Stephen Lawrence Trial

Radda bout yeee · November 17, 2011, 05:37:34 PM

IMO those hooligans murdered the lad but this is my question:

Should they not have admitted it at the time (when it was commonly known in their locality that they did it) and if they were repenting and reformed characters they would be out by now and possiblt be able to make some sort of mense for what they had done!
Its bound have been some burden (good enough for them too) carrying that around with them for so long!

ziggysego · November 17, 2011, 10:06:08 PM

I can't believe it happened 18 years ago. I remember it, like it was yesterday.

imtommygunn · November 17, 2011, 10:16:54 PM

I remember it very clearly too.

I'd imagine they thought they had got away with it by now.

Am I correct in saying that it is only advances in forensics that have made it possible to try these boys now?

It's mad they're getting tried 18 years on. I would imagine, assuming they've had a clean slate, that may stand in their favour.

Awful awful thing to happen. What age are those boys now?

Tony Baloney · November 17, 2011, 11:30:19 PM

Although the family have every right to justice, I always felt this case was always over-hyped and became a cause célèbre. How many other families in similar situations got the same publicity or the same level of investigation.

Radda bout yeee · November 18, 2011, 12:27:27 PM

Quote from: imtommygunn on November 17, 2011, 10:16:54 PM
I remember it very clearly too.

I'd imagine they thought they had got away with it by now.

Am I correct in saying that it is only advances in forensics that have made it possible to try these boys now?

It's mad they're getting tried 18 years on. I would imagine, assuming they've had a clean slate, that may stand in their favour.

Awful awful thing to happen. What age are those boys now?

I think they are about 35/36 now. It must be advances in DNA or something also i was very surprised that they found blood on their clothes now and not back then. I take it their clothes would have been kept somewhere as evidence and then some new technique used to prove it was their blood.

Also was thinking if it's actually now going against them - its wonder no one has sold the other out - obviously only one of them stabbed him and if the other were to rat him out they would get a reduced sentence?

Geoff Tipps · January 03, 2012, 02:53:02 PM

Gary Dobson and David Norris have been found guilty of the murder of teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993.

Dinny Breen · January 03, 2012, 03:02:32 PM

At last some solace for the Lawerence family.

Denn Forever · January 03, 2012, 03:12:36 PM

Sentencing tomorrow.

Fear ón Srath Bán · January 03, 2012, 03:43:38 PM

They should do Dobson's mother with perjury now, she having testified that he was in the house with her the whole evening of the slaying.

4father · January 03, 2012, 04:13:48 PM

And it has emerged too during the mitigation hearing that one of them were done for racist abuse a few years ago and the other is serving a sentence (or something like that) for drugs charges. The jury weren't allowed to know this. Sorry for the sketchy info.

Hardly the nicest people in the world both of them. Anyone see the secret video footage taken at their home?

nrico2006 · January 04, 2012, 08:53:15 AM

Quote from: 4father on January 03, 2012, 04:13:48 PM
And it has emerged too during the mitigation hearing that one of them were done for racist abuse a few years ago and the other is serving a sentence (or something like that) for drugs charges. The jury weren't allowed to know this. Sorry for the sketchy info.

Hardly the nicest people in the world both of them. Anyone see the secret video footage taken at their home?

Why is their inconsistency with this during trials - in the Arlene Arkinson trial all of Robert Howards attrocious crimes were not allowed to be made known to the jury too. Yet recently in the Robert Black trial the court was allowed to be informed of his past after 7/8 days of the trial, information that in all probability got him convicted more than anything else offered by the prosecution.

LeoMc · January 04, 2012, 09:47:56 AM

Quote from: nrico2006 on January 04, 2012, 08:53:15 AM
Quote from: 4father on January 03, 2012, 04:13:48 PM
And it has emerged too during the mitigation hearing that one of them were done for racist abuse a few years ago and the other is serving a sentence (or something like that) for drugs charges. The jury weren't allowed to know this. Sorry for the sketchy info.

Hardly the nicest people in the world both of them. Anyone see the secret video footage taken at their home?

Why is their inconsistency with this during trials - in the Arlene Arkinson trial all of Robert Howards attrocious crimes were not allowed to be made known to the jury too. Yet recently in the Robert Black trial the court was allowed to be informed of his past after 7/8 days of the trial, information that in all probability got him convicted more than anything else offered by the prosecution.

AFAIK the prosecution has to prove the offences are relevant before they can be admitted. These arguments will take place in Chambers away from the Jury.
With Robert Black a history of driving round kidnapping and murdering little girls is relevent where he is being tried for kidnap and murder of a little girl.
With the Stephen Lawrence trial neither verbal abuse nor drugs offences directly equate to racist murder. I am not sure what Robert Howards history was.

nrico2006 · January 04, 2012, 10:24:57 AM

Quote from: LeoMc on January 04, 2012, 09:47:56 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on January 04, 2012, 08:53:15 AM
Quote from: 4father on January 03, 2012, 04:13:48 PM
And it has emerged too during the mitigation hearing that one of them were done for racist abuse a few years ago and the other is serving a sentence (or something like that) for drugs charges. The jury weren't allowed to know this. Sorry for the sketchy info.

Hardly the nicest people in the world both of them. Anyone see the secret video footage taken at their home?

Why is their inconsistency with this during trials - in the Arlene Arkinson trial all of Robert Howards attrocious crimes were not allowed to be made known to the jury too. Yet recently in the Robert Black trial the court was allowed to be informed of his past after 7/8 days of the trial, information that in all probability got him convicted more than anything else offered by the prosecution.
AFAIK the prosecution has to prove the offences are relevant before they can be admitted. These arguments will take place in Chambers away from the Jury.
With Robert Black a history of driving round kidnapping and murdering little girls is relevent where he is being tried for kidnap and murder of a little girl.
With the Stephen Lawrence trial neither verbal abuse nor drugs offences directly equate to racist murder. I am not sure what Robert Howards history was.

Howard molested boys and girls and was convicted of murdering and burying a girl in England. He was on trial for the murder of Arlene Arkinson, and he was the last person to see her on the night she disappeared as he gave her a lift.

Harold Disgracey · January 04, 2012, 10:31:15 AM

There are striking similarities between the Lawrence case and Robert Hamill's murder, substitute institutional sectarianism for institutional racism by the authorities. Here's hoping for a similar outcome, I wouldn't hold my breath though.

thejuice · January 04, 2012, 10:45:21 AM

How soon before Ireland has a similar case. You don't have to scratch far below the surface to find bigotry in people here and we've already seen what's happened with that Mayor/Councillor and elsewhere I have seen plenty of racism towards immigrants first hand. I can imagine our police force may not be full of the most enlightened folks either. Since we are still quite new to having immigration here we don't really know what flaws are in the system until they emerge.

We've seen the problems already with refugees confined for months on end in Mosney which is a disaster.

I have my reservations about immigration and multi-culturalism but racism and poor treatment of human beings in care of the state is inexcusable.