Catherine Nevin appeal begins.

by C Flower - Politicalworld.org Wed Mar 24, 2010 09:54

Catherine Nevin's appeal is entering it's third day today. On Monday Judge Adrian Hardiman refused access to a key Garda file, which contained information on the relationship of the Gardai with William McClean, the chief prosecution witness. McClean was named in the McEntee Enquiry into why the Gardai stood down the investigation of the Dubin and Monaghan Bombings almost immediately. Evidence was given that McClean knew of the Dublin bombing in advance.

There is a thread here on Politicalworld.org, open for discussion, on McClean, and the Garda role - This affair is so potentially shocking in its implications that it should be getting far, far more attention than it is.

http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?p=6887#pos...t6887

"Quote:

"Nevin’s legal team is also seeking depositions in the Barron report of the inquiry into the Dublin-Monaghan bombings which they say identified Mr McClean as having stayed in the Four Courts Hotel on May 10th-16th, 1974, and as being the person who made phone calls and sent telegrams to Belfast and London.
Mr Hartnett said Mr McClean was also identified by a café owner close to the hotel as a person who said in May 1974: “In 24 hours from now, three bombs will go off and you will have something else to worry about.”
The report had said Garda inquiries to trace the man in the Four Courts Hotel led nowhere until February 2000, when he was a witness in the Nevin trial. Mr McClean was then traced and interviewed informally by a garda.
Correspondence between former chief justice Mr Justice Liam Hamilton and the Justice for the Forgotten group referred to confidential information in relation to a number of suspects in the bombings and included the name Wilkinson McClean who, it appeared, was the same person as William McClean.
Patrick MacEntee SC, who compiled a 2007 report on the 1974 bombings was unable, for legal reasons, to publish findings on this issue. However, after former taoiseach Bertie Ahern told the Dáil that the Government had asked agencies in Ireland and Britain to withdraw claims of privilege, information was ultimately provided to the DPP and the Garda and material relevant to whether Mr McClean had paramilitary connections was now in the possession of the parties.
Mr Hartnett said this was material relevant to Mr McClean’s background and credibility as he had denied during cross examination that he had any paramilitary links. "

Quote:
"Then Assistant Commissioner of the Gardaí, Edmund ('Ned') Garvey was said by Fred Holroyd to have met him and an RUC Officer at Garda headquarters in 1975. Holroyd named Garvey, and another Garda (codenamed, 'the badger'), as being on the "British side". Garvey later denied that the meeting took place. However, Justice Barron found: "The visit by Holroyd to Garda Headquarters unquestionably did take place, notwithstanding former Commissioner Garvey’s inability to recall it".[56] Barron further noted: "On the Northern side, there is conflicting evidence as to how, why and by whom the visit was arranged. Regrettably, Garda investigations have failed to uncover any documentary evidence of the visit, or to identify any of the officers involved in arranging it from the Southern side."[47]
Edmund Garvey was dismissed by the incoming Fianna Fáil Government on 19 January 1978 without explanation, other than by stating that it no longer had confidence in him as Garda Commissioner. "
http://www.politicalworld.org/wiki/Commission_of_Invest..._1974

30 people were killed in the bombings, and 300 injured, many of them horribly."

http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=444

by tomeile Tue Dec 09, 2008 16:02

The Court of Criminal Appeal will hear an application early next year from Catherine Nevin who is seeking an order forcing the DPP to answer whether prosecution witnesses Gerald Heapes , William Mc Clean and John Jones were ever state informers and whether McClean had paramilitary connections. Justice Adrian Hardiman yesterday fixed the date of January 19th next to hear the application.

Ms Nevin is also seeking disclosure of documents relating to the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings and Garda security files on the three state witnesses . She claims that the files will call into question the testimony of the three if released , and potentially undermine the credibility of evidence given by another state witness , Patrick Russell. The DPP has opposed handing over the material contending that the issues raised had already been considered at the original trial in April 2000.

by joe mcivor Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:48 joemcivor at gmail dot com

Today's Independent reports that Catherine Nevin's legal team is "seeking an order forcing the Garda Commissioner to inquire into whether three men she was convicted of hiring to kill her husband were actually state informers."

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/n....html

by Joe Thu Feb 21, 2008 16:19

Catherine Nevin was convicted by the stories of three individuals that alleged she had attempted to hire them to kill her husband. It should be noted that prior to the Belfast Agreement, these gentlemen would not have been considered truthful or reliable witnesses. Why therefore did the state case depend entirely on this evidence? If memory serves me right, Tom Nevin was in the process of counting the weekend takings at his premises when he was shot. All the money remained at the scene . It had been suggested by the defence that Tom Nevin was employed or involved with the Provos in the control of that premises. The authorities are now aware of many successful business ventures under Provo control in this state but due to the Belfast Agreement they are protected to allow "normality" to return. Is the file in relation to this murder still open ? Do the Gardai have suspects in mind? Afterall, it is acknowledged that Catherine Nevin did not fire the shots that killed her husband- so who did? If this person was hired by Catherine Nevin to commit this crime- why not steal the money from the scene? No, this crime was not a crime of passion, nor about money but it was about the need to silence Tom Nevin and finding an individual to blame.

by interesting case Thu Feb 21, 2008 13:43

we are all familiar with politically motivated incarceration, this seems to be the hallmark of a Brit mentality,
wherein someone as 'astute' as Michael Howard, who failed to become Tory leader could abuse all the rules
of law to push his point on Irish dissent (Mc Aliskey). The interesting thing in the Nevin trial was that she
was tried and convicted for a murder in the absence of proof- (hearsay and circumstantial suffices).

Keep us informed.

Someday we will be allowed to observe the criminality of those who in pursuit of theory and political
utopianism removed civil liberties and abused human rights to achive that, while at one and the same
time handed their power of mandate to corrupt business and cronyism.