John O Brien not guilty?

_blank_

My name is Mud wrote: »

According to Womens Aid, 50% of women murdered in Ireland are murdered by husband/partner. Thats what the whole silent vigil outside the dail was about a couple of months ago on international womens day.

On the flipside it does mean that 50% of Irish women murdered, were killed by someone else, but I think the statistic is more relevant in terms of male murder victims vs female murder victims.

I reckon 0% of Irish Male Murder Victims were killed by their husband, tbh.

Dellboy2007

I didn't read much about this case but the one thing i did read was that she was kissing another man in their house the night she went missing. Now, I know this would have been only a very very small part of the case but when i was reading that, i was full sure he'd be found guilty. Not saying that i would have convicted on this if i was in the jury but i would have thought others would.

_feedback_

My name is Mud wrote: »

According to Womens Aid, 50% of women murdered in Ireland are murdered by husband/partner. Thats what the whole silent vigil outside the dail was about a couple of months ago on international womens day.

Is there a link to that info anywhere? Might be an interesting read ...

kaizersoze1980

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

I didn't read much about this case but the one thing i did read was that she was kissing another man in their house the night she went missing. Now, I know this would have been only a very very small part of the case but when i was reading that, i was full sure he'd be found guilty. Not saying that i would have convicted on this if i was in the jury but i would have thought others would.

ah come off it will you.

You'd send a man down for life based on evidence of his wife being caught kissing another man the night she went missing?
You cold bastárd :pac:
Who's to say her new lover didn't do it?
Jaysus i woulnt like to have you in a jury if i was up for something! :eek:

Villain

elviscostello wrote: »

Is there a link to that info anywhere? Might be an interesting read ...

Almost 50pc of women who are murdered are killed by a partner or ex-partner and 80pc will have been severely physically abused through stangulation, abuse during pregnancy, or being forced to have sex

From http://www.independent.ie/national-news/blanketed-by-grief-aid-group-ensures-our-many-murdered-women-are-not-forgotten-70413.html

Probably better sources available though

loyatemu

i'd be very surprised if he could be tried again - I recall the DPP entering a "null prosequie" (or whatever its called) in cases in the past when they realised they had little chance of getting a conviction but wanted to have the option to prosecute again in the future.

EDIT - according to Wikipedia, the european convention on human rights contains a provision on double-jeopardy:

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.

We're signed up to this.

DoubleJoe7

kaizersoze1980 wrote: »

Who's to say her new lover didn't do it?

He wasn't a "new lover" and there was never any suggestions to suggest this. He had been out for the night with the couple, and was offered a room in their house for the night. They shared a drunken kiss as she showed him his room.

Hardly a "new lover."

TheNog

caoibhin wrote: »

Can someone be tried twice on the same charge?

on foot of new evidence only

DoubleJoe7

loyatemu wrote: »

i'd be very surprised if he could be tried again - I recall the DPP entering a "null prosequie" (or whatever its called) in cases in the past when they realised they had little chance of getting a conviction but wanted to have the option to prosecute again in the future.

EDIT - according to Wikipedia, the european convention on human rights contains a provision on double-jeopardy:

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.

We're signed up to this.

Ah but does the law and penal procedure of this State not have a provision for new evidence coming to light?

ruskin

OJ Simpson was also found not guilty of murder

JackieO

kaizersoze1980 wrote: »

ah come off it will you.

You'd send a man down for life based on evidence of his wife being caught kissing another man the night she went missing?
You cold bastárd :pac:
Who's to say her new lover didn't do it?
Jaysus i woulnt like to have you in a jury if i was up for something! :eek:

I think Dellboys point was that it gave the husband motive.

I can't imagine too many men being happy to find their wife kissing another man in their home!

TheNog

kaizersoze1980 wrote: »

the law of double jeapardy .

as far as i know its a US law

you cant be done for a crime youve already been acquitted for

There was a film called Double Jeopardy in the US where a husband framed his wife his murder and she was convicted. After a few years in prison he was found and the wife was released from prison. She then went and murdered the husband and she couldn't be prosecuted. As it turns out the film was factually incorrect.

TerrorFirmer

JackieO wrote: »

I think Dellboys point was that it gave the husband motive.

I can't imagine too many men being happy to find their wife kissing another man in their home!

