Smithwick: Collusion in Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen murders

marienbad

tayto lover wrote: »

So maybe they should give Paddy Power a go the next time.
He's very good at the odds regarding probability and he'd be much cheaper.
The whole thing was a waste of time and money.
Jobs for the boys.

Ask the families that and you might get a different answer.

tayto lover

marienbad wrote: »

Ask the families that and you might get a different answer.

For all we know they are as disappointed with this farce as I am.
It left more questions than it answered.

marienbad

tayto lover wrote: »

For all we know they are as disappointed with this farce as I am.
It left more questions than it answered.

As far as I am aware they are happy ( as any family in such a situation ) with the manner , the method, the integrity of the tribunal, the courtesy shown to them and have publicly stated as such.

tayto lover

marienbad wrote: »

As far as I am aware they are happy ( as any family in such a situation ) with the manner , the method, the integrity of the tribunal, the courtesy shown to them and have publicly stated as such.

Maybe they should have reached the conclusion without the Tribunal then. Far cheaper and make as much sense.

Chips Lovell

Would you be as blasé about it if it had been your relatives who'd been murdered?

marienbad

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe they should have reached the conclusion without the Tribunal then. Far cheaper and make as much sense.

With all respect to you - we have the conclusion because of the Tribunal. Because the result are not definitive enough does not negate the result or the conclusion.

If we had known the match was going to be a draw we wouldn't have bothered playing it but we wouldn't have known it was a draw unless we played it kind of circular reasoning.

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Would you be as blasé about it if it had been your relatives who'd been murdered?

I would have liked answers if it were my family.
We got supposition and probably. That would not make me happy at all.

I honestly think this was a total waste of money and he made his conclusion to justify the cost i.e. a decision of some sort is better than a "i didn't find anything at all" conclusion. But he didn't find anything at all in truth.

grainnewhale

tayto lover wrote: »

I would have liked answers if it were my family.
We got supposition and probably. That would not make me happy at all.

I honestly think this was a total waste of money and he made his conclusion to justify the cost i.e. a decision of some sort is better than a "i didn't find anything at all" conclusion. But he didn't find anything at all in truth.

It would be hard to make conclusive findings, because as everybody knows, the gardai couldn't lie straight in bed.
s

tayto lover

grainnewhale wrote: »

It would be hard to make conclusive findings, because as everybody knows, the gardai couldn't lie straight in bed.
s

Even if he had recommended a full inquiry it would have been better than what we got.

Happyman42

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It's up to the Gardai to do an investigation, and the tribunal says there was collusion, so that is a start, if An a Garda have the will.

Not a chance they will do any more investigating, it was all done for optics, 15million yo yo's of optics and whitewash.

alastair wrote: »

Given that the tribunal isn't in the business of charging or prosecuting anyone, it's rather unlikely that anyone was going to be hung. There's no contradiction in its findings, Swithwick was clear that the probability that collusion occoured from within the station, but that there's no smoking gun to implicate any individual.

I could be clear that there are aliens in my wardrobe, that doesn't make it remotely true.

marienbad wrote: »

what evidence is there that Gerry Adams was a member of PIRA .

None that I have ever seen. And none that any police force was ever able to present in a court.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not a chance they will do any more investigating, it was all done for optics, 15million yo yo's of optics and whitewash.

A 'whitewash' that exposed Garda collusion. That the Gardai have apologised for and didn't dispute the veracity of. Sounds pretty much unlike any whitewash I've encountered.

Happyman42 wrote: »

NI could be clear that there are aliens in my wardrobe, that doesn't make it remotely true.

Indeed. But then that's got nothing to do with the investigation that took place with this tribunal. A tribunal who's findings have been accepted by the police force in question (which can't be said for your alien tale).

Happyman42 wrote: »

NNone that I have ever seen. And none that any police force was ever able to present in a court.

You need to look a bit further. Photos of him in IRA uniform, his role in the Willy Whitelaw IRA negotiating team, the evidence of various comrades in the IRA? Any of those ring a bell?

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not a chance they will do any more investigating, it was all done for optics, 15million yo yo's of optics and whitewash.


