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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Padraig Nally found not guilty of manslaughter :o)

1356

Comments

  • #62
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Tristrame wrote:
    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.
    *reads back over thread*
    Looks to me like I should expect a great deal of company so.
    Or are you saying only Nally is permitted to sue boards.ie? Are the Wards not permitted to sue on the above-listed grounds?


  • #63
    tred
    Registered Users Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭tred


    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.

    My childs life, my wifes life. my familys life, and my life.


  • #64
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    tred wrote:
    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.
    In the eyes of the law, both before and after this case, you are not. You'll go to court to show you didn't deliberately throw the man down the stairs when he was unconcious or some similar abuse, but for a genuine case as you describe, no, you aren't liable.

    Shoot the man, beat him nearly senseless, break his arm, expose his skull a few times, then reload and chase him down the street and shoot him while he's on his hands and knees in the road, however, and that's a whole other ball game.


  • #65
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    tred wrote:
    My childs life, my wifes life. my familys life, and my life.
    Those aren't possessions.
    Well.
    Not since the abolition of slavery anyway.


  • #66
    civdef
    Registered Users Posts: 3,057 ✭✭✭civdef


    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?

    You've pointed out an apparent contradiction between two RTE reports, this is not proof that Nally lied. It may indicate all sorts of things such as Nally's recollecton could have been mistaken, the pathologists findings may have been incorrect, RTE could have reported incorrectly.

    It doesn't prove your repeated and serious allegations that Nally perjured humself.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    You've pointed out an apparent contradiction between two RTE reports
    Quoting the RTE reports was the easiest and fastest way to point out the evidence. In the actual interview, broadcast again yesterday on RTE Radio One just after the verdict was announced, Nally himself clearly states that he shot Ward from ten yards away while both of them were standing (and Ward was walking away) and that he didn't mean to kill him. This is not only at odds with the testimony of the state pathologist, it is also at odds with his later testimony in court, where he said he shot him because he thought his life was in danger. You can listen to it for yourself:
    http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/230-2201808.smil

    And tell me civ, if that doesn't prove it, what do you define as proof that someone lied?


  • #68
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Sparks wrote:
    *reads back over thread*
    Looks to me like I should expect a great deal of company so.
    Or are you saying only Nally is permitted to sue boards.ie? Are the Wards not permitted to sue on the above-listed grounds?

    I'd take the view that given Wards history which would come into play in accusations that he was there to rob ie it would be a reasonable assumptiont
    Yes I'd be of the view that openly declaring the man a murderer and a liar here(and deliberately it would seem ignoring my instructions to call it your opinion based on your interpretation of certain things) ,yes I'd be of the view that that is a separate and more serious thing to be doing that I am not going to stand over here.

    Sparks take a week to cool off

    You can pm me or one of the other mods when the time is up.


  • #69
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    crybaby wrote:
    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

    agree completely. In Nally's situation I might have done the same, who knows, but surely manslaughter was the minimum conviction that should have been applied.

    I think public sentiment played a part here which it shouldn't have, only the law of the land should have applied.


  • #70
    Owen
    Registered Users Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭Owen


    First of all, the spin doctoring at Pavee Point is comical. It doesn't matter if Frog was a Traveller or not, he was threatening a Man's home, his land, his psychological well being, and life. No one should have to stand for that kind of petty behaviour.

    Second of all, a man is entitled to defend what's his - no matter what the law says, it's what's morally right. I applaud Mr. Nally, and his stance. I would only hope if I was as old and frail as he was, being constantly bullied by scumbags, that I could have the same level of courage.

    I remember when I got my first retail job 12 years ago, there was an old Romanian man who came into the mobile phone shop where I worked. He was about 5 foot tall, about 7-8 stone, stooped over, on crutches, marginal english, covered in bruises. He was living in a Council Estate here in Cork, and used to get the sh*t kicked out of him regularly by Traveller - sorry, I mean Disadvantaged - Kids, his house had bricks thrown through his Windows, and they would reach in after smashing the Glass to cut his phone cable. He had to buy a Mobile at a time when they were very expensive to call the Gards - and it took him weeks to save the money while all the time these scumbags were making his life hell, putting such a deep fear into him, that he couldn't sleep, and any time he saw a young male with a shaved head, he'd look at the ground and back up against a wall for fear he'd be attacked. I asked the Gards if they could help, and the Gards said there was very little they could do.

    My garage was broken into last month, most of my tools were taken, and one of my Motorbikes, the perpetrators were identified as another Group of 'Disadvantaged' Kids, but yet again, they Gardaí told me there's very little they could do. I now have to replace about 1500 Euro of personal gear, and also replace a Window, and Roller Door.

    And this is what we let happen, and we never ever send a clear message to Scumbags. Never.


  • #71
    Drax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 512 ✭✭✭Drax


    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...

    Holy jasus... thats some attitude. I have to say that initially I was all in favour of Nally but looking at it a bit deeper, I am now divided on this. I can imagine the fear involved but to beat him 20 times and then reload and kill the man just seems too much to me. I guess at the time he wanted closure on his fear and went the whole hog. I do agree with Ned above in that people have a right to protect their property. But the above statement is totally out of whack. So it will be ok if one of the Wards decided to kill Nally?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    thats the reason I'm amzed he was found not guilty. Surely the fact he reloaded and shot again completely rules out the self defence argument.

    I think he took the opportunity to finish off what had been a scurge on his life and his peace of mind. In the same situation maybe most of us would do the same but how he was not convicted of a crime is beyond me.


  • #73
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    tred wrote:
    Wards family have no right to sue now because of yesterdays verdict.

    Get a life and some valid opinions.

    Okay, I'll overlook the peronal abuse because (i) I don't want you banned and(ii) to help you understand the law. Of course the Wards can sue. I don't want to sound patronising, but you do appreciate the difference between criminal and civil remedies, don't you? Why can't they sue? What is the bar? Whether they are successful or not is an entirely different matter, but I'll leave you check up on occupier's liability legislation, MacNamara v ESB, Purthill v Athlone UDC etc. etc.


  • #74
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    civdef wrote:
    You've pointed out an apparent contradiction between two RTE reports, this is not proof that Nally lied. It may indicate all sorts of things such as Nally's recollecton could have been mistaken, the pathologists findings may have been incorrect, RTE could have reported incorrectly.

    It doesn't prove your repeated and serious allegations that Nally perjured humself.

    I'm sorry what now? We decide that forsenic evidence isn't in doubt on what basis?

    So on one hand we have the evidence of a senior government scientist.

    On the other hand we have the word of a man, who has contradicted himself, and needs to alter the circumstances of Ward's death.

    You have a man who needs to lie to get off from a crime, contradictory forensic evidence, and your claim reporting of the trial was mistaken.

    Those are three serious issues with Nally's story, you're suggesting a senior scientist was wrong, the national broadcast was incorrect, and the man is just honestly confused, despite the fact that he needs to change is original story to get off with less serious charge.

    The crediblility of the above is straining.

    One side of this argument wants to stiffle debate. The logic of their claims means I cannot say, for example, that the US government lied about WMD in Iraq, because it's entirely possible that they really did think there were WMDs in Iraq. I cannot prove the above statement, but the wealth of evidence support it.

    Can I not say such a thing now on this forum?


  • #75
    El Stuntman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,720 ✭✭✭El Stuntman


    Deleted User wrote:
    Okay, I'll overlook the peronal abuse because (i) I don't want you banned and(ii) to help you understand the law. Of course the Wards can sue. I don't want to sound patronising, but you do appreciate the difference between criminal and civil remedies, don't you? Why can't they sue? What is the bar? Whether they are successful or not is an entirely different matter, but I'll leave you check up on occupier's liability legislation, MacNamara v ESB, Purthill v Athlone UDC etc. etc.

    great idea; maybe the victims of Ward's previous 80 crimes could sue his estate if his family gets a big settlement?


  • #76
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Sparks wrote:
    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.

    Laws which allow men like ward and his son go free. Hey, this is a miscarriage of justice, but sure, its not like there wouldn't have been one anyway if nally hadn't had his shotgun.

    Edit; btw, if Ward had of been where he belonged (behind bars) in the first place, nally wouldn't have killed him. So this is jsut another case of two wrongs not making a right.


  • #77
    DadaKopf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    There are a lot of CRAXY comments on this thread, and it seems to me that most are judging Ward instead of Nally, the killer.

    If I was a juror, my considerations would have been:
    • We will not know for certain what Ward was doing on Nally's farm that day. People assume that they know, but they don't. This is an *assumption*. There is no forensic evidence, and there is no evidence to support either side's claims. Therefore, this evidence cannot be considered 'evidence' towards a 'proof' of guilt or innocence
    • Ward's prior charges/convictions are not admissable as evidence because (1) Ward is not being tried, Nally is, and (2) the legal obligation of the jury is to weigh up evidence of this incident, and this incident alone
    • Nally probably feared for his life; given prior incidents, it is not irrational for an old, lonely person to feel vulnerable, though I would assume he became paranoid, but not so far gone that an insanity plea was valid, therefore I must assume he was at the time compus mentus
    • Nally admits to beating Ward with a stick during the altercation - we will not know who started the altercation or why, and during this point Nally was probably using reasonable force
    • Nally shot Ward in the leg, clearly disabling him; Ward Jr. had driven to get help at this point; Ward was no longer a threat; accounts of how this happened differ but in either case, Ward was no longer a threat
    • At this point, evidence would suggest to me that reasonable force may have been used
    • The State Pathologist - no one more qualified to collect evidence of this kind - is satisfied that, contrary to Nally's account, Ward was shot at close range, in the back strongly suggesting that Ward was escaping, therefore no longer a threat. I would take this evidence over anyone else's.
    • In the final analysis, Nally shot and killed Ward using unreasonable force.

    I think there are broader issues which should be addressed, and had they, this may never had happened. Such as better rural policing, and security grants to vulnerable farmers to secure houses. But this isn't what Nally was being judged on, he was being judged on whether he used reasonable force in an unlawful killing. I believe that, on the evidence that can rationally be considered, he is guilty.

    *Disclaimer: this is my own view of publicly available information, and I fully accept that Nally has been vindicated by a jury in the Central Criminal Court.


  • #78
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    El Stuntman wrote:
    great idea

    Thank you.


  • #79
    BuffyBot
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 24,924 Mod ✭✭✭✭BuffyBot


    no matter what the law says, it's what's morally right.

    Unfortunately for you morals, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder.


  • #80
    El Stuntman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,720 ✭✭✭El Stuntman


    Deleted User wrote:
    Thank you.

    you're welcome ;)


  • #81
    elqu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭elqu


    morals are not in the eye of the beholder.

    it is wrong to kill someone. we all know this. everyong accepts this as a first basic principle.

    the history and background of a victim are completely irrelevant.

    the circumstances described in the media don't sound like self defence to me.

    he may call himself vindicated but he is still a killer.

    it is very shocking that he has come out of this with no conviction. what does it say about our value on human life? are we saying Nally's possessions and right to protect them are more important that someone's life? how can so many people think it was in order for Nally to do what he did?

    I find the whole thing very depressing.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    MovingOn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭MovingOn


    To try and balance this debate a little. I am one of the people you never usually hear from, a settled traveller, I am 38 years of age and settled now for just over 7 years. I am proud of my traditions and family but unfortunatly the travelling community is in termoil.
    God bless the soul of Mr Ward and his family and god be with Mr Nally, my travelling community want to be equal and respected but that will not happen unless the old ways of an honest days work for an honest days pay comes back. The day of the quick buck is here and too many of our people are availing of it. I can blame many sources from the governments lack of resources to peoples blatent prejudice against travellers but alas its as much our fault as any other. I will be honest in that I used to believe things would change and so did my brother until he was killed by a fellow traveller for trying to stop him from dealing drugs. I may be a coward but I have young children and know the travellers way. I will not get involved in any fued. It's time honest travellers take a stand and say the old ways are dying and stop the rot from within. It will take a lot of effort from both sides. Every man, woman and child has the right to feel safe especially in their own home, anyone who creates fear like this is not a good person traveller or otherwise.
    God bless you all.

