Dubliner kills two kids and walks free

Yellow121

infosys wrote: »

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."

It's obvious that Mr Zoltai doesn't believe the steering and braking story. He'd know better than the two of us, in fact he's the only voice we have heard from the actual victims side.
This man wont serve 18 months, I'd put any amount of money on it.

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

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.

A person who wins his case, it must be because he won favour, not because it was the correct legal thing todo, I have read many judgements of Mr. Hardiman and I know he is of the upmost probity.

If that's your opinion, mine is this case was nothing more than a witch hunt, where an accused was given no real opportunity to defend himself, and all evidence ignored, that is not justice, that is a star chamber.

Yellow121

infosys wrote: »

A person who wins his case, it must be because he won favour, not because it was the correct legal thing todo, I have read many judgements of Mr. Hardiman and I know he is of the upmost probity.

If that's your opinion, mine is this case was nothing more than a witch hunt, where an accused was given no real opportunity to defend himself, and all evidence ignored, that is not justice, that is a star chamber.

He lost control of his car and killed two kids, the Hungarian prosecutors must take blame for not forming their case fully. This doesn't take away from what happened however.

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

It's obvious that Mr Zoltai doesn't believe the steering and braking story. He'd know better than the two of us, in fact he's the only voice we have heard from the actual victims side.
This man wont serve 18 months, I'd put any amount of money on it.

There is a reason we don't allow family members of a victim to dispense justice.

I say a case years ago where a family had lived for years before the trial believing a driver had been on a mobile phone when an accident happened. A friend of a friend of a Garda told them. They had lived for years with the knowledge a loved one had died because a diver used a mobile phone. At the trial the driver pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death. The investigating Garda gave evidence that the mobile phone was not bring used, that the accident was in reality a total freak accident.

What a person believes and what can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt are two different things, I can not condemn Mr. Tobin and call him a monster, because to do so would be wrong in my opinion.

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

He lost control of his car and killed two kids, the Hungarian prosecutors must take blame for not forming their case fully. This doesn't take away from what happened however.

I never said it did. The family of those two children have to live with this for life. Mr. Tobin must live with the knowledge that he killed 2 children. But is is guilty of a crime, on that point I have doubts, was he or the family of the victims served well by either justice system, sorry to say I don't think so.

Yellow121

infosys wrote: »

There is a reason we don't allow family members of a victim to dispense justice.

I say a case years ago where a family had lived for years before the trial believing a driver had been on a mobile phone when an accident happened. A friend of a friend of a Garda told them. They had lived for years with the knowledge a loved one had died because a diver used a mobile phone. At the trial the driver pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death. The investigating Garda gave evidence that the mobile phone was not bring used, that the accident was in reality a total freak accident.

What a person believes and what can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt are two different things, I can not condemn Mr. Tobin and call him a monster, because to do so would be wrong in my opinion.

A lot of things seem out of the ordinary on the day this man ran over two children. His cars steering and brakes stopped working for the first time and the childrens father doesn't know what a car swerving and losing control really looks like.

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

A lot of things seem out of the ordinary on the day this man ran over two children. His cars steering and brakes stopped working for the first time and the childrens father doesn't know what a car swerving and losing control really looks like.

There is no doubt the car swerved, mr. Tobin even said it swerved, the Hungarians want us to believe it swerved for no reason, mr. Tobin and his 3 witness say it swerved because a car pulled out from a side road. Do you think a person would for no reason swerve and hit 2 children. Because it sure seems that's what a people are implying. I would think the more likely situation is he swerved to avoid something.

Yellow121

infosys wrote: »

There is no doubt the car swerved, mr. Tobin even said it swerved, the Hungarians want us to believe it swerved for no reason, mr. Tobin and his 3 witness say it swerved because a car pulled out from a side road. Do you think a person would for no reason swerve and hit 2 children. Because it sure seems that's what a people are implying. I would think the more likely situation is he swerved to avoid something.

Yeah, that's the likely story. It makes sense but this swerving and then the brakes and steering stopped working makes no sense. He had to stick with that story though.

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

Yeah, that's the likely story. It makes sense but this swerving and then the brakes and steering stopped working makes no sense. He had to stick with that story though.

The only evidence we have of the break/steering problems are mr. Tobin evidence, given in a statment at the time. We have some other evidence where numerous (sudden) such faults have been recorded in the same car. Finally the Hungarian police produced no evidence that they examined the car, and the defence where not allowed to examine it, a simple examination of the car could have removed any doubt.

