Darth Vader Posted April 5, 2011 Author Share Posted April 5, 2011 If you recall, Harwood had been expected to remain by his carrier on the evening Tomlinson died. He conceded that he was bored at some points. He joined his colleague PC Hayes in his vehicle. Harwood's evidence is that he then could not get to his carrier because the crowd became too dense. He then spotted a male protester daubing graffiti on a van. It has been pointed out that it was not too crowded for him to try to arrest the suspect, but "too dense" to travel just over two metres further to get to his van. Sounds like it wasn't providing enough opportunities for unchecked violence excitment for him, staying by the van. Pushing and slapping people would sure remove the boredom, I wonder what other working people think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Another alleged discrepancy in Harwood's evidence. He said that, when arresting the suspect, the suspect "ran into the door". The footage shows Harwood ahead of the suspect, apparently dragging him. Ryder: You're ahead of him? But he has run into the door has he? Harwood: ... I don't know, you'll have to ask him. Ryder: From the video, can you see him running into the door? Harwood: He has gone and hit the door, collided with the door, yes. Ryder: Do you understand the word 'run', PC Harwood? The exchange goes on in this fashion for several minutes, with Harwood seemingly reluctant to accept that the protester did not actually run into the door. Ryder suggests the police officer is willing to "be evasive and lie" even when the footage is being played to the court. "We can all see as well, PC Harwood, that is the problem," he states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 He was an alchoholic. He was drunk, he mouthed off, he got a push, he fell down and he died, did he die because he was drunk, and therefore unable to control himself, did he mouth off because his behaviour was dictated by his alchohol intake, did he refuse to move when told to, all yes I believe. It's easy to attack a dead man's character, isn't it:rant:. Odd that you mention nothing of the previous attack on the BBC camera man:loopy:. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Harwood: At the time I wrote this, I thought I fell to the floor. Thornton: Do you now accept that this is not correct? Harwood: Yes Thornton: That you lost your baton – that is not correct? Harwood: Yes Thornton: That you received a blow to the head – that is not correct? Harwood: Yes Thornton: And that there were violent and dangerous confrontations – that is not correct? Harwood: Yes. Thornton: And you were struck by a missile – that is not correct? Harwood: Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank ryan Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Harwood: At the time I wrote this, I thought I fell to the floor. Thornton: Do you now accept that this is not correct? Harwood: Yes Thornton: That you lost your baton – that is not correct? Harwood: Yes Thornton: That you received a blow to the head – that is not correct? Harwood: Yes Thornton: And that there were violent and dangerous confrontations – that is not correct? Harwood: Yes. Thornton: And you were struck by a missile – that is not correct? Harwood: Yes. been following this on guardian live feed all day - very interesting - for harwood to accept that his account is completely untrue in most important respects is an astonishing piece of work from the brief- has to be unlawful killing now surely, followed by an acquittal at trial probably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 been following this on guardian live feed all day - very interesting - for harwood to accept that his account is completely untrue in most important respects is an astonishing piece of work from the brief- has to be unlawful killing now surely, followed by an acquittal at trial probably Thornton is the assistant coroner. The coroner himself interrupted proceedings and went over, point by point, the police officer's lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Lots of stuff Harwood got wrong Thornton then asked how Harwood got all this wrong when he wrote the statement on 16 April, more than two weeks after the protests. Harwood said: "Because at the time that is what I believed happened, from the information I had, that is what I believed happened to me there". More like that's what I was told to write. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank ryan Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 i've listened to the report of the day on radio news - we heard that harwood aplogised but not that he accepted his evidence was largely untrue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 BBC News 6 O'Clock News TV- "Harwood apologises to Tomlinson family". Not a word about his evidence being a pack of lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank ryan Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 is that the libyan broadcasting corp? no it's the british one! if it wasn't for the guardian live reports, we'd know nothing of what went on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts