transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:06] This is Crime House.

Speaker 2:
[00:11] Hope plays a huge role in our lives. It can keep us going in hard times, and give us an extra push when we need it. But sometimes hope can also hurt us, especially when the thing you want completely depends on someone else's actions. No one knows this better than Doreen Lawrence. In the aftermath of her son Stephen's brutal and unjust murder, Doreen held on to hope that his killers would face the consequences they deserved. But time and time again, the justice system failed her. Still, Doreen clung to her last shreds of hope, until finally, she crossed paths with the one person who could help her win a decades long fight. The human mind is powerful. It shapes how we think, feel, love and hate. But sometimes it drives people to commit the unthinkable. This is Serial Killers & Murderous Minds, a Crime House original. I'm Vanessa Richardson.

Speaker 3:
[01:24] And I'm Forensic Psychologist, Dr. Tristan Engels. Every Monday and Thursday, we uncover the darkest minds in history, analyzing what makes a killer.

Speaker 2:
[01:34] Crime House is made possible by you. Follow Serial Killers & Murderous Minds and subscribe to Crime House Plus on Apple Podcasts for ad-free early access to each two-part series. Before we get started, be advised that this episode contains discussion of racism, hate crimes and murder. Today, we conclude our deep dive into the tragic murder of Stephen Lawrence. Stephen's death was the result of a hate crime. And in her fight for justice, his mother Doreen helped uncover layers of police incompetence and corruption.

Speaker 3:
[02:10] As Vanessa goes through the story, I'll be talking about things like the dangerous appeal that racist ideology has to people looking for scapegoats, how institutional racism hinders investigations, and the process of grief and how it can be channeled into a strong sense of purpose.

Speaker 2:
[02:28] And as always, we'll be asking the question, what makes a killer? If you've tried to lose weight before, you know how frustrating it can be to feel like nothing really sticks. The cycle of starting over again and again can get exhausting. That's why Weight Loss by Hers is designed to offer a more sustainable approach, with access to an affordable range of FDA-approved GLP-1 medications, including the Wigovie Pill and the Wigovie Pen. With Wigovie through Hers, you can lose up to 20% or more of your body weight when combined with diet and exercise. It works by helping regulate your appetite so you can eat less and maintain progress over time. And for those looking for an alternative to injections, it's also available as the first GLP-1 in a pill. Ready to reach your goals? Visit forhers.com/serial to get personalized, affordable care that gets you. That's forhers.com/serial. Weight loss by Hers is not available in all 50 states. Wigovie is the registered trademark of Novo Nordisk AS. To get started and learn more, including important safety information, Wigovie clinical study information and restrictions, visit forhers.com.

Speaker 4:
[03:49] If you're the proud parent of a Pavier kitten, you know you can't pet proof your entire life. There simply isn't a sock drawer high enough or a couch cover thick enough. But you can pet proof your wallet with Lemonade Pet Insurance. Whether it's an unexpected accident or a routine checkup, Lemonade can cover up to 90 percent of the bill. Plus, they can handle claims in as little as two seconds. So before you turn into a complete helicopter pet parent, get a quote at lemonade.com/pet.

Speaker 2:
[04:17] On April 22, 1993, 18-year-old Stephen Lawrence was suddenly attacked and stabbed to death. The authorities identified five suspects who were all members of a local gang known as the Eltham Craze. Their names were Neil Acourt, Jamie Acourt, Gary Dobson, David Norris, and Luke Knight. Despite a mountain of tips naming these teenage boys as Stephen's attackers, the Metropolitan Police reportedly didn't do much to investigate them. So Stephen's mother, Doreen, took up the fight for justice herself and brought Neil, Gary, and Luke to court in a private case. But in April of 1996, they were found not guilty on a technicality. And because of the double jeopardy laws in place at the time, they couldn't be tried for Stephen's murder ever again. In other words, they got away with it. Doreen was in shambles. She took the next 10 months to heal and regroup. Then on February 10th, 1997, she had to pick herself up and prepare to keep fighting, because inquest hearings were set to begin. Inquests are meant to investigate the circumstances surrounding someone's death. In cases of possible murder, they usually occur much sooner. But the Lawrence's had asked for a delay. It wasn't another trial per se, but it could give the family some answers. And now, Doreen was ready to take another shot at justice. When the proceedings began, the medical examiner first took the stand to explain how violent Stephen's death had been. And when it was Doreen's turn to speak, she explained that the authorities didn't bother to come speak to her and Neville until the day after Stephen died. And when they finally did, Doreen felt like they victim blamed Stephen. It was enough to cause the jury to question things. Just four days into the inquest, the jury ruled that Stephen had been killed in a hate crime. But it wasn't just Doreen's powerful statement or the evidence presented by the medical examiner that prompted this ruling. It was the suspects themselves. All five of the Eltham craze had been called to testify at the inquest. And when they each took the stand, they refused to answer any questions. They wouldn't even state their names. The jury felt like it was an intentional mockery. Especially since everyone knew about how the young men had been behaving ever since their cases were thrown out. They'd reportedly been going out to bars together, flaunting their weapons and openly embracing their image as racist thugs.

