As a follow on from the Doreen Lawrence thread.
Two suspects were charged with the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the trial saw both men cleared by a Jury.
Doreen Lawrence then brought about another trial In the civil courts only for the two suspects to be again cleared by a Jury.
Not satisfied with either trial, she and with the help of the Labour Party, campaigned long and hard to have the Double Jeopardy Law abolished In 2005.
For as many supporters that Doreen Lawrence has, she has an equal amount of the public that believe she has set back British Justice.
My question Is.... after two trials and two not guilty verdicts, Is It right to continue with prosecution after prosecution until you happen to get the verdict you want ?
The suspects who were twice cleared In the courts then faced a third trial and this time both were convicted. The only ' new ' evidence was a minescule drop of blood on one of the men's trainers but this Is subject to much debate after police admitted the trainers were kept In the same room as Stephen's blood soaked shirt.
I myself, can understand the positive side of Double Jeopardy being scrapped when eg new DNA technology can place the suspect at the scene after one trial but where should the line be drawn?
Double Jeopardy Law
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Double Jeopardy Law
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Double Jeopardy Law
At one time fingerprinting was a new technology. In our lifetimes technology has exploded, and I say, SO WHAT?
The principle remains the same, we get one shot at it. Get it together before bringing charges.
The principle remains the same, we get one shot at it. Get it together before bringing charges.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
Double Jeopardy Law
Are you pushing for a higher court ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Double Jeopardy Law
There is a case for double jeopardy being done away with in the face of new evidence or new forensic techniques like DNA.
Works both ways someone convicted of a crime where there is new evidence that might clear them is entitled to have that considered.
posted by tude dog
The principle remains the same, we get one shot at it. Get it together before bringing charges.
It's just not that simple sometimes new evidence is found or a jury is tampered with - should someone get away with murder because new techniques clarify who is really guilty?
Works both ways someone convicted of a crime where there is new evidence that might clear them is entitled to have that considered.
posted by tude dog
The principle remains the same, we get one shot at it. Get it together before bringing charges.
It's just not that simple sometimes new evidence is found or a jury is tampered with - should someone get away with murder because new techniques clarify who is really guilty?
Double Jeopardy Law
gmc;1432803 wrote: There is a case for double jeopardy being done away with in the face of new evidence or new forensic techniques like DNA.
Works both ways someone convicted of a crime where there is new evidence that might clear them is entitled to have that considered.
posted by tude dog
It's just not that simple sometimes new evidence is found or a jury is tampered with - should someone get away with murder because new techniques clarify who is really guilty?
Oh it is simple.
Jury tampering or other interference with the process is a different matter.
New or old techniques is irrelevant.
We all know there is no perfect justice system where politics is not involved. Nobody should trust government to not abuse the ability to constantly bring charges against someone just because they can.
Works both ways someone convicted of a crime where there is new evidence that might clear them is entitled to have that considered.
posted by tude dog
It's just not that simple sometimes new evidence is found or a jury is tampered with - should someone get away with murder because new techniques clarify who is really guilty?
Oh it is simple.
Jury tampering or other interference with the process is a different matter.
New or old techniques is irrelevant.
We all know there is no perfect justice system where politics is not involved. Nobody should trust government to not abuse the ability to constantly bring charges against someone just because they can.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Double Jeopardy Law
tude dog;1432821 wrote: Oh it is simple.
Jury tampering or other interference with the process is a different matter.
New or old techniques is irrelevant.
We all know there is no perfect justice system where politics is not involved. Nobody should trust government to not abuse the ability to constantly bring charges against someone just because they can.
:yh_clap:yh_clap:yh_clap:yh_clap
Jury tampering or other interference with the process is a different matter.
New or old techniques is irrelevant.
We all know there is no perfect justice system where politics is not involved. Nobody should trust government to not abuse the ability to constantly bring charges against someone just because they can.
:yh_clap:yh_clap:yh_clap:yh_clap
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Double Jeopardy Law
tude dog;1432800 wrote: At one time fingerprinting was a new technology. In our lifetimes technology has exploded, and I say, SO WHAT?
The principle remains the same, we get one shot at it. Get it together before bringing charges.
With you totally on this TD
The principle remains the same, we get one shot at it. Get it together before bringing charges.
With you totally on this TD
Double Jeopardy Law
:yh_hugsAnneBoleyn;1432892 wrote: With you totally on this TD
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Double Jeopardy Law
tude dog;1432904 wrote: :yh_hugs
Shucks. :yh_blush
Shucks. :yh_blush
Double Jeopardy Law
tude dog;1432821 wrote: Oh it is simple.
Jury tampering or other interference with the process is a different matter.
New or old techniques is irrelevant.
We all know there is no perfect justice system where politics is not involved. Nobody should trust government to not abuse the ability to constantly bring charges against someone just because they can.
