Regency Hotel shooting trial collapses following Detective Superintendent's suicide

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.

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.

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.

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: »

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.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

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

What warrant?

PingTing comes for Fire wrote: »

What warrant?

The search warrant you and harrickpatrick keep claiming is invalid.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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/

PingTing comes for Fire wrote: »

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

Lol. There are two know it all posters on this thread and neither are me.

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.

Which is why I said “if any”

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/

I’m not in the law. Although I have been arrested because of a mistaken identity - should perhaps have sued. But neither I suspect are you. And it was you who claimed the arrest was suspect.

Ok too many nerd speculators on this thread with their own pet theories based on very little evidence. Seems fairly pointless to continue.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Lol. There are two know it all posters on this thread and neither are me.

No Franz you, and you alone, were posting in your usual abrasive, arrogant style.
I set out legal facts. You have found yourself unable to debate them. And so want to exit now[/QUOTE]

I’m not in the law. But neither I suspect are you.

What i'm in is none of your business. I have quoted law. Sourced and referenced.

nerd speculators [

ad hominem, spoiling for a fight as usual.

very little evidence. Seems fairly pointless to continue.

You enter and take part in a discussion that is intrinsically speculative and then complain about speculation? Were you under the impression that somebody here had the court documents sitting beside their laptop? Do you want a live stream from Pattsy's motorbike going over the border?

Calltocall

So will this all just go away I wonder? Outcomes like this are a good barometer for how healthy and honest journalism is in Ireland, will any journalist put their head above the parapet and ask the hard questions here, will they put presure on Drew Harris for answers?

I was dissapointed to read the papers today to find an awful lot of the focus was on either The Byrnes or How Hutch left the courts, the cctv footage etc they are easy topics, but nobody was really daring to question the Guards/The State on what happened here in the background to bring the trial to collapse.

It’s a difficult dilemna for the journalists particularly the ones that cover gangland as a lot of their info is fed to them by the police so what do they do when it’s the guards themselves that are under the microscope, it would take an incredibly brave one to step up as they are burning their relationships but at the end of the day didn’t they go to journalist school to get to the truth no matter the barriers, I’m doubtful though, I think a lot of the journos are too close to the police for the truth to come out.

Berserker

whisky_galore wrote: »

Faraway hills are green.

You're right, this country is a right hell hole. Afghanistan looks good right now.

Hitting the high teens in Damascus later this week. Worth a punt for that reason alone.

NIMAN wrote: »

I find this baffling.

Law leaves me wondering at times. A man has his photo taken running from a hotel where a man was shot dead. And he's holding a gun.

But sure, away you go, you're grand.

Doesn't mean he was the man who shot him. Not going to get a murder conviction on that basis.

Calltocall wrote: »

It’s a difficult dilemna for the journalists particularly the ones that cover gangland as a lot of their info is fed to them by the police.

Is it? Was told it comes from people who have connections in the underworld but are not in too deep.

Berserker wrote: »

Doesn't mean he was the man who shot him. Not going to get a murder conviction on that basis.

That side of it wouldn't have saved him. All involved are treated as Principals.
It's like a gettaway driver sitting in a car outside a bank would be charged with armed robbery if he was caught.

Criminal Law Act, 1997.
7.—(1) Any person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an indictable offence shall be liable to be indicted, tried and punished as a principal offender.

Calltocall

Berserker wrote: »

Hitting the high teens in Damascus later this week. Worth a punt for that reason alone.

Doesn't mean he was the man who shot him. Not going to get a murder conviction on that basis.

Is it? Was told it comes from people who have connections in the underworld but are not in too deep.

They would definitely have their sources, I remember a few years back I was in the city at lunchtime in a bar close to courts, there was Mr Williams eating lunch with a large number of uniformed guards,doesn’t take a genius to know that they would be very familiar with each other. You can also see that in the narrative of their articles. Look at The book The Cartel, an awful lot of that info would have come from the authorities.

MrFresh

Even if all the issues with evidence are true and their was a fatal mistake in the investigation, why do people think this would push a person with his experience and rank to suicide? So he wouldn't have to answer questions? It wouldn't be the first case, murder case even, to collapse because of a technicality and it certainly won't be the last.

screamer

The law is an ass full of holes

donkeykong5

It's going to be discussed on primetime tonight. Rte1. Programme is on now.

donkeykong5

They cut it short at the end. What was that about ?

Calltocall

Watched it, I refer back to my last post,the journos are very close to the guards, barry cummins knew the lead detective so you could see he was reluctant to push what went on behind the scenes and kind of glossed over it,it’s hard to see the truth coming out on this.