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

McMurphy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I think most people recognize that it wasn't exactly a peaceful protest so it's not as if those charged did nothing wrong.

What did they do wrong? I thought they were cleared in court?

McMurphy

Catherine Murphy is calling for members of the gardai to face charges for perjury.

I asked on this thread a.few times already, is anyone aware of any similar court cases in the state where a judge asks a jury to basically disregard the gardai sworn statements?

Alas, no takers.

Jolly Red Giant

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The food bank wasn't even in Jobstown. It was in the City Centre. So why were they so worked up about it?

To be honest - the rest of your post doesn't warrant a response as it is nothing more than a rehash of normal class bias.

But it should be noted that the Jobstown protest took place right beside a food bank operated by the same charity that opened the food bank in Glasnevin where Joan Burton made the most of that wonderful photo-op.

The irony was not lost on the people of Jobstown.

johnnyskeleton

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

To be honest - the rest of your post doesn't warrant a response as it is nothing more than a rehash of normal class bias.

Right. So pointing out that unemployment went down during their coalition and that there are limits to how much a minority government party can do is "class bias"?

But it should be noted that the Jobstown protest took place right beside a food bank operated by the same charity that opened the food bank in Glasnevin where Joan Burton made the most of that wonderful photo-op.

The irony was not lost on the people of Jobstown.

We should demand that they close it so, if the people of Jobstown resent her so much.

johnnyskeleton

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Catherine Murphy is calling for members of the gardai to face charges for perjury.

I asked on this thread a.few times already, is anyone aware of any similar court cases in the state where a judge asks a jury to basically disregard the gardai sworn statements?

Alas, no takers.

Because according to the papers she said:

The judge said the video footage is a "significant component" but they should not disregard witness testimony.

It is also important to note that she was summing up the arguments made. So the Judge didn't ask the Jury to disregard the Garda evidence.

As for sworn statements, these are never evidence unless a very specific procedure is used to admit them into evidence, which I can't imagine was used in this case.

There are hundreds of cases every week where the Garda says one thing and the accused says, or asserts, another thing. Sometimes the Judge or Jury finds that there is a reasonable doubt and acquits, other times they don't and convict. There is also a rule that a Jury can still convict even if they disregard some of the prosecution evidence, so long as they are satisfied that it doesn't affect the rest of the evidence.

For Reals

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Because according to the papers she said:



It is also important to note that she was summing up the arguments made. So the Judge didn't ask the Jury to disregard the Garda evidence.

As for sworn statements, these are never evidence unless a very specific procedure is used to admit them into evidence, which I can't imagine was used in this case.

There are hundreds of cases every week where the Garda says one thing and the accused says, or asserts, another thing. Sometimes the Judge or Jury finds that there is a reasonable doubt and acquits, other times they don't and convict. There is also a rule that a Jury can still convict even if they disregard some of the prosecution evidence, so long as they are satisfied that it doesn't affect the rest of the evidence.

Reads like there's 'witnesses' and 'Garda', but either way;

The jury must also consider aspects of the garda evidence where there were misstatements or inconsistencies with what gardaí said in their statements and their evidence.

"Were they calculated to cast aspersions on Paul Murphy? Is this the establishment coming down on Paul Murphy or others for orchestrating a successful campaign against water charges? Do you agree this is what this is all about?"

She said if the jury was inclined to agree with this, that he was being prosecuted not for what he did but for who he is then does that extend to the others on trial. While two of the others were county councillors who would be known locally but were without a national profile, the remaining three were ordinary citizens.

"So how far does that argument actually go?" the judge asked.

The judge said the video footage is a "significant component" but they should not disregard witness testimony.

Some of the garda testimony was "not borne out by the footage and contradicted what was said".
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0626/885602-jobstown/

This was a number of Garda making the same error.

ancapailldorcha

Back on topic please. The thread is not about Irish Water or Benefits.

FrancieBrady

Varadkar to address dubious Garda evidence on Prime Time tonight.

For Reals

Looks like Vardakar is stopping short of an investigation, but in the least he seems to acknowledge there's an issue, which is something.

In an interview with RTÉ’s Prime Time, Mr Varadkar said people needed to be able to trust that when gardaí stand up in court and say something happened, that it did happen, and it should not conflict with video evidence for instance.

He said if it did, then "that is a problem".

Mr Varadkar said he understood that in a situation where there were lots of things happening quickly and people get caught up in the heat of the moment, that they might have a recollection that is not exactly as things happened, but he would be very concerned if it was the case that gardaí gave evidence in court that was not in line with the facts.

Mr Varadkar said he did not think a public inquiry was required, but there should be consideration given to why the prosecution was unsuccessful in cases like this and the trial of Séan Fitzpatrick.
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0706/888320-leo-varadkar/

It's hard to tell if he's concerned about Garda bias or that they were found innocent.
If they were convicted would he have any concern?

FrancieBrady

As I thought, like Ends before him, Leo used events to get at somebody else (the Garda Commissioner) rather than show any genuine concern for what happened.

McMurphy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Because according to the papers she said:



It is also important to note that she was summing up the arguments made. So the Judge didn't ask the Jury to disregard the Garda evidence.

