If you were in the jury for the Lillis trial

My name is URL

What would be your verdict?

I know there's another thread about this, and that people don't have the same amount of insight as the real jury...

but since the media can play something up so much, it's only fair that people can have an opinion on it all

so how would you have found him?

Agonist

My name is URL wrote: »

so how would you have found him?

I'd have followed the trail of blood up to the attic

starbelgrade

It's a sad state of affairs when you can't whack yr missus over the head with a brick when she's nagging you about the bins & not do time for it. So much for progress in a modern society.

itsallaboutheL

URL lost his subscription... i betya he's really yer man Eamon and they won't let him have his credit card in jail!!

Hank_Jones

He probably could have saved her if he'd rang the authorities instead of going to hide the clothes in the attic.

In my book it's murder, he may not have intended to kill her, but his failing to act was a large factor in her death.
That and the fact that he hit her with a rock...

Ann22

I think he was guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter, that's when you're provoked or in a rage. You intend to kill them 'cos you're in a mad temper.

.Involuntary Manslaughter is when you don't actually mean to kill them..you could be guilty of killing someone because of recklessness ie. criminal negligence or unlawful act - killing someone during an unlawful act in which death was highly likely to occur.

I don't believe Lillis planned to do away with her it just happened during the row. He knew while he was bashing her over the head that she was going to die but in the moment he didn't care.

TheZohanS

starbelgrade wrote: »

It's a sad state of affairs when you can't whack yr missus over the head with a brick when she's nagging you about the bins & not do time for it. So much for progress in a modern society.

Jesus....

Banned.

Hank_Jones

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

fo' serious??

I think Zohan just likes saying the word banned.

Personally I have a thing for the word omnipresent, doesn't come up in conversation much though, unfortunately.

Cheap Thrills!

Ann22 wrote: »

I think he was guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter, that's when you're provoked or in a rage. You intend to kill them 'cos you're in a mad temper.

.Involuntary Manslaughter is when you don't actually mean to kill them..you could be guilty of killing someone because of recklessness ie. criminal negligence or unlawful act - killing someone during an unlawful act in which death was highly likely to occur.

I don't believe Lillis planned to do away with her it just happened during the row. He knew while he was bashing her over the head that she was going to die but in the moment he didn't care.

Possibly, though IF he was in a verbally/emotionally abusive relationship then he could have fantasised/re-rehearsed the moment many times before he took his opportunity.

I mean I don't think that whatever took place that morning would have been so different than what might have happened a hundred other mornings, maybe she did taunt him about the bins/forgetting to feed the robins etc BUT I think this time he had motivation AND opportunity, he took it and then, ran with it...

with the bull$hit stories and lies.....

TheZohanS

Hank_Jones wrote: »

I think Zohan just likes saying the word banned.

Personally I have a thing for the word omnipresent, doesn't come up in conversation much though, unfortunately.

I don't joke about the more serious topics.

Red_Marauder

I would say manslaughter for the same reason that the jury gave, I don't believe there was genuine, considered intent for murder. Such a thing would be totally out of kilter with all character descriptions of Lillis and out of keeping with his past. There were too many problems with a potential murder conviction. I'm glad they didn't convict him for murder and although what he did was of course wrong, I hope that whenever he is released he can rebuild some sort of life without media obsession.

Ann22

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

Possibly, though IF he was in a verbally/emotionally abusive relationship then he could have fantasised/re-rehearsed the moment many times before he took his opportunity.

I mean I don't think that whatever took place that morning would have been so different than what might have happened a hundred other mornings, maybe she did taunt him about the bins/forgetting to feed the robins etc BUT I think this time he had motivation AND opportunity, he took it and then, ran with it...

with the bull$hit stories and lies.....

You could well be right Cheap Thrills but the Jury would be told they have to be sure, you can't have a doubt in your mind. As far as I know you have to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt.

limklad

Up to the point of the Daughter Testimony I though it was murder. Her Testimony of her forgiving the father over what happened but not forgiving him for the lies. That was odd and signalled to me that there was more going on here that abuse from her mother towards her father and maybe towards her. Children do not forgive those who kill caring loving mothers. Yet she would not forgive the lies. It was an odd Testimony.

Abused victims do snap and commit act after long time suffering abuse and wanting it to stop at all cost with burning rage let loose, where logic, sanity and reason goes out the window and panic set in afterwards to cover up the accidental killing. The Prosecution did not prove intent. They only prove that he was responsible for kill his wife and badly cover it up with lies. When people panic they do stupid things.

locum-motion

This is the way I see it (and by 'it', I mean the 3-option jury decision, not specifically this case):

You've got 12 people in a room.
The judge has told them that they have 3 options:
A. Guilty of murder
B. Guilty of manslaughter (but NG of murder)
C. Not guilty.

There are actually 7 initial positions that each juror might take:
1. Convinced of A.
2. Reckons it's A, but could be persuaded it's B.
3. Could be persuaded it's A, but reckons it's B.
4. Convinced it's B.
5. Could be persuaded it's C but reckons it's B.
6. Reckons it's C, but could be persuaded it's B.
7. Convinced it's C.

I think that the distribution of jurors is going to be a normal distribution, that is, a bell-shaped curve. There's going to be less people at each end of the spectrum and more in the middle, in just the same way as there's only a few people that are 5'0" and a few that are 6'5" but quite alot that are 5'8".

If the prosecution evidence is comparatively strong, then the bell is going to be shifted towards the lower numbers above:
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 3
5. 2
6. 1
7. 0

This would lead to either a 9-3, 10-2 or 11-1 Manslaughter verdict, with the dissenters voting Guilty of Murder.

If the defence evidence is comparatively strong, then the bell is going to be shifted towards the higher numbers above:
1. 0
2. 1
3. 2
4. 3
5. 3
6. 2
7. 1

This would lead to either a 9-3, 10-2 or 11-1 Manslaughter verdict, with the dissenters voting Not Guilty.

Either way, the result is going to be the same.

As long as juries are given three options, many who deserve a Murder conviction are going to be convicted of Manslaughter.

A prosecutor isn't going to be able to secure a Murder conviction unless the evidence is so overwhelmingly strong that they can get the jury's initial positions to something like this:

1. 5
2. 4
3. 2
4. 1
5. 0
6. 0
7. 0

Hope I've explained my theory in an understandable way.

Irish_polizei

locum-motion wrote: »

This is the way I see it (and by 'it', I mean the 3-option jury decision, not specifically this case):

Hope I've explained my theory in an understandable way.

Absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt ........:P

congo_90

Guilty. That brick didn't pick itself up. Hit her 3 times.

REGARDLESS of her being a dominant person in which case cheating rather than a divorce is not an answer but still to justify his means. He would require more than an invitation of defence from simple words.

If he was a man he'd walk away. Go to a solicitor and file divorce, showing her mental instabilitiy and file for custody of child rather than beating her, getting changed, lieing, lieing to a court, lieing to the media then finally being judged as the above on manslaughter charges.

anonymous_joe

congo_90 wrote: »

Guilty. That brick didn't pick itself up. Hit her 3 times.

REGARDLESS of her being a dominant person in which case cheating rather than a divorce is not an answer but still to justify his means. He would require more than an invitation of defence from simple words.

If he was a man he'd walk away. Go to a solicitor and file divorce, showing her mental instabilitiy and file for custody of child rather than beating her, getting changed, lieing, lieing to a court, lieing to the media then finally being judged as the above on manslaughter charges.

His gender shouldn't really come into it.

Whatever happened isn't really something anyone but he knows, but the nature of the case suggests manslaughter.

Son Of A Vidic

I would request a private meeting alone in a private room with the accused. I would not require a pen or notepad for the meeting, but I would however request a BRICK!

AudreyHepburn

Ann22 wrote: »

I think he was guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter, that's when you're provoked or in a rage. You intend to kill them 'cos you're in a mad temper.

If you kill with intent, even if the person has provoked you, it's murder not manslaughter.

Manslaughter means that you didn't intend on killing the person.

You don't have been a Doctor to know that if you decide to hit some-one over the head several times with a brick you stand a good chance of killing them!

Mark200

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If you kill with intent, even if the person has provoked you, it's murder not manslaughter.

Actually, there is a defence of 'provocation' which (if I remember correctly) can reduce the sentence from murder to manslaughter. It is seen as temporary insanity.

Red_Marauder

medicman2009 wrote: »

I would request a private meeting alone in a private room with the accused. I would not require a pen or notepad for the meeting, but I would however request a BRICK!

He's not accused of anything, he has been acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter.

If you kill with intent, even if the person has provoked you, it's murder not manslaughter.

That might be your personal opinion but manslaughter can allow for intent to kill under law.
As it happens, the jury here found no intent to commit murder.

ilovelamp2000

Mark200 wrote: »

Actually, there is a defence of 'provocation' which (if I remember correctly) can reduce the sentence from murder to manslaughter. It is seen as temporary insanity.

Yes provocation is a defence. It is not one that was ever raised in the Lillis trial, according to the judge so it wasn't to be considered by the jury.

The issue was whether Lillis intended to cause serious injury (or kill) to his wife. Now if you can conclude that hitting someone three times over the head with a brick does not constitute an intention to cause them serious injury then you can safely say it's manslaughter.

But if you can conclude that then I think you're nuts.

Mark200

Rosco1982 wrote: »

The issue was whether Lillis intended to cause serious injury (or kill) to his wife. Now if you can conclude that hitting someone three times over the head with a brick does not constitute an intention to cause them serious injury then you can safely say it's manslaughter.

But if you can conclude that then I think you're nuts.

Surely it depends on the amount of force used...

According to this article:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0130/breaking4.htm

"the Deputy State Pathologist said that moderate force would have caused the three wounds to Ms Cawley’s head "

Moderate being the main word.

He was found guilty of manslaughter by 10 of the 12 the jury members who sat through the whole trial listening to all the facts and being legally advised by the judge. So I don't really understand where you get off calling them 'nuts' for reaching the conclusion that they did.

ilovelamp2000

Mark200 wrote: »

Surely it depends on the amount of force used...

According to this article:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0130/breaking4.htm

"the Deputy State Pathologist said that moderate force would have caused the three wounds to Ms Cawley’s head "

Moderate being the main word.

He was found guilty of manslaughter by 10 of the 12 the jury members who sat through the whole trial listening to all the facts and being legally advised by the judge. So I don't really understand where you get off calling them 'nuts' for reaching the conclusion that they did.

If you were hitting someone with a brick over the head three times, twice while they were lying face down on the ground, how could you be doing anything other than trying to cause them serious injury ?

I don't have any faith in Irish people as a group making the right decisions to be honest, we're a stupid country.

hooradiation

medicman2009 wrote: »

I would request a private meeting alone in a private room with the accused. I would not require a pen or notepad for the meeting, but I would however request a BRICK!

I think it's a little late to be showing him the correct way to dispose of a murder weapon.

Red_Marauder

Rosco1982 wrote: »

If you were hitting someone with a brick over the head three times, twice while they were lying face down on the ground, how could you be doing anything other than trying to cause them serious injury ?

Intending to cause serious injury is not the same as intent to murder.

Also, it hasn't been established that he hit her over the head three times with a brick or even at all; that was the prosecution's case, which remember, has failed.

ilovelamp2000

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Intending to cause serious injury is not the same as intent to murder.

You're right it's not, but either one of them are enough to satisfy the legal definition of murder. Most people seem to completely miss this point.

So I'll ask again - what was Lillis' intention when he was striking his wife in the head with a brick ?

EDIT: here's a quote from the Judge himself.

At 4.20pm yesterday, the jury returned again to the courtroom and sought clarification from Mr Justice White on the exact definition of murder and manslaughter, as well as acquittal. "It's where a person kills another unlawfully," Mr Justice White said by definition of murder. "Killing shall not be murder unless the person intended to kill or cause serious injury.

"If the State failed to prove the intention to kill or cause serious injury, the appropriate verdict is one of manslaughter, not murder."

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/wife-killer-to-get-8364350000-windfall-2040420.html

So what the jury are effectively saying is that they don't think that Lillis intended to cause serious injury to his wife when he smashed a brick over her head three times.

Is that not the most ridiculous conclusion that it's possible to come to in these circumstances?

Red_Marauder

Rosco1982 wrote: »

You're right it's not, but either one of them are enough to satisfy the legal definition of murder. Most people seem to completely miss this point.

So I'll ask again - what was Lillis' intention when he was striking his wife in the head with a brick ?

I don't think you can legally say that he hit his wife on the head with a brick, it hasn't been found to have been so by the criminal court.

Furthermore, it is perfectly possible to have intent to kill and to have intent to cause serious injury while being guilty of voluntary manslaughter and inoocent of murder, particularly where a defendant may have been provoked, for example. Read the full length of Mr Justic White's advice.

Mike 1972

I wasnt on the jury

Therfore I havent heard all the evidence

Therfore I am in no position to comment

ilovelamp2000

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I don't think you can legally say that he hit his wife on the head with a brick, it hasn't been found to have been so by the criminal court.

Furthermore, it is perfectly possible to have intent to kill and to have intent to cause serious injury while being guilty of voluntary manslaughter and inoocent of murder, particularly where a defendant may have been provoked, for example. Read the full length of Mr Justic White's advice.

The judge ruled out provocation. The jury said they came to the conclusion of manslaughter because intent was not proved.

Mr Lillis has been found guilty of killing his wife, the cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head, a brick was found with Ms. Cawley's blood on it.

Join the dots pal.

Riamfada

When I was a child my sibling picked up a steel 2kg Thomas the Tank Engine and threw it across the room and hit me in the head spraying blood all over my Anne and Barry books. It was done during frustration and anger. Dont blame him for it but had I have died it wouldn't have been murder, manslaughter.

Judging by the medical evidence Lillis was certainly cause the death of his wife but I don't think a compelling evidence was made for murder. The force was only deemed excessive due to the womans obesity as the same circumstances would not have killed a person of normal weight.

Still a tragic loss for all concerned

Red_Marauder

Rosco1982 wrote: »

The judge ruled out provocation. The jury said they came to the conclusion of manslaughter because intent was not proved.

So what exactly is your problem. There is no proof that she was hit with a brick, whether you like it or not. There is evidence of trauma that could be consistent with a fight or self defense. That is a fact.

trout

I'm temp-locking this thread for a few minutes, so I can read through the reported posts.

Play nice now.

/Edit - thread stays locked until I confer with the AH mods.

I've cleaned up some nasty posts. Some people in this thread are sailing close to the wind. You know who you are.