Colm Murphy Exonerated of Any Part in Omagh Bombing

dlofnep

The only man convicted in connection with the Omagh bombing has told reporters to ‘find out who’s behind it’.

Colm Murphy walked free from Court today after the Special Criminal Court dropped charges against him in a retrial.

Mr Murphy from Ravensdale near Dundalk, has now been exonerated of any part in the bombing following today’s ruling and the quashing of his original conviction in 2005.

The Special Criminal Court found that evidence in the case was ‘tainted’ because Gardai falsified some interview notes.

The court ruled that the fact that notes of the interview conducted with Mr Murphy by Detective Garda Liam Donnelly and Detective Garda John Fahy were falsified combined with the facts that there is no explanation in relation to that falsification, and the fact that this was part of a series of interviews being conducted by three teams of gardaí, taints all the interviews.

It ruled that the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt in this regard.

It ruled all evidence in relation to the interviews was inadmissible and therefore there was no evidence before the court upon which a jury could convict Mr Murphy.

While Colm Murphy certainly has a questionable background, the falsification of interview notes by An Gardaí arouses suspicion. The Omagh bombing was one of the darkest moments in recent history, and everyone - especially the families of those affected want someone to fall for this - and it's understandable.

But if Murphy is truly innocent, should he be forced to take the blunt of it? In any case - Colm is now proved innocent of any wrong-doing - But is he innocent in the eyes of the public?

I like everyone else on here just don't know enough about the facts as to what individuals are responsible. But once someone is blamed in Ireland, they may aswell be guilty.

Is Colm Murphy guilty? Not according to Irish courts. But what say boards.ie/politics?

M cebee

well.some of the garda notes were falsified so he has to 'walk'

ilovelamp2000

O.J. Simpson was innocent too.

dlofnep

Rosco1982 wrote: »

O.J. Simpson was innocent too.

Did OJ have police falsifying documents for his case?

I'm not saying either way with Colm Murphy. I just haven't seen any evidence to place concrete blame on him. For those who consider him guilty (I'm not sure either way yet) - Based on what evidence do you find him to be so, other than a media witch-hunt out for him?

I think it's a genuine question that you should be trying to answer, if only to yourself when you pass judgement on if someone is guilty or not.

Mr.Micro

Well someone sure did it, it is outrageous that such an atrocity is still unsolved. It does not say much for the police on both sides of the border.

Fratton Fred

if he is not guilty, then he is not guilty. As much as everyone wants someone to hang for this, it has to be the right person.

where did the quotes come from OP?

Sleepy

dlofnep wrote: »

Colm is now proved innocent of any wrong-doing - But is he innocent in the eyes of the public?

I like everyone else on here just don't know enough about the facts as to what individuals are responsible. But once someone is blamed in Ireland, they may aswell be guilty.

Is Colm Murphy guilty? Not according to Irish courts. But what say boards.ie/politics?

I've no idea if he's guilty or not but I just wanted to point out that the bolded statement is incorrect.

Proof of a conviction being illegal does not prove the convicted person is innocent.

Joey the lips

Hi d. I am a republician and I make no bones about it. However I encourage propper dialogue where possible.The guardI fooked up. False information and shakey ground. The only thing to do was release him and the guards have no one to blame but themselves.

But is this the first time the gardi fooked up. No! The mc Breartys in donegal is classic. There failure to set up road blocks in the wake of the Dublin Mnaghan bombngs. I have to say Colm had a point. Maybe I should head over to conspiracy theories and imply MI5 are working within the irish gardi..... Ohhhhh

M cebee

at least he got a trial joey!!:D

Joey the lips

M cebee wrote: »

at least he got a trial joey!!:D

Just.... Do you know how the special criminal court works in this country.... It borders on the dark ages.... and that says a lot... I would not be a supporter of colm mc carthy... although I am republician.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if he is not guilty, then he is not guilty. As much as everyone wants someone to hang for this, it has to be the right person.

where did the quotes come from OP?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0224/murphyc1.html

http://www.dublins98.ie/news-sport/news/omagh-bombing-242/

dlofnep

Sleepy wrote: »

I've no idea if he's guilty or not but I just wanted to point out that the bolded statement is incorrect.

Proof of a conviction being illegal does not prove the convicted person is innocent.

They had stated that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of any wrong-doing, along with the fact that gardaí had falsified evidence. If he is not guilty, then he is innocent (based on the innocent until proven guilty mantra). Unless there is some sort of limbo between guilty and innocent that I'm unaware of.

Bodhisopha

Perhaps now he can resume his regular slot on hit RTE comedy/current affairs programme "The Panel".

Joey the lips

Despite what they say Padraig said it best. "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace"

walshb

Chances are the man is not innocent; I doubt very much he had NOTHING to do with it. Again, the Irish Justice system cannot conduct a trial.

Joey the lips

walshb wrote: »

Chances are the man is not innocent; I doubt very much he had NOTHING to do with it. Again, the Irish Justice system cannot conduct a trial.

Chances are the man is innocent till proven innocent.... But dont let that cloud our judgement.... agreed on the irish justice system

GuanYin

I notice there is no mention on the fates of the Police involved...

Surely if they conspired to perjury by falsifying interviews they should be removed from service and tried.

They either sent an innocent man to jail or facilitated a mass murderers freedom.

Joey the lips

GuanYin wrote: »

I notice there is no mention on the fates of the Police involved...

Surely if they conspired to perjury by falsifying interviews they should be removed from service and tried.

They either sent an innocent man to jail or facilitated a mass murderers freedom.

You would think they would be romoved..... You have a lot to learn.... Be glad your irish...;)

Bodhisopha

Joey the lips wrote: »

You would think they would be romoved..... You have a lot to learn.... Be glad your irish...;)

You mean to tell me you know of a country where police conduct would be thoroughly investigated and the aproppriate action taken in light of said investigation?

Joey the lips

Bodhisopha wrote: »

You mean to tell me you know of a country where police conduct would be thoroughly investigated and the aproppriate action taken in light of said investigation?

OK... you got me there.... its not only the church so.....

Mayo Exile

GuanYin wrote: »

I notice there is no mention on the fates of the Police involved...

Surely if they conspired to perjury by falsifying interviews they should be removed from service and tried.

They either sent an innocent man to jail or facilitated a mass murderers freedom.

From the Irish Times:

Detective Garda John Fahy and Detective Garda Liam Donnelly were charged with forgery and perjury after the original Murphy trial but both gardai were acquitted of the charges and Det Gda Donnelly has since died.

Link: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0224/breaking33.html

Sleepy

dlofnep wrote: »

They had stated that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of any wrong-doing, along with the fact that gardaí had falsified evidence. If he is not guilty, then he is innocent (based on the innocent until proven guilty mantra). Unless there is some sort of limbo between guilty and innocent that I'm unaware of.

Based on the presumption of innocence until proved guilty, I'd agree that he's legally innocent.

A presumption of innocence != A proof of innocence.

dlofnep

walshb wrote: »

Chances are the man is not innocent; I doubt very much he had NOTHING to do with it. Again, the Irish Justice system cannot conduct a trial.

Let's assume for a second that he is guilty - just for the sake of argument.

He was a republican, and he had a questionable past. So I'm not on here trying to be naive about who this man is - and I want to make it very clear that everyone is aware of who he is, and what his past is.

With that being said - a court could not convict him, and gardaí falsified statements with intent to get him convicted. IMO - This is a case of trying to get some closure on an issue, by pinning the blame on someone who the public wouldn't care about if he was innocent or guilty - due to his past. And - it appears they are right.

Now - assuming that he is infact guilty - I'd like to know what exactly leads you to believe that he's guilty. Was there any evidence, reports, or anything else for that matter that made you think "This man is definitely involved in the bombing". - Or was it just a media witch hunt?

We've seen in the past where innocent people have taken the blame for crimes they did not commit. Is this the case here, or is it a case of a guilty man getting away?

For all sakes and purposes - the man, according to Irish law is innocent.

dlofnep

Sleepy wrote: »

Based on the presumption of innocence until proved guilty, I'd agree that he's legally innocent.

A presumption of innocence != A proof of innocence.

Fair enough.

amacachi

The Gardaí involved involved were both found no guilty of perjury, however on the balance of probability what they were suspected of doing was taken into consideration in this case. Just because he is legally not guilty doesn't mean he's innocent. Look at what's been said about OJ, yet it's not libelous.
I'll be honest, I don't know enough about this case to even give a proper opinion on the evidence, but one thing I do know is that I wouldn't trust the Gardaí to properly prosecute someone who was giving them a false confession, let alone someone defending themselves. I mean for ****sake, did they not know that starting a case with bull**** means nothing else matters after that? And how the **** did it take so long for anyone to notice they did it? ****ing clowns.

