Documents reveal Toronto police monitored the Black Lives Matter movement

First topic message reminder :


Protesters chant out front of the Toronto Police headquarters in Toronto on Monday, March 21, 2016. Black Lives Matter protesters set up in front of Toronto Police headquarters after Ontario's Special Investigations Unit cleared a Toronto police officer of any wrongdoing in the shooting death of 45-year-old Andrew Loku. (Cole Burston/Canadian Press)

Toronto police monitored Black Lives Matter activists and their supporters, combing through social media and compiling intelligence email reports on the activist group as it camped outside police headquarters in 2016, according to documents obtained by CBC Toronto.

The documents, released by the Toronto Police Service (TPS) in response to a freedom of information request, show officers in the police service's intelligence branch monitored the group's demonstrations, public comments and planned events.

"Black activists, particularly, are targeted and surveilled," said Black Lives Matter Toronto co-founder Pascale Diverlus.

"We know that this happens. The targeting and surveillance of our communities is not new."

Black Lives Matter began an encampment outside police headquarters after a demonstration on March 20, 2016. The demonstration was sparked in part by the Special Investigations Unit's decisionto clear a Toronto police officer of wrongdoing in the fatal 2015 shooting of Andrew Loku.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/police-monitored-black-lives-matter-toronto-protesters-in-2016-documents-show-1.4645628

Do police really think that monitoring certain groups sends any message besides "we find you suspicious?"

SL clothes were collected very early on, and untampered with... of course there would be transfer of attackers DNA/fibre evidence on them...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:SL clothes were collected very early on, and untampered with... of course there would be transfer of attackers DNA/fibre evidence on them...!!!

Early on and yet the investigation never got started for at least two weeks

Again you make poor assumptions, which you cannot back up with any evidence

Remember they attacked him, hiting him in the head with what was claimed to be a bat and a knives. So objects from stephen could easily transfer onto attackers, as they are the ones raining down blows onto him

So making assumptions not backed by evidence, is flawed and why the two convicted people were convicted.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think Didge understands the question Tommy, but it's a good one. Nothing was found on Stephen's clothes?

I did understand, but Tommy negates one important piece of information

How the Police failed to act according in the first few weeks and how much evidence was lost

Hence his views are poor assumptions and even then, its not a given that there would be any fibers on the clothes of Stephen

Hence its complete babble by Tommy

Apparently, they didn't lose the hairs on the jacket of Gary Dobson, so why wouldn't hairs or fibres from Dobson's clothes be found on SL's clothes?

Tommy Monk wrote:SL clothes were collected very early on, and untampered with... of course there would be transfer of attackers DNA/fibre evidence on them...!!!

Yes. They had Stephen's clothes from the start but not the suspects' clothes, so it's odd that fibres and hair survived on the latter but not on Stephen's clothes.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:SL clothes were collected very early on, and untampered with... of course there would be transfer of attackers DNA/fibre evidence on them...!!!

Yes. They had Stephen's clothes from the start but not the suspects' clothes, so it's odd that fibres and hair survived on the latter but not on Stephen's clothes.

Why is it odd?

Explain the science to back up your assertion, based on where the blows Stephen received?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I did understand, but Tommy negates one important piece of information

How the Police failed to act according in the first few weeks and how much evidence was lost

Hence his views are poor assumptions and even then, its not a given that there would be any fibers on the clothes of Stephen

Hence its complete babble by Tommy

Apparently, they didn't lose the hairs on the jacket of Gary Dobson, so why wouldn't  hairs or fibres from Dobson's clothes be found on SL's clothes?

Explain to me why they wouldscientifically and again based on the attackers hitting which parts of his body and with weapons?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. They had Stephen's clothes from the start but not the suspects' clothes, so it's odd that fibres and hair survived on the latter but not on Stephen's clothes.

Why is it odd?

Explain the science to back up your assertion, based on where the blows Stephen received?

He was stabbed in the chest and shoulder. Back up your claim that fibres and hair would only go one way - from Stephen to his attacker.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Why is it odd?

Explain the science to back up your assertion, based on where the blows Stephen received?

He was stabbed in the chest and shoulder. Back up your claim that fibres and hair would only go one way - from Stephen to his attacker.

Easily able to explain

You see i am trying to help you hear rags and how in reality, most of the evidence no doubt came off the weapons and then onto the suspects, through handling them and how blood also would have come onto the attackers. If the clothes brushed whilst he hit and only a couple of small fibers landed on the attacker. That does not mean some would also be on the victim. It shows clearly and also how at the time, no such tecnics were scientically possible to detect. So there could also have been fibers and these fibers then have been lost

Now i can run you two around in circles on this

Tommy is playing a piss poor lawyers game and one that does not stand up

We have evidence that places the two attackers at the crime and only then from new scientific technics.

So take your time love

Now i did post a link and I will post it again


The scientists then went over the original sticky tape samples from the suspects' clothes and found the same red fibres on Gary Dobson's jacket and David Norris's sweatshirt.

At the time of the original investigation, experts believed evidence like this would have fallen off during the two week gap between the attack and the first arrests.

Scientists at LGC found more fibres and also human hairs on other tapings from the suspects' clothes.

The hair found on David Norris's jeans matched Stephen's DNA profile.

The first sign of blood came when scientists used an instrument called a microspectrophotometer to detect the colour of one of the fibres on Dobson's jacket.

They decided to go over the rest of the jacket with a microscope, magnifying it 40 times.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/16409283/how-forensics-solved-stephen-lawrence-murder

Then maybe they will see why Tommys claim does not stand up to any value

DNA/fibre transfer is not a one way thing dodge...

Tommy Monk wrote:DNA/fibre transfer is not a one way thing dodge...

I shall post this again and this time look and see where you go wrong

The scientists then went over the original sticky tape samples from the suspects' clothes and found the same red fibres on Gary Dobson's jacket and David Norris's sweatshirt.

At the time of the original investigation, experts believed evidence like this would have fallen off during the two week gap between the attack and the first arrests.

Scientists at LGC found more fibres and also human hairs on other tapings from the suspects' clothes.

The hair found on David Norris's jeans matched Stephen's DNA profile.

The first sign of blood came when scientists used an instrument called a microspectrophotometer to detect the colour of one of the fibres on Dobson's jacket.

They decided to go over the rest of the jacket with a microscope, magnifying it 40 times.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/16409283/how-forensics-solved-stephen-lawrence-murder


http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/16409283/how-forensics-solved-stephen-lawrence-murder

I wonder how long it will take for this to sink in

Now lets post some more


A spot of blood 0.5mm x 0.25mm was found soaked into the collar - it also matched Stephen's DNA.

In the past, DNA testing on such tiny samples of blood and hairs was not possible so forensic experts wouldn't normally have looked for them in the first place.

But new forensic techniques developed since 2000 helped LGC bag the vital evidence and counter claims that the clothing could have been contaminated.

"The DNA that was available as part of the initial investigation - back in the 90's - they wouldn't have been able to analyse that microscopic stain," says Edward Jarman, Lead Scientist at LGC Forensics.

DNA/fibre evidence from attackers would be on SL clothes...


So where is it...?

So the penny has not dropped then I see

They never found any fibers/hair when they looked again at the clothing

They did find blood on the clothes and they did find fibers/hair from the original tapings.

Meaning that over time, the fibers would have been lost from the clothing. Which clearly was the case, but not from the original tapings from the clothing taken years earlier. As stated such fibers would be lost very quickly over time by a few weeks. Hence there surprise that they did find some on the tapings which clearly corroborated the blood samples found through new science methods. Like I said earlier, its unlikely and near impossible the attackers would have left any DNA on Stephen's clothing when they used weapons and were hitting him. Hence its easy to understand how Stephens hair could be found on their clothes.

Now unless they headbutted his clothes, I find it very unlikely that any hair of the attackers would be on his clothes. Again though this would have been lost over time if there was originally some. So if there was orginally also fibers on his clothes, this would have also been lost over time. Nor is there a case that any of the attackers were injured and lost any blood.

Hence any testing of Stephens clothing would be unlikely to reveal any fibers/DNA either, when the lab carried out such tests.

Easily showing your theory is flawed from the start

How easy was that?

So easy, because like I said last night, you again did not read the forensic evidence

Now there is no more needed to be said

Don't be an idiot dodge...


The police had SLs clothes from the start, and his clothes would be covered in DNA/fibre evidence from the attackers...


Why has none matching the alleged attackers been found on SL clothes...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Don't be an idiot dodge...


The police had SLs clothes from the start, and his clothes would be covered in DNA/fibre evidence from the attackers...


Why has none matching the alleged attackers been found on SL clothes...?

Would they Tommy?

I just easily argued that is not the case for DNA on the Stephen's clothes

As to fibers and hairs, there would be lost, as was the case, when they tested again

It was on the tapings that these were found

Now I have not seen you present a view on how DNA from the attackers would be on his clothes

Hence the onus is on you to do so, based on the limited and short attack that happened, where he was stabbed twice.

As seen, fibers/hairs would be lost over time. Its even possible the other suspects had such fibers, but the tapings did not pick these up. As they may not have done with Stephens clothing. As they were not looking for hair samples at the time, because such tests were not available.

What changed this was new testing which picked up two samples of blood on the attackers clothes. Which is bound to happen, considering the victim was stabbed. This led to the original tapings being rexamined.

You have no case

Hence in just about every conspiracy bullshit you buy into, you never ever read the evidence properly.

So you can piss and moan, do your ciricular argument bullshit like you always do, but you are done here

And again it was ever so easy for me to do

Laters

You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about...!


SLs clothes would have been seized by police on the night he died... and would then have been examined under forensic conditions... these clothes would be the best and freshest source of DNA/fibres from those who attacked him...


Considering the group 'engulfed him', all grabbing him and bundling him to the ground, it is without a shadow of a doubt that the attackers would have left considerable amount of DNA/fibres behind on SL and his clothes...!!!

lol, yet more hearsay from Tommy it seems.

Not only that, a complete lack of  understanding of what DNA he thinks would be left and if tests could be carried out for that? You negate the time frame in the technology also in finding evidence
So it would be very unlikley that the attackers left any DNA on the clothes, which is also very hard to detect a profile using tracing of DNA on clothing, espcially for the time when it happened.

The attack was over very quickly, he was stabbed at least twice and hit with an object on the head. You offer no actual way and what type of DNA would have been left by people attacking him with weapons. And the only DNA came from the victim, which, as seen makes more sense, with the loss of blood. Also a hair sample, which would not have been looked at for the time. This was only found later on a taped sample. So you are very much clutching at straws and based on how little DNA was found on the attackers, but enough to show they had to be there. Shows again your claim that there must have been plenty is groundless.

You have offered none. Your argument is that it must have been left

wow

It so embarressing and why it would be laughed out of court

Anyway, that was your last chance

I am not going to pander anymore to your stupidity on this

I gave you a chance and all  you could do was make a piss poor claiming and not even use anything viable scientific in reasoning. So have the last word, it wont do you any good, the debate is over.

game over

Didge you cretin!!!


Don't you know that recent cold case reviews can re-examine clothing from a victim of an unsolved crime 30-40 years ago, having been sealed in a bag in police storage all this time, and can still find DNA/fibre evidence from attacker...?


Do you not realise how easily DNA/fibre evidence is transfered...?


I think you need to do some research on this before trying to preach like you are an expert... as you are just making yourself look silly...!

Considering the group 'engulfed him', all grabbing him and bundling him to the ground, it is without a shadow of a doubt that the attackers would have left considerable amount of DNA/fibres behind on SL and his clothes...!!!


http://www.dnaforensics.com/touchdna.aspx

Tommy Monk wrote:Considering the group 'engulfed him', all grabbing him and bundling him to the ground, it is without a shadow of a doubt that the attackers would have left considerable amount of DNA/fibres behind on SL and his clothes...!!!


http://www.dnaforensics.com/touchdna.aspx

The technique has been criticized for high rates of false positives due to contamination—for example, fingerprint brushes used by crime scene investigators can transfer trace amounts of skin cells from one surface to another, leading to inaccurate results.[3][4] Because of the risk of false positives, it is more often used by the defense to help exclude a suspect rather than the prosecution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_DNA

Not only that the example given shows that the killer dragged the victim by the wrists

Nobody grabbed Stephen by the wrists, dragging him and again attacked him quickly with weapons

Hence again your hearsay and desperation

On top of that we know the Police screwed up with the clothes of Stephen Lawrence and why no doubt the Lab knew his clothes could easily be contaminated. Hence why they concetrated on the taped samples and the suspected attacker clothes

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/photos-of-stephen-lawrence-clothes-released-6265730.html

You see Tommy, you again failed to provide any evidence for your claim

Or how attacks by weapons would even leave skin DNA or for this to have been seen at the time of the attack, when the technic was not even known. Again, you need to show how any of the DNA of attackers would have been lefft on the victims clothes, when they used weapons?

