Norris and Dobson

See you lads



[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16347953[/url

Two nasty racist killers locked up for life. Good to see justice finally done.

It's a disgrace it took this long. Stephen's father spoke at a union conference I was on in 1997, and he was hopeful then. To think it's taken another 15 years. He and others have tirelessly campaigned. I hope they get some kind of peace at last.

I heard him speak at a TUC conference I was reporting years back. Very moving. I subsequently met – for work – Doreen Lawrence too.

Their dignity was quite amazing.

The system, eventually, has done what it is there to do.

At last the bastds have got their comeuppance.

But didn't witnesses say it was a bigger group than two who killed Stephen Lawrence?
That being so, are there are others still at large who need banging up?

My understanding it that there was specific, new forensic evidence that pertained to two of the group.

The Met says that the case is not closed.

There was a report in the late nineties that identified five prime suspects, three of whom had already been tried in a case which collapsed due to lack of evidence. Norris wasn't one of those but Dobson was.

Double jeopardy prevented a retrial. The double jeopardy rules were changed, with some protections to prevent abuses. New evidence against Dobson allowed him to be retried along with Norris, but no such evidence for the other two already tried. One has never faced trial.

I think justice has been seen to have been done but whether it has I am not so sure? What about the other three? Who actually committed the murder?

I think this case is far too murky and I think a line has been drawn so quickly underneath it that it has left others who may be guilty off

I disagree on the "so quickly" – it's almost a generation.

But yes, I do understand why people might feel a tad suspicious.

As mentioned previously, the case remains open on the Met's books, apparently. This case was only possible – as I understand it – because of developments in forensic science and technology. Who is to say what may occur on those fronts in the future?

Credit to Paul Dacre and the Daily Mail for not letting it lie.

More credit to Stephen's parents.

Can you honestly see the Met going deeper into the case knowing 2 men have now been found guilty? Don't get me wrong I think more than 2 did it however I think the Met will (again) unfortuantly let this drift away now

I can absolutely see it, on the basis that the Met needs to be seen to do things properly after a series of cock ups.

Bit easy to criticise the police,isn't it ?
I don't think that defender of the indefensible Mr Mansfield did very well when he tried prosecuting in this matter;and he had the easier task via a private prosecution.
There are difficulties when Labour MP's are currently banging on about joint enterprise.
This MP is black and won't send her child to a school situated in the area she represents.[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/29/gangs-joint-enterprise-unfair-policeStory[/url

There are also a number of others - who unlike the MP did not attend that democracy which is Cambridge University - and they have numerous meetings on the subject -[url=http://londonagainstinjustice.wordpress.com/Scroll Down[/url

Credit to the Daily Mail for their stance back at the time.

Don't like this story at all. There was only ever going to be 1 outcome, and in not this trial, then in the next or the 1 after that. Have an awful lot of sympathy for family,friends and victims of crime, but a few questions arise.
1/ Did any eyewitnesses put any of the 5 accused at the crime scene?
2/ Would it have taken 3 trials to get a guilty verdict if it was white on white or black on black?
3/ How convenient for a speck of blood to be found matching the accused.
4/ What are the odds for an appeal?
5/ Was'nt 1 of the DNA " experts" discreditted during questioning?
6/ Considering the police 1st thought this was drug related, what info (if any) did they have about Stephen Lawrences' background?

Don't get me wrong, what I have read and remember reading of these scum, then either justice or rough justice has been done, but I smell media frenzy and PC obsessives having a big say in the outcome.

Genuine question - what was the Daily Mail's stance in 1993 (not 1997)?

I can see how it would link them being at the scene, but how does this prove they killed him?

The two who have gone down are nasty pieces of work.

Nevertheless something doesn't ring right about this case. Seems like trial by media, some questionable forensics and the overwhelming need for someone to be found guilty of whaty was a horrid, racially motivated crime.

Would not surprise me if the Criminal Cases Review Commission got hold of it and the convictions were ruled unsafe on appeal.

When you are going on the information you hear in the press it is easy to have questions about the verdict ( i know i did) BUT as more information about the evidence comes out it does seem more convincing.

I have a feeling that the judge and the prosecution did everything they could to make it appeal proof. However, the decision by the defence not to call forensic experts to challenge the prosecution case seems odd. Were they incompetent, not confident it could be challenged or are they saving it for an appeal.

I just hope that the ACOURT's get their comeuppance

1. Apart from the deceased's friend, who was running for his life, there were no eyewitnesses.
2. Probably not, since if it had been white on white, it may well have been properly investigated in the first place. As today hopefully it would now be.
3. How absurd. A conspiracy "plant" theory of yours, is it? Even the defence didn't run that one. The bloodstain in the jacket was dried into the weave. It was a microscopic drop of blood, but the significance of it is that it HAD dried into the weave - meaning (obviously) that it had to have been in liquid form in order to sink INTO the weave. As it was Lawrence's blood, that sort of clinched it.
4. I had a look on Oddschecker but the bookies aren't offering any.
5. No.
6. They knew his background was that prior to the night in question he was alive. they also knew he was black, and therein lay the foundations of how it took 18 years to get to today. WTf are you suggesting with that question, anyway?

At least the racist scumbags will spend most of the rest of their lives in jail, but it's little cause for celebration, and of course the rest of the gang who attacked Stephen Lawrence have never been convicted and probably now never will be.

But there has been no media frenzy. At all. There will be something of a splurge now the convictions have been secured, but while the trial took place - what frenzy would this be?

Last. unless you can give us at least some clue about your startingly barking suggestion as to how "PC obsessives" have influenced the conviction of these two, I can't comment on this absurdity. Who are these obsessives? Nelson Mandela maybe? Macpherson?

It's certainly not difficult, especially given the cack-handed way they went about the investigation from the first moment they attended the incident. From sheer incompetence to potential corruption, the Met failed spectacularly from beginning to end.

Have a read of what [url=http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr221/lawrence.htmPaul Foot[/url has to say. Or take a look at "Justice for Stephen" once it appears on the ITVplayer site.

Bit of background [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/how-the-press-ignored-the-lawrence-story--then-used-it-to-change-britain-6284645.htmlHERE[/url mate. Maybe Dacre was after a bit more plastering?

So like the rest of the media then, the square root of feck all. Some of this praise of the Daily Mail is pretty sickening tbh

The two convicted will be sentenced today - but not at today's prices. Because of their age at the time of the offence, they must be sentenced as juveniles. Also, because at that time the element of 'racially aggravated' offending (which would mean an adult would serve a minimum of 30 years) had not yet been brought in, it will also not apply. So they will be ordered to be 'detained at her majesty's pleasure' and will be given a minimum term before they can apply for parole which is likely to be unfairly short to most eyes.

It is to be hoped that any parole hearing will not grant the application unless they have admitted their offences and given a full and frank account to the police of who was there and who did what.

I don't remember a national newspaper,before or since,risking the law of libel in this country,in pursuit of justice.
Just for cod'head I shall give you an example of where newspapers failed - of course now we all know News Corporation were in bed with the Labour Party.
You will recall the Soham murders - 2 young girls murdered by Ian Huntley.
David Blunkett MP - the home secretary - demanded the sacking of the Chief Constable of Humberside/Hull.
The Hull police authority refused to comply.
Blunkett was,while home secretary,having carnal knowledge of the wife of another man,and sorting out a passport for her slave/home help/cleaner.
The police officers avoiding the nasty people and spending their time protecting Blunkett and the press would know this.People in the home office would not 'blow the whistle' or they would lose their job - like the bloke from Sheffield did when he went to the press about that female politician whose name I cannot recall.
Shortly after Blunkett left his post and John Reid took over 52 people lost their lives in the most horrific manner on London Transport.Although Reid stated the Home Office was 'not fit for purpose' and British born terrorists had been allowed to do what they want during the tenure of Blunkett - the responsibility of the then home secretary was never called into question.
Perhaps cod'head feels - just like he does regarding HULL FC - that once a person leaves office they are no longer held responsible.

With regard to the main topic - huge respect to Duwayne Brooks - who must have been traumatised and terrified by the whole episode and what followed.
He did write a book which was withdrawn sometime later on the request of Doreen Lawrence.
I recall a female solicitor assisted him greatly and he stayed with friends in the midlands.
Would certainly have experienced post traumatic stress disorder.
He has shown remarkable courage in a number of ways.
Be nice if the modern press could follow the examples shown earlier by the Daily Mail - and Duwayne Brooks
who certainly sussed Michael Mansfield pretty quickly.