Anyone else uneasy about this?

Gloomtastic!

I can't believe that kid, Daniel McDonnell, was convicted of shooting Melanie McCarthy last week on the basis of two letters he wrote and no other evidence whatsoever.

http://m.rte.ie/news/touch/2014/0124/499965-melanie-mccarthy-mcnamara/

Anyone feel this is a miscarriage of justice waiting to happen?

dmc17

Nah, I'll sleep ok tonight I'd say

tallus

If he's stupid enough to admit to murder, let him rot.

wazky

So he admitted it in two letters and in graffiti he daubed on his cell, but apart from that no evidence whatsoever. right.....

BanAllFirearms

Yes I agree with you OP it doesn't seem like there was alot of evidence to convict him with besides the letter he wrote and what he wrote on the cell walls

SamAK

I thought it was a slam-dunk.

"that other thing wouldn't have happened if I'd known she was in the car. It was meant for that other smell bag."

Augmerson

Smell bag.

Stavros Murphy

The missus commented on this being a dodgy conviction. She is always correct, even when she isn't, so I agree with you OP - no evidence, no dna, no witnesses, just a young fella mouthing off. Maybe he thought it would make him look good. Young lads talk a lot of crap. Not enough for a conviction imo.

mrsbyrne

I didn't hear what his defence was. Is he saying he wasn't the gunman, or does he deny completely that he was in the car with the gunman?k

marozz

He must have had a crap lawyer.

SamAK

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

no evidence, no dna, no witnesses, just a young fella mouthing off. Maybe he thought it would make him look good. Young lads talk a lot of crap. Not enough for a conviction imo.

I cannot fathom the level of stupidity that would lead someone to brag about something they didn't do when they're sitting in custody on suspicion of doing it...

Arthur Beesley

SamAK wrote: »

I cannot fathom the level of stupidity that would lead someone to brag about something they didn't do when they're sitting in custody on suspicion of doing it...

Worthy of a Darwin nomination at the very least.

catallus

OP, Maybe your basing your judgement on a report from a news organisation that is selective in the information it reports (the most sensational and understandable part of the trial evidence)

Nodin

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

I can't believe that kid, Daniel McDonnell, was convicted of shooting Melanie McCarthy last week on the basis of two letters he wrote and no other evidence whatsoever.

http://m.rte.ie/news/touch/2014/0124/499965-melanie-mccarthy-mcnamara/

Anyone feel this is a miscarriage of justice waiting to happen?

It's a bit dodgy allright. Presumably they'll appeal.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Fuck him, if he admitted it three times in writing then that's good enough for me. I hope he has a thoroughly god awful time in prison.

returnNull

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Worthy of a Darwin nomination at the very least.

could well be seeing as the other lad that got convicted has had his face slashed and got himself doused with boiling water mixed with sugar

deise08

Apparently there's hits out on him in prison?

Sunnyisland

OP just going on newspaper reports of the case it does seem to me to be bit dodgy, But I am sure the jurors had more to go on ??

Sir Osis of Liver.

Augmerson wrote: »

Smell bag.

Yeah,Smell bag http://www.ebay.ie/itm/3pk-STINK-SACK-CLEAR-SMELL-PROOF-STORAGE-BAGS-WASHABLE-REUSABLE-TEAR-RESISTANT-/221354426577?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3389c080d1

FunLover18

Did you read the quotes from the letters OP? The defence didn't even deny he wrote them, tried to fob them off as "rants". Who would write a letter to a bloke "ranting" like he had killed his girlfriend. It says he later denied them; did he deny writing them or just what he wrote? He was also arrested on suspicion and wrote the letters in custody; presumably he wasn't just picked off the street. He also has previous records which would have counted against him.

After four hours the jury had made a unanimous decision. If he has a decent lawyer he'll appeal. Who's to blame for this "miscarriage of justice" the courts? The gards? The lawyers?

Jester252

I would put more faith in what he wrote than what he was coached to say

Stavros Murphy

SamAK wrote: »

I cannot fathom the level of stupidity that would lead someone to brag about something they didn't do when they're sitting in custody on suspicion of doing it...

You've not met teenage/early twenties males so? There's a full spectrum of eejitry. Some would claim they rode shergar off Tower bridge if they thought they'd get attention/"respect".

Arthur Beesley

deise08 wrote: »

Apparently there's hits out on him in prison?

I wonder will they get him before his appeal?

Vito Corleone

Looks a bit like Jay Spearing.

Hitchens

He'll walk on appeal. no danger. It's a gravy train for the lawyers.

rolliepoley

If he did'nt say anything and nothing was writing under interrogation, should the miranda warning not apply.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning


I think he is covering for somebody else, and he is just bragging or he thinks he is safer behind bars.

Arthur Beesley

rolliepoley wrote: »

If he did'nt say anything and nothing was writing under interrogation, should the miranda warning not apply.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning


I think he is covering for somebody else, and he is just bragging or he thinks he is safer behind bars.

Was this case in the US?

PizzamanIRL

He deserves it for boasting about it like that anyway. Guilty or not, feck him. I'd make a great judge.

rolliepoley

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Was this case in the US?

Nope, but are not all laws based on the same thing?

BorneTobyWilde

Vito Corleone wrote: »

Looks a bit like Jay Spearing.

So you're saying Jay is somewhere with a grin on his face knowing it was him all along

FunLover18

rolliepoley wrote: »

Nope, but are not all laws based on the same thing?

There must be some legal provision for documents written while in custody can be used as evidence. But I don't think there's a loop hole where "I remained silent while I wrote that confession, it doesn't count" which seems to be what you're suggesting

Arthur Beesley

rolliepoley wrote: »

Nope, but are not all laws based on the same thing?

