tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post7063249099358141263..comments2024-03-28T16:46:50.706+00:00Comments on The Moose: The Lawrence trialBuckohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03169970711606515445noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-48566164938489774612012-01-05T20:47:24.012+00:002012-01-05T20:47:24.012+00:00Anon - Trying someone for the same crime twice was...Anon - Trying someone for the same crime twice was illegal back in 1994. Now it isn't. That's the opposite way round from not being able to try someone for something that wasn't illegal when they did it.<br /><br />As I understand itBuckohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03169970711606515445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-55150717664278275512012-01-05T20:22:02.613+00:002012-01-05T20:22:02.613+00:00Back on the double jeopardy bit. So let me get thi...Back on the double jeopardy bit. So let me get this right.<br /><br />People were found not guilty in April 1994 and double jeopardy applied.<br /><br />Double jeopardy was abrogated for murder case under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (in force 2005).<br /><br />Double jeopardy was removed.<br /><br />Section 7 EHCR Retrospectivity does not apply in this case.<br /><br />Yes indeed murder is illegal , but so was trying people for the same crime twice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-18306047925458732132012-01-05T16:32:41.873+00:002012-01-05T16:32:41.873+00:00Anon - Call Me Dave has no interest in liberties. ...Anon - Call Me Dave has no interest in liberties. His gang have brought in more laws in their first year than any year of the NL hell. Muppets, the lot of themBuckohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03169970711606515445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-29155836071095739152012-01-05T16:29:24.512+00:002012-01-05T16:29:24.512+00:00It was the hard leftist Blunkett who destroyed dou...It was the hard leftist Blunkett who destroyed double jeopardy. Similarly, hard left red Jackboots Straw removed the right to jury trial-in certain fraud cases and where juries had supposedly been "nobbled.<br /><br />The removal of so many of our basic liberties is a direct consequence of allowing such extremists power through the Trojan horse of New Labour. "Call me Dave" shows little interest in restoring the liberties NL's red fanatics destroyed, though the jury/fraud issue is tackled in the pretty pathetic Protection of freedoms bill.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-13185600272820457822012-01-05T12:48:35.982+00:002012-01-05T12:48:35.982+00:00Frankie - That's fine. I've repeatedly sta...Frankie - That's fine. I've repeatedly stated that I am not disputing the evidence or the verdict as I was not there at the trial.<br />My problem is the huge loss of liberty with the scrapping of double jeopardy.<br />In their original trial they were found not guilty. I would prefer that decision stand than loose a fundamental protection from the state.Buckohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03169970711606515445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-61778361567414951492012-01-05T12:25:14.857+00:002012-01-05T12:25:14.857+00:00No doubt you could force the prosecution to prove ...No doubt you could force the prosecution to prove its case and go 'no comment'... but consider this...IF YOU were in the position of Dobson and Norris and had done nothing wrong WOULD YOU rely on the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ balance of proof test or WOULD YOU give a reasonable account of yourself… knowing that if found guilty of the crime you would be sentenced to many years in prison. Of course you would speak up. It would be madness not to. Too late, the defendants elected to take the witness stand in their own defence, where they managed to make themselves look even more guilty. I think the jury were entitled to ask the question ‘Why didn’t they give an account of themselves when they were interviewed and confronted with the evidence?’ Anyone who gives a ‘No Comment’ interview, then takes the witness stand in their own defence must realise that it opens them up to the possibility that the court may infer that they had something to hide when asked to account for themselves. The defence merely had to inject an element of doubt, in order to deliver a not guilty verdict, but were unable to do so. Their account just did not wash with the jury. Both defendants were told in advance of the case against them. They knew the quality of the prosecution case, but were arrogant enough to believe that they would be acquitted, despite clearly being racists, with a history of violent behaviour, who could not account for their whereabouts at the time of the murder, and who had blood and fibres from the victim on their clothing. One of them roped in their Mum to lie for them. They lied about their association with each other. No, I am convinced that they are guilty as charged.Frankienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-59266052871246075072012-01-05T10:51:48.792+00:002012-01-05T10:51:48.792+00:00Anon - Article 7 says you can't prosecute some...Anon - Article 7 says you can't prosecute someone for an act that wasn't illegal when they did it. In this case their crime was definately against the law when done.<br />Article 7 may have actually helped them in a way though, as it also says your punishment cant be heavier than it would have been when the crime was comitted. This may be why they were sentanced as juveniles and received half the time they would have done as adults.Buckohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03169970711606515445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-8454772450183964142012-01-05T10:06:43.576+00:002012-01-05T10:06:43.576+00:00The law was changed on double jeopardy after they ...The law was changed on double jeopardy after they had been acquitted. <br /><br />Just curious how the subsequent conviction sits with regard to ECHR Article 7 Retrospectivity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-16686871830522372882012-01-05T09:40:39.652+00:002012-01-05T09:40:39.652+00:00Judge Dread - "Let's hope it doesn't ...Judge Dread - "Let's hope it doesn't become a feature of government to try and solve 'issues' through the courts."<br /><br />Unfortunately I beleive it will. The chattering classes will shout long and loud for justice (or more likely vengance) to be done, but when a civil liberty has to be removed to make it so, they don't notice, because none of them use their civil liberties anyway.Buckohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03169970711606515445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-21272347055974739622012-01-05T09:30:45.124+00:002012-01-05T09:30:45.124+00:00You are right not to comment on a trial unless you...You are right not to comment on a trial unless you were there, and as anyone involved in jury duty will tell you the whole thing is long and slow process and nothing like the witty 'cut and thrust' of TV dramas, and in reality all the parties involved -- the defence and prosecution as well as the judge -- make it very clear that if the jury is in anyway doubtful there must be an acquittal. You have to find someone guilty on the evidence put before you, and be completely sure about it.<br /><br />I would agree that the two found guilty in this case were probably highly unpleasant people who were not a million miles from the crime when it happened but I wasn't there at any stage, so hard to say. They may well be guilty of other crimes but as far as I know they weren't on trial for that. Plus, while they may be racist they may be like many criminals who, oddly, are happy to strike deals with other lawbreakers who are of a different skin colour to themselves.<br /><br />We also have to accept that any refusal to comment does not necessarily imply guilt, even if employing that right is a great way to avoid having to lie. <br /><br />I have a feeling that this was indeed a show trial, and it remains to be seen if this (to me) possibly unsafe decision has calmed the inner-city beast that apparently will rise up and enforce its own brand of justice by stealing plasma TVs and setting fire to furniture shops.<br /><br />I would imagine that politics (and these days it can be defined as any current issue bothering the chattering classes) has over the years appeared a little too often in the legal process for any of us to be comfortable. Let's hope it doesn't become a feature of government to try and solve 'issues' through the courts.Judge Dreadnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-75714202608582767132012-01-05T07:41:10.085+00:002012-01-05T07:41:10.085+00:00Anon - If Diane Abbott were to comment on my blog,...Anon - If Diane Abbott were to comment on my blog, I'm sure it would be to insist that she isn't the big fat whap I keep accusing her of being.Buckohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03169970711606515445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-56553861889647853302012-01-05T07:39:41.408+00:002012-01-05T07:39:41.408+00:00Julia - Barry George? Yep, good example. And that&...Julia - Barry George? Yep, good example. And that's another true statement Frankie, we are not forced to proove innocence, the Crown is forced to prove guilt. Although Julia, they did do away with that a little bit when they scrapped the right to remain silent and replaced it with, "If you do not answer when questioned..."<br />They like to chip away at our rights.<br /><br />Frankie - I've no doubt they probably were guilty, it's the methods used to acheive conviction that I have an issue with, and as someone said on one of my other posts, probably guilty is a far cry from beyond all reasonable doubt.Buckohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03169970711606515445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-5390247412132685202012-01-05T05:40:26.379+00:002012-01-05T05:40:26.379+00:00Well, given Abbott's latest descent into /face...Well, given Abbott's latest descent into /facepalm territory, could well be... ;)<br /><br />But no, Frankie's just someone who doesn't seem to have grasped that - in UK law - you aren't forced to prove your innocence, the Crown is forced to prove your guilt.<br /><br />At least, unless we've got rid of that too? If not, I'm sure people like Frankie and Diane are working on it. Just for the right causes though.JuliaMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07844126589712842477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-66649380989035063572012-01-04T23:58:14.321+00:002012-01-04T23:58:14.321+00:00Is Frankie really Diane {rolls eyes} Abbott ?Is Frankie really Diane {rolls eyes} Abbott ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-29271919582543425472012-01-04T23:47:41.078+00:002012-01-04T23:47:41.078+00:00Oh Julia, you are SUCH a 'know it all' cyn...Oh Julia, you are SUCH a 'know it all' cynic...! Did you actually follow ANY of the evidence presented during the Lawrence case? LGC Forensics took the precaution to guard against accusations of this nature by trying to replicate contamination by incorrect storage... AND FAILED!! Put yourself in the position of the Defendants in this case for a moment. During interview they were given many many opportunities to explain the presence of the victim's blood on their clothing and they did not attempt to do so. One of the interviewing officers asked Norris to give him another plausible explanation for the presence of fibres from the victim on his clothing, even asking Norris to suggest to him another line of enquiry that he could investigate and thereby exonerate Norris, but the answer was the same... 'No Comment'. I'm sorry, but in the circumstances, and particularly if you were innocent of the crime, surely you would do your level best to offer some reasonable explanation of the facts (by suggesting, for example, that the evidence had become contaminated). These Defendants had 18 YEARS to come up with a plausible explanation, but did not have one. Why?? BECAUSE THEY WERE GUILTY AND THEY KNEW IT!! Norris tried to muddy the waters and got his Mum to lie for him in court - she suddenly remembered that he had been in all evening, even when it was proved he was not and he lied about not knowing Dobson. There is no way in hell that these two are innocent of this crime. It is about time they did the time. And, before you carp, not being a regular contributor, I cocked up my ID on this website, but I am, and will remain etc. 'Frankie'.Frankienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-77433465355474932312012-01-04T22:46:47.959+00:002012-01-04T22:46:47.959+00:00anon (or 'Frankie'): "Blood and fibre...anon (or 'Frankie'): <i>"Blood and fibres from the victim was on them. How??"</i><br /><br />How indeed? Let's ask <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_George#Appeals" rel="nofollow">Barry George</a>, shall we?JuliaMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07844126589712842477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-57277163440385658532012-01-04T22:44:45.729+00:002012-01-04T22:44:45.729+00:00Bucko, check out the comment from anon above - it ...Bucko, check out the comment from anon above - it bears a great deal of similarity to a comment posted by someone calling themselves 'Frankie' at Anna Raccoon's post on Lawrence.<br /><br />I'm waiting for it to show up at all the other blogs mentioning it!JuliaMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07844126589712842477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-8256639468873153942012-01-04T22:11:06.256+00:002012-01-04T22:11:06.256+00:00Anon - Guilty they may well be. I said in my post ...Anon - Guilty they may well be. I said in my post that I don't like to comment on judgements when I wasn't there, however the loss of Double Jeopardy is huge.<br />It's all very well saying it hasn't been used much yet, and we promise we will use it properly, but we don't know what the future holds.<br />RIPA laws that were created to fight organised crime have been used repeatedly by councils against people for minor transgressions such as dog fouling.<br />If the opportunity is there for abuse then I beleive abuse will happen.<br />Besides, we never know what kind of Government we will get in the future.<br />We need these protections from the state, now and for always.Buckohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03169970711606515445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-87560521644674126492012-01-04T21:56:48.470+00:002012-01-04T21:56:48.470+00:00That the two defendants are guilty as charged is, ...That the two defendants are guilty as charged is, of course, undeniable. They are two evil racists who have got what was coming to them... eventually. Anyone who has viewed their most recent police interviews would conclude that. They were given every opportunity to explain themselves, but went 'No Comment'. In doing so they left themselves open to permitting a court to draw an inference from their refusal or failure to answer reasonable questions put to them in interview. It is simply not good enough to attempt to rubbish the forensic evidence within the trial. Blood and fibres from the victim was on them. How?? They lied about their association and were caught out. Norris lied about going out that night and was caught out. They were involved in other events of a similar nature. That they harboured violent racist feelings is beyond doubt. One of them was convicted for racially abusing an off duty police officer, with one of the three other potential future defendants. The police bungled the original investigation. Not maliciously, but because some of those involved were incompetent. Whatever else, the case was a watershed. Perhaps some good has come from the death of that poor young man, if it meant that the police had to look hard at themselves and make themselves accountable to the public they serve. The fight against racism has been a constant theme for my entire service and it is greatly welcomed by the majority of officers. I don't subscribe to the view that the loss of the protection of the double jeopardy rule is a bad thing because the burden of proof that the police would need to resurect a previously tried case is very high. Name me another case where the defendant(s) have been tried again. I can only think of one - that of Mario Celaire, so this will not open the floodgates. Justice demanded that Dobson and Norris be tried again for this offence, because with the advance of technology there was now evidence to show that they had a case to answer. I think that this was the right thing to do. I think that the majority of right thinking people would say the same. Finally, the Metropolitan Police got their men, not all of them, but enough of them to give the poor family of the victim some measure of closure, and sufficient to disturb the sleep patterns of the other guilty individuals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-47531298996564537752012-01-04T21:49:06.356+00:002012-01-04T21:49:06.356+00:00Thanks for the link TT, I'll check it out.Thanks for the link TT, I'll check it out.Buckohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03169970711606515445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-6027496938027521802012-01-04T21:31:17.827+00:002012-01-04T21:31:17.827+00:00http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_otbie-racism...http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_otbie-racism.html<br /><br />This is worth reading: Theodore Dalrymple from 2009Trooper Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01505221473081871071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-55838868954968684262012-01-04T21:16:53.373+00:002012-01-04T21:16:53.373+00:00BF - We do, and it's nowhere good.BF - We do, and it's nowhere good.Buckohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03169970711606515445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-62177216570210149332012-01-04T21:09:15.977+00:002012-01-04T21:09:15.977+00:00Like you Bucko, I'm deeply uneasy about this. ...Like you Bucko, I'm deeply uneasy about this. That murderous bastards go to prison is a good thing but we all know where this abolition of our rights will eventually end up...TheBoilingFroghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00791961503315586243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-72075907382368524832012-01-04T21:02:31.575+00:002012-01-04T21:02:31.575+00:00Quiet Man - Yes I've read a few posts about ho...Quiet Man - Yes I've read a few posts about how wrong this is, your included.<br />If they were only convicted on that tiny amount of forensics, then that's another thing that worries.<br /><br />Anon - Yes the pressure was defiantely on to get the verdict at any cost. What surprises me is how many people are shouting that this is justice.Buckohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03169970711606515445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232613925790974435.post-91646596892560678702012-01-04T20:53:07.711+00:002012-01-04T20:53:07.711+00:00The alternative to a GUILTY verdict
would have bee...The alternative to a GUILTY verdict<br />would have been widespead riots.<br />The Political Elite,the Judiciary,<br />the Police and the Media HAD TO get<br />a guilty verdict however long it took.<br />The verdict may be the right one but the nature of the trial had <br />shadows of the Third Reich and Soviet Union Show Trials stamped all over it<br />The jury was little more than a rubber stampAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com