From: "Richard Loweth", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Martin's essential problem, like that of Lee Clegg was that both went for an
"all or nothing" defence. Both could have argued that they (Martin) fired to
scare the burglars away or (Clegg) that they fired to disable the car. This
would have raised a near certain likelihood of some sort of conviction for
manslaughter but would have thrown away the "all or nothing" chance of an
acquittal for murder.
You pays your money and takes your chance. What Martin may have forgotten is
that whilst he may have been very likely to have been convicted for
manslaughter the Judge would then have had total liberty in deciding
sentence. I have seen those convicted of manslaughter receive a two year
suspended sentence!
As to "how far away" he was when he fired the shots that is a simple matter
of measuring spread of shot by firing the gun at cloth targets at varying
distances with the same make and type of cartridge (preferably from the same
box). Although nothing in forensic ballistics is 100% exact, determining
distance from muzzle to target in a shotgun shooting is a reasonably exact
science. Certainly sufficiently enough to establish whether it is five feet
or five yards.
Lastly, whilst I have my own views, Tony Martin would have had no knowledge
of any convictions that the burglars possessed, or, unless the trial
evidence disclosed something not reported in the papers; that they were
burglars at all.
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
