Stephen Lawrence MURDERERS

[Bold Seagull]

You can't convict people on previous sentences let alone previous arrests. I don't mean to be rude but you don't seem to understand how courts work.

That is correct, only following conviction is any previous revealed prior to sentencing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8973998/Stephen-Lawrence-murder-jurors-did-not-know-about-Gary-Dobson-and-David-Norriss-violent-past.html

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Surely if those on here who are convinced that this was a show trial are representative of the public view, then it made it LESS likely that the two defendants would have been convicted, not more? I was certain they were going to walk, precisely because of the previous publicity.

I know if I was on a jury in a trial of that magnitude, I'd feel under tremendous pressure to get it right, and to consider everything exactly on the terms that the judge directed, because the implications of getting it wrong are so great. Juries in general tend to be more afraid of convicting an innocent man than freeing a guilty one.

Personally, I think it's more than a little bit insulting to the twelve members of the jury who've sat through every second of this trial to suggest that they're somehow less capable of deciding what was the correct outcome than any of us, or that they all lack the intelligence to spot what Bushy seemingly has.

And I don't disagree with you BUT there is no way of measuring the affect on a juror of the media attention ( or indeed the social and political pressure to convict someone ). It's like subliminal advertising - hide the message enough and keep repeating it and people will come to a conclusion without even knowing they've been influenced.

 

[Kumquat]

the fact he has previous, he was also arrested a month before Stephen Lawrence death for stabbing another person.

Either his extremely unlucky or his a complete mentalist

As Ponce says, it isn't relevant. Different crime. It has been proved beyond doubt that he's a racist and mentalist but if he was convicted for that alone he would have gone down before the Stephen Lawrence murder. The CPS dropped the case you referred to because of lack of evidence as well.

 

[Buzzer]

Would you argue with the Damilola Taylor case and Napper case as the same system was used in them convictions.

I know nothing of this 'Rapper' case you mention but the Damilola Taylor second trial was on a lesser charge of manslaughter so is different from the Lawrence case. Also, the Taylor trial didn't have the main suspects' names and faces splashed across tabloid newspapers with the newspaper informing the readership that the suspects were murderers.

And the Taylor case has absolutely nothing to do with convicting people based on their arrest record. You cannot bring that up in a court of law as evidence of a suspect's character.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Well, that's one way to twist what has been argued by (amongst others) me.

I wasn't particularly thinking of you, but re-reading one of your posts, you say "I don't care what the judge told the jury, I do not believe any juror did not think that these 2 did it before any evidence was submitted".

Which kind of suggests to me you're questioning their ability to be objective. Have I got that wrong? If your concern is the politicization of the case, should the CPS have said to the Lawrences "we have evidence now that we're confident in, but we're not going to try the two suspects because it will look political"? The double jeopardy situation was changed a while ago now, it's not as though it's been rescinded just for Stephen Lawrence.

The bit about Met heads rolling too...we all know certain people screwed up royally on the initial investigation, but the people at the top now aren't the ones involved (to my knowledge) so who exactly do you think should "roll"? I'm genuinely not being argumentative for the sake of it, just interested...

 

[aolstudios]

Absolute f***ing political show trial, convicted on evidence that is tainted beyond belief, and youd've have to have lived on mars for 25 years not to have had a preconcieved opinion on their guilt, whether they did it or not is immaterial if you give a shit about the justice system in this country.

what a surprise. bushey leaps in - no agenda for you again then?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

And the Taylor case has absolutely nothing to do with convicting people based on their arrest record. You cannot bring that up in a court of law as evidence of a suspect's character.

You can for certain offences, under certain circumstances. But not for murder/manslaughter, for example.

 

[Falkor]

I know nothing of this 'Rapper' case you mention but the Damilola Taylor second trial was on a lesser charge of manslaughter so is different from the Lawrence case. Also, the Taylor trial didn't have the main suspects' names and faces splashed across tabloid newspapers with the newspaper informing the readership that the suspects were murderers.

And the Taylor case has absolutely nothing to do with convicting people based on their arrest record. You cannot bring that up in a court of law as evidence of a suspect's character.

The same evidence gathering was used in the Taylor and Napper case that was used in this.

 

[Buzzer]

The bit about Met heads rolling too...we all know certain people screwed up royally on the initial investigation, but the people at the top now aren't the ones involved (to my knowledge) so who exactly do you think should "roll"? I'm genuinely not being argumentative for the sake of it, just interested...

