Stephen Lawrence

[benjii]

I wish people went on trial for being a monumental ****.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

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

 

One of the assailants was heard to use the "n-word" just before he attacked Stephen Lawrence.

[View From The Top]

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

 

Because it was?

[View From The Top]

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.

 

Then using that logic they can also be older, just as was said and therefore making your point about them being in their 20s or 30s a total red herring.

 

Jury's represent society and therefore all ages, creeds and colours.

[shurlock]

Think the argument is overstated on both sides - the media does play a role; but juries can be insulated from this influence. In particular, the further back in time the media coverage of an incident is, the less likely it is to sway jurors, suggesting that they can block out the past. Research makes a similar point -the so-called fade out effect- while acknowledging that risks are greater in high-profile cases and that jurors tend to recall negative coverage of defendants more than positive coverage: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8519995.stm.

 

Perhaps the Lawrence case is such a fixed part of our cultural landscape that people can't block out what the media has said; but the evidence is not as fatalistic and these risks need to be balanced against the risks of justice not being done by failing to act on potentially important evidence. In this case, the evidence would have to be sufficiently powerful to offset the risk of an unfair trial - and I'm sure this was a determining factor in the courts minds. Anything less, and Turkish's point would have tipped the balance the other way.

 

Judges are no mugs either -their independence is one of the great strengths of this country, fought tooth and nail for centuries- and if they smell something rotten, they'll pull the plug -regardless how unpopular it is with the press and the public.

 

Finally, like a few others in their late 20s/early 30s, I grew up with this stuff. Playing devils advocate, I always thought that the bias -assuming one exists- might work the other way - namely, the fact that the defendants hadn't been convicted would leave all kinds of niggling doubts in jurors minds and actually make it harder for the prosecution -regardless what any new evidence might say.

Edited 16 November, 2011 by shurlock

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

good post Shurlock.

[dune]

One of the assailants was heard to use the "n-word" just before he attacked Stephen Lawrence.

 

How many people heard this? And if it was said would it guarantee that it was a racist attack?

[LGTL]

How many people heard this? And if it was said would it guarantee that it was a racist attack?

 

Personal opinion I suppose, but in my eyes it would, otherwise why the need to mention it? I highly doubt when a white guy kills a white guy he shouts out "whitey" or whatever.

[Dig Dig]

How many people heard this? And if it was said would it guarantee that it was a racist attack?

 

At least the other guy who was with Stephen who luckily managed to get away. Why are you even debating whether it was a racist attack? Only an idiot would think otherwise. The fact that one of the defendants had since attacked and racially abused a black plain clothed Police officer is another big clue.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

How many people heard this? And if it was said would it guarantee that it was a racist attack?

 

Pathetic even by your standards. There is a lot to debate about this murder - the police reaction, the judicial process etc but this isn't up for debate. Only a tit like you could try and make out that the murder of a black teenager minding his own business at a bus stop who was set upon by a gang of white youths - one of who called him the n-word - might not be a racially motivated attack. You really are a cretin.

[dune]

At least the other guy who was with Stephen who luckily managed to get away. Why are you even debating whether it was a racist attack? Only an idiot would think otherwise. The fact that one of the defendants had since attacked and racially abused a black plain clothed Police officer is another big clue.

 

Because it needs to be established. It is stated as FACT by the media and I do not think it is appropriate that it is being stated as fact without a prosecution establishing that this was the case. It could well have been a case of a gang attacking two strangers for no reason other than they felt like it.

[JackanorySFC]

How many people heard this? And if it was said would it guarantee that it was a racist attack?

 

The Times website has just reported the main eye witness (was at the bus stop with SL) claimed today he heard no racist language, in fact another woman (french au pair) at the bus stop said she felt it unusual and less serious because nothing was shouted at all.

 

???

[Verbal]

Then using that logic they can also be older, just as was said and therefore making your point about them being in their 20s or 30s a total red herring.

 

Jury's represent society and therefore all ages, creeds and colours.

 

Of course! But what's your point? Mine was that some on juries would be too young to remember the original incident. Jurors can be as young as eighteen and as old as seventy. I've often seen young jurors - and juries tend to be a mix of both It's not a red herring, though, because the starting assumption of many arguments on here is that a fair trial is impossible because everyone, including jurors, have already made up their minds. My broader point is that the jury system doesn't work in that way - juries are not ad hoc forums for the confirmation of preconceptions (as I've already said in more detail above).

