Late last night I finally caught up with the Tuesday night recording of Newsnight. Dobson and Norris had just been convicted and the full Primrose Hill liberal intelligentsia mob was out in self congratulatory force.  Diane Abbott, Brian Paddick, Charlie Falconer – eventually I threw my slipper at the screen. Unfortunately it caught on a small stool, hitting the channel change button, and flipped the TV over to BBC1 where Lee Jasper was holding forth….sometimes its best to just give in and go to bed. Before doing so, I made some notes on some of the astounding observations and comments that apparently didn’t warrant any challenge from the ‘chair’.

Jeremy Paxman, the ‘Great Paxo’ who surely wants stuffing up the rear end of the nearest Turkey, opened these ‘unbiased BBC’ proceedings by claiming that the Lawrence affair  ‘exposed the incompetence and prejudice’ of the Metropolitan Police. He was entirely unabashed by this statement being followed by a news clip of Cressida Dick making a formal statement that ‘the judgement had depended on previously unavailable scientific knowledge and techniques’ – far be it for the BBC to give the Met any credit for their achievement, much better to reinforce the media opinion that it was the Met’s fault that Dobson and Norris weren’t convicted 18 years ago.

Diane Abbott was quick to weigh in – “I know Doreen Lawrence quite well,  I have supported her from the very beginning when this wasn’t a fashionable cause” – apart from the reinforcement of yesterday’s Imran Khan quote, that this is a fashionable cause – Dianne must have been mighty quick off the mark in befriending Mrs Lawrence. Lets face it, the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality was on the phone to the Met Commissioner in the early hours of the following morning, Nelson Mandela was inviting her to tea 14 days later, and her husband – who had recently finished some building work on the house of a journalist- Nick Schoon of the Independent – was giving an interview to that paper a mere 12 hours after his son’s death. From which I deduce that Diane must have been befriending Mrs Lawrence less than 12 hours after her’s son’s tragic demise, in the middle of the night, to have got in ‘before it became a fashionable cause’.

Incidentally, Nick Schoon went on to claim later that the family were ‘law abiding, unpolitical and had nothing to do with race matters’. By that afternoon, 18 hours after the murder, they had the Action Against Racial Attacks camped out in their home controlling access to them. Pity young Nick was in such a rush to file his copy that morning – he might have witnessed the change in personnel from ‘friends and family supporting the grieving family’ to professional agitators.

Diane was full of smarm – an ingratiating glance at Brian Paddick who preened himself to hear that ‘these days senior policeman are a lot more sophisticated and clever’ – a bit of a mystery that one. According to our Brian, the ‘canteen culture’ of bigoted policemen was alive and well when he entered the force – fair enough. According to him, it is alive and well today, too. Yet somehow ‘senior policemen’ have managed to escape these influences? Is it only those senior police that have been fast-tracked into the service via the opinion pages of the Guardian and a dog eared copy of a 1970s sociology manual that can be trusted to police ‘fairly’?

Full of smarm, but full of bile too. ‘One of the allegations that has always swirled around this case, the father of one of the defendant’s was a big gang land figure and one of the … is corruption of the police -but that is just an allegation’ (In case anyone sues me etc…..) Martin Bashir smartly stepped in, “the point Diane Abbott made about David Norris is well made (er, Diane hadn’t said which defendant….!) – Clifford Norris is a career criminal who has spent time in jail.  This young man grew up amidst endemic criminality – in some way […] some kind of discrete relationship between him, his father, and the Met and nobody is disputing the existence of that and its effect on the enquiry”.

Really Martin? Nobody is disputing the effect this had on the enquiry? I am. I’ve heard the allegations too, I want you to show me the evidence you have because the IPCC have refuted these claims – which surfaced in another BBC programme and have been exhaustively investigated.

IPCC officials found no evidence to support the potentially explosive allegation that Mr Davidson was in the pay of Clifford Norris.

Investigators found there may have been confusion between Clifford Norris’ son and a second David Norris who acted as an informant and was murdered in 1991.

Still the mendacious Diane banged on with her image of the lone family, supported only by her close interest in them – ‘all credit to the Lawrences ; there were years when no one was interested in this case, if they hadn’t campaigned’ etc, etc, right up to her parting comment invoking the spirit of the recent Salford murder and saying she ‘hoped it doesn’t take 18 years to find the killer’.

Diane, petal, it didn’t take the police 18 years to find the Lawrence killers. It took them two weeks to have them all under arrest. The forensic service wasn’t sufficiently sophisticated to come up with the results which later convicted Dobson and Norris in those days – remember Cressida Dick’s statement? These were microscopic traces of blood remember?

But Martin Bashir was back in the fray again. ’26 separate individuals went to the police’

Indeed, they received many tip offs. Tip offs? Not according to Paxo – “it is astonishing the evidence that the police were given”

A tip off is not evidence you manipulative dork! You want everyone removed from the scene on the basis of tip offs? That will do for you as evidence?

The slipper was off my foot and squarely aimed at the TV by now, but there was a final indignity to come.

Charlie Falconer. Ex flat mate of Tony Blair. Made a Lord so he could bring him into Government without any troublesome procedures like encouraging anyone to vote for him, and then elevated to the highest legal position in the land…would he challenge this new definition of evidence? Would he Hell!

‘Had they gone into the house within 24 hours, they could have got search warrants, they could have got gallons of forensic evidence’.

Tell me it isn’t so! Tell me that our ex-Lord Chancellor doesn’t really believe that an anonymous tip off is sufficient to persuade a magistrate to issue a search warrant? Tell me what evidence he has that there were ‘gallons’ of forensic evidence available, that magically disappeared – it is mere supposition on his part. I expect that sort of comment under a Daily Mail article, knee jerk rhetoric, but from a former Lord Chancellor?

Still he droned on ‘the way they were treated, they felt that as victims, was appalling’. Let’s take that one apart shall we? It was after all comprehensively investigated by the Kent Police.

One of Mrs  Lawrence’s main complaints concerned the actions of DC Linda Holden. A hat and some gloves had been found near the scene. It was important to establish who they belonged to. Were they Stephen’s or could they contain valuable forensic evidence belonging to one of the killers? What would you have done? I would have done exactly as DC Holden did, ask the parents! How racist of me. I would have been failing to understand the cultural sensitivities of Mrs Lawrence. Being shown the hat and gloves and asked whether they were Stephen’s translated into ‘because Stephen was black, he therefore must be a criminal’. Nobody had even suggested that the hat and gloves had any connection to any criminal activity (unless possibly belonging to the attacker and that criminal activity) , that was her interpretation and later became the subject of yet another whinge to Macpherson.

The female police officers dealing with this investigation didn’t have an easy ride. After the off duty police officer stopped at the scene, the next two to arrive were PC Linda Bethel and PC Gleason. They were greeted by the words of Duwayne Brooks, Stephen’s friend. ‘Who called you fucking cunts anyway – pigs! I only called the ambulance’. Brooke’s later agreed that he was ‘anti-police’ and wanted to punish them for arriving four minutes before the ambulance.

‘Who can tell’, asks Macpherson, ‘whether or not proper respect and concern for Mr Brooke’s status as victim would have help to lead to evidence’?