As for sworn statements, these are never evidence unless a very specific procedure is used to admit them into evidence, which I can't imagine was used in this case.

The Guards lied under oath. If video footage hadn't been seen that was so blatantly contradictory to their statements, the defendants could have been jailed.

There are hundreds of cases every week where the Garda says one thing and the accused says, or asserts, another thing. Sometimes the Judge or Jury finds that there is a reasonable doubt and acquits, other times they don't and convict. There is also a rule that a Jury can still convict even if they disregard some of the prosecution evidence, so long as they are satisfied that it doesn't affect the rest of the evidence.

Do many of these hundreds of cases involve hundreds of gardai giving contradictory evidence to what can be seen by video?

People trying to normslise what took place here by the state police force is worrying.

oscarBravo

Rick Shaw wrote: »

The Guards lied under oath.

Clear something up for me: has it been categorically proven that what the Guards said was untrue?

My understanding is that they said Paul Murphy said something, but video evidence showed someone else saying that thing. My question is: is there a video recording of the entire duration of the protest, such that there's no possible way the Guards could have heard him say what they claimed?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Clear something up for me: has it been categorically proven that what the Guards said was untrue?

My understanding is that they said Paul Murphy said something, but video evidence showed someone else saying that thing. My question is: is there a video recording of the entire duration of the protest, such that there's no possible way the Guards could have heard him say what they claimed?

I am not sure why people are clutching at trying to re-try the case. No less than the judge said there was a discrepancy uncontested by the prosecution.
Seriously, is that not enough?

feargale

Before any of you post further I suggest you listen to Olivia O'Leary's Tuesday Drivetime political column, if you haven't already done so. "What constitutes peaceful protest". You can get it on Podcast

FrancieBrady

feargale wrote: »

Before any of you post further I suggest you listen to Olivia O'Leary's Tuesday Drivetime political column, if you haven't already done so. "What constitutes peaceful protest". You can get it on Podcast

I did listen live. Olivia has a lovely and skillful knack of writing in total isolation to complexity. She took an angle 'the threat of violence' and wrote a sniffy article that never once addressed the fact that anger on the streets and the recipricol violence used to quell protest contributed to what happened.
It isn't an excuse for what happened but it was a factor just as much as anything else.

McMurphy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Clear something up for me: has it been categorically proven that what the Guards said was untrue?

This is from the hearing.

Judge Greally wrote:

The jury must also consider aspects of the garda evidence where there were misstatements or inconsistencies with what gardaaid in their statements and their evidence.

"Were they calculated to cast aspersions on Paul Murphy? Is this the establishment coming down on Paul Murphy or others for orchestrating a successful campaign against water charges? Do you agree this is what this is all about?"

She said if the jury was inclined to agree with this, that he was being prosecuted not for what he did but for who he is then does that extend to the others on trial. While two of the others were county councillors who would be known locally but were without a national profile, the remaining three were ordinary citizens.

"So how far does that argument actually go?" the judge asked.

The judge said the video footage is a "significant component" but they should not disregard witness testimony.

Some of the garda testimony was "not borne out by the footage and contradicted what was said".

She said that type of discrepancy may affect their view and was a matter for them to assess inaccuracies in witness testimony and its effect on the issues to be decided.

I suppose there's fewer well placed to decide than the actual judge in the case.

Jolly Red Giant

oscarBravo wrote: »

Clear something up for me: has it been categorically proven that what the Guards said was untrue?

Yes - absolutely - in fact video evidence contradicted testimony from every single prosecution witness (including Joan Burton) with the exception of one - the officer in charge of the POU on the day of the protest who is now retired from AGS.

oscarBravo wrote: »

My understanding is that they said Paul Murphy said something, but video evidence showed someone else saying that thing.

During the final stages of the protest the POU moved in to clear people from in front of the garda jeep containing Burton. This led to tensions between the protesters and the POU resulting in the protesters staging a sit-down protest in front of the jeep. At this point the gardai asked Paul Murphy to discuss a way of ending the protest and an agreement was reached on the basis that if the POU was withdrawn the protesters would slow march the garda jeep to the by-pass and would complete the march within 30 minutes. At this stage Paul Murphy put the agreement to the protest for a vote, explained what had been agreed and said 'If the POU is withdrawn do we agree to let her go'. Three senior garda witnesses claimed that Paul Murphy said 'will we let her go or will we keep her here all night' - using exactly the same phrase, same terminology etc.

The prosecution used these statements as the basis for claiming that Paul Murphy was orchestrating the false imprisonment of Joan Burton and was a key part of the prosecution case.

Furthermore, every single garda witness who was asked by the prosecutor and in cross-examination by defence counsel claimed that no agreement was made with Paul Murphy. The reason for this was because the gardai claimed that they were legally prohibited from entering any agreement with someone engaged in illegal activity. To have acknowledged that an agreement existed they were acknowledging that Paul Murphy was not engaged in illegal activity. Of course this all came undone when the defence counsel asked the now retired Inspector who was in charge of the POU on the day about the agreement (he was not asked by the prosecutor) about the agreement. The witness stated clearly that - yes - an agreement did exist and he was a witness to it. At this point the defence recalled the officer in charge of the garda operation on the day who had strenuously denied in earlier questioning that any agreement existed. This time when confronted with the testimony of the retired garda, he admitted that an agreement did in fact exist.

oscarBravo wrote: »

My question is: is there a video recording of the entire duration of the protest, such that there's no possible way the Guards could have heard him say what they claimed?

