Davison acquitted of McCartney murder
Mr Justice Gillen had told the court that he would provide a verdict “in the not too distant future.” The BBC report that he has found Terence Davison not guilty of the murder of Robert McCartney. No word yet on the other charges or the others charged.. nor on how the Provisional IRA investigation affected the trial. Update The Belfast Telegraph reports that all the accused were found not guilty on all charges.
The judge said he realised the McCartney family would be frustrated and disappointed at his verdict, but the dead man’s memory would be ill-served by the court failing to observe the highest standards of criminal justice and the burden of proof that prevails.
And from the updated BBC report
The judge warned the three acquitted men that they could yet be brought back to court if more evidence emerges. “I have no doubt that the investigation into this crime will continue and if new evidence emerges in connection with this murder no one, including for that matter even the accused in this trial, will be beyond the reach of potential prosecution,” he added.
More from the Irish Times report And This report.
Robert McCartney’s sister Catherine said the lack of justice lay firmly at the feet of Sinn Féin and the IRA. Speaking outside the court she said her brother’s murder was an embarrassment for the British and Irish governments. Ms McCartney said she believed that the PSNI have a wealth of information on the murder but cannot turn any of it into evidence as “fear still exists and as long as it still exists, we won’t get justice”.
Innocent on all charges. Thankfully the court wasn’t swayed by the shifting ‘testimony’ of a drunk, a thug and a woman with severely deficient vision. Clearly this will be hard on the McCartney sisters who will no doubt be dissappointed that an entirely innocent man wasn’t banged up for life.
The judge said the defendants could face court again in future is more evidence emerged.
Surely you can’t be charged for the same crime twice – or have I been watching too many American courtroom dramas.
Only the Judge knows if his comments were aimed at one of the accused, in particular.
Interesting, Dec. Can you elaborate without causing legal problems for Slugger?
BTW – it’s well quiet on here. I expected thread meltdown when this was posted…
Interesting, Dec. Can you elaborate without causing legal problems for Slugger?
I doubt if it would be possible for Dec to elaborate without getting himself and slugger into diffs.
But i know were he is coming from
Grassy Neol
Under the 2003 Criminal Justice Act retrials are now allowed if there is new and compelling evidence for crimes, including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and serious drug crimes. All cases must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Court Of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal.
“Clearly this will be hard on the McCartney sisters who will no doubt be dissappointed that an entirely innocent man wasn’t banged up for life.”
Your a real classy piece of work Dec – well done… I wonder if Mr Davison will be get his old “job” back now – after the heat dies down of course…
“Thankfully the court wasn’t swayed by the shifting ‘testimony’ of a drunk, a thug and a woman with severely deficient vision.”
All Sinn Fein voters, I imagine.
DC
I doubt that the entire court was made up of Sinn Fein voters. It’s more likely that they independently formed the same opinion of “…the shifting ‘testimony’ of a drunk, a thug and a woman with severely deficient vision” as Sinn Fein and just about everybody else of a non Unionist persuasion.
A real shame about the McArtney sisters.
Democratic
I believe the phrase used by the McCartney’s outside court was “disappointed but not surprised.” So my point stands. As for your pathetic innuendo I’ll ignore it as I would any other bleating of a no-nothing troll.
DC
they were tried by a single judge in a diplock court.
Will the PSNI state that they are “not looking for anyone else” in relation to the murder enquiry.
Clearly this guy was innocent. As were the 4 guys falsely accused of killing Stephen Lawrence.
All Sinn Fein voters, I imagine.
Well done, DC. “Man playing” almost 25% of the population.
Justice for all eh?
Tell me will the 6 people who died in the Maysfield leisure centre fire started by one of the killers of Robert McCartney get justice.
Will the woman who was held down and had her breasts burned by a hot steam iron by the same man get justice.
Will the two women and one young girl from the markets who were raped by another one of Robert McCartneys murderers get justice.
Will the pensioners in the Markets ever get their money back that was robbed from them by a third man who was also involved in Robert McCartneys murder.
Will the special branch tout who grinded down the murder weapons used on Robert McCartney ever be brought to justice or will he just go back to Dundalk and work in a bar again, though not the one he stole the takings from again i’ll bet.
Will the OC of Belfast another long time informer (keep it in the family eh?)who was taken to England by his handlers after the murder now remove the bugging equipment from the homes of two of the McCartney sisters.
Justice yes please lets have some!
No one is jumping up and down celebrating his innocence – except maybe himself. I’m not surprised as I followed the trial, and as it unfolded a blind man could see it was never going to be a guilty verdict.
Quite clearly SHAZZBAZZ you have an awful lot of info there on certain people involved with this case. Would you not go to the police with this info? Or is it, as I suspect, just unsubstantiated clap trap and here-say. But then again who care about justice and due process when it comes to republicans eh, just as long as someone gets their pound of flesh.
Perhaps she overheard in the toilet, Quagmire.
No one is jumping up and down celebrating his innocence – except maybe himself. I’m not surprised as I followed the trial, and as it unfolded a blind man could see it was never going to be a guilty verdict.
Actually a lot of people are. Though, no-one should be surprised by the media’s tone of ‘ just not enough evidence’. If you followed the trial as you claim – the issue was not lack of evidence, but that the evidence didn’t stand up – gougings that never happened, different clothes, haircuts etc. Devine and Gowdy claiming Terry Davison wasn’t involved then mysteriously changing their story months later. The big mystery is why the CPS allowed the murder charge to be filed in the first place.
Someone posted that the trial took place in a Diplock court, I am surprised no one has questioned this as the British government accepted that the PIRA played no part in this murder, thus there was no para military involvement, thus why a Diplock trial?
My thought are with the McCartney family, I watched Mrs Doreen Lawrence on TV last night, who experienced her own trials and tribulations when her son Steven was murdered by racist thugs, yet she remains an example to us all. The McCartneys appear to be made of similar stuff.
No word on the Court Press Officer briefing some of the media before the verdict was announced by the judge?
It would probably be better not to compare Steven Lawerence with Robert McCartney – it is unlikely to benefit the Lawerences. Haven’t they suffered enough?
Is Terrence Davison any relation to Brendan Davison from the markets who was shot dead, and who was apparently one of the highest ranking IRA informers in the city ?
‘now remove the bugging equipment from the homes of two of the McCartney sisters’
If any of the sisters seriously thought their homes were bugged, then surely the PSNI would check this out.
Sadly Mr. Gowdy, as a ‘friend’ of McCartney, has came out of this very badly indeed.
Hopefully one day the true killer of Robert, who is widely known, will face the court on a charge of murder.
Dec,
One of the most curious aspects of this trial has been the reluctance of the defence to call any witnesses. This judgement would appear to focus on the quality of the evidence and the decree to which it could be trusted. The judge:
“The law is not a feather for every wind that blows and the need to ensure that defendants are found guilty only if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be sacrificed to genuine and justifiable public concern that miscreants should be brought to justice.”
Absolutely right. But the context of the trial (and hundreds before this one) should not be forgotten either. Despite the judge’s optimism, it doubt the family will ever get justice for the murder of their brother, through the criminal courts at least.
Mick,
I’ve not read down through this, so I’m not sure I can answer why they invoked Diplock. But given the formerly accused were active volunteers at the time of the killing, and the IRA was intimately involved in actions afterwards (and according to the testimony of one of the witnesses, heavily influencing what material did or did not filter through to the police and criminal justice system), I don’t see how you can claim that they were not involved.
It would probably be better not to compare Steven Lawrence with Robert McCartney – it is unlikely to benefit the Lawrence’s. Haven’t they suffered enough?
Posted by El Paso
El Paso
Your post demonstrates the nasty smears both the Lawrence’s and McCartney,s have come up against due to having challenged powerful forces,
I never once mentioned the victims of these crimes, but wrote about their families. People who believe they are helping Irish republicanism by behaving in the same manner as yourself, should take a close look at their behavior.
It is interesting that those who have sided with the murderers of these two men have attempted to blacken the victims characters, whether the murdered men were saints or sinners and how they lived their lives has no relevance, what counts is that they had their lives stolen whilst they were in their prime.
In life you either side with the victim or the perpetrator, you El Paso have made your choice. How would you feel if your child or sibling was murdered and I came along and slandered them, you have no shame.
Micik,
Tsk, tsk…
MH’s point was “the British government accepted that the PIRA played no part in this murder”. He did not make any claim of his own so it’s hard to see what point you were responding to.
Do you know something the British Government don’t know? Please tell!
“…the IRA was intimately involved in actions afterwards…” Er, wasn’t that something the McArtneys asked for? If memory serves, you were quite keen on the idea yourself one time.
Mick
Play fair, if you read my post you will see I am not claiming the PIRA were not involved, simply stating that is what the British government claimed to believe. The Provos told the British government they were not involved in this murder and the HMG accepted this fact, i e the lads were just out on a spot of R@R
nothing to upset the apple cart over.
Thus my point about the Diplock court not being the appropriate place to try these men in stands. That the State failed to present evidence of the accused links with paramilitaries was highly relevant here?
Mick
Play fair, if you read my post you will see I am not claiming the PIRA were not involved, simply stating that is what the British government claimed to believe. The Provos told the British government they were not involved in this murder and the HMG accepted this fact, i e the lads were just out on a spot of R@R
nothing to upset the apple cart over.
Thus my point about the Diplock court not being the appropriate place to try these men in stands. That the State failed to present evidence of the accused links with paramilitaries was highly relevant here? As evidence of links was out there.
One of the most curious aspects of this trial has been the reluctance of the defence to call any witnesses. This judgement would appear to focus on the quality of the evidence and the decree to which it could be trusted.
Mick
That was the defence’s strategy (in Mr Davison’s case certainly). Given the quality of the evidence (the Judge referred to Gowdy as having lied in court, that Devine’s evidence ‘bordered on fantasy’ and that witness C had incorrectly identified Mr Davison) is it any wonder? Bear in mind Terry Davison gave a full statement to police where as the other accused remained silent. Anybody with the slightest inkling about this case knows the identity of the man who stabbed Robert McCartney and Brendan Devine That man was not Terry Davison.
Hi Mick (H),
Not sure where you think I slandered anybody, maybe you’d care to point it out.
Steven Lawerence was murdered in an unporvoked racist attack as he waited for a bus. Robert McCartney was murdered as a result of a drunken brawl he helped to create.
The Lawerence sought justice for their murdered son.
The McCartneys sought to collecively smear an entire community for their murdered brother.
I, personally, don’t see how the Lawerence’s benefit by being dragged into the McCartney affair. But you seem determined to use their misfortune for your own purposes anyway.
You are the first person to mention a smear campaign against Steven Lawerence, to my knowledge. What are you getting at?
Mick,
This was not a dispute between 2 groups of men who did not know each other. There was an overlap within the drinkers in terms of friendships and connections and loyalties to a certain grouping.
The dispute arose not over idealogical differences but rather a drunken misinterpretation of a perceived slight against a female.
The hideous actions of the killer whose family had ‘history’ with a friend of McCartney was the main factor in this grotesque murder.
Eternal shame on him and those that collaborated in the clean-up.
Mick,
Okay. So you are arguing then in that case, it could not have been a scheduled offence? I’m afraid I am not familiar with the rules governing Diplock, but I would have thought the provisions of the latest iteration of the Act allow for Diplock where widespread intimidation of witnesses is likely. But I cannot say for sure.
Mick, a direct quotation of the British statement would clarify things too?
Betcha,
Not sure where you’re going with the Scap angle – do you think the Brits did it?
El Paso
I’m not sure if we are at cross purposes, or I am misunderstanding you, but a section of the Met conducted a smear campaign against Steven Lawrence, i e no smoke without fire, it was a dispute about a drug deal gone wrong that led to Steven’s death, he was after all a black man etc. All bar him being a black man turned out to be utter rubbish and designed to discredit him and the campaign to bring those who murdered him to justice.
Indeed, nothing could have been farther from the truth as Steven was a church goer, a studious young man etc. Plus the Met [local] new who and why he died, as they had an informer in the family of one of the gang members family who killed him.
The similarities between the two cases are striking as to is the fact that both families failed to get justice.
