Eamon Lillis guilty of Manslaughter

rubensni · 29-01-2010 08:30PM

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.

Sorry kraggy, you're wrong in your interpretation.
It's intent to kill OR intent to cause serious injury.

DubMedic · 29-01-2010 08:30PM

kraggy wrote: »

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

Will return to this tomorrow. Nice evening.

Cluedo?.

.

walshb · 29-01-2010 08:31PM

Nobody but nobody apart from Lillis can 100 percent say if he intended to kill.
And, he isn't and didn't admit this. All we can do as observers is hear the evidence. Now, had he hit her one punch and she fell and died, then it's logical to assume that he may not have wanted to kill. BUT, this man hit her THREE times with a solid brick. I fail to see how he had anything BUT murder or intent to seriously injure on his mind.

I mean, if this doesn't sway you, what does. Ten times with the brick. Maybe ten times and ten times with a shovel?

It's ludicrous for anyone to think that smacking a person twice with a solid brick as the person lay flat out, possibly unconscious and of NO threat is anything but intent to kill

Pittens · 29-01-2010 08:36PM

The law generally deals with what a "reasonable man" would assume would happen. Lillis' actual mind cannot be known. If he is not a man of reason then we would be locked up in a psychiatric ward.

if he is sane then is it true that a reasonable man would know that hitting someone three times with a brick could kill?

I can see grounds for Murder not manslaughter. not sure the Jury was well advised.

Locamon · 29-01-2010 08:40PM

for me it was murder ..just because he was so bad at covering up doesn't mean he didn't plan it.. most criminals are pretty stupid thankfully.. sorry for any offence to the criminal community (just in case my personal details are more generally known after the recent security breach here:)) - oh and excuse the pun everyone else:)

cup of tea · 29-01-2010 08:46PM

I was at the case and believe he was very lucky to get manslaughter,especially after the coroners report.I must say his defense was very good a lot of getting away with the murder prosecution was down to him.
To be hit with a brick once....perhaps temporary loss of self control...provokation perhaps could be argued/intention to kill was not there.His wife fell on the floor face down after first blow and was then hit a further two times on the back of the head with a ''blunt object'' i.e the brick(according to coroners report) couple this with the fact that he first lied regarding a burgular....he should have got murder in my opinion.

walshb · 29-01-2010 08:51PM

From what I have read his defence was based on lies and red herrings, but obvioulsy to this jury, that was very good and good enough to acquit for murder.

btw, Jean being allowed a free reign in court to say stuff like, "He wouldn't hurt a fly," definitely helped his case. Even though her testimony wasn't exactly evidence, hearsay completely, it planted the seed in the jury's mind.

Add that with the daughter being allowed to say in court that Lillis was telling the truth when he said it was an argument and that Celine bit his hand etc, is more good for him.

Serioulsy, how would the daughter know if he was telling the truth?

markok84 · 29-01-2010 08:52PM

cup of tea wrote: »

I was at the case and believe he was very lucky to get manslaughter,especially after the coroners report.I must say his defense was very good a lot of getting away with the murder prosecution was down to him.
To be hit with a brick once....perhaps temporary loss of self control...provokation perhaps could be argued/intention to kill was not there.His wife fell on the floor face down after first blow and was then hit a further two times on the back of the head with a ''blunt object'' i.e the brick(according to coroners report) couple this with the fact that he first lied regarding a burgular....he should have got murder in my opinion.

I've asked twice and I've gotten no answer, seeing as you were at the trial you might know, did he confess to hitting her with the brick?

think I'll go get a cup of tea.

Son Of A Vidic · 29-01-2010 08:57PM

I could see it coming, in this country you can rape and murder before you if your a man and virtually walk. Ireland along with the U.K. have amongst the worst conviction and detection rates for rape and sexual crimes in Europe. The 8astard perverted the course of justice, misled the Gardai and changed his story during the trial. Blood spatter patterns on him were not consistent with a man giving his wife CPR. Paramedics indicated her body temperature was colder than it should have been, because he battered the poor woman and left her lying on the ground to die. He then hides his clothes in the attic, you all know the rest. He had the demeanor of a cold heartless 8astard during the trial and his actions toward his wife were the same. I would be nice if he experienced 'justice' himself when he's inside.

dwinkin09 · 29-01-2010 09:49PM

No way!! Been following this since start of case. How can it not be murder?

3 times with a brick- twice as she lay face down suffocating.
Changed + hid clothes b4 any help was called or arrived.
Had a clear motive.
The guy was cheating on his wife and as he described in his "movie plot" he was running out of time and had to act fast as she would be married soon.
He lied to police more than once and changed his story on the day of the trial.
The coroners report?? The woman died face down. The blood splats?
How on earth can you do this and not intend to seriously injure or kill ?
Even if provoked into a fit of rage its not manslaughter. What could she have said or done to him to make him do what he did?
Maybe u would understand after years of SERIOUS abuse that someone could be driven to do something along these lines? Was Celine that bad?

Something stinks here- Who fought the corner of the wife? The state? The police? Once again no justice for the victim or her family and the mistress is given a police escort to and from court!!!When has that ever happened? To protect her dignity i read today. Did she not give up that right when she flipped him over on the massage table? The victims family got no escort + were slapped across the cover of most papers and now the news that their loved ones ex husband will walk in what? 8 years tops?

I hope he sees her every time he shuts his eyes.

Ashamed of our so called "justice system":mad:

humanji · 29-01-2010 09:51PM

What I found disturbing was the daughter being reported to have said "I can forgive him for the murder, but not for the lies." Bit odd, that.

I'm not sure what to make of it all. From the start is sounded like a henpecked husband who just snapped, grabbed what was nearest and lashed out at the wife. But the constant changing of stories and odd texts he was sending, just make him sound like a looney.

humanji · 29-01-2010 09:55PM

dwinkin09 wrote: »

and the mistress is given a police escort to and from court!!!When has that ever happened? To protect her dignity i read today. Did she not give up that right when she flipped him over on the massage table? The victims family got no escort + were slapped across the cover of most papers and now the news that their loved ones ex husband will walk in what? 8 years tops?

Hang on, someone who is guilty of no crime should be plastered across the papers? Why? Just because you're angry about the sentence? Would seeing her really calm you down that much?

dwinkin09 · 29-01-2010 10:00PM

humanji wrote: »

Hang on, someone who is guilty of no crime should be plastered across the papers? Why? Just because you're angry about the sentence? Would seeing her really calm you down that much?

I never said that. I said its a first in this kind of trial and a bit disrespectful to the victims family. Why was she given this special treatment?
And im angry about the verdict not the sentence

humanji · 29-01-2010 10:05PM

She was given that treatment because she asked for it. The family could of done the same.

Eoin · 29-01-2010 10:07PM

Does the 10-2 decision mean that 2 jurors thought it was murder, or that 2 jurors thought he should be acquitted altogether?

He never admitted to hitting her 3 times with the brick incidentally. This is from breakingnews.ie

He said she must have slipped when she followed him out, as he saw her get up out of the corner of his eye. He said she was picking up a brick and rubbing her head, so he presumed she must have banged it. This was his explanation for one of the three lacerations to her head.

He said that she thrust the brick at him and he jabbed her in the shoulders. She took a swipe at him with the brick and it caught him on the side of his face, angering him. He said he tried to grab the brick but his glove fell off and his fingernail was torn. Her face might have been grazed here, he suggested.

He pinned her up against a window, and she "let an almighty scream". He said she possibly banged her head off the window edge, perhaps resulting in another laceration.

And this is how he explains hiding the clothes etc:

He said his wife threw off her rubber gloves. He asked her how they’d explain their scrapes to their daughter, suggesting they tell her they’d disturbed a burglar. His wife was sitting up and agreed with his plan, before telling him to go away.

