Summing up in Lawrence murder trial.

[potemkin]

Is the judge pointing them towards a not guilty.

He made the point, correctly, if they believe there is a risk the fibres found on the defendants clothes were transferred after the murder then they should acquit.

He then went on to say that the woman who did the forensic analysis and studied the storage patterns and the risk of cross-contamination and eliminated it may have a vested interest as it was her company who found this latest evidence. Not even the defence stooped that low.

However for all out there who claim this is a stitch up and a show trial the Judge and his comments show this is clearly not the case and these two people are getting a fair trial.

[Mafeking]

Mr Justice Treacy has stated with great firmness that sympathy for the bereaved family can play no part in how the jury reaches its verdict, nor may anger engendered by the vicious nature of the attack on the young man be allowed to influence them.

That is as it should be. It is no more or less than one would expect of a British judge. The case must be judged upon fact and nothing else, as all fair minded folk must agree.

However, in the event of the "wrong" verdict being returned we may reliably expect there to be calls and campaigns for the loosening and lessening of the strict standards of proof required in cases such as this. That is the danger.

Already we have a situation in which allegations - and I stress this word allegations - of rape, of sexual assault, and of paedophile acts are taken by the courts on a far stronger assumption of guilt on the part of the accused than is permissible for other crimes. In a normal case the prosecution must prove everything, the defendant nothing. There can be no other course if the Crown's subjects are to be protected from malicious prosecution, false allegations and victimisation by the state.

[potemkin]

Mr Justice Treacy has stated with great firmness that sympathy for the bereaved family can play no part in how the jury reaches its verdict, nor may anger engendered by the vicious nature of the attack on the young man be allowed to influence them.

That is as it should be. It is no more or less than one would expect of a British judge. The case must be judged upon fact and nothing else, as all fair minded folk must agree.

However, in the event of the "wrong" verdict being returned we may reliably expect there to be calls and campaigns for the loosening and lessening of the strict standards of proof required in cases such as this. That is the danger.

Already we have a situation in which allegations - and I stress this word allegations - of rape, of sexual assault, and of paedophile acts are taken by the courts on a far stronger assumption of guilt on the part of the accused than is permissible for other crimes. In a normal case the prosecution must prove everything, the defendant nothing. There can be no other course if the Crown's subjects are to be protected from malicious prosecution, false allegations and victimisation by the state.

Personally I think, whatever my views on this case, that the abolishing of double jeopardy was a basic and fundamental erosion of our civil liberties. It is shameful that all bar a few were happy to wave it on by.

Based on what I have heard about this case I would find it hard to convict given the risk of cross-contamination. However I have not heard all of the evidence. I am sure the jurors will reach the right verdict based on the evidence and summing up.

How many tries at a case does Plod and the CPS want ?

[Thomas Atkins]

Personally I think, whatever my views on this case, that the abolishing of double jeopardy was a basic and fundamental erosion of our civil liberties. It is shameful that all bar a few were happy to wave it on by.

Based on what I have heard about this case I would find it hard to convict given the risk of cross-contamination. However I have not heard all of the evidence. I am sure the jurors will reach the right verdict based on the evidence and summing up.

How many tries at a case does Plod and the CPS want ?

It is not plod or the CPS it is the Hidden Hand. Whites must ALWAYS be evil, guilty stupid, anything negative. Where all others are delightful. This court case should have been thrown out weeks ago when the "evidence officer" admitted to contaminating evidence due to bad practice.
If they get off, which they deserve to do, I hope they sue everyone in sight including all of the black pressure groups!

[potemkin]

It is not plod or the CPS it is the Hidden Hand. Whites must ALWAYS be evil, guilty stupid, anything negative. Where all others are delightful. This court case should have been thrown out weeks ago when the "evidence officer" admitted to contaminating evidence due to bad practice.
If they get off, which they deserve to do, I hope they sue everyone in sight including all of the black pressure groups!

Well neither you nor I can state they deserve to get off as we have not heard all of the evidence. We can give an opinion based on what we have heard. I would not convict on the basis of what I have heard of the contamination evidence.

If there is a "hidden hand" it is not that well hidden seeing as you can obviously see it. Are you related to Seymour

The rest of your rant is really conspiracy theory stuff.

[Arthur Newton]

Well neither you nor I can state they deserve to get off as we have not heard all of the evidence. We can give an opinion based on what we have heard. I would not convict on the basis of what I have heard of the contamination evidence.

If there is a "hidden hand" it is not that well hidden seeing as you can obviously see it. Are you related to Seymour

The rest of your rant is really conspiracy theory stuff.

naah - just bog standard nationalist whining self pity.

[Thomas Atkins]

Well neither you nor I can state they deserve to get off as we have not heard all of the evidence. We can give an opinion based on what we have heard. I would not convict on the basis of what I have heard of the contamination evidence.

If there is a "hidden hand" it is not that well hidden seeing as you can obviously see it. Are you related to Seymour

The rest of your rant is really conspiracy theory stuff.

No. Conspiracy fact. The football "racism" stool recently, none of it was theory it was all fact. Whites being persecuted for being white, the serial accuser Evra won his case without evidence FFS against the Liverpool player. Hanson called someone "coloured" the nutters went moon. The John Terry stuff, not theory at all. Think about what you write.

[Franken]

Is the judge pointing them towards a not guilty.

He made the point, correctly, if they believe there is a risk the fibres found on the defendants clothes were transferred after the murder then they should acquit.

He then went on to say that the woman who did the forensic analysis and studied the storage patterns and the risk of cross-contamination and eliminated it may have a vested interest as it was her company who found this latest evidence. Not even the defence stooped that low.

However for all out there who claim this is a stitch up and a show trial the Judge and his comments show this is clearly not the case and these two people are getting a fair trial.

I've followed this latest Lawrence murder trial which we, the public/taxpayer, were assured involved a 'break through' in new forensic evidence. Nothing of the sort as it has all proved to be rather suspect to all of it having been contaminated, yet the trial proceeded on. I would expect at least a hung jury and then more taxpayers money wasted on a new trial.

[Mike]

I've followed this latest Lawrence murder trial which we, the public/taxpayer, were assured involved a 'break through' in new forensic evidence. Nothing of the sort as it has all proved to be rather suspect to all of it having been contaminated, yet the trial proceeded on. I would expect at least a hung jury and then more taxpayers money wasted on a new trial.

If convicted appeals on grounds of unsafe convictions.

[bigmal]

Same old, same old - that's all there is to say on this farce!