Who can tell, ask I, whether proper respect and concern for the difficult task of the police might have led to the early conviction of Dobson and Norris?

If I thought Charlie Falconer was the last word in manipulative spin I was mistaken. Brian Paddick had a treat in store for me.  He thinks relations with the police are still strained. That is why:

When Nick Clegg was giving the Scarman Lecture, I advised him to say that relations between the police and the black community were much better than they were in 1981.  He was advised by the organisers not to say that as he would be seen to be out of touch with the local community! That is a very serious indictment of where we are today.

Can anybody tell me what Nick Clegg decided to say in the end? I don’t have a copy to hand. I want to know whether he took the professional advice of an ex-senior police officer and mayoral candidate, or whether he pandered to local prejudice. It’s always helpful to have an idea where he’s coming from……

catobitesback
January 8, 2012 at 07:20

And by the way, 30 plus tip offs do not represent ‘evidence’. They
represent intelligence….and only intelligence.

catobitesback
January 8, 2012 at 07:18

Whether the judge said this to the jury I don’t know. But the question
should have been asked of them. ‘Can you be as certain that the accused did
this as though you were there watching?’

There are doubts about the evidence in this case whether some choose to
accept it or not. They may have committed the crime or they may not…I honestly
do not know and I have a feeling that there were some on the jury who may have
felt the same as me.

AgainsTTheWall
January 6, 2012 at 14:24

Will noone stand up and say that Dobson and Norris are innocent? All this
‘i’m sure they’re guilty but…’ makes me queasy. There’s no evidence so
therefore they are not guilty.

Meanwhile Doreen the real killer of your son is on the streets.

Quiet_Man January 6, 2012 at 16:58

They’ve been found guilty by a jury of their peers, that makes them
currently under the status of convicted of murder. The jury heard all the
evidence and decided on a guilty verdict, it’s now up to the appeals
process, but until then they are guilty of the murder of SL. There is
certainly enough evidence placing them at the scene, plus the physical
evidence of the blood spot and the fibres, all this though can be challenged
by appeal, so it’s a case of wait and see.
The debate here is whether
they should have stood trial again after having had the case against them
dismissed in the first place by the removal of a civil right protecting us
all from being tried repeatedly for the same thing until a “correct” verdict
from the prosecutors point of view is found. Doublr jeopardy was there for a
reason, I see no reason other than appeasing the race industry and the
Lawrence family as to why it should have been removed, there’s also the
aspect that having removed the law it was then used retrospectively to
re-prosecute Dobson and Norris which also flies in the face of natural
justice.

Mark January 6, 2012 at 00:30

Many thanks Anna for these 2 posts on the aftermath of the Norris/Dobson
convictions. The Newsnight ‘debate’ was a travesty that stayed well within the
tramlines of what the ‘Primrose Hill intelligensia’ deems ‘legitimate
comment’, and your castigation of Paxo’s limp questioning of the participants
is spot on.

john malpas January 5, 2012 at 23:42

Ah -evidence. The state is good at that. Remember the evidence was there
for weapons of mass destruction.
And remember the dissadent death that went
with it in case you feel cocky.

Trofim January 5, 2012 at 23:32

An Indian student was shot on Boxing Day in Salford. The police vowed to
leave no stone unturned. They decided to treat it as a hate crime “based on
the growing perceptions within the community it was motivated by hate.” The
police apologised for not telling the family before they found out about it on
Facebook, and they did so by sending two officers to Pune, Western India, on
Monday, at the British taxpayer’s expense. A candle-lit vigil was held by
locals in his memory, even though he didn’t live there.
A week later,
tucked away in the pages of the Sunday Mercury on New Year’s Day: “A murder
hunt was underway last night after it emerged a man found fatally injured at a
Birmingham bus stop had been beaten to death”. No promises to pull out all the
stops. No candle-lit vigil held by locals in the area, where he was well
known. No national coverage. Why could that be?

Pompey Cowboy
January 5, 2012 at 20:34

I think Anna raises some very valid points and so do many others on the
comments. I really enjoyed reading an alternative viewpoint
I think there
are many double standards here— how many unsolved murder victims get this sort
of treatment from the police— 20 yrs later a team of 30 still working on the
case?
It reminds me of the double standards in the Julian Assange case ,
with the Liberal Left Elite spinning to keep him from being extradited to
Sweden ( a country not noted for Human Rights Abuses). If the same alleged
crimes had been comitted by Nick Griffin, a Tory MP or even a footballer there
would be howls from the left for him to be sent straight back to face
justice

Anna
Raccoon January 5, 2012 at 20:48

Good illustration Pompey! Griffin on an extradition warrant – they’d be
howling like banshees.

Frankie January 5, 2012 at 20:06

I note that Diane Abbott, having firmly placed her foot in her mouth, is
busy extricating herself from the political mire… Not using her full Twitter
quota of characters…! Really!! Does this explanation really ‘cut the mustard’?
I wonder if she will be on ‘This Week’ on 12 January…

M Barnes January 5, 2012 at 20:21

No – it doesn’t cut the mustard. It doesn’t even cut the mayo. And the
answer is probably, ratings are important after all. I do wonder if Andrew
Neil will make any comment tho’. Could be entertaining!

Brian January 5,
2012 at 19:34

Is this murder case less serious because there is no allegation of
racial aggravation?

GildasTheMonk
January 5, 2012 at 19:15

The Double Jeopardy issue is the one which troubles me. For what it is
worth I think these two “gentlemen” were probably guilty – though whether they
were guilty beyond reasonable doubt is a different matter. maybe, but I was
not at the trial. Trials are not well reported and unless you are actually
there it is hard to form a view. The problem really comes in whether it is
right to sacrifice the rule against repeat prosecutions in search of the
“right” result. The rule is really based on this: a citizen should not be
harrassed by the state, and the state should not be allowed to repeatedly keep
prosecuting until it gets the result it wants: rather like in the Euro Zone
countries keep having referenda until the answer is “Yes”. That is an
important, no critical, issue. I understand that there my have been no more
than 12 such re-trials, of which 4 have been successful, 1 involving a guilty
plea for murder. So at least one murderer is behind bars who would not have
been had the pure principle been maintained, not including these 2
“gentlemen”. The critical issue is whether this is worth the real risk of
increasing state oppression. The jury is out…but if I was pushed I would
say….sigh…..no. Just.

Mick Turatian
January 5, 2012 at 18:40

How would you feel if you were then told that because you ill advisedly
took out a private prosecution on these same suspects, which failed for lack
of evidence, that you were forever barred from pursuing them for their
crimes?

I would feel:
(i) that I had been poorly advised by folk with their own
axe to grind and
(ii) a prat

M Barnes January 5, 2012 at 18:17

I was wondering when that dastardly slippery slope would show its
face…..

Frankie January 5, 2012 at 16:12

@CheesePlant. Maybe I was wrong… but I thought that this particular blog
was about Stephen Lawrence (SL)? So why would I not be ‘on my soap box’ about
this? Duh…!

I passionately believe in justice. I want it to be transparent, all
encompassing, irrespective of race/colour of skin/religion. I want suspects to
face justice with legal safeguards in place, but those safeguards that hinder
real justice should be reexamined.