I could be clear that there are aliens in my wardrobe, that doesn't make it remotely true.




None that I have ever seen. And none that any police force was ever able to present in a court.

And that is exactly my point , but we all know he was .

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

A 'whitewash' that exposed Garda collusion. That the Gardai have apologised for and didn't dispute the veracity of. Sounds pretty much unlike any whitewash I've encountered.

A whitewash because the tribunal chose to accept the 'evidence' of somebody they themselves believed to be unreliable and who made substantive changes in his evidence to that which he gave to Cory. Yet the tribunal didn't give any weight whatsoever to the IRA account, which claimed (no gain in them saying either way how they came by their information) that they got all the info they needed from previous intelligance work and by having Dundalk GS under surveilance and testimony about suspicious movements of cars in and around the station on the day (given to Peter Cory)

You need to look a bit further. Photos of him in IRA uniform, his role in the Willy Whitelaw IRA negotiating team, the evidence of various comrades in the IRA? Any of those ring a bell?

All the above not being enough to take into a courtroom, so hardly reliable evidence.

*awaits the conspiracy theories about Gerry being a top level spy or political expediency keeping him out of jail all the way through the darkest days of the troubles.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

And that is exactly my point , but we all know he was .

You think you do, but similar to Smithwick you actually know diddly squat when it comes down to it.

jank

Happyman42 wrote: »

If your interpretation of the conflict is competition based perhaps you would be better off on one of those vainglorious British Army forums or it's Republican equivalents?

I brought up a numerical fact regarding the conflict yet even that fact is side step by shinners.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

A whitewash because the tribunal chose to accept the 'evidence' of somebody they themselves believed to be unreliable and who made substantive changes in his evidence to that which he gave to Cory. Yet the tribunal didn't give any weight whatsoever to the IRA account, which claimed (no gain in them saying either way how they came by their information) that they got all the info they needed from previous intelligance work and by having Dundalk GS under surveilance and testimony about suspicious movements of cars in and around the station on the day (given to Peter Cory)

Even if you are of the belief that a judge assessing various strands of evidence and forming a conclusion as to where the probability of fact lies, is something unusual (the mind boggles!) - how would any of that equate to a 'whitewash'? Nothing is being covered up, and no institution is being spared.

Happyman42 wrote: »

All the above not being enough to take into a courtroom, so hardly reliable evidence.

*awaits the conspiracy theories about Gerry being a top level spy or political expediency keeping him out of jail all the way through the darkest days of the troubles.

I'm guessing that OJ Simpson didn't kill his missus then either? There are many known IRA members who were never brought before the courts - he'd need to join a long queue. We both know he was in the IRA - don't insult people's intelligence needlessly.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Even if you are of the belief that a judge assessing various strands of evidence and forming a conclusion as to where the probability of fact lies, is something unusual (the mind boggles!) - how would any of that equate to a 'whitewash'? Nothing is being covered up, and no institution is being spared.

What conclusion of any worth did he arrive at? He discovered nothing substantial that Cory didn't find.

I'm guessing that OJ Simpson didn't kill his missus then either? There are many known IRA members who were never brought before the courts - he'd need to join a long queue. We both know he was in the IRA - don't insult people's intelligence needlessly.

I love the irony of the fact that you berate me and others for pretending to know better than a judge, but on selective issues you reserve the right to know better than any actual evidence tells us.
It is the tendency of the suprematist mindset to routinely send people to the gallows on a biased hunch.

p.s. You should head to Kerry and give the cops the benefit of your hunches in the Ian Bailey case.

Tramps Like Us

Anyone look at the SINDO today, will give the older people among us a feeling of nostalgia, the usual cretins were in full flow

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

What conclusion of any worth did he arrive at? He discovered nothing substantial that Cory didn't find.

So?

Happyman42 wrote: »

I love the irony of the fact that you berate me and others for pretending to know better than a judge, but on selective issues you reserve the right to know better than any actual evidence tells us.
It is the tendency of the suprematist mindset to routinely send people to the gallows on a biased hunch.

p.s. You should head to Kerry and give the cops the benefit of your hunches in the Ian Bailey case.

