Mary Kelly reTrial crashes ** NEWSFLASH **

by pc Thu Jun 17, 2004 21:07

your saying all of mary kelly lawyers have pulled out? any reason given?

i was just reading the it about jury selection...
and also interested in the comments re delaying tactics


so the trial will be put off for another couple of months

by T Jones Fri Jun 18, 2004 03:37

Looks like the CIA put pressure on them, probably issued death threats, the usual kind of thing.

by Sean Doe Americanach Fri Jun 18, 2004 03:54

If possible will someone please report the remarks of Clarke, Halliday et al. This is a matter of international concern and implication, -and repercussion, especially with the visit of Bush so near. Did the attorneys give any reason why they pulled out? Its important that Mary Kelly's case gets the international coverage it deserves.

by . Fri Jun 18, 2004 15:15

Senior Counsel Brendan Nix said it was clear they no longer enjoyed the confidence or trust of their client.
Could it not just be possible that after one argument too many the legal team did not feel able to represent Mary any longer.
I think that what Mary did last year was great but sometimes people with very strong convictions can be quite stubborn. The solicitors may have been worried that Mary wasn't fully co-operating with them and leaving them unprepared for some of the things the prosecution may have brought up.
I don't know this but I think it is every bit as valid as the suggestion of death threats from the CIA and deserves as much consideration. If you are an activist think of all of the stubborn people who you have worked with who refuse to budge on an issue and pissed you off so much that you would rather not work with them again or maybe even times when you have been guilty of being that person. I bet everyone knows at least one person like that.
I don't think the soliciters should have picked right now to drop her. The timing could not be worse. I wish Mary good luck with finding a new legal team and in her new trial because what she did was brave and right.

by Observer Fri Jun 18, 2004 16:40

Let's not get into hysterical conspiracy theories involving the CIA. The CIA has been scapegoated over a range of issues recently and is pretty pissed off at the US administration. I doubt if they'd bother with a little nvda case in Ireland in terms of issuing death threats.

The fact is that another individual was overriding the advice that the legal team was trying to give Mary. I've been acquainted with at least one person on this team, and know they want the best for anti-war activists facing charges. That person, another activist, was attending all the legal briefings and dominating them, and Mary was listening to him more than her legal team. No legal team can work to their usual professional standards under these circumstances, particularly when they are surprised in court with decisions they didn't know about suddenly being brought up. This is the second legal team Mary Kelly has been through - she fired the first. So although I admire her in certain respects, consistency is not a trait I would say is very evident. Strategic ability is also lacking; she has risked her own credibility by appearing prominently at dissident republican rallies and parties, thus prompting mainstream media headlines along the lines of "Peace Activist supports Violence".

It's not a good idea to idolise people unquestioningly just becasue they take courageous action now and again. The anit-war movement needs to have a bit more sophistication than that. I support nvda, and I support Mary's action. This does not mean I think everything that happens to her is somehow someone else's fault. Clearly, in many instances it is not.

by I had feeling Fri Jun 18, 2004 18:33

When someone chooses to do this kind of action they need to be aware that what they are about to do is 10% about the action and 90% about the way they handle the aftermath. To this end they need to prepare before hand. They must work out a strategy for the act itself, the media and their legal defense. Perhaps confide in someone you trust and give them a press release to use while you are in custody so that the police and government aren't the only things the public hears at the beginning.
Have legal plans worked out early on, your defence and relevant precedent, but be prepared to listen to your legal team, chances are they know the law better than you. You don't have to do what they say but listen to them, sometimes they may make sense. Do not listen to (i'm taking a guess at who the activist is) a well-meaning lunatic, who knows a bare minimum about law and has a history of fighting stupid battles in ridiculous ways in order to martyr himself to a cause, to such an extent that you lose your solicitors on the day trial begins!

by Malta Pigeon Sat Jun 19, 2004 02:30

They want to see activists severly punished and don't forget that these planes cost billions of dollars. Well worth their while to make a phone threatening phone calls.

by Response Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:55

This is a total diaster.

Kelly will be lucky to get another senior barrister ...there's only a hundred of them in the country...after publicly humiliating this one in this appearance. An attack on one's credibiltiy is the jugular in that profession. The handful who would be willing to take on these cases for nothing or legal aid is only a handful and they are close friends understandably. Before another one takes on Mary. S/he will call Nix and ask his advice....no prizes for guessing the response. "Avoid like the plague"...her chances of getting a third legal team is minimal.

