Breakthrough in Northern bank job?

Squaletto

Sleepy wrote:

I think in large part the reason there was no reliable evidence regarding the killers of Brian Murphy would have something to do with the environment in which it occured: outside a nightclub which caters to a demographic that drink themselves stupid to the point where their memories of the events would be extremely unreliable. Also, the legal necessity to determine exactly who killed the poor lad (as forced by an extremely capable legal defence team) made it tantamount to impossible to prove a manslaughter case.

Fact: People in South Dublin know the killers of Mr Murphy and yet still remain silent.
Fact. People in the Short Strand know the killers of Mr Mc Cartney yet they still remain silent.
In the second case we know that intimidation is holding back the witnesses from giving evidence. Unfortunately in the Murphy case there is nothing to stop the witnesses from coming forward.
It would seem that of two bad situations the second is by far a more frightening image of the so called democracy we live in. At least in the Belfast case we know why it is happening but the South Dublin leafy subburb leaves us stuck dumb. Criminals within our very doorsteps and probably good FF/FG and PD voters all which is the sickening thing, especially after the recent rantings by all those parties re SF and Belfast. Isn't it time pressure was put on those families to speak up! God help us all!! :mad:

billy the squid

A lot of people have been going on about the Mc Carneys in Belfast and the terrible situation they find themselves in but I think we can also turn our attention to the murder of Brian Murphy. Are the IRA and SF also guilty here for the lack of witnesses coming forward to give evidence against the middle class FF and FG supporters who attended Annabels nightclub on that particular night.

I'm not really up to speed on the brian murphy kiling but what I do know is that the defence in that case offered a confession, but gained a mistrial due to a technicality. I doubt that Fianna fail or fine gael were involved in any intimidation of witnesses in this case. to say something like that without evidence is bordering on libelous.

Not exactly correct there Earthman, the Murphy family have been going on about the injustice of it all and the fact that the system seems to favour one part of society over annother. I still say the situation is the same in the sense that murder was committed by thugs and in both cases the local community is protecting the thugs that committed the crime.

actually the difference was that the defence in the murphy killing were able to hire better solicitors than your average joe soap from ballymun (used as an example)

jman0

billy the squid wrote:

.. doubt that Fianna fail or fine gael were involved in any intimidation of witnesses in this case. to say something like that without evidence is bordering on libelous.

When can we expect to see some evidence supporting the claim that people were intimidated in the McCartney murder?
His sisters weren't in the pub at the time so they are not witnesses.

cdebru

Squaletto wrote:

Not exactly correct there Earthman, the Murphy family have been going on about the injustice of it all and the fact that the system seems to favour one part of society over annother. I still say the situation is the same in the sense that murder was committed by thugs and in both cases the local community is protecting the thugs that committed the crime. How do you see it as any different, maybe your tunnel vision is affecting your judgement. Regarding intimidation in the Murphy case I agree there is no evidence to back that up and anyway I never suggested that in the first place. You made that link! Re Gardai: A lot of people in parts of Dublin do have suspicions about the Gardai especially after the episode up in Donegal, the way they swept the Dublin bombing investigation under the proverbial carpet etc. If you are in any doubt then you should have listened to Mrs Murphy when she talked about the justice system in Ireland on Prime Time last night. If you missed the programme then you can listen to part of it on the Pat Kenny show (today's show) on RTE, rte-todaywithpatkenny.smil. The leafy subburbs of south Dublin without the threat of intimidation by hoods and thugs still remain silent when it comes to giving evidence which would lead to a conviction. The fact of the matter is that the leafy suburbs are places where politicians from FF, FG and the PDs reap most of their support. Criminals all? I arrest my case!

while i dont think any political party intimidated any witnesses in the Brian Murphy case I think I know what you trying to say

over 60 people were present when brian murphy was murdered yet very few came forward and gave evidence

and it is another case of human error in a search warrant following on the heals of Judge Curtin i have heard people remark that it only seems the gardai make mistakes in cases involving the well heeled

of course it could be that similar mistakes are made more often but with more money you get a better legal team and they uncover these mistakes more than a free legal aid lawyer

Squaletto

Squaletto wrote:

The leafy subburbs of south Dublin without the threat of intimidation by hoods and thugs still remain silent when it comes to giving evidence which would lead to a conviction. The fact of the matter is that the leafy suburbs are places where politicians from FF, FG and the PDs reap most of their support. Criminals all? I arrest my case!

It's the worst case I've ever read a poster on politics trying to put up to be honest with you , its way up there with the santa Claus exists,I saw him in cornelscourt theory.
Lets look at the facts of the McCartney case as presented by the McCartneys.
70 witnesses in a pub around closing time all of whom havent gone on to a club yet-none come foward-the family say they know who did it and say Republicans are threatening those who witnessed it.
Murphy case -60 or so withnesses many of whom are plastered probably given the scenes around there that are commonplace after the club has closed-people hammered who had been drinking for maybe 5-7 hrs as opposed to one or two hours for a lot of them in the Belfast Pub.
Theres no comparison at all
And as for the FF,FG or PD intimidation link... pffttt utter rubbish.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

When can we expect to see some evidence supporting the claim that people were intimidated in the McCartney murder?
His sisters weren't in the pub at the time so they are not witnesses.

Is it a case now that when all else fails, that we'll suggest they are making it up?

Squaletto

Earthman wrote:

It's the worst case I've ever read a poster on politics trying to put up to be honest with you , its way up there with the santa Claus exists,I saw him in cornelscourt theory.
Lets look at the facts of the McCartney case as presented by the McCartneys.
70 witnesses in a pub around closing time all of whom havent gone on to a club yet-none come foward-the family say they know who did it and say Republicans are threatening those who witnessed it.
Murphy case -60 or so withnesses many of whom are plastered probably given the scenes around there that are commonplace after the club has closed-people hammered who had been drinking for maybe 5-7 hrs as opposed to one or two hours for a lot of them in the Belfast Pub.
Theres no comparison at all
And as for the FF,FG or PD intimidation link... pffttt utter rubbish.

Yes the comparison is valid, exactly the same scene, both having alcohol involved. therefore defense called for manslaughter charge but all you people on here say that what happened in Belfast was murder. I can see a manslaughter charge been brought forward by the defence of the thugs in Belfast. It sickens me to hear people try and lessen the crime by stating oh I had a few pints in me so therefore I didn't know what I was doing. Earthman I appreciate your views but I have to say something like facts from the Mc Cartneys who weren't in the pub at the time then I have to question your use of the word FACTS, surely you mean statements which is a little different isn't it? Even with the drink element involved, what about the parents of the thugs who killed Murphy. What did they do with the blood soaked clothes when their gentle sons returned home after a night on the town? It is this coverup that I am talking about, a crime, a crime committed by criminals protecting their cosy life in middleclass suburbia. Sickening, and disgusting from the PD FF and FG heartland of leafy suburbia in south Dublin
Anyway regarding the PD FF and FG intimidation link, show us where that is in my postings and then I will face the music relating to it. In the meantime get your facts right before posting !!

Sleepy

Squaletto wrote:

It would seem that of two bad situations the second is by far a more frightening image of the so called democracy we live in. At least in the Belfast case we know why it is happening but the South Dublin leafy subburb leaves us stuck dumb. Criminals within our very doorsteps and probably good FF/FG and PD voters all which is the sickening thing, especially after the recent rantings by all those parties re SF and Belfast. Isn't it time pressure was put on those families to speak up! God help us all!! :mad:

You have got to be fúcking kidding. In the Murphy case, it was a pretty clear case of manslaughter, the boys in question were giving him a hiding, yes, but I fail to see how that equates to fully grown addults gutting another human being?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

jman0

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Because i think if there were 70 people in that pub and they haven't come forward with information, that those 70 people are supportive of the accused, not the victim. I don't think they are all inimidated, how can u really intimidate someone that isn't from the area, a blow-in, a tourist?
The police have the ability to protect witnesses, they do it all the time. I wonder why 1) to my knowledge the police haven't claimed that anybody is intimdated adn 2) the only people making this claim are the relatives who are not witnesses.

Squaletto

Squaletto wrote:

It sickens me to hear people try and lessen the crime by stating oh I had a few pints in me so therefore I didn't know what I was doing.

I'm not lessening any murder by saying drink was involved,I'm saying its more of a factor in witnesses not coming foward in the Dublin murder as clearly the people there would have been uniformly younger and drinking for several hours longer.

Earthman I appreciate your views but I have to say something like facts from the Mc Cartneys who weren't in the pub at the time then I have to question your use of the word FACTS, surely you mean statements which is a little different isn't it?

But it is a fact that no one has come foward and it is a fact that the McCartneys amongst others(including the local alliance councillor who was on the BBC one NI Lets talk programme) are saying theres intimidation from republicans.

Anyway regarding the PD FF and FG intimidation link, show us where that is in my postings and then I will face the music relating to it. In the meantime get your facts right before posting !!

Are you denying that you made the comparison in that you compared republican intimidation in Belfast to the unknown voting preferences of a group of people who may have been at the scene of the murphy killing?
Bringing up the parties that these people may vote for is a red herring.
It's also a rubbish comparison-especially when (a) the people involved were from a mostly younger uniform age group-some of them including those charged young enough to be in boarding school at the time... and (b) they were at least 4 or 5 hours longer drinking in many cases.


Your comparison is utter rubbish.

Sleepy wrote:

You have got to be fúcking kidding. In the Murphy case, it was a pretty clear case of manslaughter, the boys in question were giving him a hiding, yes, but I fail to see how that equates to fully grown addults gutting another human being?

I've no doubt that he is,the smiley at the end of the post is a dead give away.
In fact I'm going to use the report this post feature because, theres an accusation i have to make about that post, which would break forum rules were I to mention it here

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

The police have the ability to protect witnesses, they do it all the time. I wonder why 1) to my knowledge the police haven't claimed that anybody is intimdated adn 2) the only people making this claim are the relatives who are not witnesses.

More nonsense.
As you well know many of these witnesses wouldnt feel comfortable approaching the police nora-mind going into a witness protection programme.

SF amongst others have suggested that they do what is usually done there and make a statement to a lawyer or a priest.
According to the family this is not being done either due to intimidation.

you are again questioning what the family are saying and whhat an alliance councillor from the area has said and what the dogs on the street know in the area - when all else fails...

jman0

Earthman wrote:

More nonsense.
As you well know many of these witnesses wouldnt feel comfortable approaching the police nora-mind going into a witness protection programme.

SF amongst others have suggested that they do what is usually done there and make a statement to a lawyer or a priest.
According to the family this is not being done either due to intimidation.

you are again questioning what the family are saying and whhat an alliance councillor from the area has said and what the dogs on the street know in the area - when all else fails...

the family don't like that fact that their brother was a thug and was maybe put in his place for it.
Alliance councillor? you gotta be kidding!
"dogs in the streets" who? the press?
Who is claiming people are intimidated other than the family (besides politcal nut cases like the DUP) Alliance knows squat. I wonder do they get even 1 vote in Short Strand.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

the family don't like that fact that their brother was a thug and was maybe put in his place for it.

Wheres your foundation for that accusation?

shltter

Sleepy wrote:

You have got to be fúcking kidding. In the Murphy case, it was a pretty clear case of manslaughter, the boys in question were giving him a hiding, yes, but I fail to see how that equates to fully grown addults gutting another human being?

they were not boys they were grown men responsible for their actions they were not giving him a hiding they kicked and punched him in the head fractured his skull as far as i can remember his own mother did not recognise him there was at least 7 or 8 attacking one one man they beat him to death

now the facts are that for what ever reason drink loyalty intimidation most people did not tell what they had seen

i believe what he is saying is when people dont come forward in that case people just say nothing or it was drink the witnesses cant remember or they are just covering for their friends but in the mccartney case when witnesses dont come forward it has to be a SF/IRA intimidation plot it can be the only explanation despite the fact that we know far less about the circumstances in the mccartney case


im not making excuses or trying to lessen what anyone did as far as i'm concerned anyone who saw anything has a duty to make sure that justice is done to the thugs who carried out both murders

shltter

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

after they had met with a former teacher and all got their stories straight

and if the search warrant had not been ****ed up the blood on his shoe would have ensured a manslaughter verdict

he got off on a technicality

shltter

Earthman wrote:

I'm not lessening any murder by saying drink was involved,I'm saying its more of a factor in witnesses not coming foward in the Dublin murder as clearly the people there would have been uniformly younger and drinking for several hours longer.

how do you know how long the people in the bar had been drinking and how much they had consumed

Earthman wrote:

(a) the people involved were from a mostly younger uniform age group-some of them including those charged young enough to be in boarding school at the time... and (b) they were at least 4 or 5 hours longer drinking in many cases.

