to wonder if the stephen lawrence trial could have ended any other way?

[verdictisin]

First, the murder of Stephen and the police's attitude were both terrible things and I strongly believe that both were as a result of racism. I am also not claiming that the verdict is wrong. I have not seen the evidence (only what the media has chosen to share).

The history of this case with its widespread publicity, the naming and shaming of the lads, and the video of the racism (despicable as it was it did not show a confession) all must have made it difficult for the jury.

But even if they had reasonable doubts, do you think the jury could have said not guilty?

But the jury weren't told some very, very important facts. I assume that was so that the defendants couldn't claim a mistrial.

I think they would've and the judge would have urged them to do so if the evidence didn't stack up. Having watched a murder trial that was all over the news I know how careful the judge is at making it very clear that it is evidence alone that can be used to convict.

That said they were nasty little buggers and am over the moon that justice has finally been served.

Of course they could. There's no personal backlash for members of a jury who make the 'wrong' decision.

But there were not any reasonable doubts to be had IMO. The recent evidence uncovered using modern DNA and fibre analysis techniques was irrefutable.

Would the prosecution have taken it to trial if they were not very, very sure of their evidence?

Juries are generally a lot braver and more discerning than the general public gives them credit for.

Having met Stephen's incredible parents I have been desperately hoping this trial went the right way. Very, very pleased for them after all this time.

I was actually expecting manslaugter verdict after the judge was speaking about being certain of this and that last week so was a bit surprised. Am pleased his parents have some justice and I hope the harsh reality of prison make them admit who else was involved or who stabbed him

Well I won't lose any sleep over that pair going to prison. Read the Guardian's report on what the jury weren't told.

I would never make judgement based on media reports of a trial, they will always spin to the story.

I think it would be difficlult for anyone to go into this trial with an open mind. I recently met one of the experts involved with the Birmingham Six appeal and the atmosphere surrounding the trial has similiarities. Both were horrendous crimes, with huge pressure to get a conviction. I just wonder how much this impacts on the jury.

But I'm sure that I was told that juries are one of the few areas of public life that cannot ever be researched as no one is ever allowed to analyse the workings in the jury room. Sp this has left me wondering, if it is really the right way for justice to be done in cases like this.

The History of the case and the publicity, meant the police had to work harder and by the rules to get a conviction. The way the police handled the evidence the first time was horrendous. These men were able to to get away with a crime for 18 years because , the investigation was flawed. I cannot imagine what it must have been like for the Lawrence family to lose their child in such a brutal way, and then to rub salt in the wounds see the people who killed him swagger out of court free. What way would you suggest instead of jurors?, and what verdict would you have wanted. If this is a miscarriage of justice like you are clearly trying to implying. Why did it take 18 years. How many murders actually have confessions, very few I'm sure. DNA of the convicted was found on Lawrence's clothes and yet they claimed to have never met him. Im sure there will be a more published enquiry , so why not do the research, instead of making negative responses to a positive day for Justice

IMO, this verdict is a step in the right direction, and I hope it's of some comfort to Stephen Lawrence's parents. I hope the others involved will now be brought to justice, but who knows how long that might take.

verdictisin I see you have a new name to suit the occasion of your 'insightful' post.

A class act trying to raise questions about the verdict on a day which should be a time for taking some comfort that two of the racist cunts have finally been brought to some justice.

Given all the evidence against them over the last 18 years, I personally don't give a flying fuck if the evidence this time hadn't stood up that well. No doubt someone will be along to say that's wrong and proves OP's point. The main reason they weren't found guilty before is because of the laxity of the police at the time.

Whatever happens to them, it could never compare to the suffering they inflicted on Stephen Lawrence, his family and friend who was with him that dreadful night.

well said heleninahandcart I don't think it was just on tape or at poor Stephen and his friend they hurled they racial slurs. I'm sure they would have offended many people with their fowlness (if thats a word)

Either way the judge directs the jury and if he hadn't of been satisfied with what was being put towards the court, then he would have made it known.
The judges summing up, counts for alot.

I'm also saving a glass or two for when the other murdering bastard scum are convicted, however long it takes.

It's about time this was finally brought to a conclusion and his family get some much needed justice.
Now we should go for the police who hid everything causing this mess.

What a wrench this op is.

Of course they could have found them not guilty...

But they didn't! They took their time and carefully considered all the evidence. It was the scientific evidence (that speck of blood) that made all the difference this time.

I think it's the right verdict. It's been a long time coming....and I am glad for Stephen's family that at last they have some sort of peace/closure. I just hope the others involved will eventually be convicted.

Sentencing is due today....and apparently they will have to be sentenced as minor's (they were 16 and 17 at the time of the murder). They could get a minimum of 12 years...but should get more (due to the circumstances).

Sentencing should reflect the crime. They have had a chance to grow up and have children. Neither had decent careers.......unsurprisingly.

Stephen never had the chance to reach his full potential....or to enjoy growing into a man, having a family of his own and reaching his career goal....and achieving his dreams.

i could of gone into this case on the jury, before the recent media i would not of know about the murder. I am 26 so this happened when i was 8.

i would have looked at the evidence

This is an interesting question.

I think that the defendants (and some of the accomplices who were not tried again) were definitely guilty. I think that the police racism, incompetence and corruption following the murder were appalling. I feel desperately sorry for Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence.

However, it is critical to the integrity of the system that every single trail is fairly decided on the basis of the evidence presented to that trial; and no trial process should be skewed to make up for deficiencies in a previous trial. The evidence presented at this trial was, I think, largely rather old forensic evidence; and there must have been some possibility of corruption or deterioration. The jury, moreover, cannot have emptied their minds of what they had heard prior to the trial.

On balance, I think that I trust the judge to have managed the trial so that it was fair; and I have to say that if there were to be a case in which some failing might have a good result, this is it.

It seems quite probable that the Acourt brothers were equally guilty and that their gangland connections are still operating one way or another to protect them

I think most juries, if they find a defendent guilty, do so on the basis of overwhelming evidence rather than absolute evidence. There can never be proof of a crime.

I'm so glad I wasn't on the jury.

Dobson and Norris - also their other mates - are clearly scumbags of the lowest order. The world is a better place with them behind bars.

Also I assume, as do most people, that they probably did it.

However I don't see how they can have got a fair trial. This case has been such a high profile cause celebre and vehicle for a a political agenda that it would be very hard for a jury member to approach it with an open mind. The pressure to return a guilty verdict would have been enormous. If they hadn't, no doubt they would have been named and shamed in the press and/or on the internet, and there might well have been riots.

Residents of nearby boroughs (I think Greenwich, Lewisham and Bexley) were excluded from being jury members on the grounds that they might be prejudiced. OK maybe, but if so then you can add residents of every other borough in the country, because this was very much reported nationally - not just as a local item in the Greenwich Advertiser. There's no reason to think that someone from Basingstoke, Barking or Blackburn wouldn't have been just as prejudiced.

Into the bargain a couple of basic principles of British justice which have existed for hundreds of years, and for good reason, have been casually tossed aside as if they didn't matter. Firstly, that it is preferable for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted. Secondly the double jeopardy rule that you can't be tried twice for the same crime.

And is it really part of a judge's job description to call the leader of the police investigation before the court and urge him to find the others responsible?

Even though a couple of lowlifes have probable gor their comeuppance it seems to me to have been a bad day for British justice.

Somebloke Even though a couple of lowlifes have probable gor their comeuppance it seems to me to have been a bad day for British justice.

Really? Fuck off.

"I would never make judgement based on media reports of a trial, they will always spin to the story" - actually court reporting is one of the few areas where journalists can't spin as there are rules governing what can be reported and how. I'm also not sure how you can compare this case with that of the Birmingham Six - I would have said they were at opposite ends of the spectrum. In that case the six were convicted because they were fitted up by the police, in this case the police did almost the opposite by failing to get the initial investigation of the ground.