McGeough: “Sinn Féin promised to use its influence…”

Sinn Féin’s Michelle Gildernew, MP, MLA, was quick to offer her support following Gerry McGeough’s conviction on attempted murder charges from 1981, and according to the transcribed Belfast Telegraph report on Newshound it wasn’t the first offer the party made.

Gerry McGeough has claimed that Sinn Féin held secret talks with Gerry McGeough in which it pledged to use its influence to prevent his imprisonment if he stopped criticising the party.

Speaking minutes before his conviction for attempted murder, McGeough said Sinn Féin MP Pat Doherty made the offer last autumn during a visit to his home:

“Sinn Féin promised to use its influence to stop me being jailed if I stopped publicly attacking the party. But I believe I will be convicted and imprisoned as Sinn Féin are bit players with no influence.”

Perhaps the Northern Ireland Justice Minister should investigate further?

, , , , , , , ,

  • Mr Crumlin

    I guess there are three ways to look at this.

    Either SF offers to help a former IRA man, now opposed to SF (and to get something in return) and fails to influence or:

    Former IRA man, now opposed to SF, makes unfounded allegations to embarrass SF.

    Former IRA man, now opposed to SF, accepts offer of help from SF to try to keep himself out of jail.

    Maybe there are other ways to look at this.

    Has SF responded? Who will you believe Mr Baker? SF or Gerry McGeough? Decisions, decisions.

  • perseus

    4) Sunday was missing a “lets embarass SF post ..lol

    Its half-baked as this would only be of interest had McGeogh been acquitted.

    Nice try — no cigar !

  • The Word

    “Maybe there are other ways to look at this.”

    Hard to know how Gerry was doing Sinn Fein any damage with his little magazine and all. He had no real access to the press in any real sense, and seemed to accept that his war was over. Maybe it wasn’t?

    But I know many Catholics who would have been outraged about the things he said about the Church in his little magazine. Maybe he was damaging the Church.

    It’s a strange party, Sinn Fein.

  • “But I know many Catholics who would have been outraged about the things he said about the Church in his little magazine.”

    Eh? That’s a strange comment. I know many Catholics were heartened by what they were reading in his paper and were sad to see it fold.

    BTW donations can be made to assist the McGeough family at this time via:

    http://freegerry.com/donate.html

  • USA

    Have to agree with Perseus. This might be a story if SF had used it’s influence and McGough was aquitted, but he wasn’t. Maybe I’m missing something but the real story seems to be in the fact that the case ever made it to trial. McGough makes good points about – why him – and not others? I can only assume it was a HET investigation which somehow enabled the case to proceed, but surely that would open a potential can of worms.

  • If true, McGeough YET AGAIN comes across as a bit of an inocent or a regular as Bloom describes The Croppy Boy in Ulysses.

    Note: When dealing with Sinn Fein, always secretly record. When in email or phone contact, always set little traps to catch them as it is the little things that catch the crooks.

    Sinn Fein would have been worried about him networking in Tyrone. That is why they bashed Tyrone dissidents within an inch of their lives. It had nothoing to do with his whacky religious or his rejection of socialism, something the Sinn Fein national Socialists could never be accused of.

    So: Did Sinn Fein get him to sign his life away to the Swedes? Ghis indicates they did.

  • Cynic2

    Leave aside the usual dogma and infighting on here.

    If that allegation is true then it means that one political party here is now saying it can now exert political pressure on the Judge in a trial

    If that is true …..and I say if …..would that not be an attempt to pervert the course of Justice?

  • Nunoftheabove

    Cynic2

    To say the very least of it, yes. Let’s just not get drawn into the load of tiresome old conspiratorial fanny being trotted out by some on this thread though.

  • Mark McGregor

    Cynic,

    The result for the other party in the trial, the SF loyalist, was a lot better.

    Funny that.

  • Nunoftheabove

    Mark

    Not really, given the quantity and quality of the evidence. If there is a story here it concerns what happened before the trial kicked off and why the prosecution was pursued to begin with. Based on the evidence before the ‘court’ it’s difficult to see how McGeough could possibly have been acquitted. Any prosecution of McAnespie would have been harsh given the reliance on hearsay and the passage of time but of course all of this is hypothetical to the extent that neither man enjoyed the right to trial by a jury of their peers.

  • ORWELLSPEN

    As I said in another thread, while I condemn McGeough’s erstwhile actions in the 1980’s, it is illogical to imprison him when so many have done much worse to many others who are now free and not only free but running the country.

    I am a unionist as everyone who knows my contributions here but I think his imprisonment is short sighted, politically motivated and spiteful. Let him go and not only that, his poor family who are totalyl innocent, are being horribly punished too.

    Let Gerry out immediately.

  • The Word

    “I know many Catholics were heartened by what they were reading in his paper and were sad to see it fold.”

    I suppose it was quaint in a amusing sort of way to hear how Ireland was really liberated by “Catholic elements” but how they had to name them “republican” so that nobody would know.

    I’m sure the Virgin Mary would have been much impressed by his concern for her Church. If I was in Armagh, I’m sure I would be much alarmed. “A word in your ear, Gerry…”.

    But funny, and there’s nothing funny about it really, I think Gerry is taking a hit here he didn’t have to take for the sake of keeping in the family.

  • “This might be a story if SF had used it’s influence and McGough was aquitted, but he wasn’t.”

    1) It would be no more proper for SF to have some sort of influence over a court hearing than it was/is for British Ministers

    2) However, had the Prosecution against McGeough collapsed then David Ford, in his capacity as Judge Roy Bean, could simply determine guilt where the Court’s and due process could not.

    3) Currently in NI a favourable Court verdict is not worth the paper it is written on given David Ford’s abuse of his executive power in order to usurp the role of the judiciary.

  • Comrade Stalin

    3) Currently in NI a favourable Court verdict is not worth the paper it is written on given David Ford’s abuse of his executive power in order to usurp the role of the judiciary.

    Stop being silly.

  • Comrade Stalin “Stop being silly.”

    I wish the following fact was silly;

    3) Currently in NI a favourable Court verdict is not worth the paper it is written on given David Ford’s abuse of his executive power in order to usurp the role of the judiciary.

    And on 7th March 2011 that very issue will be what the NI Courts will be considering.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Where did the justice minister declare you to be guilty of anything ?

  • Comrade Stalin

    The links supporting this allegation on your website appear to be broken. That’s probably Ford’s fault as well.

  • Sorry to see this thread drift awa’

  • Zig70

    The pps should be independent from political parties and even the police, which I hear it is. Fairly good system then? I’d say Pat Doherty was trying it on, really he’d nothing to loose. If he doesn’t shut up, he goes to jail, If he does, he’s quiet until he goes to jail. Anyone hear who the next Director of the pps might be?

  • Comrade Stalin “Where did the justice minister declare you to be guilty of anything ?”

    Ford’s position is that the Appeal Court did not declare me innocent (unheard of verdict from an Appeal Court). If Ford says that I am not innocent then that leaves only one alternative.

    On more serious note, there is ample evidence, compelling evidence at that, that the Crown Prosecutor pursued a malicious prosecution against me –Ford is trying to revive that malicious prosecution –and he will not succeed because the evidence is overwhelming.

    It is already established that, in law, that I suffered an ‘unlawful conviction’ at Trial. In terms of a case against me, Ford is flogging a dead horse and he should be held accountable for doing so.

  • Cynic2

    Christie

    I think Christie you mean that Ford refused you lots of money in compensation. That’s a different issue

  • Cynic2

    Is that the best argument that you can put up in defense of Ford? –I lost a home, health and significant part of my life –if that is what you are being derogatory about. My Mother died a slow death from cancer and I was not permitted to be there when it mattered because of scumbags like David Ford. While I might still have a bit of fight in me thankfully I am not bitter and resentful like you apparently are but then Cynic2 is what you wish to be known as –says a lot about you.

  • Cynic2 “That’s a different issue” You are right that is a different issue and you raised it not I. The Court hearing on 7th March relates to the other issues which I have been referring to on this thread.

  • ORWELLSPEN

    Society is judged by how it treats its prisoners. I actually believe the concept of locking a man in a small room no bigger than a toilet is one of the final dark echoes of the middle ages. There are more creative, humane and dare I say it, useful ways to punish as well as rehabilitate.

    Depriving prisoners of their families and in Christy’s case, of being there for their loved ones on their death beds is nothing short of evil and vindictive.

    Perhaps if people like Gerry were shown compassion from the State, he might soften his attitude. Actually, did I not read from his trial that Gerry McG did say he supported the peace process in principle and that the war was over but he thought nationalists could have done a better deal?

    Hardly the words of a rabid psychopath. Release the man now

  • Cynic2

    “I am not bitter and resentful like you”

    …..oh yeah?

  • Cynic2 …Oh Yeah!

  • USA

    Christy,
    I agree it is not within the remit of any political party to try and influence judicial proceedings. Equally however I feel it is unacceptable that McGeough not be tried by a jury of his peers. The system not only removed the jury from the proceedings but also his right to silence. That does not sit well with me.

    Why him and not others?

  • USA

    Orwellspen,
    Yes, from his public statements he does seem to feel his “war is over”. He had gone on to become a teacher and is no longer promoting armed struggle.

  • slappymcgroundout

    Christy:

    Do you have a scanner and a whole lot of spare time? Or if you’re lucky, your scanner has a sheet feeder?

    In other words, what would be nice, for someone like me, is to be able to read all of the trial testimony. You summarize what some relevent souls say, but I would like to read them say it (as it were), every single last word. I have read Mr. Bradley’s testimony.

    And two items:

    (1) there should be your fingerprints on the adhesive tape and such should be recoverable (more probable than not). See the fine product here just for that purpose:

    http://www.crimesciences.com/StoreBox/printsonstickytape.htm

    (2) in addition to your fingerprints, we might expect your DNA to be on the tape as well. See:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10855979

    For how important adhesive tape is in the collection of evidence:

    The Use of Adhesive Tape for Recovery of DNA from Crime Scene…

    Or the longer version:

    A good example of a property crime that may call for forensic investigation is burglary. The victim of a burglary, though physically unharmed, feels violated and unsafe. What people do not always realize is that burglars also leave their DNA behind, just in a less obvious way. Technically, when someone touches an object he leaves traces of his own DNA behind. Everyone sheds DNA through the sweat of his hands; however, the amount that is left is so small as to be undetected, normally. Moreover, virtually any body surface will shed trace amounts of DNA. This fact provides endless possibilities for collecting evidence at scenes of property crime. For instance, if a burglar pressed his ear against a door before entering, his DNA may be left on the door. If he accidentally pressed his lips against a window while opening it, his DNA may be on the window. Finally, any articles of clothing he may have had on, especially the gloves he wore to cover up his fingerprints, may yield DNA evidence (if the investigator is lucky enough to confiscate them).
    ***
    The methods for collecting DNA evidence are just as important as the methods of its analysis. Our laboratory, together with the Department of Forensic Science at University of New Haven, has recently developed a new DNA collection method that employs adhesive tape for collecting DNA samples. The use of adhesive tape to remove skin cells produces a dry sample that would be well protected from air, moisture, and other potential contaminants. The resulting sample can be conveniently stored until needed, during which time a small portion may be cut from the tape for processing. Our studies found that forensic DNA analysis was successfully performed on the skin cells collected using this adhesive tape method.
    ***
    As indicated above, we have learned that the adhesive tape removes and preserves skin cells for successful DNA analysis. This collection method should reduce the risks of DNA degradation due to bacterial action, which are encountered when using conventional collection methods. Additionally, the proposed method should increase the yield of DNA isolation from samples which contain limited DNA. The improved yield of DNA isolation will raise the success rate in generating DNA profiles for forensic DNA analysis. This would have a significant impact on forensic DNA identification, thus benefiting the criminal justice system as a whole. This method could provide new investigative leads for various criminal cases like cold cases and property crimes such as theft and robbery.

    And that helps you out tremendously, assuming that the adhesive tape still exists. Hopefully it is still tagged and bagged. And the reason why it helps is simple. Courts don’t like to admit their mistakes and less so when you might have done something initially to prevent their mistake. So here your argument is that the DNA testing of the tape surrounding the jar constitutes news evidence that was not available at the time. Now there’s a downside here, since you’ll need to think real hard about contamination, i.e., did some of your DNA get on the jar from something else, i.e., did you ever touch the tape, or were other items contaminated with your DNA allowed to contact the adhesive tape. I point this out because you get screwed if the tape comes back positive for your DNA. I would suggest that you suggest that the item be sent to your expert for fingerprint testing. Your expert then reports that he took it upon himself to conduct a DNA test as well (i.e., you don’t want to give the authorities any reason to contaminate the adhesive tape with your DNA)(which, again, they might have from other items). Forgive me if I sound paranoid, but as Kissinger once said, even paranoids have enemies, and enemies don’t always behave in moral ways, especially when they’re trying to cover their own rear ends.

    Lastly, if it makes it easier, while I would like to read all of the trial testimony, you could start with the expert witnesses, i.e., the forensic folks. By the way, maybe just an error in the court’s initial judgment of conviction, but I have hard time seeing that you would take out not only your hands but the device as well, when the soldier asked you to remove your hands from your pockets. See item or paragraph (4) of the judgment. As absurd as the cops saying, take your hands out of your pockets and instead of just your hands, you also take out your dime bag of weed as well. No one ever does that. Maybe item 4 is a mischaracteriaztion of the evidence, I don’t know, since I haven’t read the original testimony. But if it isn’t, that alone raises a fed flag.

    Almost forgot, but since some have been critical of you here, well, to borrow from both tribes, your response should be: Never surrender, TAL. And I say because I too represent some that are factually innocent, and not so much in the criminal context, as I rarely do that anymore, but in the context of a parent or parent falsely accused of abusing and/or neglecting their child(ren).

    And to end by going back to the court, some simply aren’t all that bright (politics and not aptitude often determines who makes judge). Once had a case that dragged on for just over two years. Mom was accused of physical abuse of her three children, with middle child getting it worst of all. However, middle child tells the school counselor, or more correctly, the school counselor’s one note reports: [middle child’s given name omitted by me] reports that the only good thing that she could say about her mother was that her mother doesn’t beat her when she is bad. Leading to the obvious question, that I harped on for over two years: Your Honor, given the school counselor’s note, is the Deputy Attorney General asking the court to believe that mother only physically abused the middle child when she behaved? It was only when the state moved for permanet plan, i.e., termination of mother’s parental rights and subsequent adoption that I was affored the opportunity to tear the head-shrinker and the head of the more regular med team a new you know what, and the worm finally turned. But that’s how dumb some are. Someone in responsible authority might have in the interim decided to investigate while the middle child was now claiming what she had previously denied (with the denial coming before there was a CPS case, and in the context of the school simply trying to discern why the child was doing so poorly in school). Was the client’s sister, all along, who was beating not only the kids, but my client, mom, as well. For one more, that case had my best witness ever. Evil sister’s/aunt’s own child, had left Hawaii and more or less went into hiding on the continental US to get away from her mom. Managed to finally locate and communicate with her. She flew over for the permenent plan trial and testified for just under four hours. After the usual and initial, please state your name for the record, etc., I asked her two questions and she testified for the remaining three and a half hours that afternoon. Question 1: Can you please tell the court what your life was like growing up with your mother, to include your observation of your mother’s interaction with your aunt (mom) and her children. She went on for two hours. Then we took a break for the bathroom. Then she went for another hour and half following my post-break question of: Could you continue where you left off at the break? Again, best witness I ever had. Living witness to good trial prep. Everyone, even the Deputy Attorney General (and me) was in tears. My reward at the end was, well, had a party at the park when the children were returned to mom. Apparently, mom told them of my role and just who I was. So the youngest, age six, asked me if I would like to have a ride on the swing. And so she sat on my lap and we had a ride. The money and prestige means nothing to me. Rides on a swing, however…. So hang in there, Never surrender, TAL.

  • slappymcgroundout

    Christy:

    By the way, you got hosed by Carswell. He is either the epitome of evil or just plain stupid. I’m referring to the one appellate opinion that references his discussion of Dr. Lloyd’s testimony. As Dr. Lloyd appears to have testified, as summarized by Carswell, the adhesive tape should have collected some of the alleged residue on your hands as well as fibers from your pocket. Carswell dismissed the import of that rather entirely. He isn’t that stupid, so I’m going with epitome of evil. And, again, the residue and fibers is in addition to your fingerprints and your DNA.

    Inspector Glass is otherwise stupid or lying. Note item 8 of the 2010 appellate opinion, and his statement that the tape makes for no or bad fingerprint evidence. So not surprising that the court termed his testimony unreliable. That was a generous description. Hammer that point home whenever you have the chance, i.e., the duty of both the police and the prosecutor is not to arrest and convict, respectively, but to do justice. And the man got on the stand and said, one in a million. He isn’t that stupid, so it was an outright lie. You need remind the appellate court that they too were wrong, as it was a deliberate attempt to mislead them. They need to stop pretending that law enforcement never lies.

    The DNA is your best bet. They can’t make the same argument re its destruction as they can with the fingerprints, though more on a response to that claim below. In contrast to the prints, the DNA can be trace as it can be replicated via PCR, etc. And so they can’t make the excuse that bagging, etc., has eliminated any chance of finding the DNA. And not only because some should still be on the tape, but also because if the adhesive on the tape transferred to the bag on rubbing, then the DNA went with the adhesive on the transfer, and so should on or in the bag (and in and not on the bag on the premise that if the adhesive is no longer adhesive, then the adhesive and your DNA would be at the bottom of the bag following the adhesive’s loss of contact with the bag, as it were). So they would test both the jar and the bag. And if the test isn’t positive for your DNA… But remember, again, the risk here is contamination, since only God knows how careful these humans were with respect to evidence collection. And, again, if the DNA test comes back positive, then you are screwed. So think real hard about that. If you wish to go the DNA test route, try to get the jar in the bag produced in court for a hearing. Say you need it for illustrative purposes. Then when you’re there for the hearing, you ask for the DNA testing. Object to the bag and jar leaving the court, as you don’t want to risk any untoward conduct, and so an officer of the court can transfer the bag to your designated expert for testing when he or she or his or her rep shows up to the court to collect the same. Should have put that it my last, but I’m going over this for the first time, and as I do, the thoughts in my head just keep rolling in.

    Now back to the prints. Even the court of appeal misses the point. Are there anyone’s prints on the tape, or a fraction of someone’s print on the tape? When you make these arguments, think of the larger picture. The morons are thinking one print, which got mangled or erased by the adhesive’s contact with the bag. But why one print? Did only one fingertip touch the tape only the one time? Or did all your fingertips touch the tape, and more than one time and at more than one location on the tape? You need to hammer that point home. If this jar came back with no fragment of any print anywhere on the tape, then no human ever touched the jar with their naked hand. And you win if that is the result, since you didn’t have gloves on at the time, and you didn’t pull the jar out with one finger touching only the one place the one single time (since you would need more than one finger to retrieve the jar, just as you’d need more than one finger to put the jar in your pocket in the first instance, and then there’s any touching of the tape before that). The error of thought here is that some are thinking why is there is no evidence to convict you. That is the wrong question. The right question is, why, given the probable handling of the device, isn’t there even so much as a partial print anywhere on the tape? That’s the elephant in the room. There isn’t even a partial print on the tape. You might have one of those experts testify as to likelihood that multiple prints would be removed in their entirety from the adhesive’s contact with the bag. And you could follow that up with, has anyone bothered to test the bag to see how much adhesive is on the bag or at the bottom of the bag (since that would tell us how much rubbing there was).

    Almost forgot, but re the twit who testified re the fibers of your pocket being tough and resistant to being pulled onto the adhesive tape, sorry, twit, but everyone has lint in their pockets, if only a small, small amount. Test the goddamned bad and the tape for that lint (some should be in your pocket, and on the tape and/or in the bag if the jar was ever in your pocket).

  • What a hypocritical statement to be putting out there now, after Gerry has been incarcerated. Personally there are many people in Fermanagh/Tyrone who think your statement is too little, too late Ms. Gildernew. Your constituents want to know what made you speak out yesterdy? Is it the fact that you have to look Gerry’s wife and 4 children in the eye every day knowing your party helped to incarcerate him;, or was this just a “pre-electioneering” ploy on behalf of your party to secure votes from the Fermanagh/Tyrone people?

  • STATEMENT RELEASED BY THE JUSTICE FOR GERRY MCGEOUGH CAMPAIGN FEBRUARY 20TH
    AN APPEAL TO PEOPLE TO JOIN THE CAMPAIGN TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING SINN FEIN

    It was blatantly noticeable that there was no Sinn Fein elected representatives in the diplock court on Friday, 18th February to support Gerry McGeough. However, ordinary people filled the public gallery to capacity in support of Gerry and his family. At the same time, Arlene Foster, Roger Burton and Maurice Morrow, from the DUP, cheered and smiled as a father of four was jailed. After attending their crown court in support of Sammy Brush, they walked out of court and past a mother and four crying children left on the side of the street. It was Gerry’s family, his wife and children. Now after four years, and Gerry out of the way, Sinn Fein decides to pay lip service to helping him? However, it is very apparent to those following this politically motivated trial and incarceration for four years, that this is only an attempt to salvage votes come election time.

    The Justice For Gerry McGeough Committee are now launching a campaign, north and south, asking people to abstain from voting Sinn Fein in all areas, most importantly Fermanagh and south Tyrone, until Gerry McGeough is PERMANENTLY released from jail and back with his family where he belongs. “LONG LIVE THE IRISH NATION”.

    For further updates on this campaign go to “Justice for Gerry McGeough on facebook and “freegerry.com” web site.

  • McGeough: “Sinn Féin promised to use its influence…”

    Maybe they did Gerry.

  • vanhelsing

    Is this a blog or a freegerry support group? Call it for what it is – the man is a cold blooded murder and he deserves to go down. Sympathy – I think not.

    If republicans don’t votail for SF this Unionist won’t be shedding tears.

  • alanmaskey,

    Why would anyone think they didn’t?

    There is more to Gerry McGeough’s arrest than meets the eye and people should be very seriously concerned about what’s around the corner.

  • oracle

    ****** YAWN YAWN YAWN *****

    Yet another thread hi-jacked by Christy Walsh for his own self intrests.
    Always the bloody same YES THAT WAS TERRIBLE BUT WAIT TO I TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED ME followed by rants innuendo and court dates.

    Gerry McGeough gets sent to jail, a thread discusses the rights and wrongs of it and Christy Walsh wants to kill the thread and any discussion on McGough by highlighting and publicising his own gripe with the system

    **** VERY SELFISH Mr Walsh VERY SELFISH INDEED ****

  • Oracle
    –Once more you re-assert your belief in the infamous Diplock System and that people like me should wither up and just disappear. It actually pleases me to see your indignation –it is not the same just thinking oneself to be a thorne in the side of the enemies of justice and democracy.

  • Many observers have hailed the considerable reduction in the number of non-jury trials (not to be called Diplock Trials anymore??). Politicians, human rights activists, the NIHRC they all assert that the level of Justice in NI is now better than it was during the Conflict. The right to afair trial in NI is not secure as it might be in other parts of Europe, and probably even within Great Britain (albeit they have now resorted to same).

    While some jurisdictions do not have jury trials that is not the same as in certain cases, such with me, MrMcGeogh, Brian Arthurs and whoever else being denied the right to a jury. The Prosecution can draw an unchallangable adverse inference that a suspect poses some kind of risk to a jury and thus the jury need be removed. In one swoop the Prosecution has greatly bolster what was probably a very weak case. In addition the damage done to a defendants case may be unrecoverable.

    The reduction of Diplock style trials is not an improvement on the past but makes the liklihood of injustice all the more certain; because the fewer such cases significantly increases the stigma attached to defendants that they are in some (unsubstantiated way) a rsik to a jury.

    Diplock introduced his system of injustice even though there was not a single reported instance of any jury ever having been threatened.

    I have recovered evidence of serious criminal conduct within the Crown Prosecution Service –it is not safe that the CPS are the only deciders on whether or not any suspect poses a threat to a jury. Note: The suspect and his lawyers have no right to challenge or even be informed of what threat they have posed to any jury.

    If Sinn Fein had any influence then they should have used that influence to abolish Diplock Courts NOT rename them non-jury trials.

  • vanhesling,

    It’s a blog whose comments by supporters for Gerry McGeough should be allowed to have their say as well. It’s called “freedom of speech” whether you like the content or not.

    Regardless of your opinion of McGeough, the Brits and DUP went out of their way to politically arrest, drag out a 4 year trial, and incarcerate a republican based on 38 year old prior troubles related charges with no regard for the “amnesty” within the GFA. What purpose will be served by this sham of a case? Do the Brits and the DUP think this will now silence others who ‘think outside the box?’ I don’t think so. It has only opened a can of worms that won’t be so easy to close and could have far reaching consequences, going forward for anyone who took part in the “troubles,” prior to the GFA. They are now legitimate targets again for the RUC and British government. So the reality of the GFA was really just a farce to keep republicans in line?

    You called McGeough a “murderer?” Sammy Brush is still alive and well. He also appears to still support such bigots, like Maurice Morrow of the DUP for one, who seems to never miss the opportunity to continually spew anti-Catholic sentiments whenever he feels like it.

    Serious minded people find it a bit odd that McGeough is the first republican to be tried and incarcerated for post GFA political offenses under the GFA, especially when there are other republicans and loyalists, whose part in the troubles were far more serious than McGeough, running around free in the north without a care in the world?

    What about the soldiers who murdered the civil rights marchers in Derry on Bloody Sunday, vanhesling? What would you call them – heroes? Their identity has been revealed and their own government has condemned their actions “as murder”; and yet they are not facing arrest, trial or incarceration? The same goes for the security forces who worked in collusion with the loyalist paramilitaries when they murdered innocent people in the Dublin-Monaghan bombings. Why isn’t the British government, DUP, PSF, and every other political party, north and south, calling for their immediate incarceration?

    As for you” not shedding at tear over Sinn Fein losing votes”…does it really matter anyway? They can’t deliver a re-united Ireland. They throw their comrades under the bus if they don’t tow party line, and they uphold British law in a territory that belongs to the Irish. I really despised Ian Paisley, Sr., but I’ll give him one thing…you always knew where he stood on the Irish question and he didn’t speak out both sides of his mouth. What you saw was what you got. That is not PSF today.

  • Christy,
    You are 100% correct on your take of ‘diplock courts’ in the north of Ireland, especially post GFA. McGeough never demonstrated any ‘threat’ to a jury and, in fact, he was living openly and peacefully for many years in the north prior to his arrest (which was AFTER he ran on an anti-psni platform in the 2007 elections). I’ve thoroughly read about your case and you certainly didn’t pose any threat as well?

    In Gerry’s case, the ‘powers that be’ couldn’t afford to have a jury decide the outcome of his politically motivated trial. Those involved in this collusion wouldn’t have been guaranteed a ‘guilty’ verdict. If everyone’s memory serves them correctly, in July 2009 the British government extended the use of the non-jury Diplock Court system for another two years. A notorious legacy of the Troubles, the Diplock Courts were supposed to have been finally phased out by 2009 as part of the GFA.

    Remember this when voting in the upcoming May elections.

  • Christy,

    ‘Once more you re-assert your belief in the infamous Diplock System and that people like me should wither up and just disappear. It actually pleases me to see your indignation –it is not the same just thinking oneself to be a thorne in the side of the enemies of justice and democracy’

    Good for your Christy. Stand tall and stand firm. You are 100% correct. The USA has the ‘mafia’ and we still didn’t resort to jury-less courts. Their is absolutely no legitimate argument for such a case as diplock courts.

  • between the bridges

    oh my head hurts lots of long words…so if i get this right sein finn have influence over the ‘diplock no jury to intimated courts’? and they didn’t use it this time because this chap doesn’t toe the party line? hmmmm people in government discriminating against a section of the community isn’t that where we got on this mary go round? its a bit like the goth’s sacking rome and then becoming more roman than the roman.

  • USA

    Christy,
    Again you are making valuable contributions to this discussion, don’t be distracted by others.

    If the Diplock Court system was to be phased out in 2009 as part of the GFA agreement, then all pollitical parties have a lot to answer for. Trial by jury is an essential human right, any other system is open to abuse by despots and corrupt or politically motivated governments.

    I don’t want to loose track of the charges and the fact that another person was shot in a laneway. But the point now seems to be that these events took place decades ago, McGeough was only arrested when he took a political stance against the current political arrangements, no-one else from that time period has been arrested (due to some kind of amnesty), he was not active in or advocating violence all these years later, he was not given a jury trial and no right to silence.

    That cannot be a safe conviction. The whole Diplock Court system should be in the dock during his appeal (or was the right to appeal withdrawn also?). SF could have a problem on their hands. This could develop into a lightning rod for the anti-SF folk as there seems to be so much wrong with the conviction.

    Gerry McGeough would not be someone I support. I would not even vote for him, but this does seem very troubling and I confess to some sympathy for his position.

  • between the bridges

    ah the old ‘it happen decades ago’ have to agree with you on that pity more don’t could have saved 300million

  • It was from Corporal Blacklock’s first account that defined the whole fabric of the offence. His account would have determined the priority given to certain lines of investigation to be pursued, particularly the forensic examination of the device.
    1) Fingerprint evidence was not considered a priority at the time of my arrest and despite the prosecution case at Trial of the particular circumstances of my arrest.
    2) An examination for fiber evidence was conducted on the same day as my arrest.
    3) It was not until 17th June that a fingerprint examination was conducted .
    4) New evidence now exists that suggests that no examination for fingerprints ever took place which questions the reliability of the Soldiers accounts at Trial .
    5) Fiber evidence can be associated with a class or group of sources, whereas, fingerprint evidence is associated with a unique source. Therefore, on balance fingerprint evidence is of higher authority than fiber evidence and so should have taken precedence over the search for fibers. But that would have depended upon Corporal Blacklock having initially given police the same account he gave at trial, i.e. that I handled the jar and placed it upon the wall at his instruction.

