Omagh bombing git innocent of everything

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by whiffler, Dec 20, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Radio reports so far

    BBC Web

    One of the bereaved said their view was that Hoey was involved, but the evidence hadn't been produced. Had a few bad words to say about Ronnie Flanagan too.
     
  2. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Listening to 5 Live - at least the judge didn't tell him to go forth without a stain on his character etc. Unfortunately the evidence was not good enough...
     
  3. "Mr Justice Weir was highly critical of the forensic evidence presented by the prosecution, and the "slapdash approach" taken by police to some of the evidence.

    He said that two police officers had told untruths in a deliberate attempt to beef up statements, and that there had been a deliberate and calculated deception which made it impossible for him to accept their evidence.

    "I am acutely aware that the stricken people of Omagh and every other right-thinking member of the Northern Ireland community would very much wish to see whoever was responsible for the outrageous offence of August 1998 and other serious crimes in this series of terrorist incidents convicted and punished for their crimes according to law," he said.

    But he had to acquit Hoey as the evidence presented to the court was insufficient, he went on."


    Say it all really

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=B11UMO4SP4RAFQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/12/20/nomagh120.xml
     
  4. There is a world of difference between being innocent and there being insufficeint evidence to get a conviction.
     
  5. I suppose 'The police are not looking for anyone else in relation to this offence' will no doubt be forthcoming.
     
  6. Sadly, it would seem that a cock up has allowed the (possibly) guilty to walk.
     
  7. Despite the way that the press are portraying it and some of the judges comments calling it a cock up is a bit strong.

    In 1998 when the evidence was being gathered the use and handling of LCN DNA evidence was nowhere near as well understood as it is today, especially the cross contamination safeguards that are now in place. A lot of the possible cross contamination and errors that the judge spoke about today happened very early on in the investigation. I don't believe that LCN DNA tests on this evidence were even attempted until much later in the investigation.

    I was hoping that Norman Baxter was going to take that ignorant journos head off outside the court when he went off on one about how poor the investigation was. The press officer also looked like he wanted to flatten him.
     
  8. Victor Barker (one of the victim's parents) has been interviewed on several channels. He was asked if Adams & McGuiness could help. He puts it quite well when he said that either of them could resolve it tomorrow if they wanted to A code (of honour!!!!) between the murdering lying scumbags prevents them from helping (I expanded on the description slightly, but I'm sure that's what he was thinking).

    Scumbags :evil:
     
  9. The Omagh Bombing was the point when I realised that Blair was a coward.

    He had the perfect opertunity to let the Hooligans of the leash and blame the resulting bloodbath on a PIRA - RIRA civil war. The revulsion at the Omagh bombing was so great that even the dumb fcuks in New York and Boston stopped putting money in PIRA's collecting tins...at least for a few weeks.

    Instead, he bottled. The result is that 29 dead innocents will never be avenged.

    Makes you proud to be British...
     
  10. Has he never heard of a "Lucas" direction? That is a direction that a judge makes to a jury to say that people with perfectly good cases will sometimes tell lies to bolster the case. However, that does not necessarily mean that the underlying case is not true. A jury would be perfectly well capable of considering all the evidence in the round and coming to a decision one way or the other.

    Having said that, rozzers that make up sh*t to try to bolster their case are not only dishonest lying scum but effing stupid, too. What did they think the effect of that would be if it came out (as it did).
     
  11. The man has been proved innocent - and the police have been lying again. Expert 'evidence' was also deeply flawed. How desperately sad for the families of the dead.
     
  12. McGuinness could indeed instantly provide the answers to the relevant questions - all of them. Unfortunately, doing so would end the gravy train (or in PSFspeak: "jeopardise the Peace Process").

    However, he's never been known to tell much of the truth, so he hardly counts as a reliable witness. Apparently that qualifies him for high Government Office.
     
  13. The judge wasn't happy that there was enough evidence to prove that he was guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". That is not the same as proving he was innocent.
     
  14. Frenchperson - the man has not been proved innocent. He was found not guilty due to flawed evidence etc.

    There is a world of difference.
     
  15. Bugger - you beat me to it LEGZ