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

Jolly Red Giant

The line that Fianna Fail are peddling is 'interesting' if factually incorrect and is an attempt to blur what actually happened in the trial.

Specifically their Justice spokesperson, Jim O'Callaghan, claimed that there was 'a conflict of evidence' - no Jim - there was no 'conflict of evidence'.

A conflict of evidence is when two pieces of evidence are presented and nobody can prove which is right. In the Jobstown trial there was no 'conflict of evidence' - the evidence clearly demonstrated that the testimony from the gardai was false - furthermore, it also demonstrated possible collusion between gardai to pervert the course of justice which is why an independent public inquiry is needed to investigate the garda investigation into the Jobstown protest and the testimony given by gardai during the trial.

McMurphy

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

That's making a mountain out of a molehill.

How?

WinnyThePoo

Rick Shaw wrote: »

How?

Your complaining about someone using there phone.

For Reals

The more concerning point is:

“It’s fairly dispersed. She’s making a good bit of progress. She’s only, only another 100 metres, not even 50 metres, from the Tallaght Bypass. There’s no pushing or shoving or anything. The Public Order Unit moved in there for a minute and there was a bit and they seem to have left them march ahead of their banner like.”

“The Jeep could have went backwards ages ago but [inaudible] did not want to do that. …There’s no hassle really.”

Were the Guards in disarray? The left hand doesn't seem to be fearing for the right hand or aware of the life threatening situation unfolding below :rolleyes:

McMurphy

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Your complaining about someone using there phone.

No, I wasn't, you might want to reread what I posted.

WinnyThePoo

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Very Ironic that Joan has fears over social media.

.http://www.broadsheet.ie/tag/garda-helicopter/

Eh here.
Making a mountain out of a molehill.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

So why did they not charge the lady threatening to keep Joan all night or the chap who allegedly threatened petrol bombs instead of the ones sitting? They were too busy? Good one. They arrested possibly the most peaceful people there, some of whom argued against keeping them all night and also against any violence, in dawn raids, days later, because they were too busy?

You'd have to ask the DPP about specific charges. Or just keep guessing. I have a feeling you wouldn't be happy with any answer that doesn't fit what you've already decided.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

A conflict of evidence is when two pieces of evidence are presented and nobody can prove which is right. In the Jobstown trial there was no 'conflict of evidence' - the evidence clearly demonstrated that the testimony from the gardai was false - furthermore, it also demonstrated possible collusion between gardai to pervert the course of justice which is why an independent public inquiry is needed to investigate the garda investigation into the Jobstown protest and the testimony given by gardai during the trial.

Why? If the enquiry didn't conclude what you already believe you'd just dismiss it.

For Reals wrote: »

Were the Guards in disarray? The left hand doesn't seem to be fearing for the right hand or aware of the life threatening situation unfolding below :rolleyes:

Would it not just be a matter that things look different from up in the air than they do surrounded by a crowd on the ground? A helicopter might see an exit but that doesn't mean the person driving can. And there's already footage of people jumping in front of Garda cars trying to move the victims too so even if there was a gap it doesn't make it safe to move into.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You'd have to ask the DPP about specific charges. Or just keep guessing. I have a feeling you wouldn't be happy with any answer that doesn't fit what you've already decided.



Why? If the enquiry didn't conclude what you already believe you'd just dismiss it.



Would it not just be a matter that things look different from up in the air than they do surrounded by a crowd on the ground? A helicopter might see an exit but that doesn't mean the person driving can. And there's already footage of people jumping in front of Garda cars trying to move the victims too so even if there was a gap it doesn't make it safe to move into.

You're making no sense.
I ask why they opted for the peaceful sitting folk over the alleged troublesome protesters. Your response is I ask the DPP? You're right but that's answering your own argument. If you've issue with other protesters aside from the charged. FYI: the judge has already decided for us. They gave false statement about innocent men.

So Guards in the air, literally communicating with other Garda on the ground are functioning in a vacuum, even when quoting Garda on the ground? Clutching at air there.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

You're making no sense.
I ask why they opted for the peaceful sitting folk over the alleged troublesome protesters. Your response is I ask the DPP? You're right but that's answering your own argument. If you've issue with other protesters aside from the charged. FYI: the judge has already decided for us. They gave false statement about innocent men.

You asked why certain people weren't charged. I don't know because I don't have access to everything the DPP did nor can I read their mind. I can only make an educated guess which I doubt you would consider as worth listening to.

For Reals wrote: »

So Guards in the air, literally communicating with other Garda on the ground are functioning in a vacuum, even when quoting Garda on the ground? Clutching at air there.

Sorry I thought I had explained it simply enough. What looks good from the air does not necessarily look good from the ground. If you are a driver and you don't think it's safe to reverse with a crowd of people around you it doesn't really matter what the guy in the air says, you aren't going to do it. Because at the end of the day if you hit someone it's your ass on the line.

I think all that is irrelevant anyway. I think the judge erred in telling the jury that if the vehicle could move it was not false imprisonment because the victims had no control over the vehicle. The victims were confined to the vehicle and this is sufficient in law to constitute false imprisonment.

FrancieBrady

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You asked why certain people weren't charged. I don't know because I don't have access to everything the DPP did nor can I read their mind. I can only make an educated guess which I doubt you would consider as worth listening to.

And the DPP needs to answer the 'why', not you. Because as you said, you don't have the access.

Sorry I thought I had explained it simply enough. What looks good from the air does not necessarily look good from the ground. If you are a driver and you don't think it's safe to reverse with a crowd of people around you it doesn't really matter what the guy in the air says, you aren't going to do it. Because at the end of the day if you hit someone it's your ass on the line.
I think all that is irrelevant anyway. I think the judge erred in telling the jury that if the vehicle could move it was not false imprisonment because the victims had no control over the vehicle. The victims were confined to the vehicle and this is sufficient in law to constitute false imprisonment.

Testimony shows that the option to reverse was declined by the terrified 'victims'.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You asked why certain people weren't charged. I don't know because I don't have access to everything the DPP did nor can I read their mind. I can only make an educated guess which I doubt you would consider as worth listening to.

The premise was I was painting a different picture, the protesters weren't all peaceful. I asked why those were not followed up on by the Guards? You suggested the guards were too busy to go after people possibly more deserving of their attention/time/dawn raids..

If you've a theory why they opted for the peaceful protesters, I would like to know your opinion. This was not done in the heat of the moment.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Sorry I thought I had explained it simply enough. What looks good from the air does not necessarily look good from the ground. If you are a driver and you don't think it's safe to reverse with a crowd of people around you it doesn't really matter what the guy in the air says, you aren't going to do it. Because at the end of the day if you hit someone it's your ass on the line.

I think all that is irrelevant anyway. I think the judge erred in telling the jury that if the vehicle could move it was not false imprisonment because the victims had no control over the vehicle. The victims were confined to the vehicle and this is sufficient in law to constitute false imprisonment.

Some Guards said there was little hassle, others the opposite. More inconsistencies going against the Garda testimony.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

The premise was I was painting a different picture, the protesters weren't all peaceful. I asked why those were not followed up on by the Guards? You suggested the guards were too busy to go after people possibly more deserving of their attention/time/dawn raids..

I was referring to the Gardaí on the scene.

For Reals wrote: »

If you've a theory why they opted for the peaceful protesters, I would like to know your opinion.

I never said they opted for peaceful protesters.

For Reals wrote: »

Some Guards said there was little hassle, others the opposite. More inconsistencies going against the Garda testimony.

It's almost like different people think differently depending on their position and perspective. I'd bet my house that if they all said the same thing you'd be complaining about circling wagons and collusion.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I was referring to the Gardaí on the scene.



I never said they opted for peaceful protesters.



It's almost like different people think differently depending on their position and perspective. I'd bet my house that if they all said the same thing you'd be complaining about circling wagons and collusion.

A recurring theme. You criticise the state or government, you've a blind dislike and just want to get a dig in. Eases the mind to believe no critics have a legitimate complaint. 'Anti-everything' etc. etc.
But different people don't generally mishear the same thing, swear under oath they heard it. Needs investigating. People could have been wrongly convicted.
Not sure what we're discussing at this point. They did arrest the bad uns? Those charged were innocent. Those allegedly causing trouble or threatening to, were not charged. That's it really.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

A recurring theme. You criticise the state or government, you've a blind dislike and just want to get a dig in. Eases the mind to believe no critics have a legitimate complaint. 'Anti-everything' etc. etc.
But different people don't generally mishear the same thing, swear under oath they heard it. Needs investigating. People could have been wrongly convicted.
Not sure what we're discussing at this point. They did arrest the bad uns? Those charged were innocent. Those allegedly causing trouble or threatening to, were not charged. That's it really.

Well at least you've admitted that there were people causing trouble at the place. I guess that's a step towards agreement.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Well at least you've admitted that there were people causing trouble at the place. I guess that's a step towards agreement.

I never claimed it was all roses. The whole discussion was based on the Garda arresting peaceful protesters. Why them? I'm to ask the DPP apparently.
So, we need an investigation *drops mic loudhailer*

McMurphy

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Your complaining about someone using there phone.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

No, I wasn't, you might want to reread what I posted.

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Eh here.
Making a mountain out of a molehill.

You're not coming across any clearer to me, where did I complain about anyone using a phone? (are you confusing me with Joan Burton by any chance?)

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Would it not just be a matter that things look different from up in the air than they do surrounded by a crowd on the ground? A helicopter might see an exit but that doesn't mean the person driving can. And there's already footage of people jumping in front of Garda cars trying to move the victims too so even if there was a gap it doesn't make it safe to move into.

Well of course things look different from up in the air, that's why the helicopter would have been deployed to begin with, and we've heard the audio from the pilot to control room, so it's pretty clear cut that the feet on the ground were being briefed from the eyes in the air.

realdanbreen

Fair play to Varadker he put Murphy in his box there today. Murphy might fool some of the crowd that vote for him by dressing down and pretending he isn't loaded but coming into the Dail playing the victim didn't cut much ice.

blanch152

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2017/0712/889713-murphy-varadkar-dail-jobstown/

For someone who complains about people not getting fair trials, Paul Murphy displayed some level of obnoxious hypocrisy when he made allegations under privilege in the Dail of crimes being committed by people.

Even Martin had a go at him " the Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin asked whether it was in accordance with standing orders to state that people who were not members of the house were guilty of perjury."

For Reals

realdanbreen wrote: »

Fair play to Varadker he put Murphy in his box there today. Murphy might fool some of the crowd that vote for him by dressing down and pretending he isn't loaded but coming into the Dail playing the victim didn't cut much ice.

Leo is trying the usual Fine Gael tack of taking an issue and making it about a politician whose party is on about 4%. This is a massively important claim against the Garda/the institutions of the state.
Trying to brush it off as a mere Murphy issue is pathetic IMO.
Of course Leo has the bluster, not very classy for a political head of state, but in the mould of Kenny et al. so expected ignorance sadly.

You either think the Garda made a mess of the whole debacle or they intentionally caused a mess that caused the whole debacle, either deserving of an investigation.
Leo is just doing his loudmouth parapet bluster, ironically, nothing to see there.

Captain Obvious

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2017/0712/889713-murphy-varadkar-dail-jobstown/

For someone who complains about people not getting fair trials, Paul Murphy displayed some level of obnoxious hypocrisy when he made allegations under privilege in the Dail of crimes being committed by people.

Even Martin had a go at him " the Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin asked whether it was in accordance with standing orders to state that people who were not members of the house were guilty of perjury."

Pretty standard cowardly behaviour from the hard left Dáil members. Abuse of Dáil privilege is generally their last resort when throwing the toys out doesn't work.

WinnyThePoo

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Pretty standard cowardly behaviour from the hard left Dáil members. Abuse of Dáil privilege is generally their last resort when throwing the toys out doesn't work.

Paul is just playing to his small crowd. Taking it to the man. Always the victim of his words and his actions.

Zero responsibility. Paul's isn't a moderate. He isn't someone who wants to help this country. He actually really just wants to tear it all down.

Tony EH

Constantly hilarious at how much a small potato like Murphy keeps getting Fine Gaelers all hot and bothered. :pac:

Of course, a few masturbatory words on Boards.ie about Leo's sentence (although one could be forgiven for missing what is so great about it), is spectacularly missing the point.

