Author Topic: The case for the defence  (Read 10497 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Highlander

  • Lord of the Rings
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21646
  • Age: 73
  • Location: Dingwall, Ross-shire (God's Own Country)
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #10 on: November 29, 2013, 18:22:13 PM »
Thanks Colwyn.

I bet Mr David Gottlieb does not come cheap. I wonder who is paying his fee.



Offline Scunner

  • Chairman of the Bored
  • Administrator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45714
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Perthchester
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #11 on: November 29, 2013, 18:26:27 PM »
Does anyone know what the defence actually is? I for one simply can't think of one they could go with.

Offline Colwyn

  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6412
  • Location: Bristol
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #12 on: November 29, 2013, 19:02:40 PM »
Well we should know shortly but since they can hardly deny the killing it could be that the original action was whilst the balance of the mind was deranged and thus they were not responsible, or that they are currently mentally unfit to stand trial. The prosecution has already declared that a gambit of self-defensive action (i.e. British Army personnel attacking Muslims leads to Muslims attacking British Army personnel) would not be applicable since revenge attacks don't come under the rubric of self-defence - maybe a hint the prosecution suspects that it may go this way. I'm sure the defendants would like to state that since the court is non-Sharia it is not competent to try them - but I don't see how counsel can plead this except by saying "My clients insist that ..." which is almost the same as pleading guilty.

Offline Highlander

  • Lord of the Rings
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21646
  • Age: 73
  • Location: Dingwall, Ross-shire (God's Own Country)
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #13 on: November 29, 2013, 19:03:21 PM »
I don't.

The fact the these two people are putting the relatives of Lee Rigby through a trial is sickening.

They are getting what they wanted. >:(


Offline Highlander

  • Lord of the Rings
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21646
  • Age: 73
  • Location: Dingwall, Ross-shire (God's Own Country)
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #14 on: November 29, 2013, 19:54:51 PM »
Colwyn - would they not have had to enter that defence rather than to deny the charges.

Offline Scunner

  • Chairman of the Bored
  • Administrator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45714
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Perthchester
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #15 on: November 29, 2013, 19:59:15 PM »
There must be a defence I think, that's why it is difficult to think what it might be. As I understand it, if I murder someone and wish to plead not guilty, then privately tell my legal team that I did it, they can no longer represent me. I might be wrong. So in this case their legal representatives must believe in the reasons behind the not guilty plea..?

Offline kevin3

  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4419
  • Location: United Kingdom
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #16 on: November 29, 2013, 20:32:16 PM »
There was nobody to defend Lee Rigby but this pair of b##stards will
receive a defence paid for from funds provided by law abiding citizens.
They will then be kept in comfort and good health from those funds and
middle aged women from penal reform groups will ensure their well-
being and human rights are catered for.
I find that perverse and disgusting.

Offline badger

  • One of Scunner's best mates
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2510
  • Age: 74
  • Location: Essex, UK
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2013, 21:40:27 PM »
Well said Kevin,they will both get a second chance in life.Lee Rigby was run over and then butchered.The vision of his little son with a t-shirt bearing the words My dad my hero on it was one of the saddest images of this year.

Offline Highlander

  • Lord of the Rings
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21646
  • Age: 73
  • Location: Dingwall, Ross-shire (God's Own Country)
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2013, 22:14:22 PM »
Immediately after he committed his heinous crime Michael Adebolajo said that he had killed Lee Rigby because British soldiers had killed his people and he wanted an eye for an eye.

Well Mr Adebolajo I want your eye for Lee's and wish that at least we had the option of the death penalty for your crime.

Oh and by the way if you think that makes you a martyr, I dont give a ****..................... tell that to your maker.

Offline Scunner

  • Chairman of the Bored
  • Administrator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45714
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Perthchester
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #19 on: November 29, 2013, 22:16:36 PM »
Two individuals as unstable and irrational as these could, had they a logical brain cell between them, have caused mass deaths in the capital - if there is a glimmer of a silver lining in this repulsive tale it is that the two of them only took one life and will now not be able to take any more.

That is a statement of fact, it is in no way meant to devalue Lee's life. He is a hero, to his family, friends and to our country. A complete contrast to people who carry out their acts of "heroism" for their cause by running innocent people down in a car from behind. Scum.




Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf