Perjury

[joe-90]

Because he would be charged with murder - the others would not.

I asked how you knew, not how they do or don't. After all, you're making these brash and sweeping statements.

Is that the best you can do? You asked me my stance on the issue and I spent time typing it out - so answer my post.


"It's simple really. It will become clear that it is an unsafe conviction. If hanging were still around they wouldn't receive the death penalty as the conviction is unsafe. For example, no-one knows who delivered the fatal blow - so do you say, "I don't know which one is the murderer, so hang the lot of them and let God sort them out"? Well would you? It wasn't a trial it was a circus. English law is based on 'intent'. I can only be charged with a crime (other than road traffic offence) if it can be proven that I had 'intent' to commit that crime. In this case it would be 'intent' to murder Lawrence. The odds are that the racist mob (that I have no sympathy for) had the 'intent' to give Lawrence a 'good kicking' for being black. They chased him as a mob with this 'intent' until one of them pulled a knife and decided (with intent) to stab Lawrence. Even THAT isn't 'intent' to murder. It may well have been 'intent' to cause GBH. The police then offered one of the gang (Norris) immunity from prosecution if he 'sang'. Therefore they must have been of the belief that Norris did NOT deliver the fatal blow - or they could not do that. The next thing we hear is that Norris has been convicted of the crime the police were sure he didn't commit. Are you guys getting it yet? All those years and all those millions of pounds they just HAD to come up with something. Remember the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6? It's a stitch up for political reasons - but it will come unstuck is Strasbourg. Do you still think it is a safe conviction? Well do you?"

 

[cantaloup63]

"It's simple really. It will become clear that it is an unsafe conviction.

On what point of law?

If hanging were still around they wouldn't receive the death penalty as the conviction is unsafe.

As hanging isn't around, this is irrelevant

For example, no-one knows who delivered the fatal blow - so do you say, "I don't know which one is the murderer, so hang the lot of them and let God sort them out"?

That's not what has been said - they are guilty of being members of a group that committed murder

Well would you? It wasn't a trial it was a circus.

Define the difference

English law is based on 'intent'.

No it's not - it's based on actions

I can only be charged with a crime (other than road traffic offence) if it can be proven that I had 'intent' to commit that crime.

Not true - ignorance is no defence in law

In this case it would be 'intent' to murder Lawrence. The odds are that the racist mob (that I have no sympathy for) had the 'intent' to give Lawrence a 'good kicking' for being black.

You have no evidence of this being the sole "intent", and being a member of an armed group suggests more than "just a kicking"

They chased him as a mob with this 'intent' until one of them pulled a knife and decided (with intent) to stab Lawrence.

Thus pre-meditated, there was no self-defence here to "justify" the use of a weapon

Even THAT isn't 'intent' to murder. It may well have been 'intent' to cause GBH.

You can't be sure of that

The police then offered one of the gang (Norris) immunity from prosecution if he 'sang'. Therefore they must have been of the belief that Norris did NOT deliver the fatal blow - or they could not do that.

Not necessarily the case. It could be argued with some validity that if he "sang" then the others in the group would confirm that he was the actual knife user, so it was in his interest not to "sing"

The next thing we hear is that Norris has been convicted of the crime the police were sure he didn't commit.

Not true - see my last remark

Are you guys getting it yet?

Are you?

All those years and all those millions of pounds they just HAD to come up with something.

Yes, a conviction against those found guilty.

Remember the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6? It's a stitch up for political reasons - but it will come unstuck is Strasbourg.

Crystal ball reqauired - you have yet to provide a compulsive legal argument as to why precisely the conviction is legally unsafe

Do you still think it is a safe conviction? Well do you?"

I've answered this already

 

[spacecat]

Excellent response loopy

Arguing with j90

Is like eating yellow snow

No good for you, of no benefit and leaves a nasty taste in your mouth

 

[joe-90]

A loopy response more like. We'll end up paying them big money for false imprisonment.

 

[cantaloup63]

A loopy response more like. We'll end up paying them big money for false imprisonment.

 

[Blasphemous]

A loopy response more like. We'll end up paying them big money for false imprisonment.

Is that an opinion or prediction?

 

[cantaloup63]

A loopy response more like. We'll end up paying them big money for false imprisonment.

Is that an opinion or prediction?

Neither - it's the inane ramblings of an irrational twerp

 

[joe-90]

When the argument is lost the abuse begins.

 

[cantaloup63]

When the argument is lost the abuse begins.

Such as "loopy"

 

[joe-90]

It was Spacetw*t calling you that.

 

[cantaloup63]

It was Spacetw*t calling you that.

I replied to your elongated missive point by point and instead of countering it all you can do is repeat your foolish and unsubstantiated ramblings. I've warned you before about your fragile ego - it's once again coming to the fore. Shame on you

 

[joe-90]

I gave you my take on the matter. That's it. Dun.

 

[cantaloup63]

I gave you my take on the matter. That's it. Dun.

And yet you still cannot substantiate any of your claims of a mistrial or false conviction with hard evidence. Nor are you willing to respond to any of the specific questions or points I made out of courtesy to your request for a reply.

Discourteous and downright rude of you. Shameful behaviour indeed for someone of your clear intellect.


Fortunately all round, I'll not bother with you and your outrageous comments in future.

 

[joe-90]

We can't take it any further. In my opinion they've gone for murder and they won't make it stick. They knew this was the last chance to nail them so they've gone for it. However, in doing so they've left themselves wide open to an appeal. They should have gone for unlawful killing. I may be wrong but in 5 years time we might be debating the 'Eltham 2'. Only time can tell from now on.
Even the DNA evidence was contaminated. In any other case in history the prosecution would have dropped it (apart from the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6 that is). I can't say any more than that as I wasn't there at the time.

 

[spacecat]

Joe you are becoming a BORE

BTW they looking at trying to INCREASE! their sentences and apparently it CAN be done

They may have MURDERED as minors but they lied about it as adults for years and committed further crimes, one racially motivated as adults


They are DOING the time and maybe more