Tacitus Kilgore wrote: » I'm down in the sticks and back swimming in it again, was quiet for a few weeks but
John_D3 wrote: » Link to KH?
Man with broke phone wrote: » He wont be fella calling the shots in that area any longer, if he ever was. Any lad not afraid of a fight will be looking to take his job now. Skinny nutjob.
Made in China 2040 wrote: » They went with a case they knew, was to try save face for the gardai as they knew something was going to happen but couldn't act upon it for whatever reasons, its been all trying to catch-up since than. Cut from one and the same cloth.
Pinoy adventure wrote: » Kh back walking around Cabra
Rows Grower wrote: » What did the DPP do wrong?
Made in China 2040 wrote: » Circumstantial evidence brings in reasonable doubt too as they've been on the back foot that from the get go, the DPP/guards didn't play by their own rule book and a case in the SCC was withdrawn, if they even get that far, ballymun is the same station that got the SCC case withdrawn. I rest my case your honour.
Rows Grower wrote: » I'm not sure if you understand what circumstantial evidence actually is, but if the DPP decides there is enough evidence to have a good chance of a successful prosecution then the person will be arrested and charged. If the person is abroad then it's up to the Gardaí to sort out the paperwork so the suspect can be brought before the court.
Made in China 2040 wrote: » There's the question because it's the Gardai, they were on the back foot even though they would have known before the papers reported that they tried to kill the monk in Lanzarote after Gary was killed, they don't always go by the book. I get what you're saying, but would circumstancal evidence be enough for a international arrest warrant? Totally get the above regarding the SCC, wasn't Patrick before the SCC too and that collapsed because of what members of AGS were up too? Anyone see the twitter asking about a body found in coolock in the last 2 hours, there's a video of a body bag being carried.?
Rows Grower wrote: » Why is there a question about this? Do you think some Garda just decided to do it on his own without going through the proper procedures? It was a massive Garda operation and Dowdall was linked to the attack by his wife's credit card having been used to pay for one of the gunmen's room in the Regency the night before the murder. Breaking into someone's private vehicle and placing a hidden listening device would be a serious crime if it wasn't authorised at the highest level and all things considered why would there have been any issue getting the authorisation?
cknfriedrice1 wrote: » The SCC are always looking for a reason to read some sort of negativity into this type of activity. If this was a stag do activity fine, but if there is a high profile attack two weeks later they will see this as a dry run and intent and therefore with other circumstantial evidence as being guilty. Gone is the principle of innocence until proved guilty. In the eyes of the SCC it is guilty unless you can prove innocence.
Made in China 2040 wrote: » The question is did they, get a court order for the bug, which is admissible In court, if they bugged them without a court order, it's inadmissible and was only for intelligence gathering at the time. The most interesting part was the 4 plus the monk going to Krakow, Poland, less than two weeks before the attack at the Drumcondra hotel. There's no smoking gun, everything against the monk is circumstantial. This is high stake chess between the guards, the monk and cancer.
Rows Grower wrote: » It's been public knowledge for a long time that the Gardaí had secretly recorded the Monk and his friend Dowdall incriminating themselves when they were travelling to the north together. Now that they have access to everything that was sent to and fro on criminals encrypted phones this is probably a factor in hoping to bring charges too.
Haladmirer wrote: » So monk be gone eventually same as dk And crews on both sides too No winners in that 1 anyway
Eyes1 wrote: » Any links there? Seen about Dowdall getting raided a while back but nothing about him and the Monk being bugged.
Eyes1 wrote: » Paul Williams always an alarm bell but even if 70% of that is true then that is massive. Surely puts to bed all the talk of collusion against DK.
Man with broke phone wrote: » Lads you dont realise that whack jobs like the bin man are only relevant for a few months, he will not be trusted again unless he is paying cash, he will do a year or two in jail and then just be another muppet, the truck driver looks to have gave him a jab and he ran away from him, the fella at the bin should have gave him a slap aswell anybody with a set of nuts would be looking at him thinking what a benny he is.
MelvinWagstaff wrote: » Relevant in what sense?
Sultan of Bling wrote: » Correct. Just using it as an example of lenient sentencing here. I have a feeling the same will happen here when the judge hears the sob story.
Mr robin hood wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but not the same guy.
Mr robin hood wrote: He's using the story as an example of a suspended sentence
Kaizer Sosa wrote: » How has this guy got such a good job with such a chequered criminal history? I'm sure he's already been fired over the above if true. Can't imagine he could have kept that hidden from his employers. Might make some sense as to how he could have had such a nuclear overreaction to such a minor irritation if he had just been convicted of the above. Hope it isn't allowable as a mitigation in his defence when this incident comes to court.
Sultan of Bling wrote: » A couple a days ago a guy got a suspended sentence for sexually abusing a child over 100 times.
deathbomber wrote: There is no way, the guy assaulted the truck driver then took out a weapon and smacked his colleague over the head and split him open, this was not a bar fight or drink related. Easily 5 years