Speaker 3:
[06:56] Let's talk about their behavior because in an inquest, they do have the right not to answer questions if those responses could potentially incriminate them. At the same time, unlike in a criminal trial, the jury is allowed to draw inferences from their silence. But they already had been acquitted in a highly public case, and that can shift how someone perceives risk and consequences. So if they believed that they've avoided accountability, that can create a sense of immunity. So their perception of the need to engage seriously with this process may be reduced or strategic. There's also a group dynamic at play here. In gang contexts, behaviors often tied to status, reputation and dominance. Refusing to cooperate, appearing dismissive or treating this process lightly can function as a way of maintaining their status within the gang. That alone can lead to more brazen, even performative behavior. They have to walk the walk, so to speak.

Speaker 2:
[07:56] What personality types tend to be associated with people with extreme or unabashed bigotry like that?

Speaker 3:
[08:03] There isn't a single personality type, but certain traits are more commonly associated with more extreme expressions of bigotry. You often see authoritarian tendencies, a preference for rigid hierarchies, or strong in-group versus out-group thinking, which we can certainly see is the case here. There can also be lower empathy, which makes it easier to dehumanize others, and dominance thinking, where other groups are perceived as threats. That said, personality alone doesn't explain it. These are beliefs that are shaped and reinforced by environment and group dynamics, like we talked about in episode one. And personality influences how strongly those beliefs are expressed.

Speaker 2:
[08:44] After their cases were thrown out, the craze must have felt untouchable. But they were about to learn just how wrong they were. Doreen's speech at the Inquest hearing had gone a long way to reignite public interest in Stephen's case. And the very next day, the popular Daily Mail tabloid ran a story calling the gang murderers. The front page story sent shockwaves throughout all of England. Every news outlet picked it up. Soon, people in more rural parts of the country were hearing Stephen's story for the first time. And they were outraged. Suddenly, the five young men felt the public turn on them. And so did the police. Members of the public were openly questioning how the Metropolitan Police Service, or MPS, had bungled the investigation so badly. The pressure was on, and there was only one solution, for the authorities to openly acknowledge and address their own failures. So in March of 1997, a regional authority known as the Kent Constabulary was appointed to independently investigate how the MPS had handled Stephen's case.

Speaker 3:
[09:56] So we touched on this in Episode 1, but the media can play a powerful role in shaping public perception by deciding which details are emphasized and how a story is framed. When coverage is widespread and it emotionally resonates, it can shift a case from being a local issue to a national concern. And that matters because public opinion can influence institutional behavior. As scrutiny increases, agencies can feel pressure to respond, and not just to the facts, but the loss of public trust. In situations like this, that leads to potentially internal reviews or external investigations from oversight authorities. So media can amplify attention, but it can also amplify accountability. And when enough people are asking questions, institutions are more likely to act in ways that demonstrate responsiveness, including re-examining their own conduct. And let's hope that this is the case here.

Speaker 2:
[10:53] The investigation into the MPS was a welcome development. But for Doreen, it still wasn't enough. She wanted to see high-level change. So she got in touch with Jack Straw, England's newly elected Home Secretary, the official in charge of the country's internal affairs, and asked for a full-scale public inquiry into the MPS. At first, Straw proposed a town hall to discuss the relationship between the police and the black community. But Doreen wasn't satisfied with this. She wanted to bring about real, lasting change to policing in England. And a community-level conversation about race relations just wasn't going to do that. She knew this was her last chance to get what she wanted. So she told Straw she needed to find every possible answer about her son's murder, including why the police couldn't catch his killers. It worked. A few days later, Straw announced that there would be a public inquiry into Stephen's murder and the aftermath. The purpose was to determine what went wrong in the investigation and how to prevent similar outcomes in future racially motivated crimes. The inquiry would begin once the Kent Report concluded and would be chaired by a retired senior judge, Sir William McPherson. For the first time since this four-year nightmare began, Doreen started to feel like maybe some kind of justice for Stephen was back within reach. And in late December of 1997, the Kent Constabulary published their findings, which determined that the MPS had completely botched their investigation into Stephen's murder.

Speaker 3:
[12:32] So Doreen has finally gotten confirmation after four years of insisting that something had been wrong, four years of being dismissed or questioned, and four years of determination. That doesn't happen often. And that kind of validation can restore a sense of reality and public credibility. And what she has long believed has now been formally acknowledged by the legal system itself. That can also be very relieving. But at the same time, it can also stir up other emotions like anger or grief because that confirmation also reinforces or reminds her that the failures were in fact real and had very powerful consequences on her and the community.

Speaker 2:
[13:14] When you're seeking justice like this, can this be the boost you need to keep going? Or do you think the emotional come down might be enough to maybe say, this is good enough, it's okay, we can stop here?

Speaker 3:
[13:26] I think it can go either way. It really depends on the person. For some people, that kind of validation is exactly what they need to keep going. For others, just being believed finally, I mean, the fact that rarely even happens, that can be enough and that could take some of the urgency out of the process. It can feel like at least in part, justice has been acknowledged, even if it hasn't been fully achieved, because realistically, justice would be that my son would still be here or her son would still be there, right? Often, it's both at the same time though. There's relief, validation, and a feeling of some kind of progress. But whatever it is, whether someone keeps going or steps back, I think it usually depends on how they balance those two experiences.

Speaker 2:
[14:11] Well, as encouraging as the news was to Doreen, there was still a lot of work to do if she wanted Stephen's killers to be held accountable. But because of the previous court rulings, the five suspects may have thought this ruling had nothing to do with them, but they'd be wrong because they were about to be in more trouble than they'd ever imagined was possible.

Speaker 1:
[14:37] Confronting high credit card debt can feel scary, but the good news is if you owe $10,000 or more in credit card debt, financial relief options are now available. National Debt Relief is currently offering debt relief designed to reduce what you owe and put you on the fast track to becoming debt-free. Thank you. Let's go and save thousands of dollars. Just visit nationaldebtrelief.com. Imagine only paying one low monthly program payment you can afford and saving money as you become debt free. National Debt Relief has already helped bring debt relief to over 550,000 US consumers, earning thousands of five-star reviews and an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau. You're stronger than your credit card debt. Let today be the day you start turning things around. Take the first step and visit nationaldebtrelief.com. It's time to see what debt relief you may qualify for. That's nationaldebtrelief.com.

Speaker 5:
[15:33] You know that thing where you get an amazing pair of shoes at a really great price and want to tell everyone about it? Yeah, so do we. Here at Designer Shoe Warehouse, we'll give you something to brag about, like the latest styles from brands you love, or the trends everyone's obsessing over, or shoes that make you feel like, well, you. So go ahead, show off a little. Find shoes that get you at prices that get your budget. Head to your DSW store or dsw.com today. DSW, let us surprise you.

Speaker 2:
[16:04] In late 1997, the internal investigation by the Kent Constabulary concluded that the Metropolitan Police had botched their investigation into Stephen Lawrence's murder. These findings solidified the shift in attitude ever since the inquest that Stephen was murdered as the result of a hate crime and the authorities did little to catch his killers. And now that the Kent report confirmed that the investigation had been a miscarriage of justice, the public inquiry, chaired by Sir William MacPherson, started looking into every detail of what had gone wrong. Over the next year, Sir William heard testimony from 88 witnesses, including everyone from responding officers to high-ranking officials at Scotland Yard and even Doreen Lawrence. And in February of 1999, nearly six years after Stephen's murder, Sir William published his findings. The inquiry officially concluded that institutional racism within the MPS actively prevented justice from being served. A few major errors came to light, like the fact that MPS officers were openly racist towards Stephen's friend, Dwayne Brooks, who witnessed his murder, and that their racism caused them to treat Dwayne like a suspect. Not only that, but Dwayne didn't receive the aftercare he was legally entitled to. And since he was so traumatized, his lack of care may have led to his unclear witness statements, the very statements that a judge dismissed back in 1996, leading to the suspect's original charges being dropped. From there, the McPherson Report also concluded that in the weeks following Stephen's death, the slow arrest time gave the suspect's ample opportunity to hide or destroy evidence. The inquiry's findings were monumental. So much so, they were about to transform policing in the UK. The report recommended some key changes to the way policing was done. For example, the details of stop and search incidents had to be thoroughly documented, including the ethnicity of the person being searched, and moving forward, victims, not investigators, would be the ones to determine whether an incident was racist. Finally, police departments had to make documented efforts to recruit more diverse officers.

