Lawrence two guilty

[scenario8]

Yep, what this thread really needs is some name calling.

[Neil H]

Putting aside the verdict for a moment, I don’t understand what it is about this case that has made it remain in the media for so long. You have cases like the Ross Parker or Kriss Donald murders, which were just as terrible, but covered far less.

[AJS-]

scenario8 said:

Yep, what this thread really needs is some name calling.

I know it's the oldest defence in the book, but he did start it.

[Gwagon111]

Neil H said:

Putting aside the verdict for a moment, I don’t understand what it is about this case that has made it remain in the media for so long. You have cases like the Ross Parker or Kriss Donald murders, which were just as terrible, but covered far less.

There was no involvement from Imran Khan and Michael Mann Q.C. in those other cases.

[scenario8]

While there is often "unfairness" surrounding the publicity of some crimes/government policies/sporting achievements or whatever, this case highlighted the issues of racism within poor areas, a senseless killing, an initially poor Police response, and through the tireless work of many individuals not least of which his parents and despite initial indifference by the political classes went on to a very public private prosecution, to bring about massive changes to the Metropolitan Police through the MacPherson Report, furthermore went on to the dropping of the legal keystone of double jeapardy and finally the coviction of two of the assailants. It also got the broad media to challenge racism within society and civil institutions.

I don't doubt that this crime could easily have just disappeared very quickly like other senseless killings but it has become a very significant episode in British culture and has had a major impact on the law.

Perhaps if this case hadn't done the above another case would have been the one that forced these changes. Who knows?

Edited by scenario8 on Wednesday 4th January 15:44

[SpeedMattersNot]

AJS- said:

scenario8 said:

Yep, what this thread really needs is some name calling.

I know it's the oldest defence in the book, but he did start it.

Lol, you're good enough with your words and confident enough in your opinions, to not have to lower standards to such childish insults - are you not?

[Ozzie Osmond]

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.

Rubbish.

However, if the defendant looks a bit like a terrorist suspect....why bother with evidence?....or a trial?

[pork911]

few points-

quite surprised at guilty verdict given the evidence as reported - sl's friend's evidence was poor, questionable dna procedures (or complete lack thereof) etc

branded as racist killers but iirc they were convicted of doing it OR being involved (hair split i know but begs the question)

one mother's suggested alibi seems to leave perjury a non option (he was at home in the other room, he could've gone out briefly etc)

macphearson had some effect on policing (debatable what and how much) though i suspect greater effect came from shift in priorities to another minority post 11/9

any talk of justice being served in this case is trite (delayed, still incomplete, lots of other issues)

[AJS-]

SpeedMattersNot said:

Lol, you're good enough with your words and confident enough in your opinions, to not have to lower standards to such childish insults - are you not?

Well I thank you for the compliment! I suppose I am, but it's quite nice to feel justified in hurling a bit of abuse sometimes. I don't get to do so very often.

[Alex]

Laurel Green said:

Restores faith in the justice system.

However, the fact that the double jeopardy law was scrapped to retry them does the opposite.

[Derek Smith]

Neil H said:

Putting aside the verdict for a moment, I don’t understand what it is about this case that has made it remain in the media for so long. You have cases like the Ross Parker or Kriss Donald murders, which were just as terrible, but covered far less.

I think part of the reason is that in both the above cases the offenders were brought to justics reasonably quickly. There is little doubt that both these offences were worse in some ways to the Lawrence killing as they were premeditated and involved a degree of torture.

One significant change has been that media outlites, especially the BBC, now give equal prominance to RMIs against whites.

I think other reasons include the parents not letting it go, the PR machine, the suggestion of racism in the police, the massive amount of money put into the McP report, the private prosecution, and, most importantly, the pressure put on the police.

[Oakey]

Sorry if this has been covered but for what reason were the other three not tried with Dobson and Norris?

[Alex]

Oakey said:

Sorry if this has been covered but for what reason were the other three not tried with Dobson and Norris?

No evidence.

[scenario8]

Oakey said:

Sorry if this has been covered but for what reason were the other three not tried with Dobson and Norris?

Presumably insufficient evidence. Certainly these two were brought to book subsequent to DNA "breakthroughs". Tiny fragments of blood on their clothing along with fabric from Stephen Lawrence's clothing on theirs.

[Derek Smith]

Alex said:

However, the fact that the double jeopardy law was scrapped to retry them does the opposite.

Just to clarify, the double jeopardy law has not been scrapped. It still exists and is one of the basics of the system of law in this country. However, there have been modifications.

There has been only one person tried after being aquitted at a trial since the law came into effect. In the Dunlop case, often referred to in the media as the first case, the chap was not found not guilty (sorry about the double negative). He was tried twice and the jury failed to reach a verdict in both cases. He was formally acquitted, an entirely different procedure I beleive.

Before the revisions came into law a person could still be tried after being found not guilty. One reason, one used in the past, is when members of the jury have been threatened or similar types of dishonest behaviour that pollutes the findngs.

Even now, retrials, under the new legislation, can only be in serious cases - including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery and certain drug offences. There are provisions in the HRC that limit the implimentation of the provisions. It is a DPP case and requires new and compelling evidence.

There has been a suggestion that the motivation for this, the fact that the only reason the case could not be brought was that Doreen Lawrence had, against advice from just about everyone, taken out a private prosecution, was really not sufficient reason. I'd perhaps go along with that. However, if these two had been the first to be tried under the new legislation, instead of just the second in reality, I think there might have been a bit of a fuss.

So to take your point: the law was not scrapped. It still exists. However, it was changed in order that they may be tried. They have not been tried in the past though.

[drivin_me_nuts]

Today whilst listening to the beeb, there was use of some quite evocative language, such as the police sense of 'atonement'. Has the Lawrence case been such an Albatross within the force, that such language is the true sentiment?

Another question comes to mind and that is a wondering if at times this has been seen as a thorn in the side of police progress that was wished to be made to disappear off the public radar.

[Laurel Green]

Met Commissioner on local news saying the other three should not rest easily in their beds - the case is still ongoing.

[OdramaSwimLaden]

Right now that's sorted let's go after the 100's of Black on Black stabbing's that happen evey year in this country.

Although a totally deplorable act, I make no differentiation between this and being stabbed because you want my phone / money / possessions. Stabbing for what I look like or stabbing me for my phone - both not ideal. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time; just the same as being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting stabbed / killed / murdered / raped for your possessions. The scumbags who were convicted were just that; scumbags.

That said, the Police, it would seem, were at best negligent in the original investigation but at the same time were working withing the CPS guidelines at the time and he seemed like a genuinely nice guy and not one of these "new age gang members" that you see getting rightfully killed these days.

Edited by OdramaSwimLaden on Wednesday 4th January 18:58

[OdramaSwimLaden]

Neil H said:

Putting aside the verdict for a moment, I don’t understand what it is about this case that has made it remain in the media for so long. You have cases like the Ross Parker or Kriss Donald murders, which were just as terrible, but covered far less.

.....a determined, committed and loving Mother is why this conviction happened. Nothing else.

ETA......personally I'd tell my Mum to get on with her life and don't waste her blooody time!

[CatJ]

Just seen on Twitter that BBC Breaking News are reporting that new information has come to light since the verdict yesterday.