John X Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 If thats the case then I would expect to see more arrests now or at least reliable information on that score,if what you say is right arresting ,charging and trying suspects for possible perverting the course of justice would obviously make the murder trial easier to get a conviction. I suspect any evidence of police corruption at the time is long gone, unless a colleague with a conscience decides to break ranks. Also if I were you and this Norris is big time you should be very careful what you put on public forums Thank you for your kind concern, but I won't be losing any sleep over some no-marks South London drugs dealer. I doubt he has much clout with the Met any more and if his son is found guilty of Stephen Lawrence's murder and it is found that Clifford Norris had bribed one of the Lawrence inquiry (police, not Macpherson) officers, I suspect he will be going to jail for a very long time. John X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Video surveillance? Acourt and Norris were convicted in 2002 of a racist attack on a plain clothes policeman. It is interesting that it is claimed that at the time of the murder, attempts were made to link the four suspects with the far-right. It is supporters of the far-right on this forum who are shouting loudest about the 'unfairness' of trying them again! Just an observation. John X If you or anyone hasn't seen it, there was footage from hidden cameras in their flat that was shown repeatedly on the news. The footage showed them practising knife thrusts and talking about their desire to stab black people. Am surprised anyone isn't aware of the notorious scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John X Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 If you or anyone hasn't seen it, there was footage from hidden cameras in their flat that was shown repeatedly on the news. Yes, I have seen it. I suppose I was pointing out that that footage, as evidence that the suspects were racist scum, is trumped by the fact that two of them were later convicted of a racial attack. Also people do say things they don't really mean when they are trying to impress their mates. (I think that may be what they claimed at the time, hence the interest in whether they were involved with/members of the local BNP) It is harder to claim that, when you have been convicted in court of a racially-motivated attack. John X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 For what its worth i think hes innocent. If he were guilty theyd had got him the last time. Innocent?! The fact that reasonable evidence has been produced for a retrial speaks volumes. Of course, he will remain innocent until proven guilty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesey Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 I recall the folk acquitted following the private court case laughing at the cameras as they left the court house. I bet that the're not laughing now, good old DNA strikes once again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutt Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 How will these two get a fair trial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John X Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 How will these two get a fair trial? Errr... the evidence will be put before a jury and they will make up their minds based on what they have heard. That's usually how it works, anyway. John X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Errr... the evidence will be put before a jury and they will make up their minds based on what they have heard. That's usually how it works, anyway. John X I think Mutt has a point John X, it's almost impossible that a jury could be found who hadn't pre-judged the case and the main protagonists over the last 18 years, as we're doing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutt Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 I think Mutt has a point John X, it's almost impossible that a jury could be found who hadn't pre-judged the case and the main protagonists over the last 18 years, as we're doing here. Yep that's what I did mean. If I were on the jury, I would find them guilty. They did it, we all know that. However the liberal legal system can't allow that to happen, can it? Or as it's a bunch of White racists that killed this black kid. Should we allow this to happen? Just this once? I would, would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Yep that's what I did mean. If I were on the jury, I would find them guilty. They did it, we all know that. However the liberal legal system can't allow that to happen, can it? Or as it's a bunch of White racists that killed this black kid. Should we allow this to happen? Just this once? I would, would you? Crikey, there's a lot there! I think the only way to approach this trial would be with an open mind, not 'I know they did it' or conversely with the view that they're being persecuted because the state needs to find a scapegoat for this murder, so in that respect John X is right in my opinion-forget what we know or think we know already and listen to the evidence that's presented..that's as fair a trial as anybody could get, if it's achievable for these two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.