Padraig Nally found not guilty of manslaughter :o)

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.

Sparks · 15-12-2006 11:24am

nollaig wrote:

Sparks,
What do you think Ward was doing at the house?

Doesn't matter what I think. Matters what I can prove.

15-12-2006 11:24am

Sparks wrote:

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.

Theres more of it.
Quit that immediately Sparks and offer your opinion rather than unproven allegations.
If you do not state these opinions as being your opinions especially now that the man has been found innocent by a court of law you will be given a one week ban.
Final warning.

Villain · 15-12-2006 11:27am

Sparks, you can beleive what you want I'm going with the facts that matter, which imo are:

Ward was a dangerous criminal with a long record of commiting crimes.
He was not invited onto Nally's land never mind into his house.

Nally was and this is an innocent man, who has never been commited of a crime.
Nally had been robbed and there was a very high rate of burglary in his area.

Now taking those facts into account imo anyone with any sense of a brain would know Mr Ward was up to no good that day and was infact going to commit a crime against either ward or his property. Nally shot him in a fit of rage which was induced by the fear he was living in, he used force which a jury of his peers had found to reasonable. Case closed.

Sparks · 15-12-2006 11:29am

Tristrame wrote:

You mightn't mind boards being sued as a result of those types of allegations but I do.

Then stop worrying. I'm reporting on court proceedings (specifically the state pathologists official report), and as I pointed out to civdef earlier, that's specifically exempted from defamation torts in this country.

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.

His freedom was at stake; he gave a version of events that was wildly at odds to the physical evidence, as pointed out to the court by the state pathologist.
Now, shy of developing telepathic powers and reading his mind, no better proof of lying can be found. He had motive to lie; his story didn't match physical evidence. You can't prove lying any more definitively than that anywhere, not just in this case, not even with a confession from the person involved (because if you have a confession, was he lying when he said he lied, or is he lying in the confession? You have no way to prove it either way).

And if this is being liberal to the point of being apologetic... :rolleyes:

crybaby · 15-12-2006 11:40am

I do have sympathy for Nally in that I can see pretty much why he did what he did out of fear but how in Gods name he wasn't found guilty of manslaughter is beyond me

civdef · 15-12-2006 11:51am

Nope, those reports don't constitute proof that Nally was lying - must do better.

tred · 15-12-2006 11:53am

Deleted User wrote:

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...

I read some interesting posts pros and cons, and then this muck above comes along. Wards family have no right to sue now because of yesterdays verdict. What you want to happen?? every time a burglar enters your house, and say cuts his hand on the broken window, you want them to have the right to sue you.

Get a life and some valid opinions.

15-12-2006 12:02pm

Sparks wrote:

Then stop worrying. I'm reporting on court proceedings (specifically the state pathologists official report), and as I pointed out to civdef earlier, that's specifically exempted from defamation torts in this country.

Your declations of liar are not.So no more of that,just state opinion please.
The rest of what you state is your supposition from your own subjective reading of some of the details.
For instance you harp on about a comment in an RTÉ interview that could easily be just as much interpreted as a mistaken memory in the fog of what happened given the adrenelin fear motivated case that was being made by Nally and accepted by the jury.

Now I absolutely mean it Sparks.
You build a case that is your opinion and state it here as fact one more time and you will be getting that one week ban.

Sparks · 15-12-2006 12:03pm

civdef wrote:

Nope, those reports don't constitute proof that Nally was lying - must do better.

Really. You'd care to explain how I can do better than showing that Nallys own public testimony as to what happened contradicts the physical evidence as reported by the state pathologist? Bearing in mind that we don't know how to do telepathy, that is.

And would someone care to tell me why I must prove Nally was lying, when not one person here has been asked to prove their unfounded allegations that:

Ward was there to rob Nally.
Ward would have come back to do Nally harm.
Ward did steal from Nally.
Ward stole from Nally in the past.
Anyone stole from Nally in the past.
Travellers are generally criminals.
Ward's son was lying.

And probably a few others that I've forgotten.
What's the difference between what I've listed and what Civ is saying I've alleged without foundation, other than that (a) I've given proof, and (b) the above list isn't popular?

tred · 15-12-2006 12:05pm

Hi all, I can see why this topic is causing so much debate and discussion.

However in the context of what happened, I suppose, maybe I give you a story of my own. In the mid 80's, a traveler gang wreaked havoc in the west of Ireland. Particularly the Galway, south Mayo area. At the time, they targeted Old defenseless men, as they were easy pickings; however they used brutality to get what they wanted. At the time, the older people in my village lived in fear. One Sunday morning, my father’s uncle heard a knock on the back door, he looked out the front curtains window, and saw a car idling over with a driver in the front, and it would be strange to get visitors to an area that you didn’t know. He got scared, they were 2 members of the traveling community. At the same time, my neighbor was hunting in the back fields, and spotted the car. (Before neighbor watch), he and his mate made his way, and asked what they were doing, they made a run for it. My neighbors knocked on back door, and called out Sonny, are you ok. My fathers uncle was sitting in the rocking chair, with his back to the wall, facing the door, with a loaded shotgun. He would have shot my neighbor for sure, only he identified himself. Shortly after this episode, the traveler gang, murdered an old man in Shrule county Mayo, and they were found and jailed. Still in prison. We all know this story, and even my father to this day, would be apprensive of strangers entering his yard. Padraig Nally would have known of these storys, and lived in the fear, that we has going to be next. I dont excuse what happened, but I can relate to the area, and environment. I don’t think many of you guys in the Pale and its surrounds can. Its no different if u ask me, to any of you guys finding a burglar in ur house in Dublin, you apprehend him and defend ur home, he falls down the stairs and dies, are you liable for manslaughter? In the eye of the law after this, you may not.

Padraig Nally found not guilty of manslaughter :o)

Comments