Lawrence two guilty
Discussion
Oakey said:
Marf said:
Suggest you do a bit of reading mate, it comes down to more than just a speck of blood.
Okay, a speck of blood, a single hair and some clothing fibre (according to the BBC).So yeah, a little more than a speck of blood.
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.
Appears to be two different photos if you look at Google images?al bebak said:
what else proved there guilt then, it wouldnt even be in court without the blood.
it may be a good thing that these pair are now guilty but its a bad day for proven evidence.
If you read the Mccann thread then certain posters would insist that a bit of blood wasn't enough evidence to convict so I assume Hugo A Gogo, etc will be along sometime soon to defend Dobson and Norris.it may be a good thing that these pair are now guilty but its a bad day for proven evidence.
Oakey said:
If you read the Mccann thread then certain posters would insist that a bit of blood wasn't enough evidence to convict so I assume Hugo A Gogo, etc will be along sometime soon to defend Dobson and Norris.
its not about just a speck of blood or a hair its how it got there.after the millions of pounds spent all that has come to light is a speck of blood and a hair.
i wonder if this type of evidence would be good enough to prove innocence, i think not.
al bebak said:
its not about just a speck of blood or a hair its how it got there.
after the millions of pounds spent all that has come to light is a speck of blood and a hair.
i wonder if this type of evidence would be good enough to prove innocence, i think not.
In English law, innocence does not have to be proven.after the millions of pounds spent all that has come to light is a speck of blood and a hair.
i wonder if this type of evidence would be good enough to prove innocence, i think not.
al bebak said:
what else proved there guilt then, it wouldnt even be in court without the blood.
it may be a good thing that these pair are now guilty but its a bad day for proven evidence.
Makes a change that I agree with other posters, but IIRC guilt is based upon 'balance of probabilities'.it may be a good thing that these pair are now guilty but its a bad day for proven evidence.
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.
al bebak said:
its not about just a speck of blood or a hair its how it got there.
after the millions of pounds spent all that has come to light is a speck of blood and a hair.
i wonder if this type of evidence would be good enough to prove innocence, i think not.
Perhaps if a tiny proportion of those millions of pounds had been spent more wisely by the POlice in April 1993 these two (and possibly others) would have been convicted on much stronger and more compelling evidence many years ago.after the millions of pounds spent all that has come to light is a speck of blood and a hair.
i wonder if this type of evidence would be good enough to prove innocence, i think not.
And would likely have been released by now
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.
Have they?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.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727743.300...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228442.600...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825274.300...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff