Irish Mercenary Killed in Bolivia

the_syco wrote: »

From the Irish Times:

How far is the back of the head from the chest?

Dwyer wasn't (apparently) shot in the back of the head, his body has clear wounds in the chest on the scene photographs, as far as they can be trusted.

the_syco wrote: »

Also, why would you tie someones hands if you had just shot them multiple times in the chest?

This is standard police procedure in many places, including the USA - After shooting a person, they will take their weapon (if visible) and cuff them before doing anything else i.e. checking for life signs, giving first aid etc.

Purely speculative, but I think the Bolivians were trying to present this as a grand standing operation, blew away a couple of unarmed guys in a Gibralta style execution. But the people they shot are suddenly not quite a good fit to present as hardened mercenaries and they are now desperately back pedaling, as evidenced by suddenly reverting to correct police procedure, moderating their statements etc.

No doubt the full story will come out eventually, until then it's all speculative.

RedPlanet wrote: »

By your logic, if an employer may have other terrorists on their pay role, and they don't come forward, then they are effectively aiding said terrorists.

Technically, every employer may have terrorists on their payrole. The employers themselves may even be terrorists. That's kind of the whole f*cking point of terrorism; You don't know who is and who isn't.

By carrying such action you will cause panic, undermine your company, and prejudice any investigation since Dwyer's "guilt" - as is that of the rest of the men - is extremely suspect.

Years ago, a suspected serial killer by the name of Jeffery Dahlmer was arrested in USA, the company that employed him: Ambroisia chocolate, came forward immediately to confirm he was one of their employees. Yes it's a humilation for the company and may effect their sales, but they did their civic duty and assisted the police in their investigations.

RP, to use a word you used against me earlier; that's such a "quaint" view. There is a world of difference in implication between somebody being a serial killer and being a suspected terrorist. Serial killers by their nature tend not to play well with others and more often than not act alone.

Incidentally, the bolivian prosecutor has said thus far that there is no evidence to suggest a plot against Morales (today's Irish Times), although I have yet to read the rest of the article. Further, Morales has backpedalled on his agreement (Today's Irish Times, Metro) to an international inquiry and is now telling the Irish government to f*ck off. Another bit of back pedalling by the state apparatus on top of all the other back pedalling.

As I've said before; this entire debacle R.E.E.K.S. of absolute excrement. And the smell is only getting worse.

Edit: Oh my ... Morales is getting uppity with the conjecture & innuendo in context of his now being p*ssed off at the requests for inquiry, going so far as to suggest that European nations want to tople his regime and assinate him. All together now; "Paranoia, paranoia, everybody's out to get youuuuuuuuuuu ..... "

I suspect that the reason no employer has come forward is that the employer died in the same incident.

I also think that the suggestion that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, while true in one sense, probably has the wrong connotation. It wasn't simply that he was accidentally caught up in something that had nothing to do with him. He was very obviously associating with people who the Bolivian police saw as legitimate targets. I suspect that he might have gone there as an adventure, and had no idea that it was a really dangerous game. It's the sort of misjudgement that thousands of young men in Ireland might make.

RedPlanet wrote: »

The "employer" has a civic duty to come forward. This will help investigators trace the movement of these individuals the days/weeks before the shooting.

Oh, the employer may have come forward, and helping the Irish police, but that still doesn't mean they should give a public statement before the Bolivian police finishes their investigation.

It all comes down to a cult of personality. Some people worship power, and charismatic individuals who wield it. So theyll accept whatever populist regimes like Morales say. Because Morales, and the cause he represents, *has* to be right. If that means police forces like the Gardai must be held to be at least as bad as Morales police force ( and it was Morales police who carried out this operation, very definitly Morales' men) then they will claim they are, no matter how ludicrous that is. As Orwell noted, being on the dole is horrible, hence it is no worse to be in the torture chambers of the Gestapo in the minds of the people he despised.

Its not clear what these guys were doing at the hotel or in Bolivia. Its becoming increasingly clear that the Morales regime is attempting to brazen its way out of this. Having started with maximum publicity and calls for international inquiries, theyve suddenly switched tack to denying reasonable requests by the Irish government to provide evidence for their claims, referencing the claims themselves as the justification for not explaining it.