Jobstown Defendants Not Guilty - The Role of the Gardai and the Judicial Process

FrancieBrady · 13-07-2017 7:25pm

markodaly wrote: »

So what would another inquiry into the Gardai achieve? Before answering remember there is the guts of a dozen investigations already under way.

It would find out what went on in this case. I don't care how many inquiries are under way, that is not the citizens of Ireland's fault.

markodaly · 13-07-2017 7:25pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is NO decision yet on whether Murphy abused Dail privilege but you have decided that he was morally lesser than Leo in raising the issue. It's all there in what you wrote. Read it again.

The mere fact that one is referred to a committee while someone else is not, shows that the former's comments are questionable and merits further investigation. If you cannot understand this very basic premise then I cannot help you further.

FrancieBrady · 13-07-2017 7:28pm

markodaly wrote: »

The mere fact that one is referred to a committee while someone else is not, shows that the former's comments are questionable and merits further investigation. If you cannot understand this very basic premise then I cannot help you further.

It does not infer that he was morally inferior or different to a Taoiseach who definitively ruled out the possibility that 6 men may have been victims of organised perjury before any inquiry of any kind was complete.

If it turns out that there was perjury, he would be the immoral one.

markodaly · 13-07-2017 7:28pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It would find out what went on in this case. I don't care how many inquiries are under way, that is not the citizens of Ireland's fault.

So, you are therefore accepting by default that this inquiry would be highly political and would not in anyway help in reforming the police.

I am not sure another inquiry would do anything other then pump more oxygen into this issue that being honest no one in Ireland cares about, except Paul "Nelson Mandela" Murphy.

RustyNut · 13-07-2017 7:29pm

markodaly wrote: »

the Gardai's evidence was questionable and merits further investigation. If you cannot understand this very basic premise then I cannot help you further.

FYP there.

FrancieBrady · 13-07-2017 7:33pm

markodaly wrote: »

So, you are therefore accepting by default that this inquiry would be highly political and would not in anyway help in reforming the police.

I am not sure another inquiry would do anything other then pump more oxygen into this issue that being honest no one in Ireland cares about, except Paul "Nelson Mandela" Murphy.

I care about the separation of powers and so do many others.

What has politics got to do with getting at the truth. Of course it will be political, members of a political party were arrested and tried. And the inquiry will be about finding out if there was garda perjury and if so who ordered or organised that.

markodaly · 13-07-2017 7:36pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It does not infer that he was morally inferior or different to a Taoiseach who definitively ruled out the possibility that 6 men may have been victims of organised perjury before any inquiry of any kind was complete.

If it turns out that there was perjury, he would be the immoral one.

Leo said no such thing, its just he pulled up Murphy on the fact that what he was saying had no evidence and if he said such a thing outside the Dail, he would be sued for defamation. Remember what I said about Dail privilege and responsibility? Dail privilege should not be used to settle personal scores and call people perjurers with no evidence.

By the way, Leo was not the only person to call Paul Murphy out. M. Martin was well within his rights to say that his comments were ""unprecedented and opening up all sorts of new horizons" and said the appropriateness of the remarks should be examined by the House."

When people talk of conspiracy I am often reminded of this quote.

never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

dense · 13-07-2017 7:45pm

markodaly wrote: »

So what would another inquiry into the Gardai achieve? Before answering remember there is the guts of a dozen investigations already under way.

Then another enquiry would hardly be noticed or affect morale.
The fact that there's SO many actually gives merit to the need for another one rather than diminishing it.

markodaly · 13-07-2017 7:45pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I care about the separation of powers and so do many others.

Ha, pull the other one. This is about drawing as much political capital from this incident one way or another. Seperation of powers? Ha, What next, Gerry Adams was never in the PIRA? That gave me a good chuckle.

Of course it will be political

This is why most people don't want this. No one want to see a politically motivated inquiry into the police force, while there are already numerous other investigations. Most decent right minded Irish people want the other inquiries to do their job and then reforms to be implemented so we get a better more professional Gardai.

Not some self appointed Jesus who craves attention who wants to create an outcome designed to stoke up pity. The betterment of Irish society or policing is not the outcome Paul Murphy wants.

For Reals · 13-07-2017 7:46pm

We know the statements were false. An inquiry would judge if there was conspiracy.

13-07-2017 7:46pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It does not infer that he was morally inferior or different to a Taoiseach who definitively ruled out the possibility that 6 men may have been victims of organised perjury before any inquiry of any kind was complete.

If it turns out that there was perjury, he would be the immoral one.

