Stephen Lawrence

[Dig Dig]

Can someone clear this up for me please, I didn't think you could be tried (sp) for the same crime twice?

 

This no longer applies in the UK

[Turkish]

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

 

I think they are guilty as f*ck and deserve to hang. But i wasnt asked that, i was asked what i though of the trial and if i would be a biased jury member.

[Turkish]

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?

 

What is your view on their guilt? How have you reached such a view?

 

I know what my view is and if i was on the jury what i would be thinking and what most people on this thread think. We weren't there, we didn't see it, we haven't seen all the evidence. So how have we reached our conclusions? Why would a jury member be any different? Even if it is only subconciously? Come on, you love telling peole what they think.

Edited 15 November, 2011 by Turkish

[buctootim]

Five or six thugs surrounded one guy to give him a kicking. One pulled out a knife, stabbed him twice and killed him. Fibres and blood just prove the two accused were likely there, not that they killed him, or even knew that one of the five had a knife and was going to use it. Beyond all reasonable doubt the two on trial are scumbags but proving they killed Lawrence is whole different matter. I find it really disconcerting that one of them has already been tried and found not guilty of the crime, but has not only been brought to trial again for the same offence but also been banged up since last September despite the risk of flight being minimal.

 

Sometimes you just have to accept that you dont have enough evidence to convict, because the alternatives to that acceptance are worse.

[Verbal]

What is your view on their guilt? How have you reached such a view?

 

I have my doubts that the new forensic evidence will stick unfortunately. They killed Lawrence without question, and have only got off so far as a result of what the Met themselves have admitted has been the most colossally incompetent and 'institutionally racist' (the subsequent public inquiry is where the phrase originally came from) investigation.

 

So, again, what's the basis for your suggestion that a sequestered jury is influenced by a media subject to sub judice rules?

[dune]

If the evidence is good enough, it matters not.

 

That's not true. Jurys sometimes find defendants not guilty because they don't think the crime deserves a guilty verdict.

[Turkish]

I have my doubts that the new forensic evidence will stick unfortunately. They killed Lawrence without question, and have only got off so far as a result of what the Met themselves have admitted has been the most colossally incompetent and 'institutionally racist' (the subsequent public inquiry is where the phrase originally came from) investigation.

 

So if you were on the jury you would think they are guilty. Which proves my point originally that the jury will be unlikely to unbiased. Remember oh great one, i wasn't asked if i thought they were guilty or not, or if they deserve to be hung or not. I was asked what i thought of the trial and if I would be an unbiased jury member, It seems none of us would be.

 

Maybe you should have a word with you therapist to help you deal with jumping to conclusions and making accusations without reading & understanding things properly.

[Verbal]

So if you were on the jury you would think they are guilty. Which proves my point originally that the jury will be unlikely to unbiased. Remember oh great one, i wasn't asked if i thought they were guilty or not, or if they deserve to be hung or not. I was asked what i thought of the trial and if I would be an unbiased jury member, It seems none of us would be.

 

Maybe you should have a word with you therapist to help you deal with jumping to conclusions and making accusations without reading & understanding things properly.

 

I'm not on the jury, and if you had any understanding of jury trials - which I assume you do - you'll know that the defence have all kinds of strategies to weed out jurors who've already made their minds up.

 

Not everyone is as well informed as you, believe it or not.

[Dig Dig]

That's not true. Jurys sometimes find defendants not guilty because they don't think the crime deserves a guilty verdict.

 

Luckily you're not on the jury

[Turkish]

I'm not on the jury, and if you had any understanding of jury trials - which I assume you do - you'll know that the defence have all kinds of strategies to weed out jurors who've already made their minds up.

 

Not everyone is as well informed as you, believe it or not.

 

Do us all a favour and stop being naive. Unless they've been living on mars for the last 20 hrs they'd know about this case, everyone has a view on it. They can't help be influenced even if they haven't made up their minds 100% most of us have.

[Jillyanne]

Do us all a favour and stop being naive. Unless they've been living on mars for the last 20 hrs they'd know about this case, everyone has a view on it. They can't help be influenced even if they haven't made up their minds 100% most of us have.

 

Agreed but from watching 'The Jury' on tv last week and yes I know it's only a programme on tv, I can see how decisions can be swayed by either prosecution of defence in any case.

[Verbal]

Do us all a favour and stop being naive. Unless they've been living on mars for the last 20 hrs they'd know about this case, everyone has a view on it. They can't help be influenced even if they haven't made up their minds 100% most of us have.

 

Unless you've nobbled the jury, you have no idea who the jury members are, so the only way you can be certain is if you stamp your feet and scream that they're biased.

 

I can see that you don't want your dearly held preconceptions to be found lacking (again), but you really should be used to that by now.

[dune]

Luckily you're not on the jury

 

I have been and found it most enjoyable. We found the defendant not guilty although I voted he was and despite requests from the judge for a unanimous verdict I refused to say I thought he hadn't done it. Someone else felt the same and also refused to change her mind so the verdict wasn't unanimous, but he was found not guilty and I respect that.

Edited 16 November, 2011 by dune

[Verbal]

I have been and found it most enjoyable. Found the defendant not guilty.

 

Was he Turkish?

[Dig Dig]

I have been and found it most enjoyable. We found the defendant not guilty although I voted he was and despite requests from the judge for a unanimous verdict I refused to say I thought he hadn't done it. Someone else felt the same and also refused to change her mind so the verdict wasn't unanimous, but he was found not guilty and I respect that.

 

If the outcome was the opposite of what you thought or wanted then it was probably the right decision. I respect that too.

[Turkish]

Unless you've nobbled the jury, you have no idea who the jury members are, so the only way you can be certain is if you stamp your feet and scream that they're biased.

 

I can see that you don't want your dearly held preconceptions to be found lacking (again), but you really should be used to that by now.

 

I think anyone that doent need proffesional assistance to get through the day can see that I am not talking about a John Grisham style jury. unless they've been living on Mars for the last 20 years they would know about this case and potentially be influenced by the media coverage. Afterall, we all have been. If you can't understand that then you might want to up the dose.

Edited 16 November, 2011 by Turkish

[Viking Warrior]

I think the defense lawyers are going to focus on forensic . Would not be the first time forensics have been discounted. I know technology has moved on but surely they should have eexamined the scumbags clothing more closely at the time . Particularly after the out cry of the birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 where forensics was heavily discredited

[rallyboy]

if they're cleared, hopefully they'll celebrate with an armed raid in Chandlers Ford.

 

 

Re-offending rate of the Chandlers Ford two?

Currently zero, so it works as a system.

[Verbal]

I think anyone that doent need proffesional assistance to get through the day can see that I am not talking about a John Grisham style jury. unless they've been living on Mars for the last 20 years they would know about this case and potentially be influenced by the media coverage. Afterall, we all have been. If you can't understand that then you might want to up the dose.

 

You're taking your personal experience and generalising it into a universal fact. Rookie mistake, but entirely predictable in your case. As I say, you have no knowledge of who's on the jury, what they think or know or don't know, and how, during sequestration, they'll deliberate the trial. You also seem to completely forgotten that the murder occurred almost twenty years ago. Jurors are frequently in their twenties and thirties. And even those who are not are likely to be capable of independent and evidenced-based thought, unless you have knowledge to the contrary about individual jurors (This last point you're clearly innately incapable of grasping, but I mention it anyway).

[JackanorySFC]

You're taking your personal experience and generalising it into a universal fact. Rookie mistake, but entirely predictable in your case. As I say, you have no knowledge of who's on the jury, what they think or know or don't know, and how, during sequestration, they'll deliberate the trial. You also seem to completely forgotten that the murder occurred almost twenty years ago. Jurors are frequently in their twenties and thirties. And even those who are not are likely to be capable of independent and evidenced-based thought, unless you have knowledge to the contrary about individual jurors (This last point you're clearly innately incapable of grasping, but I mention it anyway).

