GV Wright, or, I f*cking KNEW it...

Originally posted by Sparks
I maintain that that wasn't an apology.

Thats strange as it was a statement put out by him which contained an apology directed at the victim.

Actually I can - because he wasn't charged with that offence, the statements wouldn't have been presented.

As someone who has been involved in an accident and who has been in court called as a witness to an accident, I can tell you that, you are mistaken here.
If the statements by witness's to the accident included accusations that the defendent tried to flee the scene of the accident, and subsequently the DPP decided not to prosecute for that offence, then you could say that the DPP decided for whatever reason not to persue that allegation.
Are you suggesting that only edited statements were presented?? which would be a serious allegation.
But as you haven't seen the witness statement you cannot say that can you??

But I don't think that Liam Keane would get away with this, do you?

I don't know, I can only speculate and I would take the opposite view to you it would seem.

mm

gurramok

Thats strange as it was a statement put out by him which contained an apology directed at the victim.

Apology was not directly to the victim.

He only apologised 'publicly' after the incident was raised in the press nearly a week later.

The incident didn't deter him attending public functions such as :

-The Fairyhouse meeting 2 days after the crash

- A reception in Malahide for the Entente Floral tidy town's event on the Monday before the incident broke to the media on the Wednesday.

Those actions ain't exactly the sign of a person having regrets ?
He carried on as if it had not happened.

Before it became public the likes of you and me(and those at fairyhouse/tidy towns) did not know what had happened until nearly a week later. He had hoped to keep it quiet and not affect his reputation. Guess if it broke to the media immediately after it happened, he would not be able to face the public.

If it was an 'out of character experience' where he would have attended to the victim immediately after the incident rather than trying to leave the scene (press + victim state this), my opinion of him would be a bit more lenient.

My own opinion of the court case is that i'm not surprised. Lots of high profile people with power and money get very lenient sentences. Courts and judicial system are partly responsible for this. The Dail where the wonderful TDs(like Wright+Collins) make the laws are primary responsible for the unequal treatment of a range of offences.

Urinating on a street is a more serious offence (950 euro fine) that drink-driving and injuring a nurse(900 euro fine, 2yr driving ban)

I wouldnt be surprised that witnesses were bought off to persuade them not to give damaging statements. Yes, thats my whole faith is this little country of ours, brown envelopes rule. (Allegations of course )

The primary fact he is a still a legislator in the Dail is disgusting.

Originally posted by gurramok
Apology was not directly to the victim.

He only apologised 'publicly' after the incident was raised in the press nearly a week later.

As I said I'm not in the business of defending this man, just here for some clarity.
An apology was given in a statement, quoted above, to the victim.

He had hoped to keep it quiet and not affect his reputation.

I don't see how he could have thought that, considering the events happened, he was tested for alcohol and arrested, he would have been aware that he was going to court, something impossible to keep quiet.

mm