Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

Professor Moriarty

sbsquarepants wrote: »

How is that not a contradiction?

How can justice be served, but the verdict be wrong?

My opinion is that the verdict is wrong but that's just my opinion as a randomer on the internet. Doesn't influence the process of justice. Justice was served because they were subject to due process.

Zebra3

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I would certainly hope so. We'll have to see what happens when the IFA surrounds a minister's car and intimidates the occupants for two hours.

As has been proven, this didn't happen in Jobstown. The car was not surrounded and could have left another way.

Keep repeating the lies of the establishment though....

VinLieger

sbsquarepants wrote: »

How is that not a contradiction?

How can justice be served, but the verdict be wrong?

Justice being served and holding an opinion of whether somebody did something wrong regardless of the verdict are not the same thing, they don't contradict each other in the slightest.

Professor Moriarty

Zebra3 wrote: »

As has been proven, this didn't happen in Jobstown. The car was not surrounded and could have left another way.

Keep repeating the lies of the establishment though....

So what happened to Burton isn't a problem? No problem if it happens to your mother? Ok.

VinLieger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can stack a jury, you cannot guarantee what that jury will decide though if the evidence is so overwhelming the judge directs the jury to ignore the critical evidence givers.

It is perfectly legitimate to say that the 'system' believed or needed these men to be guilty. They did their 'best' to ensure a guilty verdict. It didn't work.

Well yes its is the DPP's job to ensure a guilty verdict just like its the defence's job to ensure a not guilty verdict not sure where your going with this tbh.

sheepo

Absolutely delighted with today's verdict. As soon as the video evidence from the Garda helicopter came to light I felt it would have to be a not-guilty verdict.

This case should never have been brought and there are serious questions to be answered by Gardai and other witnesses who have been shown to have been extremely economical with the truth when delivering evidence under oath.

The establishment in this country are far too quick to try and demonise what they call the far left and their bully-boy tactics have backfired spectacularly in this case.

Professor Moriarty

Amazing the amount of posters with very few posts who are all over this thread. Definitely not concerted. No Siree Bob.

A Dub in Glasgo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So what happened to Burton isn't a problem? No problem if it happens to your mother? Ok.

This not guilty verdict does not demonstrate that the jury thought what happened to Burton was OK or not a problem. It demonstrated that the DPP were utterly wrong to bring this charge against the accused.

You have already stated that it was absolutely correct to bring this charge and the jury was wrong

sbsquarepants

VinLieger wrote: »

Justice being served and holding an opinion of whether somebody did something wrong regardless of the verdict are not the same thing, they don't contradict each other in the slightest.

How so?

Say you believe that a man guilty of murder has gotten off scot free, how do you reconcile that with justice being served in that case?

Allinall

sheepo wrote: »

Absolutely delighted with today's verdict. As soon as the video evidence from the Garda helicopter came to light I felt it would have to be a not-guilty verdict.

This case should never have been brought and there are serious questions to be answered by Gardai and other witnesses who have been shown to have been extremely economical with the truth when delivering evidence under oath.

The establishment in this country are far too quick to try and demonise what they call the far left and their bully-boy tactics have backfired spectacularly in this case.

Are the far left not part of the establishment?

sheepo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Amazing the amount of posters with very few posts who are all over this thread. Definitely not concerted. No Siree Bob.

Yeah my handlers in the Kremlin sent me straight here as soon as the verdict was announced :rolleyes:

Sorry I didn't realise a high post-count was a pre-requisite for making a point here.

sheepo

Allinall wrote: »

Are the far left not part of the establishment?

I suppose that's a matter of opinion - I don't consider them to be.

VinLieger

sbsquarepants wrote: »

How so.

If you believe that a man guilty of murder has gotten off scot free, how do you reconcile that with justice being served?

Okay do you believe a garlic smuggler should have gotten 6 years in prison? Of course not its ridiculous BUT thats justice being served.

If the evidence is similarly not there to call a person you believe to be a murderer guilty then that is also Justice being served.

Justice and your opinion of a persons actions are two completely different things

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

Well yes its is the DPP's job to ensure a guilty verdict just like its the defence's job to ensure a not guilty verdict not sure where your going with this tbh.

Yes, and the question is, did the DPP do their job in an independent way. It is perfectly legitimate to believe they didn't.

VinLieger

Allinall wrote: »

Are the far left not part of the establishment?

SHHH we don't talk about that contradiction

end of the road

VinLieger wrote: »

LOL at the pictures of these eejits cheering and shouting about justice being done outside the courthouse while the sheep behind them hold up signs saying "no faith in the system"..... well which is it? Or is it as usual the loony left want it both ways depending on which one suits them best at the time?

both as they did nothing wrong hence justice was done, and the establishment tried to jail them for protesting hence no faith in the system for the most part.
they did nothing to croney joaney apart from inconvenience her. i'm sure it wasn't nice for her but we must be proportionate about what actually happened.
anyway the subverting of democracy has failed. well done all.

TheShow

Not guilty, however a peaceful protest it was not. Nobody can condone what happened there regardless of who the person trapped in the car was.

VinLieger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, and the question is, did the DPP do their job in an independent way. It is perfectly legitimate to believe they didn't.

Elaborate on what you mean by "did the DPP do their job in an independent way"

Professor Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

This not guilty verdict does not demonstrate that the jury thought what happened to Burton was OK or not a problem. It demonstrated that the DPP were utterly wrong to bring this charge against the accused.

You have already stated that it was absolutely correct to bring this charge and the jury was wrong

Yes. That doesn't mean that I therefore don't believe justice was served. Just because, in my opinion, the jury made a mistake in this case doesn't mean that the process is invalid. It's not perfect but it's the best we have and it's damn good when you consider alternatives around the world. In this case, I'm not a judge, witness, defendant, lawyer, Garda, DPP. Therefore my opinion on the verdict doesn't matter. They were subject to due process and the DPP was absolutely right to bring a prosecution based on the evidence.

Professor Moriarty

sheepo wrote: »

Yeah my handlers in the Kremlin sent me straight here as soon as the verdict was announced :rolleyes:

Sorry I didn't realise a high post-count was a pre-requisite for making a point here.

Knew it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yes. That doesn't mean that I therefore don't believe justice was served. Just because, in my opinion, the jury made a mistake in this case doesn't mean that the process is invalid. It's not perfect but it's the best we have and it's damn good when you consider alternatives around the world. In this case, I'm not a judge, witness, defendant, lawyer, Garda, DPP. Therefore my opinion on the verdict doesn't matter. They were subject to due process and the DPP was absolutely right to bring a prosecution based on the evidence.

Why do you think the jury made a mistake?

VinLieger

end of the road wrote: »

both as they did nothing wrong hence justice was done, and the establishment tried to jail them for protesting hence no faith in the system for the most part.
they did nothing to croney joaney apart from inconvenience her. i'm sure it wasn't nice for her but we must be proportionate about what actually happened.
anyway the subverting of democracy has failed. well done all.

Please explain how this was an attempt to subvert democracy? At what point was the entire system of democracy under threat?

sbsquarepants

VinLieger wrote: »

Justice and your opinion of a persons actions are two completely different things

OK I'm with you. I meant justice more in the primordial "got what they deserved" sense.

Justice being served, as in the justice system being followed to the letter, I see your point.

Professor Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Why do you think the jury made a mistake?

Based on the evidence as reported, I would have argued against acquittal. But as I keep saying, my opinion on the verdict is irrelevant to the process.

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

Elaborate on what you mean by "did the DPP do their job in an independent way"

It is perfectly legitimate to ask the question - was pressure put on the DPP by political elements?

jimmycrackcorm

sheepo wrote:

The establishment in this country are far too quick to try and demonise what they call the far left and their bully-boy tactics have backfired spectacularly in this case.

Would you be happy with a bunch of rowdy right wing supporters preventing Murphy from getting out of his car for three hours, or does the far left only get to play the victim card?

Professor Moriarty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is perfectly legitimate to ask the question - was pressure put on the DPP by political elements?

Pressure from the AAA for the DPP not to prosecute this case? I would hope not.

VinLieger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is perfectly legitimate to ask the question - was pressure put on the DPP by political elements?

Do you believe considering how nobody in this country can hold their piss we wouldnt know if pressure had been applied? Also considering how much the DPP fumbled this and the Fitzpatrick case that they are competent enough to not have let it slip if they were pressured?

It was the right verdict. Claiming they were being denied the right to protest is nonsense. Peaceful protest is available to everyone. That wasn't a peaceful protest. It was thuggery of the highest order.

No doubt they'll be jumping on the bin charge bandwagon next.

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

Do you believe considering how nobody in this country can hold their piss we wouldnt know if pressure had been applied? Also considering how much the DPP fumbled this and the Fitzpatrick case that they are competent enough to not have let it slip if they were pressured?

I have no idea.
The point I was making was that it is a legitimate point of view to have that the 'system' is stacked against you.

L1011

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is perfectly legitimate to ask the question - was pressure put on the DPP by political elements?

There was vast amount of pressure by political elements from the side you aren't implying. "Drop the charges now!" etc posters paid for by political parties being one.

Things don't suddenly become acceptable because you like them.

FrancieBrady

L1011 wrote: »

There was vast amount of pressure by political elements from the side you aren't implying. "Drop the charges now!" etc posters paid for by political parties being one.

Things don't suddenly become acceptable because you like them.

Directly on the DPP? I would be against that from any side tbh.

L1011

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Directly on the DPP? I would be against that from any side tbh.

There was plenty of material directed solely at the DPP. Political pressure is still political pressure when its from a different politician.

There was also more than enough content posted across the entire internet that, if from the other side and the other result would have lead to calls for a retrial or a Haughey "no fair trial" decision due to jury poisoning.


The other thing that needs to be realised is that there was nothing to gain politically from convicting the 6. No judge would be willing to go over the 6 months required for losing the Dail seat and we have a nice long heritage of TDs in prison; and you'd instantly create 6 martyrs. The protests that'd come after an imprisonment could make some of the previous ones look small.

This wasn't a political prosecution and amazingly despite being told that the jury selection was rigged it clearly wasn't. Fancy that!

A Dub in Glasgo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Based on the evidence as reported, I would have argued against acquittal. But as I keep saying, my opinion on the verdict is irrelevant to the process.

What bit of the evidence convinces you beyond reasonable doubt that the 6 were quilty of false imprisonment? Is the judge also wrong to highlight the doubts?

FrancieBrady

L1011 wrote: »

There was plenty of material directed solely at the DPP. Political pressure is still political pressure when its from a different politician.

There was also more than enough content posted across the entire internet that, if from the other side and the other result would have lead to calls for a retrial or a Haughey "no fair trial" decision due to jury poisoning.

The DPP should not be affected by what goes on on the internet. Really.

L1011

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DPP should not be affected by what goes on on the internet. Really.

The DPP does not respond to political pressure - that's my point.

The crap directed at the DPP from the # side was a lot more than just online, though.

FrancieBrady

L1011 wrote: »

The DPP does not respond to political pressure - that's my point.

How do you know this?

The crap directed at the DPP from the # side was a lot more than just online, though.

What else was directed at the DPP?
Political comment? He/she should be immune from that also, it's in the job description - 'The DPP should be independent'.

L1011

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How do you know

You're the one making the accusation, while also hand-waving away the only known political pressure to have occurred. Burden of proof is on you.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What else was directed at the DPP?
Political comment? He/she should be immune from that also, it's in the job description - 'The DPP should be independent'.

Posters. Marches. Elected representatives calling for the independent DPP to drop charges. All textbook political pressure - the only political pressure that is known to have occurred here. And the DPP didn't pay attention to it.

kylith

I'm pleased with the result. You can't really hold someone prisoner if they're in a vehicle that can kill you.

Professor Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

What bit of the evidence convinces you beyond reasonable doubt that the 6 were quilty of false imprisonment? Is the judge also wrong to highlight the doubts?

Lots of it. The fact that an occupant felt terrified, especially. The judge would be far more au fait with the facts than me and made their own decision. I trust their decision and the process.

Zebra3

L1011 wrote: »

There was plenty of material directed solely at the DPP. Political pressure is still political pressure when its from a different politician.

There was also more than enough content posted across the entire internet that, if from the other side and the other result would have lead to calls for a retrial or a Haughey "no fair trial" decision due to jury poisoning.


The other thing that needs to be realised is that there was nothing to gain politically from convicting the 6. No judge would be willing to go over the 6 months required for losing the Dail seat and we have a nice long heritage of TDs in prison; and you'd instantly create 6 martyrs. The protests that'd come after an imprisonment could make some of the previous ones look small.

This wasn't a political prosecution and amazingly despite being told that the jury selection was rigged it clearly wasn't. Fancy that!

Why was there a dawn raid carried out on a TD then?

Were there any dawn raids carried out on right-wing politicans who were up to their necks in corruption?

As we've seen with Clare Daly, AGS have a clear right-wing bias.

How many dawn raids were carried out on the premises of the RC Church to find documents on child rapists and how they were being protected?

Why have AGS not arrested a well-known wealthy businessman for bribing a government minister to win a telecoms contract?

Maybe AGS are too busy stitching up whistle blowers.

lazybones32

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Sheeple?

Jaysus that's embarrassing.

Should i be embarrassed by that word or something?

railer201

McCrack wrote: »

Defination of false imprisonment:


False imprisonment.

15.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of false imprisonment who intentionally or recklessly—

(a) takes or detains, or

(b) causes to be taken or detained, or

(c) otherwise restricts the personal liberty of,

another without that other's consent

I was of the view the car was surrounded for at least two hours. It was a hostile crowd. The occupants couldn't get out and the car could not move as it was surrounded.

In my eyes that is false imprisonment both in the ordinary meaning and the legal meaning above and for that reason I am disappointment with the jury decision however I do respect it.

If you're talking about imprisonment, would you consider a comparative prison sentence of two hours to be rational then ?

L1011

I'm not sure why you're asking me questions about the actions of AGS when I haven't discussed same, but as some of them are incredibly easy to answer:

Zebra3 wrote: »

Why was there a dawn raid carried out on a TD then?

Because that is when you go to arrest someone with a day job, who hasn't specifically arranged to be arrested - e.g. by turning up at a police station. Time and place you're most likely to find them.

Zebra3 wrote: »

Were there any dawn raids carried out on right-wing politicans who were up to their necks in corruption?

See Liam Lawlor, Ray Burke, Fred Forsey.

If you want to go accuse others of being up to their necks in corruption by all means do, but its your libel lawyers you'd want to talk to first.

Zebra3 wrote: »

How many dawn raids were carried out on the premises of the RC Church to find documents on child rapists and how they were being protected?

Those were provided surprisingly easily in most cases - or known to be destroyed.

Zebra3 wrote: »

Why have AGS not arrested a well-known wealthy businessman for bribing a government minister to win a telecoms contract?

Because there is on-going civil litigation that it would immediately prejudice. Realistically there'd be zero chance of a criminal prosecution after doing that.

Rezident

still guilty of being complete skangers though - are they proud of what they did to joan and her assistant? knackers.

Captain Obvious

Rezident wrote: »

still guilty of being complete skangers though - are they proud of what they did to joan and her assistant? knackers.

Of course they're proud. The far left is as bad as the far right. Two sides of the same ****ty coin.

nc6000

Rezident wrote: »

still guilty of being complete skangers though - are they proud of what they did to joan and her assistant? knackers.

They sure are and I reckon this verdict will only encourage them to act like that again.

I've seen winning syndicates outside the National Lottery offices who didn't look as happy as they did outside the court today.

FrancieBrady

L1011 wrote: »

You're the one making the accusation, while also hand-waving away the only known political pressure to have occurred. Burden of proof is on you.

eh, I didn't accuse anyone of anything, I said it was legitimate to have the opinion that there was political pressure here just as it is to say (without any back up) that there wasn't, which is what you just did.

Posters. Marches. Elected representatives calling for the independent DPP to drop charges. All textbook political pressure - the only political pressure that is known to have occurred here. And the DPP didn't pay attention to it.

[\QUOTE]
Which the DPP should be rightly immune from. We dont know if direct political pressure was applied though.

L1011

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which the DPP should be rightly immune from. We dont know if direct political pressure was applied though.

We know full well it was applied by (Murphy) and on behalf of the defense.

FrancieBrady

L1011 wrote: »

We know full well it was applied by (Murphy) and on behalf of the defense.

Murphy is not in a position of power over the DPP. He can therefore be easily ignored.