 

Jurors frequently in their 20's and 30's, you what???? More so than jurors in their 40's 50's 60's 70's? That is absolute rubbish, you clearly don't work in law or have any experience of a trial by jury. Please attempt to provide a source for that completely made up suggestion? Even if you were right I'm 29 and remember it clear as a bell.

 

Remember when I was a kid and saw the original trial and it all kicking off outside court. I immediately wanted a pair of Armani shades and a suit like the defendants, watching their response to a public spitting and attacking whilst innocent in the eyes of the law was pretty great viewing to me at the time.

Edited 16 November, 2011 by JackanorySFC

[Verbal]

Jurors frequently in their 20's and 30's, you what???? That is absolute rubbish, you clearly don't work in law or have any experience of a trial by jury. Please attempt to provide a source for that completely made up suggestion?

 

Remember when I was a kid and saw the original trial and it all kicking off outside court. I immediately wanted a pair of Armani shades and a suit like the defendants, watching their response to a public spitting and attacking whilst innocent in the eyes of the law was pretty great viewing to me at the time.

 

What an odd reaction. You do know that women serve on juries too, don't you? The selection system of juries is designed specifically to randomise all age ranges, so you're quite likely to find people younger than you might think on juries.

 

Even odder is that you were in any way impressed by the alleged killers of a black man.

[Turkish]

You're taking your personal experience and generalising it into a universal fact. Rookie mistake, but entirely predictable in your case. As I say, you have no knowledge of who's on the jury, what they think or know or don't know, and how, during sequestration, they'll deliberate the trial. You also seem to completely forgotten that the murder occurred almost twenty years ago. Jurors are frequently in their twenties and thirties. And even those who are not are likely to be capable of independent and evidenced-based thought, unless you have knowledge to the contrary about individual jurors (This last point you're clearly innately incapable of grasping, but I mention it anyway).

 

I'm taking the fact that everybody on this thread thinks they are guilty, based on what they've read in the papers. Everyone i work with thinks they are guilty based on this same "evidence" You said yourself you think they are based on a much publicised police enquiry. So why would a jury be any different? I'm 34 and Jackanory is around 30 from memory and we remember the original trial and all that's followed it so so much for your "the jury wont remember the original trial" nonsense.

 

IF we want to get the views of a couple of younger people then Super Mikey and Saintandy666 would be welcome to give their views as an example of what younger people think and how they have come to this opinion.

[Turkish]

What an odd reaction. You do know that women serve on juries too, don't you? The selection system of juries is designed specifically to randomise all age ranges, so you're quite likely to find people younger than you might think on juries.

 

Even odder is that you were in any way impressed by the alleged killers of a black man.

 

FFS here we go again.

 

*puts on white pointy hat and waits for Verbal to accuse the world of being racist again*

[JackanorySFC]

What an odd reaction. You do know that women serve on juries too, don't you? The selection system of juries is designed specifically to randomise all age ranges, so you're quite likely to find people younger than you might think on juries.

 

Do you know the meaning of the word "randomise"? I only ask because you say the selection system of jurors as you know it randomises the ages meaning I would often be suprised at the young demographic within a jury... So returning to that word randomise - would there not be an equal chance there is a:

Middle aged jury

Elderly jury

Shock horror - Mixed aged jury!

 

Jury selection has a huge selection criteria before a big trial that is argued by prosecution and defence and decided upon by the Judge, I suggest you go look it up.

[JackanorySFC]

Even odder is that you were in any way impressed by the alleged killers of a black man.

 

Wrong.

 

Whilst I was young at the time, I was old enough to know they had been found innocent after being innocent in the first place (according to British Law decreeing it is down to the prosecution to prove guilt and until then innocence is presumed).

[Verbal]

Do you know the meaning of the word "randomise"? I only ask because you say the selection system of jurors as you know it randomises the ages meaning I would often be suprised at the young demographic within a jury... So returning to that word randomise - would there not be an equal chance there is a:

Middle aged jury

Elderly jury

Shock horror - Mixed aged jury!

