The trial of those accused of the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby starts
After lengthy pre-trial legal argument, of which more about later, and an extended period of Jury selection, the trial of the two Jihadis accused of the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in May 2013 has just begun. The jury has been sworn in, they’ve been warned by the Judge to make decisions only on the evidence presented to the court and the prosecuting counsel has got to his feet.
The prosecutor, Mr Richard Whittam, QC described in harrowing and horrifying detail the last moments of Drummer Rigby’s life and his violent demise allegedly at the hands of Michael Adebolajo, 28, and Michael Adebowale, 22.
Sky News reported how the defendants were flanked by a consderable number of security officers in a dock that has been walled with safety glass, while the Jury was shown CCTV footage of the incident.
Sky News said:
“There were gasps from the public gallery as the video showed a Vauxhall Tigra knocking the soldier down before crashing into a road sign.
The court was told that the two men then got out of the car, dragged the unconscious soldier into the street, and attacked him with a meat cleaver and knives.
The defendants chose to mutilate the soldier in the middle of the road – just yards from a primary school – so people could watch, the court was told.
One witness account, outlined by the prosecution, described how one of the attackers “knelt down” by Lee Rigby and took hold of his hair.
“He then repeatedly hacked at the right side of his neck just below the jawline,” Mr Richard Whittam, QC, prosecuting, said.
On the opening day of the trial, the Old Bailey was told how Mr Rigby was hit by the car from behind as he walked back to Woolwich Barracks, on May 22.”
The Jihadi beasts, one of whom has been photographed attending demonstrations with Anjem Choudhury and his band of bearded mental patients, made no attempt to hide their crime and acted in a way to maximise public attention.
Sky News reported the Prosecutor Mr Whittam as saying:
“ “Both men then dragged his body into the middle of the road. They wanted members of the public to see the consequence of what can only be described as their barbarous acts.
“They had committed, you may think, a cowardly and callous murder by deliberately attacking an unarmed man in plain clothes from behind, using a vehicle as a weapon, and then they murdered him and mutilated his body with that meat cleaver and knives.”
Adebolajo tried to decapitate the soldier while Adebowale stabbed and cut him, the jury heard.
Mr Whittam said: “They both attacked the motionless body of Lee Rigby.
“He was repeatedly stabbed and it appears it was Michael Adebolajo, the first defendant, who made a serious and almost successful attempt to decapitate Lee Rigby with multiple blows to his neck made with the meat cleaver.”
When you read the opening speech from Mr Whittam and see exactly how much visual and witness evidence is out there in the public domain, it is hard to understand why these pair didn’t plead guilty. They’ve demanded that they be known by their stupid Jihad Names, which leads me to believe that they are still Jihad-minded, therefore the only conclusion I can come to is that they want to bask in the ‘glory’ of their action.
The trial is an opportunity to relive their sick act in a similar way to how serial killers will sometimes keep a ‘trophy’ of a killing, or how a paedophile will make records of the abuse that they carry out. This trial, like the serial killer’s trophy or the nonce’s private collection of sick video film, is a way that these Jihadi beasts can experience again the exhilaration they must have felt when they killed in the name of their evil deity Allah and its murderous paedophile ‘prophet’. They may have pleaded not guilty purely to get a bit of short term ‘jihadi stardom’ and to use the trial to inspire other murderous Islamic scumbags resident both here and overseas.
At this point we can only hope that the Jury return the most appropriate verdict in this case. It will be interesting to hear and read how their counsel will run their defence. Will it be a case where no defence is offered with the jihadi beasts declining to enter the witness box, or will some form of mental illness defence be offered? Who will give evidence for them? Will representatives of those various mosques and Islamic centres up and down the country where at least one of the Jihadi beasts passed through be called?
This case could open a lot of people’s eyes to the extent that jihad encouragement is going on in British Islamic institutions. I once said that the murder of Drummer Rigby was a turning point in British attitudes to the religion of exploding to pieces, I still stand by that, but I believe the trial will also be a turning point as well. It could also help to expose an Islamic network that does little to divert the mad and the bad from jihadist tendencies.
On the subject of the trial of Adebolajo and Adebowale (I refuse to refer to them by their stupid, adopted Islamic jihadi names) I’d like to address those who during the period of pre-trial argument and empanelment of the Jury, screamed the word ‘censorship’ on Twitter and elsewhere. A little bit of knowledge, it is said, can be a dangerous thing, but zero knowledge can be utterly lethal. By long established legal custom, a Jury is only presented with evidence that is allowable, eg not hearsay or other inadmissable evidence. To avoid the future jury from being ‘contaminated’ by inadmissable evidence or information that is not relevant to the case, there are reporting restrictions in place. This is the reason why the case started, but there were no reports. It was not ‘censorship’ but normal legal procedure. Those who screamed about censorship of the courts not only showed their ignorance of procedure but also made themselves look a bit silly and paranoid.
In the Civilised world we do indeed face a significant threat from the ideology of Islam, but screaming about censorship, when such an accusation was patently unwarranted, detracts from the fight against it. There are plenty of facts out there that can be used to damn Islam with, there should be no need for the hair-trigger screaming tactics of the conspira-loon.
There were no string-pulling Illuminati at work here, just lawyers doing lawyer-y stuff before the main trial which often happens. Those who believe that there was censorship here maybe should go and play with the deranged believers in such rubbish as HAARP, Chemtrails, Illuminati, shape shifting lizards, 9/11 demolition squads, New World Order and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, where they may be happier. Going off half cocked, like many people did over the legal argument surrounding this case, is no way to carry on and only serves to diminish and damage the counterjihad cause.
Original story from Sky News