Talk:Murder of Stephen Lawrence/Archive 1

Naming the suspects
Is there a reason the five suspects are not named in this article? I can't see any potential legal pitfall to recording the undisputed facts that they were the subject of prosecutions and were branded 'murderers' by the Daily Mail. ThomasHarte 13:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * ditto StrengthCoach 07:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * On two occasions its been attempted to try them for the murder, twice its failed. They are in the eyes of the law as innocent of this crime as you or I are to my knowledge. To publicly name and shame them would be inappropriate here I feel. And to use the Daily Mail image would not be allowed as their logo and article is copyright, and frankly thats just a poor work around so you can name them. I oppose naming 5 innocent people of this crime here until there is sufficient evidence for a retrial or likewise a successful conviction.


 * I agree with the above in terms of not naming them as murderers. It should be noted that the BBC has also [named] them as being accused of the murder. In the interest of Wikipedia consistency, if we can't list them as murderers, can we list them as 'accused' ? and if not, what steps will we be taking to ensure that Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson articles make no mention of any accusations of crime made against them too.
 * It's an interesting discussion; and I don't profess to have an answer.. If you want to see how this topic gets muddled up with ideology etc.. see the Oliver North talk page.
 * EasyTarget 10:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But that's utterly ridiculous. Mentioning them doesn't necessarily imply guilt. We have a whole article on Richard Ricci, whose only claim to fame is not being guilty of a famous crime. I'm sure the names can be mentioned in the appropriate context. It's not like we're talking about hearsay - these people have indisputably been put on trial or otherwise involved in the case --87.82.24.140 10:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The BBC has no inhibitions about naming the suspects and they employ lawyers who know the legal aspects of journalism backwards. Provided they're described as 'suspects' rather than 'murderers', I can't see a problem. Seeing as the suspects have declined to sue the Daily Mail for its famous front page, I can't see a problem even if we did.


 * "I oppose naming 5 innocent people" . The fact that a court of law did not find them guilty does not mean they are in fact innocent. They are a major part of the story. Clearly stating their names and the facts around the case is the way to go. Like a court of law Wikipedia should be NPOV. It is NPOV to say A,B,C,D,E were tried and found not guilty (due to lack of evidence), but Daily Mail named them as killers.

Is it possible to use this Daily Mail cover image in the article, or not? Sjjb 21:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 


 * I would have thought that anything to do with the Daily Mail should be taken with a pinch of salt. What exactly is meant by the "undisputed facts that they were the subjects of prosecutions and were branded 'murderers' by the Daily Mail"?  The inference seems to be that they were guilty, and should be named.  But people are not convicted merely by being charged and then being told by the Daily Mail that they are guilty.  From what I know of the facts, at least some and probably all of the five _were_ in fact guilty, but Idon't base that merely on the fact of a prosecution having been brought and the speculations of the tabloid press.  If one is going to go into all that happened in the aftermath of the murder, one should also mention the blatant misjudgment (no doubt motivated by publicity seeking) of Michael Mansfield and Imran Khan in bringing the private prosecution against the advice of the police and CPS (there being insufficient evidence at the time to secure a conviction - thanks inter alia to the flawed initial police investigation). The CPS could have taken over the prosecution and then suspended it until (as seems now to have happened) better evidence including DNA evidence emerged.  But then we know what the tabloids would have said - that the CPS stopped Mansfield and Khan obtaining justice.  MacPherson ducked dealing with this tricky issue simply by saying that the double jeopardy rule should be abolished - as if that would encourage an improvement in police and prosecutorial standards (instead it would reassure them to blunder on with other ineptly presented prosecutions in the knowledge that they could have another crack at the whip if it went wrong).
 * I think the Daily Mail front page would be fine to include: it is a historically notable event and would therefore be suitable since its inclusion would add depth to the article and be in the public interest, it's inclusion wouldn't devalue the original image (especially if it's at low resolution) and there's no better way to illustrate the event of naming the suspects. Malick78 (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspects
The names of the suspects ought to be added as they are in the public domain and they attracted most of the coverage at the time. I strongly feel that mentions of "parallels" with other racist murder cases are not inaccurate - the central issue of the case being the police's mishandling more than the crime itself - as convictions were secured in these cases. To suggest a "parallel" in the CASE (and not the crime)when the only common factor is motive carries a slightly disturbing racist subtext when the murder of a white is presented with the implicit suggestion that this is just the opposite equivalent.

Forget the Five
No, their names should not be mentioned. It used to be said that among British virtues was a sense of fair play including innocence until proved guilty, with laws together with vigilant media and politicians to maintain this ideal. With the five in mind such a claim can only answered with a howl of cynical disbelief. Every time some hack is short of a few bob, or the BBC runs out of repeats it is "hunt the five" time, and the theme is now so threadbare that it has now descended to the witch-hunters last resort - conspiracy theories involving peripheral characters.

A good example of the current hypocrisy surrounding this case is the Video of the five. Our stern guardians of liberty have been much concerned lately by the "Big Brother" implications of surveillance cameras. No rational person can object to covert surveillance to provide evidence of a crime, or to prevent one, but the video of the Five in the privacy of the home of one of them provides neither, a fact admitted even by their sworn enemies, the authors of the The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, AKA, The Macpherson Report , henceforth "Report". So why are copies of it and other zero information being handed out like paper hats at a kiddies' party to any Tom, Dick or Harry who feels like a spot of character assassination?

Let us consider the weaknesses in the so-called evidence.

One of the many unjust criticisms of the police investigation was of the delay of nearly two weeks before the suspects were arrested, homes searched etc.. The delay was quite rational. Three of the witnesses to the crime, including the closest, Brooks, Stephen's companion, agree that one of the leading attackers had longish fair hair and a description which in no way fitted any of the five. Report 21.24 to 21.30. This was the only description given with any degree of certainty.

The police did not want to scare him off by early arrests but kept observation on the five in the hope he would turn up, and the one thing certain in an uncertain world is that had they done otherwise they would have been criticised for over-precipitate action. The Blonde Attacker did not appear - could this be because he had different accomplices with no connection to our five?

They were in the frame in the first place because they had a bad reputation, (one of them was already under investigation for allegedly knifing a white victim) and some of them lived near the crime scene. Well, someone had to be nearest. Their problem is that those who were both capable of the crime and who could have been there were too numerous to follow up without some lead. To cope with just the racist violence in the area a special record was being kept by the police, so the failure to find the Blonde Attacker left the five standing alone solely by default plus accident of geography. If they lived a mile further off we would never have heard of them.

What about the Video of them making racist remarks? Well, in it they made unpleasant remarks about a number of people, old ladies and lottery winners among them, but they have never been accused of murders in this direction. However, those, such as the Inquiry, who consider it evidence overlook two vital points. First, there is no firm evidence that the murder was racist. (See Was It Racist).

Secondly, the murder took place in April 1993, and what counts is their state of mind then. The evidence is that although they were guilty of many things up to that date there is no evidence of racism. Report 35.12 "None of the five suspects in the Stephen Lawrence murder had cards in the Racial Incident Unit index. The reason for this is that until the Stephen Lawrence murder there were no identifiable crimes committed by the suspects which were infected with racism".

The Video was taken in December 1994, after over a year and a half after the crime during which time they had been accused, put on identity parades, they, their families, their friends and neighbours interrogated, their homes searched and some had actually been taken into custody on what many regarded as a "look busy" exercise during the visit to the Lawrence family of the black icon Nelson Mandella, as they were released immediately he left. Additionally they suffered various unofficial investigations by black activists, and the press. Anyone who could go through that mainly because of black suspicions and remain a wholehearted supporter of multiculturalism deserved canonisation, and they were far from saints to begin with. In short, this so-called Video "evidence" depends on reversing cause and effect.

Why then has it achieved so much prominence? The answer is Political Correctness. PC demands that no strongly held ethnic view be contradicted. The black community firmly believed both that the five were guilty, and that the crime was racist. The only way to square that circle was for the five to be racist, and with an absence of solid evidence it was time to clutch at straws.

But the main things in their favour are the results of the various investigations. These have involved three major police reviews, a public inquiry, an inquest, a trial, and a plethora of media and other amateur efforts, all of which have turned up nothing. However, every failed attempt to find evidence has made it more probable that they are failing because there is nothing to find, and that all we have seen is 14 years persecution of the innocent, preventing any chance of reformation.

Put up or shut up goes the adage, and until there is something other than the witless regurgitation of diddely-squat it is time to shut up about them. Having said which I follow my own advice. --GORDONEH 13:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes their names should be mentioned (which, indeed, they currently are). We aren't implying their guilt, we're just stating the fact that other people suspected their guilt. What's the problem? Malick78 (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Duwayne Brooks
I don't know much about this case but it occurs to me that it could possibly have been perpetrated by Duwayne Brooks. Was this ever looked into do we know?


