Just in...
Dobson will serve a minimum of 15 years and two months and Norris 14 years and three months.
Let's hope they truly start to pay for what they've put Stephen and his family through for the last 18 years
Chat Forum
Send em down.
-
Posted 4 months ago #
-
Will they appeal? They ought to given the flimsy prosecution evidence.
Posted 4 months ago # -
DNA evidence. Flimsy?
Posted 4 months ago # -
Risk of contamination of the DNA evidence and the pre-prejudicng of the jury.
Posted 4 months ago # -
the flimsy prosecution evidence
yes, we've all probably got the blood of a murder victim on our clothes, havent we.
[edit] pre-prejudicng of the jury. nothing to do with the eveidence?
Posted 4 months ago # -
Their defence did their best to rubbish it including trying to re-produce the contamination they suggested took place. Even the scientists for the defence couldn't replicate it.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Ignoring all the "evidence" One of them "can't remember" where he was the night a guy he is accused of murdering died, but his mum spontaneously remembered that he was at home. After 18 years of not remembering.
The defence have claimed the evidence is flawed, but as a whole package there are too many maybes in the defence and not enough in the prosecution.
Posted 4 months ago # -
mother should be done for blatently lying.....
Posted 4 months ago # -
minimum of 18 would have been more apt.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Yeah do them all, hunt them all down, hang them high...
Posted 4 months ago # -
Do you have a problem with these murderers being found guilty by a jury of their peers in a court of Law, Ohnohesback?
Posted 4 months ago # -
Sentenced as juveniles, which they were at the time of the offence. Would have been longer if they were adults at the time.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Yeah do them all, hunt them all down, hang them high...
do you not think the other members of the gang should be prosecuted then?
(hang em high isn't really relevant in the UK, is it).
Posted 4 months ago # -
At first glance these sentances do not seem that harsh. I am surprised, I would have expected longer prison terms.
Posted 4 months ago # -
I think there were two miscarriges of justice, the first was the original botched investigation and the second is this retrial which would not have occured without the hectoring of the Lawrence family, who have become the sainted guardians of the legal system leading to the scrapping of double jepardy.
Were I on that jury I'd have voted not guilty.
Posted 4 months ago # -
The sentance given is minimum terms so no option of a reduced sentance.
Theres nothing to say they'll get out at that point.
Besides 15 years is a long time when your hated.Posted 4 months ago # -
Were I on that jury I'd have voted not guilty.
because of your views on the Lawrence family's role in the retrial or because you've heard all of the evidence the jury did by sitting in court each day?
Posted 4 months ago # -
Were I on that jury I'd have voted not guilty
On what basis? Do you have all the facts the jury does?
That just sounds like a prejudice view which would have never seen you on the jury in the 1st place.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Were I on that jury I'd have voted not guilty.
Yes but you weren't thank god!!!!
Posted 4 months ago # -
Basded on the reporting I've heard. I don't think that there is the slightest possibilty of a fair trial given the circumstances and the politcal head of steam to obbtain a result.
Posted 4 months ago # -
I think there were two miscarriges of justice
Just two? I think you need to look into this case more throughly then.
Basded on the reporting I've heard
Oh in that case I take it all back. The fragments of the media you may have heard must be fact.Posted 4 months ago # -
Basded on the reporting I've heard
It's probably a good job we don't base all of the verdicts in jury trials on the bits of evidence the media choose to report, really.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Were I on that jury I'd have voted not guilty.
If you're ever called up for jury service, say something like that and with any luck you'll be deemed unfit to serve. Most jurors would be consider the evidence presented to them before making a decision like that.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Were I on that jury I'd have voted not guilty.
I suspect you'd have bin in a minority. Thankfully a jury has to deliver a verdict based on a majority decision, however.
this retrial which would not have occured without the hectoring of the Lawrence family, who have become the sainted guardians of the legal system leading to the scrapping of double jepardy.
As has now bin proven, the outdated Double Jeopardy rule would have meant at least one murderer would now be walking free. And far from it being just the Lawrence family 'hectoring' for this trial, there has bin a sustained campaign by all sorts of people and agencies, including former police officers, lawyers, the media and Human Rights campaigners.
This is a victory for British Justice.
Posted 4 months ago # -
what fred sed ^
hectoring of the Lawrence family
plus, i hardly think hectoring is an appropriate term when all you have been doing (for nigh on 2 decades) is looking for a young mans killer(s) to be brought to justice.
Posted 4 months ago # -
The double jeopardy rule was not bought about by the Lawrence's, it was before
Posted 4 months ago # -
hectoring of the Lawrence family
Their son was murdered in cold blood. They wanted Justice. They've got it.
Thanks to their 'hectoring' 2 murderers are in prison.
Were I on that jury I'd have voted not guilty.
As others above have asked, based on what? you are a moron.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Will they appeal? They ought to given the flimsy prosecution evidence.
You appeal on grounds of law, not fact. Whether the prosecution evidence is flimsy or not is a question of fact for the jury - an appeal court won't (well, shouldn't) interfere with that.Posted 4 months ago # -
Basded on the reporting I've heard. I don't think that there is the slightest possibilty of a fair trial given the circumstances and the politcal head of steam to obbtain a result.
If you've ever sat on the jury of a violent crime you'll know that there's absolutely no requirement for any kind of media intervention or political head of steam for people to jump to the conclusion that someone is guilty. In a trial I sat in 4 of jury were *convinced* the defendent was guilty because he looked it and had a nasty scar, the rest just wanted to get home and enjoy the rest of the week off work without having to deal with a case. In the end that one never got to a verdict (for other reasons).
Posted 4 months ago # -
politcal head of steam to obbtain a result
So you think the jury were influenced by politicians then?
Posted 4 months ago # -
mother should be done for blatently lying.....
I'd be interested to know if this ever happens. If the defendant is found guilty in a trial despite a witness providing them with an alibi then surely the verdict is not only stating that the defendant has done what the prosecucion claims but also that the witness is guilty of perjury. How many of these get followed up with convictions?
Posted 4 months ago # -
How many of these get followed up with convictions?
Suspect it's not in the public interest is it. Not much would be gained as far as I can see.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Not much would be gained as far as I can see.
Other than the very strong deterant that if you lie and protect criminals then you will be punished.
If she told the truth in the 1st place the Lawrences may not have been through 18 years of hell.
I certainly think it would be in the public interests to see criminals brought to justice and not protected.
Edit: How much has all the investigations and trials cost the public? again something that could have been avoided if they weren't protected with lies.
Posted 4 months ago # -
I agree with gravitysucks. The public interest is served by the courts of the land being taken very gravely. If a witness for either side can be established as having lied because they think they can get away with it that has to be a bad thing for justice and therefore public interest. Similarly I'd like to know what the reduction in sentence generally is for admitted wrong right from the off. I guess it's a dodgy line though - at what point does an innocent person feel compelled to admit guilt because the impact of the increase in their sentence and the potential charging of their family members they call as witnesses if it were to go again them becomes too large?
Posted 4 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