    The Soldier testified that he asked me ‘what the device was and where it had come from as it sat on the wall.’ Only after a RUC officer phoned the forensic labs and asked that my pockets be measured to see if the jar would fit in any pocket was it thereafter first claimed that the jar was in my pocket. And yes you are right the story was that I removed both hand and jar from my pocket in one action.

    It has always been made clear that my prints were not on the jar –the Expert Testified that he would not rule out the possibility that someone elses prints might still be on the jar. –Not surprisingly ALL exhibits went unaccountably missing thereafter. Your points on DNA are excelllant but will never be put to the test as result of items all now missing.

    It will take time but I will scan all the transcripts and upload them. In the interim I have uploaded Dr Lloyds Testimony to the Court along witha Report by Professor Brian Caddy. The CCRC had confirmed exhibits where still available -and only after they engaged Caddy to examine them did the exhibits all go mysteriously astray?? I have also added an email address to the page as it might be easier if you can contact me directly; http://www.christywalsh.com/html/forensics.html

  • slappymcgroundout Sorry, the above post was intended as a response to your detailed and impressive posts above. Cheers!

  • oracle

    Christy

    So you still hijacking another mans thread to highlight yourself for a few quid…… shame…. but then again it’d what i’d expect from you

  • Oracle

    Have you actually contributed anything to the debate for which you (contrive) great concern?

    In comparison my posts have more relivance and bearing on the legal system of non-jury courts (Diplock System) which has convicted Mr McGeough -our cases might be very different for a number of reasons –but the bottom line is a Diplock Court is incapable of determining guilt or innocence –its function is to convict whoever the Prosecution want convicted.

    I remind you that the Diplock courts were intended only as a replacement to Internment without trial –not to secure a conviction beyond the criminal standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’

    Now you have made your one and only point –repeatedly –So what?? How about you try develope fresh argument?

  • Reader

    mcclafferty: troubles related charges with no regard for the “amnesty” within the GFA.
    There is no amnesty within the GFA. But here’s a link anyway:
    http://www.nio.gov.uk/agreement.pdf
    if you can find an amnesty in it, all you need is a lawyer. Maybe this lot can help to fund one, once they have updated the web page:
    http://freegerry.com/donate.html
    You will have to be quick though. Counting time on remand he’s probably going to be released quite soon anyway.

  • Brian

    Oracle

    I seemed to have missed your great insight on the topic of this thread…Go away and shut your mouth

  • Nunoftheabove

    Brian

    Have you anything valid to contribute ?

  • Mark

    How dare you Oracle … you’re reprehensible .

    What kind of little wendy would try to taunt someone from cyberspace about a subject as serious as the man’s reputation and peace of mind ?

    It’s a very cowardly way of doing things .

  • Reader “Counting time on remand he’s probably going to be released quite soon anyway.” You are very right with that observation –it will be calculated on a 2 year maximum tarrif.

    This then raises the question and motives behind the whole prosecution and to some extent is not so far removed from public outcry over recent failed/wrongful prosecutions of two individual women over a baby’s soother and a t-shirt.

    Further still, we can then consider the PPS refusal to prosecute the two savage murderers of Thomas Devlin and the attempted murder of his friend. The convictions only came about as result of the fortitude of the victim’s parents.

    There are serious problems within the NI PPS.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Oracle, I don’t agree with you. Christy Walsh has suffered a reprehensible injustice at the hands of the state. If you’re not frightened by what happened to him and have not contemplated how easily it could happen to you or anyone else, then you haven’t thought about it hard enough. I think Christy does have a case here that criminal negligence took place within the NIO.

    What annoys me is the whole thing being wrapped up in Republican propaganda, like “diplock courts” (the likelihood that a jury would have convicted him is just as high if not higher) and this anti David Ford line he is pushing at the moment. Compensation has been denied by some mid-level civil servant somewhere, almost certainly in line with existing NIO (now DoJ) guidelines/interpretation, and the chances are that Ford has heard little of the detail on the case. My hope would be that Ford would intervene and overturn the decision facts of the case, but he may feel that he would be out of depth by overruling a civil servant and any established guidelines in this way with less than a year in the job.

    I think if I were at the shitty end of a case like this I’d probably try a little harder not to antagonize the people in the government by dropping Provo soundbites all the time. It’s wrong that it should have to be this way – compensation should be awarded on merit – but it’s the way things are everywhere.

  • Comrade Stalin David Ford is responisible for his mid-level staff. –though correspondances I have received are direct from his office and personal secretary.

    Do not fall into the trap espoused by Oracle –yes I should be compensated –but that is not what the 7th March hearing is about –the Court has defined it as a “criminal cause” (not civil action for compensation).

    The hearing will consider David Ford’s role in reviving what is already established as an ‘unlawful conviction’ (not ‘wrongful conviction’). Evidence of the most serious criminal conduct having been commited from within the Crown Prosecution Service in order to pervert the course of justice with intention to put the wrong man in jail is what is involved in this hearing.

    If my ‘unlawful conviction’ arose from a malicious prosecution and David Ford is perpetuating the ficticious case against me then he should be made answerable for doing so.

    “What annoys me is the whole thing being wrapped up in Republican propaganda, like “diplock courts” (the likelihood that a jury would have convicted him is just as high if not higher) and this anti David Ford line he is pushing at the moment.” Right now the buck stops with the Justice Minister. I was stitched up in a Diplock Court and if you have hang ups about that then that is a different matter –nothing to do with Republican Propoganda.

    “the likelihood that a jury would have convicted him is just as high if not higher)” Do you know anything about Juries??
    No jury would have convicted me –that I am certain of and almost every legal observer who has given me their opinion have said likelwise. I was not convicted on any element of fact (the domain of a jury), all forensics overwhelmingly supported innocence. The Trial Judge was critical of the solders evidence and thus he stepped outside of the law in order to convict me -thus the unlawful conviction

    David Ford is at fault and no the sun does not shine out of his arse…

  • Comrade Stalin

    Christy, this is like me saying that the Conor Murphy is a bastard because I was wrongly issued with a parking ticket. Technically he is accountable. In practice it’s inaccurate and sensationalist of me to claim as such.

    I am not absolving him Ford from responsibility. His staff are acting on his behalf (although arguably Ford is acting on the Queen’s behalf. Why aren’t you blaming her?). However, making accusations against him personally – which is what you were doing – are daft. If you get a personal letter from Ford telling you to feck off then I’ll agree with you. Until then, I’m with being realistic about how governments and public bodies work.

    I was not convicted on any element of fact (the domain of a jury), all forensics overwhelmingly supported innocence.

    So what are you saying, juries have never wrongfully convicted anyone ? Interesting idea. Pity it’s untrue.

  • Comrade Stalin “So what are you saying, juries have never wrongfully convicted anyone ?”

    Like I say you do not know how juries work —the nature of how a jury works means that their verdict is never wrong. There is no case in the history of the British legal system wher a jury got it wrong. None what so ever!

    Convictions have been found to be unsafe where a jury has sat –but not because of the jury in all such cases the fault has been because the Judge misdirected the jury or some other procedural irregularity –but never the fault of a jury! That is absolute.

    Of course I will forgive your ignorance about jury trials given the warped idea that passed for a legal system here (namely Diplock Courts).

    You should also check up on the role of the judiciary v the role of the executive.

    It is not for the Justice Minister to usurp the role of the courts to confirm my guilt or innocence. Criminal guilt is to be determined against anyone through the fair trial process and not by Executive means. While the ‘law’ means whatever those in political power want it to mean in places like Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Burma, China, or many similar states, NI is a democratic society.

    It is not right or proper for a government minister, or a civil servant, to determine guilt to the criminal standard of proof outside of due process and where the Courts could no longer do so. Such a practice would create a mockery of justice if failed prosecutions could simply be revived and guilt affirmed executively based on nothing more than the fugue and bizarre reading of Court Judgments; the quality of evidence a Court of Law would rightfully reject becomes the foundation on which guilt may be concluded executively.

  • USA

    Comrade,
    Christy Walsh may be (and I say maybe) wrong about David Ford, but broadly Walsh is convincing.

    Also, not sure I can agree with your “republican sound bite” comment. People can be critical of Diplock Courts etc without being republican. Indeed I cannot see how any democrat would want to maintain such a perverse “legal” system.

    Now can we get back to McGeough?

  • Brian

    WHere will he serve his time??

    Any chance of a hunger strike

  • Comrade Stalin

    Christy:

    Like I say you do not know how juries work –the nature of how a jury works means that their verdict is never wrong.

    Yes, clearly I don’t understand how juries work, so spell it out to me. Please explain to me how 12 unionists confronted with someone from a republican area, and testimony from a soldier and a police officer saying that he had a coffee jar bomb, would have found that person not guilty ?

    Convictions have been found to be unsafe where a jury has sat –but not because of the jury in all such cases the fault has been because the Judge misdirected the jury or some other procedural irregularity

    Yeah, and of course if you had a jury trial there never would have been any procedural irregularities. Everything would have been conducted with scrupulous fairness. Justice Carswell, honourable man that he is, would have made no attempt to undermine the course that the jury would follow. Right ?

    –but never the fault of a jury! That is absolute.

    You’re seriously splitting hairs here. The point remains. If the whole trial is fixed and full of false testimony and dodgy evidence – as yours was – what does introducing a jury do to change things ? What exactly stops the jury convicting you because they don’t like you ?

    Of course I will forgive your ignorance about jury trials given the warped idea that passed for a legal system here (namely Diplock Courts).

    But it’s not warped. Non-jury courts are used all over the democratic world. Unless you’re a yank who thinks that “democratic world” means America.

    It is not for the Justice Minister to usurp the role of the courts to confirm my guilt or innocence.

    It’s just as well that he hasn’t done so, isn’t it ? You’ve been denied a compensation claim over a technicality in the law.

    Criminal guilt is to be determined against anyone through the fair trial process and not by Executive means.

    We agree. You suffered a wrongful conviction and should be compensated. Wrongful convictions are not a concept proprietary to diplock courts.
    USA:

    Also, not sure I can agree with your “republican sound bite” comment. People can be critical of Diplock Courts etc without being republican. Indeed I cannot see how any democrat would want to maintain such a perverse “legal” system.

    That’s because you’re an American and you haven’t learned to think outside of the box of the US Constitution. As I have pointed out, most court systems in the democratic world don’t have automatic jury trials. They were abolished in Germany nearly a century ago for example. Jury trials are crap in the modern age of highly complex legal nuance. They may arguably lead to unfair trials.

    I mean, imagine what happens the day someone finally catches Osama Bin Laden. Most sane people would agree that he should be subject to due process and a fair trial. How the hell would you start selecting a jury ?

  • Comrade Stalin

    “Yes, clearly I don’t understand how juries work, so spell it out to me. Please explain to me how 12 unionists confronted with someone from a republican area…”

    You are still wrong about juries -Diplock did away with the jury system at atime when it co-incided with the introduction of a new Juries Act 1974 which made it more inclusive of society allowing for ‘fenians’ to sit on jury trials. Thus you claim of 12 unionist is outrageous flawed.

    I would also like to emphasis to you that ‘British’ people (Lords, MP’s and individuals –which include Unionists) have been more appalled with the perversion of justice and abuse of the ‘British’ common law than Republicans have ever been.

    Yeah, and of course if you had a jury trial there never would have been any procedural irregularities. Now you are just being facetious. That a procedural irregularity MIGHT have occured is not justification for not allowing me a jury of my peers by putting me through the diplock System ensuring things would go wrong.

    But it’s not warped. Non-jury courts are used all over the democratic world.

    Yet again you disclose your appalling ignorance. That Jury Trials are not always available in every area of law or in every jurisdiction is of no comparison to what the Diplock System is. In all other Jury or Non-Jury Jurisdictions ALL defendants are afforded the same form of Trial. In NI some people can be fingered by the Prosecution Service as being particularly vile and dangerous that a jury must be removed to protect them –immediately a serious adverse inference is drawn before the Defendant even gets near the Court –and my case is evidence that the allegations were falsely concocted.

    Jury trials are crap in the modern age of highly complex legal nuance. They may arguably lead to unfair trials.

    You obvious bias against jury trial is also warped. Last I checked with ALL international covenants on the rights of Defendants at Trial the trial must be conducted in a language the defendant can understand (that includes technical jargon). If a jury cannot understand “highly complex legal nuance” then it can be assumed neither can the defendant.

    People in todays world are much more readily able to grasp complex legal nuance than they ever were in the past so your argument is complete bunkum.

    The disadvantage of jury trials is that they can be cumbersome and costly –that does not mean that they are wrong and should be done away with. However, should the jury be dispensed with in serious criminal cases –then it should be with all such cases and not just with specially hand picked cases (were it only serves to bolster a weak prosecution case).

    USA wrote:Also, not sure I can agree with your “republican sound bite” comment. People can be critical of Diplock Courts etc without being republican. Indeed I cannot see how any democrat would want to maintain such a perverse “legal” system.

    For too long NI people have carried the burden of the enemies of Justice and democracy. And have done so as through tactics which Comrade Stalin adopts above by attempting to silence me by accusing me of being a Provo Propogandist otherwise after 21 years I would be more tolerant and forgiving of his hero David Ford.

    CS excuses Ford as follows “the chances are that Ford has heard little of the detail on the case.” If you get to your local bank and all alarms are sounding, you see a man wearing a ski-mask struggling to get out the door with two heavy holdalls. You do not volunteer to help carry one of his bags to the waiting car by the kerb. The evidence of serious criminal conduct within the PPS is that glaringly obvious –and Ford cannot be excused if he is that daft!!!!

  • USA,
    What is your take on the whole McGeough arrest, trial and guilty verdict on 38 year old prior GFA related charges? What do you see as the purpose of all this? Tell me it doesn’t reek of selective, political, persecution? Why do you think Sinn Fein remained silent on this case? Vincent McAnespie walked free, and I am very happy for him and his family, but you didn’t have to be a rocket scientist to know he would and Gerry wouldn’t?

  • oracle

    Comrade Stalin,

    you wrote “Oracle, I don’t agree with you. Christy Walsh has suffered a reprehensible injustice at the hands of the state. If you’re not frightened by what happened to him and have not contemplated how easily it could happen to you or anyone else”

    I am 100% convinced that states do what they like to survive that they abuse power on a daily basis in the pretence of protecting the public they abuse….
    That has always been my position and until utopia arrives it always will.

    Can you find anywhere on Slugger were I have ever said anything different?

    My gripe with Christy Walsh is quite simple.. that he hijacks threads on a daily basis to propagate his own cause, his own personel issue, no matter what the thread is about if he see’s an angle to get his legal case involved he does he….. the thread will totally go off topic away from the subject of discussion to christy walsh’s personel legal case.

    It’s the same cut and paste job every single time! it’s the same court dates the same judge remarks the same quotes from an expert witness the same story about him stealing documents the same accusations about changed stories and briefed witnesses.

    He never adds anything new it’s just the same thing regurgitated time and time again on every single thread.

    His first post on this thread (20th 7.54pm) he never got to his 2nd point before he was bringing David Ford into it and it just slides from there.
    He waits for a response from another poster this time it was you CS and the next half dozen posts by Christy walsh don’t even mention Gerry McGeough the topic of the thread it’s just all christy.

    I then attacked his behaviour (21st 12.36) and he makes three more posts 2 of them long and detailed Gerry McGeoughs name is mentioned once in one of them and not in any context just thrown in to sit along side his own.

    I then had another go at him about continuing to hijack threads (21st 6.21pm) Christy then goes on to make 7 more posts some of them very very long…. he mentions McGeoughs name once in relation to diplock courts which brings Christys case back into it and we just get reams and reams about his case.

    It’s always the same always about Christy once he gets the thread angled enough.
    He never discussed McGeoughs case he mentioned his name but did not discuss the case… go look for yourself CS

  • Oracle Thank you once more for pumping my case (and as usual, as on other threads, you do not even discuss the thread topic.)

    As I have said before what I have stated is more on line with Mr McGeoughs case than ANYTHING you have had to post.

    Both USA and mcclafferty have invited and attempted to generate discussion about Mr McGeough then why do you not engage?

    My posts have done more to keep this thread about Mr McGeoughs case visible of Sluggers home page –take my contribution out and those who responded to me and this blogg would be otherwise not generate sufficient contributions to keep it topical.

    PS Sorry I do not change the facts of my case as the NI Legal System has consistently done!! 😉 Maybe you should go read any PPS forums to see what new variance they spin on my case?? That would be funny if it were not true!

  • Oracle,
    I see what you mean. I agree with Chrity with regard to the diplock court system and I am very sorry for what has happend to him and he deserves justice. I reached out to Christy over a year ago and offered my help, but because of personal reasons he expressed privately to me, he chose not to accept the help. I wish him the best.

    However, I see now that he has totally dominated this thread and it is not fair to McGeough. It has been very difficult in trying to get any sort of coverage or serious input on McGeough’s case over these past 4 years, so I think it ony fair now to get back to the topic at hand…McGeough – good or bad.

    Thank you.

  • mcclafferty
    -I appreciate that you reached out and I politely declined your support. You break private confidence of those exchanges to agree with someone who has not the slightest interest in Gerry McGeough?? I acted with complete propriety even if you feel some sense of injure that I did not accept your support and if you wish I will gladly reproduce here the reasons why I declined.

    Now you may not like it, I never made this rule, but having a good moan and rant about the woes of Mr McGeough predicament does not gain him much sympathy. In fact your general assertions amount to no more than taking political swipes about “selective, political, persecution.” Those observations may be true but they do not advance his case one iota –the believers will believe and everyone will just politely ignore them as I have previously pointed out to your new found friend Oracle (pro Diplock fan that he is).

    Your whole slant in support of Mr McGeough is nothing more than sour grapes that McG was convicted and his former comrades in arms were not?? Your argument goes that because Mr McGeough and his former comrades have parted ways they should now be ‘fingered’? Well if that is your argument on behalf of Mr McGeough then please explain why you think the Swedish authorities cannot do likewise many years after by disclosing an asylum application?

    There are much more pertinent and arguble legal issues involved with Mr McGeough’s case but those have never been of concern to you, least you do not voice them, despite the probablity that they would present him with a much more effective case that means anything in real terms beyond mere speculation and name calling.

    Let me refresh you, and oracle’s memory in my first post ( 20 February 2011 at 7:54 pm) on this thread which related to SF influence and what may have politically occured had McGeough been cleared.

    I then afterwards responded to arguments which were directly put to me and attempted feverently to show the nature of political trials which you have agreed but feel some sense of resentment toward me for having declined your support. In truth I can only speak with authority on my own case to show the absurdity of how convictions can easily be secured in politically weighted trials.

    If you observed the course of this blogg you will have seen that what I have had to say has been both agreed with and rubbished as Republican Propaganda by one individual who has attempted to engage in debate. This person’s arguments flounder as they cannot be sustained but only after I had to nail them down –you have always been free to intervene at anytime.

    As much as you (and anyone else) can gripe about the course of this blogg going astray I have sustained it with more effective and articulated fashion than you or your new found friend.

    Better still continue on a whine about political unfairness rather than putting any legal or reasoned argument as to why Mr McGeough should not have been convicted –there is one big reason that might work in court (thats where it counts) and your political side swiping and innuendo get this man’s case nowhere.

  • Christy,
    Oracle is wrong about the diplock courts and I said so. I am not going to go into this with you as I have supported you all the way. I did not disclose anything except that I wanted to help you because I believed in your case. As for McGeough, I will say what I please and apologize to no one for it. I am entitled to say that I agree this thread was supposed to about Gerry and I didn’t mean to offend you in anyway. However, you found it necessary to scold me and put McGeough and the campaign down. So be it. I wish you only the best, but your anger is misdirected and I won’t be anyone’s door mat. Good luck and god bless.

  • mcclafferty

    Your disclosure had no relevance so why make it. I declined your kind offer, where does my using/treating you as a door mat come about?

    I do not put Mr McGeoughs case down I put the way it is being presented down –big difference.

    Whatever your views of SF or McG’s former comrades( even if that includes Adams and McGuiness) they often went through the same as you allege has occured to McG and they had no control over that.

    My original post questioned how SF might have influence? and if SF can influence the outcome of a trial –how can that be proper no matter who the defendant might be? I have detailed about legal proceedings scheduled for 7th March on the impropriety of Executive influence and usurption of the judicaries role by David Ford.

    My whole argument attacks political control/influence over legal proceedings –GMcG facts might be far removed from my own specific set of facts –but we both share the same thing in common, ie, political intererence with due process in order to build a case against both of us.

    What is highly relevant is that I will face David Ford (or his rep) in Court on 7th March to insist that the Judiciary assert their jurisdiction over the Executive and political influence –an issue relevant for any alleged political prisoner.

    You concluded above, “I think it ony fair now to get back to the topic at hand…McGeough – good or bad.”

    So I gave you what I think of how you argue McG’s case. It does not impress me and smacks of the same bias and innuendo which you find objectionable in how McG has been dealt with?

    I think a matter of more concern in McG’s case is Swedish Authorities recently disclosing his Asylum application and a matter which may undo his conviction. Whether McG is innocent or guilty a political asylum application should never be disclosed to the alleged offending state. The British themselves have never done such a thing as it puts at risk a great many people if that becomes established practice. It is a disturbing door to have opened and Mr McG’s lawyers should be working to have that evidence struck out. A case of note would be Rv Mullan [2004] where the House of Lords reversed the conviction of an IRA man because of how he was returned to the UK.

  • slappymcgroundout

    “Non-jury courts are used all over the democratic world. Unless you’re a yank who thinks that “democratic world” means America.”

    The reply to that is:

    “English common law and the United States Constitution recognize the right to a jury trial to be a fundamental civil liberty or civil right that allows the accused to choose whether to be judged by judges or a jury.”

    Next, if you are a moron looking to create armed dissent and revolution, and you appear to be just that:

    Besides taxation without representation, the patriots of Boston declared “the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty” to be their “greatest grievance.” Indeed, one of the chief objections to the infamous Stamp Act was that it expanded the reach of vice-admiralty courts, thereby enabling the British government to circumvent trial by jury of American colonists more conveniently. In an ironically conservative tone, the revolutionaries of Boston compared their struggle with the controversy that led to the Magna Carta:

    Unlike the ancient Barons, who answered with one Voice “We will not that the Laws of England be changed, which of old have been used and approved,” the Barons of modern Times seem to have answered, that they are willing those Laws should be changed, with Regards to America, in the most tender Point and fundamental Principle!

    In a similar vein, the people of Newburyport, Massachusetts, complained: “we are obliged to submit to a Jurisdiction naturally foreign to” the British constitution, “where the Laws of Justinian are the measure of Right, and the Common Law, the collected Wisdom of the British Nation for Ages, is not admitted.” To deprive American colonists of their due process as British citizens was to deny their equality before the law.
    ***
    In the summer of 1775, the Second Continental Congress drafted the “Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms” to explain their grievances to the people of the British Empire. They accused the legislature of Great Britain of passing laws “peculiarly reprobated by the very constitution of that kingdom.” These included statutes “extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and vice-admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable privilege of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property.” Further, it had “also been resolved in parliament, that colonists charged with committing certain offences, shall be transported to England to be tried.”

    In 1776, the Declaration of Independence repeated the grievances against King George III: “subjecting us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution”; having “deprived us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury”; and “transporting us beyond the seas to be tried for pretended offences.” After independence had been won, this recent history was fresh in the minds of America’s Founders as they drafted the Constitution for the young nation.

    That’s why we have the right to a jury trial enshrined in our Constitution and why there’s that part about the trial being in the district wherein the crime was committed (so that we are not transported for trial for pretended offenses, and without witnesses for our defense since they were not transported with us)(we added the part about compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in our favor to make doubly sure that some got the point).

    Next, our long-standing objection to joining any of your feeble and pathetic Euro-based international courts (you can give away both your rights and your history if you want but don’t ask us to join you in a suicide pact):

    In the 19th century, the United States was presented with the prospect of joining a British-led International Slave Trade Tribunal to enforce abolition of the slave trade. The U.S. decision to refrain from participating in this international legal entity and, more important, the political and constitutional reasons given offer guidance to the United States today.

    Writing in 1821, John Quincy Adams could have been objecting to the scope of today’s International Criminal Court when he warned against allowing U.S. citizens:

    [To be] carried away by the…officers of a foreign power, subjected to the decision of a tribunal in a foreign land, without benefit of the intervention of a jury of accusation, or of a jury of trial, by a court of judges and umpires, half of whom would be foreigners, and all irresponsible to the supreme authorities of the United States.
    ***
    Adams’s objection was based neither on mere legal technicalities nor on vague abstractions. It was a practical political principle informed by recent experiences prior to the American Revolution. He wrote that “among the securities in the political institutions of the [United States] deemed the most important and precious to individual liberty are the rules established to shield from oppression the rights of persons accused of crimes.”

    You all were surprised by that, since by that time we had prohibited the importation of slaves, so you expected us to join you in your international tribunal. The stanch abolitionist Adams made clear why the idea was a no go from the get go.

    Lastly, we here are who are because you there were who you were. And so, newsflash, since you haven’t gotten the news yet:

    It isn’t American arrogance but our experience of your oppression of those you accused of crime that informs us.

    In other words, though I haven’t yet explained all of the other means of oppression, your oppression of us gave rise to the 4th, 5th and 6th items in our Bill of Rights:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    That isn’t our theory of good practice. It’s our response to your oppression of us. And if you wonder why some here can sympathize with some there over your failure to well and truly prosecute some of your own:

    For protecting them [armed troops], by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states

    And so Gerry M goes to jail why those who perpetrated Bloody Sunday do not. Toss in the no jury trial, the confrontation violation, etc. Same as it ever was.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Christy,

    You are still wrong about juries -Diplock did away with the jury system at atime when it co-incided with the introduction of a new Juries Act 1974 which made it more inclusive of society allowing for ‘fenians’ to sit on jury trials. Thus you claim of 12 unionist is outrageous flawed.

    If there were a jury trial in your case, as I have been trying to point out, it would be drawn from a random sample of the population, not just “fenians”. A random sample of the population in Northern Ireland at that time would have been majority unionist, minority anti-IRA nationalist, and an even smaller minority sympathetic to your case.

    It is quite possible that a randomly selected jury could be entirely unionist. It is more possible that someone, somewhere would slip a finger on the scale and interfere with the jury selection process. A sample matter, for someone so inclined, of looking at the names of the people on the list and scratching off the “wrong” ones by invoking some kind of procedural irregularity. So what would you do then ? You’d still have a miscarriage and you’d still be going through all these appeals.

    Why do you think all this is impossible ?

    I would also like to emphasis to you that ‘British’ people (Lords, MP’s and individuals –which include Unionists) have been more appalled with the perversion of justice and abuse of the ‘British’ common law than Republicans have ever been.

    Sure. And I think they’re wrong, and I will believe that until someone comes up with some facts to demonstrate this.

    Yeah, and of course if you had a jury trial there never would have been any procedural irregularities. Now you are just being facetious.

    Of course I am, because your whole argument is inconsistent. You seem to be saying that if only there were a jury there, it would have been less likely for the gross fuckup that was inflicted upon you to have taken place. I beg to differ. Mistrials and tampering occur all the time. If they really wanted to put you away – for whatever reason – they’d have figured out a way to do it even with a jury there.

    That a procedural irregularity MIGHT have occured is not justification for not allowing me a jury of my peers by putting me through the diplock System ensuring things would go wrong.

    My point is that having a jury would have provided no additional guarantees of a fair trial, and that point still stands. I am arguing that there are cases where you’ll get a fairer trial from a judge plus advisors. That did not happen in your case, but I think your case was an exception, noting that your case is in the small minority of overturned diplock cases, which is commensurate from the lower average rate of diplock convictions.

    Yet again you disclose your appalling ignorance. That Jury Trials are not always available in every area of law or in every jurisdiction is of no comparison to what the Diplock System is. In all other Jury or Non-Jury Jurisdictions ALL defendants are afforded the same form of Trial.

    Interesting, but completely irrelevant.

    In NI some people can be fingered by the Prosecution Service as being particularly vile and dangerous that a jury must be removed to protect them –immediately a serious adverse inference is drawn before the Defendant even gets near the Court –and my case is evidence that the allegations were falsely concocted.

    Those allegations are serious and they undoubtedly occurred many times within the NI justice system. But once again they aren’t unique to the Diplock system.

    And I would point out that all kinds of people – senior and dangerous people – were caught and subsequently released by diplock courts. Such as Gerry Adams who at the time was either the IRA leader, according to various sources, or part of that leadership. Martin McGuinness must have surely been arrested at least once, and then released because the prosecutor didn’t believe any case would be successful. Membership of a proscribed organization was illegal at this time so why wasn’t it possible for the courts to get them ? If Diplock reduces convictions to a simple prosecutors whim then why was it necessary to produce the Supergrasses ? This whole argument just doesn’t stack up.

    You obvious bias against jury trial is also warped.

    Damn right it is, I think the idea that a jury trial is the most just kind of trial possible is absurd. Plainly so.

    Last I checked with ALL international covenants on the rights of Defendants at Trial the trial must be conducted in a language the defendant can understand (that includes technical jargon). If a jury cannot understand “highly complex legal nuance” then it can be assumed neither can the defendant.

    On the contrary. If the defendant is – say – a doctor accused of serious malpractice (and as such murder or manslaughter) on some procedural detail, the prosecution and the defendant will understand the accusations. The jury, not being trained in medicine, will probably not. There are all kinds of other areas .. property law, law relating to IT, copyright .. etc etc. You can have expert testimony supporting both sides of an argument.

    People in todays world are much more readily able to grasp complex legal nuance than they ever were in the past so your argument is complete bunkum.

    That argument isn’t very compelling. How do you know what randomly selected people can grasp or cannot grasp ?

    The disadvantage of jury trials is that they can be cumbersome and costly –that does not mean that they are wrong and should be done away with.

    That’s not an argument I’m making. I would have no problem with you having a jury trial, I think it should be available (or not) to anyone who requests it. I don’t think a jury would have helped in your case. In fact I would argue, in a country where the majority of the population was hostile to the IRA, that jury trials here would have led to higher conviction rates and a greater proportion of mistrials.

    For too long NI people have carried the burden of the enemies of Justice and democracy. And have done so as through tactics which Comrade Stalin adopts above by attempting to silence me by accusing me of being a Provo Propogandist otherwise after 21 years I would be more tolerant and forgiving of his hero David Ford.

    The non-jury trial stuff is provo propaganda designed to pander to an (Irish-)American audience, with views such as those just expressed by Slappy back there.

    CS excuses Ford as follows “the chances are that Ford has heard little of the detail on the case.” If you get to your local bank and all alarms are sounding, you see a man wearing a ski-mask struggling to get out the door with two heavy holdalls. You do not volunteer to help carry one of his bags to the waiting car by the kerb. The evidence of serious criminal conduct within the PPS is that glaringly obvious –and Ford cannot be excused if he is that daft!!!!

    I am not “excusing” Ford. I’m pointing out that he’s probably not aware of the details being 8 months into the job. Jesus. You’re hard work.

  • Comrade Stalin

    By the way, I rather more suspect that the USA doesn’t submit to the jurisdiction of the international criminal court is less to do with arguments about jury trials and more to do with arguments about whether the USA has the right to use military force to invade and suppress small countries.

  • Comrade Stalin
    1) I follow what you say about Unionists but all in all that would not have damaged me given that ALL factual evidence was on my side. Juries deal with facts and the Judge the law -the Judge was not legally entitled to convict as he did, ie, he broke the law to convict –reason why my conviction was ‘unlawful’

    2) I have no absolute belief in jury trial –you miss the whole point of what a Diplock Trial is; it is no way the same as an Non-jury jurisdiction, say, like Germany as you once refered. If you think that is irrelevant then you fail to grasp fundamental argument.

    3) Yes some defendants can grasp complex medical issues where others cannot –many defendants may graps all sort of complex issues much more readily than a judge can –here is a snippet of how the Birmingham 6 Trial went;

    Members of the jury, the resolution of scientific argument of this sort is difficult, particularly for a jury of lay people, and I say once again that I am not going to try and go into the technicalities in detail because I would be in grave danger of misleading you. The only way that you can resolve these differences is by your impression of the witnesses.

    In other words the trial judge encouraged the jury to worry less about the details of the expert evidence than to decide, on the basis of the witnesses demeanour and experience, whom to believe.

    One other apparent matter of concern seems to have escaped scrutiny, that is the judge repeatedly informed the jury that, “I would be in grave danger of misleading you”. The trial judge is clearly unsure of his own understanding of the evidence such that he would not articulate it to the jury and this demonstrates the danger should judges, sitting alone, replace the jury as the fact-finder.

    Oh –the judge has benefit of taking notes over the course of say a 5 day trial so it is easy to assume they all have brains and jurist don’t. To maintain this disparity between judge and Jurers , juries are only permitted to transcribe their notes on the tablets of their brain.

    To have a Jury or no jury is much debated by legal academics all over the world and your obvious paranioa and fixation on the Provies is worrisome, I quote you, “The non-jury trial stuff is provo propaganda designed to pander to an (Irish-)American audience,..” So if people anywhere in the world discuss the dangers of non jury trial, then they are all influenced by the Provisional IRA –get a grip ya walt!

    How many years do you reckon it should take Ford to learn the ropes? He has been dealing with my case (brought to his attention by the NIO and others) since last year? Is that the speed we can expect for Alliance Ministers –they are no match for DUP, SF or SDLP. Fact is I know and you do not, as I have various correspondances from him and the NIO –he is pretty up to speed –a wee thing like serious criminal conduct within the PPS is not to be left gathering dust.

  • Comrade Stalin you ask this of jury trials “would you care to explain why exactly they are fair ? Let’s debate the relevance they have today.
    One obvious reason is it is more difficult to get 12 totally biased jurists than it is to get just one biased judge. A second is that Judges generally live seperate lives from the man on the street –he may not understand why neighbours borrow bags of sugar from each other but the common man can –that is why we refer to a jury or our peers. A third is Judges quickly become case hardened.

    I volunteered the disadvantages of jury trial which center around being cumbersome and costly.

  • Christy,
    You were a perfect gentlemen in our previous communications and I was in no way ‘offended’ by your decision not to accept my help. I feel for your predicament the way I feel about McGeough’s situation, and the way I feel about anyone being shafted by diplock courts, the British government, and any political party who do not stand up to injustice in general.

    As for your criticism of the way “I handled the campaign,” I call a spade a spade and I’m not a novice to PSF’s political record past and present. The silence from the Sinn Fein leadership on the injustice that he and the McAnespie family were being put through year after year was nothing short of scandalous.

    I do not object to constructive criticism. In fact I welcome it as food for thought. However, regardless of what approach the McGeough campaign took, it fell on deaf ears. ‘Damned if we did – damned if we didn’t’. I personally feel that although some people disagreed with McGeough’s politically motivated arrest, diplock trial, and incarceration on charges dating back over 30 years, they still allowed their personal feelings toward McGeough to get in the way of them speaking out against this sham of a case/trial. Regardless of McGeough’s political or religious beliefs, democracy was under attack the day he was arrested at the count center in Omagh in 2007 because he stood as an Independent candidate on an anti-psni platform. Prior to that, he lived openly in the north with his wife, and then 2 children, without any problems.

    As I explained in my earlier post, I did not mean to offend you and I wish you, above all, justice so you can eventually have the vindication you deserve and peace of mind going forward in life.

  • Question,

    To those so faimilar with the British Diplock court system in the north of Ireland, please exaplain to me why the judge in the McGeough case imposed a media ban on reporting and Human Rights lawyers were physically excluded from proceedings?

  • slappymcgroundout

    “Slappy, instead of vomiting up a load of old wank about why jury trials came into existence, would you care to explain why exactly they are fair ? Let’s debate the relevance they have today.”

    And you wonder your Alliance Party has never amounted to much. Here, Blackstone on trial by jury:

    http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-323.htm

    And again, see page 280/*349-350 here:

    http://tinyurl.com/4lnhnxc

    The relevant point:

    So that the liberties of England cannot but subsist so long as this palladium remains sacred and inviolate; not only from all open attacks (which none [but Comrade Stalin] will be so hardy as to make), but also from all secret machinations, which may sap and undermine it; by introducing new and arbitary methods of trial, by justices of the peace, commissioners of the revenue, and courts of conscience. And however convenient these may appear at first (as doubtless all arbitrary powers, well executed, are most convenient), yet let it again be remembered, that delays and little inconveniences in the forms of justice, are the price that all free nations must pay for their liberty in more substantial matters; that these inroads upon this sacred bulwark of the nation are fundamentally opposite the spirit of our constitution; and that, though begun in trifles, the precedent may gradually increase and spread, to the utter disuse of juries in questions of the most momentous concern.”

    So, Blackstone is now rolling over in his grave, and not simply because of the Diplock court, but more importantly, your selling the spirit of your constitution for a trifle when you signed on to all those Euro conventions, etc., that do no preserve trial by jury. So much for the palladium of English liberty. Sold for a trifle. I didn’t say it, Blackstone did.

    Next, though Jefferson was not the Tory that Blackstone was, he agreed on the matter of jury trial:

    I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

    That’s part 1. Part 2 to follow. Since my first post went into moderation as it had three links and Diety knows that Mick & Co have never moderated so that three links makes the board in a single post (Mick & Co will spend some time in purgatory for that sin).

  • slappymcgroundout

    Part 2:

    Next, from de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, the one chapter on jury trial:

    http://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/resources/english/etext-project/history/democracy1/chapter32.html

    Note the jury trial as political institution, and now note as judicial institution:

    Of trial by jury, considered as a judicial institution, I shall here say but very few words. When the English adopted trial by jury they were a semi-barbarous people; they are become, in course of time, one of the most enlightened nations of the earth; and their attachment to this institution seems to have increased with their increasing cultivation. They soon spread beyond their insular boundaries to every corner of the habitable globe; some have formed colonies, others independent states; the mother-country has maintained its monarchical constitution; many of its offspring have founded powerful republics; but wherever the English have been they have boasted of the privilege of trial by jury. They have established it, or hastened to re-establish it, in all their settlements. A judicial institution which obtains the suffrages of a great people for so long a series of ages, which is zealously renewed at every epoch of civilization, in all the climates of the earth and under every form of human government, cannot be contrary to the spirit of justice.