It's not irrelevant if you happen to be the one in jail for a crime you didn't commit and there is DNA evidence or other types that would clear you that was not available at the time of your trial. Just because someone has been found guilty does not mean they are not innocent - there are plenty of cases in the US where the verdict has turned out to be wrong.
Make your your mind will you, on one hand you don't think people should trust government not to bring spurious charges against you just because they can yet in another you are happy for people to stay in prison even though they might be innocent and new evidence might be available?
That's also why there is a jury system the idea being that they should not be dictated to by government. You are happy for the likes of bradley manning not to be tried by jury or those held in guantanamo bay to be denied due process why do you trust your government on those occasions but not others? Maybe I'm misreading you of course and getting your post mixed up with others. :-3
We're also talking about two different legal systems we don't elect our prosecutors or judges. In the particular case Oscar is talking about there was fairly blatant police prejudice and incompetence that affected the outcome of the trial. In Scotland there have been a couple of cases as well that have raised the issue we've an additional issue of a not proven verdict to complicate things, although in effect it means innocent it also means the prosecution did not sufficiently prove their case. There is good reason to look at double jeopardy on a case by case basis.
Jury tampering or other interference with the process is a different matter.
New or old techniques is irrelevant.
We all know there is no perfect justice system where politics is not involved. Nobody should trust government to not abuse the ability to constantly bring charges against someone just because they can.
It's not irrelevant if you happen to be the one in jail for a crime you didn't commit and there is DNA evidence or other types that would clear you that was not available at the time of your trial. Just because someone has been found guilty does not mean they are not innocent - there are plenty of cases in the US where the verdict has turned out to be wrong.
Make your your mind will you, on one hand you don't think people should trust government not to bring spurious charges against you just because they can yet in another you are happy for people to stay in prison even though they might be innocent and new evidence might be available?
That's also why there is a jury system the idea being that they should not be dictated to by government. You are happy for the likes of bradley manning not to be tried by jury or those held in guantanamo bay to be denied due process why do you trust your government on those occasions but not others? Maybe I'm misreading you of course and getting your post mixed up with others. :-3
We're also talking about two different legal systems we don't elect our prosecutors or judges. In the particular case Oscar is talking about there was fairly blatant police prejudice and incompetence that affected the outcome of the trial. In Scotland there have been a couple of cases as well that have raised the issue we've an additional issue of a not proven verdict to complicate things, although in effect it means innocent it also means the prosecution did not sufficiently prove their case. There is good reason to look at double jeopardy on a case by case basis.
Double Jeopardy Law
gmc;1432951 wrote: It's not irrelevant if you happen to be the one in jail for a crime you didn't commit and there is DNA evidence or other types that would clear you that was not available at the time of your trial. Just because someone has been found guilty does not mean they are not innocent - there are plenty of cases in the US where the verdict has turned out to be wrong.
Make your your mind will you, on one hand you don't think people should trust government not to bring spurious charges against you just because they can yet in another you are happy for people to stay in prison even though they might be innocent and new evidence might be available?
That's also why there is a jury system the idea being that they should not be dictated to by government. You are happy for the likes of bradley manning not to be tried by jury or those held in guantanamo bay to be denied due process why do you trust your government on those occasions but not others? Maybe I'm misreading you of course and getting your post mixed up with others. :-3
We're also talking about two different legal systems we don't elect our prosecutors or judges. In the particular case Oscar is talking about there was fairly blatant police prejudice and incompetence that affected the outcome of the trial. In Scotland there have been a couple of cases as well that have raised the issue we've an additional issue of a not proven verdict to complicate things, although in effect it means innocent it also means the prosecution did not sufficiently prove their case. There is good reason to look at double jeopardy on a case by case basis.
Maybe I wasn't clear.
Double jeopardy when the government brings the same charges against someone more than once. That is what I was addressing. That has nothing to do with freeing a person who was wrongly convicted of a crime.
I don't have a grasp of the particular cases mentioned and I don't believe I commented on those.
Make your your mind will you, on one hand you don't think people should trust government not to bring spurious charges against you just because they can yet in another you are happy for people to stay in prison even though they might be innocent and new evidence might be available?
That's also why there is a jury system the idea being that they should not be dictated to by government. You are happy for the likes of bradley manning not to be tried by jury or those held in guantanamo bay to be denied due process why do you trust your government on those occasions but not others? Maybe I'm misreading you of course and getting your post mixed up with others. :-3
We're also talking about two different legal systems we don't elect our prosecutors or judges. In the particular case Oscar is talking about there was fairly blatant police prejudice and incompetence that affected the outcome of the trial. In Scotland there have been a couple of cases as well that have raised the issue we've an additional issue of a not proven verdict to complicate things, although in effect it means innocent it also means the prosecution did not sufficiently prove their case. There is good reason to look at double jeopardy on a case by case basis.
