Question about the Stephen Laurence investigation.

[Neil.]

Incase anyones too young to remember, black teenager Stephen Laurence was murdered almost exactly 15 years ago, it prompted major investigations into the metropolitan police and how they deal with hate crimes specifically racially motivated attacks.

It was a massive event and sparked what turned into a really positive debate about racism in our society. Ridiculasly the people resposible have still not been caught/convicted.

Anyway, one thing that occured to me (when i was watching that bastion of investigative journalism The One Show) is that if it has never been established who carried out the attack, how can the motive be determined? I'm assuming there is some piece of evidence that i'm just totally ignorant to, but yeh i'm curious.

This isn't supposed to be a "racism doesn't exist" type thread, far from it, i'm just genuinely curious about this case, and how when the police invstigation seems to have been so useless, how anyone can acctually know that detail.

So anyway, long way to ask a simple question, anyone know the answer?

[endless psych]

http://www.archive.official-document...262/sli-01.htm

The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry describes one of the assailants saying: "What, What, Nigger?"as they all quickly crossed the road and 'engulfed' Lawrence, who was then stabbed to a depth of about five inches on both sides of the front of his body, in the chest and arm.

Are you perhaps confusing this or at least blending it with with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damilola_Taylor?

[Neil.]

Yeh i'm very possibly getting some details confused, after all I was 8 at the time, was it the Damilola Taylor rather than Stephen Laurence investigation that led to the Met being found to me institutionally racist?

But yeh that answers my question, thanks.

It does however make it even more amazing that no one has ever been charged. Surely with that sort of witness testimony the people responsible could have been identified. Ridiculas situation.

[Semprini]

They were caught and charged - two had the charges dropped due to lack of evidence, and three were acquitted when a witnesses testimony was ruled inadmissable.

Double jeopardy means they can't be tried again.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by Neil.

Yeh i'm very possibly getting some details confused, after all I was 8 at the time, was it the Damilola Taylor rather than Stephen Laurence investigation that led to the Met being found to me institutionally racist?

Nope you were right on that score but its the Damolola case that no one was charged in.

Originally Posted by Semprini

Double jeopardy means they can't be tried again.

Unless there is some compelling new evidence.

[crusher]

They were caught and charged - two had the charges dropped due to lack of evidence, and three were acquitted when a witnesses testimony was ruled inadmissable.

So the court found them innocent for whatever reason it chose and by the look of what you just said the reason was that "REASONABLE DOUBT" was to blame. The evidence was inadmissible so that meant there was reasonable doubt and so had to quit.
Lack of evidence also means innocent since one has to prove them guilty.
It is not for them to prove they are innocent. They are innocent until the weight of evidence proves them guilty - which it did not and could not so therefore they were and still are innocent.

which leaves you with the original question - if they havent found the people who did it how can they say what the motive was

[djtoast]

they have found the people who did it, they just haven't managed to find sufficient evidence that they can produce in court. They have no doubts about who did it.

Is it so hard to imagine that crimes happen without there being sufficient evidence that the police can assemble?

[J.M]

Originally Posted by Semprini

Double jeopardy means they can't be tried again.

am i right in thinking that is being abolished this year?

[Semprini]

Originally Posted by J.M

am i right in thinking that is being abolished this year?

To an extent - as said above, there must be 'new and compelling evidence' to force a retrial. The authorities can't just have another shot after messing up the first time.

[J.M]

found that it only really appliea to around 30 serious crimes and not lesser offences

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by crusher

So the court found them innocent for whatever reason it chose and by the look of what you just said the reason was that "REASONABLE DOUBT" was to blame. The evidence was inadmissible so that meant there was reasonable doubt and so had to quit.
Lack of evidence also means innocent since one has to prove them guilty.
It is not for them to prove they are innocent. They are innocent until the weight of evidence proves them guilty - which it did not and could not so therefore they were and still are innocent.

which leaves you with the original question - if they havent found the people who did it how can they say what the motive was

If you look at my first post you'll note that the eye witness testimony makes reference to one of the assailants saying "what, what nigger?". This testimony doesn't presumably identify the assailants but does identify a possible racial motive.

Also IIRC it was the sibsequent private prosecution in which the witness testimony of Lawrences friend (with whom he was out that fateful night) was found inadmissable. Without knowing all the ins and outs I'd suggest it seems likely because it involved remembering of the assailiants identities (and that probably looked less then genuine to the judge).

Originally Posted by djtoast

they have found the people who did it, they just haven't managed to find sufficient evidence that they can produce in court. They have no doubts about who did it.

Is it so hard to imagine that crimes happen without there being sufficient evidence that the police can assemble?

No, but if we start deciding people are guilty when a jury of their peers or the judicary has found them innocent then we sail pretty close to scapegoatism...

[djtoast]

Originally Posted by endless psych

No, but if we start deciding people are guilty when a jury of their peers or the judicary has found them innocent then we sail pretty close to scapegoatism...

Of course.

I just mean it isn't true to say "they were found innocent, therefore they're innocent" - OJ was found both innocent and guilty in court; he can't be both.


In this instance the police have no doubts whatsoever about who murdered Stephen Lawrence, they just can't (couldn't) prove it in court partly if i recall because of reluctant witnesses and partly just on proceedural grounds.

And yes, of course there should be certain kinds of evidence that make something clear but are inadmissable due to the way they came to light, say, or every shoplifting suspect would be tortured...

[lirazel]

there was something on this and institutional racism in the Grauniad yesterday:

The father of Stephen Lawrence has said it could take years for a forensics breakthrough to lead to some of his son's killers being charged. Neville Lawrence was speaking on the eve of the 15th anniversary of his son's racist murder. Scotland Yard detectives are continuing to investigate a potential forensic science breakthrough which could tie some of original five suspects to the murder scene in south-east London. Lawrence, who now lives in Jamaica, said: "They said it could take years because they want to make absolutely sure of their case this time."

full story here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/21/ukcrime.race

[thetruemayhem]

Ironically, all the men charged with the murder had neo-nazi links, and one of whom's father was a millionaire gangster who allegedly had detectives in his pocket (Clifford Norris, father of David Norris, apparently connected* to Detective Sergeant Davidson who was a large part of the Lawrence investigation [*by police supergrass Detective Constable Neil Putnam]).

t.

[J.M]

Originally Posted by endless psych

one of the assailants saying "what, what nigger?". ..identify a possible racial motive.

maybe when the police arrested him for the murder of a young black male he retorted with "what? what nigger?"

just a thought