Further delays to Lee Rigby Woolwich murders trial.

First of all let me say that I'm not quite sure which Forum to post this, if Mods and Admin can find a better suit then please do.

Secondly, this is more for information - of course there could be conspiracy theories surrounding the reasoning, personally I think it's too early to decide for sure.

The trial of the alleged, (I use the word 'alleged' as under UK Law they are innocent until proven guilty), killers has been further delayed.
The trial was due to start on Monday but was postponed until today. As far as I can make out it started at 12.16 and after 31minutes it was adjourned again until 14.00. The trial is listed to continue tomorrow in Court 2 of The Old Bailey.

www.thelawpages.com...
www.courtserve.net...
www.courtserve.net...

The trial is listed For Mention which in legal parlance means;

A case will be listed for mention in the Crown Court if there is something that one of the parties wants the judge to rule on before the trial has started. This might be a formal application, for example for the court to rule on whether or not the prosecution can rely on some hearsay evidence, or it might be something minor, like the Defence getting a bollocking for not having filed a Defence Case statement or something like that. This is why it is called a mention, it's being dealt with very quickly, usually in 20 minutes or so, by a judge. The Defendant would usually not have to attend unless bailed to do so, only his lawyer.

answers.yahoo.com...

It is stated that the Defendants have to attend the hearing.

I have no idea which side is seeking a ruling or what it is about and it's pointless trying to second guess the exact nature. I'm not even too sure as to whether it can be legally reported upon until the Judge gives his verdict.

But what I do find quite disconcerting is that no news outlets are reporting on this. There is no mention on any MSM websites or news stations and it's very hard to find any details at all.
The best report on this in the media I can find is this;
www.newsshopper.co.uk...
I think News Shopper is a local London publication but to be honest I'm not too sure.

My concerns are whether there is a news blackout in place and at whose instigation and why?

I understand that this is a very sensitive case but surely the people have a right to know exactly what is going within our judicial system.

Makes me wonder that if and when the trial itself actually begins what reporting restrictions will be in place and at whose instigation?

Hopefully someone with more experience of the legal profession will be able to shed some light and possibly ease the obvious suspicions.

ETA

The explanation of what For Mention means is not a legal definition but rather a simplified summary - hope that bit wasn't mis-leading.

reply to post by Freeborn


Just get those 2 scumbags, stand them in the middle of the grounds at Buckingham Palace, give sky news a call and invite everyone on Facebook and exicute them publicly.

Its time to bring this to a close and let Mr Rigbys family grieve in privacy.

wlasikiewicz
reply to post by Freeborn

 

Just get those 2 scumbags, stand them in the middle of the grounds at Buckingham Palace, give sky news a call and invite everyone on Facebook and exicute them publicly.

Its time to bring this to a close and let Mr Rigbys family grieve in privacy.

I think they should at least question them about their backgrounds and alleged links.

If they did it on orders then killing them will do nothing to stop the problem.

reply to post by Freeborn


When I saw that the trial was today, I was shocked. I havent seen anything about it, till now.
What also struck me is that we have had 2 "big" news stories today.
1. "Historic" Announcement by London Underground.(The MSM's headline, not mine).
Which amounted to 24 hr service at weekends, but 750 job losses.
(Please note, it was said on LBC London that "today would be a good day to bury news" as a result of that)
2. Later in the day news breaks of 3 Women Held Captive for 30 Yrs.

I cannot believe the total lack of coverage for what was one of the most emotion stirring events in the last 20 years.
Im starting to think that there is more than meets the eye to this case.

Im sure TPTB are very concerned about what will come out in this trial, especially as one of the suspects was "tortured" abroad and later offered a place with the intelligence services which he supposedly refused.

reply to post by OneManArmy

I cannot believe the total lack of coverage for what was one of the most emotion stirring events in the last 20 years.

There are many questions related to this case that need answering - an open trial is only the beginning.

But as you point out, what has really concerned me this week is the complete lack of reporting on this case.
I accept there could be legal technicalities that prohibit in depth reporting at this point - it is imperative that the trial is not prejudiced.
But if so then surely MSM could simply report that the two were in court but for legal reasons the exact details can not be reported on at this time.

What we have is an apparent news blackout - restrictions on reporting would not result in a complete blackout. That suggests to me that either the government has requested or enforced it.
If that is the case we need to know the reasoning behind the blackout - legal reasons or just an attempt to conduct the trial with the minimum of publicity so as not to stir up the raw passion that this case arouses in many people.

In my opinion it's too early to determine exactly why the blackout, perhaps we'll know better when eventually the trial starts in earnest.....but I can't help being suspicious.
Hopefully there will be valid legal reasons or that there's simply nothing to report yet, however.......

reply to post by Freeborn


Im sure there are reasons for the blackout, and Im also pretty sure that "preventing public emotions running high" will be the quoted reason. That or the default of "to prevent media interference".

I hope it is because there is simply nothing to report, I think this case should be transparent.

There has definitely not been much coverage on the MSM, which I do find strange.

Unfortunately this all episode has been shrouded with doubt from the beginning. There has been a lot of conspiracy claims regarding it and maybe this has ensured that it is kept out of the spotlight?

It does appear to be a bit start stop, but that's the nature of modern trials I guess? There's always a precedence to set after all.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


It was the strangest thing I have saw in all my years.

2 men cut a guys head off and then stand there talking to people, the people don't run they stand there just like it was a normal day, woman, woman with kids, familes etc.

Stand in a crowd in the open air and shout fire and you will get more of a reaction.

I don't know what to make of it.

The 'trial' resumed at 10.35 and was adjourned at 12.22 presumably for lunch and is due to recommence at 14.30.

Still no reports that I can find on MSM about the current court proceedings.

Apparently the two accused are scheduled to appear for yet another For Mention hearing on Monday.
Still no-one seems to know when the trial will start and no-one is reporting on it and no-one seems to really care.

What's to try...Two Muslims pissed off at the UK's foreign policy with regards to Muslim counties, go out a murder what they believe was a legitimate target..A Soldier, they must be found guilty as soon as possible and deported from this country..preferably by Canon.

Freeborn
Apparently the two accused are scheduled to appear for yet another For Mention hearing on Monday.
Still no-one seems to know when the trial will start and no-one is reporting on it and no-one seems to really care.

I heard Nick Ferrari on LBC make the claim that "if the newspapers arent reporting something, then there is no public interest"
I have never heard such a misinformed and biased summarisation in my life.
OK I have heard plenty, but this one is way up there with the worst.
A whole week and I havent heard a single mention of the case in the MSM.

Soloprotocol
What's to try...Two Muslims pissed off at the UK's foreign policy with regards to Muslim counties, go out a murder what they believe was a legitimate target..A Soldier, they must be found guilty as soon as possible and deported from this country..preferably by Canon.

And that sir, is exactly what you are expected to think.

When this first happened I was highly caught in the emotional response, I was deeply shocked.
As more information came out, I became skeptical and the more I engaged logic and not emotion, I found the story to be highly questionable. The background of Michael Adebolajo(the one who did the talking) raises a few flags to say the least.

reply to post by Soloprotocol


As much as I understand, and to a certain extent agree with the sentiments you expressed, due legal procedure has to be followed.
And that procedure includes and open and public trial where ALL relevant evidence is presented to a jury and a verdict is reached.
The trial should not be allowed to become a propaganda vehicle for the accused and neither should it be viewed as condemnation of all Muslims.

It's a trial of two people accused of murdering a complete stranger in cold blood and it is a case that has massive pulic interest and MSM aren't reporting anything about it.
Surely you ask yourself why when there was such a massive public reaction to this murder?
For what purpose and reason are MSM failing to report on it and at whose request or instruction?

reply to post by OneManArmy

I heard Nick Ferrari on LBC make the claim that "if the newspapers arent reporting something, then there is no public interest"

Unfortunately for many their only exposure to news and current affairs are what they read in The Sun, The Star, The Mirror etc.
Some actually bother to listen to BBC, Sky and local News bulletins but how many actually bother to let the information sink in and think for themselves, how many look for independent corroboration and how many look for different perspectives or news stories not reported in MSM?

But I suspect that this isn't a case where MSM have decided there is no story to be reported but rather a news blackout as a result of either a legal ruling as a result of the subject of the For Mention hearings, some other legal instruction from the Court so as not to prejudice the case or as an instruction / ruling coming from the government.

