Damilola Taylor - scapegoat required

[whiffey]

It is virtually the only news tonight. A young kid killed in Peckham 5 years ago. No convictions. So who was to blame. Forensics ? The police ? The courts ?

We need someone to blame, and quickly.

How about the animals that killed him ?

[buildersmate]

The trouble is, we all know who did it - just can't nail the chaps. Stephen Lawrence all over again. The law is definitely an ass.

[kipchik]

I second that,we know they're guilty same as stephen lawrence tw*ts,guilty,problem is too many loopholes and boy do they know how to work it.

[bruce5755]

I'm quite sure that we don't know all the facts about this case, and I'm definately not au-fait with the latest proceedings but, I believe that the surgeon involved in examining Damilola's injurys claimed that they could only have been accidental. Put that with the other evidence; the trainers did not fit and the sweatshirt was never worn by one of the accused, does this not give reasonable doubt?

I know one thing though; I wouldn't be too pleased if I were accused of a crime that I "could have been involved in"

Nevertheless an awful waste of such a wonderful young life! May God bless him.

[nedflanders]

lets blame ian huntley and maxine carr oh and roy whiting too.

[whiffey]

The aspect that stirred me to post this is the constant baying for blame that accompanies virtually everything these days. If you can't nail the criminals, then nail the police for institutional racism, nail the social workers for incompetence, nail anyone, as long as you get *somebody*

Will it ever again be possible to say, "Sorry, we really don't know who did it"

[JudgeJ]

Fortunately we have not yet reached the point in this country where one can be found guilty of an offence (particularly one so serious as murder) just because a few people � including some police officers and buildersmate � say they know who did it.

This is the second crack the prosecuting authorities have had at this one. In 2002 four other people were hauled up on the charge and subsequently acquitted. No doubt at the time a number of people � almost certainly some police officers but I�m not sure about buildersmate � thought they knew who did it.

Alas, most inconveniently for some, the matter has to be proved. In the latest trial there were no eye witness accounts, forensic evidence was sadly lacking and expert witnesses - even those called by the prosecution - provided conflicting testimonies. The defence called witnesses who had appeared for the prosecution at the first trial, using them to argue that if they (the witnesses) were adamant at the first trial that somebody else was guilty, then they should be equally adamant on this occasion that the latest defendants were innocent.

Despite this the jury, to their eternal credit, spent more than twenty hours deliberating before deciding they could not agree. Yes, it is a terrible case, and of course the Taylor family want to see that justice is done. But it is just one of many heinous crimes to occur in this country every year. Many of the others do not even see one set of suspects brought to court, let alone two.

Far from considering a third trial the prosecutors should accept that - however "high profile" this case may be - they simply do not have enough evidence to secure a conviction. They have had more than five years and two trials involving seven defendants so far. Enough is enough.

[whiffey]

Thanks everybody, very interesting.

Again my point is - whose blood will flow ?

I'll have a fiver on the police being done for institutional racism and incompetence.

[don1]

Unbelievably the CPS are discussing whether to have a THIRD trial presumably their stance is that the jury got it wrong the first time, then the second jury got it wrong, but if we try them enough times eventually a jury will get it right.

Double jeopardy should be re-introduced with immediate effect, or perhaps we should employ a witchfinder general.

[WoWo]

Double jeopardy is in force, they can only go back to the courts if there is sufficient new and compelling evidence for a retrial.

[don1]

Thats not the same thing WoWo, double jeopardy for two hundred years meant that if you were found not guilty that was the end of it. There was no second bite of the cherry for the prosecution and nor should there be.

If the prosecutions case is so weak they should leave it alone until they have enough evidence to convict.

And if they are considering a third trial based on new evidence as you point out, where did they get this "new" evidence since yesterday?

I'm as pi$$ed off as anybody else that these little scumbags have got away with murder, but the bigger picture is scary.

[bernardo]

I am astonished that anybody could say that "we know who did it". The evidence which has clearly come out of the two trials is that there is a real possibility that Damilola was not murdered at all. The four defendants in the first trial in 2002 had what turned out to be a cast-iron alibi, and the second trial was based on very dubious evidence.

don1 - you have misunderstood the issue involved in whether there should be a third trial. It is nothing to do with the new double jeopardy law; it is a question of whether there should be a retrial of the two defendants where the jury could not agree a verdict on the charge of manslaughter.

The new law says that there can only be a new trial in a case where someone has been acquitted if there is compelling new evidence which could not have been available before. It would take several months and it would require the High Court to quash the acquittal before a new trial could take place.