Lawrence case corruption probe

#1
An investigation is being launched over claims that police corruption helped shield the killers of black teenager Stephen Lawrence from conviction.

link here
 
#2
I swear I have just been on holiday to the certain Spanish island shown on Newsnight. I actually drank in that Davidson blokes pub. Everyone there knew he was a retired copper. He had the worst lager on the island so I only went once. It was weird seeing it on the telly I thought I was dreaming !
 
#3
Who'd of thought eh ? More bent plod :x
 

chrisg46

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
Can the case be re-opened? If memory serves the gang that is generally held to be the attackers did actually go to trial but were acquitted. Can they go to trial again if more evidence is found, or if this guy is proven to be bent?
 
#6
[q]
"Davidson told me that he was looking after Norris and that to me meant that he was protecting him, protecting his family against arrest and any conviction," Mr Putnam said.

"From my conversation that I had with John Davidson on that day, I would say that John Davidson was receiving cash from Clifford Norris by his expression that he was using it was, he was getting a little earner out of it - it was a good little earner.

[/q]

Could it be that he was protecting the "innocent until proven guilty?" It sounds to be like this guy has found another way to earn a fee from an interview and thus profiting from his own illegal action. Sour grapes?

I don't know the truth and this guy could be corrupt, or maybe not, but there should be a ban on bringing it up in the press until the investigation has been completed! I bet if the investigation finds nothing then the press don't make as big a fuss out of being wrong and thus slurring his character!
 
#7
chrisg46 said:
Can the case be re-opened? If memory serves the gang that is generally held to be the attackers did actually go to trial but were acquitted. Can they go to trial again if more evidence is found, or if this guy is proven to be bent?
Yes it can go back to a re-trial as they were acquitted. The original trial Judge, the late Judge Richardson left the door open to a re-trail by acquitting the gang.
 
#8
At the time there were stories pointing out the links between Norris and organised South London Crime and the suspicious inacitivyt of the Met in Private Eye and Scallywag. Scallywag was a North London scandal rag that was sued by John Major for claiming he was having an affair -with the Downing Street Caterer.
 
#9
Pteranadon said:
At the time there were stories pointing out the links between Norris and organised South London Crime and the suspicious inacitivyt of the Met in Private Eye and Scallywag. Scallywag was a North London scandal rag that was sued by John Major for claiming he was having an affair -with the Downing Street Caterer.
Evidence will not be used as the basis of an application for retrial if the evidence was in the possession of the prosecution at the time of the original trial, but withheld for tactical reasons.
 
#10
Well I would'nt mind some luxury time with Edwina Curry.................................

If this taking a bung is true then I welcome a re trial.

What I don't welcome is Mrs Doreen Lawrence gobbing off again. Her previous vicious attack on all police should have been nipped in the bud rather than allowed to ruin policing as it did.

I hope that Sir Ian Blair will control her in the event of her starting up again, but I doubt that he will.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#11
Judge_John said:
Pteranadon said:
At the time there were stories pointing out the links between Norris and organised South London Crime and the suspicious inacitivyt of the Met in Private Eye and Scallywag. Scallywag was a North London scandal rag that was sued by John Major for claiming he was having an affair -with the Downing Street Caterer.
Evidence will not be used as the basis of an application for retrial if the evidence was in the possession of the prosecution at the time of the original trial, but withheld for tactical reasons.[/quote

Makes you wonder if we should leave the 'adverserial' system for the 'inquisitorial' I feel.
 
#12
Silly question... but if the prosecution failed due to corruption... does this mean that the whole institutional racist thing was the wrong conclusion and if so can the police get back to dealing with spiralling levels of street crime without being labelled racist?
 
#13
Warrior_Poet said:
Silly question... but if the prosecution failed due to corruption... does this mean that the whole institutional racist thing was the wrong conclusion and if so can the police get back to dealing with spiralling levels of street crime without being labelled racist?
I doubt very much this new evidence was known at the orginal trial. Had it been then this would have been gold dust to the prosecution. The defendants were not aquitted due to corruption.
 
#14
There are a lot of aspects to this case that don't sit well, one of them being the possibility that the motive was in fact drugs related rather than racial. Given the background of the suspects then perhaps a mixture of police corruption and outside pressure resulted in an almighty cock up. Seems to me that this entire episode has been used to further policial aims rather than further the interests of justice. Was the aquittal of the subjects due to pressure being applied to the investigators and the prosecution for instance?
 
#15
Warrior_Poet said:
There are a lot of aspects to this case that don't sit well, one of them being the possibility that the motive was in fact drugs related rather than racial. Given the background of the suspects then perhaps a mixture of police corruption and outside pressure resulted in an almighty c*** up. Seems to me that this entire episode has been used to further policial aims rather than further the interests of justice. Was the aquittal of the subjects due to pressure being applied to the investigators and the prosecution for instance?
It's hard to say but that's why the late Justice Richardson imposed an aquittal so the door was left open for the case to be picked up on again. Good old Justice Richardson!.
 
#16
What surprises me is that this case has to be the most raked over one since the Jack the Ripper enquiry. Subsequent investigations were coinducted by some of the best detectives in the country including Grieve. If these allegations and suggestions hold any water don't you think that someone might have noticed that an experienced detective was making some very strange decisions/actions? Add to that that the Met then had to allow itself to be labelled incompetent and racist as an institution.
I won't hold my breath but I don't think that anything exciting will come from this programme but no doubt the same PC brigade who jumped on the institutional racism bandwagon will yet again turn the Met into a playgound over this.
 
#17
western said:
What surprises me is that this case has to be the most raked over one since the Jack the Ripper enquiry. Subsequent investigations were coinducted by some of the best detectives in the country including Grieve. If these allegations and suggestions hold any water don't you think that someone might have noticed that an experienced detective was making some very strange decisions/actions? Add to that that the Met then had to allow itself to be labelled incompetent and racist as an institution.
I won't hold my breath but I don't think that anything exciting will come from this programme but no doubt the same PC brigade who jumped on the institutional racism bandwagon will yet again turn the Met into a playgound over this.
There was a lack of command and the lack of organisation it's sad to say right from the start when the first Police Officer's who took the call arrived at the murder scene. This was highlighted in the SIR William Macpherson report:

DS Davidson was guilty of a combination of failures and mistakes which if unexplained were "sufficiently fundamental that they provide a basis for inferring either gross negligence, or worse an attempt to thwart the effectiveness of the investigation".
 
#18
John wrote:

DS Davidson was guilty of a combination of failures and mistakes which if unexplained were "sufficiently fundamental that they provide a basis for inferring either gross negligence, or worse an attempt to thwart the effectiveness of the investigation".

Which may be fair comment but labelling the whole Met racist as a result of one officers incompetence and or corruption which led directly to a reduction in stop and search and therefore a large increase in violent streetcrime was grossly irresponsible.
 
#19
Warrior_Poet said:
John wrote:

DS Davidson was guilty of a combination of failures and mistakes which if unexplained were "sufficiently fundamental that they provide a basis for inferring either gross negligence, or worse an attempt to thwart the effectiveness of the investigation".

Which may be fair comment but labelling the whole Met racist as a result of one officers incompetence and or corruption which led directly to a reduction in stop and search and therefore a large increase in violent streetcrime was grossly irresponsible.
Agreed Warrior, The policies and direction of the Met Police are certainly not racist. However Unwitting racism can arise because of lack of understanding.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top