Stephen lawrence cover up?

EVH said:
Link to the evidence that the blood stain forensics were "dodgy" or GTFO.
Click to expand...

Read the two articles from the Independent I linked to. Or the Spectator quote (I can't link to it as they took it down after the judge did them for contempt of court)
 
AcidHell2 seems to think that he can tell me his opinion, and then I MUST agree with it, or he can continually badger me over and over and over again ad nauseum. Rather than just saying okay, I think you're talking rubbish and we disagree, but let's leave it there and agree to differ.
 
Where did I say that?
I wnat some scrap of well anything, evidence preferably, but a plausible mechanism would do. Of how blood was transferred. Even the guys defence couldn't come up with a reason but you have.

But you say you have told me/us. So where. Have you said it. Your articles do not and can not deal with blood.
 
dirtydog said:
Let's agree to disagree, can you do that?
Click to expand...

Not, if you respond to question about blood like this.
They don't explain how cross contamination of blood could happen or throw into doubt the blood sample.
dirtydog said:
Read the two articles from the Independent I linked to. Or the Spectator quote (I can't link to it as they took it down after the judge did them for contempt of court)
Click to expand...

It's also not like it was one odd flake of cross contamination in the other cases. You even said they where in same bag earlier, which is not really telling the truth is it. It's bending the truth at best.

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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
as much as I have little doubt they are guilty and deserve very long sentences I am not sure I could have given a guilty verdict "beyond reasonable doubt" from the evidence I have seen reported
 
dirtydog said:
Let's agree to disagree, can you do that?
Click to expand...

It is difficult to agree to disagree when the claims you made were not entirely representative of the facts.

Unlike what you claimed not one of the forensic experts who looked at evidence questioned the veracity of that evidence, in fact they specifically stated the opposite. The only person to say anything about the possibility of contamination other than the defence was the Forensic Storage Worker from 1993, who said it could have been contaminated as the rules of storing evidence were different compared to today, although each item was bagged an sealed separately and only two items shared an over-bag...these claims of contamination by the defence were discounted by the Forensic Scientists as being so unlikely as to be implausible...

In other words, the forensic evidence was in their expert opinion valid, accurate and beyond any reasonable doubt.

Unless you can show convincing evidence to dispute the expert opinion of Dr Jarman and the LGC Labs and if you are as objective as you claim you should concede this point to Glaucus....

Agreeing to disagree in this context is a cop-out.
 
Last edited:
Castiel, you didn't read the Independent links properly, try again.

Amd yes I know the prosecution and the authorities think the evidence is sound, what else would you expect them to say.
 
Can I clear something up?

Are you referring people to reader comments on the independent site, the article or both?
 
dirtydog said:
The article. I'm not aware of reader comments for those articles.
Click to expand...

What was the purpose of quoting reader comments from the guardian earlier then? To prove that there are bias morons on all corners of the web? :p

Unless the paper is publishing the transcripts I'd take anything they publish with a pinch of salt.

dirtydog said:
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
Click to expand...
 
dirtydog said:
Castiel, you didn't read the Independent links properly, try again.

Amd yes I know the prosecution and the authorities think the evidence is sound, what else would you expect them to say.
Click to expand...

Quoted from the Independant article you posted:

A laboratory worker was forced to concede that in the early Nineties there were no regulations that banned putting both the victim's and the suspect's garments in the same bag – as each were sealed in separate evidence sacks..[...]...Christopher Bower, a stores worker at a forensics laboratory in Lambeth, south London, told the Old Bailey trial yesterday that the exhibits in the case were returned to police from the lab in November 1995 all individually sealed in paper evidence sacks. But packages containing a cardigan and jacket seized from Mr Dobson's house were put in the same outer plastic sack as one which held Mr Lawrence's black Raiders jacket.
Click to expand...

Adrian Wain, the Chief Forensic scientist admitted he voiced some concerns about possible contamination in a 2001 re-investigation of the evidence, although no evidence of such contamination was apparent..the Defence admitted they could not prove that any contamination of the items involved in the new Forensic Evidence had occurred.

Source
Source
Source

The Forensic experts when asked about this stated that the chances of contamination between the contents of individual evidence sacks was so unlikely as to implausible, the also stated the evidence given in court was, in their expert opinion, directly as a result of primary transfer between the victim and his attackers.....

Edward Jarman, a forensic scientist who specialises in body fluid analysis, carried out testing for blood, saliva and DNA on items of clothing seized from the suspects' homes.

In the debris from the original evidence bag holding Gary Dobson's jacket, the team found three blood fragments which had less than a one in a billion chance of not being Stephen Lawrence's.

Another blood fragment which had encased three fibres and matched Mr Lawrence's DNA to the same probability was also discovered, although only a partial profile for DNA testing was obtained....

When Dobson's jacket was examined all over with a low-powered microscope, a tiny bloodstain measuring 0.25mm by 0.5mm was found on the collar. This matched Mr Lawrence's DNA profile to the same probability.

Success in cold cases including the death of Damilola Taylor sparked a new review which uncovered key forensic evidence in the Stephen Lawrence investigation.

A team of scientists at a private company called LGC were asked to ‘start again from scratch’ in working to uncover evidence against whoever killed Mr Lawrence.