 * He was never a suspect. If our not-so-wonderful Metropolitan Police could have pinned the blame on him, they would have done. Nunquam Dormio 16:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Take great care. Without the reply, the original comment under this heading could be construed as libellous. This is something Wikipedia needs to look into or it will be crippled one day by a huge lawsuit. Ericatom 00:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Three or four people at the bus stop in Well Hall Road would have
 * seen any stabbing of anyone by Brooks.

'see also' section
sadly, stephen lawrence's murder is not unique. i hesitate to accuse people of homophobia without being certain, but it must be suspicious, to say the least, that someone would cut the obvious parallel with Matthew Shepard, inter aliabus. jamaissur lemon or lime?


 * I don't see the relevance of links in the See Also section; other murders of teenagers, some are not even British? There must be thousands of these all over the world. If there is a context in which they are relevant, perhaps it could be stated. Imc 13:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

False statments of fact

 * Stephen Lawrence was not black. Like both parents, he was a mulatto.

The two, Lawrence and Brooks, had left the bus stop and walked some distance south before the incident began.
 * They walked about 50 yards South.

Re the walking about only. Fringe London busses run a network of interlocking and crossing routes, which often means that there is more than one way of getting from A to B. Unfortunately as the day wears on their timetables often owe more to hope than actuality. Also the various routes do not always use the same stopping place. Therefore it is not uncommon for those fit, able, and impatient enough to wander about keeping several stops in view in the hope of making a quick dash to the first one to aquire a bus. This is what the two friends were doing. --GORDONEH (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a song dedicated to the death of Stephen Lawrence. It is by MC Life, who is a part of the hip-hop group Phi Life Cypher. The Song is called " In memory" but it is pretty hard to find.

No photo

 * A photo does not appear in the article. It shows Lawrence giving a racialist salute

and wearing a shirt hinting at hashish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.211.197 (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

That is because, whilst what happened to Lawrence was clearly utterly abhorrent, he is now not allowed to be viewed as anything but a saint - anything questionable he may or may not have done during his life has been buried so deep that no one will ever know (apart from the almighty himself of course!). 81.154.251.104 15:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a link to the Macpherson Report. --Wakeford 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is already a link to the same.

BNP Theory
I have removed a sentence regarding a BNP theory on the Stephen Lawrence murder because it is not relevant. If you were to include it you may as well include every other absurd theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Was it Racist
The Stephen Lawrence murder is invariably described as racist, but this was doubted by many of those best placed to judge, the police who actually investigated it. Not that they disbelieved that racism might be a motive, but they were willing to keep an open mind as to other possibilities.

The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, AKA, The Macpherson Report,  par 6.21 ".... a substantial number of officers of junior rank would not accept that the murder of Stephen Lawrence was simply and solely racially motivated..." 19.34 .... "Throughout his evidence he made it emphatically clear that he refused to recognise that the attack was purely racist..". 19.35 "... Officers indicate that as many as 50% of those involved believed that this was the true analysis of the case."

One would think that an informed professional opinions by those familiar with the area was at least worthy of consideration, but, 19.37 "This attitude ....  is to be deplored. ... "

What were these deplorable other options?. The two most plausible are, first that it was a random killing either for the sake of it or to blood a new gang member 19.34 "..They were thugs who were out to kill, not particularly a black person, but anybody and I believe that to this day that that was thugs, not racism, just pure bloody minded thuggery. "

Second that despite his good character it was a directed against Lawrence himself in a case of mistaken identity. If personal he would certainly have known his attackers, but though he survived the attack for a minute or two and spoke to his close friend Mr. Brooks who was with him he gave no indication. One suggestion was that he had been mistaken by a local gang as a poaching drug-dealer, it was dark, he was muffled up against the cold, and he and his companion had been roaming the area playing the game familiar to all suburban Londoners of "hunt the bus".

How do these compare with the racist theory?. We may discount the mixed race element since as we are always told when the colours are reversed a racist motive does not necessarily follow. True, racists attacks were known in the area, but so were random violence and drug conflicts.

Much has been made of a so-called "racist shout" of "What or what, what nigger", heard by Mr. Brooks, but though there is no reason to doubt that the words were uttered the evidence is against them being shouted. There were witnesses at a nearby bus stop, close enough for one of whom (who was white) to fear that he might be a target, (which somewhat tells against the race hypothesis), but none heard anything.

21.23 "Mr. W did not hear any words used during the attack. Indeed he remarked upon the relative silence in which it took place. He heard only Mr. Brooks calling out to Stephen to run. As he got onto the bus which came almost at once he felt a shiver of apprehension when he thought to himself that the attack seemed so motiveless that it might have been levelled at him if the two boys had not been there."

If you are a tyro gang member waiting to be tested, or if you have been hastily recruited by your local drug baron and are told "get the nigger" and you see two of them then "what nigger" meaning "which nigger" is not an improbable question.

Indeed, for a five or six assailants making a murderous racist attack one spoken "what nigger" rates fairly low on the abuse scale, and it can be argued that the absence of racist abuse tells against the race hypothesis.

Another weakness in the race theory is the treatment, or rather lack of it, of Mr. Brooks. Why ignore him when they could have had two for one? This is explicable in the blooding theory, as one was enough, and in the mistaken identity case as Lawrence was the target and Brooks regarded an unimportant hanger on.

None of this is conclusive as people do not always behave rationally under stress, and we may assume that carrying out a cold blooded murder in front of witnesses to be stressful, but nevertheless it is grounds for thought. All three motives are plausible, and although we may all have our favourite what is so deplorable about keeping an open mind?

The Inquiry's answer : 19.37 ... "The basic trouble with the officers' attitude is that any suggestion that this was not a purely racist murder is understandably anathema to Mr & Mrs Lawrence and indeed to the black community. They know, and so do we, that this was a totally unprovoked racist murder ... It is insensitive and untenable to suggest that this was or might have been a motiveless crime or even a crime of mixed motives". 19.38 " ... We consider that their inability to accept that the murder was racist is a manifestation of ...  their own unwitting collective racism."

This statement is interesting as it shows the part paid by Political correctness in the Inquiry, but with all due respect an opinion is just an opinion and not a proof of the race theory or any other, and to use it as the basis for the accusation of racism on the part of those who kept an open mind is a damnable injustice.

Therefore though race remains a possible motive for the attack there is no reason as yet for preferring it to any of the non-racial options.

GORDONEH 14:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Metropolitan

 * The Police in London initially said that the two 18-year old youths were going towards

a young white girl. The Police said, "We know who she is. She knows who she is. She has never made a statement." See http://www.met.police.uk/appeals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.193.77 (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See http://web.archive.org/web/20040202051301/www.met.police.uk/policegazette/index.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.209.191 (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Political Correctness"
I came here because this story was in the news today and i know nothing about it; i am now completely confused. What does this paragraph mean: ''In February 1997, the Daily Mail, a right wing tabloid abandoned its printed front page accusing supporters of Stephen Lawrence of "political correctness gone mad", when Daily Mail Editor in Chief realised Stephen's father, Neville Lawrence had built an extension to his house. '' Why did the Mail abandon its front page, why was it accusing certain people of political correctness, and what did that all have to do with an extension to the house? I'm sure these are clear to people who lived through the case, but me...? Nope. Cheers, Lindsay 07:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is right-wing, as the article says, and as I remember it, the political correctness accusation was to do with them making a big deal over the murder of a black boy when white kids were killed and went less remarked. The paper abandoned the front page because the editor in chief knew Stephen Lawrence's father and... didn't want to upset him, I guess? Katharineamy 10:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

New word

 * In the version of the main article appearing on 9/11/07, the word "witnesses" has been introduced. It would be interesting to hear their names.

D.Brooks is the only one who claims to have heard the remarks we have heard about.
 * Did you read the reference? It also says it here too  . Also can you sign your name (including on my talk page). Ta. Sue Wallace (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian article does use the plural "witnesses" but does not give their names or otherwise identify them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, no, no names, probably for protection, anonymity or something? Weird how they can't remember anything though, maybe they all caught amnesia. Sue Wallace (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the witnesses, who are named in the Macpherson Report par 1.4 were not shy. They did things considerably more risky than hearing a few words. They gave detailed statements to the police (see Report par 21.22 et seq.), and attended identification parades. Also two of them did something potentially even more dangerous - they gave a description of one of the attackers which agrees with that given by Brooks. Therefore when they say they heard nothing there is no reason to disbelieve them. Brooks was closer than they, so the simple explanation is that the words were spoken, maybe in conversation between the attackers, (see Was it Racist above) and not shouted as claimed. Incidentally, the description of the attacker agreed by all three witnesses in no way fits any of the so-called suspects bandied about so freely on the WIKI site, which is the reason many take an "innocent until proved guilty" attitude towards them.. I hope to amend the main site in due course, but as a new WIKIite I am still trying to make sense of the protocol - apparently even my personal sandbox has broken some rule or other. GORDONEH (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest we all make amendements for accuracy then, this is an important article. Sue Wallace (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove names of so-called 'suspects'
I intend to remove the names of the so-called 'suspects' as they have been continually found innocent, and can see no reason Wikipedia should be used as a platform to blacken their names.

