ChatterBank3 mins ago
Pleading Not Guilty ??????????????
67 Answers
http://
Have these two 'a cat in hells' chance of being found not guilty?
/// Adebolajo and Adebowale asked to be addressed by their adopted Islamic names of Al Mujaahid Abu Hamza and Ismail Ibn Abdullah respectively. ///
/// After hearing submissions from the two barristers representing the defendants, the court allowed them to be called by their Muslim names as well. ///
More kowtowing it would seem.
Have these two 'a cat in hells' chance of being found not guilty?
/// Adebolajo and Adebowale asked to be addressed by their adopted Islamic names of Al Mujaahid Abu Hamza and Ismail Ibn Abdullah respectively. ///
/// After hearing submissions from the two barristers representing the defendants, the court allowed them to be called by their Muslim names as well. ///
More kowtowing it would seem.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think Sandy has the right of it. They submitted a "not guilty" plea because they will attempt to claim it was an act of war or somesuch. The jury will dismiss that and they will be found guilty.
As to what names they use, they should be addressed by the names they identify themselves by. I see no reason at all why anyone should take exception to that.
As to what names they use, they should be addressed by the names they identify themselves by. I see no reason at all why anyone should take exception to that.
Its in the Alqueda handbook to plead not guilty, appeal,appeal and appeal again to cause maximum disruption and expense to the 'enemy'.
I don't personally care what they're called but I don't for one second believe the same 'coutesy' would be extended to me.
I could give several examples of how ridiculous it would be but you'd think I was being facetious. I'm sure with a little imagination you could envisage some of the scenarios.
Its the elephant in the room. Pandering to muslims so as not to offend.
I don't personally care what they're called but I don't for one second believe the same 'coutesy' would be extended to me.
I could give several examples of how ridiculous it would be but you'd think I was being facetious. I'm sure with a little imagination you could envisage some of the scenarios.
Its the elephant in the room. Pandering to muslims so as not to offend.
Its in the Alqueda handbook to plead not guilty, appeal,appeal and appeal again to cause maximum disruption and expense to the 'enemy'.
I don't personally care what they're called but I don't for one second believe the same 'coutesy' would be extended to me.
I could give several examples of how ridiculous it would be but you'd think I was being facetious. I'm sure with a little imagination you could envisage some of the scenarios.
Its the elephant in the room. Pandering to muslims so as not to offend.
I don't personally care what they're called but I don't for one second believe the same 'coutesy' would be extended to me.
I could give several examples of how ridiculous it would be but you'd think I was being facetious. I'm sure with a little imagination you could envisage some of the scenarios.
Its the elephant in the room. Pandering to muslims so as not to offend.
me some examples so I can comment..........
Before you do so, you might like to consider that, unlike other countries, the UK is extremely liberal in the names a parent can register a child's birth in. There are relatively few examples where the Registrar refuses to register a name because it is offensive or outrages moral decency. I suspect the same would the the case where it came to recognition of a change of name. So unless your changed name was offensive there is not a thing anyone can do to prevent it.
Before you do so, you might like to consider that, unlike other countries, the UK is extremely liberal in the names a parent can register a child's birth in. There are relatively few examples where the Registrar refuses to register a name because it is offensive or outrages moral decency. I suspect the same would the the case where it came to recognition of a change of name. So unless your changed name was offensive there is not a thing anyone can do to prevent it.
my feeling is that they don't believe they did wrong, committed a crime, not in the eyes of Allah, seeing as how they are seemingly taught, indoctrinated, or brainwashed, whichever you prefer into hating the west, and the infidel, and the poor soldier was singled out as he was wearing a help for heroes t shirt, so perhaps that is the reason they have given a not guilty verdict.
Pixie. If a criminal says "yes, Miss I done it", you cannot put forwards a positive defence. So you can explore and attempt to undermine the prosecution's evidence, but you cannot positively assert that X did not do it. In reality, if a client admits the charge to you as a lawyer, the best thing to do (if he is running not guilty and subject to various exceptions) is to retire from the case on the grounds that you are professionally embarrassed. I've had to do that once.
Well, AOG, you've seen one counsel's opinion, with which I agree. Do you get the point about not kowtowing now? Or do you feel that allowing these men to be called by some preferred Muslim name is kowtowing but allowing someone who wants to use a non-Muslim name to do so is not? Or is your objection that they are defendants to serious charges and should be denied a right acknowledged in law for others?
As to not guilty, they are entitled to put the prosecution to proof, but they may be running insanity or duress, for example. Out of interest, it sometimes happens that defendants insist that they want to plead guilty when they are not; I have had this happen, and it took all my powers of persuasion to get the client to have not guilty entered. And I have seen someone plead guilty when they shouldn't have; the barrister defending didn't ask me, prosecuting,whether I had my witnesses ready. I hadn't and had no real prospect of their attending or being found. She offered a plea of guilty to a slightly lesser offence , which I accepted. Just goes to show; you need experienced counsel if you are guilty ! Had she asked, I'd have had to answer truthfully.
As to not guilty, they are entitled to put the prosecution to proof, but they may be running insanity or duress, for example. Out of interest, it sometimes happens that defendants insist that they want to plead guilty when they are not; I have had this happen, and it took all my powers of persuasion to get the client to have not guilty entered. And I have seen someone plead guilty when they shouldn't have; the barrister defending didn't ask me, prosecuting,whether I had my witnesses ready. I hadn't and had no real prospect of their attending or being found. She offered a plea of guilty to a slightly lesser offence , which I accepted. Just goes to show; you need experienced counsel if you are guilty ! Had she asked, I'd have had to answer truthfully.
Incidentally, duress is not a defence to murder, but I was envisaging an admittedly implausible plea that the men hadn't got the mental element necessary for murder, but only some lesser offence, such as manslaughter, and were acting under duress to that end. A plea of what we still call 'diminished responsibillty', that they were acting under some temporary disorder of the mind and so only guilty of manslaughter, is possible. More likely is that they will try the Yorkshire Ripper line, that they were driven by voices in their heads. But likeliest of all is that they merely want to use the court as a platform for their religious and political views.
well done BM for injecting some sense into this thread;
I dont know what good it will do
I luuuurved the: do some criminals lie to their lawyers ?
yes hmm dont know about that one
In terms of lawyers what the defendants instruct
let us usefully recall Stephan Kizcko
who DIDN'T kill the little girl
altho his lawyer insisted he run a diminished responsibility defence
(and he said 'yes')
his comment on being let out - was - I always believed in British Justice
Not the first thing I would say....
I dont know what good it will do
I luuuurved the: do some criminals lie to their lawyers ?
yes hmm dont know about that one
In terms of lawyers what the defendants instruct
let us usefully recall Stephan Kizcko
who DIDN'T kill the little girl
altho his lawyer insisted he run a diminished responsibility defence
(and he said 'yes')
his comment on being let out - was - I always believed in British Justice
Not the first thing I would say....
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
Crosswords22 mins ago