[dune]

Pathetic even by your standards. There is a lot to debate about this murder - the police reaction, the judicial process etc but this isn't up for debate.

 

I see, so because you and others decree it is a FACT it is a FACT.

 

Who needs a justice system when you've got the Liberal Elite.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

The Times website has just reported the main eye witness (was at the bus stop with SL) claimed today he heard no racist language, in fact another woman (french au pair) at the bus stop said she felt it unusual and less serious because nothing was shouted at all.

 

???

 

Brooks, who was with Lawrence said they used the "n-word". The witness you mentioned saw the attack but hadn't seen the initial contact - both Lawrence and Brooks had wandered down the road to a corner to see if they could see the bus they were waiting for and then coming running back to the bus stop.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I see, so because you and others decree it is a FACT it is a FACT.

 

Who needs a justice system when you've got the Liberal Elite.

 

I'm glad you think I'm both Liberal and elite. I think you're a racist thicko.

[View From The Top]

I see, so because you and others decree it is a FACT it is a FACT.

 

Who needs a justice system when you've got the Liberal Elite.

 

I would suggest that the full scale public inquiry that concluded that it was a racial attack carries slightly more weight.

[JackanorySFC]

Brooks, who was with Lawrence said they used the "n-word". The witness you mentioned saw the attack but hadn't seen the initial contact - both Lawrence and Brooks had wandered down the road to a corner to see if they could see the bus they were waiting for and then coming running back to the bus stop.

 

Ah, didn't see that. You'd have thought everyone at the bus stop would have heard if it was shouted though? BTW I've seen the documentaries etc so know the original defendants were racist but this doesn't mean they 100% did it and I'm starting to doubt this was 100% a racist attack but I'll reserve my judgement until I've heard as much as I can about the evidence.

[dune]

The Times website has just reported the main eye witness (was at the bus stop with SL) claimed today he heard no racist language, in fact another woman (french au pair) at the bus stop said she felt it unusual and less serious because nothing was shouted at all.

 

???

 

So it was an attack.

[dune]

I'm glad you think I'm both Liberal and elite. I think you're a racist thicko.

 

Isn't it predictable how the Liberal Elite only want to 'debate' on their terms. And in the said debates only want to hear their own views.

[Turkish]

The Times website has just reported the main eye witness (was at the bus stop with SL) claimed today he heard no racist language, in fact another woman (french au pair) at the bus stop said she felt it unusual and less serious because nothing was shouted at all.

 

???

 

That's interesting. The media have been reporting it for years as a racist attack, ramming it down our throats yet two key witnesses didn't hear any racist language at all. Media propganda? Surely not.

 

now of course the flip side of this which hasn't been reported and everyone hasn't been sucked into is that rather than Stephen Lawrence being a lovely lad and an innocent bystander murdered because he was black, some people have said he was actually smack dealing scum who was "serving up" at one of the local schools. He was murdered in an attack because he had been pushing drugs on one of the defendants family members.

 

We have no idea of course if this is true or not and i am not suggesting it is, i am merely saying what an alternative to scenario to what the media have reported may have been.

 

If you believe some people on here none of us have been influenced by what have been reported in the papers and nether has any jury.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

IN any case I doubt whether it being racist or not will be contested in court. Both defendents, I imagine, will say that neither of them were involved in any form with the gang that did the murder that night so whether or not the n'word was used is irrelevant to their defence.

 

Anyway the jurors who sat at the inquest to his death concluded that the murder was racially motivated. Not the Liberal Elite Dune, but jurors sitting in an English court. It has therefore already been established and is therefore FACT.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/14/newsid_2723000/2723721.stm

[Sour Mash]

Ah, didn't see that. You'd have thought everyone at the bus stop would have heard if it was shouted though? BTW I've seen the documentaries etc so know the original defendants were racist but this doesn't mean they 100% did it and I'm starting to doubt this was 100% a racist attack but I'll reserve my judgement until I've heard as much as I can about the evidence.

I never get why it matters if it was a racist attack or not? If you stab someone to death for no good reason, you're a c**t that deserves to rot in jail, never get the fuss about whether it was racially motivated or not.

[Dig Dig]

Because the alleged racial name calling happened away from the bus stop. Lawrence and his mate where confronted on their way back to the bus stop so it's very possible everyone else at the bus stop were out of earshot. Just because they didn't hear it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The key witness (the who got away) is the one who said it was shouted at them just before they were set upon. Why make this piece up if it didn't happen? I'll use my head and suggest that as the gang are known racists, have a history or racial abuse and the public enquiry concluded it was racist that it was a racist attack. Unless on this particular day, they were not feeling very racist when they decided to single out two black men and stab one to death?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Isn't it predictable how the Liberal Elite only want to 'debate' on their terms. And in the said debates only want to hear their own views.

