The NI Legacy Bill

[David McKeown]

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0924/1535079-solider-f/

Evidence from the other soldiers to be allowed, great boost for hopes of conviction.

True in so far as there couldn't be a conviction with out same but a conviction seems very unlikely if the reporting of same is accurate

[Baile Brigín 2]

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0924/1535079-solider-f/

Evidence from the other soldiers to be allowed, great boost for hopes of conviction.

"hearsay evidence from two other former soldiers will be allowed."

Statements given to the military police. Only hersay because one is dead and the other is refusing to give evidence.

[Baile Brigín 2]

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0924/1535079-solider-f/

Evidence from the other soldiers to be allowed, great boost for hopes of conviction.

True in so far as there couldn't be a conviction with out same but a conviction seems very unlikely if the reporting of same is accurate

Not sure. His statements, and by extension previous false ones, with the other two soldiers statements that they saw him in action and he boasted about it, are very damning. His only mitigation would be direct orders, and that won't save him.

[Armagh18]

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0924/1535079-solider-f/

Evidence from the other soldiers to be allowed, great boost for hopes of conviction.

True in so far as there couldn't be a conviction with out same but a conviction seems very unlikely if the reporting of same is accurate

Not sure. His statements, and by extension previous false ones, with the other two soldiers statements that they saw him in action and he boasted about it, are very damning. His only mitigation would be direct orders, and that won't save him.

Didn't save his buddies at Nuremburg so shouldn't save him.

[David McKeown]

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0924/1535079-solider-f/

Evidence from the other soldiers to be allowed, great boost for hopes of conviction.

True in so far as there couldn't be a conviction with out same but a conviction seems very unlikely if the reporting of same is accurate

Not sure. His statements, and by extension previous false ones, with the other two soldiers statements that they saw him in action and he boasted about it, are very damning. His only mitigation would be direct orders, and that won't save him.

I meant from a legal point of view. Convictions in which hearsay is the sole or decisive evidence are generally considered unsafe.

So given the reporting of the crowns application and Judge Lynchs written decision, my early feelings are that this is a case very unlikely to meet the high bar required for a conviction.

Also relatedly admission is only the first step, the judge will have to determine what weight he can safely place on same given the inability of the defence to cross examine.

It's certainly not impossible that a conviction would result but I'd be more surprised now if it did than I would have been two weeks ago.

None of this is anything to do with Solider F's guilt of innocence simply whether or not a safe conviction is likely.

[Armagh18]

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0924/1535079-solider-f/

Evidence from the other soldiers to be allowed, great boost for hopes of conviction.

True in so far as there couldn't be a conviction with out same but a conviction seems very unlikely if the reporting of same is accurate

Not sure. His statements, and by extension previous false ones, with the other two soldiers statements that they saw him in action and he boasted about it, are very damning. His only mitigation would be direct orders, and that won't save him.

I meant from a legal point of view. Convictions in which hearsay is the sole or decisive evidence are generally considered unsafe.

So given the reporting of the crowns application and Judge Lynchs written decision, my early feelings are that this is a case very unlikely to meet the high bar required for a conviction.

Also relatedly admission is only the first step, the judge will have to determine what weight he can safely place on same given the inability of the defence to cross examine.

It's certainly not impossible that a conviction would result but I'd be more surprised now if it did than I would have been two weeks ago.

None of this is anything to do with Solider F's guilt of innocence simply whether or not a safe conviction is likely.

Was common knowledge that the whole prosecution case hinged on those statements being allowed? I wouldn't have known any details but had read last week that if they were allowed there was some chance of conviction and if not then basically none.

Lets hope for some sort of justice at least for families.

[Main Street]

Is justice being served by trying an elderly soldier for murder/s that he was ordered to do by a senior officer who does not face trial nor the people above that officer  who gave the sanction to go ahead.

[David McKeown]

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0924/1535079-solider-f/

Evidence from the other soldiers to be allowed, great boost for hopes of conviction.

True in so far as there couldn't be a conviction with out same but a conviction seems very unlikely if the reporting of same is accurate

Not sure. His statements, and by extension previous false ones, with the other two soldiers statements that they saw him in action and he boasted about it, are very damning. His only mitigation would be direct orders, and that won't save him.

I meant from a legal point of view. Convictions in which hearsay is the sole or decisive evidence are generally considered unsafe.

So given the reporting of the crowns application and Judge Lynchs written decision, my early feelings are that this is a case very unlikely to meet the high bar required for a conviction.

Also relatedly admission is only the first step, the judge will have to determine what weight he can safely place on same given the inability of the defence to cross examine.

It's certainly not impossible that a conviction would result but I'd be more surprised now if it did than I would have been two weeks ago.

None of this is anything to do with Solider F's guilt of innocence simply whether or not a safe conviction is likely.

Was common knowledge that the whole prosecution case hinged on those statements being allowed? I wouldn't have known any details but had read last week that if they were allowed there was some chance of conviction and if not then basically none.

Lets hope for some sort of justice at least for families.

Maybe I'm not explaining it well. Without those statements the prosecution have accepted the case would be over.

What's strange to me is the arguments made to have them admitted. The crown concede they are the sole and decisive evidence in the case (according to reports), the concede they are inconsistent with other statements from the same witness, they concede the difficulties in having to cherry pick the truth from them. All of those are factors and arguments that would ordinarily be made by the defence as either a reason not to admit the evidence and/or an application not to place any weight on it were they to be admitted.

In the written Judgement the trial judge sets out that The Crown case, by their own acknowledgment, is totally dependent upon hearsay statements. It's difficult to see how as a general principle any conviction in general could be safe if it's totally dependent on hearsay statements.

So what I am saying is yes technically the case would have most likely ended immediately if the hearsay was not admitted but it doesn't follow that there's a great chance that a conviction will result just because they were admitted. Same still seems unlikely.

[David McKeown]

Is justice being served by trying an elderly soldier for murder/s that he was ordered to do by a senior officer who does not face trial nor the people above that officer  who gave the sanction to go ahead.

The law doesn't recognise a defence of superior orders and hasn't since Nuremberg. Individuals are still responsible for their own actions. Each case will turn on its own facts but I think it's certainly not against the public interest to prosecute those accused of murder even if their superior officers were the ones that gave the order.

[Armagh18]

Is justice being served by trying an elderly soldier for murder/s that he was ordered to do by a senior officer who does not face trial nor the people above that officer  who gave the sanction to go ahead.

It's the best we're going go get.

[nrico2006]

What actual evidence have they got against him? You would imagine it wouldn't be very strong.

[Truthsayer]

Is justice being served by trying an elderly soldier for murder/s that he was ordered to do by a senior officer who does not face trial nor the people above that officer  who gave the sanction to go ahead.

Paras were trigger happy maniacs only too happy to get murdering natives in Derry and Ballymurphy. And still not a shred of remorse, that shower gathered around him outside court. Absolutely right to charge him.

[Armagh18]

What actual evidence have they got against him? You would imagine it wouldn't be very strong.

Did they not more or less admit to shooting people in the interviews?

[Baile Brigín 2]

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0924/1535079-solider-f/

Evidence from the other soldiers to be allowed, great boost for hopes of conviction.

True in so far as there couldn't be a conviction with out same but a conviction seems very unlikely if the reporting of same is accurate

Not sure. His statements, and by extension previous false ones, with the other two soldiers statements that they saw him in action and he boasted about it, are very damning. His only mitigation would be direct orders, and that won't save him.

Didn't save his buddies at Nuremburg so shouldn't save him.

Of course not. But he is likely to take less of a hammering for following orders than deciding to murder civilians for a jape.

[Baile Brigín 2]

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0924/1535079-solider-f/

Evidence from the other soldiers to be allowed, great boost for hopes of conviction.

True in so far as there couldn't be a conviction with out same but a conviction seems very unlikely if the reporting of same is accurate

Not sure. His statements, and by extension previous false ones, with the other two soldiers statements that they saw him in action and he boasted about it, are very damning. His only mitigation would be direct orders, and that won't save him.

I meant from a legal point of view. Convictions in which hearsay is the sole or decisive evidence are generally considered unsafe.

So given the reporting of the crowns application and Judge Lynchs written decision, my early feelings are that this is a case very unlikely to meet the high bar required for a conviction.

Also relatedly admission is only the first step, the judge will have to determine what weight he can safely place on same given the inability of the defence to cross examine.

It's certainly not impossible that a conviction would result but I'd be more surprised now if it did than I would have been two weeks ago.

None of this is anything to do with Solider F's guilt of innocence simply whether or not a safe conviction is likely.

But presumably that is all appelate court stuff? The judge has allowed the testimony which will say he openly admitted to murder and admitted it to two others who felt the need to put it in writing