Quote by sauzee88While I share Fat Head's reservations I'm inclined to give justice a swerve here and just be glad two class A scumbags are off the street.
And Brookes is what???
Forgive my ignorance but why is is Brooks a scumbag?
Quote by Fat HeadI don't doubt for a second the people convicted were involved in the murder but I agree the trial has been a farce and imagine they would've been found 'not guilty' due to reasonable doubt if not for the media circus that has followed this case over the years.
The other lads involved must be shitting themselves now.
I wonder if the truth will ever come out about the incident and whether the 'alleged' stories of the murder being drug related, etc will ever come to light...
absolute bollocks that, perry mason. the media haven't got this verdict, despite what the daily fucking mail says. you too, tony parsons you penisless rat
Quote by sauzee88While I share Fat Head's reservations I'm inclined to give justice a swerve here and just be glad two class A scumbags are off the street.
And Brookes is what???
Forgive my ignorance but why is is Brooks a scumbag?
Is there any evidence at all in support of that? I'd be astonished if there was. Any competent barrister representing either of the two Defendants would have cross-examined him at length about such conduct. There were no such questions put to Brooks, despite him being a key Prosecution witness.
Is there any evidence at all in support of that? I'd be astonished if there was. Any competent barrister representing either of the two Defendants would have cross-examined him at length about such conduct. There were no such questions put to Brooks, despite him being a key Prosecution witness.
He was remanded in the late 90s for rape, has had a string of close shaves with the law over the years.
He was remanded in the late 90s for rape, has had a string of close shaves with the law over the years.
Remanded but not convicted I assume. Doesn't really take either Defendants case any further does it.
If you read back through my posts I never said it did, just answering questions from other users. for what it's worth I think he does sound like a bit of a nasty bastard but its not the point is it.
If you read back through my posts I never said it did, just answering questions from other users. for what it's worth I think he does sound like a bit of a nasty bastard but its not the point is it.
Forgive me, you're quite right you didn't. Some other folk might think it is the point though. It's not.
If you read back through my posts I never said it did, just answering questions from other users. for what it's worth I think he does sound like a bit of a nasty bastard but its not the point is it.
Forgive me, you're quite right you didn't. Some other folk might think it is the point though. It's not.
Correct that its not the point but I hadn't heard anything about his character until reading this. I did hear the police liasion officer (or whatever his title was) on the radio explaining how it had taken so long to get Brookes to agree to stand up in court as a witness, didnt trust the police etc. obviously didnt mention this. That doesnt mean Dobson and Norris didnt do it (their 'gang' come across as lowlife chav cunts )
The fundemental failing of the most corupt force in GB is were it all starts. I remember this case very well right in the beginning as it was a year after I was married and a year after I had travelled to London to watch my home town team play Orient in a play off game. In my younger days I strayed over the line when it came to football and often ended up with a crack across the head from the boys in blue, to cut a long story short for being a bit lairy that day, 6 yes6 of the Mets finest decided to smash me black and blue in a cell in east london. This is the biggest kicking I have ever taken, which left me with some some nasty injuries and some permanent scarring, when my solicitor challenged for criminal injuries, the feedback was, they had never heard of me and no Wrexham fans had been in the cells that day. Now my case is trivial compared to what has gone on with regards to murder, so Mr Cameron start getting to grips with the Capital's finest and lets have a proper public enquiry!!
Quote by oldbhoyThe fundemental failing of the most corupt force in GB is were it all starts. I remember this case very well right in the beginning as it was a year after I was married and a year after I had travelled to London to watch my home town team play Orient in a play off game. In my younger days I strayed over the line when it came to football and often ended up with a crack across the head from the boys in blue, to cut a long story short for being a bit lairy that day, 6 yes6 of the Mets finest decided to smash me black and blue in a cell in east london. This is the biggest kicking I have ever taken, which left me with some some nasty injuries and some permanent scarring, when my solicitor challenged for criminal injuries, the feedback was, they had never heard of me and no Wrexham fans had been in the cells that day. Now my case is trivial compared to what has gone on with regards to murder, so Mr Cameron start getting to grips with the Capital's finest and lets have a proper public enquiry!!
The forensic evidence in the case is extremely weak and quite honestly does not prove the guilt of the two defendants to the standard of “beyond all reasonable doubt”. There are real problems with using 18 year old previously examined evidence handled in a completely different era of forensic collection and then applying modern DNA amplification techniques. The head of the forensic laboratory himself is on record as saying he could not guarantee there had been no cross contamination. The same officers dealt with both the suspects and evidential samples from the deceased’s clothing which were then stored at some point in the same location in unsealed bags. The reason the defence could find no forensic scientist to give evidence on their behalf is really quite obvious. Who in their right mind would wish to risk their career in the defence of these notorious defendants and face the full vitriolic abuse of the left and race relations industry who would brand them as racist defending killers already found guilty in the court of public opinion.
Erm, I don't think the fact that the Defendants were unpopular amongst some, although it seems not all, sections of the community would have disuaded an forensic expert from supporting the Defence. Experts, and indeed lawyers, regularly represent Defendants against whom there is far more vitriol than those in the Lawrence case. Ian Huntley, Peter Sutcliffe, Robert Black, the list is endless. We'll never know precisely why the Defence didn't call any forensic expert evidence of their own, but the most obvious conclusion is that none would support their theory.