Updated: Lee Rigby's Murderers Sentenced

[HawkTheSeagull]

It probably will be a short deliberation, but seeing as they pleaded not guilty - they had to face a trial.

Might also be given indefinite sentences so would be kept inside for an unspecified amount of time, and you just know they are going to have a brilliant time in pris......on hang on

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Why even have a trial ?

They pleaded not guilty, so are entitled to a trial and the evidence be examined by a jury. One of them admitted he did it but he claims he is a solider of Allah and the killing was part of a war. The judge has said that solider of Allah is not a valid defense under English Law. That claim and defense still need to be put in front of a jury and they need to come to a conclusion. There is no point in having a judicial system if you want to be able to pick and choose which trials go to court or not just because a crime/criminal and the evidence might be religiously/racial/terrorism sensitive.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

While neither of them deny killing Lee Rigby, they both deny the offence of murder. They seem to be going for some sort of justification defence. Must be quite difficult being their legal representative, as nothing they have volunteered so far- that I can see- represents a legal defence to killing another person (diminished responsibility, provocation, or suicide pact). Nor have they raised any of the other general defences to committing a crime (automatism, involuntary intoxication, insanity, inadvertence, self defence, duress, marital coercion, lawful use of force etc).

I assume they're just hoping that there's enough people on the jury they can convince that their act was for some kind of "greater good"- I can't see that being accepted as a defence for murder, but it seems to be the way the two of them are seeking for it to go.

 

[KZNSeagull]

The Judge has already said that their defence is not a defence. But they have to go through the motions, so that they cannot get off on appeal I guess

 

[BensGrandad]

There will be one on the Jury who will question it, there always is.

Isn't that the job of the jury? To question the evidence.

I dont know the answer but I am sure Edna or somebody else will. Can the judge say that he will accept a majority verdict from the outset or does he have to wait until they cannot agree a unanimous one, before accepting this?

 

[martin tyler]

They were never going to plea guilty as they want the publicity. They have a defence based on 2 things. 1 its an act of war which it is not as there is no war here and the judge has directed the jury on this. Secondly on the grounds of dominished reaponsabilities which would take it down to man slaughter instead of murder. This is a more valid defence but i don t think they will recieve much sympathy

 

[happypig]

Re: Jury to retire tomorrow moning in the Lee Rigby case.

I dont know the answer but I am sure Edna or somebody else will. Can the judge say that he will accept a majority verdict from the outset or does he have to wait until they cannot agree a unanimous one, before accepting this?

They will be asked to decide a verdict that they all agree. If they couldn't all agree, then the judge can ask for a majority, say 10 to 2.
The judge has already directed that "soldier of Allah" is not a valid defence so they will not be allowed to base their verdict on that.
I would imagine he's already writing his sentencing remarks.

 

[Triggaaar]

Isn't that the job of the jury? To question the evidence.

What have I said? Explain.

I assume Edna was laughing because there's nothing to question in this case. Other than what everyone's plans are for Christmas.

Indeed it is, but I'm not sure there can be any evidence to exonerate them in this.

Edit: Actually it's not. Their duty is to listen to the evidence put forward and base their verdict on it, not question it.

I think the jury are supposed to question the 'evidence'. They don't have to believe what has been put forward, they can question whether it's accurate or not.

 

[BensGrandad]

There will be one on the Jury who will question it, there always is.

They will be asked to decide a verdict that they all agree. If they couldn't all agree, then the judge can ask for a majority, say 10 to 2.
The judge has already directed that "soldier of Allah" is not a valid defence so they will not be allowed to base their verdict on that.
I would imagine he's already writing his sentencing remarks.

So the simple answer is No he cannot say from the outset he will accept a majority verdict until they cannot agree to a unanimous verdict.

 

[strings]

Verdict in after 90 minutes deliberation...

 

[strings]

Guilty.

 

[Footsoldier]

Guilty.

Now the sentences will be interesting.

 

[strings]

[tweet]413651935414460416[/tweet]

[tweet]413652231008051200[/tweet]

 

[Footsoldier]

[tweet]413651935414460416[/tweet]

[tweet]413652231008051200[/tweet]

It seems the jury have issues with the police.

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

Obviously guilty of Lee Rigby's murder - that was obvious.

Can understand the not guilty for the att. murder of the police as they hadnt actually done anything to them except run at them with knives.

 

[Footsoldier]

Obviously guilty of Lee Rigby's murder - that was obvious.

Can understand the not guilty for the att. murder of the police as they hadnt actually done anything to them except run at them with knives.

If you or I had ran at a police officer with a meat clever and got shot what do you think the outcome would of been?

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

If you or I had ran at a police officer with a meat clever and got shot what do you think the outcome would of been?

The police of course shot them and armed police would do that at any time. Since they didnt really do anything to attempt the murder of the police except run at them with weapons - then they cant class it as att. murder.

If you arent 100% on the facts, you cant go guilty. Besides, its a smaller charge compared to the murder - which they will get a full life sentence for.

 

[Footsoldier]

So what would have happened if the police hadn't shot him? Do you think the Muslim bloke would of ran up and said 'BOO' scared you.

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

So what would have happened if the police hadn't shot him? Do you think the Muslim bloke would of ran up and said 'BOO' scared you.

Well obviously the police would have been attacked, but they didnt get to the stage of attempting to murder in the eyes of the jury.

For all we know though, they might not have done anything - hence why its a not guilty.

 

[Muzzy]

Sentencing adjourned pending a whole life appeal hearing case elsewhere. Sentencing won't be given until after this, sometime in January. Judge obviously doesn't want them to get any freedom ever again, and rightfully so.