Maybe I wasn't clear.
Double jeopardy when the government brings the same charges against someone more than once. That is what I was addressing. That has nothing to do with freeing a person who was wrongly convicted of a crime.
I don't have a grasp of the particular cases mentioned and I don't believe I commented on those.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Double Jeopardy Law
gmc;1432951 wrote: It's not irrelevant if you happen to be the one in jail for a crime you didn't commit and there is DNA evidence or other types that would clear you that was not available at the time of your trial. Just because someone has been found guilty does not mean they are not innocent - there are plenty of cases in the US where the verdict has turned out to be wrong.
Make your your mind will you, on one hand you don't think people should trust government not to bring spurious charges against you just because they can yet in another you are happy for people to stay in prison even though they might be innocent and new evidence might be available?
That's also why there is a jury system the idea being that they should not be dictated to by government. You are happy for the likes of bradley manning not to be tried by jury or those held in guantanamo bay to be denied due process why do you trust your government on those occasions but not others? Maybe I'm misreading you of course and getting your post mixed up with others. :-3
We're also talking about two different legal systems we don't elect our prosecutors or judges. In the particular case Oscar is talking about there was fairly blatant police prejudice and incompetence that affected the outcome of the trial. In Scotland there have been a couple of cases as well that have raised the issue we've an additional issue of a not proven verdict to complicate things, although in effect it means innocent it also means the prosecution did not sufficiently prove their case. There is good reason to look at double jeopardy on a case by case basis.
I watch an America series called ' I didn't do It' on Sky... the last one I watched was about some guy wrongly Imprisoned for the murder of a 92 year old woman.
Most of those cases are where convictions are over-turned after the suspect has been In jail for decades and either new witness's have been found or the technology has come Into play.
There Is a world of difference between that and getting the Labour Party ie Government to overturn the law because you are not happy with not one but two jury decisions and where no new witness's have been brought nor any really new technology. We are led to believe In the Lawrence case that the police forensics found blood In one of the suspects shoe's after they have been forensically examined twice.
While Doreen Lawrence with the help of the Labour Party brings about a third trial, the suspects after being convicted In that third trial have been denied the right to an appeal..... WHY ?
After Charlene Down's murder trial collapsed due to police negligence In which a detective was forced to resign and 5 others disciplined, she has been denied a re-trial WHY?
While the case of Stephen Lawrence is well documented by Wikki, all details of Charlene's murder and that of others where blacks killed whites, have been removed by Wikki WHY ?
If anyone truly believes that Doreen Lawrence Is some kind of martyr for campaigning for justice for her son and was not politically Instigated and controlled, then they need their heads testing.
Further more... In sentencing the two suspects on the third trial, the judge said In his summing up:
"I'm sure that you knew one of your group was armed with a knife that night," the judge said. "The evidence does not prove you had the knife, but the holder had it with your approval."
In other words.... we can't prove that you stabbed Stephen Lawrence but we will sentence you to life any way and we will deny you any appeal.
Immediately following the convictions, did Doreen Lawrence feel Justice was done? NO... she told newspapers she would not rest until the police had convicted others who may have just been In the area that night or part of the suspects gang.
That is not justice... It's REVENGE
Make your your mind will you, on one hand you don't think people should trust government not to bring spurious charges against you just because they can yet in another you are happy for people to stay in prison even though they might be innocent and new evidence might be available?
That's also why there is a jury system the idea being that they should not be dictated to by government. You are happy for the likes of bradley manning not to be tried by jury or those held in guantanamo bay to be denied due process why do you trust your government on those occasions but not others? Maybe I'm misreading you of course and getting your post mixed up with others. :-3
We're also talking about two different legal systems we don't elect our prosecutors or judges. In the particular case Oscar is talking about there was fairly blatant police prejudice and incompetence that affected the outcome of the trial. In Scotland there have been a couple of cases as well that have raised the issue we've an additional issue of a not proven verdict to complicate things, although in effect it means innocent it also means the prosecution did not sufficiently prove their case. There is good reason to look at double jeopardy on a case by case basis.
I watch an America series called ' I didn't do It' on Sky... the last one I watched was about some guy wrongly Imprisoned for the murder of a 92 year old woman.
Most of those cases are where convictions are over-turned after the suspect has been In jail for decades and either new witness's have been found or the technology has come Into play.
There Is a world of difference between that and getting the Labour Party ie Government to overturn the law because you are not happy with not one but two jury decisions and where no new witness's have been brought nor any really new technology. We are led to believe In the Lawrence case that the police forensics found blood In one of the suspects shoe's after they have been forensically examined twice.
While Doreen Lawrence with the help of the Labour Party brings about a third trial, the suspects after being convicted In that third trial have been denied the right to an appeal..... WHY ?
