Why do the suicide bombers on trial in London deny the attacks? There are television pictures of them buying the material for the bombs and of them attempting to blow themselves up. They are forensically liked to the bombs. How can they hope to get off? Any ideas or comments?
2007-01-25 23:19:33 · 27 answers · asked by malejocelyn 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
British justice is not what it should be. What they are hoping is that the evidence is not strong enough, & they will get off free to do what they feel they should've done last time. If they do get jailed, they should be deported immediately on release.
2007-01-25 23:25:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well,. the only thing they did wrong so far was horde stuff they shouldn't have had,.. thing is this...
they would be unwise from a legal perspective to admit to anything,.. this way the prosecution has to prove even more..
also,. its easier to work deals when the prosecution knkows there odds aren['t so great at times.
furthermore, one always has to prove intent,.. sure they had stuff they shouldn't of,.. but,. what was the intent,. without some kind of witness to attest to some type of target or anything,. they could claim the stuff was for self defense,... yes,. thats total BS, but the thing is,. you can't prove otherwise,.. thus the issue also becomes,. if this goes all the way,. what all can they even be convicted of?
So for these guys,. strategically, there best bet is keep there mouths shut, and let their lawyers do there jobs and get them the best deal possible...
sad,. but its the reality of life
2007-01-27 01:08:40 · answer #2 · answered by Z 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Its all part of the game for them. There is a minute chance that they could get off on a technicality. You can bet that their lawyers will examine every avenue. The trial is costing the British people many millions of pounds so that's another 'victory' for them.
Another thing to consider is that history is full of people being found guilty on overwhelming evidence, later to be proven innocent. Lets listen to their defence before rushing to judgement, after all that's what the jury has to do.
2007-01-26 00:14:20 · answer #3 · answered by Corneilius 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
i think they deny it so they can continue to blow innocent people up but that is not really the point because they do not get off any way. the suicide bombers are just planning to kill themselves and people around them. people should not be taking a leaf out of saddam hussains book because look where his stupidity got him.
2007-01-25 23:26:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
please nobody forget the good natured defense layers being paid a fortune to defend their cases and lie, like how they told the bombers to say it was just a "demonstration" -no lawyer could defend the point that the bombers had no plans for after the attack -strange that if it was just a 'demenstration' that was so well planned. Some defense lawyers are scum. if there is money to be made like this, they will be there...
2007-01-25 23:35:05 · answer #5 · answered by chrisbowe82 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
denial is a strong defence we have all faced that . no one expects that another can actualy catch their actions on tape as evidence to be used as proof in a case against them because they are( taught). they are not responsable for their actions,to such a degree as the teacher , the one to hold accountable . the root not the leaf.if the nurishment of that teaching is no longer present then the person will most likely want to live and look for a new source to learn from. ( just an opinion).
2007-01-25 23:32:32 · answer #6 · answered by Conway 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
they are guilty there is no doubt about that but what if the jury consists of 6 or even more closet Muslim sympathisers they would be found not guilty. Also they are hurting the system they hate by prolonging the trial and gaining more extremist muslims to join the islamic idiots club. we should have our own Guantanamo bay set lock them up and forget about them.
2007-01-25 23:43:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
1. They're not suicide bombers. If they were, they'd be dead. They're accused bombers.
2. How naive does someone have to be not to expect a defendant to deny charges against him? You have to be living in a fantasy to expect people being accused of trying everything he can to get off.
3. If anyone accuses these muslims of "not standing up for what they believe in", do you speak out as loudly about christian terrorists like James Kopp and Eric Rudolph. If they were so "righteous", how come they and other anti-abortion terrorists run away instead of facing the criminal charges against them?
"nighthawk" got it wrong. The danger is religion; christian terrorism is just as bad as islamic terrorism.
.
2007-01-26 01:57:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
They deny it so the trial goes on and on and on,just think how much it is going to cost the taxpayer.This is their 'finger' to the public.
2007-01-25 23:31:29 · answer #9 · answered by pageys 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
These people have absolutely no brains. I think that fact is obvious when a human being straps a bomb to themselves and tries to blow themselves up. hahha! Not too much going on upstairs under that turban.
I personally think their punishment should be to have a real bomb strapped to them and to be blown up. Hey you want to blow up....fine here you go. BOOM!!!!
2007-01-25 23:25:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