pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 6,689
No one independent has said that this was due to contamination, very telling.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Stephen Lawrence MURDERERS
- Thread starter Gritt23
- Start date
No one independent has said that this was due to contamination, very telling.
User removed 4
New member
If we were talking about genetic profiling then yes I would agree with you, but we are talking about clothing fibres, really not very complicated at all.
Why didnt the defence go down the storage route then? They did try a contamination angle but this was dry blood, being made wet by the chemicals of the new screening process, and then somehow transferring and drying again on a different item. A independent analysis was undertaken to try an reproduce this event, and they were never able to do it.
Gritt23
New member
- Thread starter
- #224
On the first point, you are 100% wrong. That is EXACTLY what scienfic advancements in the last 20 years have done.
Contamination was categorically ruled out in the trial, largely because they were not convicted on 1 single piece of DNA evidence on 1 single garment. It multiple different DNA links, to 4 different garments of the accused. It was blood, hair, and fibres from Stephens jacket, cardigan and trousers that was spread across the jacket and trousers of Norris, and the jacket and cardigan of Dobson. The chances of all of those seperate incidents of cross-contamination of evidence is just astronomical. Plus, the blood on Dobsons jacket was proved to be wet when it landed on his jacket, which means it must have happened at teh scene of the crimes, and not as a result of somehow brushing past some of Stephens clothing, at least WEEKS later.
Do you think that when they unveiled this new technology in 2003 the scientists produced a 10 year old magnifying glass? Go and read about it, you might learn something.
Gritt23
New member
- Thread starter
- #226
Ah, I see, maybe I can explain then. The advancement in DNA profiling means that they can now do so with far smaller samples. So, 20 years ago the clothing would have had a close inspection with the naked eye, but now, a microscopic sample is sufficient, so the new investigation ordered a full inspection of all the clothing under a microscope, and that is when they uncovered the new evidence.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
My thoughts too. I'd also agree that this opens up a huge can of worms in the way that justice is done in future and it does deflect hugely away from the reason why Norris et al got away with it the first time - the police were in part bent and other part incompetent.
I'm no lawyer but I really think there's never been a more obvious case where public opinion is so against a group of suspects before a trial starts. I've read people say that we didn't hear the evidence - but likewise none of us are experts in DNA testing, none of us have really heard much of the defence counsel's arguments and yet we are all sure of their guilt (me included).
Behave the pair of you.
I'm not too sure they are bent, more of a '"he's a fuzzy wuzzy so we can't be arsed looking too hard" attitude.
Totally agree with [MENTION=5200]Ponce Mohammed Buzzer[/MENTION], [MENTION=11956]bushy[/MENTION] and [MENTION=5001]The Merry Prankster[/MENTION].
Not sad to see these wankers get sent down, but worried about the repercussions of this episode for the British justice system and as Buzzer just said, it should never be forgotton that the MacPherson report would never been such a defining moment if the OB had done their job properly in the first place. That is the real disgrace and I'm not convinced enough of the right people were called to account for it.
Not sad to see these wankers get sent down, but worried about the repercussions of this episode for the British justice system and as Buzzer just said, it should never be forgotton that the MacPherson report would never been such a defining moment if the OB had done their job properly in the first place. That is the real disgrace and I'm not convinced enough of the right people were called to account for it.
User removed 4
New member
this is exactly what happened, i was told by someone who had a relative on the investigation
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Uh-uh. Nope. David Norris's dad, Clifford, was paying police officers to obstruct the case. Neil Putnam, an ex-cop told Panorama this back in 2000 BBC NEWS | Programmes | Panorama | Archive | The Bent Cop December 3 2000
EDIT- a better link Lawrence: Did detective tip off suspects family? - Crime - UK - The Independent
User removed 4
New member
there was this as well, but i've also been told that the prevailing attitude was the one that el pres mentions.
Gritt23
New member
- Thread starter
- #234
Venables and Thompson?
The Wests?
Ian Huntley?
Let's face it, the media are ALL OVER some cases, and whenever they are this is an issue, and although I've listed nailed on, guilty as hell cases, there are also rather worrying times when the papers go equally over the top when some local weirdo gets called in for questioning after a high profile murder. Even before charged, there are times when the media have disclosed names, photos, addresses, and are pretty much saying "we've got him", then the person is released without charge and where does that leave the person.
By the time these cases go to trial, this is a massive issue, and that is why - as has been said on this thread already - the selection of the jury is a very important and difficult process in a high profile case.
Incidently, a high profile case doesn't always result in a conviction. OJ Simpson walked, and closer to home, Russell Bishop walked from Lewes Crown Court.
ROSM
Well-known member
I thought this accusation was investigated and there was no evidence found and the BBc withdrew it. But I could be wrong though.
ROSM
Well-known member
I understand what you're saying but the jury was unanimous on this. Given that on this thread with maybe 25 or so contributors we have at least 3 people who feel that the evidence may not have been compelling it is highly likely that the public opinion would have had an equal and opposite effect on some of the jurors who would really really really need to be convinced of the guilt.
There are also those who may have had preconceived ideas that they were unable to remove from their mind but having heard the defence case, possibly for the first time may have started to doubt themselves.
If it had gone to a 10-2 majority verdict then the concerns shown here may have some weight. But I dont think the judge would have allowed that given the profile of the case.
The headline in The Sun screamed "NOW GET THE OTHERS" this morning.
It is depressing to me, that in all probability this is exactly what will happen. The nation will unite behind the idea of not stopping until the others are behind bars, all because sensationalist media outlets drive this agenda.
In the meantime, questions arising from doing away with the double jeapardy priniciple under certain conditions, and questions surrounding whether certain members of the plod are fit for purpose are going to be marginalised if not completely ignored, and these are far more important issues than the idea of taking some scum bags off the streets 20 years later than should have happened.
The Lawrence family have been remarkably dignified throughout. I'll be interested to hear what they think once this whole sorry mess has concluded.
It is depressing to me, that in all probability this is exactly what will happen. The nation will unite behind the idea of not stopping until the others are behind bars, all because sensationalist media outlets drive this agenda.
In the meantime, questions arising from doing away with the double jeapardy priniciple under certain conditions, and questions surrounding whether certain members of the plod are fit for purpose are going to be marginalised if not completely ignored, and these are far more important issues than the idea of taking some scum bags off the streets 20 years later than should have happened.
The Lawrence family have been remarkably dignified throughout. I'll be interested to hear what they think once this whole sorry mess has concluded.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
That made has made me chuckle. I bought my first computer in 1993, it took 5mb floppy disks, had about 8mb of RAM, and a 250mb hard drive running Mac OS 7.1. Hilarious to think that technology could transform the world, but forensic science has remained unaltered. A comical comment indeed.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
I think if you read Bushy's posts a bit more thoroughly, you'll find there is a bit more to his opinion than a simple concern for the British justice system...
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
There was although I have a little inside knowledge of this as a friend was working as legal counsel for the IPCC at the time and in her words it was 'the most perfunctory of cases she has ever worked on". The relationships that Clifford Norris enjoyed with several police officers was, in her opinion, worthy of much further investigation and refusals to co-operate by key individuals made the findings meaningless.
Actually - that is all the inside knowledge I have on it!