The woman witness, BTW, was middle-aged. If you wanted to pigeon-hole her, you'd say typical Tory voter. Not someone you'd automatically assume was anti-police. It's difficult to imagine why she'd make this stuff up. Still, if true, it would be fairly straightforward for the forensics to support her testimony. I'm guessing there are some very worried BiB.
Just seen her interview - "an African gentleman" classic.
I'm gonna stick my neck on the line and say I think he's more likely to be of Caribbean descent than African, but why couldn't she just say 'black'. She's come across as very pigeon holed based on that interview....
Yes, indeed. But does that not, of itself, make her testimony more compelling, not less?
The police are not being well served by the current processes for investigating any alleged wrongdoings. If that woman had said she'd seen you and me attack an individual lying prone on the floor several times with a lethal weapon and to then have kicked the prone body (not to mention waiting 20 minutes to call an ambulance allegedly - even the IPPC seem to acknowledge there was a delay) then we would have been arrested on the spot. The same should happen with police officers. They should not be perceived to be above the law. Due process would be best served if they had been arrested straight away, separated (so they could not concoct their story) and interviewed and their clothing bagged as soon as they were back at the nick.
But that doesn't happen. It's one of a number of reasons why members of the public have little faith or trust in the police in this country.
This from the IPPC (my emphasis):
Since this morning IPCC investigators have been conducting house to house enquiries in the immediate area and gathering available information. Police logs and radio transmissions are being obtained. The police officers involved and independent witnesses will be interviewed by IPCC investigators. Initial data from the Taser has (sic) been downloaded and it is (sic) being sent for further testing.
A post mortem is due to be carried out later this week.
None of the relevant officers were wearing body worn video cameras.
See? They haven't even formally interviewed the officers yet! No mention of whether they've taken their clothing, boots, etc for forensics. Or whether a crime scene was secured. Or whether the officers are even suspended. What does "further" testing mean?
I'm not saying the plod are guilty of anything at all. But the authorities do not seem to be giving themselves the best start in getting the true picture. CSI Telford it isn't.
The sad truth is most of the police you see now other than the city police or special forces couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, so if they didn't have Tasers we'd have anarchy on our streets.
The Terrorist situation is clouding the issue between Domestic, mental health and genuine terrorist problems. I really think the average copper is struggling to see the difference at times, but unless your are faced with an aggressive big guy in front of you, how do we know how we would react.
I take it no one has filmed the incident to back up the neighbour's claim.
Heard a suggestion yesterday that he was receiving dialysis, which I guess could complicate impact of taser. The eye witness testimony is truly shocking. On a fair less serious level, reminds me of Jermain Defoe describing how often he gets stopped by the police for driving a top of the range BMW.
The account of his arrest sounds horrific. I was talking to a police officer I know recently and whilst talking about his job we spoke about use of the taser. He said he has only had to use it once, as on all the other occasions, once the target sees that red dot on them they comply with the officers demands. It seizes all the muscles when fired, which obviously induces temporary paralysis. So if those police officers discharged it several times and kicked him whilst he lay on the floor, then this sounds well over the top and they should face criminal charges.
The account of his arrest sounds horrific. I was talking to a police officer I know recently and whilst talking about his job we spoke about use of the taser. He said he has only had to use it once, as on all the other occasions, once the target sees that red dot on them they comply with the officers demands. It seizes all the muscles when fired, which obviously induces temporary paralysis. So if those police officers discharged it several times and kicked him whilst he lay on the floor, then this sounds well over the top and they should face criminal charges.
RIP Dalian Atkinson.
You do understand it fails on a rate of 1 in 10 'deployments'
I find it very unlikely that the account given by an older lady who says it was 'deployed' 5 times in quick succession is accurate.
If it is as you say Pm, then I also agree, get them in jail. This looks like manslaughter.
Its sounds like Atkinson was in a very bad state. Genuinely feel for him and his family.
It sounds like a lot of force was used. It's a real, real, real shame that there were no body cameras, as this sounds like an incident that will be full of exceptions to the rules and grey areas.
I am a huge proponent of Black Lives Matter here in the states, and it's worth pointing out, as they often do, that police are only as good as their training. Handling people with severe mental illness or having something episodic is incredibly difficult. I hope that lessons are learned from this, regardless of what happened, and that more training occurs.
The woman witness, BTW, was middle-aged. If you wanted to pigeon-hole her, you'd say typical Tory voter. Not someone you'd automatically assume was anti-police. It's difficult to imagine why she'd make this stuff up. Still, if true, it would be fairly straightforward for the forensics to support her testimony. I'm guessing there are some very worried BiB.
Just seen her interview - "an African gentleman" classic.
I'm gonna stick my neck on the line and say I think he's more likely to be of Caribbean descent than African, but why couldn't she just say 'black'. She's come across as very pigeon holed based on that interview....
Yes, indeed. But does that not, of itself, make her testimony more compelling, not less?
The police are not being well served by the current processes for investigating any alleged wrongdoings. If that woman had said she'd seen you and me attack an individual lying prone on the floor several times with a lethal weapon and to then have kicked the prone body (not to mention waiting 20 minutes to call an ambulance allegedly - even the IPPC seem to acknowledge there was a delay) then we would have been arrested on the spot. The same should happen with police officers. They should not be perceived to be above the law. Due process would be best served if they had been arrested straight away, separated (so they could not concoct their story) and interviewed and their clothing bagged as soon as they were back at the nick.
But that doesn't happen. It's one of a number of reasons why members of the public have little faith or trust in the police in this country.
This from the IPPC (my emphasis):
Since this morning IPCC investigators have been conducting house to house enquiries in the immediate area and gathering available information. Police logs and radio transmissions are being obtained. The police officers involved and independent witnesses will be interviewed by IPCC investigators. Initial data from the Taser has (sic) been downloaded and it is (sic) being sent for further testing.
A post mortem is due to be carried out later this week.
None of the relevant officers were wearing body worn video cameras.
See? They haven't even formally interviewed the officers yet! No mention of whether they've taken their clothing, boots, etc for forensics. Or whether a crime scene was secured. Or whether the officers are even suspended. What does "further" testing mean?
I'm not saying the plod are guilty of anything at all. But the authorities do not seem to be giving themselves the best start in getting the true picture. CSI Telford it isn't.
So much speculation and bias in one post it's quite hard to know where to begin.
Firstly, you mention about two men carrying a lethal weapon, if it was Joe Public carrying a taser, then firstly it would be illegal, and secondly it is not considered a lethal weapon - it is considered to do less harm than use of a baton. Yes of course in this instance, it has been used and a death has occurred, but
The woman who stated that Atkinson was kicked was one person, what have others said in their witness testimony?
You say police should not be above the law - they clearly are not. If anything they are under more scrutiny than ordinary members of the public.
You say due process would be best served if arrested straight away. Why's that then? What exactly do you mean by due process? The officers will be investigated and interviewed in a timely manner. Your comment about concocting a story clearly shows a pre conceived bias against police.
You then throw about wild speculation about securing the scene and seizing of clothing. If you even happened to watch the news on this it clearly showed the scene taped off, preserved for evidence, with members of the IPcc in attendance. Also what are you looking for from the officers clothing being seized?
There's more to argue in your post, but in all honesty you seem to have set your stall out and there seems little point.
Also to the poster re the Taser. It does not have to be reloaded, once the barbs have attached you can keep 'firing' in short bursts. And yes they are quite loud actually.
Gotta love how everyone becomes an expert in these matters. Gees.
What don't you understand about my phrase "the police are not being well served"?
The whole point about immediate arrest is that it kicks off a proper criminal investigation process immediately. Not sometime thereafter. It allows ALL suspects to be treated fairly and under the rules as set out by the PACE Codes of Practice.
But the IPCC processes leave the police wide-open to suspicion and mistrust by members of the public. They may very well not concoct a story but why leave the force open to such accusations when investigative tools would prevent any such accusations being believed?
Surely the question should be why shouldn't they be interviewed under caution on video or audio straight away with a lawyer present? What would they have to hide? Surely that would be a more satisfactory way of dealing with the matter rather than what happens now? That is an IPCC interview conducted some time after the event.
Why should they be treated differently from everyone else?
Take you question about what would be gained from the officers' clothing being seized. The answer is simple, DNA and other forensic evidence OR perhaps more importantly, no such evidence
Here's the woman's testimony: "... Then he tasered him and he dropped like a lead balloon, and when he was down they started kicking him. The policeman, and the one policeman actually said to the officer who was actually kicking, 'back off, back off, back off'."
"Then I heard the Taser. You can hear that 'zzz' sound. They kept tasering him. That just seemed to be constant, on and off, on and off taser, but he was on the floor already. They tasered him about four or five times, but long periods of tasering for 10 or 11 seconds at a time."
She doesn't say where on his body he was kicked: although the PM should answer that question. But any fibres or damage or blood on boots (or other items of clothing), or indeed, the lack thereof is crucial evidence. Indeed, the lack of forensics to support the woman's story might, just, be the piece of evidence that would get the officers exonerated.
The IPCC Guidelines have this nifty little section:
If at any time during an investigation of a complaint, it appears to the investigator that there is an indication that a person to whose conduct the investigation relates may have: • committed a criminal offence; or • behaved in a manner which would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings then the investigator must certify the investigation as one subject to special requirements.
But Joe Public would have been arrested, been told the offence of which they were suspected and then would be promptly questioned. That's important for a number of reasons. In addition it doesn't impact upon a further line of questioning which might crop up later once other evidence is harvested because a further interview can always be conducted.
Here's another snippet from the IPCC guidelines with my emphasis:
During an investigation which is subject to special requirements or in relation to a recordable conduct matter and where an investigator proposes to interview the person concerned (the interviewee), the investigator shall, if reasonably practicable, agree a date and time for the interview with the interviewee. If a date and time is not agreed, the investigator shall specify a date and time. If the interviewee or their police friend is not available to attend but proposes an alternative time which is reasonable and falls within five working days beginning with the first working day after the day specified by the investigator, then the interview will be postponed to the time proposed. An interviewee must attend the interview.
Do you think that's satisfactory?
Sorry, I couldn't use a quote because it went over the character limit.
'The whole point of immediate arrest is that it kicks off a proper criminal investigation properly' - does it? Are you saying that an investigation can't truly begin until someone has been arrested, because that would just be plain wrong.
You say the IPCC leave the police wide open to mistrust and suspicion. Well I'd ask, why is that? There is still an investigation taking place. I'd argue it only leaves these doubts in persons who already have preconceived ideas of the police.
If they were to concoct a story, then firstly that is very wrong, though secondly, do you not think that would have already happened at the scene. It wouldn't take much to come up with something.
And what makes you think that a suspect of an offence such as manslaughter would be interviewed straight away. At best an initial interview would be put in, however most likely custody time would be extended to allow for further evidence to be gained and put to them. An immediate interview would quite possibly even breach PACE, as it could be argued that following this the officers would not have been medically fit to be interviewed.
Your comment re DNA is the one I expected to be fair, and was awaiting this response. Of course the officers would have his dna on them and clothing fibres. This proves nothing other than they were there and came into contact with him. I wouldn't believe all you see on CSI Miami or whatever programme with regards to what can and can't be proved.
Again with the blood on boots you are speculating wildly that he was given such a shoeing that he was bleeding. If indeed there was blood then that could also come from just being in contact with him performing first aid. With regards to the Taser taking 11/12 seconds, I doubt that to be the case and witnesses idea of time and length of events is generally wholly out by quite a bit. As for shouting 'back off', that is common when a taser is deployed (or something similar) to advise the other officer that he will be firing again and not to have contact with the person - it seems to be taken as true that one officer told the other to 'back off' as in not give him a shoeing.
As for the closing question, I can't see any reason why that would be a problem to have a delay in interview. If anything it allows more time for evidence to be gathered and put to the person.
It seems that a lot of weight is being given to this one witness, wherein other witnesses that have been spoken to have given a different version of what take place.
The only people who will only really know will be the two officers and sadly the one person who cannot be around to give his story.
This is a really interesting debate between @cafcfan and @NorfolkAddick both of whom seem very clued-up. I'd like to make one point, in the form of a question to @cafcfan - you've mentioned DNA testing of the officers' clothes. I think @NorfolkAddick is assuming that the purpose of this would be to determine that the officers came into contact with the victim. But, equally, this testing *could* prove they (either one of them) didn't, thus putting the eyewitness' evidence in serious doubt. Is this what you meant?
This is a really interesting debate between @cafcfan and @NorfolkAddick both of whom seem very clued-up. I'd like to make one point, in the form of a question to @cafcfan - you've mentioned DNA testing of the officers' clothes. I think @NorfolkAddick is assuming that the purpose of this would be to determine that the officers came into contact with the victim. But, equally, this testing *could* prove they (either one of them) didn't, thus putting the eyewitness' evidence in serious doubt. Is this what you meant?
Indeed. When I used to do criminal investigations, (I was not in the police but sometimes worked closely with them) it was an important aspect of any investigation that you did NOT just look at the bleeding obvious. I spent as much time as possible looking for and analysing evidence that demonstrated that an individual(s) or company were in the frame. But I also worked very hard indeed looking for any evidence that might assist the defence. That allows a full, accurate and transparent enquiry to be undertaken. @NorfolkAddick will know the defence in any case gets full access to all evidence not just that being used in any prosecution. In short getcas much evidence as you can as quickly as you can.
As @NorfolkAddick says, witness testimony can be very unreliable. Why, therefore, would you not take immediate steps to corroborate (or not) any eye witness accounts?
I understand that other officers pitched up but an ambulance was still not called for 20 minutes. If true, and the IPCC seem to say it is, it's terrible . What were those other officers doing in the interim?
I understand that (presumably) following the guidelines I posted above that the IPCC have now said it has turned into a "special requirements" investigation.
I'd say that the defence in any case is more likely to have wriggle room the longer the delay between the offence and the collection of evidence and the formal interviewing of the suspects.
I just do not understand why the process is set up like this.
The two officers are far from being the only source of evidence. There will be the PM, which will likely tell us whether the victim was kicked repeatedly, radio communications and also what the officers told their colleagues when they first arrived at the scene.
For what it's worth, on the basis that the female witness did not have some prior knowledge on Taser usage, her evidence was not just lucid but seems plausible too. While I acknowledge that she is likely to have got her timings wrong and the taser memory downloads will confirm whether she was right or not.
Again, I say that the police are poorly served by the current system. We can all do a google search and come up with seemingly endless incidents of police malpractice and misfeasance. Things must get better. Having a process the public can have confidence in would be a good place to start.
This is tragic all round and if a verdict of murder is in fact returned, truly appalling from the officer(s) involved.
Having read the thread back with interest, since I only got halfway down the first page in 2016, the speculation of "drunk man banging down an 85 year old's door" looks incredibly unhelpful in hindsight.
That said, it's apparently taken three years for that to be sort of refuted. The wheels of justice turn far, far too slowly.
Ex-Aston Villa star Dalian Atkinson died after being tasered three times and kicked at least twice to the head by an "angry" police officer, a murder trial jury has heard.
The jury at Birmingham Crown Court was told West Mercia Police Constable Benjamin Monk denies the murder and manslaughter of the 48-year-old former footballer, who also played for Ipswich Town and Sheffield Wednesday.
Opening the Crown's case against the 42-year-old officer, who was charged after a three-year inquiry into Mr Atkinson's death in 2016 in Telford, Shropshire, prosecution counsel Alexandra Healy alleged the ex-footballer was tasered for 33 seconds, more than six times the standard five-second phase.
The QC told the court on Tuesday that Mr Atkinson, who had serious health problems including end stage renal failure, moved towards the officers after they were called to a disturbance in Meadow Close, Telford, at about 1.30am.
Outlining the Crown's case, the prosecutor said the third deployment of a Taser by Monk was "completely effective" and caused Mr Atkinson neuro-muscular incapacitation before he fell forwards onto the road.
The barrister told the jury: "The standard default setting of a Taser is a five-second phase, but it is possible to override that by continuing to depress the trigger.
"And PC Monk continued to depress the trigger for over six times the length of a standard five-second phase. The taser was deployed for 33 seconds."
