Jump to content

Stephen Lawrence murder: Dobson and Norris found guilty


PauloBarnesi

Recommended Posts

I am not happy that these people will already be in their 50's, and possibly 60's when they are released from prison for something that happened when they were juveniles. What kind of justice is that?

The sort of justice that they deserve, had they admitted their crimes at the time they would have long been free and forgotten.

They deserve their punishment even if it is delayed.

Now if you had asked what kind of justice it is for Stephen Lawrence now that would have been a good question.

It's not though, is it?

We still don't know who plunged the knife into Lawrence, so it's just a case of convicting someone, anyone....

Sure, they are unsavoury individuals, but harbouring views, however nasty, does not make you a murderer.

The only moment that the victim will get justice is if the killer is convicted. There is a percentage chance that has happened, but there is a greater chance that it never will happen.

Yes the others need to be found and brought to justice, but as the judge said, it doesn't matter who wielded the knife. They're all guilty. I can't see what part of that is questionable. You demonstrate violent and racist attitudes then go out with a gang who commits a violent and racist crime youre all as guilty as each other

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the others need to be found and brought to justice, but as the judge said, it doesn't matter who wielded the knife. They're all guilty. I can't see what part of that is questionable. You demonstrate violent and racist attitudes then go out with a gang who commits a violent and racist crime youre all as guilty as each other

Yes... we know what the judge said... just as we know what Lord Justice Goddard said in the Craig & Bentley case... yet the fact remains that a large proportion of the public saw it as a travesty of natural justice.

Thus in what we believe to be more enlightened and compassionate times, Bentley's conviction was quashed.

Personally, I can remember doing some pretty dumb things when I was a juvenile, and indeed as a young adult; but I was lucky... when I may not have deserved to get away with it, I did; and thankfully none of my peers dropped me in it by killing anyone... yet I grew up to become a valuable economic contributor to this society.

What is worse? Killing some innocent person because you are brought up in an atmosphere of ingrained hatred... or killing some other innocent person because you wish to profit by stealing their money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the others need to be found and brought to justice, but as the judge said, it doesn't matter who wielded the knife. They're all guilty. I can't see what part of that is questionable. You demonstrate violent and racist attitudes then go out with a gang who commits a violent and racist crime youre all as guilty as each other

Yes... we know what the judge said... just as we know what Lord Justice Goddard said in the Craig & Bentley case... yet the fact remains that a large proportion of the public saw it as a travesty of natural justice.

Thus in what we believe to be more enlightened and compassionate times, Bentley's conviction was quashed.

Personally, I can remember doing some pretty dumb things when I was a juvenile, and indeed as a young adult; but I was lucky... when I may not have deserved to get away with it, I did; and thankfully none of my peers dropped me in it by killing anyone... yet I grew up to become a valuable economic contributor to this society.

What is worse? Killing some innocent person because you are brought up in an atmosphere of ingrained hatred... or killing some other innocent person because you wish to profit by stealing their money?

Your posts get stranger and stranger. And that's starting from a pretty high level of strangeness.

As has been demonstrated ad nauseam, but apparently not enough to percolate your rhinocerous hide, the judge in the Bentley case misdirected the jury in law. He introduced his own personal prejudices to produce an unjust result. There is as far as I know no suggestion that the judge in the Lawrence case has done this. If you know of some reason for thinking this has happened, for god's sake say so and produce it, don't just keep alluding to it in vague and unattributable ways.

Bentley's conviction was quashed because he was seen not to be guilty of the crime he was charged with. It seems he was stitched up by the police, who probably fired the lethal shot themselves and chose to cover up their own lethal incompetence rather than address the issue honestly. There is no comparison between the two cases, as I have explained many times, never managing to penetrate your shield of ignorance. Norris and Dobson seem to be guilty, have nothing to say in their own defence.

You say you did some dumb things as a teenager. I'm sure you did. Did those dumb things extend to slashing to death someone on the basis of their skin colour? Do you intend to make a comparison between your "dumb things" and random racist murder? If so, perhaps you can explain more fully. If not, what's your point?

You seem to see Norris and Dobson as victims in this, rather than perpetrators. Is that how you see it? If so, why? If not, perhaps you could clarify|what you are intending to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your posts get stranger and stranger. And that's starting from a pretty high level of strangeness.

As has been demonstrated ad nauseam, but apparently not enough to percolate your rhinocerous hide, the judge in the Bentley case misdirected the jury in law. He introduced his own personal prejudices to produce an unjust result. There is as far as I know no suggestion that the judge in the Lawrence case has done this. If you know of some reason for thinking this has happened, for god's sake say so and produce it, don't just keep alluding to it in vague and unattributable ways.

Bentley's conviction was quashed because he was seen not to be guilty of the crime he was charged with. It seems he was stitched up by the police, who probably fired the lethal shot themselves and chose to cover up their own lethal incompetence rather than address the issue honestly. There is no comparison between the two cases, as I have explained many times, never managing to penetrate your shield of ignorance. Norris and Dobson seem to be guilty, have nothing to say in their own defence.

You say you did some dumb things as a teenager. I'm sure you did. Did those dumb things extend to slashing to death someone on the basis of their skin colour? Do you intend to make a comparison between your "dumb things" and random racist murder? If so, perhaps you can explain more fully. If not, what's your point?

You seem to see Norris and Dobson as victims in this, rather than perpetrators. Is that how you see it? If so, why? If not, perhaps you could clarify|what you are intending to say.

I'm afraid you are the one who is closed to reason, and my posts remain boringly consistent.

As for Goddard misdirecting the jury. As I explained, Bingham, whose report was uncontested, produced the first enquiry to overturn Goddard... several other enquiries produced exactly the opposite result. I further explained how and why the New Labour government achieved this meaningless masterpiece of legal wizardry.

Your idea the police fired the shot says everything about your warped beliefs. Craig himself has spent his whole life apologising for killing PC Miles and the distress caused to all concerned. Doubtless you also think George W Bush planned 9/11.

The fact that Dobson and Norris have consistently remained silent proves nothing. You may not know this, but defenants in this country have a right to remain silent. Perhaps in the days after the killing they felt intimidated by others. Perhaps they decided silence was their best defence. Perhaps they were just being loyal to their mates... and just perhaps they did not expect the police to tamper with the forensic evidence... a much more likely scenario than your explanation of the Bentley case.

As for seeing Dobson and Norris as yet more victims in this tragedy... yes, absolutely I do.

Finally, as a youngster I had a few car races. I drank and drove and I engaged in a goodly number of fracas... but I got away with all of them and none of my mates ever stabbed anybody. I was foolish but I was lucky. The point you seem unable to grasp is simply that I do not wish to see an entire life ruined because of some juvenile aberration, however catastrophic the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you go out with someone you know to be carrying a knife and have reason to believe they may use it (not definitely intend to use it, or definitely intend to kill), then if they kill someone with it in your presence you can expect to be charged with murder. Because that's what the law says. Seems reasonable to me.

Tell me what single iota of evidence did the prosecution introduce to show Dobson and Norris knew anything of the existence of any knives prior to the killing of Stephen Lawrence?

None at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my posts remain boring

Corrected for accuracy.

for Goddard misdirecting the jury. As I explained, Bingham, whose report was uncontested, produced the first enquiry to overturn Goddard... several other enquiries produced exactly the opposite result. I further explained how and why the New Labour government achieved this meaningless masterpiece of legal wizardry.

Goddard was a very strange person. He was the one who came (by which I mean ejaculated semen in his pants) every time he ordered someone to be flogged, or hanged. He was clearly a mad person, oddly given licence to practice his strange sexual peccadilloes at the cost of other people's lives. Check this.

There is also the question of whether Lord Goddard had a secret agenda. Oliver Cyriax notes that his clerk, Arthur Harris, had "to take a spare pair of the standard striped trousers to court on sentencing days. When condemning a youth to be flogged or hanged, Goddard always ejaculated". This leads to frightening speculation as to whether the Lord Chief Justice may have become a sort of judicial serial killer.

Now that is seriously deviant, and in any reasonable judicial system, someone whose evident delight in another's pain or death would not be allowed to gain sexual gratification by passing sentence in this way.

I note that you "stick up" for him ("Ooh, missus!")

Your idea the police fired the shot says everything about your warped beliefs. Craig himself has spent his whole life apologising for killing PC Miles and the distress caused to all concerned. Doubtless you also think George W Bush planned 9/11.

I quote the forensic evidence. It means that Craig did not fire the lethal shot, if you bother to read it. No doubt Craig, having fired shots, being much taken with his own reputation (he boasted of having 40 guns), would take credit for the killing. But the pathologist said that the calibre that killed PC Miles was not one that could be fired from Craig's gun. Inconvenient, I know. Apologies for that.

The fact that Dobson and Norris have consistently remained silent proves nothing. You may not know this, but defenants in this country have a right to remain silent. Perhaps in the days after the killing they felt intimidated by others. Perhaps they decided silence was their best defence. Perhaps they were just being loyal to their mates... and just perhaps they did not expect the police to tamper with the forensic evidence... a much more likely scenario than your explanation of the Bentley case.

As for seeing Dobson and Norris as yet more victims in this tragedy... yes, absolutely I do.

The days after the killing? We're talking eighteen **** years!

My point was that they chose to remain silent having been cautioned that the jury could draw an adverse inference for this!

Don't you get it? Don't you understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â