Speaker 3:
[18:29] Identifying failures without addressing them doesn't prevent them from happening again, which is why policy changes matter, because they create real change through structure and accountability. These changes, like documentation that you were discussing, they create oversight, which can influence decision making in the moment. People act differently when they know their behavior is being recorded or reviewed in some capacity, and they can also affect how the public engages with the system. If individuals believe there are clearer standards and some level of accountability, they may be more willing to report incidents or cooperate with them. So it's not just policy that exists on paper, it can actually genuinely shift how people think, act, and interact within that system. But, as with everything, there are limitations. Policies don't eliminate discretion, and a lot of the documentation that you're talking about is up to the discretion of the officers doing that documentation. It all comes down to how they're implemented and enforced, not just how they exist.

Speaker 2:
[19:35] These changes clearly aim to increase accountability, but there was one more, and it took the entire country by surprise. The report recommended that England's justice system reconsider the Double Jeopardy Law, which was a huge deal, both to the entire public and to Doreen personally, because it might mean Stephen's case could go back to court. Doreen tried not to get too excited, but even the five young men who'd been accused of killing Stephen knew they had to do some damage control. On April 7, 1999, Neil, Jamie, Gary, David, and Luke, who were all in their early to mid-20s by now, appeared on a popular talk show hosted by Martin Bashir. Martin was a well-known journalist. He'd conducted a high-profile interview with Princess Diana a few years earlier, so he had a huge platform. His show was the ideal place for someone looking to adjust their image. But there wasn't much the suspects could do when confronted with the truth. When he spoke to the five accused, he asked each of them one by one if they had killed Stephen. His straightforward demeanor seemed to catch them off-guard, because even though they all said no, they also contradicted each other's stories. Some of them even contradicted their own earlier accounts. When Martin poked holes in their stories, they seemed flustered and defensive. Pretty soon, they started saying they were the real victims. And when Martin pushed back against this, David then tried to justify the use of certain racial slurs. Suffice it to say, their interview was a disaster, and their hope of maintaining a clean public image went down the drain.

Speaker 3:
[21:20] Their decision to go on this talk show was likely largely about narrative control. In a situation like this, in such a highly publicized incident, people generally want to shape how they're perceived, especially when their reputation is under threat. This is a public opportunity to influence that narrative, even if the facts are not in their favor. There's also overconfidence. They have avoided consequences for this murder for years, and because of that, they likely began to believe that they can manage the situation or talk their way through it, or outmaneuver people, and in their case, that has worked. We talked about that very thing in Episode 1 with their acquittal, and their behavior in court during the Inquisition. Overconfidence can cause someone to underestimate risk. Another factor is cognitive dissonance. I'm not sure necessarily if that applies here, but it can apply in similar situations. When someone's actions conflict with how they see themselves, they may try to reduce that discomfort by reframing events, minimizing responsibility, or positioning themselves as victims. Even when the evidence is strong, even when they have created identities in a gang that justifies their beliefs and subsequent behaviors, the drive to protect their identity and control perception can outweigh the risk of speaking publicly. They double down, and sometimes that leads to exactly what we're seeing here.

Speaker 2:
[22:45] Definitely. That image control. Do you remember when we covered Joran van der Sloot months ago? He constantly denied murdering Natalie Holloway and only ended up looking guiltier. Does this story make you think about any of the other publicity seeking subjects we've covered in the past?

Speaker 3:
[23:00] When it comes to Joran, it does draw a parallel in some of the behavior. In both situations, you see similar psychological patterns, particularly overconfidence and a need to manage public perception or image, like you said. In Joran's case, there also appeared to be a belief that he could outmaneuver scrutiny or outmaneuver literally everybody. He is a more extreme example though. Beyond denying his involvement, he repeatedly engaged with Natalie's mother, offering information in exchange for money, and then withdrawing that information. He was extorting her. That kind of behavior suggests a willingness to exploit others for personal gain and control. That said, they both felt compelled to tell their version of events one way or another, even when doing so may ultimately have worked against them. But I think a better example that comes to mind to illustrate this is Robert Durst. He really felt that he was invincible. He had escaped consequences for his actions for decades, and he made a public appearance in a documentary that ultimately was his downfall.

