[Closed] Stephen Lawrence

Not or ever will do jury service, so no previous experience but since the media convicted these people years ago how do you ignor everthing apart from the evidence presented in the court room? Seems very difficult to prosecute after such public conjecture.

Seems odd seeing my full name all over the place! News on tv, papers and now a forum that I visit often. Shames its bad circumstances.

Hmm, I'm thinking they might get acquitted. Dunno why, just got a feeling they will, somehow.

I hope Justice is served, is all.

Not or ever will do jury service

One is legally bound to attend jury service if summoned, only if exceptional personal circumstances dictate then one can opt out, even then this can be overturned

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/jury-service.htm

From what i have seen on the news, Im with Elf on this one

Yep think they will get off, I think the defence has rubished the police handling of the evidence enough to put doubt into the mind of the jury.

Somebody will get away with murder, a tragedy.

One is legally bound to attend jury service if summoned, write back and tell them you have strong views on race, homosexuality....etc, they'll probably leave you alone....

ps how do you use the quote thing... 😳

 

Perhaps Basil has been a very naughty boy and isn't allowed to do jury service?

Actually, if you check out his profile, he's a dog,

hit "quote" paste quotation then hit quote again

LOL yeah, could be a bad boy

Purely on the basis of the fact that hundreds of years of legal convention, and a fundamental tenet of the law and our constitution has been eroded just to prosecute these two, I hope they get acquitted, whether guilty or not!

hit "quote" paste quotation then hit quote again

thank you swelper....

I hope they go down for it, just remembering the attitude of the swaggering low-lifes coming out of court when they got off first time round.
I think the judge wants them down as well. he is allowing the jury to take on board videos of them talking about wanting to stab black peoples for a laugh.

I think at least one of the pair will go daaaarn.

i think that theres every reason to belkieve that these two upsatnding citizens probably were involved.. whether i'd convict or not i couldnt say unless in the jury and had to make the call

I also thought the judges lack of direction in his summing up to be an indication of bias towards conviction.

Zulu care to explain please.

I've no idea where they found an impartial jury !!! I remember Britains biggest selling daily, putting their pictures on the front page with the headline calling them murders sue us if you dare. I've spent the last 16/17 years being told off their guilt.

surely the main tenant of justice is to bring the guilty to justice even when hampered by a racist and incompetent police force?

Steven Lawrence deserves some justice for this sensless racist attack and I hope he and his family get some.

Steven

Stephen 🙂

If they do go down, I hope they are guilty, and vice versa.

Purely on the basis of the fact that hundreds of years of legal convention, and a fundamental tenet of the law and our constitution has been eroded just to prosecute these two

Z11 - are you referring to the double jeopardy rule that was repealed under the Criminal Justice Act 2003?

There have been hundreds of years of many things that I'm happy to do without. The abolition of that rule has lead to a number of convictions and seen justice served.

Deluded - yes, double Jeopardy, and the repeal came directly out of a recommendations in the Macpherson report into the Lawrence killing.

I simply think that rewriting one of the foundations of your constitution and law based up one one case is a very, very dangerous road to go down - especially where in reality the original trial should never have happened on the evidence - you'll recall that it was originally a private prosecution case...

It has subsequently lead to a precedent where we've seen mission creep leading to the loss of right to trial by jury, the effective repeal of habeas corpus and laws permitting imprisonment without trial, and evidence obtained through torture being presented to the courts in a pretty fundamental recasting of our constitutional rights, all because of the precedent set by this case...

Given the jury are out it is perhaps best not to speculate about their verdict on a public forum.

But arent laws made on a single case depending on the decision then a precedent is made. I hvae no problem with the double jeopardy thing.

If a case is so complicated and long ie fraud cases then again no problem with doing away with a jury.

Yeah,they should have tortured the racist ****ers!!

`Zulu it has not lead to all you say these have also happened but there is no causality involved.
trial by jury has been reduced due to complicated fraud cases collapsing and pure cost iirc - it has nothing to do with lawrence or double jeopardy
In reality would it matter if they were tried for the offence or perjury and perverting the course of justice as say the noble Lord Archer was when he was effectively tried for the same thing twice.
Why not just convict him/them whomever of what he/they did originally?

I think they will be and there will be pressure to do so, i have a feeling that if this were not such a high profile racism case with all the baggage that has gone before tgen they'd have gotten off. Im sure there will be another huge outcry if they get off and they'll find another reason to try them again further down the line.

I'm not party to the facts. Only the media reporting however I feel they might be the black and white wording of 'reasonable doubt'.

Question, why are only two charged this time?

I'm not party to the facts.

That's unusual for you hora. Immagonna guess it's not going to stop you having an opinion on it. It's just a bit of autistic reporting by the beeb isn't it though?

you stole the black and white reference from another forum /twitter didnt you as even you are not that bright or , despite your best efforts to appear so online, that daft as use it

If you apply 'reasonable doubt' to the letter (as a Jury). The defences argument on contamination, shared room for storing evidence, etc etc may place doubt in one or more Juror? If directed to find not guilty if unsure etc etc. Tbh the facts 'reported' came across as an attempt to fog Jurors on the reasonable doubt question.

Question- why only two charged this time? Fibres and blood- only theirs found linking them?

Edit- its not my topic. I'm not going down that road on someone elses. Back ontopic please 🙂 (or spoil the c456 one as question answered!)

Z-11,

What evidence do you have for the assertions expressed in your last paragraph - not too sure I'd go along with all that!

I viewed it as a ludicrous judicial anachronism that needed to be removed - having no place in modern English law. The lawmakers at that time could not have conceived of the advances that would come about in relation to investigative techniques and forensic evidence, which can surface subsequent to a persons acquittal etc.

An example - http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/145-10/

Tbh the facts 'reported' came across as an attempt to fog Jurors on the reasonable doubt question.

Jurors shouldn't be reading what the media report about this case on the internet! So who knows.

Good point. They were directed not to carry out any research outside the courtroom.

My viewpoint is skewered by what the media reported about the defences argument. So I have almost (hopefully) a parallel world view on the case. (Skewered to make good copy/anger readers)

ludicrous judicial anachronism that needed to be removed

You could say that about the right of the jury to return a perverse verdict of not guilty - what possible lessons could 340 year old examples like [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushe l's_Case] Bushel's Case[/url] have for us today with a democratically elected government and all that?

but then we get cases involving peace campaigners and environmentalists, and official secrets acts being broken, and perverse verdicts being returned, and you think "whoa, wait a minute, maybe there are lessons there after all1"

All I'm saying, is that you mess around with the tenets of constitutional law at your peril!

Right to trial by jury itself could easily be argued to be an anachronism, now we've lost it in "complex fraud cases" where next? what other cases don't need a jury? Terrorist cases maybe? A jury cannot be trusted with all that sensitive secret information, and so the canker spreads...

The lessons of history are there for us to learn from!

Thing is though, the Law must reflect the times in which we live, and evolve according to the technologies/science we have available to us for gathering evidence and stuff. There are cases where sufficient technology needed to gather evidence required to convict a person was not available at the time of their trial, but subsequently became available.

Should a guilty person walk free, if it transpires later that there is in fact substantial evidence against them? I don't think so.

Trouble with this case, is the monumental screw up the first 'trial' was. I think it's in the interests of Justice these two at least are back on trial.

i hope they get acquitted, whether guilty or not!

Then yor stooopid

Suffice to say that a promise was made by a certain Assistant Commissioner at the time of the original case. He was well aware of how badly a certain Police Force had let down a certain family due to lack of diligence, perhaps competence,(but definitely not due to racism). At the time said Assistant Police Commissioner let certain people who were only able to walk away due to said Police failings, know that whatever else happened he and the force who had failed said family would never give up and would constantly seek justice for said family for the rest of their lives.

Hoorah, for justice, common sense, and fair play. IF the twunts get off here's to the next time we see them in court regardless of the reason. Here's hoping they and their ilk never get to sleep easy, and that never again will such things be allowed to go unpunished.

(GMP We are watching you!)

tis interesting because it is this case we have the lefties going yes its fine and the right wing [ well Zullu anyway] getting all human rights on us 😯

what is the opposite of PC gone mad anyone ?

I was just thinking that myself. 🙂

what is the opposite of PC gone mad anyone ?

Common Sense?

Should a guilty person walk free, if it transpires later that there is in fact substantial evidence against them? I don't think so.

It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer - [i]Blackstone[/i]

It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer

Isn't that more to do with the concept of "reasonable doubt" though?

DD - I simply maintain my position, that we mess around with the basic tenets of law and ignore the lessons of the past at our great peril.

Isnt putting witches in ponds to see if they float or sink a basic tenet of law?

DD - I simply maintain my position, that we mess around with the basic tenets of law and ignore the lessons of the past at our great peril.

I'm with you on that Zulu - and I'm undecided on the double jeopardy if I'm honest. But when new strong evidence surfaces as a result of previously unavailable technology, it's hard not to see why it should not be taken into account. Like I said, I'm undecided - and I think I'll be staying on the fence, through my own indecision.

Deadly surely double jeopardy can only be a good thing. Look at all the cold case reviews jobs where convictions are happening after 20-40 years due to progressions with DNA and the like. Is that not a good thing?

Thing is, where does it stop? how many times should the Government be allowed to prosecute you? the [i]risk[/i] is that they just keep on putting someone back in court until they get the "right" verdict.

My understanding about the origins of double jeopardy, is that thats exactly what used to go on, keep putting someone up until they eventually got convicted - how do we protect from that happening? Seeing the way we've moved heaven and earth to put suspected terrorists behind bars, I don't think you can rule out the possibility of it ever happening - just like we never thought that we'd see people being imprisoned for long periods without ever having committed a crime 🙁

You have to have substantial new evidence before a prosecution before a court. So DNA that wasn't possible 20 years ago is new evidence and substantial. I don't know that many DJ cases that haven't hinged on DNA evidence (there may well be though as I don't follow them all). I agree about not putting someome through it time and again for the "right" verdict, btu this rarley happens, the CPS do not make charging decisions on a wing and a prayer IME.

I dont have a huge issue with Double jeopardy tbh if new evidence comes to light that offers ne evidence to proves someoene's guilt then I dont see how we are serving justice by not charging these people with the crime tbh.
Some of the other stuff you mention - trial by jury for example - is much more of an issue tbh. A perverse verdict is a juries [societies] right and is a check by the people on the state for example

I imagine it is most likely to happen in a case of a " have a go heroes"

I think the Law should reflect the society it serves. In certain contexts, DJ is outdated considering technology we have today, surely? As Munque-Chique points out.

But DJ was introduced to protect those who stood trial from the interests of agencies other than the Law. IE; if a judge returned a not guilty verdict, the courts could not be ordered by any government or head of state to re-try a defendant, just because the verdict did not suit them. Cos of course one risk would be that if a court said 'not enough evidence to convict', then such 'evidence' might then materialise (IE possibly be fabricated) which would help to convict someone who's already stood trial and bin acquitted. Or something like that anyway.

And it was about protecting the finality and absoluteness of the decision of the court. Important, and should not be dismissed lightly.

But I'm not sure if amending that Law has ensured our slide into Barbarism though, despite the cries of the conservatives.

Trouble with the Reasonable Doubt thing is that advances in technology have actually produced evidence which provides that reasonable doubt of a person's innocence.

It's a tricky one for sure.

Indeed Junky 🙂 - I'm just really concerned at the potential "laws of unintended consequences" that we could see down the line when we throw these basic tenets on the scrap pile as outdated anachronisms of a time gone by...

Just as a wild example, remember Barry George - imagine if they went through all that, he was cleared, and they suddenly said, "oh, here's some new evidence" and tried to prosecute him all over again, or Colin stagg? Think of the way it could be abused if the police were convinced they had "got their man"...

Other problem you have with juries and reasonable doubt, is people watch TV programmes such as CSI and then can't differentiate between TV and reality, hence some of the comments in the Judges summing up. I know of a court case where jurors where asking questions about finger prints on something. They didn't understand (and they even said this) why it wasn't like CSI!! Where you had a tiny teeny finger tip on some paper and why the police couldnt' seize it, scan it and create a full FP profile which produced a hit on the database! I mean FFS, defendant was found not guilty (okay there may have been other factors involved) but potentially there is your reasonable doubt! I know of cases where jurors can't understand why there AREN'T forensics, as CSI there is ALWAYS forensics. It's a nightmare with television trying to bring "normal" members of the public back into reality.

Next you'll be blaming The Bill for people's perfectly reasonable expectations that every crime should be solved within an hour.

Thing is, where does it stop? how many times should the Government be allowed to prosecute you?

Flip the coin. How many times should you be able to appeal against conviction? I suspect the answers to both questions should be the same, and the opportunity to revisit weighed by the same criteria.

I've no idea where they found an impartial jury !!! I remember Britains biggest selling daily, putting their pictures on the front page with the headline calling them murders sue us if you dare. I've spent the last 16/17 years being told off their guilt.

Juries are remarkably sensible en masse. Even if they think the defendants are

swaggering low-lifes

I can certainly believe that the defendants are knuckledraggers but that doesn't mean they are guilty of the crime

Given the jury are out it is perhaps best not to speculate about their verdict on a public forum.

There's no possible interference with the proceedings - especially when all the evidence, arguments and directions have been presented to the jury. You can speculate all you like.

They've got subsequent form haven't they? (I.e post SL stabbing).

They've got subsequent form haven't they? (I.e post SL stabbing).

Them having previous form is relvant, hence the bad character evidence that was presented to the jury of them being racist thugs when they were filmed covertly. Previous form (especially a stabbing) would be incredibly relevant.

Them having previous form is relvant, hence the bad character evidence that was presented to the jury of them being racist thugs when they were filmed covertly. Previous form (especially a stabbing) would be incredibly relevant.

What you lot need is a nice not proven verdict like more enlightened legal systems use....

If they do go down, I hope they are guilty, and vice versa.

I agree and couldn't add to that without being privy to the same evidence as the jury and even then I doubt the picture would be that clear. I don't envy them in the slightest...

Love the Mum popping up with a last minute alibi though.....

So all this time later you have a moment of new clarity.

then she failed to do it well enough and could not be certain he was there [ at home] at the time of the murder...I would not like to suggest she was too stupid to lie well as i dont have enough evidence to support such an allegation.

They've got subsequent form haven't they? (I.e post SL stabbing).

Luckily, being a dickhead is not yet a criminal offence. 😉

Given the jury are out it is perhaps best not to speculate about their verdict on a public forum.

Why?

Is the jury likely to read STW?

Zulu-Eleven -
Member
Thing is, where does it stop? how many times should the Government be allowed to prosecute you? the risk is that they just keep on putting someone back in court until they get the "right" verdict.

Is this actually happening?

Erm...no.

Classic scare mongering, have a gold star.

Indeed. Saying

the risk is that they just keep on putting someone back in court until they get the "right" verdict.