Padraig Nally found not guilty of manslaughter :o)

the_syco · 15-12-2006 12:36am #1

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/9517622?view=Eircomnet

A Co Mayo farmer was today found not guilty of the manslaughter of a father-of-11 on his farm. [FONT=Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif]Padraig Nally, 62, denied unlawfully killing Traveller John 'Frog' Ward at his land in Funshinaugh, Cross, on October 14, 2004.
The jury of four women and eight men took almost 16 hours to find the farmer not guilty.

About time, tbh. Hopefully people in the rural area (esp the old folk) get rights re:burgurly, instead of having to retreat if they encounter a burgurlar. I wonder if burgurly near traveller encampments will drop after this?

[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Sparks · 15-12-2006 12:44am

Mods - could we maybe turn off the naughty words filter for a moment in order to even try to properly express how unbelievably perverse this miscarriage of justice is? Or do we limit ourselves to pointing out things like how we know Nally lied, how we don't need changes in the law to permit selfdefence and how this is basicly Tony Martin, the Irish version?

Victor McDade · 15-12-2006 12:50am

miscarriage of justice maybe, but thats the legal system we have

the_syco · 15-12-2006 1:09am

Sparks wrote:

how we don't need changes in the law to permit selfdefence

So you agree that if encounter a burgular in your own home at 2am, you must retreat back to your bedroom, whilst they take your TV and valuables, load them up in your car, and drive away? You'd be waiting at least 10 to 15 minutes here, minimum, about about 30 to 45 minutes in the countryside for the Gardai to come.

Sorry, but I think I should have the right to self defense, if I encounter someone stealing my hard-earned cash, my stuff, from my house, and htey threaten me.

ziggy · 15-12-2006 1:36am

This post has been deleted.

latenia · 15-12-2006 1:48am

So how much are your 'valuables' worth? 1 life? 15 lives?

DadaKopf · 15-12-2006 2:01am

I've been thinking about this and thinking about this. If I was on the jury, I'd have found him guilty of manslaughter. But I say this because I would assume the judge would give him a short enough sentence given the circumstances.

ScouseMouse · 15-12-2006 2:07am

As a shop manager who is regularly robbed by a certain group of people in irish society, I am glad to see that Patrick Nally was freed. The poor frog ward who incidentally attacked the gardai not once, but twice with a slash hook, and whose son described from the witness box as "not a fighting man" who also had eighty, yes eighty, various convictions, and who had three - yes three, active warrants out for his arrest at the time of his death, was obviously innocent when found coming out the back door of Nallys house. I honestly believe that Ireland is a safer place tonight.

SeanW · 15-12-2006 2:29am

What was the story, was Ward there to rob Nally or did he just think that?

If he was trespassing there to burglarise Nally's house, I think he was well within his rights to fight back, so good score 2 points for common sense. Criminals have too much power in this country.

Sparks · 15-12-2006 2:48am

SeanW wrote:

What was the story, was Ward there to rob Nally or did he just think that?

Only Nally says that Ward was there to rob Nally. Only Nally says that Ward was breaking into Nally's house. No forensic evidence was found showing Ward was ever in the house, and the physical evidence is at odds with Nally's stated version of events, in particular where Nally was when the fatal shot was fired (Nally claimed they were both standing and about ten yards apart, the state pathologist says the wounds are consistent with a much closer range, with Nally standing over Ward, who would have been on his hands and knees), and with Ward ever being in the house. There is also unexplained physical evidence showing that at some point Ward had the barrel of the shotgun shoved against his throat.

As I said, it's Tony Martin all over again. What actually happened is being forgotten by those who read the headlines.

1) We do not try the victim in a murder or manslaughter case. And Nally did not know who Ward was. Therefore Ward's background is wholly irrelevant to the case.

2) The law affords enormous leeway to someone acting in genuine self-defence. It basicly says that if you honestly believe your life is in danger, you can do damn near anything to stay safe. What it does not say is that you may then use that as permission to "teach them a lesson". Which is the far more likely explanation of what happened here.

3) Nally told Ward's son he was going to kill Ward. Then Nally killed Ward. Then Nally told the Gardai that he had deliberately killed Ward. Then, when someone pointed out that this was a confession to murder, with the attendant mandatory life sentence, the story all changed.

4) Nally's version of events is at odds with some of the physical evidence and does not account for further physical evidence.

5) Ward's background and the fact that he was a Traveller, has been a major point in this case - and it should never have been mentioned even once, because as far as Nally was concerned, he didn't know who Ward was, what his history was, where he lived or anything else. Nally saw a stranger and went for the shotgun. What if it had been someone asking for directions? What if it had been someone who got directions wrong and called into the wrong house?

Rudolph Claus · 15-12-2006 2:49am

Pity Nally didnt kill the son aswell. 80 convictions,,,, this country is a joke. He was about to make it 81 aswell by robbing that ould lads house. No doubt his tally is up to 100 by now. Scummy cnuts, the ward father deserved to be shot and got an appropiate death.

Sparks · 15-12-2006 2:56am

Nuttzy wrote:

Pity Nally didnt kill the son aswell. 80 convictions,,,, this country is a joke. He was about to make it 81 aswell by robbing that ould lads house. No doubt his tally is up to 100 by now. Scummy cnuts, the ward father deserved to be shot and got an appropiate death.

See? That's the problem with democracy, even those with no clue as to the whole idea of the law get to vote as well.

DadaKopf · 15-12-2006 2:57am

superscouse wrote:

As a shop manager who is regularly robbed by a certain group of people in irish society, I am glad to see that Patrick Nally was freed. The poor frog ward who incidentally attacked the gardai not once, but twice with a slash hook, and whose son described from the witness box as "not a fighting man" who also had eighty, yes eighty, various convictions, and who had three - yes three, active warrants out for his arrest at the time of his death, was obviously innocent when found coming out the back door of Nallys house. I honestly believe that Ireland is a safer place tonight.

A safer place because a legal precedent has now been set that it's OK to unlawfully murder someone on your property? Nice one.

Your post is typical of how wrong people seem to get this. Nally had to be judged on the evidence put before the jury, not regarding other previous convictions. I was a juror on a murder trial, something similar, and we were not permitted to know that the man we convicted had 68 prior charges and was already in prison.

By Nally's own admission, he shot Ward in the back as he was crawling away from him after being shot in the leg. Even if Ward lunged for Nally, attacked him, Nally shot him in the leg, which would have neutralised Ward as a threat. This, to me is where the incident tipped over into unreasonable force.

Furthermore, I don't believe that the mental state Nally, who clearly had become paranoid after years of isolation compounded by a sense of vulnerability due to his age and recent incidents in the area, is an excuse for the use of unreasonable force. Everyone has their problems, but I don't think the 'guilty but insane' trick would work in this case. It certainly wasn't attempted.

In the end, Nally was freed because the jury was considering 'facts' (read: media conjecture and prejudice) that were not within the scope of their job.

As was said on the (terrible) coverage of the verdict on Prime Time: people come before property. Now, with this verdict, now property comes before people. That makes things no safer in my book.

the_syco · 15-12-2006 3:28am

DadaKopf wrote:

I was a juror on a murder trial, something similar, and we were not permitted to know that the man we convicted had 68 prior charges and was already in prison.

I think this is going to be changed, due to the fact that you can't correctly determine a person's character by the suit they wear. By looks alone, someone wearing a tracksuit may look worse than someone wearing a suit, even if the one wearing the suit has been to court before twice, and a number of convictions against them, whereas the tracksuit wearing youth may have been the one assaulted.

=-=

I'll have to agree that he should have gotten at least a suspended sentence, but I think that in the original case, they had no "not guilty" choice open to them.

Also, I read in an article (I'll google for it tomorrow) that Ward was seen around Nallyss farm previous to the occasion. This throws doubt into Nally not knowing Ward beforehand.

latenia · 15-12-2006 8:44am

I just saw this mornings paper's and felt absolutely disgusted by the triumphant nature of some headlines. Add this to the comments made in the now-closed AH thread here and I'm starting to really question what kind of people this country is producing.

whitelightrider · 15-12-2006 9:02am

latenia wrote:

I just saw this mornings paper's and felt absolutely disgusted by the triumphant nature of some headlines. Add this to the comments made in the now-closed AH thread here and I'm starting to really question what kind of people this country is producing.

This country is producing people who think it's ok to target the older generation in rural areas, beat the living crap out of them and steal what they can. Padraig Nally defended his home and himself against an attack by Ward. We all know that Ward wasnt there for the good of his health and had a history of violence and theft. Do you honestly think that if Nally had wounded Ward, that Ward wouldnt have come back and probably killed Nally???

latenia · 15-12-2006 9:16am

This is only going to go the same way as the other thread so I'll leave it there. I challenge anyone to come on and name one single posession of theirs that's worth killing someone for.

Gurgle · 15-12-2006 9:19am

DadaKopf wrote:

If I was on the jury, I'd have found him guilty of manslaughter. But I say this because I would assume the judge would give him a short enough sentence given the circumstances.

Same here.

Theres something seriously wrong with a system that allows people to spend enough of their life outside prison to achieve a record like 80 convictions.

Nally should get a few years for manslaughter, and whatever judge(s) kept turning the scumbags loose should get 5 years each too. They're as much responsible for the crime in this country as the ganglords.

I'd imagine morale is fairly low for the gardai when they've brought the same scumbag to justice 80 times, gathered their evidence, helped the DPP and testified against the criminal and then watched him trot off home in absolute certainty that they would be there again for number 81.

aphex™ · 15-12-2006 9:41am

latenia wrote:

This is only going to go the same way as the other thread so I'll leave it there. I challenge anyone to come on and name one single posession of theirs that's worth killing someone for.

Oh give over. Everything he owns and would own in the future was at risk because they kept coming. Why don't you stop being all high and mighty and respond to some of the other comments on this thread.

There has to be a point where they stop harassing him. There wasn't.

His reaction was a natural human reaction. You can't harass people like that.

nellieswellies · 15-12-2006 9:41am

Its a tricky one but one thing that becomes apparant is that the whole trial by Jury system has massive holes in it clearly in this instance the people decided based on their prejiduce rather than on the facts. Dont get me wrong if someone was trespassing on my property and if I felt threatened I too would react in a physical way but would I shoot someone twice in he back, I dont think so, it was well within his means to imobilise this guy but he did not. By his own admission he also said "he wont be coming back" when asked at the front of the house where Ward was.

I'm in too minds about it part of me thinks yes perhaps he was right to do what he done but really when you look at the facts there is premeditation there and clear intent otherwise he could have just imobbilised ward.

I think the Travelling community are going to have a field day (excuse the pun) on this and rightly so, people have made a mockery of the justice system based on past convictions and prejiduce and not the facts of the case.

adonis · 15-12-2006 9:54am

of course nally should be sent to jail.
Especially if he shot a man twice in the back. That is just horrendous.
And all those people that think its ok to kill a man just because he threatens to come back dont and have never lived in the real world.

I agree with sparks and dadakopf

aphex™ · 15-12-2006 9:55am

nellieswellies wrote:

Its a tricky one but one thing that becomes apparant is that the whole trial by Jury system has massive holes in it clearly in this instance the people decided based on their prejiduce rather than on the facts. Dont get me wrong if someone was trespassing on my property and if I felt threatened I too would react in a physical way but would I shoot someone twice in he back, I dont think so, it was well within his means to imobilise this guy but he did not. By his own admission he also said "he wont be coming back" when asked at the front of the house where Ward was.

Anyone might do it if you were under threat 24/7, nellieswellies, and if they kept coming back. One could be driven to it.

Everybody's comments ignore the fact that the intrusion was frequent. If you ignore this, yes he may be guilty. You're all ignoring this fact to win your arguments.

You're ignoring the effect repeated intrusion from these people had on him.

adonis · 15-12-2006 9:55am

about this repeated intrusion?
did nally not report this to the police?

dragon_lordMTB · 15-12-2006 9:56am

I think it likely that people on the jury are reflecting the opinion of many ordinary citizens that crime is out of control and if the Justice system will not protect people in their own homes then who will?

On the specific Nally incident:
I think pepole thinking that is a "travellers vrs the rest" issue are misguided, it is "thugs vrs us" where people with no consideration or respect for other peoples property are allowed rob with impunity and only unless they are caught red-handed will "justice" be served.

My home was broken into a number of years ago and it was some considerable time before I felt safe in my own home again. Nobody was ever caught but the Gardai were aware of who was responsible.

If I had a gun, I would have done the same as Nally.

nellieswellies · 15-12-2006 10:00am

aphex&#8482 wrote:

Anyone might do it if you were under threat 24/7, nellieswellies, and if they kept coming back. One could be driven to it.

Everybody's comments ignore the fact that the intrusion was frequent. If you ignore this, yes he may be guilty. You're all ignoring this fact to win your arguments.

You're ignoring the effect repeated intrusion from these people had on him.

A valid point I suppose because 80 convictions aside this is a significant factor in the case

Sparks · 15-12-2006 10:04am

whitelightrider wrote:

Padraig Nally defended his home and himself against an attack by Ward.

Bullcrap. There was no attack.

We all know that Ward wasnt there for the good of his health

If you know that, you're in a minority of one. The only evidence we have that says Ward was there to do no good comes out of the mouth of the man who was on trial for his murder and whose version of events was belied by the physical evidence.

Do you honestly think that if Nally had wounded Ward, that Ward wouldnt have come back and probably killed Nally???

Do you honestly believe that preemptive defence is a valid idea? So, if I walk into smithfield with a shotgun and start shooting everyone I see who I think looks dodgy, I'm just defending myself because who here honestly thinks that one of them wouldn't mug me given the chance?
Daft.

aphex&#8482 wrote:

Anyone might do it if you were under threat 24/7, nellieswellies, and if they kept coming back. One could be driven to it.

Sure. Now, what was Nally's excuse? Because he wasn't repeatedly burgled. In fact, we only have his word that he was ever stolen from, and that wasn't a breakin in the house, that was (according to Nally, whose account we can't believe) a chainsaw taken from a shed.

Everybody's comments ignore the fact that the intrusion was frequent.

That's because there were no intrusions.
Not against Nally. There were against other people within twenty or thirty miles, yes - but I go past the IFSC every morning going to work, so does that mean I can shoot anyone wearing a hoodie I see on the grounds that I'm scared because of the shooting in the IFSC yesterday?

See what I mean? Tony Martin, all over again.

Sparks · 15-12-2006 10:06am

dragon_lordMTB wrote:

If I had a gun, I would have done the same as Nally.

You'd have shot someone who you didn't know, who noone could prove ever did you harm, and then lied about what you did so you'd get public sympathy and a tainted jury?

nollaig · 15-12-2006 10:14am

who noone could prove ever did you harm

Wasnt Ward at Nallys house a couple of weeks previously???

I live in an area not far from Nally and if I saw people I didnt know walking into my shed, then I'd know I wouldnt be too happy and if they couldnt give me a valid reason why they were there, I'd make sure they were never coming back to it as well

civdef · 15-12-2006 10:14am

Sparks, I'll make my point again, what evidence have you that Nally lied? If you're repeatedly accusing him of perjury, you need to back it up.

nellieswellies · 15-12-2006 10:18am

similarly, what evidence is there of previous intimidation or burglary attempts.

Sparks · 15-12-2006 10:19am

nollaig wrote:

Wasnt Ward at Nallys house a couple of weeks previously?

According to Nally. :rolleyes:

I live in an area not far from Nally and if I saw people I didnt know walking into my shed, then I'd know I wouldnt be too happy and if they couldnt give me a valid reason why they were there, I'd make sure they were never coming back to it as well

Apart from the fact that you're assuming Ward stole from Nally, when in fact he committed no crime against him (and you're looking at the victim's past history to decide on whether or not to punish the man who killed him, not what the victim did to his assailant, namely nothing), it's nice to know you deem entry to your shed is worthy of the death penalty, something we don't even have in this country for the crime of premeditated murder. (Mind you, with this verdict, that's kindof blown out of the water anyway, but still).

