New trial for murder of Stephen Lawrence

[John X]

its not unknown for them to,"provide" clear cut evidence,the pub bombings back in the 70's are evidence to that..Birmingham six and Guildford 4 ring a bell..

 

You obviously know very little about those two cases.

 

In the case of the Birmingham Six, it took three appeals before the men were acquitted and that wasn't because of new evidence, fabricated or otherwise, but because the prosecution withdrew most of their case after it was largely discredited (in short, the confessions were battered out of them and the forensic evidence was rubbish.)

 

And this was after a campaign that had been banging against the appeal court door for years with little help from anyone apart from the families and a couple of lawyers who would not let it go.

 

In the case of the Guildford Four, again there was no new 'found' evidence. Just a closer examination of the original police notes which showed that they had been tampered with. Once it was accepted that the police hd lied on this matter at the original trial, the whole conviction was deemed unsafe and the four were released. Again this was their third appeal.

 

The idea that in both these acquittals came about because the State somehow 'facilitated' them is ludicrous!

 

John X

[Phanerothyme]

If a conviction can be quashed by the Court of Appeal, why not an acquittal?

[John X]

If a conviction can be quashed by the Court of Appeal, why not an acquittal?

 

The Court of Appeal deals with matters within the justice system, including anyone who has been convicted and imprisoned.

 

Someone who has been acquitted is outside that system and would be dealt with by a retrial if new evidence becomes available in the same way that an appeal is allowed if new evidence comes to light.

 

A Court of Appeal does not 'retry' the case as there is no jury. The judges simply 'examine' the original case for procedural errors that may have occurred in conjunction with any new evidence put before it.

 

John X

[Glamrocker]

You obviously know very little about those two cases.

 

In the case of the Birmingham Six, it took three appeals before the men were acquitted and that wasn't because of new evidence, fabricated or otherwise, but because the prosecution withdrew most of their case after it was largely discredited (in short, the confessions were battered out of them and the forensic evidence was rubbish.)

 

And this was after a campaign that had been banging against the appeal court door for years with little help from anyone apart from the families and a couple of lawyers who would not let it go.

 

In the case of the Guildford Four, again there was no new 'found' evidence. Just a closer examination of the original police notes which showed that they had been tampered with. Once it was accepted that the police hd lied on this matter at the original trial, the whole conviction was deemed unsafe and the four were released. Again this was their third appeal.

 

The idea that in both these acquittals came about because the State somehow 'facilitated' them is ludicrous!

 

John X

Keep going,I think I said something along these lines ,you may think you know more about the two cases than I do ,you certainly have troubl reading and understanding your own postings and your certainly not very knowledgeable of Police actions legal and illegal

[Glamrocker]

Youve never heard the phrase "fitted up" or maybe you dont believe it happens,you'll be telling me next that the police take extra care of prisoners they lock up in their cells,make them a nice cup of tea and wouldnt think of giving them a little dig in the ribs.

[John X]

Youve never heard the phrase "fitted up" or maybe you dont believe it happens

 

Weren't the Guildford Four "fitted up" by tampering with the original police interview notes?

 

and wouldnt think of giving them a little dig in the ribs.

 

Didn't the Birmingham Six confess after they systematically had the crap kicked out of them for the best part of 48 hours?

 

 

John X

[BritPat]

Anyone unhappy about David Norris being tried for this as he hasn't been tried previously?

 

Providing that a prima facie case exists yes.

 

You still appear to be defending one of them who hasn't been tried before.

 

Save you reading the thread properly.

[callippo]

if they get aquitted again I might conjure up some faith in the criminal justice system. From what I've seen of the evidence against them, the prosecution are trying their luck and hoping that any old mud will stick.

 

luckily you can only be re-tried once. They can't do it again.

[Glamrocker]

Weren't the Guildford Four "fitted up" by tampering with the original police interview notes?

 

 

 

Didn't the Birmingham Six confess after they systematically had the crap kicked out of them for the best part of 48 hours?

 

 

John X

I dont know ,you tell me .It seems you now agree that any "evidence" that has been found in the Lawrence case could be questionable after all this time..you cant have your cake and eat it Im afraid.You seem to have a habit of contradicting yourself and then claiming you knew that all along.

[John X]

It seems you now agree that any "evidence" that has been found in the Lawrence case could be questionable after all this time..

 

I think there must be someone else called John X posting here.

 

Can you show me where I agreed that any new evidence in the Lawrence case could be questionable?

 

John X