Likewise if men murdered their spouses when they discovered infidelity, there'd be more trails then the state could cope with!

I think it's a fair verdict. Fair enough, there's a chance it was him, but it's wrong to put someone down without being even remotely sure they actually did it in my opinion. It would be a terrible injustice.

CountingCrows

Verdict is in

John O'Brien has been found not guilty of murdering his wife Meg Walsh by a Central Criminal Court jury.

FlutterinBantam

seamus wrote: »

In this country, yes afaik, provided that the DPP can show some significant new evidence which changes the facts of the case that was previously presented.

That is correct and has happened.

Never thought he was going down thought on the basis of evidence presented.

A person being found not guilty doesn't mean a person did not commit the crime.

No reference to this case intended.

keen

CountingCrows wrote: »

Verdict is in

The verdict was in hours ago :S

Ardent

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Well, the pojnt in the Joe O'Reilly case wasnt that his whereabout were different to what he first said, it was that he was shown to have been at the murder scene at the relevant time.

O'Brien was discovered to have lied about his whereabouts too:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/accused-caught-on-cctv-at-quays-where-body-found-1354784.html

Mind-boggling verdict, given the O'Reilly case.

godtabh

Ardent wrote: »

Mind-boggling verdict, given the O'Reilly case.

why would you think one would influence the other? Do you understand trial by your peers and how it works?

seamus

Ardent wrote: »

Mind-boggling verdict, given the O'Reilly case.

The O'Reilly case is irrelevant, thankfully none of the jury seemed to be thinking of it. Just because one man murdered his wife, doesn't follow that another man must have.

Being at the quays is clearly a bit suspect, but not all that surprising. They lived close to the river. If he was going somewhere to clear his head, the quays sound like as good a place as any. There's nothing to suggest that her body wasn't dumped 5 miles further upstream and ended up caught in something in the quays.

I'm playing devil's advocate to a certain extent - but this is what our system is based upon. While he lied about his whereabouts, it's not all that surprising. If your wife has gone missing, the last thing you're going to tell an investigator is, "Well you see I caught her cheating on me last night, so I didn't really come home early today, in fact I was just cruising around the city a bit. When I got home, she was gone". Being at the quays is not evidence. It's coincidence.

Awesomo-4000

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

Not saying that i would have convicted on this if i was in the jury but i would have thought others would.

ah come off it will you.

You'd send a man down for life based on evidence of his wife being caught kissing another man the night she went missing?
You cold bastárd :pac:
Who's to say her new lover didn't do it?
Jaysus i woulnt like to have you in a jury if i was up for something!

You obviously didn't read what he said. Have another go.

thelordofcheese

Ardent wrote: »

Mind-boggling verdict, given the O'Reilly case.

It's only mind-boggling if you've already decided he's guilty.

godtabh

thelordofcheese wrote: »

It's only mind-boggling if you've already decided he's guilty.

Thats a good point actually.

is_that_so

Quigs Snr wrote: »

Locals who would have known the couple, or even just the ex-wife will be fairly astonished and dissappointed with this verdict.

I am sure there was a local or two where I grew up who would have had a less than salutary opinion of me and who would claim to know me well. "Locals" thrive on gossip and half-formed opinions and it grows legs faster than bacteria.

As for the case, now that I've informed myself a wee bit I have a question.

Did no-one see, in the prosecution of this case, that there was an awful lot of circumstantial evidence in conjunction with an awful lot of unknowns? Under the legal system I would suggest that "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" was always going to be tough.

Eoin

is_that_so wrote: »

Did no-one see, in the prosecution of this case, that there was an awful lot of circumstantial evidence in conjunction with an awful lot of unknowns? Under the legal system I would suggest that "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" was always going to be tough.

I was listening to a solicitor talk to Matt Cooper this evening, and she made the point that circumstantial evidence should not be underestimated or considered weak. It just means that one has to draw an opinion from any number of facts.

My understanding is that unless someone actually saw the deceased being killed, then any evidence could only be considered circumstantial (bar expert testimony I think).

ModeSkeletor

DesF wrote: »

I'll take "US Laws not applicable in Ireland" for 400 please Alex.

Don't knock him. Because I don't know about Ireland but in England the double jeopardy law was only abolished very recently (2006 I believe). Don't the Irish and English legal systems operate very similarly?

