Give 'em hell Pike! » Page 'The Stephen Lawrence convictions are an affront to justice'

The Stephen Lawrence convictions are an affront to justice

I feel like I did when Diana popped her clogs – the odd man out. The country appears to have gone crazy again. Once again, it’s an unpopular position – within minutes of posting a ‘WTF?’ comment on the Telegraph site, I got a mail telling me I was a racist prick. Well, I don’t think I am, and even if I was it wouldn’t change the facts – this is an unsupportable verdict

It’s simple – and it was plainly outlined in the trial itself. The techniques in place 18 years ago for gathering evidence, and storing evidence and analyzing evidence just cannot sit side by side with modern analytical techniques. We know, as fact, introduced in court and not contested, that the same officers attended the scene of crime, the Lawrence home, and the homes of suspects. We know evidence from the crime scene and the homes of suspects was stored side by side in unsealed bags. It has even been suggested that some evidence was stored in the same bags. Adrian Wain, the guy in charge of the forensic investigation wrote a report warning of cross contamination. He went on record, in print, saying he couldn’t say that the evidence hadn’t been contaminated – a decade ago!

This evidence was then subjected to the most intensive DNA amplification possible. And surprise surprise, there was matching DNA found.

Justice Treacy, to his credit, made reference to the possibility of cross contamination in his summing up – being certain that it couldn’t have happened, certain, was the first hurdle the jurors needed to take before they could even consider a guilty verdict. Certain. Certain there could be no cross contamination after hearing that the lab head had warned it was possible. How the hell could they then be certain?

No identification evidence, no motive, no weapon, no confession. And a teaspoon of contested forensics. And a british jury convicts on that. This is then described by the media as a great day for justice.

It’s a great day for hysteria. A great day for witchhunts. A great day for those in the media who’ve ranted with such certainty that this was a racist crime, covered up by racists cops, when we know nothing of the sort. A great day for the claimed ‘liberals’ who threw away our ancient prohibition against double jeopardy, just so this trial could one day take place. It makes me sad and angry.

I have no idea if this pair are guilty. They may be. But from this distance in time, with such pisspoor evidence, it seems to me impossible to prove. And it it cannot be proved then the correct verdict is NOT GUILTY.

The Lawrence jury have been, I feel sure, swayed by media and public opinion. If they had deliberated purely on the evidence presented in court,t hey could not have reached this verdict. I wonder if the court of appeal will feel the same way – my concern is that, generally rightfully, the appeals courts don’t like to overturn jury verdicts. And looking at the way the trial ran, and particularly the summing up, they may feel that the issue of cross contamination was clearly put to the jury, and they must have considered it. I just cannot understand how they can have done, and still brought in a guilty verdict.

Why do I care? Am I, as my dear correspondent this morning suggested, a racist prick? Well, I care because I do believe in justice, and in trial by jury – and I see what happens when mob rule takes hold instead. When the trial takes place on front pages, rather than court rooms.  A guilty verdict brought in on the basis of nothing more than contested forensic evidence – no motive, no confession, no identification, no weapon – threatens us all. Black and white.

These guys might be guilty. Maybe even probably. That isn’t the damn point. Beyond reasonable doubt is meant to be the threshold for a guilty verdict. This one is beyond fucking belief.

15 comments to “The Stephen Lawrence convictions are an affront to justice”

  1. Frank Fisher's blog : The Stephen Lawrence convictions are an affront to justice http://t.co/F3aqA54a

  2. @ShaunSayers Sure, my blog http://t.co/F3aqA54a points out pitfalls – the judge warned jury of contested forensics – so appeal will be hard

  3. Idiot. I presume by “proved” you mean “reasonable doubt”. Stop trying to make a name for yourself through attitude and try goo journalism.

    Yours,
    A more successful and long-standing journo than you’ll ever be.

  4. “A more successful and long-standing journo than you’ll ever be.”

    Oh it’s easy to be a successful journalist chum – you just don’t rock the boat.

    S’easy. You don’t question hoohahs of the day, you don’t ask, umm, how do we know they have WMD, you don’t query tossing out human rights for bad guys cus you never stop to think, umm, they’re our human rights too…

    And yes, I do, quaintly, think ‘proved’ means ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

    I think you mean ‘good’ journalism btw. ‘Goo’ journalism is that stuff Alistair Campbell used to do.

  5. Hey Frank, remember you from Guardian unlimited talk! (not so keen on CiF, though).

    Of course, the issue of the plausibility of the forensics was addressed by the forensics experts in the court.

    No forensics experts were called by the defence, because they couldn’t get a forensic expert who would agree with the the defence barrister’s theory that contamination was a plausible explanation for the forensics.

    So, in the question of ‘reasonable doubt’ (as compared to unreasonable, theoretical doubt), who are we to believe – highly trained experienced forensic scientists.

    Or Frank Fisher, a highly trained experienced internet ranting bloke, with many years of pulling random opinions from his backside?

    ps, I highly recommend you join us on GUT’s replacement, Notthetalk. We need some more reactionary old trolls to wind us up.

  6. So, in the question of ‘reasonable doubt’ (as compared to unreasonable, theoretical doubt), who are we to believe – highly trained experienced forensic scientists.

    Or Frank Fisher, a highly trained experienced internet ranting bloke, with many years of pulling random opinions from his backside?

    I refer you to the Barry George case…

    They were all wrong. I was right.

    Besides, did you read the article – the forensics lab themselves were concerned about cross contamination.

  7. “A more successful and long-standing journo than you’ll ever be.”

    Hahahaha. Anyone who writes anything like this is a massive tool who should not be listened to at any cost. Please become un-anonymous so we know from whom to extract the urine.

  8. Anyone who writes anything like this is a massive tool who should not be listened to at any cost

    I did kinda think that myself, but I dont’ like to insult my guests. Besides, I was hoping it’d be Johann Hari. I suspect someone at the Beeb though – the comment came immediately after one of my posts there was butchered.

  9. Was I that Adrian Wain, I would avoid going for any lonely walks in the woods should an appeal be raised.
    That Duwayne Brooks would bear a closer scrutiny too, cases for assault, rape, mugging and robbery mysteriously put on the back burner then dropped, abuse of process etc. Looks to me like someone protecting their star witness so the defence couldn’t rip him a new one on the stand.

  10. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100126940/your-arrogant-racism-is-part-of-londons-past-an-open-letter-to-stephen-lawrences-killers/#disqus_thread

    In the comments here. Dwayne Brooks is a dodgy bastard of no common order, he was a witness at the first trial, and so spectacularly bad it was thrown out, now all of a sudden he’s wonder boy. It stinks, it really does.

  11. The powers have milked this case for all it’s worth; it suits their Marxist narrative. It’s clear that procedures weren’t followed. Justice wasn’t done – the outcome was manufactured.

    Sean Gabb compares the case to one other – whose outcome was quite different.:

    http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/the-deaths-of-richard-everitt-and-stephen-lawrence-compare-and-contrast/#comment-41721

  12. Shabby evidence once again prevails. Incompetent panicky coppers once again heroized. Tabloids and so-called qualities remain in business. Two-faced smarmy lying politicians stay elected.

    The good that’s come out of this is overwhelming.

    Thanks for writing this piece Frank. Hope you return to Cif one day. But you’ll have to use a different user name and also stop telling pompous ignoramuses whose necks you’d like to wring out to fuck off.

    All the best.

  13. Is this article some kind of Joke? Typical bigoted self righteous nonsense. Laughable. The members were convicted based upon evidence, not fabrication. Move on, accept it. They are absolutely guilty, this isnt some case of black oppression against whites in a struggle to overcome a racist system that favours blacks men in the west. Grow up.

  14. You are not alone in your thinking Frank.

  15. it were a fit up . It were a long time coming but it were still a fit up

Leave a comment

XHTML - You can use:<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>