Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Donaldson shot dead
Just getting early word that Denis Donaldson has been shot dead… Hain has called it ‘this barbaric act…” Pete has more above.
Mick Fealty @ 03:26 PM
Picking D.D. murderer is like trying to pick a winner in the National. Everybody had a reason to murder this man but what I think is important is how the man lived and where he lived. Might show how safe he felt he was. Living as a hermit in Donegal would not be in my opinion the safest of lifestyles for a former informant as proved by the fact that it didnt take the Sunday World long to find him. I believe this was a political killing and not revenge purely on the timing of his death. I dont think the P.I.R.A. would have sanctioned any murder of this man so close to talks unless they were making a political statement of threir own. In my opinion think dissidents or loyalists.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2006 @ 12:20 PMWarm Storage: “Apologies, Dread Cthulhu. I didn’t intend to come across as being pedantic. It was simply meant as a clarification for future reference. The phrase was being used an awful lot on the thread, so I just thought I’d flag it up! “
No, not at all—as one of the smei-resident pedants, I cheerfully acknowledge and accept your clarification. Likewise, seeing as it was partially my fault in promulgating the phrase here and elsewhere, its wholly appropriate. Thanks for the heads up… I’m prolly still a little rusty.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2006 @ 12:34 PM9
Posted by on Apr 05, 2006 @ 02:07 PMA British agent inside Republican movement, carrying out a political killing for Brits, not sanctioned by RM?
Posted by on Apr 05, 2006 @ 03:02 PM‘Who stands to gain most from this man’s death?
That would point to the murderer, wouldn’t it?’
RmcC
It would not necessarily point to the murderer. It would point to the main suspect though.
And that’s the point if you are a clever murderer. A clever murderer (who does not stand to gain most from the person’s death), knowing that in the event of a person being murdered that there will be a main suspect (the person who does stand to gain most), can go ahead and commit the murder. Knowing that as soon as the murder happens all eyes will fall on the main suspect.
Thus in a situation where a wife stands to gain most from her husband dying (through an insurance policy), she will obviously be suspect number 1 if the husband dies suspiciously. Thus a clever murderer will go ahead and kill the husband knowing that he/she will not be suspect number 1.
In Donaldson’s case, British spooks have arguably most to gain from Donaldson dying. But all that this means is that the PIRA could go ahead and kill him knowing that many will assume that the main suspect did it.
We have to remember that the PIRA or individual Provos had a motive too - revenge. So while they may not be the main suspects they are suspects.
As for Poirot, I think you have him wrong. He works on the basis of finding a list of suspects based on potential motives and assessing each of these. He doesn’t go straight for the suspect who has most to gain from the death of the person, simply because a clever murderer with a seemingly lesser motive would use this against him if they knew that the investigators were going to go straight to the person with most to gain.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2006 @ 03:08 PMrmc: My question was not qui bono but who stands MOST to benefit.
Why do you think that narrows things down, beyond the perfectly sensible question ‘who stands to benefit?’.
Are you also advocating that the police should arrest the poorest person in the locality after every robbery? (for the same reason)
Posted by on Apr 05, 2006 @ 05:49 PMReader
“Why do you think that narrows things down, beyond the perfectly sensible question ‘who stands to benefit?’.
Why do you think?“Are you also advocating that the police should arrest the poorest person in the locality after every robbery? (for the same reason)”
No, are you?
Some contributors here are telling us that various parties are playing a very clever game. Really? If those involved in NI “business” are so clever how come the place is in such a mess?
Posted by on Apr 05, 2006 @ 06:10 PMSome contributors here are telling us that various parties are playing a very clever game. Really? If those involved in NI “business” are so clever how come the place is in such a mess?
And that is about as sensible a post as I’ve read in the last twenty four hours.
One mistake we often make is in trying to come up with reasons that have been well thought out, with all the implications of given action accounted for.
I tend to belive more in the cock up theory of history.Things have this awful habit of happening and mostly people just react to them, rather than planning them out beforehand.
Of all the possible theories being mooted, the one that strikes me as the most plausible is the one that is given the least attention.
This poor wretched man may have been killed by an individual with a grudge, possibly even a close relation.Posted by on Apr 05, 2006 @ 07:45 PMAm I minded of Caesar, when they all came up to him in and stuck a knife in?
They all had reason, they all had form and he had thoroughly pissed them all off.
I dont think he was living in the wilds cos he felt safe, by the way. I would imagine his state of mind was one of absolute disregard for his safety. He may even, in some despairing way, have been expecting this.
Sorry if this sounds depressing, but I suspect that this was a genuine personal tragedy for this man. I imagine the fact of his informer status for all those years just wore him down in the end and he could care less. It was probably a kind of reckless disregard for his personal safety in the end.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2006 @ 09:30 PMI would like to ask the question - was it OK for the Sunday World to expose DDs location and do they not bear some responsibility for this killing. It seems that the last profession beyond reproach in Ireland is the media. Luckily we now question the medical, religious, legal, and teaching professions. Maybe it’s time for us to wake up and start to question the media, but then again who would expose it - hardly the media.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2006 @ 09:32 PMSunday World writer Hugh Jordon claimed the exclusive on the whereabouts of Donaldson’s safe house.
Does Jordan not have connections and dealings with another paramilitary grouping from Donaldson’s former home area.
I don’t recall any stories from Hugh on the fully armed and active wing of the workers party/oira.
Does extortion, money lending and drugs not interest Hugh and the sunday world (northern edition)????
Posted by on Apr 05, 2006 @ 09:46 PMY’all could check this out apropos the SW connection
Posted by on Apr 05, 2006 @ 09:47 PMoops
http://www.whokilleddennis.blogspot.com/
Posted by on Apr 05, 2006 @ 09:53 PMInstead of everyone saying, “I believe that PIRA did it; I believe that MI5 did it; I believe that Loyalists did it…”, why not just be honest and say, “I want to believe that…x,y,z did it”.
I really would save just a little bit of time, though only a little, since each posting reveals only desire not belief.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2006 @ 11:50 PM
