Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The disappeared

12357…11

Comments

  • #122
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Hannibal wrote: »
    No journalist has ever got the better of Adams and it annoys every single one of them, any slight chink they see in the armour and they are like dogs with a bone trying to unearth it. Regardless of the hard work put in by the leadership of Sinn Fein (none of which was appreciated) to move republicanism solely into politics it seems that a lot of journalists would rather unravel the whole peace process and it's leaders just to have Adams' head on a stick.

    The Disappeared program last week was just another baseless attempt to slander Gerry Adams by using old information and the same old questions. Brendan Hughes and Dolours Price are anti peace process and anti GFA touts whose word and testiment is given preference over that of an elected representive who has topped election polls in Belfast and Louth.

    Willie O'Dea wants this discussed in the Dail where TD's can use parliamentary privelege to again slander Gerry Adams and engage in political point scoring.

    It's not slander if it's true. Adams has long threatened to sue over reports over his membership of the IRA, and what he was responsible for - but he's never actually gone to court. Topping the vote and getting elected don't generally ensure you're not a liar, and the peace process doesn't require Adams participation to continue on - suggestions otherwise are only so much scaremongering. It's in the public interest to clarify just what any public representative's record is - Gerry Adams included.


  • #123
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    The programme told lies and mis-represented the truth. There is NO evidence that Gerry Adams was either in the IRA or ordered this killing.
    Are the democrats on here not having a problem with that?
    If Nuala O'Loan presents the view, without presenting any evidence (which she can't find) that Mrs McConville was not an informer and people unhesitatingly believe her, what does that say about them?

    Not presenting the simple fact that the head of the ICLVB was happy with the IRA's commitment to finding bodies, immediately compromises the integrity of this programme even before we get into the fact that it concentrated on one story of the 'found' in order to target Gerry Adams with old and inadequate (in terms of evidence) information.

    To suggest that the slander is true because Adams 'didn't sue' is flabbergasting and indicative of the intellectual rigour of those who the programme was clearly aimed at. Just because journalists/hacks have no concern for the peace process or sensitivity to it's fragility doesn't mean everybody is similarly irresponsible and mercenary.


  • #124
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The programme told lies and mis-represented the truth. There is NO evidence that Gerry Adams was either in the IRA or ordered this killing.

    ...aside from the evidence presented. What lies did the programme tell?
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    If Nuala O'Loan presents the view, without presenting any evidence (which she can't find) that Mrs McConville was not an informer and people unhesitatingly believe her, what does that say about them?

    O'Loan didn't have to present evidence in relation to Jean McConville - she just needed to investigate the available evidence herself. What does it say for those who believe her over the contrary claims of a bunch of proven liars? Well, that doesn't need much deliberation, does it?

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    To suggest that the slander is true because Adams 'didn't sue' is flabbergasting and indicative of the intellectual rigour of those who the programme was clearly aimed at.
    Oh dear - name-calling isn't really a substitute for the obvious implications of a man who calls libel/slander (both entirely legal definitions), but won't actually test the claim in a court. He has the money and the supposed outrage to his good name and professional competency, and won't do anything about it? What does that say about the solidity of the ground he stands on?

    Honestly - the fiction that Adam's narrative is believed by anyone, is what's actually 'flabbergasting'.:rolleyes:


  • #125
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Just because journalists/hacks have no concern for the peace process or sensitivity to it's fragility doesn't mean everybody is similarly irresponsible and mercenary.

    What utter nonsense.


  • #126
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    ...aside from the evidence presented. What lies did the programme tell?

    From 2 to 3 minutes in...'Gerry Adams, seen here as a member of the IRA....'.
    It set the entire tone and agenda of the programme.
    O'Loan didn't have to present evidence in relation to Jean McConville - she just needed to investigate the available evidence herself. What does it say for those who believe her over the contrary claims of a bunch of proven liars? Well, that doesn't need much deliberation, does it?
    Like Baroness O'Loan, Lord Widgery also investigated a rather famous case and made a claim.
    I will wait until Baroness O'Loan presents the evidence she based her opinion on, if that is ok?
    First thing I would be asking would be, 'did the British authorities always keep records of contact with informers?'
    Given that it would be in the interests of some to remove these records, how can we trust that 'finding no records' is proof of anything.


    Oh dear - name-calling isn't really a substitute for the obvious implications of a man who calls libel/slander (both entirely legal definitions), but won't actually test the claim in a court. He has the money and the supposed outrage to his good name and professional competency, and won't do anything about it? What does that say about the solidity of the ground he stands on?

    It's says precisely nothing actually, unless of course you want it to and ignore the fact that there maybe, just maybe other considerations about things that are actually important to be made.
    Honestly - the fiction that Adam's narrative is believed by anyone, is what's actually 'flabbergasting'.:rolleyes:

    I don't believe or disbelief it, I don't have enough evidence either way to make a judgement.
    What I do believe is that his commitment to the process is sincere and I am glad every day of the week to be where we are in that process.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    MRnotlob606 wrote: »
    all ive been hearing all week is gerry adam gerry adams the disappeared gerry adams

    Which is exactly what the programme makers wanted. This programme was about Gerry Adams, not The Disappeared.


  • #128
    lee_baby_simms
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,498 ✭✭✭lee_baby_simms


    MRnotlob606 wrote: »
    all ive been hearing all week is gerry adam gerry adams the disappeared gerry adams

    Voices in your head?


  • #129
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    lee_baby_simms wrote: »
    Voices in your head?

    Must have been.
    Unsurprisingly, for a programme with no new info it has had little traction. Didn't even get Liveline's audience fired up enough to 'call Joe'. :D


  • #130
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    From 2 to 3 minutes in...'Gerry Adams, seen here as a member of the IRA....'.
    It set the entire tone and agenda of the programme.
    He's representing a completely different paramilitary group there is he? The uniform is a stylish affectation? Seems plausible to me.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Like Baroness O'Loan, Lord Widgery also investigated a rather famous case and made a claim.
    Again with the OBE fixation? O'Loan is just like Widgery - right. Now tell me - what did the IRA lie about with regard to Bloody Sunday - since the two issues are so closely aligned in your mind?

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I will wait until Baroness O'Loan presents the evidence she based her opinion on, if that is ok?
    Knock yourself out. I'll still form a judgement based on the credentials of the two arguments.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    First thing I would be asking would be, 'did the British authorities always keep records of contact with informers?'
    Given that it would be in the interests of some to remove these records, how can we trust that 'finding no records' is proof of anything.
    You don't trust the British on this one way or another, so let's not pretend otherwise.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    It's says precisely nothing actually, unless of course you want it to and ignore the fact that there maybe, just maybe other considerations about things that are actually important to be made.?
    It speaks very clearly to the solidity of his narrative. It's built on sand.


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I don't believe or disbelief it
    Of course. :rolleyes:


  • #131
    nuac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,769 ✭✭✭nuac


    Thought Adams very unconvincing claimining ignorance of the various IRA murders


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    He's representing a completely different paramilitary group there is he? The uniform is a stylish affectation? Seems plausible to me.

    Adams has said he was not in the IRA, nobody has proved conclusively and satisfactorly that he was, a responsible journalist would have reflected that in the programme.


    Again with the OBE fixation? O'Loan is just like Widgery - right. Now tell me - what did the IRA lie about with regard to Bloody Sunday - since the two issues are so closely aligned in your mind?

    I merely use her title to indicate why some might have a problem with what she might say 'as her opinion'. You present what she says as absolute truth without regard to the history of what the British have claimed at various times. Yet you are very quick to point out that the IRA told lies at one time or another and have formed and given an opinion that everything they say is lies. The British have lied, why have you not formed a similar opinion about what they say?


    Knock yourself out. I'll still form a judgement based on the credentials of the two arguments.

    Both of which are based on personal opinions.


    You don't trust the British on this one way or another, so let's not pretend otherwise.

    No I don't, frankly. With good reason,
    I also have been at pains to point out that I neither trust the IRA or what they claim.
    In this case I don't know what to believe, but I can see why either side what want me to believe what each says, which makes me, unlike the 'journalists' involved in the programme, extremely careful.


    It speaks very clearly to the solidity of his narrative. It's built on sand.