But we are left with the Hungarian court deciding there was no reason for the swerve despite 4 people saying the car swerved to avoid another car. The reason the court refused to consider that evidence was the statements had been taken by a defence lawyers daughter the court also refused to accept the witness giving new statements. To me as people are giving opinions based on nothing, my opinion the Hungarian court had made its mind up before any evidence was heard and simply excluded any evidence to the accused's benefit.

irishdude11

Yellow121 wrote: »

Yeah, that's the likely story. It makes sense but this swerving and then the brakes and steering stopped working makes no sense. He had to stick with that story though.

The way you are going on you would think he deliberately set out to kill two innocent children by driving into them. For god sake it was obviously a terrible accident. As bad and all as it is that two children died, why should he go to prison if it was an accident? There have been numerous cases down the years where people were killed in very unfortunate motor accidents and the driver walked free because it was recognised it was an accident...ie getting blinded by sunlight.

It looks like the Hungarian authorities were trying to stitch him up to me, they wanted a conviction at all costs and didn't taken into account his statements and hindered his defence team, and they wouldn't consider numerous eye witness statements. Total kangaroo court.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Yellow121 wrote: »

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.

The Irish Supreme Court ruled that he could not serve his sentence in Ireland at the time as the law did not facilitate it, thus they ordered that he be immediately released from custody which he had, in fairness, entered voluntarily.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

irishdude11 wrote: »

The way you are going on you would think he deliberately set out to kill two innocent children by driving into them. For god sake it was obviously a terrible accident. As bad and all as it is that two children died, why should he go to prison if it was an accident? There have been numerous cases down the years where people were killed in very unfortunate motor accidents and the driver walked free because it was recognised it was an accident...ie getting blinded by sunlight.

It looks like the Hungarian authorities were trying to stitch him up to me, they wanted a conviction at all costs and didn't taken into account his statements and hindered his defence team, and they wouldn't consider numerous eye witness statements. Total kangaroo court.

Utter rubbish, it wasn't an accident, he was speeding, unless you are arguing that he was accidently speeding?

Pro Hoc Vice

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Utter rubbish, it wasn't an accident, he was speeding, unless you are arguing that he was accidently speeding?

Again I ask, have you read Hardiman's judgement. I will set out the relevant parts:

"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."

"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."

"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."

There is no independent evidence I have been able to find that the speed limit was less than 80kph. In fact based on the airbag evidence he was travelling at less than 50kph on impact.

Hardiman quotes from the EAW:

“The accused steered to the right for unknown reasons and, due to this sudden movement of the steering wheel, and due to the speed, being excessive compared to traffic conditions, the vehicle went up on the side walk which was separate from the road by a raised stone edge at a speed of 71 - 80 kilometres per hour…”

But we know that Mr. Tobin and 3 others did explain why the car swerved, which was ignored, we know at impact the car was travelling at less than 50kph, and we know its a dual carriage way where no one I have asked can say what the speed limit was. While I accept that 80kph can be excessive and dangerous in some cases there is no evidence that it was here.

Yellow121

irishdude11 wrote: »

The way you are going on you would think he deliberately set out to kill two innocent children by driving into them. For god sake it was obviously a terrible accident. As bad and all as it is that two children died, why should he go to prison if it was an accident? There have been numerous cases down the years where people were killed in very unfortunate motor accidents and the driver walked free because it was recognised it was an accident...ie getting blinded by sunlight.

It looks like the Hungarian authorities were trying to stitch him up to me, they wanted a conviction at all costs and didn't taken into account his statements and hindered his defence team, and they wouldn't consider numerous eye witness statements. Total kangaroo court.

I never said he deliberately set out to kill the children. His driving was dangerous and careless. If I'm in a 50 kmph zone and I'm doing 47 then I'm not breaking the law but if there was a traffic lights 20 yards ahead of me and I was still doing 47 then that's dangerous.
The Hungarian authorities didn't do a good job prosecuting him, doesn't mean he's innocent though.

Pro Hoc Vice

Yellow121 wrote: »

I never said he deliberately set out to kill the children. His driving was dangerous and careless. If I'm in a 50 kmph zone and I'm doing 47 then I'm not breaking the law but if there was a traffic lights 20 yards ahead of me and I was still doing 47 then that's dangerous.
The Hungarian authorities didn't do a good job prosecuting him, doesn't mean he's innocent though.

I agree totally with you comment, you are 100% correct, that a person not breaking the speed limit may still be guilty of the offence. I also agree that the authorities did not do a good job of prosecuting him, and on that basis I have a serious doubt as to the safety of the finding.

Is he innocent, well no as there is a finding of guilt by a competent court, do I accept that finding, yes! But do I think its a safe verdict, no I do not, it's really that simple.