    Indeed. And so even the convicts sent to the other side of the world and into wilderness, and their descendants, our Aussie friends, have the right to trial by jury enshrined in their written constitution. So convict them, and exile them, and what do they do? Establish the right to trial by jury in their land of exile. You’d think there’d be a lesson there…

    And note this as well:

    The monarchs of the House of Tudor sent to prison jurors who refused to convict…

    Seems that the House of Tudor didn’t like jury nullification. I consider such to be as sacred and inviolate as the right to vote. And for bulwark of liberty, back in the day, there was a compromise intended to avert civil war, called the Fugitive Slave Act. Not universally successful, since some, Northerner Yankee abolitionist types, served on juries in matters brought pursuant to the Fugitive Slave Act and they refused to find that the human in question was a slave who needed to be returned to his owner. They sent a message to our government that all was not well with the law, and to borrow from the late Michael Collins, they made the point plain…our only weapon is our refusal…

    Now, for another fan of trial by jury, Montesquieu:

    Earlier than John Adams, Montesquieu had made the democratic point that trial by jury gives the people a share in the execution of law. Earlier than de Tocqueville, he upheld the jury as a popular training school in the meaning of justice, a participatory and non-manipulative learning process, a lesson in political education through doing instead of being told what to do.

    So, to sum, the member of the rump Alliance Party named Comrade Stalin claims to know more about justice and courts of law than Blackstone, Jefferson, de Tocqueville and Montesquieu. I rather think not. And your arrogance is simply stunning, since while I could see some Orange Scots Protestants doing what you claim, I also can see some other Orange Scots Protestants not doing so. And with a unanimous verdict being necessary to convict, we only need the one holdout. Just one with a conscience. That’s all. And sticking with de Tocqueville and Montesquieu, when they have the chance and do the right thing, then we’ll know that your society is moving in the right direction. Until then, all you and your minister can say is that you’ve a few handpicked men.

    Lastly, re Kent State, the answer to your question is eight:

    In a 1974 federal criminal trial, District Judge Frank Battisti dismissed the case against eight Guardsmen indicted by a federal grand jury, ruling at mid-trial that the government’s case against the Guardsmen was so weak that the defense did not have to present its case.

    When they try some for Bloody Sunday, please let me know. In the meantime, note what happened. Was the trial judge that determined the outcome. And to correct the description given in the above paragraph, the judge determined that no reasonable juror could find the accused guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt and so either on defense motion or his own motion, he made that ruling and then entered a judgment of acquittal. See Rule 29(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Christy:

    1) I follow what you say about Unionists but all in all that would not have damaged me given that ALL factual evidence was on my side. Juries deal with facts

    Great, we are making progress.

    So, now want to focus on this assertion of yours that juries focus on facts. Are you therefore arguing that juries cannot be tainted or biased ? Why, for example, with certain high profile cases do the authorities take great lengths to keep jury members in a hotel – often at substantial expense – and away from media influence ? If juries were solely concerned with the facts then why would it be necessary to go to such lengths to keep them independent ?

    and the Judge the law -the Judge was not legally entitled to convict as he did, ie, he broke the law to convict –reason why my conviction was ‘unlawful’

    Yes, and this is what I’m getting to. If a jury had convicted you – wrongfully, having been influenced or because it had existing bias – it wouldn’t be unlawful would it ? Unless the judge had unlawfully led the jury.

    My exact point here is that the conviction was overturned because the judge was accountable. Judges who act unlawfully need to be exposed to scrutiny.

    2) I have no absolute belief in jury trial –you miss the whole point of what a Diplock Trial is; it is no way the same as an Non-jury jurisdiction, say, like Germany as you once refered. If you think that is irrelevant then you fail to grasp fundamental argument.

    So enlighten me. What’s the fundamental argument ? And yes I know about the theory that Diplock is there to allow the state to easily dispose of questionable people through the judicial system. I already showed evidence about how this clearly is not the case given the Diplock failure to convict people like Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. Of course, there are some who would say this was for a reason.

    3) Yes some defendants can grasp complex medical issues where others cannot –many defendants may graps all sort of complex issues much more readily than a judge can –here is a snippet of how the Birmingham 6 Trial went;

    Well, you learn something every day. I had it in my head that the Birmingham 6 trial was a diplock trial, so I was surprised to find out that it was a jury trial. Given that juries only deal with facts, how could it possibly be that the B6 were wrongfully convicted ?!? Surely there must be some mistake.

    One other apparent matter of concern seems to have escaped scrutiny, that is the judge repeatedly informed the jury that, “I would be in grave danger of misleading you”. The trial judge is clearly unsure of his own understanding of the evidence such that he would not articulate it to the jury and this demonstrates the danger should judges, sitting alone, replace the jury as the fact-finder.

    It’s hard to know how much of an effect the judge had when it came to leading the jury on.

    I am not familiar with the low level detail of the B6 case but I thought it primarily relied on manufactured evidence, false police testimony and illegally extracted confessions. You need safeguards to stop that sort of injustice, it’s not as simple as whether or not there is a jury in place.

    To have a Jury or no jury is much debated by legal academics all over the world and your obvious paranioa and fixation on the Provies is worrisome,

    I don’t have a “fixation” but, to get back to my original point, I’d say the provos got a smoother ride from Diplock than they would have obtained from jury trials. They’re not concerned with these facts, or other facts such as the draconian SCC in the RoI. So it’s all propaganda.

    I quote you, “The non-jury trial stuff is provo propaganda designed to pander to an (Irish-)American audience,..” So if people anywhere in the world discuss the dangers of non jury trial, then they are all influenced by the Provisional IRA –get a grip ya walt!

    We’re not “anywhere in the world”, we are in NI and the status of the courts/legal system here is a point of contention typically raised by the provos and their apologists as part of a propaganda effort to support their case by painting the state as an abnormal and legally questionable place. I wouldn’t try to argue that NI is “normal”, but trial without juries is commonplace and may in many cases lead to a fairer trial.

    How many years do you reckon it should take Ford to learn the ropes?

    I can’t say.

    He has been dealing with my case (brought to his attention by the NIO and others) since last year? Is that the speed we can expect for Alliance Ministers –they are no match for DUP, SF or SDLP.

    That’s a bit of a silly comment. I’ve a list as long as your arm of stuff that they haven’t got around to. RPA springs immediately to mind. Government in NI is slow, irrespective of who is in charge of it.

    Fact is I know and you do not, as I have various correspondances from him and the NIO –he is pretty up to speed –a wee thing like serious criminal conduct within the PPS is not to be left gathering dust.

    I obviously can’t debate over things I don’t know about. But if Ford has acted personally to support a decision made by his officials to deny you compensation, despite having the discretion, I would say that he would be wrong to do so based on the facts I’m aware of.

  • Comrade Stalin

    slappy:

    So, Blackstone is now rolling over in his grave, and not simply because of the Diplock court, but more importantly, your selling the spirit of your constitution for a trifle when you signed on to all those Euro conventions, etc., that do no preserve trial by jury.

    Give me a good reason for preserving it and I’ll agree with you. Otherwise I think it’s an anachronism. France and Germany, and other places, survive very well without jury trials. There are other checks and balances.

    The idea that a jury of people who haven’t a baldy notion either about the law or the technical subjects that may well be at hand are disposed to make a fair decision based on the facts presented is bullshit. It may have worked OK in 1776 when the constitution was about three pages long and the statute book was a fraction of the size it is now. But times have moved on.

    The debate should be about how we can best ensure that a given trial is the fairest possible. Not by about how we should preserve sacred, gilded rules because of what some overweight half-mad monarch did hundreds of years ago.

    Incidentally what would Blackstone, Jefferson, de Tocqueville have made of the US government operating Guantanamo Bay ?

    Lastly, re Kent State, the answer to your question is eight:

    I asked the wrong question. The one I should have asked was : was justice served on the victims at Kent State ? Apologize your way out of that one. But please try to do it without burying me in endless links and prose about the sacred religious artifacts of the foundation of the US.

  • Comrade Stalin

    mcclafferty,

    I don’t know the answers to your questions.

    Can you answer me one, though. What is a “human rights lawyer” ?

    Do you deny that McGeough shot Brush ? If not then what was unfair about the trial ? He committed a crime within the jurisdiction and will now do the time. The fact that you don’t consider it a crime is your prerogative but it gives you no right to cast doubt on the proceedings.

  • Comrade Stalin “Great, we are making progress.”

    I think you are that dumb! What I said was “I follow what you say…” that does not mean I agree with you. If you read my earlier posts about what you say about Unionists then you should know that I do not.

    Jackson, Doran, Boyle, Hadden, & Hillyard have all done empirical studies on the Diplock Courts and their conclusions on Trial prior to the introduction to Diplock Courts was that even in republican related cases Juries showed no undue indication of bias. They were referring specifically to Unionist Juries while you can only speculate and presume at best.

    To further show your ignorance, bias and presumptions about everyone else, I have received letters of support from many Unionist politicians, some quite emphatically support my case. Since 1994 not one Alliance politician has thought there might be some merit to my case?? Given Ford’s conduct and your views an image of extreme rightwing conservatism emerges. On one hand you think something stinks with my case but on the other if I highlight the wrongs then I am no more than a dirty fenian Provo Propogandist –if that is a general opinion held by Alliance supporters then people could mistake it as rabid sectarian bigotry. That you relate to Stalin is of no surprise to me.

    I cannot explain your dumb ass ignorance about the Birmingham 6 case and details provided -tryng to reason with the unreasonable is a futile endeavour.

    Re: You dismissive tone regarding What is a “human rights lawyer” ? Simply a legal professional who has an interest in that area of LAW just as a family lawyer, corporate lawyer or employment lawyer have interest in those areas.

    Re: Slapptmcgroundnut, he has laid out very valid and reason argument and answer to your questions –your response tends to be sniping rather than articulate.

    Re: your defensiveness “I don’t have a “fixation” but,.. I am starting to wonder if Sir Robert Carswell user name is Comrade Stalin –you share the same level of bias, contempt and bigotry and lack ability to understand reason –the similarity is striking!!

  • mcclafferty. Can you provide more details about the media ban and the removal of anyone from the court.

    In an off the cuff opinion about the removal of ‘human rights lawyers’ the Court would have stated why it wanted them out. People are removed from court all the time and it is not improper in all cases. Once in my own case, everytime something questionable was mentioned someone in the public gallery would loudly snort or sigh in attempt to vein some disbelieve. It was neither helpful nor appreciated by me let alone the Judge –the judges intense stare seemed to quiten the man –but I could see and would have agreed had the twit been removed.