Lawrence two guilty

[shauniebabes]

Marf said:

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?

The state can lock people up even though there is no evidence to get a conviction, simply because they can get another go if something turns up, or they don't like them.

[shauniebabes]

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.

To paraphase a Sun editorial -"Well done to the Police and CPS on convicting Barry George with such little evidence."

[Marf]

shauniebabes said:

The state can lock people up even though there is no evidence to get a conviction, simply because they can get another go if something turns up, or they don't like them.

Relevance to double jeopardy?

[vescaegg]

Will the sentence be added to the 5 years the one chap has already or will they run at the same time?

[ExChrispy Porker]

Marf said:

Relevance to double jeopardy?

'lock people up' How does that work then?

[Glassman]

vescaegg said:

Will the sentence be added to the 5 years the one chap has already or will they run at the same time?

separate offence, no?

[DoubleSix]

shauniebabes said:

Marf said:

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?

The state can lock people up even though there is no evidence to get a conviction, simply because they can get another go if something turns up, or they don't like them.

I believe the double-jeopardy rule was designed to avoid people being persued relentlessly by governments or others......

i.e. No point in 'clearing' your name if you've spent 30 or 40 years of your life having to do so.

[johnnyboy101]

essexplumber said:

And I'm supposed to know all that am I?

And as much as I am now aware that Stephens murder was racially motivated it doesn't detract from the fact that racism in the UK is a one way street.

Why dont you try reading a up on the story before making ignorant comments like that then

[vescaegg]

Glassman said:

vescaegg said:

Will the sentence be added to the 5 years the one chap has already or will they run at the same time?

separate offence, no?

Drug dealing I think I read?

Just wondering how it would work with two seperate sentences being applicable at one time.

[StottyZr]

vescaegg said:

Glassman said:

vescaegg said:

Will the sentence be added to the 5 years the one chap has already or will they run at the same time?

separate offence, no?

Drug dealing I think I read?

Just wondering how it would work with two seperate sentences being applicable at one time.

I have absolutly no idea, but common sense would tell me they run back to back.

[s2t]

Just as a matter of legal interest. Both mothers gave an alibi on the night of the murder for the 2 found guilty, this has been discounted by the jury, could then the mothers be tried for perjury?

[jq3104]

drivin_me_nuts said:

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.

None more so than Footlocker.
The shops are removing the shutters and reopening their stores as I type.

[shauniebabes]

johnnyboy101 said:

essexplumber said:

And I'm supposed to know all that am I?

And as much as I am now aware that Stephens murder was racially motivated it doesn't detract from the fact that racism in the UK is a one way street.

Why dont you try reading a up on the story before making ignorant comments like that then

Its not a one way street, its "priority given to vehicles in the opposite direction"

Google "Richard Everitt murder"

Edited by shauniebabes on Wednesday 4th January 14:20

[TTwiggy]

Hugo a Gogo said:

what on earth are you talking about?does even such microscopic evidence exist in that case? it would appear not, or they'd also be in court

you've been on that thread long enough to know that they DID find blood, it DID match the DNA of the McCann family, it was just NOT possible to say it was Madeleine's (presumably as her DNA had not been profiled).

Anyhoo, back on topic, top result.

[Laurel Green]

TTwiggy said:

top result.

Restores faith in the justice system.

[onyx39]

s2t said:

Just as a matter of legal interest. Both mothers gave an alibi on the night of the murder for the 2 found guilty, this has been discounted by the jury, could then the mothers be tried for perjury?

Excellent plan...

[Hugo a Gogo]

TTwiggy said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

what on earth are you talking about?does even such microscopic evidence exist in that case? it would appear not, or they'd also be in court

you've been on that thread long enough to know that they DID find blood, it DID match the DNA of the McCann family, it was just NOT possible to say it was Madeleine's (presumably as her DNA had not been profiled).

Anyhoo, back on topic, top result.

I've been on that thread long enough to know it's not remotely clear IF it was blood that was found and if they found any DNA in any fluid, or if any DNA matched anyone
just google it for yourself, dozens of contradictory reports (and don't dare say "it's in that thread somewhere")

besides, the point is in this case the blood links to a murder scene when the defendants claimed they weren't present - not at all the same situation

ok, so lets drop the McCann talk before the tin-hat man comes in

[jeff m2]

It appears there is no doubt that these two were at least present at the scene (in this thread).

But for me there are some troubling aspects to this case.
The Police estimate on cost was 30 Million. I wonder what budget the defence had to work with.

Limited or no access to DNA for the defence even if they had the money.
Repeated prosecusions til defendents run out of funds.

Imagine you are innocent after 20 years your alibi either falls under a truck has a heart attack, or God forbid gets a criminal record himself. They can swoop in and retry you. Scarey.
So many scenarios that make me keep my travel agent on speed dial.

[AV12]

jq3104 said:

drivin_me_nuts said:

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.

None more so than Footlocker.
The shops are removing the shutters and reopening their stores as I type.

Are you here all week? Hope not.

[AJS-]

TonyToniTone said:

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.

I'll stand by that.

As I said there are many decent black people out there and it sounds like Stephen Lawrence was one of them. It equally would appear that the two people found guilty today were perfectly horrible white men, of which there are plenty.

But then we have had an 18 year media and political campaign to make it look that way.

I wasn't in court, so I really have no possible way of having even an educated guess whether these individuals were guilty or not. But the media hype and the political interference in this case have been unescapable.

You are doing exactly what my first post was criticising as the whole approach to this case, which is confusing an appalling incident touching on an emotive subject with the legitimate safeguards of our legal system, and throwing the latter away for a feel-good headline today.

There is nothing racist about my pointing that out, and my observations in the other thread are pretty much unrelated to this case. Except perhaps that my lack of sensitivity around racism gives me a more dispassionate view of the actual facts of the case.

So as I replied last time, you are a sanctimonious prick, whose only defence of your media spoon-fed wisdom is to hurl around insults.