Hatch Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 looks like those murdering bastards are going to go down for his murder after all. Good news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 You've gotta admire what the parents have done over the years, after losing their son in such a horrific way their tenacity and determination for justice in the face of a completely flawed investigation by a prejudiced and corrupt police force is unbelievable. They've revealed to us all just how racist parts of the Met were back then and there are elements probably still now. That's how to do a prolonged public campaign. I hope the criminals are convicted and jailed for the rest of their lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 looks like those murdering bastards are going to go down for his murder after all. Good news. nothing like skipping the trial and going straight to the sentence, eh? In this country - thank God - one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Scumbags or not, they still deserve due process of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 I just hope the racist police havn't made it impossible to get justice. It's so far down the line you have to fear too much evidence has been lost/hidden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 (edited) nothing like skipping the trial and going straight to the sentence, eh? In this country - thank God - one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Scumbags or not, they still deserve due process of law. They do. Even if one of them has since been jailed for the attempted murder of a black plainclothed policeman, and is the son of a high profile drug dealer who they found out had been making large payments to someone high up in the Met at the time. They must have pretty conclusive forensic evidence to bring this to trial again. The murder itself was horrendous enough but the extent of the incompetence, racism and corruption within the Met in handing this case was what generated so much outcry. Edited 18 May, 2011 by JackFrost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 I just hope the racist police havn't made it impossible to get justice. It's so far down the line you have to fear too much evidence has been lost/hidden. That's what the local community said in 1993 when the police were given the same names by several independent sources within hours of the attack, and it took the Met 2 weeks to arrest them. I really hope justice is done, but they have must have pretty conclusive forensics to bring this to trial again after all these years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 This is just political correctness gone mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Trubble Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 This is another example of Health and Safety madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 if they are guilty then it is time they paid their dues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 No chance they will get a fair trial - just look at the comments on here. before people have seen/ heard evidence their minds are made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 No chance they will get a fair trial - just look at the comments on here. before people have seen/ heard evidence their minds are made up. Exactly. The media frenzy around this will influence the jury, it'd be impossible for it not to. Everyone asssumes they are guilty before they've even set foot in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 I recall Steven Lawrence's mum's account of giving the names of those who murdered her son on a piece of papee to a detective, who took it, screwed it up and then threw it in the bin in front of her. I think everyone knows they are guilty....can it be proved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 I recall Steven Lawrence's mum's account of giving the names of those who murdered her son on a piece of papee to a detective, who took it, screwed it up and then threw it in the bin in front of her. I think everyone knows they are guilty....can it be proved? Even the stupidest copper would not have done that....surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 I recall Steven Lawrence's mum's account of giving the names of those who murdered her son on a piece of papee to a detective, who took it, screwed it up and then threw it in the bin in front of her. I think everyone knows they are guilty....can it be proved? What i think you mean is everyone assumes they are guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsbridge Saint Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 Flanders Pigeon murderers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 Even the stupidest copper would not have done that....surely. Oh yes he did......I guess he thought that she was black and a woman and therefore thick. Massive misjudgement. What great parents they have been? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 What i think you mean is everyone assumes they are guilty. I think judicial process will review whatever evidence there is and decide whether the evidence whatever it might be is sufficient to convict them. There is no doubt that they did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 (edited) Even the stupidest copper would not have done that....surely. Considering the extent of the racial prejudice that existed then within the force and even in general society I wouldn't be surprised. There was an episode of A Touch of Frost first broadcast in 1994, (made around the same time as Lawrence was murdered interestingly enough) where Frost gets a black DCI working with him and openly refers to him in derogatory racist terms throughout the episode. Back then they'd barely even started to condemn it after the dark days of the 80s. I couldn't believe they allowed the repeat to be shown on ITV3 a few weeks ago, it was a real eye opener as to how attitudes towards racism were so casual even as recently as 15-20 years ago. If they'd have made the episode even 10 years after they did they'd have been crucified by the press and society as a whole. Edited 19 May, 2011 by JackFrost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 Considering the extent of the racial prejudice that existed then within the force and even in general society I wouldn't be surprised. There was an episode of A Touch of Frost first broadcast in 1994, (made around the same time as Lawrence was murdered interestingly enough) where Frost gets a black DCI working with him and openly refers to him in derogatory racist terms throughout the episode. Back then they'd barely even started to condemn it after the dark days of the 80s. I couldn't believe they allowed the repeat to be shown on ITV3 a few weeks ago, it was a real eye opener as to how attitudes towards racism were so casual even as recently as 15-20 years ago. If they'd have made the episode even 10 years after they did they'd have been crucified by the press and society as a whole. Im not condoning it, but I assume the Met were still smarting from PC Blakelocks murder and how the ranks were closed to stop his killers coming to justice at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 I think judicial process will review whatever evidence there is and decide whether the evidence whatever it might be is sufficient to convict them. There is no doubt that they did it. How do you know? Were you at the last trial where their lawyers raised sufficiant doubt to make the Judge order a not guilty verdict? Have you seen all the evidence and listened to the defence's interpratation of it? Basically you have as much proof of that as the next person that says Stephen Lawrence was a drug dealer that dealt to school kids. Every person that says they "know" they did it is actually helping them get off as their lawyer can point to "internet jurys" as a means of influincing a trial with predujice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 How do you know? Were you at the last trial where their lawyers raised sufficiant doubt to make the Judge order a not guilty verdict? Have you seen all the evidence and listened to the defence's interpratation of it? Basically you have as much proof of that as the next person that says Stephen Lawrence was a drug dealer that dealt to school kids. Every person that says they "know" they did it is actually helping them get off as their lawyer can point to "internet jurys" as a means of influincing a trial with predujice. There is no doubt they did it....but can we prove it.....let's wait and see For Dobson, who was previously acquitted of the killing, this will be a second trial after the emergence of ‘compelling and reliable’ new forensic evidence — clothing linking him to the scene of Stephen’s bus stop stabbing. Lord Judge said: ‘The murder of Stephen Lawrence, a young black man of great promise, targeted and killed by a group of white youths just because of the colour of his skin, was a calamitous crime.’ It was also a despicable crime which, until it is solved, will be a stain on the conscience of this nation. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1388545/Stephen-Lawrence-murder-trial-At-chance-justice.html#ixzz1MoCbwJXP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markyboy Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 I used to work with somebody from the area who knew they were 100% guilty, just the old you don't grass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Interesting point Turkish, brings up a whole seperate debate on the merits and flaws of the UK legal system. If you don't mind me asking, what's your personal view on the case itself? Would you make for a less-biased jury member? Or have you already made up your mind (one way or another)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 I see the trial has started again. The murder was getting on 20 years ago now. I am getting old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 The forensic evidence looks very weak. I think they'll get away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 The forensic evidence looks very weak. I think they'll get away with it. Personally I think it's been used as a mere tool to get the case back in the courtroom again. Along with the conception in the local community and parts of the force that "everyone knows they did it" one of them has since been convicted and jailed of a racist attack on an undercover black police officer since the last trial. Just the sheer publicity of the case could help sway the jury. Whilst I agree with you that the evidence looks weak, I'm not convinced by the prosecution's arguments of contaminated evidence either. Having worked in the Met in the 90s I know some of their arguments are in part flawed from what I've read. The defence obviously think they can discredit the forensic investigation enough to get the two off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 (edited) Interesting point Turkish, brings up a whole seperate debate on the merits and flaws of the UK legal system. If you don't mind me asking, what's your personal view on the case itself? Would you make for a less-biased jury member? Or have you already made up your mind (one way or another)? It's trial by media. There is no way people cannot be influenced one way or the other by what they have seen and heard in the press on this and every other high profile case. Remember the burden of proof is on the prosecution, they have to PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that they did it. There are people on here saying they know they did, so no doubt there will be people on the jury that will do and will have been influcened by the years and years of press coverage. You then have a situation where those on the jury will have to be convinced that they ARENT guilty, which isn't what British justice is supposed to be. I have my own views on the case based on what i have seen and heard in the media so of course i'd be biased. No one knows other than those involved, we can only assume based on what the media have told us. Edited 15 November, 2011 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 The next criminal case involving charges of peadophilia will no doubt bring out the same 'EDL enthusiasts' complaining about 'trial by media'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 The next criminal case involving charges of peadophilia will no doubt bring out the same 'EDL enthusiasts' complaining about 'trial by media'. I hope that wasn't aimed at me. Dont forget you convinced me a while ago i hate black people due to my avatar. I think they should be given medals for services to England, not banged up, based on what you have told me i think, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 I hope that wasn't aimed at me. Dont forget you convinced me a while ago i hate black people due to my avatar. I think they should be given medals for services to England, not banged up, based on what you have told me i think, of course. Only you can answer that. Would you make the same fuss about trial by media if the two people in court for the alleged murder of Lawrence were instead charged with peadophilia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 Only you can answer that. Would you make the same fuss about trial by media if the two people in court for the alleged murder of Lawrence were instead charged with peadophilia? I was answering a question put to me, not "making a fuss". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 I was answering a question put to me, not "making a fuss". So would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 The important thing is for the jury to just look at the evidence in front of them and ignore all the media hype. There is a danger that they will feel under pressure to find these guys guilty because of the race issue that surrounds it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 (edited) So would you? Well as i wasn't "making a fuss" i wouldn't "make a fuss" about that either. But if i was asked a question as to what my view on a trial by media for peadophiles, then i'd answer it. It's not like you to slip subtle accusations of racism into a thread though, you need to get your therapist to work a bit harder on your paranoia. Edited 15 November, 2011 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 The important thing is for the jury to just look at the evidence in front of them and ignore all the media hype. There is a danger that they will feel under pressure to find these guys guilty because of the race issue that surrounds it. It's impossible to do that though. Everyone in the country has a view on it, people on here are convinced they are guilty having seen the media coverage. As you say, they may feel under pressure to find them guilty because of the issues around it. On the flip side some might find them innocent because of the media frenzy around it, either way, they are highly likely to be influcenced one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 It does make you wonder whether trial by jury is the best solution for these types of cases. Not that I'd adovocate the change of an age old tradition of the country! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 It does make you wonder whether trial by jury is the best solution for these types of cases. Not that I'd adovocate the change of an age old tradition of the country! It's a fair comment though and as Turkish has pointed out, the media coverage almost demands a guilty verdict. That said, we all know the fu ckers did it and I hope they rot doing time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 Well as i wasn't "making a fuss" i wouldn't "make a fuss" about that either. But if i was asked a question as to what my view on a trial by media for peadophiles, then i'd answer it. It's not like you to slip subtle accusations of racism into a thread though, you need to get your therapist to work a bit harder on your paranoia. The question was only directed at you if you took it to mean you. So the paranoia is all yours. Either that or the pointy white hat. I hope you are thus reassured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 (edited) Given your history of telling me what i think then it's quite reasonable to think it was aimed at me. Did you smoke too much weed as a teenager? SOmething is playing havoc with your warped mind. BTW to answer your question i think there should be a media ban on all high profile cases to avoid influencing the jury and the indenties of all accused kept from the public until conviction, regardless of the offence. Unless they are black of course. Edited 15 November, 2011 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 Turkish, so what's the answer, not to try them at all? The fact that they have been in the dock twice now means that there has to be enough evidence for it to be heard. Media attention should not impact our ability to try someone if the evidence is there to say that out of everyone is the World, they are most likely to have done it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 (edited) Turkish, so what's the answer, not to try them at all? The fact that they have been in the dock twice now means that there has to be enough evidence for it to be heard. Media attention should not impact our ability to try someone if the evidence is there to say that out of everyone is the World, they are most likely to have done it. No, i'm not saying that and i dont know what the answer is. Does the fact that they have been in the dock twice and not convicted also mean that there isn't enough evidence for conviction? The new forensic evidence is flimsey to say the least. This is what i mean it's a minefield and any jury will be influcenced one way or another, they've already been warned to ignore the publicity the case has had for the last 17 years. The whole point of a trial by jury is that it's fair and for an impartical group of people to reach a verdict based on the evidence in front of them. When for god knows how long it's been all over the media "they are guilty, they are guilty!!" then it's impossible not to be influenced. The media are demanding a guilty verdict, which is wrong. And dont for one minute think i am trying to defend them. A lad has lost his life and those that did it deserve to be punished, but not through the press demanding it because it's been in the public eye so long. Edited 15 November, 2011 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 How many people have actually be aquited due to there being absolute concrete proof that they didn't do it? In my experience, not many. It alwas comes down to a technicality. And not trying the two because of the media impeding impairtiality would be exactly that. I understand what your saying but the burden of proof system is just a way so there will always be contentious issues. Sometimes common sense and instinct makes you think that even if a trial collapses, the right person is walking away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 and that's the point. The prosecution have to prove that they DID do it. In this case you get the impression due to the media that the defendants have to prove that they DIDN'T. That isn't how the justice system in this country works. 99.9% of the country think they are guilty because what they've read in the papers and seen on TV. You've just got to look at this thread to realise that. Which means that it is highly likely any jury will be biased, even if it is only subconciously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 They did do it though didn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 and that's the point. The prosecution have to prove that they DID do it. In this case you get the impression due to the media that the defendants have to prove that they DIDN'T. Don't worry, I'm sure the judge will hear your special pleading, stop the trial and let them off with a good ticking off. What's your evidence exactly that a sequestered jury is being forced into thinking only of guilt by 'the media', all of which, without exception, have been bound by strict sub-judice rules since their arrests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 But they are not actually entirely basing their judgement on what is reported in the media. More important is the evdence which the prosecution presents which has also gone through the CPS. The influence of the media will always be hard to quantify anyway. Loads of high profile cases have attracted a media frenzy before the trial. If the evidence is good enough, it matters not. If these two get put down, would you honestly be losing sleep about the possibility of a miscarage of justice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillyanne Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 Can someone clear this up for me please, I didn't think you could be tried (sp) for the same crime twice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 and that's the point. The prosecution have to prove that they DID do it. In this case you get the impression due to the media that the defendants have to prove that they DIDN'T. That isn't how the justice system in this country works. 99.9% of the country think they are guilty because what they've read in the papers and seen on TV. You've just got to look at this thread to realise that. Which means that it is highly likely any jury will be biased, even if it is only subconciously. Putting aside the justice system and media hype to one side for a second, what's your hunch, your gut feel, about the blokes charged with his murder? Most likely to have done it or not? Genuinely interested in what your instinct tells you. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 Can someone clear this up for me please, I didn't think you could be tried (sp) for the same crime twice? Used to be the case but the law was changed a few years back (I believe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 15 November, 2011 Share Posted 15 November, 2011 But they are not actually entirely basing their judgement on what is reported in the media. More important is the evdence which the prosecution presents which has also gone through the CPS. The influence of the media will always be hard to quantify anyway. Loads of high profile cases have attracted a media frenzy before the trial. If the evidence is good enough, it matters not. If these two get put down, would you honestly be losing sleep about the possibility of a miscarage of justice? Course not. But i was asked my opinion on the trial ad if i was on the jury would i be biased at the top of the thread, so i gave my reply. Not on if i thought they were guilty or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now