7       measurements, it's the actual appearance of the wound.

           8       The entry wound to the upper arm is approximately in the

           9       middle with the hand facing forward, approximately in

          10       the middle, in terms of top to bottom and in terms of

          11       side to side.  That's the entrance wound.  It's oblique

          12       so it's coming in at that side.

          13           The exit wound is on the inside of the arm so, more

          14       or less in the middle.  So the angle created relative to

          15       a forearm is approximately 45 degrees.  So if you shot

          16       from the front of his arm rather than his body it has to

          17       be turned in 45 degrees to get that.  So therefore he

          18       couldn't have been pointing a gun at someone when he was

          19       shot in the arm.

          20   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  45 degrees or 90 degrees.

          21   A.  45 -- the angle of the bullet was 45 -- if you bend the

          22       arm to 90 degrees -- and I am not saying the elbow was

          23       bent to 90 degrees, I'm merely using that to illustrate

          24       the angle -- it's 45 degrees to that.  So therefore you

          25       have to turn it 45 degrees.  When it sits here as 45




           1       degrees, you would have to bring the arm forward 90

           2       degrees so it's about 45 to 60.

           3   MR UNDERWOOD:  So if your hand is across your chest, that's

           4       45 degrees of rotation there, is it?

           5   A.  The hand across there is about 45 to 60, but a lot of it

           6       depends on where the shoulder is because the shoulder

           7       has got such a large amount of movement -- that's why

           8       I say measurements are actually relatively immaterial.

           9       It's about angles and positions.

          10   Q.  You arrived at that by a completely independent route to

          11       Professor Pounder?

          12   A.  Yes.  By looking at the wounds and my knowledge of what

          13       the arm does.

          14   Q.  Finally, I think, you were asked to revisit this yet

          15       again on 16 April this year in a report --

          16   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  It is in the front of our bundle.

          17   MR UNDERWOOD:  We have this, I think, at CD5053.  There, you

          18       were asked to deal with relative location, I think, of

          19       Mr Duggan and the shooter, V53.

          20   A.  Yes.

          21   Q.  You give a list, over two pages, of the material you had

          22       taken into account by this stage?

          23   A.  Yes.

          24   Q.  You address the issues at your page 4 to start with and

          25       you say:




           1           "According to the postmortem report" --

           2           Sorry, this is paragraph 4.1:

           3           "According to the postmortem report of Dr Poole, and

           4       consistent with the photographs provided to me,

           5       Mr Duggan sustained a gunshot wound to the chest with

           6       the entry wound 12.5 cm to the right of the mid-line of

           7       his body at a height measured as 149 cm above the heel.

           8       After passing through the skin the bullet struck a rib,

           9       and passed in a downwards direction, from right to left

          10       and exited 7.5cm left of the mid-line at 124cm above the

          11       heel.

          12           "I know from experience and published literature

          13       that bullets which strike bone can be deviated.  I am

          14       not aware of any literature that quantifies the

          15       deviation in relation to the bone struck.  However,

          16       a rib is relatively small bone, it does not have

          17       a particularly thick outer cortex and, in reference to

          18       Mr Duggan there did not appear to be significant energy

          19       transfer in relation to the rib being struck.  On the

          20       basis of this, it is likely that when the bullet entered

          21       Mr Duggan's chest it was travelling in a right to left

          22       and downwards direction."

          23           Do you still stand by that?

          24   A.  Yes.

          25   Q.  "Based on this I would offer the following opinions:




           1           "i.  If Mr Duggan was standing upright and facing

           2       forward at the time he was shot in the chest, then he

           3       was shot by someone who was above him and to his right."

           4   A.  Yes.

           5   Q.  That's simply the downward trajectory and the sideways

           6       trajectory?

           7   A.  Yes.

           8   Q.  "ii.  If the person who shot Mr Duggan was at the same

           9       approximate height and facing Mr Duggan, then Mr Duggan

          10       was stooped or crouched over, and his chest was turned

          11       to face the left relative to Mr Duggan."

          12           You saw Professor Pounder in his contorted position?

          13   A.  Yes.

          14   Q.  Twist and bent forward.  Would you like to comment on

          15       that?

          16   A.  That's a reasonable position.  The problem I have is it

          17       could be deviated, so I don't think you can be that

          18       exact and say it was this much (indicates).

          19           I think he was slightly stooped, possibly 30 to

          20       60 degrees relative to the waist.  I think he was

          21       slightly twisted.  But I don't believe there's any

          22       evidence, either in this case or in the literature or in

          23       any experiment, to be more exact than that angle of

          24       about slightly stooped but not pointing right down and

          25       turned slightly to the left.




           1   Q.  30 to 60 degrees?

           2   A.  I would say about 30 to 60 degrees.  I would accept

           3       45 degrees as -- is that possible -- but I don't think

           4       you can be that accurate.

           5   Q.  Thank you.  Then you go on to say -- and, again, this is

           6       a response to evidence you've given in one of the

           7       Hutchinson-Foster trials, is it?

           8   A.  Yes.

           9   Q.  You go on to say:

          10           "There are other possible scenarios.  However, when

          11       questioned in court I was specifically asked if

          12       Mr Duggan was directly facing the person who shot him,

          13       at the time he was shot in the chest, and my answer and

          14       opinion was no.  I continue to hold that opinion."

          15           Do you still?

          16   A.  I still hold that opinion, yes.

          17   Q.  Regarding the relative position you go on under 4.2.

          18       You say:

          19           "As I am unable to provide any expert opinion in

          20       relation to who shot Mr Duggan, I am unable to give

          21       exact positions of Mr Duggan in relation to the minicab

          22       or any specific police officer including V53."

          23           Then you go on:

          24           "In his statements, V53 confirms he was the officer

          25       who shot Mr Duggan.  However, as I am only able to give




           1       the position of Mr Duggan relative to the person who

           2       shot him and there appears to be uncertainty in the

           3       positions of both V53 and Mr Duggan at the time of

           4       shooting, I am unable to give an opinion in relation to

           5       their positions relative to the minicab."

           6           Is that still your position?

           7   A.  Yes.  There's inconsistencies in the evidence that's

           8       been given to make it impossible for me to say.

           9   MR UNDERWOOD:  Thank you very much, Professor.

          10   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, thank you.  Mr Mansfield,

          11       Mr Stern?

          12   MR MANSFIELD:  Yes, I'm happy to continue, if that's what

          13       you wish?

          14   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes.

          15                    Questions by MR MANSFIELD

          16   MR MANSFIELD:  Good afternoon.  I represent the family of

          17       Mark Duggan.

          18   A.  Yes.

          19   Q.  You've been in court so you have heard quite a bit of

          20       the material.  I just want to take up the last matter

          21       with you, please.  The jury have, at C23D, a plan, which

          22       you may or may not have seen, so could it perhaps come

          23       up on the screen.  It's in the jury bundle, C23D.

          24           Before yesterday, have you been attending the

          25       Inquest in fact?




           1   A.  No.

           2   Q.  Have you been following the evidence on transcript?

           3   A.  No, I haven't.

           4   Q.  Right.  You were here earlier today; these are points

           5       that have been put to other witnesses today, but I'm

           6       going to ask you about them so you may as well follow

           7       them.

           8           This was a plan that was produced by a witness

           9       called Mr Bell, having looked at the blood distribution

          10       on the minicab door.

          11   A.  Right.

          12   Q.  Could we do as we did before.  Could we have CD54

          13       back -- I'll come back to this in a moment.  CD54.

          14       There, that's a photograph of the door when closed of

          15       the passenger side, which was next to the pavement.

          16   A.  Yes.

          17   Q.  Obviously when Mr Duggan got out, the door was open.  So

          18       that precise position has changed.

          19           So could we go back, therefore, to C23D.  The circle

          20       there is where Mr Bell assessed Mr Duggan was injured,

          21       such that the injury or wound to the rear, in other

          22       words the one that goes through the chest, which you

          23       have accepted could be 45 degrees, comes out on the left

          24       side at the rear, and that the blood is coming from the

          25       rear injury; do you follow?




           1   A.  Yes.

           2   Q.  That's what his estimate was.  Before today, had you

           3       been aware of any of that?

           4   A.  I had been sent some of the expert testimony -- sorry,

           5       the expert evidence that had been given in preparation

           6       for the Inquest and some of it was in relation to blood

           7       spatter.

           8   Q.  But I think in terms of where Mr Duggan was at the point

           9       at which the injury was incurred which caused the

          10       distribution, that wasn't something before today that

          11       you had --

          12   A.  I don't think so.

          13   Q.  You don't think so.  Perhaps if we could kindly do what

          14       we did before, and that is split screen that plan with

          15       a plan that is of the same dimensions; it does not have

          16       the same number of vehicles but basically it's the same

          17       plan.

          18           Now, this is the plan marked by the shooter, V53,

          19       originally, as to where he was standing roughly, in the

          20       box "A"; do you see that?