An incorrect recollection isn't perjury. The words were uttered, just not by Paul Murphy.

For Reals · 13-07-2017 7:47pm

Deleted User wrote: »

An incorrect recollection isn't perjury. The words were uttered, just not by Paul Murphy.

Do you not get the point? It doesn't matter if Dustin the Turkey said it. They falsely accused Murphy. Murphy was on trial.
Three 'incorrect recollections' is 'Ripley's Believe it or not' territory.

markodaly · 13-07-2017 7:52pm

For Reals wrote: »

We know the statements were false. An inquiry would judge if there was conspiracy.

If there was a conspiracy it was not a very good one seeing as the video evidence that contradicted the statements came from, yes you guessed it, the Gardai.

As I said, the Gardai are incompetent.

Hitman3000 · 13-07-2017 7:57pm

markodaly wrote:

This is why most people don't want this. No one want to see a politically motivated inquiry into the police force, while there are already numerous other investigations. Most decent right minded Irish people want the other inquiries to do their job and then reforms to be implemented so we get a better more professional Gardai.

Maybe I missed it but has there been a Red C, Millward Brown etc... poll carried out to back up your assertion that most people decent or otherwise don't want an inquiry.

13-07-2017 8:06pm

For Reals wrote: »

Do you not get the point? It doesn't matter if Dustin the Turkey said it. They falsely accused Murphy. Murphy was on trial.
Three 'incorrect recollections' is 'Ripley's Believe it or not' territory.

It matters in that the words were actually uttered. Murphy was there at the time and was wrongly identified as the speaker.

Any idea of who the person(s) were who lost their job(s) because of being charged? I would have thought that would have been an illegal act and subject to proceedings of it's own.

RustyNut · 13-07-2017 8:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It matters in that the words were actually uttered. Murphy was there at the time and was wrongly identified as the speaker.

Any idea of who the person(s) were who lost their job(s) because of being charged? I would have thought that would have been an illegal act and subject to proceedings of it's own.

Murphy was looking at a potential life sentence.

Would it be ok if a Guard found a big bag of drugs and gave evidence that it belonged to you just because you were close by when it was found. The drugs were actually there..

13-07-2017 8:16pm

RustyNut wrote: »

Murphy was looking at a potential life sentence.

Would it be ok if a Guard found a big bag of drugs and gave evidence that it belonged to you just because you were close by when it was found. The drugs were actually there..

Justice was done. A Not Guilty verdict returned.

More important is the accusation that someone of those charged was sacked because of being charged, according to Murphys outburst in the Dail. Surely to goodness this is a serious claim.

Captain Obvious · 13-07-2017 8:29pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I care about the separation of powers and so do many others.

So I presume you were horrified by the politicians campaigning to have charges dropped. A total interference with the justice system.

dense · 13-07-2017 8:34pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Justice was done. A Not Guilty verdict returned.

And without the video evidence there would have likely been a miscarriage of justice as a result of the collective garda "mistakes" in their recollections of events.

Talking of coincidences, wasn't it odd that during the very trial gardai were kicking up about the public video recording them.

Hitman3000 · 13-07-2017 8:34pm

Captain Obvious wrote:

So I presume you were horrified by the politicians campaigning to have charges dropped. A total interference with the justice system.

'Politicians campaigning to have charges dropped'. Didn't a cross party bunch of TD's make a trip to Egypt to campaign for a lad being held on quite serious charges. I believe even Leo has gotten in on the act.

RustyNut · 13-07-2017 8:36pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Justice was done. A Not Guilty verdict returned.

No thanks to false evidence given by a number of Guards.

Deleted User wrote: »

More important is the accusation that someone of those charged was sacked because of being charged

More important than a potential conspiracy by the state to fit up some people for an offence that they didn't commit for political purposes?

13-07-2017 8:37pm

dense wrote: »

And without the video evidence there would have likely been a miscarriage of justice as a result of the collective garda "mistakes" in their recollections of events.

Talking of coincidences, wasn't it odd that during the very trial gardai were kicking up about the public video recording them.

Any comment on the rest of my post "More important is the accusation that someone of those charged was sacked because of being charged, according to Murphys outburst in the Dail. Surely to goodness this is a serious claim."?

Hitman3000 · 13-07-2017 8:58pm

Deleted User wrote:

Any comment on the rest of my post "More important is the accusation that someone of those charged was sacked because of being charged, according to Murphys outburst in the Dail. Surely to goodness this is a serious claim."?

Serious claim but a separate issue. A good solicitor that deals in workers rights could sort out that.

dense · 13-07-2017 9:03pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Any comment on the rest of my post "More important is the accusation that someone of those charged was sacked because of being charged, according to Murphys outburst in the Dail. Surely to goodness this is a serious claim."?

No point I didn't even hear him say it Tbh.
Do you want to gloss over the miscarriage of justice bit in my post or just actually change the subject?
Or answer the poster who asked how you'd feel if you were on a trumped up drugs charge using the same garda logic they tried to apply in this case?

13-07-2017 9:10pm

dense wrote: »

No point I didn't even hear him say it Tbh.
Do you want to gloss over the miscarriage of justice bit in my post or just actually change the subject?
Or answer the poster who asked how you'd feel if you were on a trumped up drugs charge using the same garda logic they tried to apply in this case?

There was no miscarriage of justice. Charges were brought. A court case ensued. A Jury heard the evidence and found all not guilty.
I would expect that the same would apply to any "trumped up drugs charge" that may be made against any innocent person.

If you listened to his rant in the Dail you would have heard him state that someone lost their job because of the charges against them. Surely a gross miscarriage of justice.

Hitman3000 · 13-07-2017 9:14pm

Deleted User wrote:

If you listened to his rant in the Dail you would have heard him state that someone lost their job because of the charges against them. Surely a gross miscarriage of justice.

A person losing their job is not a 'miscarriage of justice' it may however be actionable under employment law.
I listened to Murphy in the Dail and the contribution of Leo and Martin neither of the three unless you are politically biased could have been accused of ranting. Voices may have been raised but that does not equate to a rant.

FrancieBrady · 13-07-2017 9:20pm

Deleted User wrote: »

There was no miscarriage of justice. .

The point is and the focus of the inquiry would be to find out if persons or person attempted to ensure a miscarriage by wilfully being inaccurate and inconsistent. If it was willfull it was lying = perjury.
Nobody, not me, you or Leo know the answer to that, therefore an inquiry is necessary if you consider the implications (possible organised garda perjury) important.
Do you consider possible organised garda perjury important for every citizen in the state?

Captain Obvious · 13-07-2017 9:29pm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

'Politicians campaigning to have charges dropped'. Didn't a cross party bunch of TD's make a trip to Egypt to campaign for a lad being held on quite serious charges. I believe even Leo has gotten in on the act.

Would it not be easier to say "Hey, look over there!"?

Hitman3000 · 13-07-2017 9:37pm

Captain Obvious wrote:

Would it not be easier to say "Hey, look over there!"?

No, but if we are to get upset by one bunch of politicians trying to interfere in the legal process, it's only fair to point out other instances.

dense · 13-07-2017 10:53pm

Deleted User wrote: »

There was no miscarriage of justice. Charges were brought. A court case ensued. A Jury heard the evidence and found all not guilty.
I would expect that the same would apply to any "trumped up drugs charge" that may be made against any innocent person.

If you listened to his rant in the Dail you would have heard him state that someone lost their job because of the charges against them. Surely a gross miscarriage of justice.

The reason there was no miscarriage of justice is because recordings existed which contradicted claims made by a number of garda witnesses.

The court transcripts were very interesting.

Why try to confuse a person being potentially wrongfully dismissed with a possible orchestrated miscarriage of justice and possible life imprisonment a a result? That person can have their day in court.

Let's hope the scales of justice are a not as strained as they appeared during the trial.

Bishopsback · 14-07-2017 8:11am

What a shambles this has turned out to be.
An absolutely over the top reaction to the whole jobstown incident from day one.
It has raised serious questions about the judicial system and how gardai deal with giving evidence.
No matter whether you agree with or loathe PM, it could have been anybody, no matter who decided or colluded or went ahead with this "show trial", it has backfired badly and only raised more questions about how our system works.
A faux pas of the highest order.

Hitman3000 · 14-07-2017 10:23am

So Murphy has now made a claim of defamation against the Taoiseach,and a further compliant against C Flanagan H Humphries, M M O'Connor and last B Durkan a report in today's Irish Examiner has stated. Tit for tat I suppose. However some of what was said by the FG members if repeated outside the Dail would land them in a world of trouble, I wonder as has been called upon of Murphy regarding his claims( which incidently he has) would they be brave enough to do so?

Captain Obvious · 14-07-2017 10:42am

Hitman3000 wrote: »

However some of what was said by the FG members if repeated outside the Dail would land them in a world of trouble,

Like what?

Hitman3000 · 14-07-2017 10:51am

Captain Obvious wrote:

Like what?

I can't link the article in the Examiner (perhaps being a newbie) but if you read the article you will see foe yourself. He is being accused of what the courts found him not guilty of. Seems certain FG members want to rerun the trail in the Dail but have already decided the outcome.

Captain Obvious · 14-07-2017 10:56am

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I can't link the article in the Examiner (perhaps being a newbie) but if you read the article you will see foe yourself. He is being accused of what the courts found him not guilty of. Seems certain FG members want to rerun the trail in the Dail but have already decided the outcome.

You show a complete ignorance of both defamation law and criminal courts. The only thing a court found was that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of false imprisonment. You are probably referring to this.

This was in response to Taoiseach Leo Varadkar’s statement that scenes at the Jobstown protest were “ugly” and “violent”, accusing Murphy of “thuggery”

http://www.thejournal.ie/dail-privilege-paul-murphy-3495911-Jul2017/

It would be a big stretch to call that defamatory. A first year law student could tell you that. Murphy is just pandering to his supporters, who likely know very little about the law, so that he can once again claim some establishment bias when his complaint is thrown out.

Hitman3000 · 14-07-2017 11:00am

Have you lost the run of yourself? I have personally not claimed it was defamation I referenced an article in the Examiner. I don't get my news from the Journal but thanks for the suggestion. Furthermore the verdict was 'not guilty' by unanimous decision of the jury as reported by multiple news outlets. Haven't seen the lack of evidence verdict, where was that reported?

blanch152 · 14-07-2017 11:07am

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So Murphy has now made a claim of defamation against the Taoiseach,and a further compliant against C Flanagan H Humphries, M M O'Connor and last B Durkan a report in today's Irish Examiner has stated. Tit for tat I suppose. However some of what was said by the FG members if repeated outside the Dail would land them in a world of trouble, I wonder as has been called upon of Murphy regarding his claims( which incidently he has) would they be brave enough to do so?

Here is the report:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/paul-murphy-to-make-official-defamation-complaint-to-the-dail-against-taoiseach-797840.html

Murphy is making an eejit out of himself with the latest.

Hitman3000 · 14-07-2017 11:27am

blanch152 wrote:

Murphy is making an eejit out of himself with the latest.

It would seem on this occasion several FG members decided to emulate him.

FrancieBrady · 14-07-2017 1:04pm

Can anyone explain how it was alright for Varadkar to imply Garda wrongdoing and accept that there was 'inaccuracies and inconsistencies' on Primetime, but it was wrong for one of the potential victims of that to bring it up in the house?

Captain Obvious · 14-07-2017 1:49pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can anyone explain how it was alright for Varadkar to imply Garda wrongdoing and accept that there was 'inaccuracies and inconsistencies' on Primetime, but it was wrong for one of the potential victims of that to bring it up in the house?

He didn't hide behind Dáil privilege to avoid the defamation laws so he was willing to stand by whatever he said.

Hitman3000 · 14-07-2017 1:52pm

Captain Obvious wrote:

He didn't hide behind DÃ¡il privilege to avoid the defamation laws so he was willing to stand by whatever he said.

Who did Murphy defame? I heard him mention no names and he has made the same claim outside the Dail. His claim was carried by several news outlets including RTE.

FrancieBrady · 14-07-2017 2:00pm

Captain Obvious wrote: »

He didn't hide behind Dáil privilege to avoid the defamation laws so he was willing to stand by whatever he said.

Another poster made this claim yesterday and when shown he was wrong made no effort to withdraw.
It is a dangerous and spurious claim to say 'he hid behind anything'
He did say it outside the house.

So my question still stands, why was it ok for Varadkar to use the case to pressure the COmmissioner (my suspicion is that is what he was doing on Prime Time) and not ok for a potential victim of perjury not to raise it, and keep raising it?

Mr Murphy said he believes officers gave incorrect evidence to the trial. He was speaking to reporters just hours after Social Democrats TD Catherine Murphy said some gardaí should potentially face perjury charges over their evidence.

He said the issue amounts to perjury but said this should be investigated by a Government inquiry first in order to ensure wider conspiracy claims are also examined.

“I think perjury was committed by gardaí in this case. That is a criminal offence,” he said.

“Criminal prosecutions can be brought against gardaí in relation to that but, at this stage I’m not planning to go and make a criminal complaint of perjury because I think if you do that the Government’s answer the next day is to say ‘well we can’t answer any of those questions because there’s criminal investigations proceeding’.

“So our focus is on a governmental and political response.”

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/paul-murphy-accuses-gardai-of-perjury-454092.html

Captain Obvious · 14-07-2017 2:14pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Another poster made this claim yesterday and when shown he was wrong made no effort to withdraw.
It is a dangerous and spurious claim to say 'he hid behind anything'
He did say it outside the house.

