Lawrence two guilty

[anonymous-user]

drivin_me_nuts said:

I wonder, does the verdict offer any respite for the family, or whether it steels there determination in seeking justice with respect to the others.

Having seen Doreen Lawrence on Panorama last night I would say the latter

[Marf]

Guam said:

I was never entirely comfortable with the eradication of double jeopardy as a concept <although I see in this case the outcome does seem to have been what the general public desired>

This really really confuses the st out of me.

Why on earth should someone found not guilty of any crime not face a re-trial at a later date if new evidence arises?

[Oakey]

Was just reading this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081752/St...

and noticed this: "RACISM - 7.50pm, December 3, 1994 Three of the gang are discussing Lottery winners.". The lottery didn't even exist in 1994 did it? More terrible journalism from the DM I take it?

Is this video available online anywhere?

[Marf]

Launched in 1994.
Not that hard to check facts before posting, is it?

[Glassman]

The front pages, except Daily Express

[jbswagger]

Oakey said:

Was just reading this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081752/St...

and noticed this: "RACISM - 7.50pm, December 3, 1994 Three of the gang are discussing Lottery winners.". The lottery didn't even exist in 1994 did it? More terrible journalism from the DM I take it?

Is this video available online anywhere?

First draw was on the 19th November 1994. Although the Mail is undeniably crap, this time it would appear to be correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lottery_(Uni...

[Oakey]

For some reason I thought it didn't start until 1996.

[Mermaid]

Gary Dobson and David Norris detained for minimum of 15 years two months and 14 years three months respectively for Stephen Lawrence murder.

[Marf]

Guam said:

Marf said:

This really really confuses the st out of me.

Why on earth should someone found not guilty of any crime not face a re-trial at a later date if new evidence arises?

That was the argument <or part of it> that was used in the removal of that protection <existing since the Magna Carta IIRC>.

That wasnt my question nor my point?

You said you were uncomfortable with double jeopardy being removed. I asked why. Can you tell me why?

[jbswagger]

Guam said:

Marf said:

This really really confuses the st out of me.

Why on earth should someone found not guilty of any crime not face a re-trial at a later date if new evidence arises?

That was the argument <or part of it> that was used in the removal of that protection <existing since the Magna Carta IIRC>.

That wasnt my question nor my point, the question was if they appeal Can the one who had already stood trial and was found not guilty first time, be brought back again following a successful appeal?
And If so how many times?

I think a second trial can only be ordered if substantial new evidence has been found. No idea of the definition though.

[TonyToniTone]

AJS- said:

Ultimately I would rather a guilty man walk free than an innocent man be jailed, and if not in this case I am sure a lot more of the latter will happen in future as a result.

I for one take what you wrote above with big pinch of salt.... as I said before grade-a bell end.

AJS- said:

...and of course you can't be racist on pain of death, or worse.

Actually I can. I am racist. And I don't mind admitting it.

I have a generally negative impression of blacks, informed by seeing a disproportionately high number of them who behave in a way that is wholly detrimental to others, and to themselves. They revel in and glorify it in a way that other races seldom do, and when they do they do so aping the black gangstas with their droopy trousers and pidgin English.

I don't hate anyone because they are black, nor do I assume every black individual to be bad. I've met perfectly nice, hard working, sensible black people with whom I have got on well. However if I see a crowd of black guys hanging around a street corner I will avoid it. If I am driving past a crowd of black people by the road I lock my doors, and I would not be pleased if a black family moved next door to me.

Admitting to being racist in polite company in England is barely any better than admitting to being a child molester, but the reality is I am far from alone in my prejudice, and until blacks themselves do something to correct it, "racism" will only grow.

[Hugo a Gogo]

Oakey said:

al bebak said:

what else proved there guilt then, it wouldnt even be in court without the blood.
it may be a good thing that these pair are now guilty but its a bad day for proven evidence.

If you read the Mccann thread then certain posters would insist that a bit of blood wasn't enough evidence to convict so I assume Hugo A Gogo, etc will be along sometime soon to defend Dobson and Norris.

what on earth are you talking about?

I'd suggest you should apologise for that, you tedious little man

the McCann case has absolutely nothing to do with this

what you have here is a tiny speck of dried blood which has been proven to be from Stephen Lawrence, through DNA

does even such microscopic evidence exist in that case? it would appear not, or they'd also be in court

not get back on your hobby horse and ride it back to your McCann conspiracy thread, with the lizards and the freemasons

[Hugo a Gogo]

Gwagon111 said:

speedchick said:

minimums of 15 years 3 months and 14 years 2 months

They'll be out in 7 or 8, if they manage to keep their noses clean. Although I'm presuming they will still only be 'on licence' and therefore liable to recall, for the rest of their lives.

no they won't

life sentence means they MUST serve that minimum before any possible parole, then as you say, on life licence after that

[onyx39]

Hugo a Gogo said:

Gwagon111 said:

speedchick said:

minimums of 15 years 3 months and 14 years 2 months

They'll be out in 7 or 8, if they manage to keep their noses clean. Although I'm presuming they will still only be 'on licence' and therefore liable to recall, for the rest of their lives.

no they won't

life sentence means they MUST serve that minimum before any possible parole, then as you say, on life licence after that

better than I expected TBH.

[Marf]

Guam said:

It also forced the prosecution to get their ducks in a row and do the job right at the outset.

Well that's all well and good, but what if the evidence was not available at the time, or new techniques become available etc etc?

[CatJ]

Off topic but Adam Boulton sounds like he's about to have a heart attack on Sky News. All I can hear is his heavy breathing.

Edited by CatJ on Wednesday 4th January 13:52

[drivin_me_nuts]

Ummm. The two defendents talked of their lives being blighted since this started... Well perhaps there is a kind of karma in this, in that by the time they get out it will be 35 odd years living under the shadow of this.... Seems to me to be a more realistic life sentence. Had they admitted it straight away, they would have been out already. A peverse karma perhaps...

[CatJ]

Lord Goldsmith has just pointed out that it is a Life Term and that the tariff they have given is the 1st point at which they can apply for parole. I guess there is a possibility they may not necessarily get it.

[Derek Smith]

One of the major problems the police had was that Doreen Lawrence took out a private prosecution. Once the CPS took over the case and then pulled it, as they were required to, there was no way in those days that the police, knowing who the offenders were, could proceed with the case.

There is little realistic expectation of sufficient evidence against the others arising. Once the law was changed (2004) the police could then proceed although they needed something substantial.

I have to say (again) that I was quite surprised that this went to trial, let alone getting a guilty plea. Good work by the police, forensics and the CPS.

Whilst I can appreciate the objections to the change in the double jeopardy rules there are a number of safeguards. That said, there is always a chance that this might be lifted later.

Brilliant case though. Well done, guys with this one.

[drivin_me_nuts]

Derek Smith said:

One of the major problems the police had was that Doreen Lawrence took out a private prosecution. Once the CPS took over the case and then pulled it, as they were required to, there was no way in those days that the police, knowing who the offenders were, could proceed with the case.

There is little realistic expectation of sufficient evidence against the others arising. Once the law was changed (2004) the police could then proceed although they needed something substantial.

I have to say (again) that I was quite surprised that this went to trial, let alone getting a guilty plea. Good work by the police, forensics and the CPS.

Whilst I can appreciate the objections to the change in the double jeopardy rules there are a number of safeguards. That said, there is always a chance that this might be lifted later.

Brilliant case though. Well done, guys with this one.

Glasses being raised in a number of places today.

I think it surprised a lot of people.