Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Markievicz and the rising

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,768 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    I asked the moderator to create a new thread as it was dragging his original thread completely off topic and I have seen this story repeated often enough in the last weeks that I thought it deserved it's own thread to address it


  • Options
    #33
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    Your continued insistance on comparing 1916 and modern day terrorist related activities in Northern Ireland has absolutely no relevence here.

    Are you claiming the murder of Robery McCartney was a "modern day terrorist related activity"? Strange that. I was merely making the point intimidation was not unknown then, just as it may not have been unknown in more recent times;).

    What do you think of Markievicz shooting the unarmed constable in front of more than a few witnesses, and seeking to apologise for doing it years later?

    riffmongous wrote: »
    I asked the moderator to create a new thread as it was dragging his original thread completely off topic and I have seen this story repeated often enough in the last weeks that I thought it deserved it's own thread to address it

    Why not start a new thread so, as this thread title was about the media depiction of 1916 and some other poster made excellent points, now deleted, which you did not agree with.


  • Options
    #34
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,768 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    maryishere wrote: »
    Why not start a new thread so, as this thread title was about the media depiction of 1916 and some other poster made excellent points, now deleted, which you did not agree with.
    The old thread is still there, free to continue the discussion on the media depiction, now we have all the Countess posts in one place, and on topic what do you think of this?
    So someone must have heard the conversation between the two in order to report what was said, which is not mentioned in the nurse report as far as I know, yet the nurse report from a different part of the Square is relied on for the witnessing of the trigger pull? Does not add up


  • Options
    #35
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    what "someone who must have heard the conversation between the two" are you rabbling about?

    Do you mean someone must have heard Markievicz saying to the unarmed constable, who she knew " Mick, give me the keys.".

    Do you not think it is possible if not likely that the constable told someone, perhaps who came to his aid as he was dying, what happened? He died from his injuries later that day at the Meath Hospital.

    His family are in no doubt who murdered him.


  • Options
    #36
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,768 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    maryishere wrote: »
    what "someone who must have heard the conversation between the two" are you rabbling about?

    Do you mean someone must have heard Markievicz saying to the unarmed constable, who she knew " Mick, give me the keys.".

    Do you not think it is possible if not likely that the constable told someone, perhaps who came to his aid as he was dying, what happened? He died from his injuries later that day at the Meath Hospital.

    Shot once in the chest and twice in the face, no I don't think it so likely. It is never said that the man named his killer before he died, and if he had it would have been surely recorded, instead we have to rely on the testimony of the nurse


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    If you were one of the other witnesses there would you have "informed" the authorities on who it was that shot the constable?

    Or maybe he just shot himself do you think?


  • Options
    #38
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,174 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    maryishere wrote: »
    Are you claiming the murder of Robery McCartney was a "modern day terrorist related activity"? Strange that. I was merely making the point intimidation was not unknown then, just as it may not have been unknown in more recent times;).

    What do you think of Markievicz shooting the unarmed constable in front of more than a few witnesses, and seeking to apologise for doing it years later?

    The murder of Robert McCartney IS a modern day terrorist related activity. 11 years ago. But your reaction with "strange that" is an attempt to draw me into your deluded comparisons to an entirley different time in history.

    As for Markievicz and the constable, even if it were proven that she did indeed murder/shoot/assasinate, whatever you want, this man, your comparisons are still out of touch with the era and historical context.


  • Options
    #39
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,768 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    maryishere wrote: »
    If you were one of the other witnesses there would you have "informed" the authorities on who it was that shot the constable?

    Or maybe he just shot himself do you think?

    But according to your usual narrative Dublin was so firmly against the rebels that surely it would be no problem for anyone to inform the authorities? Instead all we have is a typed out copy of a diary entry from a year later.

    Someone shot him, but I don't think there is proper evidence Countess Markievicz was the one who did it and I think this should be put down as a myth


  • Options
    #40
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    The murder of Robert McCartney IS a modern day terrorist related activity.
    I do not understand the point you are trying to make. Please clarify - are you implying the murder of an unarmed civilian in a bar by people unknown was more terrorist related than the shooting / murder of an unarmed constable on the streets of Dublin?
    Grandeeod wrote: »
    As for Markievicz and the constable, even if it were proven that she did indeed murder/shoot/assasinate, whatever you want, this man, your comparisons are still out of touch with the era and historical context.
    I was not comparing the two acts, I was making the point intimidation (of witnesses) was not unknown.

    Now maybe you would answer the question: If you were one of the other witnesses there would you have "informed" the authorities on who it was that shot the constable?


  • Options
    #41
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Since it needs to be clarified: the discussion was moved to its own thread as it had veered off topic in the general discussion of media coverage thread.

    While I'm at it I would ask people to stick to historical discussion rather than more recent crime. Such comparison from different eras is always confusing for a wide litany of reasons. If you divulge from this then posts may be deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,174 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    maryishere wrote: »
    I do not understand the point you are trying to make. Please clarify - are you implying the murder of an unarmed civilian in a bar by people unknown was more terrorist related than the shooting / murder of an unarmed constable on the streets of Dublin?


    I was not comparing the two acts, I was making the point intimidation (of witnesses) was not unknown.

    Now maybe you would answer the question: If you were one of the other witnesses there would you have "informed" the authorities on who it was that shot the constable?


    You move more goalposts that a groundkeeper. I honestly thought I could debate this with you, but you constantly refuse to recognise any semblence of context. History cannot be discussed without context. I'm out. You can take your anger with you.


  • Options
    #43
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    You move more goalposts that a groundkeeper. I honestly thought I could debate this with you, but you constantly refuse to recognise any semblence of context. History cannot be discussed without context. I'm out. You can take your anger with you.

    I am not at all angry thank you:D

    Of course there is context. In the context of 1916, if you were one of the other witnesses there at the time, would you have "informed" the authorities on who it was that shot the constable?


  • Options
    #44
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    maryishere wrote: »
    I am not at all angry thank you:D

    Of course there is context. In the context of 1916, if you were one of the other witnesses there at the time, would you have "informed" the authorities on who it was that shot the constable?

    You have repeatedly claimed that witnesses were intimidated. Can you provide any evidence to support this assertion?


  • Options
    #45
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    You have repeatedly claimed that witnesses were intimidated. Can you provide any evidence to support this assertion?
    I actually wrote "I was not comparing the two acts, I was making the point intimidation (of witnesses) was not unknown."

    I do not want to talk about the case where all of the patrons of the packed pub were in the toilet at the time of the murder. I ask you , in the context of 1916, if you were one of the other witnesses there at the time, would you have "informed" the authorities on who it was that shot the constable?


  • Options
    #46
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Arkady wrote: »
    RTE interview with the victims grand niece, I caught the program half way through and there's been that many on this week, I don't know its name, I'm sure someone neutral will. Worst of all he was even on a first name basis with her and he'd helped her many times in the past. (that's why she tried to smooth it over with the relatives later) He just wouldn't hand over the keys to her that day.

    A brave man, that unarmed constable, and himself who was shot and the nurse Fitzgerald who witnessed it were just as Irish and just as heroic anyone else in 1916.


  • Options
    #47
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,174 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    maryishere wrote: »
    I actually wrote "I was not comparing the two acts, I was making the point intimidation (of witnesses) was not unknown."

    I do not want to talk about the case where all of the patrons of the packed pub were in the toilet at the time of the murder. I ask you , in the context of 1916, if you were one of the other witnesses there at the time, would you have "informed" the authorities on who it was that shot the constable?

    You know nothing about context at all. You have an agenda here and its sad to witness.


  • Options
    #48
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    maryishere wrote: »
    I actually wrote "I was not comparing the two acts, I was making the point intimidation (of witnesses) was not unknown."

    I do not want to talk about the case where all of the patrons of the packed pub were in the toilet at the time of the murder. I ask you , in the context of 1916, if you were one of the other witnesses there at the time, would you have "informed" the authorities on who it was that shot the constable?

    So that's no evidence that witnesses were intimidated in 1916, just your gut feeling? History (and indeed the law) requires something more substantive than that.


  • Options
    #49
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Arsemageddon wrote: »
    So that's no evidence that witnesses were intimidated in 1916.

    I think the witness who did come forward, Nurse Fitzgerald, was very brave. It would have been natural for other witnesses at the time to privately tell the constables family who shot their family member. They knew who done it.

    As is well known, in subsequent years Markievicz expressed regret for killing the constable. When Markievicz went in to the family shop of the dead Constable to apologise for personally shooting the unarmed man, the family of the dead constable were so mad at her they attacked her.


  • Options
    #50
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    maryishere wrote: »
    I think the witness who did come forward, Nurse Fitzgerald, was very brave. It would have been natural for other witnesses at the time to privately tell the constables family who shot their family member. They knew who done it.

    As is well known, in subsequent years Markievicz expressed regret for killing the constable. When Markievicz went in to the family shop of the dead Constable to apologise for personally shooting the unarmed man, the family of the dead constable were so mad at her they attacked her.

    So no actual proof then of intimidation, just more conjecture and waffle.

    I'll leave you to it.


  • Options
    #51
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    You will find there was plenty of plenty of people shot, burned out of their homes etc, and some may say that was intimidation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    lotmc
    Registered Users Posts: 216 ✭✭lotmc


    I'm an interested, and fairly neutral, reader regarding this matter.

    The incriminatory statement from the nurse (reproduced earlier in this thread) included the following

    ". From the window the nurses saw a policeman coming from Harcourt Street. "He had only gone a short way when we heard a shot and then saw him fall forward on his face. The 'Countess' ran triumphantly into the Green, saying 'I got him' and some of the rebels shook her by the hand and seemed to congratulate her..." "

    The alleged confession from the alleged murderer (also referenced earlier in this thread) states that the policeman was shot because he would not hand over the keys.

    I cannot reconcile these two pieces of supposedly incriminatory facts. If she had access to the park, what keys did she need? What keys could he have had, given that he was not in St. Stephens Green? Why did she not take the keys from the policeman after he fell?

    We will never know, but the proof of guilt ain't there, so innocence should be presumed.


  • Options
    #53
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,768 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    lotmc wrote: »
    I'm an interested, and fairly neutral, reader regarding this matter.

    The incriminatory statement from the nurse (reproduced earlier in this thread) included the following

    ". From the window the nurses saw a policeman coming from Harcourt Street. "He had only gone a short way when we heard a shot and then saw him fall forward on his face. The 'Countess' ran triumphantly into the Green, saying 'I got him' and some of the rebels shook her by the hand and seemed to congratulate her..." "

    The alleged confession from the alleged murderer (also referenced earlier in this thread) states that the policeman was shot because he would not hand over the keys.

    I cannot reconcile these two pieces of supposedly incriminatory facts. If she had access to the park, what keys did she need? What keys could he have had, given that he was not in St. Stephens Green? Why did she not take the keys from the policeman after he fell?

    We will never know, but the proof of guilt ain't there, so innocence should be presumed.
    Yet another inconsistency.


  • Options
    #54
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    lotmc wrote: »
    Why did she not take the keys from the policeman after he fell?
    Who said she did not at some stage, after gloating that "she got him" in front of witnesses?

    You ask "what keys did she need?": I do not know, but it was hardly the keys to furry handcuffs, although they did know each other, and he recognised her before she shot him. That is why she may have felt guilty in subsequent years, and confessed her murder of the constable to many, including the family of the murdered man, who attacked her when she came in to their shop to apologise, and who then ran her.
    Excellent programme on tv last week.


Advertisement