I am making this statement on behalf of my family and the many people who loved Brian.
At 5am today I awoke from my sleep and somehow knew how next to proceed with the issue surrounding the death of our son, Brian. He was brutally kicked and beaten, having been surrounded by a gang of people who we believe were all known to each other. Dermot Laide, in his statement yesterday, admitted to his part in the attack on Brian, and at the same time says that he is innocent of having played a part in his death.
If, through his own admission, he states that he played a part in the attack on Brian, to my mind one has to conclude that he was one of the many players engaged in his death. I fail to see the logic in what he is saying. He bases his innocence on the conclusion of Chief State Pathologist Marie Cassidy.
It is hard for us to understand how there is such apparent inconsistency between the conclusions of Dr Marie Cassidy and those of Dr John Harbison, chief state pathologist at the time of Brian's death. To my mind, while their findings seem to differ, they essentially come to the same conclusion, that is, that Briadied as a result of a head injury.
Dr Harbison had the advantage of having carried out the actual postmortem. He concludes: "I am of the opinion, that the swelling of the deceased's brain was a direct result of the head injuries and was the ultimate cause of death . . . Some of these injuries resulted from considerable violence."
Dr Marie Cassidy bases her conclusions on photographs and other medical reports currently in possession of the prosecution. She is not given access to his notes, the legal reason for this being that she has to be seen to be giving an independent assessment.
We have been told that she did not see a photograph of Brian's brain. I believe that this was crucial.
With regard to the "minor injuries" claim, I would like to ask the question if it is true that if someone dies immediately after a head injury, does that result in the non-appearance of bruising?
If this went to court, we would have had a situation in which the two pathologists agreed that Brian died as a result of a condition brought on by a trauma.
Nobody can dispute, at this stage, that Brian was subjected to a vicious attack. We believe that all this information should have been put to a jury.
It seems to us that the decision to enter a nolle prosequi was taken in haste last Friday afternoon.
In view of the developments, I think it would have been eminently reasonable for the prosecution to take more time out to consider the implication of these.
Dermot Laide quotes what he sees as clearing his and other names as fact.
It is opinion and was never tested before a jury. We are deeply upset by this.