I'd not heard about this case so I did do a little checking - but without going into the right and wrongs of this case, I am always surprised when people espouse the cause of age giving exemption to crime.

Murder is murder - it is against the laws of man, nature and, for those who believe in him, god. Whether this person's case was hyped up to present him as a Holocaust Killer or whether indeed it was a gay person or a petty thief whom he is accused of murdering makes no difference to me. To cite a person's current age as an extenuating circumstance does not seem to be an adequate defense - it just means that a person has escaped lawful retribution for a longer period than most.

It would not seem to be taking murder seriously enough if society were to condone it once a person had managed to elude the law for a certain length of time. In any case, how does one determine that time? If a person reaches the age of 60 is that adequate? Or is that not quite old enough? Or do we determine that anyone who reaches 80 is exempt but, if caught at the age of 79 is not?

I also fail to see why a person's charm or lack thereof should also be taken into consideration. Most serial killers are described by neighbours and friends as "A really nice person", after all. Is a person without charm more culpable than one who possesses it?

I am pretty much an equal opportunities person: those who have committed a crime go through due process regardless of age, personality or appearance.

Romany: "Whether this person's case was hyped up to present him as a Holocaust Killer or whether indeed it was a gay person or a petty thief whom he is accused of murdering makes no difference to me."

In terms of his accused crime it makes no difference to me, either, but it does make a difference to the chances of his being prosecuted over 60 years later. What annoys me is that if he was accused of murdering a different class of holocaust victim, no one would ever hear of it. When such a long time has passed there seems little point in rehashing what was, in the overall picture of atrocity that was WW2, a relatively minor crime [cue the dimwits saying I am trying to excuse a murderer]. I have no idea of the strength of evidence in this case, but if it's at all like any of the other show trials that have been held over the past decade or so it will be very weak, which means the trial is largely a propaganda exercise rather than a real search for justice.

Col Rouge: "stand here, like you and announce yourself as a small minded bigot devoid of sufficient wit (dim even) to know how indefensible your arrogant posturing condemns you to be"

So show me how it's "indefensible" then, dimwit, instead of trying to play the man, which you're obviously not adequately intellectually equipped to attempt. You might like to actually examine the atatements made before you start. On second thoughts, don't bother, the facts would only confuse you.

Antisemit....sorry, septic.

Blow me.

Well blow me too! Once again I find myself agreeing with Col Rouge - and StG and Romany. It seems to me that murder's murder, and I don't see that a murderer's success at hiding himself for however long exonerates him, and neither does his "charm".

I agree that there are probably political reasons for pursuing Zentai, but that doesn't get him off the hook now that he's been identified. Clearly, his prosecutors think they have enough evidence to secure a conviction - and if they don't, he'll presumably be found not guilty.

No need for thinly veiled anti-Semitic conspiracy theories here.

Antiseptic “So show me how it's "indefensible" then, dimwit, instead of trying to play the man,”

I was not trying to “play the man”.

A “man” stands up for fairness and the universal right of others, regardless of their race.

All you are doing with your generalisations like

"trophy persecutors" trotted out to remind us all of how badly-done-by the Jews were during the War and by extension, justify whatever misbehaviour is perpetrated by Israel in the future”

is the wholesale denigration of others, based on their racial /ethnic origins.

So as far as “play the man”, you do not qualify as a man.

The experience of this ‘dimwit’ (labels from racists don’t count as meaningful) is every racist I have met is really projecting their own deep seated sense of inadequacy, personal impotence, low self-esteem and insecurity. They are people who, on a good day, would aspire to the IQ of an earthworm.

Antiseptic, you are just ratifying my experience of racists.

I didn't mean to imply that I thought the man was 'charming.' That was the headline taken from 'The Age - Good Weekend' magazine. Sorry, if I gave people the wrong impression.

Col Rouge, my reference to Hungary was not a deflection - that's where the evidence comes from, against this man . And as I stated previously - it comes from a time when disinformation was part and parcel of that regime. Kindly avoid making personal comments directed at me - you don't know me - so be the gentleman that your
nom-de-plume - suggests you are .

I don't have a problem with murderers being charged. What I do have a problem with is that justice will not be served in this case. - This man is being accused of a crime that he denies having committed. He claims that he wasn't even in Budapest at that time - having left the city a day earlier-with his military convoy.
Whereas, his two accusers were the ones that were left behind in the barracks - where the young man was murdered. If you believe that this man can lie, why then can't his accusers?

What kind of a defence can now be built - 64 years after the event?
This man will not get a fair trial. How can he? Again, as I said previously - this is not justice that is being served.