They said he was arrested on thst suspicion so that might have been some means of holding him. They had bloody enough to hold the ****.
Police and the CPS have to be very careful to follow the correct procedure, because if they don't the defence can bring down the case. It's frustrating, but we'll have to wait a while before any real details are revealed.
Suggestion is he was not drunk or on drugs. Apparently he is a tea total, church going, fitness fanatic. He is an ex marine, but no mention of him seeing combat so can't use PTSD as an excuse. Time will tell, but the most damning evidence will be the CCTV and mobile phone footage.
Can't have been a marine and be 53 now and not have seen any service since 2001 to 202whatever. As far as I am concerned the above is not fact until the evidence of sobriety is presented in court but it eliminates all defense imo. you were stone cold sober and should know the area so you tail gaited an ambulance into a pedestrian zone then road raged into a crowd for what reason? Off your face. Apparently not Scared. Obviously not Total ****. Obviously.
He was a marine, spent his time guarding nuclear sites in Scotland. Not all marines saw service in war zones. A recent neighbour of mine used to enjoy the middle east wars as a marine. His view was he was doing what he trained for and loved the adrenaline rush.
They'd not rotate the capable in and out of active coins for a rest. Never ever having being off a safe base suggests something to me anyway.
Just assuming off his age. 53 - 24 = 29. He could have been out of the marines before 2001 in theory. Roll back to 1992 that's 20 years old so Bosnia is possible but unlikely. I suppose my point would be we assume the word veteran = ptsd but there's a lot that won't ever have seen any action The brain washing done like converting the red poppy from an anti war and charity symbol into a patriotic war supporting symbol has people believing this ****
His defence barrister will throw everything into the pot, but the fact remains he still could have stopped and he appears to have aimed his car at the crowds, and he is a little sh*t
Yeah. I would still hope some shred of humanity means he pleads guilty. The video is simply not contestable even with some cracked fear for his life defense You.can clearly drive straight but don't.
With the video footage being easily available all over social media, is it useable in court? Pretty **** if it isn't but thought that was how it worked
It's public domain so the veracity and authenticity of the video needs to be proved. There will be police cctv, street cctv with detestable and body cam footage somewhere as well. I'd be surprised if they can't get a warrant to force the Google or tiktoks or whoever to prove the videos tike and locations.
Mate, I'll not paste it on here, but I have a social media picture of him sent by my sister, and he's completely trollied at some do. He's not from West Derby either (well not what Scousers call West Derby). He's from Croxteth Hall Park. Right on the boundary of Knowsley. And wait until the court case to see whether they decide to pursue that charge re drugs to the November hearing, but they'd have never even mentioned it on suspicion had they not had a blood/urine sample.
He won't be tried in Liverpool. I'm guessing Preston, Manchester, or Chester. They'll have to find 15 people who'll swear they never saw the original footage, but they won't let him get off because his crime was televised. It is leverage for his counsel to squeeze out some sort of lesser charge though if he pleads guilty on some hotchpotch of diminished responsibility. If you're interested, the usual suspects on the Prem Board are already speculating this and chortling in anticipation of the public reaction (especially in Liverpool), expecting, perhaps rightly, that there will be Hillsborough-type reactions along with cries for 'Juschtice!' (their characterisation), when the ****er walks away with a couple of years suspended. Chortles and bantz all round, apparently.
I spend a lot of time on the PL board so name names because i have missed this. My take, guy has got himself into a bad situation and tried to back out, got the rear of his car attacked (after backing into someone and throwing him backwards) and panicked so shot forward. Did he set out with this intention, did he ****. Can you honestly say how you would have reacted in the same situation? If he gets jail time he deserves it for endagering life but i doubt he is a pre-meditated killer.
No, but as soon as it became clear he wasn't a Muslamic terrorist the usual suspects online and in the media pivoted to the next available stereotype - 'rioting Scousers'. No way can Mr Cul De Sac be allowed to take the blame for being off his cake on whizz, tailgating an ambulance, reversing at high speed into a fan who objected to him beeping his horn, and trying to force his way through, then using his car as a battering ram to get out of the situation he alone created, and only stopping when kids were clogging his front wheels up. But yeah, Mr Nice Guy just made the same error all of us could have made in Liverpool city centre going down a one-way street. Well, apart from the fact he deliberately tailgated an ambulance and ignored 'Road Closed' signs.
