Smithwick: Collusion in Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen murders

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

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.

But under the law and European conventions on human rights they have to investigate crimes

The government cannot not investigate crimes especially if they have evidence will could lead to a successful conviction
As it is in the interest of the state that all crimes are investigated and criminal brought to justice
That is illegal

Also during the troubles why would the British givernment give a damn about Gerry Adams??

Sure wouldn't it be a coup to bring Gerry Adams to court and prove that he was or is a member of the IRA especially the IRA army council

You can always go public with this information that you have and go to the authorities and if they don't do anything sue the DPP/PPS/CPS for not bring a case a explain why you could even bri g to the ECHR

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

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



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.


It speaks to the credibility of his denial.



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?

Maybe Martin McGinness left the IRA as he crossed the border each and every time and rejoined it when he crossed back into the Republic??? ,-)

He probably was a paid member of the PIRA (South) only and not a member if the PIRA (North) as he couldn't afford both membership fees!! ,-) being a socialist and all

He's isn't first minister!! Never was!
That job is Peter Robinson's!!! :-P

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

He's isn't first minister!! Never was!
That job is Peter Robinson's!!! :-P

He's currently deputy/joint first minister - depending who you ask.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

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

Don't you think that somebody in the authorities is considering the testimonies and the possibility of a charge sticking and on advice deciding that the testimonies would be demolished in a court?

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.

Never tried, but charged and the presiding judge in a non jury court decided there was insufficient 'evidence'. The exact same reason why the authorities didn't proceed since and now.

In February 1978, he was charged with membership of IRA, but was later freed after a ruling by the presiding judge that there was insufficient evidence for a conviction.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/people/biography/apeople.htm

It speaks to the credibility of his denial.

Only to those who have already decided his guilt.

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?

You'll have to ask them that. The UK aren't continually sidestepping current issues by having petulant, scared, hate filled digs everytime elected representatives open their mouths.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Don't you think that somebody in the authorities is considering the testimonies and the possibility of a charge sticking and on advice deciding that the testimonies would be demolished in a court?

Rather more likely that the potential for civil unrest lies more in prosecuting than not. There's nothing to be gained, and much to be lost.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Never tried, but charged and the presiding judge in a non jury court decided there was insufficient 'evidence'. The exact same reason why the authorities didn't proceed since and now.

Not really. The same is true of Martin McGuinness - he was charged with IRA membership (in NI) in '76, but released without trial - despite his long-standing acknowledgement of IRA membership. Do you believe Martin was lying, simply because there wasn't enough evidence before the court on the day to secure a conviction?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Only to those who have already decided his guilt.

Eh? It doesn't matter what the personal opinion of anyone asking is. If Adams' colleagues don't support his denial, when asked, it clearly undermines to veracity of that denial. It's in their interest to clarify the issue, and yet they can't/won't.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You'll have to ask them that. The UK aren't continually sidestepping current issues by having petulant, scared, hate filled digs everytime elected representatives open their mouths.

I'm glad you recognise the merits of the UK's role in something. Again - the Irish state is the body with the evidence of Adams' IRA membership - nothing to do with any comments from Enda. He didn't seem remotely scared or petulant on behalf of June McConville though - he pretty much cut to the chase.

maccored

my apologies if you think my interpretation of your post is "misinterpretation exaggeration hyperbole". It was, after all, the essence of what you were suggesting.

marienbad wrote: »

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

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Rather more likely that the potential for civil unrest lies more in prosecuting than not. There's nothing to be gained, and much to be lost.

As you would say yourself...the conspiracy theory forum is thataway >
If they could have had him in the 80/early 90's they would have.

Not really. The same is true of Martin McGuinness - he was charged with IRA membership (in NI) in '76, but released without trial - despite his long-standing acknowledgement of IRA membership. Do you believe Martin was lying, simply because there wasn't enough evidence before the court on the day to secure a conviction?

You said there was 'evidence', a judge found that there wasn't. What do you want exactly?




{QUOTE]Eh? It doesn't matter what the personal opinion of anyone asking is. If Adams' colleagues don't support his denial, when asked, it clearly undermines to veracity of that denial. It's in their interest to clarify the issue, and yet they can't/won't.[/QUOTE]

Adams colleagues refuse, like him to attach any importance to the question. Because it isn't important.

