Stephen lawrence cover up?

[Glaucus]

You haven't addressed it at all.
Come on show me where he says about possible cross contamination of blood, or a mechanism for said cross contimination?

Gleeful, I think you just made that up.

Misscriages are bad, but I'm not convinced that's happened, especially when there is soaked in blood.

Like you, experts haven't spoke to me, we haven't seen what happened in court. On top of that I can not see how dried blood becomes wet again.

So I'm far more inclined to believe in the justice system, than you, who can't even discuss the blood.

And who said we don't believe miscarriages haven't happened, or won't happen again?

 

[Tummy]

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.

Common sense =/= experts within a given field.

Were is this "mixed up and badly handled" coming from? Your link earlier didn't provide evidence of this.

What do the jury have to do with this? They were presented with facts and the professional opinions of expert witness's.

 

[Tummy]

As per, Dirtydog is spitting racist bile.

You have no counter argument, what argument you have put forth has been dismissed or you've failed to provide any evidence of.

 

[dirtydog]

You haven't adrpdressed it at all.
Come on show where he says about possible cross contamination of blood, or a mechanism for said cross contimination?
Gleeful, I think you just made that up.

Misscriages. Are bad, but I'm not convinced that's happen, especially when there is soaked in blood.

'Soaked in blood'? Hardly. An amount so small they missed it 12 years ago. (Was it indeed THERE 12 years ago, one wonders.)

But yes, if you stab someone then I would expect you would get more than that amount of blood on yourself. Perhaps we are to believe that the defendants took home their blood soaked clothing but rather than burning it etc. decided to wash it, whereupon they washed out 99.999999% of the blood yet left this miniscule amount to be found 12 years later, just in time to ensure that justice is SEEN TO BE DONE

 

[dirtydog]

As per, Dirtydog is spitting racist bile.

In which case RTM it and I'm sure I'll be permabanned, as that is a most serious accusation?

 

[Castiel]

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.

As far as I am aware, only the laboratory stores worker Christopher Bower from the early 1990's said that there could have been a risk of contamination....the forensic experts who looked at the new evidence said any contamination was implausible.

Dr Edward Jarman, the actual forensic scientist stated that the argument put forward by the defence was implausible because if the transfer had come about by the saliva testing as they claimed then they became 'gel like' and when tested they did not cause staining and would not have absorbed into the jacket....he stated that the most likely cause was primary transfer from the victim to the jacket at the time of the murder.

Did the defence have their own forensic team look at the evidence, if not it can only be assumed that they accepted the qualifications and thus the opinion of the LGC team.

 

[Glaucus]

'Soaked in blood'? Hardly. An amount so small they missed it 12 years ago. (Was it indeed THERE 12 years ago, one wonders.)

But yes, if you stab someone then I would expect you would get more than that amount of blood on yourself. Perhaps we are to believe that the defendants took home their blood soaked clothing but rather than burning it etc. decided to wash it, whereupon they washed out 99.999999% of the blood yet left this miniscule amount to be found 12 years later, just in time to ensure that justice is SEEN TO BE DONE

Yes soaked in, every report clearly states soaked in.

You would expect loads of blood, why?

When you cut yourself is there's loads of blood everywhere instantly?
No, it very much depends on a number of factors. It's not like Spartacus blood and sands where every slice, sprays out gallons of blood.

 

[dirtydog]

As far as I am aware, only the original forensic specialist said that there could have been a risk of contamination....the forensic experts who looked at the new evidence said any contamination was implausible.

Edward Jarman, the forensic scientist stayed that the argument put forward by the defence was implausible because if the transfer had come about by the saliva testing as they claimed then they became 'gel like' and when tested they did not cause staining and would not have absorbed into the jacket....he stated that the most likely cause was primary transfer from the victim to the jacket at the time of the murder.

Did the defence have their own forensic team look at the evidence, if not it can only be assumed that they accepted the qualifications and thus the opinion of the LGC team.

Yes I understand all that.

I just think that when it is the ONLY prima face evidence that they actually committed this crime, it must be utterly beyond doubt. Not just 'implausible' or 'unlikely' to be wrong.

 

[Glaucus]

Implausible is pretty much beyond doubt.

This is what happens when you read. One article and you have a hatred and preconceived notion of the system.

When you look at what was said as Castilel has posted, it becomes much more clear and doesn't favour your position.

 

[scorza]

All I can really say is that based on what I heard on the news, this conviction seems very dodgy - I remember hearing something about the clothes being stored in the same bag. Naturally I didn't see all the evidence presented in court though, which no doubt the British Justice System apologists will say is why these two chaps were found guilty.

 

[Glaucus]

All I can really say is that based on what I heard on the news, this conviction seems very dodgy - I remember hearing something about the clothes being stored in the same bag. Naturally I didn't see all the evidence presented in court though, which no doubt the British Justice System apologists will say is why these two chaps were found guilty.

Separate bags but at some points where in the same big bag, but still in their own separated evidence bags and after looking ate evidence scientificalty no plausible way found for dried blood to be cross contaminated and soaked into a garment.

Dr Edward Jarman, the actual forensic scientist stated that the argument put forward by the defence was implausible because if the transfer had come about by the saliva testing as they claimed then they became 'gel like' and when tested they did not cause staining and would not have absorbed into the jacket....he stated that the most likely cause was primary transfer from the victim to the jacket at the time of the murder.

 

[dirtydog]

Reader comments at the Guardian... that well known right wing racist website. Half the comments there are agreeing that it wasn't a fair trial.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...ce-new-standards-hate-crime#start-of-comments

 

[Glaucus]

Reader comments at the Guardian... that well known right wing racist website. Half the comments there are agreeing that it wasn't a fair trial.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...ce-new-standards-hate-crime#start-of-comments

And that means?
Were they in court. Have they read the same article and jumped on it like you. Rather than looking at the other stuff said in court. Like the blood transfer by saliva test which doesn't hold up.

The only way to decide is, if we were in court and in the jury stand. We are not. So therefore unless you can show why these evidential witnesses are wrong and why the defendants didn't fight the blood stain in some other way. I'm inclined to say that your single report is overridden by science, as the blood goes through transformation when it dries.

 

[dirtydog]

And that means?
Were they in court. Have they read the same article and jumped on it like you. Rather than looking at the other stuff said in court. Like the blood transfer by saliva test which doesn't hold up.

Well according to you and others here, my doubts about the trial mean I am trolling etc.

Read the comments there, like this one:

Response to MisterPineapples, 3 January 2012 04:25PM

No evidence is perfect - the jury have to decide beyond a reasonable doubt aftere looking at all of the evidence.

Juries decided beyond reasonable doubt, based on evidence, that the following were guilty:

The Guildford Four.
The Birmingham Six.
The Maguire Seven.
The Bridgewater Three.
The Cardiff Three.

Barry George was found guilty on similarly minute forensic and circumstantial evidence and eventually acquitted.

Colin Stagg almost ended up the same way.

This was a welcome and fantastic result.

If the evidence had been stronger, I would agree. I just don't think it was.

 

[Castiel]

Yes I understand all that.

I just think that when it is the ONLY prima face evidence that they actually committed this crime, it must be utterly beyond doubt. Not just 'implausible' or 'unlikely' to be wrong.

Well, no case however high profile works on the basis of utterly beyond doubt....the law states beyond reasonable doubt, and as the forensic experts stated that the defences claims of possible contamination were implausible, then that would effectively meet the requirements of beyond reasonable doubt. If all evidence and as a result convictions had to be utterly beyond any doubt, then almost no-one would be convicted without a rock solid confession of guilt from the defendant, this would effectively cripple the justice system and how society polices itself.

We have a multi tiered appeals process that addresses miscarriages of justice (such as those mentioned in your post above) as well as mistakes or inconsistencies in material evidence, it isn't perfect but then nothing is....However the Defence wil, I am sure make use of these processes if they have a solid case to challenge that 'reasonable doubt'....

As I am sure you will agree.

 

[dirtydog]

Well, no case however high profile works on the basis of utterly beyond doubt....the law states beyond reasonable doubt, and as the forensic experts stated that the defences claims of possible contamination were implausible, then that would effectively meet the requirements of beyond reasonable doubt. If all evidence and as a result convictions had to be utterly beyond any doubt, then almost no-one would be convicted without a rock solid confession of guilt from the defendant, this would effectively cripple the justice system and how society polices itself.

As I am sure you will agree.

Most convictions are done on the basis of stronger evidence than was present here.

See my above post for a list of previous miscarriages, a small selection of the thousands over the years though no doubt.

 

[Glaucus]

Well according to you and others here, my doubts about the trial mean I am trolling etc.

Read the comments there, like this one:

Trolling?
No, I think you have preconceived ideas and found one article to back it up and then ignore anything that isn't explained in the article.

As for the other bit, what about it. Miscarriages have happened and will continue to happen. Justice system is not perfect. But should be as perfect as possible.

 

[Castiel]

Most convictions are done on the basis of stronger evidence than was present here.

See my above post for a list of previous miscarriages, a small selection of the thousands over the years though no doubt.

Are they?

Without an indepth evaluation of other relevant and signifiant convictions, as well as a scientific re-examination of the veracity of the evidence you cannot state that in any way other than your unqualified opinion.

The forensic experts felt that in their professional opinion the evidence was valid and correct...the judge deemed it acceptable not to dismiss the case and the jury deemed it enough to convict based on the test of reasonable doubt.

To all intents and purposes they have been found guilty by the processes of our society, which has one of the fairest legal systems in the world...if subsequently they are found, as those in the examples you state above, not guilty then society will release and compensate them.....

Like I said, it isn't a perfect system, there isn't one, but I think you are in the minority opinion that these men are victims of a miscarriage of justice and while I accept some of the questions raised, the evidence used to convict does appear to qualify the conviction at this time.

Interesting post from the same source as yours regarding other miscarriages of justice:

I'm just looking at the Court of Appeal judgement. Scroll to para. 50 onwards for the new evidence. it includes a blood stain which matched Stephen Lawrence's DNA profile, 43 other blood flakes on Dobson's blue jacket, several other fibres which could only have come into contact with Stephen Lawrence's blood when it was still wet, and a variety of other fibres. In the Barry George case, there was a single particle of firearm residue. It is false to say that the forensic evidence in the Dobson case is on a par with the forensic evidence in the Barry George.

As someone else said, the defence relied heavily on trying to prove the forensic evidence was flawed due to contamination, they failed to do so.....so the evidence stands, and thus the basis for the conviction stands.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Wasn't the speck of blood confirmed by a forensic scientist as being a mark that only wet and therefore fresh blood could make ?

Either way, an appeal will no doubt be submitted and if granted let's see what three appeal judges say.

 

[Castiel]

Wasn't the speck of blood confirmed by a forensic scientist as being a mark that only wet and therefore fresh blood could make ?

Either way, an appeal will no doubt be submitted and if granted let's see what three appeal judges say.

Yes, as I mentioned earlier, the forensic expert Dr Jarman stated that the claims the defence were making as to the veracity of the evidence were implausible....under scientific investigation the transfer was most likely from primary transfer and as such could not reasonably be transferred by contamination at a later date.