Regency Hotel shooting trial collapses following Detective Superintendent's suicide

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

All pure speculation. The power of arrest? Surely given the known feud between these two groups warrants, if any, the right to arrest needs would be granted fairly quickly.

The not knowing the first thing about the law doesn't partner well with your dismissive know it all attitude.

Although technically you can get a warrant to arrest a person this is rarely how people are arrested. Indeed if you were arrested under warrant then you could not be detained for interrogation under the provisions of Section 50, Criminal Justice Act, 2007, as P Hutch was after his arrest.

People are arrested by virtue of powers conferred by individual statutes.

Criminal Law Act, 1997. Section 4(3) Where a member of the Garda Síochána, with reasonable cause, suspects that an arrestable offence has been committed, he or she may arrest without warrant anyone whom the member, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.

You talk about arresting somebody because of "known feud" and it would be easy. It would be illegal. The person would be freed after a Habeas Corpus application to the High Court and would proceed to take a damages action against the state for upwards of a quarter of a million euro. Reasonable Cause to Suspect is required - and the front page of a red top with Feud headlines doesn't count

https://www.thesun.ie/archives/irish-news/187941/moment-armed-gardai-rammed-regency-hotel-shooting-suspects-car-and-arrest-two-men-linked-to-gerry-hutch-gang/

CFC1969

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In fairness, can you think of a case in which a breaking of rules like this occurred and the case was allowed to use tainted evidence anyway?

Always thought it was strange that a 10 day warrant was granted, and they did not acquire evidence in that timeframe .... The initial investigative work was external, and handed to Gardai to finish the case

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

All pure speculation. The power of arrest? Surely given the known feud between these two groups warrants, if any, the right to arrest needs would be granted fairly quickly. The idea that the entire case falls down on that is nonsense, and isn't in fact proven at all. We have literally no proof that there was any problem with the warrants, or the arrest or anything else.

If it wasn't for those pesky kids.

Look a suicide is probably not going to happen just because some minor evidence gathering snafus (which nobody has yet proven is in fact), or guilt about the Hutches.

The emails were probably a lot more incriminating.

Of course, you could be right. My theory is solely based on piecing together the timeline of the objections raised by the defence in court, the outcome of those objections, and the fact that Mr. Fox shot himself, leaving prosecution-damaging notes, literally one week after that part of the trial. It could be unrelated, but Occam's Razor would suggest a link between the three occurrences - the defense objecting unsuccessfully to the photo ID process, Fox's suicide, and his suicide notes putting the trial on indefinite hold. All occurring within a few short weeks of eachother.

As I say, they may be unrelated or they may not. We have no way of knowing. I'm simply invoking Occam's Razor, in other words, the most obvious explanation is the one most likely to be correct. In my mind, it's more far fetched to suggest that Fox's suicide and notes thereof were unrelated to the wrangling over the photos in court, than to suggest that they were directly linked to one another, given the timeframe and subsequent events.

EDIT: One man's "minor evidence gathering snafu" could have been another man's "intentional conspiracy to break the law in relation to an investigation". We have no idea whether it was accidental, intentional, or whether there was any problem with it at all. Again, all we can do is guess.

All pure speculation. The power of arrest? Surely given the known feud between these two groups warrants, if any, the right to arrest needs would be granted fairly quickly. The idea that the entire case falls down on that is nonsense, and isn't in fact proven at all. We have literally no proof that there was any problem with the warrants, or the arrest or anything else.

They nearly got away with it in fairness - the defence had lost its argument over the photographs literally days before Supt. Fox shot himself. That's why I reckon his suicide was a guilt thing - he realised that a potentially innocent man was going to go to jail because of this dodgy evidence and couldn't live with his involvement in fabricating it.

Of course it's speculation, but based on everything that's in the public domain is there any theory which fits all of the jigsaw pieces better? We're missing a lot of the picture, but what we do have seems, at least to me, to inevitably point in this general direction.

If it wasn't for those pesky kids.

Look a suicide is probably not going to happen just because some minor evidence gathering snafus (which nobody has yet proven is in fact), or guilt about the Hutches.

The emails were probably a lot more incriminating.

martingriff wrote: »

Garda were under pressure to get those responsible. Knew who it was took shortcuts that made the case collapse

That's my thinking - in Ireland, with our 1.5 degrees of separation, how often do you hear people saying something like "he was never caught, but everyone around here just knows it was him"? I suspect it was a case like that. They "knew" it was him and decided to build a case on compromised or illegally obtained evidence in the assumption that the defence wouldn't figure out what happened.

They nearly got away with it in fairness - the defence had lost its argument over the photographs literally days before Supt. Fox shot himself. That's why I reckon his suicide was a guilt thing - he realised that a potentially innocent man was going to go to jail because of this dodgy evidence and couldn't live with his involvement in fabricating it.

Of course it's speculation, but based on everything that's in the public domain is there any theory which fits all of the jigsaw pieces better? We're missing a lot of the picture, but what we do have seems, at least to me, to inevitably point in this general direction.

martingriff

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Alright. We’re better than Afghanistan but what happened here?

Garda were under pressure to get those responsible. Knew who it was took shortcuts that made the case collapse

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The search warrant you and harrickpatrick keep claiming is invalid.

I don't know anything about a search warrant. If you look back at my post I was talking about the power of arrest.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The search warrant you and harrickpatrick keep claiming is invalid.

A search warrant is only an example - anything which was granted on the basis of that photo identification would be invalid if it was later found that there was collusion among the Gardaí to falsify that evidence.

Search warrants, arrest warrants, permission for surveillance, permission to hold him longer than usually allowed so they could continue questioning him - anything at all gained specifically from "two different people are sure it's him in the photo" would become invalid if that statement turned out to be untrue.

PingTing comes for Fire wrote: »

What warrant?

The search warrant you and harrickpatrick keep claiming is invalid.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

We are not even clear whether this recognition was the only reason a warrant was issued.

What warrant?

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

We are not even clear whether this recognition was the only reason a warrant was issued.

If it wasn't, then why would the defence hone in on it and mount such a massive case against it in court? The entire validity of the prosecution seemed to hinge upon that photo in all the media reporting before Colm Fox's death.

PingTing comes for Fire wrote: »

You're right that this is just one theory. And there is the other one that you allude to.
But in this one if it is true it is probably not about the lineup stuff you mention. It is probably more that garda statements would not be consistent with information in emails/laptops/phones. One contradiction or falsehood would fatally taint that credibility or admissibility. The inconsistency would more likely be tidying up than a fabrication or stitch up. Tidying up for the purposes of legal niceties. Not be the first cops/witnesses/solicitors to do this. In the modern age electronic devices if involved will catch this out.

We are not even clear whether this recognition was the only reason a warrant was issued.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You are running away with yourself on pure speculation here. Its not even certain that a warrant was just given on these photos, and nor is it certain that two cops can't legally recognise somebody from a photo -- its not a lineup. Nor is it certain that the judges would have thrown this out; in fact they didn't, the state said they couldn't continue without the head cop which is totally suspicious.

Probably theres a lot more to it, and in fact someone mentioned a more plausible story earlier on.

You're right that this is just one theory. And there is the other one that you allude to.
But in this one if it is true it is probably not about the lineup stuff you mention. It is probably more that garda statements would not be consistent with information in emails/laptops/phones. One contradiction or falsehood would fatally taint that credibility or admissibility. The inconsistency would more likely be tidying up than a fabrication or stitch up. Tidying up for the purposes of legal niceties. Not be the first cops/witnesses/solicitors to do this. In the modern age electronic devices if involved will catch this out.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Relevant newspaper article:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/almost-500-garda%C3%AD-did-not-recognise-patrick-hutch-in-photo-trial-hears-1.3360170

And

Given that electronic devices were examined as part of this, my suspicion is that Fox or another member of the force may have texted, emailed or otherwise contacted the two Gardaí who did identify Hutch in the photo, and say "you're coming in to look at this photo today, we know it's this guy Hutch but we can't prove it, could ye just say you recognise him so we can get our warrants? Cheers"

That would tie in with all the various goings on and the timeline of the case. The photo was deemed admissible in court some time ago, but this was before suicide of, and the subsequent GSOC investigation into the death of, Supt. Fox. The photo was deemed admissible, and his death occurred exactly one week later. That to me points to someone overcome with guilt, perhaps in the knowledge that the photo was going to be used in a prosecution and that it absolutely shouldn't have been given the circumstances in which it was deemed to be a photograph of Hutch.

You are running away with yourself on pure speculation here. Its not even certain that a warrant was just given on these photos, and nor is it certain that two cops can't legally recognise somebody from a photo -- its not a lineup. Nor is it certain that the judges would have thrown this out; in fact they didn't, the state said they couldn't continue without the head cop which is totally suspicious.

Probably theres a lot more to it, and in fact someone mentioned a more plausible story earlier on.

Relevant newspaper article:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/almost-500-garda%C3%AD-did-not-recognise-patrick-hutch-in-photo-trial-hears-1.3360170

The court has previously heard that two detectives, Fergal O’Flaherty and Jonathan Brady, went to Ballymun garda station two days after the shooting, looked at the photo, and “immediately recognised” the man dressed as a woman as Patrick Hutch.
The detectives have told the court that they made their identifications separately.

And

Under cross-examination, Constable Caroline Hill told Mr O’Higgins that she is an identification officer and she described how members of the PSNI conduct identification of suspects from photos and video.
She said that photos are shown to individuals and that no group showings should be made “so that nobody will influence anyone else”.
She said that a viewer must not speak with anyone during the process so that it is an independent viewing.

Given that electronic devices were examined as part of this, my suspicion is that Fox or another member of the force may have texted, emailed or otherwise contacted the two Gardaí who did identify Hutch in the photo, and say "you're coming in to look at this photo today, we know it's this guy Hutch but we can't prove it, could ye just say you recognise him so we can get our warrants? Cheers"

That would tie in with all the various goings on and the timeline of the case. The photo was deemed admissible in court some time ago, but this was before suicide of, and the subsequent GSOC investigation into the death of, Supt. Fox. The photo was deemed admissible, and his death occurred exactly one week later. That to me points to someone overcome with guilt, perhaps in the knowledge that the photo was going to be used in a prosecution and that it absolutely shouldn't have been given the circumstances in which it was deemed to be a photograph of Hutch.

GinAndBitter

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I thought someone was caught bringing the ak 47s back across the border?

There was a fella caught with them in Slane, on his way back up North.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/three-ak47-assault-rifles-used-in-regency-hotel-attack-seized-by-gardai-34527790.html

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't know how much that differs from the Irish system, but in my view exception number four is key:

"4: the search warrant was not found to be valid based on probable cause, but was executed by government agents in good faith (called the good-faith exception)."

I suspect in this case that the notes made by Supt. Fox, or the discussions between colleagues discovered upon GSOC inspection of electronic devices, proved that it was done on purpose or intentionally - or that they knew they'd f*cked it up but decided to hide that fact when presenting evidence to the court in order to get a warrant - and that this thus nullifies any "good faith" on their part.

It's a concept more than a law. The analogy of a tree and fruit just help explain it. You keep mentioning warrants and questioning but in fact the original power to arrest was based on this now supposedly tainted evidence. Arresting him without having a legal power of arrest would itself lead to the case being thrown out.
Ireland and US are in a number of countries known as Common Law Jurisdictions. They're legal systems derive from the old English Common Law. There are differences and similarities. Occassionally cases in other CL jurisdictions can even carry some degree of persuasion in court.

Wheeliebin30

I thought someone was caught bringing the ak 47s back across the border?

PingTing comes for Fire wrote: »

Fruit of poison tree

I don't know how much that differs from the Irish system, but in my view exception number four is key:

"4: the search warrant was not found to be valid based on probable cause, but was executed by government agents in good faith (called the good-faith exception)."

I suspect in this case that the notes made by Supt. Fox, or the discussions between colleagues discovered upon GSOC inspection of electronic devices, proved that it was done on purpose or intentionally - or that they knew they'd f*cked it up but decided to hide that fact when presenting evidence to the court in order to get a warrant - and that this thus nullifies any "good faith" on their part.

Fruit of poison tree

Phibsboro wrote: »

Right, but the picture is public and it does appear to be him! They must have an other guard (or 10) who could identify him from that pic.

Just looking at the independent video of the Byrne family demo outside and they have various posters that the Indo blurred out, but you can catch one in the background. What is on the USB?

The problem is that when they initially went to get warrants for his arrest, search, detention longer than standard for questioning etc, the "evidence" they presented to a judge in order to obtain said warrants was entirely based on having gone through the formal identification process where two individual Gardaí separately claimed that they had identified him from the photograph without prompting or suggestion from other Gardaí. if this turned out not to be the case, as is the most likely scenario here in my view, then literally all other evidence they collected is invalid as far as mounting a case goes - anything they found when they searched his house, for example, would have been found on the basis of a warrant which would now be deemed invalid since the evidence used to convince a judge to grant the warrant was false, IE that two individual Gardaí identified him separately in the photograph thus giving them reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Think of it like a flow chart. The chart begins with "do you have enough evidence to obtain a warrant or to prolong detention for questioning". If the answer is yes, then you go on and collect evidence. All of the evidence collected in this way remains on that side of the flow chart, under the answer "yes" to the original question. This is how, for example, they found the AK47s allegedly in his possession - they would have had to get a warrant to search his house, and their probable cause was a positive outcome of this photo identification process.

If the answer to the original question - "do you have enough evidence to obtain a warrant" - subsequently changes from "yes" to "no", then every action taken under the "yes" part of the flow chart becomes illegal and thus invalid as evidence.

In this case, that means that anything they did which required them to demonstrate probable cause before being allowed to do, such as detaining him for extra questioning, searching is house, bugging his phones etc, now becomes tainted evidence which cannot be relied upon in court to secure a conviction.

So to take a specific example in this case, he was apparently found with AK47s in his possession. But if this happened while a warrant was being executed to arrest him or search his house, and that warrant was only granted to the Gardai because they had probable cause in the form of a positive photo identification test with two separate Gardai, then if the defence can prove that this photo identification process was corrupted (for example, by collusion between Gardai to name him even if they didn't genuinely recognise him, which could easily be what was discovered when mobile devices and USB devices were seized during the Fox investigation), then literally any evidence collected on foot of those warrants is fundamentally compromised and can be easily picked apart by the defence even in the unlikely event that it is indeed deemed admissible before the court. So it doesn't matter if he was caught red handed with those AK47s - if they searched his house using an illegally obtained warrant, it becomes irrelevant as far as prosecuting him goes. It simply cannot be used as the basis for a conviction.

Think of an investigation like this as a tree with lots of different branches. If the shared root of any of those branches is a piece of testimony or evidence which is subsequently deemed tainted or invalid, then every branch stemming from that particular root has to be cut off as well as the root itself.

Another analogy would be if you think of building a case like making plans with a friend - the first question is "are we both free today, Thursday the 21st of February, to do something". We both answer yes, and we then make a whole day's worth of plans based on that - go to the cinema, have a pint, go for a walk, go to a gig, watch a TV show, have dinner, whatever.

If the answer to that original question subsequently changes - "oh sh!t, I forgot I'm supposed to be visiting relatives today, I'll have to bail" - then every single other decision which was made under the assumption that the answer was "yes", also has to be written off.

In this case, it would appear that this is what happened. The real question is why - was it a case of someone accidentally f*cking up, was it an Ian Bailey copycat in which they decided Hutch was guilty and skipped the process of actually proving it beyond "everyone just knows it was him so let's nail the f*cker", or was it a case of actual corruption in which someone said "someone's paid us off to get Hutch out of the picture, or we want to protect the person who actually did it so let's pin it on him, or we're being blackmailed by the Kinahans to get him with or without a legal process" etc. There are numerous possibilities and in my view the public deserves to know the exact details of that.

1874

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Gardai, Army, Housing, Health, Justice System, Politics are all a joke in this country.
My mam has pestered me for 8 months now that my own son is born, to get out of here quick. I fear she may be right more and more every day

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

She has lived in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Isle of Man

Im sure all of those places have their problems, NZ is an example, I thought it'd be nice to head that way myself, but they have serious problems with poverty and crime, Isle of Man maybe less so, but Oz, Canada, big places with potential for problems as much as here, might be a bit more straight laced and professional about dealing with crime, but Ive no doubt they have their problems.

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I heard the true story a year ago and was told this would happen today.
It's explosive and I'd be banned if I posted up here but be prepared for shocking news regarding this case and gsoc inquiry.
If you take a step back forget media spin it's actually quite easy to work out.

?, collusion with criminal gangs? one side, the other, both? or they had something on the Garda in question??

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The issue isn't the lead detective's death, it's the notes he wrote prior to his death and his communications with others which seem to point to some kind of wrongdoing on the part of the investigating Gardaí. People should go back and read the articles published in the weeks prior to his death about why the trial was stalling - it would appear that The Gardaí either intentionally or incompetently f*cked up the procedure by which Hutch was identified from photographs - the identification which would have justified their subsequently charging him, holding him for extra questioning, getting warrants to search his house, etc. If the basis for that probable cause was inherently rule-breaking, then everything they collected in evidence including statements from the accused would be considered inadmissible in court.

