Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

FrancieBrady · 16-07-2017 07:39PM

Bambi wrote: »

For all the huffing and puffing journos like this rely on when they dont have a leg to stand on, it falls at the first fence any journalist should ask: "is this true?"

It's not a conspiracy theory when its backed up by facts and anyone who followed the trial saw garda after garda giving the same testimony that was directly disproved by the video evidence. That means the gardai either somehow suffered a mass delusion or they conspired to give the same false version of events

If it was not for the advent of mobile video technology those men would have been convicted through false testimony by numerous gardai

That's serious and that needs to be investigated.

Regardless of what you think of Murphy there are fundamental issues at play here.

Captain Obvious · 16-07-2017 07:48PM

Bambi wrote: »

For all the huffing and puffing journos like this rely on when they dont have a leg to stand on, it falls at the first fence any journalist should ask: "is this true?"

It's not a conspiracy theory when its backed up by facts and anyone who followed the trial saw garda after garda giving the same testimony that was directly disproved by the video evidence. That means the gardai either somehow suffered a mass delusion or they conspired to give the same false version of events

If it was not for the advent of mobile video technology those men would have been convicted through false testimony by numerous gardai

That's serious and that needs to be investigated.

Mass delusion? Correct me if I'm wrong but the three Gardaí were standing near each other and heard a phrase uttered by someone and believed it was Murphy who uttered it. And if Murphy's solicitor is telling the truth the exact phrase was uttered by Murphy minus the words "for the night".

And that, in that, Paul Murphy addresses the crowd and says that the options - there were two options, the options were to slow march the jeep to the bypass, arriving in about half an hour, or the other one was to keep her there

And at least one of the Gardaí used the phrase "to the effect of" when describing what Paul Murphy said and followed up with

"I didn't pay much attention to what the crowd were individually saying or anybody else was saying."

indicating he couldn't be certain of who said what.

So when you say "garda after garda giving the same testimony that was directly disproved by the video evidence" what you mean is three Gardaí attributing three words to Murphy that were said by someone beside him. That is the grand conspiracy that people want an enquiry for. And no, that evidence would not have been a turning point because according to the defence Murphy still suggested she be kept there, just not for the night.

Edit: Also, despite claims to the contrary the video that "caught them out" was not video that was produced by the defence to the surprise of everyone, the footage was the same as was available to the public and was reported on the news on the day of the protest. One would imagine if people were planning a grand conspiracy they'd at least make it more in line with the footage the nation was shown. Why did the DPP or Chief State solicitor submit statements with obvious inconsistencies if the plan was to railroad Murphy? The obvious answer is that three Gardaí gave an honest account of what they believed happened, without tainting their memory by viewing the footage, and the DPP accepted the inconsistencies for what they were, mistakes.

Curly Judge · 16-07-2017 08:44PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Mass delusion? Correct me if I'm wrong but the three Gardaí were standing near each other and heard a phrase uttered by someone and believed it was Murphy who uttered it. And if Murphy's solicitor is telling the truth the exact phrase was uttered by Murphy minus the words "for the night".

And at least one of the Gardaí used the phrase "to the effect of" when describing what Paul Murphy said and followed up with

indicating he couldn't be certain of who said what.

So when you say "garda after garda giving the same testimony that was directly disproved by the video evidence" what you mean is three Gardaí attributing three words to Murphy that were said by someone beside him. That is the grand conspiracy that people want an enquiry for. And no, that evidence would not have been a turning point because according to the defence Murphy still suggested she be kept there, just not for the night.

Edit: Also, despite claims to the contrary the video that "caught them out" was not video that was produced by the defence to the surprise of everyone, the footage was the same as was available to the public and was reported on the news on the day of the protest. One would imagine if people were planning a grand conspiracy they'd at least make it more in line with the footage the nation was shown. Why did the DPP or Chief State solicitor submit statements with obvious inconsistencies if the plan was to railroad Murphy? The obvious answer is that three Gardaí gave an honest account of what they believed happened, without tainting their memory by viewing the footage, and the DPP accepted the inconsistencies for what they were, mistakes.

