Murder trial hears third day of witness evidence

The chief prosecution witness in a Dublin murder trial has agreed that his identification of one of the accused as the getaway driver was based on seeing the back of his head.

Joseph O’Brien (aged 26) today spent his third day in the witness box at the Central Criminal Court, where he is giving evidence in the trial of four men charged with murdering a father-of-three.

John Carroll (aged 33) was shot dead while socialising in Grumpy Jack’s Pub in the Coombe just after 9.30pm on February 18, 2009.

Peter Kenny (aged 28) of McCarthy’s Terrace, Rialto; Christopher Zambra (aged 35) of Galtymore Road, Drimnagh; Damien Johnston (aged 27) of Cashel Avenue, Crumlin and Bernard Hempenstall (aged 26) from Park Terrace in The Coombe have pleaded not guilty to his murder.

The court has heard that Mr O’Brien was granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for giving evidence.

Mr O’Brien has already told the trial that Mr Kenny was the gunman and that Mr Johnston had driven him to the scene on a motorbike. He said he knew this because he had seen Mr Johnston get off the motorbike and run to a waiting car.

Under cross examination by Michael O’Higgins SC, defending Mr Johnston, he said he had seen only the back of Mr Johnston’s head at the time. He agreed that he hadn’t told the gardaí this detail.

He said that this wasn‘t deliberate. He had left out this detail ‘because I knew him (Damien Johnston),’ he said.

“You didn’t think it was important that you were basing the identification of someone you say was involved in a murder on the back of his head?” asked Mr O’Higgins.

“No,” he replied.

Mr O’Brien denied being the motorbike driver or ever believing that he would be the driver.

He maintained that his role was to burn the motorbike afterwards in a housing estate in Harold’s Cross. In return, he would have a bill cleared, he said.

“Are you serious?” asked Mr O’Higgins. “You were going to stand in the middle of this residential area and set everything alight? What were you going to do then?”

Mr O’Brien said he was going to walk off and get a taxi from the Harold’s Cross Road.

“What were you going to do when all the residents saw you?” he was asked.

“I don’t know,” he replied.

He said that he and Mr Kenny had changed into rain gear in his (Mr O’Brien’s) sister’s house before the murder.

The barrister read from one of Mr O’Brien’s statements, where he said he ‘got changed because I was going to be getting rid of the bike and I didn’t want anything to get on me’.

Mr O’Brien told the court that he was referring to petrol here and not firearms residue.

“I suggest to you, Mr O’Brien, that this is just a little bit of truth peaking out from your lies, that you were getting into rain gear because you were going on a journey,” suggested Mr O’Higgins.

Mr O’Brien was also adamant that he wore only the trousers of the rain gear and not the top. However Mr O’Higgins read from his sister’s statement, in which she said he was wearing the jacket too.

“She’s wrong is she?” asked Mr O’Higgins of his sister.

“She must be, yeah,” he replied.

Mr O’Higgins pointed out a number of differences in Mr O’Brien’s own statements but the witness said these were not because he was lying.

Mr O’Brien did not remember that while all of this was going on, Mr Johnston’s wife was having a baby. He denied putting pressure on Mr Johnston to drive him to buy the motorbike when Mr Johnston wanted to visit his wife and newborn in hospital.

The trial continues before Mr Justice Barry White.