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

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

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

You aren't making much sense. People make mistakes. The human mind is not fallible. The suggestion was made that the Gardaí should have made sure their own accounts matched with the cctv footage. I pointed out how ridiculous this would be. I don't really know what point you are trying to make in relation to that. As to which is worse, three people sharing notes can be undone with physical evidence and cross examination, three people working their testimony around the physical evidence cannot be undone. So I would consider the latter to be worse, for the defendant anyway.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You aren't making much sense. People make mistakes. The human mind is not fallible. The suggestion was made that the Gardahould have made sure their own accounts matched with the cctv footage. I pointed out how ridiculous this would be. I don't really know what point you are trying to make in relation to that. As to which is worse, three people sharing notes can be undone with physical evidence and cross examination, three people working their testimony around the physical evidence cannot be undone. So I would consider the latter to be worse, for the defendant anyway.

The danger in this case was three Garda witnesses stating the same thing as fact. Supposedly their own individual view, but times 3. Any collusion found on a statement should be illegal and pursued. It's passing what could/should be a misunderstanding of one individual as essentially corroborated fact, when three state the same thing. That's the travesty of justice that could have possibly been perpetrated here on citizens protesting peacefully, as is their right, currently.
If you're not sure, say you're not sure. Be honest, not bias.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

The danger in this case was three Garda witnesses stating the same thing as fact. Supposedly their own individual view, but times 3. Any collusion found on a statement should be illegal and pursued. It's passing what could/should be a misunderstanding of one individual as essentially corroborated fact, when three state the same thing. That's the travesty of justice that could have possibly been perpetrated here on citizens protesting peacefully, as is their right, currently.
If you're not sure, say you're not sure. Be honest, not bias.

We've already discussed that though. And we don't agree on it. The discussion had moved on to the use of cctv to prepare a statement.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

We've already discussed that though. And we don't agree on it. The discussion had moved on to the use of cctv to prepare a statement.

That's the point. If you are honestly unsure of what took place, defer to a video recording of it, not testimony from other potentially mistaken colleagues. I would have thought one of them might have said, 'I'm not 100%'. That's why video is more reliable than even three Garda after comparing notes, let alone untrained members of the public.
Witness should be given without any tips, clues or cajoling for colouring.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

We've already discussed that though. And we don't agree on it. The discussion had moved on to the use of cctv to prepare a statement.

I think I might have been the first person to mention something about that, but definitely not how its being presented.

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.

I believe I also said something somewhere about a member of the prosecution pointing out this honest mistake to some of the guards before they stood up in court and repeated their honest mistakes under oath.

I certainly would expect a brief of mine to make me aware of video evidence that contradicted me hearing various people mastermind a kidnapping.

Ironically enough, it was the gardai and not Murphy that emerged looking like the liar.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

That's the point. If you are honestly unsure of what took place, defer to a video recording of it, not testimony from other potentially mistaken colleagues. I would have thought one of them might have said, 'I'm not 100%'. That's why video is more reliable than even three Garda after comparing notes, let alone untrained members of the public.
Witness should be given without any tips, clues or cajoling for colouring.

Nobody has said otherwise. You are the one suggesting they should refer to video. They should do neither.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I think I might have been the first person to mention something about that, but definitely not how its being presented.



I believe I also said something somewhere about a member of the prosecution pointing out this honest mistake to some of the guards before they stood up in court and repeated their honest mistakes under oath.

I certainly would expect a brief of mine to make me aware of video evidence that contradicted me hearing various people mastermind a kidnapping.

Ironically enough, it was the gardai and not Murphy that emerged looking like the liar.

You said it was incompetent not to review the footage before giving evidence. I'm not sure how you expected that to be taken up. You are quite clearly saying a competent person would have tailored their evidence to match the footage.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Nobody has said otherwise. You are the one suggesting they should refer to video. They should do neither.
...

You said witnesses comparing notes before giving testimony was better than relying on CCTV or video. Maybe, as suggested, they should view all evidence at their disposal and take it into account before making statements shown to be false.
Witnesses colluding leaves us open to false, seemingly corroborated, testimony.
Ideally people, independently, without cajoling, should come to give their testimony based on their view of what happened. Then be decent enough to concede the possibility of being wrong in the face of video evidence to the contrary. These Garda, after all, had the job of upholding the law without prejudice. I believe, IMO, they failed.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

You said witnesses comparing notes before giving testimony was better than relying on CCTV or video. Maybe, as suggested, they should view all evidence at their disposal and take it into account before making statements shown to be false.
Witnesses colluding leaves us open to false, seemingly corroborated, testimony.
Ideally people, independently, without cajoling, should come to give their testimony based on their view of what happened. Then be decent enough to concede the possibility of being wrong in the face of video evidence to the contrary. These Garda, after all, had the job of upholding the law without prejudice.