 

Jury selection has a huge selection criteria before a big trial that is argued by prosecution and defence and decided upon by the Judge, I suggest you go look it up.

 

There is only selection process. That's the anonymous selection procedure that results in the letter falling through the door. A judge will almost always ask individual jurors whether they know of any reason why they cannot in principle hear the case fairly. If anyone gives a convincing reason for not be able to, they're excused and placed on another case. This is a deselection process - not, as you claim, selection. When counsel object to certain jurors, that is also only a deselection process - they can't choose who they want, only those they don't. In the years I used to spend in court as a journalist, none of this could be reported - nor can it be today.

[Verbal]

[/b]

 

Wrong.

 

Whilst I was young at the time, I was old enough to know they had been found innocent after being innocent in the first place (according to British Law decreeing it is down to the prosecution to prove guilt and until then innocence is presumed).

 

I'll let you wrestle with your own conscience on this one.

[Turkish]

I'll let you wrestle with your own conscience on this one.

 

Are you sure? usually you are very good at telling people what they are thinking.

[Verbal]

Are you sure? usually you are very good at telling people what they are thinking.

 

Your odd little friend swooned at the sight of the alleged killers of a black man. I doubt anyone needs to be told anything.

[JackanorySFC]

There is only selection process. That's the anonymous selection procedure that results in the letter falling through the door. A judge will almost always ask individual jurors whether they know of any reason why they cannot in principle hear the case fairly. If anyone gives a convincing reason for not be able to, they're excused and placed on another case. This is a deselection process - not, as you claim, selection. When counsel object to certain jurors, that is also only a deselection process - they can't choose who they want, only those they don't. In the years I used to spend in court as a journalist, none of this could be reported - nor can it be today.

 

This is my entire point (and covers a huge area that is argued by both def'/ pros'), of course they won't get a fair trial as every man and his dog has an opinion on it. Please explain how the "deselction process" frequently throws up groups of 12 in their 20's and 30's? Even if they did, I'm 29 and I'm as knowledgable about the original trial as you?

 

I'll let you wrestle with your own conscience on this one.

 

No, the jury are the ones that can struggle with their conscience. I'm happy with the British Justice system and the results they give us. Do not imply that I am racist as a result of that, it is extremely offensive and goes against more than 1 of the t's & c's of posting on here I'm sure.

[JackanorySFC]

Your odd little friend swooned at the sight of the alleged killers of a black man. I doubt anyone needs to be told anything.

 

Explain that please? Do you think I'm racist? If you do say so now or do not imply it again. Ever.

[Verbal]

As I say, you'll no doubt get around to dealing with your weird little 'admiration' in your own time. And I assume hyperventilation rather than low reading age prevents you from reading properly what I said. Whether a trial is fair or not requires knowledge that you just don't have, unless you're a jury nobbler or a court reporter. There are safeguards - including a question from the judge about fairness to each juror which, if answered wrongly, can result in a mistrial.

[Verbal]

Explain that please? Do you think I'm racist? If you do say so now or do not imply it again. Ever.

 

Are you a racist? You want Dr Verbal's answer? The only person implying such a thing is yourself. To me it's just odd that you fetishise the alleged killers' appearance.

[Turkish]

Explain that please? Do you think I'm racist? If you do say so now or do not imply it again. Ever.

 

he thinks everyone is racist, or at least implies it in amoungst his patronising drivel. He accused me of being racist once because i had papa lazarou from the league of gentlemen as my avatar. Apparantly this was conclusive evidence. He has suggested Griffo is this week and now yourself.

 

I wouldn't worry yourself to much about what he thinks. It'll probably come as no surprise to you that he needs to see therapists to cope with just surviving day to day. You're not dealing with someone of a sane and right mind individual, incase that much wasn't already obvious already.

[LGTL]

I am 23 and have no memory of the original case at all really, or the public outcry at the time of the killing. I'd be perfect for this jury.