The entire protest was filmed on CCTV footage from multiple angles. Every single second of the protest was filmed in what involved hundreds of hours of video footage. The defence found a video on youtube of the actual comments by Paul Murphy - each of the garda witnesses were asked if this was the event that they were referring to when they claimed that Paul Murphy said 'will we keep her here all night' - each of the witnesses confirmed that it was the event. The entire video was then played (from memory I think it is about seven minutes long) where Paul Murphy called the attention of the protest, outlined the agreement (and never uttered the words 'will we keep her here all night), took the vote, which was in favour of the agreement, and then walked back to the gardai. When each of the garda witnesses were asked if they wished to withdraw their claim that Paul Murphy said 'will we keep her here all night' - they all replied 'no comment'.

These examples were just two incidents out of dozens of incidents in the case of every single prosecution witness (with the exception of the retired garda) where witness testimony was directly contradicted by video evidence. Furthermore, it was noted that the testimony given by gardai in the witness box was significantly toned down in content from the testimony given by the same witnesses in their sworn witness statements that formed the file sent by AGS to the DPP that resulted in the DPP charging the defendants with false imprisonment.

Jolly Red Giant

Rick Shaw wrote: »

This is from the hearing.

I suppose there's fewer well placed to decide than the actual judge in the case.

What you quote is from the directions given to the jury on the Monday - before the legal argument following objections to her direction from defence counsel.

In redirection to the jury on Wednesday, after two days of legal argument, the judge altered her directions in relation to 18 specific issues (from what I understand this scale of redirection is unprecedented in Irish courts) and the judge told the jury that the video evidence directly conflicted with testimony from gardai, and that they must consider the video evidence as 'the primary evidence that is most reliable'.

Furthermore, the judge told the jury in relation to the statements from the three senior Gardai that Paul Murphy said 'will we keep her here all night' - that this testimony was in direct conflict with the video evidence, that they must consider how three different gardai had heard exactly the same phrase that was never uttered by Paul Murphy and that as a result of this they should consider if these gardai had 'an agenda against Paul Murphy'.

Jolly Red Giant

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Because according to the papers she said:



It is also important to note that she was summing up the arguments made. So the Judge didn't ask the Jury to disregard the Garda evidence.

As I have pointed out in my other post - this was the direction given to the jury on Monday - before two days of legal argument.

In her redirection on Wednesday the judge told the jury that the video evidence directly conflicted with testimony from gardai, and that they must consider the video evidence as 'the primary evidence that is most reliable'.

Furthermore, the judge told the jury in relation to the statements from the three senior Gardai that Paul Murphy said 'will we keep her here all night' - that this testimony was in direct conflict with the video evidence, that they must consider how three different gardai had heard exactly the same phrase that was never uttered by Paul Murphy and that as a result of this they should consider if these gardai had 'an agenda against Paul Murphy'.

Jolly Red Giant

For Reals wrote: »

Looks like Vardakar is stopping short of an investigation, but in the least he seems to acknowledge there's an issue, which is something.



It's hard to tell if he's concerned about Garda bias or that they were found innocent.
If they were convicted would he have any concern?

Well Varadker thinks it is appropriate that the people who should 'look into' the garda testimony against left-wing activists are Noirin O'Sullivan who asked gardai interviewing for top positions in AGS what their view was on 'left-wing extremism in Ireland' - her husband who ran the Operation Mizen spying operation against anti-water charges activists - and Noirin's sidekick in Tallaght who denied Solidarity fund-raising permits. Cops with an agenda investigating cops with the same agenda.

feargale

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not sure why people are clutching at trying to re-try the case. No less than the judge said there was a discrepancy uncontested by the prosecution.
Seriously, is that not enough?

Tht is the end of it where the law is concerned. The defendants are not guilty in law. Whether they are guilty in fact is another matter. And if they are not so guilty it doesn't take from the fact that some people behaved like fascist thugs.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I did listen live. Olivia has a lovely and skillful knack of writing in total isolation to complexity. She took an angle 'the threat of violence' and wrote a sniffy article that never once addressed the fact that anger on the streets and the recipricol violence used to quell protest contributed to what happened.
It isn't an excuse for what happened but it was a factor just as much as anything else.

It is simply wrong to suggest that she did not address anger at mismanagement of the country. There was anger in Germany in the 1920s and we know where that led.
She excoriated equally the blueshirts and the other 1930s friends of totalitarianism, the disciples of Sean Russell who offered their services to Hitler in 1940.
It is not good enough to shoot the messenger with facile references to sniffiness and complexity. In three words she called it as it was: "it was bullying." Nothing complex about that. Do you dispute it? In a normal society people who are angered by their government vote them out. Is that too complex for some?
Ruth Coppinger dismissed the sexist behaviour of the thugs ("we have all been subjected to that.") What a lame defence! I can't recall her being dismissive of such behaviour in any other circumstances.
Oh, and the Tivoli Theatre rally supported by Eamon Dunphy, a man who suffered so much during the recession. He will make a fine Minister for Justice in the New Jerusalem. The PDs, Fine Gael, the Murphyites, where next?