After Charlene Down's murder trial collapsed due to police negligence In which a detective was forced to resign and 5 others disciplined, she has been denied a re-trial WHY?
While the case of Stephen Lawrence is well documented by Wikki, all details of Charlene's murder and that of others where blacks killed whites, have been removed by Wikki WHY ?
If anyone truly believes that Doreen Lawrence Is some kind of martyr for campaigning for justice for her son and was not politically Instigated and controlled, then they need their heads testing.
Further more... In sentencing the two suspects on the third trial, the judge said In his summing up:
"I'm sure that you knew one of your group was armed with a knife that night," the judge said. "The evidence does not prove you had the knife, but the holder had it with your approval."
In other words.... we can't prove that you stabbed Stephen Lawrence but we will sentence you to life any way and we will deny you any appeal.
Immediately following the convictions, did Doreen Lawrence feel Justice was done? NO... she told newspapers she would not rest until the police had convicted others who may have just been In the area that night or part of the suspects gang.
That is not justice... It's REVENGE
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Double Jeopardy Law
tude dog;1432962 wrote: Maybe I wasn't clear.
Double jeopardy when the government brings the same charges against someone more than once. That is what I was addressing. That has nothing to do with freeing a person who was wrongly convicted of a crime.
I don't have a grasp of the particular cases mentioned and I don't believe I commented on those.
Concur.
Double jeopardy when the government brings the same charges against someone more than once. That is what I was addressing. That has nothing to do with freeing a person who was wrongly convicted of a crime.
I don't have a grasp of the particular cases mentioned and I don't believe I commented on those.
Concur.
Double Jeopardy Law
oscar;1432965 wrote: I watch an America series called ' I didn't do It' on Sky... the last one I watched was about some guy wrongly Imprisoned for the murder of a 92 year old woman.
Most of those cases are where convictions are over-turned after the suspect has been In jail for decades and either new witness's have been found or the technology has come Into play.
There Is a world of difference between that and getting the Labour Party ie Government to overturn the law because you are not happy with not one but two jury decisions and where no new witness's have been brought nor any really new technology. We are led to believe In the Lawrence case that the police forensics found blood In one of the suspects shoe's after they have been forensically examined twice.
While Doreen Lawrence with the help of the Labour Party brings about a third trial, the suspects after being convicted In that third trial have been denied the right to an appeal..... WHY ?
After Charlene Down's murder trial collapsed due to police negligence In which a detective was forced to resign and 5 others disciplined, she has been denied a re-trial WHY?
While the case of Stephen Lawrence is well documented by Wikki, all details of Charlene's murder and that of others where blacks killed whites, have been removed by Wikki WHY ?
If anyone truly believes that Doreen Lawrence Is some kind of martyr for campaigning for justice for her son and was not politically Instigated and controlled, then they need their heads testing.
Further more... In sentencing the two suspects on the third trial, the judge said In his summing up:
"I'm sure that you knew one of your group was armed with a knife that night," the judge said. "The evidence does not prove you had the knife, but the holder had it with your approval."
In other words.... we can't prove that you stabbed Stephen Lawrence but we will sentence you to life any way and we will deny you any appeal.
Immediately following the convictions, did Doreen Lawrence feel Justice was done? NO... she told newspapers she would not rest until the police had convicted others who may have just been In the area that night or part of the suspects gang.
That is not justice... It's REVENGE
It's something that should be considered on a case by case basis. Instances where new evidence comes to light or new techniques that were not available I think you can make a case for a retrial.
The Lawrence case is not typical because of the race factor but there are other cases where there is insufficient evidence for a prosecution yet good reason to suspect they know who did it. Like when they knew a group was involved in an assault but not exactly who had the knife. In the past the police used to fit people up and that let to a whole slew of miscarriages of justice. In scotland there is a not proven verdict, this is maybe one of those cases where you can see the point of having that option. The effect is the same the person accused is released but the jury is saying the prosecution didn't prove their case not that they are not guilty.
posted by tude dog
Maybe I wasn't clear.
Double jeopardy when the government brings the same charges against someone more than once. That is what I was addressing. That has nothing to do with freeing a person who was wrongly convicted of a crime.
I don't have a grasp of the particular cases mentioned and I don't believe I commented on those.
You were clear and double jeopardy means the same on both sides of the Atlantic. It works both ways of new evidence can get an innocent man released then it should also be able to get someone found not guilty retried if the circumstances warrant it. That is the problem though - who decides what those circumstances are?
Criminal cases tend to be less politicised in the UK than they seem to be in the US.
Most of those cases are where convictions are over-turned after the suspect has been In jail for decades and either new witness's have been found or the technology has come Into play.
There Is a world of difference between that and getting the Labour Party ie Government to overturn the law because you are not happy with not one but two jury decisions and where no new witness's have been brought nor any really new technology. We are led to believe In the Lawrence case that the police forensics found blood In one of the suspects shoe's after they have been forensically examined twice.
