Nally "Not guilty" :

by Brian Cambell Thu Dec 14, 2006 23:24

Just sick, sick, racist sick was the jury's "verdict" . Numbed and outraged I switched on to the Vincent Browne Show a few minutes ago for some insights into this travesty but no cold comfort there for this pilgrim has gone AWOL from what is now the black racist elephant in Ireland's parlour, not even a mention of the egregious injustice that was visited today on the Ward family and the Travelling People by Browne, only hypocrites, presided over by whatsisname, opining on whatsisface, Douglas Gageby.

by Maggie Ward - Pavee Point Fri Dec 15, 2006 00:02

No mockeries now for him; no prayers nor bells;
Nor any voice of mourning save the choirs, -
The shrill, demented choirs of wailing racists;
Only Herr McDowell's and Enda Kenny's hypocrisy, endlessly shitting on him in his unquiet grave.

by Stuart Fri Dec 15, 2006 00:32

No person should retreat in fear in their own home, but standing ground in self-defence does not permit the pursuit of another human in retreat, shooting, bludgeoning and shooting again. How can such an obscene judgement as "not guilty" of manslaughter (not even murder) pass? Who failed?

Padraig Nally was obsessed with intruders, a prisoner of fear, a man who daily poured water on the earth of his drive to catch tyre marks, a meticulous keeper of the registration numbers of passing vehicles, noted for his comments on strangers and movements in the area - yet (it would seem) not one person seems to have felt the need for psychiatric support, social care or garda surveillance. Why should anyone die for this?

by El Bull Fri Dec 15, 2006 01:05

There is a reasonable case to be made that crime reports should avoid undue emphasis on elements such as the race or ethnicity of the perpetrator. Headlines such as "Nigerian convicted of credit card scam" or "Lithuanian driver over alcohol limit hits pedestrian", by placing an undue emphasis on the nationality of the perpetrators, run the risk of reinforcing unfair stereotypes about immigrants. There seems to be some bit of acceptance of this line of thought, in at least some newspapers, giving us equally factual headlines like "Man convicted of credit card scam" or "Learner driver over alcohol limit hits pedestrian".

Is there a similar case to be made for the victims of crime? Should we be discussing the fact the Nally shot and killed a convicted criminal, instead of focusing on the fact that Nally shot and killed a traveller? Both are factual statements (to the best of my knowledge - I haven't being following this closely, but I heard, in an impassioned discussion in a city centre pub last night, which, incidentally, was joined by all within earshot, with all those who offered an opinion (other than this writer) supporting Nally, that Ward had a number of previous convictions).

Is it not the case that Ward was shot because he was a known criminal, who undertook such actions as to give Nally cause to fear for his own safety? Why does this have to be about whether Ward was a traveller or an asylum seeker or some other minority?

Would the jury have found Nally not guilty if the criminal that he shot was, say, a strung out junkie who had travelled up from Dublin for the day? I suspect that they would – the jury’s verdict isn’t necessarily a commentary on prevailing attitudes to travellers in Ireland, it’s more a reflection of a crime-obsessed public that has sympathy for elderly people living alone in rural areas, who have been taking such a beating over recent years (am I now slipping into the trap of focusing on the minority status of the victims here?)

The key question here in not “How could a jury acquit a man who killed traveller?” No, the key question is “How could a jury acquit a man who shot another man in the back as the latter was running away?”

But lets bear in mind that Nally was found not guilty by the same process that found the Pitstop Ploughshares not guilty. A dozen of his peers sat in judgement of him, and basically found his actions acceptable. Did the jury get it wrong? Or is it the case that our legal system, which allows us, the citizens of the state, to act as arbitrators in such cases, has returned a result that reflects the general consensus among the populace?

by FFS Fri Dec 15, 2006 01:55

Nally was a terrified, paranoid elderly man living alone in a remote area. He had never run foul of the law. By all accounts he was a decent man and a good neighbour. He's sitting down having a lunchtime cuppa. He has no intention of committing any crime. A powerfully built, violent criminal 20 years his junior with 90 previous convictions and 4 outstanding bench warrants suddenly arrives "looking for scrap metal". Yeah, right. Ninety seconds later, after a violent struggle, Nally is alive, the criminal thug is dead. This is racism????? Grow up. Ward is dead because of his behavior not because he's a traveller.

by Anti-racist Fri Dec 15, 2006 04:03

"Ward is dead because of his behavior not because he's a traveller" and the converse of this is that Nally's scot-free because racist Ireland has turned the blind eye to his murderous vigilantism.

John's cold in the ground because his instinctual "behaviour" for self-preservation did'nt have the lambkin desire to die in the farmer's slaughter yard - shock/horror, his body resisted Nally's cudgel blows like a "badger," - he's dead for he did'nt have the "behavioural" death-wish to stay , whilst Nally, at leisure, reloaded his shotgun, severely wounded, he had the audacity to crawl away, for his "behaviour" to be rewarded, point blank, with a second, cold blooded, killing blast.

It's absolutely chilling, no, unfortunately it's not, for Israel and the US neo cons are possessed of the same evil, to witness the psychopathology of racist apologists of Nally, in "real Indymedia time" being vented on the unquiet grave of a murdered man.

John Ward's "behaviour" was being born a Traveller and being the consequent whipping boy of a now, fully blown, murderous, crowing racism, the crime committed against him cries out for justice and will endure beyond the present, inhuman Zeitgeist breath of Mammon racist Ireland and its proselytizers, McDowell, Ahern and Kenny, etc, etc, etc.

by Longford Utd Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:34

For the last time, this is not Racism. You shouting it over and obver again will not nor never make it so.

At best this is discrimination. Ward is white and Irish. Genetically the same as all with a long historical attachment to this Island.

More to the point Nally didn't actively seek Ward out, Ward was on his land uninvited and presenting an intimidating and alarming presence to a man 20 yrs his senior.

The job of the Jury was to place themselves in the mind and circumstances of Nallys shooting of Ward. Then to consider whether he acted as they would taking into account the history of intimidation and Wards prediposition to acts of extreme violence.
They did just that and returned their verdict.

Leave the sensationism to the Tabloids please.
You will find perusers here far more sophisticated and more than able to debate this verdict with hysterics.

by John Boy Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:41

There are many people that have little sympathy for John Ward, not because he's a Traveller but because he was a thieving low-life. That's got nothing to do with his ethnicity, if you want to call it that?

Does the general public mourn the shooting dead of a low-life, in cold blood, in the IFSC the other night? No. He wasn't a Traveller. Just another low-life.

If you want to condemn the verdict, do so on legal grounds and don't just play the racist card over and over again. It does no one any favours.

by observer Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:57

No offence but your post is nothing more than hysterical hyperbole. Ward was not an innocent victim of racism. He was a lifelong violent thug who was as much a threat to his own community (of Travellers) and his own family indeed as he was to the rest of us. You do a disservice to Travellers by claiming that he was somehow representative of them. Most Travellers I know are decent honest people. Ward was not.

by John Boy Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:14

Anyone with 4 outstanding bench warrants and with as many visits to the courts (though doubtlessly fewer than crimes) is not exactly JUST a victim of their ethnicity. Cop yourself on.

by wismari Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:49

travelers have been robbing and beating old people in rural Ireland for decades.

Nally got what he deserved.

by Longford Utd Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:53

I think most of Jaysus' post was quotation, although not too sure who he was shouting at to go plant bombs.

Just for clarification, in my earlier post i type-oed, the 'with in my last sentence should of course been 'without'

Humble apologie

by hard to call. Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:57

I haven't heard the full details of the case, but I think there is over-reaction on both sides.
For Pavee Point to go screaming "the life of a traveller is worth less than a settled person is a bit much". And here's to to think why, a quick test for your own mind.
IF Mr. Nally had been the one breaking into Mr. Ward's home (I don't know if he was in a halting site, a caravan or what) and Mr. Ward caught him. If Mr. Nally ended up dead, do you think that middle class racist Ireland would feel sorry for him? No, they'd say. "He was a thief, and a stupid one at that. Maybe Frog Ward didn't have the legal right to kill him, but Nally didn't exactly bring a solicitor along for a debate during the burglary"

I know the law says you can't kill someone just for stealing something, and it's right, but most people will emotionally side with the person being robbed. When you are being robbed, you don't exactly react in a calm cold blooded fashion. You don't know how far the intruder intends to go, and in fairness, it's not like most people are trained for the situation. It is fair to look at rules of engagement for soldiers, and people like the ERU, e.g. Abbeylara, because they were trained to control the situation. Mr Nally was not given prior warning and protocols and clear indication of where to use force and when to draw the line. Surely he has spent time in prison replaying the incident and second guessing, but he can do that for the rest of his life, and not be able to change it to bring back the father of 11 children.

At first, when I heard the news, I thought, it's not nice that a man was shot dead, but the homeowner was taking no chances and c'est la vie.
Then when I heard that Mr. Nally had followed him out and shot him, it sounded like an execution killing. A crawling man is not much of a threat, and it's hardly self defence to shoot him dead. I've heard the argument that he might have thought Ward had an accomplice and that's why he dumped the body. If he thought Ward had an accomplice, and might call him, then he might have thought that stopping Wards escape was self defence, but shooting him would certainly alert an accomplice, who might run from gunfire or might come for revenge. Remember in WWI they did shoot to kill unarmed or injured messengers to prevent them giing info to re-inforcements. Probably a crime, but you can see the logic and the idea of self preservation.

This case was not simply traveller v non-traveller. It was a man who had endured a lot of petty crimes and didn't feel safe in his home, and then found an intruder, and reacted. For all we know he might have thought that if he let Ward escape, Ward would signal to an accomplice who would come (yeah call the gards then) but if you're not in your right frame of mind you can easily over-react and imagine things that aren't there.
Could happen to anyone, and it's not always easy for a jury to decide whether Mr. Nally was trying to kill Mr. Ward as a punishment, out of anger (which he wasn't entitled to do) or out of insane fear.
That's why you shouldn't break into people's houses, cos they might kill you. What comfort is it to you if they go to jail afterwards? None. it won't feed your kids or pay your bills. That's what a lot of peopple think of this case, of course there are people who just don't like travellers as well, but it's not fair to paint everyone as anti-traveller just cos they don't cry for John Ward.
I think John Ward got a bad deal, sure, and I feel bad for his family, but he's not an innocent victim. Padraig Nally seems to have some serious flaws as well, but he was in a situation he didn't start and he was terrified. We weren't there, and it's hard to judge from a distance, if you don't understand how isolated and unprotected Nally felt, and his state of mind.
Legal niceties aside, if you go looking for trouble, it usually comes back in disproportionate force.
I'm glad he has said he is sorry for Wards family. And hard as it is for Ward's family, they should put thoughts of revenge out of their minds.
Mr. Nally did not really have the right to kill Mr. Ward, and he is not a hero for doing it, or someone to admire, or wrap our own anti-traveller prejudices around. Ward was ONE man, and he was a traveller, but he's not EVERY traveller. Mr. Nally is not Irish society or poster boy for causing all the suffering of the travelling community. He's just one man, like Mr. Ward was, and found himself in a bad situation, didn't handle it well, but came out of it alive, and then had to face the consequences. Perhaps the jury saw that more than the strict legal interpretation of reasonable force and self defence.

by michael - travelling community Fri Dec 15, 2006 15:21 mickob77 at hotmail dot com

In response to the verdict on the mcnally-ward case,i have to say i am not at all surprised that mcnally got off with it(MURDER that is). you know ireland reminds me of the dark ages in america when white people did all that they did to coloured people,its the same here sometimes...now dont get me wrong there are only a minority of people who are prejudiced against travellers and i know that they will welcome the verdict with open arms.But for Gods sake spare a thought for the Ward family who have lost s father and husband,judge him all you like but at the end of the day he was still someones son and no-one has the right to take another mans life so violently. all i can say is when the dust has settled and mcnally's miserable old life finally comes to an end its not the travelling people he has to fear,but God Almighty himself and then i pray that justice will finally be done.

by eif Fri Dec 15, 2006 17:23

Some relevant issues for me:

1. We do not have the death penalty for burgalry and harrashment in Ireland. And lets hope we never do. Anyone disagree?

2. People should only be 'punished' for crimes they actually commit, not crimes that people fear they might commit.

3. Arguing that Nally commited manslaughter is not a comment on how nice/awful/shitty/useful/reliable people may decide Frog was as a person.

4. Self-defence is, of course, a valid understanding of why and how someone can kill. Whether Nally's life was in danger to the extent that killing the other person was necessary is the crux of the argument. I find it hard, reading about what happened, to see how this killing was self-defence. (I know little about the legal definitions of this. i dunno how much I'd trust them anyway)

5. Defence of property should in no way have priority over the life of a person. I feel sick when i listen to Government and Fine Gael recent discussion of the rights of property owners, the implications being that murder is ok if someone threatens your fancy car / ming vase ... we aren't talking about livelihoods here - no hungry/homeless people are the property owners in question.

6. if Nally was/is mentally unwell and recieving attention and care for it, this would be a mitigating factor. however, this is not the case (though it perhaps maybe it should be, he doesn't sound very well...)

6. The perception of the case being racist is being misunderstood by some people it seems to me. the most important thing in understanding racism/prejudice is that the most powerful aspects of it are not about individual attitudes or personalities. it's about the outcome of systems and how these racism systems encourage and propagate attitudes and opinion, and how these feed back into such systems.

