Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dubliner kills two kids and walks free

Options
1…1314151719

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Yellow121 wrote: »
    Someone who was defending this man said he was 20kph over the speed limit earlier. I don't know where he got that from.
    Onto the case, you know just because you think the Hungarian justice system is inept doesn't mean that it exonerates this man. It could be the opposite and they have not prosecuted him with the full evidence against him.
    We don't know for sure what speed he was doing but it's clear that he was going too fast as he lost control when avoiding a car and went up onto the footpath.
    All we know is that the car was tested before this accident twice and nothing was found that would lead to the steering and braking faults. This means that it was driver fault for this accident.
    Whatever you think of the trial the behaviour of this man has been despicable. I know if I was deeply remorseful about something I have done to others, something that caused them pain, then I'd do anything I could to make amends.
    This man has let this drag on for 14 years and tried to get the smallest sentence possible, that is not a sign of remorse. Not even close, no one can make an excuse for that.

    Where did I say inept, please read what I have said and read the evidence, I would rather base my opinion on verifiable information rather than "someone said" but what ever you want yourself.


  • Options
    #483
    Yellow121
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 737 ✭✭✭Yellow121


    infosys wrote: »
    Can you link to that evidence or report that the car was perfect. If the car was perfect why did the court refuse the Defense a chance to inspect it.

    It doesn't say the car was perfect but:
    'The vehicle was fully and regularly serviced at the expense of the appellant’s employers. Apart from this, the appellant had twice taken it to the garage complaining that certain indicators including that relating to the anti-lock braking system (ABS), had lit up without apparent reason. He was assured by the experts that this was an electrical fault only and did not indicate any fault in the functioning of the vehicle.'

    Was the car inspected at all after the incident?


  • Options
    #484
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Yellow121 wrote: »
    It doesn't say the car was perfect but:
    'The vehicle was fully and regularly serviced at the expense of the appellant’s employers. Apart from this, the appellant had twice taken it to the garage complaining that certain indicators including that relating to the anti-lock braking system (ABS), had lit up without apparent reason. He was assured by the experts that this was an electrical fault only and did not indicate any fault in the functioning of the vehicle.'

    Was the car inspected at all after the incident?

    That is my exact point there in no evidence the prosecution examined the car after the incident. But there is evidence that the defense was refused a chance to forensically examined, there is a huge difference between a garage saying there is nothing wrong when a warning light comes on and a expert tearing a car apart and examining it in detail.


  • Options
    #485
    Yellow121
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 737 ✭✭✭Yellow121


    infosys wrote: »
    Where did I say inept, please read what I have said and read the evidence, I would rather base my opinion on verifiable information rather than "someone said" but what ever you want yourself.

    Have you seen the evidence from the trial? I haven't. All we see is the evidence from the Irish supreme court and why they think he shouldn't be extradited.


  • Options
    #486
    Yellow121
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 737 ✭✭✭Yellow121


    infosys wrote: »
    That is my exact point there in no evidence the prosecution examined the car after the incident. But there is evidence that the defense was refused a chance to forensically examined, there is a huge difference between a garage saying there is nothing wrong when a warning light comes on and a expert tearing a car apart and examining it in detail.

    So why do you assume there was something wrong with the car? Why do you assume the garage didn't give it a full check?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Yellow121 wrote: »
    Have you seen the evidence from the trial? I haven't. All we see is the evidence from the Irish supreme court and why they think he shouldn't be extradited.

    That report of the case set out the evidence presented at the trial and the evidence not presented before the court in Hungry. The Hungarian authorities had an opportunity to contradict and assertions made in the Affidavits presented to the Court they did not do so.


  • Options
    #488
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Yellow121 wrote: »
    So why do you assume there was something wrong with the car? Why do you assume the garage didn't give it a full check?

    Again read what I said I did not assume anything I said I have a doubt, based on what evidence the SC say was presented.

    Can people please read what I say and not assume I said X or Y.