While Doreen Lawrence with the help of the Labour Party brings about a third trial, the suspects after being convicted In that third trial have been denied the right to an appeal..... WHY ?
After Charlene Down's murder trial collapsed due to police negligence In which a detective was forced to resign and 5 others disciplined, she has been denied a re-trial WHY?
While the case of Stephen Lawrence is well documented by Wikki, all details of Charlene's murder and that of others where blacks killed whites, have been removed by Wikki WHY ?
If anyone truly believes that Doreen Lawrence Is some kind of martyr for campaigning for justice for her son and was not politically Instigated and controlled, then they need their heads testing.
Further more... In sentencing the two suspects on the third trial, the judge said In his summing up:
"I'm sure that you knew one of your group was armed with a knife that night," the judge said. "The evidence does not prove you had the knife, but the holder had it with your approval."
In other words.... we can't prove that you stabbed Stephen Lawrence but we will sentence you to life any way and we will deny you any appeal.
Immediately following the convictions, did Doreen Lawrence feel Justice was done? NO... she told newspapers she would not rest until the police had convicted others who may have just been In the area that night or part of the suspects gang.
That is not justice... It's REVENGE
It's something that should be considered on a case by case basis. Instances where new evidence comes to light or new techniques that were not available I think you can make a case for a retrial.
The Lawrence case is not typical because of the race factor but there are other cases where there is insufficient evidence for a prosecution yet good reason to suspect they know who did it. Like when they knew a group was involved in an assault but not exactly who had the knife. In the past the police used to fit people up and that let to a whole slew of miscarriages of justice. In scotland there is a not proven verdict, this is maybe one of those cases where you can see the point of having that option. The effect is the same the person accused is released but the jury is saying the prosecution didn't prove their case not that they are not guilty.
posted by tude dog
Maybe I wasn't clear.
Double jeopardy when the government brings the same charges against someone more than once. That is what I was addressing. That has nothing to do with freeing a person who was wrongly convicted of a crime.
I don't have a grasp of the particular cases mentioned and I don't believe I commented on those.
You were clear and double jeopardy means the same on both sides of the Atlantic. It works both ways of new evidence can get an innocent man released then it should also be able to get someone found not guilty retried if the circumstances warrant it. That is the problem though - who decides what those circumstances are?
Criminal cases tend to be less politicised in the UK than they seem to be in the US.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Double Jeopardy Law
It works both ways of new evidence can get an innocent man released then it should also be able to get someone found not guilty retried if the circumstances warrant it.
It does not work both ways & it should not be able to get someone already found not guilty re-tried. That's harassment, like Italy is doing with Amanda Knox. Once is enough & enough is enough. The innocent being freed does not warrant it's opposite. It's best if someone guilty goes free than allow the legalities never to end. If someone already found not guilty is re-tried & still found not guilty does it continue after that? For how long? Forever, until the person dies? That's torment, that is persecution. As TD said "get it right the 1st time". "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"--William Blackstone.
Blackstone's formulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
eta--the search for justice can't become the search for revenge--if it ever does we will rue the consequences in all areas of society. WWJD? Not that.
It does not work both ways & it should not be able to get someone already found not guilty re-tried. That's harassment, like Italy is doing with Amanda Knox. Once is enough & enough is enough. The innocent being freed does not warrant it's opposite. It's best if someone guilty goes free than allow the legalities never to end. If someone already found not guilty is re-tried & still found not guilty does it continue after that? For how long? Forever, until the person dies? That's torment, that is persecution. As TD said "get it right the 1st time". "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"--William Blackstone.
Blackstone's formulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
eta--the search for justice can't become the search for revenge--if it ever does we will rue the consequences in all areas of society. WWJD? Not that.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Double Jeopardy Law
Anne make some good points.
In the Lawrence case, as I said, the suspects were found not guilty by jury not once but twice. Doreen Lawrence screamed racism to get a third trial.
Also as I pointed out, when found guilty In the third trial, the judge stated In his summing up that It could not be proven they even had the knife but knew one of many may have had It.
First of all, when did we start convicting and giving life for possibly knowing someone had a knife but never proven It was either of the suspects? That Is not to say, I think they should have got off completely. They should possibly have been charged with with-holding Information from police and even manslaughter but pre-meditated murder ?????
After they were found not guilty the 2nd time, have a look at then what went on.
Scotland Yard actually bought a house next door to one of the suspects to watch them 24/7 under a false Identity.
Ultimately, the Lawrence undercover operation, which lasted several months during a no-expense-spared probe into Stephen’s murder between 1999 and 2003, failed to obtain leads or secure a confession.
During Scotland Yard’s biggest ever murder hunt, officers also:
Recorded their conversations as they played golf during a holiday in Scotland that followed the interview. Their comments were relayed by satellite from tiny microphones hidden in their golf trolleys;
With the permission of the Home Secretary, bugged thousands of their telephone conversations. Separately, a top Yard officer authorised bugging operations on their homes, cars and workplaces. Even their pubs and snooker halls were bugged;
Those bugged private conversations were then leaked to a national newspaper and printed while the two men had been deemed Innocent twice.
Source Daily Mail.
In all those years of bugging their homes, holidays etc etc, not one word was ever recorded that would Incriminate them.
Then Forensics having examined all clothing twice find a miniscule drop of blood they apparently missed before...
No-one will ever convince me that It was all to shut Doreen Lawrence the hell up.
In the Lawrence case, as I said, the suspects were found not guilty by jury not once but twice. Doreen Lawrence screamed racism to get a third trial.
Also as I pointed out, when found guilty In the third trial, the judge stated In his summing up that It could not be proven they even had the knife but knew one of many may have had It.
First of all, when did we start convicting and giving life for possibly knowing someone had a knife but never proven It was either of the suspects? That Is not to say, I think they should have got off completely. They should possibly have been charged with with-holding Information from police and even manslaughter but pre-meditated murder ?????
After they were found not guilty the 2nd time, have a look at then what went on.
Scotland Yard actually bought a house next door to one of the suspects to watch them 24/7 under a false Identity.
Ultimately, the Lawrence undercover operation, which lasted several months during a no-expense-spared probe into Stephen’s murder between 1999 and 2003, failed to obtain leads or secure a confession.
During Scotland Yard’s biggest ever murder hunt, officers also:
Recorded their conversations as they played golf during a holiday in Scotland that followed the interview. Their comments were relayed by satellite from tiny microphones hidden in their golf trolleys;
With the permission of the Home Secretary, bugged thousands of their telephone conversations. Separately, a top Yard officer authorised bugging operations on their homes, cars and workplaces. Even their pubs and snooker halls were bugged;
Those bugged private conversations were then leaked to a national newspaper and printed while the two men had been deemed Innocent twice.
Source Daily Mail.
In all those years of bugging their homes, holidays etc etc, not one word was ever recorded that would Incriminate them.
Then Forensics having examined all clothing twice find a miniscule drop of blood they apparently missed before...
No-one will ever convince me that It was all to shut Doreen Lawrence the hell up.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Double Jeopardy Law
I was born and brought up in Eltham.
I don't believe the Double Jeopardy laws should have been tampered with.
This case has been mishandled from start to finish, I have no doubt the five accused are guilty, I do however have some sympathy with the inept way the justice system has been used in this case.
Off the top of my head and with no links to prove or disprove, certain Police Officers involved were alleged to be in the pay of the drug dealing criminal parent of one of those lads. Police tip offs supposedly helped them evade detection.
A couple of videos for people to see them for themselves.
Secret surveillance video.
The Bashir interview
Leaving the Court
The last one worth watching to see the attitude of them leaving what I believe was an inquest or enquiry, plus the black youths reaction to their joining the police.
I don't believe the Double Jeopardy laws should have been tampered with.
This case has been mishandled from start to finish, I have no doubt the five accused are guilty, I do however have some sympathy with the inept way the justice system has been used in this case.
Off the top of my head and with no links to prove or disprove, certain Police Officers involved were alleged to be in the pay of the drug dealing criminal parent of one of those lads. Police tip offs supposedly helped them evade detection.
A couple of videos for people to see them for themselves.
Secret surveillance video.
The Bashir interview
Leaving the Court
The last one worth watching to see the attitude of them leaving what I believe was an inquest or enquiry, plus the black youths reaction to their joining the police.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Double Jeopardy Law
Bruv;1433181 wrote: I was born and brought up in Eltham.
I don't believe the Double Jeopardy laws should have been tampered with.
This case has been mishandled from start to finish, I have no doubt the five accused are guilty, I do however have some sympathy with the inept way the justice system has been used in this case.
Off the top of my head and with no links to prove or disprove, certain Police Officers involved were alleged to be in the pay of the drug dealing criminal parent of one of those lads. Police tip offs supposedly helped them evade detection.
A couple of videos for people to see them for themselves.
Secret surveillance video.
The Bashir interview
Leaving the Court
The last one worth watching to see the attitude of them leaving what I believe was an inquest or enquiry, plus the black youths reaction to their joining the police.
I am In no doubt the gang were a nasty bunch of so and so's. I am In not doubt that back then In the 80's they were racist. I am In no doubt that one of that gang stabbed Stephen Lawrence but there Is every possibility that the minute drop of blood on the trainers was blood splatter..... but considering no other blood was found on those suspects shoe's and clothes, that minescule Iota of blood must have been splatter from a long way away. Considering the Injuries to Stephen, If they were close by him as he was stabbed, there would have to have been more blood. If Indeed It was either one of them who stabbed Stephen, again, there would be a lot more than one miniscule Iota of blood on a trainer.
