Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

Options
13567…35

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    hytrogen
    Registered Users Posts: 952 ✭✭✭hytrogen


    johnnyskeleton wrote:
    Yes it is actually. If juries only returned verdicts in accordance with political narrative then we wouldn't have a justice system, we would have show trials.

    But I like Judge Judy :'(


  • Options
    #63
    Allinall
    Registered Users Posts: 6,592 ✭✭✭Allinall


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    The whole thing was a farce from start to finish - an absolute abuse of power and position by a government with suspiciously fascist leanings to say the very least!

    What specifically did the government have to do with this case?

    And which government, for that matter?


  • Options
    #64
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,337 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Great to see the disappointment on here of those who never had a problem with the wrongful conviction of the 'right' people.


  • Options
    #65
    Oops69
    Registered Users Posts: 5,477 ✭✭✭Oops69


    Allinall wrote: »
    What specifically did the government have to do with this case?

    And which government, for that matter?
    Playing poker - face or incredibly naive ? , which is it , who knows ?


  • Options
    #66
    RoboRat
    Registered Users Posts: 2,510 ✭✭✭RoboRat


    Joke of a trial... why it ever happened is beyond me.

    Burton threw her toys out of the pram for what was a bit of an inconvenience. I don't condone the manner of the protest but it was instigated by the government ignoring protests and then enlisting heavy handed tactics of the guards against protesters.

    This was never false imprisonment, never in a million years. If the unlikely had happened and they were convicted, there would be riots and it would further drive the social divide.

    Why nobody in the DPP had the common sense to look at this and reject it is beyond me. I should only have ever been a civil suit taken by Burton and her PA.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Citroen2cv
    Registered Users Posts: 283 ✭✭Citroen2cv


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Now to charge the guards that perjured themselves.




    Right? :rolleyes:



  • Options
    #68
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Yes it is actually. If juries only returned verdicts in accordance with political narrative then we wouldn't have a justice system, we would have show trials.
    And if we start calling "not guilty" results "a waste of money", you'll suspiciously see the number of "Guilty" verdicts go through the roof.

    There was very clearly a case to be answered here. All of the video shows an unruly, abusive crowd. A car was stopped by protestors and Paul Murphy is clearly heard asking "will we let her go".

    So on the face of it, there was a case to be heard as to whether the occupants of that vehicle had been falsely imprisoned.

    A jury said, "No", so that's great, justice has been done.

    "Justice" is not measured by the delivery of the verdict that you want, but in the delivery of any verdict.

    In fact, hoping for a verdict is the exact opposite of justice.


  • Options
    #69
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,480 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Bambi wrote: »
    And now the dip**** who pushed ahead of this farce of a case for her pal Joanie is away off to be a judge

    Welcome to Ireland

    Is there evidence that the Attorney General had any influence on the DPP, who under the 1976 Act is an independent prosecutor? If so, I would be very interested to hear it.


  • Options
    #70
    circadian
    Registered Users Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭circadian


    CeilingFly wrote: »
    Fix - eitheer they had insiders on the jury or noibbled a cpouple fo jury members.

    He shoudl nahve been jailed for ten years - imagine having to listen to his self righteous bull for ever more now. And his silver spoon upbringing where he wanted for nothing.

    Classic thinking faster than you can type post.


  • Options
    #71
    Cee-Jay-Cee
    Registered Users Posts: 12,235 ✭✭✭✭Cee-Jay-Cee


    Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »
    So what about the 16 year old who was previously convicted?

    Hopefully his conviction quashed and his name is cleared.

    He was nothing but a little uneducated scumbag who saw an opportunity to cause trouble. He deserved to be convicted and hopefully the period for appeal has expired and the little scroate is stuck with the conviction.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    fred funk }{
    Registered Users Posts: 6,827 ✭✭✭fred funk }{


    seamus wrote: »
    And if we start calling "not guilty" results "a waste of money", you'll suspiciously see the number of "Guilty" verdicts go through the roof.

    There was very clearly a case to be answered here. All of the video shows an unruly, abusive crowd. A car was stopped by protestors and Paul Murphy is clearly heard asking "will we let her go".

    So on the face of it, there was a case to be heard as to whether the occupants of that vehicle had been falsely imprisoned.

    A jury said, "No", so that's great, justice has been done.

    "Justice" is not measured by the delivery of the verdict that you want, but in the delivery of any verdict.

    In fact, hoping for a verdict is the exact opposite of justice.

    Chanting "Will we let her go" doesn't warrant the level of charges against them. It was a ridiculous trial.


  • Options
    #73
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    fred funk }{ wrote: »
    Chanting "Will we let her go" doesn't warrant the level of charges against them. It was a ridiculous trial.
    The DPP disagrees with you.

    That's the whole point of a judicial system - to test whether a charge can be proven. The level or severity of the charges are irrelevant.

    You can charge me with murder, but that doesn't make me guilty of murder. At the criminal level, there is functionally no difference between a big charge and a small charge. It doesn't matter if you've been charged with common assault or attempted murder, the case must be proven either way.


  • Options
    #74
    who_ru
    Registered Users Posts: 2,033 ✭✭✭who_ru


    The guards lying through their teeth on the stand while under oath. Typical.

    There is no bigger criminal organisation in this country than the guards.

    Falsifying everything from evidence on the stand to crime figures regarding homicides and burglaries and breath tests.

    A reprehensible bunch.


  • Options
    #75
    PokeHerKing
    Registered Users Posts: 4,300 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    Cee-Jay-Cee wrote:
    He was nothing but a little uneducated scumbag who saw an opportunity to cause trouble. He deserved to be conviced and hopefully the period for appeal has expired and the little scroate is stuck with the conviction.


    I assume you know him personally?

    Complete waste of time and money.

    If people are restricting the movement of a state car then just set the bat to womp and clear house.


  • Options
    #76
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,365 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »
    He was nothing but a little uneducated scumbag who saw an opportunity to cause trouble. He deserved to be convicted and hopefully the period for appeal has expired and the little scroate is stuck with the conviction.

    Stop. You're giving us right wing, fascist pigs a bad name.


  • Options
    #77
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,480 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    seamus wrote: »
    And if we start calling "not guilty" results "a waste of money", you'll suspiciously see the number of "Guilty" verdicts go through the roof.

    There was very clearly a case to be answered here. All of the video shows an unruly, abusive crowd. A car was stopped by protestors and Paul Murphy is clearly heard asking "will we let her go".

    So on the face of it, there was a case to be heard as to whether the occupants of that vehicle had been falsely imprisoned.

    A jury said, "No", so that's great, justice has been done.

    "Justice" is not measured by the delivery of the verdict that you want, but in the delivery of any verdict.

    In fact, hoping for a verdict is the exact opposite of justice.

    I never called a not guilty verdict a waste of money or said that there was no case to answer. I didn't say that I wanted a particular verdict, or hoped for a particular verdict. See my post here:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103944581&postcount=49
    This case shows that the system works. So for all the criticism of the jury selection, the DPP, the Judge etc etc, the system provided a verdict in accordance with law, and that is justice. It might not have been what some people wanted, indeed, it might not have been what anyone wanted, especially not those who were setting themselves up to be martyrs, but it is an endorsement of the jury system.


  • Options
    #78
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Bambi wrote: »
    And now the dip**** who pushed ahead of this farce of a case for her pal Joanie is away off to be a judge

    Welcome to Ireland

    Are you confusing the Attorney General with the D.P.P?


  • Options
    #79
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    I never called a not guilty verdict a waste of money or said that there was no case to answer. I didn't say that I wanted a particular verdict, or hoped for a particular verdict.
    Sorry, my post was meant to be an addendum to yours, not a response. Apologies if it comes across that way.


  • Options
    #80
    golfball37
    Registered Users Posts: 4,582 ✭✭✭golfball37


    Political show trial falls flat on its arse. What a terrible waste of our money. The Gardai who committed a crime by perjuring themselves should really be sanctioned, and would be in a proper country.


  • Options
    #81
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Joan Burton could take the case if such a case could be made.

    Seeing as she made no complaint in the first place, I doubt it!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    golfball37 wrote: »
    The Gardai who committed a crime by perjuring themselves

    This has been mentioned a few times. What are ye referring to?


  • Options
    #83
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,365 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Seeing as she made no complaint in the first place, I doubt it!

    Dunno. If such a case were possible would that preclude her from taking it?


  • Options
    #84
    RustyNut
    Registered Users Posts: 3,430 ✭✭✭RustyNut


    This case makes it easy to see why the Guards want to stop the public from filming them and why that would be such a bad idea.


  • Options
    #85
    Shemale
    Registered Users Posts: 3,376 ✭✭✭Shemale


    The DPP should be sacked for sending this to trial, complete political posturing of the highest order.

    I am in Burton's constituency and always have been, she was always first on my ballot. When she was campaigning for the election it was the first time she didn't call to my house with the campaigners, I didn't see her at the train station when she used to be camped out there in opposition.

    The campaigners called to my house, one must have been Joan's daughter, she was the image of her. I opened with I have always given Joan my number 1 vote and then said because of this false imprisonment farce she will only ever get the last possible vote on my ballot.


  • Options
    #86
    ct5amr2ig1nfhp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,019 ✭✭✭ct5amr2ig1nfhp


    Has the cost of this case been published? I cannot believe my f***ing tax money has paid for this ridiculous court case. :mad::mad::mad:


  • Options
    #87
    wpd
    Registered Users Posts: 492 ✭✭wpd


    Will the defendents in this case now be able to sue the state for damages??


  • Options
    #88
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,857 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    This has been mentioned a few times. What are ye referring to?

    The judge pretty much told the jury to ignore all the statements from members of AGS, and instead to focus on video evidence.

    The judge basically calling them liars.


  • Options
    #89
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,337 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    The judge pretty much told the jury to ignore all the statements from members of AGS, and instead to focus on video evidence.

    The judge basically calling them liars.

    They probably could sue based on that, but it will be made prohibitively expensive to do so.


  • Options
    #90
    McCrack
    Registered Users Posts: 2,968 ✭✭✭McCrack


    I'm disappointed with the jury decision I have to say


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    RustyNut
    Registered Users Posts: 3,430 ✭✭✭RustyNut


    McCrack wrote: »
    I'm disappointed with the jury decision I have to say

    Why?


Advertisement