It's not that I believe that everyone on that jury has an irrational hatred towards the travelling community, or thought that Frog 'deserved' to die. but the issue of racism is not solely about this individual case, but the outcomes of many cases which show that the most marginalised people in society ie the least powerful in our political system, always always always have heavier, harder sentences with less leniancy. and the rich / people with status do better. in general. And the travelling community and people of colour are often marginalised due to complex issues of race and class.

7. The simple reality is that if Frog was not a traveller, though this outcome would have of course been possible, it would have been less acceptable to the jury and to public opinion. Less likely. Less 'obvious'. i don't think this is a biased presumption, as some indymedia readers might decide, but a recognition of how the ruling classes maintain their system. There's a reason why the rich stay rich, and it 'aint 'cos they all just happen to be smarter/nicer/more damn cool than the rest of us!

8. White collar crime kills the livelihoods of many. Banks and multinational corporations 'steal' from the poor giving to the rich owners/shareholders, (or get given what belongs to others, in the case of Shell!) keeping huge numbers of people down and oppressed in Ireland, in poorer countries, and whole continents. White collar criminals are usually given a slap on the wrist or a refusal to promotion. sometimes luxury low-security prisons. What 'punishment' do the big guys deserve?

9. It's easier to lock up the little guys to pretend everything is fair and safe now.

hehe, dunno why i numbered that!
I feel sorry for Nally and the fear he went through.
But i think the damage this outcome will have on the lives of Travellers in Ireland is much more regretable.

by Ernie O'malley Fri Dec 15, 2006 17:36

How smug and proud you must feel. You have seized the High Moral Ground. What does that do for Travellers? What does it do for Elderly isolated people who live in fear of burglars and assault?

What happened here has got nothing to do with Travellers. Its about a career criminal who confronted a farmer who was 20 years older than him and who was also much smaller than Ward.

This Career Criminal might have come from a settled background. If he had would you be writing your comments today? If Nally had killed a settled burglar who came from Tallaght I dont think we would have this uproar. I also think Nally would still have been acquitted.

We on the Left and in the Anti Racist movement are not doing Travellers or other ethnic minorities any favours when we make special pleadings on behalf of violent career criminals just because they comr from an ethnic minority.

Ward was a lumpen violent career criminal. Some settled people are violent career criminals, Some travellers are violent career criminals. There is no place on the Left or in the Anti Racist movement for any sympathy for such thugs.

Think instead of the Elderly, living alone, in fear. Thats who we should be supporting.

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 17:46

Ernie says "What happened here has got nothing to do with Travellers. Its about a career criminal who confronted a farmer who was 20 years older than him and who was also much smaller than Ward."

Ward did not confront Nally. Nally himself has said that it was him that confronted ward and then shot him.

Ernie says "This Career Criminal might have come from a settled background. If he had would you be writing your comments today? If Nally had killed a settled burglar who came from Tallaght I dont think we would have this uproar. I also think Nally would still have been acquitted."

First of all if the person that was in Nallys yard was settled, Nally probably would not have kiled him as he had a problem with "Travellers" as he himself admitted. Secondly if he had killed a settled person such as a local council oficial that turned up to do a survey then Nally would be sitting in jail today.

by Hard to Call. Fri Dec 15, 2006 17:48

I have to hold up my hands and say, I was mostly playing devil's advocate in my first post. Also, I got some of my info on case from right wing tabloid. From another perspective, I've been told, that there was no argument that prior to the first shooting, that Ward was endangering Nally. If it's true he shot him just for stealing something, then it's a whole different case.

In that case, he should have been found quilty, and if the judge took pity on him fr stupidity, then at very very least, do time served, so people will get the message that you can't just use lethal force against thieves. Shoot him in the leg to stop him fleeing and call the cops, - depends on circumstances.. but that then leads into feeling "oh crap, I've shot this guy and he'll get violent revenge if I let him live so I have to finish him off now" - stupid thinking, guided by fear, - understandable fear, but acting like it wasn't anyway wrong or irresponsible sends the wrong message.

Also sending the wrong message is letting people to their own devices in ruarl areas, with no community watch, slow response times from Gardai. Some people will get paranoid and their fear of crime damages their quality of life worse than the act of crime itself, and then they over-react with dreadful consequences. If we get the FG or PD wet dream of reassuring voters by allowing a shoot to kill policy, then god help any lost hill walker knocking on a cottage door in Ballygobackwards... the feeling of being imprisoned and having to look out for yourself only makes it harder to have a decent community atmosphere. Anyway... I'm sure this debate will rumble on.

by Ernie O'Malley Fri Dec 15, 2006 17:54

Patsy is just repeating the same distortions he posted on another thread. Nally did not have a thing about Travellers, he had a thing about being burgled. Two elderly people in his area had been beaten to death by burglars.

It is absurd to suggest that Nally would have killed a council official. Council officials do not have a habit of going in through back doors uninvited.

This is not about Travellers. It is about a violent career criminal who came to prey on an elderly farmer.

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 18:05

Ernie says "Patsy is just repeating the same distortions he posted on another thread. Nally did not have a thing about Travellers, he had a thing about being burgled."

He did have a thing about Travellers. he expressed that publicly and even went so far as to say that he sat in his barn waiting with a loaded weapon for travellers to arrive.

Ernie says: " Two elderly people in his area had been beaten to death by burglars."

You still havent told us where an dwhen this was ernie? Whats it to doo with this case? - nothing.

Ernie says "It is absurd to suggest that Nally would have killed a council official. Council officials do not have a habit of going in through back doors uninvited."

Ward didnt either. he was never inside the house.

This is not about Travellers. It is about

by eif Fri Dec 15, 2006 18:09

i really don't think what i'm trying to discuss has anything to do with smugness or 'moral highground'. I disagree with the verdict (though I'm open to argument, since I don't know the case in any huge detail), but i am not trying to 'take sides'

My points are to do with aiming for a more just and coherent system.

the main point i'm trying to make is that supporting the elderly living in fear does not mean that killing someone is a just or useful solution.

killing people does not solve crime in the bigger picture. i do not think this will act as much a deterent to people who rob houses, since such crime happens because of a (perceived) necessity. and i do not think elderly people living in fear will feel safer if they believe they can kill someone on their property, as such people, I assume, do not view murder as a positive option in any way.

i believe that this outcome may oppress people further, in this instance travellers, which will lead to more violence/fear/danger/prejudice/killings etc etc

and my last points are nothing to do with my opinion of who is deserving or undeserving of anthing, but rather appreciating power differences / imbalances and how they influence individual cases. this is all on the basis of my belief in equality. if this is what you dismiss as 'moral high ground', we're not gonna agree on too much!

by Lefty Type Fri Dec 15, 2006 18:10

Padraig Nally, shot John Ward seriously wounding him. I guess there is an argument that this was a self-defence of sorts. However that's as far as it goes.

