Gangland Shootings in Dublin MOD Warning in Post #1 (updated 29/05/16)

ciapen wrote: »

Aquitted = Not guilty,

So there wasn`t the evidence to say he was involved.

There may not have been the evidence to convict him of an offence, but do you think he was 'involved' ?

just seen that twitter account is saying gareth hutch may have been killed by dissidents he fell out with who were friends with him and ross hutch that there was some sort of facebook fight the night before with threats and counter threats been made back and forth

gangstergossip wrote: »

just seen that twitter account is saying gareth hutch may have been killed by dissidents he fell out with who were friends with him and ross hutch that there was some sort of facebook fight the night before with threats and counter threats been made back and forth

Which twitter account is that ?

eamonnq wrote: »

Which twitter account is that ?

same fella on here who posted the dutch link the night before gareth hutch was killed

refusetolose

man in his 50's released without charge

gangstergossip wrote: »

same fella on here who posted the dutch link the night before gareth hutch was killed

Thought that, but did not see it on that twitter account, (or maybe I have my posters mixed up.)

septictank

refusetolose wrote: »

man in his 50's released without charge

It would be a good time for Patsy to visit the Ring of Kerry and not to hurry back.

Peter Anthony wrote: »

He was acquitted of that.

And of course there's no chance a guilty person would be acquitted in this country.

ciapen wrote: »

Aquitted = Not guilty,

So there wasn`t the evidence to say he was involved.

There is a dozen ways to be acquitted, one of which is not being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. So even if the jury thought he did it, unless they were absolutely certain it was proved, he would be acquitted.

Which does not mean you didn't do it.

Gamebred

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

There is a dozen ways to be acquitted, one of which is not being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. So even if the jury thought he did it, unless they were absolutely certain it was proved, he would be acquitted.

Which does not mean you didn't do it.

You're digging a bigger hole for yourself here let it go.

Coat22 wrote: »

David Byrne hardly lived in Dalkey but did you see his funeral? Where they chose to live has nothing to do with how much they're worth.

Huh - I thought those horses came to the funeral because they were neighbours.

Gamebred wrote: »

You're digging a bigger hole for yourself here let it go.

What hole?

The only hole is pretending that if someone is acquitted of something, they didn't do it. That's the thinking of a child.

Example.

Gamebred

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

What hole?

The only hole is pretending that if someone is acquitted of something, they didn't do it. That's the thinking of a child.

Go out and get some fresh air you're getting very worked up about nothing here.

Gamebred wrote: »

Go out and get some fresh air you're getting very worked up about nothing here.

Well if easily shooting down a silly argument is getting 'very worked up', there wouldn't be much discussion on Boards at all. I note that you have replied every time, so you must be equally worked up.

Coat22

Gamebred wrote: »

You're digging a bigger hole for yourself here let it go.

Gareth Hutch was caught AT THE SCENE of the attempted robbery (well after a chase from the scene if you want to be precise). He was brought to court, charged, given bail and did a legger to the Dam.

He somewhow was aquitted. Can't find anything on why that was but he was aquitted.

I doubt even his uncle would try to claim he wasn't involved in that crime.

Especially when the original post only mentioned that he was 'involved'.

having a part in something : included in something. : actively participating in something. Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary.

Coat22 wrote: »

He somewhow was aquitted. Can't find anything on why that was but he was aquitted.

I doubt even his uncle would try to claim he wasn't involved in that crime.

You have to wonder whether the claim that he was an informant was related to this too.

JustTheOne

Don't buy dissidents.

They seem to be lying low with all the going ons.

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

You have to wonder whether the claim that he was an informant was related to this too.

it depends what he informed on because he did the robbery with family members and i cant see them killing him. I believe the twitter account that it may have been to do with this facebook row he would have been a target for the cartel but the killers were from the area and the house that was raided was only around the corner

[Deleted User]

Coat22 wrote: »

LOL LOL LOL - so you really think these guys have jobs and mortgages to pay? Really?

Yes. I know a university graduate whose brother has been in prison various times for serious crime and the supply of drugs.

The typical middle-aged man from a low socio-economic group in Ireland, e.g. Gerry Hutch, probably has about 100 close relatives, between his siblings, nieces, nephews, and cousins, most of whom have fully grown families.

If you honestly think every single one of them is 'tainted by blood' to be layabouts and scumbags, you're talking rubbish.

It's amazing to me how anybody can decry the lack of civilisation in these gangs' behaviour, whilst simultaneously prattling on with their distinctly uncivilized notion that the sins of one man are to be reproven by punishing his relatives.

It's reminds me of the Old Testament. It doesn't belong in a civilized society, and actually implies some justification on behalf of the Kinehans.

Yes, I do think that plenty of the extended family of Gerry Hutch have jobs and/or mortgages and/or kids in school, which they cannot leave, en masse, at the drop of a hat. Nor should they have to.

Coat22

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Coat22 wrote: »

LOL LOL LOL - so you really think these guys have jobs and mortgages to pay? Really?

Yes. I know a university graduate whose brother has been in prison various times for serious crime and the supply of drugs.

The typical middle-aged man from a low socio-economic group in Ireland, e.g. Gerry Hutch, probably has about 100 close relatives, between his siblings, nieces, nephews, and cousins, most of whom have fully grown families.

If you honestly think every single one of them is 'tainted by blood' to be layabouts and scumbags, you're talking rubbish.

It's amazing to me how anybody can decry the lack of civilisation in these gangs' behaviour, whilst simultaneously prattling on with their distinctly uncivilized notion that the sins of one man are to be reproven by punishing his relatives.

It's reminds me of the Old Testament. It doesn't belong in a civilized society, and actually implies some justification on behalf of the Kinehans.

Yes, I do think that plenty of the extended family of Gerry Hutch have jobs and/or mortgages and/or kids in school, which they cannot leave, en masse, at the drop of a hat. Nor should they have to.

Thats mad Ted

There's some mad stuff on here - lots and lots of mad stuff - but this is one of the maddest

Coat22

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

You have to wonder whether the claim that he was an informant was related to this too.

Its odd - you can find newspaper reports on his initial charge, his return to Ireland and remanding in custoday until Oct 8, 2014 and then nothing - next thing are references this year to him being aquitted but no court reports from the time.

Its like it just "went away"

Coat22 wrote: »

Its odd - you can find newspaper reports on his initial charge, his return to Ireland and remanding in custoday until Oct 8, 2014 and then nothing - next thing are references this year to him being aquitted but no court reports from the time.

Its like it just "went away"

corrupt gardai corrupt media corrupt country we only hear what they want us to hear

tomofson

Coat22 wrote: »

Its odd - you can find newspaper reports on his initial charge, his return to Ireland and remanding in custoday until Oct 8, 2014 and then nothing - next thing are references this year to him being aquitted but no court reports from the time.

Its like it just "went away"

He obviously paid for it to go away, paid with information to the authorities.

[Deleted User]

Coat22 wrote: »

Thats mad Ted

There's some mad stuff on here - lots and lots of mad stuff - but this is one of the maddest

If you said the same thing about one of the central Kinehans, you might have some reason.

But the Hutches are not a gang family on anywhere near that scale. There's no comparison. They don't run some big, international operation. By all media accounts, the Hutches are fairly insignificant.

This is primarily a personal feud, not a competitive one.