Jump to content

The Stephen Lawrence Trial


Recommended Posts

Thanks, I'm aware of that.

 

me too.

perhaps i was expected to specify that in last post.

now i will wait for the final verdict and hope that the real truth is finally revealed.its so sad that stephen's family have to be reminded of that tragic event of stephen's last moments though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the law stands yes they are innocent,they have not been found guilty by a court of justice therefore they are still innocent ...in law

 

Halibut didn't ask you if they are innocent or not based on the findings of the court, he asked you if YOU think they are innocent.

 

Do you believe that OJ and Michael Jackson were guilty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Halibut didn't ask you if they are innocent or not based on the findings of the court, he asked you if YOU think they are innocent.

 

Do you believe that OJ and Michael Jackson were guilty?

 

That doesn't make any sense..the other cases have finished and all the evidence heard..I believed OJ was guilty...Jackson? I think he probably was but I'm not 100% on that one....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Halibut didn't ask you if they are innocent or not based on the findings of the court, he asked you if YOU think they are innocent.

 

Do you believe that OJ and Michael Jackson were guilty?

He didnt ask me I just answered detailing the facts of the law.

do I believe they are innocent ?I dont know because Im not party to all the facts,the media have a habit of reporting just enough to whet the appetite so no one ever gets the full story while the case is in progress.

What have Simpson and Jackson to do with Lawrence ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going on what is out in the public domain, I suspect that these miscreants are guilty. Whether or not they will get a fair trial is an interesting point and I suspect that they won't nor can they; any case that has had this level of publicity, on and off for 18 years, will not find a jury in the land who can be 100% impartial.

 

What rings alarm bells for me is the following:

 

Cutting-edge science, the jury was told, would prove the guilt of the two defendants in the racist murder of Lawrence in Eltham, south-east London, on 22 April 1993.

 

But barristers for the defendants at the trial at the Old Bailey closed by arguing that, over 18 years, the risk of exhibits becoming contaminated was so high that the evidence the prosecution relies on is fatally flawed.

 

The following at the very least places them at the scene of the crime:

 

Key scientific evidence

  • Blood found soaked into collar of grey jacket seized from Gary Dobson
  • Tiny blood flakes recovered from the evidence bag used to hold the jacket
  • One in a billion chance DNA extracted from these blood samples was not Stephen Lawrence's DNA
  • 16 fibres matching Stephen Lawrence's clothing found in scientific review
  • These fibres found in samples acquired using sticky tape pressed to the grey jacket

 

Any defence team pulling the 'tampering and contamination of evidence card' in my view knows their client(s) to be guilty. Their alibis, from what I have read do not sound very convincing either. However, given on what I know, which is limited to what is being reported, there should be enough reasonable doubt for the jury to find them not guilty.

 

For the record, I believe that OJ was guilty. :hihi:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can someone be guilty until all the evidence is heard...? I don't care what happens to them if they are guilty they deserve all they get...But this is not a fair trial. They will be found guilty whatever happens.

 

I could ask you a similar question. Why do you claim they're guilty until you've heard all the evidence? Can you not see that its me who's being reasonable, and you who is not...

 

Furthermore, have you ever heard of the Birmingham Six and numerous other "fitted up" supposed guilty parties...?

 

I have never claimed they are guilty.

 

YOU have repeatedly said there is NO evidence. This is clearly untrue.

If that were the case they would not have been charged and would not be in court now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never claimed they are guilty.

 

YOU have repeatedly said there is NO evidence. This is clearly untrue.

If that were the case they would not have been charged and would not be in court now.

 

At this time and date there is no new evidence to convict them, the case has not been heard yet..There may be in the upon coming weeks, then we'll decide..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.