Stephen Lawrence trial

[OldBlueLady]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8890661/Stephen-Lawrence-murder-trial-due-to-start.html

I thought people couldn't be retried for something they'd already been found not guilty of - the old double jeopardy rule. Were these two guys not tried earlier on in this case? They were definitely involved in the public enquiry arising out of the Mail's naming them, and I thought they'd been tried.

Be interesting to hear what the new evidence is after all this time. I know there are people who strongly believe that Stephen Lawrence wasn't the totally innocent victim that he's been painted to be ever since, and I know that Norris is definitely not the kind of person you'd want to cross!

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The law was reformed under the Blair Adminstration following media outcry, IIRC, over the Stephen Lawrence case.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Stephen Lawrence and double jeopardy: why we must question the decision to hold a retrial

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

The law was reformed under the Blair Adminstration following media outcry, IIRC, over the Stephen Lawrence case.

I think high profile cases that the Met have messed up are always ripe for a retrial, more for the reputation of the force more than anything else.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Ok, thanks, fairly typical of Blair to have tried to allow his wife's profession to cash in a bit more on retrials then I guess! :whistling:

 

[Gt Yarmouth Shrimper]

Ok, thanks, fairly typical of Blair to have tried to allow his wife's profession to cash in a bit more on retrials then I guess! :whistling:

What's Sturrock Jnr done now to deserve your displeasure?:smile:

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Ok, thanks, fairly typical of Blair to have tried to allow his wife's profession to cash in a bit more on retrials then I guess! :whistling:

Blair was also a barrister, although he obviously was no longer followingpractising the law.

I think he listened more to Alastair Campbell than he did to his wife, who I expect as a human rights lawyer, would have been against that change of law.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Blair was also a barrister, although he obviously was no longer followingpractising the law.

I think he listened more to Alastair Campbell than he did to his wife, who I expect as a human rights lawyer, would have been against that change of law.

Nice edit YB!

What's Sturrock Jnr done now to deserve your displeasure?:smile:

Wrong one GYS, one I can forgive lots, the other not very much at all!

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8890661/Stephen-Lawrence-murder-trial-due-to-start.html

I thought people couldn't be retried for something they'd already been found not guilty of - the old double jeopardy rule. Were these two guys not tried earlier on in this case? They were definitely involved in the public enquiry arising out of the Mail's naming them, and I thought they'd been tried.

Be interesting to hear what the new evidence is after all this time. I know there are people who strongly believe that Stephen Lawrence wasn't the totally innocent victim that he's been painted to be ever since, and I know that Norris is definitely not the kind of person you'd want to cross!

The new evidence is forensic apparently.It establishes that the two people charged were involved in the attack though neither may actually have been carrying the murder weapon. The new trial has been called for by the Police.

 

[OldBlueLady]

The new evidence is forensic apparently.And the new trial has been called for by the Police.

Yes, I realise that, but wasn't aware that Double Jeopardy no longer applied. I never cease to be amazed at the way forensic evidence can still be found so many years after a case, or even that the authorities keep the stuff that evidence can be obtained from! I imagine there must be some huge storage facility somewhere!

 

[thewhelk]

black on balck no body gives a fek, black on white no body gives a fek whit on black???? fek me hang them!!!! Steven Lawrence I thought we had put that one to bed back in the 90's (literally) for **** sake who are the next white men up for trial after these ones are aquited??

That all sounded really racist, it wasnt meant to, just seems like real double standards, clearly someone murdered him I get that but there have been plenty more murders since and many just as brutal but for some reason Steven Lawrence is like some symbolic black v white crap

 

[Pubey]

black on balck no body gives a fek, black on white no body gives a fek whit on black???? fek me hang them!!!! Steven Lawrence I thought we had put that one to bed back in the 90's (literally) for **** sake who are the next white men up for trial after these ones are aquited??

That all sounded really racist, it wasnt meant to, just seems like real double standards, clearly someone murdered him I get that but there have been plenty more murders since and many just as brutal but for some reason Steven Lawrence is like some symbolic black v white crap

I like brown on white...

  Spoiler:  

 

[canveyshrimper]

black on balck no body gives a fek, black on white no body gives a fek whit on black???? fek me hang them!!!! Steven Lawrence I thought we had put that one to bed back in the 90's (literally) for **** sake who are the next white men up for trial after these ones are aquited??

That all sounded really racist, it wasnt meant to, just seems like real double standards, clearly someone murdered him I get that but there have been plenty more murders since and many just as brutal but for some reason Steven Lawrence is like some symbolic black v white crap

Are you saying that whoever murdered Stephen Lawrence should get off scot free?

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Are you saying that whoever murdered Stephen Lawrence should get off scot free?

If a jury said they were not guilty once, then yes.

 

[Reg Martin]

Are you saying that whoever murdered Stephen Lawrence should get off scot free?

If I understood his post correctly then I don't think he was suggesting anyone should get away with murder. Instead he was asking why some murders are seen as more important to have someone convicted for than others.
This is obviously a very controversial case, and for the parents very emotionally traumatic I imagine, but there is an element of hypocrisy on all sides of the arguments in this case. For example, those who usually argue that prison doesn't work are most likeliest to want a long sentence handed out for this crime

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I wonder what Gavin Hopley's family make of all this.

 

[Bazza the dog]

If a jury said they were not guilty once, then yes.

Exactly if they tried everyone for the same crime more than once law of averages they will be found guilty at one stage which will fill our prisons and more importantly cost this country money that can be better spent on things like getting us out of this mess we seem to be in.

Obviousley feel for the boys parents but they had a trial and were found not guilty so unfortunately they will have to move on. To be honest I am bored with hearing about this trial 18 years later, one rule for one another for the others in my view.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Exactly if they tried everyone for the same crime more than once law of averages they will be found guilty at one stage which will fill our prisons and more importantly cost this country money that can be better spent on things like getting us out of this mess we seem to be in.

Obviousley feel for the boys parents but they had a trial and were found not guilty so unfortunately they will have to move on. To be honest I am bored with hearing about this trial 18 years later, one rule for one another for the others in my view.

If the police / judicial service messed up first time and have now found new evidence then stands to reason there should be a retrial. Having full prisons shouldn't be a reason to not prosecute someone who the police believe they can prove is guilty of murder.
If you have found some evidence that can prove someone guilty of murder then they should be prosecuted, if they are guilty and have walked the streets for 18 years then they have already used up their good fortune. If they are not proven guilty then so be it.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

If you have found some evidence that can prove someone guilty of murder then they should be prosecuted, if they are guilty and have walked the streets for 18 years then they have already used up their good fortune. If they are not proven guilty then so be it.

But one of them has already been found not guilty. You can't just keep prosecuting when it suits your agenda.

 

[Bazza the dog]

If the police / judicial service messed up first time and have now found new evidence then stands to reason there should be a retrial. Having full prisons shouldn't be a reason to not prosecute someone who the police believe they can prove is guilty of murder.
If you have found some evidence that can prove someone guilty of murder then they should be prosecuted, if they are guilty and have walked the streets for 18 years then they have already used up their good fortune. If they are not proven guilty then so be it.

Well that is their fault for completely messing up the job in the first place.

Do you think they would have found new evidence if this trial hadn't of been so high profile?. Of course not they have probably spent a load of money over the years trying to pin anything possible to this crime and finally 18 years later they MAY have a chance of success. Also how can the jury possibly not be slightly one sided (with the procecution) on this after years and years of hearing about the case in the papers its a bit of a farce. If they are going to do it this way then investigate all serious crimes from the past then rather than spend a load of money covering themselves because they couldn't to their job in the first place.