UKC

Why are we running this trial? There is no doubt that they are guilty, no chance of a miscarriage of justice and no option but to hand down life sentences.


Adebalajo and Adebolawe were filmed murdering Lee Rigby, admitted the offence on film (and to numerous witnesses nearby) and we're then arrested, covered in his blood? What more evidence is required?

Do we really need to go the length and expense of a full trial to prove their guilt...or are we just playing into their hands by giving them the publicity that they crave?

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

the murder was repulsive, and i hope should guilty verdicts be returned, that whole life tariffs are applied

but the suspension of due process in the criminal justice system in emotive and high profile cases, no matter how clear cut they seem, is never a good idea.

they will get a fair hearing, more than they afforded lee rigby; but that's why we're different to them. distorting the processes of our civil society, and bringing us down towards their level of barbarism, is playing into the hands of the terrorists.

cheers
gregor

In reply to THE.WALRUS:




The think the trial gives them the publicity they want. They have to have a trial if they plead not guilty, but why in certain cases like this it can't be done in camera I don't know.

The advantage of a pubic trial is that when it's over we'll be able to recognise them for what they are.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Our legal system states that the way we decide guilt or innocence is by having a trial. Even for clear cut cases we still have a trial as otherwise our legal system has no basis and we run the risk of miscarriages of justice.
I understand the defendants have pleaded not guilty it will be interesting what they will supply as their deference.

In reply to Andy DB:
> I understand the defendants have pleaded not guilty it will be interesting what they will supply as their deference.

I suspect they want an opportunity to spout a load of drivel about Allah, rather than mount a coherent defence.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Don't envy the jury yesterday, or anyone in the court.,being shown the murder footage in real time.

Not easy to forget that.

In reply to andymac:



Couldn't agree more. This challenges my long-held liberal views on corporal punishment, but it's at times like these that a civilised society must stick to its values, whatever the provocation.

Still a pair of depraved b******s though!

Let's hope some of their expected rantings will show them as the crazed extremists they obviously are, and maybe put a wee bit of doubt in the minds of anyone else who may be contemplating atrocities of any kind?

In reply to JohnnyW: For such offences you want to bring back the birch? That's pretty forgiving, I must say.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


I think a thick rattan cane might be a better choice.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


Think I meant 'capital', didn't I? Doh

In reply to Andy DB:
I agree that it will be interesting to hear what drivel they come out with in their defence.

Really, my concern is that we are playing into their hands by giving them a platform to get their message across. Clearly, maximum publicity was their aim in the first place...that's why they hung around after the murder and gave impromptu iPhone interviews to passers by whilst caked in the victims blood and holding their weapons on display.

Not to mention putting the jury, witnesses and relatives of Lee Rigby through the ordeal of re-living the whole event and paying teams of barristers large amounts of money to do little more than go-through-the motions of attempting to prove that they are not guilty, when quite clearly, they are.

Surley there's a better way for the justice system to operate. Why can't the evidence, and the defence case, be considered by a judge behind closed doors?

In reply to elsewhere:
>

My mind's already made up, where that pair are concerned.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:



Generally trying to silence lunatics is counter productive. For example David Irving, the holocaust denier, developed a cult status among Austria's neo-Nazis when he was silenced there. By contrast when given freedom to speak in a libel trial in England he was seen by all to be a charleton. Similarly Breivik, the murderous Norwegian right-wing loon, was given the right to speak in his murder trial and completely lost credibility with those who might have supported him if he had been silenced. The beauty of free speech is that it allows people to hang themselves.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

What others have said.

I do deplore the newspapers publishing still photos of the poor chap about to be hit by a car, though. I don't see much value in that.

Not that it's ever worth deploring the behaviour of newspapers, of course; better to save one's reserves of weary contempt for other targets.

jcm

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Unfortunately I don't think there is a better way for our legal system to operates. If you start hearing cases behind closed doors with just a judge it always has that wiff of state tampering with no opportunity for defence.

The original idea behind a public trial with a peer jury was that everyone heard the evidence for and against so can make their mind up and it wasn't the state that decided you guilt or innocence but your peers. Therefore the state can't use the legal system to dispose of it's opponents. (Obviously this doesn't always work.)

