The Stephen Lawrence Murder “Trial” – Political Justice at Work


Note: Had I been on the jury, I would have refused, regardless of the evidence, to convict the alleged killers of St Stephen Lawrence. So these men could be dragged into court for their show trial, an ancient and essential principle of English law had to be overturned – the principle that a man cannot be tried twice for the same alleged offence. For this reason alone, the whole process was illegitimate. It should have been the duty of any Englishman empanelled on that jury to acquit. That the “evidence” supplied was a sick joke from beginning to end should have been only an additional reason the throw the case out. Sean Gabb

By D.J.Webb

I am distressed to hear of the Crown Prosecution Service and police working together to pin crimes with no evidence on young men. We have political crimes in this country, where the state wishes to find someone guilty, and it doesn’t really matter who as long as the person is someone who could be regarded as unattractive from a left-wing perspective. I myself am opposed to the immigration of non-white people into this country, and so I am exactly the sort of person who they would under other circumstances have been happy to frame for Stephen Lawrence’s murder, although I never met the guy.

Think about the killing of PC Blakelock – his killer roams free, as a politically inspired decision to let the killer out was imposed on the courts. But in the case of Stephen Lawrence – there is no evidence against any of the 5 men supposed to have killed him. There is no video evidence or any other evidence. They were secretly taped in their homes and elsewhere for thousands of hours, and the tapes showed no evidence against them – quite the contrary – they are said to have been bemused (“the real killers must be laughing to see us accused”). After 18 years, the police now claim that a microscopic speck of St. Stephen’s blood was found on one of the men’s clothing. So microscopic it was not detected by forensic scientists 18 years ago! Would stabbing someone lead to more than a speck of blood too small to detect? It doesn’t stack up.

I am afraid that it is not beyond our police to have planted the evidence after 18 years. If the speck was not detected back then, then it wasn’t there then. The killer would have more than a speck too small to detect on his clothing.

The fact that the men frequently discussed racialist themes in their houses and had knives is no sort of evidence against them. It is suggested that videos of their conversations on these themes prove they killed St. Stephen, but the whole of English justice collapses if such “evidence” is regarded as of any bearing. Proof of direct involvement is the only thing that counts.

This business of changing the law to allow retrospective reprosecution (double jeopardy) strikes me as something only a dictator would do. Not only must justice be done, but it must be done in line with established procedures without abuse of power, which is what such retrospective laws amount to.

It is sickening to read that 120 policemen were devoted to this case, which has cost £50m, when others have been killed and haven’t attracted a fraction of the media attention or police resources, due to the colour of their skins.

I have no idea whether the 5 men did it or not. But I do know that the decision handed down recently was a politically motivated one where the men stood little chance of justice – given media coverage it is hard to see how any of the five could possible get a fair trial. The whole of English justice rests on the principle that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than to imprison one innocent one. Sadly, we now have administrative justice, with the court case providing the barest of figleafs to the essentially bureaucratically ordered nature of the verdict.

About these ads

6 responses to “The Stephen Lawrence Murder “Trial” – Political Justice at Work

  1. Hi Sean another excellent article concerning double jeapardy.I cannot believe this was abolished from the framework od british justice after 700 years.The repeal makes a mockery of the Justice System and the cohorts who implimented it.You can be retried for serios crimes if futher evidence is available later on.Come on how open to corruption and false evidence is this.Let us look
    again at the combatants in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act,David Blunkett,Tony Blair,And Lord Goldsmith the Attorney General.
    Tony Blair with his massive porkie the threat of weapons of Mass Destruction the murder of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan,the probable murder of his polical opponents and now convicted of War Crimes agaist Humanity with fellow protagonist George Bush.
    The Atorney General who announced it was unlawful to invade Iraq then changed his mind.Last of all David Blunkett the Home Secretary,and his lustful impregnation of a married woman,using his office to fast track the visa of of the lovers nanny and non registry of directors expenses as Health Secretary.Blir commented that Blunketts integrity was intact until another affair with somebody elses wife.Surely Lucy Blunketts guide dog would hve done a better job and shown better judgement when Blunkett was exposed to blackmail.Did Blair in tend to use him as a sniper in Iraq.Perhaps that was the evil idea to deprive us of our lifelong freedom by employing a blind man who could possibly imagine the draught he was signing into law or be exposed as the most villified Home Secretary in history.Slippery Jack must have been involved in this plot too.
    I believe recently it stated that the samples of the defendents were stored on top of the victims clothing or underneath increasing the likelihood of contamination and justice will prevail at the court of appeal.
    Regards
    Stan

    David Blunkettjetisoned from his position of Home Secretary for impregnating somebody elses wife and claiming paternity of the baby,using the home office to speed up the visa of the nanny of his mistress,omitting to disclose his business interests as Heath minister and involved in an afair with somebody elses wife.
    Tony Blair and the weapons of maass destruction lie and the murder of his opponents to regime change,currently indicted for War Crimes with fellow warmonger George Bush

  2. Glad to see that I am not the only person who finds this verdict deeply disturbing.

    It was only made possible by a +retrospective+ law that allows the state to prosecute someone it doesn’t like, for the same offence, as many times as it likes until it can convict them.

    That is potentially a very large building block in building the type of totalitarian society where no one ever feels quite safe from the state.

    It is often said that hard cases make bad law, and this case amply proves the point.

  3. Andrew Withers

    Jack Straw who abolished double jeopardy also ensured that the common law offence of Misconduct in Public Office was not made into a statutory offence so that corrupt public officials could only be charged with lesser offences and Misconduct which carried a potential life sentence was downgraded to a ‘aggravating’ issue. Looking after their own as ever

  4. derek john evans

    how ..long ..do ..we …stand …for this …crime..against ..us the people of ENGLAND..YOU KNOW….THE ..ENGLISH ,know one in government has the [balls] .to stand up and say they got it wrong multiculturalism doesent work, and that this is the problem that’s causeing all the trouble we are getting in England, the london…and brixham riot’s was put down to youths and poverty ..like hell it was, if you dont admit you where wrong ,it will keep comeing back with a vengence, this was proved in brixham ..ignored .followed by tottenham,irest my case

  5. This is a very worrying case that clearly shows how the Legal system has been twisted and bent for political purposes.

    I don’t know if they were guilty or not, I do know that there is no way that they received a fair trial. This was a show trial and when a country starts having show trials all of us are less safe and less secure and less free.