Murder of Aisling Murphy

[imtommygunn]

Yeah it's par for the course I think. You could apply that at any level of even wee scumbags being defended for shoplifting right the way up to very horrendous acts like this. I dunno how they do it but like you say they need to remain professional and everyone should have a fair trial. If you don't have a fair trial then tbh your country and system is couped.

[Saffrongael]

Irish Times

"In the aftermath of the killing rumours, which have persisted, circulated that Ms Murphy knew Puska's children through her job as a national school teacher and had reported him to the authorities over child welfare concerns. It was widely claimed Puska planned the attack on Ms Murphy as revenge for her alerting the authorities, none of which was true.

Instead, gardaí believe Puska was intent on attacking a woman on the day that he killed Ms Murphy. He had followed other women in the Tullamore area on the same day, before finally spotting Ms Murphy at a stretch of the Grand Canal just outside the town when she was jogging."

[brokencrossbar1]

Defending someone who you know in your heart of hearts is guilty is very difficult. I don't work in criminal law anymore but have done so over the years and have worked on a number of murder trials, rape trials etc. The hardest cases I have ever had to deal with on a 'conscience' basis was a multiple child abuse case. The defendant was so lacking in remorse that I just wanted to reach across the table and beat his head into a pulp because of what he had done.  I can still see his face and still know his name some 20 years on.  The key to it is to not make personal connections, don't take it home and don't speak to your loved ones for a week!!!!

[brokencrossbar1]

As for this case it was as clear cut that he was going to be found guilty. It's unusual for a defendant to give evidence in a murder trial as generally the defence will rely on inconsistency in the prosecution's case to cast doubt. When you go so off track like he did in his evidence it opens up so many other doors for your case to be cut open. Surprised at the defence in taking this approach but hey ho. Hopefully he gets a long tariff. He won't have an easy time inside I'd say

[samuel maguire]

First off, "best paid" is irrelevant. Legal aid is a set rate. He's not setting whatever fees he wants.

Secondly, fair access to the justice system is a key component of any functioning democracy, especially in a criminal trial where the state prosecutes the case. Surely you can understand that justice must be fair, yes?

He's a gypsy with five kids on benefits. Other than your well documented racism and detest for poor people, what does any of that matter? What do you actually want to see, him defend himself in a kangaroo court?

For the more bloodthirsty amongst you, who simply want someone locked up regardless of whether the cops got the right man, maybe perhaps you can understand that an incompetent defense would more likely give grounds for an appeal, prolonging the ordeal for the family. I remember when the Joanna Yates murder was discussed on here, several posters has swallowed the "creepy landlord" media hatchet job about Christopher Jefferies and decided at that point it was time to lock him up and throw away the key. The state should be seeking to ensure the defendant obtains the BEST defense possible and that that legal team does the BEST job it possibly can. It makes convictions more secure, strengthens the judicial system and rule of law. Do you not see or understand that?

As for "having the cheek", yes I absolutely do. Same way you have the cheek to sit across the pond and pontificate endlessly about things you haven't the slightest clue about.

f**k off you do gooder p***k

[trueblue1234]

First off, "best paid" is irrelevant. Legal aid is a set rate. He's not setting whatever fees he wants.

Secondly, fair access to the justice system is a key component of any functioning democracy, especially in a criminal trial where the state prosecutes the case. Surely you can understand that justice must be fair, yes?

He's a gypsy with five kids on benefits. Other than your well documented racism and detest for poor people, what does any of that matter? What do you actually want to see, him defend himself in a kangaroo court?

For the more bloodthirsty amongst you, who simply want someone locked up regardless of whether the cops got the right man, maybe perhaps you can understand that an incompetent defense would more likely give grounds for an appeal, prolonging the ordeal for the family. I remember when the Joanna Yates murder was discussed on here, several posters has swallowed the "creepy landlord" media hatchet job about Christopher Jefferies and decided at that point it was time to lock him up and throw away the key. The state should be seeking to ensure the defendant obtains the BEST defense possible and that that legal team does the BEST job it possibly can. It makes convictions more secure, strengthens the judicial system and rule of law. Do you not see or understand that?