When Padraig then proceeded to pick up a stick and beat Mr. Ward, this most certainly is not self-defence. How much of a threat was Ward at this stage. And when he then turned around and started limping/crawling/whatever down the road, he definitely did not pose an immediate threat to Mr. Nally's life. Thus for Padraig to take the time to RELOAD his shotgun and shoot John Ward IN THE BACK AS HE WAS TRYING TO GET AWAY, this can only be viewed as an offensive act on the part of Mr. Nally; one which tragically ended John Ward's life.

Traveller/farmer/young/old/criminal or not Padraig Nally was entirely responsible for John Ward's death, and for a jury of 12 right thinking citizens to decide otherwise, is incomprehensible at best, and shameful at the very least.

by Ernie O'Malley Fri Dec 15, 2006 18:16

You are not helping Travellers by suggesting that Nally should have been convicted. You are certainly not helping the isolated rural elderly. Elderly people in the area were beaten to death by burglars. You are not taking that into account.

Its not about travellers its about violent criminals. You either accept that ordinary people have the right to defend themselves against lumpen elements or you dont. Be the criminals settled or traveller, whether the crimes happen in urban or rural areas, ordinary people have a right to defend themselves.

I reckon I know how Makhno and Durrutti would have dealt with lumpen gangs who were robbing and murdering the elderly.

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 18:22

Ernie says "You are not helping Travellers by suggesting that Nally should have been convicted. You are certainly not helping the isolated rural elderly. Elderly people in the area were beaten to death by burglars. You are not taking that into account."

What has this to do with Nally killing Ward? Nothing. You still didnt tell us where and when these killings beside Nally took place.

Ernie says "Its not about travellers its about violent criminals. You either accept that ordinary people have the right to defend themselves against lumpen elements or you dont."

But Nally wasnt defending himself when he shot an unarmed man, beat him so severely that he broke several ribs or bones and then proceeded to go off, reload his weapon, follow the injured man who was trying to crawl away to safety and then shoot him in the back on the public road. That is a cold blooded killing - not self defence.

by Bronterre O'Brien Fri Dec 15, 2006 18:37

When a court in New York found the police who killed Amadou Diallo in a fusillade of 41 bullets not guilty it legalzed the execution of black men. The latest victim is Sean Bell executed in a mad police frenzy of 50 bullets.
The Nally case sets a dangerous precedent. Resort must be had to international bodies. The oppression of the Travellers must be brought to the United Nations.
There will be a march tomorrow on Fifth Avenue to protest the killing of Sean Bell.
The oppression of Travellers has much in common with that of African-Americans. Perhaps alliances can be made between the two struggles.

by Longford Utd Fri Dec 15, 2006 18:44

You cannot compare police brutality of african-americans to the Nally case. That is just sensationalist and menacingly innacurate.

Please stick to the facts.

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 19:57

Ernie said "You are just being pathethic. Repeating the same unsupported opinions. You are like a record stuck in a groove. Not worthy of a full response"

Of course not Ernie - that would be too awkward for you wouldnt it?

How did Ward enter the house as you keep suggesting? Did he come down the chimney?

How come his fingerprints werent found inside the house as he wasnt wearing gloves? No forensics whatsoever?

When and where exactly did these other murders you keep on about near Nallys place happen?

by Ernie Fri Dec 15, 2006 20:07

Three elderly people were beaten to death but that does not seem to matter to you. You cannot be unaware of the scourge of rural burgalaries. You cannot be ignorant of the fact that elderly people have been beaten to death by travellers and settled criminals.

The case I mentioned was first reffered to a year ago on this very thread. You find it if you want. The fact that you deny that three people were beaten to death in the area by burglars shows your indifference for the elderly.

Your rantings about forensics do not merit an answer. You have no expertise in the area. The Gardai forensic experts do not make the claims that you do.

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 20:25

Ernie says "Three elderly people were beaten to death but that does not seem to matter to you."

Where exactly did I say that? Now you are just making stuff up. Of course it matters to me, but you made reference to a number of murders of elederly people close to Nallys house. All I asked you is for some information on that. When did these murders take place near Nallys and where exactly did it happen?I didnt realise that these murders had taken place near Nallys home, at least not in recent times, so I am just asking for some info from you. Surely the details arent a secret are they?

Ernie says: " You cannot be unaware of the scourge of rural burgalaries. You cannot be ignorant of the fact that elderly people have been beaten to death by travellers and settled criminals."

Yes I do, but I dont know what it has to do with this case. Nothing in fact.

Ernie says " The case I mentioned was first reffered to a year ago on this very thread. You find it if you want. The fact that you deny that three people were beaten to death in the area by burglars shows your indifference for the elderly."

This thread only started on Dec 14th. Ther are no details of these murders you refer to near Nallys home on this thread. Where did I deny that these murders took place? I didnt - its just you making stuff up again isnt it? I never denied they took place. I didnt know any such killing took place in Nallys locality which is why I am asking you for some details. Not knowing the precise location and distance from Nallys home of every murder victim in the state does not show my indifference to the elderly.

Ernie says: "Your rantings about forensics do not merit an answer. You have no expertise in the area. The Gardai forensic experts do not make the claims that you do."

I never claimed to be an expert but I do know if Ward was in the house they would have found evidence of him being there. They found no evidence that he was in the house, no forensics, no fingerprints, no locks damaged.

Again I'll ask. How did he get in? How come he left no fingerprints if he was not wearing gloves?

by bamboozled. Fri Dec 15, 2006 22:18

and laws and stuff.

El Bull wrote

"But lets bear in mind that Nally was found not guilty by the same process that found the Pitstop Ploughshares not guilty. A dozen of his peers sat in judgement of him, and basically found his actions acceptable.
I ahve a few questions and remarks...

1. This guy was originally found guilty and appealed.
The Plougshares case never had a guilty verdict, but there were problems in the first two mistrials where the judge was refusing to allow a defence that was specifically provided for in law. Of course, they never over-reacted or used violence on people. They acted to prevent violence being done. Nally's case is quite different.
Now, the appeal in the Nally case seems to have been based on that the original trial judge told the Jury that the only options were guilty of manslaughter or guilty of murder. Now, a judge normally would allow a jury to return a verdict of not guilty, unless it would be perverse. What I want to know (if anyone here knows) in the original trial, did Nally give some srot of evidence that Ward actually confronted him. Cos if it was all in Nally's head... imagined fear of future violence, rather than actual assault from Nally, then what he did was pre-emptive killing, which is not allowed in law. His acts would not be reasonable, or proportionate. It is not unheard of for judges to direct jury's like this. It also happened in the Mary Kelly case (although that was blatantly unfair cos the judge deliberately misquoted the law AFTER an earlier error had been pointed out to him). The judge could decide that there was no defence presented, and under the evidence presented.
In that case, how did Nally manage to get an appeal in the first place? Purely because of tabloids stirring up a sexy story based on stereotypes. "Poor rural batchelor, forced to defend himself from one of those rotten scumbag travellers"? or politicians utterings about being tough on criminals?
Even if Ward HAD a string of convictions for violent crime, did Nally know this at the time? Finding it out later can't justify anything.