Let's look at the bigger picture. The 2 blokes sent down are career toe-rags. They were destined to have a life of crime. They attacked Stephen Lawrence and killed him and should have been banged up for it. Of course their families are going to lie - they are career criminal families. The only reason the case is so well-known is because of police corruption and incompetence meant the suspects got off, the first time. That and the fact that the Lawrences refused to accept that was it. The police who colluded should be prosecuted, the police who ballsed up the evidence should be reprimanded and the people overseeing this shambles should be made accountable for what happened on their watch.

The Lawrence case is not about 2 racists who got away with murder rather than a police force who let this happen.


And your first point - yes. I question anyone to be objective about this case. I do think it impossible for these 2 to have had a fair trial given the way that events have unfolded over the last 15 or so years.

 

[looney]

I agree with Bushy that we should bring all Racist murderers to Justice, and i thought the 2 today was a bloody good start. The only thing that confuses me Bushy, is that you 'have no doubt they were involved' but you're not celebrating

Whats to celebrate? A couple of gangland hoods got their just deserts over a gang murder, happens quite a lot.

If you think anyone should celebrate an Idolitus show trial thats the totem of a political agenda I would encourage people not to celebrate. Just be pleased some scumbags are behind bars.

 

[Buzzer]

The same evidence gathering was used in the Taylor and Napper case that was used in this.

You're not listening to what people are saying.

 

[aolstudios]

To be fair he hasn't made a racist comment ( at least not in this thread - I don;t know about others ). He's commented on the ability of the justice system to give a fair trial after such heavy media attention. There's a "wierdo" in Bristol who quite clearly would have never got a fair trial thanks to our blood thirsty media.

to be fair, check every last post the sad obsessed dinosaur ever makes and see if you can spot a thread - I'll leave it with you to make your own mind up

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Hmm, you seem to be forgetting one thing there ... they did it! Everyone knew about it, they used to brag about it, they were a disgusting little bunch who would go around threatening people on a regular basis, at knife point. After the murder, they would add references to it, as part of their knife point attacks.

Horrible, horrible bunch, just a shame only 2 of them are serving time, as they are all complicit.

For those of you out there with more legal knowledge than me, what charges could now be brought against the others if they can merely be placed at the scene. At teh very least they must have provided false aibis for these two?

wind your neck in !

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Surely if those on here who are convinced that this was a show trial are representative of the public view, then it made it LESS likely that the two defendants would have been convicted, not more? I was certain they were going to walk, precisely because of the previous publicity.

I know if I was on a jury in a trial of that magnitude, I'd feel under tremendous pressure to get it right, and to consider everything exactly on the terms that the judge directed, because the implications of getting it wrong are so great. Juries in general tend to be more afraid of convicting an innocent man than freeing a guilty one.

Personally, I think it's more than a little bit insulting to the twelve members of the jury who've sat through every second of this trial to suggest that they're somehow less capable of deciding what was the correct outcome than any of us, or that they all lack the intelligence to spot what Bushy seemingly has.

My thoughts entirely.

 

[sir albion]

Absolute f***ing political show trial, convicted on evidence that is tainted beyond belief, and youd've have to have lived on mars for 25 years not to have had a preconcieved opinion on their guilt, whether they did it or not is immaterial if you give a shit about the justice system in this country.

Yep and the pressure from the media year after year has told us that someone needed to be found guilty,never ever known a murder investigation to drag on so so long.

This surely isn't the last of it.

 

[El Presidente]

I am once again in agreement with Looney. Either he has been taking something, or I have.

 

[Steveapps71]

special panorama on BBc1 tonight at 9.00pm
It says "it reveals the untold story of the murder" should be great as now they are convicted more
can be shown, maybe their original police interviews etc

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Danny o'shea ring any Bells

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I do not think Bushy was being racist particularly but Nibble stood his ground well. It was a good spat while it lasted. I put it down as a draw.

 

[crasher]

And your first point - yes. I question anyone to be objective about this case. I do think it impossible for these 2 to have had a fair trial given the way that events have unfolded over the last 15 or so years.

I think your points are good ones but the fact that the major slew of publicity around this was 15 years ago means there's a possibility several of the jurors are too young to have more than a vague idea of what went on in the media then. And then it's possible people who never follow the news at all (they do exist) were on the jury and would have had similarly little knowledge.

And finally - what about people's determination to try and be objective? It so happens that I was at my then girlfriend's house in Well Hall Road that night about 200 yards from where Stephen Lawrence was killed. And in my job as a reporter I've spoken to some of the suspects a few times so I have a strong feeling about their characters. But even so, I'd like to think that if I'd been on the jury I would have voted with the evidence - whichever way it went - not with any personal feeling. I think objectivity is possible.