I said people should do neither but one was worse because of it's bigger effect on a trial. You're trying to twist that into me advocating sharing versions.

A witness should not view any evidence if possible or listen to anyone elses version of events. Their account should be as untainted as possible. Unfortunately it can't always be that way. This is nothing to do with people being Gardaí, it applies to all witnesses. After a big incident it is natural for people to discuss things and this is where memory gets tainted. It has nothing to do with collusion. I saw it myself when the shop I worked in was robbed. There was four others working there and all remembered things differently but by the time the Gardaí took statements the accounts were much more alike. It wasn't due to some agreement between them it's just what happens.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You said it was incompetent not to review the footage before giving evidence. I'm not sure how you expected that to be taken up. You are quite clearly saying a competent person would have tailored their evidence to match the footage.

I didn't.

Captain Obvious

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I didn't.

Looks like 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.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I said people should do neither but one was worse because of it's bigger effect on a trial. You're trying to twist that into me advocating sharing versions.

A witness should not view any evidence if possible or listen to anyone elses version of events. Their account should be as untainted as possible. Unfortunately it can't always be that way. This is nothing to do with people being Gardait applies to all witnesses. After a big incident it is natural for people to discuss things and this is where memory gets tainted. It has nothing to do with collusion. I saw it myself when the shop I worked in was robbed. There was four others working there and all remembered things differently but by the time the Gardaook statements the accounts were much more alike. It wasn't due to some agreement between them it's just what happens.

I'm not twisting anything. An honest person, without an agenda, should concede to being mistaken in light of video evidence.
Personally I would like better from our trained law enforcement. Especially when the freedom of people is at stake. If this kind of behaviour is common place we need a full review never mind an investigation into the costly, biased jobstown farce.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Looks like it.

Only if you take it out of context, quoting what I replied to, and even bolded should have cleared it up.

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.

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.

If we are to believe that not one, not two, but three guards wrongly ascribed words spoken by a woman who had identified herself, and wasn't using any equipment to amplify her words, to that of a male TD, allegedly uttering them through a megaphone, well then I stand over it.

Incompetence.

At best.

blanch152

For Reals wrote: »

You said witnesses comparing notes before giving testimony was better than relying on CCTV or video. Maybe, as suggested, they should view all evidence at their disposal and take it into account before making statements shown to be false.
Witnesses colluding leaves us open to false, seemingly corroborated, testimony.
Ideally people, independently, without cajoling, should come to give their testimony based on their view of what happened. Then be decent enough to concede the possibility of being wrong in the face of video evidence to the contrary. These Garda, after all, had the job of upholding the law without prejudice. I believe, IMO, they failed.

They were tasked with giving evidence based on their recollection, not based on their viewing of a video. I am amazed at the people who have suggested here that the Gardai should have conspired to check their recollections with videos.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

They were tasked with giving evidence based on their recollection, not based on their viewing of a video. I am amazed at the people who have suggested here that the Gardai should have conspired to check their recollections with videos.

I'll tell you what I'm amazed at.

That this:

If we are to believe that not one, not two, but three guards wrongly ascribed words spoken by a woman who had identified herself, and wasn't using any equipment to amplify her words, to that of a male TD, allegedly uttering them through a megaphone,

extraordinary error could be made by three garda in attendance.

I mean the odds of all three mistaking a woman's unamplified words, to that of a male TD who was supposedly uttering them through a megaphone must be incalculable.

But of course that wasn't the only mistake made, why we keep reverting back to it, is completely beyond me anyway.

ancapailldorcha

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I didn't.

Do not post in this thread again.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

They were tasked with giving evidence based on their recollection, not based on their viewing of a video. I am amazed at the people who have suggested here that the Gardai should have conspired to check their recollections with videos.

They are not precluded from looking at videos to assist them determine if their recall is a bit hazy, prior to taking the stand.
In fact, it would be seen as doing one's homework, instead of standing up and recalling things that were imagined.

A recollection needs to be questioned if it recalls events that didn't happen.

3 separate identical recollections more so.

Tony EH

dense wrote: »

They are not precluded from looking at videos to assist them determine if their recall is a bit hazy, prior to taking the stand.
In fact, it would be seen as doing one's homework, instead of standing up and recalling things that were imagined.

