John X Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Nowt like the cool head of reason eh Riv? To be fair to Rivelin, they are as guilty as hell, not least because they spent a good number of years boasting about how they got away with it to anyone who would listen in South-East London. It'll be a bonus if they get the right person/people. That is very magnanimous of you. I don't know if you were involved with the BNP at the time of Stephen Lawrence's murder but they came out with some vile and nasty siht about him. If you were I'd like to know why you want the killers caught now, as no-one in the BNP gave a toss back then. John X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 how often has it happened since the law was changed? how often do you think they will use the power? and why do you think they will use the power? come on im as anti big brother as anybody but.......... the guy wasnt aquitted cos he was innocent, he was aquitted cos they ballsed up the inquiry. they obviously have plenty of evidence to show hes guilty, they also have alledged NEW evidence thats not just retrying somebody for the sake of it or plucking somebody off the street willy nilly. its somebody who they have a belief IS guilty, kinell theyve had 18 years to get it right lol its not exactly a kneejerk reaction a decent well run and thought out trial will prove once and for all if hes guilty or not? I think the key is in your answer in that if the state can't get it right the first time then they are ****ed. In this case it's not once and for all but twice and for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I think the key is in your answer in that if the state can't get it right the first time then they are ****ed. In this case it's not once and for all but twice and for all. First time David Norris is being tried for this offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 When the prosecuting authorities with Power and Time at their disposal try an individual and fail that should be an end to the matter. And if compelling evidence subsequently emerges subsequently you think we should just let the suspect walk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Ok one more time just for you. Power rests with the State, the State has discretion over prosecuting and the timing of prosecutions. The State has no business indicting an individual in the absence of a prima facie case, the State has no business taking an individual to trial before the Crown Court unless not only a prima facie case has been established but there also exists a case strong enough to stand a better than even chance of conviction before a jury. When the prosecuting authorities erroneously convict an individual (that didn't ask to be tried in the first place) JUSTICE demands that the conviction is quashed. When the prosecuting authorities with Power and Time at their disposal try an individual and fail that should be an end to the matter. Do you understand that prosecutorial discretion lies with the State, the individual is by definition disadvantaged. which is all good and well i believe its right individuals should have rights in such matters. BUT 1: i still say youd be the first out with the pitchfork if it happens in other certain cases which DONT fit in with your narrow views. 2: you stated "When the prosecuting authorities erroneously convict an individual (that didn't ask to be tried in the first place) JUSTICE demands that the conviction is quashed." was he erroneously convicted? they ballsed up yest, but "wrongly convicted"? like i said they must have evidence that hes actually guilty, plus NEW evidence dont you think new evidence coming to light after 18 years is a reason to go to a new trial? and dont forget a new trial IS NOT a conviction, if there isnt any guilt shown with the evidence that is shown then he wont be convicted, your trying to make out hes been hung drawn and quartered already. NOW onto the other man, whos on trial for the FIRST TIME can you give us your pearls of wisdom on him after about 5 pages on the one subject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 To be fair to Rivelin, they are as guilty as hell, not least because they spent a good number of years boasting about how they got away with it to anyone who would listen in South-East London. That is very magnanimous of you. I don't know if you were involved with the BNP at the time of Stephen Lawrence's murder but they came out with some vile and nasty siht about him. If you were I'd like to know why you want the killers caught now, as no-one in the BNP gave a toss back then. John X I was involved with the BNP at the time. I think that you'll find that the BNP definitely wanted the case solved, much effort was made at the time to try to implicate the BNP !!! You keep reading the dispatches from the ministry of truth you obviously enjoy the state of being wide asleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 And if compelling evidence subsequently emerges subsequently you think we should just let the suspect walk? indeed, what about people that have been convicted 10- 50 years later? should they just be allowed to walk free and any newer evidence binned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I was involved with the BNP at the time. I think that you'll find that the BNP definitely wanted the case solved, much effort was made at the time to try to implicate the BNP !!! You keep reading the dispatches from the ministry of truth you obviously enjoy the state of being wide asleep. Didn't Griffin at some point try to smear Lawrence as a drug dealer and claim it was a black on black murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I think the key is in your answer in that if the state can't get it right the first time then they are ****ed. In this case it's not once and for all but twice and for all. How would you feel if William Dunlop had raped and murdered your daughter, committed acts of necrophilia on her, then having been tried and acquitted boasted at a subsequent court appearance that he had in fact done it because he knew he couldn't be retried for her murder? On 11 September 2006, William Dunlop became the first person to be convicted of murder after previously being acquitted. Twice he was tried for the murder of Julie Hogg in Billingham in 1989, but two juries failed to reach a verdict and he was formally acquitted in 1991. Some years later, he confessed to the crime, and was convicted of perjury. The case was re-investigated in early 2005, when the new law came into effect, and his case was referred to the Court of Appeal in November 2005 for permission for a new trial, which was granted.[21][22][23] Dunlop pleaded guilty to murdering Julie Hogg and raping her dead body repeatedly, and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation he serve no less than 17 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John X Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I think that you'll find that the BNP definitely wanted the case solved, I very much doubt it! The British National Party leader, Nick Griffin, claimed the murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence was a drug dealer who was "notorious for taxing the younger kids for their dinner money".......many people within the Metropolitan Police believe he was killed by another black, not a white racist attack at all". Funny how it is only white people who have been questioned/tried/charged about the murder. John X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.