I agree that the defendants may wish to try to use the trial as a publicity stunt. though as I understand it you can't just make a statement as a witness so if they try to make a religious statement that is irrelevant to the trial the judge will shut them up and if they persist boot them out for contempt.

I think as our legal system is based on innocent till proven guilty we have to hear what they have to say. As you point out the evidence that they carried out the killing is overwhelming but they could still mount a defence of for example mental illness or mitigating circumstances (e.g. someone holding their kids hostage). Now I think neither of these are likely but if we don't all hear their account there will always be that shred of doubt that any extremist will exploit as the British state condemned the defendants with out a due hearing.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Maybe they could be charged with wasting the courts time as well, in the style of the blackadder court martial. I think the whole think is an expensive charade, but one our justice system allowss all, irrexpective of degree of guilt. If we silenced didn't allow them a fair trial it would be the UK in the dock, not two murderous loons.

In reply to kipper12:
They probably will be if they disrupt the trial they could be charged with contempt of court but I doubt the extra 6 months jail time will have much meaning as they are likely to be joining the whole life club.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

The only good news is that we the tax payers are funding the whole show, and certain legal bods will become even richer - surely in these sorts of trails (where guilt is beyond all reasonable doubt ) some sort of truncated trail could take place (after all we the taxpayers will pay for their stay at some holiday camp (sorry prison) for the 10 years or so (sorry life) that they spend locked away.
All those shots fired by police and they survived ?

In reply to Ciderslider:


Earlier this year I read some of Chris Spivey's observations on this incident as it seemed a bit fishy to me from the start and a little digging and yeah as usual it's pretty far outside the usual paradigm.

In reply to Ciderslider:


which is, of course, the burden of proof for all trials

In reply to THE.WALRUS:



Why is there no doubt? Is this evidence on the web somewhere? I haven't seen it. I haven't heard all the facts. All I've seen is what's in the press and on internet forums such as this which is no basis to be convicting anyone.

If they are found guilty, it will be because the evidence was shown at trial, the defendants were given the opportunity to give their side of the story and the jury decided it was not enough to provide reasonable doubt of innocence.

I for one think that is a cost worth paying.

In reply to Ciderslider:


So how would you decide it was beyond all reasonable doubt? Perhaps have a pretrial?

In reply to Ciderslider:

Get a grip. Prison is no holiday camp, especially places these guys are going, I am also prepared to wager they get minimum tariffs of more than 30 years and never get out.

In reply to dissonance:


Where the defence and prosecution agree on items of evidence. You can imagine how it would go.

The defence asks, what you got? How can you say that my client did it?

Well there were loads of bystanders and you know what they're like, they all whipped out their phones and filmed it. We've also got your a video of your client admitting to the crime on video at the scene. Oh and all of these witnesses have given statements.

Yes alright but apart from that, what evidence have you got?

In reply to johnj:


Go on, give us a giggle, what are the tinfoil hat wearers saying? Was it someone on a grassy knoll?

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

I accept that they can't be sentenced to death, but if their defence is that they are "at war", when convicted, maybe they should serve their full life sentences in a military prison where I'm sure their fellow inmates would look after them.....

As an aside I hope the woman from the bus who talked to the armed killer until the police arrived gets awarded a George Medal or equivalent for bravery.

In reply to dissonance:

Yep, that's a good one. But do you really think IN THIS CASE that there is any doubt that they killed him ?

In reply to The New NickB:

I totally disagree, and anyway it's good that we'll be paying however bad you think the free accommodation is.

In reply to Ciderslider:


Personally no, but they are pleading not guilty. Who gets to decided they are lying in your scheme? Maybe a selection of the general public with access to both sides of the story could be a place to start. Oh, hang on...

In reply to planetmarshall:



We could close down an operating theatre or two to pay for it

In reply to MG:

As I said before I agree it's a tough one to answer, but in this case alone it seems somewhat farcical that we are going to spend all this money which in the current situation could be best spent elsewhere.