    I never said the car was A or B I said here is the evidence, I based on that evidence have a doubt, nothing more or less.


  • Options
    #489
    Yellow121
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 737 ✭✭✭Yellow121


    infosys wrote: »
    That report of the case set out the evidence presented at the trial and the evidence not presented before the court in Hungry. The Hungarian authorities had an opportunity to contradict and assertions made in the Affidavits presented to the Court they did not do so.

    Maybe they didn't feel the need to. They had their own trial and found him guilty.


  • Options
    #490
    Yellow121
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 737 ✭✭✭Yellow121


    infosys wrote: »
    Again read what I said I did not assume anything I said I have a doubt, based on what evidence the SC say was presented.

    Can people please read what I say and not assume I said X or Y.

    I never said the car was A or B I said here is the evidence, I based on that evidence have a doubt, nothing more or less.

    So you think he should have done 3 years in HungAry then?


  • Options
    #491
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Yellow121 wrote: »
    Maybe they didn't feel the need to. They had their own trial and found him guilty.

    So you really think a State would allow lies to be told in the extradition case in the Supreme Court of another country without any contradiction. You accuse me of assumptions!

    Do you know how a case runs in the High Court or Supreme Court, do you know how a European Arrest Warrant case actually works.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Yellow121 wrote: »
    So you think he should have done 3 years in HungAry then?

    Do you think the moon is made of green cheese?

    As I have clearly said I personally have a doubt about the finding of guilt, so do you think I would believe a person whom I have a doubt about his guilt should spend any time in Prison.

    The Birmingham six had a finding of guilt, in the 80's I doubted that verdict like many did, do I think they should have spent any time in custody? What you think?


  • Options
    #493
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Yellow121 wrote: »
    They say they didn't mean it, it was out of character. I wasn't making an analogy. I was making the point that the reason people are giving for excusing this mans killings is that he has had to live with the consequences for 14 years.
    Surely the same can be applied to everyone else who committed a crime?

    I don't think so. There's a clear difference between a deliberate act and an accident.


  • Options
    #494
    Yellow121
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 737 ✭✭✭Yellow121


    infosys wrote: »
    So you really think a State would allow lies to be told in the extradition case in the Supreme Court of another country without any contradiction. You accuse me of assumptions!

    Do you know how a case runs in the High Court or Supreme Court, do you know how a European Arrest Warrant case actually works.

    Usually it's just a criminal trying to protect him/herself in any way they can and they get passed on fairly rapidly. This one turned out differently however.


  • Options
    #495
    Yellow121
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 737 ✭✭✭Yellow121


    infosys wrote: »
    Do you think the moon is made of green cheese?

    As I have clearly said I personally have a doubt about the finding of guilt, so do you think I would believe a person whom I have a doubt about his guilt should spend any time in Prison.

    The Birmingham six had a finding of guilt, in the 80's I doubted that verdict like many did, do I think they should have spent any time in custody? What you think?

    The Birmingham six didn't kill anyone. This man did or are you disputing that now? Maybe the car was driving along by itself.


  • Options
    #496
    Yellow121
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 737 ✭✭✭Yellow121


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    I don't think so. There's a clear difference between a deliberate act and an accident.

    What if they felt really, really, really bad, Would you forgive them then?


  • Options
    #497
    Shakti
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,153 ✭✭✭Shakti


    the dublin guy from dublin who is a dubliner, from dublin did I mention he's from dublin


  • Options
    #498
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Yellow121 wrote: »
    The Birmingham six didn't kill anyone. This man did or are you disputing that now? Maybe the car was driving along by itself.

    Killing someone and been guilty of a crime are two very different things. It is not criminal to kill a person in an accident in this jurisdiction unless certain criteria are satisfied being dangerous or careless driving.

    Otherwise our prisons would be full of drivers.


  • Options
    #499
    Yellow121
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 737 ✭✭✭Yellow121


    infosys wrote: »
    Killing someone and been guilty of a crime are two very different things. It is not criminal to kill a person in an accident in this jurisdiction unless certain criteria are satisfied being dangerous or careless driving.