Also, there was a fair amount of dodgy stuff with the OJ case since it was brought up, not least 1.5mls of a sample of his blood going missing, for which the prosecution offered no explanation.

GuanYin

Mayo Exile wrote: »

From the Irish Times:

Er hold on.....

The Gardai were not guilty, but the interview was falsified....


does not compute...

Joey the lips wrote: »

You would think they would be romoved..... You have a lot to learn.... Be glad your irish...;)

I'm not Irish

amacachi

GuanYin wrote: »

Er hold on.....

The Gardai were not guilty, but the interview was falsified....


does not compute...

Enough doubt that they were just incompetent rather than they did it on purpose. Anyone who's had a statement read back to them from a semi-literate Garda would believe it.

dvpower

dlofnep wrote: »

Is Colm Murphy guilty? Not according to Irish courts. But what say boards.ie/politics?

Not according to some Irish courts. But he was the subject of a civil case in NI that awarded against him.

rte.ie wrote:

Michael Gallagher and some of the other relatives later won a civil action in Northern Ireland against four men including Colm Murphy who they claimed were behind the atrocity.

They were awarded damages of £1.6m and that judgement is now subject to appeal.

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

Fair enough.

Yarr, it's a pretty fine but important distinction. All a court can decide is someone's guilt, not their innocence. Just because a court doesn't convict someone doesn't mean they didn't actually commit an offence. All it means is that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove they committed an offence.

FlutterinBantam

dlofnep wrote: »

They had stated that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of any wrong-doing, along with the fact that gardaí had falsified evidence. If he is not guilty, then he is innocent (based on the innocent until proven guilty mantra). Unless there is some sort of limbo between guilty and innocent that I'm unaware of.

Tighten up your prose Sir.

If he is not proved guilty in the eyes of the law, then in the eyes of the law he is not guilty.


What he actually is, is another matter entirely.

He got away on legal technicalities and mistakes by Gárdaí.

He would not be a person I would wish to any association with, quite frankly.

dlofnep

nesf wrote: »

Yarr, it's a pretty fine but important distinction. All a court can decide is someone's guilt, not their innocence. Just because a court doesn't convict someone doesn't mean they didn't actually commit an offence. All it means is that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove they committed an offence.

But as I've said - Someone is innocent until proven guilty.

So this appears to be a case of, even though he is not found guilty - he is still guilty in the eyes of many. What I'm trying to establish is what evidence there is to bring his innocence into question.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

If he is not proved guilty in the eyes of the law, then in the eyes of the law he is not guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty. Which is clearly stated. It doesn't say "Not guilty until proven guilty".

There is also a Constitutional guarantee, that every person accused of a criminal offence in Ireland is innocent until proven guilty. When you are charged by the Gardai with a criminal offence, the responsibility of proving your guilt lies with the prosecution. Therefore, no responsibility lies with you, the accused, to prove your innocence.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/justice/arrests/right-to-silence-in-criminal-cases

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

What he actually is, is another matter entirely.

Now we're getting somewhere. So tell us - What is he?

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

He got away on legal technicalities and mistakes by Gárdaí.

Incorrect. He was found not guilty on account of there being lack of evidence to convict him, and falsification of statements by An Gardaí.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

He would not be a person I would wish to any association with, quite frankly.

I'm not sure what relevance that has to do with anything. I don't think any of us have intentions of associating with him.

Nehaxak

I'm just disgusted at the conduct of the Gardai involved. If the man was guilty then there should've been enough evidence to convict him purely on the weight of that evidence and without the need to falsify any statements.

To find out that statements made by the Gardai in the case were falsified, the Gardai subsequently found guilty, then exonerated afterwards and after all of that the one man convicted of it all walks free because it seems he was innocent all along and that his conviction was based on lies ?

A bit stunned for words really as to how bloody annoyingly frustrating all that is to take.

Should have a "bang head on wall smiley" on Boards.

OhNoYouDidn't

GuanYin wrote: »

Er hold on.....

The Gardai were not guilty, but the interview was falsified....


does not compute...

From the sounds of it they were ordered to hang someone, anyone, to appease public disquiet and when it all went pear shaped they were protected.

What is exceptionally worrying is that in the two biggest criminal cases in Ireland recently, the Gardai abjectly failed to catch the right people and stiched people up - the Omagh bomb and the Veronica Guerin murder.

We have a police force that is so politicised and corrupt that they are utterly incapable of mounting a proper investigation into serious crime. What is their conviction rate in gangland murders? Its extremely onerous.

dvpower

dlofnep wrote: »

So this appears to be a case of, even though he is not found guilty - he is still guilty in the eyes of many. What I'm trying to establish is what evidence there is to bring his innocence into question.

The evidence that was presented at the civil case that found him liable for the bombing.

OhNoYouDidn't

dvpower wrote: »

The evidence that was presented at the civil case that found him liable for the bombing.

Thats essentialy irrelevent here as its a civil case in another juristiction.

Simple reality is that Colm Murphy is legally innocent of this crime, no ifs or buts.

It was not even alledged that he was involved in the actual operation.

dlofnep

dvpower wrote: »

The evidence that was presented at the civil case that found him liable for the bombing.

Could you provide me with the evidence rather than citing something that we're already aware of? This is the crux of the matter. We've determined that most people consider him guilty of a crime - now what we are trying to determine is, based on what evidence. Surely this is something that could be easily answered if he is indeed guilty.

UltimateMale

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Tighten up your prose Sir.

If he is not proved guilty in the eyes of the law, then in the eyes of the law he is not guilty.


What he actually is, is another matter entirely.

He got away on legal technicalities and mistakes by Gárdaí.

" He got away on legal technicalities and mistakes by Gárdaí. "

No, he was found innocent due to corruption by the investigating Gardai as the " Special Criminal Court found that evidence in the case was ‘tainted’ because Gardai falsified some interview notes. " Any normal or reasonable person would conclude that falsifying evidence was not a mere ' mistake ' but a deliberate act of breaking the law.

He would not be a person I would wish to any association with, quite frankly.

Would you rather be associated with the bent coppers who falsified the interview notes ?

amacachi

The case was tainted because it was built on a lie, it doesn't mean the rest of the evidence wasn't true, just inadmissible.

dvpower

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Thats essentialy irrelevent here as its a civil case in another juristiction.

The civil case was taken in Belfast; the same juristiction that the bombing took place in.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Simple reality is that Colm Murphy is legally innocent of this crime, no ifs or buts.

The civil case found him to be liable. I think that qualifies as an 'if' or a 'but'.

bbc.co.uk wrote:

After a 14-month civil hearing, a judge in Belfast has ruled that four alleged members of the Real IRA - Michael McKevitt, Liam Campbell, Seamus Daly and Colm Murphy - were responsible for the 1998 Omagh bomb which killed 29 people and unborn twins.

dlofnep wrote: »

Could you provide me with the evidence rather than citing something that we're already aware of? This is the crux of the matter. We've determined that most people consider him guilty of a crime - now what we are trying to determine is, based on what evidence. Surely this is something that could be easily answered if he is indeed guilty.

Here you are.

dlofnep

dvpower wrote: »

Here you are.

Cheers.

In his judgement, Mr Justice Morgan said that much of the police investigation at the time had been based on mobile phone evidence.
He said that records for mobile phones belonging to Murphy and one of his employees showed a series of calls between the phones on the day of the bombing.

The phone registered to Murphy showed "a clear direction of travel from Castleblayney, the general vicinity in which the bomb car was stolen, to Omagh."

The timing of the calls was consistent with the delivery of the bomb to the centre of Omagh, and the phones were also in the vicinity of the phone boxes which were used to make the warning calls.

These are certainly questionable issues. When they refer to vicinity - are they talking a mile radius, 10 miles, 20 miles or what? If it's just within a mile - then the evidence isn't exactly in favour of Murphy. But if we're talking 10 or 20 miles - then it might be questionable. Also - I'd like to hear Murphy's explanation for it.

I'd like to see more evidence - is the full account available online anywhere do you know?

Fratton Fred

Can anyone clarify something for me.

Has he been found "Not Guilty" in which case he cannot be tried again, or has the judge ruled there was insufficient evidence and effectively thrown the case out so that if evidence does materialise, he can be charged again?

dlofnep

Unsure, good question.

dunleakelleher

amacachi wrote: »

The case was tainted because it was built on a lie, it doesn't mean the rest of the evidence wasn't true, just inadmissible.

