Its cropped up in other posts, so here it is.
The Stephen Lawrence Trial.
Let me say right now that I have no doubts that Gary Dobson, and David Norris, are a right pair of scumbags, and should be inside. The murder of Stephen Lawrence is also to be abhorred,
From what I have seen reported to date, the evidence (so far) is a crock of poo, The evidence of the main eye witness Duwayne Brooks is the worse I have heard ever, full of holes and self contradictions and decade years old, half forgotten memories.
The other prosecution main bank of evidence is some very dubious minute amounts of scientific evidence that may or may not have been contaminated over the period of years.
The prosecution also seems to think that because they can describe how shocking it was, it proves these two must have done it.,
If I was on that Jury there is no way I could safely put these two behind bars for *this* offence.
How many times are they going to drag these blokes to court (is this the third or fourth time?) before they realise there is not enough evidence to convict however much we want to put them down,
Its a politically motivated charade to make up for the balls up the met made of the vital time immediately after the event.
If they are convicted there will be an appeal.
|
Shrewd as always Zeddo. I'm afraid you may be right.
What surprises me is that these two baboons, and their three cronies, haven't been taken out one by one in drive-by shootings by, harrumph, the usual suspects.
That would have given the local fuzz an opportunity for a bit of laudable blind-eye turning. Chance would be a fine thing eh?
|
|
It's nothing more than a politically correct witch-hunt. There are few things more laughably incompetent than the Crown when it's under pressure to get a result in a high profile case, as shown in the Jill Dando and Birmingham Six cock-ups.
|
>> What surprises me is that these two baboons, and their three cronies, haven't been taken out one by one in drive-by shootings by, harrumph, the usual suspects.
That was an immoderate thing to say and I have been worrying about it. In practice, anyway, bus-queue-spraying teenage idiots would be useless at it and wicked adult yardie gunmen would be too busy with their own affairs to bother.
But I couldn't help feeling quite strongly that rough justice might be better really for the world and the Lawrence parents than the no justice they have had so far. I've met both the Lawrences socially and they are innocent, deeply wounded people who have been very badly let down by our country. Our society. Us.
Usually I am more than happy to be British. Sometimes though I have felt ashamed of it. Most disagreeable.
And as for the baboons: I wasn't there, I didn't see it, they may be innocent victims for all I know, really know for sure. But I would certainly punt a hundred quid on their guilt, if not their conviction.
|
Z may well be right in saying the two accused should be found not guilty.
However, I get very fed up with comments like "If I was on that Jury there is no way I could safely put these two behind bars for *this* offence." If you're not there, you haven't heard the evidence first-hand. And even if you were on the jury, you'd best hear ALL the evidence before making up your mind.
Someone (the DPP?) has looked at the evidence and has decided that there is sufficient there to merit a trial. That said, we shall probably never know whether there was pressure for the case to be brought to make the police look a little bit better.
The Stephen Lawrence case is probably going to remain in public memory for all the wrong reasons.
|
|
The trial and the probable appeal will knock a good hole in the legal aid budget! A commercial case the other day cost £250,000 for a 4 hour hearing.
|
>> on the jury, you'd best hear ALL the evidence before making up your mind.
You conveniently missed out my words - Quote
" to date, the evidence (so far)"
|
I agree with the general thrust of Zero's OP.
Equally, there is enormous pressure on the jury to pot these two, whatever the evidence.
|
Yes, I did omit some of your words, Z, but that's largely irrelevant, as you said later in your post that you could not find the accused guilty if you were on the jury. You seem to be assuming that the rest of evidence (not that you have heard any of it first-hand) will be as weak as you believe the evidence so far to be.
All I'm really saying is that we often become armchair lawyers in emotive cases like this one and it's sometimes as well to remind ourselves of the proper legal process.
I shan't be at all surprised if there is an acquittal, but I haven't reached any conclusion myself. I don't think anyone is in a position to do so.
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Fri 18 Nov 11 at 18:29
|
|
Have you been on a jury? I have.
|
|
No, I haven't. Does that invalidate what I'm saying?
|
|
A little yes. There is MUCH evidence at a complex or high profile trial, too much to validate all of it. The jury decides by that which is summarised during the course of the trial, at various parts of the trial. There is one at the start and you get a really good feel for the validity of it at that point.
|
|
You're a sharp operator, Z, and familiar with a vast area of knowledge and experience. However, you're being just a little bit naughty here - just a tad devious. You are trying to deflect the argument away from an important, central point: you haven't heard what has been said in court so far. None of us has.
|
|
so the press - who have not been restricted by the court in what they can report, are telling lies?
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 18 Nov 11 at 19:27
|
|
Oh, come on, Z. Do you believe everything you read in the papers?
|
|
Of course not, but as they are all reporting it, you can get a accurate view if you review a balance of sources.
|
I'm thinking that maybe a lot of people reading this might feel that the thread has been highjacked by an argument about a side-issue.
I shan't pursue it further; I think I've made my point.
Let me be clear that I have much respect for Zero (as I think most of us here do), but that fact won't stop some of us from arriving at our own conclusions and stating them clearly.
|
>> of us here do), but that fact won't stop some of us from arriving at
>> our own conclusions and stating them clearly.
I would expect nothing else.
|
>> so the press - who have not been restricted by the court in what they
>> can report, are telling lies?
We all know the press lie. There was only one 'rogue' reporter commissioning private dicks to hack phones etc..........
But in this case they're perhaps just reporting the highlights. Each chooses their own highlight and applies their slant according to their market.
The reports I've seen of Brooks's evidence suggest it was clear and dignified but limited so far to a straight account of what happened at the time. If there are contradictions on what's said in court the jury decide.
Different papers reporting the trial and putting differing emphasis on bits of the evidence are no proof of inconsistencies in the witnesses accounts.
If you'd gone for a drink with your best m8 20years ago and the night ended in his violent death would your story be consistent at a trial yesterday?
|
>>
>> If you'd gone for a drink with your best m8 20years ago and the night
>> ended in his violent death would your story be consistent at a trial yesterday?
>>
That's the problem though, isn't it?
The defence can tear him to pieces by highlighting those inconsistancies.
|
|
Very sad case that kid Stephen never deserved to have met his death that way.In hindsight he should have run but there you go.I detest people who use a knive in a gang cowards.This case was handled all wrong from the start.
|
...Each chooses their own highlight and applies their slant according to their market...
Court reporting is the straightest there is.
Not because we court reporters are all honest and decent fellows, but because the reports are examined the next day by the prosecution and defence lawyers, and allegations of contempt are easily made.
No reporter - or editor - wants to be held responsible for the collapse of a trial and be fined or go prison.
There will be a volley of way out stories at the end of the trial, particularly if there are guilty verdicts.
What can never be reported, because only those 12 people know, is how the jury view the credibility and truthfulness of a witness, which is crucial.
The written statement of the main prosecution witness will say the defendant is guilty.
But the statement is not put before the jury, it's how the witness gives his evidence which will sway the jury one way or the other.
|
...who have not been restricted by the court in what they can report...
There are any number of restrictions on court reports.
But the general rule is if the jury heard it, you can report it.
|
Iffy raised the point further up, the pressure on this Jury, in nearly every respect, not least the pressure to convict, is immense, and it really isn't a Jury I would like to be on.
The talk of "biased" court reporting raises the question, should the British justice system be televised. I think it should. Not the american way, but simply live uncommented, un-produced,
video feed on the internet, under the control of the Judge in the same way he can control the public gallery.
|
A pilot scheme to televise sentencing hearings is due to start soon.
The televising of trials is a very long way off, and may never happen.
It's difficult enough now to get witnesses to court, without them thinking they are to be on the telly.
You could point the camera somewhere else, but I can't see the televising of jurors being allowed either, so there wouldn't be a lot left to take pictures of.
Unless they resort to long, lingering shots of the press bench.
|
...No thanks...
Some of the young lasses sent by the press agencies are quite fit.
They turn up at court because they have to, but are really only interested in writing stories about the X-Factor.
|
In the immortal words of Jeremy Kyle: "Well, well, well."
Damn. Heading should say trial, not trail.
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Tue 3 Jan 12 at 14:44
|
|
I bet there will be a long-drawn out and wildly expensive appeal!
|
I am surprised, hearing and reading the précis of the summing up from Defence, Prosecution and Judge (specially the judge) I would have said NON!
Yup appeal will be lodged asap.
|
|
You were saying NON quite early on, I believe.
|
|
indeed, and nothing changed my mind, in fact it got stronger. Seemed to me the judge tried to swing them to a non guilty.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 3 Jan 12 at 15:04
|
>> the judge tried to swing them to a non guilty.
The judge didn't want the jury to convict just because of the ample evidence that these people are racist thugs who around the time of the murder photographed each other enjoying disgusting idiot fantasies about murdering and torturing black people. He wanted them to look carefully at the forensic and other evidence and convict only if they were convinced that these people were guilty 'on the balance of probability' of the actual murder being considered. I would imagine the judge wanted to ensure that any appeal could be dismissed fairly briskly and wouldn't be hugely expensive or become a cause célèbre for whining racists. .
The jury decided they were guilty. I imagine most people including you Zero would agree with them on the overwhelming 'balance of probability'.
|
I suspect you're right about the judge's purpose of summing up AC. Criminal trial though so Jury need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt. Balance of probability would not be enough.
The jury heard and saw everything that went on over three/four weeks. We only know what the media saw fit to report. And on that basis I'm not going to queery the verdict.
Don't think we've heard the last of the case though. The Court of Appeal beckons.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 3 Jan 12 at 15:25
|
>> Criminal trial though so Jury need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt. Balance of probability would not be enough.
Yes, sorry. Shows how hip I am about the law... Your other point, that the jury heard it all and we only got the snippets that found their way into the media, is a good one though.
Apart from the forensic evidence, and all the defence bluster about police carelessness and 'cross-contamination' - load of cobblers it sounded too - they got all the detail about baboon family members and their changing, shifty stories intended as alibis.
|
No
You cant convict because you think they probably did it. You can only convict if you are sure they did it. I know they were there, I know they are scum bags who should be behind bars, I know they probably did it, but there is a chance that someone else did it*. There was little in the way of evidence to convict.
*Now I know that if they were there, they can be convicted as part of a group action. Now here is the rub, where are the others of that group in that dock?
That omission alone convinces me It was a witch hunt to cover the very poor showing of the old bill and a sop to the perceived racism of the met.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 3 Jan 12 at 15:28
|
>> where are the others of that group in that dock?
That's a good point. They should be there too. There were three of them I think. No doubt they have escaped for technical reasons. But perhaps when their friends have gone down they will come up with new evidence against the other three to curry favour with the prison and legal authorities.
'Witch hunt' Zeddo? Come come...
|
Dobson said: "You've condemned an innocent man," as he was taken down.
So, propelled by a crushing sense of injustice, he might be inclined to try to, er, dob the others in.
|
I believe there where five A.C.Took 18 years to get some justice for the parents.
Percieved racism?
|
>> five A.C.Took 18 years to get some justice for the parents.
Yes, five: these two, the Acourt brothers and A.N. Other.
>> Percieved racism?
Not just perceived. Real.
People who deny that our society is deeply racist, shot through with that disgusting pathology from top to bottom, are silly Polyannas (or shameless racists).
Most decent people recognize this fact, are made uneasy by it and do their best to suppress or counter their own knee-jerk racist responses. Many make a good fist of it and many others can be seen trying. We British aren't any worse than anyone else, we just are who we are.
The older I get the more it seems to me that this stuff is intrinsic actually to all cultures in different forms. Part (and far from the worst part) of human nature.
|
It's inbuilt in our genes.
The next door tribe/village/ collection of mud huts/ caves, were always the outsiders, to be feared and hated in case they took or gained something we needed for survival.
|
>> It's inbuilt in our genes.
>> The next door tribe/village/ collection of mud huts/ caves, were always the outsiders, to be
>> feared and hated in case they took or gained something we needed for survival.
>>
Most wars are about resources.
|
>> Most wars are about resources.
Yeah but who you're prepared to share them with is determined by tribe/village/ collection of mud huts/ caves
|
Sadly, I think that a successful appeal is the only likely outcome, judging by the evidence that was presented.
Enough to persuade the jury, but probably not a hard-headed appeal judge.
|
I take the complete opposite view
The solid evidence presented by the expert forensic scientists, was more than enough to convince any hard-headed judge or appeal judge but too technical to persuade a Jury consisting of 12 simple minded members of the general public.
Therefore I am astonished that the Jury in this case was able to discard the distracting, deceptive and flim-flam case submitted by the Defence, and that the Jury understood exactly what the Judge meant in his cunning summing up.
Last edited by: John H on Tue 3 Jan 12 at 17:33
|
I haven't followed the case that closely, but I don't see how these chaps were found guilty of murder unless through the "joint enterprise" route where a mob is all held culpable to avoid the defence of A saying B did it, and B saying A did it.
