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

Bishopsback

RustyNut wrote: »

I don't know, I'd rather be filmed getting a leg over than be set up for an offence carrying a life sentence that I didn't commit.

Set up?
Ah so that's what the jobs town protest was?

Hitman3000

Bishopsback wrote:

Set up? Ah so that's what the jobs town protest was?

Don't think the poster means the protest, I would hazard a guess they're referring to the trial. The description I would use is, it was an attempted stitch up and to serve as a lesson to the plebs.

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We have gardai embroiled in allegations of 'organised perjury', we have many members of PAC calling for management and the commissioner to stand down and it is 'comparable' to a few cops filming a bit of hanky panky from a helicopter??

Isn't there a complaint that Gardai released film online of an unstable naked woman on the street?

Don't forget the Charleton tribunal.

The Garda Press Office confirmed off-the-record to journalist Paul Williams that whistleblower Sgt Maurice McCabe had been the subject of a child sex allegation, the Charleton tribunal has heard.

The then head of the office, Supt David Taylor, also confirmed to Williams that the Director of Public Prosecutions decided no charges should be brought. However, Williams said the superintendent did not say that the DPP observed that the allegation made, even if correct, did not constitute a sexual assault, or even an assault.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/senior-garda-denies-making-allegation-about-whistleblower-maurice-mccabe-798452.html

FrancieBrady

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Don't forget the Charleton tribunal.




http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/senior-garda-denies-making-allegation-about-whistleblower-maurice-mccabe-798452.html

I didn't mention that as nobody involved is making any conclusions yet.

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't mention that as nobody involved is making any conclusions yet.

No, but they're answering allegations of being involved in a smear campaign against one of their own.

My point being, they're involved in so many controversies lately that it's difficult to keep track.

But let's all look at Murphy's megaphone.

FrancieBrady

Rick Shaw wrote: »

No, but they're answering allegations of being involved in a smear campaign against one of their own.

My point being, they're involved in so many controversies lately that it's difficult to keep track.

But let's all look at Murphy's megaphone.

Yeh, agreed. But let's deflect to some bobby's in a helicopter.

Bishopsback

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Don't think the poster means the protest, I would hazard a guess they're referring to the trial. The description I would use is, it was an attempted stitch up and to serve as a lesson to the plebs.

Fair enough. But I don't think it was a garda thing.
Look I'm not saying it was the right course of action to follow, in fact a ridiculous charge, but I think we need to look beyond the garda for the mastermind of it.
I'm glad they were found not guilty also, but if enough pressure was put on the DPP by govt or politicians who feel their human rights to travel or attend public events without fear of being barricaded in or made fear for their safety during "peaceful protest", had or could in future been violated he/she might bring a test case. It might be decided that who was seen as the head of that protest, because of their wanting to be seen as leaders for political gain, whether they were in total control or not would or should be seen as the targets of such a case.
We have a judicial system, they were tried, found not guilty. Proves overall that the system is not as bad as some are making it out to be maybe too.

Hitman3000

Bishopsback wrote:

Fair enough. But I don't think it was a garda thing. Look I'm not saying it was the right course of action to follow, in fact a ridiculous charge, but I think we need to look beyond the garda for the mastermind of it. I'm glad they were found not guilty also, but if enough pressure was put on the DPP by govt or politicians who feel their human rights to travel or attend public events without fear of being barricaded in or made fear for their safety during "peaceful protest", had or could in future been violated he/she might bring a test case. It might be decided that who was seen as the head of that protest, because of their wanting to be seen as leaders for political gain, whether they were in total control or not would or should be seen as the targets of such a case. We have a judicial system, they were tried, found not guilty. Proves overall that the system is not as bad as some are making it out to be maybe too.

I agree with you somewhat,but you can not absolve the Garda entirely, they claim to be apolitical. How Burton was treated was abhorrent by certain elements of the crowd however I do believe she was not as distraught as she claimed. Murphy represented a face to the water protests and obviously he was a target for the government. O fully suspect the DPP was pressured to level the outrageous charges that they were tried on. For these reasons I believe it is necessary to have an independent inquiry, the present Garda one tbh is an insult.

For Reals

Bishopsback wrote: »

Fair enough. But I don't think it was a garda thing.
Look I'm not saying it was the right course of action to follow, in fact a ridiculous charge, but I think we need to look beyond the garda for the mastermind of it.
I'm glad they were found not guilty also, but if enough pressure was put on the DPP by govt or politicians who feel their human rights to travel or attend public events without fear of being barricaded in or made fear for their safety during "peaceful protest", had or could in future been violated he/she might bring a test case. It might be decided that who was seen as the head of that protest, because of their wanting to be seen as leaders for political gain, whether they were in total control or not would or should be seen as the targets of such a case.
We have a judicial system, they were tried, found not guilty. Proves overall that the system is not as bad as some are making it out to be maybe too.

They'd a trial on that very thing. Exactly as you describe.
The motive for the charges, if there was one, is what's up for debate.
Stating Murphy et al. may have only been involved for the political gain is highly irrelevant. How about the angle of freedom to protest being infringed upon? The proceedings, if anything, could show a conscious effort to deter the public from their democratic right to protest when it doesn't suit the government of the day. All speculation of course, but more valid speculation than you suggest, as we've already had the trial were the protesters, possibly only in it for political gain, accused of much as you describe above, where charged and subsequently found not guilty. So lets have the investigation into why. That's the only side of your premise not covered.

Bishopsback

For Reals wrote: »

They'd a trial on that very thing. Exactly as you describe.
The motive for the charges, if there was one, is what's up for debate.
Stating Murphy et al. may have only been involved for the political gain is highly irrelevant. How about the angle of freedom to protest being infringed upon? The proceedings, if anything, could show a conscious effort to deter the public from their democratic right to protest when it doesn't suit the government of the day. All speculation of course, but more valid speculation than you suggest, as we've already had the trial were the protesters, possibly only in it for political gain, accused of much as you describe above, where charged and subsequently found not guilty. So lets have the investigation into why. That's the only side of your premise not covered.

Why though. Its a judicial matter, we don't have public enquiries every time someone is found not guilty do we.
I'm quit sure Mr Murphy and his,co-accused are aware of their legal rights and any follow up they are entitled to bring through the courts after this.

FrancieBrady

Bishopsback wrote: »

Why though. Its a judicial matter, we don't have public enquiries every time someone is found not guilty do we.
I'm quit sure Mr Murphy and his,co-accused are aware of their legal rights and any follow up they are entitled to bring through the courts after this.

That is what is unusual about it.
So convinced are those at the centre of the case they have not walked away heaving a sigh of lucky relief.

Rather they want answers as to what exactly were the reasons they spent 2years being pilloried in the media and were probably only found not guilty because there was video.

Bishopsback

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is what is unusual about it.
So convinced are those at the centre of the case they have not walked away heaving a sigh of lucky relief.

Rather they want answers as to what exactly were the reasons they spent 2years being pilloried in the media and were probably only found not guilty because there was video.

That's supposition.

FrancieBrady

Bishopsback wrote: »

That's supposition.

It is also 'supposition' to dismiss claims of organised perjury and to claim as the Taoiseach did, that these men were 'not victims'.

We and he simply do not know that.

Bishopsback

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is also 'supposition' to dismiss claims of organised perjury and to claim as the Taoiseach did, that these men were 'not victims'.

We and he simply do not know that.

Agreed. They have their legal rights of recourse same as all others though.

Bishopsback

I hope the young lad already in detention convicted of false imprisonment at the same protest isn't forgotten here!

Hitman3000

Bishopsback wrote:

I hope the young lad already in detention convicted of false imprisonment at the same protest isn't forgotten here!

I believe an appeal against his sentence was launched. It was my understanding he was not incarcerated.

RustyNut

Bishopsback wrote: »

Fair enough. But I don't think it was a garda thing.

It was Guards that gave the dodgy evidence though. an independent inquiry might be the best way to clear things up.

McMurphy

Bishopsback wrote: »

I hope the young lad already in detention convicted of false imprisonment at the same protest isn't forgotten here!

Convicted, but not by a jury, and isn't in detention.

For Reals

Bishopsback wrote: »

Why though. Its a judicial matter, we don't have public enquiries every time someone is found not guilty do we.
I'm quit sure Mr Murphy and his,co-accused are aware of their legal rights and any follow up they are entitled to bring through the courts after this.

You stated there might be a test case regarding the plight of Burton and her civil liberties. I'm pointing out we had that.

As regards why an investigation? Bigger than the politics of those charged. It's an issue of national importance. Three Garda gave the same false statement, if only for video footage, could have seen innocent people go to prison. How did that happen and why? If the three Garda had not done so and they got off, we'd still have the manner of their arrests and the salacious media coverage and frankly silly charges. That's why. Varadkar is obviously bias and tainted by association so his opinion is coloured from the get go.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

You stated there might be a test case regarding the plight of Burton and her civil liberties. I'm pointing out we had that.

As regards why an investigation? Bigger than the politics of those charged. It's an issue of national importance. Three Garda gave the same false statement, if only for video footage, could have seen innocent people go to prison. How did that happen and why? If the three Garda had not done so and they got off, we'd still have the manner of their arrests and the salacious media coverage and frankly silly charges. That's why. Varadkar is obviously bias and tainted by association so his opinion is coloured from the get go.

I'm interested in this claim. The incorrect part of the statement seems to me to be immaterial to the case. Can you explain why you think the words "for the night" played a pivotal role int he case?

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I'm interested in this claim. The incorrect part of the statement seems to me to be immaterial to the case. Can you explain why you think the words "for the night" played a pivotal role int he case?

I'm just guessing here, but it's prob because it's three specific words (that had they been said by Murphy) gave the whole protest a more sinister look.

An intention to "keep her there all night" as opposed to merely inconveniencing their movement (which is what the jury decided happened in this case) would have strengthened the prosecution's case, and result in the conviction they were after.

But once again, let's ignore the elephant in the room. What (I'm guessing here) was probably 'pivotal' in the case, was that not 1, not 2, but 3 guards heard Murphy saying these 3 words, and repeated those claims under oath, that he in fact never said.

But for video evidence that contradicted the word of the guards (which traditionally always trumped the word of a civilian), Murphy might well have been (wrongfully) convicted, and possibly imprisoned.

Obviously the guards hearing something that wasn't said by Murphy wasn't the only reason the case was laughed out of court, but I was answering your specific question above.

Bishopsback

For Reals wrote: »

You stated there might be a test case regarding the plight of Burton and her civil liberties. I'm pointing out we had that.

As regards why an investigation? Bigger than the politics of those charged. It's an issue of national importance. Three Garda gave the same false statement, if only for video footage, could have seen innocent people go to prison. How did that happen and why? If the three Garda had not done so and they got off, we'd still have the manner of their arrests and the salacious media coverage and frankly silly charges. That's why. Varadkar is obviously bias and tainted by association so his opinion is coloured from the get go.

Why is the Murphy case of more national importance than any other.
Trials take place all the time, people are found innocent or guilty all the time based on garda evidence. Should all trials of those found innocent because garda evidence is lacking or just not fully believed be subject to independent enquiry?
The trial was the enquiry, its over, they were found innocent, the garda weren't believed or at least their evidence was deemed of no consequence, the accused have legal rights to pursue this and get satisfaction that way if they wish, that should suffice I feel.

FrancieBrady

Bishopsback wrote: »

Why is the Murphy case of more national importance than any other.
Trials take place all the time, people are found innocent or guilty all the time based on garda evidence. Should all trials of those found innocent because garda evidence is lacking or just not fully believed be subject to independent enquiry?
The trial was the enquiry, its over, they were found innocent, the garda weren't believed or at least their evidence was deemed of no consequence, the accused have legal rights to pursue this and get satisfaction that way if they wish, that should suffice I feel.

As a democrat I have to say that if there are anomalies in Garda evidence and how they give if the arrest and treatment of the accused is unusual, then yes it needs a closer look.
As democrats we should always be prepared to review how the security forces operate.

We have seen all too clearly on this island the damage politically motivated, politically directed and partial security forces can do.

McMurphy

Bishopsback wrote: »

Why is the Murphy case of more national importance than any other.
.

Because trying to imprison an opposition politician on spurious trumped up charges is something you would expect in somewhere like Uganda.

Bishopsback

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Because trying to imprison an opposition politician on spurious trumped up charges is something you would expect in somewhere like Uganda.

Ah c'mon , what are you on about.
A trial by your peers, found not guilty, surely not a comparison with any dictatorship?
Good laugh though.

FrancieBrady

Bishopsback wrote: »

Ah c'mon , what are you on about.
A trial by your peers, found not guilty, surely not a comparison with any dictatorship?
Good laugh though.

You may be able to disconnect all the other stuff going on with An Gardai but some of us can't.

Bishopsback

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As a democrat I have to say that if there are anomalies in Garda evidence and how they give if the arrest and treatment of the accused is unusual, then yes it needs a closer look.
As democrats we should always be prepared to review how the security forces operate.

We have seen all too clearly on this island the damage politically motivated, politically directed and partial security forces can do.

I suppose I'm not a democrat?
I suppose it was a type of "kangaroo court" ?

Bishopsback

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You may be able to disconnect all the other stuff going on with An Gardai but some of us can't.

I know. I hope you not losing sleep over it.
I can see a justice system that worked fairly well IMO.

McMurphy

Bishopsback wrote: »

Ah c'mon , what are you on about.
A trial by your peers, found not guilty, surely not a comparison with any dictatorship?
Good laugh though.

Maybe I'm spending too much time in threads where people have been misheard, or words have been wrongly ascribed to folk which has turned out to be false, but are you not on record of saying this looked like outside interference yourself?

Have you had a road to Damascus conversion?

FrancieBrady

Bishopsback wrote: »

I suppose I'm not a democrat?
I suppose it was a type of "kangaroo court" ?

No it wasn't.

Kangaroo courts emerge in states where total trust in the police force has broken down. The fix there was to disband and totally restructure the police force so that it had the trust of all communities.
That takes hard work and most importantly, acceptance, that there is a major problem.

Our own experience of this should be a huge red flag here. This is not the first time a FG government has politically directed the Gardai. (read about the Heavy Gang for instance, and Amnesty concerns about their activity)
And as any one with their eyes open can see, the Gardai at all levels are under intense scrutiny atm.

Bishopsback

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Maybe I'm spending too much time in threads where people have been misheard, or words have been wrongly ascribed to folk which has turned out to be false, but are you not on record of saying this looked like outside interference yourself?

Have you had a road to Damascus conversion?

Not at all, I still don't think this was a garda thing.
Your reference to Uganda was over the top in fairness now.
The trial showed that our justice system works, is fair and equal for all, you know, decided by an independent jury of your peers, like, not a kangaroo court system that some have engaged in.

Captain Obvious

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I'm just guessing here, but it's prob because it's three specific words (that had they been said by Murphy) gave the whole protest a more sinister look.

An intention to "keep her there all night" as opposed to merely inconveniencing their movement (which is what the jury decided happened in this case) would have strengthened the prosecution's case, and result in the conviction they were after.

What are you basing this on? I don't believe there is a legal difference between falsely imprisoning someone for 2 minutes and 2 days.

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I'm interested in this claim. The incorrect part of the statement seems to me to be immaterial to the case. Can you explain why you think the words "for the night" played a pivotal role int he case?

Because those words were spoken by someone else (a woman) and were incorrectly identified as being uttered by Paul Murphy by Gardai at the scene who were under severe pressure and were being abused physically and verbally by a mob. The judicial system was shown to be above reproach in finding the 6 not guilty. I'm not sure how things would have panned out if the charges were public order offences.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What are you basing this on? I don't believe there is a legal difference between falsely imprisoning someone for 2 minutes and 2 days.

I thought a judge and jury decided she wasn't falsely imprisoned at all, merely inconvenienced by way of protest.

Not for 2 mins, 2 hours or 2 months.

You also (once again) have been engaging in ignoring the elephant in the room.

What (I'm guessing here) was probably 'pivotal' in the case, was that not 1, not 2, but 3 guards heard Murphy saying these 3 words, and repeated those claims under oath, that he in fact never said.

But for video evidence that contradicted the word of the guards (which traditionally always trumped the word of a civilian), Murphy might well have been (wrongfully) convicted, and possibly imprisoned.

Obviously the guards hearing something that wasn't said by Murphy wasn't the only reason the case was laughed out of court, but I was answering your specific question above.

I'm not interested in your semantics, and attempts at going off on a tangent.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Because those words were spoken by someone else (a woman) and were incorrectly identified as being uttered by Paul Murphy by Gardai at the scene who were under severe pressure and were being abused physically and verbally by a mob. The judicial system was shown to be above reproach in finding the 6 not guilty. I'm not sure how things would have panned out if the charges were public order offences.

So the guards (3 of them) mistook a woman's voice, for that of Murphys, using a megaphone?

Ok........

Captain Obvious

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I thought a judge and jury decided she wasn't falsely imprisoned at all, merely inconvenienced by way of protest.

Not for 2 mins, 2 hours or 2 months.

I've already addressed your elephant multiple times. I'm asking a specific question on a claim made by multiple posters. If you can't answer it that's fine but don't feel the need to keep replying with a deflection.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I've already addressed your elephant multiple times. I'm asking a specific question on a claim made by multiple posters. If you can't answer it that's fine but don't feel the need to keep replying with a deflection.

The wording is irrelevant, (I repeat) three members of the states police force, stood in court and said (on Oath) that they heard something, a TD said (through a megaphone no less) that video evidence contradicted.

That's not an easy mistake to make tbh.

If they made a mistake about that, what else could they have misheard and thought they seen?

Rick Shaw

Rick Shaw wrote: »

So the guards (3 of them) mistook a woman's voice, for that of Murphys, using a megaphone?

Ok........

Yes. Their error was rightly brought to the attention of the Jury who found them not guilty. Justice being done. Ok?

Captain Obvious

Rick Shaw wrote: »

The wording is irrelevant, (I repeat) three members of the states police force, stood in court and said (on Oath) that they heard something, a TD said (through a megaphone no less) that video evidence contradicted.

That's not an easy mistake to make tbh.

If they made a mistake about that, what else could they have misheard and thought they seen?

Multiple posters have indicated it was a pivotal bit of evidence that could have seen the verdict changed if accepted. I'm asking for the basis of this claim.

Are Am Eye

Was the video digital?

RustyNut

Bishopsback wrote: »

I know. I hope you not losing sleep over it.
I can see a justice system that worked fairly well IMO.

Despite an apparent attempt to corrupt it by members of AGS. An inquiry into what happened might well clear things up. Even the leader of the law and order party said there were questions to answer.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. Their error was rightly brought to the attention of the Jury who found them not guilty. Justice being done. Ok?

Ah, just an error so. Nothing to worry about, sure tens of millions wasted on a pointless trial with overkill charges.

And obviously, pesky videos to disprove what was claimed by the police.

Sure it was only false imprisonment charges. Life sentence attached to them an all.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Multiple posters have indicated it was a pivotal bit of evidence that could have seen the verdict changed if accepted. I'm asking for the basis of this claim.

The pivotal piece of evidence was the guards evidence was flawed.

Captain Obvious

Rick Shaw wrote: »

The pivotal piece of evidence was the guards evidence was flawed.

Doesn't sound like you know how a court case works. For a conviction there are certain facts, or proofs, that must be proven by the prosecution for an offence to have been committed. A number of posters have suggested that but for the evidence of these three Gardaí being challenged a conviction might have been successful. I'm trying to ascertain what this is based on as I cannot see any kind of legal difference between what was proven (keep her here) and what was not (for the night).

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Doesn't sound like you know how a court case works. For a conviction there are certain facts, or proofs, that must be proven by the prosecution for an offence to have been committed.

It's just as well I'm not a guard or employed by the DPP so.

Otherwise I might start bringing cases to our courts that last week's, cost millions, and fall at the first hurdle.


Oh wait.

dense

Bishopsback wrote: »

Not at all, I still don't think this was a garda thing.
Your reference to Uganda was over the top in fairness now.
The trial showed that our justice system works, is fair and equal for all, you know, decided by an independent jury of your peers, like, not a kangaroo court system that some have engaged in.

It was a DPP and Garda thing.

What evidence did the DPP think it had against the individuals to think it was going to make the charges stick??

This was going to be a case with life imprisonment being discussed, all based on "hunches" and "hearing things"??

dense

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Doesn't sound like you know how a court case works. For a conviction there are certain facts, or proofs, that must be proven by the prosecution for an offence to have been committed.

The DPP and Gardai know how court cases work and were aware of that before proceeding with the case, no?

Facts. Proof. Not guesswork.

Seems to me that both were chancing their arm with this case.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I'm interested in this claim. The incorrect part of the statement seems to me to be immaterial to the case. Can you explain why you think the words "for the night" played a pivotal role int he case?

At this stage I feel you are choosing to avoid the meat of this.
People wanted to keep her there, others wanted to slow march the car out.
Murphy asked the crowd to vote on it. A woman said we should 'keep her here all night'. Both Murphy's stated that wouldn't work nor be practical, both favouring the slow march approach.
This has been linked to and quoted numerous times.
The suggestion by the Garda is Murphy was goading the crowd to keep her there all night. This paints an incorrect and false picture of the actions and intent of those charged.

Bishopsback wrote: »

Why is the Murphy case of more national importance than any other.
Trials take place all the time, people are found innocent or guilty all the time based on garda evidence. Should all trials of those found innocent because garda evidence is lacking or just not fully believed be subject to independent enquiry?
The trial was the enquiry, its over, they were found innocent, the garda weren't believed or at least their evidence was deemed of no consequence, the accused have legal rights to pursue this and get satisfaction that way if they wish, that should suffice I feel.

Three Garda gave the exact same false statement. Also I would suggest the dawn raids days later cost the tax payer a fortune, were unnecessary and possibly part of a concerted effort to put those charged in a bad light. We should look into that.

Bishopsback wrote: »

I suppose I'm not a democrat?
I suppose it was a type of "kangaroo court" ?

If not for the video evidence, the false statement of three Garda could quite likely have been enough to sway the Judge/Jury to convict innocent democratic and peaceful protesters.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

At this stage I feel you are choosing to avoid the meat of this.
People wanted to keep her there, others wanted to slow march the car out.
Murphy asked the crowd to vote on it. A woman said we should 'keep her here all night'. Both Murphy's stated that wouldn't work nor be practical, both favouring the slow march approach.
This has been linked to and quoted numerous times.
The suggestion by the Garda is Murphy was goading the crowd to keep her there all night. This paints an incorrect and false picture of the actions and intent of those charged.

I'm not avoiding anything. I've discussed it in detail. A few posters want to exaggerate and misrepresent things for dramatic. Why should people ignore that?

RustyNut

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I'm not avoiding anything. I've discussed it in detail. A few posters want to exaggerate and misrepresent things for dramatic. Why should people ignore that?

Why would you not support an independent public inquiry which would give the Guards an open and transparent opportunity to dispel any doubts about the evidence they gave?

Captain Obvious

RustyNut wrote: »

Why would you not support an independent public inquiry which would give the Guards an open and transparent opportunity to dispel any doubts about the evidence they gave?

I don't see what an inquiry can achieve that GSOC couldn't. That is their purpose after all. To investigate possible misconduct.