Dubliner kills two kids and walks free

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

I didn't mention the speed limit in that post. He was driving too fast for the situation he was in or was not concentrating on the roads for whatever reason.
Where is this did not have to stuff coming from? Did he not get a 3 year sentence from the Hungarian justice system?

Where is the evidence for your claim. I have one question did you read Hardiman's decision. Simple question did you read it did you understand it?

Yellow121

infosys wrote: »

Do you really think most posters on this page have bothered to read any of the judgments or real facts of this case, to educate themselves would mean their world view is exposed as rubbish, we don't want that do we.

You haven't answered the key questions as maybe you don't want your World view to be exposed as rubbish.
Do you really believe the car suffered steering and braking problems for the first time ever, just when he ran over 2 kids?

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

You haven't answered the key questions as maybe you don't want your World view to be exposed as rubbish.
Do you really believe the car suffered steering and braking problems for the first time ever, just when he ran over 2 kids?

Again you don't read what I post I will repeat I have a doubt of the safety of the verdict. I do not know if the car suffered a serious fault because there was no examination of the car by anyone. Mr. Tobin made a claim straight after the accident that it happened, but that evidence was excluded by the court. You are the person who claims to know what happened to conform to your world view. I have simply said I believe the verdict is unsafe based on evidence.

Yellow121

infosys wrote: »

Do you even read what you write. I have to shout the following case your not listing. BEING GUILTY OF A CRIME AND HAVING AN ACCIDENT ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. If you think anyone on here is saying he was not driving then you really need to go to specsavers.

If you get into a car tomorrow, you are driving along a perfect day on the motorway you are traveling at 110 kph the car is in perfect condition, you have just picked car up from NCT. Suddenly and with out warning you have a blowout (let's accept it turns out the tyre was faulty) you crash and 1 person is killed. Are you guilty of any crime.

READ HIS POST AGAIN. IT DOESN'T MENTION HIM KILLING 2 CHILDREN ANYWHERE. IT READS MORE OF A WRONGFUL CONVICTION STATEMENT.

We can all use caps lock. If I was driving along a national road and a car came out from a side road, I had to swerve but suddenly my brakes and steering wouldn't work even though I never had problems with them before, I then ran over 2 kids. Would you believe my story?

Yellow121

infosys wrote: »

Where is the evidence for your claim. I have one question did you read Hardiman's decision. Simple question did you read it did you understand it?

I asked where did you get all this he didn't have to do stuff from?

Yellow121

infosys wrote: »

Again you don't read what I post I will repeat I have a doubt of the safety of the verdict. I do not know if the car suffered a serious fault because there was no examination of the car by anyone. Mr. Tobin made a claim straight after the accident that it happened, but that evidence was excluded by the court. You are the person who claims to know what happened to conform to your world view. I have simply said I believe the verdict is unsafe based on evidence.

Yet again you avoided the question. I asked for your opinion.

Do you really believe the car suffered steering and braking problems for the first time ever, just when he ran over 2 kids?

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

READ HIS POST AGAIN. IT DOESN'T MENTION HIM KILLING 2 CHILDREN ANYWHERE. IT READS MORE OF A WRONGFUL CONVICTION STATEMENT.

We can all use caps lock. If I was driving along a national road and a car came out from a side road, I had to swerve but suddenly my brakes and steering wouldn't work even though I never had problems with them before, I then ran over 2 kids. Would you believe my story?

If you in court produced evidence that the car had a fault yes I would. If you could not produce evidence of a fault but neither could the state and your story fitted with other evidence I would believe you or mor importantly I may have an issue making a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there was independant evidence say video for another car or eye witness who gave evidence that contradicted your story then I may very well feel the evidence has proved your guilt beyond a doubt.

I again ask simple question before today or even today have you read Hardiman's decision.

Yellow121

infosys wrote: »

If you in court produced evidence that the car had a fault yes I would. If you could not produce evidence of a fault but neither could the state and your story fitted with other evidence I would believe you or mor importantly I may have an issue making a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there was independant evidence say video for another car or eye witness who gave evidence that contradicted your story then I may very well feel the evidence has proved your guilt beyond a doubt.

I again ask simple question before today or even today have you read Hardiman's decision.

My car was checked and serviced regurly, no fault had been found. You do know we're not in court here by the way don't you?

Yes I read the Supreme courts findings.

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

My car was checked and serviced regurly, no fault had been found. You do know we're not in court here by the way don't you?

Yes I read the Supreme courts findings.

You do know we are talking about a court case don't you, so we kinda have to use court concepts.

What did you think of Hardiman's decision? What exactly do you disagree with in what he said about the accident.

Yellow121

Yellow121 wrote: »

I asked where did you get all this he didn't have to do stuff from?

Yellow121 wrote: »

Yet again you avoided the question. I asked for your opinion.

Do you really believe the car suffered steering and braking problems for the first time ever, just when he ran over 2 kids?

-

seamus

Yellow121 wrote: »

We can all use caps lock. If I was driving along a national road and a car came out from a side road, I had to swerve but suddenly my brakes and steering wouldn't work even though I never had problems with them before, I then ran over 2 kids. Would you believe my story?

I wouldn't have any reason to disbelieve you. It doesn't sound unbelieveable or impossible, especially when the car was known to have a braking-related fault, however minor that fault is.

The fact that it resulted in two people being killed doesn't make it more unlikely, it's just bad luck. It's what happens when you mix vehicles and pedestrians. The universe doesn't have a grand plan, sometimes sh*t just happens. There was a woman killed a couple of years back walking down a country road, when the wheel of a passing truck came loose and hit her. What are the odds of that happening? There were two children killed last year (?) when a car lost control and hit them while out walking with their father on a road. What are the odds of that? Of hitting exactly them on a long road, and not 10 metres in front or behind them?
There was basically an entire family wiped out last year in the UK when a suicidal man veered across the road and just happened to choose their car as the one to hit. What are the odd of that?

The odds don't matter. The circumstances of these crashes are irrelevant. My point is that stuff which looks extremely unlikely from the outside happens all the damn time. It's the nature of having roads.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

infosys wrote: »

Do you even read what you write. I have to shout the following case your not listing. BEING GUILTY OF A CRIME AND HAVING AN ACCIDENT ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. If you think anyone on here is saying he was not driving then you really need to go to specsavers.

If you get into a car tomorrow, you are driving along a perfect day on the motorway you are traveling at 110 kph the car is in perfect condition, you have just picked car up from NCT. Suddenly and with out warning you have a blowout (let's accept it turns out the tyre was faulty) you crash and 1 person is killed. Are you guilty of any crime.

No comparison, Tobin was speeding and there was nothing wrong with the car.

Yellow121

seamus wrote: »

I wouldn't have any reason to disbelieve you. It doesn't sound unlikely, especially when the car was known to have a braking-related fault, however minor that fault is.
The fact that it resulted in two people being killed doesn't make it more unlikely, it's just bad luck. It's what happens when you mix vehicles and pedestrians. The universe doesn't have a grand plan, sometimes sh*t just happens. There was a woman killed a couple of years back walking down a country road, when the wheel of a passing truck came loose and hit her. What are the odds of that happening? There were two children killed last year (?) when a car lost control and hit them while out walking with their father on a road. What are the odds of that? Of hitting exactly them on a long road, and not 10 metres in front or behind them?
There was basically an entire family wiped out last year in the UK when a suicidal man veered across the road and just happened to choose their car as the one to hit. What are the odd of that?

The odds don't matter. The circumstances of these crashes are irrelevant. My point is that stuff which looks extremely unlikely from the outside happens all the damn time. It's the nature of having roads.

Of course accidents happen all the time and this case was an accident also. He swerved to avoid a car, lost control and went on to the footpath. He didn't mean it but he was distracted for some reason.
He panicked in the situation he was in and told the Hungarian police the story about the braking and steering. Probably his wife or other people in the car advised him to say something like that.
Now, this isn't evidence because we have no evidence but it's the most likely scenario. Like you said in your post, crazy things do happen but usually there simplest explanation is the correct one.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

No comparison, Tobin was speeding and there was nothing wrong with the car.

Where is the evidence he was speeding, and as the car was not examined how do you know there was noting wrong with it. Again I don't claim to know if there was anything wrong, I just have a doubt about guilt beyond a doubt based on the know multiple steering, braking and acceleration issues with the same make, model and year, together with the refusal of the court to give the defence a right to examine the vehicle.

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

Of course accidents happen all the time and this case was an accident also. He swerved to avoid a car, lost control and went on to the footpath. He didn't mean it but he was distracted for some reason.
He panicked in the situation he was in and told the Hungarian police the story about the braking and steering. Probably his wife or other people in the car advised him to say something like that.
Now, this isn't evidence because we have no evidence but it's the most likely scenario. Like you said in your post, crazy things do happen but usually there simplest explanation is the correct one.

And if his story was true then not guilty of a crime. But because the car was never examined the evidence to prove he lied or told the truth was not there, in that situation lacking evidence of exceeding the speed limit I would if we where in a court say not guilty beyond a doubt. The 3 witness also backed up his story but their evidence was never given to court.

While his claims may seem out if the ordinary, there are multiple examples of that type of car having complete steering failure, complete braking failure and a issue with the car revving and accelerating even when brake is pressed, based on that I simply cannot be convinced of his guilt of a crime.

