Stephen Lawrence murder trial begins at Old Bailey

[5t3IIa]

This is interesting:

In a passage marked by the judge as the jury's "route to verdict", he told them that they must first decide if blood and fibres found on clothing belonging to the accused did come from Lawrence, as the crown alleges. If so, can the jury exclude that contamination occurred? The central plank of the crown's case is the forensic evidence.

The judge told the jury they cannot consider secret video and audio recordings from 1994 of Dobson and Norris – which were shown to the jury during the trial – until they have ruled out contamination.

The jury were then told they must be sure that Dobson and/or Norris were "present and participating in an unlawful group attack on Stephen Lawrence which resulted in his death". It they are not sure on this point, they must acquit. If they are sure, they go on to decide if the defendants are guilty of murder or manslaughter.

Lots to go through, and in order.

 

[Citizen66]

They'll get a not guilty then. No way can the jury, hand on heart, say the forensics definitely weren't contaminated.

Another monumental fuck up by plod.

 

[trevhagl]

They'll get a not guilty then. No way can the jury, hand on heart, say the forensics definitely weren't contaminated.

Another monumental fuck up by plod.

some may say deliberate?

 

[purenarcotic]

Have to say I agree, I don't think they'll get a guilty.

=/

 

[_angel_]

They'll get a not guilty then. No way can the jury, hand on heart, say the forensics definitely weren't contaminated.

Another monumental fuck up by plod.

That's what I'm thinking too.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

Isnt all this chat the sort of stuff that we're not supposed to be saying because of contempt laws or something?

Anyway, it just doesnt sound like the case was proven to me, from what I've read. All that stuff about the possibility of contamination.

 

[AKA pseudonym]

I wonder with all the defendents newly 'anti-racist' beliefs will they donate any of the significant damages they will recieve if found 'innocent' to anti-racist groups...
didnt think so

 

[ddraig]

yeah but you ARE pretty clueless so it don't count for shit
e2a to Jon

 

[AKA pseudonym]

Isnt all this chat the sort of stuff that we're not supposed to be saying because of contempt laws or something?

Anyway, it just doesnt sound like the case was proven to me, from what I've read. All that stuff about the possibility of contamination.

its in the public domain now.... as long as the jury dont read U75 but thats their problem not ours....

 

[Jon-of-arc]

yeah but you ARE pretty clueless so it don't count for shit
e2a to Jon

another non-specific hit & run insult from my growing following of detractors.

 

[ddraig]

you appear to be a stubborn blinkered fool who lashes out at people on here who have the patience (not me) to provide you with all the answers and explanations you demand, yes demand, and when you don't like them act the twat and chuck your toys out

 

[5t3IIa]

you appear to be a stubborn blinkered fool who lashes out at people on here who have the patience (not me) to provide you with all the answers and explanations you demand, yes demand, and when you don't like them act the twat and chuck your toys out

And he shits on toast.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

you appear to be a stubborn blinkered fool who lashes out at people on here who have the patience (not me) to provide you with all the answers and explanations you demand, yes demand, and when you don't like them act the twat and chuck your toys out

when someone calls me a "moaning middle class fucker" I dont like it, you mean? shock fucking horror!

 

[Jon-of-arc]

And he shits on toast.

when you're right, you're right.

 

[5t3IIa]

Anyway. Takeaway beef pls.

The bit I remember hearing about a blood drop was that it's 'structure' was such that it could only have soaked in, it wasn't a flake that had floated over from another evidence bag.

 

[William of Walworth]

The jury can reach three verdicts: guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter, or not guilty.

Guardian

tbh: imo, I believe the judge has sown doubt in the juries heads

(I read that Guardian piece in detail too)

Not sure the judge had a lot of legal choice, but I have to say I'm not happy at all with all this being discussed in all this amount of detail on here, before the verdict is reached.

Thread should have been kept locked until verdict time, IMO.

 

[Proper Tidy]

It's all in the public domain. You can get this off the BBC website.

 

[Spymaster]

Thread should have been kept locked until verdict time, IMO.

Eh?

Why?

 

[8115]

Eh?

Why?

Because isn't it that you're not supposed to discuss things except impartial reporting in the media before the verdict, and I think message boards are public enough to count in some ways as the media. I've got a few things to say that I wouldn't post up before the verdict.

 

[xenon]

Not read whole thread. But that undercover footage in the flat was shown on TV in the late 90's wasn't it. Perhaps this is partly why the judge has directed the jury not to place weight on that evidence. Regarding the potential of contamination leading to the blood sample, surely they only have to satisfy themselves with regards probabilities. The forensic witness, one of them IIRC, said they couldn't rule out the possibility of contamination. What else would they say in answering that.

Where's Ocums Razer.

 

[William of Walworth]

Yes, 8115 has it.

It's not that I lack interest myself Spy (and PT) cos I am very interested obs ...

I just think it's always a tad risky to blur the distinction between straight discussion of a case's progress as reported by the BBC/etc, and speculating on the implications of those reports ....

I'm not a lawyer but I have a point I think.

 

[ymu]

Eh?

Why?

Because inappropriate reportage can fuck up the case before the verdict is in, as it did in the Levi Bellfield abduction case. I'd much rather this thread was closed until the verdicts have been safely delivered, however small the risk.

Plus, they've started prosecuting papers for ignoring the rules now (about bloody time), so it's a potentially very big headache for editor, given how high this site ranks in google.

 

[William of Walworth]

Because inappropriate reportage can fuck up the case before the verdict is in, as it did in the Levi Bellfield abduction case. I'd much rather this thread was closed until the verdict has been delivered, however small the risk.

Plus, they've started prosecuting papers for ignoring the rules now, so it's a potentially big headache for editor, given how high this site ranks in google.

You seem to know the score better than I do, but I definitely agree. I've bolded what I think is the most relevant bit of yr post ....

I'm quite surprised the ed reopened this thread further up, to be honest.

 

[8115]

Especially given the recent publicity about jurors not being supposed to research cases on the internet. I don't think this sort of thing is a million miles away from what they have in mind.

 

[goldenecitrone]

If any jurors are looking in, they're guilty, but don't let my opinion influence you in any way. It's just my opinion. They are guilty.

 

[Proper Tidy]

If any jurors are looking in, they're guilty, but don't let my opinion influence you in any way. It's just my opinion. They are guilty.

As fuck

 

[Mrs Magpie]

...which is what the jury thought too

 

[London_Calling]

Gary Dobson and David Norris found guilty of racist murder of Stephen Lawrence

New evidence helps convict men of murder 18 years after teenager's fatal stabbing

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/03/stephen-lawrence-verdict-guilty-murder

I don't know what definition of 'contamination' the jury used but I'm not sure it's in the Merriam-Webster.

Hints of OJ.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16347953

 

[Spymaster]

FUCKING YES!