Stephen Lawrence MURDERERS

[The Merry Prankster]

We fundamentally disagree, new advances in technology ? do me a favour, as i've said before , they are probably guilty, but they have been well and truly fitted up in this case.

I can't go along with them being fitted up but certainly agree with the impossibility of them getting a unbiased jury. I have thought they were guilty for years, if I'd been a juror would I have been able to put that out of my mind completely? I am flattered that Edna and Herr T think that I would but realistically I think it would have been beyond me.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I can't go along with them being fitted up but certainly agree with the impossibility of them getting a unbiased jury. I have thought they were guilty for years, if I'd been a juror would I have been able to put that out of my mind completely? I am flattered that Edna and Herr T think that I would but realistically I think it would have been beyond me.

The point they make is that while you and others on a jury may potentially have a preconceived notion of guilt, there are 12 members of a jury and each have to be convinced of the guilt based on the evidence. It is unlikely all 12 would share that preconception, which is what our justice system has been based on 12 jurors for hundreds of years.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

The point they make is that while you and others on a jury may potentially have a preconceived notion of guilt, there are 12 members of a jury and each have to be convinced of the guilt based on the evidence. It is unlikely all 12 would share that preconception, which is what our justice system has been based on 12 jurors for hundreds of years.

Fair point but it rather loads the dice if, say half of them, are convinced of your guilt before the trial even starts.

 

[aolstudios]

Very brave behind a keyboard aren't you ?

Could say the same about you. But if that's an invitation to see me after school?

 

[Tooting Gull]

Fair point but it rather loads the dice if, say half of them, are convinced of your guilt before the trial even starts.

I agree that was potentially an issue with this trial. It would have been interesting to hear exactly what the jury were asked before they were selected, presumably they admitted they'd heard of the case (who hasn't). What if you happened to be an anti-racist campaigner, would that have stopped you being on the jury? It shouldn't really, you're just part of society like anyone else.

But it was that, or don't try them at all. Which would have been worse IMHO. The judge gave them every opportunity not to convict, stressing the need not to be emotional, and the defence gave it their best shot at discrediting the new evidence. But after all that, the jury thought they did it.

 

[Falkor]

We fundamentally disagree, new advances in technology ? do me a favour, as i've said before , they are probably guilty, but they have been well and truly fitted up in this case.

you have no idea what your talking about then, if ya have no idea about the technology used

Find it odd that people seem to think the Jury was biased could they just not have believed the new evidence from the stains of there tops, as i have said the same evidence gathering was used in two different cases and both people were convicted guess they were shafted also.

 

[User removed 4]

Could say the same about you. But if that's an invitation to see me after school?

are you offering me out ?

 

[paddy]

They will be offering them a chance to tell all for a reduced sentance thats a certainty. There is however a certain " honour " amoungst criminals that you don't grass and if they do, they will be made to pay in prison from some heavyweight inmates.

Unfortunately this is not the case - plea bargaining is still strictly prohibited at the sentencing stage - it only exists in English law to the extent that if the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser offence (such as manslaughter) at the beginning of the trial - they will then receive a lighter sentence for pleading to the lesser offence. It may be that in mitigation they argued they were not the ones who actually stabbed Lawrence, in which case they may have inadvertently incriminated the other three. They may also be willing to 'talk' because when whatever tariff the judge gives them (most likely 14-18 years) is up, each will have to go before a parole board who may be influenced by the fact that they testified in court against the other three.

My guesstimate is somewhere between 14-18 years.

 

[Gritt23]

wind your neck in !

No.
They are 'orrible, 'orrible, bunch of lowlife, who were arrogantly strolling around, literally believing they could get away with murder.

 

[Acker79]

I truly believe I could have been an impartial juror in this case. I have only a passing knowledge of the incident, I doubt I'd recognise the men or their names, and I find highly emotive incidents like these will always see the media focus on someone, and paint them as suspicious, and do so just to have a villain in the piece, to give readers some comfort that a monster isn't on the loose. When they are not found guilty I don't assume they got away with it, I always allow for the possibility that they are genuinely innocent and just happen to be the sort of person that can be painted as believably guilty - Racist thugs, it would make sense if they were guilty of this. Creepy-looking loner who is her landlord, for Joanna Yeates, makes sense (but was wrong).

Since I believe I could, and I don't feel particularly special or talented, I presume it wouldn't be too hard to find 12 other people who could also approach the case without having their mind made up by the media.

Given that, I don't think the show trial argument holds much water. Political or PR pressure may have kept the case near the top of their case load, but it wouldn't have gone to trial if the evidence wasn't there (or it would have gone to trial sooner), and the jury (given what I've said above) wouldn't have found them guilty if it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[aolstudios]

are you offering me out ?

You said I was brave behind a keyboard? sounded like you were hinting that I was a coward and I was responding to your comedy cockney crap in kind. There's nothing I've ever typed that I wouldn't say to your face and will if you ever want me to? You can take that any way you like

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I agree that was potentially an issue with this trial. It would have been interesting to hear exactly what the jury were asked before they were selected, presumably they admitted they'd heard of the case (who hasn't). What if you happened to be an anti-racist campaigner, would that have stopped you being on the jury? It shouldn't really, you're just part of society like anyone else.

But it was that, or don't try them at all. Which would have been worse IMHO. The judge gave them every opportunity not to convict, stressing the need not to be emotional, and the defence gave it their best shot at discrediting the new evidence. But after all that, the jury thought they did it.

And it could go the other way as well, if you believe that some people will judge them guilty on the basis of a pre-conceived idea then you should equally believe that some might find them not guilty on a pre-conceived idea such as an unfair trial (or they are [MENTION=11956]bushy[/MENTION] of course). This is why the jury selection and method of selection is paramount. I hope the details of the jury selection emerge. I also believe that the defence has the right to remove anyone from the jury they believe is biased in anyway. I'd say the dice are loaded against a guilty verdict being decided if there has to be bias.

 

[Gritt23]

We fundamentally disagree, new advances in technology ? do me a favour, as i've said before , they are probably guilty, but they have been well and truly fitted up in this case.

Current levels of DNA testing means they were able to identify microscopic levels of blood on Dobsons jacket, AND prove that it was embedded far enough into teh fibres of his jacket that the blood must have been wet when it got there for it to soak in that deep. Are you saying that is NOT an advancement in DNA? Do you believe that level of scientific study was around in the 90's?

As for fitted up ... Norris at the time claimed he "couldn't remember" where he was on the night. That was rubbish, and he knew it, in the Martin Bashir interview he got very worked up about "how people could take that and find me guilty. I don't remember, how does that make me guilty." That was a completely crap alibi at the time. This time round, with hairs and fibres on his clothing he suddenly needs something better than "I can't remember", and incredibly, after all these years, his mother suddenly comes out with "he was at home with me all night."

There is absolutely NOTHING to suggest they were "fitted up" and everything to suggest they were a bunch of murdering racists.

 

[paddy]

I agree that was potentially an issue with this trial. It would have been interesting to hear exactly what the jury were asked before they were selected, presumably they admitted they'd heard of the case (who hasn't). What if you happened to be an anti-racist campaigner, would that have stopped you being on the jury? It shouldn't really, you're just part of society like anyone else.

But it was that, or don't try them at all. Which would have been worse IMHO. The judge gave them every opportunity not to convict, stressing the need not to be emotional, and the defence gave it their best shot at discrediting the new evidence. But after all that, the jury thought they did it.

Unlike America, jurors do not routinely have to go through cross-examination by the barristers for each side, or the judge, to decide whether they are appropriate for the case (in American death penalty cases, it is common for the prosecution to ask the potential jurors whether or not, if the defendant is convicted, they would be prepared to vote for the death penalty - if the answer is no, the prosecution will then oppose that juror's involvement!!). Normally, the clerk will read the twelve names off a list and, before swearing the jury in, the judge will ask whether any of them knows the defendant, the barristers or any of the witnesses, or whether they have any other personal reason why they should be exempted from jury service. Other than this, we quite rightly have absolutely no idea whether there is an anti-racist campaigner or indeed a BNP supporter on the jury.

There are still some very unusual cases where the prosecution or defence could ask that one of the jurors not be sworn in, but usually we settle for the judge directing the jury to be impartial and only decide the case on the evidence that the hear inside the courtroom.

 

[User removed 4]

You said I was brave behind a keyboard? sounded like you were hinting that I was a coward and I was responding to your comedy cockney crap in kind. There's nothing I've ever typed that I wouldn't say to your face and will if you ever want me to? You can take that any way you like

no problem, i'll let you know the next time im in brighton, or why not let me know when you next come to haywards heath.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Since I believe I could, and I don't feel particularly special or talented, I presume it wouldn't be too hard to find 12 other people who could also approach the case without having their mind made up by the media.

Agree. I know I could. I know not everyone can, but screening for people like me and you should not be too difficult.

 

[aolstudios]

no problem, i'll let you know the next time im in brighton, or why not let me know when you next come to haywards heath.

I look forward to it

 

[User removed 4]

Current levels of DNA testing means they were able to identify microscopic levels of blood on Dobsons jacket, AND prove that it was embedded far enough into teh fibres of his jacket that the blood must have been wet when it got there for it to soak in that deep. Are you saying that is NOT an advancement in DNA? Do you believe that level of scientific study was around in the 90's?

As for fitted up ... Norris at the time claimed he "couldn't remember" where he was on the night. That was rubbish, and he knew it, in the Martin Bashir interview he got very worked up about "how people could take that and find me guilty. I don't remember, how does that make me guilty." That was a completely crap alibi at the time. This time round, with hairs and fibres on his clothing he suddenly needs something better than "I can't remember", and incredibly, after all these years, his mother suddenly comes out with "he was at home with me all night."

There is absolutely NOTHING to suggest they were "fitted up" and everything to suggest they were a bunch of murdering racists.

As i've said , i think they are guilty, but do you really think they have discovered wonderful new ways to find fibres on clothes that they didnt have 20 years ago, well I dont, and i'll state here and now that the way the evidence was stored and the consequent danger of contamination wouldnt have been allowed in any other case except this highly politicised one.

 

[User removed 4]

I look forward to it

So will i, dont worry.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

As i've said , i think they are guilty, but do you really think they have discovered wonderful new ways to find fibres on clothes that they didnt have 20 years ago, well I dont, and i'll state here and now that the way the evidence was stored and the consequent danger of contamination wouldnt have been allowed in any other case except this highly politicised one.

Jesus Bushy. Are you serious? Just think back 20 years ago, think about communications, think about media, think about music back then. All have taken huge leaps forward. Can you really not believe forensics have advanced? The only thing stuck in a 20 year time warp is you.