Crosswords7 mins ago
Gerry Conlon Dies !
http://
I post this only to commemorate an innocent chap treated appallingly.
RIP Gerry.
I post this only to commemorate an innocent chap treated appallingly.
RIP Gerry.
Answers
RIP. I believe they were entirely innocent.
07:06 Sun 22nd Jun 2014
-- answer removed --
You can add me to the list of 'stereotypical apologists' since my father is from West Belfast and also suffered at the hands of the police keen to pin anything on anyone just to shut people up and to appease their own penchant for violence. Their convictions were overturned because the police who investigated and ultimately presented evidence to the CPS were as unsuitable for their positions of trust as any people could be, fabricating evidence and beating suspects into confessions. Nothing could ever possibly make up for the time those people spent in prison and what's worse it meant that the real culprits got away with it.
A comment on the thread states "i BELIEVE they were entirely innocent", AOG asked "what proof do you have", a reasonable and valid question (there is an immunity order on the case) and is accused of spoiling for a fight resulting in the author of the post refusing to debate the subject further.
Mikey, you go on to state ".....I BELIEVE that Conlon, et al are innocent because all the evidence points that way". so do you know for sure or don't you as the use of the word 'believe' and the comment 'because all the evidence points that way" doesn't appear you do and therefore your response to AOG is unacceptable surely?
Mikey, you go on to state ".....I BELIEVE that Conlon, et al are innocent because all the evidence points that way". so do you know for sure or don't you as the use of the word 'believe' and the comment 'because all the evidence points that way" doesn't appear you do and therefore your response to AOG is unacceptable surely?
There is a wealth of evidence and information on the internet, that quite clearly and without any doubt, shows that Gerry Conlon was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Almost everybody on here has accepted that, apart from AOG. It wasn't me that accused him of spoiling for a fight but its a sentiment that I fully agree with. Its exactly what he is doing. His daft post at 09:49 yesterday proves that. He is just being contrary, which is his right of course, but life is too short to argue with him. I posted many times on this issue yesterday and provided lots of information and links but I can't see the point in discussing it any further with AOG.
Oh Dear, AOG,
yes we really know they were innocent.
and they had no connection with any of the bombs.
The trial judge Sir John Donaldson ( later a VERY successful Master of the Rolls and later a Lord ) has kept very quiet about his role in all this. He regretted they were nt charged with treason so he could hang them.
and yes if you present perjured evidence to a jury then they will convict.
For the Guildford trial one of them had an alibi - drinking in Kilburn.
Evidence was presented that it was possible that you could drive from Guildford to K and then back in time to plant a bomb - but the Police did NOT say that the only way they could do it in 90 min was in a police car on a sunday afternoon....
The Australian bar man who supplied the alibi was arrested for assisting terrorism, fired, had his VISA stopped and was deported....
We think the Balcombe st gang did it - because they confessed at the time. There was counterpropaganda - well they would say that wouldnt they ? This was swallowed by a gullible media pack
Lord Wigoder QC was Gerry Conlons assigned Lawyer. He also kept VERY quiet about his role in it. GC said - well once we are proven innocent, the British govt will pay us a lot of money.
and Lord W said - well that is not what the evidence shows....
if you brief thinks you have done it - you are screwed.
completely screwed. Wiggie later boasted about representing Snowden in a speeding case but never boasted about his defence of Conlon
The case was such a judicial disaster that PACE 1981 was enacted as a direct result, and R v Maguire is now a leading case on disclosure to the defence. Material should be disclosed if it concerns the case - and not if the discloser thinks the defence will use it ( ie hurdle much lower ).
I an amazed that anyone is still in the category of - "they may have done it and they got off on a technicality. And we dont Know...."
yes we do know - they didnt do it.
The film is not bad as a historical account... a few inaccuracies.
GC's book - is a bit of a polemic and the slant wrecks a good story. Alll the Oirish are fun loving innocent elves and all the British are perjurors and liars and intent on imprisoning anyone who whispers Holy Mudder of God. Whereas in real life it really is never like that.
yes we really know they were innocent.
and they had no connection with any of the bombs.
The trial judge Sir John Donaldson ( later a VERY successful Master of the Rolls and later a Lord ) has kept very quiet about his role in all this. He regretted they were nt charged with treason so he could hang them.
and yes if you present perjured evidence to a jury then they will convict.
For the Guildford trial one of them had an alibi - drinking in Kilburn.
Evidence was presented that it was possible that you could drive from Guildford to K and then back in time to plant a bomb - but the Police did NOT say that the only way they could do it in 90 min was in a police car on a sunday afternoon....
The Australian bar man who supplied the alibi was arrested for assisting terrorism, fired, had his VISA stopped and was deported....
We think the Balcombe st gang did it - because they confessed at the time. There was counterpropaganda - well they would say that wouldnt they ? This was swallowed by a gullible media pack
Lord Wigoder QC was Gerry Conlons assigned Lawyer. He also kept VERY quiet about his role in it. GC said - well once we are proven innocent, the British govt will pay us a lot of money.
and Lord W said - well that is not what the evidence shows....
if you brief thinks you have done it - you are screwed.
completely screwed. Wiggie later boasted about representing Snowden in a speeding case but never boasted about his defence of Conlon
The case was such a judicial disaster that PACE 1981 was enacted as a direct result, and R v Maguire is now a leading case on disclosure to the defence. Material should be disclosed if it concerns the case - and not if the discloser thinks the defence will use it ( ie hurdle much lower ).
I an amazed that anyone is still in the category of - "they may have done it and they got off on a technicality. And we dont Know...."
yes we do know - they didnt do it.
The film is not bad as a historical account... a few inaccuracies.
GC's book - is a bit of a polemic and the slant wrecks a good story. Alll the Oirish are fun loving innocent elves and all the British are perjurors and liars and intent on imprisoning anyone who whispers Holy Mudder of God. Whereas in real life it really is never like that.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.