Stephen Lawrence

@thin ice wrote:

the fox quip implies she has clouded vision jay

I would guess that everyone has their own views and debate is about being able to discuss things reasonably

As I said before there are good points on both sides of this debate and it would be good if it continued as a debate

ROTFLMAO Love the way the word Elbow replaces what I actually wrote ” Fundamental Orifice “

Well, such a high profile case. The whole country (apart from the racists) have breathed a sigh of relief. Justice for Stephen and his family. A landmark case hopefully, and messages to racist thugs beware! We hope.
And it’s taken less than a page of seriousness.
Hang your heads in shame.

@panda12 wrote:

@j_in_france wrote:

@thin ice wrote:

yea but you some one who thinks a fox is cute
not exactly convincing are you :P

not sure what a fox has to do with this thread but…..

For there to be an appeal there has to be a significant reason of doubt to contradict the verdict – whether that is possible I don’t know and it will be interesting to see if the defence are able to find a case for that

I do agree with the point that the press these days have a huge influence in peoples views of what could happen in various cases, for example the Jo Yeates case and the vilification of the landlord

Referral to foxes is because thin ice can’t think of anything further to say in support of these racist thugs and his belief they didn’t have a fair trial, despite the evidence and the best efforts of the judge.

I agree with your post regarding the appeal.

The landlord in the Jo Yeates case was very wrongly vilified but justice prevailed in the end and it would have been very unlikely that Chris Jeffries would ever have faced trial as there simply wasn’t enough evidence against him. One also needs to remember that the actual perpetrator, Vincent Tabak, pointed the finger at Jefferies which led to the latter’s arrest.

I don’t agree however, that the press has a huge influence over the views of all the members of the jury.

A member or two perhaps could be tempted to look beyond the actual evidence presented but then they have to justify their verdict to the rest of the jury and that is not easily done, hence the reason there are 12 members of the jury who either all have to agree, or in some cases, a 10 / 2 majority verdict is accepted.

Jurors are warned that if they go and research the case online that it is an offence.

If a juror who pulls a sickie , or a juror who contacts the defendent via Facebook can be found out and be prosecuted, a juror who uses the internet / media to introduce “new evidence” in the retiring room would soon be rumbled unless one thinks all the other jurors would gladly dispense with the evidence and their own integrity to give their verdict based on nothing but heresy.

Perhaps they could.

Perhaps they could all be bribed – after all, it has been alleged that Clifford Norris’s did it once for his son David when he was on trial for attempted murder:

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16141572

However, I can’t see the Lawrence’s resorting to such underhanded tactics as bribery to secure this conviction.

Panda – I never mentioned anything about jury’s – I just said about peoples perception of things being influenced by media coverage – whether jury’s are influenced by media coverage I would not comment upon