One of the youths used abusive racist language. This was followed by a sudden and immediate attack, as the group converged on or charged at them. Duwayne Brooks managed to make his escape, but Stephen Lawrence was felled. He was stabbed twice to the upper torso, one wound tracked vertically downwards from 10cm to the right of the mid line, and the second tracked more or less horizontally, but in an upward direction, from the outer aspect of the left shoulder. Major blood vessels were severed. The injuries were fatal. The position and angle of the wounds suggested that the torso may have been upright at the time when the knife wounds were inflicted. Apart from the stabbing wounds, the only further injuries noted at post mortem were an incised injury to the left side of the chin and abrasions to the cheek and the back of the right hand. Mortally wounded, Stephen Lawrence managed to get to his feet. He ran after Duwayne Brooks, but after a little while, he collapsed on the pavement. He died shortly afterwards in hospital.

On top of that you have no evidence or abilty to prove any skin would have been deposited on his clothes. With also the fact the defense have not looked to carry out such tests or that the UK lab looked to carry out such tests, as again such tests are seen as unreliable. Its mainly used in the US. Not the UK.

And its you that really needs to educate yourself on this

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/forensic-science-and-beyond

Tommy strikes again with pure dumbfuckwittery

The attackers 'engulfed' him... grabbing him and bundled him to the ground...


There would be transfer of DNA/fibre from SL to attackers as well as from attackers to SL...


But no DNA/fibre from alleged attackers was ever found on SL or clothes... which says to me that the alleged attackers didn't do it...

Tommy Monk wrote:The attackers 'engulfed' him... grabbing him and bundled him to the ground...


There would be transfer of DNA/fibre from SL to attackers as well as from attackers to SL...


But no DNA/fibre from alleged attackers was ever found on SL or clothes... which says to me that the alleged attackers didn't do it...

The technique has been criticized for high rates of false positives due to contamination—for example, fingerprint brushes used by crime scene investigators can transfer trace amounts of skin cells from one surface to another, leading to inaccurate results.[3][4] Because of the risk of false positives, it is more often used by the defense to help exclude a suspect rather than the prosecution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_DNA

Not only that the example given shows that the killer dragged the victim by the wrists

Nobody grabbed Stephen by the wrists, dragging him and again attacked him quickly with weapons

Hence again your hearsay and desperation

On top of that we know the Police screwed up with the clothes of Stephen Lawrence and why no doubt the Lab knew his clothes could easily be contaminated. Hence why they concetrated on the taped samples and the suspected attacker clothes

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/photos-of-stephen-lawrence-clothes-released-6265730.html

You see Tommy, you again failed to provide any evidence for your claim

Or how attacks by weapons would even leave skin DNA or for this to have been seen at the time of the attack, when the technic was not even known. Again, you need to show how any of the DNA of attackers would have been lefft on the victims clothes, when they used weapons?

One of the youths used abusive racist language. This was followed by a sudden and immediate attack, as the group converged on or charged at them. Duwayne Brooks managed to make his escape, but Stephen Lawrence was felled. He was stabbed twice to the upper torso, one wound tracked vertically downwards from 10cm to the right of the mid line, and the second tracked more or less horizontally, but in an upward direction, from the outer aspect of the left shoulder. Major blood vessels were severed. The injuries were fatal. The position and angle of the wounds suggested that the torso may have been upright at the time when the knife wounds were inflicted. Apart from the stabbing wounds, the only further injuries noted at post mortem were an incised injury to the left side of the chin and abrasions to the cheek and the back of the right hand. Mortally wounded, Stephen Lawrence managed to get to his feet. He ran after Duwayne Brooks, but after a little while, he collapsed on the pavement. He died shortly afterwards in hospital.

On top of that you have no evidence or abilty to prove any skin would have been deposited on his clothes. With also the fact the defense have not looked to carry out such tests or that the UK lab looked to carry out such tests, as again such tests are seen as unreliable. Its mainly used in the US. Not the UK.

And its you that really needs to educate yourself on this

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/forensic-science-and-beyond

Tommy strikes again with pure dumbfuckwittery

Todays techniques can be used to re-examine a victims clothes (as well as any historical 'tapings'/swabs etc) and find new DNA/fibre evidence... even if the crime was 25 years ago and the clothes have been sealed in a bag and stored by police all this time...


The attackers ALL JUMPED SL, ALL GRABBING HIM, AND FORCIBLY BUNDLED HIM TO THE GROUND!!!


THAT IS A LOT OF PHYSICAL CONTACT!!!


AND WOULD HAVE, WITHOUT DOUBT, TRANSFERED A LOT OF ALL ATTACKERS DNA/CLOTHING FIBRES ONTO SL AND HIS CLOTHING!!!

Dodge posted...


'The technique has been criticized for high rates of false positives due to contamination—for example, fingerprint brushes used by crime scene investigators can transfer trace amounts of skin cells from one surface to another, leading to inaccurate results.[3][4] Because of the risk of false positives, it is more often used by the defense to help exclude a suspect rather than the prosecution.'


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_DNA





No 'fingerprint brushes' in this case...

and...

'it is more often used by the defense to help exclude a suspect rather than the prosecution.'


EXACTLY!!!


THAT IS WHY IT IS USED BY DEFENCE TO PROVE THE INNOCENCE OF A SUSPECT!!!


NO SUSPECTS DNA/FIBRES ON VICTIM = SUSPECT WASN'T INVOLVED IN VIOLENTLY ATTACKING VICTIM!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Dodge posted...


'The technique has been criticized for high rates of false positives due to contamination—for example, fingerprint brushes used by crime scene investigators can transfer trace amounts of skin cells from one surface to another, leading to inaccurate results.[3][4] Because of the risk of false positives, it is more often used by the defense to help exclude a suspect rather than the prosecution.'


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_DNA

No 'fingerprint brushes' in this case...

and...
'it is more often used by the defense to help exclude a suspect rather than the prosecution.'


EXACTLY!!!


THAT IS WHY IT IS USED BY DEFENCE TO PROVE THE INNOCENCE OF A SUSPECT!!!


NO SUSPECTS DNA/FIBRES ON VICTIM = SUSPECT WASN'T INVOLVED IN VIOLENTLY ATTACKING VICTIM!!!

I shall post this again and this time look and see where you go wrong

The scientists then went over the original sticky tape samples from the suspects' clothes and found the same red fibres on Gary Dobson's jacket and David Norris's sweatshirt.

At the time of the original investigation, experts believed evidence like this would have fallen off during the two week gap between the attack and the first arrests.

Scientists at LGC found more fibres and also human hairs on other tapings from the suspects' clothes.

The hair found on David Norris's jeans matched Stephen's DNA profile.

The first sign of blood came when scientists used an instrument called a microspectrophotometer to detect the colour of one of the fibres on Dobson's jacket.

They decided to go over the rest of the jacket with a microscope, magnifying it 40 times.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/16409283/how-forensics-solved-stephen-lawrence-murder


http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/16409283/how-forensics-solved-stephen-lawrence-murder

I wonder how long it will take for this to sink in

Didge you bellend!!!


I am talking about SLs clothes!!!


When will THAT sink in...!!!???

And Tommy does his usual circular failed arguments



When will it sink in that Tommy is racially motivated to lie, claiming the convicted killers are innocent?

Anyway, as much as this has been fun and ever so easy to disprove Tommy's absurd claims. I will now let him have the last word.

As this will gone on for ever, if I dont put a stop to it now

Thanks Tommy, i really enjoyed this

No circular argument... just asking why no DNA/FIBRES from any of the alleged attackers were ever found on SLs clothes...!?


DNA/FIBRE transfer from attackers to SLs clothes would be inevitable...!!!


So... where is it...?

The police had SLs clothes from the start, and his clothes would be covered in DNA/fibre evidence from the attackers...


Why has none matching the alleged attackers been found on SL clothes...?