Gary Pugh, Director of Forensic Services for the Metropolitan Police, said: ‘The Damilola Taylor case...involved what LGC have done in going right back to basics and starting from scratch.

'Many of these cases have had reviews over time but quite often they're with a presumption that if nothing's been found the items aren't re-examined.
‘What I think we've done here and in previous cases is start again from scratch and that was the brief we gave LGC in this particular case.’

The case of ten-year-old Damilola Taylor, who bled to death after an attack in 2007, involved the key discovery of a blood stain on the shoe of one of the defendants.

The defence argued that the stain had been caused by saliva testing, however Mr Jarman found that when old flakes of Mr Lawrence's blood were exposed to a chemical used in the testing they became 'gel-like'.

They did not cause staining and would not absorb into the fabric.
He maintained that the most likely cause of the stain was 'primary transfer', meaning that it was caused by wet blood shed during the fatal attack.

Fibres expert Roy Green and his colleagues microscopically compared tiny fibres found on exhibits and used a machine to scientifically measure their colour.
The rarity of fibres was partly quantified by how often they occurred in a Home Office database compiled in the 1980s.

The team found a total of 16 fibres linked to Mr Lawrence's clothes on tapings - where sticky tape is passed over the garment - from Dobson's jacket and its original evidence bag.

These included four rare red-orange polyester fibres and seven quite common pink-orange fibres that matched Mr Lawrence's T-shirt - one of which appeared to be bloodstained. There were also two quite rare blue-green acrylic fibres which matched Mr Lawrence's jacket.

In debris from the original packaging of Dobson's jacket there was one red-orange fibre matching Mr Lawrence's T-shirt and a fragment of blood that contained two quite rare blue acrylic fibres that matched his cardigan.
Seven fibres were found on tapings from a sweatshirt seized from David Norris' house - six from Mr Lawrence's trousers and one from his T-shirt.
Hairs specialist Deborah Hopwood told the court that a number of short, cut fragments of hair were found on sticky tape passed over Mr Lawrence's outer clothes.

The team then discovered two tiny hairs among debris recovered from the Norris jeans - one of which was 1mm long and appeared to be bloodstained at one end. It was too small to send for DNA analysis.

The other was 2mm long and was sent to the United States to be tested for mitochondrial DNA. This is a short DNA sequence inherited from the mother and shared with anyone in the maternal line of a family.
Click to expand...

Forensic Scientist Rosalyn Hammond was also called to give expert testimony:

Forensic scientist Rosalyn Hammond told the jurytoday that forensic evidence found on clothing seized from two men accused of murdering Mr Lawrence could not realistically have got there by contamination in the early stages of the investigation.

The expert said she had considered each stage of the handling of key exhibits until they were taken to a lab in 1993.

At each stage, she said that in her view there was no realistic possibility of contamination having occurred, dismmissing the possibility that debris had fallen onto the floor, got onto the packaging of suspect exhibits and later transferred onto the items themselves while at a police lab.


Prosecuting, Mark Ellison QC asked: “Have you come across any scenario that you regard as a possible opportunity for contamination that you regard as a realistic possibility of explaining the evidence you have found?”

Ms Hammond said: “No, I have not.”

She dismissed the defence argument that a bloodstain found on the collar of Dobson’s jacket was caused when an old blood flake was dissolved during saliva testing.

She said: “In my opinion this explanation is so unlikely as to be practically impossible.”
Click to expand...

Source
Source

also these are independent expert testimony, they are not the prosecution or authorities testimony.

If you can show evidence that disputes the opinions of these expert witnesses then do so, if not then concede this point to Glaucus.
 
Last edited:
Von Smallhausen said:
I'm not sure that racially aggravated offences were on the statute books in 1993 but an act was passed where racial motivation meant a heavier sentence on conviction.

Whatever the case, let's keep this civil.
Click to expand...


your right they can't take in to consider the racially aggravated as it came in after this.

also they will have to be considered pre criminal justice act 2003 for tariff consideration.

lets be clear they don't get out automatically even if they only get a 10 year tariff, they have to convince a parole board, one of them is already in prison. Remember past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour.

As someone who has written parole reports on life sentenced offenders. Its going to take a lot of significant changes and work for someone to be able to say that these two are unlikely to offend again and present a low risk of serious harm to the public.

Also the parole board are very cautious they don't just release people left right and centre. Ive had people who in my opinion should have been released, but the parole board decided not to. who is going to take the risk with the lawrence murderers, my guess is that its going to be a long time before they get out and will probably go post tariff.
 
Last edited:
MrMoonX said:
my guess is that its going to be a long time before they get out and will probably go post tariff.
Click to expand...

They are only being sentenced as 16 & 17 year olds though so there sentence will reflect that & not be nearly as bad as if they were Adults, They won't be in prison for long at all.
 
4T5 said:
They are only being sentenced as 16 & 17 year olds though so there sentence will reflect that & not be nearly as bad as if they were Adults, They won't be in prison for long at all.
Click to expand...

even if the tariff is set at 8 years, they still have to sit a parole board, I don't understand why people think its a given they are going to get out. certainly in this case they are going to be cautious in recommending release, and in any case is the person who writes their parole reports going to put their nuts on the line. I know I err on the side of caution when writing these
 
I think most would agree that if they are guilty then even if they get 8 years & serve every single day & get released it will still be to soon, No parole in that is there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom