• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Two arrests - Justice for Stephen Lawrence?

Undesired Walrus

Penultimate Amazing
Undesired Walrus
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
11,691
There is a glimmer of hope there may be some justice for Stephen Lawrence with the arrest of a retired police officer and staff member:

A retired police constable and a police staff member have been arrested after claims that evidence was hidden in the Stephen Lawrence murder inquiry.

The 53-year-old man and retired 62-year-old man were held on suspicion of perverting the course of justice.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is examining claims that 1993 evidence was not disclosed.

Mr Lawrence, 18, was stabbed to death by a gang at a bus stop in Eltham, south-east London, in 1993.

...

A Kent Police inquiry took place into the case in 1997 followed by the Macpherson Report in 1999, which found evidence of "pernicious and institutionalised racism" in the Metropolitan Police.

On Friday the IPCC said a recent internal Met review of the case discovered material from 1993 which was allegedly not disclosed to either inquiry.

An IPCC spokeswoman said it would "consider and report on whether or not any criminal or disciplinary offences may have been committed by any police officer, former police officer or member of police staff involved, bearing in mind the procedures in place in the Metropolitan Police in 1993".
Click to expand...

Is it too much to hope for that finally someone can be held accountable?
 
Last edited:
Woops, forgot to give the link.

One of the more disgraceful (And often unreported) things about the initial investigation was that they asked Duwayne Brooks to come in and have photograph of himself taken for the investigation. Essentially treating him -a witness to a horrific murder- like a suspect.
 
Last edited:
Undesired Walrus said:
Woops, forgot to give the link.

One of the more disgraceful (And often unreported) things about the initial investigation was that they asked Duwayne Brooks for a photograph of himself for the investigation. Essentially treating him -a witness to a horrific murder- like a suspect.
Click to expand...
Forgive me for not being intimately familiar with all the details of this case, but...

. . . Shouldn't the initial investigation be exactly the time when you do not want to rule out suspects?

I mean, it seems like a lot of murder cases would go unsolved, and a lot of murderers would go free, if one could commit a horrific murder, claim to be simply a witness during the initial investigation, and thereby be exempted from the due diligence of the investigators.
 
It's buried somewhere deep in the report, but I believe he was asked for a photograph while no other witnesses (Even those at the bus stop) were asked for the same.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Hurrah!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13438629
Click to expand...

I heard this on the news and was looking for this thread. It does seem remarkable that it has taken so long. Looks like the reason for this trial is based on forensic evidence, if they are guilty I hope at long last there is some justice. From the terrible murder onwards this has been an embarrassment for the UK, the only good that can be said to have come from it is that it did bring to light some serious problems in our policing system.
 
This was one of the cases which led to the change in the double jeopardy law, wasn't it?

ETA: prior to the rule changes (2003) certain acquittals could be challenged in the High Court:

A "tainted acquittal", where there has been an offence of interference with, or intimidation of, a juror or witness, can be challenged in the High Court
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#United_Kingdom

Would this have been relevant in this case? I don't know the full details of the alleged corruption.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't altogether convinced the prosecution had met the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard from the reporting I followed, though I may have been paying too much attention to the defence submissions. It will be interesting to see what the verdict is.

I'm not keen on the abolition of the prohibition on double jeopardy, for just the reason we see here. It allows the state to hound and persecute people it believes are guilty, and potentially to come back with fabricated or trumped-up evidence if the first go doesn't produce the right result. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but the potential is inherent in the system as it now stands. Supposing these guys are really telling the truth, is there any way now they can shake off these charges? How many bites at the cherry does the state get?

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
I'm not keen on the abolition of the prohibition on double jeopardy, for just the reason we see here. It allows the state to hound and persecute people it believes are guilty, and potentially to come back with fabricated or trumped-up evidence if the first go doesn't produce the right result. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but the potential is inherent in the system as it now stands.
Click to expand...

That is rather how I feel about this.

I want Stephen Lawrence to have justice... but I am disquieted by our willingness to discard ages old civil liberties because it would be convenient in this particular instance. What is the saying "hard cases make bad law"?
 
Look at the rhetoric coming from Mulholland in respect of Lamin Fhimah, too. The man was acquitted in 2001, and when you read the evidence there wasn't a shred. He simply wasn't there, to any definition of "there". He was no more than a mildly interesting lead who turned out to go nowhere. But because there is such an outcry over the atrocity, Mulholland is talking about dredging up "new evidence" and trying him all over again.

Easier and more convenient than trying to find out who really did it after all this time, of course.

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom