Irish governments turn to answer claims of collusion

[Myles Na G.]

So a report said there was collusion but could find zero evidence to prove it.

Why do you keep repeating this? He didn't say there was 'zero evidence' - he said there was no direct evidence, or 'smoking gun' - i.e. nothing tangible that could prove collusion beyond all reasonable doubt - no phone call, no document, no payment. But weighing up the evidence he heard / read etc. he concluded that on the balance of probabilities, there was collusion. There's no contradiction there, even if you and Gerry don't understand it.

You can read it all here - http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/smithwickFinal03122013_171046.pdf

And he does state that it is plausible it could have happened without collusion, but he's set out why he came to a different conclusion.

So what you're saying is, Smithwick didn't say he didn't find evidence, but he IS saying he didn't find evidence?

At the end of the day, the findings of this report seem quite bizarre. Hard to ignore the potential for political interference. No evidence found, the man linked to leaking info to the IRA was cleared of wrongdoing, and an acknowledgement of the possibility that there was no collusion and yet we have a supposed "finding" that collusion was there? Wouldn't last long in a court of law would it? Mind you as far as I'm concerned the only collusion I'm sure of where the Guards are concerned is their utterly shameful collusion with the RUC.

I suggest you read up on the legal burden of proof. This finding isn't intended to stand in a criminal court - that wasn't the remit of the tribunal. You also need to understand the distinction drawn with the use of the term direct evidence. If you don't read the report - or at least its conclusions - then you're like Adams, reacting before he had a chance to read it and therefore not understanding what' it said. The case for collusion might not be convincing 'beyond reasonable doubt', but there's no contradiction in what the report says - just a failure by some to understand the language.

No shit, but as with other enquiries, eg. Saville, criminal trials could follow. My point being that after eight years, Smithwick couldn't find enough to hang a coat on never mind a criminal trial. Direct evidence is still evidence. What evidence of any kind did the report find to come to the conclusion that there was collusion? Sweet fcuk all. I'm not saying such a thing to argue there was no collusion. There could well have been, and frankly, there wasn't half enough collusion with the IRA and far too much with the RUC. My point is that the report is contradictory and is weak in convincing anybody that there was collusion. And as for criticism of Adams for not having read the whole report; do you think any TD who has commented on it, has read it all yet? Why single him out? Just because you don't like what he has to say?

The IRA unit which carried out the murders took over a disused house 10 minutes after the police officers arrived at Dundalk police station. According to the IRA's version of what happened, therefore, this was enough time for the guy watching the police station to phone the through the news, and for someone else at the other end to organise the death squad and get them out to the location. That's quick work. A more realistic scenario is that preparations started when the police officers arranged the meeting by phone that morning, when both the guards suspected of being republican informers were on duty.

[Nally Stand]

So a report said there was collusion but could find zero evidence to prove it.

Why do you keep repeating this? He didn't say there was 'zero evidence' - he said there was no direct evidence, or 'smoking gun' - i.e. nothing tangible that could prove collusion beyond all reasonable doubt - no phone call, no document, no payment. But weighing up the evidence he heard / read etc. he concluded that on the balance of probabilities, there was collusion. There's no contradiction there, even if you and Gerry don't understand it.

You can read it all here - http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/smithwickFinal03122013_171046.pdf

And he does state that it is plausible it could have happened without collusion, but he's set out why he came to a different conclusion.

So what you're saying is, Smithwick didn't say he didn't find evidence, but he IS saying he didn't find evidence?

At the end of the day, the findings of this report seem quite bizarre. Hard to ignore the potential for political interference. No evidence found, the man linked to leaking info to the IRA was cleared of wrongdoing, and an acknowledgement of the possibility that there was no collusion and yet we have a supposed "finding" that collusion was there? Wouldn't last long in a court of law would it? Mind you as far as I'm concerned the only collusion I'm sure of where the Guards are concerned is their utterly shameful collusion with the RUC.

I suggest you read up on the legal burden of proof. This finding isn't intended to stand in a criminal court - that wasn't the remit of the tribunal. You also need to understand the distinction drawn with the use of the term direct evidence. If you don't read the report - or at least its conclusions - then you're like Adams, reacting before he had a chance to read it and therefore not understanding what' it said. The case for collusion might not be convincing 'beyond reasonable doubt', but there's no contradiction in what the report says - just a failure by some to understand the language.

No shit, but as with other enquiries, eg. Saville, criminal trials could follow. My point being that after eight years, Smithwick couldn't find enough to hang a coat on never mind a criminal trial. Direct evidence is still evidence. What evidence of any kind did the report find to come to the conclusion that there was collusion? Sweet fcuk all. I'm not saying such a thing to argue there was no collusion. There could well have been, and frankly, there wasn't half enough collusion with the IRA and far too much with the RUC. My point is that the report is contradictory and is weak in convincing anybody that there was collusion. And as for criticism of Adams for not having read the whole report; do you think any TD who has commented on it, has read it all yet? Why single him out? Just because you don't like what he has to say?

Adams is singled out because he disagreed with the report despite not having read it. Smithwick spent eight years on the tribunal and report, yet Adams was able to disagree with it despite not having read it.

And the report may be 'weak' in terms of the burden of proof - you may even disagree that it points to collusion on the 'balance of probabilities - but it is not contradictory. Again, I suggest you read the report to understand the distinction made between direct evidence and the basis for Smithwick's conclusion.

You've read it yourself, Maguire?

[Maguire01]

So a report said there was collusion but could find zero evidence to prove it.

Why do you keep repeating this? He didn't say there was 'zero evidence' - he said there was no direct evidence, or 'smoking gun' - i.e. nothing tangible that could prove collusion beyond all reasonable doubt - no phone call, no document, no payment. But weighing up the evidence he heard / read etc. he concluded that on the balance of probabilities, there was collusion. There's no contradiction there, even if you and Gerry don't understand it.

You can read it all here - http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/smithwickFinal03122013_171046.pdf

And he does state that it is plausible it could have happened without collusion, but he's set out why he came to a different conclusion.

So what you're saying is, Smithwick didn't say he didn't find evidence, but he IS saying he didn't find evidence?

At the end of the day, the findings of this report seem quite bizarre. Hard to ignore the potential for political interference. No evidence found, the man linked to leaking info to the IRA was cleared of wrongdoing, and an acknowledgement of the possibility that there was no collusion and yet we have a supposed "finding" that collusion was there? Wouldn't last long in a court of law would it? Mind you as far as I'm concerned the only collusion I'm sure of where the Guards are concerned is their utterly shameful collusion with the RUC.

I suggest you read up on the legal burden of proof. This finding isn't intended to stand in a criminal court - that wasn't the remit of the tribunal. You also need to understand the distinction drawn with the use of the term direct evidence. If you don't read the report - or at least its conclusions - then you're like Adams, reacting before he had a chance to read it and therefore not understanding what' it said. The case for collusion might not be convincing 'beyond reasonable doubt', but there's no contradiction in what the report says - just a failure by some to understand the language.

No shit, but as with other enquiries, eg. Saville, criminal trials could follow. My point being that after eight years, Smithwick couldn't find enough to hang a coat on never mind a criminal trial. Direct evidence is still evidence. What evidence of any kind did the report find to come to the conclusion that there was collusion? Sweet fcuk all. I'm not saying such a thing to argue there was no collusion. There could well have been, and frankly, there wasn't half enough collusion with the IRA and far too much with the RUC. My point is that the report is contradictory and is weak in convincing anybody that there was collusion. And as for criticism of Adams for not having read the whole report; do you think any TD who has commented on it, has read it all yet? Why single him out? Just because you don't like what he has to say?

Adams is singled out because he disagreed with the report despite not having read it. Smithwick spent eight years on the tribunal and report, yet Adams was able to disagree with it despite not having read it.

And the report may be 'weak' in terms of the burden of proof - you may even disagree that it points to collusion on the 'balance of probabilities - but it is not contradictory. Again, I suggest you read the report to understand the distinction made between direct evidence and the basis for Smithwick's conclusion.

You've read it yourself, Maguire?

No, just a quick read at the conclusion.