State collusion in IRA killings

Einhard · 03-12-2013 08:30PM

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

So the judge said in his opinion there probably was.

That's it?

That's how a tribunaL works. Similar to the ones that probed the corruption of Haughey and Ahern, and the one that investigated Bloody Sunday. Nothing beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think it's particularly shocking to find that some members the Garda colluded with the IRA, but as others have pointed out, it's ridiculous to paint this as state collusion.

DwightSchrute1 · 03-12-2013 08:31PM

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

So the judge said in his opinion there probably was.

That's it?

The judge said there is no direct evidence to back up the claims, his hands are pretty much tied if that's the case.

joe swanson · 03-12-2013 08:33PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

Will any of these Gardai be held accountable?

Shatter prejudged the recent Roma kids disgrace by saying that the Gardai acted "in good faith". Nonsense.

How do u know they didnt?

Me? · 03-12-2013 08:33PM

So we are all over the world news on the opinion of one man who came to a conclusion without direct evidence?

I am confused.

Einhard · 03-12-2013 08:35PM

Me? wrote: »

I am confused.

No you're not. Or, at any rate, if this was a finding of a British agent's collusion in UDA murders, you wouldn't be. Stop pretending.

DwightSchrute1 · 03-12-2013 08:37PM

Me? wrote: »

So we are all over the world news on the opinion of one man who came to a conclusion without direct evidence?

I am confused.

Maybe this might help with the confusion;

Judge Peter Smithwick’s report, which was published this evening, was unable to find direct evidence of collusion in the killings but said ‘on balance of probability’ that gardaí at Dundalk Garda Station were most likely involved.

Banjo String · 03-12-2013 08:38PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because it's a NI matter.

.

State collusion from within this state though?

My name is URL · 03-12-2013 08:38PM

To those saying that it's not 'state' collusion. How would ye define that exactly.. How many people would need to be involved for it to be considered state collusion, or at what level would the people involved need to be acting at?

Me? · 03-12-2013 08:39PM

Einhard wrote: »

No you're not. Or, at any rate, if this was a finding of a British agent's collusion in UDA murders, you wouldn't be. Stop pretending.

I'd be just as confused may be my ignorance of the procedure of a tribunal and the weight the findings hold. To me it's just formation of an opinion.

Like me believing Larry Murphy is probably a serial killer but I can't prove it.

Frank Lee Midere · 03-12-2013 08:40PM

Einhard wrote: »

That's how a tribunaL works. Similar to the ones that probed the corruption of Haughey and Ahern, and the one that investigated Bloody Sunday. Nothing beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think it's particularly shocking to find that some members the Garda colluded with the IRA, but as others have pointed out, it's ridiculous to paint this as state collusion.

He is nowhere near reasonable doubt.

Frank Lee Midere · 03-12-2013 08:42PM

My name is URL wrote: »

To those saying that it's not 'state' collusion. How would ye define that exactly.. How many people would need to be involved for it to be considered state collusion, or at what level would the people involved need to be acting at?

Well the British army had a unit which was set up to kill British citizens at barricades so that decision clearly went higher than one guy.

Frank Lee Midere · 03-12-2013 08:43PM

DwightSchrute1 wrote: »

Maybe this might help with the confusion;

Judge Peter Smithwick’s report, which was published this evening, was unable to find direct evidence of collusion in the killings but said ‘on balance of probability’ that gardaí at Dundalk Garda Station were most likely involved.

But then he found nothing. Seriously. His findings should have been "I found nothing".

Einhard · 03-12-2013 08:44PM

My name is URL wrote: »

To those saying that it's not 'state' collusion. How would ye define that exactly.. How many people would need to be involved for it to be considered state collusion, or at what level would the people involved need to be acting at?

Well, I don't believe that one person personifies an entire country, and so the actions of one person cannot be attributed to an entire nation. Otherwise, one would have the ridiculous scenario of the state being labeled criminal every time one of its employees was found guilty of a crime. One man acting illegally =/= the state acting illegally.

Einhard · 03-12-2013 08:46PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

He is nowhere near reasonable doubt.

He doesn't need to be. Jesus Christ, what is it with some people? When it comes to the IRA or Republican activities or anything to do with them, there is never any wrongdoing of any kind. If this was a finding of British collusion, I can pretty much guarantee that you wouldn't be here questioning the findings.

Nodin · 03-12-2013 08:47PM

My name is URL wrote: »

To those saying that it's not 'state' collusion. How would ye define that exactly.. How many people would need to be involved for it to be considered state collusion, or at what level would the people involved need to be acting at?

....if it was standard practice to share information with the RA for instance. If an order had come from Dublin. If the senior Gardaí in Dundalk had sat down and planned it, known to Gardaí outside Dundalk....

As it stands its not known whether a Garda overheard something and passed it on, or whether a Garda with access to the information passed it on.