In addition, the video evidence only covers a small proportion of the three hour ordeal.

FrancieBrady · 16-07-2017 10:50PM

The government guy on The Week In Politics is basically talking about turning 'privilege' into a protection racket.
Everyone who expressed concerns about this case, newspapers, TV, Varadkar etc did the same thing as Murphy.
It ridiculous at this stage, let's not mention the elephant when everyone knows the elephant.

dense · 16-07-2017 11:01PM

Curly Judge wrote: »

In addition, the video evidence only covers a small proportion of the three hour ordeal.

Just as well it was available though, eh?
For the record so to speak.

And the garda, in spite of what was doing the rounds, are pleased to continue to be recorded whilst on duty. Apparently.

Can't post links, but the fuss about them not wanting to be recorded was everyone else getting the wrong end of the stick. Apparently.

ww.thesun.ie/news/848507/gardai-deny-they-want-on-duty-photographing-or-filming-banned-but-reveal-family-members-have-been-targeted/

end of the road · 16-07-2017 11:08PM

wexandproud wrote: »

no , i haven't lost the plot they , like i said were found not guilty of what they were charged with and while i don't like it i accept the courts decision . i just feel the wrong charge was made and if a lesser charge was made a conviction might have been gotten.
me likeing him or not is nothing to do with it , i don't know the man so can't say if i like him or not , its his thugish behavior i don't like

he wasn't involved in any thugish behaviour. if he was he would have been charged with something else as well as the crime he was charged with, for which never took place and for which he wasn't guilty.

wexandproud wrote: »

i couldn't even be bothered replying to that post from francie , you can be well sure he has seen the videos and probably studied them for hours on end but you know yourself ''there is none so blind as them who do not want to see ''

in a video, you can't see what isn't there or what didn't happen.

Deleted User wrote: »

Whatever happened since that incident, it doesn't change the fact that the events that day were the actions of thugs. The kind of low life that I for one, want nothing to do with. We have seen the videos. There is nothing anyone can say to justify those actions. The fact that Murphy and his cohorts saw nothing wrong in their actions speaks volumes.

Now, tis a grand day out, so I'm off out to enjoy it. Laters.

murphy and the vast majority at the protest did nothing wrong. there was no thuggish behaviour from murphy and the majority at the protest.

Curly Judge wrote: »

All his evidence. He refused to take the stand.

there was no need for him to do so.

VinLieger · 17-07-2017 07:09AM

Murphy and the alphabet soup social media machine currently are trying to compare him to malcolm x

Poor lad, hes always the victim and never the martyr

17-07-2017 08:09AM

end of the road wrote: »

murphy and the vast majority at the protest did nothing wrong. there was no thuggish behaviour from murphy and the majority at the protest.

No? You must have seen different videos than me.

FrancieBrady · 17-07-2017 08:52AM

Deleted User wrote: »

No? You must have seen different videos than me.

Seriously open to having my mind changed on this, can you link the video and the minute were he does anything illegal?

17-07-2017 09:06AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Seriously open to having my mind changed on this, can you link the video and the minute were he does anything illegal?

Don't remember saying he did anything illegal. Thuggish behaviour was clearly evident on the day. If one didn't agree with it, why did they remain at the scene?

FrancieBrady · 17-07-2017 09:10AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't remember saying he did anything illegal. Thuggish behaviour was clearly evident on the day. If one didn't agree with it, why did they remain at the scene?

Can you by linking to specific parts show him engaging in 'thuggish behaviour'?

What I have seen (and I wonder why it doesn't calm your attitude to the man's behaviour on the day) is somebody working to reduce the tension on the day and acting as a go between with the Gardai.

17-07-2017 09:23AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you by linking to specific parts show him engaging in 'thuggish behaviour'?

What I have seen (and I wonder why it doesn't calm your attitude to the man's behaviour on the day) is somebody working to reduce the tension on the day and acting as a go between with the Gardai.

Sitting behind a vehicle to stop its occupants leaving the vicinity.
Thinking that a slow march from the vicinity acceptable.
Having a megaphone to communicate/agitate the mob

FrancieBrady · 17-07-2017 09:32AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Sitting behind a vehicle to stop its occupants leaving the vicinity.
Thinking that a slow march from the vicinity acceptable.
Having a megaphone to communicate/agitate the mob

Normal protest behaviour then. As alluded to by the judge when directing the jury.

