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?

Helena- that is very offensive!!

I too don't see how this could possibly be a fair trial , so long after the event and given the amount of publicity, and strength of feeling surrounding the case.
That is not to day that I don't think they did it, or that the world isn't a better place with them behind bars.

I think that the evidence must have added up for them to convict them of murder, they got 14 and 15years apparently according to itv news tonight, but not sure that went out on all news as i am local to eltham and actually lived there a few years ago. I think people need to stop dragging up the case in order that stephen lawrences family and friends can start to heal and focus on the future and remembering their son/friend for who he was and not for the lack of justice. Just my opinon. Sorry if any one is offended. x

Smallwhitecat I totally agree that questioning doesn't make someone an apologist for racism and that's not what I have said. I just find this thread and its timing distasteful as per my first post.

Dandelionss Not half as offensive as Somebloke's post, claiming it's a bad day for British justice.

The whole case involved 18 years of injustice. Let's remember the real victims here.

Somebloke is actually quite right to be concerned about the contortions that were performed to allow a retrial on this matter. What's been done to the double jeopardy principle is rather concerning, from a civil liberties perspective. I hope we don't live to regret it. One can be glad the bastards have finally been got, whilst also being concerned about what had to be done to achieve it. They're not mutually exclusive feelings.

The trial could have ended another way, but the evidence against these two men was overwhelming. It was a fair trial, presided over by a very reasonable sounding judge (read his summing up anmd sentencing comments). The jury deliberated for several hours before reaching their verdict, which was unanimous.
Don't forget that the men had to be tried again because the original investigation was so flawed, and 'maybe' even marred by corruption and bribery. One of the reasons that the original investigation was flawed was institutional racism- a term that is now widely accepted and understood yet would not exist had it not been for the lacklustre investigation into the Lawrence murder in the first place.
I am horrified to read a comparison with the Birmingham Six- those six were innocent men fitted up by the police because they happened to have the wrong nationality. In the Lawrence case it would appear that guilty men were literally allowed to get away with murder by the police.
What are these changes to a) the criminal justice system and b) society in the light of the Lawrence murder that are so objectionable?
Personally, I think it's a great shame that the law could not also be changed to allow these men to be sentenced as adults rather than juveniles. They have lived freely for 18 years- and been involved in further crime along the way- while their victim's life was ended.
Roll on the trial of the other three.

The comments made on this thread are not about the Law, Double Jeopardy and a fair trial. If the prosecution was prejudiced in anyway these men would have been in jail years ago and Stephens parents would bot have had to fight so hard to get a retrial. This thread show that prejudice and racism is as alive as it was 18 years ago. When people are more concerned about the perpetrator that the actual victim. The passion displayed by some of the posters to slyly try and defend the indefensible is laughable. The way that family was treated by the police establishment was disgusting , and for them to have to wait 18 years is worse. I'm done, sometimes mnetters really disgust me with their ignorance.

Yes, not mutually exclusive Flangelina, it's just a shame that there wasn't even a breath before people started tutting. That feels like an indulgence given what the Lawrences had to go through to get anywhere at all.

While I agree that justice has finally been done, and the original trial was a travesty, and that is a good thing, I do also think that its been a cynical use of a popular cause to get the double jeopardy laws out the way in future, just as Iraq and 9/11 etc was used to erode other civil liberties.

I don't see how the change in the law to allow a second trial if new evidence comes to light can be seen as anything other than a good thing.

If somebody is aquitted and then goes 'ha ha, thanks for letting me of but actually I DID do it!' how stupid for a whole country to say 'well, you got us good but there's nothing we can do about that now...off you trot!'

Ridiculous.

But it has occurred SWC, and is in a large measure why the laws were changed

The first conviction under the new law was that of William Dunlop, who had been acquitted of the murder of Julie Hogg but subsequently confessed and was then convicted at a second trial

I am surprised they got found guilty really

Exactly, Quattro.

I siad to my oh they will get let off and then their will be some kind of mad race war

swc a person can only be tried if compelling new evidence comes to light. I think it's a heck of a lot safer than the old law.

No, SWC. The law on double jeopardy was changed in part because of the Lawrence case.

swc my example was just that, an example...I can't imagine many people confessing after being found guilty. A confession is a form of evidence, so I was just using that as an example of new evidence coming to light.

Ha ha. ignorant!