I'm glad you recognise the merits of the UK's role in something. Again - the Irish state is the body with the evidence of Adams' IRA membership - nothing to do with any comments from Enda. He didn't seem remotely scared or petulant on behalf of June McConville though - he pretty much cut to the chase.

There is supposed to be 'evidence' of his involvement in that too...strangely not available when it comes to the crunch.

maccored

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.

Mainly from those who fell out with Sinn Fein when they went the way of the peace process. hmm. think about that.

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

What the hell is an IRA uniform? they didnt have one.

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

unless you are just being silly, anyone with an inkling of historical education on the subject would be aware that the IRA and SF at the time were closely linked. Adams is a skilled negotiator for republicans. Thats why he was there (more than likely)

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

Besides all the people in republican circles who deny it. You're arguing with a few of them at present.

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.

A leaked quote that someone in the british and/or Irish governments think Adams was in the IRA. If there was 'rock solid evidence' you'd be quoting that instead of the tosh you did post. Same applies to the bank robbery (where 50 grand of it was found in an RUC leisure centre more than likely as payment) - if theres proof, then lets be having it. There isnt though.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

As you would say yourself...the conspiracy theory forum is thataway >
If they could have had him in the 80/early 90's they would have.

They didn't want to, clearly. No conspiracy required.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You said there was 'evidence', a judge found that there wasn't. What do you want exactly?

I've provided you with the evidence. That a judge found there wasn't enough to convict him in '78 is irrelevant. Who here is seeking a conviction? No-one that I've noticed. The issue is truthfulness, not a demand for a sentence.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Adams colleagues refuse, like him to attach any importance to the question. Because it isn't important.

That's not the point. They can't support his denial - be it important or otherwise.

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is supposed to be 'evidence' of his involvement in that too...strangely not available when it comes to the crunch.

What crunch? They have evidence - they say they do. Having evidence and seeking a conviction on the back of it are two completely different things.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

They didn't want to, clearly. No conspiracy required.



I've provided you with the evidence. That a judge found there wasn't enough to convict him in '78 is irrelevant. Who here is seeking a conviction? No-one that I've noticed. The issue is truthfulness, not a demand for a sentence.



That's not the point. They can't support his denial - be it important or otherwise.




What crunch? They have evidence - they say they do. Having evidence and seeking a conviction on the back of it are two completely different things.

I think anybody with an ounce of sense can see the preposterousness of your position.
'I have decided he is guilty and lying, everything follows from that'.

I'm done, back to the topic.

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

my apologies if you think my interpretation of your post is "misinterpretation exaggeration hyperbole". It was, after all, the essence of what you were suggesting.

not even remotely

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think anybody with an ounce of sense can see the preposterousness of your position.
'I have decided he is guilty and lying, everything follows from that'.

I'm done, back to the topic.

I've decided, based on compelling evidence, that he's a liar. Nothing preposterous about that at all. If you were honest, you'd admit you know he's a liar with regard to this too.

For Reals

alastair wrote: »

I've decided, based on compelling evidence, that he's a liar. Nothing preposterous about that at all. If you were honest, you'd admit you know he's a liar with regard to this too.

To be fair that's your belief, not fact. Piling on the hearsay won't create a fact.
I guess we could intern him, you know, ike the good old days, based on suspicion

alastair

For Reals wrote: »

To be fair that's your belief, not fact. Piling on the hearsay won't create a fact.

The evidence simply highlights the fact in this case. No need for piling on any hearsay - the evidence is quite clear on a number of fronts - already outlined, so pointless repeating for those who refuse to hear.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

He's currently deputy/joint first minister - depending who you ask.

He is deputy first minister not joint first minister

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

He is deputy first minister not joint first minister

He seems to believe otherwise - he's called himself the joint first minister.

el pasco

Read a very interesting article in the Sunday Indepenant and it said that since MI5 were bugging the phone line at the Garda station so knew that the attack would happen and didn't stop it
Breen was believed to have info on Loughgall shoot to kill attack and East Tyrone PIRA Brigade wanted to get Breen and torture him get the information about who was the mole in the attack

Interestingly South Armagh PIRA Brigade got to him first and only killed both Breen and Buchanan and didn't even get any information out of these high ranked police officers which seems very suspicious to me

It also said that Breen made around 80 journeys to Dundalk Garda station

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

He seems to believe otherwise - he's called himself the joint first minister.

