Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
“More than 15 years have passed since the Belfast agreement, there have been very few prosecutions, and every competent criminal lawyer will tell you the prospects of conviction diminish, perhaps exponentially, with each passing year, so we are in a position now where I think we have to take stock,” he said.
|
Again this is only Larkin's opinion. It's notable that there isn't a tsunami comprised of "every competent criminal lawyer" in the UK chomping at the bit to agree with him (and not simply because of the loss of potential earnings).
There have been plenty of criminal convictions for crimes (whether terror related or not) 15 plus years old upon which forensics and ballistics were not in any shape or form "crucial". Aside from this being at this stage a non consulted opinion of Larkin's the question is, as I asked earlier, "What has suddenly changed? Why this sudden urgency & will to move on and "forget" the past on the part of our judiciary? Anyone would think they are trying to avoid something".
You can't just do away with due process and justice becuse a few rather inconvenient truths might be exposed. That, in itself, is criminal.
I suspect TheDaddy may be on to something.