More alleged terrorists cleared

[Gromit]

Four years, �150Million, 2 trials and no one convicted of helping the 7/7 bombers.

Three men have been cleared of helping to plan the 7/7 London suicide attacks.
A retrial jury at Kingston Crown Court found them not guilty of conspiring with the 2005 bombers by organising a reconnaissance mission to London.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7507842.stm

In the end, the evidence presented failed to convince a jury and we must ask why?

Is the burden of proof set too high?
Are the terrorists just too smart?
Are the police under pressure to bring prosecutions even when they lack the evidence to convict?
Were the jury hoodwinked?

[Lonnie]

I'd say no to all your questions, they just belong to the right religion.

[dundurn]

The burden of proof is the same in all criminal trials. To deprive someone of their liberty requires that the prosecution prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. To lower this level would place all of us and our society at risk - so no, I don't think it's too high.

Are the terrorists too smart? It's not a question of being smart or stupid. These people have been cleared of this particular charge; I believe one was convicted of a lesser offence. If the evidence is insufficient, that's the way things are. Conspiracy, aiding and abetting etc have always been difficult to establish for good reason - many people have friends and family who get into trouble and who are sometimes the very last to know what they've got themselves into. Many a parent has done nothing to hinder a police investigation but has stopped short of "shopping" their child. Many a friend has given someone a lift to the train station or the airport only to find out later that they were fleeing justice. Are they guilty simply by association? In Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany, undoubtedly, but here? I hope never.

The police don't bring prosecutions. The CPS do. Sometimes they decide on balance to present a case and leave it up to the jury to decide.

I didn't hear the evidence as presented in court so I can't tell whether the jury were hoodwinked or not, but they weren't convinced. I have to be content with that.

[naomi24]

These are dangerous men, but sadly we do have to be content with that. The law really is an ass.

[Gromit]

naomi24

Two Juries (who heard the full evidence) failed to find them guilty.

[naomi24]

I know.

[rojash]

Naomi, can you tell us the facts that you know, that were unknown to both of the juries?

[paraffin]

I couldn't begin to answer the questions because I'm not privy to the evidence which was presented. No matter, we have to conclude now that following two trials the evidence either was too weak or that the jury/ies weren't convinced sufficiently to bring in guilty verdicts.

And despite the massive cost of bringing the prosecutions, I think it seems likely to have been justified given the fact that there was apparently sufficient reason(s) for not one, but two trials to be pursued for several years.

And I would imagine that the families, relatives and friends of the 52 dead and the numerous maimed and injured would deem it money justifiably spent in the search for justice.

However, three men have been cleared of serious charges which goes to demonstrate that, despite its knockers, the scales of British justice are as impartial as ever.

[ELVIS68]

Fooking farce...deport them

[tamborine]

Another day - another way......we'll soon see where their true loyalties are!

[ELVIS68]

Very true tamborine....they must be laughing their fooking arses off

[NiceCupOfTea]

I hope the killers get justice, paraffin. Those that weren't the killers were released. One of the mums said she felt bad for everyone involved, including those caught up because they should choose their friends better. She seems like a woman with an exceptionally big heart. I hope her daughter�s killers were watching.

[tamborine]

Wait for compensation claims! That'll be the last laugh.

[NiceCupOfTea]

Ha ha ha ha....
I'd say that's cynical, except I can't because you've captured the zeitgeist. I don't know whether I should heed the Biblical warnings about this or just write a song and reap the Prophets.

[naomi24]

Rojash, The full facts weren't known to the Jury. They were unaware, for example, that Ali had links to Omar Khyam and had attended meetings with him, Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer. I repeat, these are dangerous men, but nevertheless because of our judicial system they will roam free to follow their chosen path. We must be absolutely mad!

[NiceCupOfTea]

Just because you know a criminal doesn't make you a criminal. I think that was the gist of what got these people off the hook.

Who are the 'we' who must be mad? And why?

[naomi24]

This country - and the why is already answered.

[Ankou]

As so often the case, just because they have been found not guilty, it doesn't mean they are innocent.