[Turkish]

I am 23 and have no memory of the original case at all really, or the public outcry at the time of the killing. I'd be perfect for this jury.

 

So what are your thoughts on their guilt?

[JackanorySFC]

he thinks everyone is racist, or at least implies it in amoungst his patronising drivel. He accused me of being racist once because i had papa lazarou from the league of gentlemen as my avatar. Apparantly this was conclusive evidence. He has suggested Griffo is this week and now yourself.

 

I wouldn't worry yourself to much about what he thinks. It'll probably come as no surprise to you that he needs to see therapists to cope with just surviving day to day. You're not dealing with someone of a sane and right mind individual, incase that much wasn't already obvious already.

 

Wouldn't mind it if he came out and said it rather than skirting around the issue - and the clown refers to himself in the 3rd person, a clear sign of mdness and/ or over inflated sense of self importance.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Just a quick point of clarification - an earlier trial (brought by the Crown) of these men never actually took place. They were charged but charges were dropped as the CPS thought the evidence was insufficient. A private prosecution was launched but failed and then a public inquiry took place which was the one which the 'suspects' has to walk past the angry protesters. All of this publicity led to the view that a subsequent trial couldn't be fair. Obviously new evidence has emerged which has led the authorities to think that a new trial is possible.

Edited 16 November, 2011 by anothersaintinsouthsea

[JackanorySFC]

As I say, you'll no doubt get around to dealing with your weird little 'admiration' in your own time. And I assume hyperventilation rather than low reading age prevents you from reading properly what I said. Whether a trial is fair or not requires knowledge that you just don't have, unless you're a jury nobbler or a court reporter. There are safeguards - including a question from the judge about fairness to each juror which, if answered wrongly, can result in a mistrial.

 

Please tell me how my low reading age misinterpurated this:

Jurors are frequently in their twenties and thirties.

 

The context being those in this age group do not remember the original hearing (I'm 29 and I do but that's not the issue). How are jurors in their 20's and 30's more frequent than those in their 40's, 50's, 60's 70+?

 

You just completely made that up to suit your (already flawed) arguement didn't you?

[Verbal]

Please tell me how my low reading age misinterpurated this:

Jurors are frequently in their twenties and thirties.

 

The context being those in this age group do not remember the original trial (I'm 29 and I do but that's not the issue). How are jurors in their 20's and 30's more frequent than those in their 40's, 50's, 60's 70+?

 

 

You just completely made that up to suit your (already flawed) arguement didn't you?

 

Your poor reading skills are letting you down again. Jurors are frequently in their 20s and 30s. You've invented 'more frequently than' in your own odd little head. But my years of experience as a court reporter tell me that's the case. What's your evidence that it's not?

[JackanorySFC]

Your poor reading skills are letting you down again. Jurors are frequently in their 20s and 30s. You've invented 'more frequently than' in your own odd little head. But my years of experience as a court reporter tell me that's the case. What's your evidence that it's not?

 

Great, so you admit that jurors in their 20's and 30's are no more or less likely to be on a jury than those in other age groups?

 

I'm not going to put my biog' on here but I'm well aware thanks, and the Mods here (SG specifically) will know/ see from my registration details that I'm well versed with the intimacies of Court Reporting due to my place of work.

[View From The Top]

I'd like to see the evidence that jurors are more likely to be in their 20s and 30s than any other demographic, which Verbal implies in his earlier posts.

 

If he didn't mean to imply it then why say that jurors are frequently in their 20s & 30s as surely all demographic ages are represented by the whole process?

[Verbal]

I'd like to see the evidence that jurors are more likely to be in their 20s and 30s than any other demographic, which Verbal implies in his earlier posts.

 

If he didn't mean to imply it then why say that jurors are frequently in their 20s & 30s as surely all demographic ages are represented by the whole process?

 

Which verbal did not imply...! I said they're frequently in their 20s and 30s, not 'more frequently'. They can also be younger. I know of a number of students doing jury service. All based on nothing but spending two years in courtrooms.