 

You're the one that always comes out with the labels. Why don't you do some research and add something to the "debate" then? you're so closed to what you don't want to hear it's untrue. See the post I've made a few minutes ago - it was established as a racist attack in 1997 in court. Will you now concede it was a racist attack?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

That's interesting. The media have been reporting it for years as a racist attack, ramming it down our throats yet two key witnesses didn't hear any racist language at all. Media propganda? Surely not.

 

 

No not media propaganda, a fact established in court in 1997.

[dune]

So basically no racist language was heard, but it was a racist attack because it's being reported that white youths attacked black youths. On that basis if white youths are attacked by black youths is it equally a racist attack? Can it not simply be an attack in both instances?

[Turkish]

I never get why it matters if it was a racist attack or not? If you stab someone to death for no good reason, you're a c**t that deserves to rot in jail, never get the fuss about whether it was racially motivated or not.

 

Spot on.

[Dig Dig]

So basically no racist language was heard, but it was a racist attack because it's being reported that white youths attacked black youths. On that basis if white youths are attacked by black youths is it equally a racist attack? Can it not simply be an attack in both instances?

 

One key witness did say he heard them use racist language. And where has anyone said that it can't work the other way around? Would you be questioning the racial motivtion if it was the other way around? I suspect not.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

So basically no racist language was heard, but it was a racist attack because it's being reported that white youths attacked black youths. On that basis if white youths are attacked by black youths is it equally a racist attack? Can it not simply be an attack in both instances?

 

FFS, the man who criticises others for being close minded is ignoring the FACT that a public inquiry has already established as FACT that it was a racist attack and racist language WAS heard just not by everyone who witness some aspect of the crime. At the risk of sounding like Rafa Benitez - these are the facts.

 

Only you could go off at a tangent, in a debate centred on the Stephen Lawrence murder, into a point about put upon against white people.

Edited 16 November, 2011 by anothersaintinsouthsea

[dune]

One key witness did say he heard them use racist language. And where has anyone said that it can't work the other way around? Would you be questioning the racial motivtion if it was the other way around? I suspect not.

 

Of course I would, but I would not state it as a fact without evidence, and if what The Times are reporting is correct it completely destroys the credibility of any previous trial or enquiry, and furthermore if the witnesses have changed their statements then it begs questions as to their reliability as witnesses in this trial.

[Turkish]

No not media propaganda, a fact established in court in 1997.

 

To be fair, i'd forgotten about that. You are of course correct. Just more evidence about how we are influenced by the media.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Of course I would, but I would not state it as a fact without evidence, and if what The Times are reporting is correct it completely destroys the credibility of any previous trial or enquiry, and furthermore if the witnesses have changed their statements then it begs questions as to their reliability as witnesses in this trial.

 

Mr Open-Minded still ignoring that it has already been deemed a racially motivated attack in court.

[dune]

Mr Open-Minded still ignoring that it has already been deemed a racially motivated attack in court.

 

Mr Closed-Minded ignoring what the witnesses have, according to Jackanory, said about no racist language being used.

 

So where do you get all this about the N word being used? Did you imagine it? Was it just wishful thinking?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

To be fair, i'd forgotten about that. You are of course correct. Just more evidence about how we are influenced by the media.

 

To be fair to you it was quite a while ago and the media do have a habit of reporting some things as though they are facts when in reality it's just a consensus amonnst fellow hacks.

[View From The Top]

So where do you get all this about the N word being used? Did you imagine it? Was it just wishful thinking?

 

Coroners court and public inquiry. All on the public record.

[shurlock]

I never get why it matters if it was a racist attack or not? If you stab someone to death for no good reason, you're a c**t that deserves to rot in jail, never get the fuss about whether it was racially motivated or not.

 

True- but if its racially motivated, it might involve a different level of intent or foresight. Certainly different from being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting caught up in something you later regret.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Mr Closed-Minded ignoring what the witnesses have, according to Jackanory, said about no racist language being used.

 

So where do you get all this about the N word being used? Did you imagine it?