    No it doesn't, it just says that he doesn't see the need to sue. It is not as if he will change minds by doing it.



    Of course. :rolleyes:
    'Of course', what?


  • #133
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Adams has said he was not in the IRA, nobody has proved conclusively and satisfactorly that he was, a responsible journalist would have reflected that in the programme.
    There's ample evidence that Adams was in the IRA - their report reflected that.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I merely use her title to indicate why some might have a problem with what she might say 'as her opinion'. You present what she says as absolute truth without regard to the history of what the British have claimed at various times. Yet you are very quick to point out that the IRA told lies at one time or another and have formed and given an opinion that everything they say is lies. The British have lied, why have you not formed a similar opinion about what they say.?
    'Some' might - but then 'some' have a pretty biased view. I'm well aware of the history of British administration of NI - and the distinction between that and the record of Nuala O'Loan. Where did I say that the IRA lie about everything? They lied about Jean McConville - therefore anything they have to say in relation to her is tainted by that fact.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Both of which are based on personal opinions.
    No they're not.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    No it doesn't, it just says that he doesn't see the need to sue. It is not as if he will change minds by doing it.
    He wouldn't? If he threatens legal action, and doesn't follow up, then it certainly speaks to how strong he believes his case is. After all - he says it's damaging him - why would he endure such damage needlessly?
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    No I don't, frankly.
    So - again - why pretend any evidence from that source would satisfy you? It clearly a diversion tactic on your part.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    'Of course', what?
    Of course I believe you're being honest here.


  • #134
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    There's ample evidence that Adams was in the IRA - their report reflected that.
    There is more than enough 'hearsay' but no evidence that would wash in a court of law. If there is, then the responsibility falls on those vested with prosecuting those who where in the IRA.
    Gerry won't sue because he is lying, the authorities won't prosecute because ___________________ (fill in the gap for us, please, because there is a gaping gap in your logic here)

    'Some' might - but then 'some' have a pretty biased view. I'm well aware of the history of British administration of NI - and the distinction between that and the record of Nuala O'Loan. Where did I say that the IRA lie about everything? They lied about Jean McConville - therefore anything they have to say in relation to her is tainted by that fact.

    I mean't what you mean't, 'everything they say about Mrs McC.

    There are vested interests here, the British would be answerable too. If it was 'proveable' now that she was 'not' an informer, why was it not 'proveable' over the many long years when info was fresher and more trustworthy.



    No they're not.

    I'm sorry, but they are. What was it about Nuala O'Loan's contribution to the programme that gave you idea that it was anything other than a 'personal opinion'?

    She prefaces everything she says with 'I think...'
    Which is a personal opinion, in my book.



    So - again - why pretend any evidence from that source would satisfy you? It clearly a diversion tactic on your part.

    I can not make it any clearer, I distrust both sides of the story. Until I am presented with actual evidence I cannot and will not call it.


    Of course I believe you're being honest here.

    We already know how little is required for you to believe something you want to believe.


  • #135
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    There is more than enough 'hearsay' but no evidence that would wash in a court of law. If there is, then the responsibility falls on those vested with prosecuting those who where in the IRA.
    Gerry won't sue because he is lying, the authorities won't prosecute because ___________________ (fill in the gap for us, please, because there is a gaping gap in your logic here)
    Oh I'm sorry - did you have an interruption to the logic articulated with regard to 'vested interests'? It benefits the authorities to leave the issue of Gerry Adams membership unresolved, because it leaves the status quo unaffected. And prefacing this whole subject with the issue of prosecution really is sneaky. Adams won't be prosecuted, because prior membership of the IRA is no longer a crime - and, as you point out, the evidence relating to his ordering JeanMcConville murdered would fall short of that required to find him guilty in a court of law. So it really benefits no-one on a prosecution front. None of which removes from the fact that there's ample evidence to support his IR membership.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    There are vested interests here, the British would be answerable too. If it was 'proveable' now that she was 'not' an informer, why was it not 'proveable' over the many long years when info was fresher and more trustworthy.
    What exactly would the British be answerable for? She had nothing to do with them.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but they are. What was it about Nuala O'Loan's contribution to the programme that gave you idea that it was anything other than a 'personal opinion'?
    She, and her team, investigated the evidence available and produced a set of findings. It's pretty much the opposite of a personal opinion.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I can not make it any clearer, I distrust both sides of the story. Until I am presented with actual evidence I cannot and will not call it.
    That would be evidenced rom the source you don't trust?


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    We already know how little is required for you to believe something you want to believe.
    Ah well.


  • #136
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    There is more than enough 'hearsay' but no evidence that would wash in a court of law. If there is, then the responsibility falls on those vested with prosecuting those who where in the IRA.
    Gerry won't sue because he is lying, the authorities won't prosecute because ___________________ (fill in the gap for us, please, because there is a gaping gap in your logic here)


    I can not make it any clearer, I distrust both sides of the story. Until I am presented with actual evidence I cannot and will not call it.

    Yes, yes, yes.

    There is no evidence that would wash in a court of law that Bertie Ahern took money from businessmen and developers.

    There is no evidence that would wash in a court of law that the bank regulator didn't do his job.

    Does anyone believe that either of the above are not true? Do you believe in Bertie Ahern's innocence, do you believe that the bank regulator did all he could to avoid the 2008 collapse? Do you believe that Gerry Adams was not a member of the IRA?

    If you are to be consistent you can only give the same answer to all three questions because if you say "yes" to those questions you have to suspend disbelief and ignore all of the circumstantial evidence in front of your eyes.


  • #137
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    It benefits the authorities to leave the issue of Gerry Adams membership unresolved,
    Simple question, was that always the case?
    And if it wasn't, why didn't they prosecute?




    What exactly would the British be answerable for? She had nothing to do with them.

    Nuala O'Loan said in that programme that the RUC didn't investigate (didn't investigate at all? Do you regard that as normal policing?) 'because they clearly didn't regard it as a serious crime' (O'Loan's exact words)
    Why was that? Could it be that knew she was an informer and that they saw her as collateral damage and got what most informers in history got.

    If O'Loan is speaking the truth here (and I think it is not her personal opinion, it is a matter of record) then I think somebody should be answerable for that and the family clearly think that too as they asked N. O'loan to specifically investigate that.

    She, and her team, investigated the evidence available and produced a set of findings. It's pretty much the opposite of a personal opinion.
    Where are these findings?


    That would be evidenced rom the source you don't trust?
    All I have to go on is Nuala O'Loan's comments prefaced with 'I think'.
    If there are a 'set of findings' please link to them.




    p.s. I notice you have nothing to say on the exclusion of the ICLVR and their statement about cooperation from the IRA. Any comment on that?


  • #138
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    Yes, yes, yes.

    There is no evidence that would wash in a court of law that Bertie Ahern took money from businessmen and developers.

    The unwillingness of the powers that be to prosecute Bertie on the basis of what was found in the tribunal greatly troubles me.
    There is no evidence that would wash in a court of law that the bank regulator didn't do his job.
    Like the entire country I am STILL waiting for the inquiry into this(at which evidence will be presented I am sure) and the trials of Sean Fitzpatrick etc (who have been charged with offences btw)

    In the meantime you could always hit them with a crutch or make insinuating documentaries about them based on hearsay and crude innuendo?


  • #139
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Nuala O'Loan said in that programme that the RUC didn't investigate (didn't investigate at all? Do you regard that as normal policing?) 'because they clearly didn't regard it as a serious crime' (O'Loan's exact words)
    Why was that? Could it be that knew she was an informer and that they saw her as collateral damage and got what most informers in history got.

    Could it have been that it was an unexotic missing persons case in a no-go block of flats, and normal policing was not available in those circumstances?


  • #140
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The unwillingness of the powers that be to prosecute Bertie on the basis of what was found in the tribunal greatly troubles me.


    Like the entire country I am STILL waiting for the inquiry into this(at which evidence will be presented I am sure) and the trials of Sean Fitzpatrick etc (who have been charged with offences btw)

    I agree with you on the two points above. I would also add the following.

    The unwillingness of the powers that be to prosecute Gerry Adams on the basis of what was stated in the Liam Adams trial greatly troubles me.

    The unwillingness of the powers that be to prosecute Gerry Adams on the basis of what numerous investigations and numerous witnesses have said about his membership of an illegal terrorist organsiation greatly troubles me.

    It is hypocritical to criticise Bertie Ahern and Sean Fitzpatrick and to defend Gerry Adams. I would defend all three's right to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence in such a trial and would consider fairly all the evidence in such a trial. At the same time, I would also criticise strongly all three for their actions.

    That is not the real question though. If all three were on a ballot paper in front of me, they would have no chance of getting my vote. If I was a member or supporter of a political party that had one of them as leader I would resign and switch my support elsewhere.


  • #141
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    p.s. I notice you have nothing to say on the exclusion of the ICLVR and their statement about cooperation from the IRA. Any comment on that?

    Not really - from their perspective it's probably always going to be about them, and anything else will be a disappointment, and the good faith of the IRA is rather suspect in the case of the Crossmaglen murders. Nothing in what they had to say undermines the legitimacy of screening the programme.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    grainnewhale wrote: »
    Considering the British have agreed to return the six counties to Irish control. I would say that not only did a small band of brave Irish men and women beat one of the largest armies in the world. They also had the decency to accept the British surrender, without requiring the triumphalist chest beating that accompanies the loyalist victories of battles that took place hundreds of years ago.


    (1) There was no agreement with the IRA
    (2) There is no agreement to return the six counties to Irish control
    (3) The agreement preserves the union with Britain for as long as the majority in the North want that union to remain. I see no prospect of that changing in the next 40-50 years.
    (4) The IRA laid down their arms having achieved none of their aims (and let me be clear that I am glad that they gave up)


  • #143
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Could it have been that it was an unexotic missing persons case in a no-go block of flats, and normal policing was not available in those circumstances?
    Serious crimes where investigated in Divis Flats.
    Nuala O'Loan has said that 'NO' record of a police investigation exists into Jean McConvilles disappearance until 1995. This is despite the fact that in 1973 the Belfast Telegraph had a front page story on 2 consecutive days in which a police spokesman says that the police are 'investigating her abduction'. (note: abduction, not a missing person)
    This 'unexotic' case also featured on BBC Scene Around Six on the same day.

    Make your own mind up what happened to the records in an 'abduction' case. And also, make your mind up about whether the police have something to answer for here also.
    alastair wrote: »
    Not really - from their perspective it's probably always going to be about them, and anything else will be a disappointment, and the good faith of the IRA is rather suspect in the case of the Crossmaglen murders. Nothing in what they had to say undermines the legitimacy of screening the programme.

    So a programme that is purportly about 'The Disappeared' does not think it important to give significant information from the people vested with searching for the Disappeared but is instead filled with personal opinions and speculation and you find that hunky dory? That is bizarre, to be frank.


  • #144
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    I agree with you on the two points above. I would also add the following.

    The unwillingness of the powers that be to prosecute Gerry Adams on the basis of what was stated in the Liam Adams trial greatly troubles me.

    The unwillingness of the powers that be to prosecute Gerry Adams on the basis of what numerous investigations and numerous witnesses have said about his membership of an illegal terrorist organsiation greatly troubles me.

    It is hypocritical to criticise Bertie Ahern and Sean Fitzpatrick and to defend Gerry Adams. I would defend all three's right to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence in such a trial and would consider fairly all the evidence in such a trial. At the same time, I would also criticise strongly all three for their actions.

    That is not the real question though. If all three were on a ballot paper in front of me, they would have no chance of getting my vote. If I was a member or supporter of a political party that had one of them as leader I would resign and switch my support elsewhere.

    I broadly agree with you, I have never voted for Gerry Adams and apart from some local SF candidates have never voted for SF.
    Again, until the results of the 6 (I think it is) enquiries into Adams and his brother's case, I would not make a judgement on that.


  • #145
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Serious crimes where investigated in Divis Flats.
    Nuala O'Loan has said that 'NO' record of a police investigation exists into Jean McConvilles disappearance until 1995. This is despite the fact that in 1973 the Belfast Telegraph had a front page story on 2 consecutive days in which a police spokesman says that the police are 'investigating her abduction'. (note: abduction, not a missing person)
    This 'unexotic' case also featured on BBC Scene Around Six on the same day.

    Make your own mind up what happened to the records in an 'abduction' case. And also, make your mind up about whether the police have something to answer for here also.

    O'Loan's investigation makes clear that the RUC treated the incident as a missing persons case, and that Divis was not a place where normal policing could take place. A missings person case would not have been considered serious. While the Belfast Telegraph carried a report of a possible abduction, the Sunday Life subsequently carried a report of her imminent return to Belfast.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    So a programme that is purportly about 'The Disappeared' does not think it important to give significant information from the people vested with searching for the Disappeared but is instead filled with personal opinions and speculation and you find that hunky dory? That is bizarre, to be frank.
    What significant information did they fail to provide? What personal opinion and speculation did they carry? The only speculation that they reported (and framed it as such) was the possible reason for the murder of Charlie Armstrong - that he might have inadvertently witnessed something that made him a liability to the IRA.


  • #146
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    O'Loan's investigation makes clear that the RUC treated the incident as a missing persons case, and that Divis was not a place where normal policing could take place. A missings person case would not have been considered serious. While the Belfast Telegraph carried a report of a possible abduction, the Sunday Life subsequently carried a report of her imminent return to Belfast.



    Before I reply, can you provide a source for this?


  • #147
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Before I reply, can you provide a source for this?

    I thought you watched the programme? They showed the paper cutting on it.


  • #148
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    I thought you watched the programme? They showed the paper cutting on it.


    The Sunday Life wasn't published until 1988.

    According to O'Loan, The Belfast Telegraph carried a report that said, 'the abduction was being investigated although it had not been reported to the police.'

    No mention of 'possible' there.
    The senior investigating RUC officer also refused to co-operate with the inquiry.
    I think it is also important to note that twice in 1973;
    Information was recieved 'from the military' 1) Suggesting that it was an 'elaborate hoax' and 2) That J McC had left of 'her own free will and was known to be safe'.

    From the military??

    Given that the RUC say that it wasn't investigated seriously until 1995, isn't that a bit odd? There are a lot of questions there for anybody calling themselves a serious journalist, wouldn't you think?


  • #149
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The Sunday Life wasn't published until 1988.

    It must have been the Irish News then - but it was still reported.


  • #150
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The Sunday Life wasn't published until 1988.

    According to O'Loan, The Belfast Telegraph carried a report that said, 'the abduction was being investigated although it had not been reported to the police.'

    No mention of 'possible' there.
    The senior investigating RUC officer also refused to co-operate with the inquiry.
    I think it is also important to note that twice in 1973;
    Information was recieved 'from the military' 1) Suggesting that it was an 'elaborate hoax' and 2) That J McC had left of 'her own free will and was known to be safe'.

    From the military??

    Given that the RUC say that it wasn't investigated seriously until 1995, isn't that a bit odd? There are a lot of questions there for anybody calling themselves a serious journalist, wouldn't you think?

    Jean McConville had already been abducted and released. Again - it's stated that they treated it as a missing persons case. And again - there was no normal policing possible with regard to Divis, so why wouldn't the military be the best/only source of information from republican strongholds at the time? After all - they were well embedded in the IRA and were actively monitoring those areas.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Jean McConville had already been abducted and released. Again - it's stated that they treated it as a missing persons case. And again - there was no normal policing possible with regard to Divis, so why wouldn't the military be the best/only source of information from republican strongholds at the time? After all - they were well embedded in the IRA and were actively monitoring those areas.

    One Officer said that to the inquiry. The Senior Officer refused to take part in the inquiry.
    Yet the Belfast Telegraph carried a quote from a police officer that they where investigating an 'abuction'
    McConvilles son says he twice reported her abduction (on the advice of a local politician) and was told that 'it was being looked into'.

    Yet no records at all can be found until 1995, and even then the files where 'limited'.

    My point in all this is, would a serious programme about the Disappeared, (one that was genuinely looking at the cases and families) not have questions to ask about all the above and why would it settle for Nuala O'Loan's personal opinion?
    Would it also not interview and find out what the current status of the investigations was and interview or quote the senior investigating person at the ICLVR?

    By all means interview/interrogate Gerry Adams but not to do the above was deeply deeply suspicious as to the agenda.


Advertisement