ordnance Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 ordnance - why do you presume they are innocent? Mungler - just read your post - agreed. :good: I dont they probably are guilty . I am just saying that just because a jury finds Someone guilty doesn't mean the are. I just have a problem with the attention this case has got compared with numerous others that might if they are lucky get a mention in a newspaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 I dont they probably are guilty . I am just saying that just because a jury finds Someone guilty doesn't mean the are. I just have a problem with the attention this case has got compared with numerous others that might if they are lucky get a mention in a newspaper. I suggest you campaign for those cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unapalomablanca Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 What is the problem with two killers being convicted. I rely on the judge and jury, but the world and his wife seem to rely on "a feeling". They are not at the trial, hear no evidence, but form an opinion based on what? Priceless. 18 years of trial by media, hearsay, bias, and miraculously produced evidence after 18 years. Thats the 'feeling' people have. Priceless! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onefulham Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) It's just a fact of life that some murders capture the public imagination, sometimes for the shear horror, sometimes the timing, sometimes they just do .I think Stephens parents should be praised for not letting us forget the matter, I agree it has become something of a left wing cause but that doesn't mean us normal thinking people should not care as well. Edited January 3, 2012 by onefulham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) 18 years of trial by media, hearsay, bias, and miraculously produced evidence after 18 years. Thats the 'feeling' people have. Priceless! Get back to reality. They have been convicted by people who heard the full trial. They have their right of appeal. miraculously produced evidence after 18 years Are you saying the witnesses are bent? Let's have it in the open. Edited January 3, 2012 by Gordon R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 18 years of trial by media, hearsay, bias, and miraculously produced evidence after 18 years. Thats the 'feeling' people have. Priceless! Actually it was the advance in blood spatter science and a very nasty covert video of them that did for them (the video will get released to the media now and I suggest you hold tight and watch it before going further) Incidentally, after all this time and all this attention no other names have ever been put in the frame. Go figure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unapalomablanca Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Get back to reality. They have been convicted by people who heard the full trial. They have their right of appeal. Are you saying the witnesses are bent? Let's have it in the open. But that is the reality. Do you remember when the daily mail printed that they were guilty before any trial back in the 90s. They challenged the suspects to sue them. They dident sue cos they were skint. If you strip away the emotion and concentrate on the concept of what the justice system is about anyone can see that this is totally flawed. Do you think that there are many appeal solicitors who would want to take on an appeal for so called 'racist killers'. People on t.v. have made minor jokes about race and have never worked again! Edited January 3, 2012 by unapalomablanca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floating Chamber Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 This isn't justice, stephen lawrence has been used as some kind of anti racism totem for the last two decades and I doubt the powers that be care who did it as long as someone got convicted. Can anyone point me to a white persons black murderers being pursued with the same vigour or being repeatedly being put on trial until the 'correct' verdict was reached? I don't know whether they did it or not but the methods used to secure a conviction stink, along with the fact that they appear to have spent the last 18yrs being harrassed by the authorities despite being found not guilty originally. Totally agree Andy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 I suggest you campaign for those cases. I shouldn't have to, murder is murder equal time and resources should be allocated to each investigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unapalomablanca Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Actually it was the advance in blood spatter science and a very nasty covert video of them that did for them (the video will get released to the media now and I suggest you hold tight and watch it before going further) Incidentally, after all this time and all this attention no other names have ever been put in the frame. Go figure? Mungler, the video has been around for years and everyone has already seen it. It has already been ruled insufficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) But that is the reality. Do you remember when the daily mail printed that they were guilty before any trial back in the 90s. They challenged the suspects to sue them. They dident sue cos they were skint. If you strip away the emotion and concentrate on the concept of what the justice system is about anyone can see that this is totally flawed. Do you think that there are many appeal solicitors who would want to take on an appeal for so called 'racist killers'. People on t.v. have made minor jokes about race and have never worked again! That would be a barrister for any appeal. Yes - there would be any number. ordnance - you need to deal with the real world. Ideally all cases would have 100% effort - sadly economics don't allow. Why would the lack of resources on other cases make these people innocent? The "logic" seems flawed. Are you saying the forensic witnesses are bent? Straight question, which seems to be avoided. Edited January 3, 2012 by Gordon R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unapalomablanca Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) That would be a barrister for any appeal. Yes - there would be any number. Are you saying the forensic witnesses are bent? Straight question, which seems to be avoided. No avoidance you silly man, if you look at my original first post, i said that it could have been easy for all the exhibits to be dumped in the same bag. Quite often the left hand doesnt know what the right hand is doing in bureaucratic life. Of course the forensic witnesses were straight, they dealt with what they were given at the time. Doesnt even a twit like you think that anything could happen in 18years?!!! Its well known that in any murder case the first FORTY EIGHT hours are the most crucial!..... Get it yet!!!!! Edited January 3, 2012 by unapalomablanca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Mungler, the video has been around for years and everyone has already seen it. It has already been ruled insufficient. Not unedited. Yep, I saw extracts when it was released first time around. Anyways, that goes to motive. The forensic stuff did the rest. I haven't seen or heard that evidence but the jury seemed happy.