event wrote: » Sure if it wasnt him he can tell the guards who it was that pulled the trigger. Means he will probably get off on the murder charge and only do time for robbery
cameramonkey wrote: » 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.
Conall Cernach wrote: » It is a bit strange that the only one of the gang caught so far is the one that is now convicted of the murder. How did they come to link Brady to being the killer except by his own alleged bragging in the States?
Truthvader wrote: » Would be very interested if that were the case. I cant imagine you could rob the local credit union on the border without permission or approval but have not heard anything yet
mr_fegelien wrote: » 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?
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.
[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)
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..
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.
Ash.J.Williams wrote: » As far as I know there’s no remission for capital
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
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 !
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.
davo2001 wrote: » 40 year sentence for capital murder, i wonder how long he will actually serve, hopefully the whole term but i doubt it.
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.
Edgware wrote: » Youre not sure having read nothing about the case. FFS!