Omagh bombing git innocent of everything

#1
Radio reports so far

BBC Web

Sean Hoey was accused of murdering 29 people

A Northern Ireland man has been cleared of the murders of 29 people who died in the Omagh bomb attack in 1998.

Sean Hoey, 38, of Molly Road in Jonesborough, was found not guilty of a total of 56 charges, including the murders of the 29 people killed.

Speaking at Belfast Crown Court, Mr Justice Weir said there had been a "deliberate and calculated deception by police".

He said transcripts of the trial had been sent to the police ombudsman.

In his summary, the judge said he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that prosecution submissions showed that all explosive devices were made by one person.

He also said he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that fibres found on an explosive device and a mobile home that Mr Hoey lived in matched.


The verdict was delivered at Belfast Crown Court after a trial which lasted a total of 56 days.

During the trial which ended in January, it was revealed that two police witnesses had lied about how they had gathered some of the forensic evidence.

Much of the prosecution case was based on forensic evidence, particularly a type of DNA evidence, called low copy number DNA - a new and sensitive form of testing.

The defence had challenged low copy number DNA and prosecution experts themselves also differed in their evidence as to how reliable they believed it to be.

The trial lasted 10 months and was one of the biggest murder trials in UK legal history.

The families of many of those who died in Omagh on 15 August 1998 travelled to Belfast Crown Court to hear the verdict. Others watched a video-link set up in Omagh College.

In addition to the 29 counts of murder, Sean Hoey was also charged with five counts of conspiracy to murder, four counts of conspiracy to cause an explosion, six counts of causing an explosion and 12 counts of possession of explosive devices.

The oldest victim in the Omagh bomb was 66 and the youngest just 18-months-old.

There was evidence from hundreds of witnesses during the trial and there were more than 500 items of evidence.

Charges were brought against Sean Hoey in 2005, after a review of the forensic and scientific evidence.

A new police inquiry began in May 2002 and followed criticism by the then Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman, Nuala O'Loan, of the original investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
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.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#2
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/mai...OAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/12/20/nomagh120.xml
 
#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
Blogg said:

He said that two police officers had told untruths in a deliberate attempt to beef up statements"
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
frenchperson said:
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.
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.
 
#16
Whiskybreath said:
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.

Its a pre-requisite.
:?
 
#17
A pity they could not use, adopt, the Scots version of judicial decisions: “Guilty“, “Not Guilty“, or “Not Proven“. It is suggested the “Not Proven” would have been appropriate.
 
#18
RCT(V) said:
A pity they could not use, adopt, the Scots version of judicial decisions: “Guilty“, “Not Guilty“, or “Not Proven“. It is suggested the “Not Proven” would have been appropriate.
I venture to suggest that a couple of 9mm rounds in the b@stard's skull would have been even more appropriate... :evil:
 
#19
Werewolf said:
RCT(V) said:
A pity they could not use, adopt, the Scots version of judicial decisions: “Guilty“, “Not Guilty“, or “Not Proven“. It is suggested the “Not Proven” would have been appropriate.
I venture to suggest that a couple of 9mm rounds in the b@stard's skull would have been even more appropriate... :evil:
No. Not really. You can't go killing innocent people. Where do you think you are? America?
 

Latest Threads