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

tayto lover

Hitman3000 wrote: »

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

I don't believe there are enough grounds for one tbh.
I think it's more bluster from Murphy.

I went to several anti IW marches in Dublin.
I went by train and had a sandwich and a pint in Clerys just outside the station. I joined the march outside and we marched to O'Connell St for the speeches. These marches were good humored and pleasant. There was not one iota of a threat of violence either.

I abhorred the threats to the people putting in the meters, the garda and to Govt reps. There was no need for this.

My point is that all anti-water charge protesters had to do was show the strength of the movement by marching and then confirm it to the Govt by refusing to pay.

The only people to gain from violence were the elected reps like Murphy and the Councillors because they want to be re-elected. I can't understand how people cannot see that.

Captain Obvious

Hitman3000 wrote: »

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.

Paul Murphy was much more vague outside the Dáil. He referred to very specific testimony and people inside the Dáil.

Hitman3000

tayto lover wrote:

I went to several anti IW marches in Dublin. I went by train and had a sandwich and a pint in Clerys just outside the station. I joined the march outside and we marched to O'Connell St for the speeches. These marches were good humored and pleasant. There was not one iota of a threat of violence either.

tayto lover wrote:

I abhorred the threats to the people putting in the meters, the garda and to Govt reps. There was no need for this.

tayto lover wrote:

My point is that all anti-water charge protesters had to do was show the strength of the movement by marching and then confirm it to the Govt by refusing to pay.

tayto lover wrote:

The only people to gain from violence were the elected reps like Murphy and the Councillors because they want to be re-elected. I can't understand how people cannot see that.

None of which is relevant to Murphy and his co accused being in court on false imprisonment charges. We need to know that when given evidence in court a Garda can be trusted even Leo has reservations regarding this. An inquiry will clear up the perception of pergury or hold those to account if it did happen.

For Reals

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.

And sure if he went to prison off the back of it maybe they'd lock up some poor lad who happened to be walking near Mountjoy and Murphy could toddle along home. As long as someone got done what's the problem like :rolleyes:

Hitman3000

Captain Obvious wrote:

Paul Murphy was much more vague outside the Dáil. He referred to very specific testimony and people inside the Dáil.

Did he name specific people in the Dail?

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

None of which is relevant to Murphy and his co accused being in court on false imprisonment charges. We need to know that when given evidence in court a Garda can be trusted even Leo has reservations regarding this. An inquiry will clear up the perception of pergury or hold those to account if it did happen.

Gardai are human not robots. Yes, they have a degree of training that lay people don't have, but that doesn't mean their evidence will ever be 100% correct.

Given the highly stressful situation of the non-peaceful protest, allied to the thuggish behaviour of many of the protestors on the day, as well as the sheer length of time during which the two women were trapped in their cars, it is actually surprising that there were so few inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

Gardai are human not robots. Yes, they have a degree of training that lay people don't have, but that doesn't mean their evidence will ever be 100% correct.

Of course they are human, all three hearing the same thing and attributing it to the wrong person not even the same sex as the person who said it. Completely plausible tbh.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

Given the highly stressful situation of the non-peaceful protest, allied to the thuggish behaviour of many of the protestors on the day, as well as the sheer length of time during which the two women were trapped in their cars, it is actually surprising that there were so few inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

How many engaged in this thuggery which you claim were arrested. Do you define thuggery as sitting on the ground?

For Reals

Any talk towards people not charged, is deflection. If the Incredible Hulk was there getting all smashy, it would still be irrelevant as he wasn't charged.
All the Leo/Fine Gael team talk of thuggery won't change that.

Three 'humans', who know more about the law and procedure and consequences than most on here, swore individually that Murphy said something he didn't. Knowing full well this could result in prison time.
So if you are a Garda and you're not 100% sure, should you be potentially putting an innocent man in prison? And multiply that by three...
Keystone cops or conspiracy. The public are the victims here when we don't know if we can or cannot trust the impartiality of the law and those who protect it on the public's behalf.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Did he name specific people in the Dail?

In the Dail Murphy was very specific about Gardai:

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2017071200017?opendocument

"One garda misremembering this under oath would be an unfortunate error. Two gardaí remembering the same words that were not said would be an incredible, almost unbelievable, coincidence, but three gardaí - the Taoiseach should tell me what he thinks that means. Add to that the garda who swore under oath that he had seen me directing protestors where to stand. When confronted with video evidence proving that I was not directing anybody and he could not have seen me in any case, he responded, "I stand over my statement". Add to that the superintendent who, in his written statement, claimed that

---

"


I doubt that you will be able to link to any comment Murphy made outside the Dail that so clearly identifies Gardai. You don't have to name specific people, you just have to identify them.

As an aside, one part of the Dail record that was particularly sickening was Ruth Coppinger's intervention as follows:

"The Taoiseach: For those of us who have seen some of the coverage of it that was broadcast on television, whether it was the anger, the virulence, the words that were being directed at two women going about their course of work on the day

---

Deputy Ruth Coppinger: "Traitor"?"


As nastily disingenuous a comment as I have ever seen. Pretending that she didn't know that the two women were repeatedly offensively abused.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

How many engaged in this thuggery which you claim were arrested. Do you define thuggery as sitting on the ground?

"Many of them", is the phrase I used, and I stand over it.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

In the Dail Murphy was very specific about Gardai:

Not the question I asked. So here goes again did he name the Garda in the Dail?
As for Coppinger was traitor a statement or a question?

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Not the question I asked. So here goes again did he name the Garda in the Dail?
As for Coppinger was traitor a statement or a question?

I think that this has been explained to you before, I remember posting about it yesterday, but it may not have been in response to you, so I will give it to you one time.

The requirement for a defamatory statement is that you identify the person in question.

Look at the two following statements:

(1) Gardai are liars when they testify in court.

(2) The Garda who gave evidence in my case about what I said was lying.


(1) is not defamatory as it does not identify an individual

(2) is potentially defamatory (assuming the statement isn't true) as a particular Garda is identified, you will note that s/he isn't named, it is sufficient that s/he can be identified from the statement.



As for Coppinger, it doesn't matter, her intervention was disgustingly disingenuous.

Captain Obvious

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Did he name specific people in the Dail?

No, defamation does not require that. It only requires they be specifically identifiable. He referred to specific ranks and testimony which makes the people who gave that testimony identifiable.

For Reals wrote: »

Any talk towards people not charged, is deflection.

Irony

For Reals wrote: »

You're making no sense.
I ask why they opted for the peaceful sitting folk over the alleged troublesome protesters.

FrancieBrady

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Paul Murphy was much more vague outside the Dáil. He referred to very specific testimony and people inside the Dáil.

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. He then got more specific about them.

If you don't know the case or the transcripts then you would have no idea who he was referring to.

If you do know the case then you cannot talk about 'inconsistencies and inaccuracies' without identifying specific people.
Varadkar and Murphy did this.
Murphy used his rights in the Dail to say he believed there was a perjury case to answer. Everyone who knows the case knows by default who he is referring to.
You cannot, in other words, say anything about this case without people (who know the published transcripts) knowing to whom you refer.

Captain Obvious

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you don't know the case or the transcripts then you would have no idea who he was referring to.

If you do know the case then you cannot talk about 'inconsistencies and inaccuracies' without identifying specific people.
Varadkar and Murphy did this.
Murphy used his rights in the Dail to say he believed there was a perjury case to answer. Everyone who knows the case knows by default who he is referring to.
You cannot, in other words, say anything about this case without people (who know the published transcripts) knowing to whom you refer.

I can't explain it to you any clearer. I suggest you ask the experts in Legal Discussion about it. Or just go on believing your own version of the law. I don't really care at this point.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you don't know the case or the transcripts then you would have no idea who he was referring to.

If you do know the case then you cannot talk about 'inconsistencies and inaccuracies' without identifying specific people.
Varadkar and Murphy did this.
Murphy used his rights in the Dail to say he believed there was a perjury case to answer. Everyone who knows the case knows by default who he is referring to.
You cannot, in other words, say anything about this case without people (who know the published transcripts) knowing to whom you refer.

How do I put it to you again?

Murphy talked specificially about three identifiable people and the details of their testimony - a defamatory statement if they were not committing perjury.

Varadkar is talking generally about inconsistencies and inaccuracies, he could be referring to any one or more of 186 people. Here is a post from someone at the start of the thread who obviously realised the difference:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When a judge directs the jury to ignore the sworn testimony of gardai (186, (I think) statements) then there should be an automatic enquiry.

OH.

For Reals

For Reals wrote: »

And sure if he went to prison off the back of it maybe they'd lock up some poor lad who happened to be walking near Mountjoy and Murphy could toddle along home. As long as someone got done what's the problem like :rolleyes:

Did you miss the part where he was found not guilty?

FrancieBrady

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I can't explain it to you any clearer. I suggest you ask the experts in Legal Discussion about it. Or just go on believing your own version of the law. I don't really care at this point.

No you have explained very well. I just disagree, these people can be identified by anyone with a knowledge of what happened in court.
So, Leo mentioning his concern is tantamount to the same thing.

And again I will say, 'Privilege' is a very important cornerstone of the workings of our government.

Captain Obvious

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And again I will say, 'Privilege' is a very important cornerstone of the workings of our government.

Indeed it is, and to see it abused and misused is disappointing.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

"Many of them", is the phrase I used, and I stand over it.

So you can't name anyone that was engaged in thuggery or arrested on a charge for thuggery Public order I believe would cover that. Ok so.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No you have explained very well. I just disagree, these people can be identified by anyone with a knowledge of what happened in court.
So, Leo mentioning his concern is tantamount to the same thing.

And again I will say, 'Privilege' is a very important cornerstone of the workings of our government.

Can you tell us which of the 186 people that you refer to here was Varadkar defaming?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When a judge directs the jury to ignore the sworn testimony of gardai (186, (I think) statements) then there should be an automatic enquiry.

FrancieBrady

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Indeed it is, and to see it abused and misused is disappointing.

So tell us how he could have brought the matter up without mentioning perjury.

Remember, anyone who knows the case knows the testimony at issue here.


*I didn't read the transcripts until long after the thread started but somehow Blanch has me in trouble for talking in a general way earlier in the thread. Seems you cannot win either way here

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So you can't name anyone that was engaged in thuggery or arrested on a charge for thuggery Public order I believe would cover that. Ok so.

Thankfully I do not personally know any of the people I can clearly see on the video engaged in thuggish behaviour so I can't identify them for you. Only one of them is known to me as a public figure - Murphy - and let me just say about him that I agree with everything Varadkar said about him.

I wouldn't know any of the other councillors etc. well enough to recognise them from a video.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Can you tell us which of the 186 people that you refer to here was Varadkar defaming?

When I read the transcripts which were published after that comment it was very clear that the judge was referring to specific testimony on the videos (the ones the gardai were caught out on) when she said 'inconsistencies and inaccuracies'


Varadkar referred to that exact wording and expressed his concern, we know exactly what testimony and who gave it he was referencing.

Captain Obvious

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So tell us how he could have brought the matter up without mentioning perjury.

Remember, anyone who knows the case knows the testimony at issue here.

He could have just kept his speech more vague. He could have mentioned possible perjury. He got personal. He made specific accusations about specific people. Yes, if someone is vague you can guess what they are talking about in some cases but it's the degree of certainty that matters. Varadker can say he was referring to any one of the witnesses. Murphy cannot. It's just an example of how he doesn't know how to sit at the big boys table. His letter today is another example. I'd be shocked if a legal professional had advised him on it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

*I didn't read the transcripts until long after the thread started but somehow Blanch has me in trouble for talking in a general way earlier in the thread. Seems you cannot win either way here

You made a completely false claim about what the judge said. Either you were ignorant of what she said or deliberately misrepresenting it. No point blaming another poster for either of those things.

Hitman3000

Captain Obvious wrote:

No, defamation does not require that. It only requires they be specifically identifiable. He referred to specific ranks and testimony which makes the people who gave that testimony identifiable.

Court transcripts are already in the public domain, comments from the Judge also. So I think certain people are going to have a challenge on their hands laying defamation charges on Murphy. Although it didn't stop far more serious charges been levelled against him.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When I read the transcripts which were published after that comment it was very clear that the judge was referring to specific testimony on the videos (the ones the gardai were caught out on) when she said 'inconsistencies and inaccuracies'


Varadkar referred to that exact wording and expressed his concern, we know exactly what testimony and who gave it he was referencing.

(1) The judge made a general direction about evidence, she wasn't specific about which evidence (unlike Murphy).

(2) There is no way of knowing (other than your hunch) that Vardakar was referring to the judge's testimony.

Once again, that leaves Varadkar's comments way way short of the threshold of defamation.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

Murphy talked specificially about three identifiable people and the details of their testimony - a defamatory statement IF they were not committing perjury.

This is the reason why an inquiry is needed.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

Thankfully I do not personally know any of the people I can clearly see on the video engaged in thuggish behaviour so I can't identify them for you. Only one of them is known to me as a public figure - Murphy - and let me just say about him that I agree with everything Varadkar said about him.

So you believe he engaged in thuggery but you just don't know what that thuggery was. Ok I understand you now. Once Leo said something you fully agree regardless of what he said, so like Leo you would also be concerned about the inaccuracies of some Garda's statements.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

Did you miss the part where he was found not guilty?

So he got brought to court on over the top charges (trumped up some would say) carrying a maximum penalty of 25 years but he got acquitted so all's good now. Nothing to see move along.

FrancieBrady

Captain Obvious wrote: »

He could have just kept his speech more vague. He could have mentioned possible perjury. He got personal. He made specific accusations about specific people. Yes, if someone is vague you can guess what they are talking about in some cases but it's the degree of certainty that matters. Varadker can say he was referring to any one of the witnesses. Murphy cannot. It's just an example of how he doesn't know how to sit at the big boys table. His letter today is another example. I'd be shocked if a legal professional had advised him on it.

Point of order: Varadkar was quoting words the judge used about specific testimony. The same testimony, given by the same people Murphy was referring to.
And he didn't make it personal, specifically naming them would make it 'personal'.
Anybody listening to Varadkar and Murphy would know who they were talking about, if they knew the case.

You made a completely false claim about what the judge said. Either you were ignorant of what she said or deliberately misrepresenting it. No point blaming another poster for either of those things.

Yes I did, and I made it before the transcripts were published.
I didn't blame another poster for anything, I was chortling about the way they were using it.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

(2) is potentially defamatory (assuming the statement isn't true) as a particular Garda is identified, you will note that s/he isn't named, it is sufficient that s/he can be identified from the statement.

Defamation if it is not true. I can only assume that these guards whom may have been identified will feel the need to clear their good names. If they don't defend their good names would it be reasonable to make an assumption as to regards their honesty? Leo even has concerns about Garda testimony in the case.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Defamation if it is not true. I can only assume that these guards whom may have been identified will feel the need to clear their good names. If they don't defend their good names would it be reasonable to make an assumption as to regards their honesty? Leo even has concerns about Garda testimony in the case.

Unfortunately because Murphy (a coward like all bullies) hid behind the mammy cloak of Dail privilege, the Gardai are not in a position to defend their good names in court. Once Murphy has the courage to make the specific allegations outside the Dail, we will see what happens.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So you believe he engaged in thuggery but you just don't know what that thuggery was. Ok I understand you now. Once Leo said something you fully agree regardless of what he said, so like Leo you would also be concerned about the inaccuracies of some Garda's statements.

You didn't ask me to identify what that thuggery was.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So you can't name anyone that was engaged in thuggery or arrested on a charge for thuggery Public order I believe would cover that. Ok so.

For what it's worth, should you ask, I am not going through the videos again to precisely identify it for you.

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So he got brought to court on over the top charges (trumped up some would say) carrying a maximum penalty of 25 years but he got acquitted so all's good now. Nothing to see move along.

Got it in one.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So he got brought to court on over the top charges (trumped up some would say) carrying a maximum penalty of 25 years but he got acquitted so all's good now. Nothing to see move along.

Yep, it looks like him and Seanie Fitzpatrick fit into the same class of victim.

RustyNut

blanch152 wrote: »

Unfortunately because Murphy (a coward like all bullies) hid behind the mammy cloak of Dail privilege, the Gardai are not in a position to defend their good names in court. Once Murphy has the courage to make the specific allegations outside the Dail, we will see what happens.

An independent inquiry might clear up the issues raised by both Leo and Paul.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

For what it's worth, should you ask, I am not going through the videos again to precisely identify it for you.

