Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@j_in_france wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
@mrs_teapot wrote:
Actually, I haven’t seen thin questioning the guilt of these people?
I think his concern was the police investigation and if the evidence and adherence to law would stand up to scrutiny in an appeal if indeed that happens.
I haven’t seen anyone here question if these people were guilty? they were found guilty… thats end of it in my book but its true there may be an appeal.
@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.
You need to go to specsavers, then.
Panda – I don’t think anyone here is doubting the decision of the jury and it is good to finally see someone convicted for this case
So:
@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.
isn’t thin implying he thinks they are innocent due to police corruption, then?
@mrs_teapot wrote:
Not at all…..where does it say those guys are innocent…… it questions the investigation, and how effective the police were… whether you like it or not it will be what the appeal will be based on. Lets hope the police have been thorough and the conviction stands.
So thin’s first post in no way suggests they are innocent by implying the police have deliberately “planted” this new, and incriminating evidence?
And his later reference to the Colin Stagg case in no way implies the police have “fitted” Norris and Dobson up for this murder in the same way Stagg was fitted up?
You really are far too nice, Mrs Teapot. Your good nature does blossom.
@mrs_teapot wrote:
Actually, I haven’t seen thin questioning the guilt of these people?
I think his concern was the police investigation and if the evidence and adherence to law would stand up to scrutiny in an appeal if indeed that happens.
I haven’t seen anyone here question if these people were guilty? they were found guilty… thats end of it in my book but its true there may be an appeal.
@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.
You need to go to specsavers, then.
@..Joker.. wrote:
@irish_lucy wrote:
In no particlar order
Thin
Cosy
WakeUpDead
Gaz
Pete
TwistingMyMelon
Annette – or maybe shes the victim?
Eve – same as above :)and before my time but going by the boards
Pats (apparently) :)
D.O.A.I’d Say :-
Joker
.Joker.
..Joker..
…Joker…
. Joker .
. .Joker. .
. .Joker. .
. .Joker . .
.Joker.
And finally JOKER!!Careful you don’t steptoe on thin’s cardboard crown.
@j_in_france wrote:
@thin ice wrote:
yea but you some one who thinks a fox is cute
not exactly convincing are you :Pnot sure what a fox has to do with this thread but…..
For there to be an appeal there has to be a significant reason of doubt to contradict the verdict – whether that is possible I don’t know and it will be interesting to see if the defence are able to find a case for that
I do agree with the point that the press these days have a huge influence in peoples views of what could happen in various cases, for example the Jo Yeates case and the vilification of the landlord
Referral to foxes is because thin ice can’t think of anything further to say in support of these racist thugs and his belief they didn’t have a fair trial, despite the evidence and the best efforts of the judge.
I agree with your post regarding the appeal.
The landlord in the Jo Yeates case was very wrongly vilified but justice prevailed in the end and it would have been very unlikely that Chris Jeffries would ever have faced trial as there simply wasn’t enough evidence against him. One also needs to remember that the actual perpetrator, Vincent Tabak, pointed the finger at Jefferies which led to the latter’s arrest.
I don’t agree however, that the press has a huge influence over the views of all the members of the jury.
A member or two perhaps could be tempted to look beyond the actual evidence presented but then they have to justify their verdict to the rest of the jury and that is not easily done, hence the reason there are 12 members of the jury who either all have to agree, or in some cases, a 10 / 2 majority verdict is accepted.
Jurors are warned that if they go and research the case online that it is an offence.
If a juror who pulls a sickie , or a juror who contacts the defendent via Facebook can be found out and be prosecuted, a juror who uses the internet / media to introduce “new evidence” in the retiring room would soon be rumbled unless one thinks all the other jurors would gladly dispense with the evidence and their own integrity to give their verdict based on nothing but heresy.
Perhaps they could.
Perhaps they could all be bribed – after all, it has been alleged that Clifford Norris’s did it once for his son David when he was on trial for attempted murder:
http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16141572
However, I can’t see the Lawrence’s resorting to such underhanded tactics as bribery to secure this conviction.
@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.
@thin ice wrote:
so if im a sado with no life for posting what i do
what does you replying suggest lolAw thinny, still not getting it are you?
You more than anyone on here, start pathetic inane threads each day in order to satisfy your craving for attention.
That your threads are pathetic and inane just proves you have no life.
Never mind. Get that cuddly toy as Grinch suggests. Or maybe a blow up doll, if she’ll have you.
@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:
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 chargedand 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 elsepersonaly 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.
@Welsh fem 1 wrote:
@thin ice wrote:
get a fecking room you pair :lol:
Why dont u get a feckin life :evil: :evil: SADDO
hehehehehe!
He can’t – he has nothing better to do than start inane, pathetic threads. I also think it’s an attention seeking thing as well.
He reminds me of Donkey out of Shrek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GmuHYcdNOE&NR=1&feature=endscreen
@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:
