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

blanch152

Rick Shaw wrote: »

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.

You still can't prove definitively something wasn't said.

The video didn't capture Murphy saying something, which therefore introduces reasonable doubt over the Gardai evidence. However, that does not definitively prove that something wasn't said, it only proves there is reasonable doubt. It is one of the reasons that perjury is so difficult a charge to prove. In this case, the Gardai defence could be one or more of the following:

(1) Someone else said it and they mistakenly attributed it to Murphy

(2) Murphy did say it but the video feed didn't pick it up

(3) The video feed was edited

(4) The stress of the day led to imprecise recollections

All of the above are compatible with a not guilty verdict for Murphy and a not guilty verdict for the Gardai accused of perjury.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

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

The judge in her direction to the jury advised them to disregard Garda evidence. Not something a judge would do if she had no doubt in the testimony on the Garda. Whether you like it or not he was a potential victim of a miscarriage of justice. Thankfully the jury saw through the lies and b.s. Seems others are blinded by hatred and oblivious to fact.

LuckyLloyd

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Plenty of testimony given about Gardaeing assaulted and having their equipment stolen. All part of the peaceful protest right?

If it was Gardai claiming that then it can be safely disregarded.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

You still can't prove definitively something wasn't said.

The video didn't capture Murphy saying something, which therefore introduces reasonable doubt over the Gardai evidence. However, that does not definitively prove that something wasn't said, it only proves there is reasonable doubt. It is one of the reasons that perjury is so difficult a charge to prove. In this case, the Gardai defence could be one or more of the following:

We both know that initially boards was awash with comments such as "I have seen enough video evidence to guess Murphy is guilty of falsely imprisoning" and "there's hundreds of hours of video footage of the incident" yet no one captured Murphy saying something the gards ascribed to him? What are the chances?

(1) Someone else said it and they mistakenly attributed it to Murphy

Three members of the gardai made the same mistake? Including an inspector? What are the chances?

(2) Murphy did say it but the video feed didn't pick it up

Despite extensive garda footage, media footage and the many YouTube videos that aren't there, none captured Murphy saying something he was being prosecuted over? Again - what are the chances?

(3) The video feed was edited

It would take a brave, and or stupid lawyer to present edited footage. Hardly Hollywood material now, was it?

(4) The stress of the day led to imprecise recollections

This is getting silly now

All of the above are compatible with a not guilty verdict for Murphy and a not guilty verdict for the Gardai accused of perjury.

Or

Gardai conspiring , or Gardai incompetence.

Either scenarios seem quite plausible.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The judge in her direction to the jury advised them to disregard Garda evidence. Not something a judge would do if she had no doubt in the testimony on the Garda. Whether you like it or not he was a potential victim of a miscarriage of justice. Thankfully the jury saw through the lies and b.s. Seems others are blinded by hatred and oblivious to fact.

(1) If the judge thought any of (1) to (4) applied below, then she was right in her direction.

(2) The direction was made based on legal argument heard in the absence of the jury and the journalists so we don't know exactly why she made it.

blanch152 wrote: »

You still can't prove definitively something wasn't said.

The video didn't capture Murphy saying something, which therefore introduces reasonable doubt over the Gardai evidence. However, that does not definitively prove that something wasn't said, it only proves there is reasonable doubt. It is one of the reasons that perjury is so difficult a charge to prove. In this case, the Gardai defence could be one or more of the following:

(1) Someone else said it and they mistakenly attributed it to Murphy

(2) Murphy did say it but the video feed didn't pick it up

(3) The video feed was edited

(4) The stress of the day led to imprecise recollections

All of the above are compatible with a not guilty verdict for Murphy and a not guilty verdict for the Gardai accused of perjury.

blanch152

Rick Shaw wrote: »

We both know that initially boards was awash with comments such as "I have seen enough video evidence to guess Murphy is guilty of falsely imprisoning" and "there's hundreds of hours of video footage of the incident" yet no one captured Murphy saying something the gards ascribed to him? What are the chances?

.

The prosecution have to make all of their evidence available to the defence.

The defence don't have to make their evidence available to the prosecution.

A lot of the video evidence which we all saw was inadmissable in the trial.

Captain Obvious

I take it this is the smoking gun people keep alluding to and misquoting from the Judge's charge

When you are considering the evidence in the case or any aspect of the evidence and where there are two possible views, one of which is consistent with guilt and the other consistent with innocence, you must favour the version consistent with innocence. You must adopt the version, which is favourable to the accused, unless the prosecution's version has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence in the case consists of the testimony of the witnesses who gave evidence and also the exhibits, which you have received. In this case, video footage is hugely important and is a very significant component of the evidence, but that is not to say that you should disregard the witness testimony altogether. In a sense, the witness testimony supplements the video footage. In a number of instances, there was garda testimony describing events, which was not borne out by a viewing of the footage, and the testimony contradicted what could be seen in the video. Those types of discrepancies may influence how you view the evidence of the particular garda in question. It is a matter entirely for you to assess the impact of inaccuracies or inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' testimony and its effect on the issues you must decide.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

(2) The direction was made based on legal argument heard in the absence of the jury and the journalists so we don't know exactly why she made it.

Murphy was present. I'll take his word till it's disproved.

Hitman3000

Captain Obvious wrote:

I take it this is the smoking gun people keep alluding to and misquoting from the Judge's charge

Misquoting?

McMurphy

So now we have a theory that the defence video evidence was possibly trimmed and cut?

I'll let you own that theory.

I Don't buy it.:cool:

FrancieBrady

'Internal inquiry will not look at court process' according to O'Sullivan at PAC.

A bit like investigating a murder but ignoring the body with the knife in it's back in the corner.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

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?

Varadkar was not being asked for his 'opinion' on what happened at Jobstown, he, like Enda deflected to that when he could not answer what he was actually being asked.
Was there 'organised perjury' by the Gardai, in which case Murphy and his co-defendants would have been 'victims' and would not have had a fair trial.

Varadkar can only guess what the Gardai did as can you and I. That is why it needs further examination and not moralising about stuff that he wasn't asked about.

Captain Obvious

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Misquoting?

It means quoting incorrectly.

Hitman3000

Captain Obvious wrote:

It means quoting incorrectly.

Did the judge advise the jury to disregard Garda evidence? It's either yes she did or no she didn't.

Captain Obvious

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Did the judge advise the jury to disregard Garda evidence? It's either yes she did or no she didn't.

From the part I quoted she appears to have said the opposite

but that is not to say that you should disregard the witness testimony altogether

In relation to conflicting evidence she said

It is a matter entirely for you to assess the impact of inaccuracies or inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' testimony and its effect on the issues you must decide.

Perhaps she did it further on? I'll keep reading it. It's hard to tell what people are referring to when they refuse to refer to the actual transcript.

Hitman3000

Captain Obvious wrote:

Perhaps she did it further on? I'll keep reading it. It's hard to tell what people are referring to when they refuse to refer to the actual transcript.

It seems certain sections of society are incensed at the result of the court case. Wonder why, didn't go according to plan perhaps?

Captain Obvious

Hitman3000 wrote: »

It seems certain sections of society are incensed at the result of the court case. Wonder why, didn't go according to plan perhaps?

It seems you went on a bit of a tangent there. We were discussing what the judge actually said in comparison to how it is being represented by supporters of the accused. Are we done talking about the first thing now or are you simply trying to undermine a point by insinuating something in order to avoid addressing it?

FrancieBrady

Captain Obvious wrote: »

From the part I quoted she appears to have said the opposite



In relation to conflicting evidence she said



Perhaps she did it further on? I'll keep reading it. It's hard to tell what people are referring to when they refuse to refer to the actual transcript.

The judge clearly referred to 'inaccuracies and inconsistencies' in testimony. Not 'possible' inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

Regardless of what else she said, and given that we know what those 'inaccuracies and inconsistencies' were then there is a need for a very close look at what went on.

We also now know that the Gardai are not going to look at it. So this will not go away. It shouldn't.

Captain Obvious

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The judge clearly referred to 'inaccuracies and inconsistencies' in testimony. Not 'possible' inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

Yes but she did not refer to anything specific. Yet people seem to be using this one line from a 54 page charge to sum up her entire evidence and justify excluding all Garda evidence.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Regardless of what else she said, and given that we know what those 'inaccuracies and inconsistencies' were then there is a need for a very close look at what went on.

Inconsistencies are a fact of life with witness testimony. Here's a random Google article that might help you understand it because it's getting a bit tiresome. There are a great many more if you want some. And while police can be trained in methods to reduce inaccuracy, they are still simply human and can fall victim to the same issues as regular folk, which is why the GRA has been looking for body cams for some time now.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We also now know that the Gardai are not going to look at it. So this will not go away. It shouldn't.

But of course this is simply untrue. Senior Gardaí will be reviewing the entire investigation which includes statements made by Gardaí which were submitted as evidence.

Hitman3000

Captain Obvious wrote:

It seems you went on a bit of a tangent there. We were discussing what the judge actually said in comparison to how it is being represented by supporters of the accused. Are we done talking about the first thing now or are you simply trying to undermine a point by insinuating something in order to avoid addressing it?

No just making an observation. Leo feels Murphy owes Joan and Catherine an apology. What for? A court found him and his co accused not guilty.
No insinuation, the judge directed the jury to ignore certain Garda evidence. Do you not find that worrying?

Captain Obvious

Hitman3000 wrote: »

No just making an observation. Leo feels Murphy owes Joan and Catherine an apology. What for? A court found him and his co accused not guilty.
No insinuation, the judge directed the jury to ignore certain Garda evidence. Do you not find that worrying?

Oh dear, you seem to have forgotten to quote this direction from the judge. I'm still looking for it myself.

FrancieBrady

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Yes but she did not refer to anything specific. Yet people seem to be using this one line from a 54 page charge to sum up her entire evidence and justify excluding all Garda evidence.



Inconsistencies are a fact of life with witness testimony. Here's a random Google article that might help you understand it because it's getting a bit tiresome. There are a great many more if you want some. And while police can be trained in methods to reduce inaccuracy, they are still simply human and can fall victim to the same issues as regular folk, which is why the GRA has been looking for body cams for some time now.

We KNOW what 'inconsistencies' there were. Please stop trying to explain them away.
If Gardai lied or made mistakes in evidence it throws everything they said under suspicion and doubt. Simple as. We need a force that is above that suspicion and doubt, and at the moment on many counts we don't.

But of course this is simply untrue. Senior Gardaí will be reviewing the entire investigation which includes statements made by Gardaí which were submitted as evidence.

They will not review what was said in cross or the process in court. So the internal review will not adjudicate on whether they perjured themselves or not.

Hitman3000

Captain Obvious wrote:

But of course this is simply untrue. Senior Gardaí will be reviewing the entire investigation which includes statements made by Gardaí which were submitted as evidence.

Garda investigating Garda. No problem there so. lol.

Hitman3000

Captain Obvious wrote:

Oh dear, you seem to have forgotten to quote this direction from the judge. I'm still looking for it myself.

Keep looking.

McMurphy

Just to be crystal clear on what the judge actually said.

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".

Contradicted

contradict
kɒntrəˈdɪkt/Submit
verb
past tense: contradicted; past participle: contradicted
deny the truth of (a statement) by asserting the opposite.
"the survey appears to contradict the industry's claims"
synonyms: deny, refute, rebut, dispute, counter; More
assert the opposite of a statement made by (someone).
"he did not contradict her but just said nothing"
synonyms: challenge, oppose, argue against, go against, be at variance with; More
be in conflict with.
"the existing layout of the city contradicted the logic of the new centre"
synonyms: conflict with, be at odds with, be at variance with, disagree with, be inconsistent with, clash with, run counter to, give the lie to,

Captain Obvious

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Just to be crystal clear on what the judge actually said.


Contradicted

you just quoted what I did already. You seem to have the same issue pointing out where the direction was given to ignore testimony though.

Chips Lovell

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Keep looking.

Less of the one liners please. Suggest you read the charter before posting further.

Captain Obvious

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They will not review what was said in cross or the process in court. So the internal review will not adjudicate on whether they perjured themselves or not.

That's true. But was it not their statements that the defence were relying on for the majority of the inconsistencies? Incidentally, making a false statement is also a crime, one that is prosecuted much more than perjury.

Hitman3000

Jep Gambardella wrote:

Less of the one liners please. Suggest you read the charter before posting further.

My apologies, I will endeavour not to repeat same.

For Reals

blanch152 wrote: »

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....

Captain Obvious wrote: »

He's just pandering to his supporters. He knows how to play them.....

Exactly. He's been clear on Murphy. But this isn't about Murphy it's about three Garda giving the same false statement.