The prosecution counsel added: "PC Monk also proceeded to kick Dalian Atkinson. At least two kicks were delivered by him to Dalian Atkinson's forehead with enough force to leave the imprints of the pattern of the laces from the top of his boot on two separate areas of Mr Atkinson's forehead."
Comments
The police are not being well served by the current processes for investigating any alleged wrongdoings. If that woman had said she'd seen you and me attack an individual lying prone on the floor several times with a lethal weapon and to then have kicked the prone body (not to mention waiting 20 minutes to call an ambulance allegedly - even the IPPC seem to acknowledge there was a delay) then we would have been arrested on the spot. The same should happen with police officers. They should not be perceived to be above the law. Due process would be best served if they had been arrested straight away, separated (so they could not concoct their story) and interviewed and their clothing bagged as soon as they were back at the nick.
But that doesn't happen. It's one of a number of reasons why members of the public have little faith or trust in the police in this country.
This from the IPPC (my emphasis):
Since this morning IPCC investigators have been conducting house to house enquiries in the immediate area and gathering available information. Police logs and radio transmissions are being obtained. The police officers involved and independent witnesses will be interviewed by IPCC investigators. Initial data from the Taser has (sic) been downloaded and it is (sic) being sent for further testing.
A post mortem is due to be carried out later this week.
None of the relevant officers were wearing body worn video cameras.
See? They haven't even formally interviewed the officers yet! No mention of whether they've taken their clothing, boots, etc for forensics. Or whether a crime scene was secured. Or whether the officers are even suspended. What does "further" testing mean?
I'm not saying the plod are guilty of anything at all. But the authorities do not seem to be giving themselves the best start in getting the true picture. CSI Telford it isn't.
This is why bodycams must be worn by all officers. Protect the public and the police
Also Tasers aren't particularly load when they fire.
Many questions yet to be had here.
RIP
The sad truth is most of the police you see now other than the city police or special forces couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, so if they didn't have Tasers we'd have anarchy on our streets.
The Terrorist situation is clouding the issue between Domestic, mental health and genuine terrorist problems. I really think the average copper is struggling to see the difference at times, but unless your are faced with an aggressive big guy in front of you, how do we know how we would react.
I take it no one has filmed the incident to back up the neighbour's claim.
Heard a suggestion yesterday that he was receiving dialysis, which I guess could complicate impact of taser. The eye witness testimony is truly shocking. On a fair less serious level, reminds me of Jermain Defoe describing how often he gets stopped by the police for driving a top of the range BMW.
I was talking to a police officer I know recently and whilst talking about his job we spoke about use of the taser. He said he has only had to use it once, as on all the other occasions, once the target sees that red dot on them they comply with the officers demands. It seizes all the muscles when fired, which obviously induces temporary paralysis. So if those police officers discharged it several times and kicked him whilst he lay on the floor, then this sounds well over the top and they should face criminal charges.
RIP Dalian Atkinson.
I find it very unlikely that the account given by an older lady who says it was 'deployed' 5 times in quick succession is accurate.
If it is as you say Pm, then I also agree, get them in jail. This looks like manslaughter.
Its sounds like Atkinson was in a very bad state. Genuinely feel for him and his family.
It sounds like a lot of force was used. It's a real, real, real shame that there were no body cameras, as this sounds like an incident that will be full of exceptions to the rules and grey areas.
I am a huge proponent of Black Lives Matter here in the states, and it's worth pointing out, as they often do, that police are only as good as their training. Handling people with severe mental illness or having something episodic is incredibly difficult. I hope that lessons are learned from this, regardless of what happened, and that more training occurs.
Firstly, you mention about two men carrying a lethal weapon, if it was Joe Public carrying a taser, then firstly it would be illegal, and secondly it is not considered a lethal weapon - it is considered to do less harm than use of a baton. Yes of course in this instance, it has been used and a death has occurred, but
The woman who stated that Atkinson was kicked was one person, what have others said in their witness testimony?
You say police should not be above the law - they clearly are not. If anything they are under more scrutiny than ordinary members of the public.
You say due process would be best served if arrested straight away. Why's that then? What exactly do you mean by due process? The officers will be investigated and interviewed in a timely manner. Your comment about concocting a story clearly shows a pre conceived bias against police.
You then throw about wild speculation about securing the scene and seizing of clothing. If you even happened to watch the news on this it clearly showed the scene taped off, preserved for evidence, with members of the IPcc in attendance. Also what are you looking for from the officers clothing being seized?
There's more to argue in your post, but in all honesty you seem to have set your stall out and there seems little point.
Also to the poster re the Taser. It does not have to be reloaded, once the barbs have attached you can keep 'firing' in short bursts. And yes they are quite loud actually.
Gotta love how everyone becomes an expert in these matters. Gees.
The whole point about immediate arrest is that it kicks off a proper criminal investigation process immediately. Not sometime thereafter. It allows ALL suspects to be treated fairly and under the rules as set out by the PACE Codes of Practice.
But the IPCC processes leave the police wide-open to suspicion and mistrust by members of the public. They may very well not concoct a story but why leave the force open to such accusations when investigative tools would prevent any such accusations being believed?
Surely the question should be why shouldn't they be interviewed under caution on video or audio straight away with a lawyer present? What would they have to hide? Surely that would be a more satisfactory way of dealing with the matter rather than what happens now? That is an IPCC interview conducted some time after the event.
Why should they be treated differently from everyone else?
Take you question about what would be gained from the officers' clothing being seized. The answer is simple, DNA and other forensic evidence OR perhaps more importantly, no such evidence
Here's the woman's testimony: "... Then he tasered him and he dropped like a lead balloon, and when he was down they started kicking him. The policeman, and the one policeman actually said to the officer who was actually kicking, 'back off, back off, back off'."
"Then I heard the Taser. You can hear that 'zzz' sound. They kept tasering him. That just seemed to be constant, on and off, on and off taser, but he was on the floor already. They tasered him about four or five times, but long periods of tasering for 10 or 11 seconds at a time."
She doesn't say where on his body he was kicked: although the PM should answer that question. But any fibres or damage or blood on boots (or other items of clothing), or indeed, the lack thereof is crucial evidence. Indeed, the lack of forensics to support the woman's story might, just, be the piece of evidence that would get the officers exonerated.
The IPCC Guidelines have this nifty little section:
If at any time during an investigation of a complaint, it appears to the investigator
that there is an indication that a person to whose conduct the investigation relates
may have:
• committed a criminal offence; or
• behaved in a manner which would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings
then the investigator must certify the investigation as one subject to special
requirements.
But Joe Public would have been arrested, been told the offence of which they were suspected and then would be promptly questioned. That's important for a number of reasons. In addition it doesn't impact upon a further line of questioning which might crop up later once other evidence is harvested because a further interview can always be conducted.
Here's another snippet from the IPCC guidelines with my emphasis:
During an investigation which is subject to special requirements or in relation to
a recordable conduct matter and where an investigator proposes to interview the
person concerned (the interviewee), the investigator shall, if reasonably practicable,
agree a date and time for the interview with the interviewee.
If a date and time is not agreed, the investigator shall specify a date and time. If the
interviewee or their police friend is not available to attend but proposes an alternative
time which is reasonable and falls within five working days beginning with the first
working day after the day specified by the investigator, then the interview will be
postponed to the time proposed. An interviewee must attend the interview.
Do you think that's satisfactory?
Sorry, I couldn't use a quote because it went over the character limit.
You say the IPCC leave the police wide open to mistrust and suspicion. Well I'd ask, why is that? There is still an investigation taking place. I'd argue it only leaves these doubts in persons who already have preconceived ideas of the police.
If they were to concoct a story, then firstly that is very wrong, though secondly, do you not think that would have already happened at the scene. It wouldn't take much to come up with something.
And what makes you think that a suspect of an offence such as manslaughter would be interviewed straight away. At best an initial interview would be put in, however most likely custody time would be extended to allow for further evidence to be gained and put to them. An immediate interview would quite possibly even breach PACE, as it could be argued that following this the officers would not have been medically fit to be interviewed.
Your comment re DNA is the one I expected to be fair, and was awaiting this response. Of course the officers would have his dna on them and clothing fibres. This proves nothing other than they were there and came into contact with him. I wouldn't believe all you see on CSI Miami or whatever programme with regards to what can and can't be proved.
Again with the blood on boots you are speculating wildly that he was given such a shoeing that he was bleeding. If indeed there was blood then that could also come from just being in contact with him performing first aid. With regards to the Taser taking 11/12 seconds, I doubt that to be the case and witnesses idea of time and length of events is generally wholly out by quite a bit. As for shouting 'back off', that is common when a taser is deployed (or something similar) to advise the other officer that he will be firing again and not to have contact with the person - it seems to be taken as true that one officer told the other to 'back off' as in not give him a shoeing.
As for the closing question, I can't see any reason why that would be a problem to have a delay in interview. If anything it allows more time for evidence to be gathered and put to the person.
It seems that a lot of weight is being given to this one witness, wherein other witnesses that have been spoken to have given a different version of what take place.
The only people who will only really know will be the two officers and sadly the one person who cannot be around to give his story.
As @NorfolkAddick says, witness testimony can be very unreliable. Why, therefore, would you not take immediate steps to corroborate (or not) any eye witness accounts?
I understand that other officers pitched up but an ambulance was still not called for 20 minutes. If true, and the IPCC seem to say it is, it's terrible . What were those other officers doing in the interim?
I understand that (presumably) following the guidelines I posted above that the IPCC have now said it has turned into a "special requirements" investigation.
I'd say that the defence in any case is more likely to have wriggle room the longer the delay between the offence and the collection of evidence and the formal interviewing of the suspects.
I just do not understand why the process is set up like this.
The two officers are far from being the only source of evidence. There will be the PM, which will likely tell us whether the victim was kicked repeatedly, radio communications and also what the officers told their colleagues when they first arrived at the scene.
For what it's worth, on the basis that the female witness did not have some prior knowledge on Taser usage, her evidence was not just lucid but seems plausible too. While I acknowledge that she is likely to have got her timings wrong and the taser memory downloads will confirm whether she was right or not.
Again, I say that the police are poorly served by the current system. We can all do a google search and come up with seemingly endless incidents of police malpractice and misfeasance. Things must get better. Having a process the public can have confidence in would be a good place to start.
Having read the thread back with interest, since I only got halfway down the first page in 2016, the speculation of "drunk man banging down an 85 year old's door" looks incredibly unhelpful in hindsight.
That said, it's apparently taken three years for that to be sort of refuted. The wheels of justice turn far, far too slowly.
Dalian Atkinson: Police officer denies murdering former footballer - BBC News
Ex-Aston Villa star Dalian Atkinson died after being tasered three times and kicked at least twice to the head by an "angry" police officer, a murder trial jury has heard.
The jury at Birmingham Crown Court was told West Mercia Police Constable Benjamin Monk denies the murder and manslaughter of the 48-year-old former footballer, who also played for Ipswich Town and Sheffield Wednesday.
Opening the Crown's case against the 42-year-old officer, who was charged after a three-year inquiry into Mr Atkinson's death in 2016 in Telford, Shropshire, prosecution counsel Alexandra Healy alleged the ex-footballer was tasered for 33 seconds, more than six times the standard five-second phase.
The QC told the court on Tuesday that Mr Atkinson, who had serious health problems including end stage renal failure, moved towards the officers after they were called to a disturbance in Meadow Close, Telford, at about 1.30am.
Outlining the Crown's case, the prosecutor said the third deployment of a Taser by Monk was "completely effective" and caused Mr Atkinson neuro-muscular incapacitation before he fell forwards onto the road.
The barrister told the jury: "The standard default setting of a Taser is a five-second phase, but it is possible to override that by continuing to depress the trigger.
"And PC Monk continued to depress the trigger for over six times the length of a standard five-second phase. The taser was deployed for 33 seconds."
The prosecution counsel added: "PC Monk also proceeded to kick Dalian Atkinson. At least two kicks were delivered by him to Dalian Atkinson's forehead with enough force to leave the imprints of the pattern of the laces from the top of his boot on two separate areas of Mr Atkinson's forehead."
How can you taser someone for 33 seconds and have any excuse?! Guilty as charged surely.