anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 16 November, 2011 Share Posted 16 November, 2011 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? General ignorance and an inability to infer logic has never held Dune back before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 16 November, 2011 Share Posted 16 November, 2011 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? Well the prosecution would say that verbal. Is your medication wearing off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 16 November, 2011 Share Posted 16 November, 2011 Well the prosecution would say that verbal. Is your medication wearing off? I guess they're just referencing fact already established in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 16 November, 2011 Share Posted 16 November, 2011 And 'no other witnesses'? How on earth would you know that, given that this was the first witness called? You obviously don't subscribe to timesonline, it wasn't just the first witness that did not hear any racism but the first 2, the man closest to the attack and a French au pair. Both at the bus stop. Unless their court reporter has got it wrong of course? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 16 November, 2011 Share Posted 16 November, 2011 Well the prosecution would say that verbal. Is your medication wearing off? He's been away for a while, it's understandable his behaviour is a little odd, he'd have missed a few therapy sessions. We should cut him some slack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 17 November, 2011 Share Posted 17 November, 2011 You obviously don't subscribe to timesonline, it wasn't just the first witness that did not hear any racism but the first 2, the man closest to the attack and a French au pair. Both at the bus stop. Unless their court reporter has got it wrong of course? It might be more sensible for you to hold off a while, in the hope that those whom you sartorially admire so much might have less convincing witnesses against them, and their 'what, what n*gger' chant, than Duwayne Brooks. Actually the more I think about that comment of yours the sicker it sounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 17 November, 2011 Share Posted 17 November, 2011 it was a weird comment to be fair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 21 November, 2011 Share Posted 21 November, 2011 I notice one or two posts pointing to "flimsy" new evidence. Sounds to me like peoples minds haven't been made up whether they will be found guilty or not, and that is the point, the jury may think they are probably guilty, but they will only find them guilty if the evidence proves it. They will get a fair trial. Whether justice will be done is another matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 21 November, 2011 Share Posted 21 November, 2011 the jury may think they are probably guilty, but they will only find them guilty if the evidence proves it. It doesn't always work like that. Many jurors know a given defendant is guilty but they vote not guilty because they do not consider the offence to be worthy of a guilty verdict or they consider the defendant to be be the victim etc etc. There are many variables. That is the beauty of a fair trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 3 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Guilty! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16347953 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Guilty! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16347953 Finally! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 "Two men have been convicted of the racist murder of black London teenager Stephen Lawrence 18 years after the attack" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Guilty! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16347953 That's very good news indeed. I hope it's a safe conviction. If any corners were cut or mistakes made with the DNA evidence which appeared to be pivotal, I could see this in the appeal courts for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cat Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Good. Hopefully they'll now prosecute Dobson's mum for perjury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 "Two men have been convicted of the racist murder of black London teenager Stephen Lawrence 18 years after the attack" Established as fact. Again. Interesting when you read some of the earlier posts on this thread. Apparently the murderers did not challenge the DNA evidence with any expert witnesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 One of them is currently serving a sentence (or has been convicted) of a racist offence in 2002 - although the jury wasn't aware of this when it was deliberating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 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? Is Dune around? So ANOTHER court establishes it as fact that it was a racist attack. Will you respect the verdict of this trial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 They were always going to say it was race related, the media demanded it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 They were always going to say it was race related, the media demanded it. So did the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Credit where credit's due.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 So did the facts. Maybe, although this is the evidence that has been reported of course to get the verdict and reporting that the media wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Maybe, although this is the evidence that has been reported of course to get the verdict and reporting that the media wanted. Why is it that some people find it hard to agree that this was a racist murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Credit where credit's due.... To be fair the hate paper has always been behind the lawrences but I expect the racists like dune and his fellow right wing nutters on here will blame the media. Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 They deserve to go down for murder, but I don't believe it was a racist murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 (edited) Why is it that some people find it hard to agree that this was a racist murder? I didn't say i didn't accept it, i said that it was what the media wanted it to be. They'd already decided it was, they'd already decided the guilt of the individuals on trial. They were always going to be found guilty and it was always going to be a reported as a racist murder, regardless of what actually happened. As we all know you can rely on newspapers as they just report what suits their agenda, so obviosuly the papers would report it as a racist attack. And as we all know and have been told on here in the past the Mail is a disgusting paper full of lies with an agenda, so odd that this should be used to prove their guilt on the forum that hates it so much. Edited 3 January, 2012 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 To be fair the hate paper has always been behind the lawrences but I expect the racists like dune and his fellow right wing nutters on here will blame the media. Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk You cant dismiss a paper as being full of hate having an agenda when it prints an article that that you dont agree with, then praise it when it prints one you do. Either it's a hate filled paper full of lies or it isnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 I didn't say i didn't accept it, i said that it was what the media wanted it to be. They'd already decided it was, they'd already decided the guilt of the individuals on trial. They were always going to be found guilty and it was always going to be a racist murder, regardless of what actually happened. As we all know you can rely on newspapers as they just report what suits their agenda, so obviosuly the papers would report it as a racist attack. And as we all know and have been told on here in the past the Mail is a disgusting paper full of lies with an agenda, so odd that this should be used to prove their guilt on the forum that hates it so much. Don't believe that I've used the Mail to support a view that it was a racist attack. Don't see the relevance of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cestrian Saint Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Excuse my ignorance but why were Jamie & Neil Acort & Luke Knight not put on trial this time. Evidence says that there were 5 men present when Stephen Lawrence was attacked so why have only two men stood trial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 They deserve to go down for murder, but I don't believe it was a racist murder. Why not? Let's see what the judge says in sentancing. If he calls it a racist murder then it become a fact established in court (again) and as you've mentioned before you'll respect that won't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Excuse my ignorance but why were Jamie & Neil Acort & Luke Knight not put on trial this time. Evidence says that there were 5 men present when Stephen Lawrence was attacked so why have only two men stood trial? They were convicted on the basis of DNA testing. Said testing couldn't find anything on the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Why not? Let's see what the judge says in sentancing. If he calls it a racist murder then it become a fact established in court (again) and as you've mentioned before you'll respect that won't you? Whatever, i'm bored with this story now, but I expect it'll be on the news every day for the next month, whilst other murders are given hardly any coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Majestic Channon Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 They deserve to go down for murder, but I don't believe it was a racist murder. Yes you do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Yes you do Oh no I don't. I believe they were racist, but that doesn't mean the murder was motivated by race. They were a gang of youths, and gangs of youths kill people on a regular basis in London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Oh no I don't. I believe they were racist, but that doesn't mean the murder was motivated by race. They were a gang of youths, and gangs of youths kill people on a regular basis in London. Pathetic. Truly pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Whatever, i'm bored with this story now, but I expect it'll be on the news every day for the next month, whilst other murders are given hardly any coverage. "Whatever" - ah, the last vestige of the crap debator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Like most things in the media, i am sure there is more to this than we are told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 "Whatever" - ah, the last vestige of the crap debator. And self-confessed racist scumbag. What else was he ever going to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 And self-confessed racist scumbag. What else was he ever going to say? Calm down. You'll only have a funny turn if you carry on like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Calm down. You'll only have a funny turn if you carry on like this. How pleasing to see you sucking a lemon on this one. Your brothers-in-skin are going down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 The judge has refused to hear their pleas of 'I didn't mean it, honest' mitigation. Brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Majestic Channon Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Oh no I don't. I believe they were racist, but that