Speaker 2:
[24:05] The Elton Craze might have been hoping that if they could clean up their image, the authorities would have a harder time going after them. But they were very wrong. It took a few more years. But in 2005, lawmakers took one of the suggestions outlined in the McPherson report. They rewrote the Double Jeopardy Law. Now, murder suspects could be tried a second time for the same crime as long as new, meaningful evidence emerged. And in Stephen's case, it did. The Metropolitan Police had also been trying to improve their public image, and they used the Double Jeopardy reform to show they were capable of change. In June 2006, the MPS appointed a cold case detective named Clive Driscoll to work on Stephen's 13-year-old investigation. It was Clive's job to pour through all the old documents and evidence to find any holes in the original investigation, any opportunities to officially reopen the investigation, and possibly file new charges. Clive pulled hundreds of boxes from the shelves. He read through old witness statements to try and establish a clear timeline of Stephen's attack. Once he did that, he even visited the crime scene and walked through each step himself. Soon, he found his first break in the case. All along, the authorities had claimed that Stephen's attack had lasted about 15 to 20 seconds, but based on Clive's research, it likely took longer, somewhere between 45 and 50 seconds. This was important because it meant there was much more opportunity for physical evidence to develop as the murder was taking place. So next, Clive looked through the evidence boxes. He found some of Stephen's clothing from the night he was killed, as well as some of the suspects. That's when he realized these pieces of clothing had not been forensically analyzed, so he promptly sent them off to the lab. When the results came back, Clive learned that fibers from Stephen's clothing were present on both Gary and David's clothes. Based on this, Clive determined that there had likely been intense prolonged physical contact between Stephen and those suspects. But the forensic testing revealed something even more shocking as well. A single drop of Stephen's blood on Gary's shirt collar. To Clive, this indicated two things. First, that one of Stephen's stab wounds had been dealt in a downward motion, just like the original investigators had thought. And second, that the stabber pulled the knife from Stephen's body afterward, which had caused some blood splatter, including the one drop that landed on Gary's shirt. This was concrete evidence that Gary had been present for the attack, even if he hadn't actually stabbed Stephen himself. This finding was crucial, because it was exactly the kind of new, meaningful evidence needed to reopen the case. Clive spent years revisiting Stephen's case. And in 2010, he told her he finally had enough to arrest both Gary and David. Doreen was so close to getting justice for her son, but she tried to keep her hopes in check. On the one hand, this was the best news she'd heard in a long time. But on the other, she'd been let down plenty of times before.

Speaker 3:
[27:32] That reaction is very understandable. When someone has been through repeated setbacks like Doreen, it's common to feel both hope and hesitation at the same time. Long-term investigations can create emotional instability because families are repeatedly pulled between progress and disappointment. It's an exhausting cycle. Past experiences like hers make it hard to fully trust that anything will lead to an outcome. It can lead to chronic stress and a need to manage expectations to protect against further loss or further disappointment. It makes sense to adopt a cautiously optimistic approach because it's designed to be protective. There's also the reality that each update can bring her back to the trauma, which is very stressful to the nervous system as well.

Speaker 2:
[28:20] This is years in the making. How can delayed justice like this alter long-term grieving?

Speaker 3:
[28:26] Yeah. It can keep the loss feeling open and unresolved. Instead of having a point where someone can begin to process what happened, the case remains active, it's uncertain and on-going. Doreen has been focused on justice. She's been determined, motivated, strong, and goal-directed. That kind of focus can shape how grief is experienced. Obviously, I'm not her, and I don't want to speak for her, but she likely hasn't had the typical space to process her loss because her energy has been directed toward pursuing accountability, and understandably so. That can prolong emotional distress. The repeated cycle that she's been experiencing of hope and disappointment, it can make it harder to reach any sense of stability, too. And when accountability is delayed or uncertain like this, any unanswered questions can intensify emotions like anger and frustration alongside ambiguous grief like this.

Speaker 2:
[29:27] Well, Doreen was right to think that her quest for justice wasn't done just yet. Because the investigation that she'd been living with for almost 15 years still had some shocking new developments in store.

Speaker 4:
[29:49] If you're the proud parent of a pavier kitten, you know you can't pet proof your entire life. There simply isn't a sock drawer high enough or a couch cover thick enough, but you can pet proof your wallet with Lemonade Pet Insurance. Whether it's an unexpected accident or a routine checkup, Lemonade can cover up to 90% of the bill. Plus, they can handle claims in as little as two seconds. So before you turn into a complete helicopter pet parent, get a quote at lemonade.com/pet.

Speaker 6:
[30:16] Insurance isn't one size fits all. That's why drivers have enjoyed Progressive's Name Your Price Tool for years now. With the Name Your Price Tool, you tell them what you want to pay, and they'll show you options that fit your budget. So whether you're picking out your first policy or just looking for something that works better for you and your family, they make it easy to see your options. Visit progressive.com. Find a rate that works for you with the Name Your Price Tool. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law.

Speaker 7:
[30:44] I'm criminal psychologist Dr. Michelle Ward, and on Season 9 of Mind of a Monster, we're bringing you the case of serial killer Michael Gargiulo.

Speaker 8:
[30:52] He either charms them because he needs them to do something, or he stalks them because he's going to kill them.

Speaker 7:
[30:57] The repairman with Hollywood good looks, who stalked and attacked his female neighbors in their own homes.

Speaker 9:
[31:03] The jury was shown the photos from her apartment, and it was just covered in blood.

Speaker 7:
[31:08] Listen to Mind of a Monster, the Hollywood Ripper, wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 2:
[31:15] In 2010, cold case detective Clive Driscoll uncovered new and damning evidence in Stephen Lawrence's murder case. And in September of that year, the police set out to arrest now 35-year-old Gary Dobson and 34-year-old David Norris. Gary was easy to find because he was serving time on marijuana charges. When police showed up at the prison, he didn't put up a fight. He merely asked, Conspiracy or Murder? David had also racked up a long felony record and had served time over the years. By this point, he was living in a hostel above a bar, which is where he was when police tracked him down and arrested him. Just like Gary, David was also cooperative. When they told him he was under arrest for murder, he simply shrugged and said, All right. Both men seemed nonchalant when they arrived at the station. It seemed like they thought they'd be let off the hook just like all the times before. However, once they were confronted with the new evidence, including the clothing fibers and blood on Gary's collar, they both clammed up. After that, they refused to speak to the police.

Speaker 3:
[32:26] When someone has avoided consequences for a long period of time like they have, they may begin to experience their situation as less threatening or less serious. And in this case, it's been decades, and they've already been acquitted of this crime like we talked about. And we talked about how that can shift into overconfidence and an expectation that consequences are unlikely. That alone can explain the nonchalance that you're describing at the time of their arrest. So it's possible they believe the situation would resolve the way it always had. They're also slightly desensitized to the criminal justice system, given their own criminal histories. But when new concrete evidence is introduced, that likely changed how the situation was perceived by the both of them. It likely began to feel more serious or more uncertain because it is for them. In those moments, some individuals choose to stop engaging. Silence isn't always just a legal strategy in situations like that. It can also serve as a way to maintain control, especially when there is so much on the line now.

Speaker 2:
[33:33] Well, in this case, Gary and David's silence didn't help them. About a year later, in November 2011, their trial began. Two months later, they were both found guilty for the murder of Stephen Lawrence, almost 20 years after it happened. They were convicted under the legal principle of joint enterprise, which meant they were definitely part of the group that was responsible for Stephen's murder, regardless of who delivered the fatal blow. All the new evidence Clive Driscoll had uncovered proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Both men were sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, with Gary having to serve a minimum of 15 years and David 14 years. When the verdict came down, Doreen wanted to jump for joy, but she maintained her composure. As she left the courtroom, all eyes and cameras were on her. Then when Doreen returned home later, she realized she was left with a heavy feeling, one she couldn't shake. Even though some justice had been served, her son was still dead, and three of the five suspects were still out there. So she reached out to Clive Driscoll. Clive dove back into his investigation, and by 2013, he made another key discovery. However, the evidence he found wouldn't help him nail the other three suspects, because it pointed him to a brand new one. As Clive and his team combed through the original police reports and internal messages, one name jumped out, Matthew White. Matthew was the same age as the rest of the suspects. His name hadn't come up in the original slew of tips, but since then, his stepfather had contacted the police to say he believed Matthew knew something about the murder. Clive realized that Matthew had been interviewed at the time, but as a witness, not a suspect. He said he heard about what happened from someone in the street, then went to Neil and Jamie's house to tell them about it. Then Clive remembered something else. Dwayne Brooks had originally told police there were six attackers. At the time, officers didn't think much of this, but now Clive thought Matthew might be that sixth person. Clive tracked down Matthew's stepfather Jack, who told him something shocking. Apparently, shortly after Stephen died, Matthew had straight up admitted to being present for his murder, and even added that he, quote, deserved it.

Speaker 3:
[36:08] When Matthew said Stephen deserved to be killed, that suggests he doesn't see Stephen as an individual with equal worth, but as someone whose life was less valuable or more easily justified in being taken. From there, violence can be reframed as acceptable, especially within certain belief system. In this case, given that Matthew runs in the same group, racist ideology can shape that thinking by positioning some groups of people as inferior or as legitimate targets. Statements like that are typically learned and reinforced over time because of environments like racially motivated gangs, where those beliefs are normalized or encouraged.

Speaker 2:
[36:49] I'm trying to wrap my head around this. When someone says someone deserves to be murdered, do you think people actually mean that? Or do you think maybe it's just some bravado?

Speaker 3:
[36:59] I know. It's something that a lot of people wonder, and especially in a situation like this. The truth is it can be either. Sometimes it's a combination of both. In this case, he was reportedly connected to the same gang known for racially motivated violence. Given that context, that statement reflects beliefs that may have been learned and reinforced over time. What stands out here, though, is that it seems he said this in a private setting, not in front of the gang, but to his stepfather, most likely at home. That suggests this isn't just posturing for bravado alone, and it was likely more internalized, unless, of course, his stepfather also has the same ideological belief system. A gang can become a significant part of someone's identity, and it shapes how they see the world and themselves. So even outside of that environment, those beliefs can still show up in how they interpret events and how they talk about them. And in Matthew's case, it doesn't seem like it was just performance. Regardless, though, it still points to a framework where that kind of violence can be spoken about for him as something that's acceptable and expected. And that's what's most significant here.

Speaker 2:
[38:16] In this case, Jack told Clive that he contacted detectives about this back in 1993, but they never followed up with him. And now Clive knew they didn't even record his statement accurately. It was his job now to try and bring the truth to light. Pretty soon, Clive had Matthew in custody. However, he refused to answer any questions, and Clive would never be able to get him to talk. Because just two weeks after Matthew's arrest, Clive was forced into retirement. He was 62 years old and had served on the police force for 32 years. He was both too old and had served too long, according to traditional police service in the UK. And in his absence, the MPS determined that the new evidence was not enough to bring new charges against Matthew, let alone Neil, Jamie or Luke. After that, the police didn't do any more meaningful investigation into Stephen's murder, and officially closed the investigation seven years later in 2020. One year later, Matthew White died. His cause of death couldn't be determined, although he had documented health problems from drug use. As of this recording, none of the other suspects have ever faced charges. In late 2025, David Norris was up for parole, and the Lawrence's saw final opportunity. They urged him to name his cohorts in Stephen's murder as a way to show contrition. And while David did finally admit to being present at Stephen's murder, he refused to name anyone else.

Speaker 3:
[39:54] So let's talk about his refusal to turn in anyone else, because there are a few dynamics that can help explain that. One is obviously loyalty and group identity. In tightly bonded groups like gangs, cooperating against others can be seen as a very serious violation of that gang. Even decades later, that is an expectation that is deeply ingrained, and it becomes even more so within a broader institutional culture as well. Snitching and narking, as they say, is not something you do, especially if you want to survive. They are asking him to drop names of potential murderers. He knows what they're capable of, which means they're capable of doing that to him too. That's risk calculation. There's also the issue of reputation. In some environments like prison or gangs, being perceived as someone who informs on others can cause severe consequences. That will influence decisions even when there's a potential personal benefit. So for someone in his position, there's a lot of competing pressures like loyalty, identity, perceived risk, and potential benefit to consider all at once, which likely explained why he ultimately chose to refuse.

Speaker 2:
[41:02] Is this something you've encountered in your own work, if you can discuss it?

