spurious wrote: » I always thought that was an odd case. She was probably guilty, but wasn't it all on the say-so of others? Was there any actual evidence? Money changing hands, weapon produced etc.?
TomSweeney wrote: » Why do the good always go so young?
The evidence of three witnesses against Catherine Nevin at her trial raise serious doubts about the reliability of her convinction. By Vincent Browne On 10 April 2000 Catherine Nevin was found guilty of the murder of her husband, Tom Nevin, on 19 March 1996. She was sentenced to life imprisonment and is serving her sentence at the Dochas Centre at Mountjoy. Her conviction hinged on the evidence of three witnesses, John Jones, Gerry Heapes and William McClean, all of whom said Catherine Nevin had asked the or solicited them to murder her husband or have her husband murdered, several years before the murder took place. There was no forensic evidence supporting the case against her. There was no eye-witness evidence, no admission by her of having been implicated in the murder of her husband. There was circumstantial evidence but it was made clear at the trial the circumstantial evidence could not have convicted her on its own. In his closing address, one of the prosecuting counsel, Tom O'Connell, stated: “You (members of the jury) should actually consider the soliciting charges before you go on to consider the murder charge because the soliciting charges or a finding of guilt in relation to one or more of he soliciting charges is necessary, and the prosecution accepts this, is necessary to support a finding on the murder charge..., there is insufficient circumstantial evidence to justify a finding of guilt on the murder charge.” And it is because of the frailties of the evidence of these three witnesses that concern arises about the safety of Catherine Nevin's conviction for the murder of her husband.
Frankie Lee wrote: » Good article from Vincent Brownehttp://magill.ie/archive/wrongly-convicted It goes on a bit but in my opinion there wasn't enough evidence to convict. The behaviour of the media at the time of the trial was disgraceful too.
123balltv wrote: » Joe Duffy was devastated today :mad:
Rulmeq wrote: » Wasn't she banging a judge as well?
_Dara_ wrote: » How do you mean? According to her convictions, her husband’s death happened on her say so. If you get someone else to commit murder for you, you are still considered a murderer.
spurious wrote: » Yes and I'm fairly sure what they said was true but legally is that all you need, a few people to say you asked them to do it? Was there any comeback for them? Would they not also be guilty of conspiracy to murder, even if they didn't actually carry it out?
Grueller wrote: » Remember hearing a story where the judge in question allegedly was hearing a case in a district court when a commotion began in the courtroom. It turned out to be a mouse causing the disturbance. The judge said something along the lines of "I don't know, mice in a courtroom". The defendant, quck as a whip said "No, but you know all about the pussy in Jack Whites". Two days for contempt followed.
Gael23 wrote: » Life should mean life. She should have died on a cold bed in jail, not a nice comfortable hospice
Atoms for Peace wrote: » The dochas centre is comparatively cushy.
Cushie Butterfield wrote: » During her trial I always thought that she’d end up in Dundrum indefinitely.
TheAnalyst_ wrote: » How was anyone riding her? She looked rough as.