So what Murphy did was 'unacceptable' to your moral code.

A vastly different thing to be honest.

17-07-2017 09:39AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So what Murphy did was 'unacceptable' to your moral code.

Think you've hit the nail on the head. The behaviour of the mob that day is abhorrent to me.

Hitman3000 · 17-07-2017 09:40AM

Deleted User wrote:

Don't remember saying he did anything illegal. Thuggish behaviour was clearly evident on the day. If one didn't agree with it, why did they remain at the scene?

Thuggery, violent behaviour especially of the criminal.
Murphy didn't engage in this behaviour despite posters continually trying to imply he did. It was a spontaneous protest no organisers so again Murphy and Co are only responsible for their own behaviour no one else's.
'If one didn't agree with it, why did they remain at the scene' the straw clutching is beyond hilarious at this stage.
On a side note I trust all those who agree with water charges will be refusing to accept a refund.

Hitman3000 · 17-07-2017 09:43AM

Deleted User wrote:

Sitting behind a vehicle to stop its occupants leaving the vicinity. Thinking that a slow march from the vicinity acceptable. Having a megaphone to communicate/agitate the mob

None of which is thuggish behaviour. He also didn't engage in agitating people. Don't make up stuff that didn't happen, enough have done that already and I think you know the result.

FrancieBrady · 17-07-2017 09:50AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Think you've hit the nail on the head. The behaviour of the mob that day is abhorrent to me.

The behaviour of 'some' of the crowd that day was abhorrent to me.

Jailing innocent people is also abhorrent to me.

17-07-2017 09:54AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jailing innocent people is also abhorrent to me.

None were. I have said that I agreed with the findings of the Jury.

FrancieBrady · 17-07-2017 10:44AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

None were. I have said that I agreed with the findings of the Jury.

Yes, and now we need, as democrats, to see if there was an organised effort to subvert the process.
Why would anyone fear that or find the idea abhorent?

VinLieger · 17-07-2017 10:51AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, and now we need, as democrats, to see if there was an organised effort to subvert the process.
Why would anyone fear that or find the idea abhorent?

Isn't there an investigation happening already?

Why pre-empt the results of that and double up on the work and cost?

If the results of that arent satisfactory then yeah have another one but we always hear the left complaining about multiple time and money wasting investigations on single issues but now that its one they want they have no problem with it.

Bit hypocritical no?

WinnyThePoo · 17-07-2017 11:05AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Isn't there an investigation happening already?

Why pre-empt the results of that and double up on the work and cost?

If the results of that arent satisfactory then yeah have another one but we always hear the left complaining about multiple time and money wasting investigations on single issues but now that its one they want they have no problem with it.

Bit hypocritical no?

Make no mistake. Looking for an enquiry into the event is for purely selfish for Paul. L
What are they going to find out that we don't already know. Paul is thug and a coward?.

FrancieBrady · 17-07-2017 11:18AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Isn't there an investigation happening already?

Why pre-empt the results of that and double up on the work and cost?

If the results of that arent satisfactory then yeah have another one but we always hear the left complaining about multiple time and money wasting investigations on single issues but now that its one they want they have no problem with it.

Bit hypocritical no?

The terms of reference for that inquiry are wholly inadequate. It is the 'waste' of money as a result.

McMurphy · 17-07-2017 11:23AM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Make no mistake. Looking for an enquiry into the event is for purely selfish for Paul. L
What are they going to find out that we don't already know. Paul is thug and a coward?.

Murphy isn't going to be the subject of any inquiry, his trial was his inquiry, and the last I heard, he was acquitted of any wrong doing.

The inquiry should be centering on the guards evidence, and if their was a concentrated effort to try and stitch him and his co-defendants up.

Their seems to be a certain amount of posters on here that are continually pointing at Murphy, long after the court's exoneration of him.

Quite bizarre.

Hitman3000 · 17-07-2017 11:36AM

WinnyThePoo wrote:

Make no mistake. Looking for an enquiry into the event is for purely selfish for Paul. L What are they going to find out that we don't already know. Paul is thug and a coward?.

He feels he was wronged, so he is within his rights to ask for an inquiry. Are you labelling him a thug?

FrancieBrady · 17-07-2017 11:39AM

A massively fair summation of what is at stake here.

Gene Kerrigan wrote:

It cannot be ignored that the choice of charges, the selection of defendants and the dawn raids scream politics, politics, politics - the establishment striking back.

And an indictment of the Taoiseach and some of the contributors on here.

Gene Kerrigan wrote:

Much commentary has been reckless, class-ridden and contemptuous of the law.

It would be wrong to jump to ungrounded conclusions about Garda evidence. It would be just as wrong to ignore the implications of its unreliability.

When Leo Varadkar mentioned this aspect of the case - which is all he did - some went berserk. Even to mention that Garda evidence proved unreliable was disloyal.

This criticism provoked Varadkar into proving his loyalty to the establishment by slagging off the protesters in gross terms. Stunningly, he said the following: "I was particularly struck by the moment when a vote was taken as to whether the two women should be detained all night." It was this, he said, that showed him it was not a peaceful protest.

This incident didn't happen. The evidence on this was discredited by video - and with it went the Garda credibility.

If Varadkar paid so little attention to the case that he didn't know this, what was his previous implicit criticism of the Garda based on?

It appears the Taoiseach is addicted to the cheap headline.

He lacks the will or ability to familiarise himself with issues on which he denounces others.

The establishment betrayed the principles it supposedly values. The jury took those principles seriously.

https://amp.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/gene-kerrigan/heres-what-the-jury-heard-your-verdict-35935069.html

WinnyThePoo · 17-07-2017 11:54AM

Hitman3000 wrote: »

He feels he was wronged, so he is within his rights to ask for an inquiry. Are you labelling him a thug?

Yes and a coward. I'm not sure why you even asked me that question in the first place. Should I add hypocrite to the list aswell?

Hitman3000 · 17-07-2017 12:01PM

WinnyThePoo wrote:

Yes and a coward. I'm not sure why you even asked me that question in the first place. Should I add hypocrite to the list aswell?

I'm surprised when he has not engaged in the actions of a thug or being charged with thuggish behaviour that you feel comfortable on a public forum labelling him a thug. Of course all these names you have called him I take ot you would be happy to say to his face? Like you wouldn't be a coward or anything, defamation laws don't frighten you do they?

end of the road · 17-07-2017 12:03PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Sitting behind a vehicle to stop its occupants leaving the vicinity.
Thinking that a slow march from the vicinity acceptable.
Having a megaphone to communicate/agitate the mob

the car was able to leave. the gards don't like people to fast march, they like them to slow march so that they can see what is going on, and that if there is any trouble they can stop it before it boils further. a megaphone is necessary to communicate with the crowd for health and safety reasons. you simply don't agree with protest, especially as it was against something you support. fair enough, but making allegations against people is not the way to deal with the fact that you lost.

WinnyThePoo · 17-07-2017 12:06PM

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I'm surprised when he has not engaged in the actions of a thug or being charged with thuggish behaviour that you feel comfortable on a public forum labelling him a thug. Of course all these names you have called him I take ot you would be happy to say to his face? Like you wouldn't be a coward or anything, defamation laws don't frighten you do they?

Of course. I have already haha. I walked past him in town recently with my friend. Pointed to him for my friend.

' Look there's a real life coward'

He just walked on sheepishly. No doubt not having a mob

He isn't a hero. He isn't working for the betterment of the working class. He Is working for the betterment of his FARFARFARFAR left political ideology. It trumps everything and everyone.

Hitman3000 · 17-07-2017 12:10PM

WinnyThePoo wrote:

Of course. I have already haha. I walked past him in town recently with my friend. Pointed to him for my friend.

Of course you did.

WinnyThePoo wrote:

' Look there's a real life coward'

So you were to much of a coward yourself to call him a thug. Thought so.

Jobstown 6 Not Guilty

Comments