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
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.