Stephen Lawrence case

[Deadsouls]

I've been hearing about this on the radio and in the newspapers, I was so moved by the best friends testimony.

I am, however, ignorant about some facts and wonder if anyone could enlighten me. My husband says that this case has been tried before and that the defendents can't be tried for the same crime twice but I thought that was just in America. So my questions are:

• Has this case been tried before with the same two defendents and what did they get off on before? *How come they were arrested again? *They deny murder, but on what grounds? Do they say they were not there? *What about all the other people there that night, why are they not on trial?

If anyone can shed some light on this I would appreciate it...

this link might be useful for you

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#United_Kingdom

would try and explain it but i'll just get more confused

Two of the initial suspects (neil Acourt and another) were arrested initially, but Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case. The time they were in court was a private prosecution brought by the parents - the best friend's evidence was ruled inadmissable and the case was dropped again.

This time - new forensic evidence, which I guess must only tie into these two men, hence all 5 of them not being on trial.

I notice from the \link{http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064252/Stephen-Lawrence-murder-trial-Jury-shown-bloodstained-clothes.html\DM coverage} that Norris & Dobson were identified from police surveillance on the Acourts - they weren't suspects initially.

Their defence seems to be that the forensics are flawed because of the way evidence was handled then.

I hope to god they don't get away with it again this time

(incidentally doesn't Dobson look old)

I'm so glad I'm not on the jury for this case. (As a resident of South East London I would have been excluded anyway.)

These people are clearly scumbags. They have been publicly accused of the murder many times over the years (notably on the front page of the Daily Mail). It is therefore widely assumed that they are guilty, and they may well be as far as I know.

However I cannot see how this can possibly be a fair trial. Despite the judge's initial comments, it is highly unlikely that the jury can approach this with an open mind, unless they have spent the last 15 year in a trappist monastery. The pressure on them to bring in a guilty verdict will be enormous and if they don't, their identities will inevitably be circulated on the internet, with the attendant risks of being targeted.

Also a couple of basic principles of British justice have been casually tossed aside. Firstly, that you can't be tried twice for the same crime. Secondly that it's preferable for 10 guilty man to walk free than one innocent man to be imprisoned. (These principles are not supposed to be restricted to non-scumbags.)

The ban on double jeopardy was also junked retrospectively. It was still in force at the time of the murder.

Really this is no more than a show trial, put on for essentially political reasons.

The pressure on them to bring in a guilty verdict will be enormous and if they don't, their identities will inevitably be circulated on the internet, with the attendant risks of being targeted

I think given the backgrounds of the accused there will be more of a risk to the jury members if they do find them guilty.

Who would want to 'target' jury members anyway?

The fact that all of the accused mens identities have been very well known for years and yet they have never been 'targetted' should tell you all you need to know about the class, dignity and morality of Stephen Lawrences family and friends.

Justice for Stephen and his family is long overdue.

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.

wrong thread