 

You're either thick or a troll or both. Have all of the witnesses been heard? No. So SOME of the witnesses didn't hear racist language but not "The witnesses". The key witness (Brooks) who was with Lawrence at the first contact with the gang says that the n-word was said by one of the gang. The witness who has spoken in court today was a different person. When Lawrence and Brooks first made contact with the gang they weren't actually at the bus-stop. The witness who spoke in court and didn't hear anything wasn't in earshot or sight of the initial contact.

 

The link I posted to the public inquiry finding the attack to be racially motivated wasn't done in my imagination but on this forum, it's a few posts up the page, why don't you have a click and educate yourself for once.

[dune]

Coroners court and public inquiry. All on the public record.

 

Fine, but if it's correct that the key witnesses (those closest to the attack) say nothing was said would you not agree it casts doubt on the findings?

 

After this decade long trial by media some on here are saying the N word was used. Was it or wasn't it?

[dune]

The key witness (Brooks) who was with Lawrence at the first contact with the gang says that the n-word was said by one of the gang.

 

Nobody else heard it said then?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Fine, but if it's correct that the key witnesses (those closest to the attack) say nothing was said would you not agree it casts doubt on the findings?

 

After this decade long trial by media some on here are saying the N word was used. Was it or wasn't it?

 

Again, they aren't "the key witnesses" they are SOME of the witnesses. And has been mentioned repeatedly they didn't see and hear all of events that night.

[dune]

Again, they aren't "the key witnesses" they are SOME of the witnesses. And has been mentioned repeatedly they didn't see and hear all of events that night.

 

If nothing was said they woudn't hear anything though would they?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Nobody else heard it said then?

 

So Brooks is a liar? Really only a racist would so beligerantly pursue this in the way you have done. At the start you said that it couldn't be considered a racist attack until the facts had been heard in court and then agreed as such by the jury. Evidence has been provided in this thread which shows that a court has already considered whether or not it was a racist attack and concluded that it was. Now you're up against it suddenly agreement by a jury in court isn't good enough for you anymore.

 

In any case, as I've already suggested, I doubt the defence will contest that aspect as they will say they weren't involved at all. Your only hope that this wasn't racist is if Brooks changes his mind which is pretty unlikely given he's gone on record several times and said the same thing.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

If nothing was said they woudn't hear anything though would they?

 

Again, they didn't hear or see the first contact between Brooks and Lawrence and the gang. Thus they didn't hear what was said when that contact happened. I know you're a bit slow but is that too complicated for you - are you aware that increasing one's distance to another person makes it more difficult to hear them?

[Verbal]

I see the usual suspects are jumping in as the result of a single answer under cross examination of one witness. Really quite funny.

[dune]

So Brooks is a liar?

 

All i'm saying is that some witnesses heard nothing, and as far as i'm aware no other witnesses heard it said. So it's Brooks word against the attackers word (whoever the attackers were).

 

I will respect the verdict of this trial. Will you?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

All i'm saying is that some witnesses heard nothing, and as far as i'm aware no other witnesses heard it said. So it's Brooks word against the attackers word (whoever the attackers were).

 

I will respect the verdict of this trial. Will you?

 

What like you've already respected the outcome of the inquest already held in court in which the jury decided it was a racially motivated attack? You have respected that right?

 

In any case as I've pointed out frequently the defence will not dispute whether it was racially motivated they will simply deny that they were there. They're not going to say "m'Lud I plead not guilty to a charge or racially motivated murder but I do plead guilty to a murder not motivated by racism" are they. It won't be Brooks word against the defendents (I presume you meant defendents rather than attackers - or have you already decided that they're guilty?) as to whether they used racist language. The prosecution is based on forensic evidence that links the defendents directly to the scene, the defence will argue that the forensics are unreliable, whether it was racially motivated or not isn't going to be debated.

Edited 16 November, 2011 by anothersaintinsouthsea

[OldNick]

whatever happens, it was a vile cowardly attack. From afar the accused look guilty as sin, but have never been found guilty. If the jury go with an open mind I dont think they can give a guilty verdict as the DNA evidence will be made to look doubtful.

I hope the Lawrence family get justice and a sort of closure

[JackFrost]

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.

 

Bingo.

[Verbal]

All i'm saying is that some witnesses heard nothing, and as far as i'm aware no other witnesses heard it said. So it's Brooks word against the attackers word (whoever the attackers were).

 

I will respect the verdict of this trial. Will you?

 

You obviously have a better handle on this case than the prosecuting counsel, who told the jury: 'The only discernible reason for the attack was the colour of [stephen Lawrence's] skin.'

 

And 'no other witnesses'? How on earth would you know that, given that this was the first witness called?