doesn't mean the murder was motivated by race. They were a gang of youths, and gangs of youths kill people on a regular basis in London. Yes you do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 The judge has refused to hear their pleas of 'I didn't mean it, honest' mitigation. Brilliant! The saddest thing of all this is that a lad has died, yet people seem to have lost sight in this amoungst the witch hunt to prove that it was a racist murder. People on here taking delight that it was proven to be a racist attack, that they were right because they believed what was in the press and didn't dare question it. It's quite sad that supposedly intellegent, fair minded people are making jokes about mitigation and throwing accusations around because some people on here have an alternative view to the murder than they do. A lad was murdered it's tragic, does it really matter why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 The saddest thing of all this is that a lad has died, yet people seem to have lost sight in this amoungst the witch hunt to prove that it was a racist murder. People on here taking delight that it was proven to be a racist attack, that they were right because they believed what was in the press and didn't dare question it. It's quite sad that supposedly intellegent, fair minded people are making jokes about mitigation and throwing accusations around because some people on here have an alternative view to the murder than they do. A lad was murdered it's tragic, does it really matter why? If you are happy to bury your head in the sand, I guess it doesn't matter why. But many people think it's important to understand why these awful events happen. It seems that there are lessons still to be learned - witness the apparently racist murder of the student in Manchester over Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 If you are happy to bury your head in the sand, I guess it doesn't matter why. But many people think it's important to understand why these awful events happen. It seems that there are lessons still to be learned - witness the apparently racist murder of the student in Manchester over Christmas. It's not burying my head in the sand. Why is a racist murder worse than any other? It was also a racist murder 18 years ago, society is a lot different now to then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 does it really matter why? Of course it matters why it happened!!! Not least so an attempt might be made to eradicate the environment, motivation and rationale for other attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Why is a racist murder worse than any other? It is no worse. A murder is a murder as far as i'm concerned and they deserve to rot in hell for what they did, the same as any other cold blooded killers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 It's not burying my head in the sand. Why is a racist murder worse than any other? It was also a racist murder 18 years ago, society is a lot different now to then. But you would expect those in authority to try to understand the motivation behind the murder of a child, or a sexually motivated murder, or a gang related murder, or a murder for financial gain. Society needs to understand ALL motivations, so to say 'does it matter why' is a form of denial IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatthewStiles Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Excuse my ignorance but why were Jamie & Neil Acort & Luke Knight not put on trial this time. Evidence says that there were 5 men present when Stephen Lawrence was attacked so why have only two men stood trial? I guess because there wasn't the kind of forensic evidence ie DNA that linked the Acourts and Knight etc to the attack. Just to add my 2pm worth, at the time there was a lot of concern at the time about racist attacks in south-east London. The murder of Stephen Lawrence was very much seen as a racist attack, I lived in Kidbrooke at the time, just up the road from Eltham and I remember the police saying that they suspected it was a racially-motivated murder. There were lots of rumours going around about the Acourt gang as well, some of which is reported on in the media now eg http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/03/stephen-lawrence-racist-pair-suspicion?intcmp=239 Two of the gang were jailed in 1995 for attempted murder and grievous bodily harm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatthewStiles Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 It's not burying my head in the sand. Why is a racist murder worse than any other? It was also a racist murder 18 years ago, society is a lot different now to then. I don't think a racist murder is worse than another per se but if there were racist murders going on in an area then people from ethnic minorities in that area would justifiably feel a bit more threatened than would otherwise be the case. I agree society (and Eltham where I now live) is less racist than 18 years ago but one of the reasons for that is because of the efforts of teachers, anti-racist campaigners etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 3 January, 2012 Share Posted 3 January, 2012 Of course it matters why it happened!!! Not least so an attempt might be made to eradicate the environment, motivation and rationale for other attacks. So this leads to the question who was killed? A black man or a human being? I notice Radio 5 said the murder of the BLACK teenager, Stephen Lawrence when reporting it. Why are people so delighted that it was proven to be racist murder? Amidst all the celebration and backslapping of justice and hallelujah the judge said it was a racist attack, people seem to be forgetting that a lad has been killed here, regardless of the colour of his skin. 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