Jastine Valdez found dead. No Ana discussion please. Mod warning post 1

The Talking Bread · 23-05-2018 09:48PM

Thank God that post has been removed. You should be ashamed of yourself getting a kick out of these theories. Imagine being her family and friends looking at posts like that

frankythefish · 23-05-2018 09:49PM

eviltwin wrote: »

why is that so hard to believe?

I was just responding to a comment which I believe mod has just deleted, and I have hence deleted my response.

Kuva · 23-05-2018 10:25PM

Yesterday we were told he was shot 3 times running at a guard while holding a knife and now it turns out he was shot sitting in his Car, why did they shot him at all?

allthedoyles · 23-05-2018 10:28PM

Just as I suspected , the shooting is on a cam :

Hennessy’s death was caught on camera footage from a garda traffic car at the scene

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/killer-hennessy-shot-dead-in-car-after-single-bullet-entered-torso-gsoc-statement-36939680.html

TomOnBoard · 23-05-2018 10:31PM

Faugheen wrote: »

Watching the news tonight makes me a little uneasy.

Am I alone in thinking that this guy shouldn't get the attention he's getting? Whatever about naming him, but I don't know what him drinking and looking to buy drugs afterwards has anything to do with what happened to that poor woman.

I don't care about video footage of him buying the car a year ago, and I also don't care that he was a 'quiet man'.

What I do care about is that poor woman and what she had to go through, yet much of the attention is about him. F*ck him as far as I'm concerned.

It's the exact same thing that happened with Graham Dwyer and Alan Hawe, as well as many perpetrators of American school shootings.

Yeah, I certainly see the point...

However, this thread has grown out of the initial crime and was specifically oriented to looking out for the car with the Reg number provided by AGS in the hope that it might help in some way to finding Jastine in good health, and the capture of her assailant. Regrettably it all ended in tragedy with loss of life.

As events have unfolded, it has morphed into a mu!tiple topic thread that, in fairness, has provided a reasonably well mannered conversation around the perpetrator and his actions, probably thanks to good moderation and thread management along with largely respectful contributions. It has certainly focused on the perpetrator because there is a need on the part of the public to understand what happened, if that is even possible. It would, be entirely inappropriate to enter into any discussion about Jastine herself, her family or her circumstances at this time. And that's the difference.

All IMHO.

Deusexmachina · 23-05-2018 10:33PM

Faugheen wrote: »

Watching the news tonight makes me a little uneasy.

Am I alone in thinking that this guy shouldn't get the attention he's getting? Whatever about naming him, but I don't know what him drinking and looking to buy drugs afterwards has anything to do with what happened to that poor woman.

I don't care about video footage of him buying the car a year ago, and I also don't care that he was a 'quiet man'.

What I do care about is that poor woman and what she had to go through, yet much of the attention is about him. F*ck him as far as I'm concerned.

It's the exact same thing that happened with Graham Dwyer and Alan Hawe, as well as many perpetrators of American school shootings.

It’s a bit more complicated than that. People want to know what drove this man to murder this girl. Understanding his behavior and motivations is very important.

He was not a monster. He was a relatively normal and ordinary man. I think that is why we are drawn to know more.

How can this happen? It’s a question we must ask.

donkeykong5 · 23-05-2018 10:49PM

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Watching the news tonight makes me a little uneasy.

Am I alone in thinking that this guy shouldn't get the attention he's getting? Whatever about naming him, but I don't know what him drinking and looking to buy drugs afterwards has anything to do with what happened to that poor woman.

I don't care about video footage of him buying the car a year ago, and I also don't care that he was a 'quiet man'.

What I do care about is that poor woman and what she had to go through, yet much of the attention is about him. F*ck him as far as I'm concerned.

It's the exact same thing that happened with Graham Dwyer and Alan Hawe, as well as many perpetrators of American school shootings.

It’s a bit more complicated than that. People want to know what drove this man to murder this girl. Understanding his behavior and motivations is very important.

He was not a monster. He was a relatively normal and ordinary man. I think that is why we are drawn to know more.

How can this happen? It’s a question we must ask.

You're definition of normal and ordinary man. Differ hugely from mine. I'm glad to say!

Deusexmachina · 23-05-2018 10:53PM

donkeykong5 wrote: »

You're definition of normal and ordinary man. Differ hugely from mine. I'm glad to say!