He said he felt they needed space, put both pairs of gloves into a bin bag, along with kitchen towel he gave his wife for her cut. He then went into the living room to stage a robbery for their daughter’s benefit, taking some camera gear and the bin bag upstairs to his room.

In his room he changed out of his bloodstained clothes and washed his hands. He put the bloodied clothes in the bin bag and hid it in a case in the attic along with the camera gear. He didn’t think the blood would wash out, he explained.

He said that he went back downstairs and saw his wife lying on the patio, unconscious. He couldn’t revive her and dialled 999.

homerjay2005 · 29-01-2010 10:16PM

kraggy wrote: »

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

this i feel, played a massive part in the verdict. provoked or self defence was prooved here in my opinion. he is guilty of killing her, not murder, there is a difference.

Cheap Thrills! · 29-01-2010 10:17PM

His story was a crock.

Likely time of death was 9.30 when the neighbour heard two piercing screams. The 999 call was not until 10 o'clock. Cause of death three blows to the head, wounds that opened her head down to the bone despite her very thick hair. The description of 'moderate force' is technically used when the skull itself is not breached. But she still received three blows which precipitated her death. Death itself was thought to be suffocation and loss of blood. So she didn't die instantly, he worked hard to finish her.

The daughter was in London I believe, quiet morning, detached house, suburban garden.

If it was not intentional, why then did he leave her dying on the decking, half and hour before he called the police. The bull$hit of him resting her head in his lap and then going to hide the clothes. Well, its just ridiculous.

He didn't stop at one blow, he didn't seek help. He lied to the last. He wanted her dead.

I'm not sure the definition of 'intent' was clear to the jury. I do think it was more than merely opportunistic, I think it was a quickly formulated plan but I think it was murder.

conlof · 29-01-2010 10:19PM

dwinkin09 wrote: »

I never said that. I said its a first in this kind of trial and a bit disrespectful to the victims family. Why was she given this special treatment?
And im angry about the verdict not the sentence

All that girl was guilty of was sleeping with a married man. The tabloids would have had a field day with her. They wouldn't have stopped until her life was ruined. The victim's family already had our sympathy and respect

baalthor · 29-01-2010 10:21PM

I think it all came down to the severity of the injuries inflicted by the brick.

The defense argued that if he had hit her with intent to kill or cause serious injury then her injuries would have been much more severe.

Assuming that the jury agreed that her injuries were not severe enough to prove intent, then this would have been the reasonable doubt that meant they couldn't convict him of murder.

This is backed up by the fact that they asked to see the brick again toward the end of deliberations (and I think they asked to see the medical report again?)

limklad · 29-01-2010 10:34PM

caseyann wrote: »

How many Irish men have murdered their wives and children also in some cases.Its becoming shocking

How many women abuse their husbands and children? Physiological (mental and emotional) damage is far more damaging than physical abuse and got away with it! Killing the abuser will remove the abuse, that the mentality of an abused person.

What is interesting that his daughter can forgive him for killing her mother, yet will not forgive him for lying to her. If the mother was caring, why would the daughter forgive the father for killing her mother? Abusers do not come from one gender.

TheZohanS · 29-01-2010 10:34PM

Eamon Lillis was found guilty of manslaughter, not murder.

Do not accuse him of murder.

Kristopherus · 29-01-2010 10:40PM

baalthor wrote: »

I think it all came down to the severity of the injuries inflicted by the brick.

The defense argued that if he had hit her with intent to kill or cause serious injury then her injuries would have been much more severe.

Assuming that the jury agreed that her injuries were not severe enough to prove intent, then this would have been the reasonable doubt that meant they couldn't convict him of murder.

This is backed up by the fact that they asked to see the brick again toward the end of deliberations (and I think they asked to see the medical report again?)

