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