Jolly Red Giant

feargale wrote: »

Tht is the end of it where the law is concerned. The defendants are not guilty in law. Whether they are guilty in fact is another matter. And if they are not so guilty it doesn't take from the fact that some people behaved like fascist thugs.

Don't talk bullsh*t - nobody behaved like 'fascist thugs' - seriously - you must never have met a fascist thug.

And lets be perfectly clear - the seven jobstown defendants acquitted last week are TOTALLY INNOCENT of any crime relating to the Jobstown protest. They have been found not guilty of false imprisonment and they have not been convicted of any other crime in relation to the protest. Under Irish law they have a presumption of innocence and as such are TOTALLY INNOCENT of any alleged crime in relation to Jobstown.

feargale wrote: »

There was anger in Germany in the 1920s and we know where that led.

You need to get out your junior cert history book for this one.

feargale wrote: »

In a normal society people who are angered by their government vote them out. Is that too complex for some?

For your benefit - when Simon Coveney was minister for agriculture he praised Irish farmers who had participated in a protest in Brussels for engaging in an 'effective protest' - this is the protest he was talking about -

feargale wrote: »

Ruth Coppinger dismissed the sexist behaviour of the thugs ("we have all been subjected to that.") What a lame defence! I can't recall her being dismissive of such behaviour in any other circumstances.

Ruth Coppinger dismissed nothing - from the very day of the protest Socialist Party and Solidarity representatives stated that a small number of protesters engaged in behaviour that was unacceptable (not illegal - unacceptable) including the abuse that Burton was subjected to. Throughout the protest Solidarity members worked to convince people not to be abusive, worked to ease tensions, and worked to bring the protest to an organised and disciplined end.

Ruth Coppinger has been repeatedly subjected to vicious and vile personal abuse, both on social media and in person, a lot of it from anti-abortion activists. She knows what it is like, she knows it is not acceptable and has, for years, campaigned against misogynist and sexist abuse.

feargale wrote: »

Oh, and the Tivoli Theatre rally supported by Eamon Dunphy, a man who suffered so much during the recession. He will make a fine Minister for Justice in the New Jerusalem. The PDs, Fine Gael, the Murphyites, where next?

Dunphy is a decent guy - he goes off on tangents at certain times - but he has a decent heart and wants to do what is best for his fellow human being. He was a working class kid who could play a bit of football, he never made any money out of it, and he was fortunate to make a few bob out of being controversial on TV. Do you begrudge him that?

In 1973 the USA organised a fascist (the real fascists) military coup in Chile that overthrew the democratically elected socialist government of Allende. Thousands of socialists were massacred in the national soccer stadium. In 1974 Ireland became the first international team (Chile was subjected to a sporting boycott) to play on that blood stained pitch. Eamon Dunphy refused to go and play in that game - and he was the only Irish player who wouldn't do it. That shows the character of the man.

feargale

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Don't talk bullsh*t - nobody behaved like 'fascist thugs' - seriously - you must never have met a fascist thug.

You don't have to commit murder to be a fascist thug.

The taurine excreta belongs to the hob lawyers who pontificate on the law but whose knowledge of same does not stretch as far as knowing and understanding the difference between guilty in law and guilty in fact.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

And lets be perfectly clear - the seven jobstown defendants acquitted last week are TOTALLY INNOCENT of any crime relating to the Jobstown protest. They have been found not guilty of false imprisonment and they have not been convicted of any other crime in relation to the protest. Under Irish law they have a presumption of innocence and as such are TOTALLY INNOCENT of any alleged crime in relation to Jobstown.

The defendants were not the only people present. I've said what I've said about that. I'm not adding or subtracting anything.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You need to get out your junior cert history book for this one.

I took history a great deal further than junior cert.. I don't need any lectures in it from the admirers of Sean Russell and his friends.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

For your benefit - when Simon Coveney was minister for agriculture he praised Irish farmers who had participated in a protest in Brussels for engaging in an 'effective protest' - this is the protest he was talking about -

So fascist thuggery is ok if Simon Coveney says so? Methinks you are selective in the pronouncements of Simon Coveney that you regard as gospel.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Ruth Coppinger dismissed nothing - from the very day of the protest Socialist Party and Solidarity representatives stated that a small number of protesters engaged in behaviour that was unacceptable (not illegal - unacceptable) including the abuse that Burton was subjected to. Throughout the protest Solidarity members worked to convince people not to be abusive, worked to ease tensions, and worked to bring the protest to an organised and disciplined end.

Ruth Coppinger has been repeatedly subjected to vicious and vile personal abuse, both on social media and in person, a lot of it from anti-abortion activists. She knows what it is like, she knows it is not acceptable and has, for years, campaigned against misogynist and sexist abuse.

Correction to you. Ruth Coppinger was on tv dismissing the sexist abuse of Joan Burton as "something we've all been subjected to." It seems you missed that programme. I never heard Ms. Coppinger being dismissive of abuse directed to herself.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Dunphy is a decent guy - he goes off on tangents at certain times - but he has a decent heart and wants to do what is best for his fellow human being. He was a working class kid who could play a bit of football, he never made any money out of it, and he was fortunate to make a few bob out of being controversial on TV. Do you begrudge him that?