Her statement in regards to Nix on her web site is libelious. My advice is to take it off immediately.

The suspicion of the serially obsessive "well meaning lunatic" rings true...but we'll have to wait for the post mortem. Sounds like the BP got obssessed with the defence run at appeal level in relation to AG advice to Blair n Bristol recently. The choice to go with this angle was to put one's faith in the legal elites and legalese OVER 12 ordinary people from Clare in a week with the Commander in Chief lnading at the scene of the crime (Shannon). This was the perfect timing for this trial.

If Kelly had prioritised getting up in front of 12 Clare people and speaking her simple truth their would have been a great chance of another hung jury (would they run a third prosecution, doubtful!) and good chance of an acquittal.

These are serious actions of disarmament that have serious consequences in terms of jail time. And as the old adage goes "If you can't do the time, Don't do the crime!"
The slogan that people were mobilisnig under reeked of desperation "Mary Kelly Needs Your Help!" What about the Iraqi kids still being kileld. What about the political context in which her action took place.

Don't take advice from obssessives who have limited activst experience. If you want total control over your defence, defend yourself (this may be the only options for Kelly now!) Lots of activist have taken this course.

How much activist, time, energy has been pissed up against the wall this week is worth reflecting on.

Serious in house reflection needs to take place by folks who organised around this. People should not just walk away in desperation. Lessons need to be learned.

Final advice the prosecutions of MK and the CW5 are driven by the U.S. Embassy where Cowen reports and takes orders form on a regular basis. If avoiding jail (in the light of day) is the big priority. MK should apply for a change of venue, delay the trial hope for a Kerry White House and a changing of the guard at the embassy.

by Mary Kelly sez Sat Jun 19, 2004 22:26

Here's what Mary Kelly says on her website about her legal team. This woman is discrediting herself and anti-war movement the more she goes on with this sort of cranky twaddle.

Mary sez:

"The more I think about it, I realise that I am relieved that they are gone. I need to fight this case and win it totally. For that I need a legal team prepared to challenge and overcome the legal protection racket which covers over the crimes of our Government.
This case is like that, it challenges us on all levels – the presence of the US military in Shannon, the police/Irish Army protecting their presence, the Judge to allow a fair trial hearing and the jury to hear and understand the whole defence and decide in their own consciences upon it.

It challenges the Government’s complicity in ‘the supreme international crime’ – War of Aggression.

Most of all it challenges the citizens of Ireland to decide what they want this country to become. We the People of Ireland will have to reclaim Justice both at home and abroad, and I invite all my fellow citizens to support this struggle for our rights and the rights of others to life and freedom.

The palpable presence of peace that was generated from people working closely together in preparation for this trial and the goals we are struggling to achieve have given us all tremendous renewed strength and spirit. Working from this basis to overcome the obstacles we encounter, we are learning from, growing and being re-invigorated by these experiences."

by moi Sat Jun 19, 2004 22:46

Well, she's clearly learned nothing and is determined to carry on without a legal team. Nobody will work with her if that's her attitude to the legal profession. And, worse, it's clear she intends to continuing relying on half-baked, half-understood legal 'advice' from the likes of the BP. God save us.

by majesty of the law Sat Jun 19, 2004 22:53

That's the problem when these activist types get raised to the status of cultish heroes and loose the run of themselves ......

A stiff custodial sentence might sort her out ....

That Black Pope fella sounds like a bit of a dangerous looper .......

by commenteer Sat Jun 19, 2004 23:55

who knows who they come from .

people in court obviously but not obviously from MK side.

let's wait for the word on what happened from someone we know, recognize and trust.

My personal opinion on the above is that putting barristers in a position above criticism is wrongheaded - they are milkers of the system in general (look at the small number that exist in erron) and they have to play the game sometimes maybe to the extent of refusing to conduct a case in the manner the defendant wishes -

by Phuq Hedd Sat Jun 19, 2004 23:58

For instance the person posting as "Response" writes
QUOTE: "These are serious actions of disarmament that have serious consequences in terms of jail time. And as the old adage goes "If you can't do the time, Don't do the crime!"
The slogan that people were mobilisnig under reeked of desperation "Mary Kelly Needs Your Help!" What about the Iraqi kids still being kileld. What about the political context in which her action took place."
ANSWER: And this is supposed to mean what exactly?

Add all this in to the anti-BP stuff and I see someone trying to paint the Black Pope (God bless his socks) as a "looper" and MK as "unstable". That doesn't wash with most of us. Especially when you or one of your companions then posted a very reasonable extract from MK's website talking about how what she wants is to take on the government, not merely secure an acquital on technical grounds.

