Trav Le Bleu Posted 2 November 2010 Posted 2 November 2010 PC Markman Hides Songs in Testimony Saunders marksman facing new probeOne of the marksmen involved in the shooting of barrister Mark Saunders is facing investigation by the IPCC over his inquiry evidence A police marksman involved in an armed siege which resulted in the death of a lawyer is facing punishment after it emerged that he peppered evidence about his actions with song titles. The Scotland Yard marksman, known only as Alpha Zulu 8 (AZ8), was disciplined over his verbal testimony during the inquest into the death of barrister Mark Saunders during a stand-off in Markham Square, Chelsea, west London. But a fresh inquiry has been launched after the force's top officers learned of his actions and brought in officials from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Sources close to Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson said he was "furious" that anyone could show such "insensitivity and lack of judgment" during the high-profile hearing. The inquest heard that AZ8 was one of four officers who may have fired the shots which fatally wounded Mr Saunders as he drunkenly levelled a shotgun at them from the kitchen window of his home. The alarm was raised when officials examining transcripts of his verbal evidence at Westminster Coroner's Court discovered the names of several song titles during his hour-long testimony. It was not clear what the songs are, but he used the phrases "first time", a hit by Robin Beck, "enough is enough", the subtitle of hit single No More Tears by Barbra Streisand, "point of no return", a Duran Duran hit, and "line of fire", recorded by rock band Journey. An IPCC spokeswoman said: "The investigation will examine the officer's testimony, any impact that testimony may have had on the proceedings, the way in which the allegation was initially dealt with by one of his supervisors, and whether or not any other police officers were involved." A spokesman for the Met said the matter had been referred to the IPCC by senior officers. He added that the officer had been removed from operational firearms duty. Bit of a weird one this. Everything surrounding Mark Saunders' death is very tragic (I'm sure El Empty has his theories on this ) however, I find this hard to believe. Not so much that a Police Officer might try and do such a thing for a joke, even given the circumstances (I have little faith in the police force as a whole (as opposed to some no doubt sterling individuals)), but that the person in question should use such obscure lyrics as those above. Given the number of songs around, I'm sure that you could probably find snippets of song lyrics in any speech or writing that was more than a few lines long. My feeling is that, having failed to bring the officer's in question to book for their actions, someone is now getting desperate to find some other way in which they should be held accountable. If the songs had all been by the same artist or felt shoe-horned in (I can see why all the mentioned phrases might be used in a shooting testimony to be fair), then maybe I'd be suspicious that yes, maybe the Officer in question had been an insensitive moron. But I just don't see it. Or am I wrong?
BoneDog Posted 2 November 2010 Posted 2 November 2010 I don't know much about this case, I've not really read anything about it. I agree that those phrases are pretty common to say the least so it's a bit of a long shot to say that he said them on purpose I think. He might have done though!
Zingari Posted 2 November 2010 Posted 2 November 2010 they've got a fookin cheek accusing him of sneaking song lyrics into his testimony , they sneaked 2 film titles into his code name
Dickie Greenleaf Posted 2 November 2010 Posted 2 November 2010 Surely all those examples are phrases he kind of had to use
Webbo Posted 2 November 2010 Posted 2 November 2010 Was this yesterday? Because if he'd said this with a poker face after the judge had said all rise then he ought to apologise, even though sorry seems to be the hardest word. Things can only get better after that and at least we won't get fooled again.
Zingari Posted 2 November 2010 Posted 2 November 2010 Was this yesterday? Because if he'd said this with a poker face after the judge had said all rise then he ought to apologise, even though sorry seems to be the hardest word. Things can only get better after that and at least we won't get fooled again. nice one cyril
Trav Le Bleu Posted 2 November 2010 Author Posted 2 November 2010 Was this yesterday? Because if he'd said this with a poker face after the judge had said all rise then he ought to apologise, even though sorry seems to be the hardest word. Things can only get better after that and at least we won't get fooled again. I thought about hiding some lyrics in my initial post, but I was too lazy Nice one Webbo.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.