No state conspiracy (ie upto PM level and clear political involvement) but undoubted state collusion involving numerous agencies (BBC thinking this was throughout the agencies). Named Nelson, Stobie and Barrett. Named Barrett as recruited after the killing when they knew he was the killer. Judge made clear he is left in âsignificant doubtâ that Finucane would have been murdered if not for the collusion of state agents and forces. Even BBC now saying this means he would be alive today if it were not for sections of the state.
More to come details wise iâm thinking. prosecuting authorities will want to look at this.
BBC claiming this is clearly that British state not turning away when they knew who was a target but actively involved in targetting and killing Finucane, obviously others too.
Itâs worth remembering that this wasnât an independent review. This is the more palatable version of the truth as distilled via the British government. Not sure weâll ever find out just how far up the chain there was direct culpability.
Why is there always a big resistence to a full public enquiry? I donât mean just in this instance (where the reason looks obvious) but in general.
Would Ireland be thrown out of the United Nations and censured by the European Court of Human Rights if we shot a Queenâs Counsel? Brits and Yanks can do whatever they like.
Any indication in the report as to why they were so keen that he was killed? Was he just a very good solicitor and therefore a major irritant to security forces?
The whole thing stinks. Iâm sure the reason Cameron is trying to suppress this is that it will expose the crownâs full involvement in directing loyalist terrorists. Itâs quite obvious Finucaneâs execution was fully facilitated by the state. But theyâve made a massive mistake killing a lawyer from a family of lawyers. This isnât the end of this.
Apparently security documents called him and others a âthorn in the sideâ.
This review / report is a complete whitewash, the idea being to throw enough of a bone to the family, that there was state collusion in the sense that no action was taken to prevent the murder, but thats pretty much where it stops. Its a crock of shit.
With respect how can you dismiss as a whitewash something you havenât read? Surely you would wish to read the report and then make a judgement call on its contents from an informed position rather than relying on someone elseâs opinion?
As for the family, wouldnât they be emotionally involved in the case and perhaps not be in the best position to take an objective view of the matter?
Thatâs a silly question SS. He doesnât need to read it in order to make the assertion above. You can pretty much see that from checking the methodology of the report, for example just reviewing original documents with no cross examination of authors or witnesses.
According to Douglas Hogg at the time, some were Ăźnduly sympathetic" to paramillitaries. Which of course undermines the entire judicial system and leaves the door open for someone to walk up to Pat Finucaneâs house, with the full knowledge of the state, and shoot him dead in front of his family.
Yes SS, the family are emotionally involved, but are you discounting their opinion?
In my time Myles Shevlin, a Carlow Solicitor, was the quartermaster of the IRA and he represented all of the Volunteers in Court. He also represented the IRA at the peace talks. The establishment got at him by the more socially acceptable method of striking him off the roll of solicitors.
Iâd be more interested in the level of collusion between the Free State govt and the Brits that led to 33 of our citizens being murdered in Dublin & Monaghan. We all know Pat Finucane was taken out in a professionally panned hit but it was dirty war.
Iâm more outraged when I hear about the same level of cover up used by our own government to faciliate and hide the murder of our own citizens. That Traitor Cosgrove sitill hasnât been disgraced over this whereas Adams is still fielding flak for the murder of Jean McConville when he has the cheek to ask the only surviving memeber of that Vichy governement a question about his cuts to the disabled.
