[article] Adventures of a Sinn Fein "Campiagn Team"

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

No but I doubt the SCC and the injustice of it all would have you in a tissy at the moment were it not for this case.

And I find it a bit rich that terrorist apologists come here and complain about the justice meated out by the SCC is far less damaging than the justice of an IRA court .

I am not in a tissy about this or any other case
I dont know wether the men involved are members of the IRA but any fair look at the case would lead you to believe that they were the arguement put up by FTA does not hold water while some of the items found may have other uses cs gas fake gardai uniforms baseball bats combined add up to something else

mycroft wrote:

See the first part you have a point, and I'll agree with you the expansion of the court to deal with non terrorist offences is wrong. And that should be opposed.

As for the 2nd half, seeing as the IRA/R-IRA/INLA/C-IRA are still recruiting, active, armed, and commiting robberies, money laundering, and puinishment beatings, and attempting to pervert the cause of justice, don't you think it's a bit rash to say we have no need for the court now?

IRA stops criminality and terrorism and disbanded, we in the camp of disbanding the special criminal court get a very good argument for the dismanteling of the court.

I think that there will always be an excuse put forward that we need the SCC
even if the PIRA go away what about the rIRA cIRA INLA also the fact that concerned parents and drug dealers are being brought before that court means an excuse for keeping it will always be made

cdebru

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

NO. The measure we're (or if you like I) setting is that an organisation that runs a REAL Kangaroo court should not be allowed to criticise, in any way, the operation of the SCC, or demand for it to be shut down. The SCC can cease to exist as soon as the cause of its existance, the IRA, is shut down - as it should already be.


And on the issue of Video links, tell me how many courts in the world used video link technology in 1970? Ther's plenty now, but the technology's a lot cheaper.

thats fine the IRA dont have anyright to criticise it in your view but that does not stop me from criticisng it
the thing is that even if the IRA went away tomorrow the court is being expande all the time to take in people that have nothing to do with the IRA or anything subversive


the SCC is still here now saying that video link was not available in 1972 is not a reason for not using it now and getting rid of the SCC

Victor

And organised crime?

cdebru

Victor wrote:

And organised crime?

what about it other jurisdictions manage to deal with organised crime without the need to do away with the jury system

surely the state can protect a jury from some common criminals

A Dub in Glasgo

Victor wrote:

And organised crime?

It can be argued that there is justification for juryless trials for organised crime where there is evidence of jury tampering but is there any evidence that it is required?

My neighbour was shot dead 3 years ago. 5 bullets into the chest and head. It was a professional hit. It was alleged that my neighbour was a big player in the organised crime scene in Glasgow. He was alleged to have been shot on the orders of another big player in the organised crime scene in Glasgow. They got the shooter and he was convicted by a jury of murder and sentenced to 20 years.

The court system in Glasgow is not juryless and they do not appear to have a problem with jury tampering.

cdebru

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It can be argued that there is justification for juryless trials for organised crime where there is evidence of jury tampering but is there any evidence that it is required?

My neighbour was shot dead 3 years ago. 5 bullets into the chest and head. It was a professional hit. It was alleged that my neighbour was a big player in the organised crime scene in Glasgow. He was alleged to have been shot on the orders of another big player in the organised crime scene in Glasgow. They got the shooter and he was convicted by a jury of murder and sentenced to 20 years.

The court system in Glasgow is not juryless and they do not appear to have a problem with jury tampering.

sounds like a lovely part of glasgow you are in
it must be exactly like being at home in dublin

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

I think that there will always be an excuse put forward that we need the SCC
even if the PIRA go away what about the rIRA cIRA INLA also the fact that concerned parents and drug dealers are being brought before that court means an excuse for keeping it will always be made

And again the main reason for its creation disbanding would be a powerful argument for its dismanteling.


Dub in glasgow, I'm not sure of your point or its relevance. Throughout its existance the IRA have a track record of jury/judge intimidation that has forced the SCC into action.

Let me put it to you as a hypotethical. Would you given the choice sit on a jury if you knew in doing so you potentially jeporadised your life or the lives of your loved ones.

Slutmonkey57b

cdebru wrote:

the SCC is still here now saying that video link was not available in 1972 is not a reason for not using it now and getting rid of the SCC

On the contrary, your initial point was that the SCC didn't need to be created because we could have used video links.

In actual fact we couldn't as the technology wasn't either mature or affordable enough. Equally, a witness protection programme didn't exist because the gardai didn't have the expertise or resources to set one up. In any case it's difficult to run a witness relocation programme in a country where you can drive one end to the other in 4 hours. Witness Protection works for the FBI because they can move someone 3,000 miles away to a city of millions where it's easy to disappear. Moving someone 300 miles to a village of 2,000 makes the idea of anonymity a non sequiter. everybody's going to know there's a stranger in town who's getting watched by the police. Sex offenders get moved all the time, anonymity doesn't work for them either.

So in all the debate, we still have to hear a viable alternative to the SCC. Again, as its decisions are public, appealable, and open, calling it a Kangaroo court is a disservice both to the justice system and to the state.

Incidentally, for the Brit haters, the concept of the right ot trial by jury only exists because the English invented it.

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

what about it other jurisdictions manage to deal with organised crime without the need to do away with the jury system

surely the state can protect a jury from some common criminals

Okay I've stated this before, how would you go about perserving jury anonimity?

The argument here is that it's not possible. Realistical if you're honest about it, it can't work, and the anti SCC (I should point of that everyone here, Sands and myself and slutmonkey, have pretty much described the SCC as an imperfect solution to an imperfect world) crowd just won't admit that, or come up with an alternative.

Spare us the IRA wouldn't do it, in a new twist to the Mc Carthy murders; another brave family has come forward

James McGinley, 23, a handyman, was stabbed through the heart with a 12-inch dagger 16 months ago after an exchange of words with a well-known republican "hardman", who families claim is responsible for a string of punishment beatings across the city. Bart Fisher, 43, was last week sentenced to three years for Mr McGinley's manslaughter.

The McGinley family said they had been threatened by the IRA after being summoned to meetings during the trial, and said IRA men packed the court to put pressure on them and the jury.

from here

SkepticOne

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Incidentally, for the Brit haters, the concept of the right ot trial by jury only exists because the English invented it.

Well, in its current form maybe. The idea of ordinary citizens deciding on the outcome of a trial is much older.

cdebru

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

On the contrary, your initial point was that the SCC didn't need to be created because we could have used video links.
.

ok can you tell me where i said that i don't remember saying that

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Okay I've stated this before, how would you go about perserving jury anonimity?

James McGinley, 23, a handyman, was stabbed through the heart with a 12-inch dagger 16 months ago after an exchange of words with a well-known republican "hardman", who families claim is responsible for a string of punishment beatings across the city. Bart Fisher, 43, was last week sentenced to three years for Mr McGinley's manslaughter.

The McGinley family said they had been threatened by the IRA after being summoned to meetings during the trial, and said IRA men packed the court to put pressure on them and the jury.


from here

the fact is that whatever was or was not tried the jury found him guilty

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

the fact is that whatever was or was not tried the jury found him guilty

Of manslaughter the proseuction were asking for a charge of murder.

Three years for stabbing someone is pathetic, he should have got ten years.

If he pleaded guilty to manslaughter he will be out in 18months, and the IRA were there to ensure the jury knew there'd be a guilt verdict on manslaughter not murder.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Of manslaughter the proseuction were asking for a charge of murder.

Three years for stabbing someone is pathetic, he should have got ten years.

If he pleaded guilty to manslaughter he will be out in 18months, and the IRA were there to ensure the jury knew there'd be a guilt verdict on manslaughter not murder.

it is not unusuaL for someone to be convicted of manslaughter having been charged with murder

agreed the sentence seems lenient but i dont know the details of the case
and in anyway the judge would decide sentence not the jury


besides that the article you linked to does not suggest any intimidation of the jury nor does it say the court was packed with IRA men
it merely says that a unnamed member of the mcginley family alleged this

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

it is not unusuaL for someone to be convicted of manslaughter having been charged with murder

He was stabbed through the heart. If he had bleed to death from a wound a manslaughter charge would be more plausible, the stab would to the heart would certainly add weight to an acccusation the murderer was intending to kill.

agreed the sentence seems lenient but i dont know the details of the case
and in anyway the judge would decide sentence not the jury

Seems you're clueless about the law. The defense can claim manslaughter, the crown can accuse of murder, the jury must decide on whether he is guiltly of murder or manslaughter.

besides that the article you linked to does not suggest any intimidation of the jury nor does it say the court was packed with IRA men

Yes it bloody well does.

The McGinley family said they had been threatened by the IRA after being summoned to meetings during the trial, and said IRA men packed the court to put pressure on them and the jury.

Direct quote from the article.

Jesus, you're just going to blindly ignore anything that doesn't suit your worldview?

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

He was stabbed through the heart. If he had bleed to death from a wound a manslaughter charge would be more plausible, the stab would to the heart would certainly add weight to an acccusation the murderer was intending to kill.



Seems you're clueless about the law. The defense can claim manslaughter, the crown can accuse of murder, the jury must decide on whether he is guiltly of murder or manslaughter.



Yes it bloody well does.



Direct quote from the article.

Jesus, you're just going to blindly ignore anything that doesn't suit your worldview?

Iam clueless about the law

the fact that he was stabbed in the heart does not make the case anymore serious nor prove intent to kill
to prove a murder charge you have to prove premeditation not that someone was stabbed in any particular organ
as to wether in a brawl you could prove that someone could definitely target the heart would be very difficult unless the accused had some special skill in using knives

the jury decide wether he is guilty or not
the judge decides on what the sentence should be even with a manslaughter verdict it would be open to the judge to impose a much more severe sentence than 3 years

it repeats an allegation made by the family it offers no evidence that this was true no comments from the judge or the police

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

Iam clueless about the law

the fact that he was stabbed in the heart does not make the case anymore serious nor prove intent to kill
to prove a murder charge you have to prove premeditation not that someone was stabbed in any particular organ

So you're clueless about the law but you're ditacting the terms of premeditation/murder? Intent to kill, not accident death. Murder, Premeditated murder are two different charges.

Tha manner in which someone is killed can change the charge. If I hit you with my car that could be manslaughter, if I miss you reverse around and drive over you thats murder.

Ditto if I stab you, in the waist punch an artery and you die i can argue manslaughter, if i stab you in an organ, hidden by a breast plate, which requires a great deal of force to penetrate then a case for murder is both strong and has merit.

But then you admit being clueless about law so biology may also be a weak spot.

as to wether in a brawl you could prove that someone could definitely target the heart would be very difficult unless the accused had some special skill in using knives

You mean, like a trained terrorist? :rolleyes:

the jury decide wether he is guilty or not
the judge decides on what the sentence should be even with a manslaughter verdict it would be open to the judge to impose a much more severe sentence than 3 years

Theres a cap on manslaughter charges in the interium of five years, but we'll file that under your "cluelessness" about the law.

it repeats an allegation made by the family it offers no evidence that this was true no comments from the judge or the police

And this is different to the Mc Carthy family how?

true

Everyone knows the intimidation the Shinners / provos put on jurys when it suits them. No wonder many people think the RA ( republican army ) should be nicknamed the RAfia.....except it would insult the mafia.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

So you're clueless about the law but you're ditacting the terms of premeditation/murder? Intent to kill, not accident death. Murder, Premeditated murder are two different charges.

Tha manner in which someone is killed can change the charge. If I hit you with my car that could be manslaughter, if I miss you reverse around and drive over you thats murder.

Ditto if I stab you, in the waist punch an artery and you die i can argue manslaughter, if i stab you in an organ, hidden by a breast plate, which requires a great deal of force to penetrate then a case for murder is both strong and has merit.

But then you admit being clueless about law so biology may also be a weak spot.?

no i was repeating you claim not agreeing with it as is common here once someone runs into trouble they try some personal abuse

of course the manner in which someone is killed can change the charge

however arguing that because someone was stabbed in the heart means that it was murder is nonsense you would have to prove that the heart was the deliberate target of the person doing the stabbing

murder needs premiditation or intent to kill stabbing someone in a brawl does not mean you intended to kill them even if it was in the heart
proofing that he intended to hit the heart during a brawl would be hard to proof
and obviously the jury that heard the evidence must have felt that way

mycroft wrote:

You mean, like a trained terrorist? :rolleyes: ?

if you have evidence that he is a trained terrorist with special skills with knives i would have suggested that you would have made that knowledge available to the courts

mycroft wrote:

Theres a cap on manslaughter charges in the interium of five years, but we'll file that under your "cluelessness" about the law. ?

actually the maximum sentence for manslaughter is a life sentence in the UK

mycroft wrote:

And this is different to the Mc Carthy family how?

no witnesses came forward in the mccartney case this case was successfully brought to trial and a conviction was secured
the police have not alledged the jury was intimidated nor did the trial judge

Rock Climber

cdebru wrote:

however arguing that because someone was stabbed in the heart means that it was murder is nonsense you would have to prove that the heart was the deliberate target of the person doing the stabbing

Your honour, the knife slipped,I was cutting a piece of tobacco whilst having a minor disagreement with Robert McCartney.
Furthermore your honour,I didn't get much schooling as I spent my youth throwing petrol bombs at the RUC so I dont know where the heart is, even if thats where the knife accidently stabbed him...
I plead manslaughter your honour I didnt mean to kill him sob sob..

Cop on cdebru, even Gerry adams this evening referred to the actions of these guys as murder.
You cant get much more pre-meditated than dragging a guy out of a pub, kicking the shít out of him,stabbing him and then leaving him to die without calling an ambulance and while the killers and their friends tell everyone in the pub to shut up whilst they get on with a forensic clean up job.

cdebru

Rock Climber wrote:

Your honour, the knife slipped,I was cutting a piece of tobacco whilst having a minor disagreement with Robert McCartney.
Furthermore your honour,I didn't get much schooling as I spent my youth throwing petrol bombs at the RUC so I dont know where the heart is, even if thats where the knife accidently stabbed him...
I plead manslaughter your honour I didnt mean to kill him sob sob..

Cop on cdebru, even Gerry adams this evening referred to the actions of these guys as murder.
You cant get much more pre-meditated than dragging a guy out of a pub, kicking the shít out of him,stabbing him and then leaving him to die without calling an ambulance and while the killers and their friends tell everyone in the pub to shut up whilst they get on with a forensic clean up job.

can i just suggest that you read what the posts are about before you jump to conclusions and bang out a reply

we were discussing the case from derry were a man was sentenced to 3 years for manslaughter
not the robert mccartney case

true

cdebru wrote:

the police have not alledged the jury was intimidated nor did the trial judge

That does not mean no intimidation took place. The police and trial judge may think something but not have enough evidence to alledge / prove something.

Rock Climber

cdebru wrote:

murder needs premiditation or intent to kill stabbing someone in a brawl does not mean you intended to kill them even if it was in the heart
proofing that he intended to hit the heart during a brawl would be hard to proof
and obviously the jury that heard the evidence must have felt that way

Of course I was reading you cdebru,I just didn't quote the above bit aswell...and ye are discussing this in the context of a comparison with the McCartney case.
I guess then by your last reply you are agreeing with the overwhelming opinion then, and clarifying that the McCartney killing is a textbook example of a convictable heinous murder as opposed to a convictable heinous manslaughter?

cdebru

Rock Climber wrote:

Of course I was reading you cdebru,I just didn't quote the above bit aswell...and ye are discussing this in the context of a comparison with the McCartney case.
I guess then by your last reply you are agreeing with the overwhelming opinion then, and clarifying that the McCartney killing is a textbook example of a convictable heinous murder as opposed to a convictable heinous manslaughter?

no it was not being discussed in the context of the robert mccartney murder
which proves you did not read the posts just read a bit decided you knew what it was about and that i needed to cop on

it was in the context of intimidation of juries and the SCC read back and you will see

I hope that a court will hear the evidence and decide wether it was murder or something else

Rock Climber

cdebru wrote:

no it was not being discussed in the context of the robert mccartney murder
which proves you did not read the posts just read a bit decided you knew what it was about and that i needed to cop on

Rubbish,I've read it again,the case was being discussed in comparison with the Mcartney case,witness intimidation etc etc-ask mycroft

I hope that a court will hear the evidence and decide wether it was murder or something else

heh.
Nice avoidance of calling it one way or the other, you're even being more neutral than Adams there.
But then that doesnt bother me really as you also didnt try to argue against the premeditated nature of the McCartney killing,trying to do so wouldnt stack up too well given that the guys did their bit of hoovering whilst he was drawing his last breath un hindered by the ambulance crews that they didnt bother calling.

cdebru

Rock Climber wrote:

Rubbish,I've read it again,the case was being discussed in comparison with the Mcartney case,witness intimidation etc etc-ask mycroft

heh.
Nice avoidance of calling it one way or the other, you're even being more neutral than Adams there.
But then that doesnt bother me really as you also didnt try to argue against the premeditated nature of the McCartney killing,trying to do so wouldnt stack up too well given that the guys did their bit of hoovering whilst he was drawing his last breath un hindered by the ambulance crews that they didnt bother calling.

well if mycroft was comparing this to the mccartney case i was not in the sense of wether robert mccartney was murdered or it was manslaughter

mycrofts assertion was that the jury had been intimidated into convicting of manslaughter instead of murder
hence i presume the need for non jury courts
that is what i presumed he was arguing not wether robert mccartney had been murdered or the victim of a manslaughter

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

well if mycroft was comparing this to the mccartney case i was not in the sense of wether robert mccartney was murdered or it was manslaughter

mycrofts assertion was that the jury had been intimidated into convicting of manslaughter instead of murder
hence i presume the need for non jury courts
that is what i presumed he was arguing not wether robert mccartney had been murdered or the victim of a manslaughter

[Rowing in...] Hmmm And in the context of the last few pages someone is supposed to assume that this is not all being talked about in relation to the intimidation of witnesses in the McCartney murder... and given that on the last page mycroft actually says to you.. and this is different to the McCartney case how?
Pretty darn obvious there that the whole thing is being discussed in relation to McCartney [ rows back out again...]

Separate question from me,have you cdebru an opinion in your own mind as to whether this episode is a manslaughter or a murder.
I'm agree-ing with Adams and McGuinness that it is a murder, and one that couldnt possibly be argued down to just manslaughter given the nature of it.
On second thoughts don't even answer that, as to give the benefit of the doubt to knife wielding thugs who wouldnt even call an ambulance and who clean up after themselves would be a bit much in my book.
I realise there must be due process but at the end of the day being human,I cannot but draw my own conclusions based on the families investigations of what happened.

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

no it was not being discussed in the context of the robert mccartney murder
which proves you did not read the posts just read a bit decided you knew what it was about and that i needed to cop on

it was in the context of intimidation of juries and the SCC read back and you will see

I hope that a court will hear the evidence and decide wether it was murder or something else

I've sorry I've literally no idea what you are on about.
On severl levels, what do you mean any of this.

You stated previous "why can't the state provide security for jurys" we argue that its impossible. And ask you to provide evidence that it will work.

I cite this case as an example of a family claiming that the IRA were intimidating a jury.

You attack this on whether it was murder, now for starts the life sentence for murder is not for manslaughter due to "misadventure" the five year cap is for cases similar to this. There may be a life sentence for man slaughter under certain terms, but a judge can't supply them to all cases.

Anyway, I cite this as an example of a republican family condemning IRA policy and an IRA member, and IRA intimidation of a family going to the courts.

You attack it every which way way from hence. You go after the sentence, the manner of the attack, the family making the accusation (which if the IRA/SF apologists should have learnt one thing this last few weeks the best defence is not a good defence, you go after the leinancy of the sentence.

But what you don't try and defend the reason why this was raised. As it, it's another family claiming IRA intimidation of a legal investigation.

And what you don't do, is explain to us how we can disband the SCC when we have a highly trained and movitated terrorist army dedicated to the pervision of justice on this isle.

A three year sentence is a pathetic sentence for a knife through the heart. Your defence and apologises and reasoning maked the warren commision or the wiggery inquiry look like a through and well organised and honest inquiry
to the facts.

This stammering apology this reasoned and measured debate into the issues when it's "republican" investiagtion and this shrill accusations of bias when its carried out by the republican movement, while at the same time washing your hands of the consequences of repubilician "justice" is an atitutde we're getting weary of in this country.

Justice is a two way door, and the apologists for murderers are the last people who should be decrying justice for innocents.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

I've sorry I've literally no idea what you are on about.
On severl levels, what do you mean any of this.

You stated previous "why can't the state provide security for jurys" we argue that its impossible. And ask you to provide evidence that it will work.

I cite this case as an example of a family claiming that the IRA were intimidating a jury.

You attack this on whether it was murder, now for starts the life sentence for murder is not for manslaughter due to "misadventure" the five year cap is for cases similar to this. There may be a life sentence for man slaughter under certain terms, but a judge can't supply them to all cases.