Mick
Surly Diplock came into being not because of intimidation of witnesses, but the British State concluded they could not trust a local jury to convict PRA members. This had far more to do than just juries being go at. If you look back over the troubles there were periods when local juries would have refused to convict, at least by a majority verdict because some members would not have felt being in the IRA was a crime.
As the prosecution never claimed these men were in the IRA then they should not have been before a diplock court. As to my producing an official statement about the British state agreeing these men were not IRA, your having a laugh. You know only to well as far as this mockney peace process is concerned the British government does not put every thing down on paper.
Business has continuously been done by nods winks and whispers in ears. Or the decommissioning body report that the Provos are whiter than white.
Dec states “Anybody with the slightest inkling about this case knows the identity of the man who stabbed Robert McCartney and Brendan Devine”.
One would infer from this statement that “Dec” is aware of who the murderer is! I for one would like to know why he has not supplied the PSNI with information relating to this as has been suggested by sf/ira.
Perhaps he can give us some further info on this matter, or more likely he can try and cover it up!
Oh Dec, I know exactly who you are by the way!
Mick,
Here’s the original Dipock report’s recommendations: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/diplock.htm#2. The first three all deal with intimidation of witnesses. This legal directory defines it as a means of dealing with the intimidation of witnesses: http://www.kevinboone.com/lawglos_DiplockCourt.html.
The problem with dealing sanely with any of the material around this story is the huge amount of cynicism that has been spun around it. I’m being very careful in trying not to add to that deadening cynicism.
What we know for sure is that a man was killed after a ruck in McGennis’s pub. That the bar in which the ruck began was packed with people from Sinn Fein and the IRA. That the IRA conducted an ‘inquiry’ that found three unnamed volunteers guilty and offered to shot them. It also expelled a unquantified number of others. That the only witnesses to take the stand were two others who were attacked, and woman driver who passed by.
There is a great deal more compromising detail in the public domain which may or may not be open to reasonable conjecture. But the bare facts above are undisputed by anyone.
In which case, frankly, I cannot see what point you are making. And I am not being in the least bit facetious Mick.
Mick
I never thought you were being facetious, and as far as you are concerned my argument about the Diplock courts has no legs so it is pointless my adding further. Although as far as I am concerned people like Diplock are asked to make reports by the UK governments because they wish to have window dressing for their dastardly deeds. Lord Diplock is hardly an example of truth and honesty as far as I am concerned as his courts were simply a conveyor belt system to lock up Irish republicans.
The Diplock courts were set up as I have already said because the British state could no longer trust an Irish jury to convict republicans by a majority verdict.
If it was simply about protecting witnesses as you claim, what difference would a Diplock court make? as the very same witnesses who would have appeared in a jury trial, went on to testify before Diplock courts and those courts had no difficulty in getting witnesses to testify, nor to convict. The only difference being they only had to convince a subjective judge, not 12 good people and true as British law until then demanded.
Mick I have to say you must be one of the few people in Ireland who actually believes the crap Diplock came out with for setting up these courts, which are regarded throughout the world as a travesty of justice.
It amazes me you place any faith in what the British governments place-men say on Ireland, for christ sake these shysters have been lying through their teeth for 800 years.
No offense meant, we just live in different worlds and have different values.
Legislation that enabled the Diplock system, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, plus the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, is still in effect. As such a Diplock trial can be initiated anytime a jury cannot be safely selected, the involvement of the IRA or terrorism need not be a factor.
The debate about a sympathetic jury or an intimidated jury really has no bearing, as a safe jury could be selected in any other region of the UK outside of NI (for NI cases). This in large part supports the argument that the Diplock systems is no more than a rubber stamp version of Internment.
I believe the Diplock system is to be used in the prosecution of one of the suspects in the Northern Bank robbery, with an immediate appeal planned to the European Court of Human Rights in the event of a conviction.
More evidence? It was all destroyed. Funny place, Northern Ireland.
Oh Dec, I know exactly who you are by the way!
No you don’t, troll-boy!
E3A,
Back off with the man playing. Tackle Dec’s arguments! Otherwise your appearance here will be very short lived!!
Right Mick. I get your logic now. I think we have been tunnelling into the same stone at different angles. My fault I fear. Juries is certainly the largely the problem.
Clearly Diplock did not prevent the widespread intimidation/marshalling of witnesses in this case. So I take your point. I have previously noted just how useless the criminal justice system is (the vast majority of those convicted throughout the Troubles were Loyalists, which may reflect higher levels of alienation amongst te Republican community, but if this case is anything to go by, greater professionalism in redding up afterwards, and capacity to influence witnesses has to be considered a major factor) in dealing with anti state paramilitaries who are well versed in site management, and intimidation.
That’s not a defence of Diplock btw. But given all that has passed in this story I’m not sure what the heinousness of British justice has to do with it.
Mick
I mentioned the Diplock courts because I wondered whether this was one of those trials that were meant to fail.
Funny enough I did jury service a while back and it was for me an eye opener. [not in Ireland]
It is important to remember that the cases I witnessed were all run of the mill and not high profile, but a number of things struck me, firstly just how seriously the jurors took their responsibilities, the jury system works well. [if I can be called anyone can;). The openness and fairness that the judge showed to all, including the accused, the restrictions placed on judges over sentencing and how draconian and silly some of those restriction are, plus the enormous number of cases that come before the court due to the prohibition of certain substances and finally the depressing fact that once a young man is sent to prison they may well be on that treadmill for life, with all the consequences this involves for society in general.
I could have got out of it but I did not as I was interested in seeing how an essential element of our ‘democracy’ works in practice, if anyone else is called I would advise them to go as it is well worth the experience.
All the best Mick
Regarding the brawl inside Magennis’s, would it be true to say that the only blood spilled inside the pub was that of one of the accused, courtesy of one of the trial witnesses?
Also, as the actual deadly assaults took place in the dimly lit(if there is any street lighting at all) sidestreet adjacent to the pub; I would like to know, of the people who were inside the pub, exactly how many, if indeed any, actually witnessed the attacks.
I believe that the knife/knives used in the attack, most certainly would have dissapeared after the attacks(no surprise there), but to what extent, within that timeframe, was the whole area ‘redded out’?
I think the whole issue of intimidation/marshalling, is a convenient red herring. The fact that the vast majority of people in the bar that night had undoubted republican sympathies, could explain some peoples reluctance, out of a perceived sense of loyalty, to co-operate with the police. Although I understand that many of them did cooperate. Especially in a localised situation like this, regardless of what the leadership of Sinn Fein requested, many did not cooperate, but this is not intimidation. The more the political nature of this case evolved, the less likely other people would come forward.
The diplock court issue is again a red herring, because it was the best route to get a conviction. If it had been down to a 12 person jury, based on the evidence, it would have been dismissed earlier.
“All Sinn Fein voters, I imagine.
Well done, DC. “Man playing” almost 25% of the population.”
Yea right, hardly. Sinn Fein played themselves on this one.
Paul Kielty….. do you mean Paddy Kielty because your obviously joking.
Mr Devine had his throat slashed IN THE BAR by one of the killers.
Mr Davidson (jock) had his hand badly gashed by a broken bottle wielded by on of Mr McCartneys killers, who was actually attempting to slash Mr Devine’s throat in an attempt to kill him and thus stop him from testifying against a close relation of one of Mr McCartneys killers in a seperate trial.
But keep telling the jokes because your bloody awful at FACTS
I’m fairly conviced the McCartney killing and its aftermath will go down in history as an illustration
of just how bankrupt the armed republican project became.
Some republican contributers to this thread continue to demonstrate the complete and utter inability to look outside the cul de sac they find themselves in, and begin to understand how the rest of us, including honest republicans it has to be said, view these events.
Posted by TAFKABO on Jun 29, 2008 @ 02:58 AM
Republican Bankruptcy? Surely the whole episode illustrates complete moral jocosity and is an inflection on all of NI, especially a justice system prepositioned to fail?
There must be an solution to how such a marginalised segment of society can drag down the whole country.
Tell’us another,
Have you brought this ground breaking evidence to the PSNI?
No…..I doubt it!
Less of the personal abuse please.