Gerry Adams 'sanctioned Denis Donaldson killing'

brickmauser

Gerry is untouchable because no witness is going to risk their life and Adams is protected at the very top by his British handlers. Donaldson was killed because he knew to much about Adams' relationship with the British government since the 1970s. Adams was "wounded" in a bogus loyalist gun attack in 1984 while a series of devastating bombs were let through by the British ahead of the ceasefire to give him street cred. The infamous Gibraltar killings the subsequent attacks on funerals and the corporal killings were all staged managed so that Adams - London's man - would take control of the movement as the voice of reason and restraint.
This is all part of a stage managed departure so SF supporters will rally to Gerry and support his successor. Donaldson is living somewhere in the US under a new name.

K-9

I don't recall many civil cases for specific incidents against the IRA or British army for that matter, so it seems you are setting a very high standard Francie.

brickmauser

The loyalists and Republicans and indeed the entire Troubles were stage managed by British intelligence to maintain deep control of the six counties. Both the Civil Rights movement and loyalists thugs who attacked them and later the Bloody Sunday attacks and the cover-up and the rise of the provos led by Adams were all engineered in Whitehall. The peace process was stage managed at every step and now both Republican and loyalist movements who are controlled 100% by British securicrats keep both troublesome populations firmly under the Queen's boot.

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

I don't recall many civil cases for specific incidents against the IRA or British army for that matter, so it seems you are setting a very high standard Francie.

Don't understand what you mean by that?

I don't think there is sufficient evidence even for a civil case on any of the allegations. And the reality that no civil case has yet been taken, kinda supports me in that.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

What gives you that idea?

alastair

mr67stag wrote: »

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.

When did they do that then? Because it certainly wasn't part of the RTE report that Ganley is claiming to have been defamed by.

Dyr

brickmauser wrote: »

The loyalists and Republicans and indeed the entire Troubles were stage managed by British intelligence to maintain deep control of the six counties. ....and so on and so forth

Okkayyy

Clever of Thatcher to have a bomb planted in her hotel room just to throw everyone off the track

I'd say Norman Tebbit was'nt too impressed though

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

What gives you that idea?

The Press Release you posted which says that the firm have been instructed to 'explore the possibility of bringing a civil action against those allegedly responsible for Ms McConville’s kidnapping, disappearance and murder in 1972.'

That is quite a bit away from an actual civil case.

brickmauser

Bambi wrote: »

Okkayyy

Clever of Thatcher to have a bomb planted in her hotel room just to throw everyone off the track

I'd say Norman Tebbit was'nt too impressed though

Tebbit was expendable.

The IRA needed a spectacular and were given one.

rockatansky

You'd think Gerry Adams was the only Republican on this Island the way people go on some times.

As horrible as it is, Denis Donaldsons life was always going to be in danger no matter how long into the peace process we were. Gerry Adams was probably the least of his worries.

The most iconic photos of the troubles, Bobby Sands in prison smiling, with Donaldson standing next to him, arm around his shoulder. This photo was hanging in god knows how many Republican pubs and clubs across the island.

As much as some people would like this to be true, there's not a hope it is.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Press Release you posted which says that the firm have been instructed to 'explore the possibility of bringing a civil action against those allegedly responsible for Ms McConville’s kidnapping, disappearance and murder in 1972.'

That is quite a bit away from an actual civil case.

…That can't be brought before the court until the Ivor Bell case is concluded. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that "it has yet to be 'determined if there is a possibility of bringing a civil action.'" It may well have been determined that there is an absolute certainty to the case being brought, and they're just awaiting the conclusion of the Bell case.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

That can't be brought before the court until the Ivor Bell case is concluded. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that "it has yet to be 'determined if there is a possibility of bringing a civil action.'" It may well have been determined that there is an absolute certainty to the case being brought, and they're just awaiting the conclusion of the bell case.

When they release a press statement that they have explored the possibility and are going ahead, get back to us.
Until then it is just a threat of civil action, the same as Maria Cahill made,.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When they release a press statement that they have explored the possibility and are going ahead, get back to us.
Until then it is just a threat of civil action, the same as Maria Cahill made,.

Sorry to break it to you, but they won't be 'getting back to you' about anything. They will simply proceed with the case. It's clearly not the same as Mairia Cahill - it's a law firm, with a record of successful prosecution of civil cases in NI, stating that they've received instruction from their client. I don't recall any law firm making such a claim on behalf of Cahill.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Sorry to break it to you, but they won't be 'getting back to you' about anything. They will simply proceed with the case. It's clearly not the same as Mairia Cahill - it's a law firm, with a record of successful prosecution of civil cases in NI, stating that they've received instruction from their client. I don't recall any law firm making such a claim on behalf of Cahill.

'stating that they've received instruction from their client to determine the possibility of taking a civil case'


As I said earlier that is NOT a civil case yet.
Nobody has taken a civil case yet despite claims that the burden of proof is even less than that in a criminal case.
What does that tell you? Because it tells me that the quality of the evidence is weak, very weak.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'stating that they've received instruction from their client to determine the possibility of taking a civil case'


As I said earlier that is NOT a civil case yet.
Nobody has taken a civil case yet despite claims that the burden of proof is even less than that in a criminal case.
What does that tell you? Because it tells me that the quality of the evidence is weak, very weak.

Who claimed that there was a civil case yet? No-one can take a civil case on McConville yet. There's a criminal case going through the courts. So it's completely irrelevant what you believe the quality of evidence to be. Until the Bell case is finished we won't know what evidence is likely to be presented in a civil case.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Who claimed that there was a civil case yet? No-one can take a civil case on McConville yet. There's a criminal case going through the courts. So it's completely irrelevant what you believe the quality of evidence to be. Until the Bell case is finished we won't know what evidence is likely to be presented in a civil case.

Post 45 you answered my question, asking why there are no civil cases against Adams, by presenting a press release which said a law firm where asked to determine the possibility of taking one against him.

Which is not an answer to the question.

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'stating that they've received instruction from their client to determine the possibility of taking a civil case'


As I said earlier that is NOT a civil case yet.
Nobody has taken a civil case yet despite claims that the burden of proof is even less than that in a criminal case.
What does that tell you? Because it tells me that the quality of the evidence is weak, very weak.

My point earlier was civil cases against the IRA or British army tend to be extremely rare. Your reasoning seems to be because there was no civil cases for Kingsmill or for shoot to kill say, therefor the RUC should be presumed innocent.

That seems to be the consistency from your point about Adams. So, I'd wonder do you apply the same rational to all cases or just ones like this.

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

My point earlier was civil cases against the IRA or British army tend to be extremely rare. Your reasoning seems to be because there was no civil cases for Kingsmill or for shoot to kill say, therefor the RUC should be presumed innocent.

That seems to be the consistency from your point about Adams. So, I'd wonder do you apply the same rational to all cases or just ones like this.

No I don't.

I was responding to the claims that:

Godge wrote:

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.

If a jury would 'likely conclude on the balance of probabilities....etc' how come nobody has taken a civil case against him?
Simple question really.

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No I don't.

You don't apply the same standard to civil cases against the RUC as the IRA?

So if nobody takes a civil case about Ballymurphy you just say move along here folks, nothing to see here as you never took a civil action.

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

You don't apply the same standard to civil cases against the RUC as the IRA?

So if nobody takes a civil case about Ballymurphy you just say move along here folks, nothing to see here as you never took a civil action.

Why are you insisting on bringing up other cases?
Every case is different. The weight of the evidence varies.

Can you have a go at the question asked about this case? I simply asked opinions on why nobody has taken even a civil case against Adams and what that says about the quality of the evidence out there?

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why are you insisting on bringing up other cases? <br />
Every case is different. The weight of the evidence varies. <br />
<br />
Can you have a go at the question asked about this case? I simply asked opinions on why nobody has taken even a civil case against Adams and what that says about the quality of the evidence out there?

<br />
<br />
I gave my answer earlier, it mightn't be the answer you wanted but there you are.
If you don't want to bring up other cases, why did you mention Maria Cahill?

