Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Padraig Nally found not guilty of manslaughter :o)

  • 14-12-2006 11:36pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    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]


«13456

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 710 ✭✭✭Victor McDade


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭ziggy


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,997 ✭✭✭latenia


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


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,070 ✭✭✭ScouseMouse


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭SeanW


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,060 ✭✭✭Rudolph Claus


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,997 ✭✭✭latenia


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,099 ✭✭✭whitelightrider


    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???


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,997 ✭✭✭latenia


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭aphex™


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 239 ✭✭nellieswellies


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭adonis


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭aphex™


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭adonis


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 128 ✭✭dragon_lordMTB


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 239 ✭✭nellieswellies


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    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.
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 445 ✭✭nollaig


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,057 ✭✭✭civdef


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 239 ✭✭nellieswellies


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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    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).


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement