Regency Hotel shooting trial collapses following Detective Superintendent's suicide

Wheeliebin30 · 20-02-2019 10:54pm

I can’t read between the lines here.

He killed himself, it’s as simple as that or else spill the beans.

hatrickpatrick · 20-02-2019 10:54pm

My issue with the index is the phrase "The CPI generally defines corruption as "the misuse of public power for private benefit"" - does this logically include actions taken not for persona benefit, but for that of a friend, colleague or associate? Most corruption in Ireland isn't related to private gain but to cronyism.

Macdarack · 20-02-2019 11:01pm

If a case can collapse because the lead detective dies, then if you are charged with a murder and you organise to kill the lead detective do you get away with it?
How can this case not be picked up by another detective?
Also the family of Byrne giving out about justice not being served tfor their scumbag son who was a suspect in another murder pisses me off, how dare they demand justice.

20-02-2019 11:02pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I can’t read between the lines here.

He killed himself, it’s as simple as that or else spill the beans.

I am relatively unfamiliar with this story, but it's being openly implied in the thread that 'the bad guys' threatened the detective that they'd do harm to his family, presumably if he didn't collapse the case intentionally, and he presumably felt too much pressure and figured this was the way to go (suicide).

But again, I'm not clued in.

However, should that be the case, I see no reason why this suicide shouldn't be a major ongoing concern nationally. If I can threaten to murder/rape/whatever a Garda's family, and actually get away with it, we're in major trouble.

Don't get me wrong, An Garda Siochana has been a generally useless service for all of my lifetime of interaction with them (I'm 30). Individually, nice people, but collectively, they're more of a farce than a force.

Policing is one thing this country just can't seem to get right at all, and has never really tried to, either. Annoyingly, if low-level and trivial crimes were dealt with (and I don't mean no car tax) severely, you'd probably filter out a lot of the big issues in a few years if people were afraid to get involved in major crime.

But as we know, unless you kill or rape (or cheat the tax man) you don't get punished in this country, and when you do, it's usually fairly minor punishment.

hatrickpatrick · 20-02-2019 11:06pm

Macdarack wrote: »

If a case can collapse because the lead detective dies, then if you are charged with a murder and you organise to kill the lead detective do you get away with it?
How can this case not be picked up by another detective?
Also the family of Byrne giving out about justice not being served tfor their scumbag son who was a suspect in another murder pisses me off, how dare they demand justice.

The issue isn't the lead detective's death, it's the notes he wrote prior to his death and his communications with others which seem to point to some kind of wrongdoing on the part of the investigating Gardaí. People should go back and read the articles published in the weeks prior to his death about why the trial was stalling - it would appear that The Gardaí either intentionally or incompetently f*cked up the procedure by which Hutch was identified from photographs - the identification which would have justified their subsequently charging him, holding him for extra questioning, getting warrants to search his house, etc. If the basis for that probable cause was inherently rule-breaking, then everything they collected in evidence including statements from the accused would be considered inadmissible in court.

What seems to have happened is that during the blind identification process - where multiple Gardaí are required to independently identify the accused from footage taken at the scene of the crime - the Gardaí involved spoke to eachother or prompted eachother with the suggestion that it was Hutch, so the identification process wasn't truly "blind". If this was the case, then everything which was collected on foot of this probable cause - any arrests made, any warrants against the accused, any searches of his property, etc - was illegal, and is therefore not admissible in court in any form whatsoever.

I suspect that Supt. Fox shot himself either because he was being bullied into going along with this, or because he couldn't live with having been involved of his own free will - or because he knew that the case would collapse once this issue was discovered and raised in court by the defence, which happened just weeks prior to his death.

n!ghtmancometh · 20-02-2019 11:09pm

They accepted the two detective's ID, the court case stalled after the DS's suicide. Obviously something involved with that came to light and the DPP felt they couldn't continue with the prosecution. Wouldn't speculate anything beyond that at this point.

Macdarack · 20-02-2019 11:09pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The issue isn't the lead detective's death, it's the notes he wrote prior to his death and his communications with others which seem to point to some kind of wrongdoing on the part of the investigating Gardaí. People should go back and read the articles published in the weeks prior to his death about why the trial was stalling - it would appear that The Gardaí either intentionally or incompetently f*cked up the procedure by which Hutch was identified from photographs - the identification which would have justified their subsequently charging him, holding him for extra questioning, getting warrants to search his house, etc. If the basis for that probable cause was inherently rule-breaking, then everything they collected in evidence including statements from the accused would be considered inadmissible in court.

What seems to have happened is that during the blind identification process - where multiple Gardaí are required to independently identify the accused from footage taken at the scene of the crime - the Gardaí involved spoke to eachother or prompted eachother with the suggestion that it was Hutch, so the identification process wasn't truly "blind". If this was the case, then everything which was collected on foot of this probable cause - any arrests made, any warrants against the accused, any searches of his property, etc - was illegal, and is therefore not admissible in court in any form whatsoever.

I suspect that Supt. Fox shot himself either because he was being bullied into going along with this, or because he couldn't live with having been involved of his own free will - or because he knew that the case would collapse once this issue was discovered and raised in court by the defence, which happened just weeks prior to his death.

Thanks for that, retrial?

Wheeliebin30 · 20-02-2019 11:09pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The issue isn't the lead detective's death, it's the notes he wrote prior to his death and his communications with others which seem to point to some kind of wrongdoing on the part of the investigating Gardaí. People should go back and read the articles published in the weeks prior to his death about why the trial was stalling - it would appear that The Gardaí either intentionally or incompetently f*cked up the procedure by which Hutch was identified from photographs - the identification which would have justified their subsequently charging him, holding him for extra questioning, getting warrants to search his house, etc. If the basis for that probable cause was inherently rule-breaking, then everything they collected in evidence including statements from the accused would be considered inadmissible in court.

What seems to have happened is that during the blind identification process - where multiple Gardaí are required to independently identify the accused from footage taken at the scene of the crime - the Gardaí involved spoke to eachother or prompted eachother with the suggestion that it was Hutch, so the identification process wasn't truly "blind". If this was the case, then everything which was collected on foot of this probable cause - any arrests made, any warrants against the accused, any searches of his property, etc - was illegal, and is therefore not admissible in court in any form whatsoever.

I suspect that Supt. Fox shot himself either because he was being bullied into going along with this, or because he couldn't live with having been involved of his own free will - or because he knew that the case would collapse once this issue was discovered and raised in court by the defence, which happened just weeks prior to his death.

Good theory, hardly a huge conspiracy like we have been told.

Just a cock up.

hatrickpatrick · 20-02-2019 11:12pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Good theory, hardly a huge conspiracy like we have been told.

Just a cock up.

I suspect the allegation is that it was done on purpose, that they intentionally tried to build an illegitimate case against him a la Ian Bailey.

Wheeliebin30 · 20-02-2019 11:14pm

I can’t understand how the Garda aren’t allowed ask each other if they recognize Mr X from a photo??

If they do it will collapse a trial??

Like in a station they cant ask in front of other garda is that Mr X.

Madness.

buried · 20-02-2019 11:14pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Good theory, hardly a huge conspiracy like we have been told.

Just a cock up.

Ahhh yeah just another cock up after the 50,000 other ones to go along with it, no problem

PingTing comes for Fire · 20-02-2019 11:29pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I can’t understand how the Garda aren’t allowed ask each other if they recognize Mr X from a photo??

If they do it will collapse a trial??

Like in a station they cant ask in front of other garda is that Mr X.

Madness.

Before a trial ever begins the prosecution must disclose to the defense all the evidence that it will use. This would include the written statements of the various gardai who identified the accused. One such statement might involve cop 1 saying that on a particular day somebody handed him a photo and said 'recognise anyone?' and he immediately recognised a man who he had known for a number of years and had dealings with i.e the accused. And that identification was noted.

According the speculation in the previous posts the theory being that mobile phone messages and emails might contradict that statement as to how and when cop1 came to see the photo and what might have been said to him in advance.

That's just a theory mind but that would be the logic of how a case could fall on even such a small discrepency like the id.

STB. · 20-02-2019 11:31pm

n!ghtmancometh wrote: »

They accepted the two detective's ID, the court case stalled after the DS's suicide. Obviously something involved with that came to light and the DPP felt they couldn't continue with the prosecution. Wouldn't speculate anything beyond that at this point.

No. The case stalled after request for and the trawl through thousands of emails, and the narrowing down to four named members of Gardai, and finally the disclosure by the prosecution of the emails between four gardaí.

jon1981 · 20-02-2019 11:44pm

Fair to say the hutch solicitor was on his A game here in pursuing this tactic to collapse the trial?

kippy · 20-02-2019 11:47pm

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Gardai, Army, Housing, Health, Justice System, Politics are all a joke in this country.

My mam has pestered me for 8 months now that my own son is born, to get out of here quick. I fear she may be right more and more every day

The grass is always greener......

Macdarack · 20-02-2019 11:47pm

Flat cap Murray seemed to be easily recognised in the photo after the shooting, I know he died from an illness but how was he not in custody following the murder, was he in hiding?

hatrickpatrick · 20-02-2019 11:51pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I can’t understand how the Garda aren’t allowed ask each other if they recognize Mr X from a photo??

If they do it will collapse a trial??

Like in a station they cant ask in front of other garda is that Mr X.

Madness.

If they want to use such an identification as the sole evidence to get a warrant, or a charge, or an extension to an initial detention for questioning, the identification has to be corroborated by another Garda in order to be considered enough evidence to proceed with warrant-requiring enquiries.

If this process was compromised by intentionally leading eachother or prompting eachother, then any warrants or questioning acquired on the basis of this evidence would become illegal and therefore inadmissible in court.

Wombatman · 20-02-2019 11:52pm

The gardaí were conspicuously absent on the day of the Regency shooting. There where journos all over the place, almost expecting something to go down. I think the emails under review may contain damning info as to why the gardaí were "stood down" on the day.

jon1981 · 20-02-2019 11:54pm

Wombatman wrote: »

The gardaí were conspicuously absent on the day of the Regency shooting. There where journos all over the place, almost expecting something to go down. I think the emails under review may contain damning info as to why the gardaí were "stood down" on the day.

Ah here!

Franz Von Peppercorn · 20-02-2019 11:56pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I suspect the allegation is that it was done on purpose, that they intentionally tried to build an illegitimate case against him a la Ian Bailey.

I’m finding that hard to believe. Can you definitely point to any point in the case where the judges threw that evidence out.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 20-02-2019 11:59pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If they want to use such an identification as the sole evidence to get a warrant, or a charge, or an extension to an initial detention for questioning, the identification has to be corroborated by another Garda in order to be considered enough evidence to proceed with warrant-requiring enquiries.

If this process was compromised by intentionally leading eachother or prompting eachother, then any warrants or questioning acquired on the basis of this evidence would become illegal and therefore inadmissible in court.

Are you sure that applies to photos? Are you saying that every cop has to shut up about a person in a photo until they are taken into seperate rooms for a seperate debrief. Even if the photos were online.

What you are describing seems more related to how lineups are handled with non police witnesses.

STB. · 21-02-2019 12:00am

Macdarack wrote: »

Flat cap Murray seemed to be easily recognised in the photo after the shooting, I know he died from an illness but how was he not in custody following the murder, was he in hiding?

He was arrested and in custody in Northern Ireland in September 2016 on foot of a European Arrest Warrant which also sought his extradition to ROI.

He got bail in late January 2017 as it was revealed he had motor neuron disease. A NI judge stopped the extradition in May when it transpired that the suspect was dying. He died a few months later in August.

buried · 21-02-2019 12:04am

This is what you get after continuous decades of total absolute cluster **** ups concerning the realm of "Justice". Nobody believes what anyone is saying. Great for selling trash papers and news broadcasts. Not so f**king great for whats left of a supposedly 'civil society' now is it?

dundalkfc10 · 21-02-2019 12:04am

partyguinness wrote: »

Really...so why did she come back if it so rubbish in Ireland.

Did she actually live there for a decent period of time or was just a travelling thing.

She left at 17 many years ago when she fell pregnant first (ran away basically so her parents wouldn’t make her get rid) and returned in 1990 when getting a good job in Dundalk.

It’s a horrible country to live in. I live with my girlfriend both earning 30,000 (I work every Sat aswell overtime to reach 30,000) with 1 kid. We have less disposable income than our neighbours who neither have a job, HAP pay there house, free childcare, free prams etc off the social etc...

Then you see scum like this clown laughing at us after murdering someone as he walks free

hatrickpatrick · 21-02-2019 12:16am

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I’m finding that hard to believe. Can you definitely point to any point in the case where the judges threw that evidence out.

Judge Brian Curtin walked free because a warrant used to search his house was out of date, even though they did find the evidence they were looking for. The courts take these procedural matters extremely seriously.

Dante7 · 21-02-2019 12:18am

It's not just a procedural cock-up. If it was simply that, he would have been immediately rearrested. The DPP requested that a nolle prosequi be entered. This allows for an accused to be rearrested and charged again. However, it is unlikely that Hutch will ever be brought to trial again. The evidence is there, but the revelations will be too unpalatable.

hatrickpatrick · 21-02-2019 12:18am

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Are you sure that applies to photos? Are you saying that every cop has to shut up about a person in a photo until they are taken into seperate rooms for a seperate debrief. Even if the photos were online.

What you are describing seems more related to how lineups are handled with non police witnesses.

I think if they're going to go to a judge or the DPP and say "our evidence for requesting a warrant / charge against this person consists solely of this photo identification", it does very strictly have to be two individual Gardaí who have not discussed the photo prior to identifying the accused. Otherwise a garda could stitch up someone I didn't like by asking a colleague to back him or her up on the identification, even though the other person has no idea who's in the photo. You cannot regard the hearsay of one Garda as 'probable cause', probable cause has to be based on more than that, hence the requirement for multiple independent Gardaí to arrive at the same conclusion.

It's to prevent abuse of power and personal vendettas.

EDIT: I think the important point that people are missing is that if any step in the procedure to get a warrant, an extension of custody time to question a person, or a charge, has been corrupted, mishandled or screwed up, then everything which directly follows it becomes inadmissible in court. So for instance if they search my house on foot of a warrant which was obtained using false information, it doesn't matter if they find 50kg of heroin and a sub machine gun under my mattress, all of that is inadmissible in court because the fundamental basis of searching me in the first place was illegitimate. It sounds pedantic, but it's there to ensure that it's harder to frame individuals for things they didn't do.

Here we go · 21-02-2019 12:26am

Absolute joke there was a picture on the front of every paper day's after and again today. And they can't prosacute its a joke.

FishOnABike · 21-02-2019 12:31am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Judge Brian Curtin walked free because a warrant used to search his house was out of date, even though they did find the evidence they were looking for. The courts take these procedural matters extremely seriously.

When it suits them.

hatrickpatrick · 21-02-2019 12:34am

FishOnABike wrote: »

When it suits them.

In fairness, can you think of a case in which a breaking of rules like this occurred and the case was allowed to use tainted evidence anyway?

Dante7 · 21-02-2019 12:43am

The GSOC investigation will be a whitewash. They are a toothless organisation. When they tried to raise awareness about how they were being spied on, they were comprehensively put in their place.

wersal gummage · 21-02-2019 12:51am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

EDIT: I think the important point that people are missing is that if any step in the procedure to get a warrant, an extension of custody time to question a person, or a charge, has been corrupted, mishandled or screwed up, then everything which directly follows it becomes inadmissible in court

I understood that the Supreme Court somewhat relaxed that approach with the JC judgement in 2015 when introducing the principle of inadvertence?

Franz Von Peppercorn · 21-02-2019 12:56am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Judge Brian Curtin walked free because a warrant used to search his house was out of date, even though they did find the evidence they were looking for. The courts take these procedural matters extremely seriously.

I think we all know the judge there didn’t want to lock up a fellow judge. The warrant wasn’t out of date.

You haven’t proven your point. If two cops are looking at a cctv camera and both see Johnny the Robber on the screen and both recognise him at the same time, are you saying that they then have to remain silent until they are taken to seperate rooms to say it was Johnny the robber.

There’s far more going on here than the Irish judiciary, as incompetent as it is, throwing out a case based on procedural violations. In fact, they didn’t. The state decided to not prosecute.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 21-02-2019 1:04am

The Irish times report confirms this.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/photos-were-key-evidence-in-hutch-trial-but-did-not-cause-case-to-collapse-1.3800840?mode=amp

At the bottom.

Michael O’Higgins SC, for Patrick Hutch, mounted legal argument in a bid to stop the photographs being admitted as evidence because the way the images were handled, he claimed, was very poor and marked by no record keeping.

He argued the Hutch family were being linked to the shooting and that the two Garda members knew Patrick Hutch better than other family members. This, he believed, meant it was more likely they would name Patrick Hutch rather than another family member.

However, Mr Justice Tony Hunt, presiding at the three-judge court, ruled the images should be admitted as evidence.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 21-02-2019 1:05am

Dante7 wrote: »

The GSOC investigation will be a whitewash. They are a toothless organisation. When they tried to raise awareness about how they were being spied on, they were comprehensively put in their place.

The GSOC need Adrian Dunbar to step up.

Dante7 · 21-02-2019 1:09am

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The Irish times report confirms this.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/photos-were-key-evidence-in-hutch-trial-but-did-not-cause-case-to-collapse-1.3800840?mode=amp

At the bottom.

Michael O’Higgins SC, for Patrick Hutch, mounted legal argument in a bid to stop the photographs being admitted as evidence because the way the images were handled, he claimed, was very poor and marked by no record keeping.

He argued the Hutch family were being linked to the shooting and that the two Garda members knew Patrick Hutch better than other family members. This, he believed, meant it was more likely they would name Patrick Hutch rather than another family member.

However, Mr Justice Tony Hunt, presiding at the three-judge court, ruled the images should be admitted as evidence.

And then the investigating officer shot himself in the head.

FFS.

branie2 · 21-02-2019 1:12am

Scandal

FishOnABike · 21-02-2019 1:22am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In fairness, can you think of a case in which a breaking of rules like this occurred and the case was allowed to use tainted evidence anyway?

It may be down to how different judges run their courts but it would appear some can be almost pedantic in their application of court rules / procedures while others are willing to, let's say, take a more flexible approach to the adherence to fundamental rules such as minimum notice or admissibility of evidence.

Judges are people like the rest of us, their personalities can be reflected in how they perform their role. A good legal representative will know an individual judge's form and present their case accordingly.

donkeykong5 · 21-02-2019 1:25am

Just read thread. I had no idea until now that colm fox shot himself. What a waste of a human life. He wasnt far off retiring either. Feel very sorry for him that he was driven to this. And even more sorry for his family.

sReq | uTeK · 21-02-2019 1:34am

Okay, the notes Fox had wrote down are clearly significant these need to be disclosed. More so now if the case has been thrown out.

Also what was found on the confiscated laptop and usb keys after his death. This to me is clearly a case of the DPP guards.not wanting to take this further for fear of something damaging coming out

MrFresh · 21-02-2019 1:34am

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I can’t understand how the Garda aren’t allowed ask each other if they recognize Mr X from a photo??

If they do it will collapse a trial??

Like in a station they cant ask in front of other garda is that Mr X.

Madness.

It's nonsense. People are confusing different rules of identification.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 21-02-2019 1:37am

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Okay, the notes Fox had wrote down are clearly significant these need to be disclosed. More so now if the case has been thrown out.

Also what was found on the confiscated laptop and usb keys after his death. This to me is clearly a case of the DPP guards.not wanting to take this further for fear of something damaging coming out

The notes are an excuse. If evidence has been collected any police officer can present it.

The Satanist · 21-02-2019 1:48am

This will quietly go away; the political/media/ usual outraged types aren't interested in gangland stuff once it doesn't darken their doorstep.

21-02-2019 1:58am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Judge Brian Curtin walked free because a warrant used to search his house was out of date, even though they did find the evidence they were looking for. The courts take these procedural matters extremely seriously.

Sometimes they do. I remember a case in Dundalk about 10 years ago where they had the wrong address on a warrant and it was still allowed since the intent was clear. Couple of years later I saw another case where it was inadmissible. Ho hum.

ChikiChiki · 21-02-2019 3:36am

I really don't know where to start. All those people accepting it as great as Ireland being ranked 18th on the corruption index as are fools to accept such mediocrity.

It is unfathomable that this case has collapsed. The country is turning into a cesspit before our eyes. Gangsters in control of the country at all levels.

If you can't see that then more fool on you. The I am alright Jack's will continue to claim utopia.

Your Face · 21-02-2019 6:22am

ChikiChiki wrote: »

I really don't know where to start. All those people accepting it as great as Ireland being ranked 18th on the corruption index as are fools to accept such mediocrity.

It is unfathomable that this case has collapsed. The country is turning into a cesspit before our eyes. Gangsters in control of the country at all levels.

If you can't see that then more fool on you. The I am alright Jack's will continue to claim utopia.

I agree we shouldn't accept mediocrity.

Out of interest, what would you suggest to make our country better?

kippy · 21-02-2019 7:58am

ChikiChiki wrote: »

I really don't know where to start. All those people accepting it as great as Ireland being ranked 18th on the corruption index as are fools to accept such mediocrity.

It is unfathomable that this case has collapsed. The country is turning into a cesspit before our eyes. Gangsters in control of the country at all levels.

If you can't see that then more fool on you. The I am alright Jack's will continue to claim utopia.

Its no Utopia but its no Cesspit either. It has its positives and negatives.

spurious · 21-02-2019 8:50am

Was he not found with 3 AK47s, or am I hearing radio reports wrong? Should that in itself not get you a few years?

Alrigghtythen · 21-02-2019 8:57am

The gangsters and the state in cahoots

CrankyHaus · 21-02-2019 9:11am

Don't worry everyone. We'll get full disclosure of what went wrong here, followed by robust measures to make sure it never happens again.

Only joking. It'll be just like the Kieran Boylan affair. A whitewash that never gets mentioned again and that most people forget about because their attention's diverted by the twitter outrage news cycle.

Regency Hotel shooting trial collapses following Detective Superintendent's suicide

Comments