Patser

Maybe a better analogy than Haughey as to why Adams won't sue is Beverly Cooper Flynn. Flynn was never convicted, or even charged with anything illegal. However when Charlie Bird and RTE did an item on her allegedly assisting in tax evasion, she did sue them. In the court case that followed she was found to be at least partially involved, enough that even though she was found libeled in the sense of actively assisting in tax evasion, she was deeply involved in encouraging it that her reputation was seen as worthless by the judge in terms of damages.

This and a subsequent appeal, financially bankrupted her, although deals were eventually cut with RTE. And despite this the Flynn legacy seen her reelected at least once.

She remains though presumed innocent as no official charges were ever laid at her.

That's Adams problem, a libel case shifts the burden of evidence from him being charged and convicted without doubt if guilt, the him being the prosecutor in a civil trial based on reasonable doubt.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverley_Flynn

FrancieBrady

K-9 wrote: »

<br />
<br />
I gave my answer earlier, it mightn't be the answer you wanted but there you are.
If you don't want to bring up other cases, why did you mention Maria Cahill?

I don't see an answer, but I am not at computer to check easily.

Cahill is pertinent to the thread in that she threatened to take a civil case against Adams

K-9

Albert won a high profile case in England but got damages of a penny!

The problem for Adams was he couldn't really sue about membership of the IRA as he held them in high regard anyway, so it couldn't reasonably be looked at as defamation.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why are you insisting on bringing up other cases?
Every case is different. The weight of the evidence varies.

Can you have a go at the question asked about this case? I simply asked opinions on why nobody has taken even a civil case against Adams and what that says about the quality of the evidence out there?

There is the difficulty of securing evidence.

On the other hand, Gerry will be able to produce witnesses to say he was in Dublin when the Donaldson murder was order in Belfast, or that he was in Belfast when the sexual abuse kangaroo courts were taking place in Louth and surely he will have no problem winning his defamation cases.............won't he?

Much much easier for Gerry to take a defamation case than any victim to take a civil case but he hasn't, why? Is he scared? Yes, certainly. He knows that if he sues a newspaper that says he was a member of the IRA, that newspaper will be able to produce dozens of people who will testify to Gerry's membership.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When they release a press statement that they have explored the possibility and are going ahead, get back to us.
Until then it is just a threat of civil action, the same as Maria Cahill made,.

Or such as the numerous threats made by Gerry Adams to sue newspapers that amounted to nothing in the end.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't see an answer, but I am not at computer to check easily.

Cahill is pertinent to the thread in that she threatened to take a civil case against Adams

She's not pertinent at all. Adams has threatened litigation left right and centre, but never steps up - we're well aware of that dynamic from many figures. Jean McConville's daughter has employed the firm that successfully won a civil case in relation to the Omagh bombers to pursue Adams (and presumably Bell). That's the info we know, and we also know that they can't initiate a civil case until the current criminal case is wound up.

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't see an answer, but I am not at computer to check easily.

Cahill is pertinent to the thread in that she threatened to take a civil case against Adams

Yeah, the thread developed, comparisons were brought in as is the way threads tend to go!

I'm just pointing out you may be applying a double standard here or maybe more accurately, a higher standard than in grievances against the RUC or British army.

That's fine btw, it's a politics board after all and I'm sure you could point to me doing the same plenty of times, but no harm pointing it out.

Godge

alastair wrote: »

She's not pertinent at all. Adams has threatened litigation left right and centre, but never steps up - we're well aware of that dynamic from many figures. Jean McConville's daughter has employed the firm that successfully won a civil case in relation to the Omagh bombers to pursue Adams (and presumably Bell). That's the info we know, and we also know that they can't initiate a civil case until the current criminal case is wound up.

Even if they could bring a case before the criminal case is wound up, they are better waiting so they can see whether is evidence they have identified which can make a difference.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

There is the difficulty of securing evidence.

On the other hand, Gerry will be able to produce witnesses to say he was in Dublin when the Donaldson murder was order in Belfast, or that he was in Belfast when the sexual abuse kangaroo courts were taking place in Louth and surely he will have no problem winning his defamation cases.............won't he?

Much much easier for Gerry to take a defamation case than any victim to take a civil case but he hasn't, why? Is he scared? Yes, certainly. He knows that if he sues a newspaper that says he was a member of the IRA, that newspaper will be able to produce dozens of people who will testify to Gerry's membership.

If these people exist, they can be just as easily called in a civil case. You are not making a whole pile of sense here.
Gerry's lack of interest in a defamation case is not evidence. The lack of civil cases is evidence of a lack of quality evidence even, as you say yourself, though the burden of proof is lower.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If these people exist, they can be just as early called in a civil case. You are not making a whole pile of sense here.
Gerry's lack of interest in a defamation case is not evidence. The lack of civil cases is evidence of a lack of quality evidence even, as you say yourself, though the burden of proof is lower.

Adams repeatedly threatening civil cases but not actually pursuing them is at odds with Helen McKendry's actually following up and employing a firm with a proven track record in the area. Perhaps that's instructive in where the quality of evidence lies?

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Adams repeatedly threatening civil cases but not actually pursuing them is at odds with Helen McKendry's actually following up and employing a firm with a proven track record in the area. Perhaps that's instructive in where the quality of evidence lies?

Again, there has been NO civil cases taken to date on a raft of allegations, not just the McConville one.
I asked a simple question about that, does that suggest anything to you about the quality of the evidence out there. Bear in mind the lowers standards of proof required in a civil case.
Bear in mind too that the British claim the IRA was riddled with up to 800 of their agents (according to Tommy Gorman) yet a criminal case couldn't be mounted against him either

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again, there has been NO civil cases taken to date on a raft of allegations, not just the McConville one.
I asked a simple question about that, does that suggest anything to you about the quality of the evidence out there. Bear in mind the lowers standards of proof required in a civil case.
Bear in mind too that the British claim the IRA was riddled with up to 800 of their agents (according to Tommy Gorman) yet a criminal case couldn't be mounted against him either

Your question really suggests nothing about any quality of evidence. What is instructive is that Helen McKendry is walking the walk, now that the DPP couldn't/wouldn't. And the British were hardly likely to compromise their agents for such short term gains. You can be sure that they were more interested in stymying IRA activities on an ongoing basis than building court cases against individuals at the risk of exposing their sources.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Your question really suggests nothing about any quality of evidence. What is instructive is that Helen McKendry is walking the walk, now that the DPP couldn't/wouldn't. And the British were hardly likely to compromise their agents for such short term gains. You can be sure that they were more interested in stymying IRA activities on an ongoing basis than building court cases against individuals at the risk of exposing their sources.

She has instructed a solicitor to investigate, nothing more.
And the British didn't have to compromise anybody to gather the intelligence, although they had no compunction compromising agents when it suited.

Dyr

brickmauser wrote: »

Tebbit was expendable.

The IRA needed a spectacular and were given one.

So you reckon thatcher knew about that bomb in her room?

Was Major and the entire cabinet expendable too

Do you actually realise how mental your tin foil hat theory is?

Kermit.de.frog

Look, at the end of the day Gerry Adams has to stop lying.


We all know the truth.


He is English.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She has instructed a solicitor to investigate, nothing more.

You have no idea how far they have progressed. You won't know until the Ivor Bell case ends. So you can't really comment.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And the British didn't have to compromise anybody to gather the intelligence, although they had no compunction compromising agents when it suited.

Of course they would have. And no, they clearly avoided exposing their sources. They still do for the most part.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

You have no idea how far they have progressed. You won't know until the Ivor Bell case ends. So you can't really comment.

You have no idea how far they have progressed either.

It may be cynical but a law firm (whose principle seems to like the limelight -goggle Jason McCue) would not be slow to associate with a case that seems to tug disproportionately at the heartstrings of those who only want to be outraged at certain events of the conflict.
Frankly, until they 'actually' issue proceedings it remains in the Maria Cahill territory of a so far 'idle' threat imo.

Of course they would have. And no, they clearly avoided exposing their sources. They still do for the most part.

Again, how would you know this? It is widely known that interceptions of IRA operations came from information from touts, they didn't compromise anybody in most of those costly (to the IRA) operations.
There is any number of ways they could have used information from moles and agents to get Adams, but they were never able to.
And there is insufficient evidence out there for civil cases too.

Risteard81

Absolute rubbish. The anti-Republican Provos support British and Free State agents, touts and informers. They didn't kill Donaldson.

However what is true is that Gerry Adams (and Martin McGuinness) is every bit as guilty of being a British agent as Donaldson, and should be punished accordingly.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have no idea how far they have progressed either.

But I'm not the one making a claim that nothing has happened on the back of the law firm being employed. That would be you.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again, how would you know this?

Because no source has actually been exposed on the back of a British intelligence decision to reveal them. Any moles that have been exposed were on account of their own recklessness or, in the case of Donaldson, getting sussed by more than one republican activist as the clear responsible party in a leak or bugging. Pretty much everyone is confident that there remains additional moles inside the republican movement, even if they can't agree who they might be.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

But I'm not the one making a claim that nothing has happened on the back of the law firm being employed. That would be you.

I claimed that a civil case hasn't happened. Am I correct on that?

Because no source has actually been exposed on the back of a British intelligence decision to reveal them. Any moles that have been exposed were on account of their own recklessness or, in the case of Donaldson, getting sussed by more than one republican activist as the clear responsible party in a leak or bugging. Pretty much everyone is confident that there remains additional moles inside the republican movement, even if they can't agree who they might be.

Again, how do you know all this? WHo they exposed or didn't?
It is speculation, you have no idea how the British have dealt with their moles or agents.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I claimed that a civil case hasn't happened. Am I correct on that?

Nobody suggested otherwise. But you also claimed that "She has instructed a solicitor to investigate, nothing more." A claim you really can't make, not having any insight as to how far the lawyers have advanced a case.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again, how do you know all this? WHo they exposed or didn't?
It is speculation, you have no idea how the British have dealt with their moles or agents.

I don't? You don't think that IRA moles exposed by their handlers would have been noticed by even the most idle observers?

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Nobody suggested otherwise. But you also claimed that "She has instructed a solicitor to investigate, nothing more." A claim you really can't make, not having any insight as to how far the lawyers have advanced a case.

For the purposes of the question I asked, 'why has there been no civil cases' it suffices. As what she has so far told the solicitors has no effect whatsoever on the answer to that question - there has been no civil case taken against Adams in his 40 year career.

I don't? You don't think that IRA moles exposed by their handlers would have been noticed by even the most idle observers?

The only time you would know is when they end up like Mr Donaldson.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The only time you would know is when they end up like Mr Donaldson.

Donaldson exposed himself. Nothing to do with his handlers.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Donaldson exposed himself. Nothing to do with his handlers.

Just like so much else about British behaviour during the conflict/war you cannot say that conclusively. There are plenty of accusations that Donaldson was exposed because it was expedient to do so.

If you swallow the British narrative maybe you can be absolute about a murky story though.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Just like so much else about British behaviour during the conflict/war you cannot say that conclusively. There are plenty of accusations that Donaldson was exposed because it was expedient to do so.

If you swallow the British narrative maybe you can be absolute about a murky story though.

There is no 'British narrative' with regard to Donaldson.

Risteard81

When will J118 McGuinness and Agent Adams be exposed for the British Agents that they are and have been for decades?

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

There is no 'British narrative' with regard to Donaldson.

The British 'narrative' is that they behaved admirably. There are many who contend that they didn't.
Typically, as in any inquiry held in relation to the conflict/war, the British have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to tell the truth about their involvement.

Donaldson was their agent, they have a role.

IrishProd

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/donaldson-murder-police-say-provos-not-to-blame-genuine-surprise-at-bbc-allegations-35072008.html

"No one, and I mean no one, on either side of the border believes this claim has an ounce of truth in it," he added. "The guards say it's nonsense and the PSNI believe the same. The so-called Real IRA did this."

The usual hacks revelling in saying Adams was responsible despite all the glaring contradictions can shut up now and pull their heads out of their own arses for a change.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British 'narrative' is that they behaved admirably.

It is? Oh, wait. It's not. They've made no comment at all.