Capt'n Midnight

I love the way they describe the evidence as circumstantial.
By definition in a murder case the victim can't give testimony like they can in assault cases, so there will a little less evidence in a murder case.

jimmycrackcorm

Hands up all those who have two sets of keys for their car and then got another set especially when they cost a lot and it's not a simple manner of getting another one cut for a fiver?

ModeSkeletor

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Hands up all those who have two sets of keys for their car and then got another set especially when they cost a lot and it's not a simple manner of getting another one cut for a fiver?

There's a Motors forum you know :pac:

trishasaffron

early on in the case there was evidence from her employers that money had gone missing from the holiday fund she was respnsible for and that she had unknown to them booked a couple of major holidays in expensive locations for herself. Then this seemed to disappear - what was that all about?

Eoin

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I love the way they describe the evidence as circumstantial.
By definition in a murder case the victim can't give testimony like they can in assault cases, so there will a little less evidence in a murder case.

The testimony of someone witnessing the murder would not be circumstantial evidence.

slipss

12 jurours chosen at random, all of them after hearing all the evidence, not just the snippets the media chose to publish to make the case as sensational as possible, thought that it had not been proven he killed her, every last one of them. I'm going to give the bloke the benefit of the doubt and presume the jurours got it right. In which case I have huge amounts of sympathy for the poor chap, your wife is murdered, then you are dragged infront of a court and accused of being responsible, then the media do thier thing and the no smoke without fire brigade to thier thing and then you have to live with the suspicion hanging over you your whole life. Thats a tough fukking break.

ModeSkeletor

slipss wrote: »

12 jurours chosen at random, all of them after hearing all the evidence, not just the snippets the media chose to publish to make the case as sensational as possible, thought that it had not been proven he killed her, every last one of them. I'm going to give the bloke the benefit of the doubt and presume the jurours got it right. In which case I have huge amounts of sympathy for the poor chap, your wife and the mother of your children is murdered, then you are dragged infront of a court and accused of being responsible, then the media do thier thing and the no smoke without fire brigade to thier thing and then you have to live with the fact that your daughter has to read this sh1t. Thats a tough fukking break.

They have no kids together.

slipss

ModeSkeletor wrote: »

They have no kids together.

I see.

ModeSkeletor

I understand your point though but don't agree with it. In my opinion just because someone is proven innocent in a legal context does not mean they didn't commit the crime. Usually the most obvious explanation is the correct one. Usually.

Sully

DoubleJoe7 wrote: »

Not true. In this case the Gardaí didn't arrest O'Brien for months after the body was found. The clearly investigated the case and felt they had enough to charge him on it. Hardly "automatically in the frame."

I thought he was arrested before, but was released without charge? They then continued their investigation and I recall news articles saying the guards were close to making an arrest. They ALWAYS seemed to put him in the frame in their articles, regardless of the fact he had not been charged.

seamus wrote: »

Being at the quays is clearly a bit suspect, but not all that surprising. They lived close to the river. If he was going somewhere to clear his head, the quays sound like as good a place as any. There's nothing to suggest that her body wasn't dumped 5 miles further upstream and ended up caught in something in the quays.

Most estates in Waterford are near the Quays going by that logic He lived a considerable distance from the Quays (well, a bit of a walk anyway).

I'm playing devil's advocate to a certain extent - but this is what our system is based upon. While he lied about his whereabouts, it's not all that surprising. If your wife has gone missing, the last thing you're going to tell an investigator is, "Well you see I caught her cheating on me last night, so I didn't really come home early today, in fact I was just cruising around the city a bit. When I got home, she was gone". Being at the quays is not evidence. It's coincidence.

True but he kept liying, and this made it worse for him.

trishasaffron wrote: »

early on in the case there was evidence from her employers that money had gone missing from the holiday fund she was respnsible for and that she had unknown to them booked a couple of major holidays in expensive locations for herself. Then this seemed to disappear - what was that all about?

I think that happened before and she paid it back? I cant remember the details, but I thought I heard this being discussed as common?

sdanseo

caoibhin wrote: »

Yeah, see i didn't think one could be convicted on circumstantial evidence but that shows what i know.

No, you can't be convicted if there is reasonable doubt. He lied, meaning a lot of doubt was done away with in one go.

Those who say this is a farce should emigrate to a dictatorship. The system has spoken.

Sully

I see the judge wouldnt let a letter from Meg saying he treatended to kill her in as evidence. Pretty graphic letter, describing how he beat her up. John also called work last week and said he would be returning to work. All in todays Indo. Sad really.

Capt'n Midnight

ruskin wrote: »

OJ Simpson was also found not guilty of murder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson

a civil jury in Santa Monica, California unanimously found Simpson liable for the wrongful death of Ronald Goldman, battery against Ronald Goldman, and battery against Nicole Brown. The attorney for plaintiff Fred Goldman (father of Ronald Goldman) was Daniel Petrocelli. Simpson was ordered to pay $33,500,000 in damages.

Eoin

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson

That was a civil case, not a criminal one. Beyond reasonable doubt turns into "more likely than not".

ferdi

i was listening to george hook on newstalk on friday and he had a barrister on talking about the case. he said we do have double jeopardy in ireland. as the law stands, no matter what new evidence comes to light, john obrien can never be tried for this murder again.

Sully

eoin_s wrote: »

That was a civil case, not a criminal one. Beyond reasonable doubt turns into "more likely than not".

Meg Walshs family are said to be considering doing a civil case against John OBrien as they were not happy with the outcome of the case in the High Court.

johnnyskeleton

kearnsr wrote: »

I thought you couldnt be charged for the same thing twice?

You can be charged twice (or in theory several times), but if you are tried and found not guilty you cannot be retried on the same charge or a lesser charge arising from the same facts (e.g. assault after being acquitted with murder).

So if you are charged again you can raise the plea in bar of autrefois acquit, and will therefore not be retried.

So "double jeopardy" does exist in Ireland.

kreuzberger

I dont think this domestic stuff is newsworthy at all . Of course its a big issue for the families involved but its noithing to feckin do with the rest of us . We are being ripped off daily and the media are shoving this soap opera stuff down our throats instead . Its not news , its drama . A private family incident with all sorts of voyeuristic hoo ha .
Meanwhile the healthservice , shell , Tony Oreilly and all the rest , stuff that actually affects us and we need to know about gets relegated to behind it .
This is just dumbed down soap opera stuff .

johnnyskeleton

loyatemu wrote: »

i'd be very surprised if he could be tried again - I recall the DPP entering a "null prosequie" (or whatever its called) in cases in the past when they realised they had little chance of getting a conviction but wanted to have the option to prosecute again in the future.

If a nolle prosequi is entered that is the end of the matter.

TheNog wrote: »

[you can be retried]on foot of new evidence only

Not if found not guilty by a jury. There was a proposal to allow the DPP to appeal an acquittal, but I don't think it was passed.

However, an accused can appeal a conviction based on new evidence coming to light.

This might appear unfair, or in favour of the accused, but the reality is that the prosecution have the burden of presenting the evidence and they must do so in as complete a manner as possible.

is_that_so wrote: »

I am sure there was a local or two where I grew up who would have had a less than salutary opinion of me and who would claim to know me well. "Locals" thrive on gossip and half-formed opinions and it grows legs faster than bacteria.

This is it; the evidence here wasn't even what you could call circumstantial - it's just speculation and "Go on, he obviously did it, I mean look at him" type evidence.

is_that_so wrote: »

Did no-one see, in the prosecution of this case, that there was an awful lot of circumstantial evidence in conjunction with an awful lot of unknowns? Under the legal system I would suggest that "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" was always going to be tough.

Probably, but the DPP's attitude of late has been to send these high profile murder cases to trial and let a jury sort it out. It's probably a correct policy to take, although garda investigations (in general, not in this case) can be quite lazy at times.

eoin_s wrote: »

I was listening to a solicitor talk to Matt Cooper this evening, and she made the point that circumstantial evidence should not be underestimated or considered weak. It just means that one has to draw an opinion from any number of facts.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence which could point to guilt, but it could also be explained by any number of reasonable explainations. For example, I might have been seen hanging around outside a bank the night before it was robbed, but that is not evidence that I robbed it.

This solicitor seems to be mixing circumstantial evidence up with a recent CCA decision on how a jury can find that someone "intended" to do an act. A jury can draw inferences of what a person was thinking from looking at a number of surrounding facts, but they cannot infer other facts from these facts. So while the facts that someone who is caught with a pile of heroin is holding a weighing scales, a lot of money, and a phone with text messages saying "will you sell me some gear" and the like can be used to infer that he intended it for the purpose of sale or supply, but if he is found without the heroin, it can't be inferred from the fact that he was holding the weighing scales, lot of money and the phone that he is in possession of heroin sufficient for a conviction.

Circumstantial evidence should definately be underestimated and considered weak, moreover it should be considered to be highly misleading.

eoin_s wrote: »

My understanding is that unless someone actually saw the deceased being killed, then any evidence could only be considered circumstantial (bar expert testimony I think).

Non-circumstantial evidence could be:
1) someone seeing the event
2) cctv capturing the person at the scene
3) admissions made to the gardai
4) forensic science evidence from the body
5) forensic science from the scene
6) forensic science from the accused
7) murder weapon
8) clothes worn by the murderer
and that is just in a case of alleged murder such as this one. There are many different kinds of evidence, and in my view circumstantial evidence (for example, him having 2 sets of keys for the car, him making a mistake in accounting for his whereabouts, someone seeing a person go to a car etc) should only ever be used to bolster a prosecution case, not to make it.

In my view, again just based on the evidence as presented in the media, the jury were completely correct, and the finding of not guilty was completely correct. Irish murder trials are usually very weak on forensic science/pathology evidence, whereas in America these can often be the main part of the prosecution.

Eoin

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Circumstantial evidence is evidence which could point to guilt, but it could also be explained by any number of reasonable explainations. For example, I might have been seen hanging around outside a bank the night before it was robbed, but that is not evidence that I robbed it.

This solicitor seems to be mixing circumstantial evidence up with a recent CCA decision on how a jury can find that someone "intended" to do an act. A jury can draw inferences of what a person was thinking from looking at a number of surrounding facts, but they cannot infer other facts from these facts. So while the facts that someone who is caught with a pile of heroin is holding a weighing scales, a lot of money, and a phone with text messages saying "will you sell me some gear" and the like can be used to infer that he intended it for the purpose of sale or supply, but if he is found without the heroin, it can't be inferred from the fact that he was holding the weighing scales, lot of money and the phone that he is in possession of heroin sufficient for a conviction.

Circumstantial evidence should definately be underestimated and considered weak, moreover it should be considered to be highly misleading.



Non-circumstantial evidence could be:
1) someone seeing the event
2) cctv capturing the person at the scene
3) admissions made to the gardai
4) forensic science evidence from the body
5) forensic science from the scene
6) forensic science from the accused
7) murder weapon
8) clothes worn by the murderer
and that is just in a case of alleged murder such as this one. There are many different kinds of evidence, and in my view circumstantial evidence (for example, him having 2 sets of keys for the car, him making a mistake in accounting for his whereabouts, someone seeing a person go to a car etc) should only ever be used to bolster a prosecution case, not to make it.

Do you have any links that show this definition of circumstantial evidence? It differs from what I have read anywhere else. Any definitions I have seen just mean that some inference is required by the judge / jury.

2) cctv capturing the person at the scene

Surely this is circumstantial? It shows the person was at the scene (as per your own bank example). If there is a ton of other circumstantial evidence, then it could be quite reasonable to infer that someone is guilty.

johnnyskeleton

eoin_s wrote: »

Do you have any links that show this definition of circumstantial evidence? It differs from what I have read anywhere else. Any definitions I have seen just mean that some inference is required by the judge / jury.

I should say that "circumstantial" evidence does not form a discrete type of evidence (such as "hearsay evidence" or "direct evidence"), but a good description comes from Sands' Criminal Law which states:

"It is evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undesigned coincidence is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. It is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial. A jury may convict on purely circumstantial evidence but to do this they must be satisfied not only that the circumstances were consistent with the prisoner having committed the act but also that the facts were such as to be inconsistent with any other rational conclusion than that he was the guilty person""

The reason I say that it could be explained by any number of other reasons is that is the nature of the beast, rather than part of its definition. Because circumstantial evidence is not direct evidence, there is invariably another or several other reasonable explainantions for it. It is only when several pieces of circumstantial evidence are combined that they can be correctly used to establish a fact, and even then it is very hard to do with any kind of certainty. It is insufficient to simply form an opinion from the circumstances that the person is guilty. I would go further and say that purely circumstantial evidence should never be sufficient, but apparently 2/3 juries disagree with me.