The salient paragraph in that article is this one:

"That is the assertion that has been made, I would ask that the transcripts be looked at and I don't know these people, but it has been stated in this house that people told lies in their evidence, that has to be examined because that is a precedent that, in my view, opens up all sorts of new horizons that we need to be very careful about."

WinnyThePoo

For Reals wrote: »

Leo is trying the usual Fine Gael tack of taking an issue and making it about a politician whose party is on about 4%. This is a massively important claim against the Garda/the institutions of the state.
Trying to brush it off as a mere Murphy issue is pathetic IMO.
Of course Leo has the bluster, not very classy for a political head of state, but in the mould of Kenny et al. so expected ignorance sadly.

You either think the Garda made a mess of the whole debacle or they intentionally caused a mess that caused the whole debacle, either deserving of an investigation.
Leo is just doing his loudmouth parapet bluster, ironically, nothing to see there.

Yes how dare Leo comment. How dare he express his opinion. How dare he call out thuggery. How dare he question comrade murphys actions.

Always the victim.

For Reals

Leo should address this very important issue with a modicum of dignity. Alas, like most things Fine Gael, we expect better but are often left disappointed.
Does anyone here think Leo giving stick to Murphy, (4% in the polls?) is the key important issue at stake here? Pretty sad.
Leo going for the bluster and no trousers routine, as per usual, ignoring issues of national importance for schoolyard one-upmanship.

WinnyThePoo

For Reals wrote: »

Leo should address this very important issue with a modicum of dignity. Alas, like most things Fine Gael, we expect better but are often left disappointed.
Does anyone here think Leo giving stick to Murphy, (4% in the polls?) is the key important issue at stake here? Pretty sad.
Leo going for the bluster and no trousers routine, as per usual, ignoring issues of national importance for schoolyard one-upmanship.

Yep. Leo should keep his mouth shut. Paul should be able to use Dail privilege for his own agenda.

Chips Lovell

Two private schoolboys grandstanding and expressing faux outrage. It's like a college debating society. Yawn.

blanch152

For Reals wrote: »

Leo should address this very important issue with a modicum of dignity. Alas, like most things Fine Gael, we expect better but are often left disappointed.
Does anyone here think Leo giving stick to Murphy, (4% in the polls?) is the key important issue at stake here? Pretty sad.
Leo going for the bluster and no trousers routine, as per usual, ignoring issues of national importance for schoolyard one-upmanship.

Leo certainly addressed this very important issue with a lot more dignity than Murphy et al afforded Joan Burton, we could at least agree on that, couldn't we?

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Pretty standard cowardly behaviour from the hard left D members. Abuse of D privilege is generally their last resort when throwing the toys out doesn't work.

Captain, I can't help but notice that you're pretty opinionated on Murphy, and Leo's opinion on him.

You're not so vocal on Leo's opinion about the Guards recollections of events not marrying up to the real events (those caught on video)

evidence given by gardaí during the trial after the judge told the jury to rely on video evidence rather than their testimony

.

Leo Varadkar says 'it's a problem' that garda evidence conflicted with video footage in Jobstown trial

You seem to be commenting on the irrelevant, and ignoring the elephant in the room.

What gives?

For Reals

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Yep. Leo should keep his mouth shut. Paul should be able to use Dail privilege for his own agenda.

I disagree. Leo should address the issue. He's getting enough milage out of it himself.
Outside of this issue, I couldn't give two cares what Murphy says or does to be honest.

blanch152

For Reals wrote: »

I disagree. Leo should address the issue. He's getting enough milage out of it himself.
Outside of this issue, I couldn't give two cares what Murphy says or does to be honest.

What issue? If Murphy (or you) believe that someone committed a criminal act of perjury, go ahead and report them to the Gardai or the Garda Ombudsman (if a garda).

The issue of a public enquiry is a political smokescreen.

Edit: Alternatively, Murphy could have the dignity to repeat the remarks outside the Dail so the relevant Gardai could sue him. If they fail, he is vindicated.

For Reals

blanch152 wrote: »

What issue? If Murphy (or you) believe that someone committed a criminal act of perjury, go ahead and report them to the Gardai or the Garda Ombudsman (if a garda).

The issue of a public enquiry is a political smokescreen.

Edit: Alternatively, Murphy could have the dignity to repeat the remarks outside the Dail so the relevant Gardai could sue him. If they fail, he is vindicated.

If Leo thinks something untoward happened and the Garda failed, why talk ****e in the Dail?
Smokescreen for what? If merely to garner attention, so what?
Three Garda gave false statements. Kind of a big deal.
All very well for Leo to use Dail privilege to besmirch the name of citizens from all walks and all political creeds and none who wouldn't buy the previous administrations con. Democracy is great until Leo has issue with it.
Get some balance here, Murphy's party is on 4%, Leo is the Taoiseach. He'd want to cop himself on and quit the showboating.

blanch152

For Reals wrote: »

If Leo thinks something untoward happened and the Garda failed, why talk ****e in the Dail?
Smokescreen for what? If merely to garner attention, so what?
Three Garda gave false statements. Kind of a big deal.
All very well for Leo to use Dail privilege to besmirch the name of citizens from all walks and all political creeds and none who wouldn't buy the previous administrations con. Democracy is great until Leo has issue with it.
Get some balance here, Murphy's party is on 4%, Leo is the Taoiseach. He'd want to cop himself on and quit the showboating.

Leo isn't being investigated by the CC's office for abusing Dail privilege, Murphy is.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2017/0712/889713-murphy-varadkar-dail-jobstown/

For Reals

blanch152 wrote: »

Leo isn't being investigated by the CC's office for abusing Dail privilege, Murphy is.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2017/0712/889713-murphy-varadkar-dail-jobstown/

So what?
I don't care if Murphy gets sent to a gulag. Fine Gael and the supporters club are the ones delighted they have Murphy as a beard.

The jobstown incident needs investigating;

A) Attempted frame up?

or

incompetent Garda?

Leo is true to form, rah rah rah and no content.

Captain Obvious

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Captain, I can't help but notice that you're pretty opinionated on Murphy, and Leo's opinion on him.

You're not so vocal on Leo's opinion about the Guards recollections of events not marrying up to the real events (those caught on video)
.

You seem to be commenting on the irrelevant, and ignoring the elephant in the room.

What gives?

I haven't mentioned Leo's opinion on anything. Perhaps you misread my posts.

blanch152

For Reals wrote: »

So what?
I don't care if Murphy gets sent to a gulag. Fine Gael and the supporters club are the ones delighted they have Murphy as a beard.

The jobstown incident needs investigating;

A) Attempted frame up?

or

incompetent Garda?

Leo is true to form, rah rah rah and no content.

(C) Insufficient or apparently conflicting evidence resulting in an element of reasonable doubt, thus ensuring those charged are cleared, happens in courtrooms every day. No conspiracy at all.

FrancieBrady

For Reals wrote: »

So what?
I don't care if Murphy gets sent to a gulag. Fine Gael and the supporters club are the ones delighted they have Murphy as a beard.

The jobstown incident needs investigating;

A) Attempted frame up?

or

incompetent Garda?

Leo is true to form, rah rah rah and no content.

Leo is just taking the 'insinuation baton' from Enda. When in trouble, when the spotlight is on your administration - insinuate, accuse and engage in whataboutery. Pathetic FG again.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leo is just taking the 'insinuation baton' from Enda. When in trouble, when the spotlight is on your administration - insinuate, accuse and engage in whataboutery. Pathetic FG again.

This doesn't make any sense at all and I don't know what you are trying to say.

Varadkar has been clear on Murphy, no bluster.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/youre-not-a-victim-here-taoiseach-in-explosive-row-in-dil-after-allegations-of-garda-conspiracy-35923095.html


He makes it clear that Murphy got a fair trial and was found innocent, what more do people want from him?

The evidence for the rest of Varadkar's remarks is clear. Read again what he said:

"You are not a victim here. You are not the victim of any conspiracy. You got a fair trial. You were acquitted but that doesn’t mean your behaviour was right.”

"It may well be the case that you were not involved in kidnapping but it was thuggery and your behaviour was wrong. The protest was ugly, it was violent, it was nasty."

"“For those of us who have seen some of the coverage of it that was broadcast on television the anger, the virulence, the words that were directed at two women going about their work, a water balloon being thrown in somebody’s face.

“All of those things are unbecoming of a member of this House. Unbecoming from somebody who believes in democracy and unbecoming of anybody who has any respect for other human beings.”

