Stephen Lawrence Murder Trial

Forensic Evidence;

Metropolitan Police must have something to hide....

 

I am concerned that there might have been a grave travesty of justice.

The Metropolitan Police must have something to hide because the Freedom of Information request that I submitted to the Metropolitan Police Service on the 3^rd April 2013, has on this day the, 7^th September 2013, still not been complied with. On the 20^th June 2013, I received an email in reply advising me that the request had been refused as the MET had determined that the costs of collating the information required exceeded the threshold of costing, that the Freedom of Information Act had stipulated and allowed. I then registered and submitted a complaint about this ‘refusal’ to the “MET Public Access Office”, which receipt was acknowledged, and, they therein advised me, that the request would be handled in due course. Since that date, the 20^th June 2013; no further information has been received.

Here follows the details of my Freedom of Information request; and, a copy of the email contents I sent to Tessa Jowell. My Member of Parliament.

From:	james.young2@met.police.uk
Sent:	08 April 2013 09:59:47
To:	Gordon j Sheppard

Dear Mr Sheppard,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2013040000452

I respond in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03/04/2013.  I note you seek access to the following information:

Re. STEPHEN LAWRENCE MURDER INVESTIGATION. LGC FORENSICS carried out scientific analysis and investigation of suspects clothing and other materials. How much money, in total, was LGC FORENSICS paid for carrying out this work? This is, and, should be, public information. Because all payments made by the MET POLICE in this regard, were paid out of the public purse.

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third party.  In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to achieve this deadline.  If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

 ------------------------------------

 

From:   Gordon J Sheppard

Sent:     16 April 2013

To:        jowellt@parliament,uk

 

Dear Tessa

 Stephen Lawrence Murder Trial

 I submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Metropolitan Police as follows:

 

Re. STEPHEN LAWRENCE MURDER INVESTIGATION. LGC FORENSICS carried out scientific analysis and investigation of suspects clothing and other materials. How much money, in total, was LGC FORENSICS paid for carrying out this work? This is, and, should be, public information. Because all payments made by the MET POLICE in this regard, were paid out of the public purse.

My motivation for requesting this information is that I am truly concerned over the conviction of GARY DOBSON and DAVID NORRIS, convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. I do not know whether they murdered him or not; but, I do know, that they did not get a fair trial. I set out my reasons why in the message (below) which I sent on 2nd April to both you, and, Sky News. I want to see the extent of the 'financial inducement' paid to the forensic scientists and the forensic company, for them to 'produce' the evidence; the police both wanted and required.

Tessa, please write to the Commissioner of the MET police, inquiring into why this 'Freedom of Information' request has been so long delayed, or, refused.

 Regards

Gordon J Sheppard

 

 From: Gordon J Sheppard

Sent: 02 April 2013

To: News@Sky (bews@sky.com); Tessa Jowell MP (jowellt@parliament.uk)

 

It was announced today that the JILL DANDO murder investigation is to be dropped.
The organisation, LGC FORENSICS has been paid £587,383,00 to examine the forensics in the case; but they have produced nothing.

I ponder how much they were paid to 'fabricate' evidence in the "Stephen Lawrence" murder trial?  How much were they actually paid? How large was the financial inducement? To rig and create false evidence, in the creation of, "just one tiny micro speck of blood”, which they allege, they found, on the collar of GARY DOBSDON's shirt ?

Now, this 'evidence' must have been fabricated, because it was wholly impossible for only, "just one tiny micro speck of blood", to have got on that shirt, in the manner in which they claimed.

The injuries Stephen Lawrence received:
There were stab wounds to a depth of 5 inches (13cm) on both sides of the front of his body, in the chest and in the arm. Both of these stab wounds severed auxiliary arteries. The deep penetrating wound of the right side of his body also caused the partial collapse of the lung.

With these wounds the 'evidence' that only, "just one tiny micro speck of blood", was found on GARY DOBSON's shirt, is an absolute impossibility.

Had the forensic investigators found several or many 'tiny specks of blood' or, the "smearing of blood" there might have been some element of truth; but to claim that only, "one tiny micro speck of blood", was found; indicates 'fabrication' of that evidence.

When someone is stabbed so seriously inflicting the wounds to Stephen Lawrence as shown in the 'injuries' described as above; blood would have been gushing from those wounds in a solid stream, or, in a very fine spray. Blood, being pumped out continuously, until, the heart stopped beating. Furthermore, the injury 'evidence' indicates that his lung had been penetrated; so it is highly likely Stephen Lawrence would have been gasping for breath, and, at each gasp, he was likely to be coughing up blood in a spray.

From the injuries he received, anyone being very close to him would have been spattered with this fine spray.

It is therefore absolutely impossible for only, "one tiny micro speck of blood" to be found on that shirt.
 

JURY CRITERIA

 “Every one of the twelve might feel morally certain of guilt; but moral certainty is not legal certainty; and unless there is the legal certainty, that, certainty of proof, which removes every reasonable doubt; a prisoner is entitled to an acquittal.”

In this,"Stephen Lawrence Murder Trial", absolutely no one can establish, GUILT, beyond all reasonable doubt.

It is quite possible and, possibly even feasible, that these 'accused' did murder Stephen Lawrence.

But, they cannot be found GUILTY, of the crime, where there is any evidence to prove; that there is 'reasonable doubt'. The forensic evidence produced in this trial, motivated, considerable doubt.

 GARY DOBSON and DAVID NORRIS did not get a fair trial.

The Jury found them GUILTY because all the publicity about the 'accused' urged the conviction of DOBSON and NORRIS. The vicious pre-publicity of the trial, mounted, in a calculated campaign against them, by newspapers such as the 'Daily Mail', were intent on conviction. And, it was this corrupt 'influence' upon the Jury; that, caused the jury, to be so 'negligent' in considering the evidence.

 All my life I have loathed 'injustice'. For me, even, ADOLF HITLER, would deserve a fair trial.

This "Stephen Lawrence Murder Trial" was a travesty of, JUSTICE.

Gordon J Sheppard

 

CONCLUSIONS:

 Without any doubt whatsoever there are reasons for “Reasonable Doubt” in respect to the forensic evidence presented to the Jury in this case. If, the twelve persons making up that Jury, could not see this, they, were very negligent, in respect to their responsibilities, required of a Jury.

Fact 1.  The Metropolitan Police had carried out extensive investigations including very extensive forensic investigation into the lives, activities, and clothing of the accused. The MET reported that they did not uncover any incriminating evidence; and, therefore, they were unable to charge anyone with the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

Fact 2. But, due to the enormous pressures put upon the MET by,

 

1. The Daily Mail newspaper publishing the photographs of the accused and charging them with the ‘murder’ of Stephen Lawrence (Yet, producing no ‘evidence’ at all).
2. The enormous pressures put upon the MET by, Mrs Doreen Lawrence (His mother), and the Anti-Racist brigade; all clamouring for convictions.
3. All the pressures of vested interested politicians, likewise, demanding, convictions.

 The Metropolitan Police announced they would ‘reopen’ and ‘resume’ their investigations again.

 Then, within a very short time thereafter; the MET proudly announced: That entirely due to new specific advances in technology, forensic evidence had been, now, miraculously obtained, revealing, that, ‘one micro tiny speck of blood’, containing the DNA of Stephen Lawrence had been found on the collar of GARY DOBSON’s shirt.

 

“Miraculous” indeed;

 It was so pat, so cut and dried, and, so amazing and convenient, that, it established for me, reasons to doubt. Being, suspicious, I wanted to see the extent of the financial inducement that might have been made available to the forensic scientists and their Company, to produce this ‘evidence’ that the MET badly needed, in order to charge anyone, with the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

This is the reason I submitted the, Freedom of Information, request, to the MET.

 The fact that the MET now refuses to provide this information, re-enforces the doubt that I have. The ‘veracity’ of the evidence of that, ‘One micro tiny speck of blood’, is highly questionable indeed.

 Gordon j