Dubliner kills two kids and walks free

karma_

Deleted User wrote: »

Bonus points for stating the obvious.

I would be very surprised if he asks for a pardon at this stage.

Stating the obvious is a damn sight better than sympathizing with him for being through 'enough'.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

seamus wrote: »

If he does apply for a pardon, I believe that this is the basis on which he will apply - that he's had this hanging over his head for 12 years (?) - so arguably the stress and restrictions that this has placed on his and his family would constitute "due punishment", or something.

Personally don't know how I feel about that, but we'll wait and see if he does apply.

But can the President of one country grant a pardon for a crime and conviction in another country?

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

It was an accident.

You can kill someone by accident and be held liable.

The Hungarian courts seem to think he is guilty of a crime.

I assume if your involved in a car crash that isn't your fault you'll tell the other person its grand, sure its an accident and go sort it out yourself?

Yellow121

I can't think of anyone who has received sympathy for killing two kids. Ever. How can someone come to that position? I just can't get my head around it.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I assume if your involved in a car crash that isn't your fault you'll tell the other person its grand, sure its an accident and go sort it out yourself?

No, I let my insurance deal with it.

I never said he shouldn't be held liable. I said I have sympathy for him. As I said already, I've read the facts of the case, I feel that an accident of this nature is an absolute tragedy and that people should not be so quick to think that something like this would never happen to them. It could, very easily, as it was an accident.

I feel sorry for him, as I have said already on this thread, living with that is a bloody horrible thing to have to do and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone.

Yellow121 wrote: »

I can't think of anyone who has received sympathy for killing two kids. Ever. How can someone come to that position? I just can't get my head around it.

I guess you haven't actually read the entire thread then have you

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

. I said I have sympathy for him. As I said already, I've read the facts of the case, I feel that an accident of this nature is an absolute tragedy and that people should not be so quick to think that something like this would never happen to them. It could, very easily, as it was an accident.

People know accidents happen. People trying to avoid the consequences of their actions for 14 years complicates it and imo dissolves any sympathy.
He's gone on with his life since. I'm sure he's been out on the piss, taken holidays etc. He's not some tortured sole that's spent every night since rocking in the corner of a room. For all you know, he doesn't give a **** about the kids or their parents.

Think what the parents have been through for the last 14 years.They are the ones to have sympathy for.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

People know accidents happen. People trying to avoid the consequences of their actions for 14 years complicates it and imo dissolves any sympathy.


Think what the parents have been through for the last 14 years.They are the ones to have sympathy for.

I have a fairly good idea of what they've been through and I have huge sympathy for them.

Yellow121

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess you haven't actually read the entire thread then have you

I read page 1 to about 10 and then the last few pages. Was there something in the middle that I missed?
The facts are that he killed two kids and will serve less than 18 months for them. We always complain in Ireland about light sentences given to people who commit crimes.
From now on should we say, yes they're only getting 1 year for raping someone but they have to live with what they did so it's ok?

I am pie

Deleted User wrote: »

It was an accident.

He created the circumstances via which the accident would occur did he not?

I understand the car was mechanically sound and he was speeding. I think ?

Arguably he would have been better to have been sentenced after the incident and not had this hanging over his head, would probably have been out years ago.

hatrickpatrick

Yellow121 wrote: »

I read page 1 to about 10 and then the last few pages. Was there something in the middle that I missed?
The facts are that he killed two kids and will serve less than 18 months for them. We always complain in Ireland about light sentences given to people who commit crimes.
From now on should we say, yes they're only getting 1 year for raping someone but they have to live with what they did so it's ok?

I despise Ireland's sentencing regime as much as anyone, but that's not the best analogy to be fair.
I've never heard of someone accidentally raping someone, have you?

tayto lover

The man killed two kids in an accident.
He should have had the balls to attend his trial and face it like a man.

Yellow121

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I despise Ireland's sentencing regime as much as anyone, but that's not the best analogy to be fair.
I've never heard of someone accidentally raping someone, have you?

They say they didn't mean it, it was out of character. I wasn't making an analogy. I was making the point that the reason people are giving for excusing this mans killings is that he has had to live with the consequences for 14 years.
Surely the same can be applied to everyone else who committed a crime?

seamus

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

But can the President of one country grant a pardon for a crime and conviction in another country?

I don't know tbh. I don't what the legal defintion of a pardon is or does. Perhaps the pardon doesn't quash the conviction but does release the person from state custody. If it's the latter then I guess it can be done in this instance.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You can kill someone by accident and be held liable.
The Hungarian courts seem to think he is guilty of a crime.
I assume if your involved in a car crash that isn't your fault you'll tell the other person its grand, sure its an accident and go sort it out yourself?

You're getting the wrong end of the stick. The point is that it was an accident. Not the result of any overt negligence or carelessness, a traffic accident which could have happened to any of us, because none of us are perfect.
You seem to be implying he should be demonised for this alone.

It's worth noting that in being tried, the statements made by the four occupants of the vehicle (i.e. the primary witnesses) were all excluded from evidence because the Hungarian police fncked up.
So in essence the man was convicted on the basis of reports from people who weren't even present.

The excellent post below from page one of this thread, summarises Mr Tobin's account of the events, which are not disputed by the Hungarian authorities.

Assuming the below is an accurate account of events, while I would obviously be devastated about the loss of life, I would not believe myself criminally liable for the accident and there's no fncking way I'd be voluntarily going back to Hungary.

ResearchWill wrote: »

The SC made its decision today, here is that decision http://www.supremecourt.ie/Judgments.nsf/1b0757edc371032e802572ea0061450e/4ca2ae8b10c86e7480257a22004f3a7b?OpenDocument

From that decision is an account of the ACCIDENT such account was the respondents but it is noted that his account is no challenged.

On Sunday the 9th day of April, 2000, the appellant was driving a Volvo 40 motor car along a public highway in the area mentioned. He had the persons mentioned above as his passengers. The street featured a raised area on which, relevantly to this case, was a bus stop and an area for people waiting for the bus to stand. This area was separated from the street by a kerb.
The car was not the appellant’s personal property but was supplied to him by the Irish public company for which he worked. Like many modern cars it was equipped with a range of electronic indicators intended to indicate malfunctions or items that needed to be adjusted. The vehicle was fully and regularly serviced at the expense of the appellant’s employers. Apart from this, the appellant had twice taken it to the garage complaining that certain indicators including that relating to the anti-lock braking system (ABS), had lit up without apparent reason. He was assured by the experts that this was an electrical fault only and did not indicate any fault in the functioning of the vehicle. It was also a feature of the vehicle, according to the appellant’s uncontradicted evidence, that airbags was programmed to deploy in the event of an impact at a speed above 50 kilometres per hour, or about 30 miles per hour.
On Sunday the 9th of April, 2000, the appellant was involved in a traffic accident at the location mentioned above which, very tragically, involved the deaths of two people, children who were waiting in the vicinity of the bus stop mentioned above. The devastation caused by this tragedy cannot be understated the appellant has made no attempt to do so. But he denies that there was any criminal act or omission on his part, either in the driving of the car or in its maintenance, which caused the accident.
The appellant says that he was driving along the public highway at a speed of about 70 kilometres per hour, or about 42 miles per hour. The husband of the visiting couple was sitting beside him in the front passenger seat; their two wives and the Tobins nine month old child were sitting in the back. Mrs. Tobin, as has been mentioned, was pregnant at the time. As he drove, a car pulled out of a side street and on to the major thoroughfare along which the Tobins were driving. He thought it wise, as that car came closely in front of him, to pull into the only other available lane, that nearest the right hand kerb. This involved a movement to the right. After executing this movement, Mr. Tobin attempted to straighten up the car so that it could proceed in the normal fashion in the right hand lane. But the vehicle was suddenly and entirely unresponsive to efforts to straighten it up on the road or to apply the brakes. In an instant - motor accidents, notoriously, happen in a much shorter period of time than it takes to describe them - his car had mounted the kerb on the raised area and struck the two children standing there, with the appalling consequences already set out.


I for one can admit that the above could have happened to me, I don't think I deserve to do any time for such an accident.

tayto lover

Yellow121 wrote: »

They say they didn't mean it, it was out of character. I wasn't making an analogy. I was making the point that the reason people are giving for excusing this mans killings is that he has had to live with the consequences for 14 years.
Surely the same can be applied to everyone else who committed a crime?

AND the parents have not had the satisfaction of having seen him in court.
How must they be feeling?
He should have gone back voluntarily and stood trial for everyone's sake.

amdublin

I feel horrendously sorry for both families.

An accident with such a tragic outcome so sad.

Yellow121

seamus wrote: »

I don't know tbh. I don't what the legal defintion of a pardon is or does. Perhaps the pardon doesn't quash the conviction but does release the person from state custody. If it's the latter then I guess it can be done in this instance.

You're getting the wrong end of the stick. The point is that it was an accident. Not the result of any overt negligence or carelessness, a traffic accident which could have happened to any of us, because none of us are perfect.
You seem to be implying he should be demonised for this alone.

It's worth noting that in being tried, the statements made by the four occupants of the vehicle (i.e. the primary witnesses) were all excluded from evidence because the Hungarian police fncked up.
So in essence the man was convicted on the basis of reports from people who weren't even present.

The excellent post below from page one of this thread, summarises Mr Tobin's account of the events, which are not disputed by the Hungarian authorities.

Assuming the below is an accurate account of events, while I would obviously be devastated about the loss of life, I would not believe myself criminally liable for the accident and there's no fncking way I'd be voluntarily going back to Hungary.

So his story was that the car that had been tested and found to have had no problem with it, suddenly wouldn't turn or brake? This had never happened before and only happened when he ran over two kids? Do you believe that?

seamus

Yellow121 wrote: »

So his story was that the car that had been tested and found to have had no problem with it, suddenly wouldn't turn or brake? This had never happened before and only happened when he ran over two kids? Do you believe that?

I see no reason not to believe it. The prosecution didn't dispute it.
As noted, the car had a history of showing faults in the braking system. ABS as a system actually overrides the operator control of the braking system and applies the brakes in a particular way. So it's not a major leap to suggest that an ABS fault (which the car was known to have) could have caused the vehicle to lose control when he took evasive action, by applying the brakes incorrectly. It's consistent with his account of events.

In any case, we can "what if" till the cows come home. I see no reason to disbelieve his account. He wasn't drinking. There was no indication that he was otherwise driving in an erratic manner. Yet you suggest that he suddenly decided to drive up on the kerb for no reason?

Yellow121

seamus wrote: »

I see no reason not to believe it. The prosecution didn't dispute it.
As noted, the car had a history of showing faults in the braking system. ABS as a system actually overrides the operator control of the braking system and applies the brakes in a particular way. So it's not a major leap to suggest that an ABS fault (which the car was known to have) could have caused the vehicle to lose control when he took evasive action, by applying the brakes incorrectly. It's consistent with his account of events.

In any case, we can "what if" till the cows come home. I see no reason to disbelieve his account. He wasn't drinking. He wasn't exceeding the speed limit. There was no indication that he was otherwise driving in an erratic manner. Yet you suggest that he suddenly decided to drive up on the kerb for no reason?

No, it was him who took the car to 2 garages complaining of the ABS light coming on. The garages said everything is fine. It didn't have a history of showing faults. Only the warning light was coming on.
He lost control of the car, he may not have killed the 2 kids on purpose but he did kill them. The having to evade cars thing indicates that he was going too fast for the situation he was in.

seamus

Yellow121 wrote: »

No, it was him who took the car to 2 garages complaining of the ABS light coming on. The garages said everything is fine. It didn't have a history of showing faults. Only the warning light was coming on.

