Eamon Lillis guilty of Manslaughter

Dudess · 29-01-2010 07:56PM

kraggy wrote: »

Plenty of men have been victim of domestic abuse at the hands of women too. Don't be so naive/feminist as to think otherwise.

Thinking there aren't male victims of domestic abuse at the hands of women is not being feminist.

kraggy · 29-01-2010 07:57PM

caseyann wrote: »

Incorrect i pointed out the alarming amount of Irish men who have murdered their wives.
If it was about a woman who murdered their husband or bf i would be shocked at that to.But fact is there is not same amount.

I took it up that you were having a feminist dig. If you weren't, then fair enough.

It really irks me the way people always assume that the guy is the one doing the bullying/beating when they hear there is trouble in a couple.

Even in PI, I once saw a thread by a girl who was looking for sympathy because her boyfriend hit her back after she had hit him! Like it's ok for a woman to hit a guy, "because a guy should be able to take it".

Another thing here is, manslaughter is also applicable, instead of murder, when it is obvious that the accused has been provoked.

The victim didn't sound like an angel to me. In fact, she sounded like a right cúnt.

walshb · 29-01-2010 07:57PM

adrian280582 wrote: »

Its the daughter I feel most sorry for in this.

She is the loser in all this.

I hope the media give her the privacy she deserves now.

She was the very one that was in open court backing his story up, despite her not being able to know what happened. She accepted everything that he told her, and said this in court. I heard nothing eported from her in praise of her mother.

kraggy · 29-01-2010 07:57PM

Dudess wrote: »

Thinking there aren't male victims of domestic abuse at the hands of women is not being feminist.

You're right, it's just ignorant.

rubensni · 29-01-2010 07:58PM

adrian280582 wrote: »

Its the daughter I feel most sorry for in this.

She is the loser in all this.

I hope the media give her the privacy she deserves now.

Hear hear.

And his wife's family. No sneaking in the back entrance for them. Photos in the paper every day.

Bloody guards.

bad2dabone · 29-01-2010 07:59PM

kraggy wrote: »

The victim didn't sound like an angel to me. In fact, she sounded like a right cúnt.

I agree with this but you dont bash her head with a brick just cos she's a **** (despite the fact that you may want to!)

you get a divorce.

The thing is once he embarked on the affair he would get very little in the divorce and be out of a job too.

Hence, brick-time.

walshb · 29-01-2010 08:00PM

kraggy wrote: »

I took it up that you were having a feminist dig. If you weren't, then fair enough.

It really irks me the way people always assume that the guy is the one doing the bullying/beating when they hear there is trouble in a couple.

Even in PI, I once saw a thread by a girl who was looking for sympathy because her boyfriend hit her back after she had hit him! Like it's ok for a woman to hit a guy, "because a guy should be able to take it".

Another thing here is, manslaughter is also applicable, instead of murder, when it is obvious that the accused has been provoked.

The victim didn't sound like an angel to me. In fact, she sounded like a right cúnt.

How do you know he was provoked? Because he said so?

It doesn't mater a damn whether or not she was a bitch or not, what he did
to the woman was really horrendous. We're not talking a slap, a punch or a shove here.

xoxyx · 29-01-2010 08:00PM

Helix wrote: »

be proven to have premeditated it

Not true. You have to have the intent, but premeditation is not a requirement for murder.

deadhead13 · 29-01-2010 08:01PM

The verdict was manslaughter, but the judge can still sentence him to life imprisonment.

ilovelamp2000 · 29-01-2010 08:02PM

We're getting somewhere with Kraggy now.

So are you saying she deserved it then ?

kraggy · 29-01-2010 08:02PM

bad2dabone wrote: »

I agree with this but you dont bash her head with a brick just cos she's a **** (despite the fact that you may want to!)

you get a divorce.

The thing is once he embarked on the affair he would get very little in the divorce and be out of a job too.

Hence, brick-time.

Of course you don't. What he did was stupid and wrong.

But while he was trying to hurt her, there was no proof of intent to kill here.

Therefore, Manslaughter was the correct result.

The_Kew_Tour · 29-01-2010 08:05PM

walshb wrote: »

She was the very one that was in open court backing his story up, despite her not being able to know what happened. She accepted everything that he told her, and said this in court. I heard nothing eported from her in praise of her mother.

Very easy for you to talk.

Its her Dad at the end of the day. That girl was under unreal pressure.

She loved her Dad. I think plenty people would have done something similar.

Dudess · 29-01-2010 08:05PM

caseyann wrote: »

Kraggy are you married :eek: Hope no plans there

Rosco1982 wrote: »

We're getting somewhere with Kraggy now.

So are you saying she deserved it then ?

Seriously? Even if I'm not agreement with Kraggy (while acknowledging domestic abuse against males is very much a reality).

ilovelamp2000 · 29-01-2010 08:05PM

kraggy wrote: »

Of course you don't. What he did was stupid and wrong.

But while he was trying to hurt her, there was no proof of intent to kill here.

Therefore, Manslaughter was the correct result.

There's a subtle difference with your definition of murder and the requisite intention that's needed to satisfy the legal definition of murder.

So your conclusion is hastily arrived at.

kraggy · 29-01-2010 08:06PM

walshb wrote: »

How do you know he was provoked? Because he said so?

It doesn't mater a damn whether or not she was a bitch or not, what he did
to the woman was really horrendous. We're not talking a slap, a punch or a shove here.

Totally agree. It was horrendous. But convictions must be safe. Thus, the jury were right to find how they found.

I didn't say he was provoked, but it was another possible way for the jury to find the defendant guilty of manslaughter and not murder. See my post on the first page regarding the criteria for being found guilty of manslaughter instead of murder laid down by the judge in this case.

Rosco1982 wrote: »

We're getting somewhere with Kraggy now.

So are you saying she deserved it then ?

Where the hell are you getting that from? Read my second post in this thread (first page). It outlines the reasons why manslaughter would be found instead of a murder conviction, in this trial. Provocation is one of them. If the jury believed he had been provoked, that would have also been grounds for them finding manslaughter instead of murder.

But it wasn't the case. They agreed on Manslaughter as they couldn't find proof of intent.

I'm not excusing his actions. Far from it. I'm just saying that based on what the judge instructed to the jury, they came up with the correct result.

caseyann · 29-01-2010 08:07PM

kraggy wrote: »

I took it up that you were having a feminist dig. If you weren't, then fair enough.

It really irks me the way people always assume that the guy is the one doing the bullying/beating when they hear there is trouble in a couple.

Even in PI, I once saw a thread by a girl who was looking for sympathy because her boyfriend hit her back after she had hit him! Like it's ok for a woman to hit a guy, "because a guy should be able to take it".

Another thing here is, manslaughter is also applicable, instead of murder, when it is obvious that the accused has been provoked.

The victim didn't sound like an angel to me. In fact, she sounded like a right cúnt.

Like i said i know it happens to men to and in my honest opinion they are not women their are animals like their counter part male abusers.I also saw a woman beat her bf around his head walking up the road because he said hello to me on the street.I was sickened by it.:mad: He was 6 foot something or other and she was 4 foot nothing and was jumping up to make sure she got the digs into the head.It was appalling to watch.

When my friend got stabbed by said woman i was disgusted and angry and told him he should have floored her.But guess what he didn't you know why because he knows he would have done damage.

I have been provoked on many occasion and have not used blunt force.We all know one punch from a man would floor a woman of her size.He did not walk away or run away when he felt the urges to go further and then he did not make phone call and lied about what happened>Murder is my opinion.

kraggy · 29-01-2010 08:10PM

caseyann wrote: »

Kraggy are you married :eek: Hope no plans there

None of your business.

Why do you ask? I've spoken only of legal technicalities only. The jury came to the conclusion of manslaughter.

Why? Because according to their opinion on the evidence and the instructions the judge gave them, it was the result they believed in. Afterall, it was a 10-2 result.

What exactly is the issue here with everyone? I'm merely saying that from a legal point of view, it was the correct decision. A conviction of murder would have been unsafe.

markok84 · 29-01-2010 08:11PM

kraggy wrote: »

But it wasn't the case. They agreed on Manslaughter as they couldn't find proof of intent.

Is it not proof of intent that he left her to die without seeking medical help and then concocted an outlandish story. I just think if you hit someone repeatedly with a brick it's murder.

ilovelamp2000 · 29-01-2010 08:13PM

kraggy wrote: »

None of your business.

Why do you ask? I've spoken only of legal technicalities only. The jury came to the conclusion of manslaughter.

Why? Because according to their opinion on the evidence and the instructions the judge gave them, it was the result they believed in. Afterall, it was a 10-2 result.

What exactly is the issue here with everyone? I'm merely saying that from a legal point of view, it was the correct decision. A conviction of murder would have been unsafe.

The problem is you don't actually understand the legal technicalities.

So for the third time, and this time in the judge's words:

“Did he intend to kill or cause serious injury?” he asked. “The prosecution says the natural and probable consequences of blunt force trauma to the head is serious injury.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0127/breaking6.html?via=mr

So are you trying to tell me that he didn't intend to cause his wife serious injury when he hit her three times in the head with a brick ?

I don't understand how anyone could possibly think anything other than serious injury is possible from three strikes of a brick in the head.

Dudess · 29-01-2010 08:14PM

Reginald P. DuM wrote: »

Regardless of verdict I'm just glad it's all over. The most mundane murder trial in history. I'm aware they are not there for our entertainment but it was all over the news for weeks and I had the words "Eamon Lillis" up to my eyeballs.

I can never understand comments like this - did it really bother you that much that you're "glad it's over"?

DubMedic · 29-01-2010 08:15PM

This is actually ridiculous, this country's legal system is a joke.

'Ah sure, he's a nice fella.. he didn't mean to kill her.. let's put him in a nice cush cell with a TV, heating, and three warm meals a day for his sins'.

.

kraggy · 29-01-2010 08:15PM

markok84 wrote: »

Is it not proof of intent that he left her to die without seeking medical help and then concocted an outlandish story. I just think if you hit someone repeatedly with a brick it's murder.

The judge said that that would qualify as gross negligence. Again, this is one of the criteria that he laid down for finding Lillis guilty of manslaughter and not murder.

His words, not mine.

Can't believe the pasting I'm getting here. I'm just saying that according to the instructions the judge gave the jury, that they found the right conviction.

caseyann · 29-01-2010 08:17PM

kraggy wrote: »

None of your business.

Why do you ask? I've spoken only of legal technicalities only. The jury came to the conclusion of manslaughter.

Why? Because according to their opinion on the evidence and the instructions the judge gave them, it was the result they believed in. Afterall, it was a 10-2 result.

What exactly is the issue here with everyone? I'm merely saying that from a legal point of view, it was the correct decision. A conviction of murder would have been unsafe.

Read further see in smileys friendly joke>i don't disrespect your opinion.

Yes and in matter of opinion it was incorrect one.

So she is dead and he gets realised again and lives out rest of his life with his gf who doesn't believe he was guilty.

I do feel sorry for the daughter to,poor girl.I would want to believe my father to if i was her.:(

But as i say if i was on that jury i would have thought guilty from the small bit of evidence i have read.

kraggy · 29-01-2010 08:18PM

Rosco1982 wrote: »

The problem is you don't actually understand the legal technicalities.

So for the third time, and this time in the judge's words:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0127/breaking6.html?via=mr

So are you trying to tell me that he didn't intend to cause his wife serious injury when he hit her three times in the head with a brick ?

I don't understand how anyone could possibly think anything other than serious injury is possible from three strikes of a brick in the head.

I think you're the one who doesn't understand the legal technicalities.

Where in your reference does the judge make reference to intent to kill? NOT INTENT TO DO SERIOUS INJURY.

Murder is where the accused had intent to kill, not intent to injure.

markok84 · 29-01-2010 08:18PM

kraggy wrote: »

The judge said that that would qualify as gross negligence. Again, this is one of the criteria that he laid down for finding Lillis guilty of manslaughter and not murder.

His words, not mine.

Can't believe the pasting I'm getting here. I'm just saying that according to the instructions the judge gave the jury, that they found the right conviction.

I'm not giving you a pasting I'm just trying to understand the reasoning for the verdict. Did he confess in the witness stand to using the brick as a weapon, or did he say she fell on the decking and hit her head on the brick?

kraggy · 29-01-2010 08:20PM

caseyann wrote: »

Read further see in smileys friendly joke>i don't disrespect your opinion.

Yes and in matter of opinion it was incorrect one.

So she is dead and he gets realised again and lives out rest of his life with his gf who doesn't believe he was guilty.

I do feel sorry for the daughter to,poor girl.I would want to believe my father to if i was her.:(

But as i say if i was on that jury i would have thought guilty from the small bit of evidence i have read.

And perhaps this is why you have failed to prove he actually intended to kill his wife?

Even if you had all the evidence, chances are you still wouldn't find intent to kill. 10 out of the 12 jurors couldn't, so there's a good chance you wouldn't either.

kraggy · 29-01-2010 08:21PM

I'm late for a dinner party. Not bailing out.

Will return to this tomorrow. Nice evening.

ilovelamp2000 · 29-01-2010 08:24PM

kraggy wrote: »

I think you're the one who doesn't understand the legal technicalities.

Where in your reference does the judge make reference to intent to kill? NOT INTENT TO DO SERIOUS INJURY.

Murder is where the accused had intent to kill, not intent to injure.

You're not getting this at all. Here's the quote again:

“Did he intend to kill or cause serious injury?” he asked. “The prosecution says the natural and probable consequences of blunt force trauma to the head is serious injury.”

The jury don't have to decide between an intention to kill or cause serious injury. Either one of them will suffice to pass the intention part of the test for murder. They don't actually have to find an intention to murder, an intention to seriously injure is enough to allow them to come to a verdict of murder.

If ,as has been reported already, the manslaughter verdict was given because the jury couldn't find the requisite intent then what the jury are effectively saying is that they don't think Eamon Lillis intended to seriously injure his wife when he smashed a brick over her head three times. Which is clearly absurd.

caseyann · 29-01-2010 08:28PM

kraggy wrote: »

And perhaps this is why you have failed to prove he actually intended to kill his wife?

Even if you had all the evidence, chances are you still wouldn't find intent to kill. 10 out of the 12 jurors couldn't, so there's a good chance you wouldn't either.

But this is what i am trying to say to you.He leaned over a woman already fallen to ground bashed her in skull with a brick.I would see that as intent to kill.Any person with normal mind would not continue by picking up a brick and bashing in skull,When said person is on the ground and already injured you would walk away or ring for help.And for drink induced brawls such as there is a lack of sense involved and heightened agression. He was not drunk was he? So he was in full control except his anger.
Yes i would have found intent to kill in that alone.
Means he is dangerous to society also.There is fine line between been capable and doing it.
In the matter if the jury how they couldn't see intent i have no comprehension of how they got there.

caseyann · 29-01-2010 08:29PM

kraggy wrote: »

I'm late for a dinner party. Not bailing out.

Will return to this tomorrow. Nice evening.

Enjoy your dinner party.:)

Eamon Lillis guilty of Manslaughter

Comments