Frank Sidney Posted December 1, 2011 Author Share Posted December 1, 2011 If you remember the history of this case you ought to remember the police (and crown prosecution service) cocked up the original investigation to such an extent that no charges were originally brought and the Lawrence family had to bring a private prosecution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephen_Lawrence Yes I thought about that later...They were useless....The important question in relation to this is, did somebody **** it all up on purpose? Might as well throw a conspiracy theory in for good measure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted December 1, 2011 Author Share Posted December 1, 2011 (Sounds like: "Let him have it," which was a hanging offence.) As you said: We don't. One point is that if that was a defence then it would place the accused, by his own admission, at the scene of the crime. Given that the defence seems to be based on 'I wasn't there' this would be a risky course of action. I imagine once the defendant admitted they were at the scene of the crime then, in this case, a secure conviction would be highly likely, as the proposed defence of 'I was trying to stop him', after it had been challenged by a competent barrister, would not be enough reasonable doubt for a jury. Most of the above is, of course, speculation as it involves hypotheticals, we are not at the trial, and we are not hearing the arguments and evidence. I remember seeing a drama on TV about the "let him have it" case I think I was about ten at the time and it did effect me. Was it Derek Bentley? That was a shocking example of British "Justice.".. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted December 1, 2011 Author Share Posted December 1, 2011 How noble. If that's the case then double his sentence. He still wouldn't talk. He probably wouldn't talk if he was sentenced to death. IMO. He'd be dead and the guilty person would probably be sat in a pub somewhere... Unless something else crops up there will always be doubts with the outcome of the trial. Sufferegette1 said earlier that the family will get some peace. If I was the parent there'd still be the questions I've been suggesting on here If you're happy for someone, anyone, to be found guilty just because they are indeed nasty people, then that's fine..But there will never be a satisfactory conclusion to this case.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoatScape Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 If you're happy for someone, anyone, to be found guilty just because they are indeed nasty people, then that's fine..But there will never be a satisfactory conclusion to this case.... The jury are hearing all the evidence and all the arguments. If they come to a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then it would be reasonable to trust their judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 He still wouldn't talk. He probably wouldn't talk if he was sentenced to death. IMO. He'd be dead and the guilty person would probably be sat in a pub somewhere... I think you allow him far to much as though he was some sort of hero protecting his clan. Given the death penalty he'd sing like Susan Boyle. Guilty or not..their good for nothing yellow scum dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted December 1, 2011 Author Share Posted December 1, 2011 The jury are hearing all the evidence and all the arguments. If they come to a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then it would be reasonable to trust their judgement. Yes I know that but that's their opinion I'm reading the evidence in the newspapers and asking myself the questions if I was on the jury. If they do reach a guilty verdict it means the defendants have been found guilty, but that doesn't mean they are guilty.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted December 1, 2011 Author Share Posted December 1, 2011 I think you allow him far to much as though he was some sort of hero protecting his clan. Given the death penalty he'd sing like Susan Boyle. Guilty or not..their good for nothing yellow scum dogs. I thought we'd moved on from this point. Very few would disagree. But its not grown up intelligent thinking to sentence someone for murder for the type of people they are. I'm sure if they'd done anything else illegal they would be locked up for it. As mentioned earlier two of them were sentenced to 18 months for throwing a paper cup. That is wrong IMO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Yes I know that but that's their opinion I'm reading the evidence in the newspapers and asking myself the questions if I was on the jury. If they do reach a guilty verdict it means the defendants have been found guilty, but that doesn't mean they are guilty.. Yes it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 [/b] I thought we'd moved on from this point. Very few would disagree. But its not grown up intelligent thinking to sentence someone for murder for the type of people they are. I'm sure if they'd done anything else illegal they would be locked up for it. As mentioned earlier two of them were sentenced to 18 months for throwing a paper cup. That is wrong IMO... Moved on from what point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted December 1, 2011 Author Share Posted December 1, 2011 Yes it does. History is littered with the cases of people who were found guilty but then released because they were innocent. They were found guilty, but they weren't really guilty, they were innocent.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.