If it comes from the government I can only guess that it can be for one of two reasons; either the government fear the publics response or they have something to hide - possibly even an element of both.

A whole week and I havent heard a single mention of the case in the MSM.

Exactly. Considering the passion that this case provoked not one TV station or national newspaper has reported on this weeks proceedings.
I would have expected at least a quick report stating something like; " two people appeared at The Old Bailey today accused of the killing of Lee Rigby but for legal reasons we can not report on the exact details at present" - I'm absolutely certain it's happened before.

As more information came out, I became skeptical and the more I engaged logic and not emotion, I found the story to be highly questionable.

There's certainly a few questions that need to be both asked and answered. And the best place for that to happen is in an open court reported on fully by an independent media.
And bear in mind the government is trying to impose further press restrictions as a result of the Leveson Report etc.

Cant we just put them in a super gun and use Tony Blair as wadding. there is a recession on and it sure would save many millions of Tax payers money...

As an ex court reporter It'd be contempt of court to to publish at this time .

With the links to SIS approaching one of the (alleged) killers there's likely security injuctions on information with a 'interests of national security' proviso on the case. The media blackout exists to protect the identity of witnesses while a trial is ongoing and it will be lifted after.

Also media guidelines aren't to glorify cases like that as they can cause race war, make martyrs out of the (alleged) murderers and inspire copycats.

Plus the last thing you want is the trial being thrown out and the bastards not being punished because of contempt.

Finally they plead guilty so they're likely to be glorifying what they did or sending out code to others in their court speeches which can't be reported on for national security reasons.

The locations and times are known to the press but they're not going to be revealed to the public for fear of a terrorist attack, or EDL-types beating up jurors and storming courts again causing the case to be thrown out.

reply to post by Soloprotocol


Great idea, there's a few other's I'd like to literally throw in as well - Cameron, Clegg, Miliband, Farage, Salmond, Brown and whilst we are at it we could get rid of the wicked witches bones.
Why stop at politicians - throw in all the Senior Civil Servants, Police Officers, Judiciary, Bankers, Industrialists - job sorted.

I'm sure that'd send a clear message to the rest of the assorted scumbags in the UK.

bastion
As an ex court reporter It'd be contempt of court to to publish at this time .

With the links to SIS approaching one of the (alleged) killers there's likely security injuctions on information with a 'interests of national security' proviso on the case.

Also media guidelines aren't to glorify cases like that as they can cause race war, make martyrs out of the (alleged) murderers and inspire copycats.

Plus the last thing you want is the trial being thown out and the bastards not being punished because of contempt.

The locations and times are known to the press but they're not going to be revealed to the public for fear of a terrorist attack, or EDL-types beating up jurors and storming courts again causing the case to be thrown out.

edit on 23-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

A very good point, this case is highly inflammatory.
But then so is secrecy.

reply to post by bastion


I understand a lot of what you're saying.....but the people of this country have a right to know that legal proceedings are ongoing but for whatever reasons they can not be reported on in detail at yet.

Also media guidelines aren't to glorify cases like that as they can cause race war, make martyrs out of the (alleged) murderers and inspire copycats.

Reporting FACTS isn't glorifying anything - it's the sensationalist approach used by parts of the media that makes martyrs or villains out of those involved.

Plus the last thing you want is the trial being thown out and the bastards not being punished because of contempt.

I agree with that entirely and I think I touched upon that a couple of times.

The locations and times are known to the press but they're not going to be revealed to the public for fear of a terrorist attack, or EDL-types beating up jurors and storming courts again causing the case to be thrown out.

Why would EDL 'beat up jurors'?
Surely it's Islamic extremists who'd wish to halt the trial or get maximum exposure from it?

And it's too late, Nick Griffen and BNP along with some other protesters were there on Monday and Thursday - not too sure about yesterday.
Anyone can find out very easily if they know where to look

reply to post by OneManArmy


From what I gather the secrecy is in place as their are ongoing investigations into other terrorists.groups and reporting on these would give them the heads up to destroy evidence or launch immediate attacks.

It's worth mentioning he was approached by MI5 to work for them months before and his friend that appeared on BBC News/Newsnight was arrested after announcing that - so chances are there's a major investigation and infiltration of terrorist cells going on meaning they can't release the info.