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unapalomablanca Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Not unedited. Yep, I saw extracts when it was released first time around. Anyways, that goes to motive. The forensic stuff did the rest. I haven't seen or heard that evidence but the jury seemed happy.... I just cant see there being a 'movement' of support for these convicts and their appeal. There is no way our biased media would get behind it as they have got exactly what they wanted. My view is, are they horrible nasty blokes? probably, are they killers? I Dont know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 No avoidance you silly man No need to make yourself an idiot. Perhaps it is as well you were not on the jury. Those who heard the evidence were convinced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 To be honest I was very surprised when I heard the guilty verdict on the radio this aft';I really thought they were going to be found not guilty,based on much being made throughout the trial of the possibility of contaminated forensic evidence. The jury are in the best position as anyone can be however,to arrive at a verdict,so fair play to them. Not allowing the extensive coverage this crime has attracted over the last 20 years bias any opinions would not be easy either,I recall seeing the video surveillence footage of them 'practising' stabbing attacks many years ago. Personally I don't care in this case if they're guilty or not;if they didn't do it they were certainly there at the time and therefore know without doubt who did do it,and as far as I'm concerned for not coming forward,can rot in jail(which unfortunately they wont). This isn't the end of this,and no doubt there will be an appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unapalomablanca Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 No need to make yourself an idiot. Perhaps it is as well you were not on the jury. Those who heard the evidence were convinced. Lets call it quits gordon, if we met we would probably like each other, i respect your view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Lets call it quits gordon, if we met we would probably like each other, i respect your view. Fair enough. I will be genuinely interested in seeing the outcome of any appeal. :good: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) That would be a barrister for any appeal. Yes - there would be any number. ordnance - you need to deal with the real world. Ideally all cases would have 100% effort - sadly economics don't allow. Why would the lack of resources on other cases make these people innocent? The "logic" seems flawed. Are you saying the forensic witnesses are bent? Straight question, which seems to be avoided. Whether people are guilty is irrelevant. As for economics why should more resources and money be allocated to one case over another. In some cases they might say there is a good chance of a convection and allocate more money and resources. They can hardly say that in this case. Edited January 3, 2012 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Is that the first judge and jury or the second or just the one that gave you a verdict that you would prefer? What verdict would you have preferred? What is your problem with a conviction for an unprovoked gang murder? Do you have evidence that would have prevented their conviction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 What verdict would you have preferred? What is your problem with a conviction for an unprovoked gang murder? Do you have evidence that would have prevented their conviction? I believe this case has been relentlessly pursued for politically correct reasons above all else and I also believe that due to its long standing and high profile nature that the jury knew what was expected of them. The evidence hardly seems to be overwhelming or they would have been convicted the first time instead of being ejected from the court to fight their way thru a baying mob and then pursued as guilty from thereon in. I wonder how many millions have been spent over the past 18yrs to achieve these flaky convictions, and how much better spent it could have been used if political correctness hadn't deemed otherwise. I have no reason to defend these people but I do like the law to be applied equally and I also want value for money from my police force not millions being spent on pursuing agendas that have little to do with justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksdad Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 BBC1 now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raja Clavata Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Let's wait for all the details of this recent trial to come out before suggesting a mis-trial of justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 I believe this case has been relentlessly pursued for politically correct reasons above all else and I also believe that due to its long standing and high profile nature that the jury knew what was expected of them. The evidence hardly seems to be overwhelming or they would have been convicted the first time instead of being ejected from the court to fight their way thru a baying mob and then pursued as guilty from thereon in. I wonder how many millions have been spent over the past 18yrs to achieve these flaky convictions, and how much better spent it could have been used if political correctness hadn't deemed otherwise. I have no reason to defend these people but I do like the law to be applied equally and I also want value for money from my police force not millions being spent on pursuing agendas that have little to do with justice. Very good post,and good points well made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Very good post,and good points well made. Well you see I don't see it that way at all, a lad got murdered by a gang of thugs who should have but didn't get put away at the time for a great many reasons we could all argue about till the cows come home. Things eventually caught up with them and now they will get put away for a small amount of time (which you and I would consider heinously unjust had it been a member of our family the scum had killed incidentally) You're reading a bit too much into this and forgetting to remember the good that's come out of it. Murderers belatedly put away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.