A recollection needs to be questioned if it recalls events that didn't happen.

3 separate identical recollections more so.

I can understand the need not to pollute testimony for a court case and eyewitness testimony is notoriously weak and subject to all sorts of error. Why so much hinges on it in court remains remarkable TBH.

However, I would like to think that Gardai - upon whose word a defendant could go down for a considerable amount of time - would be more diligent in their evidence and make sure what they were accusing a defendant of was actually factual.

To me, in this case it appears that (perhaps), maybe, one guard thought he heard something, or mis-attributed that utterance to somebody and the other two basically retconned their own stories to fit resulting in a remarkable and wholly unbelievable scenario.

Either way, it's a shocking eyeopener (or SHOULD be) to everyone, regardless of how they feel about the Irish Water protests, Paul Murphy, or people from Jobstown in general.

The defendants, in this case were lucky that the video evidence directly contradicted the Gardai's evidence, but somebody else might not me so lucky the next time and one wonders how often somebody's case went the wrong way on a cop's makey uppy statements in court.

johnnyskeleton

Tony EH wrote: »

The defendants, in this case were lucky that the video evidence directly contradicted the Gardai's evidence, but somebody else might not me so lucky the next time and one wonders how often somebody's case went the wrong way on a cop's makey uppy statements in court.

Are there any links to this video online now that the trial is over?

Tony EH

I think someone posted a link earlier.

For Reals

blanch152 wrote: »

They were tasked with giving evidence based on their recollection, not based on their viewing of a video. I am amazed at the people who have suggested here that the Gardai should have conspired to check their recollections with videos.

You misunderstood. Asking people to concede to the possibility of being mistaken in the face of video evidence.
Looks like they'd no issue comparing notes be it written or verbally prior, may have possibly saved the state a small fortune if they had viewed the video evidence, or if they did, accepted it.

blanch152

For Reals wrote: »

You misunderstood. Asking people to concede to the possibility of being mistaken in the face of video evidence.
Looks like they'd no issue comparing notes be it written or verbally prior, may have possibly saved the state a small fortune if they had viewed the video evidence, or if they did, accepted it.

No, I don't think I misunderstood - it was quite clear as this one example demonstrates:

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.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

You misunderstood. Asking people to concede to the possibility of being mistaken in the face of video evidence.

That's not the point that was made.

For Reals wrote: »

Looks like they'd no issue comparing notes be it written or verbally prior, may have possibly saved the state a small fortune if they had viewed the video evidence, or if they did, accepted it.

Pure speculation and what you suggest in regards to reviewing evidence is nothing less than witness coaching.

For Reals

Three people made the same error, mixing up a woman who introduced herself and said were she came from, with a politician protesting peacefully. And upon viewing video footage, stuck to their three individual, yet identical, mistaken recollections.
I think it's all been covered. The state is more concerned about what an elected politicians says in the Dail about it, than the fact three Garda gave false statements in a ludicrous heavily politicised court case.
I bid you adieu.

blanch152

For Reals wrote: »

Three people made the same error, mixing up a woman who introduced herself and said were she came from, with a politician protesting peacefully. And upon viewing video footage, stuck to their three individual, yet identical, mistaken recollections.
I think it's all been covered. The state is more concerned about what an elected politicians says in the Dail about it, than the fact three Garda gave false statements in a ludicrous heavily politicised court case.
I bid you adieu.

If the perjury claim that you and others are so intent on pursuing ever went to court, here is an account that throws sufficient reasonable doubt to allow a not guilty verdict:

Conversation in Jobstown on the day:

Garda 1: Is that Murphy with the megaphone?
Garda 2: (seeing Murphy) Yes it is, but the sound is distorted.
Garda 3: Did he just say "leave them there all night?"
Garda 1: That's what I just heard
Garda 2: I can't see now with the crowd but that's what was said.

There was no perjury. The Gardai heard the comments. However, in the kerfuffle, they assigned them to the wrong person. They are human, after all. The error was pointed out in court. The defendants found not guilty. Justice was done.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

Three people made the same error, mixing up a woman who introduced herself and said were she came from, with a politician protesting peacefully. And upon viewing video footage, stuck to their three individual, yet identical, mistaken recollections.
.

At least one of the Gardaí did not stick to it. The sergeant said Murphy used words "to that effect". I'll have a look over the other two transcripts to see if you are putting words in their mouths too.