The lie being that he was involved? If this is the case the rest of the evidence is not relevant.

amacachi

99% sure it's not guilty, no case to answer. Since there was no evidence at all because it had been built from bull****.

amacachi

dunleakelleher wrote: »

The lie being that he was involved? If this is the case the rest of the evidence is not relevant.

:rolleyes: It was built from his statements, which were falsified, anything built from what was "gained" in his statements is inadmissible.

dvpower

dlofnep wrote: »

These are certainly questionable issues. When they refer to vicinity - are they talking a mile radius, 10 miles, 20 miles or what? If it's just within a mile - then the evidence isn't exactly in favour of Murphy. But if we're talking 10 or 20 miles - then it might be questionable. Also - I'd like to hear Murphy's explanation for it.

I'm not sure of the details of this case, but if I understand the technology correctly, it can determine your nearest phone mast, but also by using signal strength (and I think triangulation) it can determine your proximity to telephone masts. So the accuracy would be greater in built up areas with more masts.

M cebee

we should have learnt by now that these fit-up's can result in innocent people being convicted or else the case is simply thrown out.

we were long enough complaining about british justice

OhNoYouDidn't

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Can anyone clarify something for me.

Has he been found "Not Guilty" in which case he cannot be tried again, or has the judge ruled there was insufficient evidence and effectively thrown the case out so that if evidence does materialise, he can be charged again?

He was previously found guilty and this was his retrial. So thats that.

OhNoYouDidn't

dvpower wrote: »

The civil case was taken in Belfast; the same juristiction that the bombing took place in.

So that begs the question why he wasn't tried in Belfast for this crime....

dvpower wrote: »

The civil case found him to be liable. I think that qualifies as an 'if' or a 'but'.

The civil case found that as an alledged leading member of the R-IRA he was culpable for damages as a result of actions carried out by that organisation. Thats it.

The SCC tried him on being actively involved in planting the bomb, whereas the civil case hinged on him, and a dozen others, being involved in the decision to bomb. Subtle, but vital, distinction.

The name of the actual bomber is known, and its not Murphy. Re-read the link YOU posted.....

dvpower

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The civil case found that as an alledged leading member of the R-IRA he was culpable for damages as a result of actions carried out by that organisation. Thats it.

You dismiss his role so easily:(

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The SCC tried him on being actively involved in planting the bomb, whereas the civil case hinged on him, and a dozen others, being involved in the decision to bomb. Subtle, but vital, distinction.

Yes. Vital.
He was the leader of the organisation who ordered the bombing, not the operative who carried it out. That's much worse in my books

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The name of the actual bomber is known, and its not Murphy. Re-read the link YOU posted.....

Read the thread title "Colm Murphy Exonerated of Any Part in Omagh Bombing Reply to Thread".

I didn't say he was the actual bomber. The civil trial found that he had some part in the bombing. People will decide for themselves if they think that ordering or organising the bombing is more or less serious than planting the bomb.
I'm just pointing out that he has been found liable for the bombing by a court, so he is not exonerated.

Mind you, it may turn out that the evidence that is now found to be tainted may open the door for an appeal of the civil case, but I'll leave that to people who know a bit more about the law than I do.

OhNoYouDidn't

dvpower wrote: »

You dismiss his role so easily:(

What? I said 'thats it' in relation to the case against him in Dublin for the bombing. He was exonerated on appeal. Please read what has actually been posted, makes the debate flow a bit easier.

dvpower wrote: »

Yes. Vital.
He was the leader of the organisation who ordered the bombing, not the operative who carried it out. That's much worse in my books

But it was not what he was charged or prosecuted for....

dvpower wrote: »

Read the thread title "Colm Murphy Exonerated of Any Part in Omagh Bombing Reply to Thread".

I didn't say he was the actual bomber. The civil trial found that he had some part in the bombing. People will decide for themselves if they think that ordering or organising the bombing is more or less serious than planting the bomb.
I'm just pointing out that he has been found liable for the bombing by a court, so he is not exonerated.

Being liable as a member of an organisation is one thing, but being involved in the actual bombing is another. You are shifting the goalposts now.

dvpower wrote: »

Mind you, it may turn out that the evidence that is now found to be tainted may open the door for an appeal of the civil case, but I'll leave that to people who know a bit more about the law than I do.

This whole prosecution on both sides of the border has been so utterly shambolic, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Read up a bit on McKevitts conviction and the role of a paid informant in it. Its ominous that the state reverted to these tactics.