Sundays Nally March Cancelled

mountainyman

The Gardai said there was no forensic evidence of Ward being in the house.

So he was shot at the back door.

There was one burglary from Nally's house. A chainsaw was stolen from inside the back door in february 2004.

Other thefts of minor items had taken place from sheds and from Nally's barn.
Psychologically I don't think this is the same, but it could be a misreporting, sometimes your shed is part of the house (or often the old picturesque house which was never fit for human habitation) and in that case it could feel similar.

My understanding is that Ward had called to Nally's house once before. Not a campaign of intimidation.

When we say a man is innocent we mean innocent of this particular crime.

So though Ward was 'no angel' he wasn't in Nally's house and hadn't harassed him. There wasn't any evidence presented that Ward had robbed the chainsaw or robbed anything ever from Nally.

Nally killed Ward because he was cracking up; maybe on the day Ward wouldn't leave or even told Nally that he was planning to rape and murder Nally's family, we don't know. Maybe Nally saw Ward thought 'there's that ****ing tinker again' and just shot him without saying a word.

Tom Ward testified that his father had said he was going to try and get Nally to sell him a Nissan Micra for scrap. That seems credible to me.

People keep saying 'if you found someone in your house...' Ward wasn't in the house.


MM

mountainyman

mountainyman wrote:

People keep saying 'if you found someone in your house...' Ward wasn't in the house.
MM

And the judge said everyone was agreed that he was up to no good...

pete

Earthman wrote:

And the judge said everyone was agreed that he was up to no good...

Plenty of judges say plenty of things - that doesn't necessarily make them so.

The names Neilan and Kenny spring to mind....

NUTLEY BOY

Is it true that the trial judge directed the jury that the only verdict they could reach was either murder or manslaughter and that they could not return a verdict of not guilty ?

If so, why ?

I thought that juries were the sole arbiters of fact in these cases.

I think that this case is in for mention again in a few weeks. I suppose that there will be an application for leave to appeal. I wonder what the court of Appeal will make of this case ?

bonkey

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

Is it true that the trial judge directed the jury that the only verdict they could reach was either murder or manslaughter and that they could not return a verdict of not guilty ?

If so, why ?

Because there is no question about who killed whom. What is at question is the nature of the killing, from a legal point of view - murder, or manslaughter.

jc

seamus

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

Is it true that the trial judge directed the jury that the only verdict they could reach was either murder or manslaughter and that they could not return a verdict of not guilty ?

If so, why ?

I thought that juries were the sole arbiters of fact in these cases.

As bonkey says, the point of the trial was not to determine if Nally was guilty, but rather what exactly he was guilty of.

Curiously enough, in some US states, a judge can direct the jury to pick a verdict as above, but the law allows the jury to pick an entirely different one (e.g. "Not guilty").

mike65

Just watched the Prime Time report, two peoples who live in different worlds collide and death is the result. It still looks like murder to me to be honest, and made worse with the information about Wards mental condition. The Guards let Nally down, the health service let Ward down.

Maybe this incident can serve as a metaphor for the collapse of public services.

Mike.

Matamoros

Dear Board Members, Mr. Nally seems to have been in a bad place mentally. Mr Ward was in the wrong place. A simple rule of thumb for Travellers might be, don't go onto anyone's property even if you have a proposal to make them. Mr. Ward had a history of crime and mental ill-health, one look at his son who was interviewed on TV would tell us all we need to know about their intentions. The truth must be said about Travellers, they exist mainly outside the rule of law or at best on the very edge of it. Defruading old people of large sums of money in the pretence of fixing "broken" gutters is the best of their endeavours. The old " I was asking about the car" ruse is laughable. I often wondered, how many times would we hear stories about people being robbed or beaten like the Publican who got a chair broken over his face until somebody finally cracked and replied with devastating force. If we are men and I really think we are not worthy of the name, we must face down this group, they threaten while we cower, admit it, they scare us. I have some experience of these guys and let me tell you they are cowards when you put it up to them.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

Unless you're trying to suggest that Ward wasn't a violent man, I'm not clear what your point is.

I don't know Ward's rap sheet, I have only seen references like that made above about a slashhook. I do, on the other hand, know what was said by the pathologist about the injuries meted out by Nally, and clearly he was a violent man...

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote:

I don't know Ward's rap sheet, I have only seen references like that made above about a slashhook. I do, on the other hand, know what was said by the pathologist about the injuries meted out by Nally, and clearly he was a violent man...

Right. So you've informed yourself as to the actions of one of the parties, and failed to inform yourself as to the actions of the other. I'm still not clear what your point is.

Nally committed an act of violence, true. He's currently incarcerated as a direct result. I don't recall reading that he committed, or attempted to commit, any crimes while awaiting trial for that violent act.

walshb

Nally as far as I'm concerned went too bloody far, he shot the guy, beat him close to death with a stick, reloaded and followed the dying man to finish him off. I'm all for self defence and protecting yourself, but was what he did really justifiable. He did the crime, stop whingeing now and do the time. I probably would have shot the guy myself, but I'd accept the law that nobody in this country is given a sentence of death for a crime, what was the guys crime???, he was on Nally's land, was he there to steal, probably...does that mean Nally was right to kill him, I say NO......

magick

I cant believe this , they stopped it beacuse "it seemd to some it was turning into an anti traveller issue"
i though it was a march on the rights of all citizens

Sparks

a march on the rights of all citizens

The right to do what exactly? Decide to murder someone and carry out that decision?

bonkey

they stopped it

Who is they? The organisers?

magick

The right to do what exactly? Decide to murder someone and carry out that decision?

eeeeeeeeh no

but people do have the right to defend their home, when that person ie traveller decided to rob that mans home he planned it.
When he carried it out he became a criminal, the farmer never planned to shoot/murder/kill (what ever ya like) anyone. He was put in a situation that I hope no one has to go though

merging this with the existing thread.

Sparks

magick wrote:

but people do have the right to defend their home, when that person ie traveller decided to rob that mans home he planned it.

And Nally had the right to defend his home with reasonable force, and his life with all necessary force.

When he carried it out he became a criminal, the farmer never planned to shoot/murder/kill (what ever ya like) anyone.

Ward's actions did not grant carte blance to Nally. And while Nally's first shot and even the beating could be argued to be self-defence in extremis, he had to reload his shotgun and pursue Ward to fire the second, fatal shot. Plus, his comments to Ward's son before the shooting indicate premeditation for the entire confrontation. So you're incorrect on the planning aspect.

Zombrex

magick wrote:

but people do have the right to defend their home

Not by killing the intruder for no justifiable reason

magick wrote:

He was put in a situation that I hope no one has to go though

What, having someone at your back door? Been there, done that, didn't kill him.

Sparks

Sparks wrote:

And Nally had the right to defend his home with reasonable force, and his life with all necessary force.


Ward's actions did not grant carte blance to Nally. And while Nally's first shot and even the beating could be argued to be self-defence in extremis, he had to reload his shotgun and pursue Ward to fire the second, fatal shot.

I'd agree with your reasoning there.It's exactly what I'd be thinking if I was one of the jurors.

Plus, his comments to Ward's son before the shooting indicate premeditation for the entire confrontation. So you're incorrect on the planning aspect.

I wouldnt however rely on an uncoroborated statement from the dead mans son though-just as I wouldnt rely on Nallys version of events.[edit I just realised you were talking of what Nally said that he said to the son-he doesnt accept that this meant that he wanted to kill the Dad-but it might have-Indeed that could have been and probably was the start of the uncontolable frenzy]
It's hard to say whats right to determine a view on tbh as on the one hand you have the word of a man who was decent and honest for over 60 yrs and never in trouble with the law yet he has killed someone unlawfully now.
On the other you have an itinerants son whose dead father had a rap sheet that would keep a paper milling factory in business.

On the plus side for Nally, he was totally(according to the Gardaí) open and honest about the details of what happened to the detriment of his own case.He needn't have done that.
The jury might have taken that together with his remorse into consideration.The judge almost certainly did from what I can see.

FTA69

Matamoros wrote:

The truth must be said about Travellers, they exist mainly outside the rule of law or at best on the very edge of it. Defruading old people of large sums of money in the pretence of fixing "broken" gutters is the best of their endeavours

Slow up there chief, Travellers exist outside the margins of society primarily because society has excluded and discriminated against them for decades. Moreover, it is despicable that you would seek to generalise all Travellers with the same accusation, it is a bit like saying people from a council estate are car thieves or Nigerians are crack dealers and scam artists, in other words it is entirely unacceptable and as Irish people we should remember well the stereotypes attached to us all over the world. I have had Travellers call around to my gaff 3 times, each time they were looking to paint sheds or take away scrap cars that we had (I'm not refferring to the Nally case), each time they were genuine, local figures trying to make a living, and I can't see the "men" (yeehaw, I can smell the testosterone from here) of the village hammering people who do nothing but provide a service in a friendly manner.

I used to live in a council estate in Cork, and the vast majority of Travellers I cam across were decent (others weren't but that's life). In fact, most of the people careering around in stolen cars, dealing, fighting (I remember a pitched battle in Mayfield with 15 plus armed people) and engaging general intimidation were settled people. The main criminal family (and I almost use that in the Mafia sense) are a settled family, and anyone from Cork will be well aware of their reputation for savagery and crime. My overall point really, is that you must always take people as you find them and should never seek to victimise a group of people, most of whom are fine and most of whom suffer equally from the oft dangerous criminals in their midst. Maybe you should be asking yourself why is it up to the Travellers to deal with criminals in their ranks and not the police?

If we are men and I really think we are not worthy of the name, we must face down this group, they threaten while we cower, admit it, they scare us. I have some experience of these guys and let me tell you they are cowards when you put it up to them.

Ah yes, we'll all go out and fire rocks at their caravans and pick fights with them in the locality, great craic altogether... Somehow I can't see you riding with Captain Moonlight there Tyson, so let's not be advocating anything hasty ok?

Sparks

Earthman wrote:

It's hard to say whats right to determine a view on tbh as on the one hand you have the word of a man who was decent and honest for over 60 yrs and never in trouble with the law yet he has killed someone unlawfully now.
On the other you have an itinerants son whose dead father had a rap sheet that would keep a paper milling factory in business.

Hence the blindfold...

On the plus side for Nally, he was totally(according to the Gardaí) open and honest about the details of what happened to the detriment of his own case.He needn't have done that.

How does that square with him throwing the body over the wall?

That said, he did own up to what happened, which is the major difference between his case and that of Tony Martin in the UK, which has a lot of similarities in the principle of the case.

Sparks

Sparks wrote:

How does that square with him throwing the body over the wall?

I dont know, except,I'd imagine he was still dazed and didnt know what to do or even what he was doing.

Iirc from the primetime reconstruction, he had to get the body off the road and he just went that extra step and put it as far out of sight as he could.

bonkey

magick wrote:

when that person ie traveller

So it is anti-traveller.

Fair enough.

magick

no not really

When the organisers of the march say that?

Matamoros

Matamoros wrote:

If we are men and I really think we are not worthy of the name, we must face down this group, they threaten while we cower, admit it, they scare us. I have some experience of these guys and let me tell you they are cowards when you put it up to them.

Brilliant. 'If we are real men, we must beat up the beater uppers'.

Shades of that whole Jean Claude Van Damme news...

http://www.movietickets.com/news.asp?news_id=16755&fdate=11/15/2005&tdate=11/15/2005

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

Brilliant. 'If we are real men, we must beat up the beater uppers'.

Shades of that whole Jean Claude Van Damme news...

http://www.movietickets.com/news.asp?news_id=16755&fdate=11/15/2005&tdate=11/15/2005

ARE YOU MAD!! :eek:

It is common scientific knowledge to even a 1st year physics student that if you cross Jean Claude Van Damme's "Kick Boxer" dance with an native Irish Traveller drunk fuelled jig you will create a rip in the fabric of space/time, causing destruction on an imagineable scale ....

http://www.sicktracks.com/galleries/data/500/580damme20dance.jpg

oh the humanity :eek: :eek:

Anyway, that was a bit of light entertainment to hopefully stop this thread decending into an anti-traveller bitch-fest ...

Mighty_Mouse

How does that square with him throwing the body over the wall?

Heard an interview with him on Galway bay FM.Replayed on today fm last night. Basically he said he was afraid they were gonna come back for him and panicked. He didnt know how many more of them might be around also.

I agree with the sentance but do think a few tweeks are needed to current legislation in terms of the rights of people who are in the process of breaking the law.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

http://www.sicktracks.com/galleries/data/500/580damme20dance.jpg

oh the humanity

Light entertainment? Some might suggest the thread has reached a new low!!

Zombrex

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

I agree with the sentance but do think a few tweeks are needed to current legislation in terms of the rights of people who are in the process of breaking the law.

Do you mean Ward or Nally, cause they were both breaking the law?

billy the squid

magick wrote:

I cant believe this , they stopped it beacuse "it seemd to some it was turning into an anti traveller issue"
i though it was a march on the rights of all citizens

It is my understanding that certain bigotted elements were planning on hijacking the protest.