Man found guilty of thirty year old murder.

darkdubh

John Joseph Malone has been convicted of murdering an elderly woman in Kilkenny in 1987. This scumbag must have felt pretty confident that he'd gotten away with it. He seems to have told nearly half the town about it down the years, at least six different people testified that he'd told them he'd done it, including his own brother.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2017/0413/867609-kilkenny-murder/

Noddyholder

I cant see any of the evidence of how/why he committed the murder, He pleaded not guilty, I know he told a lot of people he did it but you cant be convicted on that ?

darkdubh

Noddyholder wrote: »

I cant see any of the evidence of how/why he committed the murder, He pleaded not guilty, I know he told a lot of people he did it but you cant be convicted on that ?

There's a bit more detail here. He was seen arguing with Nancy Malone not long before her body was discovered. He was seen also banging on her door and shouting that he'd kill her.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/woman-died-callous-and-violent-death-murder-trial-hears-1.3045399

Harry Palmr

Hmm, not sure I'd have convicted him on the evidence outlined in the IT article there. I'd really want some direct forensic link.

darkdubh

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Hmm, not sure I'd have convicted him on the evidence outlined in the IT article there. I'd really want some direct forensic link.

Six people testified that he confessed to them that he killed her at different times. He admitted in his statement that he'd been argueing with her soon before the murder after witnesses placed him at the scene. Forensic evidence isin't always the end all and be all in murder cases. TV series like CSI have given the impression that it's always down to DNA.

Harry Palmr

No but people are strange and have motivations that most of us would find quite impossible to square with decent public spirited behaviour. Presumably their testimony was convincing enough even if it took three decades to pull together. Be interesting to see the investigation time line for this.

__Alex__

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Hmm, not sure I'd have convicted him on the evidence outlined in the IT article there. I'd really want some direct forensic link.

The CSI effect.

Noddyholder

darkdubh wrote: »

Six people testified that he confessed to them that he killed her at different times. He admitted in his statement that he'd been argueing with her soon before the murder after witnesses placed him at the scene. Forensic evidence isin't always the end all and be all in murder cases. TV series like CSI have given the impression that it's always down to DNA.

Yea but going on 30 year old stories of what he said ? Looking at the photos of him he don't look the full shieling either, Maybe some one from down that way can tell us more, From what I just read it looks very shaky evidence to convict someone on a murder that happened so long ago.

arayess

we had a case in dublin of dean lyons who admitted to a murder he didn't do.

I don't think a confession is enough myself - I'd also question why this people sat on these confessions for years.. that's odd.

now he probably did it but not sure he got a fair trial.

I'm not looking for CSI stuff just something more tangible.

Ralf and Florian

arayess wrote: »

we had a case in dublin of dean lyons who admitted to a murder he didn't do.

I don't think a confession is enough myself - I'd also question why this people sat on these confessions for years.. that's odd.

now he probably did it but not sure he got a fair trial.

I'm not looking for CSI stuff just something more tangible.

This guy didn't admit to it. His trial seemed perfectly fair to me. Often in cases like this people are initially afraid to come forward. This guy was in his early twenties when he killed that woman, judging by the state of him in his recent pictures the years haven't been kind to him, people who had information might have lost their initial fear of him.

Alf Stewart.

darkdubh wrote: »

Six people testified that he confessed to them that he killed her at different times. .

Tom must be shítting it.

__Alex__

arayess wrote: »

we had a case in dublin of dean lyons who admitted to a murder he didn't do.

I don't think a confession is enough myself - I'd also question why this people sat on these confessions for years.. that's odd.

now he probably did it but not sure he got a fair trial.

I'm not looking for CSI stuff just something more tangible.

I'm sure there is something more tangible. Like, I haven't read up in the case so I don't know, but usually the media just reports snippets. Whatever sounds sexiest to get people reading below the headline. So there is probably a lot more to it than what is contained in that RTE News article.

darkdubh

This goes into more detail about the case.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/closure-for-family-in-cold-case-murder-447831.html

Kidchameleon

darkdubh wrote: »

This goes into more detail about the case.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/closure-for-family-in-cold-case-murder-447831.html

Hmm, if I was on the jury we would still be deliberating. No evidence whatsoever, just hearsay.

darkdubh

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Hmm, if I was on the jury we would still be deliberating. No evidence whatsoever, just hearsay.

Three people saw him hanging around the victims house hours before her body was found. At least one of those saw him arguing with her two saw him banging on her door shouting to be left in. He admitted arguing with her and being at the scene when originally questioned by the guards. No less than six people testified that he admitted to killing her, in some cases he said to them he did it at numerous times over the years. He threatened several of these people afterwards and his bail was revoked when he was sen shouting abuse outside the house of an 81 year old woman who was due to testify against him. Evidence doesn't always have to come in a physical form.

suicide_circus

Looks like a raging alcoholic, no cans in the slammer I'm afraid.

darkdubh

suicide_circus wrote: »

Looks like a raging alcoholic, no cans in the slammer I'm afraid.