Anyway, I cite this as an example of a republican family condemning IRA policy and an IRA member, and IRA intimidation of a family going to the courts.

You attack it every which way way from hence. You go after the sentence, the manner of the attack, the family making the accusation (which if the IRA/SF apologists should have learnt one thing this last few weeks the best defence is not a good defence, you go after the leinancy of the sentence.

But what you don't try and defend the reason why this was raised. As it, it's another family claiming IRA intimidation of a legal investigation.

And what you don't do, is explain to us how we can disband the SCC when we have a highly trained and movitated terrorist army dedicated to the pervision of justice on this isle.

A three year sentence is a pathetic sentence for a knife through the heart. Your defence and apologises and reasoning maked the warren commision or the wiggery inquiry look like a through and well organised and honest inquiry
to the facts.

This stammering apology this reasoned and measured debate into the issues when it's "republican" investiagtion and this shrill accusations of bias when its carried out by the republican movement, while at the same time washing your hands of the consequences of repubilician "justice" is an atitutde we're getting weary of in this country.

Justice is a two way door, and the apologists for murderers are the last people who should be decrying justice for innocents.

1 iam not defending or apologising for anything or anyone

2 you raised the issue of james mc ginley as an example of intimidation of a jury despite the fact that the guy was convicted of a offence that carries a sentence upto life imprisionment

3 there is no evidence that the jury was in anyway intimidated it is quoted as an allegation by the family in one newspaper and is not mentioned in any coverage of the trial or sentencing and was only made on the 1st of march the trial ended in december the aleegation is not supported in anything i can find by the police or trial judge

4 the arguement that 3 years for kniving someone i excepted as lenientand i think it is too short for taking someones life but the fact is the judge delivered the sentence not the alledgedly intimidated jury he could have imposed upto life imprisionment

5 the arguement that you put forward that because the victim was stabbed in the heart it is more serious is nonsense unless you could prove that the heart was the deliberate target of the stabbing which given the outcome of the case the prosecution was unable to do

6 I in no way was trying to suggest that this case was like the robert mccartney case or that what happened to robert mcartney was manslaughter

7 this is not a case of manslaughter by misadventure as far as i can see there are two types of manslaughter voluntary and involuntary this is a case of voluntary manslaughter and as such carries a sentence upto life in prision

8 your last paragraph is just a rant i have not claimed bias shrill or unshrill your suggestion seems to be that anyone who is a republican has no right to question anything good bad or indifferent because the IRA have commited terrible acts in the name of justice becasue you are tired of it is just a rant

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

[Rowing in...] Hmmm And in the context of the last few pages someone is supposed to assume that this is not all being talked about in relation to the intimidation of witnesses in the McCartney murder... and given that on the last page mycroft actually says to you.. and this is different to the McCartney case how?
Pretty darn obvious there that the whole thing is being discussed in relation to McCartney [ rows back out again...].

pretty damn obvious it was raised in relation to the intimidation of juries and as an example of why a the SCC should exist there was no allegation of intimidation of witnesses

mycrofts question as to this is different from the mcartney case was in relation to allegations of intimidation not in relation to wether robert mccartneys was murdered or manslaughter

and again it is different from the mccartney case because it has been brought t court a man has been convicted of the killing of james mcginley

Earthman wrote:

Separate question from me,have you cdebru an opinion in your own mind as to whether this episode is a manslaughter or a murder.
I'm agree-ing with Adams and McGuinness that it is a murder, and one that couldnt possibly be argued down to just manslaughter given the nature of it.
On second thoughts don't even answer that, as to give the benefit of the doubt to knife wielding thugs who wouldnt even call an ambulance and who clean up after themselves would be a bit much in my book.
I realise there must be due process but at the end of the day being human,I cannot but draw my own conclusions based on the families investigations of what happened.

so do you want to know what i think
i think it was murder but given what regularly comes out of our courts i would not be shocked if it ended up as manslaughter
I am not and was not in anyway arguing what happened to robert mccartney was manslaughter
my comments regards proving intent to murder by a stabbing to the heart were in relation to the mcginley killing which is what was being discussed
when rock climber jumped in suggesting i was trying to excuse the people who killed robert mccartney i was NOT