[tpbury]

To Mr Verbal - I would suggest that Mr Turkish has his 'bigger picture' hat on today, and thus is no worth having a dig at. I do find it difficult to deal with his bi polariness, but I think he's making an interesting point, so no need to shoot him dahhhn....

[The Cat]

Sadly my Dad is vaguely related to the Acourt family. Word on the grapevine is that Gary Dobson's Dad is (or was at the time) both a criminal and police informant who got (or paid) them to cover the whole thing up as a favour.

 

So rather than the sergent tampering with the evidence due to "spite" as reported in today's paper it's because he was in Dobson's pocket the whole time.

[Gemmel]

To Mr Verbal - I would suggest that Mr Turkish has his 'bigger picture' hat on today, and thus is no worth having a dig at. I do find it difficult to deal with his bi polariness, but I think he's making an interesting point, so no need to shoot him dahhhn....

 

Actually Turkish'es point was completely valid, they won't get a fair trail. It was just a shame that others pounced on him, before understanding that he actually thought they were guility as sin and assumed he was sticking up for them.

 

Which for those of us that are big enough to accept it, is almost a foregone conclusion. They won't get a fair trail and maybe social justice dictates that, that is fair.... But the British Justice system doesn't.

 

And for the posters that like to twist everything, I also think they are guilty as sin, but also recognise they won't get a fair trial.

[Verbal]

Actually Turkish'es point was completely valid, they won't get a fair trail. It was just a shame that others pounced on him, before understanding that he actually thought they were guility as sin and assumed he was sticking up for them.

 

Which for those of us that are big enough to accept it, is almost a foregone conclusion. They won't get a fair trail and maybe social justice dictates that, that is fair.... But the British Justice system doesn't.

 

And for the posters that like to twist everything, I also think they are guilty as sin, but also recognise they won't get a fair trial.

 

We have no way of knowing whether Turkish's point is valid or not, because the question of whether there is a fair trial is ultimately down to the twelve men and women on the jury, whose identity, beliefs and preconceptions we simply do not know. On the other hand, there are protections within the system to weigh in favour of a fair trial, including jury sequestration, pre-trial polling of the jury, and direction from the judge. In any case, prior knowledge or preconceptions of the case do NOT necessarily mean that jurors will simply act on these and ignore the evidence, the proceedings of the trial and the summing up by the judge.

 

By the way, too much is assumed about our supposed 'knowledge' of the case. For example, without googling, can you say what the criminal records are of the accused? (Not that this comes up until the verdict).

 

PS I hope you're feeling better now, assuming you took my advice.

[Gemmel]

PS I hope you're feeling better now, assuming you took my advice.

 

Feeling better? Not sure if you are confusing me with another poster, but rest assured, I, like most on here are unlikely to act on any advice you dish out.

 

Keep talking to that doctor / shrink, verbal, things will get better, it may take time, but we are all behind you.

[Turkish]

Actually Turkish'es point was completely valid, they won't get a fair trail. It was just a shame that others pounced on him, before understanding that he actually thought they were guility as sin and assumed he was sticking up for them.

 

Which for those of us that are big enough to accept it, is almost a foregone conclusion. They won't get a fair trail and maybe social justice dictates that, that is fair.... But the British Justice system doesn't.

 

And for the posters that like to twist everything, I also think they are guilty as sin, but also recognise they won't get a fair trial.

 

It's not the first time people have jumped down my throat incorrectly assuming something so comes as no surprise.

 

What you say is correct, social justice is one thing the british justice system is quite another. Some people might bury their heads in the sand but unless you've lived in a bubble you cant not have heard about the Stephen Lawrence case and how guilty the accused in court apparantly are.

 

If they are found guilty then no one will shead any tears of course, but will they be found guilty because a media hungry for a conviction have influenced the verdict? Probably.

[dune]

Why do the press, i.e sky news which i'm watching, keep describing it as a racist attack?