    Pascal


  • #83
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Giving my own view at this point,I'd have been calling the Guards and neighbours after the first shot-It's easy to say that sitting in front of a pc though...
    I'm not at all happy with the situation regarding the 2nd shot but then if I was a juror,I'd be looking all the witnesses in the eye at the trial and deliberating with the other 11 jurors.

    I cannot say what my view would have been in that case.
    I know what my view is now and that is,I'm not happy generally because there was a death.
    I'm pretty happy with the verdict but only in the sense that it was done right and thats the way we do things here-you are judged by a jury of your peers in a court of law for such things who consider the facts of the case as put foward.

    The difficulty starts here though as we move foward.
    Hopefully the recrutment of civilian Gardaí will continue by the score load so as to keep this kind of thing happening to an absolute minimum.
    Every community should have access to at least one or two Garda reserves and pay them for that.
    Every community should have some kind of committee on call to the vulnerable or those that live alone.

    Simple Requests-Simple so Simple.


  • #84
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    DadaKopf wrote:
    • We will not know for certain what Ward was doing on Nally's farm that day. People assume that they know, but they don't. This is an *assumption*. There is no forensic evidence, and there is no evidence to support either side's claims. Therefore, this evidence cannot be considered 'evidence' towards a 'proof' of guilt or innocence

    Well, you don't know anything about the killing when you get down to it, you wheren't there. So you have to take a look at the balance of probability, and the things you know to be facts. It's circumstancial evidence, but its admissible.
    • Ward's prior charges/convictions are not admissable as evidence because (1) Ward is not being tried, Nally is, and (2) the legal obligation of the jury is to weigh up evidence of this incident, and this incident alone

    True, however it gives insight into whether or not Nally was in actual danger from Ward. Did Nally know ward, or off him? Did his knowledge contribute to his decision to shoot him?
    • Nally probably feared for his life; given prior incidents, it is not irrational for an old, lonely person to feel vulnerable, though I would assume he became paranoid, but not so far gone that an insanity plea was valid, therefore I must assume he was at the time compus mentus

    He was only paranoid if they weren't there to rob him. Knowing what we know, this ward character was, in all likelyhood there to rob him, and if he had no problems in the past attacking people and gardi, he would have had no problem attacking Nally.
    • Nally admits to beating Ward with a stick during the altercation - we will not know who started the altercation or why, and during this point Nally was probably using reasonable force

    Resonable force in an unreasonable situations.
    • Nally shot Ward in the leg, clearly disabling him; Ward Jr. had driven to get help at this point; Ward was no longer a threat; accounts of how this happened differ but in either case, Ward was no longer a threat
    Maybe, but did nally still precieve him to be one. Was Nally in a panic? You don't know. I don't know.
    • At this point, evidence would suggest to me that reasonable force may have been used

    Lets be Clear, at this point, in keeping with your line of thought, ignoring all evidence we're not 100% certain on, you believe resonable force has been used on a man, who has been shot and beaten for walking up to the door of a house? Because if we don't take into account Nally's state of mind or Wards past actions, thats the situation in a nut shell.
    • The State Pathologist - no one more qualified to collect evidence of this kind - is satisfied that, contrary to Nally's account, Ward was shot at close range, in the back strongly suggesting that Ward was escaping, therefore no longer a threat. I would take this evidence over anyone else's.

    Maybe he was, but was Nally in a positions to make such a rational and level headed decision, after fighting with the man for his life? Did he stil lfeel under treat?

    • In the final analysis, Nally shot and killed Ward using unreasonable force.
    In the final analysis, after much hine sight and allot of debating and evidence, which Nally may not have had, you are right, unreasonable force was used. Question remains, was it unreasonable then.


  • #85
    Owen
    Registered Users Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭Owen


    MovingOn wrote:
    To try and balance this debate a little. I am one of the people you never usually hear from, a settled traveller,

    Pascal, thank you for coming on boards to tell your story. You're dead right, I think there are probably quite a few Travellers who are upset at what the majority are up to. I worked for an afternoon in the Travellers Training Centre in Galway, and couldn't believe how the young people thought it was great fun to steal from my toolkit, and from the pockets of their Teachers, and thought straight away to blame the Travellers themselves, but then I thought ... wait a minute, this happens with 'Settled People' too. I think Parents are to blame full stop, and the reasons Parents of unruling children are to blame, settled or not, is down to poor education, not knowing how to discipline kids, not knowing how to impart the difference between right and wrong.


  • #86
    MovingOn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭MovingOn


    I was very lucky growing up as our mother cared a lot about others and had respect which is what is lacking not only for others but for ourselves. My father was a man like Mr Ward, a king boxer who practiced on my mother more than once. I reject the argument that I was a victim. We all get the chance to make decisions unfortuneatly the easy way is usually the wrong way. I had it tough and seen first hand how my community has started to tear itself apart. I hate people who look down on others instead of trying to help them, but not nearly as much as I hate people like Mr Ward who have helped destroy a culture that was once respected. The real trajedy here is the wider rift that has formed between our cultures and in case you don't know how deep this goes, I know that if my identity is figured out by my community for what I am writing my family will be shunned. It is up to us to make the effort to educate and support our own people and make us a proud race again.

    Pascal


  • #87
    El Stuntman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,720 ✭✭✭El Stuntman


    holy crap :eek: :eek: :eek:

    bans, bans, bans & was that not incitement to do all sorts of nasty things?

    must be illegal to advocate mass murder of a segment of society?


  • #88
    adonis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭adonis


    LiouVille wrote:
    In the final analysis, after much hine sight and allot of debating and evidence, which Nally may not have had, you are right, unreasonable force was used. Question remains, was it unreasonable then.

    Is that not how all trials are carried out?


  • #89
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I see the closure of the Nally threads in afterhours is bringing the loons here.

    Country voice you are banned

    This thread is remaining open for the time being as per this post

    http://cake.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=52501134&posted=1#post52501134

    I'm sending country voices post and bonkeys sensible reply (to keep it company) to the recycle bin.

    Any more nonsense in this thread guys will get a 1 week ban at the moderators discretion.

    Please read the charter anybody that hasnt read it before and please post sensibly.

    Thank you.


  • #90
    MarkR
    Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators Posts: 11,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭MarkR


    I was pretty surprised to hear that he was found not guilty. I would have assumed that executing someone as a pre-emptive strike would be carring the self defence thing a bit far.

    Saying that, I think that ward deserved justice (jail time etc) rather than to be killed for what he might have done later.

    So - if nally wasn't guilty, who was? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Sniipe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,932 ✭✭✭Sniipe


    I think Nally was in fear of his life. I think that he had been harassed before, quite possibly by the same person he killed. I don't care what background Mr Ward had. I welcome the news that Jusitice Minister Mr McDowell will strengthen home-defence legislation (http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/?jp=CWIDSNOJCWKF)
    I do not believe in couring away in a corner while you are being burgled. They could easily kill you! Your home should be your safe house, you should never be afraid in your home (don't go down the line of posessions/stuff, as I'm talking about being afraid of your life).
    If the same situation happened again I think it would be better if Nally had perhaps immobilised the Burgler permanently rather than killing him. Unfortunately the system isn't good enough, that man could if alive could go to prison and get out eventually then hunt down Mr Nally. There is no chance of that happening now.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement