Was blowing up Nelson's Pilar not a crime?

Disgruntled Badger

Fifty-years-on, why has Liam Sutcliffe, the man who has repeatedly admitted to blowing up Nelson's Pillar, never been charged?

Damage to public property, an act of vandalism, or indeed terrorism?

Perhaps at the time, politics as it was, there was no desire to prosecute, but is it now too late to charge him, or indeed fine him for costs to the city and state?

weldoninhio

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

Fifty-years-on, why has Liam Sutcliffe, the man who has repeatedly admitted to blowing up Nelson's Pillar, never been charged?

Damage to public property, an act of vandalism, or indeed terrorism?

Perhaps at the time, politics as it was, there was no desire to prosecute, but is it now too late to charge him, or indeed fine him for costs to the city and state?

I'd imagine too much time has passed. He was brought in in 2000 and released without charge. Would be a waste of resources arresting an 80-odd year old for something that happened so long ago.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Timberrrrrrrr

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Killing people versus blowing up a statue? Really?


Has the statute of limitations not run out on this crime?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Broadcast interviews alone would likely not be admissible as evidence, and unless he's willing to confess on the record, there's not going to be enough forensic or witness evidence to build a case.

Disgruntled Badger

Fred Swanson wrote:

No statute of limitations on an indictable crime.

That's what I was thinking. I am not aware of any amnesty here. He's admitted it publically and repeatedly without word from the DPP? Is there not a worry that precedent is being set that someone could claim in court The State has no qualms with the removal of monuments by members of the public, by force, they find offensive on historical grounds.

Pat Mustard

Link:

Mr Sutcliffe, now living in Walkinstown, Dublin, was questioned by gardaí in September 2000 following a radio interview in which he said he was responsible for blowing up the 158-year-old pillar in 1966.

He was released and the matter was taken no further.

Seems Gardai don't intend to pursue the matter.

Disgruntled Badger

But the question is why not? ..Clearly a crime was committed. Why is this different? Why does the 'law' not wish to prosecute.. I can only contend...there is a lack of will on the part of the DPP, for political reasons???

Carawaystick

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

Clearly a crime was committed.

Firstly what crime exactly?

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

I can only contend...there is a lack of will on the part of the DPP, for political reasons???

Maybe the dpp realises there is a lack of any prospect of a conviction. What evidence would they present to convict the accused? That he boasted on broadcast media?

Poitical reasons are more likely for the non-prosecution of Willie O'Dea for perjuring himself in the high court
or not prosecuting Gerry Adams for membership of the IRA
Or not prosecuting Frank Feighan for assaulting an elderly man in Roscommon town

BattleCorp

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

But the question is why not? ..Clearly a crime was committed. Why is this different? Why does the 'law' not wish to prosecute.. I can only contend...there is a lack of will on the part of the DPP, for political reasons???

The Gardai did interview him for the crime. They probably had no other evidence other than what he said on the radio. Just because he admitted during a radio interview to blowing up Nelson's Pillar, that doesn't mean that he actually did it. There'd have to be more proof than that for a conviction.

If I went on my local radio station and said that I kidnapped Madelene McCann, that doesn't mean that I will be prosecuted for doing it. The Gardai would have to investigate and see if I'm telling the truth or not. In such an instance, an investigation would very quickly show that I was telling lies on the radio and therefore I wouldn't be prosecuted.

Very hard for the Gardai to get proof for something that happened over 40 years earlier.

BornToKill

The statue of limitations surely applies here?

seamus

BornToKill wrote: »

The statue of limitations surely applies here?

This:

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

BattleCorp wrote: »

The Gardai did interview him for the crime. They probably had no other evidence other than what he said on the radio. Just because he admitted during a radio interview to blowing up Nelson's Pillar, that doesn't mean that he actually did it. There'd have to be more proof than that for a conviction.

I searched on the phone last night, and found an article, don't have it now. Basically he was taken in and interviewed by the Gardai after his radio interview, where he basically said nothing, and then a file was sent to the DPP.
Who apparently has decided to not pursue it.

If you have no confession, you don't really have anything. Sure, Gardai could take his radio interview as a start for an investigation, but you have basically zero forensic or physical evidence. You would be relying almost exclusively on 50 year old hearsay evidence and witness testimony.

BornToKill

Ah, but I made no mention of the statute of limitations. I said the statue of limitations. Which clearly applies here.

Pat Mustard

This statue was abolished in 1966.

Badum - tish

Lux23

Ah listen, we have enough actual criminals running amok in this country without us going after mouthy old fellas who may not have anything to do with it in the first place.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

Fifty-years-on, why has Liam Sutcliffe, the man who has repeatedly admitted to blowing up Nelson's Pillar, never been charged?

Damage to public property, an act of vandalism, or indeed terrorism?

The army at the time damaged a hell of a lot more public and private property blowing up the remains

esforum

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

But the question is why not? ..Clearly a crime was committed. Why is this different? Why does the 'law' not wish to prosecute.. I can only contend...there is a lack of will on the part of the DPP, for political reasons???

The DPP make decisions based on a number of factors,

A, the likelyhood of a conviction
B, is it in the public interest to prosecute
C, the financial costs of prosecution

Now you can argue C shouldnt come into it, but it does. So you have to ask is there enough evidence to get past A? Is there the will from the people for B and knowing all that, is C met? I would suggest no on all 3 counts.

Also, I am sure the Gardai did send a file to the DPP.

Bonniedog

We live in a country where a "respected businessman" owned a private airport with no customs, and had planes that had been flown by his son caught with nearly 100 million worth of heroin on board!

And some people think the cops should be charging an 80 year old man for blowing up a statue 50 years ago!

Pat Mustard

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

The army at the time damaged a hell of a lot more public and private property blowing up the remains

EDIT:

Colonel R.G. Mew, Army Director of Engineering, completed a report on the implications of ‘felling’ the stump by explosives. He recommended making ‘eccentrically placed bore holes around the base forming what might be called a “wedge”’. Colonel Mew warned that there would be ‘damage to adjoining property…greater than the original damage since the charges will be nearer the ground’. Sandbags could be used to mitigate the damage, but ‘no matter what happens the public will make invidious comparisons [between] our work and the previous effort’.

‘True for him’ as the saying goes. When the army did its work on 11 March, it was accused of clumsiness in contrast to the skill shown by the original bombers. In fact, the eventual public liability claims totalling £43,000 showed only slightly more claims from the second explosion than from the first.

Victor

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

The army at the time damaged a hell of a lot more public and private property blowing up the remains

I think there may be a strong element of urban legend to this - people wouldn't necessarily have had access to all areas until after the demolition.

Regardless, the demolition only happened to make the initial damage safe.

4ensic15

Pat Mustard wrote: »

EDIT:

From a recent letter to the Irish Times!
At a council meeting on November 7th, 1966, Matthew Macken, the city manager, gave the figures for the subsequent claims received by his office. A total of 36 claims were received for malicious damage following the first blast, totalling £18,864, 19 shillings, and three pence; and 33 claims for damage to property,totalling £4,180, 9 shillings, and 10 pence, after the Army demolition. The latter figure may have included a sum of £995, 17 shillings and 10 pence for scaffolding hired and destroyed during the operation.
The operation was conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers under the direction of Col RGG Mew and carried out by Comdt Jim Seward.
I was a student military engineer in the Curragh at the time and visited the site during the preparation phase in a rather unanticipated change to our course programme.
The perpetrator of the first blast had the advantages of blowing the pillar from the inside and from above street level. The Army engineers had to carry out their explosion from ground level and from outside the pillar, as the stairwell remaining was full of rubble from the first blast. Some collateral damage was inevitable and mainly caused by air pressure changes. A civilian expert on the use of explosives in urban settings was present that night and stated that he was impressed with the conduct and result of the operation.
The myth has being doing the rounds ever since and probably will continue. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL CLEARY,

4ensic15

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

Fifty-years-on, why has Liam Sutcliffe, the man who has repeatedly admitted to blowing up Nelson's Pillar, never been charged?

Damage to public property, an act of vandalism, or indeed terrorism?

Perhaps at the time, politics as it was, there was no desire to prosecute, but is it now too late to charge him, or indeed fine him for costs to the city and state?

Only statements made under caution are admissible in evidence. He could be a fantasist or a Walter Mitty who is making up a story. Given the lapse of time, the fact that all physical evidence has long been obliterated, many of the participants are dead and the embarrassment of an acquittal after a prolonged high publicity trial, it is no surprise that charges are not brought.

hytrogen

BornToKill wrote:

The statue of limitations surely applies here?

Was the pillar property of the British Crown and therefore it's for the crown prosecution to pursue?

Victor

hytrogen wrote: »

Was the pillar property of the British Crown and therefore it's for the crown prosecution to pursue?

Prosecutions are based on jurisdiction, not ownership. Otherwise, Penney's would be sending people to Mountjoy.

In any case, on independence, pretty much everything the Crown owned in Ireland passed to the Government.

Discodog

Sandbags would of been useless. I am not a demolition expert but even I know that you wrap the pillar with strong material & wire to contain the stone.

Pat Mustard

hytrogen wrote: »

Was the pillar property of the British Crown and therefore it's for the crown prosecution to pursue?

According to this article, the ownership of the pillar was held by trustees:

The Pillar was vested in independent trustees by act of parliament, one of whom was another Arthur Guinness.

GM228

Pat Mustard wrote: »

According to this article, the ownership of the pillar was held by trustees:

Indeed, ownership of Nelsons Pillar was held by trustees, ownership of the site and remains of the pillar transferred to the state (Dublin Corporation) on 3rd June 1969 upon payment of £21,750 to the Trustees as compensation for the damage and removal of the pillar.