I would imagine anyone within 30 feet of the stabbing would have blood on their clothing - there must have been a lot more that I've missed/hasn't been reported to get a solid guilty verdict.
Or the above will be grounds for appeal (remember you can't appeal just because you disagree with a verdict - you need to put forward points of law that were mishandled).
|
>> "joint enterprise" route >>
Three others remaining at large according to Daily Mail
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080159/Stephen-Lawrence-case-How-killers-finally-brought-justice.html
Last edited by: John H on Tue 3 Jan 12 at 18:01
|
Neither side can appeal simply because they don't like the verdict.
The defence's best chance is if the judge's conduct of the trial was flawed.
Usually, the defence will try to show the judge misdirected the jury in his summing up, or made an error of law.
It is to be hoped a trial judge was chosen who knows what he's about, so he will not have made a balls of it.
As a judge once said to me: "I'm not too bothered if a sentence of mine is successfully appealed, that's a matter of opinion.
"What I don't like is if the verdict in a jury trial I've done is successfully appealed, because that shows I've not done my job properly."
|
>> Neither side can appeal simply because they don't like the verdict.
prosecution can bring the case to trial again.
As they did in this case.
|
|
With 'new' Evidence of Awesomeness, apparently.
|
>> I haven't followed the case that closely, but I don't see how these chaps were
>> found guilty of murder unless through the "joint enterprise" route where a mob is all
>> held culpable to avoid the defence of A saying B did it, and B saying
>> A did it.
It's not so much to avoid that defence. Rather, it is that the group can be considered involved in a common purpose and the outcome of that common purpose was the murder.
>> Or the above will be grounds for appeal (remember you can't appeal just because you
>> disagree with a verdict - you need to put forward points of law that were
>> mishandled).
Not only law, but also evidence and procedure. Anything that is considered to make the decision unsafe, which could include what would seem to be questionable forensic evidence.
|
|
If you believe that SS you believe anything.Two thugs will serve there time three more thugs to go.
|
>> If you believe that SS you believe anything.Two thugs will serve there time three more
>> thugs to go.
Believe what?
I hope you're right about the thugs, but I fear not. Time will tell, I guess.
|
|
I've heard that they will be sentenced according to the rules of when the first trial took place, anybody know what that will mean in terms of years?
|
...anybody know what that will mean in terms of years?...
The main thing in their favour is they will be sentenced as if they were the age they were when they murdered Lawrence, 16 and 17-years-old.
It's still a life sentence, but the tariff will be a lot lower, 15 years or so, at a guesstimate.
Were they sentenced for the age they are now, they could expect a tariff of around 25 years.
|
|
Did the extra tariff for "racially aggravated" crimes exist 18 yrs ago - that adds a wee chunk to the tariff nowadays does it not?
|
...Did the extra tariff for "racially aggravated" crimes exist 18 yrs ago...
I don't believe it did, but the main thing which will reduce the tariff is being sentenced as 16 and 17-year-olds.
I see the judge has partially rejected the defence assertion this was not pre-meditated, because the pair - in the video - did pre-meditate the murder of black people in general, if not Lawrence in particular.
Pressure on the judge to come up with a big whack, but he is constrained by the defendants' notional ages, which I expect we will be reminded of several times tomorrow.
|
|
The Judge's sentecing remarks will almost certainly appear on the judiciary website tomorrow pretty well contemporaneuosly with being pronounced.
|
|
The extra tariff is one of SL's enduring legacies.
|
>> The extra tariff is one of SL's enduring legacies.
It shouldn't be, in fact it shouldn't exist, for to do so implies that someone else's murder is less heinous, or that someone else's life is more important or of more value.
|
The sentence is in response to the criminal at the time of the crime, rather than the victim.
That's why there is such a thing as a tarrif in the first place.
I presume killing someone out of hatred is deemed more serious than out of anger or recklessness.
In the same way that a dangerous driver who inadvertently kills a pedestrian does not get a life sentence, despite the outcome of their criminal act being ultimately the same.
|
>> The sentence is in response to the criminal at the time of the crime, rather
>> than the victim.
>>
>> That's why there is such a thing as a tarrif in the first place.
>>
>> I presume killing someone out of hatred is deemed more serious than out of anger
>> or recklessness.
Its Either Murder or Manslaughter, thats why the two charges exist.
>>
>> In the same way that a dangerous driver who inadvertently kills a pedestrian does not
>> get a life sentence, despite the outcome of their criminal act being ultimately the same.
