Today was convicted of a grenade attack in Paris in 1974 and denies his guilt. What's strange about this?
1. He was convicted of many other killings and has boasted of up to 2000 people dying at his hands as a 'revolutionary for hire'
2. He is serving two life sentences with no parole option and will die in prison in France.
3. The evidence was scant and there were no witnesses
4. The only option he would have of escape is in court (so you'd think prosecutors would be sure of their case).
Any legal bods out there who can shed some light on why on Earth the French police would bring the case now?
1. He was convicted of many other killings and has boasted of up to 2000 people dying at his hands as a 'revolutionary for hire'
2. He is serving two life sentences with no parole option and will die in prison in France.
3. The evidence was scant and there were no witnesses
4. The only option he would have of escape is in court (so you'd think prosecutors would be sure of their case).
Any legal bods out there who can shed some light on why on Earth the French police would bring the case now?