What seems to have happened is that during the blind identification process - where multiple Gardaí are required to independently identify the accused from footage taken at the scene of the crime - the Gardaí involved spoke to eachother or prompted eachother with the suggestion that it was Hutch, so the identification process wasn't truly "blind". If this was the case, then everything which was collected on foot of this probable cause - any arrests made, any warrants against the accused, any searches of his property, etc - was illegal, and is therefore not admissible in court in any form whatsoever.

I suspect that Supt. Fox shot himself either because he was being bullied into going along with this, or because he couldn't live with having been involved of his own free will - or because he knew that the case would collapse once this issue was discovered and raised in court by the defence, which happened just weeks prior to his death.

Dont they have a cheat sheet, standard format flow chart or something to deal with this, a checklist??? do this, that the other? how difficult is it to have procedures and a system to inform the users of that system how it works, steps to take, things to avoid, to be able to present cases and prevent them being undermined???

Wombatman wrote: »

The gardaí were conspicuously absent on the day of the Regency shooting. There where journos all over the place, almost expecting something to go down. I think the emails under review may contain damning info as to why the gardaí were "stood down" on the day.

Why? because they have taken a side? wanted to catch someone in the act? avoid getting hit in the crossfire? doesnt surprise me if true, I recal reading somewhere that The General didnt want to do jobs in the UK as he felt the British police would be more likely to stitch him up, and then after years of having lots of Gardai on his back, he then gets shot and none around?

Dante7 wrote: »

It's not just a procedural cock-up. If it was simply that, he would have been immediately rearrested. The DPP requested that a nolle prosequi be entered. This allows for an accused to be rearrested and charged again. However, it is unlikely that Hutch will ever be brought to trial again. The evidence is there, but the revelations will be too unpalatable.

revelations?

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Okay, the notes Fox had wrote down are clearly significant these need to be disclosed. More so now if the case has been thrown out.

Also what was found on the confiscated laptop and usb keys after his death. This to me is clearly a case of the DPP guards.not wanting to take this further for fear of something damaging coming out

If this is the way Ireland is, its shameful really, that they'd prevent a prosecution to protect the image of the Gardai, the state or individuals

ToBeFrank123

Deleted User wrote: »

I am relatively unfamiliar with this story, but it's being openly implied in the thread that 'the bad guys' threatened the detective that they'd do harm to his family, presumably if he didn't collapse the case intentionally, and he presumably felt too much pressure and figured this was the way to go (suicide).

But again, I'm not clued in.

However, should that be the case, I see no reason why this suicide shouldn't be a major ongoing concern nationally. If I can threaten to murder/rape/whatever a Garda's family, and actually get away with it, we're in major trouble.

Don't get me wrong, An Garda Siochana has been a generally useless service for all of my lifetime of interaction with them (I'm 30). Individually, nice people, but collectively, they're more of a farce than a force.

Policing is one thing this country just can't seem to get right at all, and has never really tried to, either. Annoyingly, if low-level and trivial crimes were dealt with (and I don't mean no car tax) severely, you'd probably filter out a lot of the big issues in a few years if people were afraid to get involved in major crime.

But as we know, unless you kill or rape (or cheat the tax man) you don't get punished in this country, and when you do, it's usually fairly minor punishment.

I would imagine Gardaí of all ranks get threats from criminals on a daily basis and its part of the job. Its very rare/unheard of for criminals to actually go after a Garda's family though as they know it would bring the full resources of the state down on them. As a last resort the detective could have gone into protective custody with his family and taken his pension. Its happened a number of times in Ireland including with the Collins family in Limerick. I am not doubting the motives of the detective in taking his life if he did that, but its a shame he felt no other way out.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

They only identifying evidence they produced was the Detectives ID.

They had no scene eyewitnesses or physical evidence.

If that collapsed then their case collapses

Isn't it a bit odd that the freaking reporter who took a picture was not a witness. Or anybody else who saw it. Intimidation I suppose.

There could have been Garda corruption in this case but its hardly this trivial if so. Theres a lot of nonsense talked here about how two police officers can't identify the same guy from a photo. Of course they can.