    Otherwise our prisons would be full of drivers.

    All the evidence points to this man driving carelessly and dangerously.


  • Options
    #500
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Yellow121 wrote: »
    All the evidence points to this man driving carelessly and dangerously.

    Ok please link to the evidence that he did so.


  • Options
    #501
    Yellow121
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 737 ✭✭✭Yellow121


    He was driving along a road, he swerved to pass a car, he went up onto a footpath and ran over two kids. The car was serviced regurly and had been checked to see if there was any steering or braking faults. He was either driving too fast or wasn't concentrating fully on the road. His driving was careless and reckless.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Yellow121 wrote: »
    He was driving along a road, he swerved to pass a car, he went up onto a footpath and ran over two kids. The car was serviced regurly and had been checked to see if there was any steering or braking faults. He was either driving too fast or wasn't concentrating fully on the road. His driving was careless and reckless.

    You don't really understand the difference between evidence and opinion do you. Verifiable evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of dangerous or careless driving please not so difficult you believe it exists then produce a link. You are making an assertion now back it up.

    You have made the following assertion "and had been checked to see if there was any steering or braking faults." Now back it up with evidence, there has been 2 High Court cases and 2 Supreme Court cases in Ireland and two cases in Hungary please produce the evidence to confirm the car was examined by a expert to confirm there was no fault in either steering or braking. There has been 6 public hearings the evidence must be there.


  • Options
    #503
    Yellow121
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 737 ✭✭✭Yellow121


    infosys wrote: »
    You don't really understand the difference between evidence and opinion do you. Verifiable evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of dangerous or careless driving please not so difficult you believe it exists then produce a link. You are making an assertion now back it up.

    You have made the following assertion "and had been checked to see if there was any steering or braking faults." Now back it up with evidence, there has been 2 High Court cases and 2 Supreme Court cases in Ireland and two cases in Hungary please produce the evidence to confirm the car was examined by a expert to confirm there was no fault in either steering or braking. There has been 6 public hearings the evidence must be there.

    We don't have details of the case in Hungary. All we can go on is the evidence that was given by this man here. According to his lawyer, the warning light for the ABS in his car was on and he brought it to two garages. Both garages checked it out and found no fault with the car only an electronic glitch that made the light come on.
    The car never suffered a similar problem before the incident in which two kids were killed. Again according to the mans own lawyer, he had to make an evasive move to avoid a car, he moved towards the right hand lane but lost control and ended up on the footpath.
    This could only be caused by the driver going at excessive speed or he noticed the car too late for whatever reason and lost control while trying to avoid it.
    Now, you're right to point out the difference between evidence and opinion. What I meant to say before was that my posts are my opinion based on the evidence we have seen. Ofcourse we have not seen evidence such as eye witness reports etc.
    What I want to know is how can anyone come to a different conclusion to the one I've described? How can you believe that the one and only time the cars steering and braking failed was when this man killed two children. A bit too convenient don't you think?
    Also the actions of this man since shows he has a distinct lack of remorse for what he has done. He hasn't shown any sympathy for the family who lost their children, prolonging their agony and trying to find any way possible to avoid responsibility.
    This shows the mans character which would add further doubt to the credibility of his story regarding the car. That's the only thing that people defending him are clinging to also. That four cars over a number of years suffered steering and braking problems.
    If you look into any make and model of car you will find faults that has occurred in a number of different cars. This man should have accepted responsibility for his actions and given the victims family some sort of piece. He chose to drag it on and that he's receiving support here is sickening.


  • Options
    #504
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Yellow121 wrote: »
    Also the actions of this man since shows he has a distinct lack of remorse for what he has done. He hasn't shown any sympathy for the family who lost their children, prolonging their agony and trying to find any way possible to avoid responsibility.
    This shows the mans character which would add further doubt to the credibility of his story regarding the car.
    Again, begging the question; circular reasoning. You're saying that because he's trying to defend himself, he must be a horrible person. And because he's a horrible person, his statement (made to defend himself) must be viewed in that light.

    But if the statement is true (which you nor I have any reason to doubt), then he's right to defend himself and is therefore not a horrible person.

    So you've already decided that he's guilty simply for trying to defend himself.

    You'll also note in the judgement, if you bothered to read it, that he has expressed sympathy and condolences. Numerous times. If you think that someone should voluntarily give up and do time and express remorse for something they believe they didn't do, then that's a pretty twisted way of thinking.


  • Options
    #505
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Yellow121 wrote: »
    We don't have details of the case in Hungary. All we can go on is the evidence that was given by this man here. According to his lawyer, the warning light for the ABS in his car was on and he brought it to two garages. Both garages checked it out and found no fault with the car only an electronic glitch that made the light come on.
    The car never suffered a similar problem before the incident in which two kids were killed. Again according to the mans own lawyer, he had to make an evasive move to avoid a car, he moved towards the right hand lane but lost control and ended up on the footpath.
    This could only be caused by the driver going at excessive speed or he noticed the car too late for whatever reason and lost control while trying to avoid it.
    Now, you're right to point out the difference between evidence and opinion. What I meant to say before was that my posts are my opinion based on the evidence we have seen. Ofcourse we have not seen evidence such as eye witness reports etc.
    What I want to know is how can anyone come to a different conclusion to the one I've described? How can you believe that the one and only time the cars steering and braking failed was when this man killed two children. A bit too convenient don't you think?
    Also the actions of this man since shows he has a distinct lack of remorse for what he has done. He hasn't shown any sympathy for the family who lost their children, prolonging their agony and trying to find any way possible to avoid responsibility.
    This shows the mans character which would add further doubt to the credibility of his story regarding the car. That's the only thing that people defending him are clinging to also. That four cars over a number of years suffered steering and braking problems.
    If you look into any make and model of car you will find faults that has occurred in a number of different cars. This man should have accepted responsibility for his actions and given the victims family some sort of piece. He chose to drag it on and that he's receiving support here is sickening.

    It was way more than 4 cars the linked I posted just contained a number of examples but there was many. I again ask was 80kph in excess of the speed limit we know that it was the maximum speed he traveled at but we do not known or have not seen any evidence of the limit. There was 4 witness to the crash who's evidence to the court in hungry was ignored. The 4 witness offered to give evidence again in embassy that was refused. Mr. Tobin served 7 months in custody in ireland when I believe he did not have to, Mr. Tobin returned to Hungary to enter prison with he legally did not have to, mr. Tobin agreed to serve 11 future months in custody in ireland even though he did not have to. His legal team where refused access to the car. I'm not saying he is not guilty I'm saying based on what we actually known the verdict is unsafe. You are saying you trust the verdict, that's fine.


  • Options
    #506
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    seamus wrote: »
    Again, begging the question; circular reasoning. You're saying that because he's trying to defend himself, he must be a horrible person. And because he's a horrible person, his statement (made to defend himself) must be viewed in that light.

    But if the statement is true (which you nor I have any reason to doubt), then he's right to defend himself and is therefore not a horrible person.

    So you've already decided that he's guilty simply for trying to defend himself.

    You'll also note in the judgement, if you bothered to read it, that he has expressed sympathy and condolences. Numerous times. If you think that someone should voluntarily give up and do time and express remorse for something they believe they didn't do, then that's a pretty twisted way of thinking.

    Do you really think most posters on this page have bothered to read any of the judgments or real facts of this case, to educate themselves would mean their world view is exposed as rubbish, we don't want that do we.


  • Options
    #507
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    infosys wrote: »
    It was way more than 4 cars the linked I posted just contained a number of examples but there was many. I again ask was 80kph in excess of the speed limit we know that it was the maximum speed he traveled at but we do not known or have not seen any evidence of the limit.
    I changed a post of mine after I saw that someone had mentioned a 50kph limit in Wikipedia. There's not however, any evidence of such a limit mentioned anywhere, and even looking at the town on Google maps, I can't see a dual carriageway anywhere, so I suspect the wiki article is somewhat incorrect.

    In general I suspect that if such a limit existed, it would be mentioned, either in statements or court documents, or whatever, but it's not. In the absence of information, I think it's safe to assume he wasn't over the limit, otherwise it would be materially important in the documentation.


  • Options
    #508
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    seamus wrote: »
    I changed a post of mine after I saw that someone had mentioned a 50kph limit in Wikipedia. There's not however, any evidence of such a limit mentioned anywhere, and even looking at the town on Google maps, I can't see a dual carriageway anywhere, so I suspect the wiki article is somewhat incorrect.

    In general I suspect that if such a limit existed, it would be mentioned, either in statements or court documents, or whatever, but it's not. In the absence of information, I think it's safe to assume he wasn't over the limit, otherwise it would be materially important in the documentation.

    That's all I'm saying, if there was evidence if speeding,someone some where in all the cases would have provided the evidence, yet it's repeated over and over he was speeding, even though it's Clear from Hardiman's judgement that he did not bieber he was speeding.


  • Options
    #509
    Yellow121
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 737 ✭✭✭Yellow121


    seamus wrote: »
    Again, begging the question; circular reasoning. You're saying that because he's trying to defend himself, he must be a horrible person. And because he's a horrible person, his statement (made to defend himself) must be viewed in that light.

    But if the statement is true (which you nor I have any reason to doubt), then he's right to defend himself and is therefore not a horrible person.

    So you've already decided that he's guilty simply for trying to defend himself.

    You'll also note in the judgement, if you bothered to read it, that he has expressed sympathy and condolences. Numerous times. If you think that someone should voluntarily give up and do time and express remorse for something they believe they didn't do, then that's a pretty twisted way of thinking.

    Have a read of your post there. It's as if he wasn't actually driving the car and has been accused in the wrong! No mention that he killed two children but numerous mentions of him trying to defend himself for "something they believe they didn't do".


  • Options
    #510
    Yellow121
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 737 ✭✭✭Yellow121


    infosys wrote: »
    It was way more than 4 cars the linked I posted just contained a number of examples but there was many. I again ask was 80kph in excess of the speed limit we know that it was the maximum speed he traveled at but we do not known or have not seen any evidence of the limit. There was 4 witness to the crash who's evidence to the court in hungry was ignored. The 4 witness offered to give evidence again in embassy that was refused. Mr. Tobin served 7 months in custody in ireland when I believe he did not have to, Mr. Tobin returned to Hungary to enter prison with he legally did not have to, mr. Tobin agreed to serve 11 future months in custody in ireland even though he did not have to. His legal team where refused access to the car. I'm not saying he is not guilty I'm saying based on what we actually known the verdict is unsafe. You are saying you trust the verdict, that's fine.

    I didn't mention the speed limit in that post. He was driving too fast for the situation he was in or was not concentrating on the roads for whatever reason.
    Where is this did not have to stuff coming from? Did he not get a 3 year sentence from the Hungarian justice system?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Yellow121 wrote: »
    Have a read of your post there. It's as if he wasn't actually driving the car and has been accused in the wrong! No mention that he killed two children but numerous mentions of him trying to defend himself for "something they believe they didn't do".

    Do you even read what you write. I have to shout the following case your not listing. BEING GUILTY OF A CRIME AND HAVING AN ACCIDENT ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. If you think anyone on here is saying he was not driving then you really need to go to specsavers.

    If you get into a car tomorrow, you are driving along a perfect day on the motorway you are traveling at 110 kph the car is in perfect condition, you have just picked car up from NCT. Suddenly and with out warning you have a blowout (let's accept it turns out the tyre was faulty) you crash and 1 person is killed. Are you guilty of any crime.


Advertisement