You tell me. You brought it up.

rolliepoley

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

You tell me. You brought it up.

So why question my post, did you not read the op?

Frank Lee Midere

rolliepoley wrote: »

Nope, but are not all laws based on the same thing?

No. We have a radically different system from most of Europe but we do have a right to silence.

In any case Miranda is about incriminating yourself whilst talking to police - it's a warning so that you can remain silent. People can incriminate themselves in private written conversation as happened here.

Get over the DNA evidence, or lack of it. Nobody would ever have been convicted in the past if you demand that level of evidence. Effectively this guy confessed to murder and probably the court got other evidence of motive ( the "smell bag" in the car would have had previous run ins with the accused). All the defence could do was claim the confession was invalid, which they failed to do. Its a perfectly reasonable conviction.

Think_then_talk

Jester252 wrote: »

I would put more faith in what he wrote than what he was coached to say

Witness coaching can lead to prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. It would seem this lad needed to reassure others about an event thus leading to self incrimination.

Very sad case indeed.

Arthur Beesley

rolliepoley wrote: »

So why question my post, did you not read the up?

What are you talking about?

19543261

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

No. We have a radically different system from most of Europe but we do have a right to silence.

In any case Miranda is about incriminating yourself whilst talking to police - it's a warning so that you can remain silent. People can incriminate themselves in private written conversation as happened here.

Get over the DNA evidence, or lack of it. Nobody would ever have been convicted in the past if you demand that level of evidence. Effectively this guy confessed to murder and probably the court got other evidence of motive ( the "smell bag" in the car would have had previous run ins with the accused). All the defence could do was claim the confession was invalid, which they failed to do. Its a perfectly reasonable conviction.

Reasonable on the basis that communication with a friend is a legitimate confession?

jimboblep

rolliepoley wrote: »

If he did'nt say anything and nothing was writing under interrogation, should the miranda warning not apply.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning


I think he is covering for somebody else, and he is just bragging or he thinks he is safer behind bars.

miranda rights are an american law cant remember what the irish equivalent is called .
i doubt all the prosecution had was letters unless as stated the defense was absolutely useless

Frank Lee Midere

19543261 wrote: »

Reasonable on the basis that communication with a friend is a legitimate confession?

Two letters and graffiti. Sure. He might have lied in his confessions - which is what they were - to big himself up but the defence failed to make that case.

Frank Lee Midere

jimboblep wrote: »

miranda rights are an american law cant remember what the irish equivalent is called .
i doubt all the prosecution had was letters unless as stated the defense was absolutely useless

The judge said that's all the corroborating evidence there was. They also have motive, I assume, but motive isn't evidence.

jimboblep

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

The judge said that's all the corroborating evidence there was. They also have motive, I assume, but motive isn't evidence.

well on the flipside of of that the defense of he was only acting the big man in the letters is a fairly flimsy one
i havent seen the court report so working off some assumptions here did he have any sort of alibi

SamAK

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

You've not met teenage/early twenties males so? There's a full spectrum of eejitry. Some would claim they rode shergar off Tower bridge if they thought they'd get attention/"respect".

I am an early 20's male, and can't stand people that lie and take credit for things they haven't done.

Like you said, full spectrum. As old brainy himself (Einstein) said - "Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and i'm not sure about the universe"

Hermy

SamAK wrote: »

I cannot fathom the level of stupidity that would lead someone to brag about something they didn't do...

Isn't that what politicians do?

Stavros Murphy

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

He deserves it for boasting about it like that anyway. Guilty or not, feck him. I'd make a great judge.

If we all got what we deserved for the stupid things we'd done or said, it'd be a very empty world. If he did it, feck him, if he didn't, well then what??

Bipolar Joe

Anyone who ever said "I'll fucking kill him / her" should be in prison, based on what some of you think.

Jonkenji

When the defence lawyers gave their closing statements, about the lack of evidence apart from the letters I thought to myself he's off the hook. This is crazy though. Anyone can write letters and act delusional. I could write a letter claiming I shot JFK and wouldn't get prosecuted based on just the letter. That's why we have DNA evidence, CCTV footage, witness statements, etc. Crazy. This isn't the last we've heard of this case.

Menas

The jury just took a few hours to reach their conclusion so they must have been pretty convinced by the case.

Frank Black

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Anyone who ever said "I'll fucking kill him / her" should be in prison, based on what some of you think.

How's the Strawman build progressing?

jimboblep

what was his previous contact with the deceased

DEFTLEFTHAND

The biggest miscarriage of justice of all time is probably the hanging of the 19 year old British petty thief Derek Bentley in 1953. Himself and a 16 year accomplice Chris Craig attempted to rob a warehouse one night, a neighbour called the police and they quickly arrived and caged in the boys, the 16 year had a pistol in his hand, the policeman in question demanded that he give it to him, the 16 yr old resisted, Bentley then said "Let him have it". Craig had watched too many US gangster movies and misinterpreted this command by opening fire fatally wounding the officer.

Because Craig was underage Bentley stood trial for his life and was found guilty and hanged (Joint Enterprise) despite mass outpourings for leniency, with even MPs and members of the Royal family getting involved.

In 93, 40 years after the incident Bentley was given a Royal pardon, they had already allowed for his body to be moved from the prison cemetery to his families plot in 77, but it took another 16 years for them to admit that the legal system failed this young man.

smcgiff

Wasn't the girl an innocent bystander and not the intended target? So no 'respeck' due for a killing that immediately caused widespread revulsion.

And, there are 3 different written confessions. You don't need to he a PhD student to pull a trigger.