Sparks · 15-12-2006 10:22am

civdef wrote:

Sparks, I'll make my point again, what evidence have you that Nally lied? If you're repeatedly accusing him of perjury, you need to back it up.

And I'll repeat my answer - Nally's public statements do not match the physical evidence, as pointed out in court by the state pathologist.
For example, in his interview with RTE before the first trial, Nally stated that he fired the fatal shot from ten yards or more away at a standing John Ward. The state pathologist pointed out that the physical evidence says the shot was fired from very close range (far less than ten yards) and from an angle that meant Ward was on his hands and knees and Nally was standing over him.

dent · 15-12-2006 10:23am

Sparks wrote:

If you know that, you're in a minority of one. The only evidence we have that says Ward was there to do no good comes out of the mouth of the man who was on trial for his murder and whose version of events was belied by the physical evidence.

Yeah I agree, after 80 convictions I reckon he decided to turn over a new leaf and plant some daffodils outside Nallys back garden. He was just giving back to the society he had taken so much from :rolleyes:

adonis · 15-12-2006 10:26am

nollaig wrote:

Wasnt Ward at Nallys house a couple of weeks previously???

I live in an area not far from Nally and if I saw people I didnt know walking into my shed, then I'd know I wouldnt be too happy and if they couldnt give me a valid reason why they were there, I'd make sure they were never coming back to it as well

Thats great, real progressive attitude there.

Sparks · 15-12-2006 10:28am

dent wrote:

Yeah I agree, after 80 convictions I reckon he decided to turn over a new leaf and plant some daffodils outside Nallys back garden. He was just giving back to the society he had taken so much from :rolleyes:

Or maybe he was actually there to buy the car for scrap.
Thing is, you can't prove your contention as there's not a scrap of evidence to support it. You have the word of the man whose freedom depended on people believing Ward was there to commit a crime; and you have your own prejudices. That's it. No evidence. No believable testimony. Nothing.

Imposter · 15-12-2006 10:30am

latenia wrote:

I challenge anyone to come on and name one single posession of theirs that's worth killing someone for.

The persons mental health or maybe that's not a possession in your eyes!

nellieswellies · 15-12-2006 10:32am

Imposter wrote:

The persons mental health or maybe that's not a possession in your eyes!

But that is not what the court has appointed a jury to decide its whether or not based on the facts of the case it was a reduced charge and sentence for Manslaughter.

Tricity Bendix · 15-12-2006 10:33am

superscouse wrote:

As a shop manager who is regularly robbed by a certain group of people in irish society, I am glad to see that Patrick Nally was freed. The poor frog ward who incidentally attacked the gardai not once, but twice with a slash hook, and whose son described from the witness box as "not a fighting man" who also had eighty, yes eighty, various convictions, and who had three - yes three, active warrants out for his arrest at the time of his death, was obviously innocent when found coming out the back door of Nallys house. I honestly believe that Ireland is a safer place tonight.

No one ever thought Frog was innocent. I don't know where you got that idea. He should have been in custody, and none of this should have ever happened. Having said that, eighty previous convictions, three warrants and an attempted robbery is not worthy of a death sentence.

Having to retreat when faced with a burglery is simply a bad law, incidently brought in by Nally's cheerleaders in Fine Gael.

dent · 15-12-2006 10:41am

Sparks wrote:

Or maybe he was actually there to buy the car for scrap.
Thing is, you can't prove your contention as there's not a scrap of evidence to support it. You have the word of the man whose freedom depended on people believing Ward was there to commit a crime; and you have your own prejudices. That's it. No evidence. No believable testimony. Nothing.

Just as there is no scrap of evidence that he was there to buy a car. We have the FACT that Ward had 80 criminal convictions. This alone is enough to swing me in favor of Nallys claim that Ward was there to commit a crime.

Could you also clarify your statement "you have your own prejudices"?

OTK · 15-12-2006 10:41am

The verdict probably reflects majority opinion in Ireland that non-travellers should have the right to kill a traveller if they are scared of him and believe they have been robbed, even in the case that the traveller is running away. Nally's intention was to kill as he described to the police after beating him 20 times with a stick, 'he just wouldn't die'. I think it's a sad day and I hope something can be done to reconcile travellers and the rest of community so that we can live better together.

Time Magazine · 15-12-2006 10:42am

b.ie curious wrote:

Having to retreat when faced with a burglery is simply a bad law, incidently brought in by Nally's cheerleaders in Fine Gael.

The PDs have been in power for 10 years now; several gun/Criminal Justice/related acts later it's still there...

No, one's personal property is not greater than one's life; but that's not the issue. If that was the case the argument would extend to finding someone and killing them after they have stolen your goods. The matter here is the right of people to protect themselves from intruders, something which is completley inexcusable. This case is differentiated by the fact that Nally re-loaded etc, but this man had stayed in his barn at night with fear - he has suffered enough. Prior to crime he had never hurt anyone.

Now this is all, of course, subject to the constraint of reasonable force; I'm not advocating the right to nuke somebody. However, in this case, I couldn't stand over sending Nally to prison. Certainly not for any time longer than he has. Perhaps a sentence of six-to-twelve months would be suitable given evidence on matters like if Ward was a dangerous man (and thus likely to have put up a fight etc)/had broken in etc., but Nally has already suffered.

seamus · 15-12-2006 10:45am

Sparks wrote:

If you know that, you're in a minority of one. The only evidence we have that says Ward was there to do no good comes out of the mouth of the man who was on trial for his murder

Sparks, you're being liberal to the point of apologetic here.

If you don't believe that Ward was up to no good, then you're delusional. He was scum of the earth.

That said, it's irrelevant. There was no evidence of what Ward was doing, so one can only suppose. Given Nally's past history with Ward, Nally's supposition that Ward was there to rob him, was a valid one and no-one can dispute that. That's the key. Whether Ward was *actually* up to no good, is irrelevant - it's Nally's own opinion and state of mind at the time that has to be taken into consideration.

In the emotiveness of the issue, it's easy to forget how exactly a trial pans out. Nally didn't necessarily have to prove that he acted in self defence. The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that Nally acted unlawfully in killing Ward, part of which would be refuting the fact that Nally feared for his life. The prosecution clearly failed to do this, so Nally goes free.

I'm still quite torn on the issue. There was clearly some degree of thought and coldness that went into the eventual death of Ward. However, this doesn't mean that Nally didn't fear for his life, even as he walked up and shot a badly injured man in the back. I know if I had just shot and beaten a traveller who was now making his way home, I'd be in terror for my life too.

Sparks · 15-12-2006 11:01am

b.ie curious wrote:

Having to retreat when faced with a burglery is simply a bad law

It's a non-existant law. You have no duty to retreat in your own home. Never have had one either. If on the street, you're expected to seek to avoid trouble because that's what people generally do when honestly acting out of fear for their safety. But even then there's enormous leeway.

What Nally did, however, was not to stand his ground; he chased after an injured Ward and shot him like a dog in the street and then lied about it.

Sparks · 15-12-2006 11:05am

dent wrote:

Just as there is no scrap of evidence that he was there to buy a car.

Other than his son's testimony. Yes, I know, it's not reliable. Nonetheless, there is nothing to contradict it but Nally's word, and we know Nally's already lied about this because his freedom was at stake.

We have the FACT that Ward had 80 criminal convictions.

A fact that has no bearing on this case. Should Ward have been in jail? Yes. Does that mean Nally was justified? Not a fecking chance. Apart from the whole "you don't try the victim" philosophy, there's the small point that Nally didn't know who he was killing.

This alone is enough to swing me in favor of Nallys claim that Ward was there to commit a crime.
Could you also clarify your statement "you have your own prejudices"?

I would, but you just did.
You have no proof that Ward was committing a crime, but your own beliefs about his motives (based on his past record instead of being based on the evidence of this case) are sufficient for you to decide he was doing so.

civdef · 15-12-2006 11:10am

Nonetheless, there is nothing to contradict it but Nally's word, and we know Nally's already lied about this because his freedom was at stake.

