Gerry Adams 'sanctioned Denis Donaldson killing'

A Little Pony

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37425809

No surprise really.

Zubeneschamali

A Little Pony wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37425809

No surprise really.

Very thin - an unnamed informer says Gerry must have sanctioned it because that's the way the IRA worked.

He doesn't say he was in the room when Gerry sanctioned it, or he knows a man who was in the room, or even he heard from a man who knows a man who was in the room.

Just "it must have happened, because that was how it was."

No new information at all (and I say that who thinks he is probably right!)

FrancieBrady

No surprise that the BBC has made a programme based entirely on something an anonymous informer heard secondhand from somebody else.


i.e. 'Martin' heard from somebody who was in the IRA that the IRA shot Donaldson.

porsche boy

It is alleged.

2nd hand source, he 'believes' this to be the case based on his time in the IRA. I see a court case ahead.

A Little Pony

porsche boy wrote: »

It is alleged.

2nd hand source, he 'believes' this to be the case based on his time in the IRA. I see a court case ahead.

It will never go to court because Gerry Adams is as guilty as sin.

alastair

porsche boy wrote: »

It is alleged.

2nd hand source, he 'believes' this to be the case based on his time in the IRA. I see a court case ahead.

There won't be any court case. Adams has a long record of huffing and puffing about litigation regarding media claims he is/was in the Provos army council. It all comes to nothing. He doesn't want the evidence under the spotlight (no pun intended).

This programme is pretty watery on substance all the same. Particularly poor after the quality of the NAMA episode.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

There won't be any court case. Adams has a long record of huffing and puffing about litigation regarding media claims he is/was in the Provos army council. It all comes to nothing. He doesn't want the evidence under the spotlight (no pun intended).

This programme is pretty watery on substance all the same. Particularly poor after the quality of the NAMA episode.

What 'evidence' is there, in this, yet another flimsy case.

Zubeneschamali

porsche boy wrote: »

I see a court case ahead.

Adams has had lots of chances to sue people who say he was a leader of the IRA.

He never does, because he was.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What 'evidence' is there, in this, yet another flimsy case.

Ample evidence - as articulated in many many threads. Please don't stick your head in the sand. We all know Gerry Adams lies in regard to his membership, as does Martin McGuinness regarding his situation post-'74.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Ample evidence - as articulated in many many threads. Please don't stick your head in the sand. We all know Gerry Adams lies in regard to his membership, as does Martin McGuinness regarding his situation post-'74.

Well, the pertinent question really should be 'why has he never been convicted on the multitude of allegations against him?', not why is he not bothered to sue.

Threads on the internet don't really count in the real world.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, the pertinent question really should be 'why has he never been convicted on the multitude of allegations against him?', not why is he not bothered to sue.

Threads on the internet don't really count in the real world.

The 'real world' doesn't prosecute members of the Provo's either. Proving Adam's involvement in sanctioning murders is no easy task, and there's no mileage in attempting prosecution for membership of an organisation that's given up it's attempts to over-ride democracy with violence.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

The 'real world' doesn't prosecute members of the Provo's either. Proving Adam's involvement in sanctioning murders is no easy task, and there's no mileage in attempting prosecution for membership of an organisation that's given up it's attempts to over-ride democracy with violence.

They are prosecuted in the real world and the reasons Adams hasn't been is the quality of the evidence against him imo.
Most of it is flimsy, circumstantial and inadmissible.

Chips Lovell

Even if Adams thought he may win, he's unlikely to sue over allegations of this kind, because he's between a rock and a hard place.

There's a good chunk of Sinn Fein's core support who have no problem with the IRA's terrorist campaign and indeed glorify it. Were he to to sue, it could be seen as him suggesting that IRA membership was something to be ashamed of.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They are prosecuted in the real worl.

No they're not. When was the last case of membership of the Provos in a court?

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, the pertinent question really should be 'why has he never been convicted on the multitude of allegations against him?', not why is he not bothered to sue.<br />
<br />
Threads on the internet don't really count in the real world.

Charlie Haughey might be the best comparison, he even went to trial over the Arms Crisis and was never convicted of gun smuggling, yet it is commonly accepted he was heavily involved.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

No they're not. When was the last case of membership of the Provos in a court?

Here is one from 2015 - last year.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/case-of-men-accused-of-ira-membership-collapses-1.2235761

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

Charlie Haughey might be the best comparison, he even went to trial over the Arms Crisis and was never convicted of gun smuggling, yet it is commonly accepted he was heavily involved.

So because Charlie was guilty of allegations made against him, so too is everyone else who has allegations made against them? Bit of a thin ice one that.

barneystinson

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They are prosecuted in the real world and the reasons Adams hasn't been is the quality of the evidence against him imo.
Most of it is flimsy, circumstantial and inadmissible.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here is one from 2015 - last year.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/case-of-men-accused-of-ira-membership-collapses-1.2235761

Well you've goosed your own argument there. cases of this type - particularly if the defendants actually are guilty and therefore very dangerous people - are susceptible to intimidation (or worse) of witnesses. Just because the DPP aren't happy that sufficient admissible evidence is available to justify devoting huge resources to a trial, doesn't mean that what the dogs on the street know isn't true.

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So because Charlie was guilty of allegations made against him, so too is everyone else who has allegations made against them? Bit of a thin ice one that.

He wasn't guilty, he never was convicted in a court of law despite numerous accounts, testimonies and books published.

Why do you say Charlie was guilty and defend Adams?

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

He wasn't guilty, he never was convicted in a court of law despite numerous accounts, testimonies and books published.

Why do you say Charlie was guilty and defend Adams?

Adams is well able to defend himself.
I just find this constant flimsy scaremongering about him hilarious and the fact that people don't see through the purpose of it.

FrancieBrady

barneystinson wrote: »

Well you've goosed your own argument there. cases of this type - particularly if the defendants actually are guilty and therefore very dangerous people - are susceptible to intimidation (or worse) of witnesses. Just because the DPP aren't happy that sufficient admissible evidence is available to justify devoting huge resources to a trial, doesn't mean that what the dogs on the street know isn't true.

But many people have been imprisoned for membership of the Provos. It didn't stop them in those cases. So I am not really accepting that it is a huge constraint tbh.

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Adams is well able to defend himself.
I just find this constant flimsy scaremongering about him hilarious and the fact that people don't see through the purpose of it.

Well you appear to be inconsistent then, Haughey was guilty in your eyes yet Adams should be presumed innocent basically.

It's important to some to prove Adams was heavily involved with the IRA. I'd wonder why some would constantly deny that he had no knowledge or say in some of the more unsavory aspects of the IRA.

I mean who really knows barring Adams, the members of the IRA involved in each case and witnesses, victims etc.

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

Well you appear to be inconsistent then, Haughey was guilty in your eyes yet Adams should be presumed innocent basically.

It's important to some to prove Adams was heavily involved with the IRA. I'd wonder why some would constantly deny that he had no knowledge or say in some of the more unsavory aspects of the IRA.

I mean who really knows barring Adams, the members of the IRA involved in each case and witnesses, victims etc.

I didn't say Haughey was guilty, you did.

What difference does it make if Adams was or wasn't heavily involved with the IRA btw?

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say Haughey was guilty, you did.

What difference does it make if Adams was or wasn't heavily involved with the IRA btw?

It speaks to the honesty and credibility of the man of course. The forked tongue undermines everything else he has to say.

Zubeneschamali

Of course Adams was a leader of the IRA, isn't his whole story as a statesman and man of peace based on the fact that he led the IRA to the peace table?

If he didn't lead them, he's a complete fake, and someone else led them and deserves all the praise.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

It speaks to the honesty and credibility of the man of course. The forked tongue undermines everything else he has to say.

He says he wasn't a member and nobody has proved that he was, not even British intelligence can produce evidence that would stand in a court of law while it has done so in numerous other cases.

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say Haughey was guilty, you did.

What difference does it make if Adams was or wasn't heavily involved with the IRA btw?

It read like you presumed he was. He was never convicted so Haughey should be painted innocent, like Adams. You might get some strange looks with that reasoning though!

Doesn't make any difference to me. I don't see why people would spend so much time defending him if it doesn't matter. It clearly does.

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He says he wasn't a member and nobody has proved that he was, not even British intelligence can produce evidence that would stand in a court of law while it has done so in numerous other cases.

So there you are, Charlie was innocent in the Arms Trial.

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

It read like you presumed he was. He was never convicted so Haughey should be painted innocent, like Adams. You might get some strange looks with that reasoning though!

Doesn't make any difference to me. I don't see why people would spend so much time defending him if it doesn't matter. It clearly does.

I am not bothered whether he was or not, what interests me is the continual attacks though, the latest being that he sanctioned the killing of Donaldson.

This accusation was made by somebody who heard it from somebody else. Would that kind of journalism not prompt you to ask question of those facilitating this kind of thing?

Chips Lovell

alastair wrote: »

It speaks to the honesty and credibility of the man of course. The forked tongue undermines everything else he has to say.

I don't think it makes much of a difference to be honest. Most people believe he was in the IRA and, in that case, aren't going to be terribly surprised to learn he ordered a murder since, yunno, that's what the IRA did.

Anyone who cares enough about the issue already has their minds made up about Adams. If they think he was in the IRA, a prosecution is only confirmation of what they believed. If they think he wasn't, a prosecution is likely to be dismissed as a stitch up, "political policing", etc.

Dyr

K-9 wrote: »

Charlie Haughey might be the best comparison, he even went to trial over the Arms Crisis and was never convicted of gun smuggling, yet it is commonly accepted he was heavily involved.

Why Haughey?

Better comparison is jack "best taoiseach ever" lynch. Knew full well about the arms importation by some accounts. Never went to trial, never proven. Never had to listen to accusations. Never brought up in retrospect

Funny that

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not bothered whether he was or not, what interests me is the continual attacks though, the latest being that he sanctioned the killing of Donaldson.

This accusation was made by somebody who heard it from somebody else. Would that kind of journalism not prompt you to ask question of those facilitating this kind of thing?

It doesn't seem to stand up to much scrutiny but it's topical and recent history compared to Jean McConville for example. Tbh I just kind of roll my eyes about it, Campbell was on about McGuinness and Bloody Sunday again recently, it's just N.I. zero sum politics as Jep posted.

K-9

Bambi wrote: »

Why Haughey?

Better comparison is jack "best taoiseach ever" lynch. Knew full well about the arms importation by some accounts. Never went to trial, never proven. Never had to listen to accusations. Never brought up in retrospect

Funny that

Lynch seemed to get a pass probably because he was Jack! I suppose it helped that he was no longer in the spotlight after 79 so all the focus was on Haughey. It seems to be an episode of history that was treated as "best left alone and the less said about it the better", even the Haughey drama never touched on it.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He says he wasn't a member and nobody has proved that he was, not even British intelligence can produce evidence that would stand in a court of law while it has done so in numerous other cases.

I don't need anyone to prove he was in a court. I'm quite happy about the validity of the various sources that state his membership as fact - I doubt that William Whitelaw, Sean Mac Stiofáin, and An Phoblacht (in acknowledging Adams as 'Brownie' when he was interned) were all mysteriously stricken with a case of confusion.

allthedoyles

Just let sleeping dogs lie

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, the pertinent question really should be 'why has he never been convicted on the multitude of allegations against him?', not why is he not bothered to sue.

There is a very simple answer to that.

Criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Civil law requires proof based on the balance of probabilities.

Gerry won't sue because a jury will probably conclude that on the balance of probabilities he was a member of the IRA, covered up child sex abuse, ordered McConville's death, led the IRA, ordered Donaldson's death etc.

Unfortunately, neither the gardai nor the PSNI have been able to gather enough evidence to ensure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to any of those cases.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say Haughey was guilty, you did.

What difference does it make if Adams was or wasn't heavily involved with the IRA btw?

Are you saying Haughey was innocent of all wrongdoing?

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

There is a very simple answer to that.

Criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Civil law requires proof based on the balance of probabilities.

Gerry won't sue because a jury will probably conclude that on the balance of probabilities he was a member of the IRA, covered up child sex abuse, ordered McConville's death, led the IRA, ordered Donaldson's death etc.

Unfortunately, neither the gardai nor the PSNI have been able to gather enough evidence to ensure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to any of those cases.

Who would present evidence in a civil case?
The only 'evidence' as such is a variety of people saying 'it is so because I say it is so' or 'it is true because I believe it to be true'. That is not good enough even in a civil case.

It also has to be noted that nobody has succeeded in a civil case either. Despite threatening them.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

Are you saying Haughey was innocent of all wrongdoing?

No, I made no comment on Haughey's case at all, I responded to K-9's point.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It also has to be noted that nobody has succeeded in a civil case either. Despite threatening them.

You are right, I have lost count of the number of times Gerry Adams has threatened to sue various newspapers following allegations about his membership of the IRA or that he covered up child sex abuse, yet he has never followed through.

Strange that, but then again, not so strange when you consider the laws of evidence in a civil case.

The point about Haughey which was made earlier in the thread was a good one. I believe Haughey is as innocent of gun-running as Adams is innocent of IRA crimes. After all, neither has been convicted in court. Would you agree?

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who would present evidence in a civil case?
The only 'evidence' as such is a variety of people saying 'it is so because I say it is so' or 'it is true because I believe it to be true'. That is not good enough even in a civil case.

It also has to be noted that nobody has succeeded in a civil case either. Despite threatening them.

Wasn't the a civil case taken about the Omagh bombing?

Godge

K-9 wrote: »

Wasn't the a civil case taken about the Omagh bombing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing#Prosecutions_and_court_cases

You are right.

"On 8 June 2009, the civil case taken by victims' relatives concluded, with Michael McKevitt, Liam Campbell, Colm Murphy and Seamus Daly being found to have been responsible for the bombing..........The others were held liable for GB£1.6 million of damages"

The Seamus Daly article below sets out the difference between civil and criminal standards of proof.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/insufficient-evidence-to-prosecute-real-ira-foot-soldier-seamus-daly-34501421.html

Makes it even stranger that Gerry refuses to sue, surely he would gather large funds for the party.

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

Wasn't the a civil case taken about the Omagh bombing?

Against Adams? I don't think so.

Whatever happened Maria and her civil cases?

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing#Prosecutions_and_court_cases

You are right.

"On 8 June 2009, the civil case taken by victims' relatives concluded, with Michael McKevitt, Liam Campbell, Colm Murphy and Seamus Daly being found to have been responsible for the bombing..........The others were held liable for GB£1.6 million of damages"

The Seamus Daly article below sets out the difference between civil and criminal standards of proof.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/insufficient-evidence-to-prosecute-real-ira-foot-soldier-seamus-daly-34501421.html

Makes it even stranger that Gerry refuses to sue, surely he would gather large funds for the party.

So why no civil cases against Adams or criminal ones for that matter?

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So why no civil cases against Adams or criminal ones for that matter?

In relation to Jean McConville - presumably a civil case would have to wait until the Ivor Bell case is wrapped up. It looks like Adams may well find himself in civil court at that point.

http://www.mccue-law.com/2015/jean-mcconvilles-daughter-instructs-mccue-partners-to-explore-civil-action-options-against-gerry-adams-and-others/

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Against Adams? I don't think so.

Whatever happened Maria and her civil cases?

I wouldn't expect one about Adams and Omagh!

uck51js9zml2yt

He denies it categorically and specifically....so of course he didn't do it.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

In relation to Jean McConville - presumably a civil case would have to wait until the Ivor Bell case is wrapped up. It looks like Adams may well find himself in civil court at that point.

http://www.mccue-law.com/2015/jean-mcconvilles-daughter-instructs-mccue-partners-to-explore-civil-action-options-against-gerry-adams-and-others/

But eh...no civil cases (in how many decades now?) and no criminal ones either. Plenty of posturing/threats though.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But eh...no civil cases (in how many decades now?)

Except for the one in the offing, the family having been let down by the DPP, you mean?

mr67stag

This would never stand up in a criminal case it was not even paper thin, a guy in a shadow saying
what he said ,more of a pantomime witch really.
Gerry Adams won't sue if he gets good legal counsel,the word alleged is a favourite of deformation lawyers to make sure the BBC"s ass would be bullet proof.
So even if it is true when you throw enough mud some will stick.
This is a s big a hatchet job as RTE done on Declan Ganley they Alleged that he was selling warheads with the russian mafia in fallen USSR states.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Except for the one in the offing, the family having been let down by the DPP, you mean?

The one where it has yet to be 'determined if there is a possibility of bringing a civil action'.

Spin that any way you want, it is not a 'civil case' by a long shot yet. Maria Cahill made the same claim and it also amounted to nothing as yet.

You would have to conclude that given the many many allegations over the years that there is insufficient proof/evidence to mount even a civil case.

Which is odd given how fervently some people believe in this stuff.