Yellow121

infosys wrote: »

And if his story was true then not guilty of a crime. But because the car was never examined the evidence to prove he lied or told the truth was not there, in that situation lacking evidence of exceeding the speed limit I would if we where in a court say not guilty beyond a doubt. The 3 witness also backed up his story but their evidence was never given to court.

While his claims may seem out if the ordinary, there are multiple examples of that type of car having complete steering failure, complete braking failure and a issue with the car revving and accelerating even when brake is pressed, based on that I simply cannot be convinced of his guilt of a crime.

Yellow121 wrote: »

I asked where did you get all this he didn't have to do stuff from?

Yellow121 wrote: »

Yet again you avoided the question. I asked for your opinion.

Do you really believe the car suffered steering and braking problems for the first time ever, just when he ran over 2 kids?

-

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

-

?

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

You haven't answered the key questions as maybe you don't want your World view to be exposed as rubbish.
Do you really believe the car suffered steering and braking problems for the first time ever, just when he ran over 2 kids?

Its possible and the world is full of such crashes. It is also in the immediate aftermath of the incident what he said as I believe is also what his 3 witness said.

Can I ask you are you sure beyond a reasonable doubt that his version of events did not happen, are you sure that this accident was a criminal act by the driver, and not an unfortunate accident.

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

I asked where did you get all this he didn't have to do stuff from?

I don't understand your question.

Yellow121

infosys wrote: »

Its possible and the world is full of such crashes. It is also in the immediate aftermath of the incident what he said as I believe is also what his 3 witness said.

Can I ask you are you sure beyond a reasonable doubt that his version of events did not happen, are you sure that this accident was a criminal act by the driver, and not an unfortunate accident.

He had to wait for an interpretor (the girl he met).

Of course I'm not certain behond a reasonable doubt, the same as anyone else as the car hasn't been tested. That's why we shouldn't be treating this like a court case. It's only our opinion from what we have read. I feel the most likely outcome is that he lost control and crashed.

Yellow121

infosys wrote: »

I don't understand your question.

You said this:
"Mr. Tobin served 7 months in custody in ireland when I believe he did not have to, Mr. Tobin returned to Hungary to enter prison with he legally did not have to, mr. Tobin agreed to serve 11 future months in custody in ireland even though he did not have to."

Where did you get this information from?

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

He had to wait for an interpretor (the girl he met).

Of course I'm not certain behond a reasonable doubt, the same as anyone else as the car hasn't been tested. That's why we shouldn't be treating this like a court case. It's only our opinion from what we have read. I feel the most likely outcome is that he lost control and crashed.

That's fine, my point being then why are people calling him all sorts if names, and a scumbag when you accept that you could not find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

My opinion leaving everything else out of it, this is a ordinary guy, driving with his then pregnant wife, who has a horrific crash, which I believe was an accident. This man in the crash killed two very young children, that families very existence has been turned upside down, and due to many people's fault are living with this case for years.

I as a flawed human will not condemn the man for his actions for two reasons 1 I have a doubt about his criminal guilt, 2 he has a right to legally defend himself.

I also if in that situation would like to believe that I would have returned to Hungary to stand trial and serve my time, but I really do not know how I would react.

Yellow121

infosys wrote: »

That's fine, my point being then why are people calling him all sorts if names, and a scumbag when you accept that you could not find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

My opinion leaving everything else out of it, this is a ordinary guy, driving with his then pregnant wife, who has a horrific crash, which I believe was an accident. This man in the crash killed two very young children, that families very existence has been turned upside down, and due to many people's fault are living with this case for years.

I as a flawed human will not condemn the man for his actions for two reasons 1 I have a doubt about his criminal guilt, 2 he has a right to legally defend himself.

I also if in that situation would like to believe that I would have returned to Hungary to stand trial and serve my time, but I really do not know how I would react.

It's the last point that people have trouble with. He has made the loss worse for the family in Hungary. He prolonged their agony, especially when his story doesn't ring true.

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

You said this:
"Mr. Tobin served 7 months in custody in ireland when I believe he did not have to, Mr. Tobin returned to Hungary to enter prison with he legally did not have to, mr. Tobin agreed to serve 11 future months in custody in ireland even though he did not have to."

Where did you get this information from?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ciaran-tobin-begins-hungarian-prison-sentence-after-killing-two-children-in-crash-29915243.html

If I remember it was also contained in news reporting sat the time. Because he had won his EAW case the only way he could return was to volunteer. It was also put on Affidavit that he offered to serve his sentence in ireland as he feared for his life in Hungary this was offered years ago by Mr. Tobin.

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

It's the last point that people have trouble with. He has made the loss worse for the family in Hungary. He prolonged their agony, especially when his story doesn't ring true.

No matter how much it might annoy personally, a person must retain their rights to prosecute their case. Also it must be remembered that Hungary did not bring the case all the time he lived in Hungary or for some time after he left, in fact he lived in Hungary for almost 2 years before he left, no prosecution, he also correctly sought permission to leave Hungary.

Also his family say he will not apply for a pardon, http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/family-of-ciaran-tobin-say-he-will-not-appeal-for-presidential-pardon-29922302.html

Yellow121

infosys wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ciaran-tobin-begins-hungarian-prison-sentence-after-killing-two-children-in-crash-29915243.html

If I remember it was also contained in news reporting sat the time. Because he had won his EAW case the only way he could return was to volunteer.

Is he not returning to Hungary because he only has to spend a few days? That's what the years of appeals have won him?

Yellow121

infosys wrote: »

No matter how much it might annoy personally, a person must retain their rights to prosecute their case. Also it must be remembered that Hungary did not bring the case all the time he lived in Hungary or for some time after he left, in fact he lived in Hungary for almost 2 years before he left, no prosecution, he also correctly sought permission to leave Hungary.

Also his family say he will not apply for a pardon, http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/family-of-ciaran-tobin-say-he-will-not-appeal-for-presidential-pardon-29922302.html

Well Bence Zoltai is still suffering, you can clearly see what he believes happened from his statement, I'd say he's right aboutthis man not doing the full sentence also.

“I'm not sure if I'd want to relive the pain of seeing him,” said Mr Zoltai.
“I have seen him enough in Ireland at the courts.
“I know, he still hasn't given it up and the Irish authorities shown their sympathy to him in the past, therefore I do not think he would actually spend his entire prison sentence behind bars.”

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

Is he not returning to Hungary because he only has to spend a few days? That's what the years of appeals have won him?

A few days in hungry but he must spend the full sentence if 18 months in custody, something he offered to do years ago but was refused by Hungary, if he is guilty of dragging it out so are Hungary. Why did they wait so long to prosecute, why did they initially lie to the Irish Courts and say he fled, when he had not, why did they refuse his offer to serve his time in custody in ireland.

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

Well Bence Zoltai is still suffering, you can clearly see what he believes happened from his statement, I'd say he's right aboutthis man not doing the full sentence also.

“I'm not sure if I'd want to relive the pain of seeing him,” said Mr Zoltai.
“I have seen him enough in Ireland at the courts.
“I know, he still hasn't given it up and the Irish authorities shown their sympathy to him in the past, therefore I do not think he would actually spend his entire prison sentence behind bars.”

Of course he is still suffering, and like any person grieving, trying to understand a justice system that can never in any way heal him, but while its a flawed system it's all we have. I would still ask why did Hungary wait so long to prosecute the case.

Also from a link above "Sources close to the family of life insurance executive Ciaran Tobin said he had no intention of doing so and intended to serve out his sentence."

From the SC decision,

"It is clear that the finding that the accused steered to the right “for unknown reasons” can only have been come to on the basis of ignoring the statement of the accused, Mr. Tobin, which gave a specific reason why he steered to the right: it was because a car from a side road had pulled out closely in front of him. But the Court had no regard to this statement apparently on the basis, as set out above, that he had been translated by a person who was the daughter of the defence counsel. The consequences of this development will be considered below. The Court did not disbelieve his account or consider it incapable of explaining the accident: it simply ignored what Mr. Tobin and his witnesses had to say. For some reason the prosecution thought it important to exclude Mr. Tobins account from being considered by the Court."


And

"It is not clear how precisely the Hungarian Court came to its determination of the speed at which the car mounted the side walk, or how the speed is said to have contributed to this. It is a speed slightly in excess of that at which Mr. Tobin said he was driving along the road when the car pulled out in front of him. The airbags on his vehicle did not deploy and Mr. Tobin, through his lawyer, had suggested an investigation of why that was since they were meant to deploy on impact at a speed greater than 50 kilometres per hour. This does not appear to have been done, and as Mr. Tobin said without contradiction in his affidavit “I was unable to appoint my own expert to examine the car under the inquisitorial Hungarian Criminal Justice system”. This is plainly a significant matter having regard to the fact that the speed of the vehicle and the allegedly unexplained movement to the right, were the entire engine of the Court’s finding. It is important to bear in mind that the sentence was imposed for negligent driving causing death, which involved a prison sentence rather than for speeding or any purely regulatory offence."

Yellow121

infosys wrote: »

A few days in hungry but he must spend the full sentence if 18 months in custody, something he offered to do years ago but was refused by Hungary, if he is guilty of dragging it out so are Hungary. Why did they wait so long to prosecute, why did they initially lie to the Irish Courts and say he fled, when he had not, why did they refuse his offer to serve his time in custody in ireland.

They felt rightly that he should do his time in Hungary, they had to settle for this deal as it was obvious this man had won favour with the Irish judicial system.