Hard to imagine he's only 53. He looks pushing 70 and not a well preserved 70 either. The irony is if he'd handed himself in back in 1987 he'd probably have been released years ago.

Samaris

Everything that I've read, assuming all the witnessess are truthful (and the court found no reason to reckon they weren't), suggests he did it. Not entirely sure he's the full shilling either, mind you.

- He absolutely was in the area, shouting at her and demanding to be let into her house the night of the fire.
- He also threatened her.
- He admitted straight up at least twice to two people that he killed her.
- He claimed it was an accident
- He asked how forensics could tell she had been strangled, before admitting he shoved her over, she hit her head and once he realised she was dead, he set fire to the house.
- He also said that he "squeezed her too hard".
- It was apparently troubling him when it came to religion.
- He threatened someone else that he would set fire to her house like he did to Nancy Smyth's.


Short of standing on a roof and waving a banner, I'm not sure he could have been much more clear about it.

McCrack

I find it amusing when people make determinations of anothers guilt or innocence based on what they read in the media and of course despite the jurys decision after sitting through days of evidence and seeing witnesses first hand.

RockSalto

darkdubh wrote: »

Three people saw him hanging around the victims house hours before her body was found. At least one of those saw him arguing with her two saw him banging on her door shouting to be left in. He admitted arguing with her and being at the scene when originally questioned by the guards. No less than six people testified that he admitted to killing her, in some cases he said to them he did it at numerous times over the years. He threatened several of these people afterwards and his bail was revoked when he was sen shouting abuse outside the house of an 81 year old woman who was due to testify against him. Evidence doesn't always have to come in a physical form.

None of that is evidence that he committed murder.

This means he was banging on someone's door and was in the vicinity. And also that he's a bit of twat for shouting an old woman.

Harry Palmr

Samaris wrote: »

Everything that I've read, assuming all the witnessess are truthful (and the court found no reason to reckon they weren't), suggests he did it. Not entirely sure he's the full shilling either, mind you.

- He absolutely was in the area, shouting at her and demanding to be let into her house the night of the fire.
- He also threatened her.
- He admitted straight up at least twice to two people that he killed her.
- He claimed it was an accident
- He asked how forensics could tell she had been strangled, before admitting he shoved her over, she hit her head and once he realised she was dead, he set fire to the house.
- He also said that he "squeezed her too hard".
- It was apparently troubling him when it came to religion.
- He threatened someone else that he would set fire to her house like he did to Nancy Smyth's.


Short of standing on a roof and waving a banner, I'm not sure he could have been much more clear about it.

Which somewhat undermines some of what you then list. On the balance of probability he is probably guilty but the law requires a higher standard than that as we all know.

darkdubh what piqued your interest in this case?

PS I've never watched an episode of CSI in my life, Waking the Dead was my preferred 'poke about the innards' tv crime drama.

Samaris

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Which somewhat undermines some of what you then list. On the balance of probability he is probably guilty but the law requires a higher standard than that as we all know.

darkdubh what piqued your interest in this case?

PS I've never watched an episode of CSI in my life, Waking the Dead was my preferred 'poke about the innards' tv crime drama.

Apparently didn't in the court, and tbh, we can't really have any idea if he's mentally unbalanced or not or in what form so I shouldn't be speculating on it.

Although without knowing (assuming for a moment that he was) in what way, it doesn't have that much bearing on what he said. Specific issues might, others might not.

I admit I am generally predisposed to believe that the court probably came out with the right result (although egregious miscarriages of justice absolutely do happen) since they heard all of the evidence, unlike me! But what it appears he's been telling people for years certainly points to him being guilty, whether or not he intended her death. I can't see it being very likely that this elderly woman had two enemies hanging around her house the same night threatening her life. Not impossible, just a bit unlikely.

darkdubh

RockSalto wrote: »

None of that is evidence that he committed murder.

This means he was banging on someone's door and was in the vicinity. And also that he's a bit of twat for shouting an old woman.

Are you for real? Do you seriously think the jury convicted him on just those two points that you mentioned?

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Which somewhat undermines some of what you then list. On the balance of probability he is probably guilty but the law requires a higher standard than that as we all know.

darkdubh what piqued your interest in this case?

PS I've never watched an episode of CSI in my life, Waking the Dead was my preferred 'poke about the innards' tv crime drama.

I first read about it in Cold Case Files by Barry Cummins a few years ago. It was clear that the Gardai knew who did it but at that point they didn't have enough evidence to bring charges.

Noddyholder

This case on Rte radio now.