nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Aaron Brady Guilty as charged

knucklehead6

Aaron Brady has been found guilty of the capital murder of Det Garda Adrian Donohoe in Louth in 2013.

On Monday, Brady, of New Road, Crossmaglen, Co Armagh, was found guilty of robbing approximately €7,000 in cash and cheques outside the Lordship Credit Union in January 2013.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ThewhiteJesus

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The judge's summing up of the evidence for the jury took half a day.
Posters here seem to want someone to sum it up in a few bullet points, whilst also be detailed enough to stand up their scrutiny.

well you'd imagine finger prints on a gun, or someone actually seeing him shoot the thing would be enough to satisfy everyone.
A drunken bravado chat in a pub, and a few disgruntled guards hearsay should not be enough imo and will be challenged.

celt262

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

I'm not sure the conviction will stick that's my point, if only someone could tell us what the actual hard evidence was instead of saying end of story !

Just wait for the evidence.

ThewhiteJesus

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Well since a jury was satisfied of his guilt, why do you think there was insufficient evidence?

Genuine question. I'm not coming at the case with an expert's knowledge and if you have substantive criticisms of the prosecution I'd be interested in them.

Just what i've heard from someone that would know that's all i can say.
That's why i have to repeatedly ask what evidence makes people so sure he's guilty, all i'm getting is abuse, or end of story !
I have no hidden agendas i just like to know the actual truth.

mynamejeff

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

Hardly makes him guilty talking crap in a pub, like i said earlier, if he's really guilty then well done.
I'm not so sure.

what makes you , "not so sure " do you know something that the jury didn't ?

as others have said if you do spit it out other wise its really hard to see what your trying to do

joseywhales

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

End of story, in other words you don't have a clue either, like the two people spouting the same nonsense in this thread.

I can only assume that they trust the legal system to reach a reasonable verdict. There was very little detail in the newspaper article I read(Irish times), perhaps more will come. They certainly pulled out all the stops in the investigation, a serious amount of time and money spent it appears. Which makes sense, we do have a responsibility to protect those whose job it is to protect us.

ThewhiteJesus

suicide_circus wrote: »

Do you treat all court verdicts like this?

Do you always ask irrelevant questions ?

h2005

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

I'm not sure the conviction will stick that's my point, if only someone could tell us what the actual hard evidence was instead of saying end of story !

Why wouldn’t it stick?

celt262

mynamejeff wrote: »

what makes you , "not so sure " do you know something that the jury didn't ?

as others have said if you do spit it out other wise its really hard to see what your trying to do

Yes the ThewhiteJesus what evidence do you have for us?

event

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

End of story, in other words you don't have a clue either, like the two people spouting the same nonsense in this thread.

Sure go away and read the court transcripts, look at all the evidence yourself, what the prosecution presented, talk to people from the area and some of the guards involved, like I've done.

He's guilty.

I've waited for this for 7 years, I'm not gonna start putting up stuff on boards so some faceless clown can decide if he think he's guilty or not

Allinall

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

Just what i've heard from someone that would know that's all i can say.
That's why i have to repeatedly ask what evidence makes people so sure he's guilty, all i'm getting is abuse, or end of story !
I have no hidden agendas i just like to know the actual truth.

Are you posting under duress?

If you go yo your profile page, and change your password by typing random letters with your eyes closed, and then log out, you'll no longer be able to post.

touts

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

Another person that won't actually say what evidence there is.
You are easily convinced.

The Shinner-bot machine whirring into action already defending one of their own questioning the mountain of evidence against this scumbag.

It took months to go through the evidence and the end result was the jury found him guilty as hell. Can't repeat months of the case but the key thing for me: HE BRAGGED ABOUT BEING A COP KILLER.

When he wraps the tricolour around him I hope they reject his application for special treatment and transfer to a provo-jail. This lad needs to rot in Mountjoy.

Hodors Appletart

the people whinging "where's the evidence" are very transparent at what they are doing here

I trust the justice system. I trust the jury of peers that obviously hasn't been "got at" by dark forces here. I trust the judge to correctly direct the jury. I trust the Gardaí who would have made damn sure there wasn't a t dotted or an i crossed in case this absolute scumbag got off on a technicality

I don't trust some person on the internet casting aspersions and being very obvious about why they are doing that

ThewhiteJesus

joseywhales wrote: »

I can only assume that they trust the legal system to reach a reasonable verdict. There was very little detail in the newspaper article I read(Irish times), perhaps more will come. They certainly pulled out all the stops in the investigation, a serious amount of time and money spent it appears. Which makes sense, we do have a responsibility to protect those whose job it is to protect us.

Yes i totally get that and agree with you, but on the other hand, we can't just trust the gardai to do the right thing, especially if they are under huge pressure to get a conviction.So basically no one clearly knows the evidence here, so the end of story thing means they don't have a clue either, but are happy to believe what they have read and that's it 100% he must be guilty.
Fair enough i'd just rather know the truth.

CrankyHaus

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

Just what i've heard from someone that would know that's all i can say.

And what did this mystery man tell you that makes you doubt the verdict?

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

That's why i have to repeatedly ask what evidence makes people so sure he's guilty, all i'm getting is abuse, or end of story !
I have no hidden agendas i just like to know the actual truth.

Start by arguing in good faith, instead of giving delphic responses like your one above. If there are serious issues with the conviction I'd be curious to hear them.

Hodors Appletart

its really hard to see what your trying to do

no it's not

in fact its very clear what this guy and others like are "trying to do" here

ThewhiteJesus

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

the people whinging "where's the evidence" are very transparent at what they are doing here

I trust the justice system. I trust the jury of peers that obviously hasn't been "got at" by dark forces here. I trust the judge to correctly direct the jury. I trust the Gardaí who would have made damn sure there wasn't a t dotted or an i crossed in case this absolute scumbag got off on a technicality

I don't trust some person on the internet casting aspersions and being very obvious about why they are doing that

How about trusting your own intelligence after knowing all the facts ?
You must be very young or very naive to hold those views.

touts

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

Yes i totally get that and agree with you, but on the other hand, we can't just trust the gardai to do the right thing, especially if they are under huge pressure to get a conviction.So basically no one clearly knows the evidence here, so the end of story thing means they don't have a clue either, but are happy to believe what they have read and that's it 100% he must be guilty.
Fair enough i'd just rather know the truth.

And here we go. The shinner bots starting the "punishment tweeting" against the Gardai

suicide_circus

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

Do you always ask irrelevant questions ?

Yikes, thats put me in my box

Hodors Appletart

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

You must be very young or very naive to hold those views.

very good attack the person

you'd be well used to that strategy I'd say

Truthvader

touts wrote: »

The Shinner-bot machine whirring into action already defending one of their own questioning the mountain of evidence against this scumbag.

It took months to go through the evidence and the end result was the jury found him guilty as hell. Can't repeat months of the case but the key thing for me: HE BRAGGED ABOUT BEING A COP KILLER.

When he wraps the tricolour around him I hope they reject his application for special treatment and transfer to a provo-jail. This lad needs to rot in Mountjoy.

Always suspected that there would be a sticky trail leading back to the good republicans which would lead to the usual "unauthorised" wordplay or "its not us its the dissidents" plus the usual condemnation from you know who. Be interested to see if anything more emerges though I expect he will be encouraged not to open his little rat mouth

ThewhiteJesus

event wrote: »

Sure go away and read the court transcripts, look at all the evidence yourself, what the prosecution presented, talk to people from the area and some of the guards involved, like I've done.

He's guilty.

I've waited for this for 7 years, I'm not gonna start putting up stuff on boards so some faceless clown can decide if he think he's guilty or not

So i'm a faceless clown because i'd like to see or hear some evidence.
I thought personal abuse wasn't allowed on this site.
You've waited 7 years for this, really lol

Hodors Appletart

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there any evidence?

there is and it was all presented to a jury in court and they found him guilty

unless you think the jury was faulty? do you? just this one or others too? only for a certain type of criminal is it?

[Deleted User]

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

very good attack the person

you'd be well used to that strategy I'd say

Irony overload :pac:

BPKS

davo2001 wrote: »

40 year sentence for capital murder, i wonder how long he will actually serve, hopefully the whole term but i doubt it.

His mates who killed Jerry McCabe didn't serve 40 years anyway

An Ri rua

joseywhales wrote: »

I can only assume that they trust the legal system to reach a reasonable verdict. There was very little detail in the newspaper article I read(Irish times), perhaps more will come. They certainly pulled out all the stops in the investigation, a serious amount of time and money spent it appears. Which makes sense, we do have a responsibility to protect those whose job it is to protect us.

I wouldn't be arguing with a man called Josey W(h)ales about justice down here on Earth, Jesus. If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me...

ThewhiteJesus

touts wrote: »

And here we go. The shinner bots starting the "punishment tweeting" against the Gardai

a shinner bot !!
I have never voted sinn fein in my life, and never will.

Hodors Appletart

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

So i'm a faceless clown because i'd like to see or hear some evidence.

the only people that matter when it comes to evidence presented are the jury and they decided there was enough evidence to convict

that's all that matters here

you can do all the obfuscation and waffling you like but your mate is going to jail for forty years

maybe you can show him your posts here to cheer him up like a good little republican

Allinall

Deleted User wrote: »

What physical evidence,puts him.there?

Seems a whole lot of he said/she said....just dont think someone should do 40 years jail on that basis

None. But then there doesn't have to be physical evidence.

Tacitus Kilgore

begbysback wrote: »

I take it your from the country so I’ll help you out with some context, I was conversing with another poster who gave me one piece of information which I questioned. I usually try my best to avoid people like you who arrive on a thread with a conclusion, good luck.

What's being from the country have to do with anything Franko? Is that supposed to be an insult? :pac:

You note that I arrived on thread with a conclusion. - odd, coming from the hero who's first post on the thread was "Durrhh dId ThEy HaVe aNy EvIdEnCe oN tHiS gUy"

You should definitely avoid people like me - people who point out the idiocy of your posts.

mynamejeff

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there any evidence?

This lad looking at 40 years,it would want to be competly 100% faultless........yous are essentially putting someone away for life,there cant be any shadow of doubt about imo

you think his massive multi barrister defence team paid for by you didn't dissect every tiny piece of evidence and slung as much mud around as thy could ,

true enough there wasn't a very good defence in this case , but then again he Fcuking did it obviously so there wasn't much of a defence to mount

im sure he will be accommodated on a specific wing in prison