Stephen lawrence cover up?

[reefoid]

Clearly there is a doubt as to the 100% validity of the new forensic findings.

Given that this is the ONLY evidence upon which they have been convicted, the convictions must be considered unsafe by any reasonable person, I submit.

I wasn't aware we had a High Court judge on the forums. Didn't you ask if you could sit on this case, as clearly you have more idea on what should have happened than Mr Justice Treacy.

As has been mentioned, its beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond ALL doubt.

 

[Cosimo]

I think you'll find that on issues like this I am consistent regardless of race etc.

You’re certainly consistent on white supremacy.

 

[dirtydog]

Then no doubt they will be released on appeal.

No doubt they will not be released for a long time, 15 years plus I expect.

That does not mean the evidence is sound though.

There is no other evidence that they did this crime other than this - everything else is highly circumstantial. No witnesses saw them do it. Nothing. Just some dodgy forensic evidence which even the experts for the prosecution admit might be contaminated. Laughable. British justice.

 

[Judgeneo]

Hold out on the personal attacks people, dirtydog has been pretty polite. He certainly isn't the only person I know to think the evidence somewhat circumstantial

 

[dirtydog]

You’re certainly consistent on white supremacy.

Yes I am, I don't support white supremacy, never have subscribed to the notion that whites are superior to all others just because of their race.

 

[dirtydog]

Rod Liddle wrote this in the Spectator a while back:

Now, here's a good one. The judge in the Stephen Lawrence murder trial told potential jurors that they must approach the evidence 'with a clean slate'. That is, not be inclined to prejudge the issue as a consequence of having been assured, repeatedly, for the last twelve years, by the entire press, that the men accused are disgusting racist ******** and definitely guilty. Judge Treacy might as well have told the jurors that they must approach the case 'by eating fifteen Jacobs cream crackers, without any water or other emolument, inside one minute'. The case is a charade, and a vindictive charade at that.

A few years ago two of the men not now facing a retrial were sentenced to eighteen months in prison for having thrown an empty paper cup in the direction of a black policeman. Eighteen months! But of course they were not sentenced to eighteen months for having thrown an empty paper cup in the direction of a police officer, they were sentenced to eighteen months for the crime of having not been found guilty of the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

I don't think that they are very nice people. So I suppose it's ok that we invent a new system of justice to ensure they get banged up.

Spot on I'd say.

 

[Castiel]

No doubt they will not be released for a long time, 15 years plus I expect.

That does not mean the evidence is sound though.

There is no other evidence that they did this crime other than this - everything else is highly circumstantial. No witnesses saw them do it. Nothing. Just some dodgy forensic evidence which even the experts for the prosecution admit might be contaminated. Laughable. British justice.

It appears that the blood-stain on Dobsons Jacket isn't circumstantial at all, and the very nature of it meant, according to forensic experts both here and in the US that the likelihood of contamination was so small as to be implausible.....thus the defendents were convicted beyond reasonale doubt...as any doubt as to the veracity of the specific evidence was unreasonable according to various experts in their field.

If the defence can prove otherwise then I am sure they will, although you might ask why they have not been able to as yet.

The only laughable aspect regarding British Justice came 18 years ago, with the shoddy and unprofessional actions of the Police which allowed the murders of Stephen Lawrence to evade that Justice for so long.

Are you suggesting that the defendents were victims of racism themselves by these convictions, by postitive discrimination, in other words "we must convict someone to assauge further criticism"?

That it was you seem to be implying....ironic if that is the case though....almost poetic...

 

[Glaucus]

Rod Liddle wrote this in the Spectator a while back:



Spot on I'd say.

Still waiting for court quotes on the blood stain and a mechanism for its cross contamination.

Should all other convictions from that era be quashed, they must all be unsafe as that was standard procedure for foresensics evidence to be stored in such a way.

 

[dirtydog]

It appears that the blood-stain on Dobsons Jacket isn't circumstantial at all, and the very nature of it meant, according to forensic experts both here and in the US that the likelihood of contamination was so small as to be implausible.....thus the defendents were convicted beyond reasonale doubt...as any doubt as to the veracity of the specific evidence was unreasonable according to various experts in their field.

If the defence can prove otherwise then I am sure they will, although you might ask why they have not been able to as yet.

The only laughable aspect regarding British Justice came 18 years ago, with the shoddy and unprofessional actions of the Police which allowed the murders of Stephen Lawrence to evade that Justice for so long.

The defence cross examined the prosecution's own forensics expert who under oath had to admit it was dodgy, what more can the defence do? They can present a strong case but if the jury is prejudiced against the men which of course they were, then the wrong verdict will be reached.

 

[Glaucus]

The defence cross examined the prosecution's own forensics expert who under oath had to admit it was dodgy, what more can the defence do? They can present a strong case but if the jury is prejudiced against the men which of course they were, then the wrong verdict will be reached.

Where's the quotes and at no point has the news articles you posted said anything of the sort for the blood.

One man, how about science "witnesses" and what they said in court. Or any of the other stuff said in court.

Or are you basing it all on one side and some slightly unsticky cello tape which still doesn't explain blood and doesn't go into anywhere near as much detail as what would have been said in court by both sides.

 

[KNiVES]

You have avoided the blood stain aspect four or five times now so far.

Aren't you a BNP supporter?

 

[Tummy]

Where is your proof of blood stain / cross contamination?

This is a high profile case for a couple of reasons.

• Racially motivated.
• Massive errors by the Police

Dirtydog clearly understands blood stains and evidence better then these 'experts' who are incredibly knowledgeable within their fields. Given the way technology has moved on too has played a part in finally getting two racist murders sent to prison.

 

[dirtydog]

Still waiting for court quotes on the blood stain and a mechanism for its cross contamination.

Should all other convictions from that era be quashed, they must all be unsafe as that was standard procedure for foresensics evidence to be stored in such a way.

I bet not many murder cases have been decided solely on the basis of such flimsy evidence, especially when the defendants have previously been found not guilty, and especially when the defendants have had their characters assassinated by the media for 12 years in the run-up to their second trial :/

You know, such as major national newspapers putting their faces and names on their front page and saying THESE MEN ARE GUILTY etc.

 

[Tummy]

Where is this blood stain evidence you seem to know about? This dodgy evidence?

They have experts in (I don't know if you've been in a court as an expert witness) offer their professional opinion on the circumstances. They review the evidence, and draw from that facts.

 

[dirtydog]

Where is your proof of blood stain / cross contamination?

This is a high profile case for a couple of reasons.

• Racially motivated.
• Massive errors by the Police

Dirtydog clearly understands blood stains and evidence better then these 'experts' who are incredibly knowledgeable within their fields. Given the way technology has moved on too has played a part in finally getting two racist murders sent to prison.

I use common sense.

The people on the jury aren't forensic experts either, I daresay.

So they stabbed him and yet all they can find is a microscopic amount of blood over a decade later, after as they admit happened, the various pieces of clothing from victim and accused alike were routinely mixed up and badly handled?

Oh and a 2mm piece of hair. Again common sense, this isn't cast iron evidence is it? Not even close.

 

[Glaucus]

As you keep ignoring the blood I can only assume like us, you have no idea what was said in court and you can't even purpose a way of cross contamination for the blood.

Perhaps before being so sure, you should get the transcripts if possible and see what was actually said. By all sides in court.

 

[dirtydog]

Where is this blood stain evidence you seem to know about? This dodgy evidence?

They have experts in (I don't know if you've been in a court as an expert witness) offer their professional opinion on the circumstances. They review the evidence, and draw from that facts.

The prosecution's own expert cast doubt on his own evidence. Did you miss that bit?

 

[Glaucus]

.

The people on the jury aren't forensic experts either, I daresay.

.

of course not, but they have been talked to by a lot of people, far more than a small news report, still haven't provided anyway for dried blood to soak into clothes days or years later.

 

[Glaucus]

The prosecution's own expert cast doubt on his own evidence. Did you miss that bit?

Did he, for everything? Or certain aspects. Again it doesn't go deep enough and doesn't include everything that was said in court and doesn't even mention blood.

 

[dirtydog]

As you keep ignoring the blood I can only assume like us, you have no idea what was said in court and you can't even purpose a way of cross contamination for the blood.

Perhaps before being so sure, you should get the transcripts if possible and see what was actually said. By all sides in court.

I have addressed it.

You shouldn't be so quick to be gleeful about people being convicted on such flimsy evidence. It WILL undoubtedly result in miscarriages of justice, whether or not this is one. It has happened many times before (Birmingham Six ETC.) and I have no doubt will again.

Because people like you are clearly all too eager and quick to believe 'experts' when they tell you that something is 'implausible' etc. - you don't employ your own common sense, you let the 'expert' do your thinking for you.