He can call himself the Queen of Perisa for all I care officially he's the deputy first minister and that's that

maccored

marienbad wrote: »

not even remotely

You werent even remotely suggesting mob rule when you said:

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

Sure reads like it to me, considering you're basically saying whats important in these things is what the general public believes and not what you know from the justice system and the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

Im sure you'll tack another unrelated one liner under this as an explanation all the same.

alastair

maccored wrote: »

Sure reads like it to me, considering you're basically saying whats important in these things is what the general public believes and not what you know from the justice system and the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

The legal system generally isn't required for people to critically analyse the world around them. I don't need a judge to tell me Adams is lying about his membership of the IRA, just as I don't need a judge to tell me that Bertie didn't win that money on the horses, like he claims. Application of one's critical faculties is nothing to do with 'mob rule' - but thanks for a tasty chunk of hyperbole all the same!

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

You werent even remotely suggesting mob rule when you said:



Sure reads like it to me, considering you're basically saying whats important in these things is what the general public believes and not what you know from the justice system and the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

Im sure you'll tack another unrelated one liner under this as an explanation all the same.

You have just proved my point, use your common sense man.

You may notice I have passed no value judgement on the issue but you immediately assume otherwise.

And in the interests of consistency where is the evidence/court judgement etc that Harry Breen was was guilty of collusion on the other side ?

And in the interest of full disclosure I have absolutely no doubts that he was even without such evidence.

Is that enough one liners for you ? Oh to live in a black and white world !

maccored

alastair wrote: »

The legal system generally isn't required for people to critically analyse the world around them. I don't need a judge to tell me Adams is lying about his membership of the IRA, just as I don't need a judge to tell me that Bertie didn't win that money on the horses, like he claims. Application of one's critical faculties is nothing to do with 'mob rule' - but thanks for a tasty chunk of hyperbole all the same!

Hyperbole hyersmole.

The mere suggestion that the publics viewpoint is what matters and not the truth says it all. A thought process you clearly adhere to.

maccored

marienbad wrote: »

You have just proved my point, use your common sense man.

You may notice I have passed no value judgement on the issue but you immediately assume otherwise.

And in the interests of consistency where is the evidence/court judgement etc that Harry Breen was was guilty of collusion on the other side ?

And in the interest of full disclosure I have absolutely no doubts that he was even without such evidence.

Is that enough one liners for you ? Oh to live in a black and white world !

Jaysus but enough waffle. Why deflect answering the question by talking about harry breen? Again, rather than debating or even answering what I asked you, off you go on a ramble. Is this how you normally debate? By boring your opponents with waffle?

alastair

maccored wrote: »

Hyperbole hyersmole.

The mere suggestion that the publics viewpoint is what matters and not the truth says it all. A thought process you clearly adhere to.

The truth may well be better determined by using one's own critical faculties, than waiting for a judicial determination (which may never actually arise). That's how most people go through life. YMMV. Glad to hear you buy Bertie's horse winnings story all the same.

Tramps Like Us

Obviously there is grand conspiracy and Adams ha the Gardaí, DDP and the judiciary in his pocket, otherwise he would be arrested for IRA membership right?

Fratton Fred

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Obviously there is grand conspiracy and Adams ha the Gardaí, DDP and the judiciary in his pocket, otherwise he would be arrested for IRA membership right?

Mass conspiracy? Not at all.

The very fact he is still alive would indicate that he is considered useful to someone.

Mr.Micro

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Obviously there is grand conspiracy and Adams ha the Gardaí, DDP and the judiciary in his pocket, otherwise he would be arrested for IRA membership right?

What would be the point in arresting Adams over the allegation he, is/was, in the IRA. It's perceived by most everybody that he, is/was, in the IRA.

Tramps Like Us

If you are all so sure that he was a member of the IRA and have proof talk to the Garda - IRA membership is a crime, people still get done on historic IRA membership charges.

Or maybe we need an inquiry into why the Garda are not enforcing the law and are ignoring crimes committed by Gerry Adams? More collusion?

Mr.Micro

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

If you are all so sure that he was a member of the IRA and have proof talk to the Garda - IRA membership is a crime, people still get done on historic IRA membership charges.

Or maybe we need an inquiry into why the Garda are not enforcing the law and are ignoring crimes committed by Gerry Adams? More collusion?

No, we will settle for the peace. Adam's secret is safe with us.

alastair

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

If you are all so sure that he was a member of the IRA and have proof talk to the Garda - IRA membership is a crime, people still get done on historic IRA membership charges.

Or maybe we need an inquiry into why the Garda are not enforcing the law and are ignoring crimes committed by Gerry Adams? More collusion?

The reality is that no-one is bothered unless there's current criminal activity to go with membership. If the DPP up north is seriously suggesting an amnesty for Troubles-related crime before GFA, then the prosecution of some old IRA hack falls pretty far down the 'to-do' list. It's equally illegal to cycle about without a bell, and yet no-one is calling for an inquiry regarding slack policing on that front.

Tramps Like Us

alastair wrote: »

The reality is that no-one is bothered unless there's current criminal activity to go with membership. If the DPP up north is seriously suggesting an amnesty for Troubles-related crime before GFA, then the prosecution of some old IRA hack falls pretty far down the 'to-do' list. It's equally illegal to cycle about without a bell, and yet no-one is calling for an inquiry regarding slack policing on that front.

Now you're coming round, IRA membership is nothing worse than not having a bell on his bike. Gerry is big into cycling, better raid his bike shed. So why do people care? If it is so insignificant that the police aren't, and shouldnt care, why do you?

Presumably members of the IRA actually, you know, did something. Some old "IRA hack"? I thought Gerry was the devil incarnate and masterminded everything the 'Ra did?

If people have evidence about Gerry Adams committing crimes they should talk to the gardaí, right? And not presumably prejudice any possible proceedings by slinging mud online?

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

Jaysus but enough waffle. Why deflect answering the question by talking about harry breen? Again, rather than debating or even answering what I asked you, off you go on a ramble. Is this how you normally debate? By boring your opponents with waffle?

Well the thread is about Harry Breen ! By the way what question did you ask me ?

alastair

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Now you're coming round, IRA membership is nothing worse than not having a bell on his bike. Gerry is big into cycling, better raid his bike shed. So why do people care? If it is so insignificant that the police aren't, and shouldnt care, why do you?

I couldn't care less about criminalising the man. I do care about being lied to - whether it's Bertie's horse winnings, or Gerry's activities through to the GFA.

Tramps Like Us

alastair wrote: »

I couldn't care less about criminalising the man. I do care about being lied to - whether it's Bertie's horse winnings, or Gerry's activities through to the GFA.

I think most people don't care about Gerry Adams association with the IRA. I dont think anyone would change their opinion if Adams came out tomorrow and said he was a member. You dont have these questions aimed at Gilmore. Not once has Ciaran Lynch been heckeld about his murderer brother or of he knows were his other brother, the counterfeiter, money launderer (Paid for Gilmore, Rabbitte etc election campaigns) who went on the run years ago is.

Mr.Micro

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

I think most people don't care about Gerry Adams association with the IRA. I dont think anyone would change their opinion if Adams came out tomorrow and said he was a member. You dont have these questions aimed at Gilmore. Not once has Ciaran Lynch been heckeld about his murderer brother or of he knows were his other brother, the counterfeiter, money launderer (Paid for Gilmore, Rabbitte etc election campaigns) who went on the run years ago is.

As I alluded to in my posts, people see the bigger picture, they want peace. I think people would and do care about membership of the IRA, but will not let it derail what is best for the country.

alastair

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

I think most people don't care about Gerry Adams association with the IRA. I dont think anyone would change their opinion if Adams came out tomorrow and said he was a member. You dont have these questions aimed at Gilmore. Not once has Ciaran Lynch been heckeld about his murderer brother or of he knows were his other brother, the counterfeiter, money launderer (Paid for Gilmore, Rabbitte etc election campaigns) who went on the run years ago is.

Has Gilmore repeatedly lied about his sticky background? Is there anything to connect him to Group B activities? Has anyone within the WP stated that Gilmore knew all about the counterfeiting or whatever? It's a completely different situation - more akin to accusing Mary-Lou of benefitting from the Northern Bank robbery. As to the sins of siblings? What Adams is accused of in relation to his brother, is rather more damning than convenient silence.

Karl Stein

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The very fact he is still alive would indicate that he is considered useful to someone.

Adams survived attempts on his life fwiw.

You're right though - Adams became a very useful person when the British wanted the IRA to stop blowing up their city centres.