Justice - at last, after 18 years.

Does exactly what it says on the tin. Some of the nonsense contained herein may be very loosely related to The Sisters of Mercy, but I wouldn't bet your PayPal account on it. In keeping with the internet's general theme nothing written here should be taken as Gospel: over three quarters of it is utter gibberish, and most of the forum's denizens haven't spoken to another human being face-to-face for decades. Don't worry your pretty little heads about it. Above all else, remember this: You don't have to stay forever. I will understand.
Post Reply
User avatar
Randall Flagg
Gonzoid Amphetamine Filth
Posts: 363
Joined: 24 Apr 2006, 21:09
Location: London Village

R.I.P Stephen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16347953

Flagg
Top
User avatar
markfiend
goriller of form 3b
Posts: 21181
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 10:55
Location: st custards
Contact:
Contact markfiend

Well, partial justice. There's another three of the scumbags still walking free.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
Top
DeWinter
Utterly Bastard Groovy Amphetamine Filth
Posts: 920
Joined: 16 Oct 2005, 20:57

Strange to think it was the Daily Mail that made the murder into a cause celebre.I think any half-decent lawyer could get those two released on appeal though. The DNA evidence isnt that convincing, and apart from them being two very unpleasant people I don't see what else there really is.
"Vengeance. Justice. Fire and blood.."
Top
User avatar
markfiend
goriller of form 3b
Posts: 21181
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 10:55
Location: st custards
Contact:
Contact markfiend

The Daily Heil came damn close to prejudicing the trial(s) with that "Murderers" headline.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
Top
DeWinter
Utterly Bastard Groovy Amphetamine Filth
Posts: 920
Joined: 16 Oct 2005, 20:57

Well, quite. I dont honestly see how the convictions can stick if they claim they could never have recieved a fair trial and that the evidence could easily have been cross-contaminated. Mind you, cant see any lawyer wanting to touch their case with a bargepole.
"Vengeance. Justice. Fire and blood.."
Top
User avatar
markfiend
goriller of form 3b
Posts: 21181
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 10:55
Location: st custards
Contact:
Contact markfiend

DeWinter wrote:they claim [...] the evidence could easily have been cross-contaminated.
Well, that's the thing isn't it? AFAIK the cross-contamination claim doesn't stand up. This was all gone over in the trial. To get an appeal, don't they have to bring in new evidence?

And all the alleged prejudice in the world doesn't excuse Stephen Lawrence's DNA being found on Dobson's jacket.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
Top
DeWinter
Utterly Bastard Groovy Amphetamine Filth
Posts: 920
Joined: 16 Oct 2005, 20:57

markfiend wrote: Well, that's the thing isn't it? AFAIK the cross-contamination claim doesn't stand up. This was all gone over in the trial. To get an appeal, don't they have to bring in new evidence?

And all the alleged prejudice in the world doesn't excuse Stephen Lawrence's DNA being found on Dobson's jacket.
Chances are they are guilty, but the evidence as far as I can see is shonky. Leaving bags of evidence open in the same room and having it handled by people with no formal training isnt permitted now for that very reason. And the fact that this was the smallest amount of DNA evidence used in a British prosecution does at least offer doubt on how reliable that evidence really is.
"Vengeance. Justice. Fire and blood.."
Top
User avatar
markfiend
goriller of form 3b
Posts: 21181
Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 10:55
Location: st custards
Contact:
Contact markfiend

DeWinter wrote:Leaving bags of evidence open in the same room and having it handled by people with no formal training isnt permitted now for that very reason.
Like I say, I understand that the cross-contamination thing was brought up at trial and found not to stand up.
DeWinter wrote:And the fact that this was the smallest amount of DNA evidence used in a British prosecution does at least offer doubt on how reliable that evidence really is.
The amount is irrelevant though. It's not like a fingerprint where a partial print is of less evidential quality than a full print. Every cell (except red blood cells) has the full complement of DNA for the whole person.

I'm not exactly sure how good PCR DNA amplification has got these days, but in principle, a single cell's DNA is all that's needed for a match.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
Top
User avatar
Sita
Utterly Bastard Groovy Amphetamine Filth
Posts: 894
Joined: 29 Jan 2010, 15:45

markfiend wrote:I'm not exactly sure how good PCR DNA amplification has got these days, but in principle, a single cell's DNA is all that's needed for a match.
In ideal circumstances! But a friend of mine analysed old corpses' DNA for her biology master not too long ago, and from what she explained me, I understand that DNA breaks, falls into pieces, decomposes etc., just like any other thing organic. She said you'd typically find some broken pieces, shred them to powder, make it into a pudding, and then analyse that. She said that's why cross-contamination is such a problem, cause in real life conditions, you'd typically find a mess of snippets of different peoples' DNAs including your own and the neighbours' cat's.
Top
Post Reply

Return to “General Chat”