The Birmingham Four

[catsmate]

More and more doubts about the conviction of Naweed Ali, Khobaib Hussain, Mohibur Rahman and Tahir Aziz for supposed planning a terror attack. Along with suggestions of gross police misconduct.

Rough Justice - The Birmingham Four

LAG's second event on miscarriages of justice and those on the sharp end of the justice system focuses on the case of the Birmingham Four.

www.lag.org.uk

The Birmingham Four: terrorist masterminds – or victims of a police fit-up?

In August 2017, four men were jailed for life at the Old Bailey for plotting a terrorist attack. They were caught in an undercover police sting, and their defence lawyers insist their case continues to raise troubling and pressing questions ...

www.theguardian.com

 

[Vixen]

All the key trigger words in there.


.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Guardian wrote, "Their barrister, Stephen Kamlish KC, said: “Just imagine you take a terrorist kit to your first day to work, I mean, you don’t know where you’re going, you don’t know what you’re gonna be doing that day and what’s gonna happen to your own car [employees drove ‘Hero Couriers’ vans] and then give your keys to your employer.”" I found this paragraph confusing: "Another officer gave evidence that Vincent’s fingerprints had been tested against unknown DNA found on the incriminating bag – the defendants’ DNA was absent – but later corrected himself saying Vincent’s prints were not on the national database. Kamlish’s request that they be tested was rejected." I was not overly impressed with the prosecution's case.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

The Guardian wrote, "Their barrister, Stephen Kamlish KC, said: “Just imagine you take a terrorist kit to your first day to work, I mean, you don’t know where you’re going, you don’t know what you’re gonna be doing that day and what’s gonna happen to your own car [employees drove ‘Hero Couriers’ vans] and then give your keys to your employer.”" I found this paragraph confusing: "Another officer gave evidence that Vincent’s fingerprints had been tested against unknown DNA found on the incriminating bag – the defendants’ DNA was absent – but later corrected himself saying Vincent’s prints were not on the national database. Kamlish’s request that they be tested was rejected." I was not overly impressed with the prosecution's case.

The prosecution's case was "all mislims are terrorists, these men are muslims." But then again, the sole principle in English cases of this type is the prevention of Denning's "appaling vista", that tye authorities, who have a vested interest in lying, will be found to lying.

 

[catsmate]

All the key trigger words in there.


.

So nothing relevant to say then.......

 

[Chris_Halkides]

In a 2017 article the BBC wrote, "Gareth Peirce said there was a "clear distortion of the normal criminal justice process" in the case, which was partly held in secret and saw some officers give evidence anonymously." The Justice Gap wrote, "It was also claimed that ‘Vincent’ and other officers perjured themselves when they claimed that they were not in touch with each other during the trial. This was exposed not be true. One deleted and subsequently recovered text from Vincent read: ‘I’m determined to put in an Oscar performance when I get in that box.’"

The Justice Gap also quoted Gareth Peirce, "'What was emerging in the trial was that officers were in touch with each other while they’re giving evidence, meeting in lay-bys to discuss their evidence in advance and there was inappropriate prior knowledge of what evidence is going to be found,’ explained Gareth Peirce. ‘If you had been representing someone wrongly convicted, and you came upon this evidence years later, it would be the key to the door.'"

 

[Elaedith]

The Guardian wrote, "Their barrister, Stephen Kamlish KC, said: “Just imagine you take a terrorist kit to your first day to work, I mean, you don’t know where you’re going, you don’t know what you’re gonna be doing that day and what’s gonna happen to your own car [employees drove ‘Hero Couriers’ vans] and then give your keys to your employer.”" I found this paragraph confusing: "Another officer gave evidence that Vincent’s fingerprints had been tested against unknown DNA found on the incriminating bag – the defendants’ DNA was absent – but later corrected himself saying Vincent’s prints were not on the national database. Kamlish’s request that they be tested was rejected." I was not overly impressed with the prosecution's case.

I was puzzled about how one tests DNA against fingerprints.
I assume they mixed up a fact about fingerprints being tested with one about defendants' DNA being absent. But there was contested DNA evidence on sticky tape referred to in the other article and I can't find any reference to fingerprints being found.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The paragraph goes forth and back between fingermarks and DNA profiles (both have searchable databases). The sticky side of tape is a good source for fingermarks (gentian violet can be used to visualize them). Tape is sometimes used to collect DNA evidence.