I wouldn't ask you too as it would be pointless you and certain others still view Murphy as guilty despite the cases outcome. As this site and several others where commentary is allowed was awash with people who had Murphy already convicted and on his way to the 'Joy' the only spanner in the works was the Jury of his peers who saw through the lies and for want of a better word b*llsh*t. The disheartening thing is the same people who would have had Murphy convicted see nothing wrong in a system where the allegation exists that high ranking police officers took to a stand and offered evidence which in the light of day is not credible and refuse to countenance an inquiry as to what has transpired. I wonder would the same position hold true if it were say someone from a more traditional political background.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

Yep, it looks like him and Seanie Fitzpatrick fit into the same class of victim.

They don't but nice whataboutery on your behalf.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

Got it in one.

Sadly it doesn't seem to be playing out that way. If only like you the Jury felt he was guilty and convicted him. There would be no need for all this.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

You didn't ask me to identify what that thuggery was.

Care to identify what thuggery you have referred to and what of this behaviour did Murphy engage in?

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Sadly it doesn't seem to be playing out that way. If only like you the Jury felt he was guilty and convicted him. There would be no need for all this.

I never said he was guilty of the charges brought. I have said that the behaviour of all so called peaceful protesters on the day was unacceptable.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I wouldn't ask you too as it would be pointless you and certain others still view Murphy as guilty despite the cases outcome. As this site and several others where commentary is allowed was awash with people who had Murphy already convicted and on his way to the 'Joy' the only spanner in the works was the Jury of his peers who saw through the lies and for want of a better word b*llsh*t. The disheartening thing is the same people who would have had Murphy convicted see nothing wrong in a system where the allegation exists that high ranking police officers took to a stand and offered evidence which in the light of day is not credible and refuse to countenance an inquiry as to what has transpired. I wonder would the same position hold true if it were say someone from a more traditional political background.

Let me clear, Murphy had a fair trial and has been acquitted of a charge of kidnapping.

That does not mean the protest was ok or that there was no thuggery.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

They don't but nice whataboutery on your behalf.

It isn't whataboutery.

Because of a flawed investigation, poor testimony and inaccurate evidence, Seanie Fitzpatrick was cleared of all charges.

Because of a flawed investigation, poor testimony and inaccurate evidence, Paul Murphy was cleared of all charges.

Both men are equally innocent before the law.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

I never said he was guilty of the charges brought. I have said that the behaviour of all so called peaceful protesters on the day was unacceptable.

What specific 'unacceptable' things did the 6 defendants do?

Bearing in mind that 'protest' is designed to disrupt and detain and to force awareness.
It has been engaged in by every section of society. What did the 6 defendants do that was any different to that?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What specific 'unacceptable' things did the 6 defendants do?

Bearing in mind that 'protest' is designed to disrupt and detain and to force awareness.
It has been engaged in by every section of society. What did the 6 defendants do that was any different to that?

Disrupt, detain and forcing anything are not legal entitlements arising from a right to assembly, therefore such a protest is not a peaceful protest.

Interesting that you chose to use the word "detain" though.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Disrupt, detain and forcing anything are not legal entitlements arising from a right to assembly, therefore such a protest is not a peaceful protest.

Interesting that you chose to use the word "detain" though.

You stop traffic on a bridge you 'detain' people.

Where is Leo's disdain and approbation about Farmers protesting by occupying a premises?
Where is it when pensioners stop traffic on Leeson St. Bridge

Etc etdc etc. Cake and eating it to cherrypick one protest to get indignant about, no?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What specific 'unacceptable' things did the 6 defendants do?

Bearing in mind that 'protest' is designed to disrupt and detain and to force awareness.
It has been engaged in by every section of society. What did the 6 defendants do that was any different to that?

Detaining 2 females for hours while pounding on the vehicle they were trapped in, screaming obscenities, suggesting they seek sanctuary in a church, sitting on the road to stop vehicle moving, "allowing " vehicle be slow marched from venue, hijacking a conferring ceremony, .........

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

I never said he was guilty of the charges brought. I have said that the behaviour of all so called peaceful protesters on the day was unacceptable.

There's bad elements in all protests, does it not concern you that the woman who wanted to keep Miss Burton there all night was not subject to arrest but a person totally innocent of the charge faced a possible 25 year sentence. Does it not trouble you that someone could have gone to jail for something they did not do?