I think that there are similarities here to the Abbeylara - John Carthy shooting (which has been brought to the fore by the recent Gort issue).
I think its ball ox these police conspiracy stories. If i can stick to the John Carthy incident: I seen his sister on prime time last night. (I couldnt hear her cause i was in the pub - legend!). Way too much attention is given to these conspiracy theorists: this guy took a gun in hand and started threatening people and he got shot, end of. I hate the fact that we have given this gee bag so much fookin attention and even set up a tribunal for the wacko. It is not a huge leap of faith for me to assume that no guards woke up that morning intending to harm someone.
In summary, i think we need to trust the police more. The idea of the crooked cops is a fictional thing, unless you live in a loser country like Russia.
I presume you’re just stirring shit here Ox and don’t genuinely believe that.
There is every chance Sean Hoey will be found guilty of the Omagh bomb because he is being tried without a jury. The police have admitted to tampering with, altering the labels on and keeping no record of forensic evidence. Separately they have admitted to “beefing up” witness statements to support their case better. There is no way a conviction should be secured, given the obvious doubts over the evidence now in my opinion. However there is no guessing what a judge sitting in the 6 counties might do. And strangely these discrepancies have barely been reported in the 26 county media - Omagh has too much emotional punch in this country for anyone to dare criticise the security forces.
Well if you know any country with a perfect police force let me know because we should follow their model.
Are you saying that you know better than the lawyers and judiciary making these decsions? Im sure there was a reason for trying him without a jury. I mean the media frenzy and hurt caused by the incident would make it impossible to have an impartial hearing before a jury of his peers, so it potentially makes sense to try him without a jury, or else try him out of state.
Police and prosecutors will always seek to “beef up” their cases as they are trying to win them! Wether or not the tactics were above board is a seperate discussion, but if it was deemed that evidence was tampered with surely it would be inadmissable??!
I’m not saying any country has a perfect police force: merely pointing out that there is a very high profile trial going on about a very high profile incident and while the media were out in force on the first day, there has been no mention of the trial since in most 26 county media. One reason for this, I believe, is that they do not want to undermine Britain’s chances of “securing a conviction.”
The reason for trying him without a jury is because the Diplock Courts were setup in the 6 counties to prevent against jury intimidation. They were setup under emergency legislation and are to be removed entirely in 2007. Hoey is not being tried under a Diplock Court to give him a fairer hearing as you suggest, it is quite the opposite. It is to help the chances of a conviction.
“Whether or not the tactics were above board” is not a separate discussion. In fact I started this very thread to discuss whether or not the tactics are above board.
There has been significant media coverage. The wounds are still very raw, it was the worst atrocity in Ireland. It would be like trying Bin Laden in the US in front of an American jury; it simply wouldnt be imaprtial. My specific point re the police is that they are the “good guys.” They didnt plant the bomb, they didnt wake up with malice on their mind. I just think its a bit of a conspiracy theory you are putting forward a-la Michael Moore. Youre media comment is absolutely ridiculous! What evidence have you for suggesting that the media do not want to undermine a british conviction. THAT IS ABSOLUTE BULLFOOK FROM YOU, WHAT INTEREST DOES THE MEDIA HAVE IN INSURING BRITAIN GET A CONVICTION. A STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORY AGAIN. THAT POINT IS ACTUALLY ANNOYING, PLEASE GO BACK AND DELETE IT.
I take your point re the Diplock Courts. All i ever said was that there was surley a valid reason for trying him in this manner. I guessed that it might be due to the fact that an impartial jury was difficult to guarantee. The point that you made (ie that it is set up to protect jurys) is surley a valid reason for trying him in this fashion.
My point re tactics were that if your tactics are not appropriate, the defense can argue that the evidence is inadmissable. I have to say that it seems to me that they were NOT appropriate, but again the system allows for the nuances to be discussed and let a judge come to a conclusion based on all the facts. We have limited facts here Rocko, its naive for us to assume that we will come to a more informed decision than the judge.
There has been very scant media coverage of the trial. There is nothing in today’s Irish Times (our self-professed newspaper of record) on the case at all. In the case of the 6 counties I don’t think it can be reasonably aruged that the police are the good guys:
a_ They have history of persecuting Catholics and nationalists
b_ They have history of murdering said Catholics and nationalists
c_ They were either grossly negligent or massively incometent in their handling of the Omagh bomd and the subsequent inquiry, as verified by the Police Ombudsman
d_ I genuinely don’t believe that you can rule out Special Branch involvement in the planting of the bomb. This is the same police force that have tried everything to pin the Northern Bank robbery on the IRA but the only evidence at all relating to the crime points at the police theselves. There is plenty of evidence of special branch crimes in the North to upset and influence the political processes.
You initially argued that the Diplock court system was supposed to protect the accused. Now you are agreeing it is there to protect the prosecution. My point is that all legal minds anywhere in the world would argue that a jury trial is fairer than a judge deciding by himself. Why would they be moving away from Diplock trials otherwise? In a jury system the defence lawyer would be constantly reminding the jury of the inaccuracies of the evidence. The judge in this case has already told the defence lawyer that he is not speaking to a jury so to stop reminding him of facts.
Just another point on the evidence. A police officer who issued 2 statements on the evidence has admitted that she could not have made those statements as she was in Zambia at the time. In other words somebody invented her statements. This evidence is obviously also flawed, but it is my contention that with a proper trial, the whole case would have fallen apart by now because you can’t rely on some evidence from a witness, while conceding that other evidence from that witness was fabricated or amended.
You have no evidence to suggest that the media silence is a tactc to ensure a conviction.
That was the RUC, there is a new police force in place now. it is unfair for you to tarnish the PSNI with the RUC’s problems.
Ridiculous statement, an accountant was found laudering money for the IRA in Cork, in respect of the bank robbery. The IRA DID do it.
No I didnt argue that; i speculated that there was a valied reason behind using this system and that that might be to ensure the equitable treatment of the accused. Fair enough it turns out it was to protect the jury; either way it makes.
The legal minds who would argue your case would accept that there are circumstances when the jury system doesnt work. This may well be one such exceotion.
I dont see the problem with the defense lawyer not getting to continually state that the evidence is untrustworthy. Are you suggesting that the jury will get a different message when told repeatedly than a judge who is told once - i dont think so; the judge will be aware of the integrity of the evidence.
Your final point on the evidence. If this evidence is admissable in this trial it would be admissable in a jury based trial. I dont think that this evidence would be admissable at a “real” trial so the case would not fall apart anymore than it is currently weak or strong; as this defiency would be clarly visible to the judge.
If on the other hand you are suggesting that the trial would collapse, who would make that decision? The judge! The same guy who is responsible for it now.
Anyway yer man Hoey is a RA head, so i wont loose any sleep over him getting fooked into the slammer.
I never said the media silence was a tactic to gain a conviction. I said that they would be reluctant to criticise the police if it transpired that such criticism harmed the chances of getting a conviction. There was a media circus at the courthouse the first day but it has all died down now because there’s no evidence linking Hoey to the bomb (yet). They are reluctant to report on the errors and lies of the police force because Omagh is a taboo topic here and in the UK. The cops have serious questions to answer about their handling of the incident and the investigation but nobody wants to ask them. (Sinn Fin are very quiet on this too - he’s not one of their boys so they’re not interested - it would be a huge PR disaster for them to be seen siding with an Omagh suspect).
The same officers are in place for the most part between the RUC and the PSNI. And it is certainly the same people in roles of power in the force. One of the most corrupt police forces in the world did not become squeaky clean overnight because of a name change.
There are reasons and arguments people use to justify internment, no-jury trials and plenty of other legal mechanisms used to secure convictions in times of emergency. I don’t agree with them in genuine urgent situations and I certainly don’t agree with them in this case. The system in these instances is tilted to favour the prosecution. That is unfair. No amount of background to the case, or emotive language about atrocities can change the fact that justice is diluted when the rules are changed for certain cases.
The point about the difference in attitude between a judge and a jury is very valid. A jury would be constantly reminded by the defence lawyer that the credibility of the entirety of the police evidence is, at best, questionable because of known instances of lying and exaggeration. The jury will be reminded of this constantly and compelled to take this into account. The judge is the sole arbitrer in this instance. He doesn’t have to debate the evidence with anybody, he doesn’t have to acknowledge what evidence he is considering or not, in fact he can do as he pleases with the evidence presented. Where the jury would be instructed to disregard certain evidence (or may not hear some evidence because it would be heard in closed court, and deemed inadmissable) the judge will not have this discretion. He will hear what he is told and not only decide on its importance, he also decides on its validity. This is a severe weakening of the process.
The prosecution have now conceded that the judge will have to treat some of the evidence they presented “with caution.” In other words it’s not believable and wouldn’t stand up in front of a jury. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6055294.stm
Didn’t get a chance to reply to this the other day but surely ball ox you can’t be serious in saying you have no qualms in accepting the police acted equitably here. These are a force put in place by a colonial power who have proven to be a shamefully sectarian, biased and murdering crowd of absolute filth. Obviously Omagh was a travesty and a disgrace but to convict this guy on the evidence put before the judge would appear to be ridiculous in this instance.
The IRA are murdering, biased and shamefully sectarian too. Im not saying that the police acted entirely above board, just that i have enough faith in the system.
Anyway i hope the nail him and throw away the key.
Hey there bandage boy, flying through the sky so fancy free…
I am not defending the Real IRA at all in this instance. You seem to be missing the point as you seem to think its a battle between the IRA and the police and that the police are less bad so youll side with them. The point is that theres a guy on trial in relation to this atrocity and the reason hes before the judge is because of the evidence a discredited police force collected. Now it has been shown that the evidence collected by this discredited police in this case is at best unreliable and at worst fabricated. The guy might be a callous killer or he might just be another victim of the police force put in place by our oppressors. The key thing here is the evidence, not whether the IRA are worse than the RUC/PSNI. The evidence doesnt stand up at all and that should see the guy cleared.