          21   A.  Yes.

          22   Q.  As I put to the witness this morning, the distance, on

          23       a number of bases to do with firearms residue on the

          24       clothing and actually measuring the distance between

          25       somewhere in the centre of the circle and somewhere in




           1       the centre of box A, is something in the region of three

           2       metres or just a little bit more.  Do you follow?

           3   A.  Right, yes.

           4   Q.  We also know roughly where the officer with the radio

           5       was standing when he was hit.  We have had that W42

           6       position this morning, and I think it's circled.  I am

           7       just trying to read what's on my list.  CE0079, it's up

           8       there.  Do you see there's a circle there?  Have you

           9       seen that before?

          10   A.  I saw it earlier today.

          11   Q.  Earlier today you saw it, yes.  So that shows the

          12       position of the officer with the radio circled and he's

          13       plainly got to be in a position for the bullet to have

          14       come through Mr Duggan and hit the radio.  I'm leaving

          15       aside which one.  You've heard that Professor Pounder

          16       thought it was the one under the armpit that, therefore,

          17       had lost least energy than the one that goes through the

          18       body and, in his account, ends up in the minicab.  I'm

          19       summarising the situation.

          20   A.  Yes.

          21   Q.  You appreciate all of that?

          22   A.  Yes.

          23   Q.  There is an additional measurement here that, when

          24       Mr Bell was in the witness box he was asked to measure

          25       the distance from the circle -- sorry, if we could just




           1       keep it there, so sorry, just for a minute -- no,

           2       I don't mean the circle on the pavement.

           3   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  The one on Mr Bell's plan.

           4   MR MANSFIELD:  The C23D one, that one, where he has done the

           5       circle.  Therefore, it's from the circle to a place

           6       where the gun was allegedly found with -- it was marked

           7       in a particular manner.

           8           Now, the distance he estimated, by looking at the

           9       plan as to where all these items were found, is 7.3 or

          10       7.4 metres; do you follow that?

          11   A.  Yes.

          12   Q.  So that's another measurement?

          13   A.  Yes.

          14   Q.  Again, were you aware of that?

          15   A.  I was today, not before that.

          16   Q.  Today, all right.  One appreciates that at the trial

          17       that you gave evidence at, Kevin Hutchinson-Foster,

          18       earlier this year, the figure of 20 feet was in fact put

          19       to you, was it not?

          20   A.  I believe it was, yes.

          21   Q.  So that distance of 20 feet is commensurate with,

          22       obviously, the measurement on this plan, in fact it's

          23       a little more than 20 feet?

          24   A.  Yes.

          25   Q.  Those are the distances involved.  I just want to ask




           1       you one or two matters in relation to that.

           2           Would you take the gun, please -- again, you have

           3       seen it handed round today, it's somewhere lodged.

           4       (Handed)

           5           Could it just -- have you seen this before?  It's

           6       a replica effectively but it's of the same --

           7   A.  I have not seen this one.  I've handled guns before,

           8       yes.

           9   Q.  Yes, I'm sure you have.  The jury have felt it.  It's --

          10       I'm going to put it in common parlance, it's

          11       a relatively heavy weapon.

          12   A.  Yes.

          13   Q.  Perhaps not for you but --

          14   A.  Yes, sir.

          15   Q.  You may have held heavier ones.  I just want to deal

          16       with the question of throwing because one of the issues

          17       is did he have a gun at all, but I'm obviously not

          18       dealing with that issue, I'm dealing with if he did, at

          19       the point at which he received two shots in quick

          20       succession, one after the other, possibly separated by

          21       a second or so, and the effect of those shots.

          22           I'm taking it in stages.  First of all, in terms of

          23       an involuntary action, a spasm, however you want to

          24       describe it, throwing something like that weapon 20 feet

          25       over a fence into a grassed area is -- I'm going to put




           1       it at a lesser -- very unlikely indeed, isn't it?

           2   A.  Yes, I accept that, very unlikely.

           3   Q.  So the only other possibility is the question of

           4       whether, if he had a gun, he did it voluntarily.  Now,

           5       you haven't read the evidence, have you, in the case?

           6   A.  Of the Inquest, no.

           7   Q.  Of the Inquest.  Because what the officer primarily

           8       concerned with this -- that is V53 -- is saying is that

           9       he saw a gun-shaped item, or a gun -- in fact a gun --

          10       in Mr Duggan's hands before the first shot and before

          11       the second shot?

          12   A.  Yes.

          13   Q.  So in other words, he's got the gun all the way through.

          14       I think, having seen the gun, and it may not make much

          15       difference, what you're saying is that, again, it's very

          16       unlikely indeed that if he had a gun after the second

          17       shot he then threw that gun -- or a gun very similar to

          18       it -- 20 feet over a fence onto a grassed area.

          19   A.  Yes, unless he was throwing it as he was shot, which is

          20       what I've said to the IPCC.  He wouldn't have thrown it

          21       after he was shot but if he was in the action of

          22       throwing it --

          23   Q.  I'm doing it in stages.

          24   A.  Sorry.

          25   Q.  I just want to get it clear.  After he'd been shot --




           1       certainly not after he'd been shot?

           2   A.  I think it's very unlikely.

           3   Q.  All right, very unlikely.  In terms of as he was being

           4       shot, you will appreciate that, in fact, there isn't

           5       a single witness who describes him throwing a gun at any

           6       stage, let alone whilst he was being shot; were you

           7       aware of that?

           8   A.  There was no witness that gave a statement that he was

           9       throwing a gun.  There are statements that could be

          10       consistent with him throwing a gun, including V53's

          11       evidence himself.

          12   Q.  I'm talking about in this case, there has been no

          13       statement from anyone indicating any movement consistent

          14       with throwing a gun.

          15   A.  I'm not aware of any in the Inquest because I'm not

          16       aware of the statements.

          17   Q.  So far as that is concerned, we have proximity of

          18       a number of witnesses here; did you know that?

          19   A.  In terms of?

          20   Q.  Police officers --

          21   A.  Yes.

          22   Q.  -- getting out of cars?

          23   A.  Yes.

          24   Q.  Can we have C23D, please.  There are officers on the

          25       pavement who have come out of the lead car, there are




           1       officers on the pavement who have come out of the car

           2       from behind and there are officers that have come out of

           3       the car alongside and are processing toward the pavement

           4       between the two vehicles.  So there are a number of

           5       witnesses within very close proximity of what happened.

           6   A.  Yes.

           7   Q.  In terms of the weapon itself and firing, I think you

           8       accept, although it's a greater variation, that when he

           9       gets the chest wound, it's 45 degrees -- could be

          10       45 degrees --

          11   A.  Could be 45 degrees -- I suspect it's at least

          12       30 degrees, it could be 45 degrees, it may have even

          13       been 60.

          14   Q.  It could have even been 60?

          15   A.  Yes.

          16   Q.  I am not suggesting it's calibrated to within a certain

          17       degree, but the one thing you can be sure about in terms

          18       of the injury to the chest: that was not incurred when

          19       he was virtually standing upright, was it?

          20   A.  No.

          21   Q.  Now, in terms of the arm injury, you have already

          22       indicated that, as a result of the arm injury, he would

          23       not have been pointing a gun if he had one, at anyone.

          24       That was your evidence just a moment ago.

          25   A.  When he sustained the arm injury he was not pointing




           1       a gun, rather than as a result of.

           2   Q.  No.  Do you accept that, as a result of the arm injury,

           3       one of the most likely effects would be a dropping of

           4       the arm?

           5   A.  No, I don't accept that.

           6   Q.  You don't?

           7   A.  No.

           8   Q.  What do you say happened after that then?

           9   A.  I don't think anyone knows what happened after that.

          10       I've seen lots of people who have been shot, I've

          11       treated lots of people who have been shot, they have

          12       often -- they have commonly continued what they were

          13       doing.  So if he was raising his arm when he was shot,

          14       he could continue to raise his arm.  If he was bending

          15       down when he was shot he could continue to bend down but

          16       if he was coming up when he was shot he could continue

          17       to come up.  But the moment you're shot you don't tend

          18       to collapse, you tend to continue the movement.

          19   Q.  So if, on your account, the first shot is through the

          20       armpit, if it is --

          21   A.  I don't know the order.

          22   Q.  You don't know the order?

          23   A.  No.

          24   Q.  I am just positing that scenario.  If the first one is

          25       the one under the armpit and he's not pointing a gun at




           1       that stage, he's unlikely to point a gun at a later

           2       stage?

           3   A.  I do not think anyone can say that.

           4   Q.  If on your account he continues what he was doing and he

           5       wasn't pointing a gun, he's going to continue not

           6       pointing a gun.

           7   A.  That's assuming he wasn't moving it.  If at the point

           8       when he was shot in the chest he was moving it, he would

           9       continue to move it.  I don't know which direction, if

          10       indeed he was moving.

          11   Q.  If indeed he was.

          12   A.  All I said was he could continue to do what he was

          13       doing, that might have been a movement or might have

          14       been a static position.

          15   Q.  Might have been static.  So what we are dealing with now

          16       is, once you have both injuries involved here, is we are

          17       dealing with seconds, are we not?

          18   A.  In terms of when he can continue to move or do things?

          19   Q.  Yes.

          20   A.  Possibly five seconds, yes.

          21   Q.  Five seconds?

          22   A.  Yes.

          23   Q.  Essentially, you're dealing with somebody who is in the

          24       process -- and that is the description many give -- of

          25       somebody who's stumbling forward and collapsing and




           1       that's what he's continuing to do; would you accept

           2       that?

           3   A.  He would stumble forward and collapse but that may be

           4       a few seconds after he's shot, so he wouldn't

           5       necessarily, and I say necessarily, because I don't

           6       know, so he may -- if he was running for instance, he

           7       could continue to run for a few steps before he then

           8       bent over and fell forward.

           9   Q.  The process is one of continuous and rapid collapse?

          10   A.  Over a period of five seconds, yes.

          11   Q.  Yes, all right.  Now, there is just one other matter

          12       I just want to ask you about and that is, so far as the

          13       rib injury is concerned, would you agree that, in fact,

          14       in terms -- because -- I had better ask you this: were

          15       you present for any of Dr Seaman's experiments?

          16   A.  No.

          17   Q.  You weren't, all right.  I will not take up time with

          18       what the experiments showed but, even on your own

          19       account, the injury, in this case to the rib, is not

          20       going to make a fundamental difference to the track of

          21       the wound from the chest to the rear?

          22   A.  It's impossible to be certain.  When the bullet struck

          23       the rib, it didn't lose a lot of energy, but it could

          24       still have been deviated.  I suspect it was not deviated

          25       a great deal but no one can say for certain it wasn't.




           1   MR MANSFIELD:  Thank you.

           2   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, Mr Thomas?

           3   MR THOMAS:  I do have questions, but I do note the time and

           4       I think I'm going to be a little bit of a while.

           5   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Are you?

           6   MR THOMAS:  Yes.

           7   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Can we start because obviously it

           8       would be much better if Professor Clasper can finish

           9       today, rather than have to have a three-day break, and

          10       he may have other commitments on Monday he would much

          11       rather be at, I don't know.

          12   MR STERN:  Sir, I just -- I don't know how long my learned

          13       friend will be but I've also got questions as well so --

          14       I don't know how difficult it is for

          15       Professor Clasper --

          16   A.  I have already indicated earlier that I could be

          17       available Monday, if you wanted me.

          18   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Are you sure?

          19   A.  Yes.

          20   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  I ask that directly because,

          21       obviously, I think we've had quite a long day actually.

          22   A.  I've been warned this might happen, I've already got

          23       permission from the military to be here on Monday.

          24   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Right.  Well, Colonel, we cannot

          25       argue with that.  I think it would be better if we did




           1       leave it over then until Monday, in the circumstances.

           2   MR STERN:  It has been a long day, it certainly feels it.

           3   THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  It has been a long day and there's

           4       been a lot for us all to take in, so we'll return with

           5       renewed enthusiasm on Monday morning at 10.30.

           6           All right, Colonel, so just stay there for a moment.

           7           Members of the jury, can I just say to you that, as

           8       you know, we are going to meet again on Monday morning

           9       at 10.30.  Remember all those warnings I keep giving to

          10       you.  Please, please, as we progress on, we're getting

          11       nearer and nearer to the end of this matter.  It's very

          12       important for you not to discuss this case with anyone

          13       else and indeed, as I said, we don't need to do research

          14       anywhere, do you, because it's all being presented to

          15       you here and it's all in the jury bundles, lots for you

          16       to think about.

          17           Do have a good long weekend and a relaxing one and

          18       come back, ready, fresh and ready to go on Monday

          19       morning at 10.30.

          20           All right, thank you very much, members of the jury.

          21       If you would like to leave us.





           1   (4.28 pm)

           2        (The Inquest adjourned until 10.30 am on Monday,

           3                        18 November 2013)


























           1                              INDEX

           2                                                       PAGE

           3   DR SIMON MAURICE POOLE (continued) ...................2

           4       Questions by MR MANSFIELD ........................2

           5       Questions by MR STERN ...........................33

           6   PROFESSOR DERRICK JOHN POUNDER ......................50
                   Questions by MR UNDERWOOD .......................50
                   Questions by MR STERN ...........................81
                   Questions by MR MANSFIELD .......................96
                   Questions by MR THOMAS .........................105
                   Further questions by MR STERN ..................109
               PROFESSOR JONATHAN CHARLES CLASPER .................113
          13             (sworn)

          14       Questions by MR UNDERWOOD ......................113

          15       Questions by MR MANSFIELD ......................140