Finally.....

[JamesW]

David Johnson talks a lot of sense in that last post, but is not entirely correct.

He states that "their sentence is a minimum one and cannot be changed". However, in the Bulger case already mentioned in this thread, Thompson and Venables were originally sentenced to a minimum of 8 years, later increased to 10 years, later still increased again to 15 years, and then eventually reduced back to 8 years. In the case of Jeremy Bamber he was originally given a minimum sentence of 25 years, later changed to a whole life tariff, and the sentence is currently being appealed in an effort to get that reduced.

The part of David Johnson's post which is exactly correct is this: "If the convicted were going to spill the beans the time to do it would have been in between the announcement of the guilty judgement and the sentencing. This would then have allowed the judge to take into account their cooperation on this matter." Yes that would indeed have been the time to do it. Now the police cannot offer any inducements to the men, which makes things a lot more complex. In such matters the door is never finally closed though.

[spider]

In the Bulger case politicians overruled the judiciary.

I think it was Michael "something of the night" Howard who increased Thompson and Venables sentence.

The European Court of Justice stepped-in and told him in no uncertain terms to "butt out".

The law has changed as a result of that case and the Judge sets the sentence and politicians have no authority to change anything.

[David Johnson]

Yessss, the law is not particularly straightforward.

You make a good point Spider about political interference in sentencing given to convicted criminals. Apparently the judge in the Dobson/Norris case had to use the relevant criminal justice act in force at the time of the Lawrence killing as opposed to what is the guidelines now. He also had to take onboard that they were both under 18 at the time.

JamesW is correct that sentences can be changed by the judiciary. I guess you have to have these checks and balances in place for the situation in which a judge throws a wobbler and gives a sentence out of all proportion.

Having said that the judgement given seemed as one would expect, very precise in terms of referencing the criminal justice act that applied at the time and going through the aggravating features one by one which resulted in the judge giving a sentence higher than the minimum denoted in the act of the day. So the chances of it being reduced by a higher court would seem very slim. I note that there have been complaints currently being reviewed that the sentence was too lenient.

CHeers
D

[one eyed jack]

Gusset Sniffer:
This is not flimsy it is indisputable evidence

But it was disputable. if not the case wouldnt have gone on as long and the accused woldnt have cited it was a mistake due to contamination.

Thats when it had to be explained when it got there when wet. So it was still flimsy which is why the 1 in a billion statistic of it being right had to be made fact.

Not sure how they arrived at that but who cares? It got a conviction. That could also be enough to win on appeal with a sharp defense lawyer but I hope I am VERY wrong

Just depends of Norris and Dobson are ok to lie down and do their time for the next 15 years

[Essex Lad]

spider wrote:

> In the Bulger case politicians overruled the judiciary.
>
> I think it was Michael "something of the night" Howard who
> increased Thompson and Venables sentence.
>
> The European Court of Justice stepped-in and told him in no
> uncertain terms to "butt out".
>
> The law has changed as a result of that case and the Judge sets
> the sentence and politicians have no authority to change
> anything.


That's not quite true. Who do you think passes the laws that judges have to follow?

I think most people would agree with Michael Howard rather than the ECJ when it comes to setting tariffs for murderers.

But yes in many cases it is a political decision to keep someone behind bars rather than a legal one...

[Meatus]

I have to agree again by saying it's not flimsy and it is indisputable in the court of law. That they were there during the attack and attacked Stephen Lawrence. It doesn't prove that either of the 2 are guilty of actually causing the knife wounds that ultimately killed Stephen. But since Dobson claims he wasn't near Well Hall Road and Norris claims he wasn't even out at the time, shows them to be liars.

The reason they had to show the blood was wet was to ensure there was no contamination with the clothing afterwards. But this is only because it's typical in all cases that if new forensic evidence is found after a number of years it is standard that the defence will claim contamination. Luckily for the investigation the forensic analysis team had made a detailed map of where the evidence had been stored and how it was stored and what with and proved conclusively that no contamination had occurred. Along with also showing that the blood stain got on Dobson's jacket when wet so as even if contamination had occurred it wasn't a factor with that blood stained as it was proved that the blood stain had not been transferred there from elsewhere as dried blood or later soaked into the fabric, but was deposited fresh.

[Meatus]

Interestingly during the original investigation when charges were first brought. It was a case against only 2 of the 5 accused Neil Acourt and Luke Knight. Who were charged with murder. The CPS though dropped the charge due to lack of evidence.

Then when the Lawrence's brought about their Private Prosecution it was only against 3 suspects, again Neil Acourt and Luke Knight but this time along with Gary Dobson. This time the 3 were aquitted. So it would appear from the outside looking in that the Police at least suspect that Neil Acourt and Luke Knight to be the main culprits or ringleaders and the possibility that it was one of those 2 who dealt the fatal blow's to Stephen. Unfortunately no forensic evidence was found on either of their clothing. So i'm wondering what new information has been revealed?

Also i only found out this today and it was the first i had heard of it but the police announced that there was a woman who called them 3 times during the early stages of the investigation and they stated that "they would like her to get back in touch with us as she may have vital information. We know who she is, and she knows who she is and she may have been a catalyst for the killing".

This is the first i have ever heard of this and what do the police mean by she may have been a "catalyst"?

[spider]

Essex Lad wrote

>>>>"That's not quite true. Who do you think passes the laws that judges have to follow?

>>>>I think most people would agree with Michael Howard rather than the ECJ when it comes to setting tariffs for murderers."

I'm sure that politicians pass the laws that provide the framework for the judiciary to implement.

They can still be overruled by International Courts though.

Whether most people agree with Michael "something of the night" Howard or not is immaterial.

The fact I was correcting was that today (unlike in the past), a politician can not come along and extend a sentence passed down by the judiciary.

Your last remark

>>> "But yes in many cases it is a political decision to keep someone behind bars rather than a legal one...""

If you mean here "A Politician's decision to keep someone behind bars", well perhaps in the past before Michael Howard's interference that was true, not any more though.

[Essex Lad]

spider wrote:
>
> >>> "But yes in many cases it is a political decision to keep
> someone behind bars rather than a legal one...""
>
> If you mean here "A Politician's decision to keep someone
> behind bars", well perhaps in the past before Michael Howard's
> interference that was true, not any more though.

I can't see any home secretary allowing, for example, Ian Brady or Ian Huntley out, can you? Harry Roberts has served longer than most who commit the same crime as him...

[lob on]

"They have not proven whether either of them had used a knife in the killing."

This was never established in court, so how is it "bollocks"