reg114 wrote: » The nolle prosequi ruling today will have huge implications. First of all for the gardai because it basically suggests that if the leading garda in a serious crime investigation dies then there's a good possibility the case against the accused will be dismissed. The mafia have a long history of eliminating members of law enforcement and the judiciary in order to achieve the same result, so how long before Irish gangsters take that approach given the perceived benefits to them. The other issue is for the state and judiciary. How and why a case can fall due to the death of one garda is beyond comprehension. Witness and photographic evidence should have been sufficient to obtain ruling without evidence of one leading garda. Then you have the ramifications on the streets. This verdict will just antagonise those in gangland circles. You can expect retaliation sadly.
spider baby 172 wrote: » Good points. So if it was the case that these emails proved that guards discussed the identity of the man dressed in drag, would that be enough to collapse the case??
P.Walnuts wrote: » Almost certainly I imagine. But I'm not going to pretend I know what was in those emails. Certain amount of reading inbetween the lines and reasonable conclusions can be made though.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » I've assumed for a while that it was an Ian Bailey esque thing - "We don't know who it is, but we all hate Patrick Hutch and he's likely to have wanted to do it, so let's all agree privately to say we recognise him in this photo even though we haven't actually got a clue". I can't think of anything else which would have caused a case of this magnitude to fall apart.
Suckit wrote: » Mrs Byrne said: "No one wants to listen to me. Nobody." and "His life is not in danger from us." I'm guessing only one of those statements is true.
"No one wants to listen to me. Nobody."
"His life is not in danger from us."
Edgware wrote: » You have a very limited thinking ability. Postman Pat is coming on shortly. See can you work out what happened Jess
Major Great Cellist wrote: » Why is the opinion of Gardai on the id of a man in the photo of such importance?
PingTing comes for Fire wrote: » The id sets in train a sequence of events. Gives reasonable cause to suspect gives a legal power necessary to arrest him. Being detained allows him to be questioned. Allows him to be charged and brought to court.
Major Great Cellist wrote: » Why is the opinion of Gardai on the id of a man in the photo of such importance? Surely photographic evidence should stand by itself - let the jury or judge as applicable look at the photo and look at the defendant in front of them and make a decision. I don't see why the opinion of any Garda adds to the confirmation of identity in such a scenario. I understand there's more to the collapse of the trial than just this element but I've never understood why it was ever relevant at all.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » How can you prove a lie about recognising someone or not? There’s the photo. Is it hutch. Looks like him. The other guy is clearly visible by the way.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » I think it's more to do with whether or not there's enough evidence to even bring a case. The Gardai would have had to get warrants and court orders to search Hutch's gaff, seize evidence, look at phone records, etc. They would have had to send a file to the DPP in order to charge him and prosecute him. If the entire basis of that was a lie about a photograph - if they lied about recognising him in order to falsely claim probable cause to get a warrant, search his house, look at his phone records, and detain him under suspicion of committing the crime, then it means that all of those actions were illegal, as the evidence used to justify them and get the required court orders was fabricated. It's a bit like how even if the Gardaí find a gun in your house, if they searched the house illegally without a valid warrant (or with a mis-dated one as has happened in the past in high profile cases) the evidence cannot be mentioned in court and thus there's no actual case against you. This might all seem very pedantic and absurd, until you consider that the reason we have such rules is to ensure that evidence cannot be planted during an unplanned and unwarranted search. So essentially, if his identification in that photograph was part of a conspiracy to frame him without actual evidence, then he should never have been prosecuted to begin with, and that's why the prosecution would decide not to pursue the case. I'm guessing that the email correspondence between the Gardai whose devices were examined after Fox's death confirmed that the Gardai involved had decided to lie in a co-ordinated manner about recognising Hutch, so they could get an illegitimate and fabriacted pretext to go and examine his private life.
spider baby 172 wrote: » Paul Williams saying Fox is an innocent victim in this aswell.
rondog wrote: » Bomber Kavanagh is married to Byrnes sister. the Byrnes have waged this war and Liam byrne/Bomber kavanagh have been bank rolling it. D kinahan initially wanted this to go ahead as it was him who was the main target but the war has been very bad for business but there is serious anger from teh Byrne side over david byrnes murder.This trial collapse will only make things much worse.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Well there's your answer, he's clearly not if Williams is saying he is
RoryMac wrote: » Yeah exactly how Darren Tracey got off
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Come on. He took notes. He must have been to briefings. They had cctv and other evidence. Him being alive is irrelevant. Ireland is heading towards a lawless society.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Took me a second I was thinking more about former judge Brian Curtin actually, his trial over alleged possession of child porn was screwed up because they searched his house after the warrant had expired. Either an intentional screwup to get him off, or a case of catastrophic incompetence.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Curtin#Trial_and_acquittal
STB. wrote: »
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » That’s also pretty dubious.
LuckyLloyd wrote: » This photo seems mad to me. I have silly questions on it (that people who follow this stuff even vaguely would obviously know): - who is the other guy? Is he alive / charged? - who took this photo of lads running with guns towards them? - why are their people in the background who do not seem to be running away or focussing on the gunmen? It almost doesn't look like a real photo if I'm honest.