In case you don't get it: MK and other peace activists aren't just trying to defend themselves, they're trying to expose the hideous complicity of this government and its apparatchiks.

I'm not impressed by Nix and Co.'s decision to pull out because they don't like the direction that they're receiving from their brief. If they had their own limited objectives or goals before they took the case they should have stated them clearly before muddying the waters and then deserting their client.

Of course I'm not aware of the behind-the-scenes stuff, but I don't like the look of Nix and the rest of his team as a result of this.

by the majesty of the law Sun Jun 20, 2004 20:37

I see ... so people who refuse to submit unquestioningly to the cultish worship of Mary Kelly and who dare make critical utterances about the so-called "Black Pope" are to be anathemised as trolls .....

Well Chief Inquisitor Phuq Hedd, for your information the person who posted as "Response" made some very valid points .... the most valid being:
QUOTE:
"If Kelly had prioritised getting up in front of 12 Clare people and speaking her simple truth their would have been a great chance of another hung jury (would they run a third prosecution, doubtful!) and good chance of an acquittal."
FURTHER COMMENT:
The fact is that unless the jury is completely packed, the chances of securing a convicition would be very slim. Contrary to what ye fecking Jackeens like to think about everyone who lives outside the Pale, Clare people are neither thick nor backward ... they can see what is going on in the world and make up their own minds ......

Now I must admit that I also had some difficulty with:
"These are serious actions of disarmament that have serious consequences in terms of jail time. And as the old adage goes "If you can't do the time, Don't do the crime!"
The slogan that people were mobilisnig under reeked of desperation "Mary Kelly Needs Your Help!" What about the Iraqi kids still being kileld. What about the political context in which her action took place."

But upon mature reflection I think that the poster may have been trying to point out that the whole campaign has been largely run too defensively and cultishly as a "Save MK" campaign rather than being presented more aggressively in its broader political context.
This type of show (re-)trial raises serious issues which go beyond the Mary Kelly cult and it should have been paraded before the court of public opinion based on those issues.
As you've said yourself "In case you don't get it: MK and other peace activists aren't just trying to defend themselves, they're trying to expose the hideous complicity of this government and its apparatchiks."
In fact many of us do get it, that is why we are a little sceptical of the MK personality cult.

However, when all is said and done, if the woman has aspirations to some sort of strange cultish martyrdom then let her follow the leadership (or "non-leadership") of the BP .......

And finally to play the PH game:
QUOTE:
"I'm not impressed by Nix and Co.'s decision to pull out because they don't like the direction that they're receiving from their brief. If they had their own limited objectives or goals before they took the case they should have stated them clearly before muddying the waters and then deserting their client.
Of course I'm not aware of the behind-the-scenes stuff, but I don't like the look of Nix and the rest of his team as a result of this."

ANSWER:
Who the fuck asked you to be impressed or otherwise ?

Without any awareness of the behind-the scenes stuff you accuse Nix and Co. of muddying the waters and then deserting their client. What is your justification for this ?

It could just as easily be that - as has been alleged - the BP was sticking his nose too much into what is not his case and Nix and Co. felt that they couldn't conduct the case in the manner they felt appropriate. Under such circumstances no legal team in the world would continue its relationship with its client (and her "advisor") - AND IT IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION, MORAL OR OTHERWISE, TO DO SO.
You seem to be labouring under some misapprehension that a legal team is supposed to follow "instructions" from its client in the same manner that a subordinate soldier follows "orders" from his superior i.e. without question ... well in real life things are a little different and the relationship between a legal team and its client is not to be confused with military style chain-of-command ......

It's clear that you've never had much direct experience of such criminal law cases ... but then again what can one expect from an armchair revolutionary and would-be inquisitor ....
I take it that you won't be relying on the services of Nix & Co. next time you're facing criminal charges, but then again I'll not be holding my breath until such an occasion arises .......

by reader Sun Jun 20, 2004 20:49

This type of show (re-)trial raises serious issues which go beyond the Mary Kelly cult and it should have been paraded before the court of public opinion based on those issues.
As you've said yourself "In case you don't get it: MK and other peace activists aren't just trying to defend themselves, they're trying to expose the hideous complicity of this government and its apparatchiks."
In fact many of us do get it, .....


do the lawyers get it or are they trying to avoid not willing to take the risk, why did mr devane do so.