He made more than a few bob. I begrudge him acting the political gob****e. He should stick to football. Do you begrudge Joan Burton and others whose politics you don't share their right to liberty and bodily integrity?
Ask him if he benifited from the writers' and artists' tax exemption and then I'll tell you if I begrudge him his money. Every s**t shoveller in the state has to pay their full whack of tax except the aristocrats of the literary, arty and horse-breeding worlds. You don't hear Murphy or Daly or Coppinger or Robert Ballagh protesting about that. I wonder why.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

In 1973 the USA organised a fascist (the real fascists) military coup in Chile that overthrew the democratically elected socialist government of Allende. Thousands of socialists were massacred in the national soccer stadium. In 1974 Ireland became the first international team (Chile was subjected to a sporting boycott) to play on that blood stained pitch. Eamon Dunphy refused to go and play in that game - and he was the only Irish player who wouldn't do it. That shows the character of the man.

It's a pity he didn't stand against the Jobstown fascism as he did against Chilean/American fascism.



To others I say: READ OLIVIA O'LEARY'S PIECE ON THE JOBSTOWN THUGGERY ( Tuesday Drivetime Political Column:"What constitutes political protest.")

If you want to plead TL,DR at least pick up on her final three words: " It was bullying."

Now I'm out.

jimmycrackcorm

For Reals wrote: »

Actually, it's exactly, legally, that anyone charged did nothing wrong.
You should be asking why these alleged rowdy protesters weren't charged?

This is about the right to protest, political interference and how the Garda carried out their duty.

They were found not guilty of the charges they were in court for. Legally there was no political interference - it works both ways.

You should be asking if it's now ok for mobs to go around intimidating democratically elected TD's by preventing their liberty for hours at a time. A precedent is now set that a small number of people can target and block TDs at will for hours at a time bar going to and returning from the Dail.

Organize a gang to hold up every minister four hours going shopping at the weekends and there's nothing that can be done about it. Block the minister for education's taking his kids to school under the guise of peaceful protest because their parent has implemented education cutbacks - sure it's just a peaceful protest.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

What did they do wrong? I thought they were cleared in court?

Indeed they were. That's the way courts work - as Johnny once said - If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit

jimmycrackcorm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

For your benefit - when Simon Coveney was minister for agriculture he praised Irish farmers who had participated in a protest in Brussels for engaging in an 'effective protest' - this is the protest he was talking about -

He was obviously confused by the presence of the rubber bandits.

feargale

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

He was obviously confused by the presence of the rubber bandits.

Nah, he's one of Ming's turf cutters. That's a sod of turf he's holding,

P.S.Can't you see the pain in his face after a back-breaking week in the bog?

FrancieBrady

feargale wrote: »

Tht is the end of it where the law is concerned. The defendants are not guilty in law. Whether they are guilty in fact is another matter. And if they are not so guilty it doesn't take from the fact that some people behaved like fascist thugs.



It is simply wrong to suggest that she did not address anger at mismanagement of the country. There was anger in Germany in the 1920s and we know where that led.
She excoriated equally the blueshirts and the other 1930s friends of totalitarianism, the disciples of Sean Russell who offered their services to Hitler in 1940.
It is not good enough to shoot the messenger with facile references to sniffiness and complexity. In three words she called it as it was: "it was bullying." Nothing complex about that. Do you dispute it? In a normal society people who are angered by their government vote them out. Is that too complex for some?
Ruth Coppinger dismissed the sexist behaviour of the thugs ("we have all been subjected to that.") What a lame defence! I can't recall her being dismissive of such behaviour in any other circumstances.
Oh, and the Tivoli Theatre rally supported by Eamon Dunphy, a man who suffered so much during the recession. He will make a fine Minister for Justice in the New Jerusalem. The PDs, Fine Gael, the Murphyites, where next?

How many 'protests' was Olivia on in her day I wonder. She was a student radical after all.

There is nothing abnormal about protest in western society, and claiming it is abnormal shows the agenda.

Did Olivia mention the fact that it wouldn't particularly have mattered what gender was representing the government that day, what happened would have happened.
It unusual thing was not the protest, it was the violence, and she made no attempt to understand or explain were that came from.
Relating it to the 1930's stuff is just classic Olivia, dead air must be filled.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I did listen live. Olivia has a lovely and skillful knack of writing in total isolation to complexity. She took an angle 'the threat of violence' and wrote a sniffy article that never once addressed the fact that anger on the streets and the recipricol violence used to quell protest contributed to what happened.
It isn't an excuse for what happened but it was a factor just as much as anything else.