That is all fair comment, and very hard to disagree with. Exactly which part of those words do you disagree with?

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

That is all fair comment, and very hard to disagree with. Exactly which part of those words do you disagree with?

Not fair at all as Leo seeks to claim that Murphy was responsible for the actions of all participants on the day. Even repeating something that was not said by Murphy. Keep digging I suppose, Leo will eventually emerge from the hole.

Tony EH

Even Varadkar is calling for an investigation into the "evidence".

When you have three people claiming something was said that wasn't said and a judge tells a jury to ignore it, because it's bunkum essentially, there's something amiss.

Varadkar also claimed that people can be "...caught up in the heat of the moment, they may have a recollection that isn’t exactly as things happened."

That's all well and good if it's one person falsely claiming something. Even if two get it wrong, it could be down to spectacular coincidence. But THREE people claiming that something was said that wasn't said is a pattern and needs looking into.

Plus, if the judge had trusted that "evidence", the defendants could be facing jail time, which I'm sure would have pleased some on here no end.

"I would be very concerned if it’s the case that we would ever have gardan a stand in the courts giving evidence that is not in line with the facts; that is not in line with, for example, the video evidence . . ."

So would I Leo.

As usual, we have the damage controllers on here rushing to the defence, pretending that there's nothing to see, but clearly something is not right in this case and while Murphy is making political ground on the situation, it isn't merely a matter of "you got a fair trial, shut up".

blanch152

Tony EH wrote: »

Even Varadkar is calling for an investigation into the "evidence".

When you have three people claiming something was said that wasn't said and a judge tells a jury to ignore it, because it's bunkum essentially, there's something amiss.

Varadkar also claimed that people can be "...caught up in the heat of the moment, they may have a recollection that isn’t exactly as things happened."

That's all well and good if it's one person falsely claiming something. Even if two get it wrong, it could be down to spectacular coincidence. But THREE people claiming that something was said that wasn't said is a pattern and needs looking into.

Plus, if the judge had trusted that "evidence", the defendants could be facing jail time, which I'm sure would have pleased some on here no end.

"I would be very concerned if it’s the case that we would ever have gardan a stand in the courts giving evidence that is not in line with the facts; that is not in line with, for example, the video evidence . . ."

So would I Leo.

As usual, we have the damage controllers on here rushing to the defence, pretending that there's nothing to see, but clearly something is not right in this case and while Murphy is making political ground on the situation, it isn't merely a matter of "you got a fair trial, shut up".

Why doesn't someone make a complaint to the Garda Ombudsman if they are so sure that something wrong happened? Why waste money on a public enquiry?

Tony EH

Why waste money on a trial with trumped up charges that should never have gone to court in the first place.

blanch152

Tony EH wrote: »

Why waste money on a trial with trumped up charges that should never have gone to court in the first place.

Ask the DPP. People expect independent civil servants to be independent and then want to blame the politicians when the independent civil servants are independent. Cake and eating it.

McMurphy

When you have three people claiming something was said that wasn't said

We've had a Taoiseach do this, now the guards.

Shocking.

blanch152

Rick Shaw wrote: »

We've had a Taoiseach do this, now the guards.

Shocking.

How do you prove something wasn't said?

Firstly, you can say that there is no supporting video evidence that it was said, but unless that video camera was in Paul Murphy's face from start to finish, that doesn't offer conclusive proof that something wasn't said. However, if the video is long and comprehensive enough, it is enough to say that there is reasonable doubt over the Gardai evidence, and Murphy should be acquitted.

Secondly, it may well be true that those words were said, and that the gardai had the impression that they came from Paul Murphy. However, they may have come from someone in the same direction as Paul Murphy with the same accent, and that again could be sufficient to introduce reasonable doubt over the Gardai evidence, and Murphy should be acquitted.

Now I haven't sat through or read the weeks of evidence that was presented, neither was I in the jury room for considering the verdicts (and neither was anyone here), but the above scenarios are consistent with the Gardai not lying, just being mistaken, and also with Murphy being acquitted. That makes the unjustified remarks in the Dail by Murphy even more nasty, hypoctrical and sickening. A man who has just benefited from the application of reasonable doubt in a court resulting in him being cleared refusing to give the same consideration to others. Repulsive behaviour and unbecoming.

