Person charged over arson attack on Gatso Van

ghill

AlekSmart wrote: »

Looks like Ciaran O Loughlin knows his criminal onions then Garett ...would you recommend him ?

Would you see this type of action as being justified at all ?

Without askin you to get TOO involved,could you perhaps outline WHY the Gardai would decide on mounting a Witch Hunt against You in particular ?

I would recommend Ciaran O Loughlin. He only took on my case two days before the trial started and he done an excellent job.

What do you mean when you say ' Would you see this type of action as being justified at all ?'

Witch Hunt was the wrong words to use, I should have said scapegoat. Go to the crime section on the Cork Echo website and search for Blarney Co. Cork or Google it over the last five years. A lot of crime was happening, Serious crime and nobody was even getting arrested never mind charged. The residents of the village were putting pressure on gardai to do something about it. When the arson attack on the van happened the guards knew fairly fast there was a print on the bottle and it was mine. Why did they not come forward straight away and arrest me and charge me and tell anyone that would listen they got there man. I'll tell you why they didn't think it was me. Then 16 months later when they realized they had nobody else they arrest and charge me. I am 32 years old with a wife and 4 children. I have no time or more important no interest in doing this reckless act of thuggery. It just makes me mad to think some people are always going to say 'He got away with it' instead of 'He wasn't guilty'.
I have 1 conviction in the last 15 years for handling stolen goods. I'm a long way from being a hardened criminal.

foreign wrote: »

The reason it was thrown out was because of a plastic bottle being used rather than a glass one meaning the section used to detain was wrong. Once the detention is gone then there can be no trial.

It was the section used to arrest that was unlawful which means the taking of my prints was unlawful but that didn't mean end of trial. If they had more evidence that didn't come from the arrest they could have carried on.

Sempai wrote: »

So is it Garrett or Gareth? All papers reporting Gareth, which makes me think that this could be bogey! Or papers are wrong

It's Garrett, Papers have it wrong. You don't miss a trick Sherlock......IDIOT

discus

SB2013 wrote: »

Hopefully the judges decision can be appealed successfully. Failing that a civil action should be brought against the arsonist.

Get a life mate.

Play To Kill

SB2013 wrote: »

Hopefully the judges decision can be appealed successfully. Failing that a civil action should be brought against the arsonist.

I'd prefer if the guards learn from this instead, a finger print on a bottle seems like a very flimsy piece of evidence on its own to charge someone, it would be a different story if there was a lot of evidence pointing to the suspect but it doesn't seem like there was. The guy deserves the benefit of doubt and to be treated as innocent if thats all the evidence the guards could manage to gather.

ardle1

Dont agree with that s@*t,,am up for all sorts! we'r all human,, they try to catch us speeding,we try to avoid speeding or not get caught speeding,, dirty number plates full beams blah blah blah,, do the maths.... if your gonna get caught doin something illegal make sure it's worth it...and everyone gets home in one piece,, Robbin Hood and all that,,, that's the way I roll anyway...

3fullback

Play To Kill wrote: »

I'd prefer if the guards learn from this instead, a finger print on a bottle seems like a very flimsy piece of evidence on its own to charge someone, it would be a different story if there was a lot of evidence pointing to the suspect but it doesn't seem like there was. The guy deserves the benefit of doubt and to be treated as innocent if thats all the evidence the guards could manage to gather.

Guys all the Gardai do is investigate and collect evidence. The decision to continue to bring the case before the courts is in the hands of the DPP.

Who don't continue on a whim!

SB2013

Play To Kill wrote: »

I'd prefer if the guards learn from this instead, a finger print on a bottle seems like a very flimsy piece of evidence on its own to charge someone, it would be a different story if there was a lot of evidence pointing to the suspect but it doesn't seem like there was. The guy deserves the benefit of doubt and to be treated as innocent if thats all the evidence the guards could manage to gather.

Sometimes a fingerprint is all the evidence there is. Obviously there would be other circumstantial evidence to go along with it but the world doesn't work like CSI where you find a smoking gun at every crime scene.

King Ludvig

Play To Kill wrote: »

I'd prefer if the guards learn from this instead, a finger print on a bottle seems like a very flimsy piece of evidence on its own to charge someone, it would be a different story if there was a lot of evidence pointing to the suspect but it doesn't seem like there was. The guy deserves the benefit of doubt and to be treated as innocent if thats all the evidence the guards could manage to gather.

The DPP decides whether or not someone is to be charged and what offence they should be charged with. Obviously she felt there was sufficient evidence for a trial. That does not mean the accused is guilty, just that there was enough evidence there to be put before a jury to decide.

Shield

Moderator comment:

Guys I have just had to issue warnings for people failing to stick to the golden rule: "Attack the post, not the poster". It's simple - take a point you don't agree with, say why, and give your own opinion. Sometime in these situations, there are no rights and no wrongs but that doesn't mean you lower yourself into calling someone names.

I believe this thread has run its course, as it's years old and has nowhere left to go. If someone else is arrested then someone can start another thread and link back to this one for specifics.