breaking: Gerry Adams Arrested in connection to McConville - MOD WARNING First Post

Gatling

According to RTE news one of jean mcconville's daughters is willing to identify those who took her mother ,

turnikett1

Gatling wrote: »

According to RTE news one of jean mcconville's daughters is willing to identify those who took her mother ,

Yep, apparently she knows all the names of the men and women involved and is ready to hand them over to the PSNI. Very curious to see what happens.

Happyman42

turnikett1 wrote: »

Yep, apparently she knows all the names of the men and women involved and is ready to hand them over to the PSNI. Very curious to see what happens.

So do a lot of people on here...apparently.

Gatling

turnikett1 wrote: »

Yep, apparently she knows all the names of the men and women involved and is ready to hand them over to the PSNI. Very curious to see what happens.

If one makes a stand you can guarantee others will follow

crusher000

Santa Cruz wrote: »

That's right. Do a hatchet job on the McConvilles the same way the Shinners did a job on the McCartney sisters. There's no doubt but SF have some scum in their ranks

Where is the hatchet job ? Shouldn't all acts of crime be investigated fully if they know who did it they must have evidence. Evidence that may lead to a conviction of the low lives that did this.

Interesting to see how you turn this comment around to have another snipe at SF.

Happyman42

Gatling wrote: »

If one makes a stand you can guarantee others will follow

How will this be done...an identity parade? 42 year later by someone who was a child at the time?
Her evidence will be as legally valid as the hearsay evidence on the Boston tapes, which are not enough to proceed with, obviously.

Gatling

Happyman42 wrote: »

How will this be done...an identity parade? 42 year later by someone who was a child at the time?
Her evidence will be as legally valid as the hearsay evidence on the Boston tapes, which are not enough to proceed with, obviously.

Why are the Boston tapes hear say exactly,


From my understanding the tapes and interviews involved those on both sides of the troubles giving information about incidents that happened and they were involved in ,

Why would her witness evidence be an issue if its to be believed the family have been regularly threatened by the same people for since the abduction and killing

Jawgap

Happyman42 wrote: »

How will this be done...an identity parade? 42 year later by someone who was a child at the time?
Her evidence will be as legally valid as the hearsay evidence on the Boston tapes, which are not enough to proceed with, obviously.

hearsay isn't totally useless nor totally inadmissible in proceedings.

If the decision is made to proceed to a prosecution (by no means a given), the evidence, such as it is, will be laid before the court and tested - facts will be adduced and a decision arrived at.

Also, depending on the charge laid circumstantial evidence (depending on the 'quality' and quantity of it) can be more than sufficient to secure a conviction.

That's the criminal prosecution.

The burden of proof in a civil case is much lower (balance of probabilities) and if a decision was made to pursue such a case then it could get very 'interesting' for Gerry.

Incidentally, speaking of matters legal - how come Gerard has never sued anyone for defamation (either libelous or slanderous) for linking him to the murder? I would've thought if he was not involved he could make a fortune..........

Riskymove

Gatling wrote: »

Why are the Boston tapes hear say exactly,

because the people are dead and cannot be cross-examined

Gatling

Riskymove wrote: »

because the people are dead and cannot be cross-examined

But if say person A gives an account of a murder he committed and in the same account says person B ,person C ,was also there and then have a situation where past information could be used against all involved that collaborates the story ??

Riskymove

Gatling wrote: »

But if say person A gives an account of a murder he committed and in the same account says person B ,person C ,was also there and then have a situation where past information could be used against all involved that collaborates the story ??

as above it isn't completely useless as evidence but it wouldn't carry the same weight as in court

Banjo String

Gatling wrote: »

Why are the Boston tapes hear say exactly,

The interviewee's will not be available to be called as witnesses/cross examination.

Not forgetting that allegations have been made by opponents to the peace process who openly referred to Gerry Adams as a "traitor".

In short, I wouldn't be relying on the Boston tapes to secure a conviction against anyone.

Happyman42

Jawgap wrote: »

hearsay isn't totally useless nor totally inadmissible in proceedings.

If the decision is made to proceed to a prosecution (by no means a given), the evidence, such as it is, will be laid before the court and tested - facts will be adduced and a decision arrived at.

Without the people being there to be cross examined then a defence would demolish the admissibility of the tapes.

Incidentally, speaking of matters legal - how come Gerard has never sued anyone for defamation (either libelous or slanderous) for linking him to the murder? I would've thought if he was not involved he could make a fortune..........

Because of the damage such litigation could do to the peace process he has been involved in for most of his life. The media and forums like Boards know this and are unconstrained in what is allowed to be said in his case.
Does GA or McG give you the impression in how they live their lives that they are interested in financial 'fortunes'. That would be members of other parties I think.

LordSutch

So was Jean McConville murdered or killed?

I notice that on RTE, Sky, CNN, ITN & the BBC they talk about the murder of Jean McConville, while on some local radio stations they always refer to her as being killed. A subtle point no doubt, does it matter which term is used?

Zubeneschamali

pO1Neil wrote: »

If that is the outcome then I predict a rise in paramilitary activity

because they haven't gone away, you know.

Worksforyou

I think Gerry's guilty but I thought everyone was supposed to be moving on? Past crimes forgotten about for peace?

Jawgap

Happyman42 wrote: »

Without the people being there to be cross examined then a defence would demolish the admissibility of the tapes.

No it wouldn't - the tapes would still be admissible and the statements in them would be admissible - how much weight attaches to them depends on a whole range of factors which the judge will assess. It will also depend on what corroborating or supporting evidence can be produced in respect of the statements contained within them.

Saying that, the rules on hearsay etc tend to to be tighter in the UK than they are here.

Don't believe everything you see on Law & Order!

Happyman42 wrote: »

Because of the damage such litigation could do to the peace process he has been involved in for most of his life. The media and forums like Boards know this and are unconstrained in what is allowed to be said in his case.
Does GA or McG give you the impression in how they live their lives that they are interested in financial 'fortunes'. That would be members of other parties I think.

Right....so it's nothing to do with having to answer questions in a court?

If you are right, then in the wake of any prosecution or civil litigation and running it's course, won't that particular 'boil' have been lanced leaving him free to let fly with the writs......


.......of course men of modest means (and women too) that make up SF could pass on any financial fortune they might make to the party, couldn't they? Or as some people have done, sued for the apology and donated the damages to some worthy cause. He doesn't have to sue to enrich himself........I mean if he wasn't involved he should have no problem extracting an apology and a financial settlement without even going to court, wouldn't the media be anxious to settle?

delthedriver

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think anyone in SF that was halfway bright realized that a long time ago. This might be an unpleasant reminder for some of them, not to mention not what they want to hear in election season, but I hardly think that "party leader was involved in IRA activities" is going to be what you'd call a shock to anyone.

Indeed. So why is Gerry deluding himself? If the birds and the bees know he was a member of the IRA, why does he continue to deny it.


If his fellow SF Party members don't believe him, why do they continue along with his charade?

Happyman42

Jawgap wrote: »

No it wouldn't - the tapes would still be admissible and the statements in them would be admissible - how much weight attaches to them depends on a whole range of factors which the judge will assess. It will also depend on what corroborating or supporting evidence can be produced in respect of the statements contained within them.

Saying that, the rules on hearsay etc tend to to be tighter in the UK than they are here.

Don't believe everything you see on Law & Order!

The Boston Tapes have been around for quite some time, we are about to see how valuable they are in securing a conviction.

Right....so it's nothing to do with having to answer questions in a court?

If you are right, then in the wake of any prosecution or civil litigation and running it's course, won't that particular 'boil' have been lanced leaving him free to let fly with the writs......


.......of course men of modest means (and women too) that make up SF could pass on any financial fortune they might make to the party, couldn't they? Or as some people have done, sued for the apology and donated the damages to some worthy cause. He doesn't have to sue to enrich himself........I mean if he wasn't involved he should have no problem extracting an apology and a financial settlement without even going to court, wouldn't the media be anxious to settle?

Enough media opinion has already been written about the potential instability this arrest alone could cause.
Adams has no interest in causing such instability himself by pursuing a damaging court case.
To what end? As we see everyday on here, people are gonna believe what they want to believe. He has managed to convince more and more of the southern electorate of his bona fides just by continuing to do what he does.

LordSutch

Worksforyou wrote: »

I think Gerry's guilty but I thought everyone was supposed to be moving on? Past crimes forgotten about for peace?

However, there does seem to be the appetite in todays society for bringing to justice those suspected of 'Historic crimes' be they sexual, murderous, terrorist related or otherwise.

.jacksparrow.

delthedriver wrote: »

Indeed. So why is Gerry deluding himself? If the birds and the bees know he was a member of the IRA, why does he continue to deny it.


If his fellow SF Party members don't believe him, why do they continue along with his charade?

I don't know if he was in the IRA , genuinely I don't.

How do you know he was ?

If you're sure then surely you can convince me fairly quickly he was.

Worksforyou

LordSutch wrote: »

However, there does seem to be the appetite in todays society for bringing to justice those suspected of 'Historic crimes' be they sexual, murderous, terrorist related or otherwise.

So why haven't any British Army personnel been arrested for crimes in Ireland?

delthedriver

WilyCoyote wrote: »

Just because you keep thinking that doesn't mean it's going to happen in the near future.

As for your last sentence ........ are you saying that a huge segment of Irish society are idiots? And that you and your ilk are the enlightened ones?

Well how much longer will SF play along with Gerry's rules........SF have aspirations, no doubt there may even be some decent people in the Party.


So long as there is a question mark over Gerry and his mates there will remain a serious question mark over SF.


Only the seriously brainwashed will; vote for them!

.jacksparrow.

delthedriver wrote: »

Well how much longer will SF play along with Gerry's rules........SF have aspirations, no doubt there may even be some decent people in the Party.


So long as there is a question mark over Gerry and his mates there will remain a serious question mark over SF.


Only the seriously brainwashed will; vote for them!

Strange how he became the most popular party leader in the polls only a few weeks ago.

This is unsettling for parties both north and south.

Anyone denying this has nothing to do with him been arrested is fooling themselves.

Lady Spangles

tomwaterford wrote: »

she was passing info the british about the IRA...was warned...caught again...so ended up being killed for informing...not the last to be killed for it either
as the saying geos.....snithes end in ditches:(

not nice but...the sad reality of the situation

What she passed to the British Army was a glass of water to a dying soldier - an act of human compassion. Since when was that a capital offence? Here in Belfast there's an old joke about the IRA: they'd shoot the cows for supplying milk to the Brits.

I tried to post a link to an article that stated the reasons she was killed, but it won't let me as I'm a n00b. But it was from the Channel 4 News site.

delthedriver

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

I don't know if he was in the IRA , genuinely I don't.

How do you know he was ?

If you're sure then surely you can convince me fairly quickly he was.

Gerry Adams said:

“Last month I said that I was available to meet the PSNI about the Jean McConville case. While I have concerns about the timing, I am voluntarily meeting with the PSNI this evening.

“As a republican leader I have never shirked my responsibility to build the peace. This includes dealing with the difficult issue of victims and their families. Insofar as it is possible I have worked to bring closure to victims and their families who have contacted me. Even though they may not agree, this includes the family of Jean McConville.

“I believe that the killing of Jean McConville and the secret burial of her body was wrong and a grievous injustice to her and her family.

“Well publicised, malicious allegations have been made against me. I reject these.

“While I have never disassociated myself from the IRA and I never will, I am innocent of any part in the abduction, killing or burial of Mrs McConville.

“Sinn Féin has signed up to the Haass proposals for dealing with the past. While I also respect the right of families if they wish to seek legal redress there remains a huge onus on the two governments and the political parties to face up to all these issues and to agree a victim centred process which does this.”




Is that enough for you?

Gatling

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Strange how he became the most popular party leader in the polls only a few weeks ago.

This is unsettling for parties both north and south.

Anyone denying this has nothing to do with him been arrested is fooling themselves.

Funny how its a conspiracy the Irish and British government colluding to gain points in the polls,


Coming soon in 2050 the enda / david tapes

Worksforyou

Lady Spangles wrote: »

What she passed to the British Army was a glass of water to a dying soldier - an act of human compassion. Since when was that a capital offence? Here in Belfast there's an old joke about the IRA: they'd shoot the cows for supplying milk to the Brits.

I tried to post a link to an article that stated the reasons she was killed, but it won't let me as I'm a n00b. But it was from the Channel 4 News site.

Was that story not a myth? There was no dying soldier to pass water to?

Sir Arthur Daley

LordSutch wrote: »

So was Jean McConville murdered or killed?

I notice that on RTE, Sky, CNN, ITN & the BBC they talk about the murder of Jean McConville, while on some local radio stations they always refer to her as being killed. A subtle point no doubt, does it matter which term is used?

Murder is a crime, where it constitutes 'unlawful homicide with malice aforethought' or 'intentional and unlawful killing' and is committed by somebody of sound mind and of the age of discretion.

Killing means 'causing death', which could include, unintentional, by accident, or in reasonable self defence or in reasonable defence of another person.

Murder is killing but killing is not necessarily murder.

timtime

delthedriver wrote: »

Gerry Adams said:

“Last month I said that I was available to meet the PSNI about the Jean McConville case. While I have concerns about the timing, I am voluntarily meeting with the PSNI this evening.

“As a republican leader I have never shirked my responsibility to build the peace. This includes dealing with the difficult issue of victims and their families. Insofar as it is possible I have worked to bring closure to victims and their families who have contacted me. Even though they may not agree, this includes the family of Jean McConville.

“I believe that the killing of Jean McConville and the secret burial of her body was wrong and a grievous injustice to her and her family.

“Well publicised, malicious allegations have been made against me. I reject these.

“While I have never disassociated myself from the IRA and I never will, I am innocent of any part in the abduction, killing or burial of Mrs McConville.

“Sinn Féin has signed up to the Haass proposals for dealing with the past. While I also respect the right of families if they wish to seek legal redress there remains a huge onus on the two governments and the political parties to face up to all these issues and to agree a victim centred process which does this.”




Is that enough for you?

so when was he sworn in?