I'm going to call you on this one. Provide evidence (at the very least reliable media reports) to back up your claims. Otherwise retract your serious allegations.

15-12-2006 11:11am

Sparks wrote:

What Nally did, however, was not to stand his ground; he chased after an injured Ward and shot him like a dog in the street and then lied about it.

You mightn't mind boards being sued as a result of those types of allegations but I do.
Please continue to hold your opinion in that matter but preface it with 3 words " in my opinion".
You may repeat why you hold that opinion as often as you like as long as you state it as opinion and not a proven fact.

I do realise where you are getting that opinion but without investigating exactly the variation between the RTÉ interview you cite and what the state pathologist has said,then it is only your opinion.
There is also the definition of a deliberate lie as opposed to a best guess here to consider.
You have no evidence to suggest that Nally deliberately lied as opposed to making a best guess,so your use of the word appears objective at best.

15-12-2006 11:12am

At least the Wards will now get their chance. Hope they merely sue Nally, maybe get the farm that he was so desperate to protect, but if someone goes a step further and exacts revenge in the old style way...meh...the heart won't bleed for him...

is_that_so · 15-12-2006 11:13am

The jury heard the evidence and decided so whatever else we might think is pretty irrelevant.

I think I would have found for excessive force. But I wasn't there and I haven't heard all the evidence.

The opposing viewpoints expressed here merely express why they might have found him not guilty.

e.g.

Gun Crime
Street Crime
Rural crime
Travellers and what they do or don't do.

It is also clear that there are issues with the justice system vis a vis crimes committed. I still find it bizarre that so many people with multiple convictions are actually out on the street.

nollaig · 15-12-2006 11:15am

Sparks,

What do you think Ward was doing at the house?

Sparks · 15-12-2006 11:17am

seamus wrote:

Sparks, you're being liberal to the point of apologetic here.

I know we're meant to be closer to boston than berlin, but liberal's not a dirty word yet.
And anyway, I'm not being liberal, I'm being conservative. I want to see fair trials, not this sort of 1950s alabama lynching after-action report malarky.

If you don't believe that Ward was up to no good, then you're delusional. He was scum of the earth.

Except that it's not about prejudice based on the past record of the victim; it's about proof. It's about proof because Nally put a shot in his back while Ward was on his hands and knees bleeding on the road. If he hadn't done that, Ward would have been testifying on the stand and Nally could have said "you were up to no good" and probably wouldn't have been convicted of anything.

Given Nally's past history with Ward

That'd be his nonexistant past history?

Nally's supposition that Ward was there to rob him, was a valid one and no-one can dispute that.

Except those that have the common sense to figure out that if they hadn't met before that point, they couldn't have any past history and thus Nally couldn't have a valid supposition based on what Ward looked like that said that Ward was going to rob him.

I'm still quite torn on the issue. There was clearly some degree of thought and coldness that went into the eventual death of Ward. However, this doesn't mean that Nally didn't fear for his life, even as he walked up and shot a badly injured man in the back.

See, here's the thing. It does not matter how scared Nally was or wasn't. When he decided to kill Ward - and that's what he told the Gardai he'd done on the day - he was committing an act of premeditated murder, not self-defence. That was the moment he crossed the line from justifiable self-defence into murder.

But we seem to have smudged the line back a scootch because noone likes John Ward. The fact that Ward wasn't a good chap and that noone would have liked him, that's not the problem. It's this notion that the law applies differently to different people on the basis of popularity that's the problem.

Sparks · 15-12-2006 11:23am

civdef wrote:

I'm going to call you on this one. Provide evidence (at the very least reliable media reports) to back up your claims. Otherwise retract your serious allegations.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1207/nallyp.html

Mr Nally said he went and got cartridges for the shotgun and reloaded. He followed John Ward to where he was walking on the road and he shot him again.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0713/wardj.html

Dr Marie Cassidy said Mr Ward's injuries were consistent with being struck by a piece of wood and the fatal shot suggested the gunman was standing above him when he was shot at close range.

Padraig Nally found not guilty of manslaughter :o)

Comments