Christ's Murder case; All accuses discharged acquitted

There is need to ensure Justice that this why the following persons did face trial for the death of Christ ;Judas Iscariot, Caiaphas, Anna, Commandant Jerusalem cantonment and Pontius Pilate.
http://www.konga.com/?utm_source=affiliates&utm_medium=notification_newsletter&utm_term=homepage&utm_content=05_01_2016&utm_campaign=homepage&k_id=angeltreasure

Judas Iscariot - A close associate of the victim pleaded guilty out of his personal relationship with his master. In actual fact his attorney said Judas was not guilty he only carried out his civic responsibility by handing over a perceived "criminal" to the state through the religious leaders. Besides, the 30 pieces silver was not a bribe but a reward for commendable act. Moreover, a singular action of kiss is of no crime to human race but a sign of brotherhood.

http://www.konga.com/?utm_source=affiliates&utm_medium=notification_newsletter&utm_term=homepage&utm_content=05_01_2016&utm_campaign=homepage&k_id=angeltreasure

Caiaphas and Anna - The High Priest and the Chief priest pleaded not guilty! Their attorney stated that the defendants are holy people whose priority will never to murder an innocent blood. They were interested in protecting the sacred tradition and the state against treasonable actions.

Commandant of the Soldiers - His attorney pleaded not guilty because he only acted in the interest of peace and to ensure order in the land.

Pontius Pilate his attorney pleaded not guilty for he indeed washed his hand off the murder, he did not sign the execution order rather the Pharisee used their power to condemn the man to a shameful death. When he was cross examined on why he refused to use his veto power to release the man like he did for Barabbas. His attorney raised an objection on the ground that his fellow colleague was intimidating his client. The objection was sustained by the sitting judge.

The Judge having listened to the two counsels and the accuses. He found the accuses not guilty because they were all acting in the interest of the state. Though, he found their respective actions malicious against an innocent man. He agreed with prosecuting counsel that the man was indeed innocent but he was convince by argument of defendant counsel that the man may possibly be a threat to the state in the nearest future. He frowned at the fact that he was condemned to death without a proper trial and concluded that action was a jungle justice.
He hereby relieved all the accused of their public offices and discharged them acquitted on the ground that they all acted unscrupulously in the interest of the state.
Cased close!

.angel