The Judge is going to apply 1993 sentencing laws to the case when he jails the pair today.
Yet Dobson was convicted because the Double Jeopardy law was quashed in 2003. Ten years AFTER the murder. Make sense? :rolleyes:
Also, if a guy was found guilty of a murder in 2012 that he had commited in 1950, should the 1950 murder sentencing be applied? IE, hang him? Somehow I don't think so. Yet why the case with Dobson and Norris???
In the Stephen Lawrence case, these two thugs should be sentenced as men using 2012 sentencing laws. Any othe way is just plain barmy.
He looks familiar to me and if its who I think it is he was never a suspect as far as I know....but I could be wrong and it might not be the bloke I'm thinking of that I see around here still (could just be a look-a-like)
So will the Mother who produced an "alibi" in court be done for perjury?
And what is the position of the defence lawyer who argued all along that he wasn't there, then at the end said "OK, but he wasn't the leader." Can lawyers get away with lying in court?
So will the Mother who produced an "alibi" in court be done for perjury? And what is the position of the defence lawyer who argued all along that he wasn't there, then at the end said "OK, but he wasn't the leader." Can lawyers get away with lying in court?
I must admit that seeming turnaround at the end by Dobson's lawyer baffled me. If I'm reading it right, he is basically admitting Dobson knows the identity of the killer(s). So why doesn't he tell and clear his name? What was the point of his defence is he was there? If he was part of the group and was at the scene of the murder, doesn't that rule out any grounds for appeal?
Comments
Excellent point!
No one know the answer to this?
Like you, I thought he was one of the suspects at the time. I don't know who is he.
And what is the position of the defence lawyer who argued all along that he wasn't there, then at the end said "OK, but he wasn't the leader." Can lawyers get away with lying in court?
I must admit that seeming turnaround at the end by Dobson's lawyer baffled me. If I'm reading it right, he is basically admitting Dobson knows the identity of the killer(s). So why doesn't he tell and clear his name? What was the point of his defence is he was there? If he was part of the group and was at the scene of the murder, doesn't that rule out any grounds for appeal?