Lawrence two guilty
Discussion
Laurel Green said:
Will they now go after the other three? I also hope they do the mother for contempt for giving a false alibi.
I saw a senior bod at the CPS earlier sounding very sure they are not likely to attempt further prosecutions. Perhaps if one of these two provides further testimony there might be a slim chance, but alas it appears the time to convict any other members of the "five or six" was in the Summer of 1993. If only things were done better back then...I am surprised at the conviction. That said, good on the CPS for giving it a run. They have been proved right.
There is every likelihood of an appeal or two. The unfortunate thing is that it is likely to be on forensic evidence, particularly DNA, and there are any number of ways of challenging that.
The problem is that DNA evidence used to be impossible for defence lawyers to challenge but over recent years the statistics have been argued over, and not in a manner designed to enlighten. Juries are asked to sort through all sorts of alternatives which they are not sufficiently briefed on to decide.
You get cases where the defence, knowing the probability of a conviction, will virtually concentrates on the appeal during the case. But maybe I'm being a bit negative.
The case started badly and then took a turn for the worse. The politics must have made the incident room all but impossible to work in. A really sad case all round.
There is every likelihood of an appeal or two. The unfortunate thing is that it is likely to be on forensic evidence, particularly DNA, and there are any number of ways of challenging that.
The problem is that DNA evidence used to be impossible for defence lawyers to challenge but over recent years the statistics have been argued over, and not in a manner designed to enlighten. Juries are asked to sort through all sorts of alternatives which they are not sufficiently briefed on to decide.
You get cases where the defence, knowing the probability of a conviction, will virtually concentrates on the appeal during the case. But maybe I'm being a bit negative.
The case started badly and then took a turn for the worse. The politics must have made the incident room all but impossible to work in. A really sad case all round.
Janluke said:
Let me say from the outset that I think they were as guilty as hell and should have been in prison years ago BUT from the reporting of the evidence given in the trial I am not at all convinced that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
To be fair, it is impossible to make a reasoned judgement on any case based solely on press reports.Le Pop said:
Marf said:
Bit of a stretch calling this a black power salute
And I assume this is the "photoshopped" picture
Am I alone in thinking these are two different real photographs?
No. Definitely 2 different pictures.And I assume this is the "photoshopped" picture
Am I alone in thinking these are two different real photographs?
One thing about the reporting that always bothers me is that it is always refered to as a racist murder. If we have only just convicted two white men of his murder how can it have always been known as such?
Also why is it when a white person kills a person of an ethnic background it will always be seen as racially motivated?
Ben Kinsella, Jimmy Mizen were white boys murdered by black youths yet a racial motive was never concidered.
Furthermore how do we know Stephens skin colour was the catalyst for him being killed?
Also why is it when a white person kills a person of an ethnic background it will always be seen as racially motivated?
Ben Kinsella, Jimmy Mizen were white boys murdered by black youths yet a racial motive was never concidered.
Furthermore how do we know Stephens skin colour was the catalyst for him being killed?
paddyhasneeds said:
essexplumber said:
Furthermore how do we know Stephens skin colour was the catalyst for him being killed?
Not sure "what, what 
" can be taken too many ways can it?Gaz. said:
paddyhasneeds said:
Now, if I'm basing that assumption on 18 years of TV documentaries and newspaper frontpages naming them as murderers, how did they actually receive a fair trial?
As above, but also to add that in his summing up the judge had to stress to the jury not to base their decisions on anything they'd seen or read outside the court, feel like they had to return a guilty verdict because that is what 'the nation' expects etc. The double jeopardy "we'll try you until we get the result we want" also sits uneasy with me. The whole thing has been a cluster fk from the moment Stephen Lawrence died and tbh as a nation we deserve a vastly better justice system than what we currently have.Sorry if that reads like I'm defending these scumbags, I'm not but it just does not seem like a safe conviction to me.
ExChrispy Porker said:
To be fair, it is impossible to make a reasoned judgement on any case based solely on press reports.
You're right so hopefully the detailed evidence the jury saw was a little more conclusive that what’s being reported. I have a great faith in out justice system and my default position when the press reports don't add up is to assume there's more to it.There are only five men alive who know the truth. Only they know if they did it or not. The rest is a mess of bad practice, appalling police behaviours and the sludge of time eating away at this case.
To hear a mother grieve so many years after the death of her young man of a son, is no cause for celebration, it is a matter or recent historical shame and one that I hope is in the past.
Their time in prison will be eventful.
To hear a mother grieve so many years after the death of her young man of a son, is no cause for celebration, it is a matter or recent historical shame and one that I hope is in the past.
Their time in prison will be eventful.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff