Actually yes they did get charged with "attempted murder". The Defence QC got those charges dropped on a simple technicality. He argued that because they ****ed up when making the package that it could not be reasonably proved that they did actually attempt to murder anyone. The analogy he used was that it was akin to sending someone poisoned chocolates. For it to be attempted murder someone would have to actually eat said chocolates. However, they were still charged and stood trial (originally) for attempted murder. If their only intent was to "scare" Lennon then why bother preparing the Bomb (that's what it was) with explosives, a timer and materiel which was likely to cause injury? That was the prosecution's line of argument which was backed up by the Royal Navy bomb disposal expert who testified that the package was a "Viable" explosive device. As an aside, Richard Reid the notorious "Shoe Bomber" messed up when he made his shoe bomb and therefore it did not detonate. He is currently serving concurrrent life sentences. He was found guilty of attempted murder (among other charges), maybe he should have asked to be tried in a Scottish court, he would maybe have got off, especially if Neil Lennon was his intended target.
I think you will find he used a brown brogue of dignity, which was such an affront to the establishment they had no option but to bang him up good-style.
that was pure naivety, more to do with his cosseted upbringing and lack of exposure to the A-Team than reality.
On Wednesday, at the conclusion of the Advocate Depute's closing speech, Gordon Jackson QC, defending Mr Muirhead, asked the judge if he could discuss a legal matter in the absence of the jury. Jury members left the court and Mr Jackson then put forward his argument that the Crown had put forward no proper evidence of intent to commit murder in it's closing argument. Mr Jackson pointed out that in Scottish law Murder is defined as to "wickedly kill" which means that the act must be intentional, adding that intent to kill had to consist of more than a "pious hope" that someone would lose their life. Mr Jackson drew an analogy with a murderer attempting to kill his victim by injecting poison into a box of chocolates. In this case a jury could legitimately infer an intent to kill, even if the sender had made a mistake and used a harmless chemical instead. However as the devices sent by Mr Muirhead were, in Mr Jackson's phrase "rubbish", lacking as they did any attempt to create an ignition system, the jury could not reasonably infer an expectation by his client that his actions could lead to someone losing their life. Mr Jackson pointed out that even sending a stick of dynamite through the post could not be seen as attempted murder as, unless the recipient lit the fuse themselves, it could not explode. The Advocate depute responded by reminding Lord Turbull of his decision earlier in the week to deny a motion to dismiss the case from Donald Findlay, arguing that this motion was covering the same ground. Lord Turnbull responded that he regarded Mr Jackson's argument as "more subtle" than the previous motion and adjourned the court while he considered his response. When court resumed around an hour and a half later Lord Turnbull ruled in favour of Mr Jackson and instructed the Crown to remove the words "Murder" and "Death" from the indictment. The Advocate Depute then asked for permission to appeal this decision to a higher court, which would have involved a two day delay in the trial. Lord Turnbull then adjourned the court briefly and when court resumed the Advocate Depute withdraw his objections. The charge of conspiracy to commit "murder and assault" was then reduced to conspiracy to assault,the charge the jury found both men guilty of on Friday http://openjusticeuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/intent-and-murder.html#more
Lord Turnbull said the evidence at the trial "made it clear beyond any doubt that the devices could not have exploded." BBC