So while if the circumstances indicate that the only rational conclusion is that the accused is guilty a jury can correctly convict on circumstantial evidence, they cannot correctly convict if there is any alternative explaination of the circumstantial evidence, nor can they infer additional facts or form the opinion that something else could have happened from those circumstances.

Furthermore, if facts A, B, and C need to be proved for a conviction, and the circumstancial evidence indicates that fact A occured, they cannot use this to form the opinion that A happened if there is any other rational possibility to be drawn from them, and also they cannot form this opinion in respect of fact A and use it to infer that fact B also happened. Circumstantial evidnce used to find one of the facts is much stronger when the other 2 facts are found on the basis of direct evidence (e.g. inferring intention from the circumstances where the other facts of the offence are found on direct & physical evidence), but to find all of the 3 facts on the basis of circumstantial evidence is wrong because there are so many alternative explainations and it is inadequate to simply say that the weight of these circumstances makes me believe that he is guilty.

eoin_s wrote: »

2) cctv capturing the person at the scene

Surely this is circumstantial? It shows the person was at the scene (as per your own bank example). If there is a ton of other circumstantial evidence, then it could be quite reasonable to infer that someone is guilty.

I meant CCTV capturing the person at the scene while doing the deed as opposed to merely being there at the time. Again, circumstantial evidence can only be used to find guilt where there is no other rational explaination possible.

Eoin

I have little doubt that you have more legal knowledge than me, but it seems you are contradicting yourself (through the Sands' Criminal Law bit you quoted).

"It is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial"

and

"I would go further and say that purely circumstantial evidence should never be sufficient, but apparently 2/3 juries disagree with me."

So, it is possible that a jury could be shown a huge amount of circumstantial evidence that could not reasonably leave a conclusion of innocence?

johnnyskeleton

eoin_s wrote: »

I have little doubt that you have more legal knowledge than me, but it seems you are contradicting yourself (through the Sands' Criminal Law bit you quoted).

"It is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial"

and

"I would go further and say that purely circumstantial evidence should never be sufficient, but apparently 2/3 juries disagree with me."

There is no contradiction because while I accept the legal definition I don't think it matches up with reality, in that I can't see any amount of circumstantial evidence leaving me with the unescapable conclusion that a person is guilty without any sort of direct, real or forensic evidence. It almost beggars belief that while we have access to cutting edge forensic science technology and wide ranging garda powers, sometimes we still seem to be relying on "Come on, of course he did it, sure who else could it have been?" The situation is different if circumstantial evidence is used to prove one fact of several (typically intention), but to use it to gloss over the complete lack of any "proper" (for want of a better word) evidence is wrong in my view.

It is cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence that leads to incorrect convictions, far more so than people who make false complaints. While you can cross examine a person who falsely claims rape or assault and prove them to be a liar, you cannot (generally) cross examine circumstantial evidence with a view to showing that it has an alternative interpretation. High profile cases of injustice such as the birmingham 6 were based on falsified confessions and circumstantial evidence

eoin_s wrote: »

So, it is possible that a jury could be shown a huge amount of circumstantial evidence that could not reasonably leave a conclusion of innocence?

Legally yes, but if I were a jury member I simply wouldn't accept it. With circumstantial evidence, you really are at the mercy of the prosecution's say so. The state can use hundreds of gardai to dig up all sorts of circumstantial evidence, and circumstantial evidence rarely means anything from an inductive point of view. It's only if you have predetermined that someone is guilty and are trying to get any sort of evidence to show this that circumstantial evidence takes on any kind of meaning. But worse, I'm sure if an accused person had a team of dozens of detectives, a handful of superintendents, the top legal teams in the country and any number of ordinary gardai to do his bidding, he could equally present enough circumstantial evidence to prove that he wasn't there, or that it was someone else, or that there are so many odd unexplained things in the world that it's simply impossible to know what any of it means.

Eoin

Do you not consider forensic evidence to be a form of circumstantial evidence?