Now.. As you mention Kriss Donald, were not his killers (3 of them)
convicted? Am I missing something?? What is the point of mentioning him???
Double Duh…!

Quiet_Man January 5, 2012 at 17:29

I wonder if we can expect £50 million to be spent on catching and
convicting the people involved in the disappearance of Charlene Downes after
all one was caught on tape admitting turning her into kebabs. Or how about
£50 million on Gavin Hopley (where the police have stated the case is now
closed after the men accused of murdering him were acquitted)
Somehow I
doubt this will happen as the two are the wrong colour to gain the support
of the media or the political classes (including ACPO) No, this was not a
fair trial, this was a political show trial, they’d already been convicted
by the media in the form of the Daily Mail.
You claim there are stringent
rules allowing a retrial of this sort, perhaps there are, but the dam is
burst now and an 800 year old civil right has been removed to allow the
state to reconvict someone cleared by a previous trial, they even had the
damned nerve to do it retrospectively too.
Who is to say that the next
government might just find it convenient to relax (again) the criteria
needed for a retrial if it’s politically expedient?
After all, a line has
been crossed now, a right lost, all else is merely paperwork.

Frankie January 5, 2012 at 17:40

@Quiet_Man: If you read the legislation you will see that there needs
to be ‘new AND compelling evidence (and a public interest threshold) in
order for the Court of Appeal to order a new trial. “…Dam is burst” –
hardly. One other case has been considered to have sufficient merit for a
retrial, thus far.

As regards Charlene Downes and Gavin Hopley, if there was ‘new and
compelling’ evidence in these cases too, then they too would be
reconsidered. If you were concerned about the outcome in these cases you
should welcome the advances in the law that might, potentially allow a
retrial in a case, rather than condemning this. If we had your way there
would be no point in moaning about the failure to convict a particular
party in a particular case, because one shot would be all the prosecution
would get.

And who is to say that the removal of the double jeopardy rule would
not have happened anyway, regardless of the Lawrence case?

JuliaM January 5, 2012 at 17:46

“If you were concerned about the outcome in these cases you should
welcome the advances in the law that might, potentially allow a retrial
in a case, rather than condemning this.”

Should he? Really?

Maybe we aren’t all as blinkered as you seem to be.

I refer you to that famous Thomas Moore speech. Particularly the part
about “Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s
sake!”.

Some of us are capable of thinking about the bigger picture here.

Frankie
January 5, 2012 at 18:46

@Julia M: Well… there you have it! And there I was, thinking that I
was thinking of the bigger picture, imagining that dubious previous
decisions could perhaps be re-examined, that clearly guilty people,
who escaped the penalty of the law, could be re-tried, with the
benefit in advances in science… where new evidence indicated that a
previous verdict was unsafe! Blinkered? Moi??

It is interesting that you quote Sir Thomas Moore. Those ideas
enshrined in law at the time of Moore did not have the benefit of
modern science with which to re-examine them. Moore’s trial was a
travesty. What if he had been able to defend himself by reference to
some form of forensic science? What if he had been able to present an
irrefuteable case to the court in his defence, based upon forensic
examination?? He would undoubtedly have been accused of witchcraft and
burned at the stake!

If you take your principles to a logical conclusion, I hope that
you walk everywhere, never take a car, train, aeroplane or, even, God
forbid, a bicycle, because you seemingly espouse Luddite principles,
and therefore you cannot accept that humankind’s progress must of
itself reflect on its principles – that previously enshrined
principles must occasionally be re-examined in the light of current
thinking and advances in science.

If anyone has blinkers on around here it is certainly not yours
truly!

Woman
on a Raft January 7, 2012 at
15:41

Moore did not have the benefit of modern science with which to
re-examine them

There was nothing for science to examine. There wouldn’t be now,
nor ever. It wasn’t that kind of crime. In fact, it wasn’t a crime at
all. The whole political issue was that Henry VIII needed a credible
figure like More to endorse his headship of the CoE and to accept the
supremacy of the Crown, and couldn’t let it slide (not in the man’s
nature).

More refused to take the new oath of allegiance which changed the
line of succession. Moreover, he refused to say anything at all. By
keeping schtum he offered Henry a diplomatic solution; Henry could
construe it as consent according to the convention of the law, and
More could keep his conscience and retire quietly.

Waste of time with Henry; if anything, he was outraged at the
refusal of his one-time friend and one of the few truly uncorrupted
advisors, to fall in to line on a policy and PR matter, although that
was obviously never going to happen. More was charged with treason but
it couldn’t be established that he had said anything treasonous
because he carefully had not. Not even to his own family.

Complete stalemate, broken – unwisely if you ask me – by Thomas
Cromwell, fixer to the Crown, who coordinated perjury saying that More
had uttered treasonous words, which he hadn’t. And if he was going to
speak treason, he certainly wouldn’t have done so to Richard Rich, a
man whom he despised. Which everybody knew. The jury also knew that
Rich was a liar but that if they didn’t convict, their heads would be
on poles next. More was beheaded. The state had been unable to win its
case on evidence, so it made some up.

What ‘modern science’ do you think would remotely apply here?
Everybody then and now knew three things: that More wasn’t about to
give up his belief in the supremacy of the church, that Henry wasn’t
about to let anybody live who didn’t accept his supremacy, and that
they were taking a shitty part in a disgraceful show trial with no
respectable law in it.

Quiet_Man January 5, 2012 at 17:52

And who is to say that it would not?
The state removed a right to
allow a retrial of these men, don’t get me wrong, they probably were
guilty, but, the end does not justify the means. Had the Lawrence’s not
pursued their private prosecution against advice all those years ago we
would not be having this discussion, there are a good few cases resolved
years later by improvements in science. As it is, the political pressure
from the race industry drove a combined harvester through an English
civil right fought for to prevent exactly this situation with the rich
or the state keep coming back with new claims to persecute the
hapless.
Different rules would seem to apply when you’re a cause
celebre of the liberal left and the media, even an ancient right
protecting us all would seem to be surplus to requirements so long as
the right person is locked up.

Anna
Raccoon January 5, 2012 at
18:05

Well put Quiet Man, that is exactly the problem. You only have to
imagine the wails of persecution had it been Norris or Dobson who had
been stabbed, and anybody had even suggested changing the law to
allow, for instance Brookes to have a second trial after
acquittal.
I am looking forward to the day when Dobson and Norris
talk…like you I think the right men have been convicted – but I also
think that comment ‘What, what Nigger’ suggested a response to
something said or done by Lawrence or Brookes.
Brookes obviously
was never going to admit that they had been anything other than
totally innocent and passive victims – and before anybody leaps on me,
that does not excuse any sort of physical attack on them, certainly
not murder! But as a connoisseur of getting the whole story – I shall
look forward to the full story.

Span
Ows January 5, 2012 at
18:17

Had the Lawrence’s not pursued their private prosecution against
advice all those years ago we would not be having this
discussion…

…and they were advised by Matrix Chambers I believe. A certain
member was wife to the then prime Minister if i’m not mistaken… what
better way to wangle a law change.