You inspected the car yourself, did you? If a warning light is showing incorrectly, that's a fault. It's just plain incorrect to say "there was nothing wrong with the car". A warning light was showing. Whether or not the light is valid, there's something wrong.

The having to evade cars thing indicates that he was going too fast for the situation he was in.

I didn't realise you were there and you witnessed the entire thing. Changing lanes when another vehicle pulls in front of you is a pretty standard manouver, right?

Yellow121

seamus wrote: »

You inspected the car yourself, did you? If a warning light is showing incorrectly, that's a fault. It's just plain incorrect to say "there was nothing wrong with the car". A warning light was showing. Whether or not the light is valid, there's something wrong.
I didn't realise you were there and you witnessed the entire thing. Changing lanes when another vehicle pulls in front of you is a pretty standard manouver, right?

A warning light showing incorrectly doesn't make the cars brakes and steering fail, drive off a road, up onto a footpath and run over two kids.

Were you there? I see now you edited the last post and he was over the speed limit. Ofcourse you change lanes if a car pulls out in front of you but you shouldn't be going too fast as to lose control and kill two kids standing on the footpath.

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

A warning light showing incorrectly doesn't make the cars brakes and steering fail, drive off a road, up onto a footpath and run over two kids.

Were you there? I see now you edited the last post and he was over the speed limit. Ofcourse you change lanes if a car pulls out in front of you but you shouldn't be going too fast as to lose control and kill two kids standing on the footpath.

If you read the whole thread you will discover that the make and model of the car had two faults that came to attention after this accident. 1 was an unexplained power problem where some cars accelerated even when brakes pressed 2 a steering problem where some cars did not respond to the steering. This evidence was not given to any trial and as the Defence was not if I remember given access to the car to test for any faults in the car.

Pro Hoc Vice

ResearchWill wrote: »

From the following site VOLVO S40 2000 Safety and Reliability Reviews By Consumers

VOLVO S40 2000 car safety problem was reported on Jan 14, 2009.VOLVO S40 2000, manufactured by VOLVO CARS OF N.A. LLC. had a problem with STEERING . CUSTOMERS CAR BROKE DOWN, LOST STEERING CONTROL, INNER AND OUTER TIE-ROD END CAME APART AT THREADS, NO APARENT DAMAGE TO PARTS, REPLACED BOTH PARTS, SAVED OLD PARTS. *TR.0 person(s) were injured. 0 person(s) died.Mileage was 103000 miles. Vehicle Identification Number (VIN):YV1VS255XYF. VOLVO S40 2000 problem was reported in NEWBEDFORD, MA. Vehicle was not using ANTI-LOCK BRAKES. Vehicle was not using Cruise Control. VEHICLE SPEED: 30 mph.

And

VOLVO S40 2000 car safety problem was reported on Feb 13, 2007.VOLVO S40 2000, manufactured by VOLVO CARS OF N.A. LLC. had a problem with VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL . TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 VOLVO S40. WHILE DRIVING UNDER WET CONDITIONS AT 25 MPH THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO ACCELERATE. THE DRIVER WAS ABLE TO STOP THE VEHICLE. HOWEVER, THE ENGINE CONTINUED TO ACCELERATE. WITHOUT ACCELERATING THE VEHICLE CONTINUED TO MOVE FORWARD. IN AN ATTEMPT TO PARK THE VEHICLE, THE ENGINE BEGAN TO REDLINE AND THE DRIVER TURNED THE IGNITION OFF. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 73,000. *AK.0 person(s) were injured. 0 person(s) died.Mileage was 73000 miles. VOLVO S40 2000 problem was reported in RACINE, WI. Vehicle was purchased on 20040618. Vehicle was using ANTI-LOCK BRAKES.Vehicle was using Cruise Control.Vehicle had 4 CYLINDERS. VOLVO S40 2000 drive type:FWD. FUEL SYSTEM:Turbo. FUEL TYPE: GAS. VOLVO S40 2000 TRANSMISSION TYPE: AUTO. VEHICLE SPEED: 25 mph. DEALER'S NAME: EURO MOTOR

