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

smurgen

Truthvader wrote: »

To be fair to Sinn Fein/ IRA (not that they deserve it) though I suspect he was one of them you are the only person actually saying this.

Any actual connection?

Christ. Even when it's nothing to do with SF it's SF. And FG accuse them of online trolling?

celt262

https://www.anglocelt.ie/2020/08/12/liar-if-i-hit-a-dog-on-the-road-id-be-shook/?fbclid=IwAR0P57hBNNyen-EPk_mSWsfz-WWy7F5unPcNR6gIWLx5IjclUNQnczVZ0Mw

Apologies if posted already its a long read.

mr_fegelien

How stupid is he? Not regarding the murder but going to the States? He thought that he was out of the reach of Irish law enforcement.

Did he not know anything about extradition treaties? Maybe if he'd gone to Russia, he'd still be free by now.

Faugheen

mcmoustache wrote: »

Do people here really believe that a case that went on for 6 months only had one piece of incriminating evidence?

Is it a sincerely held belief or is there something else at play here?

The idea that a jury convicted a guy for murder solely because of a drunken boast really stretches credibility and yet multiple people are making that exact same claim.

Where did that idea that he was convicted solely on the boast come from and why are so many people running with it?

It wasn’t a ‘drunken boast’.

He said it numerous times in front of many people on different occasions.

roast222

paw patrol wrote: »

hate to break it to you.

the judge didn't find him guilty. the jury did.

And they are most likely if not most definitely (as court officials wouldn't be on a jury) amateurs in the affairs of the court and murder trials.

Please point out to me where I stated that the judge found him guilty, you're not breaking anything to me.

I don't think anybody expects that the jurors are all legal minds. I think that you have totally misrepresented my point which was that some people came on here and queried the guilty verdict based on minimal evidence or testimonies and without having access to the information which the jury would have pored over for months on end. In other words they are claiming to know better than the jury with a fraction of the information and knowledge of the full facts surrounding the case.

Ash.J.Williams

Truthvader wrote: »

Obviously.

Because when a Guard is murdered all the other Guards who worked with him conspire to set up any local "Republican" and are more than happy to let the person they know is guilty to go free.

For F*ck Sake

I’m on your side buddy ðŸ˜‚

Gregor Samsa

mcmoustache wrote: »

Do people here really believe that a case that went on for 6 months only had one piece of incriminating evidence?

Is it a sincerely held belief or is there something else at play here?

The idea that a jury convicted a guy for murder solely because of a drunken boast really stretches credibility and yet multiple people are making that exact same claim.

Where did that idea that he was convicted solely on the boast come from and why are so many people running with it?

There probably is a political agenda at play with some of the posters, but from experience I think that some people believe that that all the evidence from criminal trials are simply contained in newspaper headlines, and that's what the jury decides on. They don't seem to realise that there's hours/days/weeks/months of evidence presented and discussed in minute detail at a trial. Everything is questioned and debated to ensure its legally sound.

Having served on a jury myself (nothing as serious as this), I know that the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is absolutely drummed into the jury by everyone - the judge, the prosecution and the defence. They say it so much that you're more paranoid about wrongfully convicting an innocent person than you are about letting a guilty one go.

Some people dismiss “circumstantial evidence”, as if it’s not real evidence. The legal system does not see it that way. Circumstantial evidence is very valid evidence, and I’d say most cases rely on it. Real live isn’t like TV where a bit of DNA stuck in a tree that a bullet lodged in can be traced to some guy’s identical twin brother who committed a different crime previously, which leads the cops to the real culprit, who instantly breaks down in confession when presented with the evidence. The totally of evidence builds a picture of the events. The task of the jury is to decide if the picture built with the totality of evidence could be reasonably explained in another way. In this case, after listening to all the evidence, all the argument and counter argument about it, they decided that it could not.

Edgware

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.

Youre not sure having read nothing about the case. FFS!

CrankyHaus

smurgen wrote: »

Christ. Even when it's nothing to do with SF it's SF. Any FG accuse them of online trolling?

It was a crime of a kind associated with Republicans; in a highly Republican area; where former Republican networks have devolved since the GFA into common criminality; where the prosecution appears to have been frustrated by the omerta and intimidation that protects Republicans; and the accused's defence was that he could not have done it because at the time he was engaged elsewhere in a different criminal activity associated with Republicans. A godfather of criminality in the area was previously defended by SF as a "Good Republican" and allegedly sat on the IRA Army Council. SF campaign against the Court which convicted that man. Now assertions of a wrongful conviction are being made by posters associated with Republican positions. I'd give SF itself a pass until it makes any statement on the issue but surely you can see a pattern here?

Alf Veedersane

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.

He was 'talking crap' and making the same claims repeatedly in separate places with separate witnesses.

The judge also included some caveats about the testimony of his admissions so the jury had plenty to consider outside of the admissions.

Canyon86

roast222 wrote: »

Didn't take long for the amateur judges to come out to query the verdict based on reading a few online articles. Thankfully there is a criminal justice system which helped pore over 7 years evidence lasting 6 months in court to reach a decision that he committed capital murder beyond reasonable doubt. The people who think they know better are likely the same people who became qualified epidemiologists upon the outbreak of Covid-19.

Class post agreed,

Gregor Samsa

For all the people who haven't read about the case, but still feel like commenting, here's a fairly detailed article:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/aaron-brady-the-man-who-said-with-pride-he-was-a-cop-killer-1.4328380

Even at an estimated 24 minute read, it's not going to contain everything the jury heard over the course of the 122 days the court sat.

ThewhiteJesus

Edgware wrote: »

Youre not sure having read nothing about the case. FFS!

who said i haven't read anything about the case ?
Did a mod not warn people to stop attacking other posters ?

Alf Veedersane

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Some people dismiss “circumstantial evidence”, as if it’s not real evidence. The legal system does not see it that way. Circumstantial evidence is very valid evidence, and I’d say most cases rely on it

The totally of evidence builds a picture of the events. The task of the jury is to decide if the picture built with the totality of evidence could be reasonably explained in another way. In this case, after listening to all the evidence, all the argument and counter argument about it, they decided that it could not.

It seems that the amount of circumstantial evidence is key...it's not like one piece of evidence alone but rather an accumulation of circumstantial evidence that together builds a compelling picture.

Ash.J.Williams

davo2001 wrote: »

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

As far as I know there’s no remission for capital

Gregor Samsa

Says a lot:

With the verdict returned the trial judge lifted an embargo on what he had called “the most outrageous” contempt of court he had seen in his career. It emerged during the trial that a video of one witness giving a statement about Aaron Brady to gardaí was circulated on social media with text calling the witness a “rat” and accusing him of “touting” on his friends. The witness in question did not come forward to give evidence. He was one of five witnesses who did not give evidence in a trial during which there were repeated claims that witnesses were suffering interference and intimidation.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/aaron-brady-found-guilty-of-capital-murder-of-det-garda-adrian-donohoe-1.4328246

Irishman80

Just another "Tiofaigh Ar La" piece of s--t doing scumbag s--t.

Edgware

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 not read it up yourself rather than get someone else to do it? Check the newspaper sites.

Ashbourne hoop

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

As far as I know there’s no remission for capital

And it's a minimum of 40 years as far I know.

mr_fegelien

Why didn't he just kill himself in America when approached by the Secret Service??? Idiot. And also, who goes to the US to flee Irish law enforcement. Does he not know of this little thing called extradition treaties?

Overall a dumb guy and it's good he's paying for it?

ChikiChiki

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Says a lot:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/aaron-brady-found-guilty-of-capital-murder-of-det-garda-adrian-donohoe-1.4328246

Also a witness was giving evidence in NY and someone came into the room to try get her to stop. That must have been terrifying.

Real nasty pieces involved here.

aloyisious

I'm just going to post on this thread once to mention that the defence lawyer acting on behalf of the accused in the trial stated as part of the defence that the shotgun may have recoiled when it was being fired at the slain Garda and that was possibly how the Garda was shot in the head. Maybe I misunderstood the implication of the accused's defence lawyer making that part of his client's defence [the shooting of the Garda to the head was accidental and not intended] on the charge of murdering the slain Garda which the accused denied any involvement in at all, and that denial included involvement in the robbery as well.

Edgware

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I dunno the man....its likely he is guilty .....just i dont think,there enough evidence exists to convict him

The fact people openly call for death penalty for people,with no physical evidence linking them to a crime is alarming tbh (i actually support the idea of death penalty in right curcumstances)

And your opinions is of what use when not on the jury?

radharc

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

As far as I know there’s no remission for capital

There is, due to a Supreme Court finding a few years ago

Edgware

KaneToad wrote: »

The jury, who actually heard all the evidence, thought he was guilty of the murder. Albeit that it was an 11-1 verdict.

That's good enough for me.

The jury didn think he was guilty of the murder. They believed it after hearing all the evidence, seen the dirtbirt lying in the witness box etc.

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Joe o reilly had evidence,indicating he was in the area....deosnt seem similar evidencce exists here

Like the graham dywer case,no physical evidence exists..

You need to read up on the case. Brady was in the area with two other suspects who fled the country at the same time as Brady. I wonder why?

Irishman80

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I dunno the man....its likely he is guilty .....just i dont think,there enough evidence exists to convict him

The fact people openly call for death penalty for people,with no physical evidence linking them to a crime is alarming tbh (i actually support the idea of death penalty in right curcumstances)

You seem to be more worried about someone on a message board calling for the death penalty for capital murder than about a rotten scumbag who robs old women in post offices, executes innocent people, and brags about it when they're drunk.

roast222

https://www.dundalkdemocrat.ie/news/home/565864/the-most-outrageous-contempt-of-court-witness-intimidation-and-interference-in-the-trial-of-aaron-brady.html

Only 2 witnesses were willing to testify one of whose evidence was discarded due to video interference. Others were intimidated into not testifying and the jurors would have not have been aware of the other 5 testimonies who either failed to show up in court or who retracted their statements.

cameramonkey

I think with such a terrible crime that the need to get a conviction and the need from the public for justice can be great. I think there will be an appeal and that the appeal against the murder conviction has a good chance of being successful. I think his conviction was based purely on the evidence that he admitted his crime to someone in the states. The Guard who was present at the murder and other witnesses said that the shooter was 6 foot tall whereas Brady is much smaller, that is evidence that will be reconsidered at an appeal.

Truthvader

roast222 wrote: »

https://www.dundalkdemocrat.ie/news/home/565864/the-most-outrageous-contempt-of-court-witness-intimidation-and-interference-in-the-trial-of-aaron-brady.html

Only 2 witnesses were willing to testify one of whose evidence was discarded due to video interference. Others were intimidated into not testifying and the jurors would have not have been aware of the other 5 testimonies who either failed to show up in court or who retracted their statements.

If the Guards and the Courts do not follow up this witness intimidation and prosecute and sentence those involved more and more cases are going to be compromised