Dan Dare
January 5, 2012 at 19:35

I think the point being made by Quiet Man above is that the ‘new and
compelling’ evidence only came to light because (a) the authorities were
motivated to search for it and (b) they were prepared to expend the
riches of Croesus to find it.

No such motivation or readiness to deploy the necessary resources
appear to be the present in the other inter-racial murder cases that
have been cited (i.e. Gavin Hopley).

Span
Ows January 5, 2012 at 17:44

Who is to say that the next government might just find it convenient
to relax (again) the criteria needed for a retrial if it’s politically
expedient?

Not beyond the realms of possibility in that 30 serious offences are
already covered by the no-double jeopardy reform:

“The reforms – which also allow hearsay evidence to be admissible
in court – come under the new Criminal Justice act.

They apply to 30 serious crimes – including murder, rape, Class A drug
offences and war crimes – but double jeopardy remains in force for lesser
offences.”

ivan January 5, 2012 at 19:18

but double jeopardy remains in force for lesser offences.

For how long?

Span
Ows January 5, 2012 at
20:16

Exactly Ivan, but my point was that it is ALREADY for 30
offences, most people wouldn’t be aware of that.

Yokel
January 8, 2012 at 17:17

I wonder if this is the next assault?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083768/Secret-justice-How-Cameron-Clegg-vowed-hand-liberties-instead-planning-illiberal-changes-justice-system.html

CheesePlant
January 6, 2012 at 10:11

Duh! Because I bet you don’t go on any blogs that concern white victims
you condescending twat. Read what I wrote, you’ll quite happily talk about
SL and you’ve been on your soap box for hours over this, how many hours will
you get on your soap box about Kriss Donald or others ? Zero? And comments
like “duh!” just show you to be a thick, marxist moron.

Robert the Biker
January 5, 2012 at 14:37

“Granted thats not always the case, and in circumstances with minimal
evidence then a no comment interview might not make any difference either way”
and boy did you say a mouthfull there…..Police logic, one in the morgue plus
one in the cells equals ‘case closed’ I prefer to rely on my solicitors advice
and keep my gob shut rather than have something quoted back out of
context.
Frankie:
That advice did not come from telly but was given me
by a serving Police Inspector. As regards ‘how did the traces get on you’,
here’s a clue; as smaller traces are used for testing, possibility of
contamination increases by orders of magnitiude. If I had walked by the scene
of crime or even been nearby (given sloppy control of boundaries) I could get
a trace on me.How small? If you can test for cellular size traces then you are
talking microscopic. I reeat, how small a sample would be enough in a highly
politicised case with people desperate for a result.

Mr B Lightyear
January 5, 2012 at 14:44

“I prefer to rely on my solicitors advice and keep my gob shut rather
than have something quoted back out of context.”

If that’s their advice then it’s down to you whether or not to take it, I
simply mean that a no comment interview can be just as easily thrown back at
you.

Put it this way – if I were arrested and had a reasonable explanation,
and even more so if I had a defence to an allegation, I would mention it in
interview.

Just as there are factors affecting Police actions and questioning in an
interview, there are also factors affecting legal reps/solicitors in an
interview (experience, training, funding, jobs stacking up, having to get to
other clients in different parts of the city)

Good luck

Yokel January 8, 2012 at 16:59

Mr Lightyear, you have your views about the integrity of the Police
service that employs you. You are entitled to them. Others have
successfully observed the force at work from a distance and are perhaps
able to take a more detached view.

One such component to my thinking is the post by a serving Lancashire
detective who blogged as Nightjack until he was outed by the Times. He put
together a “Survival Guide for Decent Folks”. It can be fairly summarised
as 1. Say nothing in your defence until advised to do so by your
solicitor. 2. In the meantime allege fault on the other guy as often and
as fervently as you can, 3. Complain about your treatment by the Police
for all you are worth.

It can be found here:
http://nightjack2.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/a-survival-guide-for-decent-folk/

It seems, Mr Lightyear that you are blissfully ignorant that having an
arrest record these days is punishment for the rest of someone’s life. It
keeps on turning up in CRB checks, causing all sorts of unfounded
conclusions to be drawn. For example, the kids who were arrested for
reporting that a young girl was sleeping rough in an abandoned car.

Frankie January 5, 2012 at 15:01

1. Dobson had Stephen Lawrences’ blood soaked into his jacket.

2. Dobson had fibres from Stephen Lawrences’ clothing on his jacket.

3. Norris had hair strands from Stephen Lawrence on his jeans.

4. Norris had fibres from Stephen Lawrences’ clothing on his
sweatshirt.

So you think that these two innocent men, out of thousands of people,
just happened to wander past the crime scene, whereupon this forensic
evidence just sort of floated on to them, as if by magic? How
convenient!

And so… you are asking the court to believe that two suspects, who lied
about knowing each other, who lied to try and protect one another, who were
demonstrably and by their own late admission racists, who had been
independently named as being involved, who were suspected and had been
investigated over similar violent attacks in the area (one of whom
subsequently served time for a racially aggravated offence), who could give
no account of their whereabouts at the time of the murder, who belatedly got
relatives to lie for them on oath as to their whereabouts, having been
silent on the very subject for 18 years… These men are innocent eh? Come off
it!

Mr B
Lightyear January 5, 2012 at 15:03

Personally I’m a little uncomfortable with the possibility of cross
contamination, but that’s just me.

Robert the
Biker January 5, 2012 at 15:28

I’m sorry, I seem to be missing something here, have I ever protested
their innocence? Never have, never will. What I am saying and what you
seem to be a bit loathe to grasp is that people should not be judged by
their friends nor by them having opinions with which you disagree. I am
also saying that 1000 years of precedent should not be overturned as a
knee jerk reaction to enable the state to ‘get’ someone for an offence
when the case has become a political hot potato.
As regards the
forensics which you so kindly listed, all of them were microscopic and
apparently undetectable in 1993, even though microscopes were well known
back in that distant age. The protection against cross contamination then
was of a lower standard precisely because samples of that size were too
small for DNA testing; I believe that modern tests applied to old and ill
stored evidence, with officers admittedly handling different items and
visiting different scenes is highly dangerous if depended on in
court.
I don’t think you and I will ever agree on this one, though I do
admire your obvious sincerity regarding it.

Frankie
January 5, 2012 at 15:50

Clearly then, the evidence was sufficently good for a jury to believe
that the men were guilty as charged.

By the way, I have a microscope made in the 1930′s, but I doubt it
would be much use for detecting minute blood stains. You have to accept
that, as technology has moved on so rapidly this century that old and
established legal principles and safeguards have to be re-examined in
the light of scientific ability.

Put yourself in the shoes of Doreen and Neville Lawrence for a
moment. You believe you know the identity of five people who murdered
your son, a bright lad, who studied hard and was making the best of his
abilities. His future, over, right there, on a cold pavement. You now
know that, with the advances in science, new evidence in the case that
has dominated and blighted your life has become available, which
indicates that at least two of the men whom you suspect killed your son.

How would you feel if you were then told that because you ill
advisedly took out a private prosecution on these same suspects, which
failed for lack of evidence, that you were forever barred from pursuing
them for their crimes? Be reasonable. Of course, you would want anyone
who had done such a dastardly thing to be tried and the evidence
weighed, in the light of the new evidence. To suggest otherwise would be
contrary to human nature.

I admire the Lawrences for keeping this matter in the spotlight all
these years. Finally, they got their day in court. Even with this
evidence, Dobson and Norris could have been found not guilty, but that
did not happen. Whatever happens now, Doreen and Neville Lawrence have
finally seen that justice has been done and that can be no bad
thing.

CheesePlant January 5, 2012 at 15:56

“Whatever happens now”? Hopefully all those others killed will get
their justice. The likes of Kriss Donald. And people like you will get
back on your soap box and fight for his justice.
But I doubt you’ll
do that, you’ll just keep talking about SL ad infinitum.

Mr B
Lightyear January 5, 2012 at
16:30

“I admire the Lawrences for keeping this matter in the spotlight
all these years. ”

Fair enough, but some of the statements they’ve made over the years
have been nothing short of offensive.

JuliaM January 5, 2012 at 17:43

“Of course, you would want anyone who had done such a dastardly
thing to be tried and the evidence weighed, in the light of the new
evidence. To suggest otherwise would be contrary to human
nature.”

Well, indeed! I thought that’s why we specifically DIDN’T take
undue account of grieving relatives when drawing up laws. I thought
our system of justice was supposed to be all the better for a
dispassionate view.

I guess they better change that statue on the Old Bailey. Instead
of a blindfold, she’ll have to hold a Kleenex up to one tear-stained
eye instead…

Span
Ows January 5, 2012 at 17:17

1. Dobson had Stephen Lawrences’ blood soaked into his jacket.

2. Dobson had fibres from Stephen Lawrences’ clothing on his
jacket.

3. Norris had hair strands from Stephen Lawrence on his jeans.

4. Norris had fibres from Stephen Lawrences’ clothing on his
sweatshirt.

SL gets stabbed, runs away brushing past several people…oops.
Dwayne
Brooks has previous for knife crime…
Was it a drug gang murder or
“crime of passion”?…
Who was the lady “possible catalyst” that STILL
hasn’t given a statement?..

Frankie
January 5, 2012 at 17:29

Ummm… Dwayne Brooks. So now you suggest that he committed the murder
(but miraculously managed not to get any blood on his clothing/person
consistent with being an assailant), all because he allegedly has a
previous conviction for knife related crime and allegedly happened to
like a girl that the victim also liked? And the reason that Dobson and
Norris got forensic material transferred to them was because Stephen
Lawrence ran past them, possibly bumped into them… but didn’t think to
suggest this to the investigating officers at any time in the last 18
years as an alibi? Do you read a lot of fiction?? Anything but the
truth, I see.

Span
Ows January 5, 2012 at
17:40

LOL! No Frankie, I don’t think he did it (although he could have,
maybe even had a reason). Think about it, did he “miraculously” have
no DNA evidence? he was his friend/accompanied him that night so must
have tied to help, by rights he was probably COVERED in DNA but was
never assumed to be guilty so no clothing etc taken/tested.

All I am saying is there a thousand possible scenarios that night
but only one man stabbed another….12 or 13inch stab wounds, that is no
normal “knife carrier’s” weapon. Where’s the weapon, the motive, the
CONFIRMED witness identification etc etc…this is just SO FAR from a
safe conviction as to be ‘fiction’.

Joe Public
January 5, 2012 at 21:13

But Dobson & Norris were nowhere near the scene, at the time of
the crime. They have witnesses who’ve said so.

Span
Ows January 5, 2012 at
23:13

You’re spoiling my fun with Frankie; however, that would mean cross
contamination then…with the clothes of SL mixed with those of the
accused…unbelievable, this case is so full of holes.

Old Slaughter
January 5, 2012 at 14:11

“doesn’t really believe that an anonymous tip off is sufficient to persuade
a magistrate to issue a search warrant?”

I am sorry Anna, but this is shamefully disingenuous. There were MANY tip
offs. Over 20 named one person. Any copper realises that shy of an instant and
prepared campaign to fit someone up then this means it is obvious who did it.
It was not 1 tip off as you seem to indicate. The coppers should have been
round ASAP to clear him or to arrest him. On this the ex-Lord Chancellor was
right.

Mr B Lightyear
January 5, 2012 at 14:30

“The coppers should have been round ASAP to clear him or to arrest
him.”

Ok…… so they go round to this chap’s house and knock on the door to speak
to him, he refuses to let them in.

Then what?

Where’s the grounds to arrest there?

You’re now in the realms of needing a warrant.

Whether or not a magistrate would issue a search or arrest warrant…. I
don’t know.

Old Slaughter
January 5, 2012 at 14:38

Magistrate: Do you have cause?

Copper: About 30 anonymous tips, previous convictions and they live
right where it happened.

Magistrate: Here you go, move quickly.

Come on mate.

Old
Slaughter January 5, 2012 at
14:39

Also…

Copper: His friend and the witness said it was 4/5 white kids, the
anonymous tips seem to indicate a fairly consistent group of 4/5 white
kids whose names keep coming up.

Mr B
Lightyear January 5, 2012 at
14:56

It’s not quite like that,

you’d need to complete and fill in an ‘information’ to apply for the
warrant, detailing the evidence and intelligence in relation to the
person and premises you want to search.

Im not sure previous convictions could be used for a warrant of that
type.

Im fairly sure that a murder investigation team desperately wanting
to get this cleared up (and probably all the other offences they were
accused of) wouldve considered this though.

Old
Slaughter January 6, 2012 at
17:34

I’m sorry, this is bollocks. No copper would have ANY trouble
getting a search and arrest warrant with the evidence they had,
especially not for a murder.

Anna Raccoon January 6, 2012 at 18:57

So you reckon I can phone the local nick and tell them Old
Slaughter was responsible for the Salford murder and they will come
and search your house and arrest you….?

Eurolawyer January 6, 2012 at 19:48

Anna, As pointed out already, it was not just one tip-off,
there were many, all identifying the same people. In every other
respect however, your analysis of this has been vastly superior to
the blubbing, babbling MSM, which offers no properly reflected
thinking about the whole sorry saga.

I think the new forensic evidence means they are indeed guilty,
but the relentless posturing by Jesse Jackson wannabes and the
cringing Establishment response means justice for Stephen Lawrence
has come at a very high price in terms of justice for many others.
How many stabbings might have been prevented if, absent the poison
of Macpherson, the police had not been so inhibited about stopping
and searching likely criminals who were black? The whole circus
leaves one with an uneasy feeling; why was it necessary to run a
major criminal trial over Christmas/New Year – it couldn’t have
anything to with orchestrating the media coverage in a slow season
could it?

On double jeopardy, I’m astonished the trial was not suspended
whilst defence lawyers rushed off to the Court of Criminal Appeal,
and perhaps on to Luxembourg, to argue the implications of Article
50 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which says “No one
shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal
proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been
finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with
the law.” Post the Lisbon Treaty, that is now part of our law and
overrules anything passed by the local councillors sitting in
Westminster. Nothing there about exceptions for “compelling new
evidence” or the rule being waived if the victim’s family become
instant best friends with Diane Abbott.