Also see article critical of their constant harassment: 'The Boys Who Killed Stephen Lawrence'?

Tottenhamlad (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not NPOV
The article generally reads as not NPOV, and tending to minimize the reality of the institutional racism discovered. 86.201.22.46 (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 86.201.22.46 should give details of any "racism". It suits some to be broad and imprecise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.132.123 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"Witness as catalyst"
In the section Witnesses, it says:


 * In 2004, the police stated: "The witness who appeared on the right of the scene and walked into Rochester Way with Stephen and Duwayne behind is very important to us. We know who this witness is, she knows who she is, we know what she knows. She has never made a statement. This witness may have been the catalyst for the attack".

What is this supposed to mean? --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Could mean that the attackers thought a white woman was with black guys, but it's too euphemized to be sure... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Macpherson Report
Wikipedia could really do with a separate article on the Macpherson report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.228.106.147 (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox
I've drafted up a couple of infoboxes as there's an "needs-infobox=yes" in this page's header. I don't mind if one of these is used or not, but they're here if anyone wants to add/expand/use them. matt (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As a general rule, I don't like infoboxes of this type, as they just repeat information that's already in the article. But I understand that others feel differently about them, so I won't object if somebody adds one of the above infoboxes to the article. Graham 87 07:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo
Could a photo of Lawrence be included? It would seem an obvious case of WP:NFCI criteria 10.--FormerIP (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me, but somebody else will have to upload it. I don't deal with images because I'm totally blind, as it says on my user page. Graham 87 07:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Metropolitan Police deception
The Metropolitan Police are making determined attempts to suppress the fact that the two 18-year old Caribbean youths were chasing a young white girl. This was on their own site in 2004. Then they took it off, as too revealing. It is still in the archive version of the Met site. Note that Wnjr is a sock-puppet of the Met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.127.78 (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to this reference in the Met site archive, otherwise the allegation will continue to be deleted as unsourced. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The link is in Archive 1 of this Talk page, which gives the wayback archive link to the old Met site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.127.78 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See the paragraph entitled "Metropolitan" in Archive 1 of this Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.127.78 (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked there, couldn't see anything about it either in the wayback machine or on the met page. I've added a CN for now, but if you can't provide an actual source this will just be removed again. Markleci (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just used the wayback machine well so you are not trying much. Click on "Stephen Lawrence" and on the second link from the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.127.78 (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok found it. I was using the wayback link before but it doesn't link directly to the page. Here is exactly what the previous anon is referring to. This is really vague, but I would value a second opinion as to whether this should be included at all or not. There is no mention of any provocation. 'The witness who appeared on the right of the screen and walked into Rochester        Way with Stephen and Duwayne behind is very important to us. We know who        this witness is, she knows who she is, we know what she knows. She has        never made a statement. This witness may have been the catalyst for the attack. What happens now is unclear.' Markleci (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As with Markleci I've looked and can confirm what was said. I didn't see anywhere that the police said SL or DB were chasing anyone, simply mention of this witness as well as mention in another place of a single white female walking alone and passing the two (in another place). Until and unless a source is provided the OP's claim should be kept out of the article, particularly as a LP is involved. If the OP is still claiming it is there, I suggest they provide a direct link rather then beating about the bush. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I wonder if that could the person referred to in Murder of Stephen Lawrence: "In February 1999, officers investigating the handling of the initial inquiry revealed that a woman who might have been a vital witness had telephoned detectives three times within the first few days after the killing, and appealed for her to contact them again", in which case it is already covered. In any case there's absolutely no justification for the anon's "provocative incident" addition. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Markleci and Nil Einne. This page says a woman "appeared on the right of the screen and walked into Rochester Way with Stephen and Duwayne behind".  This does not imply "chasing".  The woman may have been a witness and was probably part of the initial police investigation, but there's no reason to believe the Metropolitan Police thought the victim was chasing her.  I've also read all seven Wayback captures of this page (click on "Stephen Lawrence murder") and all six Wayback captures of this page from 2003-2004, and there is no reference to any suggestion that the victim might have been chasing a female.
 * Furthermore, there's no reason to believe the Metropolitan Police have been "suppressing" this information. In fact, the Metropolitan Police were accused of being too lenient on the gang the committed the attack, so if they had any information that might have cast doubts on the lawfulness of the victim, they would surely have publicized the information, not suppressed it.
 * 213.120.127.78 is continually reposting unsourced information and should be blocked. Johnson487682 (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Hyperlinks
"Sir William Macpherson" links to the wrong Macpherson (going by dates of birth/death). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.219.104 (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed this, too. Checking the name on Wikipedia turns up no other person by that name who could be the right one, so I'm going to un-wikilink the name for now. If the person who headed the report is a significant figure, someone should create an article for him, but for now there isn't one. Lawikitejana (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That was my mistake I think, so sorry about that. I have started a biography for him now -- William Macpherson (judge) -- and have update this article accordingly. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Contradictions
Those standing at the bus stop in Well Hall Road said that they never heard any remarks about a bus. The three at the bus stop also said that the attackers attacked in silence, without making the racialist remark that Brooks claims to have heard. Thus, Brooks has been contradicted repeatedly. Treacy claimed that a "taunt" was used, ignoring the contradiction. Brooks's claim that a meaningless sentence, "What, what, n*gger?", was used, is very implausible. Native speakers of English do not usually produce meaningless sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.147.186 (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph now says "witnesses" in the plural and "slogans" in the plural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.147.186 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you will find that the words is not altogether meaningless, as a racial slur was used. The "what what?" part may not have any meaning, but the other word certainly does. And everyone whose paid attention to this case is aware of the fact the people at the bus stop didn't hear anything, but what are you implying? That this attack was not unprovoked? We don't publish unsourced speculation. --Nutthida (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does publish logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.122.68 (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Mansfield
Mansfield seems to have taken cases 'pro Mansfield'. Pamour (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Secret motives

 * There is nothing to be gained by speculation on the secret motives of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.162.31 (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What, precisely, are you referring to? Graham 87 15:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am referring to the remark made by User:Pamour above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.68.22 (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Channel 4 'Dispatches' programme
A heads-up for this programme on 24 June 2013 which might have useful info, expanding on this Guardian story (for which I've added a sentence in the article).--A bit iffy (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

nelson mandela
he is not mentioned, yet according to the bbc he was intrumental in the proceedings

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22441124 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.183.83 (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That link concerns the Cleveland, Ohio kidnappings.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 178.191.183.83 seems to be seriously confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.80.215 (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Read the article that 178.191.183.83 has posted a little more carefully. It does indeed mention Nelson Mandela and the Stephen Lawrence case. No confusion at all. 217.40.202.110 (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The BBC article says, "Mandela ... reached out to the Lawrences". If that is veiwed by 217.40.202.110 as important or significant, he is welcome to his silly opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.72.219 (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

2014
This case is still being actively followed, with lots of BBC tweets linked to articles about it. Please keep up. 71.163.117.143 (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

racial murder?
What exactly is the evidence of this being a "racial murder"? --41.151.11.130 (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This. I've added a footnote.  I suppose there's a difference between racial and racist, but that reference uses "racial".  Plenty of others use the phrase "racist murder", though. matt (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there any evidence that the murder was "racially motivated"? For years that term has been used, despite the crime being unsolved. That seems to be putting the cart before the horse, as it were.122.59.83.216 (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Stephen Lawrence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927205459/http://www.flonnet.com/fl2103/stories/20040213004411900.htm to http://www.flonnet.com/fl2103/stories/20040213004411900.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Introduction is a bit confusing
The second paragraph of the introduction is a bit confusing. It starts off talking about how 5 suspects were arrested but not charged. Then it talks about double jeopardy, and needing to repeal double jeopardy without first introducing charges or a trial. As someone who is unfamiliar with the UK criminal justice system, it is unclear to me which action caused double jeopardy to be applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A44F:A766:1:7984:25B7:E974:380B (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Frank Ellis citation in bibliography?
Why is someone who has been suspended from the University of Leeds for racism, who has endorsed the BNP and contributed to white supremacist newspapers being referenced in the bibliography of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.144.13 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)