Trail wrote: » Especially, Zulu did not seem receptive to anything contradictory to his arguments. Kettle, meet pot.
Trail wrote: » I respect your goal to not engage in a witch hunt. The speed is an important factor. I cannot provide you with an English source that establishes that. Most I can say that quotes from the court documents in Hungarian media, one is one of the two leading newspapers in Hungary, say that it was established by experts that he exceeded the speed limit by almost half of the allowed speed. Do you have any reason to not believe the court, or proof? Somewhere you state you think the court decision was wrong, at least something to that effect. I do not say that the court was infallible - but reasonable doubt exists on its integrity or expertise? I remind you that Hungary as a member of the EU is upheld to some standards in its legal system. It is stated that witnesses saw the car speed for the previous 20-30 kms before the accident. Anything to discredit that? I know you have posted reports on technical faults on this type of car model. It did give me pause. Also, you stated Tobin was not allowed to have it examined by his own expert. I do not know why that might have happened. I think it should be further investigated if true. But the car was examined by experts from the other side. It was established that no technical fault could be detected that could have caused the accident. Some sources say by three independent experts I'm sorry I could not go back to your original post about that (I will try to do that), but seems far-fetched that, all three defections - steering defect, breaking failure, unexplained accelaration - would occure at the same time. I can't help but mention, to your specific question in the post: regardless whether he exceeded the speed limit, he hit the children on the footpath. I think he had no business driving on the footpath (allow me that much emotion on the case). I am no legal expert but I think that he would have had the opportunity to appeal and further argue his case, maybe even go to EU levels if he was not satisfied with the outcome (I freely admit I'm not positively sure of the latter). Also, I would like to say that all my information is just from journalistic accounts, as I am sure yours are too, therefore it is worth what it is worth.
Trail wrote: » Here, just let me comment on two things. I might not use the proper legalese, I am not a lawyer. It is my understanding that the Irish Supreme Court has no right to contest another EU member state's legal court verdict. I don't think it did either. Therefore I don't know what you mean that the judge did not understand the decision and I hope it is not implied that he contested that the verdict was somehow wrongful - that would be misleading. What the Supreme Court did make a decision on was the extradition itself. First it refused extradition because it did not agree with the word "flee" in it. It can be debated that the original Hungarian word was translated inappropriately, but it's useless now. Then it refused extradition on grounds that the appropriate law has no retrospective scope. The second thing is that the Hungarian state is of the opinion that at the moment of his leaving the country Tobin might not have fled in the strict legal meaning of the word, but he is a fugitive now as he refuses to present himself to serve his sentence.
ResearchWill wrote: » There are 4 Irish cases in relation to Mr. Tobin the first set High Court and Supreme Court which did in fact relate to the issue of fleeing, that had nothing to do with translations but the facts surrounding Mr. Tobins exit from Hungry and the State of Irish Law at the Time. The section of the Irish legislation was changed. Then a second warrant was issued and that again went to High Court and Supreme Court it was decided on a couple of legal issues including the flee argument and if Mr. Tobin still got the benefit of the Old law. Justice Hardiman in his judgement set out the history of the case and all trials in both jurisdictions in doing so he set out why he thought there was problems in the trial in Hungry but he did not base his decision on that basis.
Zulu wrote: » It's a dead thread, and I'm loath to respond to a "5 post special" who uses those posts to target other posters, but it's clear you have other motivations. Good luck with your pursuit of "justice".
WileyCoyote wrote: » Tobin is a lowlife coward imo. Hopefully he will get his cumuppance one way or another, one thing is for sure he can never ever leave this juristiction or he will end up in jail in Hungary where he belongs.:mad:
Fuinseog wrote: » You may think its a dead thread, but others do not and I am glad it has not faded away like so many other wrongs in this country. Tobin symbolises just how much a wealthy businessman can get away with in this country and he has brought the Irish people into disrepute.
Arciphel wrote: » I think if he wasn't a chartered accountant from Sutton but maybe an unemployed bricklayer from somewhere less salubrious, he might have been extradited, but I suppose that's just me being cynical. All are equal before the law, but some are more equal than others.
amdublin wrote: » Is he really a "wealthy businessman"?? To me he seems a man with a job A wealthy business man to me would be a CEO of a company or an owner of his own company. To me Toibin is a man with a job??
Iwannahurl wrote: » Who drives through a built up area at 70 km/h? Lots of drivers in this country, that's who....
Ben_Zol wrote: » Here's what I said to reps of the press after the Supreme Court decided to let Tobin walk away free: My name is Bence Zoltai. I came from Budapest Hungary. I will be talking about the Ciaran Tobin case. The following background of this case is from the online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia. On 9 April 2000, Ciarán Tobin, an Irish citizen working as a senior manager of Irish Life and Permanent in Hungary, was driving through the small town of Leányfalu. He was speeding, (I would call it racing), according to the experts he drove his Volvo at least 70-80 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. He lost control of his vehicle, and ran onto the footpath, drove on the footpath a hundred meters without braking. The car hit and immediately killed two children, 2 year old Petra Zoltai who was sitting in a pram, and her brother 5 year old Márton Zoltai. They were waiting on the footpath to cross the crowded street. The whole accident happened so quickly that the grandmother and the aunt of the children had no chance to pull them away. Petra and Márton were my daughter and son. The Hungarian authorities took Tobin’s passport, however some months later, in September 2000 he requested that he get his passport back for a family visit. His request was strongly supported by the Irish Ambassador to Hungary, Mr. Jim Flavin. The Hungarian authorities acted in an unusual promptness, and returned his passport in exchange for a security deposit of 500,000 forints (less than 2000 EURos at that time) within one day of the application. He left, and returned as promised without giving back his passport to the police. Irish Life didn't extend Tobin’s assignment and with his passport in his pocket he returned to Ireland in November 2000. He did not show up for the trial although he promised it before leaving, but was duly represented by his lawyers, which was his own decision. Neither me, nor my lawyer ever had the chance to ask Tobin what really happened in the car before the accident. He was sentenced to 3 years in prison. On appeal the sentence was supplemented so that Tobin can only be paroled after serving at least 18 months. This was later mistranslated and you could read in the newspapers that his sentence was cut to 18 months, which is not true. In 2005 Hungary requested the extradition of Mr. Tobin by issuing a European Arrest Warrant. In 2007, one and a half year after the Arrest Warrant was issued, both the High Court and the Supreme Court of Ireland refused Tobin’s extradition. The justification was astonishing: as Tobin left Hungary with his passport, he did not flee, therefore he could not be extradited. This was the first scandalous decision from the Irish side. In 2009 the law on extradition changed in Ireland (mainly because of this case), and the Hungarian authorities requested the extradition of Mr. Tobin again. This time it took 32 long months for the Irish Courts to decide. High Court decided that Tobin would be extradited whereas the Supreme Court, by a three/two majority, allowed his appeal against that decision last week. In the judgment, one of the 5 judges, Mr. Justice Hardiman said a number of unbelievable reasons to explain the second scandalous decision including: 1. a Hungarian national in similar circumstances could not have been extradited to Ireland because Hungary (according to an EU framework) allows its citizens to serve time at home for sentences imposed on them abroad. Can you see this crazy logic? If a Hungarian can serve the sentence at home, then an Irish can do so, too. Then why is Tobin not in jail in Ireland? Because this way of serving does not exist in Irish law. 2. Judge Hardiman also refused extradition on grounds of contradictory and inconsistent documents from the Hungarian authorities related to the length of sentence Mr. Tobin would have to serve. I simply do not believe this. There may have been incorrect newspaper articles about the length of the sentence, but I saw the Arrest Warrant myself in the Hungarian Ministry with the official, professional translation and that was correct. Anyone saying something else is not saying the truth. 3. What other explanations did Judge Hardiman provide? He said: this case illustrated how a perfectly ordinary person, of good character, can in a moment, and without any intentional or malicious act on his part, become first a suspect, then a convict sentenced to three years in a foreign jail, the judge said. Mr Tobin was pursued for many years on “a number of inconsistent grounds”. I don’t see any inconsistent ground here: Tobin killed my two children, ha was sentenced and he fled from the punishment with the assistance of the Hungarian and Irish authorities. Full stop. 4. Back to the explanations, Hardiman said: The combined effect of this “tragedy” and the impossibility of life as a fugitive for a respectable person led Mr Tobin to offer to serve the three-year sentence – the justice of which, and associated conviction, he had never accepted – providing he could serve it in Ireland, the judge said. This so-called offer was rejected because there was no basis in Irish law for it. Tobin, with the number of well paid lawyers must have known that his offer will be rejected. This is a comedy again. 5. Finally, Mr. Justice Hardiman was very critical of the State’s conduct of the matter and said his concerns included the “grossly abnormal” period of time during which Mr Tobin was under threat of “forcible separation from his family”. This was discreditable to this State and to the Hungarian authorities. Well, what is grossly abnormal in my opinion is MY forcible separation from my children by an irresponsible driver and the queer decisions of the Irish Courts on this issue. This is 12 years’ story in a nutshell. I am not in the position to change this decision. But you, the voice of Ireland have the right to take back the decision making power from judges who proved to be unsuitable and force them to resign. Thank you for your time. I appreciate that you came to listen to me.
ResearchWill wrote: » I do not doubt what you say, I too read the accounts of speeding 20 to 30 mins before the incident. But again I ask (I'm not saying they don't exist) for independent verifiable proof, of speeding just before the accident. It is proven that his experts did not get a chance to examin the car, why? That to me puts in doubt that issue. Mr. Tobin did not decide to drive on a foot path he says he lost control of the Car. While I accept that the System in Hungry is a good and fair system I also accept that like any legal system it can and does make mistakes. The Irish legal system jas decided for various reasons that Mr. Tobin can not be sent to Hungry and that is the current state of the law. I have done no more in this thread than ask questions and put forward theories, all backed with verifiable information.
Trail wrote: » I think mostly we agreed on the extradition explanations. I couldn't help but note though, - after an interesting evolution where you first rationalized that he was not extradited because the SC had not approved of the verdict, then you realized that it had nothing to do with the extradition decision - in one post you implied that Justice Hardiman set out the case in order to not cause an uproar with the "flee" argument. You know, it could have a flavour of making this decision based on other things, and finding a legal loophole for it. He certainly made very interesting comments that do not seem right or impartial, or in line with what his job would have been in this case.
Trail wrote: » What would you accept as independent verifiable proof? A video tape? A witness countersigned account on the internet? A database saying XY street in Z town has a speed limit of this and this? A private investigative agency that examined the scene 12 years ago? I find your request unreasonable (not the reason for it, just that it is not feasible mostly for anyone). You're suspicious, that's ok, but I have an issue with that you mostly present the lack of such a thing as if it is a fact indicating there was no speeding and the courts just made that up. The court papers, after the proper procedure, established that the speed limit was 50kmph at the scene. It is a pretty straightforward thing to establish, I would think, maybe the simplest thing to establish on a scene. You do not accept the courts findings, I cannot add anything further to that. You do not accept the courts saying they found no technical fault in the car, I cannot argue with it if you say you don't. Your point about his own expert is noted, yet at this point unverifiable. I know I commented on him driving on the footpath. It was just to react, that if you don't accept the speeding, it still doesn't matter since he was on the footpath. I know, he said he lost control of the car. That's obvious. I accept that no legal system is perfect, they fail sometimes. That's what other legal avenues are for if someone finds a verdict wrong. Walking away from the process is not acceptable. You said in a post that if a verdict is bad and it can't be fought, it's tyranny. True. Hungary, however, is not a tyranny, he had options. I have to say, you did more here than put forward questions and theories. You said you think he's innocent, it was an accident, and people should not condemn him and that the verdict was a miscarriage of justice and a travesty. Without factual evidence on all that. And I'm arguing with that. I say it in advance, I find your questions reasonable but certainly not conclusive as to his innocence. What I don't find reasonable is that you dismiss anything that indicates Tobin's guilt, while accept anything else that supports your theory of his innocence. I wish you would be more impartial and as strict for your arguments on his innocence to be verifiable: 1. He said it was not his fault. His statement is not verifiable. As an accused, while he can say the truth, it is not unimaginable that he's lying. 2. You have reports that this car make had failures. It is not proven that his car was faulty. It is verifiable in terms that experts examined it and found it not faulty, but you do not accept that. Even if you don't it is still not verifiable that it was faulty. 3. One out of five SC judges stated problems with the trial. He did not say it was a travesty or a miscarriage of justice. It is a leap. He did not have the same insight as his Hungarian counterpart, nor was the information given to him so that he can retry the case (since he shouldn't. maybe he would have received more info etc, if that was the purpose). Having had insight into a number of trials myself, I can say the problems with a trial are the norm. They can be a wide range of anything, that eventually have no baring on the outcome or at best are grounds for further legal actions. I do not discredit his comments, just raising the point that this does not mean the trial was a miscarriage of justice. Therefore the only verifiable information you put forward is reports on other car failures, the rest is speculation on your part. My no more verifiable speculations are, why he is not all over Volvo if a faulty car ruined his life and threatens his freedom, why he spent the last 12 years fighting his extradition, rather on proving his innocence, or even, why his friends in their letters ask forgiveness for speeding, lapse in concentration etc, rather than talk about car failures? Speculation. But interesting. If it comes to that, if you say legal systems are not perfect, you should apply the same caution to the Irish SC and their comments. I also found several inconsistencies throughout your posts as why you think the trial was wrong, mainly due to wrong information. When these were clarified later, that did not seem to have affected your judgment on the case. If you want to be a voice of reason in a "lynching" mob, then what is reasonable is to consider everything impartially, not decide his innocence first and then pick out the information supporting your belief. It is not unreasonable to expect that a someone convicted serve his sentence. It is reasonable, that if you believe he's innocent, than you champion his having all legal options to prove it, not saying "he is in my opinion innocent and let's not condemn him". I'm saying that because you said your issue is that they attack this "innocent" man based on his conviction. Also you may have the right to this opinion, but in civil societies that comes second to a legal verdict. I think it's pretty obvious that most convicted would just as say " it was a bad verdict and I ignore it". Even though I engaged in this debate because I did not wholly agree with your points, what I really want to say, it is not my place to establish his guilt. It is the courts'. Nor do I have all relevant and yes, verifiable, information. Nor do you. Therefore I cannot answer all questions. I go with the verdict, you go with your doubts, founded or unfounded as they are. To the conclusion of this, you'd expect him not to be condemned by the general population in spite of a legal verdict, and I'd expect him to be either in prison or fighting his conviction with the appropriate legal means.
ResearchWill wrote: » Hardiman, did what he did in relation to the hungry conviction, because he knew the media and uninformed people would be upset by the legal decision not to return based on the word flee.
Trail wrote: » Sure.
Fuinseog wrote: » how is it that a Dublin business man who killed two kids aged 5 and two when his car mounted the footpath walks free? it was on both RTE and TV3 and not once was there any expression of remorse for what he did. if that had been Irish kids who had been killed there would be uproar.
