Catherine Nevin, Nora Wall and the Mulhalls-tabloid trial?

[cactus flower]

To my shock, I found myself agreeing with a recent piece by John Waters (sorry, no link) in which he pointed out the circumstantial and dubious case against Catherine Nevin. What is it about screaming tabloid headlines and crude nicknames (black widow, scissor sisters etc.) that make me feel that justice is not being done in cases where women have apparently acted violently? Nora Hall was vindicated, Catherine Nevin is going for leave to appeal. The Mulhalls' mother, who voluntarily returned to Ireland and her daughters, who gave themselves up, were involved in a murder, but the whole frenzy and the sentencing appeared disproportionate when compared with other cases. Can Mrs. Mulhall expect a fair trial?

[cactus flower]

sorry mods - can this be moved to current affairs?

[red365]

What's the point you're trying to make? That judges sentence criminals in proportion to the point size of the headlines in The Sun that day?

Are you suggesting that we have even more censorship of crime coverage?

[Kev408]

Joe O'Reilly's trial was very similar in that no evidence was produced which linked him to the murder. I'm not saying he is innocent but I believe his conviction will also be overturned.

Huge amounts of evidence was presented which linked him to the murder. No one piece of evidence was definitive and it was up to a jury to decide. I doubt Nevin or O'Reilly will succeed in their appeals but if I was a betting man given the same odds on either of them being released I'd go for Nevin.

[Kev408]

[quote=D.Harry][quote=Kev408][quote="D.Harry":2attnocp]Joe O'Reilly's trial was very similar in that no evidence was produced which linked him to the murder. I'm not saying he is innocent but I believe his conviction will also be overturned.[/quote]

Huge amounts of evidence was presented which [i]linked[/i] him to the murder. No one piece of evidence was [i]definitive[/i] and it was up to a jury to decide. I doubt Nevin or O'Reilly will succeed in their appeals but if I was a betting man given the same odds on either of them being released I'd go for Nevin.[/quote]
From memory no evidence linked him to the murder. At worst he was perhaps shown to have lied about his whereabouts. He was not placed at the scene. He could just as easily have been linked to a thousand other events. As the judge said - this made him liar, it did not make him a murderer.
And speaking of bets - I wonder if P.Power is giving odds.[/quote:2attnocp]

The Examiner gives an account of the closing arguments here:
[url="http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2007/07/20/story37819.asp"]http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/20 ... y37819.asp[/url]

Give the jury some credit otherwise you're suggesting that they convicted O'Reilly because he was a liar, and for absolutely no other reason.

[cactus flower]

What's the point you're trying to make? That judges sentence criminals in proportion to the point size of the headlines in The Sun that day?

Are you suggesting that we have even more censorship of crime coverage?

I feel deeply uncomfortable about the way all the women I referred to have experienced our justice system. There are times when emotion appears to overtake reason in the courts system, and the media plays a part in whipping up that emotion. Whether jurors or judges are in reality influenced by the media I cant say - it would be good to hear of first hand experience where this has/hasnt happened. Convictions solely on circumstantial evidence are particularly dodgy in my view.

I was very unconvinced by Nora Wall's conviction at the time it happened. Evidence included as statement from a "victim" that Nora Wall had held her legs apart, at the bottom of a bed, while the other defendent carried out a rape. This was patently improbable, and almost physically impossible and reeked of fantasy. Nora Wall was subsequently totally cleared and the process by which the conviction obtained was severely criticised.

The case of the Mulhall family is different, in that the convicted women admitted what they did. It was not disputed that the victim had physically abused their mother. The women have a tragic background and are clearly incapable of presenting any mitigating circumstances to any good effect.

Catherine Nevin, if you remember the trial, was pilloried for looking too good: the evidence as I recall was all circumstantial and much of it bizarre.

I am not suggesting censorship and would be there with you complaining of the press were hindered from reporting facts, but as a people ( including journalists) I think we have to be enormously wary when "witch hunt" reporting is taking place before and during trials. The judiciary should give the strongest warnings to jurors. I am not sure if we have got our boundaries right.

[Kev408]

The Examiner gives an account of the closing arguments here:
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/20 ... y37819.asp

Give the jury some credit otherwise you're suggesting that they convicted O'Reilly because he was a liar, and for absolutely no other reason.

I've read the report and my argument stands. I would hate to be at the mercy of any jury which required so little solid evidence. The dogs in the street believed J.O'R was guilty since his Late Late appearance. The jury cannot have been immune to the gossip.
I don't wish to derail this thread but it concerns me that the State will prosecute a case with so little hard evidence and may instead be depending on the tabloids to lay the sentimental foundation for a trial.

I agree that the tabloids behaviour can be despicable but regardless of them I'm utterly convinced the jury got it right this time. They spent 9 hours deliberating and found him guilty - unanimously. These are people just like you and I and we must give them credit.

For the record I think our judicial system itself is appalling. Some judges simply havent a clue (there's one judge who is known by lawyers by the nickname 'necessity' because 'necessity knows no law'!). Also, if you suggested to a bunch of lawyers over a few pints in the Legal Eagle that you were hoping to see justice in some forthcoming case, you'd be laughed at. The greatest indictment of our judicial system is that it has very little to do with justice.

Notwithstanding that rant, the jury system is better than a judge making the decisions.

[Kev408]

.... I'm utterly convinced the jury got it right this time.........

No body is arguing that the decision was not the right one. It is the method by which it was arrived at that is in question. I fail to see how a verdict can be beyond reasonable doubt when the evidence could so easily match any number of scenarios. The balance can so easily be tipped by a media campaign.

Again, I don't think you're giving the jury credit. Do you believe everything you read in the tabloids? In fact, do you believe anything you read in the tabloids. I know I don't (at least didn't when I last read one). Besides, when the jury are asked if they've been influenced by anything they've read or heard and they say 'no', we have to believe them. Otherwise what's the point in the first place?

[eyeswideopen]

I feel deeply uncomfortable about the way all the women I referred to have experienced our justice system. There are times when emotion appears to overtake reason in the courts system, and the media plays a part in whipping up that emotion. Whether jurors or judges are in reality influenced by the media I cant say - it would be good to hear of first hand experience where this has/hasnt happened. Convictions solely on circumstantial evidence are particularly dodgy in my view.

I was very unconvinced by Nora Wall's conviction at the time it happened. Evidence included as statement from a "victim" that Nora Wall had held her legs apart, at the bottom of a bed, while the other defendent carried out a rape. This was patently improbable, and almost physically impossible and reeked of fantasy. Nora Wall was subsequently totally cleared and the process by which the conviction obtained was severely criticised.

The case of the Mulhall family is different, in that the convicted women admitted what they did. It was not disputed that the victim had physically abused their mother. The women have a tragic background and are clearly incapable of presenting any mitigating circumstances to any good effect.

Catherine Nevin, if you remember the trial, was pilloried for looking too good: the evidence as I recall was all circumstantial and much of it bizarre.

I am not suggesting censorship and would be there with you complaining of the press were hindered from reporting facts, but as a people ( including journalists) I think we have to be enormously wary when "witch hunt" reporting is taking place before and during trials. The judiciary should give the strongest warnings to jurors. I am not sure if we have got our boundaries right.

Today's Irish Times gives a full page to Catherine Nevin's case.

It points out that -

There was no forensic evidence
There were no witnesses
There was no admission of guilt.

Her conviction relies on the evidence of three men believed to be police informers.

Next week Catherine Nevin will seek an order from the DPP to had over their security files. Some of this material concerns the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.

This woman has served 9 years imprisonment for the murder of her husband.
Her appeal is in part based on "newly discovered facts which go to the credibility and connections" of these three men, and involve a "serious non disclosure" of Special Branch files by the State that made a fair trial impossible.

McClean, one of the 3 witnesses, is alleged to have links with the UVF and to have been in Dublin at the time of the bombings. The other two witnesses, Heapes and Jones, were said to be involved with Sinn Fein, but to have been State informers. Jones was a former business partner of Dessie Ellis.

Both men claimed she had asked them to murder her husband.

The defence were given Garda documents suggesting that the Nevin's pub, Jack Whites, had connection with the IRA only after the trial.

I cannot see how a conviction could have been properly secured against this woman.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...258801743.html

#

[Lazarus]

I recall when Catherine Nevin was on trial that the men I worked alongside slagged off her appearance, and her alledged adultery with just about anyone. I thought she was a very "silly" woman but I never understood why she was convicted of murder. She seemed to live in a fantasy world, and I felt very sorry for her husband, but she did not kill him, I am also sure that she did not have the guile to organise his murder either.

Joe O'Reilly was I feel as guilty as sin, but I suspect that I feel that way because he was so besotted with his mistress, and his wife seemed such a genuinely loving, full of life woman and mother. So having analysed myself I think I find Joe O'Reilly guilty because he was an unfaithful, lying, adulterous, disloyal boll*x. I don't know if he murdered his wife, but I think he did.

I hope never to be picked for Jury Service. I am too easily influenced by matters that should be left to a priest to sort out.