Gardai have no Evidence that he was there but..

Phototoxin · 17-12-2008 6:40pm #1

Watching the news and some guy was acused of the murder of his ex's new fellah. No forensics to show that he was there.. still found guilty... I would ask *how* as no evidence was found. He still *could* have done it but has anyone else got more details ?

[these sorts of things are why I think we should have a criminology forum!]

MarkR · 17-12-2008 6:49pm

Well the ex-girlfriend was there according to the news reports. She was deemed to be a credible witness.

CLADA · 17-12-2008 7:01pm

Along with motive, the text messages and cleansing himself of forensic evidence afterwards.
And that's without knowing what else was put before the jury.

Phototoxin · 17-12-2008 7:24pm

ah text messages the old relaible! Just wondering as the media seemed to say no evidence that he was there. Yet we then hear he is guilty. I hate mass media !

johnnyskeleton · 17-12-2008 10:29pm

Phototoxin wrote: »

ah text messages the old relaible! Just wondering as the media seemed to say no evidence that he was there. Yet we then hear he is guilty. I hate mass media !

They said there is no forensic evidence rather than no evidence. As MarkR says there was an eyewitness, and her account is evidence:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1217/cambridgek.html

rte.ie wrote:

Ms Shanahan told the court that Freiberg entered her house through the back door in the early hours of the morning and stabbed Kieran Cambridge who was in bed at the time.

Freiberg had denied the murder, his lawyers said there was no forensic evidence to link him to the scene and accused the main witness of lying.

There is no requirement for scientific evidence in a criminal trial, and the jury are entitled to convict on the basis of oral testimony only. By the same token though, the absence of forensic science evidence is enough for them to have a reasonable doubt, but they were obviously satisfied by the oral evidence.

RandolphEsq · 17-12-2008 11:55pm

It is a question of ''reasonably doubt''. Are the jury lingering on a certain issue with what they have been told and is it enough to constitute a reasonable case of doubt

Phototoxin · 18-12-2008 2:11am

firstly forensic evidence =/= scientific evidence. Forensic means that it is applicable to court strictly speaking. Still the witness of his ex may not have been as reliable as clearly they had disputes.

secondly given the 'csi effect' I would be surprised if there was no scientific evidnece, must have been a good prosecutor - the defence should have raise the issue of a voilent stabbing / blood etc and yet nothing linking him to the scene... would have raised issues of doubt I'd imagine.

Looks to me though like he probably did it despite proof and they went with guilty.

Dades · 18-12-2008 12:13pm

Phototoxin wrote: »

Looks to me though like he probably did it despite proof and they went with guilty.

Looks to me like you don't have all the details of the case or an idea of what evidence the jury heard.

I've no issue with you having an opinion either way on the guilt of the accused without all the facts, but let's be clear - you are not in a position to 'judge' the jury who heard all the facts and made their decision accordingly.

Phototoxin · 18-12-2008 6:33pm

I am well aware of that having studied criminology.

In regards to him 'probably' doing it if he was found guilty then it is quite possible that he did. I just would like the media coverage to be more thorough.

Also if his sentence is overturned in an appeal would you then stand by saying that the had jury heard *all* the facts? Sometimes not all the facts emerge in a courtroom.

asdasd · 18-12-2008 6:38pm

Also if his sentence is overturned in the appeal would you then stand by saying that the had jury heard *all* the facts? Sometimes not all the facts emerge in a courtroom.

who knows. The facts as I know them are

1) He sent threathening texts about the new bf to the ex, including threathening to come over and hurt one or both of them, on the night it happened.
2) She says he did it.

Can see why she would make this up. Or how it otherwise may have transpired.

As for forensics, meh. Had a good wash.

Dades · 18-12-2008 7:07pm

Phototoxin wrote: »

Also if his sentence is overturned in an appeal would you then stand by saying that the had jury heard *all* the facts? Sometimes not all the facts emerge in a courtroom.

When I say all the facts - I mean all the facts as put forward by the prosecution, of which I'm sure this thread is missing a lot.

I just don't believe anyone should infer doubt on a conviction unless they are in possession of the same, or more facts than the convicting jury.

Of course if his sentence was overturned it would indicate the evidence was insufficient. But currently there's no reason to think it will be, so the idea is 'moot' (that harks back to my Law School days

).