The only ones making this about Murphy and his character, yet again, are Fine Gael and their defenders. And once again, nobody is buying what they are selling.

FrancieBrady

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's true. But was it not their statements that the defence were relying on for the majority of the inconsistencies? Incidentally, making a false statement is also a crime, one that is prosecuted much more than perjury.

How do you investigate possible organised perjury if you are not going to look at what happened in court.

All the Gardai have to do is say that all their processes before court were fine and that is it.
If they are going to look at inconsistencies they HAVE to look at the court case that showed up those inconsistencies.

blanch152

Rick Shaw wrote: »

So now we have a theory that the defence video evidence was possibly trimmed and cut?

I'll let you own that theory.

I Don't buy it.:cool:

Nobody said that.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Did the judge advise the jury to disregard Garda evidence? It's either yes she did or no she didn't.

Like anyone asked to judge something, we can only go on the evidence presented and afford reasonable doubt to the accused.

So far, on this thread, nobody has presented any evidence from a court transcript that the judge advised the jury to disregard Garda evidence.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Like anyone asked to judge something, we can only go on the evidence presented and afford reasonable doubt to the accused.

So far, on this thread, nobody has presented any evidence from a court transcript that the judge advised the jury to disregard Garda evidence.

She referred to 'inconsistencies and inaccuracies'.
What we need to know is, if these were organised lies and therefore perjury or the same genuine mistake of three people giving the same testimony about something that was proven to have never happened.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She referred to 'inconsistencies and inaccuracies'.
What we need to know is, if these were organised lies and therefore perjury or the same genuine mistake of three people giving the same testimony about something that was proven to have never happened.

That is complete deflection. The accusation being made, without any evidence is that:

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The judge in her direction to the jury advised them to disregard Garda evidence.

That is simply not true, based on the evidence presented on this thread.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That is complete deflection. The accusation being made, without any evidence is that:



That is simply not true, based on the evidence presented on this thread.

When you reply to my posts can you deal with what I am saying?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When you reply to my posts can you deal with what I am saying?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She referred to 'inconsistencies and inaccuracies'.
What we need to know is, if these were organised lies and therefore perjury or the same genuine mistake of three people giving the same testimony about something that was proven to have never happened.

Well here is what she said:

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I take it this is the smoking gun people keep alluding to and misquoting from the Judge's charge


When you are considering the evidence in the case or any aspect of the evidence and where there are two possible views, one of which is consistent with guilt and the other consistent with innocence, you must favour the version consistent with innocence. You must adopt the version, which is favourable to the accused, unless the prosecution's version has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence in the case consists of the testimony of the witnesses who gave evidence and also the exhibits, which you have received. In this case, video footage is hugely important and is a very significant component of the evidence, but that is not to say that you should disregard the witness testimony altogether. In a sense, the witness testimony supplements the video footage. In a number of instances, there was garda testimony describing events, which was not borne out by a viewing of the footage, and the testimony contradicted what could be seen in the video. Those types of discrepancies may influence how you view the evidence of the particular garda in question. It is a matter entirely for you to assess the impact of inaccuracies or inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' testimony and its effect on the issues you must decide.

It is a huge step from what the judge said to an accusation of "organised lies and therefore perjury".

You have made an illogical leap in your post to justify a call for a public enquiry.

markodaly

For Reals wrote: »

Leo should address this very important issue with a modicum of dignity. .

Dignity? I think Leo has been pretty restrained. Paul Murphy wants to use this as part of his crusade. Do you actually think all this noise will help anyone who votes for Paul Murphy. This guy is Irelands answer to Trump.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Well here is what she said:



It is a huge step from what the judge said to an accusation of "organised lies and therefore perjury".

You have made an illogical leap in your post to justify a call for a public enquiry.

It may well be a huge leap and there may well be nothing to it only human frailty. But that doesn't diminish the need to find out why there were inconsistencies and inaccuracies.

markodaly

blanch152 wrote: »

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?

Apparently, calling two women a Kunt, a ****ing Whore, a bitch, while banging on a car is peaceful protesting. Couldn't make this up, especially at a time when we want more women in politics. But Paul Murphy is the real victim here....

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It may well be a huge leap and there may well be nothing to it only human frailty. But that doesn't diminish the need to find out why there were inconsistencies and inaccuracies.

So even if there is a huge leap, and there may well be nothing to it, we should still investigate? Is that what you are saying?

Chips Lovell

Interestingly, despite calls for an investigation, no complaint has yet been made to Gsoc:

In reply to queries, a spokesman for Gsoc said no complaints about the trial had been lodged to date.

For Reals

markodaly wrote: »

Dignity? I think Leo has been pretty restrained. Paul Murphy wants to use this as part of his crusade. Do you actually think all this noise will help anyone who votes for Paul Murphy. This guy is Irelands answer to Trump.

You should get over 4% Murphy.
This is about three Garda giving the same false statement.
A request was put in for an inquiry on a very important issue and we got schoolyard level quips from the political leader of the country.

But sure the cut of Murphy...

This ain't about Murphy or his politics as much as you'd like it to be.

Any gripes about the protesters not charged should be taken up with the Garda, if you feel confident doing that of course.

Hitman3000

markodaly wrote:

Apparently, calling two women a Kunt, a ****ing Whore, a bitch, while banging on a car is peaceful protesting. Couldn't make this up, especially at a time when we want more women in politics. But Paul Murphy is the real victim here....

Was Murphy and his co accused guilty of any of what you mentioned in your comment? Murphy has claimed he was not responsible for the protest , didn't organise it but yet you seem to be implying he is responsible for the behaviour of others.

blanch152

For Reals wrote: »

You should get over 4% Murphy.
This is about three Garda giving the same false statement.
A request was put in for an inquiry on a very important issue and we got schoolyard level quips from the political leader of the country.

But sure the cut of Murphy...

This ain't about Murphy or his politics as much as you'd like it to be.

Any gripes about the protesters not charged should be taken up with the Garda, if you feel confident doing that of course.

Not even Murphy is brazen enough to make that libellous accusation outside the Dail. He only makes the specific accusation when he has the protection of privilege. Online it seems that anything goes.

It is quite telling that not one complaint has been made to GSOC. If someone is interested in an investigation rather than publicity, that is where they would go.

Hitman3000

Jep Gambardella wrote:

Interestingly, despite calls for an investigation,

Murphy and his co accused have asked for a public inquiry. Why would they go to GSOC and have an inquiry carried out behind closed doors?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

So even if there is a huge leap, and there may well be nothing to it, we should still investigate? Is that what you are saying?

I said it before: given what we know about the Gardai and particularly the higher ranks of the organisation, we should.

We need a force that can be trusted. We simply don't have that.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Was Murphy and his co accused guilty of any of what you mentioned in your comment? Murphy has claimed he was not responsible for the protest , didn't organise it but yet you seem to be implying he is responsible for the behaviour of others.

He joined and took part, doesn't apologise for it, in fact he has defended the protest at every opportunity. As Varadkar said in the Dail, conduct unbecoming a decent person.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2017/0713/890011-politics/

"Comments made by Paul Murphy in the Dáil yesterday have been referred to the Oireachtas Committee on Procedure by the Ceann Comhairle.

Ceann Comhairle Seán Ó Fearghaíl had referred the remarks made by the Solidarity TD to the parliamentary legal adviser last night following an initial review of the Dáil transcript.

Following consultation with the legal adviser, Mr Ó Fearghaíl sent the matter to the committee "for its consideration and decision".

During Leaders' Questions yesterday afternoon, Mr Murphy used Dáil privilege to accuse gardaí of committing perjury during his trial for the false imprisonment of former tánaiste Joan Burton and her adviser Karen O'Connell."

And rightfully so, we cannot have TDs making random accusations against named people who cannot defend themselves, especially those TDs who are too cowardly to repeat the accusations outside the Dail.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said it before: given what we know about the Gardai and particularly the higher ranks of the organisation, we should.

We need a force that can be trusted. We simply don't have that.

Applying that principle - "if there is a huge leap, and there may well be nothing to it, we should still investigate" - to other situations, say the actions of Paul Murphy during the Jobstown process, then there was nothing wrong with having the Garda investigation?

Tony EH

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Interestingly, despite calls for an investigation, no complaint has yet been made to Gsoc:

And more than likely there won't be.

Murphy will make a bit of capital out of it. FG will kick up a bit dust and try to control the damage and FF will look the other way for a bit. Everybody else will be watching the clock.

They'll all break for their summer recess and nobody will remember in September.