Captain Obvious

blanch152 wrote: »

How do you prove something wasn't said?

Firstly, you can say that there is no supporting video evidence that it was said, but unless that video camera was in Paul Murphy's face from start to finish, that doesn't offer conclusive proof that something wasn't said. However, if the video is long and comprehensive enough, it is enough to say that there is reasonable doubt over the Gardai evidence, and Murphy should be acquitted.

Secondly, it may well be true that those words were said, and that the gardai had the impression that they came from Paul Murphy. However, they may have come from someone in the same direction as Paul Murphy with the same accent, and that again could be sufficient to introduce reasonable doubt over the Gardai evidence, and Murphy should be acquitted.

Now I haven't sat through or read the weeks of evidence that was presented, neither was I in the jury room for considering the verdicts (and neither was anyone here), but the above scenarios are consistent with the Gardai not lying, just being mistaken, and also with Murphy being acquitted. That makes the unjustified remarks in the Dail by Murphy even more nasty, hypoctrical and sickening. A man who has just benefited from the application of reasonable doubt in a court resulting in him being cleared refusing to give the same consideration to others. Repulsive behaviour and unbecoming.

He's just pandering to his supporters. He knows how to play them. He will struggle to stay relevant with the trial over and water charges on the back-burner indefinitely. Keeping up the attack on Gardaí will keep him in the hearts and minds of the people who vote for him until he can get his bin charges campaign ready to go full steam ahead.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

Now I haven't sat through or read the weeks of evidence that was presented, neither was I in the jury room for considering the verdicts (and neither was anyone here), but the above scenarios are consistent with the Gardai not lying, just being mistaken, and also with Murphy being acquitted. That makes the unjustified remarks in the Dail by Murphy even more nasty, hypoctrical and sickening. A man who has just benefited from the application of reasonable doubt in a court resulting in him being cleared refusing to give the same consideration to others. Repulsive behaviour and unbecoming.

Murphy was facing what amounted to a life sentence based on what he claims was the lies of several members of AGS. That a jury on advice from the judge disregarded Garda evidence and acquitted Murphy and co warrants investigation. Seeking to vilify Murphy just because you disagree with his politics and ignore the possibility of a what could have been a gross miscarriage of justice is what is truly repulsive and speaks volumes to the type of insidious individuals that dwell in this country.

McMurphy

How do you prove something wasn't said?

You go to court and let the judge and jury decide.

Even Leo has voiced his concerns about the inconsistencies given by garda However, when a judge resorts to having to instruct a jury to rely on video, rather than testimonies, it's a fairly good indicator.

It would seem we have reached a stalemate here, the gards said they (3 guards were specific about it) heard Murphy say something, yet the video evidence contradicted what they thought they heard.

Not much more to say really.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Murphy was facing what amounted to a life sentence based on what he claims was the lies of several members of AGS. That a jury on advice from the judge disregarded Garda evidence and acquitted Murphy and co warrants investigation. Seeking to vilify Murphy just because you disagree with his politics and ignore the possibility of a what could have been a gross miscarriage of justice is what is truly repulsive and speaks volumes to the type of insidious individuals that dwell in this country.

Those comments are hysterical. A life sentence???? A gross miscarriage of justice??? Seriously?

He is not a victim, there was reasonable doubt, he was cleared. That does not mean Gardai lied.

If he is so sure the Gardai lied, repeat his comments outside the Dail, let them sue him and lose. I would bet he won't.

Hitman3000

Captain Obvious wrote:

He's just pandering to his supporters. He knows how to play them. He will struggle to stay relevant with the trial over and water charges on the back-burner indefinitely. Keeping up the attack on Gardaí will keep him in the hearts and minds of the people who vote for him until he can get his bin charges campaign ready to go full steam ahead.

I think you will find a lot of people are concerned with Gardai willing to lie on the stand. I even heard a member of the Garda representive body voice his concerns in this regard. It damages the reputation of the force, particularly at a time when that reputation is quite fragile.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

Those comments are hysterical. A life sentence???? A gross miscarriage of justice??? Seriously?

Do you know the penalty for false imprisonment? I suggest you educate yourself before you make a flippant comment.