Eamon Lillis guilty of Manslaughter

kraggy

Suitable conviction in my humble opinion. Didn't sound like murder.

Majority decision 10-2.

dlofnep

Don't really know the facts.

What was the basis for it being considered manslaughter?

My name is URL

I had a feeling that would be the verdict. My own thought is that he just lost it and then panicked, but didn't intend to kill her

not that that makes it any more excusable

xoxyx

Taking all else away, he could have been convicted of manslaughter for his negligence in failing to get his wife medical attention. That's aside from the (:rolleyes:alleged:rolleyes:) brick/head smashing.
I think he's guilty as sin and hope he never forgets it. Scumbag!

kraggy

No further details at present, but the judge offered the jury the possibility of finding manslaughter as the result if:

1. They felt Lillis had been provoked
2. If the State “proves an unlawful killing, but fails to prove intent,
3. Lillis was grossly negligent i.e. she could have been saved had he intervened and got help.
4. Lillis acted in self-defence.

While I type, I have just heard that the basis for their finding of manslaughter was that the State did not prove INTENT.

herya

ejmaztec wrote: »

Perhaps she fell on the brick?

sure, three times.

kraggy

z_topaz wrote: »

Taking all else away, he could have been convicted of manslaughter for his negligence in failing to get his wife medical attention. That's aside from the (:rolleyes:alleged:rolleyes:) brick/head smashing.
I think he's guilty as sin and hope he never forgets it. Scumbag!

He is guilty. Of Manslaughter.

ilovelamp2000

What did he intend to do to his wife with a brick ?

Just bruise her ? How many times did he hit her with it ?

This sounds like a cop out by the jury.

bad2dabone

a lucky verdict for him in my opinion.

kraggy

caseyann wrote: »

That's the thing( didn't sound like;)) You weren't there nor was anyone else so all they have is what he says:rolleyes:

How many Irish men have murdered their wives and children also in some cases.Its becoming shocking

Plenty of men have been victim of domestic abuse at the hands of women too. Don't be so naive/feminist as to think otherwise.

rubensni

Murder is where someone dies and the attacker intended to to kill or intended to cause serious injury.

I think he was very lucky today.

celticbest

It was always going to be murder or manslaughter. It was just a matter of the jury coming to a majority decision.

Hopefully this gives her family some closure. May she now rest in peace.

ilovelamp2000

kraggy wrote: »

Plenty of men have been victim of domestic abuse at the hands of women too. Don't be so naive/feminist as to think otherwise.

And for that reason it's okay to beat your wife around the head with a brick ?

Or am I missing the point of your post ?

kraggy

caseyann wrote: »

Come on seriously think about it honest accident you would straight away ring ambulance if you give a **** about the person:rolleyes:

She might have lived therefore he is guilty of murder

Incorrect.

The initial physical actions were most probably just trying to hurt her not kill her.

The gross negligence of leaving her there without getting help also qualify as manslaughter.

Correct result if you ask me.

caseyann

kraggy wrote: »

Plenty of men have been victim of domestic abuse at the hands of women too. Don't be so naive/feminist as to think otherwise.

I am far from it my friend was stabbed by a woman who was stalking him.Just because i made a comment such as that doesn't make me feminist.It is fact

kraggy

Rosco1982 wrote: »

And for that reason it's okay to beat your wife around the head with a brick ?

Or am I missing the point of your post ?

Don't be ridiculous. That's not what I meant. How could you even pick that up from my post.

CaseyAnn's post suggested that it's men that do all the beating/killing. They don't.

markok84

did they find scuff marks on his hands that would prove he used the brick as a weapon? I'm pretty sure if you used a brick to beat someone's head in it'd leave scratch marks on your hands. Were the web of lies he concocted after the "manslaughter" taken into account? Should he not also be tried for obstruction of justice. He'll probably be out in 3 years anyway, that's the Irish judicial system for ya, we don't punish the middle class. :mad:

ilovelamp2000

kraggy wrote: »

Incorrect.

The initial physical actions were most probably just trying to hurt her not kill her.

The gross negligence of leaving her there without getting help also qualify as manslaughter.

Correct result if you ask me.

If I wanted to hurt someone I'd punch them.

If I wanted to seriously injure them or kill them I'd use a hard heavy object to hit them with. And intent to seriously injure someone is enough intention to convict for murder.

caseyann

Rosco1982 wrote: »

And for that reason it's okay to beat your wife around the head with a brick ?

Or am I missing the point of your post ?

I know its so PC its beyond real :rolleyes:

ilovelamp2000

kraggy wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. That's not what I meant. How could you even pick that up from my post.

CaseyAnn's post suggested that it's men that do all the beating/killing. They don't.

I know it's not what you meant, but I think CaseyAnn is correct. The majority of marital murders are carried out by men.

There's no point in trying to pretend otherwise.

Helix

walshb wrote: »

what the **** more do you need to do to be guilty of murder?

be proven to have premeditated it

caseyann

kraggy wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. That's not what I meant. How could you even pick that up from my post.

CaseyAnn's post suggested that it's men that do all the beating/killing. They don't.

Incorrect i pointed out the alarming amount of Irish men who have murdered their wives.
If it was about a woman who murdered their husband or bf i would be shocked at that to.But fact is there is not same amount.

walshb

Helix wrote: »

be proven to have premeditated it

Well, that stinks. The fact is that the woman was helpless, badly injured and face down, now, you go and smack her twice more with a ****ing brick, then that is as clear cut as you can get, pre or post or whatever meditated
If that isn't intent to kill, then what is?

kraggy

Rosco1982 wrote: »

If I wanted to hurt someone I'd punch them.

If I wanted to seriously injure them or kill them I'd use a hard heavy object to hit them with. And intent to seriously injure someone is enough intention to convict for murder.

caseyann wrote: »

So bashing her in head with a Brick he was just trying to hurt her :rolleyes: To much simpsons he watched i think:rolleyes:

It's quite plausible, in a domestic argument where things get heated, that someone could pick up a brick as part of that struggle in order to do damage to the other person, WITHOUT SAYING TO THEMSELVES "I'm going to kill this person right here, right now."

How many times have there been instances in town on a saturday night where drunken brawls have got to the stage where one guy kicked another guy in the head, full swing? That's worse than a brick but you wouldn't try to put him down for murder, and chances are he wouldn't.

thebiglad

ejmaztec wrote: »

Perhaps she fell on the brick?

3 times???

ilovelamp2000

kraggy wrote: »

It's quite plausible, in a domestic argument where things get heated, that someone could pick up a brick as part of that struggle in order to do damage to the other person, WITHOUT SAYING TO THEMSELVES "I'm going to kill this person right here, right now."

How many times have there been instances in town on a saturday night where drunken brawls have got to the stage where one guy kicked another guy in the head, full swing? That's worse than a brick but you wouldn't try to put him down for murder, and chances are he wouldn't.

And if the person knows the can do serious damage to a person with a brick then that's all the proof that's needed for the crime of murder.

You don't need evidence that there was an intention to kill, an intention to seriously hurt someone is enough.

walshb

kraggy wrote: »

It's quite plausible, in a domestic argument where things get heated, that someone could pick up a brick as part of that struggle in order to do damage to the other person, WITHOUT SAYING TO THEMSELVES "I'm going to kill this person right here, right now."

How many times have there been instances in town on a saturday night where drunken brawls have got to the stage where one guy kicked another guy in the head, full swing? That's worse than a brick but you wouldn't try to put him down for murder, and chances are he wouldn't.

How would you know that it's worse than a brick? A brick is a deadly weapon, 5- 7 lbs in weight and solid. BTW, he didn't hit her once, it was three times, twice whilst she was completely defenceless and NO threat at all. He then had a chance to save her, and didn't. That is despicable.

All one can hope for is a stiff manslaughter sentence, and yes, pigs will fly

The_Kew_Tour

Its the daughter I feel most sorry for in this.

She is the loser in all this.

I hope the media give her the privacy she deserves now.

Dan Chipowski

Just shows what a joke this country is becoming, I don't care whether he woke up that morning planning to kill her or not...anyone smashing their wife to death with a brick should be locked up for life. And in any other country he would be.

Hope he dies in jail.

bad2dabone

I think what happened was, the wife was an overbearing sort, maybe a bit of a bully,
and they had no real relationship to speak of. He meets this girl and begins an affair, the wife finds out about it or has a go at him about being useless, emasculates him, pushes his buttons and he snaps, bashes her head in with a brick, concocts a series of ridiculous tales and dodgy explanations. Murder in my opinion.

Reginald P. DuM

Regardless of verdict I'm just glad it's all over. The most mundane murder trial in history. I'm aware they are not there for our entertainment but it was all over the news for weeks and I had the words "Eamon Lillis" up to my eyeballs.

Dudess

kraggy wrote: »

Plenty of men have been victim of domestic abuse at the hands of women too. Don't be so naive/feminist as to think otherwise.

Thinking there aren't male victims of domestic abuse at the hands of women is not being feminist.

kraggy

caseyann wrote: »

Incorrect i pointed out the alarming amount of Irish men who have murdered their wives.
If it was about a woman who murdered their husband or bf i would be shocked at that to.But fact is there is not same amount.

I took it up that you were having a feminist dig. If you weren't, then fair enough.

It really irks me the way people always assume that the guy is the one doing the bullying/beating when they hear there is trouble in a couple.

Even in PI, I once saw a thread by a girl who was looking for sympathy because her boyfriend hit her back after she had hit him! Like it's ok for a woman to hit a guy, "because a guy should be able to take it".

Another thing here is, manslaughter is also applicable, instead of murder, when it is obvious that the accused has been provoked.

The victim didn't sound like an angel to me. In fact, she sounded like a right cúnt.

walshb

adrian280582 wrote: »

Its the daughter I feel most sorry for in this.

She is the loser in all this.

I hope the media give her the privacy she deserves now.

She was the very one that was in open court backing his story up, despite her not being able to know what happened. She accepted everything that he told her, and said this in court. I heard nothing eported from her in praise of her mother.

kraggy

Dudess wrote: »

Thinking there aren't male victims of domestic abuse at the hands of women is not being feminist.

You're right, it's just ignorant.

rubensni

adrian280582 wrote: »

Its the daughter I feel most sorry for in this.

She is the loser in all this.

I hope the media give her the privacy she deserves now.

Hear hear.

And his wife's family. No sneaking in the back entrance for them. Photos in the paper every day.

Bloody guards.

bad2dabone

kraggy wrote: »

The victim didn't sound like an angel to me. In fact, she sounded like a right cúnt.

I agree with this but you dont bash her head with a brick just cos she's a **** (despite the fact that you may want to!)

you get a divorce.

The thing is once he embarked on the affair he would get very little in the divorce and be out of a job too.

Hence, brick-time.

walshb

kraggy wrote: »

I took it up that you were having a feminist dig. If you weren't, then fair enough.

It really irks me the way people always assume that the guy is the one doing the bullying/beating when they hear there is trouble in a couple.

Even in PI, I once saw a thread by a girl who was looking for sympathy because her boyfriend hit her back after she had hit him! Like it's ok for a woman to hit a guy, "because a guy should be able to take it".

Another thing here is, manslaughter is also applicable, instead of murder, when it is obvious that the accused has been provoked.

The victim didn't sound like an angel to me. In fact, she sounded like a right cúnt.

How do you know he was provoked? Because he said so?

It doesn't mater a damn whether or not she was a bitch or not, what he did
to the woman was really horrendous. We're not talking a slap, a punch or a shove here.

xoxyx

Helix wrote: »

be proven to have premeditated it

Not true. You have to have the intent, but premeditation is not a requirement for murder.

deadhead13

The verdict was manslaughter, but the judge can still sentence him to life imprisonment.

ilovelamp2000

We're getting somewhere with Kraggy now.

So are you saying she deserved it then ?

kraggy

bad2dabone wrote: »

I agree with this but you dont bash her head with a brick just cos she's a **** (despite the fact that you may want to!)

you get a divorce.

The thing is once he embarked on the affair he would get very little in the divorce and be out of a job too.

Hence, brick-time.

Of course you don't. What he did was stupid and wrong.

But while he was trying to hurt her, there was no proof of intent to kill here.

Therefore, Manslaughter was the correct result.

The_Kew_Tour

walshb wrote: »

She was the very one that was in open court backing his story up, despite her not being able to know what happened. She accepted everything that he told her, and said this in court. I heard nothing eported from her in praise of her mother.

Very easy for you to talk.

Its her Dad at the end of the day. That girl was under unreal pressure.

She loved her Dad. I think plenty people would have done something similar.

Dudess

caseyann wrote: »

Kraggy are you married :eek: Hope no plans there

Rosco1982 wrote: »

We're getting somewhere with Kraggy now.

So are you saying she deserved it then ?

Seriously? Even if I'm not agreement with Kraggy (while acknowledging domestic abuse against males is very much a reality).

ilovelamp2000

kraggy wrote: »

Of course you don't. What he did was stupid and wrong.

But while he was trying to hurt her, there was no proof of intent to kill here.

Therefore, Manslaughter was the correct result.

There's a subtle difference with your definition of murder and the requisite intention that's needed to satisfy the legal definition of murder.

So your conclusion is hastily arrived at.

kraggy

walshb wrote: »

How do you know he was provoked? Because he said so?

It doesn't mater a damn whether or not she was a bitch or not, what he did
to the woman was really horrendous. We're not talking a slap, a punch or a shove here.

Totally agree. It was horrendous. But convictions must be safe. Thus, the jury were right to find how they found.

I didn't say he was provoked, but it was another possible way for the jury to find the defendant guilty of manslaughter and not murder. See my post on the first page regarding the criteria for being found guilty of manslaughter instead of murder laid down by the judge in this case.

Rosco1982 wrote: »

We're getting somewhere with Kraggy now.

So are you saying she deserved it then ?

Where the hell are you getting that from? Read my second post in this thread (first page). It outlines the reasons why manslaughter would be found instead of a murder conviction, in this trial. Provocation is one of them. If the jury believed he had been provoked, that would have also been grounds for them finding manslaughter instead of murder.

But it wasn't the case. They agreed on Manslaughter as they couldn't find proof of intent.

I'm not excusing his actions. Far from it. I'm just saying that based on what the judge instructed to the jury, they came up with the correct result.

caseyann

kraggy wrote: »

I took it up that you were having a feminist dig. If you weren't, then fair enough.

It really irks me the way people always assume that the guy is the one doing the bullying/beating when they hear there is trouble in a couple.

Even in PI, I once saw a thread by a girl who was looking for sympathy because her boyfriend hit her back after she had hit him! Like it's ok for a woman to hit a guy, "because a guy should be able to take it".

Another thing here is, manslaughter is also applicable, instead of murder, when it is obvious that the accused has been provoked.

The victim didn't sound like an angel to me. In fact, she sounded like a right cúnt.

Like i said i know it happens to men to and in my honest opinion they are not women their are animals like their counter part male abusers.I also saw a woman beat her bf around his head walking up the road because he said hello to me on the street.I was sickened by it.:mad: He was 6 foot something or other and she was 4 foot nothing and was jumping up to make sure she got the digs into the head.It was appalling to watch.

When my friend got stabbed by said woman i was disgusted and angry and told him he should have floored her.But guess what he didn't you know why because he knows he would have done damage.

I have been provoked on many occasion and have not used blunt force.We all know one punch from a man would floor a woman of her size.He did not walk away or run away when he felt the urges to go further and then he did not make phone call and lied about what happened>Murder is my opinion.

kraggy

caseyann wrote: »

Kraggy are you married :eek: Hope no plans there

None of your business.

Why do you ask? I've spoken only of legal technicalities only. The jury came to the conclusion of manslaughter.

Why? Because according to their opinion on the evidence and the instructions the judge gave them, it was the result they believed in. Afterall, it was a 10-2 result.

What exactly is the issue here with everyone? I'm merely saying that from a legal point of view, it was the correct decision. A conviction of murder would have been unsafe.

markok84

kraggy wrote: »

But it wasn't the case. They agreed on Manslaughter as they couldn't find proof of intent.

Is it not proof of intent that he left her to die without seeking medical help and then concocted an outlandish story. I just think if you hit someone repeatedly with a brick it's murder.

ilovelamp2000

kraggy wrote: »

None of your business.

Why do you ask? I've spoken only of legal technicalities only. The jury came to the conclusion of manslaughter.

Why? Because according to their opinion on the evidence and the instructions the judge gave them, it was the result they believed in. Afterall, it was a 10-2 result.

What exactly is the issue here with everyone? I'm merely saying that from a legal point of view, it was the correct decision. A conviction of murder would have been unsafe.

The problem is you don't actually understand the legal technicalities.

So for the third time, and this time in the judge's words:

“Did he intend to kill or cause serious injury?” he asked. “The prosecution says the natural and probable consequences of blunt force trauma to the head is serious injury.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0127/breaking6.html?via=mr


So are you trying to tell me that he didn't intend to cause his wife serious injury when he hit her three times in the head with a brick ?

I don't understand how anyone could possibly think anything other than serious injury is possible from three strikes of a brick in the head.

Dudess

Reginald P. DuM wrote: »

Regardless of verdict I'm just glad it's all over. The most mundane murder trial in history. I'm aware they are not there for our entertainment but it was all over the news for weeks and I had the words "Eamon Lillis" up to my eyeballs.

I can never understand comments like this - did it really bother you that much that you're "glad it's over"?