Frank Sidney Posted November 19, 2011 Author Share Posted November 19, 2011 It'll be interesting to see what the new forensic evidence is. If it was something undisputable, something that could not be defended, then I'm sure the defence would have instructed their clients to plead guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 It'll be interesting to see what the new forensic evidence is. If it was something undisputable, something that could not be defended, then I'm sure the defence would have instructed their clients to plead guilty? Isn't the role of the defence to test all the prosecution evidence by cross examination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Isn't the role of the defence to test the evidence all the prosecution evidence by cross examination? The role of the defence is just that ,defend,they do not have to prove anything that is up to the prosecution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shims Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 It seems that some don't believe anything the police say in relation to the Mark Duggan affair but the same people believe everything the police say in relation to the Stephen Lawrence affair..Can anyone explain why this is?... My bold. These assertions are nothing more than personal speculation and therefore, no one will be able to explain why. I'm not saying they won't try but they won't be able to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 i thought they HAD boasted about it numerous times? Are you refering to the police's hidden camera footage from inside one of their homes that was shown on TV years ago? What I find strange about that, is that, yes, it clearly shows them making racist remarks and making stabbing gestures etc, but at no point did any of them make direct reference to the murder that they supposedly had done, which I find quite odd because if they did it surely they would have been talkng all about it - saying things such as "yeah I did this" "and then i did that" etc etc, but there was nothing like that; Its as if they were discussing a murder that they'd heard about on the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 If it was something undisputable, something that could not be defended, then I'm sure the defence would have instructed their clients to plead guilty? Defence doesn't instruct clients. It's the other way round. The client tells their solicitor/barrister their side of the story and the defence tries to do its best in court. Look at the cases of Harold Shipman, Peter Sutcliffe, et al. They were two of the worst murderers in our history but they pled not guilty, either out of denial, arrogance, whatever. Sorry to introduce two white psychopathic mass murderers into the thread, Frank. I know it upsets your idealistic notions of the white race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 One thing that confused me was someting mentioned in the BBC report on the day that his friend gave his testimony. In his testimony he stated that he saw everything, detailed description of the event, but right at the end of the report it was mentioned by the reporter that his original statement stated that he saw nothing/very little of attack as he was running away. Now I'm not defending the two on trial for this and if they did it then they deserve everything they get however it confuses me as to why the friend was allowed to take the stand and offer a completely different story to the one he'd given in his official statement at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Star Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8896209/Stephen-Lawrence-trial-best-friend-says-teenager-stabbed-with-a-foot-long-knife.html Have you been reading / watching the latest developments in the trial and what do you think of the process? Nobody can deny that it was an awful crime and the perpetrators should be brought before the courts. I do hope the police have conclusive forensic evidence to prove the accused guilty, then Stephen's family can at last have some relief and get on with their lives... Having said that the case, in regards to British justice, does trouble me. Lets be honest the accused are going to be found guilty, its not really a trial. More a public event whereby the accused will get what they deserve and the authorities will be seen to have done what's right... In view of previous trials where innocent people were locked up for a crime they didn't commit, do you trust the police anyway? When the case was ongoing many years ago I never thought the accused did it. I based this on the fact that although they were being secretly filmed and recorded they never once mentioned the crime. You'd have though a gang of young men would have? Are you happy with the process and do you think they did it? I thought the same, and it seems few recall that they were filmed in their own homes for months afterwards, and none said a single thing about it to the others... That didn't seem to be right, if they were as dumb as they seemed, and especially as this was supposed to be a race attack, you would have thought something would have been said in that month or so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted November 20, 2011 Author Share Posted November 20, 2011 I thought the same, and it seems few recall that they were filmed in their own homes for months afterwards, and none said a single thing about it to the others... That didn't seem to be right, if they were as dumb as they seemed, and especially as this was supposed to be a race attack, you would have thought something would have been said in that month or so... There was something else as well that seemed to make them look not guilty but I can't remember what it was. It seems, that because they are racist, its okay to lock them up for life even if they haven't done it...They may have done it, but so far there is no evidence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rad Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Mod note: Please keep this thread on-topic. Racial slurs, bickering and any more off-topic chat will result in the thread being closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.