New trial for murder of Stephen Lawrence

[Longcol]

Save you reading the thread properly.

 

Quite capable of reading thankyou. Pity you didn't mention in your defence of "them" in #247 that one hadn't been charged before. That's why I keep having to remind you - and also so new readers to the thread don't get taken in to believing both defendents have are being tried again.

[warrior8]

I know more about "the game" as you call it than you will ever know if you live to be a hundred,double jeapordy was originally brought in to stop what is happening now ,if he is found innocent again which i doubt, do you think that will be the end of it?,they want him for this one and they will get him.heres another chapter to your "game"..you cant beat the man ,you can play with them some but they will get you eventually ,even if its for something you have not done,obviously Im not talking one offs here

 

You clearly don't understand do you? You cannot be found 'innocent'.

[warrior8]

luckily you can only be re-tried once. They can't do it again.

 

Think you will find you are wrong there.

 

Where two juries fail to reach a verdict, the presumption is that the prosecution will not seek a third trial unless there are exceptional circumstances. Factors that might justify a third trial include:

 

jury interference (this may require further investigation for an offence of jury interference);

and

additional evidence that has recently come to light and was not available at earlier trials.

 

The case of R v Bell EWCA Crim 3 (2010) involved an appeal against conviction for murder, following a third trial. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the third trial amounted to an abuse of process. The conviction was upheld. The Lord Chief Justice however provided words of caution in relation to the use of re-trials:

 

"the jurisdiction which permits a second re-trial after two jury disagreements in circumstances like the present must be exercised with extreme caution. The broad public interest in the administration of criminal justice leads us to the clear view that a second re-trial should be confined to the very small number of cases in which the jury is being invited to address a crime of extreme gravity which has undoubtly occurred (as here) and in which the evidence that the defendant committed a crime (again, as here), on any fair minded objective judgment remains very powerful."

[Glamrocker]

You clearly don't understand do you? You cannot be found 'innocent'.

OK declared innocent or found not guilty ..stop nitpicking.

[Glamrocker]

I think there must be someone else called John X posting here.

 

Can you show me where I agreed that any new evidence in the Lawrence case could be questionable?

 

John X

Not directly but you agreed that evidence in the pub bombings was questionable ....and earlier you didnt:huh

[warrior8]

OK declared innocent or found not guilty ..stop nitpicking.

 

It isn't nitpicking. It is a completely different thing. Plenty of people are found not guilty, but it doesn't mean they are innocent. The jury have to be 'sure', so if there is doubt in their mind they must return a not guilty verdict.

[BritPat]

It isn't nitpicking. It is a completely different thing. Plenty of people are found not guilty, but it doesn't mean they are innocent. The jury have to be 'sure', so if there is doubt in their mind they must return a not guilty verdict.

 

To be clear on this one the accused enters the dock Presumed Innocent, a Not Guilty verdict implies that the original Presumption of Innocence stands !

[John X]

Not directly but you agreed that evidence in the pub bombings was questionable ....and earlier you didnt:huh

 

I very much doubt it!

 

I have known the evidence in the Woolwich, Guildford and Birmingham trials was questionable for almost 35 years now so it's very unlikely I would have claimed otherwise here.

 

As always, show me a post where I claimed the evidence in those trials was anything other than questionable and I will put my hands up to it!

 

John X

[Mutt]

noway they can get a fair trial.

 

i say good, lock them up, throw away the key.

 

whats the opinion of the liberals?

[Badlittlepup]

Youve never heard the phrase "fitted up" or maybe you dont believe it happens,you'll be telling me next that the police take extra care of prisoners they lock up in their cells,make them a nice cup of tea and wouldnt think of giving them a little dig in the ribs.

 

Well considering this mob have told half of Bromley they did it though often not in so many words I would be suprised if alongside the forensic evidence they have a whole glut of people willing to testify to things they've said that would indicate their guilt too.

 

I would be amazed if they were innocent. They've spent the last 18 years swaggering around like their big men and the whole association makes them look hard and thinking they were untouchable.

 

The vast majority of people around their area hate them and would be glad to see them chucked in jail. I grew up there, all my family are there, I know. They will be no great loss to society if they're banged up.