No judge has ever found that Gerry Adams wasn't an IRA member, and Adams isn't prepared to go before a judge to prove his claims of libel against the numerous published pieces on his IRA membership. So why would I believe I know better than a judge? I'm simply responding to the evidence I pointed to - I don't pretend to know better than it, or rely on hunches - I just acknowledge the evidence - unlike you I'm not interested in pretending it doesn't exist.

Busted Flat.

alastair wrote: »

So?



No judge has ever found that Gerry Adams wasn't an IRA member, and Adams isn't prepared to go before a judge to prove his claims of libel against the numerous published pieces on his IRA membership. So why would I believe I know better than a judge? I'm simply responding to the evidence I pointed to - I don't pretend to know better than it, or rely on hunches - I just acknowledge the evidence - unlike you I'm not interested in pretending it doesn't exist.

Big fookin deal whether Adams were in or out of the IRA, the biggest thing is it annoys the simple little people who thrive on violence , and there are many out there that want to see the peace process destroyed. Mostly Journalists who want to see the conflict to last, after all it is only an hour from Dublin.
No airfare or hotel expenses, back home for tea.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

So?



No judge has ever found that Gerry Adams wasn't an IRA member, and Adams isn't prepared to go before a judge to prove his claims of libel against the numerous published pieces on his IRA membership. So why would I believe I know better than a judge?

I was actually referring to your OJ contention there.

I'm simply responding to the evidence I pointed to - I don't pretend to know better than it, or rely on hunches - I just acknowledge the evidence - unlike you I'm not interested in pretending it doesn't exist.

There isn't any 'evidence', none that would stand in a court of law anyway, if it did then shouldn't you be directing your ire towards the upholders of the law where it was a crime to be a member?.
So somebody is guilty if they don't sue now? Reminds me of witch trials that does, indulged in by religious zealots.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

I was actually referring to your OJ contention there.

There isn't any 'evidence', none that would stand in a court of law anyway,

Why would you believe this to be true? It hasn't been tested there.

Happyman42 wrote: »

if it did then shouldn't you be directing your ire towards the upholders of the law where it was a crime to be a member?.
So somebody is guilty if they don't sue now? Reminds me of witch trials that does, indulged in by religious zealots.

I've no ire at all. Hundreds of IRA members were not charged with membership, but I'm not stupid enough to believe this means they were not members. The evidence of Adams membership is undeniable, which is why no-one believes his denials. Even McGuinness hasn't got the heart to chime in with support for Adams denials. All your 'witch hunt' distraction just highlights how farcical the pretence that he wasn't in the IRA is.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Why would you believe this to be true? It hasn't been tested there.


I've no ire at all. Hundreds of IRA members were not charged with membership, but I'm not stupid enough to believe this means they were not members.

What it means is, there was NO evidence Alastair. There was certainly the will to put them in prison, 8-10,000 men/women served time for IRA offences up until 1988 including for membership. You are though entitled to your hunches.

The evidence of Adams membership is undeniable, which is why no-one believes his denials.

He denies it and it is up to those who say he was to prove it.

Even McGuinness hasn't got the heart to chime in with support for Adams denials. All your 'witch hunt' distraction just highlights how farcical the pretence that he wasn't in the IRA is.

I don't know if he was or wasn't. (it doesn't matter if he was anyway imo)
I am always wary of witch hunts though.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

What it means is, there was NO evidence Alastair.

Aside from the evidence I referred to, I assume you mean?

Happyman42 wrote: »

There was certainly the will to put them in prison, 8-10,000 men served time for IRA offences up until 1988 including for membership. You are though entitled to your hunches.

I don't need any hunches. The numbers of convictions for IRA membership compared to the numbers involved speak for themselves. Martin McGuinness was never found guilty of IRA membership in Northern Ireland, despite many years of holding a major position in it's ranks there. His guilt is somewhat more straightforward, having admitted his membership before a court in the Republic.

Happyman42 wrote: »

He denies it and it is up to those who say he was to prove it.