That’s unfair. My point is that he didn’t stand out in the crowd. A married man, two kids, ordinary job..etc.

His actions were horrific. My point is that we need to understand how this happens.

Thesomersarms · 23-05-2018 11:34PM

Have logged off here since the terrible news broke and have been catching up on the posts, what can one say in these situations, there are no words to explain only an emptiness after such an evil senseless act.

I see a lot of reference to him being possibly involved in previous murders and also compared to Murphy etc with experts in the newspapers being rolled out talking of comparisons to missing cases in Wicklow etc I however would be very surprised if this is the case and if his dna matches any of these cases, the m.o doesn’t match, murphy for example was caught at night in a very remote area obviously trying to avoid detection and was caught just by chance, that would certainly have been murder if he wasn’t disturbed, he showed no remorse and had this don’t give a **** attitude, a persona that fits more with calculated killlers.

This Hennesy character carries out an abduction in broad daylight for anyone to see, drove around recklessly for hours, went out drinking then self harms and leaves a note saying sorry, a different type of killer at play, I would say he was more an erratic time bomb waiting to go off and fuelled by substances and whatever else was going on his life he flipped and acted on his evil impulses and then couldn’t live with what he’d done. A killer nonetheless but a different type of character imo to the likes of Murphy.

Barry Badrinath · 23-05-2018 11:35PM

sightband wrote: »

Mark Hennessy was shot dead in the driver's seat of his car - GSOC statement http://jrnl.ie/4030864

Mark Hennessy was shot dead in the driver's seat of his car - GSOC statement

about time...see, now that helps just to get a little bit of clairifcatkon doesn’t it? before you got on your high horse snide patronising remark.

So GSOC have confirmed that Mr. Hennessy was in the vehicle when he was shot.

GSOC will now assess what actions led to the Detective using his weapon. AFAIK, there have been three reported reasons by the media.

1. The Detective shot Mr. Hennessy as he believed the victim was in the vehicle and under imminent mortal threat. Which turned out not to be the case.

2. The Detective shot Mr. Hennessy as a result of Mr. Hennessy threatening and lunging at an unarmed AGS member with a stanley knife. This is not the case as Mr. Hennessey was contained and shot in the vehicle.

3. The Detective shot Mr. Hennessy as he bent down in the footwell of the car, asessed as reaching for a firearm. This also turned out not to be the case.

Ultimately, the investigation may focus on the impact of the round, which has been reported as entering Mr. Hennessey's rear shoulder, which caused the fatality.

To most people it wont matter why he was shot as Mr. Hennessey's actions were deserving of that fate. The investigators may take a different view.

Interestingly, (if the media are correct) reports have indicated that the Detectives weapon had fired only one round and the spent casing of which was still in the weapon. This suggests that the empty casing of the round did not eject and would have prevented further subsequent shots to be fired. There is no evidence to suggest the Detective intended to engage Mr. Hennessey a second time as the Detective did not clear his weapon of the blockage. This in turn will raise other questions for the investigators, ones we dont want to acknowledge.

Like it or not, the investigators will remove all emotions from the case and scrutinise the Detectives actions, which is their function.

Now before I get lashed out of it here by obviously more knowledgeable internet folk. This is an impartial view and an angle which some might not be aware of or is not popular to acknowledge.

Firstly, I am not "anti-AGS", before some of you label me as it. I have no agenda and I have never been "done by de Gards".

Secondly, I have professionally worked alongside AGS in various roles over the years and know how professional, well trained and capable they are, I would wager many here have not.

Thirdly, I have 20 years experience of weapons handling and extensive knowledge and assosciated nuances of when you can and cannot fire a weapon.

Forthly, I actually have been in a situation where it was 50/50 whether or not to squeeze the trigger myself, unlike most here. So I am aware of what the Detective was facing and what was potentially going through his head.

Finally, this is the reality that the Detective now finds himself in. That squeeze of the trigger and him performing his duty is now under the microscope, it matters not what we think.

The questions GSOC will want answered are:

1. Why Mr. Hennessey was shot in the back in a contained environment which at that time, posed limited immediate threat to life outside of the vehicle. Will GSOC decide it was excessive use of force and disproportionate to the threat at the time?

2. Why did the Detective not clear and ready his weapon as trained, especially if he assessed that there was an immediate threat to life. This contradicts his actions in Para 1.

Im hoping scenario 3 above is the official AGS line. Hopefully the Detective can rest easy and the investigation is awarded in his favour. He performed his duty and shouldnt be penalised for it, despite reported inconsistencies in the event and any potential technicalities with the use of force.

I would hope it wont cause other members of the force to hessitate to act in the future.

TomOnBoard · 23-05-2018 11:47PM

Barry Badrinath wrote: »

So GSOC have confirmed that Mr. Hennessy was in the vehicle when he was shot.

GSOC will now assess what actions led to the Detective using his weapon. AFAIK, there have been three reported reasons by the media.

1. The Detective shot Mr. Hennessy as he believed the victim was in the vehicle and under imminent mortal threat. Which turned out not to be the case.

2. The Detective shot Mr. Hennessy as a result of Mr. Hennessy threatening and lunging at an unarmed AGS member with a stanley knife. This is not the case as Mr. Hennessey was contained and shot in the vehicle.

3. The Detective shot Mr. Hennessy as he bent down in the footwell of the car, asessed as reaching for a firearm. This also turned out not to be the case.

Ultimately, the investigation may focus on the impact of the round, which has been reported as entering Mr. Hennessey's rear shoulder, which caused the fatality.

To most people it wont matter why he was shot as Mr. Hennessey's actions were deserving of that fate. The investigators may take a different view.

Interestingly, (if the media are correct) reports have indicated that the Detectives weapon had fired only one round and the spent casing of which was still in the weapon. This suggests that the empty casing of the round did not eject and would have prevented further subsequent shots to be fired. There is no evidence to suggest the Detective intended to engage Mr. Hennessey a second time as the Detective did not clear his weapon of the blockage. This in turn will raise other questions for the investigators, ones we dont want to acknowledge.

Like it or not, the investigators will remove all emotions from the case and scrutinise the Detectives actions, which is their function.

Now before I get lashed out of it here by obviously more knowledgeable internet folk. This is an impartial view and an angle which some might not be aware of or is not popular to acknowledge.

Firstly, I am not "anti-AGS", before some of you label me as it. I have no agenda and I have never been "done by de Gards".

Secondly, I have professionally worked alongside AGS in various roles over the years and know how professional, well trained and capable they are, I would wager many here have not.

Thirdly, I have 20 years experience of weapons handling and extensive knowledge and assosciated nuances of when you can and cannot fire a weapon.

Forthly, I actually have been in a situation where it was 50/50 whether or not to squeeze the trigger myself, unlike most here. So I am aware of what the Detective was facing and what was potentially going through his head.

Finally, this is the reality that the Detective now finds himself in. That squeeze of the trigger and him performing his duty is now under the microscope, it matters not what we think.

The questions GSOC will want answered are:

1. Why Mr Hennessey was shot in the back in a contained environment which at that time, posed limited immediate threat to life outside of the vehicle. Will GSOC decide it was excessive use of force and disproportionate to the threat at the time?

2. Why did the Detective not clear and ready his weapon as trained, especially if he assessed that there was an immediate threat to life. This contradicts his actions in Para 1.

Im hoping scenario 3 above is the official AGS line. Hopefully the Detective can rest easy and the investigation is awarded in his favour. He performed his duty and shouldnt be penalised for it, despite reported inconsistencies in the event and any potential technicalities with the use of force.

I would hope it wont cause other members of the force to hessitate to act in the future.

Surely the casing being still! In the weapon could indicate that a revolver was used (which would not eject its casing) rather than an automatic. Im no expert, and I do NOT have 20 years experience of weapons handling and extensive knowledge and assosciated nuances of when you can and cannot fire a weapon. So perhaps Im wrong..

DMcL1971 · 23-05-2018 11:51PM

I see the gofundme page for Jastine’s family is doing very well. Has there been one set up for the Hennessy family? Regardless of what he has done, he left a wife and two innocent children behind. They will have to live with the stigma and emotional scarring of what he has done for the rest of their lives.

Barry Badrinath · 23-05-2018 11:52PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Surely the casing being still! In the weapon could indicate that a revolver was used (which would not eject its casing) rather than an automatic. Im no expert, and I do NOT have 20 years experience of weapons handling and extensive knowledge and assosciated nuances of when you can and cannot fire a weapon. So perhaps Im wrong..

Thats actually a very good point, im sure some Detectives still use a revolver. That could be a moot point.

allthedoyles · 23-05-2018 11:55PM

Barry Badrinath wrote: »

So GSOC have confirmed that Mr. Hennessy was in the vehicle when he was shot.

GSOC will now assess what actions led to the Detective using his weapon. AFAIK, there have been three reported reasons by the media.

1. The Detective shot Mr. Hennessy as he believed the victim was in the vehicle and under imminent mortal threat. Which turned out not to be the case.

2. The Detective shot Mr. Hennessy as a result of Mr. Hennessy threatening and lunging at an unarmed AGS member with a stanley knife. This is not the case as Mr. Hennessey was contained and shot in the vehicle.

3. The Detective shot Mr. Hennessy as he bent down in the footwell of the car, asessed as reaching for a firearm. This also turned out not to be the case.

Ultimately, the investigation may focus on the impact of the round, which has been reported as entering Mr. Hennessey's rear shoulder, which caused the fatality.

To most people it wont matter why he was shot as Mr. Hennessey's actions were deserving of that fate. The investigators may take a different view.

Interestingly, (if the media are correct) reports have indicated that the Detectives weapon had fired only one round and the spent casing of which was still in the weapon. This suggests that the empty casing of the round did not eject and would have prevented further subsequent shots to be fired. There is no evidence to suggest the Detective intended to engage Mr. Hennessey a second time as the Detective did not clear his weapon of the blockage. This in turn will raise other questions for the investigators, ones we dont want to acknowledge.

Like it or not, the investigators will remove all emotions from the case and scrutinise the Detectives actions, which is their function.

Now before I get lashed out of it here by obviously more knowledgeable internet folk. This is an impartial view and an angle which some might not be aware of or is not popular to acknowledge.

Firstly, I am not "anti-AGS", before some of you label me as it. I have no agenda and I have never been "done by de Gards".

Secondly, I have professionally worked alongside AGS in various roles over the years and know how professional, well trained and capable they are, I would wager many here have not.

Thirdly, I have 20 years experience of weapons handling and extensive knowledge and assosciated nuances of when you can and cannot fire a weapon.

Forthly, I actually have been in a situation where it was 50/50 whether or not to squeeze the trigger myself, unlike most here. So I am aware of what the Detective was facing and what was potentially going through his head.

Finally, this is the reality that the Detective now finds himself in. That squeeze of the trigger and him performing his duty is now under the microscope, it matters not what we think.

The questions GSOC will want answered are:

1. Why Mr. Hennessey was shot in the back in a contained environment which at that time, posed limited immediate threat to life outside of the vehicle. Will GSOC decide it was excessive use of force and disproportionate to the threat at the time?

2. Why did the Detective not clear and ready his weapon as trained, especially if he assessed that there was an immediate threat to life. This contradicts his actions in Para 1.

Im hoping scenario 3 above is the official AGS line. Hopefully the Detective can rest easy and the investigation is awarded in his favour. He performed his duty and shouldnt be penalised for it, despite reported inconsistencies in the event and any potential technicalities with the use of force.

I would hope it wont cause other members of the force to hessitate to act in the future.

Barry ,

Mr Hennessy was not shot in the back . He was shot in the shoulder and the official reason which is in the newspapers , is because he had a knife to his throat and was threatening to slice it .

23-05-2018 11:59PM

allthedoyles wrote: »

Barry ,

Mr Hennessy was not shot in the back . He was shot in the shoulder and the official reason which is in the newspapers , is because he had a knife to his throat and was threatening to slice it .

How would shooting him help in that situation?

I'd be cynical enough of whatever the press are writing yet, its too soon and the press will pretty much print anything, the GSOC report will be interesting.

McCrack · 24-05-2018 12:08AM

Barry Badrinath wrote: »

Thats actually a very good point, im sure some Detectives still use a revolver. That could be a moot point.

Im surprised you didnt consider that with your extensive knowledge and experience of firearms

Suckit · 24-05-2018 12:09AM

As Mark Hennessy had not been found guilty, nor any of the reasons the media gave for him being shot turn out to be the case, and assuming this information was all correct, would his family be entitled to compensation?
I know it it highly unlikely that they would dare even dream to look for it, but I was just wondering the legalities of it.

I have never questioned the Detective shooting him before, but the only one that seems really plausible to me, is that he was convinced she was still in the car and was in danger.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 24-05-2018 12:09AM

Thirdly, I have 20 years experience of weapons handling and extensive knowledge and assosciated nuances of when you can and cannot fire a weapon.

From the outset I've wondered could it be an ND, have you considered this scenario since (if the reports are true and accurate) sitting in the drivers seat of his vehicle would pose not threat to anyone.

Personally I don't care for the life of a violent murdering bastard, just wondering at the circumstances under which the prick was shot.

cagefactor · 24-05-2018 12:12AM

there will be something on the papers tomorrow about the online dating activity they have found of Hennessy, I'm sure it'll be sensationalist stuff like online dating is a crime now.

Sheeps · 24-05-2018 12:12AM

Ulises Juicy Vegetation wrote: »

From the outset I've wondered could it be an ND, have you considered this scenario since (if the reports are true and accurate) sitting in the drivers seat of his vehicle would pose not threat to anyone.

Personally I don't care for the life of a violent murdering bastard, just wondering at the circumstances under which the prick was shot.

Hope he was shot pleading for his life.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 24-05-2018 12:22AM

Sheeps wrote: »

Hope he was shot pleading for his life.

Honestly I couldn't give a toss for him, I just hope the detective is covered and not lynched.

I don't even know what sidearms our cops carry. But I'm guessing, and I'm assuming the report is accurate that it was a revolver in this case since the spent casing was still in the weapon.

If it was pistol and the firer got a jam there are immediate actions to be carried out by the firer to clear the obstruction and carry on firing (or prepare to carry on firing).

I've never trained with AGS, but if it was my own training/situation I'd carry out my immediate actions to clear the obstruction and either carry on firing or prepare to carry on firing.

I can't see a reasonable explanation when the weapon would be handed over to someone with a spent casing still in the chamber (in the event of the weapon being a pistol).

24-05-2018 12:25AM

Shoot, reassess.
If necessary, shoot again.
If threat no longer exists, then no more shots.

The firearm is handed over for examination as is.

P_1 · 24-05-2018 12:44AM

Chatting to a friend tonight, he was related to the killer. The family is in shock over this, nobody saw this happening. Keep them in your thoughts

pablo128 · 24-05-2018 12:49AM

For anyone saying he was no danger contained in the car, he could easily tried to run a Garda over. Good riddance to him anyway. The streets are a little safer now.

Esel · 24-05-2018 12:56AM

bubblypop wrote: »

Shoot, reassess.
If necessary, shoot again.
If threat no longer exists, then no more shots.

Do Gardaí not employ the double-tap technique then? Once you open fire, fire two shots, on the basis that two shots are more likely than one to end the threat.

delly · 24-05-2018 01:05AM

pablo128 wrote: »

For anyone saying he was no danger contained in the car, he could easily tried to run a Garda over. Good riddance to him anyway. The streets are a little safer now.

I was about to say the same thing, a car can be treated as a deadly weapon, just as much as a knife or a gun.

delly · 24-05-2018 01:09AM

Esel wrote: »

Do Gardaot employ the double-tap technique then? Once you open fire, fire two shots, on the basis that two shots are more likely than one to end the threat.

Double tap is a bit Hollywood, any modern police force will keep firing until the threat is no longer active. This can take 5, 6, 7 bullets, it's actually more common in the US, whereby people seem amazed that an officer can nearly empty a clip. There is a YouTube channel called 'Active Self Protection' that I started watching last year, and it changed my whole perception of firearms and how police have to operate when it comes to the use of deadly force.

Strazdas · 24-05-2018 01:10AM

delly wrote: »

I was about to say the same thing, a car can be treated as a deadly weapon, just as much as a knife or a gun.

Also, Gardai had no way of knowing what he had as a weapon or if Jastine was in the car too. He could have had a gun on the seat beside him for all they knew, they weren't sure what they were dealing with.

ED E · 24-05-2018 01:48AM

It was reported that the first member was traffic and the second that discharged was an armed member. Safe to assume a detective with sidearm in that case as ASU/RSU wouldn't be single crewed?

Deusexmachina · 24-05-2018 06:15AM

Sheeps wrote: »

Hope he was shot pleading for his life.

Really? You would like our police force to kill people why they plead for their lives?

Thankfully real life isn’t Grand Theft Auto.

Jastine Valdez found dead. No Ana discussion please. Mod warning post 1

Comments