More to the point is that there were no fractures to her head. If, as some posters have said, he smashed her with the brick, then surely there would have been a fracture in some part of her head. Its easy for blood to get all over the brick. when it starts to flow. All in all I think it was a most unfortunate row, but in the end it was a toss-up between murder & manslaughter.

limklad · 29-01-2010 10:47PM

walshb wrote: »

Same I think, BUT, he had a chance to save her and chose not to. He smacked her with a brick three times, that is horrendous, and she lay dying. He lied and lied and lied. She's dead; we only have his word to go on and he has been proven to be be a liar. I think the jury got this wrong big time.

You smack a person with a brick, and then twice more while they are face down, what the **** more do
you need to do to be guilty of murder?

Temporary insanity is enough to do it, especially when domestic Violence is involved. Women do abuse and people do snap after long time when living with abuse.

baalthor · 29-01-2010 10:49PM

Kristopherus wrote: »

More to the point is that there were no fractures to her head. If, as some posters have said, he smashed her with the brick, then surely there would have been a fracture in some part of her head. Its easy for blood to get all over the brick. when it starts to flow. All in all I think it was a most unfortunate row, but in the end it was a toss-up between murder & manslaughter.

I agree, ironically by pointing out how dangerous a brick is, they actually make a case for the defense ..

limklad · 29-01-2010 11:15PM

Dudess wrote: »

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

Do not forget domestic abuse against Children by mothers is also a reality.

limklad · 29-01-2010 11:21PM

Rosco1982 wrote: »

I know it's not what you meant, but I think CaseyAnn is correct. The majority of marital murders are carried out by men.

There's no point in trying to pretend otherwise.

bullingonline wrote:

http://www.bullyonline.org/related/family.htm

Serial bullies can be male or female - the main difference is that female bullies are more devious, more manipulative, more cunning, more sly, more psychological, more subtle, leave less evidence and will often bully with a smile. Female bullies will often manipulate a male into committing their violence for them. Male bullies tend to be less subtle, have a tendency towards physical aggression, and are generally less clever than female bullies. Click here for more information on female violence. Females often display a greater tendency towards attention seeking behaviours.

Women tend to abuse much longer than males, since males kills their victims. I wonder how many of murders of husband killing their wife is actually due to female domestic violence towards their husband.

limklad · 29-01-2010 11:37PM

walshb wrote: »

Nobody but nobody apart from Lillis can 100 percent say if he intended to kill.
And, he isn't and didn't admit this. All we can do as observers is hear the evidence. Now, had he hit her one punch and she fell and died, then it's logical to assume that he may not have wanted to kill. BUT, this man hit her THREE times with a solid brick. I fail to see how he had anything BUT murder or intent to seriously injure on his mind.

I mean, if this doesn't sway you, what does. Ten times with the brick. Maybe ten times and ten times with a shovel?

It's ludicrous for anyone to think that smacking a person twice with a solid brick as the person lay flat out, possibly unconscious and of NO threat is anything but intent to kill

People who been abused often goes insane with their abusers and act like this. It is called temporary insanity, especially when the abusers provoke their victims with more abuse. Until you experience the hell of abuse over a long time, you will never understand it and the shame of your feelings of anger, rage afterwards in retaliation for the abuse to stop, and then lying to cover it up. People snap and hit repeatability over and over again in rage for the abuse to stop.
Remember the case of the woman who repeat her stabbing of her husband often years of abuse by him and she snap and stab him over and over again when he was asleep. Is she guilty of murder?

johnnyskeleton · 29-01-2010 11:44PM

bad2dabone wrote: »

a lucky verdict for him in my opinion.

Wait and see what Mr. Justice Barry White sentences him to before calling him lucky.

omahaid · 29-01-2010 11:45PM

dwinkin09 wrote: »

No way!! Been following this since start of case. How can it not be murder?

LOL

I love the way so many people here think the jury are wrong but they are right

. They obviously made the right verdict of manslaughter.

He should get a heavier sentence for not being honest though

omahaid · 29-01-2010 11:47PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Wait and see what Mr. Justice Barry White sentences him to before calling him lucky.

I have a sneaking suspicion he won't get sentenced more than 5 years.

Eamon Lillis guilty of Manslaughter

Comments