[Closed] Lawrence - Court Case

[i]heres hoping for a good result[/i]

By which you mean guilty?

Can't believe there's anyone left who could sit on a jury and not already have a very firm opinion regarding the guilt (or otherwise) of these two?

I wouldn;t be able to try just on the evidence without lettign my knowledge of previous cases/their behaviour impinge on my decision making.

They made their bed, as the saying goes...

Absolute nonsense. How can a fair trial possibly go ahead? The crown and police should admit defeat and admit they screwed up royally. These men should not be facing these charges. Guilty verdict guaranteed.

Shocked how old they both look 😯 but it was 1993 when Stephen Lawrence was stabbed to death

They're a pair of thugs who are clearly guilty and totally unrepentant
But as already mentioned, Its difficult to see how any conviction could possibly stand up.

This is just going to end up spunking christ-only-knows-how-much taxpayers money. Trial > Guilty verdict > appeal > House of Lords > European Court of Human Rights > and on.... > and on.... > and on.... > and on.... > and on.... > and on.... > and on.... > and on.... > and on.... > and on.... > and on.... > and on....

bigthunder - Member
Absolute nonsense. How can a fair trial possibly go ahead? The crown and police should admit defeat and admit they screwed up royally. These men should not be facing these charges. Guilty verdict guaranteed.

On the one hand I agree, on the other hand how many trails don't have an element of this in them?

Most trials do,I agree,but not to the extent of this. These men have been clearly identified and their backgrounds and (despicable) behaviour highly publicised. Most other trials this sort of information is kept from a jury. Just getting the case this far shows highly dubious legal wrangling. Im not on their side but the law should play by its rules. What I find really strange is that theyve stuck around in this country - they must have known the authorities would go all out to get them.

thats what jury selection is for

How can anyone not have been influenced by the reporting of this case? That screws ANY jury.

Younger jury?

I barely remember the original trail? Infact I'd forgoten about it untill you brought it up (25 btw).

Well I'd have to google Dobson and Norris, which suggests that it ought to be possible to select an unbiased jury.

clearly not enough of us are going to court enough.. evidence can now be brought of previous arrests/ convictions

Posted 17 minutes ago # bigthunder - Member
How can anyone not have been influenced by the reporting of this case? That screws ANY jury.

No it doesnt

They make a decision based on the facts of the case as presented to them. They will also be given some guidance by the judiciary before reaching their verdict.

The jury system works.

These men should not be facing these charges

TandemJeremy - Member

thats what jury selection is for

Selection in UK is random, whereas US lawyers argue about it. There would be 'de-selection' only if it was found that a juror could not be impartial (eg knew the victim)

FLipping heck police and CPS can't win!! If they aren't charged they get criticized and if they do then everyone criticizes. There is a huge section of society who won't have a clue who they are or might not know much about it. Surprisingly a lot of people never listen to the news or read a newspaper, this happened 18 years ago so anyone from 18-32 I would suggest may struggle to remember this let alone the news paper reports.

I think lots of these things are potentially difficult to give fair trials due to the internet etc. All you need to do is google a defendants name (admittedly the Judge will normally warn a jury not to do that, however isn't that like a red rag to a bull?). Interesting stuff the British judicial system.

New forensic evidence .. if it's forensic then it will all be about technique development I imagine rather than relying on a witness who saw something 18 years ago. Very interesting and I will be following closely.

Police and cps behaved very poorly in this case and deserve all the criticism they get. Junkyard - its just an update of a 70s fit up. Betchya the judge does well out of it.

Are you related to one of them or something?

Everyone knows the police cocked things up a bit when the lad was murdered - they accepted that a long time ago. It doesn't mean they should stop pursuing justice. I'm glad they're going on trial again.

FLipping heck police and CPS can't win!! If they aren't charged they get criticized and if they do then everyone criticizes.

Conducted by Sir William Macpherson, the inquiry found that the original Metropolitan Police Service investigation had been incompetent and charged that officers had committed fundamental errors, including failing to give first aid when they reached the scene; failing to follow obvious leads during their investigation; and failing to arrest suspects. The report found that there had been a failure of leadership by senior MPS officers and that recommendations of the 1981 Scarman Report, compiled following race-related riots in Brixton and Toxteth, had been ignored.

The Report also found that the police were institutionally racist and made a total of 70 recommendations for reform. These proposals included abolishing the double jeopardy rule and criminalising racist statements made in private. Macpherson also called for reform in the British Civil Service, local governments, the National Health Service, schools, and the judicial system, in order to address issues of institutional racism.[25]

Agree with junkyard, but also a bit with MC. I hope that justice is finally served on these two and the Lawrence family can finally get some kind of closure.

I could sit on the jury as I know almost nothing about the previous trial.

I couldn't pick either of the blokes out of a crowd (then or now) and all I know really is that there was a murder, followed by a trial and some lads were found not guilty.

Don't know any other details than that. I don't really follow the news on things like that (not sure why but I never have)

Im not for these guys but I do think justice has to take a sore one from time to time especially when its the systems mistake that causes it.As for justice I dont think a shaky guilty verdict is justice. They have already been on trial,faced private prosecution and been made to run the gauntlet as well as getting named and shamed everywhere. I know they are no angels but if all that has failed then that should be accepted no matter how unpleasant. I think it will come down to forensics. Guilty verdict guaranteed. If for some mad reason they get a not guilty who thinks the law should keep after them? When do you give up with something like this?

I'm not sure I even care for trial by jury in a case like this. How can a jury member not be influenced by the press coverage over the years. Maybe we ought to have a panel of judges, I think they are doing that in very complex fraud cases now.

Anyone on here done jury duty? Pal of mine (a journalist) did it this year, he was genuinely shocked at the process. Some of his fellow jurers werent even interested, just wanted to go home, was a lot of "he looks guilty" and one guy who clearly hated the police and wouldnt convict under any circumstances.

Couldnt agree more mcboo. How a jury can be impartial on this is beyond me. Suppose thats the whole point though - trial(and guilt) by media.

I completely agree the Met absolutely destroyed the investigation, however in the pursuit of justice they charge someone and people still continue to criticize. The point is there is NEW forensic evidence, therefore it the ball all starts rolling again and would in ANY case not just this one.

If I was GUILTY of a crime I think I'd want to be tried by a jury from the general public.

If I was INNOCENT I'd want a trial in front of a panel of judges.