Mr B
Lightyear January 6, 2012 at
23:52

You may think it’s bollocks

I can assure you it’s not.

especially as at that point, they didn’t have evidence, they had
intel.

Robert the Biker
January 5, 2012 at 13:55

Frankie:
I don’t care how many retrials there have been (I believe one
previous of a rapist/murderer?) The PRINCIPLE is wrong. As regards ‘new
evidence’, that would depend on just how small a sample they are prepared to
go to wouldn’t it, and just how much political pressure was brought to bear;
let’s face it, this long ago ceased to be about the murder of a teenager in
Eltham.
As regards ‘no comment’, so what? Is it not true that the change
regarding inference from silence is more recent than the murder? I know one
thing, the police are not my friends, so should I ever be arrested for an
offence, I will likewise go ‘no comment’. Want to convict me? Fine! Go find
some evidence, don’t expect me to provide it. Would that make me guilty? In
your eyes, it seems it would, which I find disturbing in some one who (I
presume) is a serving Police Officer, possibly of high rank.

M Barnes January 5, 2012 at 14:10

The police gather evidence and present it to the CPS. The CPS decide if
there is enough evidence to justify taking the case to court and if a
prosecution is in the public interest. A court hears the case for
prosecution and defence and a Jury made up of members oif the public decide
guilt or innocence. I didn’t hear all the evidence in court, I only read
what the media decided was newsworthy and in the language they chose to
present it in. The Jury in this case DID hear all the evidence and DID see
it presented first hand. They decided on the guilty verdict.
Take a
(legal) chill pill.

JuliaM January
5, 2012 at 14:17

“The Jury in this case DID hear all the evidence and DID see it
presented first hand. They decided on the guilty verdict.”

So did the jury in the Barry George case, similarly based on doubtful
forensics and a ‘Look! He’s clearly a nutter!’ campaign in the press.

Barry’s now a free man. Want to bet this won’t happen here?

M Barnes
January 5, 2012 at 14:31

I’m happy to wait and see. The Jury system isn’t perfect – no human
based system is, we are prone to error. Hence the Appeals process. I am
sure the solicitors of both men are looking at that right now. I assume,
given your fury over the changes to double jeopardy, that you are not
arguing for a change in the Jury system. I hope not!!
I was pointing
out that the Police don’t decide guilt or innocence, they gather
evidence. And I am conscious that I am only ever getting a partial
picture of any trial.
For every Barry George, Birmingham 6, Guildford
4, Macguire 7, Sally Clark and Colin Stagg there are 100,000′s cases
that are quite correctly judged by Jury System.

JuliaM January 5, 2012 at 17:39

“For every Barry George, Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Macguire 7,
Sally Clark and Colin Stagg there are 100,000′s cases that are quite
correctly judged by Jury System.”

I’m sure there are, so I don’t see what makes the detractors here
assume the Lawrence case fits into the latter category other than
because they so desperately NEED it to do so…

M Barnes
January 6, 2012 at 08:53

A thing called probability says the odds are it is not a
miscarriage of justice.
It could be equally argued that some people
NEED there to be a miscarriage of justice to justify dark predictions
of a faceless State endlessly prosecuting innocents for their own
wicked, wicked ends unhindered by a supine population doped up on
x-factor and footie.

Mr B Lightyear
January 5, 2012 at 14:18

“so should I ever be arrested for an offence, I will likewise go ‘no
comment’. Want to convict me? Fine! Go find some evidence, don’t expect me
to provide it.”

That’s very daft, if you have an explanation for a set of circumstances
that gets you arrested for it, providing a defence for it as opposed to no
comment could be the difference between walking out the door with nothing
and getting charged and ending up in court.

Granted thats not always the case, and in circumstances with minimal
evidence then a no comment interview might not make any difference either
way…… but what if the two chaps convicted in the Lawrence case HAD provided
a reasonable explanation for the evidence found in their homes, and stuck to
it in court?

The trial might well have been a different story.

Woman on
a Raft January 5, 2012 at 19:20

That’s very daft,

No, it’s very good advice until you’ve spoken to a solicitor who will
advise you of your position in law. You can either accept or reject that
advice, but until you have the benefit of the legal opinion of the duty
solicitor, it would be best to explain that you are far too upset and
bewildered to understand the nature of anything at all.

Frankie
January 5, 2012 at 19:47

@Woman on a Raft: I think that we were actually talking about what to
say in interview and the fact that, if you did, in fact, have something
of relevance, that would tend to point to your innocence, then you would
be well advised to disclose it to the investigating officers. Do try to
keep up, dear…!

JuliaM January 5, 2012 at 21:09

And there’s that patronising sexism again! You can’t help it, can
you? It just…slips out.

Frankie
January 5, 2012 at 21:25

@Julia M and Woman on a Raft: Oh dear…! It was intended to be an
attempt at humour!! Never mind…

Mr B
Lightyear January 6, 2012 at
23:48

@Frankie – yes that is what I meant. cheers

Frankie January 5, 2012 at 14:20

@Robert… “depend on just how small a sample they are prepared to go to”…

Surely you must understand that if there was ANY sample of the victim’s
blood or fibres on the defendant or vice versa, this must be compelling
evidence, or else, how did it get there, if you have eliminated the
possibility of cross contamination?? Duh…

In addition, IF… you were in the position of Dobson and Norris and had
done nothing wrong WOULD YOU REALLY 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? Honestly?? “I know one thing, the police are not my
friends” Oh, please! Do you truly think that the police are only interested
in convicting people, including innocent people? You have watched too much
fictional TV my friend… Wake up!!

Police officers want to know the truth. They are duty bound to
investigate, under CPIA 1996, including where a defendant offers some
alternative explanation for the facts. If, as a defendant, you knew of some
way the police could prove you were innocent it would be extremely foolish
not to inform them at the material time.

The right of silence is not absolute these days and the police make it
painfully clear to each and every defendant that if they choose to remain
silent in interview, but later rely upon a defence that they reasonably
could have mentioned at the time of interview then the court is quite
entitled to take a view on their refusal or failure to answer relevant
questions when asked. The police do not charge people, except for minor
offences, they collect and collate evidence.

You need to think carefully about your strategy, if ever in this
invidious position, because it would limit your defence, especially if you
knew yourself to be innocent. In this case, 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.

Woman on
a Raft January 5, 2012 at 23:31

Do you truly think that the police are only interested in convicting
people, including innocent people?

Here’s an example. Police arrest man for singing Kung Fu Fighting.

Frankie
January 6, 2012 at 00:24

@Woman on a Raft: If you had read the detail of this case before
jumping for your keypad, you would notice that the gentleman was not
‘convicted’ of anything…

You were not there, I was not there, and you are relying on a pretty
biased account of proceedings.

The facts, however, speak volumes.

A complaint was made about racially aggravated harassment. The
police, being duty bound to investigate such matters investigated and
arrested the suspect. After enquiries were made no further action was
taken.

So how does your example take your query of my position forward…? I
can’t see that it does really!