El Bull also wrote :
"Did the jury get it wrong? Or is it the case that our legal system, which allows us, the citizens of the state, to act as arbitrators in such cases, has returned a result that reflects the general consensus among the populace?"

It might be that they did both. There is little sympathy for criminals or travellers in the general population, and a traveller with a criminal record gets even less so. They dead man was obviously not in court, and the jury were looking at the man who killed him, and wondering if they would have done the same. Perhaps they would have jumped to the same conclusions based on prejudices, and sympathised. We don't know, cos we're not privvy to the Juror's deliberations. But it is possible, that they did reflect societal bias against travellers.

I still can't get round how the guy can justify shooting Ward in the back and then beating and executing him. I would have thought a temporary insanity plea would have been his only chance of avoiding a long jail term. The law is supposed to allow killing only in extreme cases of self defence. Why couldn't he simply fire a warning shot? That would have sent a big message to Ward... don't come back... I'm armed and dangerous.
Pity there's no indymedia court report on this. It would be interesting to see what was actually said in court, rather than rely on small soundbytes from the mainstream media.

by Yusuf Sat Dec 16, 2006 21:32

In February 2001, some four years before his death. Mr. Ward, who lived for over a year in Sligo, spoke about the difficulties he was facing trying to rear his family at the side of the road.

The father of a Travelling family whose sons have to sleep in the back of a Hiace van in a car park has appealed for assistance in finding suitable accommodation.

John Ward, who has been residing with his family at the car park in Connaughton Road since before Christmas, told The Sligo Champion that he had no option but to use the van despite his fears for his children's health.

"I have ten children but I have only one caravan and it is not big enough so my six boys have to sleep in the back of the van," said Mr. Ward, whose children range in ages from three to eighteen.

Originally from Ballyshannon, Mr. Ward said his intention was to stay in Sligo and he made an appeal for assistance so that he can purchase another caravan.

"My sons are freezing at night in the van. They cannot get a good night's sleep because of the cold but there's nothing I can do about it. I cannot turn the engine on because of the fumes. They're going to bed in the back of a cold damp van and they are awake at five in the morning unable to go back asleep.

"I end up lighting a fire nearby in the mornings to get them warm before they go to school. They constantly have colds and chest infections and I am up and down to the doctor all the time with them.

"I desperately need another caravan. It's an emergency situation. I'm willing to help towards the cost of one but I need some financial assistance," said Mr. Ward, whose wife, Marie, is expecting their eleventh child.

"What I find hard to understand is the fact that so many other homeless people can get help straight away. I have nothing against refugees and asylum seekers but as soon as one of them sets foot in this country they get put up in hostels and bed and breakfasts for free.

Fair play

"They get all the food they want and all their needs are looked after. None of them are asked to sleep in the back of a van. If they were there would be uproar. All I want is fair play and I feel Irish people should be looked after first. I don't know what the problem is with helping the Travelling community," said Mr. Ward.

Though illegally parked at the car park, Mr. Ward said he had nowhere else to go and was hopeful he would not be asked to leave.

"If I'm moved on I'll have no choice but to go back on the side of the road or squat some place. I want to be able to settle my family in one place and all I am asking is for some help in buying a caravan," he said.

His existing caravan is twenty years old and is in bad repair.

"It's far too small now for our needs. I'm in a desperate situation. I'm told I am on a housing list but I haven't been offered anything. I need accommodation and very soon. No one, especially young children, should be forced to sleep in a van in this day and age," said Mr. Ward.

Sligo Champion

by Unhappy Sat Dec 16, 2006 21:50

Someone above asserted that many of those that express disbelief and horror at the "not guilty" verdict (for a man who shot, then clubbed a wounded man and then shot him again as he crawled away) are biased by some predjudice in favour of travellers. That person suggested that we should consider if our reactions would be the same if the man shot, bludgeoned and finally killed by being blown apart by a shotgun were not a traveller.

I'd invite them to consider that point themselves. If the victim were a nice middle-class boy from a private school, or if he were a local land-developer, or a publican I doubt there'd be quite the same rejoicing over the verdict.

I can only speculate on the individual reasons for why some people would like to dance on the grave of the dead man and so will forgo that worthless pasttime. I wonder how well the prosecution screened the potential jurors for bias and I'll bet that if the trial had been conducted with jurors selected from Dublin there'd have been a different result.

Expect an appeal, and following that a conviction. After all, as was pointed out by someone else above, it took three trials to get the correct result for the Pitstop Ploughshares, no reason why the same can't happen for Nally.

by Anti -racist Sat Dec 16, 2006 23:23

In today's Radio 1's Saturday View hosted by Rodney Rice, Olivia Mitchell, spokeswoman for Fianna Gael on Transport, opined, that there was "No triumphalism over the (Nally) verdict"

However, Martin Collins of Pavee Point demurred : "Well, actually there was in Galway in Carrowbrowne halting site, as motorists were passing by, they were beeping their car horns and waving their arms in a very triumphalist mood, I was getting phone calls (about this)".

by earwig Sun Dec 17, 2006 15:44

As far as I was aware the common law system of trial by jury envisages that the accused be tried before a jury of his/her PEERS.

Mind you there was a lot of jury packing to get the desired verdict in the past especially in the 19th century when the country was under the jurisdiction of the British Crown. Do we really want to go back to that ? Are we all to be tried before a jury of politically correct prigs from Dublin 4 ?

by Anti-racist Sun Dec 17, 2006 15:47

Where's the difference?
In yesterday’s Radio 1, Saturday View program, hosted by Rodney Rice, Olivia Mitchell, spokeswoman for Fine Gael on Transport opined there was "No triumphalism over the (Nally) verdict"

However, Martin Collins of Pavee Point demurred: "Well, actually there was in Galway in Carrowbrowne halting site, as motorists were passing by, they were beeping their car horns and waving their arms in a very triumphalist mood, I was getting phone calls (over this) …”

As an antidote to this virulent triumphalism, current Mayor of Galway City, Neill O'Brolchain, Collette Connolly (Labour, Galway City Councillor) Maureen Gallagher, ex-teacher of Traveller children and "Anti-racist" visited the Carrowbrowne Halting Site this afternoon in an act of solidarity where we were warmly greeted by the beleaguered community. The Travellers confirmed what Martin Collins alleged on Saturday View occurred and after letting them know where we stood on the matter and will continue to strongly stand, we departed.

If the exoneration of the killer of John Ward pulls back the curtains in the squinting windows and shows the racist grinning elephant in our parlours, then the siting of Carrowbrowne - besides the old city dump with its flocks of consequent seagulls, on the fringes of a large tract of waterlogged land - and the primitive facilities provided by the relevant Council, is yet, another curtain that has to be torn down?.

Besides hypocritical denial, where's the difference between the Travellers and the untouchable Dalits of India?.

by Maureen - ex teacher of travellers & member of Permanent Revolution Sun Dec 17, 2006 17:07

The triumphalism directed against he travellers at Carrowbrowne yesterday, manifest by the honking of horns and fist-waving by passing motorists, lifts the veil on the racism that lurks just under the surface against travellers in this country. This gross behaviour mirrors the treatment of this section of Irish society by both central & local governments down the years.
The site at Carrowbrowne itself is a case in point. In the eighties local government built six halting sites in Galway. The Carrowbrowne site was by far the biggest, hidden behind a big wall, on a bleak stretch of road miles from the city near the city dump. No one in the settled community was going to object to the placement of this site, no votes would be jeopardised.
The site at Carrowbrowne is a bleak wasteland. In Summer the windows have to be shut tight against the swarms of flies, the squawking of the scavenging birds, in Winter traps set for the marauding rats. This positioning of a site near a city dump was no accident. It was a concerted action, replicated up and down the country copperfastening the Us & Them mentality that has been the norm in this country for decades where travellers are concerned.

Why Should I Describe Sunsets?

When a trailer is towed to the rag-end of town,
to a site situated on top of a tip
where a swarm of flies mottles the sky
and seagulls drop pigs guts en route;

when in summer the hum from the nearby fill
ensures that windows are anchored fast,
the stifling heat induces ennui,
and there’s not a blade of grass in sight,

why should I describe sunsets?

When in winter a rally of rats re-appear,
elbow their way as they race to the huts;
the smear of footprints on food reserves:
despoiling adornment, an infant expires.

And the mother begs the doctor for aid
to ease the endless lethal complaints;
his answer the usual wearied reproach:
woman, why do you live near trash?

Why should I describe sunsets?

When Mags and Tom go out for a night,
and find they’re barred from pubs around town,
end up buying six packs to take
back at the trailer, yards from the tip;

and the councillor says: they’re no better than dogs,
lazy as sin, belly-up to the sun;
at night all they do is drink and breed,
they have it too easy, they should be tagged like sheep,

why should I describe sunsets?
Copyright Maureen Gallagher

by Confusing the issue with facts Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:01

A little bit of fact checking might not go amiss.

.... I'll bet that if the trial had been conducted with jurors selected from Dublin there'd have been a different result...

Wrong. The trial WAS conducted in Dublin with jurors selected from Dublin. (BTW his original trial which produced a guilty verdict was held in Mayo with a Mayo jury. So much for that little theory!)

...Expect an appeal, and following that a conviction. After all, as was pointed out by someone else above, it took three trials to get the correct result for the Pitstop Ploughshares, no reason why the same can't happen for Nally....

Wrong. An acquital CAN'T be appealed under Irish law. A conviction CAN be appealed. A mistrial can result in a further trial. This occurred in the Ploughshares first two trials. The third trial ended in acquittal. All over, end of story, no further appeal. Similarly for Padraig Nally.

I'm equally unimpressed with the rest of your argument about class, prejudice and all that.

by Unhappy Mon Dec 18, 2006 16:23

Well I wasn't really making an argument it was just uninformed bulletin board chat speculation, like a lot of the rest of the comments on this thread. As you say, a little fact checking goes a long way and your contribution is probably one of the most useful on this thread. I thank you for it.

I still find it hard to believe that anyone could decide that what Nally did was not a deliberate attempt to kill, and I retain a suspicion that the verdict was influenced by the fact that the dead man was a Traveller. I can't prove it, so like most of this thread my comment isn't worth much and I'm left confused. Again, thanks for providing some fact.

by deselby Mon Dec 18, 2006 18:22

I was sitting in Walsh's off Smithfield when the verdict was read out on 6:1 news. A cheer went up in the pub. A f**king cheer. A friend of mine was in a pound shop in Wexford and exactly the same thing happened.
In partial defense of the men in Walsh's pub. About twenty minutes later one of the men told the others that Nally had been cleared of manslaughter. 'Manslaughter? I thought it was murder?' said one of his drinking buddies. 'no. Manslaughter.' His friend said 'oh,' and the conversation moved onto something else.
I'm hoping against hope that the public are ignorant of the facts, that if they realised that Nally had executed Ward while he lay wounded on the ground, desperately clinging to life, then maybe they wouldn't feel the same. Then again, the Irish hate knackers. Oh, it is just depressing. What a nasty little county we live in. 300 policemen protecting private company interests in Mayo, plumbers getting shot in Finglas, and farmers given the green light to kill first, and ask questions later. And the Catholic Church still has the final say on civil union and sex, while our Taoiseach can accept presents from property developers of up to £60,000 and see his popularity go up in the polls. F**king depressing.

by surprised Mon Dec 18, 2006 19:00

Ireland 2006

Is this what this country has come to, we rejoice at the freedom of the killer of a traveller but condemn the killing of an apprentice plumber.

Surely killing in itself is wrong, whether you are a traveller, drug dealer or apprentice plumber?Everyone has the right to life

But then again in Ireland 2006 John Ward is just one less tinker to fear while Padraig Nally has done what we all dream of doing?

It is sickening

by Thatsthat Mon Dec 18, 2006 21:58

Whatever way you look at it, it was a bad judgement. Bad for our general level of security. Bad for relations with our own indigenous minority and also bad for Mr Nally. There are no winners in this tragedy.

Mr Nally, in most interviews referred to his state of mind as anger. Anger at having been robbed or thinking he'd been robbed. This judgement says it is OK to kill in anger. Not even manslaughter. Anger cannot be an excuse for manslaughter. Who can now be safe when approaching any isolated house. Any of us can now be shot with impunity by someone with a gun who is angry over something or other.

The traditional roles of the tavelling community: trading in scrap metal, trading in livestock, selling gates, selling tools, painting sheds etc require that they call to rural houses and farms. How can they now feel safe in doing that. In aggition, the words and actions of some sections of so called settled people will have a bad reaction from young travellers. Ations have equal and opposite reactions.