Phototoxin · 19-12-2008 2:06pm

1) He sent threathening texts about the new bf to the ex, including threathening to come over and hurt one or both of them, on the night it happened.
2) She says he did it.

Can see why she would make this up. Or how it otherwise may have transpired.

thats sherlock holmes logic.. there are lots of possiblities. A Crazy serial killer could have done it. The odds of it happeneing are probably very small though =p

johnnyskeleton · 19-12-2008 10:01pm

Phototoxin wrote: »

firstly forensic evidence =/= scientific evidence. Forensic means that it is applicable to court strictly speaking. Still the witness of his ex may not have been as reliable as clearly they had disputes.

Forensic means legal, and it annoys me too when the papers use "forensic" to mean "forensic science". However, I was merely repeating what was in the article (as you said that there was no evidence).

Re: the ex's evidence, clearly the jury found her to be reliable. It's a jury's job to make decisions on these things.

Phototoxin wrote: »

secondly given the 'csi effect' I would be surprised if there was no scientific evidnece, must have been a good prosecutor - the defence should have raise the issue of a voilent stabbing / blood etc and yet nothing linking him to the scene... would have raised issues of doubt I'd imagine.

Irish investigations are not always as thorough as you might like. It's also possible that there was scientific evidence but it did not indicate the accused was guilty so the prosecution ignored it. It sounds like the defence did exactly as you say - they said there was no scientific evidence linking him to the scene.

Phototoxin wrote: »

Looks to me though like he probably did it despite proof and they went with guilty.

Oral evidence is the primary type of proof in Irish courts, and scientific evidence is usually just supporting evidence.

Phototoxin · 29-12-2008 8:02pm

Forensic means legal, and it annoys me too when the papers use "forensic" to mean "forensic science". However, I was merely repeating what was in the article (as you said that there was no evidence).

amen, but on tv they said no forensic evidence. I took that (possibly stupidly) as no evidence that they could use for court.

Re: the ex's evidence, clearly the jury found her to be reliable. It's a jury's job to make decisions on these things.

I do wonder if she actually *seen* it though..[personal curiously as opposed to dissing the jury]

johnnyskeleton · 29-12-2008 11:31pm

Phototoxin wrote: »

amen, but on tv they said no forensic evidence. I took that (possibly stupidly) as no evidence that they could use for court.

If there was no evidence at all the trial judge would have withdrawn it from the jury, however, this wouldn't happen in reality as the DPP would seek to enter a nolle prosequi before that happens.

Phototoxin wrote: »

I do wonder if she actually *seen* it though..[personal curiously as opposed to dissing the jury]

If she didn't it would have come out in cross examination.

CDfm · 29-12-2008 11:58pm

Phototoxin wrote: »

amen, but on tv they said no forensic evidence. I took that (possibly stupidly) as no evidence that they could use for court.

I do wonder if she actually *seen* it though..[personal curiously as opposed to dissing the jury]

I wonder at some of these cases.

Lots of people make threats but dont act on them. But it does seem that very flimsy evidence is used to secure a conviction.

In the case of women the partner/husband/ex is the first arrested.Why wasnt the gf arrested. It seems bizzare.

I am often unsure that when the evidence doesnt prove it that the jury convicts based on "emotional" issues -so I am thinking the Birmingham Six and the Kisko cases in the UK. The "ah sure -he wouldnt be on trial if he wasnt guilty". I often wonder if the same verdicts would be reached if the death penalty was in use.

I have always been concerned at the lack of a conviction of the two women (wife and employee) of the chip shop owner who was shotgunned in Dublin. The use of the spousal abuse defense as a legal tactic etc means that trials have become formulatic rather than factual.

Maybe I am being sceptical but we cant be sure if best practice is being followed - burden of proof and reasonable doubt is applied .I have my doubts that it is.

johnnyskeleton · 30-12-2008 1:36am

CDfm wrote: »

Lots of people make threats but dont act on them. But it does seem that very flimsy evidence is used to secure a conviction.

My understanding from the newspaper reports is that she was there and actually witnessed it. If the jury believed her then it was not flimsy evidence but rather the best kind of evidence in the Irish legal system.

CDfm · 30-12-2008 1:46am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

My understanding from the newspaper reports is that she was there and actually witnessed it. If the jury believed her then it was not flimsy evidence but rather the best kind of evidence in the Irish legal system.

Two people and a corpse - she says he did it - he says he didnt - best evidence Huh?

johnnyskeleton · 30-12-2008 3:24am

CDfm wrote: »

Two people and a corpse - she says he did it - he says he didnt - best evidence Huh?

As much as I cherish the right against self incrimination, she gave sworn oral evidence before a jury and he didn't.

In any event, it's not a case of her v. him, it's a case of the state v. him, and the state's trump card is an eye witness at the scene who says that he did it. Since it is rare for a murder case to have a direct eye witness, i'd say the case is pretty strong. It's a different kettle of fish when you look at some of the high profile wife murders that have been tried of late. They have little more than "come on, of course he did it" but yet 2 out of 3 juries agreed that he did do it.

Personally, I would love to see a much greater level of scientific analysis of crime scenes and of the cadaver. Some people have spent their lives studying bloodstains and these things can often be the making of a case. I suspect that the gardai don't do much of this, partly because of funding, partly because it's a lot of effort, but mostly because it might mean that in a fair few cases it will be enough for the defence to raise a doubt. Hence, as little science as possible seems to be the mantra.

Phototoxin · 30-12-2008 3:29am

My understanding from the newspaper reports is that she was there and actually witnessed it. If the jury believed her then it was not flimsy evidence but rather the best kind of evidence in the Irish legal system.

In any event, it's not a case of her v. him, it's a case of the state v. him, and the state's trump card is an eye witness at the scene who says that he did it. Since it is rare for a murder case to have a direct eye witness, i'd say the case is pretty strong. It's a different kettle of fish when you look at some of the high profile wife murders that have been tried of late. They have little more than "come on, of course he did it" but yet 2 out of 3 juries agreed that he did do it.

shes his ex.. she could have ulterior motive .. get him out of her life.. maybe he did kill the bf but she didnt see but thought oh it must have been him..

then again if he DID kill the BF infront of the ex then he was a DOPE and deserves to be in jail to protect the genepool

johnnyskeleton · 30-12-2008 3:56am

Phototoxin wrote: »

shes his ex.. she could have ulterior motive .. get him out of her life.. maybe he did kill the bf but she didnt see but thought oh it must have been him..

That's the whole point of a trial by jury.

CDfm · 30-12-2008 7:55pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's the whole point of a trial by jury.

its also the point of reasonable doubt

johnnyskeleton · 30-12-2008 9:45pm

CDfm wrote: »

its also the point of reasonable doubt

Exactly, and unless the jury were improperly charged, they had no reasonable doubt. Thus justice is served.

CDfm · 31-12-2008 1:55am

I dont have confidence in the current system - its become very theoretical for me. I agree with the OP.

I have my doubts -and even if realeased on appeal the guys life is messed up.

There should be doubt with uncoloborated testimony.

I am also very confused how guys suddenly develop the skills to clean away all traces of forensic evidence. Where do the acquire these skills from.Are there night courses.

johnnyskeleton · 02-01-2009 1:49am

CDfm wrote: »

There should be doubt with uncoloborated testimony.

Effectively, if this were the law, then a massive amount if not most cases would result in an acquittal because they are mostly based on uncorroborated oral evidence or an uncorroborated confession.

There are certain categories of witnesses which require a corroboration warning - i.e. the jury are told to be more sceptical than usual if they don't think there is any corroboration. This used to be mandatory for all rape cases, which was a bad idea, and now it is optional. The modern trend seems to be away from giving a corroboration warning. The big problem with a lot of cases is that they are based almost entirely on oral evidence not because of investigative laziness (although this does happen) but because there simply isn't any other evidence. Most assaults, rapes etc take place with no one but the accused and the complainant present. This is made worse when it is murder because there isn't even a complainant to give their evidence.

I agree that we need to have more scientific testing and evidence gathering, but it isn't the be all and end all of cases if there is no scientific evidence.

sceptre · 02-01-2009 1:57am

Phototoxin wrote: »

thats sherlock holmes logic.. there are lots of possiblities. A Crazy serial killer could have done it. The odds of it happeneing are probably very small though =p

Ah, the one-armed man defence.

PCPhoto · 02-01-2009 2:03am

honestly .... do people not actually read about these cases before posting.... from the evidence heard in court .... the couple split up (accused and main witness) ... she got a new guy, he texts her saying something along the lines of I'm comin over and somethings gonna happen..... he turns up , kills new BF - goes on trial and gets jailed.

Case dismissed .... Next !!

Gardai have no Evidence that he was there but..

Comments