So my question still stands, why was it ok for Varadkar to use the case to pressure the COmmissioner (my suspicion is that is what he was doing on Prime Time) and not ok for a potential victim of perjury not to raise it, and keep raising it?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/paul-murphy-accuses-gardai-of-perjury-454092.html

Paul Murphy was more specific and the people he was referring to are easily identifiable by his description, specifically he mentioned three gardaí up to the rank of superintendent who stated specific things in the case. He then got more specific about them.

Hitman3000 · 14-07-2017 2:17pm

Captain Obvious wrote:

Paul Murphy was more specific and the people he was referring to are easily identifiable by his description, specifically he mentioned three gardaÃ up to the rank of superintendent who stated specific things in the case. He then got more specific about them.

Has he named anyone? Are the court transcripts sealed that no one can access information about witnesses and who/rank they hold?

FrancieBrady · 14-07-2017 2:19pm

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Paul Murphy was more specific and the people he was referring to are easily identifiable by his description, specifically he mentioned three gardaí up to the rank of superintendent who stated specific things in the case.

Leo was specific, he referenced 'inaccuracies and inconsistencies' that the judge referred to.
If you followed the case, read the transcripts you would know exactly what and who he was talking about.

In other words, claims that Murphy and he alone named/identified these witnesses are nonsense.
Anyone who has a knowledge of the case knows who is being referred too. If you don't know the case then you wouldn't know which of the 180 Garda witnesses was being referred to.

Captain Obvious · 14-07-2017 2:24pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leo was specific, he referenced 'inaccuracies and inconsistencies' that the judge referred to.
If you followed the case, read the transcripts you would know exactly what and who he was talking about.

In other words, claims that Murphy and he alone named/identified these witnesses are nonsense.
Anyone who has a knowledge of the case knows who is being referred too. If you don't know the case then you wouldn't know which of the 180 Garda witnesses was being referred to.

It doesn't appear you understand the word specific or indeed defamation law. Maybe you should ask in Legal Discussion for the difference between what the two of them said if you need it explained in detail. Paul Murphy was very specific about individuals. Leo Varadker was not. Paul Murphy alleged perjury, Leo Varadker did not. One was specific, one was not. It is as simple as that.

Hitman3000 · 14-07-2017 2:29pm

Captain Obvious wrote:

It doesn't appear you understand the word specific or indeed defamation law. Maybe you should ask in Legal Discussion for the difference between what the two of them said if you need it explained in detail. Paul Murphy was very specific about individuals. Leo Varadker was not. Paul Murphy alleged perjury, Leo Varadker did not. One was specific, one was not. It is as simple as that.

Murphy has made his claim outside of the Dail regarding Garda evidence. You maintain the people he is alluding to are easily identifiable. Therefore one can only assume that all these individuals have sought legal help to seek redress. Although it's only defamation if the allegation is not true. Should be an interesting court case if ( won't hold my breath) if it happens.

blanch152 · 14-07-2017 2:40pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leo was specific, he referenced 'inaccuracies and inconsistencies' that the judge referred to.
If you followed the case, read the transcripts you would know exactly what and who he was talking about.

In other words, claims that Murphy and he alone named/identified these witnesses are nonsense.
Anyone who has a knowledge of the case knows who is being referred too. If you don't know the case then you wouldn't know which of the 180 Garda witnesses was being referred to.

(1) "Inaccuracies and inconsistencies" do not equate to an allegation of perjury. Paul Murphy made an allegation of perjury which was not made by either the judge or Varadkar.

(2) Paul Murphy made the allegation of perjury in respect of three identifiable gardai. Varadkar mentioned general inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

There is a gulf of a difference.

tayto lover · 14-07-2017 2:54pm

Unless the evidence given by the 3 garda is written down exactly the same it would be hard to prove perjury imo.
Three people looking at an incident from one angle and three from another angle would see things much differently.
You only have to witness an incident in a football match and see it again later from a different angle on t.v. to understand that.

Hitman3000 · 14-07-2017 3:01pm

tayto lover wrote:

Unless the evidence given by the 3 garda is written down exactly the same it would be hard to prove perjury imo. Three people looking at an incident from one angle and three from another angle would see things much differently. You only have to witness an incident in a football match and see it again later from a different angle on t.v. to understand that.

Given what the potential consequences could have been for Murphy and his co defendants all the more reason for an inquiry.

Jobstown Defendants Not Guilty - The Role of the Gardai and the Judicial Process

Comments