Crime gardai Policing

Brian Kearney Found Guilty

Let me begin this defence of our criminal justice system by telling you something:

I took the power lead of my Dyson cleaner, looped it over a door and made another loop for my foot. The cable carried my weight quite easily.

The police told the jury that a Dyson flex could not carry the weight of a human body for longer than 5 seconds.

What the police told the jury was wrong.

Let me continue with an observation on subliminal messages:

The media constantly referred to the victim as Siobhan, and to the accused as Kearney.

What picture does that create in your mind?

The judge in his summing up twice referred to Siobhan Kearney as Rachel. You might remember the recent controversial case of Rachel O Reilly who was in all likelihood brutally murdered by her husband. What predisposition did that Freudian slip create in the minds of the jury?

Listen. When are we going to start showing some respect for our own criminal justice system? When are we going to see that most probably guilty does not mean the same thing as guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

I think Brian Kearney probably killed his wife, but as I’ve said too many times already, we’re not supposed to be jailing people on the grounds of gross suspicion because when we start doing that we’ll have a police state.

Let the authorities do their job right, present a watertight case and put the likes of Brian Kearney and Joe O Reilly in jail based on proof. Or else let them go free.

The alternative is that every man accused of a violent crime stands convicted before his case ever comes to court.

Crime Favourites

The Joe O’Reilly Conviction

Years and years ago, I was lucky enough to be burgled. I say lucky because I learned a great lesson about the nature of democracy as a result.

It was when I lived in Dublin. Somebody broke into the house in the middle of the night and stole one or two items and some money. The police came. They found the fingerprints of a known thief on the window. They arrested the thief, who swore he was never in that part of town in his life.

They charged him with the burglary, the case went to court before a jury and I was called as a witness. I can’t remember the name of the old judge, but I do remember him reading through the book of evidence, looking more and more troubled and finally sending the jury out of the room. Then he looked around the court before fixing the police with an unblinking basilisk stare.

According to this book of evidence, the defendant says he was never there in his life, yet his fingerprints were found on the outside of the window. This proves one of three things: either he has a bad memory, he’s a liar or the police are liars. It does not prove he was inside that house.

It gives rise to gross suspicion, but the day we start putting people in jail on the grounds of gross suspicion is the day we have a police state!

And, do you know something? He was right. I wanted to clap and cheer this old judge. Even though I was the victim of this thief’s crime, the police didn’t prove he was guilty. I’d have happily broken his legs, given half a chance, but he couldn’t go to jail, because there was a democracy to be protected. As simple as that.

It’s the same with the Joe O’Reilly case. I think he did it, but I don’t think the prosecution proved it. I think they piled up a load of facts and let the weight of evidence convince the jury.

That is not proof. That’s grounds for gross suspicion.

What does it mean when we start jailing people on the basis of gross suspicion? Ask the old judge.



Joe O’Reilly

Joe O’Reilly was convicted of murdering his wife, Rachel, and was sent to jail for life.

Now, I think he did it, and every person I talk to thinks he did it. What’s more, the jury thought he did it, and you have to agree, it would be hard to find stronger authority than that, yes? Well, no actually. We live in the age of CSI, when everyone, including jury members, think they’re expert, and I have a great problem with the whole thing.

The criminal justice system in this country requires that the prosecution prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. This is the criminal standard of proof, as opposed to the civil standard, which relies on the balance of probabilities. Without doubt, on the balance of probabilities Joe O’Reilly is a murderer, but that’s not good enough, and people seem to be overlooking this simple fact. When it comes to beyond reasonable doubt, we have a problem. This standard exists, not to protect murderers, but to defend you and me against incompetent or corrupt policemen, and God knows we have enough of them, as one glance at the Morris tribunal reports will show you, pretty damn quick.

Was there any forensic evidence to connect Joe O’Reilly with the crime? No.

This is surprising, given that he was convicted of bludgeoning somebody to death, leaving blood everywhere, on the walls, the floor and the ceiling. Yet there wasn’t a single molecule of blood on his person or in his car.

Was it proved that he was in or near the house at the time of the murder? No.

It was asserted by telecoms technicians who gave evidence that his phone wasn’t where he said it was. Did anyone question the evidence of the technicians? No. Why? Because we all watch CSI, including the jurors and the judge, and we all know that technicians are never wrong.

We’re all in thrall to technology and to geeks, who are the new infallible caste, now that the priests have been shown to be unreliable perverts and the Pope was in the Hitler Youth. Geeks, on the other hand, are outside such questioning because they live for Coca-Cola and pizza and have no hand in moral or ethical issues. The word of a telecom technician is never questioned because technology can never make a mistake, which is why you need never check your credit card statement, your electricity bill or your bank statement. There can’t be an error. Isn’t that right?

Which is why, though Joe O’Reilly is probably a murdering fucker, it wasn’t proven, and he should walk, murdering fucker though he probably is. Otherwise, when a technician gives evidence in a case brought against you by a crooked cop, you might as well just slip on those cuffs right now.


More on this

kick it on