all the accused had left seconday school

and again how do you know how long they were drinking

Squaletto

shltter wrote:

they were not boys they were grown men responsible for their actions they were not giving him a hiding they kicked and punched him in the head fractured his skull as far as i can remember his own mother did not recognise him there was at least 7 or 8 attacking one one man they beat him to death

now the facts are that for what ever reason drink loyalty intimidation most people did not tell what they had seen

i believe what he is saying is when people dont come forward in that case people just say nothing or it was drink the witnesses cant remember or they are just covering for their friends but in the mccartney case when witnesses dont come forward it has to be a SF/IRA intimidation plot it can be the only explanation despite the fact that we know far less about the circumstances in the mccartney case

im not making excuses or trying to lessen what anyone did as far as i'm concerned anyone who saw anything has a duty to make sure that justice is done to the thugs who carried out both murders

Thank you Shltter for coming to grips with my point of view. I might have said it in a round about way but at least you seem to understand where I was coming from. I repeat once again that I do not support any political party and certainly do not agree with murder from any quarter. Earthman and others I hope this helps you see that I wasn't kidding, dead serious if you can excuse the pun!!

Sand

the family don't like that fact that their brother was a thug and was maybe put in his place for it

McCartney was killed because he made the mistake of getting on the wrong side of a senior SF/IRA figure. He refused to get down on his hands and knees and give homage to a thug. He was murdered for his defiance.

A lot of the IRAs victims in the north are denounced as being anti-social elements who needed to be sorted out. Who knows, perhaps a lot are. A lot are simply people who stood up for themselves against an IRA thug or a relative/friend of an IRA thug. The "padre pio" mutilation SF/IRA now practise allegedly came about because the first victim of a padre pio was good with his fists, good enough to beat an IRA scumbag up. So they decided to make sure hed never be good with his fists again.

There has been absolutely no hint of criminal or otherwise "he got what he deserved" activity by either McCartney or Devine, though it is quite predictable that SF/IRA would attempt to spread propaganda about the men as part of their coverup. To be honest, Im not surprised by Jmanos attitude - it is the same attitude as SF/IRA official position which views the family not as victims, but as enemies who must be made shut up and stop embarrassing the provos. Scratch a SF voter deep enough and youll find an unrepentant IRA apologist.

Sand

I repeat once again that I do not support any political party and certainly do not agree with murder from any quarter.

Bollocks to be honest. Support for SF/IRA is support for a terrorist force that is continually abducting, torturing and murdering people and that has consistently engaged in criminality. All through the "peace proccess".

Mccartney wasnt the first man to be killed by SF/IRA since the "peace process" began, his friend wasnt the first to be disfigured by a horrific assault by SF/IRA, and the NIB robbery wasnt the first to be carried out by SF/IRA, O Snodaighs election workers/IRA Active Service Unit were all in their fricking 20s (I get the impression your Italian - would you consider it acceptable for an Italian politician to employ the local Mafia in his campaign teams? If not, why the hell should we?) so they had to have been recruited after the "peace proccess" began and the money laundering ring thats being investigated didnt suddenly spring up last month.

SF/IRA have engaged in the peace proccess in a constant spirit of bad faith and duplicity. Both governments have ignored the evidence that is only now being examined and being used to damn SF/IRA. Bertie Ahern now blames SF for the punishment attacks in Northern Ireland, yet he was urging the DUP to reach out and make a deal with SF only two months ago? What sort of orwellian mafia state was he ready to hand the law abiding people of both traditions in northern ireland into? A one where SF/IRA would have the political leverage to impede investigations into crimes like McCartneys killing? The governments are *finally* waking up and realising that SF/IRA have beein abusing them for the past 10 years and its time to make some demands of SF/IRAs commitment to a real and true peace proccess.

And if you dont support that, then quite simply, yes you are agreeing with murder. But youre not alone, Vincent Browne was in the papers here saying they have to shut up McDowell and get back into talks with SF/IRA straight away. FFS, the only *good* thing McDowell has done in government is call a spade a spade in relation to SF/IRA long before it was fashionable. Its the closest thing to a principled stance Ive seen in modern Irish politics!

Villain

Sand wrote:

Bollocks to be honest. Support for SF/IRA is support for a terrorist force that is continually abducting, torturing and murdering people and that has consistently engaged in criminality. All through the "peace proccess".

I totally disagree, I support SF and I totally 100% condemn abducting, torturing and murdering people.

Going by what you say the majority of Nationalists up North support abducting, torturing and murdering people!! Do you honestly believe that?? ??

Cork

irish1 wrote:

I totally disagree, I support SF and I totally 100% condemn abducting, torturing and murdering people.

Has the IRA not been the mounth piece for the IRA?


irish1, Could you name 5 ocasions over the last 30 years where SF criticised their buddies in the IRA?

shltter

shltter wrote:

how do you know how long the people in the bar had been drinking and how much they had consumed

I made the point that, they were drinking for 4 hours more than those in the pub,thats a reasonable assumption to make.
Do you think that on the balance of probability most people are more drunk or less drunk when leaving a night club than a few hours earlier in the bar?

Squaletto

I get the impression your Italian - would you consider it acceptable for an Italian politician to employ the local Mafia in his campaign teams? If not, why the hell should we?

Sand stick to the Irish Politics as it's obvious from that statement you know F all about Italian Politics!!! :eek:

If you were here I 'd imagine you would have a lot in common with a political group called Forza Nuova. They are well known for their honesty and straightforward view on life.

shltter

Earthman wrote:

I made the point that, they were drinking for 4 hours more than those in the pub,thats a reasonable assumption to make.
Do you think that on the balance of probability most people are more drunk or less drunk when leaving a night club than a few hours earlier in the bar?

how do you know that you have no idea what time anyone started drinking how much they drink

I know alot of people that go to night clubs and dont drink at all
i know people who just go out near midnight and go direct to a night club

i see people stagger out of pubs in the early afternoon hardly able to stand

balance of probability my arse your trying to suggest one group of murdering thugs were too drunk and so were all the witnesses
where the other group of murdering thugs because they have some connection to a political party you hate were virtually stone cold sober

there is no possible way that you can back up that statement

A Dub in Glasgo

This is all conjecture and opinion. The anti - republican side present their opinion as fact for the Belfast killing and use the conjecture and opinion argument for the Dublin killing. Easy to see here yet so difficult for some.

shltter

shltter wrote:

balance of probability my arse your trying to suggest one group of murdering thugs were too drunk and so were all the witnesses
where the other group of murdering thugs because they have some connection to a political party you hate were virtually stone cold sober

Clearly you jump in to make replies without even reading what it is that I said...
Do you do that all the time?
I'll quote it for you in bold,in case specsavers gave you a dud pair of glasses.

Earthman wrote:

I'm not lessening any murder by saying drink was involved,I'm saying its more of a factor in witnesses not coming foward in the Dublin murder as clearly the people there would have been uniformly younger and drinking for several hours longer.

Sand

Squaletto

Sand stick to the Irish Politics as it's obvious from that statement you know F all about Italian Politics!!!

Says the Italian as he lectures me on Irish politics.

If you were here I 'd imagine you would have a lot in common with a political group called Forza Nuova. They are well known for their honesty and straightforward view on life.

I notice you havent answered the question. Is that because you would view an italian politician hiring a unit of a violent terrorist crinimal organisation for his campaign team as being acceptable? Or is it because you cant figure out how to admit you would find it unacceptable, and yet not backtrack from your pontificating about how we must all accept SF/IRA half way house approach to politics?

I totally disagree, I support SF and I totally 100% condemn abducting, torturing and murdering people.

Then youre either voting for the wrong party, or your condemnations are hollow. It is inconceivable how you can reconcile support for SF/IRA with condemnation of the abduction, torture and murder of people like Jean McConville when the *stated* SF/IRA policy is that it was not a crime. And the abductions, torturing and murdering are *still* occuring.

Going by what you say the majority of Nationalists up North support abducting, torturing and murdering people!! Do you honestly believe that??

SF/IRAs vote was pathetic during its years of open terrorism so thats unlikely. Northern Irish voters tried to support SF/IRAs supposed move to democracy in past elections. There has been no election in the North since the nature of SF/IRA became so readily apparent to everyone so its too soon to say either way.

The polls in the Republic are merely polls, but they demonstrate a steady support for SF/IRA despite the majority recognising continuing SF/IRA violence and criminality- even 33% of SF/IRA voters accept the IRA did the NIB robbery! If they still support SF/IRA after all this, then yes they do support abducting, tortuing and murdering people.

The anti - republican side present their opinion as fact for the Belfast killing and use the conjecture and opinion argument for the Dublin killing. Easy to see here yet so difficult for some.

Despite the best efforts of the SF election workers, Devine survived the savage attack. He's already stated it was SF/IRA members who attacked them. His account does not show drink as being a major factor in either their actions, or the actions of the SF/IRA election team that killed his friend McCartney. According to his account, the SF/IRA election team invented an exscuse to humiliate Devine and then when he refused to bend knee, they slashed him and his friend up worse than the Shankill Butchers.

So, whats the next straw SF/IRa apologists are going to clutch at in their defence of this murder? Or as wee Gerry is now calling it, manslaughter?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.