As for "having the cheek", yes I absolutely do. Same way you have the cheek to sit across the pond and pontificate endlessly about things you haven't the slightest clue about.

f**k off you do gooder p***k

😂 the shape of this!!

[samuel maguire]

First off, "best paid" is irrelevant. Legal aid is a set rate. He's not setting whatever fees he wants.

Secondly, fair access to the justice system is a key component of any functioning democracy, especially in a criminal trial where the state prosecutes the case. Surely you can understand that justice must be fair, yes?

He's a gypsy with five kids on benefits. Other than your well documented racism and detest for poor people, what does any of that matter? What do you actually want to see, him defend himself in a kangaroo court?

For the more bloodthirsty amongst you, who simply want someone locked up regardless of whether the cops got the right man, maybe perhaps you can understand that an incompetent defense would more likely give grounds for an appeal, prolonging the ordeal for the family. I remember when the Joanna Yates murder was discussed on here, several posters has swallowed the "creepy landlord" media hatchet job about Christopher Jefferies and decided at that point it was time to lock him up and throw away the key. The state should be seeking to ensure the defendant obtains the BEST defense possible and that that legal team does the BEST job it possibly can. It makes convictions more secure, strengthens the judicial system and rule of law. Do you not see or understand that?

As for "having the cheek", yes I absolutely do. Same way you have the cheek to sit across the pond and pontificate endlessly about things you haven't the slightest clue about.

f**k off you do gooder p***k

😂 the shape of this!!

I hate how matter of factly he threw out the racism card, does my head in

[trueblue1234]

First off, "best paid" is irrelevant. Legal aid is a set rate. He's not setting whatever fees he wants.

Secondly, fair access to the justice system is a key component of any functioning democracy, especially in a criminal trial where the state prosecutes the case. Surely you can understand that justice must be fair, yes?

He's a gypsy with five kids on benefits. Other than your well documented racism and detest for poor people, what does any of that matter? What do you actually want to see, him defend himself in a kangaroo court?

For the more bloodthirsty amongst you, who simply want someone locked up regardless of whether the cops got the right man, maybe perhaps you can understand that an incompetent defense would more likely give grounds for an appeal, prolonging the ordeal for the family. I remember when the Joanna Yates murder was discussed on here, several posters has swallowed the "creepy landlord" media hatchet job about Christopher Jefferies and decided at that point it was time to lock him up and throw away the key. The state should be seeking to ensure the defendant obtains the BEST defense possible and that that legal team does the BEST job it possibly can. It makes convictions more secure, strengthens the judicial system and rule of law. Do you not see or understand that?

As for "having the cheek", yes I absolutely do. Same way you have the cheek to sit across the pond and pontificate endlessly about things you haven't the slightest clue about.

f**k off you do gooder p***k

😂 the shape of this!!

I hate how matter of factly he threw out the racism card, does my head in

Highlighting potential racism is an issue that does your head in? That's prob something you should keep to yourself.

[gallsman]

Man thinks someone being a "Romany gypsy" should in someway disqualify that person from having fair access to the justice system.

Thinking that ALL should have fair access to justice system, regardless of background, creed, colour, sexual orientation etc etc etc makes someone "a do gooder p***k".

But yes, it's the "racism card". Good job by you.

[burdizzo]

Irish Times

"In the aftermath of the killing rumours, which have persisted, circulated that Ms Murphy knew Puska's children through her job as a national school teacher and had reported him to the authorities over child welfare concerns. It was widely claimed Puska planned the attack on Ms Murphy as revenge for her alerting the authorities, none of which was true.

Instead, gardaí believe Puska was intent on attacking a woman on the day that he killed Ms Murphy. He had followed other women in the Tullamore area on the same day, before finally spotting Ms Murphy at a stretch of the Grand Canal just outside the town when she was jogging."

The Irish Times? Nah - I'd be more inclined to believe a close relation of Ms Murphy.

[Look-Up!]

Justice served.

Couple of borderline dangerous comments about a defendant's right to a fair trial. "At taxpayers expense" etc. Need to have a hard look at yourselves.

Nothing dangerous about having an opinion on where our common resources as a society go to. What is extremely dangerous to society though is having sick twisted homicidal filth walk amongst us, a lot of whom do unspeakable horrors, and then the notion that a lot of these can be reformed and released back to society when a period of time has elapsed where it feels acceptable to forget the crime or the poor victim.

No one mentioned anything against the right to fair trial but frivolous defence compounding the terrible suffering of a victim should carry very harsh penalties.

And sure, it would be nice to think we can reform criminals but all the ills of the world form a very big pie and there's not enough to go around. So sure, look after them if there's some left over but victims of crime are way way up my list of priorities.   

[Armagh18]

Justice served.

Couple of borderline dangerous comments about a defendant's right to a fair trial. "At taxpayers expense" etc. Need to have a hard look at yourselves.

Nothing dangerous about having an opinion on where our common resources as a society go to. What is extremely dangerous to society though is having sick twisted homicidal filth walk amongst us, a lot of whom do unspeakable horrors, and then the notion that a lot of these can be reformed and released back to society when a period of time has elapsed where it feels acceptable to forget the crime or the poor victim.

No one mentioned anything against the right to fair trial but frivolous defence compounding the terrible suffering of a victim should carry very harsh penalties.

And sure, it would be nice to think we can reform criminals but all the ills of the world form a very big pie and there's not enough to go around. So sure, look after them if there's some left over but victims of crime are way way up my list of priorities.   

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Everyone. Better to give them a good defence so there can be no doubt and no appeal. f**kers like him should be tortured to death though.

[Captain Obvious]

Irish Times

"In the aftermath of the killing rumours, which have persisted, circulated that Ms Murphy knew Puska's children through her job as a national school teacher and had reported him to the authorities over child welfare concerns. It was widely claimed Puska planned the attack on Ms Murphy as revenge for her alerting the authorities, none of which was true.

Instead, gardaí believe Puska was intent on attacking a woman on the day that he killed Ms Murphy. He had followed other women in the Tullamore area on the same day, before finally spotting Ms Murphy at a stretch of the Grand Canal just outside the town when she was jogging."

Will always be idiots starting silly rumours and it appears such rumors caught the attention a few on here.

The poor girl in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[gallsman]

Idiots? No shortage of them going around.

Some of the lads here surely be delighted to have renowned thinker Conor McGregor weighing in on the matter.

[Look-Up!]

Justice served.

Couple of borderline dangerous comments about a defendant's right to a fair trial. "At taxpayers expense" etc. Need to have a hard look at yourselves.

Nothing dangerous about having an opinion on where our common resources as a society go to. What is extremely dangerous to society though is having sick twisted homicidal filth walk amongst us, a lot of whom do unspeakable horrors, and then the notion that a lot of these can be reformed and released back to society when a period of time has elapsed where it feels acceptable to forget the crime or the poor victim.

No one mentioned anything against the right to fair trial but frivolous defence compounding the terrible suffering of a victim should carry very harsh penalties.

And sure, it would be nice to think we can reform criminals but all the ills of the world form a very big pie and there's not enough to go around. So sure, look after them if there's some left over but victims of crime are way way up my list of priorities.   

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Everyone. Better to give them a good defence so there can be no doubt and no appeal. f**kers like him should be tortured to death though.

He certainly deserves torture. He got his fair trial, I don't think there can be any doubt on his quilt, lack of remorse or his sick twisted game of control he feels he can still play on victims family.

I don't see of what use he is to society now or ever will be and it's a terrible waste of taxpayers money and resources to spend one more penny on him. A perfect case for capital punishment if ever there was.