See my comment above.
|
Just announced, jailed for minimum terms of
Norris - 14 years and 3 months
Dobson - 15 years and 2 months
|
Judge's commendation for Detective Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll, who led the latest inquiry.
The Met finally found a proper copper for the job, shame it took them so long.
|
Interesting to see the amount of information that is now being disclosed about these two. 5 year stretches for drug dealing, racist attack on black off duty Police Officer.
Naturally this sort of information was kept from the trial but if you have your doubts about the conviction maybe your opinions may change.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Wed 4 Jan 12 at 12:40
|
"...if you have your doubts about the conviction maybe your opinions may change."
I still say (as per earlier posts) that only by being there as a member of the jury all through the trial can you really know how the evidence was dealt with.
You have to accept that any fragility in the evidence of the prosecution would have been tested to the limit by the defence. It seems that the forensic evidence linking the defendants to the crime which made up the main thrust of the prosecution and the possibility of contamination were two things that were crucial to the case and my feeling is that these issues were thoroughly examined.
The subsequent disclosure of the unsavoury nature of the lives of the defendants is neither here nor there. Nonetheless, they are toe-rags who deserve everything they get.
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Wed 4 Jan 12 at 12:56
|
>> You have to accept that any fragility in the evidence of the prosecution would have
>> been tested to the limit by the defence. It seems that the forensic evidence linking
>> the defendants to the crime which made up the main thrust of the prosecution and
>> the possibility of contamination were two things that were crucial to the case and my
>> feeling is that these issues were thoroughly examined.
No doubt you are right, and I believe that a huge amount of police time was spent checking what happened to the evidence following the attack, to counter questions of contamination.
Still, you have a situation where someone had two arteries severed, and are claiming that these two guys were part of a group that had surrounded the victim, but have only found a single microscopic blood-spot and a single hair.
The group knew each other, so there is a question of whether there could be post-attack, the possibility of microscopic transfer when collecting evidence, and also in the intervening 18 years, when there were likely multiple testings in the same labs.
They don't seem to have any other hard evidence. I don't think that any witness was ever able to ID them.
You also have the context that it is highly likely that most of the jury were not aware of the allegations, their later convictions and the general public opinion that they were guilty (helped by the likes of the Daily Mail). So there must be a question of whether you could ever get an objective jury.
I'm more than happy that these guys are locked up. I just think it is a very shaky conviction.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Wed 4 Jan 12 at 13:13
|
>> Still, you have a situation where someone had two arteries severed, and are
>> claiming that these two guys were part of a group that had surrounded the victim, >> but have only found a single microscopic blood-spot and a single hair.
As I understand things, Stephen Lawrence was wearing multiple layers of upper clothing. The first person to provide first aid to him was an off duty police officer, who had no idea of the severity of his unjuries, because the clothing held on to the blood. That would also explain why there was minimal blood spatter or similar on suspects etc.
As an aside, in those days, police first aid training did not include undressing if necessary and really thoroughly checking victims. It does now.
Another angle i've often wondered about is people up to no good will wear multiple clothing layers, so that they can discard some of it if they need to, to look different. Of course, people that feel the cold would do so as well. I've often wondered if half a job was done originally because the initial investigators thought some street mugger had copped it and 'what comes around goes around'. People that habitually commit street crime are thought of as vermin. I have no inside knowledge on that, just my own thoughts.
>> I'm more than happy that these guys are locked up. I just think it is
>> a very shaky conviction.
I can sort of see where you and Zero are coming from.
|
|
Didn't they manage to shake the forensic evidence in the Barry George case (Jill Dando) as that was the only real evidence supporting his initial conviction?
|
>> Interesting to see the amount of information that is now being disclosed about these two.
>> 5 year stretches for drug dealing, racist attack on black off duty Police Officer.
>>
>> Naturally this sort of information was kept from the trial but if you have your
>> doubts about the conviction maybe your opinions may change.
I knew their previous, I even knew one was currently inside because I remember the case when he went down, and I went to great pains in my posts to say these guys were scumbags. I have no doubts they were there either, but no-one managed to prove it safely, in my opinion.
And all this Met Police self congratulation frankly makes me sick, because we needed a change in the law to make good the almighty original lack of care and criminal incompetence of the Met in the first place, gawd knows how much grief these blokes have caused in the intervening 18 years.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 4 Jan 12 at 13:03
|
"...no-one managed to prove it safely, in my opinion."
But you weren't there and didn't experience the way in which the evidence was presented and challenged.
"...all this Met Police self congratulation frankly makes me sick.."
I agree. There was somebody on the Today programme (Radio 4) this morning who was pretty nauseating. The police are clearly desperate to salvage some self-respect from this verdict, but they would look bigger if they accepted that the conviction is a partial victory for justice at best (given that there were others involved, and we more or less know who they are), and it comes far too late. There's not much for the police to crow about - they have managed to do their job - kind of - at last, that's all.
As for the Lawrence family, what words can do them justice - in every sense?
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Wed 4 Jan 12 at 13:20
|
If Zeddo and Steel Spark had been on the jury looks like it would have been 10-2, but that's still a conviction.
|
|
To be honest, given the pressure the jury were under, they would have convicted a fluffy Roland the Rat toy because it had a jam stain on it.
|
|
No merely being descriptive to emphasise a point. Can you even begin to imagine the pressure on the jury to convict before the trial? Was there ever even a chance that no-one there had ever read acres of newsprint about the case?
|
>> No merely being descriptive to emphasise a point. Can you even begin to imagine the
>> pressure on the jury to convict before the trial? Was there ever even a chance
>> that no-one there had ever read acres of newsprint about the case?
Do you mean they were under pressure to convict because of the profile of the case or that they were possibly predjudiced by the long history and associated media coverage?
If they'd acquited, because they were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt, then there's no come back. The jury are anonymous and commit an offence if they 'out' themselves.
The judge would have warned them in the strongest terms about only trying the case on what emerged in the court. They've spent several weeks eyeballing the defendants, observing how they respond to questions and assessing the credibilty of their own evidence and that of their alibis etc. None of the reports suggest it was a majority verdict and, allowing for the New Year close down the verdict cam pretty quickly.
|
>> Do you mean they were under pressure to convict because of the profile of the
>> case or that they were possibly predjudiced by the long history and associated media coverage?
Both.
|
...given the pressure the jury were under, they would have convicted a fluffy Roland the Rat toy because it had a jam stain on it....
You weren't on the jury, so you have no idea how the deliberations went.
The simplest explanation for the guilty verdict is the most likely - the jury were convinced by the evidence they heard.
|
>> You weren't on the jury, so you have no idea how the deliberations went.
>>
>> The simplest explanation for the guilty verdict is the most likely - the jury were
>> convinced by the evidence they heard.
Well that conveniently bypassed my points without answering them.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 4 Jan 12 at 13:41
|
Zero there are few crimes where mitigation/aggravation do not influence sentencing guidelines/tariffs.
Should murder be different?
"The gravity of this case is in my view of a different order from, for example, a murder committed by one individual upon another as a result of some sudden quarrel. There was a degree of general premeditation; it was a racist crime driven by hatred; it involved a gang of like-minded attackers; a lethal weapon was employed and known in advance to be carried; the victim was completely blameless and helpless. The high level of public interest in this case is at least in part a reflection of the abhorrence felt by right-thinking people at the nature of this crime. This, too, should be reflected in the sentence.
Taken from the judge's statement this morning - I agree with everything said except the part I highlight - I think this should have nothing to do with the sentencing.
|
>> "The gravity of this case is in my view of a different order from, for
>> example, a murder committed by one individual upon another as a result of some sudden
>> quarrel. There was a degree of general premeditation; it was a racist crime driven by
>> hatred; it involved a gang of like-minded attackers; a lethal weapon was employed and known
>> in advance to be carried; the victim was completely blameless and helpless. The high level
>> of public interest in this case is at least in part a reflection of the
>> abhorrence felt by right-thinking people at the nature of this crime. This, too, should be
>> reflected in the sentence.
And I think the underlined should play no part in sentencing. SO we half agree.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 4 Jan 12 at 14:36
|
>> If Zeddo and Steel Spark had been on the jury looks like it would have
>> been 10-2, but that's still a conviction.
No, I've been convinced by the press coverage since the murder that they are guilty, including the coverage of their later activities. So, if given the chance, I would have no doubt found them guilty, blood-spot or not.
Doesn't mean it would have a been a safe conviction, just a satisfying one.
|
>>
>> Doesn't mean it would have a been a safe conviction, just a satisfying one.
>>
I think that somehow sums up what in a peculiar way what British justice is about.
In the margin between the jury looking backwards to see what verdict is expected of them, and the judge looking forward to cover himself in case there is an appeal, a verdict emerges which may, in most cases, be the best.
But that's not necessarily the same as being the truth.
|
Two down, three to go. That's the way I see it.
These five toerags have gone free for 18 years poisoning the atmosphere all around them. And merely imprisoning such people isn't total justice, although one hopes of course that they will be banged up with lots of dead hard yardies even nastier than they are. 'Justice' would have meant each of them being stabbed to death when they least expected it by a special government-trained guerilla unit formed for the purpose. But I suppose what passes for justice in our democracy will have to do. Better than nothing.
Of course these people are not alone, far from it. There's one in custody in Manchester right now. I wonder if a way will be found of finding his conviction unsafe or acquitting him on technical grounds. It doesn't look easy, but then it didn't look easy in this case 18 years ago.
|
>> Of course these people are not alone, far from it. There's one in custody in
>> Manchester right now. I wonder if a way will be found of finding his conviction
>> unsafe or acquitting him on technical grounds. It doesn't look easy, but then it didn't
>> look easy in this case 18 years ago.
The thing is that a failure to convict actually looked very easy right from the start. There is actually very little evidence. Plenty of people anonymously gave the five names, although few if any of them would have been present at the murder, so nothing more than hearsay. None of the actual eyewitnesses could identify any of the suspects, and the only physical evidence is the small fragments that have come to light almost 20 years later.
Only two of them were charged, and those charges were quickly dropped by the CPS, due to a lack of evidence. Of course, there was the private prosecution which fell apart too.
It was never an open and shut case, that they somehow wiggled off on a technicality.
I can't comment on the current Manchester case, but hopefully it is a lot more robust.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Wed 4 Jan 12 at 19:06
|
>> It was never an open and shut case, that they somehow wiggled off on a technicality.
But it could and should have been, against all five.
Read the small print about the behaviour of the local old bill in the days following the murder. Some of it is almost unbelievable, anyway completely and utterly disgraceful. It wasn't for nothing that the McPherson enquiry came up with the idea of 'institutionalized racism' in the Met. And the rest, one was tempted to add at the time. The criminality, the cynicism, the dyed-in-the-wool total indifference to truth or justice, on a local level in the CID and uniformed branch, and presumably elsewhere in London too. Let us hope that in these respects at least the GMP are a bit backward.
It can't be easy being a good copper, even in these PC days.
|
It must be remembered that conviction is not just based on the actual act. Its the whole picture - different or changing initial accounts, alibis, manner of conduct during interviews and in court, verbal and non verbal communications. It all supports or destroys the main evidence.
For one the manner in which they swaggered out of court and the way they conducted themselves after the acquittal of the civil case would only have cemented my determination to nail them. It was not the walk of someone who had been acquitted because justice had been done.
Lets hope that dishonour amongst thieves prevails and these two dob in the rest. One of them wielded the knife. Where is that item now????. Some of these families have 'connections'. Would the fear of the reprisals outweigh the benefits of being a 'grass'.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16413433
Any educated guesses as to what this means?
"Stephen Lawrence: Police say new information has come in
Detectives in the Stephen Lawrence case have been given new information since two men were convicted of his murder.
Det Ch Insp Clive Driscoll, who was commended by the trial judge for his work on the case, told BBC News the information was being evaluated."
|
>> It can't be easy being a good copper, even in these PC days.
But there's a good piece on p 19 of today's terrorflag by someone who certainly sounds all right: a Met officer, writing anecdotally about stopping and searching young black guys. Recommended.
|
|
Give us a quick precis AC.
|
Attorney General to review sentences
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16430633
Includes other aspects of the case etc.
|
Thanks.
Remember that the Met were accused of being 'institutionally racist'. That actually meant that it's staff were not racist but it's systems and processes were a one size fits all. However the general interpretation was that Police Officers were racist.
Prior to the Lawrence report the general ethos was that everyone should be treated equally. Post Lawrence and enlightenment this rightly changed to everyone should be treated with regards to their individual needs.
|
|
At one time, into the 80s at least, there were a proportion of the Met coppers who were Racist, and I mean NF levels of racism. Anther proportion were just plain nasty and mean. Might be the effects of London and dealing with the dross turned them that way, but they have always been abrasive in a way that other forces manage not to be.
|
>> At one time, into the 80s at least, there were a proportion of the Met coppers who were Racist, and I mean NF levels of racism.