Speaker 3:
[41:08] Yeah, I can discuss it. I can't just speak on specific cases, but yeah, though in a different context. When I worked in corrections, I worked in a lot of different prisons in a lot of different settings, but primarily I worked with individuals serving life sentences who were housed in maximum security institutions. So they were living in a very violent environment, and their day-to-day mindset was often focused on survival. They're constantly assessing risk. As a result, as a mental health practitioner in that setting, I would often respond to crisis calls, where individuals reported being suicidal, but what was actually driving the call was really a safety concern. They may have been threatened or had a conflict of some kind with someone else on the yard, but they couldn't say that directly. So instead, they would report suicidal ideation, hoping it would result in me placing them in a crisis bed or temporarily out of the institution, because if they didn't say that they were suicidal, they would have to inform custody of an actual safety concern. So in many cases, we could tell that they weren't suicidal and that something else was really going on. And when that happened, they would still refuse to say what the real safety concern was, because in order for us to really actually address the concern, they would need to give us details. They would need to give names. And then custody would have to be involved, because custody is the one who deals with safety and security. And because they knew that, and they knew identifying someone could put them at an even greater risk, they wouldn't do that. They would do anything to avoid naming names, despite the perceived benefits that that would give them. Because at the end of the day, even if they were moved where they wanted to be moved, they still had to live in that environment and coexist with their own groups or prison gangs, even if it was at a different institution or yard. Word travels fast and transfers are not always permanent. So the risk of, quote, snitching often outweighed any perceived benefits for them.

Speaker 2:
[43:12] Well, David Norris may have refused to name Stephen's other killers. But one thing he did do was finally admit to being there in the first place. Doreen saw this as a good reason to reopen the investigation and has been pushing the Metropolitan Police to do so. But as of this recording, her calls to action have fallen on deaf ears. Regardless, Doreen and Neville refused to ever give up fighting for Stephen. They know that their 30-year campaign for justice had such an impact on England's justice system that the history of policing in the UK is now recognized in two parts, before Stephen Lawrence's murder and after. Their fight brought about real change. But for Doreen, the pain of losing her son will last forever. She remained committed to her fight, not just because she knew it was right, but because it helped her cope with her immense and tragic loss. Neville, on the other hand, chose forgiveness as his form of healing. He decided he couldn't let his anger consume him. Otherwise, he'd never move on or be able to appreciate his memories of Stephen. Both of them found their own way to keep Stephen's memory alive. Even though neither of them had intended to become the face of a movement, they rose to the occasion in their own ways. In doing so, they helped Stephen achieve what he'd always believed in, the right to be judged for who he was as a person. Now, the world can remember him as the bright, intelligent and fun-loving person he was. Thanks so much for listening. Come back next time for a deep dive into the mind of another murderer.

Speaker 3:
[45:12] Serial Killers & Murderous Minds is a Crime House original powered by PAVE Studios. Here at Crime House, we wanna thank each and every one of you for your support. If you like what you heard today, reach out on Instagram at Crime House. And don't forget to rate, review, and follow Serial Killers & Murderous Minds wherever you get your podcasts. Your feedback truly makes a difference.

Speaker 2:
[45:36] And to enhance your listening experience, subscribe to Crime House Plus on Apple Podcasts. You'll get every episode of Serial Killers & Murderous Minds ad-free, along with early access to each thrilling two-part series. Serial Killers & Murderous Minds is hosted by me, Vanessa Richardson, and Forensic Psychologist Dr. Tristin Engels, and is a Crime House original powered by PAVE Studios. This episode was brought to life by the Serial Killers & Murderous Minds team, Max Cutler, Ron Shapiro, Alex Benedon, Laurie Marinelli, Natalie Pertsofsky, Sarah Camp, Sarah Batchelor, Dana Rossi, Sarah Tardiff, and Carrie Murphy. Thank you for listening.

Speaker 10:
[46:29] Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile, the message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment. Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com/switch.

Speaker 3:
[46:51] Upfront payment of $45 for three-month plan equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at mintmobile.com.

Speaker 2:
[47:01] Thanks for listening to today's episode. Not sure what to listen to next? Check out America's Most Infamous Crimes hosted by Katie Ring. From serial killers to unsolved mysteries and game-changing investigations. Each week, Katie takes on a notorious criminal case in American history. Listen to and follow America's Most Infamous Crimes now, wherever you listen to podcasts. A music star whose biggest hit was called Romantic Homicide has just been formally charged with first-degree murder eligible for the death penalty. This is Vanessa Richardson, host of Crime House 24-7. 21-year-old singer David Anthony Burke, known as David, faces first-degree murder, sexual acts with a minor and mutilation of human remains in killing of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, whose dismembered body was found stuffed in bags inside his abandoned Tesla. Prosecutors say he committed sexual acts against her when she was under 14, and she was a witness in an investigation against him. When those claims allegedly threatened his music career, authorities say he made her disappear. Hear the rest of that story and never miss another on Crime House 24-7, where we cover breaking true crime news daily. Follow Crime House 24-7 wherever you listen to podcasts, so you never miss a story as it breaks.