Quote:
Originally Posted by anonypony
Dear Murnut and all
Was it a fair plea?
The question of 'a fair plea' and the notion that it was guarantied in writing, something you repeat ad infini with an air of authority, is where you are grossly misinformed in my view.
I would be very interested if you could provide any documented EVIDENCE to support this claim. Quoting the House of Lords decision, is not sufficient. and here is why:
When Gary was offered the plea he was inclined to take it. However when he asked for all the promises offered, to be guarantied in writing, the prosecutors refused. Within the bundle of documents submitted to the courts, there is a letter from the prosecutors, which clearly states that they reserve the right to declare Gary a terrorist and reserve the right to prosecute and lock him up ‘tanamo style. This letter was part of the evidence submitted to the house of lords hearing, it was never refuted as authentic, and it was discussed as part of the hearing, but despite it all, there is no mention of it in the HL ruling.
With this information in mind what do you think - Is that a fair plea?
Can we trust this people?
Lets look at another similar case, that of Kevin David Mitnick - he was left to rot in jail for four and a half years pre-trial, until he agreed to a plea! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick
In other words there is a great chance, that there is never going to be any court case, UNLESS there is a guilty plea!
Should one plea if s/he did not do the crime they are accused of?
This is a huge question. What would you do? (question to all)
|
Thanks for proving my point....he did 5 years...not 70.
Gary has admitted the hacking.
When I get a speeding ticket, I pay the fine