FrancieBrady

I was watching the Ian Bailey doc last night and it was extremely worrying that there were so many similarities in the behaviour of the Gardai.

The press present at the sudden arrest, and the suspected collusion with the media. And what the judge said about witnesses;

Last week, a commission of investigation under Mr Justice Nial Fennelly found evidence that gardaí were "prepared to contemplate altering, modifying or suppressing evidence that did not assist them in furthering their belief that Ian Bailey murdered Ms Toscan du Plantier".

The judge found no actual evidence that any statements in the Toscan du Plantier case had been interfered with, but he said there were two instances when gardaí appeared willing to contemplate allowing or encouraging false evidence to be given.

It is all undermining the Gardai.

We as a country need a force with integrity that can be trusted. There simply must be a root and branch inquiry into this again.

dense

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There was no perjury. The Gardai heard the comments. However, in the kerfuffle, they assigned them to the wrong person. They are human, after all. The error was pointed out in court. The defendants found not guilty. Justice was done.

You can create as many different excuses as you like but none of them satisfactorily excuse what happened.

Did you really think they sought that justice would be seen to be done by mistakenly collectively assigning something to someone else when there was video evidence to the contrary which was available to them but for whatever reason was ignored?

It's really a case of picking guilty suspects first and without the evidence to suit the charge and then try to make up evidence against them as you go along, isn't it?

Is that how you want the justice system to work or would you prefer they check for evidence, ie, what is evident first?

How about if you were on the stand, or a family member?

Would you still be so understanding of these "errors"?

dense

dense wrote: »

You can create as many different excuses as you like but none of them satisfactorily excuse what happened.

How very true. NOTHING excuses the behaviour of the mob that day. Anyone with a conscience would have walked away. The videos I've seen show a feral, lawless group of thugs. The Gardai were too soft on them.

However, charges were brought and defendants found innocent of the charges.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

How very true. NOTHING excuses the behaviour of the mob that day. Anyone with a conscience would have walked away. The videos I've seen show a feral, lawless group of thugs. The Gardai were too soft on them.

However, charges were brought and defendants found innocent of the charges.

If the Gardai had seen the lawless ones we wouldn't be here.

dense

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The videos I've seen show a feral, lawless group of thugs. The Gardai were too soft on them.

I have already gathered that it seems you would have preferred if the gardai had opened fire on the crowd in some shape or form and that is your prerogative.

What would you prefer, rubber bullets or tear gas? Sorry, seems you've mentioned using a water cannon on them previously.

Now how about actually dealing with the points I put to you in good faith?

Maybe they were too difficult.

constitutionus

the DPP has dropped all charges on the remaining protesters.

news broke tonight.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/charges-dropped-against-remaining-jobstown-defendants-36153338.html

the INDO is so gutted they tried to bury the story down its webpage.

tayto lover

I was on several water protest marches.
Only say the Jobstown stuff on the t.v.
That bunch looked like a complete under-class and feral mob.

jimmycrackcorm

constitutionus wrote:

the INDO is so gutted they tried to bury the story down its webpage.

It's hardly front page news.

James Brown

What a colossal waste of tax payer money. No matter. Tomorrow's fish and chip paper.

Jolly Red Giant

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What a colossal waste of tax payer money. No matter. Tomorrow's fish and chip paper.

It was far more than a colossal waste of tax payers money - the trial exposed the fact that every single Garda witness who gave testimony about the Jobstown protest (with the exception of one now retired Garda) was proven by video evidence to have given false testimony - down to the fact that Garda witnesses made claims about events that they physically could not have witnessed.

In future if you are wrongly charged with any crime where the primary evidence against you is Garda testimony - you better have video (or some other concrete and verifiable) evidence to prove your innocence.

mattser

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What a colossal waste of tax payer money. No matter. Tomorrow's fish and chip paper.

Fish and chips would be too good to wrap in that paper, Matt. Would give them a bitter, drab taste.

James Brown

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

It was far more than a colossal waste of tax payers money - the trial exposed the fact that every single Garda witness who gave testimony about the Jobstown protest (with the exception of one now retired Garda) was proven by video evidence to have given false testimony - down to the fact that Garda witnesses made claims about events that they physically could not have witnessed.

In future if you are wrongly charged with any crime where the primary evidence against you is Garda testimony - you better have video (or some other concrete and verifiable) evidence to prove your innocence.

In case you didn't realise, I was being sarcastic *looks for Homer gif*
Commenting on it supposedly, not being news. I think it's the biggest story since the alleged McCabe stitch up.