JuliaM January 6, 2012 at 05:45

“…you would notice that the gentleman was not ‘convicted’ of
anything…”

Not, you’ll note, for lack of trying on the part of the police and
CPS. Still, they got his DNA on file anyway, and I suspect that’s what
a lot of these cases are really about.

“The facts, however, speak volumes.”

They do indeed. You aren’t the only one to interpret them
accordingly, though.

Woman
on a Raft January 6, 2012 at
09:30

Your question was: Do you truly think that the police are only
interested in convicting people, including innocent people?

You want one which went to the next stage. OK, another example.
Here they handed the steaming pile of obvious poo to the CPS, who
declined to prosecute.

Something of a Dilemma – retired lawyer wins wrongful
arrest case.

Mr B
Lightyear January 6, 2012 at
23:51

Julia said

“Still, they got his DNA on file anyway, and I suspect that’s what
a lot of these cases are really about.”

No, theyre not. Come on

Woman
on a Raft January 7, 2012 at
08:19

Law Gazette Thursday 08 January 2009

The European Court of Human Rights, in a landmark judgment
delivered in December 2008, decided that the UK’s policy of
retaining DNA samples and profiles of innocent people is
indiscriminate and unlawful.
:
The Home Office has acknowledged
that, as a result of the judgment, its plans to extend retention of
DNA to low-level non-recordable offences and set up ‘short-term
holding facilities’ in shopping centres are now dead in the water.
The same must apply to any plan for a national DNA database of all
UK citizens as well as ID cards that would include biometric
data.

Can you account for the differences in the percentage of the
population on a DNA database in another way:
France 2%,
US
3%,
UK 9.2%.
(Times Eureka print version, Jan 2012 page 15 “Is a
universal DNA database in the public’s interest?”)

JuliaM’s supposition looks plausible.

SadButMadLad January 7, 2012 at 12:50

Though a lot of DNA is kept it is only used in a tiny minority of
cases, I think single digit percentages.

Yokel January 8, 2012 at 17:24

In that case, there is no need to keep it. Unless there is
another reason of which we the people have not yet been
advised.

Catobitesback January 9, 2012 at 10:58

Yokel, I couldn’t agree more. Odd though, ‘cos I was a copper
for 30 odd years and you might imagine I’d want to keep it.

Frankie
January 7, 2012 at 15:32

@WoaR: And again, after due consideration, the gentleman was not
convicted of anything. Perhaps you are confused as to the meaning of
the word ‘convicted’. In this case, not even tried by the court.
Again, this case does not take your argument forward. You do not seem
to have grasped the fact that putting evidence to the CPS (for and
against prosecution – as they are duty bound to do under CPIA 1996) is
what the police do. Not letting the gentleman know of this fact is
inexcuseable, hence the compensation.

Mr B
Lightyear January 7, 2012 at
16:04

Woman on a raft –

Retaining it unlawfully is one thing,

arresting someone only to get their DNA is another, and Ive never
heard of it.

Woman
on a Raft January 7, 2012 at
16:42

@ Frankie
There wasn’t any evidence in Silkstone.

Do you truly think that the police are only interested in
convicting people, including innocent people?

It was your question. These are examples of innocent people the
police have attempted to convict. This time on the serious matter of
handling stolen goods.
A lawyer who issued formal complaints against detectives
and was “maliciously prosecuted” by them is to receive pounds 45,000
damages after a police apology, a High Court judge was told yesterday.

Let’s remind

Woman
on a Raft January 7, 2012 at
16:45

“lets remind” is a typo.

@ BL

I appreciate you’ve never heard of it, but that does not account
for the discrepancy in the percentages of the national holdings.
JuliaM put forward an opinion. There is some evidence which supports
her view.

Mr B Lightyear
January 5, 2012 at 13:52

Im new to this blog but loving it.

Well done Anna

I can’t be the only one to see that the Left and the self interested Racism
Industry, the likes of Abbott, Imran Khan, Mansfield, Shami Chakrabarti et al,
who continue to bluster on about stop and search being ‘racist’, are
advocating a reduction in stops and searches, leading to more of the black
community (and all communities for that matter) being at risk of knife
crime.

Police Officers ARE being put off stop and search because of the prevalence
of being sued/investigated etc.

Does anyone remember how in London, after the riots, the amount of knife
crime dropped due to massive police numbers on the streets.

It proves stop and search works

Spiral
Architect January 6, 2012 at 04:04

The public get the police force they deserve.

Brian January 5,
2012 at 13:30

Nick Clegg Scarman Lecture 24/11/2011. No, of course I
haven’t read it, it’s Nick Clegg talk.

Anna
Raccoon January 5, 2012 at 13:48

Thank you Brian most helpful. Some rich material in there!

Brian January
5, 2012 at 17:19

It’s a pleasure. Slightly off topicthis programmeappears to explain why British Chinese
children outperform other children at school – hard work.

Frankie
January 5, 2012 at 20:44

Only ‘slightly’…?

Robert the Biker
January 5, 2012 at 13:20

“That was it, as far as the Lawrence case went until the law on double
jeopardy was altered which has allowed a second bite of the cherry to be
taken. ” A second bite? It allows them to throw the cherry into a fucking
blender! Does anyone believe that an appeal would get this case thrown out as
unsafe? If it (rightly) did, then we could expect another long and involved
trial with all the spurious evidence and dodgy witnesses (career criminal
Duwayne Brooks, I’m looking at you) with perhaps an even smaller sample ‘ just
found’ to help. With double jeopardy gone, the bastards can keep it up forever
till the ‘right’ result is obtained.

Frankie January 5, 2012 at 13:36

No… you are not correct on this. Do your research first. The law on
retrying cases is extremely strict and the burden of proof needed to do so
very high. There has to be new and compelling evidence AND it it is in the
interests of justice that the court of appeal may order a new trial. The
prosecution cannot keep going back to the court and trying again. The number
of double jeopardy type retrial cases is minute. I can only think of one at
present.

I won’t go into why these two should be behind bars, as this has been
covered at length elsewhere. As regards Duwayne Brooks, his evidence was at
best of limited assistance to the prosecution. Dobson and Norris were not
convicted on his evidence, but on forensic evidence and, probably, by their
own behaviour after arrest and during the trial, where they refused to
account for anything during investigation, but then went on to give a very
poor account of themselves in court. They basically helped the prosecution
to convict themselves. LGC Forensics (a private forensic science company)
tried (and failed) to replicate cross contamination of the forensic evidence
– to counter any suggestion that the items of clothing had accidently or
otherwise come into contact with each other. Like it or not, these two are
guilty as charged and deserve to be behind bars.

ivan January 5, 2012 at 16:00

If you believe the removal of double jeopardy will remain only for
extreme cases then you are living in la la land.

The removal of double jeopardy now opens the flood gates to repeated
trial until the ‘correct’ result is obtained and the way things are going
in the country it will spread to other crimes. Trial by MSM anyone?

Span
Ows January 5, 2012 at 17:09

see my comment above (currently number 11)…apparently they can only
retry once.

ivan
January 5, 2012 at 19:06

And how long do you think that will last when the MSM and the PC
brigade start baying for blood?

Frankie
January 5, 2012 at 20:45

But… we ARE living in la la land!

Frankie January 5, 2012 at 13:05

This blog is right on the money… It is sad that the police have been
castigated in this matter, although, to be fair, there does seem to be some
evidence that parts of the initial investigation were bungled or at the very
least followed up as diligently as possible. Those early mistakes nearly cost
the prosecution a guilty verdict when Dobson and Norris found themselves in
the dock again. They will undoubtedly be the focus of any appeal mounted by
the defence. That they are very definitely guilty of the crime is abundantly
clear.

I do not believe, and have never believed that the police were
‘institutionally racist’ and can confirm that the Lawrence case has cast a
long shadow over the service ever since. It has resulted in momentous changes
to how the police conduct themselves and, as a result, there are winners and
losers. Perhaps it is true that the left used the example of this particular
case to further their aims in Government to reform the police. This has not
been entirely successful, with officers deluged under a mountain of
administration and having to provide statistical analysis for everything they
do. The police are more accountable and surely no one would argue that this is
a bad thing.

Having said all that, the recent conviction in the Lawrence case was based
on evidence not available at the time of the murder. It is also true that the
Metropolitan Police do not appear to be permitted to give themselves the
credit they undoubtedly deserve in this matter. They have been beaten over the
head with the case so often they now respond in a Pavlov like manner, every
time the case is mentioned. I thought that Doreen Lawrence was probably wrong
to only say that the police got it wrong 18 years ago and to not go on to
congratulate those who had finally delivered some of her son’s murderers to
justice. Her feelings are understandable but she should give credit where it
is due.

Way back, the Lawrences, no doubt after receiving bad legal advice
foolishly, though perhaps understandably, mounted a private prosecution, which
failed. That was it, as far as the Lawrence case went until the law on double
jeopardy was altered which has allowed a second bite of the cherry to be
taken.

I do not believe that it was altered solely in order to try the killers of
Stephen Lawrence, as has been suggested elsewhere. I think that it was
inevitable, given the advances in scientific ability – and perhaps it is also
right that, where cases are so notorious and there has been a new scientific
discovery, that it is permissible to approach the court with the new evidence,
to try people who clearly have questions to answer.

M Barnes January 5, 2012 at 13:54

Another interesting and nuanced post Frankie. Agree on Double Jeopardy.
Mr Lawrence did thank the people who mounted this prosecution – and they did
a bloomin good job, as did the judge. They were obviously conscious of the
‘fair trial’ bear trap waiting for them on this.
The public perception
and media tone on this case may be over-simplified good and mythic as Anna
argues (successfully in my opinion) but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a
problem that needed looked at. I remember the 80′s and 90′s and there was a
lot of prejudice about a lot of groups – not just blacks and not just in the
Met. It’s easy to forget how quickly society can change and how far!

JuliaM January
5, 2012 at 14:15

“It’s easy to forget how quickly society can change and how
far!”

Society might change. People often don’t.

M Barnes
January 5, 2012 at 14:35

If society is made up of people, then it makes sense that people
change too. I’m an optimist on people. I think they do change –
sometimes slowly, sometimes surprisingly quickly. Not always for the
better, I’ll grant you.;) But that’s a whole other debate.

JuliaM January
5, 2012 at 14:14

“I do not believe that it was altered solely in order to try the
killers of Stephen Lawrence…”

I refer you to ‘A Few Good Men’: “It doesn’t matter what I believe! What
matters is what I can prove!”

Frankie January 5, 2012 at 15:36

And, having raised this point, can you now prove that it was ‘altered
solely in order to retry the killers of Stephen Lawrence’…? No, Julia, of
course you can’t.

Having read your blog for quite a while now, whilst I respect your
opinion in all matters, in this individual case you are being most obtuse
and narrow minded, which is not like you. For example: “…Barry’s now a
free man.” Pshaw!! By your reasoning we would ignore all forensic
evidence, even when, as in this case, it pointed to the guilt of the
suspects, and asked a reasonable question of them.

If I remember correctly the forensic evidence in the George case was
practially the only evidence against him. Hardly the same facts as this
case are they? Perhaps you have been highlighting conspiracy theories and
examples of bad practice for so long you see them everywhere… Incredible
as it may appear, the police do occasionally get the right man (or men, in
this instance).

JuliaM January 5, 2012 at 16:24

What’s the other evidence against these two, then? Apart from the
tapes, which don’t show anything like a confession..?

Frankie
January 5, 2012 at 19:11

@Julia M “…What ‘s the other evidence” Are you, perhaps, being
facetious?

Span
Ows January 5, 2012 at 17:06

“And, having raised this point, can you now prove that it was
‘altered solely in order to retry the killers of Stephen Lawrence’…? No,
Julia, of course you can’t.”

When the reforms came in the National Crime Faculty believed there
were 35 murder cases in which acquitted defendants could be
re-investigated and new charges brought so at the very least there’s a
3% change this case was the reason! The connection with Matrix Chambers
increases that percentage by quite a lot!

Something one or two commented on yesterday was “mission creep” and
the abandoning of double jeopardy for more crimes…well guess what, the
reforms apply to 30 serious crimes!

At the time civil liberties groups condemned the move…they’re a bit
quiet at the moment.

Also, it is only possible to retry an acquitted person once, which
explains the crazy verdict yesterday (by crazy I mean no real new
evidence/lab admitted contamination was a possibility/ no fair trial yet
these men were already considered guilty)

JuliaM January 5, 2012 at 17:36

And if you really have read my blog, you’ll know that I don’t believe
in conspiracy theories at all. But I DO believe in ‘a perfect storm’ for
those with an agenda, and boy howdy, was the Lawrence case ever
that!

Woman
on a Raft January 5, 2012 at
19:04

Having read your blog for quite a while now, whilst I respect
your opinion in all matters, in this individual case you are being
most obtuse and narrow minded, which is not like you.

Nice to know that patronizing sexism is alive and well in the
ranks. Why not pat her on the head and tell her not to worry her
pretty little mind about it?

Frankie
January 5, 2012 at 21:28

Clearly, the concept of humour is not one you are familiar with… or
am I really just being patronising?? Oh well…

Woman
on a Raft January 5, 2012 at
22:23

Don’t give up your day job.

JuliaM January 5,
2012 at 12:51

Meanwhile, Vikram Dodd braves the mean streets of Eltham to see if
racism still exists (not realising he could find plenty without ever leaving
the ‘Guardian’ head office). The results are predictable.

This stuff is providing bloggers with so much material, we should be paying
for it!

GildasTheMonk
January 5, 2012 at 11:55

Spot on. Meanwhile Diane Abbott has been tweeting that “white people employ
divide and rule” tactics. The sort of generalised race based comment which if
used the other way round would be rightly pilloried as offensive, racist and
ignorent.

JuliaM January
5, 2012 at 12:47

The reaction to this has been, frankly, hilarious.

Dear dumb ol’ Diane suggests that she was baulked by the 140 character
limit on Twitter (although the original Tweet had 34 characters free).

Then her supporters start up, led by none other than George Galloway.

Frankly, it’s been the funniest morning on Twitter since Gordon Brown’s
‘that bigoted woman’ statement!