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

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

The narrative. The collective story unfolding within the combination of everyone's posts.
If three or more Garda regularly give false statements, the same false statement in the same case, as you seem to be inferring, and you don't see it as particularly serious, Fair enough. That's the attitude has us with the organisations we have I would imagine.

What's the alternative? Ban all witness testimony in case the witness is wrong? This isn't an issue limited to Gardait's all witnesses. We have a cross examination to challenge testimony and a judge and jury to decide if the witness account is correct.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

And there's no proof they didn't tell the truth.

There is. The video evidence contradicted what they told under oath. Even the judge had to instruct the jury to concentrate on the video, as what the Guards said wasn't borne out by the footage shown.

I don't really know where you're going with this tbh.

Was the gards evidence, that Murphy asked if Joan should be kept there all night the truth?

No.

Not according to the video evidence, our Taoiseach even had to point this out.

3 guards being wrong, and all hearing the exact same specific words is an extraordinary coincidence.

The odds of it are literally unbelievable.

RustyNut

Captain Obvious wrote: »

And there's no proof they didn't tell the truth. Being wrong doesn't make you a liar. There are hundreds of studies on the issues with eye witness recall and how it can be tainted.

There is proof that they didn't tell the truth. The Video proves that they didn't tell the truth.

An independent public inquiry would in my opinion be the best way to find out exactly why they didn't tell the truth.

Captain Obvious

Rick Shaw wrote: »

There is. The video evidence contradicted what they told under oath. Even the judge had to instruct the jury to concentrate on the video, as what the Guards said wasn't borne out by the footage shown.

I don't really know where you're going with this tbh.

Was the gards evidence, that Murphy asked if Joan should be kept there all night the truth?

No.

Not according to the video evidence, our Taoiseach even had to point this out.

3 guards being wrong, and all hearing the exact same specific words is an extraordinary coincidence.

The odds of it are literally unbelievable.

RustyNut wrote: »

There is proof that they didn't tell the truth. The Video proves that they didn't tell the truth.

An independent public inquiry would in my opinion be the best way to find out exactly why they didn't tell the truth.

Both of you ignored most of what I said. There is a difference between being wrong and lying.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Both of you ignored most of what I said. There is a difference between being wrong and lying.

I never, not one time said anyone lied.

I countered your post that claimed.

And there's no proof they didn't tell the truth.

There was evidence that they didn't tell the truth.

There evidence was contradicted by video.

Here.

One of the most hotly contested pieces of evidence, and one which Paul Murphy TD has quoted in the Dail since his acquittal, was a garda allegation that he addressed the Jobstown crowd on a loudhailer, saying "will we let her go, or will we keep her here all night?" This was stated in evidence by Superintendent Daniel Flavin and two other gardai during the trial. Supt Flavin asserted that matters became more difficult after the TD asked the crowd would they "keep her there all night" because the response was "in effect, to keep her here". He was cross-examined at length on this by Mr Murphy's barrister, Sean Guerin SC, who said Supt Flavin's recollection of what was said was "incomplete" and misleading. When the video was played back, Supt Flavin conceded there was "a lot more conversation". Mr Guerin said Mr Murphy had been saying to the crowd that there were two options and one of them was "keeping her here". He did not use the words "keep her here all night", Mr Guerin said; instead that suggestion came from a woman in the crowd.

Here.

Meanwhile, Garda Jonathan Ryan told the jury there was a "unanimous decision" in a vote by the crowd to keep Joan Burton and her adviser Karen O'Connell trapped at the scene and that Paul Murphy "appeared very, very pleased with this", "enjoying himself" and "smiling and chuckling away". However, video footage of the vote showed Paul Murphy and Cllr Michael Murphy voting to march Ms Burton's car out of the area, while the majority of the crowd voted to keep Ms Burton there. Garda Ryan admitted he did not remember everything, but insisted he saw Paul Murphy "smiling and laughing" during the vote.

And here.

Garda Lorna Loughney said she heard Cllr Michael Murphy referring to Joan Burton during the protest, saying: "Will we give her sanctuary in the church?" Garda Loughney said her impression was that these were questions being directed by Cllr Murphy to other people in the crowd.

But after video footage was shown to the court, Raymond Comyn SC, defending, said there was no question but that Cllr Murphy was shouting to the gardai with a suggestion on how to deal with the situation. Mr Comyn also put it to Garda Loughney that she was wrong when she said she saw Cllr Murphy on the loudhailer outside the church. Garda Loughney agreed the footage did not show Cllr Murphy holding the loudhailer at any point.

source

What's a lie, when it's not a lie?

Certainly not the truth.

RustyNut

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Both of you ignored most of what I said. There is a difference between being wrong and lying.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

And there's no proof they didn't tell the truth.

RustyNut wrote: »

There is proof that they didn't tell the truth. The Video proves that they didn't tell the truth.

An independent public inquiry would in my opinion be the best way to find out exactly why they didn't tell the truth.

You claimed there is no proof they didn't tell the truth, well there is, there is the video to prove that they didn't tell the truth. That is a provable fact.

The reason they didn't tell the truth is what needs to be examined. Maybe they all made the exact same mistake, maybe they lied, maybe something else but it needs to be examined.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Both of you ignored most of what I said. There is a difference between being wrong and lying.

Three Garda being wrong. So sure they were not wrong, they gave testimony in front of a Judge, all three swearing to the same falsehood? What are the odds? Seriously? An investigation is warranted.

There's making a mistake. Then there's swearing to that mistake. The odds of three people making the same error and committing to it as fact, just isn't believable, IMO.

Captain Obvious

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I never, not one time said anyone lied.

I countered your post that claimed.

There was evidence that they didn't tell the truth.

There evidence was contradicted by video.

Here.


Here.



And here.


source

What's a lie, when it's not a lie?

Certainly not the truth.

Saying someone did not tell the truth is saying they lied isn't it?

RustyNut wrote: »

You claimed there is no proof they didn't tell the truth, well there is, there is the video to prove that they didn't tell the truth. That is a provable fact.

The reason they didn't tell the truth is what needs to be examined. Maybe they all made the exact same mistake, maybe they lied, maybe something else but it needs to be examined.

As above.

For Reals wrote: »

Three Garda being wrong. So sure they were not wrong, they gave testimony in front of a Judge, all three swearing to the same falsehood? What are the odds? Seriously? An investigation is warranted.

There's making a mistake. Then there's swearing to that mistake. The odds of three people making the same error and committing to it as fact, just isn't believable, IMO.

I would say the odds of three eye witnesses making the same mistake in those circumstances is pretty high. They didn't make up words, they attributed a part of a phrase to someone who had said something almost identical very shortly before. You choose to believe it's a conspiracy. I think a conspiracy is unlikely. For one thing the people running it would surely have made sure the statements synced with the video evidence. And for another, this kind of mistake is easily made with witness testimony.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Saying someone did not tell the truth is saying they lied isn't it?

Not if I play by your rules.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

And there's no proof they didn't tell the truth. Being wrong doesn't make you a liar. There are hundreds of studies on the issues with eye witness recall and how it can be tainted.

However.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I did go on to say they gave arguably false statements so I'm not sure what triggered you exactly. It's still irrelevant to the claim that all the rest of Garda testimony was found to be false.

False:
not according with truth or fact; incorrect.

Isn't suggesting that they gave arguably false statements, the same as as saying they lied?

It's hard to keep up with you.

I would say the odds of three eye witnesses making the same mistake in those circumstances is pretty high. They didn't make up words, they attributed a part of a phrase to someone who had said something almost identical very shortly before. You choose to believe it's a conspiracy. I think a conspiracy is unlikely. For one thing the people running it would surely have made sure the statements synced with the video evidence. And for another, this kind of mistake is easily made with witness testimony.

You keep coming back to the three magic words that the guards wrongly attributed to Murphy, despite the fact they came from a mouth of a female, as opposed to a males voice, through a megaphone.

I gave several other examples of the guards eyesight and hearing failing them, which had to be shown in court by way of video.

Including where one garda actually agreeing that footage didn't show something she said she seen.

Garda Lorna Loughney said she heard Cllr Michael Murphy referring to Joan Burton during the protest, saying: "Will we give her sanctuary in the church?" Garda Loughney said her impression was that these were questions being directed by Cllr Murphy to other people in the crowd.

But after video footage was shown to the court, Raymond Comyn SC, defending, said there was no question but that Cllr Murphy was shouting to the gardai with a suggestion on how to deal with the situation. Mr Comyn also put it to Garda Loughney that she was wrong when she said she saw Cllr Murphy on the loudhailer outside the church. Garda Loughney agreed the footage did not show Cllr Murphy holding the loudhailer at any point.

Maybe garda Loughney was wrong. But that's not saying she's a liar

[QUOTE=Rick Shaw;104158387
You keep coming back to the three magic words that the guards wrongly attributed to Murphy, despite the fact they came from a mouth of a female, as opposed to a males voice, through a megaphone. [/QUOTE]

I'm sure there are many females with deep voices in the Country. Not having heard said female utter the words, I'm only guessing that this is one possibility.
The fact that Murphy didn't utter the words doesn't make the Gardai liars. They just assigned the comments to the wrong person in the heat of the moment.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sure there are many females with deep voices in the Country. Not having heard said female utter the words, I'm only guessing that this is one possibility.
The fact that Murphy didn't utter the words doesn't make the Gardai liars. They just assigned the comments to the wrong person in the heat of the moment.

All three of them?

Really?

They didn't think of reviewing the (widely available, according to some on here)various footage on YouTube and other places before repeating their wrong attributions under oath? It's important to cross your ts, and dot your i's, especially if someone's freedom potentially dependend on it. Murphy wasn't in court for a littering offence after all


Sounds kind of incompetent if that's the case so.

RustyNut

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sure there are many females with deep voices in the Country. Not having heard said female utter the words, I'm only guessing that this is one possibility.
The fact that Murphy didn't utter the words doesn't make the Gardai liars. They just assigned the comments to the wrong person in the heat of the moment.

What you say might be true, a genuine mistake but even that is not acceptable when life sentences are what's at stake. However there is also the possibility that something much more sinister was going on at that trial. Even Leo Varadkar said that there are questions to be answered about the evidence given.

If not for video evidence these innocent men could now be looking at spending significant time locked up.

A transparent, independent, public inquiry would be the best way to clear matters up.

RustyNut

RustyNut wrote: »

What you say might be true, a genuine mistake but even that is not acceptable when life sentences are what's at stake. However there is also the possibility that something much more sinister was going on at that trial. Even Leo Varadkar said that there are questions to be answered about the evidence given.

If not for video evidence these innocent men could now be looking at spending significant time locked up.

A transparent, independent, public inquiry would be the best way to clear matters up.

I have more faith in the Judicial system. I never thought there was any danger of them being found guilty. The system worked. Yet, some are still moaning.

RustyNut

Deleted User wrote: »

I never thought there was any danger of them being found guilty.

In that case why were charges brought in the first place? Political use of the police force to suppress the water protests?

Why would you not think an inquiry would be a good idea?. If everything was above board then it can only reflect well on the Guardi.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

I have more faith in the Judicial system. I never thought there was any danger of them being found guilty. The system worked. Yet, some are still moaning.

But we needed the weeks and weeks of court cases, and tens of millions of euro to establish that?

I don't believe I seen any posts made by yourself that stated you believed in the defendants innocence, including any of the various threads.

Can you link me to some? I think it would be interesting reading. Perhaps we're not as ideologically apart as I thought we were.

Captain Obvious

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Not if I play by your rules.




However.



Isn't suggesting that they gave arguably false statements, the same as as saying they lied?

It's hard to keep up with you.

Do you not know what "arguably" means? It means you could make an argument for or against it.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

You keep coming back to the three magic words that the guards wrongly attributed to Murphy, despite the fact they came from a mouth of a female, as opposed to a males voice, through a megaphone.

I gave several other examples of the guards eyesight and hearing failing them, which had to be shown in court by way of video.

Including where one garda actually agreeing that footage didn't show something she said she seen.



Maybe garda Loughney was wrong. But that's not saying she's a liar

She doesn;t say she was wrong, she says the cctv doesn't show it.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

All three of them?

Really?

They didn't think of reviewing the (widely available, according to some on here)various footage on YouTube and other places before repeating their wrong attributions under oath? It's important to cross your ts, and dot your i's, especially if someone's freedom potentially dependend on it. Murphy wasn't in court for a littering offence after all


Sounds kind of incompetent if that's the case so.

Are you suggesting Gardaí should base their testimony on cctv footage rather than their own recollection?

RustyNut

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Are you suggesting Gardahould base their testimony on cctv footage rather than their own recollection?

That would seem to be a much more reliable way to go. The cctv can't lie.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Do you not know what "arguably" means? It means you could make an argument for or against it.

So arguably the evidence they gave wasn't true? Which, going by your rules, means arguably they told lies?

I really can't keep up anymore. The rules change quite often.

She doesn;t say she was wrong, she says the cctv doesn't show it.

I never said she was wrong, and specifically worded my post to clarify that.

Including where one garda actually agreeing that footage didn't show something she said she seen.



Maybe garda Loughney was wrong. But that's not saying she's a liar

Are you suggesting Gardahould base their testimony on cctv footage rather than their own recollection?

No, although the judge did instruct the jury to give the cctv footage preference over the guards statements,

She also said the video footage should be the primary source of evidence for the jury to consider.

but I said they should have dotted their is and crossed their ts before stating something that turned out not to be the truth under oath.

I find it hard to believe that three of them made the same mistake, and none of the prosecution thought to check the footage before standing and repeating these claims under oath.

That being only one of the minor misdemeanours that made the gards look fairly amateurish in this particular case.

Rick Shaw

Rick Shaw wrote: »

But we needed the weeks and weeks of court cases, and tens of millions of euro to establish that?

I don't believe I seen any posts made by yourself that stated you believed in the defendants innocence, including any of the various threads.

Can you link me to some? I think it would be interesting reading. Perhaps we're not as ideologically apart as I thought we were.

Once charges were brought, I abided by Boards rules and refrained from commenting. I have said more than once the I agreed with the verdict. I have also said that being found not guilty of false imprisonment doesn't excuse what happened that day.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Once charges were brought,

Before charges were brought? it's alright if you don't want to link me to where you stated you thought they were innocent.

Though, I'm pretty certain I'd not have to dig too deep to see the exact opposite, but I don't fancy the sanction, anyone on these boards even half familiar with murphy threads prob read it anyway.

Captain Obvious

RustyNut wrote: »

That would seem to be a much more reliable way to go. The cctv can't lie.

Are you serious? You think Gardaí should be lining their stories up with the cctv footage before making statements? You don't see any issue with that at all?

Rick Shaw wrote: »

So arguably the evidence they gave wasn't true? Which, going by your rules, means arguably they told lies?

I really can't keep up anymore. The rules change quite often.

It's not that compliment. It's a claim that an argument can be made for or against. I have no idea what rules you are referring to.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I never said she was wrong, and specifically worded my post to clarify that.

You said it was an example of eyesight or hearing failing a Garda which means you think her account was wrong.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

No, although the judge did instruct the jury to give the cctv footage preference over the guards statements, but I said they should have dotted their is and crossed their ts before stating something that turned out not to be the truth under oath.

CCTV should always be given more weight when it directly contradicts testimony. And the jury was obliged to give more heed to evidence that favours the accused.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that three of them made the same mistake, and none of the prosecution thought to check the footage before standing and repeating these claims under oath.

What you are suggesting is pretty bad. A Garda who bases his statement on cctv footage is not giving his own account of what happened. A prosecution who has a witness change their statement to match cctv is the very definition of a conspiracy.

Are Am Eye

Was the footage analogue or digital?

dense

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I never thought there was any danger of them being found guilty.

Why did you think there was no danger of them being found guilty?

RustyNut

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Are you serious? You think Gardaí should be lining their stories up with the cctv footage before making statements? You don't see any issue with that at all? .

Thats not what I suggested at all. I think you are just being disingenuous for the sake of it now.

Captain Obvious

RustyNut wrote: »

Thats not what I suggested at all. I think you are just being disingenuous for the sake of it now.

So what are you suggesting?

RustyNut

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So what are you suggesting?

That video evidence is at least 3 times more reliable than Garda recollection.

dense

dense wrote: »

Why did you think there was no danger of them being found guilty?

While the mob acted like brainless thugs, I didn't think that the charge should have been false imprisonment. The Gardai should not have been so soft on the mob. A good dousing from a water canon would have brought the situation to an end sooner.

dense

[Deleted User] wrote: »

While the mob acted like brainless thugs, I didn't think that the charge should have been false imprisonment.

So you think the case shouldn't even have went to court as it did.
You probably think the charges were over the top.

I'd agree tbh. Somewhat exaggerated.
Fabricated, some might say.
Looking back, the dawn raids were a bit OTT too, weren't they? A bit overly agressive, IMO.
Heavy. Designed to put the fear of God into them.

These guys were going to be made an example of.

And that's before we even get to hear the sworn testimonies of the gardai.

BTW, what do you think the 6 defendants should have been charged with, if anything?

Bishopsback

It doesn't look like the political fallout is doing the govt any harm anyway, well up in popularity, especially in the capital where you might expect a backlash over this case, if it has any bearing!
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/poll-sees-confidence-in-government-rise-to-six-year-high-799052.html

McMurphy

Gene Kerrigan makes some excellent points.

Gene Kerrigan wrote:

"For some time, humiliation has been part of the job description for members of the Irish establishment. The pay is still good, and you still get to wag your finger at the common herd, but the position has lost its moral swagger. Because they know that we all know what's going on. The remarkable thing is the extent to which the Irish establishment brought itself into disrepute.

It wasn't the lefties, the liberals or the feminists who undermined the Catholic Church or An Garda Siochana, it was all their own work.

The establishment doesn't like it that the rest of us are on to them and that we have learned through observation and through sharing of information that their whole system is crooked and corrupt. They will fight tooth and nail to keep their system in place. They may even turn authoritarian to ensure their power is maintained.

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/gene-kerrigan/lets-establish-who-caused-this-humiliation-35958039.html

Bishopsback

Bishopsback wrote: »

It doesn't look like the political fallout is doing the govt any harm anyway, well up in popularity, especially in the capital where you might expect a backlash over this case, if it has any bearing!
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/poll-sees-confidence-in-government-rise-to-six-year-high-799052.html

It would appear that the backlash is hitting Paul Murphy and his pals hardest. Down 2 points to 1%. Saw one of the 6 "debating " with Eamon Ryan of the Greens in the week. His (Mick Murphy) mumbling made Bertie Ahearn seem most eloquent.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/leo-varadkars-appointment-as-taoiseach-gives-fine-gael-dramatic-boost-in-the-polls-35957518.html

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

It would appear that the backlash is hitting Paul Murphy and his pals hardest. Down 2 points to 1%. Saw one of the 6 "debating " with Eamon Ryan of the Greens in the week. His (Mick Murphy) mumbling made Bertie Ahearn seem most eloquent.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/leo-varadkars-appointment-as-taoiseach-gives-fine-gael-dramatic-boost-in-the-polls-35957518.html

That's pretty embarrassing for them. They should have been able to show some gains but Murphy made a fool of himself in the Dáil and got put in his place by Varadker. They're also missing a major issue to latch onto now. The bin charges won't be as big as the water charges.

dense

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Saw one of the 6 "debating " with Eamon Ryan of the Greens in the week. His (Mick Murphy) mumbling made Bertie Ahearn seem most eloquent.

I watched that too.
I've never met anyone who thinks Ryan is a great public speaker either. They both seemed enthusiastic enough though, even if Ryan didn't seem sure of his own party's policy.

I wonder do either get much of a chance to avail of any media training?
It is expensive I think.

Good loser

Gene Kerrigan never made an excellent point in his life!

He specializes in adding 2 and 2 to get 5 (or 6 or 7).

Smears and innuendo masquerading as journalism. No focus or facts.

Corrosively negative.

The latest opinion poll must be galling for him.

Has he anything to say about the Venezuelan police state?

Hitman3000

Good loser wrote:

Gene Kerrigan never made an excellent point in his life!

I see comments like yours made on a regular basis about Gene's opinion pieces. Yet never a comment to counter his opinion. Only like you just a personal, vacuous attack.

WinnyThePoo

Good loser wrote: »

Gene Kerrigan never made an excellent point in his life!

He specializes in adding 2 and 2 to get 5 (or 6 or 7).

Smears and innuendo masquerading as journalism. No focus or facts.

Corrosively negative.

The latest opinion poll must be galling for him.

Has he anything to say about the Venezuelan police state?

Some people lap it up. Kerrigan is a joke opinion piece writer.

Hitman3000

WinnyThePoo wrote:

Some people lap it up. Kerrigan is a joke opinion piece writer.

Another comment attacking Kerrigan yet no counter opinion.

WinnyThePoo

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Another comment attacking Kerrigan yet no counter opinion.

Quick somebody call the police!

Hitman3000

WinnyThePoo wrote:

Quick somebody call the police!

So nothing to counter Kerrigan? Not surprising really. Anyway not engaging in a childish to and fro with you.

Allinall

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Gene Kerrigan makes some excellent points.





The establishment doesn't like it that the rest of us are on to them and that we have learned through observation and through sharing of information that their whole system is crooked and corrupt. They will fight tooth and nail to keep their system in place. They may even turn authoritarian to ensure their power is maintained.

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/gene-kerrigan/lets-establish-who-caused-this-humiliation-35958039.html

Who's "the establishment"?

How are they "established?

And most important- who are the rest of "us"?

I would contend that "we" are all part of the establishment .

Allinall

Allinall wrote: »

Who's "the establishment"?

How are they "established?

And most important- who are the rest of "us"?

I would contend that "we" are all part of the establishment .

Shades of the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. Them and Us. Trouble is, which is "Them" and which is "Us"? To me Them is the looney left. Us is the rest.

dense

Quite simple really, the establishment is comprised of those who make the rules, and the rest is comprised of those who are supposed to follow the rules.

One rule for themselves and another rule for the rest.

Allinall

dense wrote: »

Quite simple really, the establishment is comprised of those who make the rules, and the rest is comprised of those who are supposed to follow the rules.

One rule for themselves and another rule for the rest.

And who selects those who make the rules?

dense

Allinall wrote: »

And who selects those who make the rules?

Well the electorate belive they select them.
What the electorate doesn't often consider is that those they elect are often not actually fit or qualified for the job and couldn't do it without their unelected "advisers" helping, the public and civil service, various arms of the state.

The permanent ones if you like.
TDs are transient. The rest of the establishment largely isn't.

McMurphy

Allinall wrote: »

And who selects those who make the rules?

That's a good question actually, because the current Taoiseach certainly wasn't selected by anyone other than a group of his own peers, who themselves are only sitting in government at the behest of a few Independents, and their traditional civil war enemy, who they spent the previous five years slating for bankrupting the place, and reminding us that they weren't fit to govern. (and now one of their own MEPS, and a director of its elections has called for a grand coalition with, you couldn't make it up:D)

So very much there's a case for " nowhere near a majority of the electorate". But that's the system we have.

For Reals

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sure there are many females with deep voices in the Country. Not having heard said female utter the words, I'm only guessing that this is one possibility.
The fact that Murphy didn't utter the words doesn't make the Gardai liars. They just assigned the comments to the wrong person in the heat of the moment.

The woman introduced herself and said were she was from. Then made the 'keep her here' statement. Father Ted territory.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Are you serious? You think Gardaí should be lining their stories up with the cctv footage before making statements? You don't see any issue with that at all?

..

Most certainly. Is the inference the footage of what actually took place might be bias?
It's much preferable to three Garda comparing notes before testimony and agreeing to tell the same story, which is another possibility for the astounding coincidence.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

Most certainly. Is the inference the footage of what actually took place might be bias?
It's much preferable to three Garda comparing notes before testimony and agreeing to tell the same story, which is another possibility for the astounding coincidence.

No, it's much worse than comparing notes. The prosecution prepping witnesses to match their testimony to the evidence available makes it very difficult on the defendant. If a witness didn't see something or recollects something incorrectly then the defence can question it. If the witness bases their evidence off actual cctv footage then they will be attesting to evidence they may not have seen or may have remembered incorrectly. It makes it impossible for the defence to challenge them. Isn't this the exact reason the Sean Fitz trial collapsed?

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No, it's much worse than comparing notes. The prosecution prepping witnesses to match their testimony to the evidence available makes it very difficult on the defendant. If a witness didn't see something or recollects something incorrectly then the defence can question it. If the witness bases their evidence off actual cctv footage then they will be attesting to evidence they may not have seen or may have remembered incorrectly. It makes it impossible for the defence to challenge them. Isn't this the exact reason the Sean Fitz trial collapsed?

One would hope unbias defenders of the law, acting on behalf of the state, would concede to the possibility of being mistaken without the need of video evidence in the first place, but alas...

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

One would hope unbias defenders of the law, acting on behalf of the state, would concede to the possibility of being mistaken without the need of video evidence in the first place, but alas...

What are you on about?

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What are you on about?

See above. Not clear?
You said deferring to video was;

it's much worse than comparing notes

I was disagreeing as we obviously can't and shouldn't depend on witnesses who may have colluded to give damning false evidence when footage is available. We don't know if that pertains to the Jobstown case, tbf, but we obviously would have been wrong to dismiss the video footage over these three witnesses be they Garda or not. These particular Garda were adamant about the false statements they gave being fact.