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

Jawgap

Seaneh wrote: »

The Saville inquiry was just that, an inquiry, not a trial. The trial which should have followed has been blocked and denied to protect the interestes of the British Military and Government, not because of lack of evidence.

......is that opinion or is there something substantive you can point to?

Seaneh

Jawgap wrote: »

......is that opinion or is there something substantive you can point to?

Key findings of the inquury which said that members of 1 para fired on civilians who "posed no threat". That they disobeyed orders, that they lied about being fired on first, that their CO lied to his superiors about his intentions that day, etc, etc, etc.

twowheelsgood

Seaneh wrote: »

The Saville inquiry was just that, an inquiry, not a trial. The trial which should have followed has been blocked and denied to protect the interestes of the British Military and Government, not because of lack of evidence.

Well you seem to determined to evade my question but I think we both know the answer. If and when a case is brought against a British soldier and dismissed for lack of evidence we will see a very different response from you than your current distain for the pursuit of a fruitless cause in this case.

Happyman42

Lady Spangles wrote: »

So, as far as you're concerned, this absence of evidence in some way adds weight to the suggestion that she was spying? Personally, I favour earth logic.

I never suggested she was spying either, I don't know if she was or not. But 'not' finding any evidence about what would have been a secretive operation isn't indicative of anything either.
It's funny that you would have a go at my 'logic' because logic dictates fairly clearly that the IRA didn't have a policy and didn't go around shooting people dead and disappearing them just because of a one-off incident of showing compassion to enemy soldiers. Logic...earth or otherwise would suggest that there would be other incidents like this,would it not?
Disappearing was almost exclusively reserved for those who where caught informing, so logic would dictate that her killers believed that was what she was.

Sierra Oscar

Martin McGuinness says PSNI to ask judge for more time to question Gerry Adams in connection with the 1972 murder of Jean McConville

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/462232267377897472

Didn't think he would still be in custody at this stage, I am surprised they are seeking an extension to the detention period.

Jawgap

Seaneh wrote: »

Key findings of the inquury which said that members of 1 para fired on civilians who "posed no threat". That they disobeyed orders, that they lied about being fired on first, that their CO lied to his superiors about his intentions that day, etc, etc, etc.

Ok, well that's a finding of the inquiry (and certainly an incredibly serious one) but what you said was.....

Seaneh wrote: »

The Saville inquiry was just that, an inquiry, not a trial. The trial which should have followed has been blocked and denied to protect the interestes of the British Military and Government, not because of lack of evidence.

Have you anything substantive to point at to support that statement, or is it just your opinion as an observer?

Nodin

bumper234 wrote: »

Why these 2? What part have they played in his arrest?

Yep. What possible goal could a Fine Gael and Conservative government have in relation to Sinn Fein?

William F

bumper234 wrote: »

So are you saying they played an integral role in him being arrested?

For certain. There is no evidence to convict him and they know that. The only thing that has changed in the last 42 years is that two people made allegations against him on tapes who are now dead.

This means that evidence is now rendered useless yet he was still arrested. That means it can only be politically motivated.

Adams will be released without charge and a 'file will be sent' to whatever equivalent of the DPP they have up there just to drag it out a little longer.

It's all a disgraceful scam and the biggest losers are the McConvilles who are given false hope.

donutheadhomer

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0502/614764-adams-mcconville/

Jawgap

Happyman42 wrote: »

I never suggested she was spying either, I don't know if she was or not. But 'not' finding any evidence about what would have been a secretive operation isn't indicative of anything either.
It's funny that you would have a go at my 'logic' because logic dictates fairly clearly that the IRA didn't have a policy and didn't go around shooting people dead and disappearing them just because of a one-off incident of showing compassion to enemy soldiers. Logic...earth or otherwise would suggest that there would be other incidents like this,would it not?
Disappearing was almost exclusively reserved for those who where caught informing, so logic would dictate that her killers believed that was what she was.

Well even if she was spying, and even if she was informing and even if she was doing a thousand other things that the 'RA found objectionable, is that reason for torturing then shooting someone's Mammy before burying her in some unmarked grave?

Seaneh

Jawgap wrote: »

Ok, well that's a finding of the inquiry (and certainly an incredibly serious one) but what you said was.....



Have you anything substantive to point at to support that statement, or is it just your opinion as an observer?

Just my opinion as an observer.

I know there is an investigation "ongoing" and it "could take up to 4 years" (so 3 more years?), but the fact that an investigation of that scope has to be made at all with the amount of evidence handed to PSNI by the inquiry and the depth and cost of the inquiry itself, is odd.
Surely it would be a case of corroborating the evidence, dismissing that which not relevant to a possible prosecution/defence and passing it on to the prosecutors and then arresting those to be questioned and eventually charge with enough evidence to charge and bring them to trial?

bumper234

Nodin wrote: »

Yep. What possible goal could a Fine Gael and Conservative government have in relation to Sinn Fein?

Unless you have evidence for their collusion in his arrest then you are merely a conspiracy theorist :rolleyes:

donutheadhomer

there must be evidence to show the judge to get the extension

My name is URL

donutheadhomer wrote: »

there must be evidence to show the judge to get the extension

All police have to do is apply for an extension.. they don't have to provide anything in the way of evidence to the judge.

Seaneh

donutheadhomer wrote: »

there must be evidence to show the judge to get the extension

Actually no, that's not true. They just have to ask for an extension, they don't need to give the judge any evidence at all.

bumper234

My name is URL wrote: »

All police have to do is apply for an extension.. they don't have to provide anything in the way of evidence to the judge.

They have to have a VALID reason, no judge will agree to let the police hold someone for no reason.

Jawgap

Seaneh wrote: »

Just my opinion as an observer.

I know there is an investigation "ongoing" and it "could take up to 4 years" (so 3 more years?), but the fact that an investigation of that scope has to be made at all with the amount of evidence handed to PSNI by the inquiry and the depth and cost of the inquiry itself, is odd.
Surely it would be a case of corroborating the evidence, dismissing that which not relevant to a possible prosecution/defence and passing it on to the prosecutors and then arresting those to be questioned and eventually charge with enough evidence to charge and bring them to trial?

In essence that's about it, but the complicating factors are the scale of the incident and the distance in the past. Plus, the last thing I'd like to see is a few squaddies thrown to the wolves to save other people's skins - I'd want to see more than the guys who pulled the triggers put before the courts, I'd like to see the officers and NCOs who either gave the orders or who failed to supervise their men properly in the dock with them.

My name is URL

bumper234 wrote: »

They have to have a VALID reason, no judge will agree to let the police hold someone for no reason.

A valid reason being that they require more time to question a suspect. It's as simple as that really... there's no need to dream up any sort of other conclusion at this stage.

Seaneh

bumper234 wrote: »

They have to have a VALID reason, no judge will agree to let the police hold someone for no reason.

"we want to talk to him for longer as we feel the case is high profile and he is a suspect".

That's a valid reason for extension.

bumper234

My name is URL wrote: »

A valid reason being that they require more time to question a suspect. It's as simple as that really... there's no need to dream up any sort of other conclusion at this stage.

SO you are saying that they just ask a judge for an extension and he will grant it without a shred of evidence? He will agree to denying someone their freedom without asking for a shred of evidence to show that the extension is needed|?

donutheadhomer

Seaneh wrote: »

"we want to talk to him for longer as we feel the case is high profile and he is a suspect".

That's a valid reason for extension.

so not quite like Law and Order then

Seaneh

Jawgap wrote: »

In essence that's about it, but the complicating factors are the scale of the incident and the distance in the past. Plus, the last thing I'd like to see is a few squaddies thrown to the wolves to save other people's skins - I'd want to see more than the guys who pulled the triggers put before the courts, I'd like to see the officers and NCOs who either gave the orders or who failed to supervise their men properly in the dock with them.

I don't want anyone thrown to the wolves to appease the masses either and I agree, it should be a top down investigation and those at the top levels who were invloved (whatever that level might be) should ultimately be held as responsible as those on the ground. But I feel like after 12 years and 300million, the inquiry has turned up just about everything that is likely to turn up and the PSNI are wasting time and resources in "furthering" the investigation.

Bafucin

bumper234 wrote: »

They have to have a VALID reason, no judge will agree to let the police hold someone for no reason.

In the UK they can in connection to terrorism for quite some time I believe.

Seaneh

donutheadhomer wrote: »

so not quite like Law and Order then

Law and Order might be (somewhat) reflective of the US system but not the UK system, no.

MonsterCookie

Seaneh wrote: »

"we want to talk to him for longer as we feel the case is high profile and he is a suspect".

That's a valid reason for extension.

Genuine question...does the fact that he has been arresting really mean he is suspected of having been involved? Could it be that the psni suspect he knows who did it, gave the orders, etc? Even if GA wasn't directly involved, I'd find it hard to believe he doesn't have vital information, along with McGuinness and others.

My name is URL

bumper234 wrote: »

SO you are saying that they just ask a judge for an extension and he will grant it without a shred of evidence? He will agree to denying someone their freedom without asking for a shred of evidence to show that the extension is needed|?

All the evidence a judge needs to extend the detention period of someone held under the Terrorism Act, is that police genuinely require more time to question the suspect.

What's so hard to understand about that?!

Do you think that a judge is expected to sift through evidence available and on very short notice decide whether there's enough to detain him for longer? It's still in the investigative stages.. and it's up to police to compile evidence, which is what they are doing. All they have to do is satisfy the judge that they require more time to do so.

Seaneh

MonsterCookie wrote: »

Genuine question...does the fact that he has been arresting really mean he is suspected of having been involved? Could it be that the psni suspect he knows who did it, gave the orders, etc? Even if GA wasn't directly involved, I'd find it hard to believe he doesn't have vital information, along with McGuinness and others.

I'm sure they DO actually believe he was directly involved or at least know who was involved, but I honestly don't believe they have anything other than hearsay and rumor to back it up.

Like I said, if they actually had ANYTHING they wouldn't have waited a month for him to show up on the door step after calling them and organising a visit, they'd have been round his house ASAP with the cuffs.

twowheelsgood

bumper234 wrote: »

Unless you have evidence for their collusion in his arrest then you are merely a conspiracy theorist :rolleyes:

Or possible engaging in a cynical (though fruitless I think) attempt to win a few votes for SF.

Don’t assume that everyone who peddles this conspiracy nonsense actually believes it!

Jawgap

Seaneh wrote: »

I'm sure they DO actually believe he was directly involved or at least know who was involved, but I honestly don't believe they have anything other than hearsay and rumor to back it up.

Like I said, if they actually had ANYTHING they wouldn't have waited a month for him to show up on the door step after calling them and organising a visit, they'd have been round his house ASAP with the cuffs.

there's a whole load of reasons. First up, I'd say they wanted to consider what to ask him and in what order. They probably had to liaise with the prosecutor to see what information they should try to get out of him, what facts needed establishing or corroborating and what might likely explanations be (then follow those up in preparation for interviewing him).

They'd have prepared an interview plan (this isn't The Bill) and reviewed, re-reviewed and re-reviewed it again with senior colleagues. Then they'd would have decided on who was going to ask what questions or cover different areas and done all the admin ground work to make sure all the paperwork was ready.

Then after that, if they felt it was advantageous, they might just have decided to let him 'sweat' for a while before accepting his offer to come in an be interviewed.

I'm betting Gerard spent the time usefully too, no doubt consulting with his legal people and plotting and strategising with trusted confidantes.....

They're in there playing mind chess at the moment......

Gatling

I wonder about the lenght of time wee gerry is spending with detectives could he be singing like a canary as the say ,???
Could wee gerry have pulled a masterstroke and deciced to take out some problem members of his exclusive little club ???