There is NO excuse for what happened. Some find such behaviour acceptable. The vast majority don't.
I had a row with a family member recently. There's no way I could recount word for word what was said in heat of the moment.
Someone obviously said that they should keep her there for the night, just not Paul Murphy. As for reversing the vehicle away, I'm sure that the protesters wouldn't have thought of blocking that route too.

mikep

From all I have read and heard about this case it has now become clear to me that this case should never have made it to court and also that many of the Guards who gave evidence lied when making their statements.
Perhaps the best way to prevent lying in court would be to ensure we have robust perjury laws where appropriate punishment is applied where perjury occurs.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

There is NO excuse for what happened. Some find such behaviour acceptable. The vast majority don't.
I had a row with a family member recently. There's no way I could recount word for word what was said in heat of the moment.
Someone obviously said that they should keep her there for the night, just not Paul Murphy. As for reversing the vehicle away, I'm sure that the protesters wouldn't have thought of blocking that route too.

No, there is NO excuse and I have been saying that from the start.
But not everyone there that day was involved in violence. And it was not sustained violence as can be seen and heard from the evidence.

Had to laugh at the Garda on the 9am news there, trying to equate the calls for an inquiry to those looking for inquiries into Hillsborough and Grenfell Tower.
He reckoned it was an insult to them.
I don't think I have heard anything as abject as that little clip.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

There is NO excuse for what happened. Some find such behaviour acceptable. The vast majority don't.

Indeed there wasn't, you claimed in an earlier post that the "vast majority" of those that where present in Jobstown partook in vile and thuggish behaviour, and yet, after months of gardai investigation, the number of people charged could be counted with less than two hands, 6 of which (the thread subject) were acquitted.

I had a row with a family member recently. There's no way I could recount word for word what was said in heat of the moment.

This is not some case of a single gard misinterpreting something said in the heat of the moment, though your analogy about a row with your family member may ring true, we're discussing over 180 members of the gards getting their recollections wrong, (but collectively right) there is no doubt about what the judge thought on the statements of the gards.

Someone obviously said that they should keep her there for the night, just not Paul Murphy. As for reversing the vehicle away, I'm sure that the protesters wouldn't have thought of blocking that route too.

Any chance of tonight's euromillons numbers?

Jolly Red Giant

Deleted User wrote: »

I had a row with a family member recently. There's no way I could recount word for word what was said in heat of the moment.
Someone obviously said that they should keep her there for the night, just not Paul Murphy.

The gardai were not involved in a heated argument with Paul Murphy - they were standing close by listening to every word he said - and he was using a megaphone.

This testimony - by three senior gardai up to the rank of superintendent - who used exactly the same phrase that Paul Murphy never uttered - was refuted by video evidence that the prosecution did not know the defence had in its possession.

To suggest that they all misheard EXACTLY the same phrase - a phrase that was absolutely crucial in the prosecution case to prove false imprisonment - is stretching belief way beyond reason.

Deleted User wrote: »

As for reversing the vehicle away, I'm sure that the protesters wouldn't have thought of blocking that route too.

The vehicle could have very easily reversed away with 'no hassle at all' - all the protesters were well in front of the garda jeep walking down the Fortunestown Road over a period that lasted well over a half an hour. Have a look at the helicopter video.

Jolly Red Giant

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Had to laugh at the Garda on the 9am news there, trying to equate the calls for an inquiry to those looking for inquiries into Hillsborough and Grenfell Tower.
He reckoned it was an insult to them.
I don't think I have heard anything as abject as that little clip.

The cops made similar claims about the Hillesborough disaster during the trial - big mistake - the defence counsel had a field day pointing out to the garda in question that it took 28 years for the cops to admit they lied.

FrancieBrady

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The gardai were not involved in a heated argument with Paul Murphy - they were standing close by listening to every word he said - and he was using a megaphone.

This testimony - by three senior gardai up to the rank of superintendent - who used exactly the same phrase that Paul Murphy never uttered - was refuted by video evidence that the prosecution did not know the defence had in its possession.

To suggest that they all misheard EXACTLY the same phrase - a phrase that was absolutely crucial in the prosecution case to prove false imprisonment - is stretching belief way beyond reason.

This is the part that makes me extremely squeamish. The idea that they were prepared to (I am being kind here) alter the narrative about what happened and were found out.

The vehicle could have very easily reversed away with 'no hassle at all' - all the protesters were well in front of the garda jeep walking down the Fortunestown Road over a period that lasted well over a half an hour. Have a look at the helicopter video.

Add to that the testimony that nobody refuted (or could refute) of Buton refusing the option to reverse away, the laughing and joking, and the uncontested testimony that at any time she could have left on foot and you move very quickly away from images of fascist pogroms in the 30's etc etc.

mattser

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is the part that makes me extremely squeamish. The idea that they were prepared to (I am being kind here) alter the narrative about what happened and were found out.




Add to that the testimony that nobody refuted (or could refute) of Buton refusing the option to reverse away, the laughing and joking, and the uncontested testimony that at any time she could have left on foot and you move very quickly away from images of fascist pogroms in the 30's etc etc.

Are you for real, pal ?

Like every other discussion that the PBP/AAA/CSEPFI? cru are involved in, let's not pretend that you can have a coherent, serious or constructive conversation here folks. Not on boards, not on fb, not on TV, not anywhere.

They are not serious, coherent people.

FrancieBrady

mattser wrote: »

Are you for real, pal ?

Yes, if you read the testimonies one of the defendants says that she could have, and that she got out of the car several times and it is not refuted or even further questioned by the prosecution.

dr.fuzzenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is NO excuse for what happened. Some find such behaviour acceptable. The vast majority don't.
I had a row with a family member recently. There's no way I could recount word for word what was said in heat of the moment.
Someone obviously said that they should keep her there for the night, just not Paul Murphy. As for reversing the vehicle away, I'm sure that the protesters wouldn't have thought of blocking that route too.

I simply can't understand what the Gardai were doing in this?
Try blocking a minister in any other European country. 2 dozen vans with very large guys in black riot gear would appear within 5 minutes and 5 minutes later it would be over bar some groaning and gurgling noises. They can bitch and whine about police brutality later.
And I think that's proper order. You can make your arguments using the correct channels, you can protest, form your own party, raise awareness and try to influence votes, but if you have to resort to this kind of sh*t you should expect a blast of pepper spray, a baton to the head and a night in a cell to cool your jets.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Like every other discussion that the PBP/AAA/CSEPFI? cru are involved in, let's not pretend that you can have a coherent, serious or constructive conversation here folks. Not on boards, not on fb, not on TV, not anywhere.

They are not serious, coherent people.

I am not any of the above, but I thought it was the prosecution and the gardai that were less than 'coherent'?

Might be difficult to take that onboard though.

Jolly Red Giant

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

They were found not guilty of the charges they were in court for. Legally there was no political interference - it works both ways.

You should be asking if it's now ok for mobs to go around intimidating democratically elected TD's by preventing their liberty for hours at a time. A precedent is now set that a small number of people can target and block TDs at will for hours at a time bar going to and returning from the Dail.

Organize a gang to hold up every minister four hours going shopping at the weekends and there's nothing that can be done about it. Block the minister for education's taking his kids to school under the guise of peaceful protest because their parent has implemented education cutbacks - sure it's just a peaceful protest.




Indeed they were. That's the way courts work - as Johnny once said - If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit

you really have gone off the deep end :rolleyes:

Tony EH

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is the part that makes me extremely squeamish. The idea that they were prepared to (I am being kind here) alter the narrative about what happened and were found out.

And it's this that should have EVERYONE feeling uneasy about this whole farce.

The fact that law enforcement officers thought it was ok to spoof in a court to try and make their bogus charges stick.

McMurphy

M. Martin makes his thoughts on Leo's interview known.



Rock/hard place for some I imagine.

Captain Obvious

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

was refuted by video evidence that the prosecution did not know the defence had in its possession.

An odd claim because it was on RTE News that day.

https://youtu.be/R0AfgSOPQ9w?t=1m3s

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

at any time she could have left on foot

Which is also a strange claim because when they actually did try that she was chased and people actually jumped in front of the Garda car as it tried to move off.

Jolly Red Giant

Captain Obvious wrote: »

An odd claim because it was on RTE News that day.

https://youtu.be/R0AfgSOPQ9w?t=1m3s

or maybe the gardai had the video and didn't include it in the book of evidence in the hope that the defence wouldn't find the original. There was a day of legal argument about missing files and videos from the book of evidence. Who knows - part of the reason why a public inquiry is necessary.

Which is also a strange claim because when they actually did try that she was chased and people actually jumped in front of the Garda car as it tried to move off.

AGS moved Joan Burton three times through the crowd on foot - once from the church to the avensis, once from the avensis to the jeep and once from the jeep to another avensis. So it was possible for Burton to move on foot. Furthermore, at any time the cops could have moved Burton back into the church, away from the protest and out of the sight of the crowd - they chose not to do that.

the judge told the jury that they had to consider all avenues of egress - and the judge included in this the possibility of Burton walking away from the garda jeep and if there were avenues of egress then Burton was not falsely imprisoned.

The jury agreed and found the defendants not guilty.

Captain Obvious

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

or maybe the gardai had the video and didn't include it in the book of evidence in the hope that the defence wouldn't find the original. There was a day of legal argument about missing files and videos from the book of evidence. Who knows - part of the reason why a public inquiry is necessary.

Maybe? You made the claim. Where is your evidence that the defence made liars out of Gardaí with footage they had not known about?

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

AGS moved Joan Burton three times through the crowd on foot - once from the church to the avensis, once from the avensis to the jeep and once from the jeep to another avensis. So it was possible for Burton to move on foot. Furthermore, at any time the cops could have moved Burton back into the church, away from the protest and out of the sight of the crowd - they chose not to do that.

Each time they moved her she had to be shielded. There is plenty of footage showing this. Do you deny it?

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The jury agreed and found the defendants not guilty.

There is simply no way you can know why the jury found them not guilty. Why do you keep stating things you cannot possibly back up?

For Reals

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

They were found not guilty of the charges they were in court for. Legally there was no political interference - it works both ways.

That's why we need an investigation into why several people sitting on the ground were charged with such a serious offence and false statements given by the Garda; while others present remained ignored by the authorities.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

You should be asking if it's now ok for mobs to go around intimidating democratically elected TD's by preventing their liberty for hours at a time. A precedent is now set that a small number of people can target and block TDs at will for hours at a time bar going to and returning from the Dail.

Folks are confusing the debate here. The jobstown accused were innocent.
Any others present weren't important enough to arrest it seems, so what's the problem if everything was above board?
I think we as a society err too much on the other side. You've politicians caught out, by law, doing various illegal activities which damage the state, back to going about their business, some are hypocrites who got into office on lies. Some need to be confronted and called out on it in a peaceful manner. They are public representatives, so it's part of the territory to be answerable to individuals, election or no. Some go too far, sure, but that shouldn't mean we tip our cap to our betters either.

Jolly Red Giant

The #JobstownNotGuilty Campaign has now posted transcripts from the trial online.

https://sites.google.com/view/jobstownnotguilty//trial

Jolly Red Giant

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Maybe? You made the claim. Where is your evidence that the defence made liars out of Gardaí with footage they had not known about?

The video was produced by the defence in court - either the gardai didn't know about the video (and that the defence had one) or they knew about the video and didn't expect the defence to find it.

either way three senior garda at the protest gave testimony - using exactly the same phrase - that was proven false by video evidence - and as a result the judge instructed the jury to consider if these gardai had 'an agenda against Paul Murphy'.

Each time they moved her she had to be shielded. There is plenty of footage showing this. Do you deny it?

The crime of 'false imprisonment' requires the 'total restraint' of a person. At no stage during the protest were Joan Burton and Karen O'Connell 'totally restrained' and the video evidence proves it

There is simply no way you can know why the jury found them not guilty. Why do you keep stating things you cannot possibly back up?

On the contrary - we know the instructions that judge gave to the jury and the basis on which the judge told then to arrive at their findings.

And all of this is now online for everyone to read - just click on the link I posted above.

McMurphy

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The #JobstownNotGuilty Campaign has now posted transcripts from the trial online.

https://sites.google.com/view/jobstownnotguilty//trial

Unbelievable.

4. Superintendent attempts to fix responsibility for 'violence' on defendant

In his written statement, Superintendent Daniel Flavin – the most senior Garda at the Jobstown protest - accused Paul Murphy of fomenting violence. He backed away from this position in evidence and cross examination.

His Statement made a week after the Jobstown protest: ‘Mr Paul MurphyTD addressed the crowd of protesters now numbering several hundred through a megaphone. He was chanting and as a consequence of what he was saying the protesters became more animated and aggressive. Missiles began to be thrown at Gardai. I observed sticks, stones and eggs hitting Gardai and the Garda jeep.’’

In his direct evidence to the court, Superintendent Flavin backed away from his claim that Paul Murphy caused violence. In relation to this Sean Guerin Senior Counsel for Paul Murphy asked the Superintendent: ‘I take it that you will understand readily Superintendent, that the priority for this jury is finding the truth of what happened that day, and that's why you came to court, and you refreshed your memory with your statement so that you could tell them the truth.

So why did you not tell them that the violence was the consequence of what Paul Murphy was saying to the crowd?

A.I suppose in one respect if - - it's trying to be fair to him. . . .


Sean Guerin, Senior Counsel for Paul Murphy, in cross examination put it to Superintendent Flavin: ‘This is not the first time in this case that a prosecution witness has come to court and failed to make an allegation in their evidence which is contained in their statement concerning Paul Murphy. You may not know that because you weren't in court. I take it you would accept and understand that what you said in your statement about the violence being a consequence of Mr Murphy's address to the crowd, you would understand that the legal significance of that is that Mr Murphy would bear responsibility for what the crowd did at his urging. You understand that, don't you?

Supt Flavin Yes, Judge, yes.

S. Guerin. Yes. So the statement - - that part of your statement would have the consequence in law of extending Mr Murphy's criminal responsibility for what happened on the day to the actions of other people; isn't that correct?

S. Guerin: Superintendent Flavin, when you made a statement alleging that Mr Paul Murphy was the instigator and the fomenter of violence, an allegation which you were not willing to come to court and repeat until it was put to you by the defence, were you attempting to pervert the course of justice?

Superintendent: No, Judge.

S. Guerin: Were you trying to get a charge preferred against him by the DPP in circumstances where you feared that if he were not tied to the violence, a charge might not be preferred?

Superintendent: Absolutely not, Judge. . . . . . .

S. Guerin: And if the ladies and gentlemen of the jury come to the view that what you did by making a serious allegation, which would have the legal consequence of making Mr Murphy responsible for the violence of others, which you were reluctant to
make on oath, was part of a pattern evident also in the behaviour of other gardais that because you were in fact part of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

"Superintendent"

The fish rots from the head.

feargale

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The video was produced by the defence in court - either the gardai didn't know about the video (and that the defence had one) or they knew about the video and didn't expect the defence to find it.

either way three senior garda at the protest gave testimony - using exactly the same phrase - that was proven false by video evidence - and as a result the judge instructed the jury to consider if these gardai had 'an agenda against Paul Murphy'.

And if the gardai's conduct was untoward, does that make everything that happened right?

And to go back:

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Don't talk bullsh*t

The bullsh*tters are the hob lawyers like yourself who pontificate on the law when it suits them while their knowledge of it does not extend to knowing or understanding the difference between guilty in law and guilty in fact.
I am not saying that the defendants were guilty, even if the gardai did f**k it up. I am simply agreeing with Olivia O'Leary that some people were guilty of bullying, and I would add that it was egregious bullying of a fascist kind that might even make a fascist such as Sean Russell blush.