Are we seriously now convicting suspects because the judge states they can't prove they murdered him but because they must have known one o the gang had a knife that night?
There Is every possibility that the two suspects didn't now one of them had a knife until It was too late but unfortunately In gangs like that, grassing to plod can lead to your own demise so I understand the silence.
I don't believe the Double Jeopardy laws should have been tampered with.
This case has been mishandled from start to finish, I have no doubt the five accused are guilty, I do however have some sympathy with the inept way the justice system has been used in this case.
Off the top of my head and with no links to prove or disprove, certain Police Officers involved were alleged to be in the pay of the drug dealing criminal parent of one of those lads. Police tip offs supposedly helped them evade detection.
A couple of videos for people to see them for themselves.
Secret surveillance video.
The Bashir interview
Leaving the Court
The last one worth watching to see the attitude of them leaving what I believe was an inquest or enquiry, plus the black youths reaction to their joining the police.
I am In no doubt the gang were a nasty bunch of so and so's. I am In not doubt that back then In the 80's they were racist. I am In no doubt that one of that gang stabbed Stephen Lawrence but there Is every possibility that the minute drop of blood on the trainers was blood splatter..... but considering no other blood was found on those suspects shoe's and clothes, that minescule Iota of blood must have been splatter from a long way away. Considering the Injuries to Stephen, If they were close by him as he was stabbed, there would have to have been more blood. If Indeed It was either one of them who stabbed Stephen, again, there would be a lot more than one miniscule Iota of blood on a trainer.
Are we seriously now convicting suspects because the judge states they can't prove they murdered him but because they must have known one o the gang had a knife that night?
There Is every possibility that the two suspects didn't now one of them had a knife until It was too late but unfortunately In gangs like that, grassing to plod can lead to your own demise so I understand the silence.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Double Jeopardy Law
AnneBoleyn;1433164 wrote: It works both ways of new evidence can get an innocent man released then it should also be able to get someone found not guilty retried if the circumstances warrant it.
It does not work both ways & it should not be able to get someone already found not guilty re-tried. That's harassment, like Italy is doing with Amanda Knox. Once is enough & enough is enough. The innocent being freed does not warrant it's opposite. It's best if someone guilty goes free than allow the legalities never to end. If someone already found not guilty is re-tried & still found not guilty does it continue after that? For how long? Forever, until the person dies? That's torment, that is persecution. As TD said "get it right the 1st time". "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"--William Blackstone.
Blackstone's formulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
eta--the search for justice can't become the search for revenge--if it ever does we will rue the consequences in all areas of society. WWJD? Not that.
Actually the amanda knox case is a good example that really does look like they want to get someone regardless of whether they are guilty or not. Yeah you're right best leave the double jeopardy law alone.
It does not work both ways & it should not be able to get someone already found not guilty re-tried. That's harassment, like Italy is doing with Amanda Knox. Once is enough & enough is enough. The innocent being freed does not warrant it's opposite. It's best if someone guilty goes free than allow the legalities never to end. If someone already found not guilty is re-tried & still found not guilty does it continue after that? For how long? Forever, until the person dies? That's torment, that is persecution. As TD said "get it right the 1st time". "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"--William Blackstone.
Blackstone's formulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
eta--the search for justice can't become the search for revenge--if it ever does we will rue the consequences in all areas of society. WWJD? Not that.
Actually the amanda knox case is a good example that really does look like they want to get someone regardless of whether they are guilty or not. Yeah you're right best leave the double jeopardy law alone.
Double Jeopardy Law
You do not have to inflict the fatal injury to be convicted of murder, just be among the group involved......apparently.
The famous case of Derek Bently
The famous case of Derek Bently
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Double Jeopardy Law
Bruv;1433203 wrote: You do not have to inflict the fatal injury to be convicted of murder, just be among the group involved......apparently.
The famous case of Derek Bently
Remember I sat through a very long murder trial of two 16 and one 14 year olds.
All three charged with murder that all three denied. The prosecutions forensic evidence showed the two 16 year olds clothing covered In blood, even a trainer Imprint of the victims body. Yet, the 14 year old like the Lawrence case had one minescule drop of blood that the defence argued was splatter as he pleaded with the other two to stop.
To this day after seeing him give evidence and be cross-examined, I don't believe he took part In the attack by the other two.
All three were cleared of murder because the jury believed that none of them went out that night with the pre-meditated Intention of killing someone. And I don't believe any of the Lawrence gang did either.
All three were convicted of Manslaughter but because the 14 year old was with them and had this minute drop of blood probably splatter he was also convicted as were the suspects In the Lawrence case.