Nodin · 03-12-2013 08:48PM

Einhard wrote: »

Well, I don't believe that one person personifies an entire country, and so the actions of one person cannot be attributed to an entire nation. Otherwise, one would have the ridiculous scenario of the state being labeled criminal every time one of its employees was found guilty of a crime. One man acting illegally =/= the state acting illegally.

Essentially, yes. The thread title is very misleading.

DwightSchrute1 · 03-12-2013 08:48PM

My name is URL wrote: »

To those saying that it's not 'state' collusion. How would ye define that exactly.. How many people would need to be involved for it to be considered state collusion, or at what level would the people involved need to be acting at?

i believe that it was a handful of Gardai who were republican sympathisers, that used there positions in order to benefit the IRA. Rogue Gardai so to speak Its not necessarily that the State colluded to have the two police officers killed.

Frank Lee Midere · 03-12-2013 08:50PM

Einhard wrote: »

He doesn't need to be. Jesus Christ, what is it with some people? When it comes to the IRA or Republican activities or anything to do with them, there is never any wrongdoing of any kind. If this was a finding of British collusion, I can pretty much guarantee that you wouldn't be here questioning the findings.

I have no interest in a United Ireland. Nevertheless this report is nonsense. Any moralist would be more concerned with British army renegade squads set up to kill people at barricades, than a report about one guy where there was no proof of anything - not even one guy - having links to anything. The judge should have said "no evidence". Balance of probabilities is withcraftism.

Me? · 03-12-2013 08:51PM

So anyone questioning the mechanics of a tribunal and the opinion of one man who comes to a conclusion where there is no evidence is an IRA sympathizer, Einhard?

tayto lover · 03-12-2013 08:58PM

DwightSchrute1 wrote: »

Maybe this might help with the confusion;

Judge Peter Smithwick’s report, which was published this evening, was unable to find direct evidence of collusion in the killings but said ‘on balance of probability’ that gardaí at Dundalk Garda Station were most likely involved.

I'm confused too.
Do you not need some kind of evidence that would stand up in a court?

Karl Stein · 03-12-2013 09:06PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I'm confused too.
Do you not need some kind of evidence that would stand up in a court?

To convict an individual yes but this is a report rather than a criminal conviction so no.

tayto lover · 03-12-2013 09:14PM

Carlos Roca wrote: »

To convict an individual yes but this is a report rather than a criminal conviction so no.

So he has no evidence and just suspects that there was collusion?
If so that's just mad. How can someone just state an opinion and people then start apologising for it as if it's true?
If there were some Garda involved they should be prosecuted but it seems then that there's no proof so why all the fuss?

Seaneh · 03-12-2013 09:19PM

The title of this thread is not just inaccurate, it's a flat out lie and the OP knows it.

DwightSchrute1 · 03-12-2013 09:24PM

tayto lover wrote: »

So he has no evidence and just suspects that there was collusion?
If so that's just mad. How can someone just state an opinion and people then start apologising for it as if it's true?
If there were some Garda involved they should be prosecuted but it seems then that there's no proof so why all the fuss?

The Judge is basing his findings on the balance of probability. All civil court proceedings use the balance of probability as a way of making a judgement. For somebody to be prosecuted in a criminal court, the evidence has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that said person had committed an offence.

tayto lover · 03-12-2013 09:33PM

DwightSchrute1 wrote: »

The Judge is basing his findings on the balance of probability. All civil court proceedings use the balance of probability as a way of making a judgement. For somebody to be prosecuted in a criminal court, the evidence has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that said person had committed an offence.

So there is no evidence and not going to be a court case either. Seems like a bottle of smoke.
What about the garda members who were named? Have they any right to sue for damages now as they were more or less accused and there was no evidence against them?

DwightSchrute1 · 03-12-2013 09:48PM

tayto lover wrote: »

So there is no evidence and not going to be a court case either. Seems like a bottle of smoke.
What about the garda members who were named? Have they any right to sue for damages now as they were more or less accused and there was no evidence against them?

Its a bit complicated. I think what the judge found was that there is no direct evidence provided to the tribunal that would hold up in a criminal court if the garda members named were brought before it. A criminal court requires a higher level of proof in order to convict a person than the civil court would.

tayto lover · 03-12-2013 09:58PM

DwightSchrute1 wrote: »

Its a bit complicated. I think what the judge found was that there is no direct evidence provided to the tribunal that would hold up in a criminal court if the garda members named were brought before it. A criminal court requires a higher level of proof in order to convict a person than the civil court would.

Could the named garda officers now sue for having their character taken away without proof?

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 03-12-2013 10:04PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Could the named garda officers now sue for having their character taken away without proof?

None of the three named have a good character to take away.

tayto lover · 03-12-2013 10:10PM

Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: »

None of the three named have a good character to take away.

Maybe so. I only heard of one of them and I live in the Dundalk area. Still they were accused of being involved in a murder and named in newspapers and now there seems to be no proof.

nlgbbbblth · 03-12-2013 10:10PM

So what's all this about Down Orange Welfare and Harry Breen?

Can it be substantiated?

State collusion in IRA killings

Comments