Shocking new Stephen Lawrence evidence

[Tooting Gull]

This documentary tonight is clearly going to blow the whole thing apart again over the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

What I don't understand is this. We all know there is this basic principle that you can't be tried for the same thing again if found not guilty. But that law just seems wrong, and needs changing.

If you were found guilty and then new evidence comes to light, you can go the Court of Appeal and it can be overturned.

If you are found not guilty and then it emerges that from the very start of the investigation a police officer was sabotaging it and tainting it, and suppressing vital evidence over alibis and a load of other stuff while being in the pay of one of the suspect's fathers, why doesn't the same principle apply?

The original verdict was not based on the true facts, and it seems outrageous that possible murderers could escape justice in these circumstances.

 

[brighton2win]

channel?

 

[Lokki 7]

I agree Toots, shocking. I'm not sure I even want to watch the doc tonight as I will get so angry. Saw the basis of it outlined and it is outrageous.

 

[Bozza]

Lots of discussion about this on the radio last night and this morning.

I thought there was a fundamental reason why this could never go to court again but I've not heard this mentioned once over the past day or so. Some legal expert on 5Live this morning was saying he didn't think this expose changed anything at all - there were proven connections between Det Sgt John Davidson and Clifford Norris, father of suspect David Norris years back.

In addition, the news that the suspects alibis are questionable is not new news - that has been the case before. The problem is that despite the shaky alibis, there is still nothing at all that puts them at the scene of the crime.

 

[Bozza]

(BBC1, 9pm)

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

This documentary tonight is clearly going to blow the whole thing apart again over the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

What I don't understand is this. We all know there is this basic principle that you can't be tried for the same thing again if found not guilty. But that law just seems wrong, and needs changing.

If you were found guilty and then new evidence comes to light, you can go the Court of Appeal and it can be overturned.

If you are found not guilty and then it emerges that from the very start of the investigation a police officer was sabotaging it and tainting it, and suppressing vital evidence over alibis and a load of other stuff while being in the pay of one of the suspect's fathers, why doesn't the same principle apply?

The original verdict was not based on the true facts, and it seems outrageous that possible murderers could escape justice in these circumstances.

So thats why they did change it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4406129.stm

 

[Tooting Gull]

Cheers for clearing that up, I must admit, I didn't know that had finally changed - although the case seemed overwhelming to do so.

So where does that leave the Lawrences with this one? This seems like a prima facie case to use this option, but like Bozza I have heard nothing on the radio to the effect that this is likely.

Is there some special reason why they won't use it on the Lawrence suspects, some loophole that again spares their hides?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Double Jeopardy

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Nice blokes those 5 , hurling fists, laughing and spitting in the faces of the mainly Black people outside the court, makes yer proud to be British

 

[Wardy]

Cheers for clearing that up, I must admit, I didn't know that had finally changed - although the case seemed overwhelming to do so.

So where does that leave the Lawrences with this one? This seems like a prima facie case to use this option, but like Bozza I have heard nothing on the radio to the effect that this is likely.

Is there some special reason why they won't use it on the Lawrence suspects, some loophole that again spares their hides?

I am not sure about loopholes, might most new legislation is not applied backwards. In other words because at the time the law said they could not be retried then they will come under that law. Of course it does not stop a Civil Case where the burden of proof is less.

 

[Seagull Stew]

Could they not be tried for Purgery.

Surely it could be proved that they lied in court for the original trial.

What is the maximum penalty for purgery?

 

[Bozza]

I think the simple fact is that nothing new has come to light that would make a successful prosecution likely.

This legal chap on 5Live this morning intimated the Met have a track record for royally fecking up large prosecutions and there's no way they'll pursue this unless they are 110% to get the prosecution they want.

 

[Tooting Gull]

I know often the police/CPS go for some other charge (like perjury) if they've royally screwed up the main case, just to get the villains behind bars for a short period for something else.

But I feel in this case that a conviction on some lighter charge is almost an insult, and merely highlights again the massive incompetence over the murder investigation.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

They need witnesses - of which there will be some who saw these murderers after the attack. But the initmidation continues to work. Will that always be the case. There must be some terrible consciences out there.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5214644.stm

 

[Seagull Stew]

But I feel in this case that a conviction on some lighter charge is almost an insult.

Fair point, but I don't think it would take long before they got what they deserve if sent to the appropriate prison.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Most of them have been in and out of jail anyway. I think one got 18 months for assaulting a policeman with a mcdonalds milkshake.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2148741.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3715607.stm

 

[The Wookiee]

Stephen lawrence was a drug dealing piece of scum who thought the idea of raping white girls amusing

 

[Arthur]

Why can't they let the poor lad rest in peace?

 

[Lokki 7]

Stephen lawrence was a drug dealing piece of scum who thought the idea of raping white girls amusing

You knew him?