In reply to johnj:

Not sure what you were on about so did a google and found this

http://www.chrisspivey.co.uk/lee-rigby-secret-trial/

What a load of bollox...seriously...hoax murder? You read this shyte?

In reply to Ciderslider:


Maybe, just maybe, the prosecution wants this trial as much as the defendants.

In reply to Ciderslider:


Well not really. There is amply evidence of what happens when short-cuts are taken and peoples statements taken unchallenged in criminal justice. And it's not good, either for justice or in terms of cost.

In reply to MG:

Generally I would agree - but in this case ???????

In reply to Ciderslider:

It may seem farcical, but who would decide which trials are necessary ad which not? And how?

In reply to THE.WALRUS:


Probably not much but someone still need to assess that evidence then make a judgement. If you an I are entitled to be fairly tried and judged by our peers then so are these two.

Where do you draw the line between cases deserving a fair trial and those requiring only trial by media or an assertion of bang-to-rights guilt from the police? For that matter who *exactly* would decide someone was 'obviously guilty', a senior police officer, the DPP, the home secretary, the PM...?

How would you prevent any possible abuse of this power? Perhaps by having the decision reviewed in public and decide upon by a committee of ordinary people one the accused has been allowed chance to defend themselves?

Do you really want the sort of abhorrent two tier system America has saddled itself with where some are entitled to justice, others aren't. Where would we put our Guantanamo?


Yes and probably a little bit. That's one of the costs of what is basically a fair and safe system of justice. I can live with that.

jk

In reply to Ciderslider:

I think that in any trial if it looks like corners have been cut that will be used by used by the defendant and their supporters to argue for a miscarriage of justice. There for a trial following due process is a necessary evil that we have to foot the bill for.

In reply to Ciderslider:

What do you totally disagree with? What you base that disagreement on? Yes, we as tax payer do tend to have to pay for judicial processes and resultant punishments.

In reply to The New NickB: Of all the things that my taxes pay for this has got to be one of the least objectionable.

In reply to Ciderslider:


One less aircraft carrier would cover it comfortably, I should think.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:




I took a look at the photo of Mr Christopher Spivey and I'm quite prepared to believe anything that he has to say. About anything. Ever.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

I guess nobody else heard the Attorney General on the Today programme talking about social media and contempt of court then?

In reply to jkarran:

Where do you draw the line between cases deserving a fair trial and those requiring only trial by media or an assertion of bang-to-rights guilt from the police? For that matter who *exactly* would decide someone was 'obviously guilty', a senior police officer, the DPP, the home secretary, the PM...?

I'm not drawing a line. All cases deserve a fair trial, but not all require the trappings and expense of a full trial by jury. Particularly those where the evidence is so overwhelming that a finding of guilt is assured from the outset.

The evidence could be reviewed independently by a trial judge, or a panel of them, and a verdict handed down accordingly.

In *this case*, what purpose does a full trial really serve?

In reply to The New NickB:


I agree, and once they are un-brainwashed, forget about the 24 virgins they never got because the cops didn't shoot to kill, they're going to have a pretty shitty time.

E

In reply to THE.WALRUS:


The same as it does in *every* other case.
jk

In reply to Clauso:

He has an IQ of 127, you know...He says so

hours of entertainment to be had there. I bluddy luv the Freemen of the Land.

In reply to johnj:
After having a quick look around the web site of
Chris Spivey, this bloke should be the next chancellor cause in his mind 1+1=5123000. Talk about deluded. However back on topic yes I agree that due process should always be carried out in full.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:




Well I've just read this shite;+) go figure lol

In reply to dunk5823:

He's a bloke who has a blog, I'm allowed to read it, like you're allowed to post your opinions, if you noticed I never posted any links somebody else did it's like the blind leading the blind

In reply to johnj:

I thought you were implying this Spivey concurred with your own thoughts that the whole thing was a set up / hoax.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I said I thought something was a bit fishy like why dibble didn't manage to do the job right in the first place, and I had a little look around and I found pages and pages, of something completely different. He's obviously ruffled a few feathers today;+)

In reply to johnj:


Alternatively he made people laugh with his nuttiness, not quite the same thing!

In reply to The New NickB:

Did you not see the smiley?;0