Stephen Lawrence

@thin ice wrote:

the appeal will make bigger head lines

blood that appeared after 18 years

sounds very suspect to me

who would trust the police

to sit on that pile of clothes then pop them out after 18 years with dif results

If you bothered to follow the case you would know that technology at the time could not detect a blood stain that small. However, advances in forensics since then have not only made it detectable but identifiable as belonging to the victim. So reliable was this discovery that it was significant enough to warrant a re-trial where the truth finally came out.

If you want to imply these thugs aren’t racist, you should watch and listen the to following video:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16170783

@thin ice wrote:

@panda12 wrote:

@thin ice wrote:

the appeal will make bigger head lines

blood that appeared after 18 years

sounds very suspect to me

who would trust the police

to sit on that pile of clothes then pop them out after 18 years with dif results

If you bothered to follow the case you would know that technology at the time could not detect a blood stain that small. However, advances in forensics since then have not only made it detectable but identifiable as belonging to the victim. So reliable was this discovery that it was significant enough to warrant a re-trial where the truth finally came out.

If you want to imply these thugs aren’t racist, you should watch and listen the to following video:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16170783

im implying othing of the kind
this has been a trial by media before it got to court
one might ask did they ever have a chance of a fair trial
and it took a change in the law to get one of them back in court
the double jepardy rule was changed a few years back
and one of them hadnt been previously charged

and lets not forget the colin stagg / rachael nicole saga not so many years back
stagg was hounded by the press
wrongly accused and even set up by the met
he received record damages before the police charged some one else

personaly i dont dont have any faith in the police

this will def be appealed

I’m no fan of the Daily Mail but clearly remember the 1997 “Murderers” headline they ran showing pictures of the five suspects, where it is then stated: “The Mail accuses these men of killing. If we are wrong, let them sue us.”

And, before you state this is proof of “trial by media,” it is not. This trial has come about after a four year police re-investigation into the original evidence. If you know anything about the law, you will know it is the Crown Prosecution Service that decides if there is a case to be answered, not the press.

It is then up to the Prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and this they did with the help of the forensic evidence – blood, hair and fibres which was already collected in the original investigation but which was too small to be detected by the forensics available at the time. So “new” evidence was bought against them and this helped, along with witness testimony, to convict them.

BTW – did you know Norris already has served time for a racist attack on a black police officer? No, neither did I – this was not revealed during the trial so as to ensure it was a fair trial. I doubt if any jury member, selected at random on the day to sit on that trial would have been aware of it either.

The judge also instructed the jury at the beginning of the trial to base their verdict on the evidence and evidence alone and to forget anything they knew, or could remember about the case. Of course, that they followed the judge’s direction cannot be guaranteed but then again you cannot accuse all 12 people of the jury of being swayed by the media either, unless you wish to call them liars for not basing their verdict on the evidence and breaking the juror’s oath they swore.

Regarding the Daily Mail headline, none of the five named and accused of being murderers sued.

I wonder why?

And as for Colin Stagg – he wasn’t convicted, the trial was thrown out which just shows you the British justice system does work which I think contradicts your own argument.

@thin ice wrote:

we can resume this debate when the verdict is challenged

On the BBC website:

“In mitigation, ahead of sentencing on Wednesday, counsel for Dobson said there was no evidence he had been the leader or prime motivator of the group that attacked the teenager.”

Sounds like an admission of guilt to me.