egafd.com

I've been stopped and asked questions by the police who were polite and cordial with me. I had nothing to hide and I thought them jovial.

I've been pulled over because my car is registered under my company name and the officer had a giggle.

I didn't mind. What if it were not me driving my car?

I've also been pulled on many a porn shoot in the great outdoors and on the motorway too but lets keep this on topic eh? !happy!

In answer to your question, some white officers cannot spot the difference between a rough neck bad man yardie from a church going studious type of coloured chap, more so if he aint from around here

I know I joke about the "its cos I iz black innit?" on here from time to time but the truth is I find that laughable when I hear it and so do a great many black people I know. We know there is enough bad bwoys among us to warrant the questioning because more foten than not you pick the right type they will be packing blades. Usually they look suspicious in hoodies with shifty eyes and sudden movements, not smiley all the whiley and lively like me...You don't think I get laid on my stunning good looks alone, surely?

I am confused I don't understand your point? And don't see why a former policeman is bringing up these points that black people have a 5 in 1 chance more of being stop than anyone else. It seems like he just taking his five minute without really giving an answer.

I know this is off topic, but

I lived in Brixton, it is a difficult place to live, it isn't funny when people try to rob you at knife point but there are many good people there, and you end up feeling a hate for the police and hate for much of the trouble you find there, I remember the SPG and have seen them operate in very bad manner with people I have known to be completely innocent yes black guys, and the police where fucking very rude to everyone at those times. It has been a problem for a long time, but on the other hand, how do you stop someone pulling a knife on you and taking your money when all you are doing is trying to live a normal life, coming home late at night from work was often a real worry for me, often I would have to take taxi from Stockwell to Myatts field estate, it was just not safe.

Meatus: "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."

Meatus is right. The evidence appears to be solid.

lob on tries to cast doubt on the evidence by saying that "the evidence was a small spot of blood", but if it was a bigger spot of blood the DNA profile obtained from it would be exactly the same. The significance of the blood is that Lawrence's blood was there at all, not whether it was a big spot or a little spot. A little spot is not flimsy evidence, it's just as good evidence as a big spot. Even a gallon of blood would not be more useful in this case than a little spot.

davey and one eyed jack have also sought to cast doubt on the evidence by claiming that it's 'flimsy' but neither of them chose to give any explanation as to what brought them to that conclusion. In any event the summary of the DNA evidence given by Meatus appears to be sound, and the comments by lob on, davey and one eyed jack do not appear to be based on any known facts or any valid scientific argument.

the comments by lob on, davey and one eyed jack do not appear to be based on any known facts or any valid scientific argument.

They talk complete bollocks and best ignored!

Thanks Gusset Sniffer !happy!

Obviously you didnt read my posts properly

One eyed jack wrote................................................... The police shouldve done their jobs right at the time. Not rely on flimsy forensic evidence by lab geeks 18 years later.

There is nothing flimsy about the evidence. Blood stains were found using new techniques that weren't available 18 years ago.

I hope those other obnoxious cunts who terrorised the neighbourhood are shitting themselves now. I hope they get what they deserve!

Yes. You are quite right.

I used the word "flimsy" because, after 18 years, it took a cold case review to open and forensic science to get these two. I thought they wouldve been exonerated because of it.

If they wheedled their way out of it with the contamination angle then these two would be laughing in the boozer tonight

Yes they can and did get a conviction on "flimsy"...Who works out these statistics they feed us when they say one in a billion chance?

The same science that worked for couldve also gone against so flimsy it is then

I would also go as far to say that the real clincher for their conviction lay in their criminal records and that damning undercover video

Forensics is not an exact science either.

Dont get me wrong. I'm glad for the conviction but I also hate to think the wrong person is going down for a crime he may not have committed.

If he is as innocent as he claims then he shouldnt think twice about grassing up the people involved because I strongly suspect by his associations that he knew who did it if he didnt do it himself

The jury found them guilty not the Police.

The jury looked at the new evidence before them. Blood, fibres and hair were found on the two.

This is not flimsy it is indisputable evidence. These cunts were there!!!

These two are as guilty as the person that used the knife. They all attacked together like a raging pack of dogs. All equally guilty.

"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."

Not sure exactly what you mean by the last sentence above. Basically, their sentence is a minimum one and cannot be changed i.e. reduced from the duration stated by the judge.

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.

If at a later date they provide info on their associates this no doubt would be taken into account but no earlier than the review to decide whether they should be released after fulfilling their minimum sentence or not.

Cheers
D