No it's not. I don't have to prove anything. I'm more than happy to accept he's a liar with regard to his membership, based on the evidence available. You seem to confuse a refusal to entertain transparent deception with some sort of vendetta.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't know if he was or wasn't. (it doesn't matter if he was anyway imo)
I am always wary of witch hunts though.

You seem very fond of crying wolf with regard to them though. A bit embarrassing that you can't push yourself to defend the man's good name all the same. :rolleyes:

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Aside from the evidence I referred to, I assume you mean?

As usual you keep missing the point...useful evidence; not hearsay, not testimony from those with an agenda etc.
Smithwick could not conclusively say that collusion took place and in the abscence of actual incontrovertible evidence nobody can conclusively say either way, if he was in it or not.

I don't need any hunches. The numbers of convictions for IRA membership compared to the numbers involved speak for themselves. Martin McGuinness was never found guilty of IRA membership in Northern Ireland, despite many years of holding a major position in it's ranks there. His guilt is somewhat more straightforward, having admitted his membership before a court in the Republic.

And Adams denies that he was and at this point I understand why it would be expedient for him to not be a member. To me it stands to reason why an organisation which had decided on the political route would want a leader that could not be arrested for membership of an illegal organisation. A long period inside for Adams at any point during the 70's 80's or 90's would have been disastrous to that strategy imo. But that is an opinion, like yours.

No it's not. I don't have to prove anything.

I'm afraid you do. Any poster here could make all manner of allegations about anybody and we know what the mods make of that. Curiously, they don't have any problem with repeated unsubstaniated allegations about republicans.

You seem very fond of crying wolf with regard to them though. A bit embarrassing that you can't push yourself to defend the man's good name all the same. :rolleyes:

When a tribunal refuses to take on board testimony from an organisation at the heart of an investigation and instead choses to believe the testimony of somebody the tribunal has found to be unreliable then I smell whitewash and witchhunt.
I see the guards are begining to react today, this is a contested finding and 15 million has frankly been wasted.

tayto lover

Anytime I hear the word "Tribunal" I think of money for Judges and Solicitors and nothing concrete at the end of it. I wonder why?
Goodman, Bertie etc etc Judges and Solicitors raking in the money and all still laughing up their sleeves.

Great little country is Ireland and the working man paying for it all.

Mr.Micro

tayto lover wrote: »

Anytime I hear the word "Tribunal" I think of money for Judges and Solicitors and nothing concrete at the end of it. I wonder why?
Goodman, Bertie etc etc Judges and Solicitors raking in the money and all still laughing up their sleeves.

Great little country is Ireland and the working man paying for it all.

I think the days of the Tribunals are over. They were set up to make sure that the truth was slow in coming, or indeed ever arriving. They were probably the least harmful vehicle to protect the wrongdoers, but highly expensive for the taxpayers. At the end mostly toothless and incomplete.

tayto lover

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I think the days of the Tribunals are over. They were set up to make sure that the truth was slow in coming, or indeed ever arriving. They were probably the least harmful vehicle to protect the wrongdoers, but highly expensive for the taxpayers. At the end mostly toothless and incomplete.

I look forward to the Tribunal about Tribunals though.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

As usual you keep missing the point...useful evidence; not hearsay, not testimony from those with an agenda etc.

How is a photo of Adams wearing an IRA uniform hearsay? How is his inclusion in an IRA negotiating party hearsay? Who exactly has not got an agenda in confirming or denying Adams membership? You seem determined to bury your head in the sand with regard to this.

Happyman42 wrote: »

And Adams denies that he was and at this point I understand why it would be expedient for him to not be a member.

To lie, in other words.

Happyman42 wrote: »

To me it stands to reason why an organisation which had decided on the political route would want a leader that could not be arrested for membership of an illegal organisation. A long period inside for Adams at any point during the 70's 80's or 90's would have been disastrous to that strategy imo. But that is an opinion, like yours.

Lots of evasion there - but we come back to the expediency of the lie, rather than the credibility of the denial. But you don't seem to acknowledge that the joint first minister of NI is an acknowledged (ahem 'ex') IRA member, and that doesn't seem to have hampered his freedom or political leverage.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm afraid you do. Any poster here could make all manner of allegations about anybody and we know what the mods make of that. Curiously, they don't have any problem with repeated unsubstaniated allegations about republicans.

Possibly because the 'allegation' is actually substantiated with evidence, and any honest commentator recognises the farcical nature of the denial?

maccored

alastair wrote: »

Possibly because the 'allegation' is actually substantiated with evidence, and any honest commentator recognises the farcical nature of the denial?

I can wait for the 'adams was in the IRA ' crew to start showing some supporting evidence. The 'dogs in the street ...' line doesn't cut it. Its amazing how many people claim to believe in the law, democracy and innocent until proven guilty ... until they *know* something to the contrary. You have evidence dont you Alastair .. going by your post. Lets leave out the hearsay and the 'ira uniform' (afaik they didnt have one).

Tramps Like Us

maccored wrote: »

I can wait for the 'adams was in the IRA ' crew to start showing some supporting evidence. The 'dogs in the street ...' line doesn't cut it. Its amazing how many people claim to believe in the law, democracy and innocent until proven guilty ... until they *know* something to the contrary. You have evidence dont you Alastair .. going by your post. Lets leave out the hearsay and the 'ira uniform' (afaik they didnt have one).

I dunno, there must be thousands of IRA members in the country, going on his logic, based on amount of people who wore white shirts and black ties to republican funerals over the years

Happyman42

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

I dunno, there must be thousands of IRA members in the country, going on his logic, based on amount of people who wore white shirts and black ties to republican funerals over the years

I wore a beret myself as did loads of other young fellas to the filling in of roads along the border in the seventies. Was I in the IRA too?

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

I wore a beret myself as did loads of other young fellas to the filling in of roads along the border in the seventies. Was I in the IRA too?

Happyman - you are just continuously missing the point . It is not was he or was he not a member or what the quality of evidence is, or was he right or wrong .

The point is what the general public believes based on the circumstantial evidence available .

Godge

marienbad wrote: »

Happyman - you are just continuously missing the point . It is not was he or was he not a member or what the quality of evidence is, or was he right or wrong .

The point is what the general public believes based on the circumstantial evidence available .

Very much so, when you have the all sorts of enquiries reaching conclusions based on the balance of probabilities and being supported by the Shinners, it is amazing that they continue to reject the belief that on the balance of probabilities Gerry Adams, at least at some stage, was a leading member of the IRA. (sue me Gerry if you are reading this).

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

Happyman - you are just continuously missing the point . It is not was he or was he not a member or what the quality of evidence is, or was he right or wrong .

The point is what the general public believes based on the circumstantial evidence available .

I'm happy for them, the question has to be then...so what?

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm happy for them, the question has to be then...so what?

At last !! So what is right, so why make such a big deal of it ??

This is why conversations on these type threads are so ...... meaningless/frustrating/pointless ? Where every every issue is dissected and analysed to death just in case something is unwittingly conceded to the other side.

maccored

marienbad wrote: »

The point is what the general public believes based on the circumstantial evidence available .

yay for mob rule! it doesnt matter about that tacky stuff called evidence - the general public's general opinion is obviously good enough. Imagine the money one could save - like who needs courts and judges?

maccored

Do some of you actually read what you type? because if you do the answer seems to be **** democracy ... lets just accuse people of things and if enough people believe it then its obviously true.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

At last !! So what is right, so why make such a big deal of it ??

Because maybe, just maybe, Adams might be telling the truth? This mythical general public (which frankly equates to sections of the media and southern partitionists with little better to be at than pontificate endlessly from the high moral ground) that you talk about doesn't actually exist imo.

This is why conversations on these type threads are so ...... meaningless/frustrating/pointless ? Where every every issue is dissected and analysed to death just in case something is unwittingly conceded to the other side.

The big deal is being made of it by those who keep asking the pointless questions and refuse to work towards a sustainable peace. It is as it always was.

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

yay for mob rule! it doesnt matter about that tacky stuff called evidence - the general public's general opinion is obviously good enough. Imagine the money one could save - like who needs courts and judges?

I was curious as to how long it would take the misinterpretation exaggeration hyperbole to kick in.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

I was curious as to how long it would take the misinterpretation exaggeration hyperbole to kick in.

Misinterpretation? You have decided the answer to the question and you aren't taking any thing else.
As I said to Alastair, a way down and give the Guards the benefit of how your waters are feeling in the Ian Bailey case, I'm sure they have pics of Mr. Bailey wearing a selection of hats.

Sand

tayto lover wrote: »

I say the garda in Dundalk feel that they were convicted even though Smithwicks had no evidence.
If they were not convicted then why was there apologies issued?

This keeps getting repeated - he did have evidence. There is reams of testimonies and reports given to the inquiry. He used the evidence to make a finding of *probable* collusion in regards to some individual or individuals in the station (within his definition of collusion). He did not have *enough* evidence against any one individual to make a finding of collusion against any named individual.

A dead body with gunshot wounds is evidence of murder. You might not have enough evidence to name the person who murdered them but its not correct to state there was no evidence because the murderer wasn't identified.

Look - collusion is not a one way street. It's already well known that two Irish government ministers were engaged in a (rogue) effort to buy arms for the Provos (were there any effort by British government ministers to buy arms for the UVF only dogs would be able to hear the shrill shrieks of outrage from certain quarters). Its also well known that there was a sneaking, look the other way attitude to the Provos amongst several people and groups in Official and Unofficial Ireland. It's not unthinkable there was a Guard or Gardai sympathetic to the Provo narrative of "the cause" in the station who may have through concious planning, failure to bring forward intelligence against the plot, or plain careless talk to a Provo contact contributed to the murder of the RUC men. Based on the evidence the inquiry found it was probable.

alastair

maccored wrote: »

You have evidence dont you Alastair .. going by your post. Lets leave out the hearsay and the 'ira uniform' (afaik they didnt have one).

I'll repeat the evidence, since you've not been paying attention.

1. The evidence of others within the IRA. You can't dismiss this as hearsay - given that it's verified on the back of multiple sources, who had first person knowledge.

2. Photographic evidence of the man wearing a IRA uniform, while carrying the coffin of an IRA volunteer.

3. The inclusion of Adams in the Willy Whitelaw IRA negotiating team.

4. The unwillingness of anyone else within the IRA or SF circles to confirm Adams denial.

5. The wiki-leaked US ambassador's diplomatic report that stated the Irish state had 'rock solid evidence' that both Adams and McGuinness were part of the IRA Army Council as of the period of the Northern Bank robbery.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Misinterpretation? You have decided the answer to the question and you aren't taking any thing else.
As I said to Alastair, a way down and give the Guards the benefit of how your waters are feeling in the Ian Bailey case, I'm sure they have pics of Mr. Bailey wearing a selection of hats.

I just don't understand this kind of reply.

tayto lover

Sand wrote: »

This keeps getting repeated - he did have evidence. There is reams of testimonies and reports given to the inquiry. He used the evidence to make a finding of *probable* collusion in regards to some individual or individuals in the station (within his definition of collusion). He did not have *enough* evidence against any one individual to make a finding of collusion against any named individual.

A dead body with gunshot wounds is evidence of murder. You might not have enough evidence to name the person who murdered them but its not correct to state there was no evidence because the murderer wasn't identified.

Look - collusion is not a one way street. It's already well known that two Irish government ministers were engaged in a (rogue) effort to buy arms for the Provos (were there any effort by British government ministers to buy arms for the UVF only dogs would be able to hear the shrill shrieks of outrage from certain quarters). Its also well known that there was a sneaking, look the other way attitude to the Provos amongst several people and groups in Official and Unofficial Ireland. It's not unthinkable there was a Guard or Gardai sympathetic to the Provo narrative of "the cause" in the station who may have through concious planning, failure to bring forward intelligence against the plot, or plain careless talk to a Provo contact contributed to the murder of the RUC men. Based on the evidence the inquiry found it was probable.

Maybe you should replace that word with "possible" though.
It is also possible there were parties within the RUC who would have liked to have got promotion, who might have had a grudge against one or both of them, might have been an IRA mole etc etc. Anything is possible and equally as believable as Smithwicks opinion. It is also possible that the IRA followed his car, watched them leaving from a building close to Dundalk garda station etc etc.

I think it was a very lazy judgement and not befitting such an important and tragic episode in our troubled past to be honest.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I'll repeat the evidence, since you've not been paying attention.

1. The evidence of others within the IRA. You can't dismiss this as hearsay - given that it's verified on the back of multiple sources, who had first person knowledge. Untested and not interrogated in a court of law, so therefore at this moment in time, hearsay.

2. Photographic evidence of the man wearing a IRA uniform, while carrying the coffin of an IRA volunteer.

3. The inclusion of Adams in the Willy Whitelaw IRA negotiating team. Both pieces of evidence where available to the court when Adams was tried for membership...the case was dismissed for lack of evidence. That is a 'court verdict' Alastair.

4. The unwillingness of anyone else within the IRA or SF circles to confirm Adams denial. So what?

5. The wiki-leaked US ambassador's diplomatic report that stated the Irish state had 'rock solid evidence' that both Adams and McGuinness were part of the IRA Army Council as of the period of the Northern Bank robbery.
Enda can stand in the Dail and hurl his snide insults and drag up the past...where is this 'rock solid evidence'. It's beyond a joke at this stage.

.

Happyman42

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe you should replace that word with "possible" though.
It is also possible there were parties within the RUC who would have liked to have got promotion, who might have had a grudge against one or both of them, might have been an IRA mole etc etc. Anything is possible and equally as believable as Smithwicks opinion. It is also possible that the IRA followed his car, watched them leaving from a building close to Dundalk garda station etc etc.

I think it was a very lazy judgement and not befitting such an important and tragic episode in our troubled past to be honest.

Absolutely, once again a tribunal tasked with finding the truth has let us all down, expensively.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

I'll repeat the evidence, since you've not been paying attention.

1. The evidence of others within the IRA. You can't dismiss this as hearsay - given that it's verified on the back of multiple sources, who had first person knowledge.

2. Photographic evidence of the man wearing a IRA uniform, while carrying the coffin of an IRA volunteer.

3. The inclusion of Adams in the Willy Whitelaw IRA negotiating team.

4. The unwillingness of anyone else within the IRA or SF circles to confirm Adams denial.

5. The wiki-leaked US ambassador's diplomatic report that stated the Irish state had 'rock solid evidence' that both Adams and McGuinness were part of the IRA Army Council as of the period of the Northern Bank robbery.

Well all that's evidence why not go to the authorities?

You could go public and ask why he isn't being arrested and charged?

Like I'm sure during the troubles lots of people would if loved to seen him locked up in jail

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Untested and not interrogated in a court of law, so therefore at this moment in time, hearsay..

Heh. All the evidence relating to Adam's membership is untested in court - so that's hardly an argument against first person evidence.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Both pieces of evidence where available to the court when Adams was tried for membership...the case was dismissed for lack of evidence. That is a 'court verdict' Alastair..

Which fantasy trial would this be? Adams has never been tried for membership of the IRA. In fact he's never been tried for anything but his escape attempt from Long Kesh.

Happyman42 wrote: »

So what?.

It speaks to the credibility of his denial.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Enda can stand in the Dail and hurl his snide insults and drag up the past...where is this 'rock solid evidence'. It's beyond a joke at this stage.

The diplomatic text was nothing to do with Enda's comments in the Dail. It predates that by at least one government. If you ask why the state doesn't act on it, well, why didn't the UK act on Martin McGuinness' membership of the IRA? Why is he first minister now?

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

Well all that's evidence why not go to the authorities?

You could go public and ask why he isn't being arrested and charged?

Like I'm sure during the troubles lots of people would if loved to seen him locked up in jail

The authorities know he was/is a member. Why would anyone need to go to them with what they already know? Political expediency is the reason he wasn't charged.