egafd.com

"They will appeal, human rights and all that, could be 4 years max they serve."

The shortest sentence ever served for murder in this country is 8 years, a record held jointly by the two "Bulger killers", Venables and Thompson. The reason for the time served being a record shortest term for murder is that they were only 10 years old when they committed the crime.

tuf766's opinion that Dobson and Norris will smash this record in half and get to serve only 4 years seems improbable. Or as one eyed jack put it - a hoot.

one eyed jack wrote:

> Essex lad wrote:
>
> And a final point: was Stephen Lawrence the total innocent
> portrayed in the media? Even if the stories I have heard are
> true, that doesn't mean he deserved to die but it does perhaps
> mean that things are not quite so cut and dried...
>
> I've heard this too, usually by someone who would like to see
> Stephen Lawrence as less than saintly to somehow justify the
> actions that happened to him and its funny how people are
> critical of the new evidence that has come to light but have no
> evidence to suggest he was less than the studious young lad he
> was purported to be.

It isn't really to justify the behaviour of Norris et al but say if the scenario was that a drugs deal went wrong and someone was killed then that would be very different from an innocent passer-by being set on at random. I'm not saying the scenario is what happened but it would throw a different light on the matter...
>
> There is no forensic evidence to suggest otherwise.

There can't be forensic evidence on whether or not he was a drug dealer.
>
> I think the he said/ she said stuff should be discounted simply
> because it was 18 years ago and nothing can be proven and EVEN
> if he was a bit of a naughty boy, this should have no bearing
> on why he would be jumped by 20 white guys in "a swarm" in what
> appeared to be a racist in motive attack.

See the scenario above and if you discount the possible other side, surely you should also discount the hearsay surrounding Norris et al. After all, it was 18 years ago.

>
> If he had a knife and stabbed someone else then that would
> shift my opinion on things considerably
>
> All that rumour seems to sugges is that simply because he was
> black he must have been a criminal. Is that to to say every
> white guy is a kiddie fiddler because he is white?

No, look at Michael Jackson. He wasn't white... oh hang on...

>
> ...Well thats the rumour I heard. Personally I don't believe it
> though.
>
>

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rison.html

they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Further to the issue of sentence, we should not rule out the possibility of one of the convicted men offering to give evidence as to who else was involved in the killing. That would no doubt get the sentence down a bit.

Sorry Essex Lad I'm not sure where we are getting with this.

To pontificate on rumours seems irrelevant to the issue 18 years on.

What you suggest could be applied to any victim. Does that make it less serious as in to suggest he had it coming to him?

I just wonder what is to gain from speculating things may have been more than they were.

Sorry, I posted under Fayes profile by mistake

Unlike a lot of people, I am not so quick these days to assume they are as guilty as the evidence may suggest.

They may well be as guilty as hell but I dont really know that. if as they say, they are innocent then they should just give up the people involved.

I doubt their friends would have the same loyalty to go down for a murder they didn't commit.

Then again they could be just saying it because they believe their own lie and in denial of what they have done. It has been known.

Who knows?

I would never jump to any conclusion that someone is guilty of a crime if there were doubts. However look at the video replies of these scumbags playing with knives,the sick racist language,their history of terrorising blacks in the neighbourhood,and Stephen's blood on the collar of one of them and you don't have to be Columbo to know who killed Stephen.

The pair have been known for years to be racists. And Dobson as much as admitted so on the stand. And the tape quite clearly shows them to be racist and capable of violence.

I've saw some posts that seem to think the DNA evidence is flimsy, i cannot however agree with that. On Dobson's Jacket there is 2 pieces of evidence. A fibre from Stephen's shirt. And more importantly blood from the victim. It is also known that when the blood stained the garment it was wet, which meant it had to have got on the jacket, either as Stephen was attacked or just afterwards. The blood is one and a billion chance not to be Stephen Lawrence's. And on Norris' clothes there was 4 pieces of DNA. 3 pieces of fibre coming from Stephen's Clothes and a strand of hair that is 1 in 100,000 chance of not being Stephen Lawrence's.

I would hardly call that flimsy. Though having not thouroughly checked out all the case documents. To the best of my knowledge this DNA evidence only proves that Dobson and Norris were there during the attack or involved in it. I don't think it conclusively proves that either of them inflicted the fatal stab wound on Stephen. So it appears that although they took part in a gang attack that resulted in the loss of an innocent man's life and quite rightly will be serving time for that it seems that the real killer of Stephen could possibly be in the clear. The CPS refused to prosecute the Acourts and Knight due to lack of evidence and no DNA was found on their clothing.

I too have thought about, what if Dobson or Norris weren't the ones that inflicated the fatal wound. Would then when inside decide to co-operate with the police in order for a more lenient sentance? But i doubt it, since both are known racists from a criminal background who have spent time in jail they know what happens inside to 'rats' and 'grasses' and the fact they are known racists would probably lead me to believe they will get together in prison with some far-right group or 'neo-nazi' thugs and keep their mouth's shut!

There was some talk about new information the police have received in the wake of the convictions at least something was said in the media about this late yesterday, I would think if you're in your mid 30's and you're sitting there in jail and weren't the one who put the knife in, you'd be thinking come forward or I am going spill the beans!

They have not proven whether either of them had used a knife in the killing. If you are not the one that did the crime but knew that others at the time had in possession a weapon and intended to use it you are still guilt and also guilt of withholding information. The legal term is "Joint enterprise"(or here is how you solve a murder when you don't know who did it!)

I don't hear anyone questioning this case which sucks of the PC world, when we have some ex copper from Brixton on the TV loading questions about why so many black youths are stopped and questioned by the police, what has that to do this case? I don't know, anyone haver an answer?