Stephen Lawrence Trial.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....tml?ito=feeds-newsxml

Can those accused expect a fair trial, since it has been 18 years since the Stephen Lawrence's murder?

/// Mr Lawrence said: ‘I’ve waited 18 years. I look forward to seeing justice at last. It has been a very long road.’ ///

/// Mrs Lawrence added: ‘All I can think about is Stephen and that perhaps we will finally get justice for him.’ ///

Understandable or not? it seems his parents have already made up their minds.

And please before some of you rain down on me, and call me a racist as is your way, please consider this:

I would have asked this question no matter what the colour of the victim or of the accused killers, and if in the future, they are indeed found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt (due to some damming evidence that no one yet know of) I say now that they deserve a very long jail sentence imposed upon them, and this long and disturbing case can finally be put to rest, and we can then move on.

[DrFilth]

how can they have a fair trial when the mail has already told everyone they are guilty

[andy-hughes]

They will be tried based on the available evidence - which has obvious been increased since the last trial.

The unspoken concensus is that the police know the accused are guilty, but fortunatrely, our justice system relies on reasonable doubt, not knowing and being unable to prove, or indeed trial by media.

[DrFilth]

Newspaper headlines

On 14 February 1997, the Daily Mail newspaper labelled all five of those believed to have attacked and killed Lawrence "murderers", challenging them to sue the newspaper for libel if they were wrong. The headline read "Murderers: The Mail accuses these men of killing. If we are wrong, let them sue us." Underneath this headline appeared pictures of Gary Dobson, Neil Acourt, Jamie Acourt, Luke Knight, and David Norris. To date, the men have not sued, but they have used appearances in the media to protest their innocence. The Attorney General later cleared the Daily Mail of contempt of court.

In 2002, two men accused in the Lawrence case, David Norris and Neil Acourt, were convicted and jailed for a racist attack on a plainclothes black police officer.

In July 2010, Gary Dobson was jailed for five years for dealing in drugs

[andy-hughes]

yes redhelen they deserve a fair trial because fairness for all is at the heart of our justice system - anything else makes us vigilantes.

[DrFilth]

how can they get a fair trial after they have had their names on the front page of every paper in the country, on the tv and radio telling us how guilty they are

[andy-hughes]

Because juries are instructed to ignore everything but the evidence, and hopefully, they will do so.

[DrFilth]

>> ignore everything but the evidence, and hopefully, they will do so. <<

do you honestly believe that

[DTCwordfan]

The Mail ought to be looked into for a case of "perverting the course of justice" if they are already presuming.....

Andy is right, the evidence must be presented and there is obviously a lot more that has come forth since the last casem and the over-rule of double jeopardy. If found guilty, then they (and others here) have right to vent their spleen.

The parents' position/reaction is fully understandable - the best thing they could do is also to make no comment until the wheels of the court have run their course.

And for once, AOG, I agree with you that this is not about race or religion and yes to your comment, if found guilty, then hopefully a very long sentence....

[DTCwordfan]

Yes I do Dr F - as the time that has elapsed between the last trial and now it has been so long that there is almost a generation of potential jurists to whom this gross event is hopefully just a reference and the intricacies of which are very opaque. Hence the chance for a fair trial stands, IMHO, a good chance of succeeding.

[DrFilth]

>> , IMHO, a good chance of succeeding. <<

because all the media have told you they are the killers IMHO even i think they are guilty because of what i have read or heard on the radio or tv in the past

the question is will they get a fair trial and the answer is NO

[anotheoldgit]

DrFilth

/// how can they have a fair trial when the mail has already told everyone they are guilty ///

Er, where have they said that?

I have read most reports on this, and they all seem to give the same information.

Since reporting restrictions have long been in force over this case, it is more than likely that the press were all issued with identical press statements.

[DrFilth]

anotheoldgit
>>
/// how can they have a fair trial when the mail has already told everyone they are guilty ///

Er, where have they said that? <<


see above >>
On 14 February 1997, the Daily Mail newspaper labelled all five of those believed to have attacked and killed Lawrence "murderers", challenging them to sue the newspaper for libel if they were wrong. <<

[DTCwordfan]

You take that in the wrong light, DrF, or apologies for my vagueness.....I meant succeeding in delivering a fair trial, whateer th verdict. My view on criminality and trials has been stated in several other threads, and that is we should take care until the wheels have come to a halt...as we are not privy to all the evidence or statements. The Yates case was a prima facie example of that and many an ABer jumped all over the landlord, despite a few of us saying "take care" both in terms of the outcome and indeed even potential libel. The same applies here....let the trial take place and do not jump to conclusions until the verdict is delivered.

[DTCwordfan]

One of the "teaching points" that a barrister once told me is that in a given "situation," even the most black and white, no two people have the same opinion of the evidence, or the same interpretation. And that is why defence lawyers go after folk to try and pick holes in what they saw, heard felt, smelt, whatever. This is not saying that people are deliberately lying - they are not - it's that our brains all spin in different ways and interpret differently the hard facts that we have experienced....

[ummmm]

Of course people are going to jump to conclusions. They've been in the frame for 18 years...

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// The unspoken concensus is that the police know the accused are guilty, ///

Or it could be that they would be happy to find anyone they can on who to hang the guilty sign, maybe perhaps to somehow make up for their incompetence in the beginning?

[DrFilth]

i do not think that there is one person in this country that has not heard or read about this case
the more this guys jacket gets handled the bigger the chance for contamination

>>Doreen and Neville Lawrence witnessed the court of appeal clear the way for Gary Dobson, 35, to face a jury. The court's permission was needed because Dobson had been acquitted of Stephen's murder in a prosecution brought in 1996.

Judges headed by the lord chief justice decided new forensic tests on Dobson's grey bomber jacket and a cardigan had produced evidence that was compelling enough to quash his acquittal and see him stand trial for a second time. <<



dt just like you have posted, that weird landlord must be guilty, well if the media think he is, he must have done something

[ummmm]

<Or it could be that they would be happy to find anyone they can on who to hang the guilty sign>

They are the original accused. So how would that be finding anyone?

[DTCwordfan]

the only benefit for him is that he some £2.5 mln better off - but a life partly ruined by the media, he deserves it.