That was my impression too, and I was also often assured by those most likely to know that it was the case.
Of course one doesn't want to exaggerate. But some of the actions and responses by the local police in the Lawrence case in the days and weeks after the murder leave no room for doubt that there was racism on an individual and 'canteen' level which materially affected the chances of catching and convicting those responsible for the killing.
You could say that the Met has now made up for that. It certainly needed to.
More generally, it does seem that this case and the concerns raised by it have led to a slight, reluctant advance in the general approach of the British, including the police. That and I suppose, to be fair, the assimilation of black and brown characters into popular culture. They were always numerous in music of course, but a lot of TV drama, soap etc. now routinely includes black characters. Propaganda perhaps that has worked.
|
|
This is generational. The older generation roughly aged 70 onwards still refer to gays and ethnic minorities in terms which we now deem unacceptable. My generation (I'm in my 50's) grew up in that climate but have largely become enlightened. The younger generation grew up in this enlightened age and overall have acceptance and tolerance to differences.
|
|
Quite so Fullchat, my childhood memories were of adults who were even more extreme in their views in so far as they even mistrusted those who were part of a different sub-group of Christianity never mind ethnic origin. And as for Germans, well...
|
>> This is generational.
To an extent, yes. Attitudes change with the generations, but not as much as the new generation always thinks. My father often annoyed me by pointing this out, and sometimes adding that the young tend to exaggerate and carry their campaigning views to extremes. Later I realised he was right.
There's another factor: people generally mellow a bit with age and experience, become more understanding and with luck more compassionate. On another level, experience also teaches them to keep quiet more often when they know their real attitudes may cause offence.
However, unreconstructed, brutalist racism seems to be alive and well even in the very young (Manchester's 'Psycho' being a case in point). One may think that shooting a total stranger through the head is such a barking-mad act that it can't be connected to anything as banal as background prejudice. Alas, this isn't true. Exactly the same could be said of the Lawrence murder.
The whole idea of racial hierarchy is harmful and toxic. It doesn't just give mad idiots an excuse to do bad things. It helps to make them mad and idiotic.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16430633
"The Attorney General's Office is reviewing the minimum terms given to Stephen Lawrence's killers following a request from a member of the public."
Is that normal - can anyone just ask for such a review, or is the 'member of the public' likely to be someone close to the trial?
|
>> is the 'member of the public' likely to be someone close to the trial?
In the report, described as not connected to the trial.
|
>> >> is the 'member of the public' likely to be someone close to the trial?
>>
>> In the report, described as not connected to the trial.
Ah yes, thanks AC. So perhaps the AG's office wanted the review, but needed someone to actually request it before they could do anything?
|
It doesn't matter how we are educated, attend diversity courses or implement laws, not everyone is going to get on.
There are reasons why whites dislike other groups. Why blacks don't like other sections of the world. Asians who dislike Asians. East Africans who dislike West Africans.
There will always be someone to hate. For whatever reason. If everyone in your town were exactly the same, you would probably find those at different compass points would hate each other as a reason.
Lets be honest. It still isn't sweetness and light. It never will be. It's just not "right" to spout what you are thinking these days, though I still think many people harbour opinions that you say died with the 70 year old generation. I think it is still there.
And more so. It will get worse. Over the 1950s, 60s and 70s there were ethnic groups countable on one hand. Now there are dozens. Each ethnic group has a particular group they dislike. Just talk to any group and they loathe a particular group for whatever reason.
It is no longer a black white thing. Racism is endemic across the multicultural spectrum. You will never erradicate it. No matter how hard you try.
|
..."The Attorney General's Office is reviewing the minimum terms given to Stephen Lawrence's killers following a request from a member of the public."...
I'm surprised this is said to be following a request from the public.
In cases I've followed, the CPS, on advice from the prosecuting barrister, will ask for a review, known as an attorney general's reference because the case is referred to him in the first instance.
Some timid prosecutors don't like doing it because the judge will find out what's happened and the prosecutor will have to appear before the same judge, sometimes for the other side, in subsequent cases.
I doubt this judge will be too bothered because the tariff is a matter of interpretation of the law, and he will be confident his interpretation is valid, even if someone else later comes up with a different one.
|
|
It might be a pre-emptive strike on any Appeal, or Judicial review.
Last edited by: R.P. on Thu 5 Jan 12 at 18:05
|
The Stephen Lawrence trial. - Armel Coussine