So due that that, I believe It is wrong on so many levels to convict the two suspects In the Lawrence case of murder when the judge stated In his summing up that It had not been proved either of them had the knife but may have known another member of the gang did. Same as my nephews trial, they should have been cleared of murder but convicted of manslaughter.
I'm In no doubt that police Incompetence led to some failings In the first trial but Doreen Lawrence sued and was awarded If I recall, half a million. Its not justice but she has been compensated handsomly from the death of her son and that's what I believe Is the route that should be taken ie financial compensation from the police If It can be proved that the police made errors In the Initial Inquiry and not hound the very life out of the suspects after two not guilty verdicts.
Since then, she's now complaining the police have given up on finding anyone else to stand trial who may have been In the area that night and Is demanding a ' Leveson style Inquiry... yes, another damn Inquiry at the tax payers expense. She has now accused the Met of being corrupt.Now being the old cynic that I am, anyone who makes serious allegations about any authority will bring about an Inquiry and sorry but I believe she Is very much aware of this and Is milking the system.
Recently It was revealed police had looked Into the Lawrence family when Stephen was murdered and now his Father Is demanding another Inquiry Into that at British tax payers expense after he quit Britain to live In Jamaica.
Doreen Lawrence then sued Stephens chief witness for £35,000 after he gave evidence under oath during the first two murder trials that had Doreen Lawrence not regually locked Stephen out of the house at 11 pm they would not have been racing home to beat the curfew that night. She said he was a liar and demanded an Inquiry Into his evidence.
Last year the brother of Stephen Lawrence, Stuart Lawrence launched a formal complaint of racism against the Met police claiming he had been stopped and searched 17 times In 22 years.Yeah ? well stop driving around North London at 3 In the morning In a heavily customised Subaru Impreza you knob. An IPCC Inquiry confirmed Stuart Lawrence was lying and had only been stopped and searched 4 times In 20 years and the case dismissed. He has now demanded errrrrrrrrr an Inquiry Into the IPCC's handling of his complaint...
Are we seeing a pattern here? Campaign for Justice my arsse.
The famous case of Derek Bently
Remember I sat through a very long murder trial of two 16 and one 14 year olds.
All three charged with murder that all three denied. The prosecutions forensic evidence showed the two 16 year olds clothing covered In blood, even a trainer Imprint of the victims body. Yet, the 14 year old like the Lawrence case had one minescule drop of blood that the defence argued was splatter as he pleaded with the other two to stop.
To this day after seeing him give evidence and be cross-examined, I don't believe he took part In the attack by the other two.
All three were cleared of murder because the jury believed that none of them went out that night with the pre-meditated Intention of killing someone. And I don't believe any of the Lawrence gang did either.
All three were convicted of Manslaughter but because the 14 year old was with them and had this minute drop of blood probably splatter he was also convicted as were the suspects In the Lawrence case.
So due that that, I believe It is wrong on so many levels to convict the two suspects In the Lawrence case of murder when the judge stated In his summing up that It had not been proved either of them had the knife but may have known another member of the gang did. Same as my nephews trial, they should have been cleared of murder but convicted of manslaughter.
I'm In no doubt that police Incompetence led to some failings In the first trial but Doreen Lawrence sued and was awarded If I recall, half a million. Its not justice but she has been compensated handsomly from the death of her son and that's what I believe Is the route that should be taken ie financial compensation from the police If It can be proved that the police made errors In the Initial Inquiry and not hound the very life out of the suspects after two not guilty verdicts.
Since then, she's now complaining the police have given up on finding anyone else to stand trial who may have been In the area that night and Is demanding a ' Leveson style Inquiry... yes, another damn Inquiry at the tax payers expense. She has now accused the Met of being corrupt.Now being the old cynic that I am, anyone who makes serious allegations about any authority will bring about an Inquiry and sorry but I believe she Is very much aware of this and Is milking the system.
Recently It was revealed police had looked Into the Lawrence family when Stephen was murdered and now his Father Is demanding another Inquiry Into that at British tax payers expense after he quit Britain to live In Jamaica.
Doreen Lawrence then sued Stephens chief witness for £35,000 after he gave evidence under oath during the first two murder trials that had Doreen Lawrence not regually locked Stephen out of the house at 11 pm they would not have been racing home to beat the curfew that night. She said he was a liar and demanded an Inquiry Into his evidence.
Last year the brother of Stephen Lawrence, Stuart Lawrence launched a formal complaint of racism against the Met police claiming he had been stopped and searched 17 times In 22 years.Yeah ? well stop driving around North London at 3 In the morning In a heavily customised Subaru Impreza you knob. An IPCC Inquiry confirmed Stuart Lawrence was lying and had only been stopped and searched 4 times In 20 years and the case dismissed. He has now demanded errrrrrrrrr an Inquiry Into the IPCC's handling of his complaint...
Are we seeing a pattern here? Campaign for Justice my arsse.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon