Dante7 wrote: » The GSOC investigation will be a whitewash. They are a toothless organisation. When they tried to raise awareness about how they were being spied on, they were comprehensively put in their place.
MrFresh wrote: » Can you post the transcript of that note?
Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: » But they weren’t being spied on, they created a story out of nothing and then started crying when nobody took any notice. You are correct though that they are a toothless organisation.
odyssey06 wrote: » I've no idea if he was or was not a decent man, not sure what aspersions have been cast here on his character to compare to: A senior counsel in open court has effectively accused him of participation in a miscarriage of justice in a murder trial.
odyssey06 wrote: » GSOC are officially investigating that "the circumstances giving rise to the death of the late Det Supt Fox". But yeah, attempt to shut down debate on an internet forum.
paw patrol wrote: » no
MrFresh wrote: » Which senior counsel? You think it is somehow noteworthy that GSOC are investigating the death of a Garda in a Garda station with a Garda issue weapon?
Dante7 wrote: » One of the top private security agencies in the world maintain that GSOC were being spied on.
Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: » He was arrested in NI and extradition process started but due to his illness the court decided not to grant his extradition....as far as I can remember.
odyssey06 wrote: » Michael O'Higgins, defending, explained that an issue had arisen in relation to garda statements, matters that were omitted and new statements that came together and "hit every single note on the scale". He had made a case in legal argument that the statements were a "blatant and obvious cog from one to the other"https://www.herald.ie/news/courts/setbacks-plagued-trial-but-mystery-surrounds-what-brought-it-down-37837352.html I think it noteworthy that the investigation isn't into his death, but the circumstances giving rise to his death. And the investigation has taken a year to start.
MrFresh wrote: » You just keep going with this story you have in your head. The defence trying to get an ID thrown out and a particular turn of phrase is not evidence of some big conspiracy. Their only real chance at not guilty was to get the ID or photo thrown out. It's what they do. GSOC You could be a screen writer for Red Rock you know? Start by googling "Gardaí are investigating the circumstances" and see how many hits you get.
MrFresh wrote: » Didn't think so.
odyssey06 wrote: » You get worked up about conspiracy theories when someone posts on boards, yet when SC makes these allegations in court and it is reported in every news outlet in the state you just blink? What if the SC is right and there was Garda collusion in relation to the photo and the ID? I suppose he must be guilty if AGS know he did it! It's clear that something unprecedented is happening here, if it was just the death of Fox the prosecution would have abandoned 12 months ago.
paw patrol wrote: » you ask for a transcript knowing the letter hasn't been release but you also know it has been widely reported (and never refuted) that the letter referenced an error of judgement (that is the only point I made). Also many of the reporters who state this are well-in with the gardai and have insider knowledge. Yet come back with sh1tty retorts that offer nothing. You are a strange person.
MrFresh wrote: » Never refuted by who? You're just clinging on to whatever reporting suits your theory. Occam's Razor was previously mentioned as being the reason why this conspiracy must be true. But really the most simple and obvious explanation is as the prosecution said. The lead investigator is dead and the state no longer has a full case.
MrFresh wrote: » Something unprecedented has happened. The lead investigator of a murder case has died during a trial. Why you think it needs to be something more I don't know. And why you think a defence barrister challenging evidence is somehow exceptional is also beyond me. And again I point out, even the allegation of a screw up in the case is correct, the chances of it pushing an experienced Garda to suicide are very low.
paw patrol wrote: » I think you've lost the run of yourself
odyssey06 wrote: » If that was the unprecedented aspect, why did the DPP need 12 months to drop the case? Fox isn't going to come back to life between February 2018 and February 2019. What was unprecedented was something in the notes left by Fox, which related to the new information that defence counsel was seeking in the week before his death, information that the defence counsel was pointing to Garda collusion to pervert the course of justice. Such Garda activity would be exceptional, and perhaps this time the defence counsel's gambit hit the mark. On the face of it it does seem an unlikely reason, but then it must have been at the forefront of his mind or he would not have left final notes about it.
MrFresh wrote: » I'm not the one that's escaped from the CT forum. By the same token, why would it take 12 months to analyse a suicide note? I think it's more likely they were working to save the case in that time as opposed to trying to figure out what the note said.
tigger123 wrote: » Has it been confirmed anywhere that the Superintendents suicide was in anyway as a result of the Hutch investigation?
MrFresh wrote: » By the same token, why would it take 12 months to analyse a suicide note? I think it's more likely they were working to save the case in that time as opposed to trying to figure out what the note said.
STB. wrote: » No, but it is highly intimated in press reports. The report into the Detectives death was concluded in October, 2018 but the defence were still awaiting it in November, 2018. Between then and February this year, the case was put back several times to allow the defence to submit a response to the DPP on foot of receiving that report. What is not in the public domain is the emails between four Gardai and what was turned up in the email trawl when requested this time last year. It is highly likely that the now GSOC investigation will do only one thing, suppress the release of those emails and any reports submitted previously into the death of the lead investigator.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » STB. wrote: » No, but it is highly intimated in press reports. The report into the Detectives death was concluded in October, 2018 but the defence were still awaiting it in November, 2018. Between then and February this year, the case was put back several times to allow the defence to submit a response to the DPP on foot of receiving that report. What is not in the public domain is the emails between four Gardai and what was turned up in the email trawl when requested this time last year. It is highly likely that the now GSOC investigation will do only one thing, suppress the release of those emails and any reports submitted previously into the death of the lead investigator. GSOC won't publish the text of the emails, but they'll most likely issue a report which will outline the broad strokes of the communications and what went on between the officers involved. The real question is whether this report will result in findings being made known to the general public, or whether GSOC will send it to the minister or Oireachtas committee, which then buries it "in the national interest". GSOC generally do publicise their findings, so I'm holding out hope that the public does eventually get to the bottom of what happened in this case.
Auguste Comte wrote: » I wonder what percentage of GSOC investigations are independent of AGS? What's the chances of a current member being involved the investigation?
RoryMac wrote: » No just that he left notes relating to the case prior to taking his life
tigger123 wrote: » Auguste Comte wrote: » I wonder what percentage of GSOC investigations are independent of AGS? What's the chances of a current member being involved the investigation? GSOC are entirely separate from AGS. That's their role. So, zero chance of a member of AGS being involved in the GSOC investigation.
tigger123 wrote: » GSOC are entirely separate from AGS. That's their role. So, zero chance of a member of AGS being involved in the GSOC investigation.
The former Police Ombudsman in Northern Ireland has called it "totally inappropriate" that gardaí work in the GSOC offices. Nuala O'Loan was giving her reaction to the Cooke report which found this week there was no evidence of surveillance at the offices of the Garda Ombudsman. The Garda Ombudsman is responsible for receiving and dealing with all complaints made by members of the public concerning the conduct of members of the Garda Síochána. Ms O'Loan said steps should be taken to improve the relationship between the watchdog and the force, including putting a proper division of responsibility in place between the Minister for Justice, the Gardaí and its Ombudsman. The Garda Ombudsman said two superintendents currently work in their offices on secondment. Ms O'Loan said she believed relationships and roles should be more concrete. "As I understand it, there are currently Garda Síochána officers working in the office of the Garda Ombudsman. To me that's totally inappropriate," she said, recommending that measures be taken to "define limits and boundaries".
Auguste Comte wrote: » Not entirely separate. Aren't there a number of Gardaí on secondment to GSOC. A cynical person might see this as an opportunity for AGS to corrupt investigations that might find the force lacking, keeping in mind the findings of Judge Peter Smithwick that AGS value loyalty over honesty and that a culture exists in the force where its reputation takes priority over everything else.
