355,

Ok, part of a plea in mitigation. But it still wasn’t used.

The Huffington post article also implies that this was a battlefield mercy killing, which I don’t have a problem with. It wasn’t, or else this would have been a defence at the courts martial.

Funny ole world aint it?, they train soldiers to kill the enemy, and as soon as they do, they find themselves up before the “Old Beak” for murder.That Talliban was “Dead” before Sgt A finished him off, sort of did him a favour, by putting him out of his misery.
War is War,, is war.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

there has never been a suggestion that this was a mercy killing. If it were, I’m sure it would have been used in the Marine’s defence.

J

From ITV
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-11-10/funeral-dambusters-war-veteran-harold-jellicoe-percival/

Reminiscent of the story of Dam Buster Bill Townsend’s rear gunner who died in poverty in the late 70’s. He would have gone to a paupers grave had there not been a media appeal then and help from his ex-comrades.

There is one question left unanswered.
Who in the military deemed it necessary to prosecute the Marine in the first place?
This case should have been delt with internally and if it was just `this is what happens in war` should have gone no further.

What, cold blooded murder?

Trying to follow all this can be difficult!
Anyway, I am so pleased I posted Tim Collins speech and that the sane people here understood why I posted it.
Point on disclosure of the Royal Marines’ names, there is legal precedence for the guilty also to remain anonymous, and I believe, in this case, he should.

Finally, there are no winners here.

See this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2493591/We-wont-condemn-killer-Marine-Ex-Commando-chiefs-vow-soldier-WW2-convicted-murder-battle.html

And where is John G.????

Now this I do disagree with!

“The court is also dealing with the question of whether to identify those involved.
Earlier, Judge Advocate General Jeff Blackett ruled that the names of the defendants and those of Marines D and E, against whom charges of murder were discontinued, should be identified publicly.
The judge said: ‘The principle of open justice is immutable and must only be restricted where either the administration of justice would be seriously affected without the grant of an order for anonymity or there would be a real and immediate risk to the personnel were anonymity not granted.
‘This is not a case relating to the administration of justice and I am not satisfied that those who seek a continuance of the anonymity order have demonstrated that the fear that the marines’ lives will be at risk is objectively well-founded.’
However, counsel for the marines said they wished to appeal over the judge’s ruling.
The issue of whether the servicemen will be identified will be decided by the Court Martial Appeals Board, which is expected to hear the case before Marine A is sentenced.”