Lawrence two guilty
Discussion
Gwagon111 said:
Why did the picture of Stephen Lawrence giving what appeared to be a 'black power salute' get photoshopped so that it looked like he had his arms crossed? Both versions of the photo regularly appeared in the media. It was something that always bothered me about this case.
Bit of a stretch calling this a black power salute
And I assume this is the "photoshopped" picture
Am I alone in thinking these are two different real photographs?
al bebak said:
i think there guilty, everyone thinks there guilty but i just dont think there was enough evidence to convict them.
there was even a trial within a trail for this evidence to be used let alone whether it was strong enough.
surely this is trial by media? Why do you think they're guilty? From what you've seen of them on TV? From what you've read about them in the papers? I'm not saying they didn't do it but outside of the jury itself and prior to this verdict we didn't really know either way and that is exactly the sort of thing posters were complaining about in regards to Joanna Yates landlord. there was even a trial within a trail for this evidence to be used let alone whether it was strong enough.
Oakey said:
surely this is trial by media? Why do you think they're guilty? From what you've seen of them on TV? From what you've read about them in the papers? I'm not saying they didn't do it but outside of the jury itself and prior to this verdict we didn't really know either way and that is exactly the sort of thing posters were complaining about in regards to Joanna Yates landlord.
Having never set foot in any court, I suppose all my trials have been by media.i sincerely hope the prosecution have a water tight case!
i think everyone knew these guys did it but getting a solid conviction was always the sticking point. i really dont want to see them get an appeal and win owing to some minor point that the CPS should have had covered in the first place.
i would hate to think of the lovely lives and huge compensation that those 2 low lifes would get if they won an appeal!
i think everyone knew these guys did it but getting a solid conviction was always the sticking point. i really dont want to see them get an appeal and win owing to some minor point that the CPS should have had covered in the first place.
i would hate to think of the lovely lives and huge compensation that those 2 low lifes would get if they won an appeal!
crankedup said:
Makes a change that I agree with other posters, but IIRC guilt is based upon 'balance of probabilities'.
In this case those probabilities are strong enough to convince the Jury to a unanimous verdict of guilt. Thirty years back murderous scum, in the same scenario, could not even been charged perhaps, lets be grateful that forensics have made massive leaps in technology.
For criminal trials I thought it had to be "beyond reasonable doubt" - not "balance od probabilities" (which is the test for civil actions).In this case those probabilities are strong enough to convince the Jury to a unanimous verdict of guilt. Thirty years back murderous scum, in the same scenario, could not even been charged perhaps, lets be grateful that forensics have made massive leaps in technology.
bigbubba said:
Are you in any way trained in forensic science?
No. 
Neither was the judge or any of the jury as far as I'm aware.
The case rested on LCN DNA evidence. A technique that was suspended by the CPS due to doubts about its accuracy. It's now been reintroduced although many countries don't allow it as evidence due to its inherent potential for inaccuracy.
Like I said, nasty men. Just the case doesn't fill me with confidence.
supersingle said:
No.
Neither was the judge or any of the jury as far as I'm aware.
The case rested on LCN DNA evidence. A technique that was suspended by the CPS due to doubts about its accuracy. It's now been reintroduced although many countries don't allow it as evidence due to its inherent potential for inaccuracy.
Like I said, nasty men. Just the case doesn't fill me with confidence.
I was thinking about this earlier. I don't have the training, and nor did I sit through the whole case listening to the evidence. At some point you have to accept guilt, for me this is that point. I believe they made the decision based on the evidence and testimony before them. Neither was the judge or any of the jury as far as I'm aware.
The case rested on LCN DNA evidence. A technique that was suspended by the CPS due to doubts about its accuracy. It's now been reintroduced although many countries don't allow it as evidence due to its inherent potential for inaccuracy.
Like I said, nasty men. Just the case doesn't fill me with confidence.
0a said:
I was thinking about this earlier. I don't have the training, and nor did I sit through the whole case listening to the evidence. At some point you have to accept guilt, for me this is that point. I believe they made the decision based on the evidence and testimony before them. and 18 years of reading about them in the papers and seeing them on TV, etc
EFAOakey said:
0a said:
I was thinking about this earlier. I don't have the training, and nor did I sit through the whole case listening to the evidence. At some point you have to accept guilt, for me this is that point. I believe they made the decision based on the evidence and testimony before them. and 18 years of reading about them in the papers and seeing them on TV, etc
EFADo we just cancel every trial after they become "famous"?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff