It is hard to see where Michael Adebolajo is going with his testimony. He denies murder (presumably as a soldier is not a victim). He cites qualities of honour and courage, but ran his victim down and then tried to cut his head off (which he justified as a humane act to end Lee Rigby's pain). This man pleads "Not Guilty".
By his own account, he had no hesitation in killing a soldier and used the Islamic religion as a justification for his action. Yet, if it were not for jihad, would Michael Adebolajo have ever thought that evil actions were justified. He dared compare himself with Lee Rigby, a perverse and reverse Stockholm syndrome where moral equivalence with the murdered victim is sought to salve the crime.
Let those who agree with him (and there are many) open up in public. How can they justify his action?