And

VOLVO S40 2000 car safety problem was reported on Nov 15, 2005.VOLVO S40 2000, manufactured by VOLVO CARS OF N.A. LLC. had a problem with VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL . THREE TIMES MY DAUGHTER'S 2000 VOLVO S40 ACCELERATED UNEXPECTEDLY. TWICE (ON THE SAME NIGHT) IT ALMOST PULLED HER INTO A BUSY INTERSECTION. THE THIRD TIME IT HAPPENED TO THE SERVICE MANGER (JEFF) AT A LOCAL VOLVO DEALERSHIP. AFTER TWO VISITS FROM A TECHNICIAN FROM VOLVO IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A TEMPERATURE SENSOR HAD FAILED. THIS FAILURE LED TO EXCESS AIR BEING FED TO THE ENGINE WHICH IN TURN LED TO EXCESS FUEL BEING FED TO THE ENGINE, WHICH IN TURN ACCELERATED THE ENGINE. VOLVO REPLACED A TEMPERATURE CONTROL SENSOR THAT OPERATES THE AIR SLIDE IN THE ENGINE ON 12/7/05. *NM.0 person(s) were injured. 0 person(s) died.Mileage was 60000 miles. Vehicle Identification Number (VIN):YV1VS2558YF. VOLVO S40 2000 problem was reported in DIX HILLS, NY. Vehicle was using ANTI-LOCK BRAKES.Vehicle was using Cruise Control.Vehicle had 4 CYLINDERS. VOLVO S40 2000 drive type:FWD. FUEL SYSTEM:Fuel injection. FUEL TYPE: GAS. VOLVO S40 2000 TRANSMISSION TYPE: AUTO. VEHICLE SPEED: 30 mph. DEALER'S NAME: KARP VOLVO . DEALER'S TELEPHONE NUMBER: 516-764-4242 . DEALER'S CITY: ROCKVILLE CENTER . DEALER'S STATE CODE: NY. DEALER'S ZIPCODE: 11570 .

And

VOLVO S40 2000 car safety problem was reported on Sept 24, 2003.VOLVO S40 2000, manufactured by VOLVO CARS OF N.A. LLC. had a problem with SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC . 2000 VOLVO S40 WOULD NOT STOP WHEN APPLIED PRESSURE TO BRAKES. *TS THE CONSUMER FELT THAT SHE HAVE PLENTY OF DISTANCE BETWEEN HER VEHICLE AND THE OTHER VEHICLE TO STOP BUT THE VEHICLE JUST WOULDN'T STOP. AS A RESULT THE CONSUMER'S VEHICLE CRASHED INTO THE OTHER VEHICLE. SIX MONTHS AFTER THE ACCIDENT THE CONSUMER RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE ON THE BRAKE PUMP WHICH DESCRIBED THE FAILURE THE CONSUMER EXPERIENCED. THE CONSUMER REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL EXPENSES INCURRED. *NM.Vehicle was involved in a crash. VOLVO S40 2000 problem was reported in SAINT CLAIR SHORES, MI. Accident was reported to Police. Vehicle was not using ANTI-LOCK BRAKES. Vehicle was not using Cruise Control.

From what I can see on that site, this model from 2000 suffered reported problems, unexplained accelerating, a know brake failure problem, and an unexplained steering issue where steering failed.

I knew it was in the thread. But let's not let doubt get in the way of moral indignation.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

infosys wrote: »

I knew it was in the thread. But let's not let doubt get in the way of moral indignation.

And that is supposed to explain why he was exceeding the speed limit by in excess of 40%?
Speeding is an action that is accepted as both being dangerous and illegal.
The fact that he was recklessly exceeding the speed limit in a built up area makes it less of a "could have happened to anyone accident" and , imho, a case of reckless driving being at least one causative factor in the deaths of two people.
All that said, Tobin is now in Hungary, I presume on his return this weekend he will serve the remainder of his sentence here in the same way as anyone else would, and on his release his will get on with his life and be left alone.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

And that is supposed to explain why he was exceeding the speed limit by in excess of 40%?
Speeding is an action that is accepted as both being dangerous and illegal.
The fact that he was recklessly exceeding the speed limit in a built up area makes it less of a "could have happened to anyone accident" and , imho, a case of reckless driving being at least one causative factor in the deaths of two people.
All that said, Tobin is now in Hungary, I presume on his return this weekend he will serve the remainder of his sentence here in the same way as anyone else would, and on his release his will get on with his life and be left alone.

What was the speed limit?

From the SC case

"The circumstances of the accident giving rise to these proceedings, accordingly, can be briefly summarised. The driver, a man of good character, of mature years, was driving a well maintained, somewhat sedate car which is the property of his employer along a two-lane public highway in Hungary. He was accompanied by his infant child, his pregnant wife, and two friends. The highest speed at which the prosecution alleged the car was driven is 71-80 kilometres per hour or approximately 42 to 48 miles per hour."

Was the speed limit between 50-55kph. Can you link to that evidence.

Yellow121

infosys wrote: »

If you read the whole thread you will discover that the make and model of the car had two faults that came to attention after this accident. 1 was an unexplained power problem where some cars accelerated even when brakes pressed 2 a steering problem where some cars did not respond to the steering. This evidence was not given to any trial and as the Defence was not if I remember given access to the car to test for any faults in the car.

infosys wrote: »

I knew it was in the thread. But let's not let doubt get in the way of moral indignation.

Doubt of what? That he was driving too fast, swerved to avoid a car coming onto the road and plowed into 2 children standing on the foot path?
Just because the defence was not given access means nothing, the car was tested and no faults were found that matched those reported in 4 cases involving the same make, covering many years later.
I think you may have noticed the amount of deaths these other reports caused also. 0. They were all able to stop their car, apart from 1 where they were too close to the car infront to stop in time.
I think it's pretty obvious that this man was at fault for careless and reckless driving, I have to ask do those defending him know this man? It's the only reason I can see for having sympathy for him.

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

Doubt of what? That he was driving too fast, swerved to avoid a car coming onto the road and plowed into 2 children standing on the foot path?
Just because the defence was not given access means nothing, the car was tested and no faults were found that matched those reported in 4 cases involving the same make, covering many years later.
I think you may have noticed the amount of deaths these other reports caused also. 0. They were all able to stop their car, apart from 1 where they were too close to the car infront to stop in time.
I think it's pretty obvious that this man was at fault for careless and reckless driving, I have to ask do those defending him know this man? It's the only reason I can see for having sympathy for him.

In Ireland the refusal of the prosecution to allow examination of the car may lead to a mistrial. Do you have evidence of the speed limit at the accident was it 80kph or 60kph or 50kph.

I do not know the man, i have never met him in my life, I know nothing about him other than what I have read in the case reports or the media or on this site. I have not defended the man, i have not stated I have any sympathy for him. The only opinion I have is that because of the way the trial was run and the issues I have seen that I personally would have a doubt in the case. From reading the Supreme Court case at least one SC judge has similar reservations. My view is not in any way an attack on the Hungarian Judicial System, as all systems can get a case wrong. But a number of issues stick out for me.

1. Delay in prosecuting
2. The issue of the statements of the accused and his 3 witness not being used by the Hungarian Court.
3. The Defence not being afforded a chance to examine the car, and thereby challenge any reports on the car.
4. The fact that a number of cars of the same year, make and model displayed the exact same problems Mr. Tobin said happened.
5. The only evidence according to the Prosecution was the car went no more than 80kph, I personally have not seen any evidence of what the speed limit was in the dual carriageway road.

In my own personal opinion those issues, raise for me a doubt about the prosecution. That is all. Do I have sympathy for the family who lost 2 children yes of course I do, I can not even imagine what they have gone through, I assume made worse by the fact that this case has gone on for 14 years. But that does not stop me at least thinking about the problems with the case.

Unlike other people who are convinced of the character of Mr. Tobin and his guilt, I have no knowledge of the first and a doubt in my mind about the safety of the second, the guilty verdict.

seamus

infosys wrote: »

Unlike other people who are convinced of the character of Mr. Tobin and his guilt, I have no knowledge of the first and a doubt in my mind about the safety of the second, the guilty verdict.

Yep, same here.

I think a lot of people are guilty of begging the question. They assume that Mr Tobin's statement must be false because they doubt the man's character and the reason they doubt the man's character is because they assume his statement is false.

Yellow121

infosys wrote: »

In Ireland the refusal of the prosecution to allow examination of the car may lead to a mistrial. Do you have evidence of the speed limit at the accident was it 80kph or 60kph or 50kph.

I do not know the man, i have never met him in my life, I know nothing about him other than what I have read in the case reports or the media or on this site. I have not defended the man, i have not stated I have any sympathy for him. The only opinion I have is that because of the way the trial was run and the issues I have seen that I personally would have a doubt in the case. From reading the Supreme Court case at least one SC judge has similar reservations. My view is not in any way an attack on the Hungarian Judicial System, as all systems can get a case wrong. But a number of issues stick out for me.

1. Delay in prosecuting
2. The issue of the statements of the accused and his 3 witness not being used by the Hungarian Court.
3. The Defence not being afforded a chance to examine the car, and thereby challenge any reports on the car.
4. The fact that a number of cars of the same year, make and model displayed the exact same problems Mr. Tobin said happened.
5. The only evidence according to the Prosecution was the car went no more than 80kph, I personally have not seen any evidence of what the speed limit was in the dual carriageway road.

In my own personal opinion those issues, raise for me a doubt about the prosecution. That is all. Do I have sympathy for the family who lost 2 children yes of course I do, I can not even imagine what they have gone through, I assume made worse by the fact that this case has gone on for 14 years. But that does not stop me at least thinking about the problems with the case.

Unlike other people who are convinced of the character of Mr. Tobin and his guilt, I have no knowledge of the first and a doubt in my mind about the safety of the second, the guilty verdict.

Someone who was defending this man said he was 20kph over the speed limit earlier. I don't know where he got that from.
Onto the case, you know just because you think the Hungarian justice system is inept doesn't mean that it exonerates this man. It could be the opposite and they have not prosecuted him with the full evidence against him.
We don't know for sure what speed he was doing but it's clear that he was going too fast as he lost control when avoiding a car and went up onto the footpath.
All we know is that the car was tested before this accident twice and nothing was found that would lead to the steering and braking faults. This means that it was driver fault for this accident.
Whatever you think of the trial the behaviour of this man has been despicable. I know if I was deeply remorseful about something I have done to others, something that caused them pain, then I'd do anything I could to make amends.
This man has let this drag on for 14 years and tried to get the smallest sentence possible, that is not a sign of remorse. Not even close, no one can make an excuse for that.

Yellow121

seamus wrote: »

Yep, same here.

I think a lot of people are guilty of begging the question. They assume that Mr Tobin's statement must be false because they doubt the man's character and the reason they doubt the man's character is because they assume his statement is false.

Are you not doing the opposite?

There's evidence that there was nothing wrong with the car that would cause the steering and braking issues.
The first and only time this ever occured in his car just happened to be the time when he drove over two children. That's just not believable.

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

Are you not doing the opposite?

There's evidence that there was nothing wrong with the car that would cause the steering and braking issues.
The first and only time this ever occured in his car just happened to be the time when he drove over two children. That's just not believable.

Can you link to that evidence or report that the car was perfect. If the car was perfect why did the court refuse the Defense a chance to inspect it.