Finally, it is a very bad judgement for Mr Nally. I think he himself would have been happier to get 4 years with one year behind him and a year off for good behaviour he could have quietly returned to his farm in couple of years and people, including travellers would have considered that he had done his time. As it is now, He will find it almost impossible to return to his previous existence on his farm taking care of his animals. I don't think the man will have any future there, Certainly not the quiet anonymous life that he enjoyed before.

As I said, NO WINNERS HERE

by deselby Tue Dec 19, 2006 01:48

Hi Jan, I have no hatred of farmers, so that's a strawman you're putting up. Both 'Frog' Ward and Anthony Campbell were unarmed when they were executed, so at least they have that in common. And as with the defense, you have put Ward on trial, not Nally. Petty criminals should receive the death penalty now? not only that, they should be executed by self-appointed judges and jurors who make decisions on whether someone should live or die in 90 seconds? Nally's defense of reasonable force ended when he reloaded. In an interview with RTE radio during the week he admitted that he would have thought twice about shooting if Ward was not a traveller. He made the decision to execute Nally - that is, to reload and shoot him in the back - not because he knew his criminal history, of which of course he was completely ignorant, but because he knew Ward was a traveller. And the plain people of Ireland, urban and rural, have cheered him for it because they hate travellers.

Let us not forget that Nally's fear of crime, the event that had him sitting up for three nights in a row in a barn with a loaded shotgun, was the theft of his chainsaw. After that horrendous crime against his property, Nally felt that he could not rely on anyone for support, neither the guards or the community around him. Now, of course, having killed a traveller, he has nothing but support and friends. What a f**king country.

by In a similar place Sun Dec 24, 2006 13:09

So strange to read these comments. The ones which make a big point of the fact that Mr. Ward was a "convicted criminal". Convicted by whom? The same people who politely asked protesters to leave the streets in Dublin on a May Day? The same polite people who asked protestors to leave roads and quarry areas in the West? The same people who have stolen large amounts of money from this country?
Is it so difficult to see that Mr.Ward would most probably have not become "a convicted criminal" if he were a Dublin 4 resident, friend of the local politician, a member of the gardaí? Why is it that so many "criminals" come from the disadvantaged areas of our society? Why is it that so much money is gladly spent punishing the disadvantaged rather than helping them?
It is clear. If one is a "good citizen" and believes what they are told unquestionly. Believes that our wealthy, our politicians, our Gardaí, our juristocracy are always honest fair and true then indeed Mr.Ward is a convicted criminal and Mr Nally clear as the driven snow. After all has not Mr. Nally been acquitted by the fairest in the land?
All who are in prison are guilty (okay so tell this to people such as the Birmingham six, Guseppie Conlon, Nelson Mandela.) All those awaiting sentence are guilty (same). All those awaiting trial are guilty( look at recent stories of how 12 people awaiting trial under section 2 of the repealed statutory rape act will "get away with it") - what you thought that the system was there to have a fair look at the facts and then decide who is guilty or innocent? You thought that the system held a balance? Why then do we have a Director of Public Prosecutions but no equivilent for Public Defence? Why then do Gardaí only seek evidence to convict and noit evidence to clarify? Why is it that The people who need to be clear in all their actions police themselves? How many times have you heard of someone who has been brought to a police station to be strip searched because they smell of pachoulie oil being assigned a garda for their protection? Ay Garda Siochana..in the new Irish this has obviously become to mean the gaurdians of the rich,powerful,toe the liners, statusquoers.........................

by A10 Wed Dec 27, 2006 14:36

You just argued your own point about all the miscarriges of justice.So Nally was a miscarrige of justice,either on first conviction or aquittial.So it joins the ranks of all the other miscarriges of justice.You win some,you lose some.

by In a similar place Wed Dec 27, 2006 23:09

"You just argued your own point about all the miscarriges of justice.So Nally was a miscarrige of justice,either on first conviction or aquittial.So it joins the ranks of all the other miscarriges of justice.You win some,you lose some."
Gee A10 maybe that is the approach we should all take! Sounds like you may never have had the law come down upon you for no reason except that they can.
Infantile is your response "Nally was a miscarrige..either on first conviction or aquittal"... so we just let the festering system limp along not caring about it being wrong because sometimes it might be right? "You win some you loose some" yeah right tell that to the Jews who died under Hitler, Guseppie Conlons reletives, the 100,000-500,000 kill total for idi amin, the shiite massacred by Hussein(and too many more to mention here unfortunately) I guess they just 'lost some 'huh?
The main thing you seem to fail to grasp that regardless of whether "Nally was a miscarrige of justice,either on first conviction or aquittial" he is still around to argue his case. Mr Ward on the other hand cannot answer the unfounded allegations (there is a distinct lack of evidence that he was wrongdoing on that day) placed upon him by nally. Mr Ward has had the unfounded allegations given a false foundation by the acquittal of nally.

by A10 Wed Dec 27, 2006 23:27

In a simmilar place.Dont see how you can argue the death of one crinminal as being comparable to the holocaust.As Stalin said the death of one is a trajedy,the death of thousands a statistic.But it is a good straw arguement anyway.
I think you and yours are only whineing and bringing this up because it is the only "oppressed minority "group[thats a laugh] in Ireland.Oh Sure Ward was innnocent!He only was involved in every illegal bare knuckle fight around,of course he only had four arrest warrents foisted on him by "the man",as thats the pigs job to go out and harrass poor innocent travellers.Just because they want to follow their cultural difference of not obeying the law of the land.
When you can come up with a system that is as almost as perfect as our Western judical system.Do let us know,otherwise go off and fantasise that you will make a difference,somwhere.
BTW I havent had the law come down upon me"because they can".The law comes down upon you because you proably did somthing wrong.Personally I reckon privately the Gaurds were happy that Ward got it from Nally.One less problem on their patch.

by In a similar place Wed Jan 03, 2007 15:05

Hmmm you are good at playing with words to try and give credit to your low level thoughts.

"you and yours"? Since you don't know who I am how can you group me? Do you know if I am a) a garda, b) a member of the travelling community, c) a member of the judicial system, d) a farmer, e) a 'D4' or hay maybe even f) a pig? :)

"whineing" hmmm how do you know that I type with a whine? What basis are you determining that what I have written as a whine? It is childish to try and rubbish an arguement by the perception that it is being presented in a certain manner.

"illegal bare knuckle fights" maybe you could tell us where the legal ones are held? And if he "was involved in every bare knuckle fight around" (he must have gotten lifts in TD's cars to speed about the country) how does this relate to him being shot for being on someone elses property - bare in mind that nally did not mention Mr.Ward was bareknuckle fighting at the time (and you might also want to bare in mind the complete lack of evidence that Mr. Ward was trying to forceably enter nally's house)

"perfect as our Western judicial system" - maybe you can highlight how perfect this system is - after all a perfect system would be one which has never had an error would it not? How do you explain the errors which have come to light within our system - from mistaken arrests to modified evidence to garda falsifying statements - to mention but a few.

How childishly naive -"The law comes down upon you because you probably did something wrong" - "probably"?
What a weak argument to support the harrassment of non nationals, peaceful protestors, underprivilaged majorities(e.g. the major part of our population who are not wealthy in the monitary sense), etc.

"One less problem on their patch" - hmmm indeed...But who are you to say that Mr Ward was a problem. As a citizen of the Republic of Ireland he like all other citizens should be protected by the Constitution of our country. The constitution the Garda Siochana are supposed to work by. Be reminded that the "perfect" judicial system is not supposed to hand out prision sentences carte blanche and that the gardaí may decide a person is guilty of a crime but that does not in anyway mean that they are guilty. Why this final statement of yours does nothing but rubbish your assertion that we have a "perfect......judicial system".

If you are ever arrested I am glad that you will offer no defence( as part of our "perfect" system) and go quietly to prison as the garda will only have arrested you "probably" because you have done something wrong.
Now I must read over your last posting again so that I can have a good giggle about it!

by Henry Joy Wed Jan 03, 2007 15:21

'So strange to read these comments. The ones which make a big point of the fact that Mr. Ward was a "convicted criminal". Convicted by whom? The same people who politely asked protesters to leave the streets in Dublin on a May Day? The same polite people who asked protestors to leave roads and quarry areas in the West? The same people who have stolen large amounts of money from this country? '

No. The juries in this country are not made up of Gardai. They are selected from ordinary citizens on the electoral register. What exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that Ward was wrongfully convicted of eighty (80) different crimes? None of his family or fans have suggested this. Even Martin Collins admitted on Q&A that he reckoned Ward was up to no good when he trespassed on Nallys farm.

It is sad to see yet another person who is indifferent or ignorant of the plight of the isolated elderly in rural areas. Given the previous burglaries and the fact that elderly folk had been beaten to death by burglars in his area, Nally had good reason to fear the likes of Ward. If you were confronted by someone twice your size and twenty years younger than you, then you too might act quickly to defend yourself.

You are making a laughing stock of yourself by comparing Ward to the Birmingham Six and Nelson Mandela. Ward was a career burglar, a violent criminal, he regularly battered his wife, he attacked his enemies with swords, he threatened Gardai with slash hooks. None of this is unfounded.This man was no martyr. Only a charlatan or an innocent would suggest that Ward had an above-board reason for being on Nallys farm that day and only the extremely naive would believe it.

by A10 Wed Jan 03, 2007 21:33

Your whineing is obvious in the way you type and make out that the highest rate of criminal class in Ireland are supposedly the most put upon.Take it or leave it.Consider it childish or not in your opinion,which really does not matter a whit to anyobody,or does mine for that matter.
Legal bare knuckle fights,go to Thailand.Plenty of money made there in fights,but then I dont think Irish travellers would last ten minutes in a proper fight anyway.Your attempts at scarcasm are pretty average.Well,considering Ward was not invited onto Nallys property,or was he invited to poke around his sheds either.Good enough grounds for him to be considerd criminal.

If you are going to quoteme have the decency to quote the full sentence,dont twist it.I said that the Western way is as perfect as it gets.Not that it was perfect.
Consider it a weak arguement or naive or whatever that the police harrass travellers,non nationals[HAHAHA thats a laugh first off,they are pamperd better than Irish citizens] Peaceful protestors,like the love Ulster parade in Dublin,or the SFinfiltrated Rossport protest??Yeah right!
I am not saying Ward was a problem,the Gaurds are,and anyone who knows Travellers would know how much a problem people like they are.Not whiney liberals who patronise all criminal classes like you obviously do.
I wont even bother replying to your supposedly sophisticated sarcasam!Expect to tell you to go and live in a few other countries and see how they treat underclasses and travellers.In comparision we give them an easy time.Personally when Ireland ever gets it act together.You and travellers and other undesireables can discuss the oppression while you are doing somthing useful,like scrubbing the streets or cleaning up skanky traveller sites.I'll look forward to that day,when I can emulate Nally,and blast any traveller,irish gurrier or foerign,or whiney liberal protestor off my properety with a12 Gauge.

by have to disagree Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:40

Your vitriol exposes your clear contempt for the Traveling community.
Is would also find a better home on the threads of far right sites.
Here on planet humanity we like to consider everyone equal, even bigots like you.
We acknowledge that the difficulties in creating social cohesion are complex and require hard work and dedication and understanding.

Immediate gratification is impossible and shotgun diplomacy solves nothing.

by Charly Fri Jan 05, 2007 16:35

Actually Shotgun diplomacy in this case did achieve something.

It makes Mr Ward very unlikely to offend again. 80 convictions to date... DEFINITELY won't ever be 81.

---

Justice system is flawed, but not terribly so. Not a great day for Irish justice. Arguably a good day for "justice" in the broader sense.

I can tell you for a fact (knowing a juror) that their decision was biased strongly by Mr Ward's previous convictions. Many of them felt that this reputation could legitimately lead Mr Nally to believe he was under acute and chronic threat from Mr Ward.

Pretty much all the Jury felt it was "broadly wrong" for Nally to shoot ward in the back, but not enough to satisfactorily convict.

The relative age / size was also a factor; some in the jury reckoned Nally could have defended himself in no other way (e.g. with fists or non-lethal weapons).

---

by Patsy Fri Jan 05, 2007 18:47

Charley said: "Many of them felt that this reputation could legitimately lead Mr Nally to believe he was under acute and chronic threat from Mr Ward."

But Nally knew none of this reputation etc when he killed him. Nally didnt know who he was. Maybe he did feel under threat as you say but it could not have been because of Wards background and history as he was totally unaware of it at the time.

by pat c Mon Jan 08, 2007 14:44

Nally may not have known of Wards background. But he could see that someone twenty years younger than him and twice his size was facing him. In Nallys statement (which he made straight away to Gardai) he said that Nally tried to wrestle the gun from him. This explains the violence Nally used during the struggle. The statement is above with more at the links.

Nally then did a terrible thing, he shot Ward while Ward was retyreating, but Nallys frame of mind must be taken in account. He had already been terrified that he would be burgled and beaten to death. It has happened many times in rural areas, even closeby to Nallys farm.

Ward is not a martyr, he was a thug, a wife abuser, he attacked travellers, heattacked Gardai, attacked settled people. Nally didnt know Wards background but we do. No one should be expressing sympathy for a lumpen criminal who preyed on the weak.

by pat c Mon Jan 08, 2007 15:06

The Nally statement is on another story-line. Heres the link to the news article: