Mary Kelly found guilty, sentencing tomorrow

by kelly deserves the nobel prize Thu Oct 28, 2004 20:22

I feel disgusted at the guilty verdict. For Mary to be found guilty when she single handedly did more than millions of others around the world to actually try and stop the juggernaut of destruction..its just plain wrong.

Regardless of the verdict, Mary's action is an inspiration, and I hope that people will be encouraged by how powerful her act of people's disarmament was...Actions speak so much louder.

I hope that the international solidarity for mary will get stronger whatever the sentence and that Mary will appeal, and win.

"Any political movement that does not support its political internees is a sham movement!" - Ojore Lutalo

by suzie Thu Oct 28, 2004 20:49

I'm delighted with the verdict, if everybody went around damaging property belongling to people who they have a difference with we would have chaos, she has no right to damage any ones property and thankfully has been convicted by a jury, she could have engaged in peaceful protest and debate and I hope she is given a prison sentence, she jepordised the jobs of thousands of irish workers, not everyone is satisfied with being on social welfare and some people need these american industries to support their familys and localities, I dont support the war in Iraq but two wrongs dont make a right

by activista Thu Oct 28, 2004 21:04

I think we should try to organise a massive solidarity protest in Dublin to highlight this, anyone up for it, antiwar ireland? dgn? anyone?

We'll need to start organising regular protests outside whatever prison she ends up in, and maybe start a defense fund for an appeal, there's seems to be plenty of grounds for it based on the court reports.

Lets get organising!!

by The Black Hand Thu Oct 28, 2004 21:19

In the 80's it was "Free Nicky Kelly"
Now it looks like its going to be "Free Mary Kelly."

by John Thu Oct 28, 2004 21:30

Wonderful news! Let's hope she gets a sentence sufficient to deter others from running around destroying property. If she'd got off, every nutter in the country would have felt free to take the law into their own hands. Not just left-wing nutters, but right-wing organisations like Youth Defence as well. If Kelly had been found not guilty, anti-abortion groups would have felt completely within their rights in destroying the offices of abortion referral agencies. Long live the rule of law!

by Good call Thu Oct 28, 2004 21:30

Solidarity demos, a great idea. You can make a huge picture for a banner or billboard alteration using this free tool: http://homokaasu.org/rasterbator/

Will she be in prison pending her appeal? Judging from the statement she made to the press she's going to try and appeal the conviction.

by tonore Thu Oct 28, 2004 22:28

She did deserve to be found guilty, but I don't believe a harsh (custodial) sentence is in order.

It's depressing to see women take up the methods of men in cases like this. There's little difference between her and the bullies who attcked Barrett. A peaceful protest would have won her more supporters.

However, some of the claims for her actions (see her website) are just plain wrong:

"In the previous aggression in Iraq in 1991, terrible crimes against peace and humanity were committed by the US and British armed forces."

If that's the kind of daftness that she wanted to introduce into what is essentially a local, county matter of criminal damage, then the judge was right. Courts deal with the facts. The standard "bigger picture", "real issues", "decontextualised" bleatings of the left just don't add up to anything more than a cookie cutter excuse for any kind of behaviour that would otherwise be socially reprehensible.

If only she'd attacked the plane carryinh Mohamed Atta et al, she might have had a case.

by Vi Tracey - none Thu Oct 28, 2004 22:38 vitracey at yahoo dot ie

How can that have been a fair trial? It was a farce. Mary Kelly has more than sufficient grounds for appeal. The judge was clearly biased against her. He did not allow the jury to hear the full facts. What kind of trial does not allow the defendant 's witnesses to give their evidence?

by no 6 Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:50

"How can that have been a fair trial? It was a farce. Mary Kelly has more than sufficient grounds for appeal. The judge was clearly biased against her. He did not allow the jury to hear the full facts. What kind of trial does not allow the defendant 's witnesses to give their evidence?"

Viv, Mary was arguing a very specific legal technicality to get herself aquited.

In May her legal team felt they had been left with no choice but to resign as Mary was taking a great deal of "legal" advice from other parties (Eoin Rice) who was frankly giving her dubious and impratical advice and strategy.

Mary's decision to contest the case herself was a decision she was forced into but a situation she worked herself into, as her defense was based on a "radical" interperation of the law.

Both sides can attempt to prevent the other side from calling witnesses, and Mary lacked the legal finese to argue her case, a situation which might not have arrisen if she had retained council rather than listen to the dubious advice of someone who's sanity is frankly questionable.

Finally Mary must take responsibility for her actions, she knew full well the state would object to her actions and she most likely would face prison. She must accept the consequences of her decision.

by Johnny Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:56

Jury, came back 10 to 2. The people have spoken, Mary Kelly did not act on behalf of anyone but herself. She's no representitive of the people. A spell in gaol should do her a world of good. She should have given some thought to her children before becoming a vandal. They'll be without a mother for a time now. One wonders if she cares?It'll also give a host of hippies something to whinge and protest about....

by CJ Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:55

what if she had got away with it, what if the plane did take off, what if it crashed and everybody on board was killed??? would she still be a hero in some peoples eyes.She was charged with vandalism and found guilty she should have been charged with attempted murder.Think about it what is vandalism write you name on a wall (street art) kicking over bins, scratching a car etc, what would you call it if someone came into your house and cut the break lines on your car or loosened the wheel nuts, would that be vandalism, what chargers would you want brought against that person, if your better half and kids were in the car you would probably kill them if you could get your hands on them, but the very least you would expcect is the the laws works for you and puts that person behind bars..

One last question
Would she still be a hero if it was a commerical aircraft she attatcked.....???

think about it,

by james Fri Oct 29, 2004 13:51

Wow, what a dirge of right wing twaddle has been unleased above. Most of the previous posters would be happy to hang her high. Mary did what she did out of conciense, she attacked a war plane, the sole purpose of which is to bring death where ever dictated by the US government. The fact that this war machine was on Irish soil is a disgrace alone, neutrality how are ya.

Its so comfy for the Irish right to sit in their comfortable D4 mansions and condem her actions. They have never nor will they ever be on the receiving end of the payload of such planes, if they where it would be a different story. Under what mandate did the Irish gov. let Shannon become a war base for the US? I dont ever remember being asked. A majority were against the slaughter in Iraq so why where we ignored?? Good on you Mary, we arent all right wing cheer leaders for slaughter, you have many supporters and always will. You are a hero.

by jeff Fri Oct 29, 2004 14:44

... that is, the definition being currently used on this thread, then it is easier for you to condemn Mary Kelly like the above posters are.

It is easier to believe you are living in an environment that looks after the rule of law, etc, rather than knowing that the same jurisdiction has a facile, insipid interpretation of what Irish neutrality is.

Nobody in their right mind wants to believe that problems actually exist on our doorstep; they only exist in two nether regions ; the Past, and the Third World.

If there are problems, then it is someone else's fault.
If they are perceived problems, then you must be political to perceive them. Sensible people who vote and pay tax , according to the right wing weltanschaung, are too busy to acknowledge so called ' problems'.

Right Wing; For a Blissful State of Mind

by Keith Fri Oct 29, 2004 14:54

James, I wouldn't be so sure that D4 is so comfy and protected, they can all be reached.
In fact, they are being reached, and it is a different story. It won't be long before someone is affected a little more than by pathetic heart-string reporting on hostages etc.
Somewhere in D4 there is pretty likely somebody who lost a friend or relative in 9/11. soon there will be more, the sad part is that they will go on blaming others (like Mary) and not themselves. So yes, it's a different story, it will get worse before it gets better, bush has been very good at exposing the reality behind US foreign policy. Mary and many dead iraqi's and afghanis have been good at exposing yet more injustice. but it's all good. One day we will recognise our debt to them all.


CJ, I and i imagine many others have much more immediate and relevent things to think about than your "What ifs". - piss off.


Mise, it wouldn't be a protest without ya, thanks for your contribution. keep flying the flag.


Johnny, 10 uninformed people have spoken, not "the people", and thanks for the example of an extremely common viewpoint. Mother's should look after children, not the community, or vice versa... yes yes.


tonore, i may be wrong, but i get the impression that what mary was trying to do was stop kids from being killed, not "win supporters", but we should or course ask herself about before further discussion


John, I hope one day your faith in the law will allow justice to reach into the corridors of power and do the whole deterring thing there.


suzie, it's funny but everyone talks about peacful debate etc etc until they've had a gun in their face.
If we are both attacked by a rabied dog, i will do my very best to quickly kill it, you of course will protest peacefully, debate and reason with it, and we'll see then the outcome. glad you are "delighted", i have an image in my head of you jumping up and down with joy, - just before your throat gets savaged. ooh yuck.

by 100,000 Fri Oct 29, 2004 16:30

Front page of English Indepoendenttoday has MedicalJournal reports estimating over 100,000 Iraqi deaths due toi the U.S. war(over half are women and children).
The Irish statecouldnot afford a fair trial with such issuespresented before a jury...so we get a kangaroo court in Limerick.

Shameful day for Ireland.

by nonumberisanicenumber Fri Oct 29, 2004 16:34

they seem to be in the know and were obviously present during both trial hearings,

"Viv, Mary was arguing a very specific legal technicality to get herself aquited."

please no.6 tell us the details on this.

"In May her legal team felt they had been left with no choice but to resign as Mary was taking a great deal of "legal" advice from other parties (Eoin Rice) who was frankly giving her dubious and impratical advice and strategy."

again I'd like the details, "dubious", "impractical advice" on what exactly, please share with us your apparent insider knowledge.

"her defense was based on a "radical" interperation of the law.

What was radical about her interpretation?

"Both sides can attempt to prevent the other side from calling witnesses, and Mary lacked the legal finese to argue her case, a situation which might not have arrisen if she had retained council rather than listen to the dubious advice of someone who's sanity is frankly questionable."

now hold on just a second, apart from trying to completely discredit people who have worked hard in the anti-war movement in Ireland ( one in particular) do you have the decency to back any of this up, or are you just following orders?

ps. you write with such finesse by the way, a legal background by any chance?

by number xqz28000 Fri Oct 29, 2004 16:48

good people,

Please refer to indymedia entries written by a character named James in the Updates on Marys Trial section. James also sounds like a legal expert, a cop or both. From one of his postings, he sounds like someone with mysterious knowledge about who is typing entries onto indymedia. He sounds similar to number 6. ( Or should we say number 666? )

by No 6 Fri Oct 29, 2004 17:14

they seem to be in the know and were obviously present during both trial hearings,

"Viv, Mary was arguing a very specific legal technicality to get herself aquited."

please no.6 tell us the details on this.

Pay attention, Mary was arguing lawful excuse for criminal damage. Which in essence means that if you see someone with a knife who is about to stab someone you are intitled to break the knife to prevent the crime being commited. Now no one has tried to use this excuse to justify attacking a plane which may or may not be breaking the law.

Hense the legal technicality. You should have read other thread on this topic.



"again I'd like the details, "dubious", "impractical advice" on what exactly, please share with us your apparent insider knowledge. "

Again as I understand it Eoin wanted Mary's defense team to call Aherne and Cowen, a tactic they viewed as irrelevant and waste of resources, and impratical.


What was radical about her interpretation?

To my understanding the nurmberg defense has not ever been sucessfully used in a court in Ireland. Hence radical.



"Both sides can attempt to prevent the other side from calling witnesses, and Mary lacked the legal finese to argue her case, a situation which might not have arrisen if she had retained council rather than listen to the dubious advice of someone who's sanity is frankly questionable."

now hold on just a second, apart from trying to completely discredit people who have worked hard in the anti-war movement in Ireland ( one in particular) do you have the decency to back any of this up, or are you just following orders?


Yes yes yes, anyone who disputes the bleating sheep cannon is automatically a cop. Eoin Rice is a delusion idiot, who pretty much single handed ruined her case. Furthermore I don't try to discredit Mary and resent the implication that you suggest I do.


ps. you write with such finesse by the way, a legal background by any chance?


No just a passing familarity

by Dr. Curtis FJ Doebbler - international human rights lawyer Fri Oct 29, 2004 18:12 doebbler at starpower dot net Washington, USA +1-206-984-4734

As a lawyer that saw much of Mary Kelly's trial (as I had been asked to give expert testimony) I sense a misunderstanding of legal aspects in some comments.

The defense of lawful excuse is a statutory defense. In accordance with longstanding practice under Irish law it should be interpreted as applying in a manenr that does not contradict international law. Unfortunately the trial judge seemed to misunderstand this point and this should be reversable error.

The same can be said about Mary Kelly's common law defense of necessity whcih should also be interpreted in a manner consistent with international law.

{I will not go into the specific points of consistency here but you are welcome to read my book International Human Rights Law where this is laid out in Chapter Three or to email and I will respond when I can find the time.}

Furthermore, the defense of necessity may be raised in relation to action taken to prevent a crime even if the relationship is not proximate in time and space. For example, if I shot a person standing in Dublin but holding a telephone in his hand about to make a call to Tokyo to give orders to ignite a bomb, I could reasonably claim this defense. The judges failure to allow Mary Kelly to show that there was a crime being perpetrated anywhere in the world that was linked to her action is also probably reverable error.

Finally, the judge's clear statements that Iraq and international law were not relevant in Irish law may also be reversable error and was in any case an insult issued by an Irish judge at the international legal community which I have already had an opportunity to draw to the attention of several prominent international lawyers and diplomats. Although not alone in his ignorance, Judge Moran is another example of a judge that discredits his profession by his fundamental misunderstandings of the relationship between domestic and international law.

Does anyone know the sentence that was passed on Mary?

by Heckle Fri Oct 29, 2004 18:19

Pardon my ignorance but..

You shoot the guy in the 'phone box knowing he's ringing Tokyo to detonate a bomb..fair enough.

Mary K saw a plane standing on the tarmac. Did she know the flightplan, the intentions of the crew and the cargo. Know not guess...

How could she know the plane was going to commit a crime under law, in her words kill women and children in Iraq? and not fly to the US maintenance base in Italy for a service?

If she knew fine, as she didn't how does she justify the defence of preventing a crime when all she can see is a stationary plane..no weapons of any sort in sight?

by pc Fri Oct 29, 2004 18:28

just like all those hundreds of thousands of us soldiers going through the airport "only carrying personnel arms" ?

100,000 soldiers,
a weapon of mass destruction if i ever saw one

by pete Fri Oct 29, 2004 19:45

so much for eoin rices advice, theres an un written rule in the courts, judges dont like to see people defending themselves for 2 reasons

1) they were solicitors themselves once and dont like the fact that other people think they can do the job they and their cronies do or did (espically with the rates they charge).

2) they undermine the solicitors and barristors on the circuit by having a defendent represent themselves and win.

You should have played the game Mary, Eoin Rice has a high opinion of himself, unfortunately you'll have a long time behind bars to think wheather its justified or not or wheather his advice is worth listening to in future

by No 7. Fri Oct 29, 2004 20:20

This judge decided to change the rules of the game towards the conclusion of mary's first trial when he began deeming defense witnesses and materials irrelevant to her defense. Scott Ritter was not allowed to take the stand. He would have made the case that the WMD scare on which the precarious legitimacy of the war on Iraq was sold to the public here as well as everywhere else was bogus.

The second trial collapsed because MK's legal team would not under any circumstances follow their clients instruction to apply on behalf of defense for access to the Irish AG's legal advice to the government on legality of war and their policy on the shannon issue in that context. Why? I don't know but it's John Devane if anyone wants to ask him. That legal team muddied the waters by instead claiming that the defendant wanted the AG himself produced in court and refusing to try to achieve this 'red herring'. They jumped ship and took all of the files related to the defense with them - none of which were returned to the defendant - and most of which they had no hand or part in generating as they were the result of an anti-war community effort.

By the end of this series of events and in the run-up to the third trial it was obvious that the judge would not allow a defense to be conducted. And indeed he picked up where he left off by at the outset by flatly denying Mary the opportunity to demonstrate that her sincerely held beliefs were rational.

The most important question in all this i think is why the judge changed the rules of the game between trial 1 where international law / Humanitarian relief experts were allowed to take the stand and the 3rd where they were not. This is 'Justice' as a moveable feast.

This was a political show trial designed to save the government the embarrasment of their knowing support for an illegal war being brought into the public arena. I don't think any legal team would have made any difference to this situation.

by IAWM via IMC Fri Oct 29, 2004 20:31

Since the IAWM seem (by their omission to publish this here) to think Indymedia is not a fit place for them to communicate with the Anti War public - I'm taking the liberty of publishing this here

IRISH ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT SLAM JUDGES HANDLING OF MARY KELLY TRIAL AS "DISGRACE" AND "CLEARLY POLITICAL".
In a statement today the Irish Anti-War Movement condemned as a "disgrace" and "clearly political" Judge Carroll Moran’s handling of the trial of peace activist Mary Kelly, which led to her to being found guilty of criminal damage in Ennis circuit court yesterday.
The IAWM also said that George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern should be facing justice for the part they played in a "criminal war" in Iraq not Mary Kelly for oppossing that war.
Richard Boyd Barrett, chairperson of the Irish Anti-War Movement said: "The entire handling of the Mary Kelly case by the state has been dictated by a clearly political agenda. The state wants to criminalise and crush legitimate political dissent and is willing to ride roughshod over natural justice do to so.
When Mary Kelly was allowed to present her full defence in the first trial, a jury found itself unable to convict her. Clearly, this was because she and her witnesses presented an unanswerable case that she was acting to prevent a criminal action in Iraq by damaging a US warplane.
Rather than accept the outcome of the first trial, the state decided to re-try Mary Kelly and then prevent her from putting forward the evidence, which was central to her defence. Judge Moran’s decision to do this is a disgrace and indicates, clearly, he was determined to secure a conviction and manipulate the trial to ensure this happened. This is a travesty of justice and shows the length’s the state are willing to go to silence those who wish to expose our government’s complicity with a criminal war on Iraq.
The people who should be on trial are Bush, Blair and their accomplices like Bertie Ahern. A war, we know now, was for “regime change” in Iraq was clearly illegal. That criminal war cost the lives of up to 30,000 innocent Iraqi’s. Judge Moran's decision to rule evidence about the legality of the war as inadmissible amounts to saying that damage to a war plane is more important than the war crime that plane played a part in committing.”
As a nurse Mary Kelly had spent her life dealing with the reality of human suffering. It was knowledge of the terrible suffering Bush’s war would inflict on the people of Iraq that motivated her actions. Justice is being turned on its head when action to stop the death of innocents is criminalised and the murder of those innocents goes unpunished."
"As long as US troops continue to pour through Shannon on their way illegally occupy Iraq and kill Iraqi’s who resist that occupation, protests at Shannon will continue."
For more information/confirmation contact Richard Boyd Barrett 087-6329511

by Michael Fri Oct 29, 2004 22:57

Cool it, man. What Mary Kelly needs right now is support, not "I told you so" treatment. Eoin Rice and others put their backs into this trial to help give Mary a fighting chance in there.

That judge had decided months ago to send her down. That much is clear now. She could have "played the game", you're right -- Shut up and watched as her lawyers (?) avoided the reasons, the context and the meaning of her action, but instead tried to win her an acquittal same as they would for any drink-driver (some typo in the charge sheet, some mistake in the police station, etc.). She could have watched the judge, the prosecution, and perhaps even the jury playing in the charade. They wouldn't have called her to the stand, obvious. They'd still send her down (even if she had "played the game" some more and entered a plea of guilty). She could appeal, of course, and go play the game again once more. Then prison. That's not Mary Kelly.

by Harry Browne Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:51

I was present for some of the trial and published this in Counterpunch Friday.

by santa'slittlehelper Sat Oct 30, 2004 13:55

October 29, 2004

Mary Kelly, Her Axe and a US Navy 737
No Justice in County Clare
By HARRY BROWNE

It is their front page story at the moment, but for future reference this is the correct url:
http://www.counterpunch.org/browne10292004.html

by Máire Mhic Fhearghusa - Peaceful Means Campaign Sat Oct 30, 2004 20:02 Soisceal at hotmail dot com 191 Br. Shéamuis, Baile Átha Cliath 12 085 739 6489

As I wrote this, I was awaiting news of the sentencing of Mary Kelly, who had been found guilty of damaging a US Navy plane in Shannon on the 29th of February, 2003.

I had spent the last three days in Ennis attending the closing of her 3rd trial.

Like her other supporters, I was dismayed and angered by the judge’s consistent and constant refusal to allow her to call forth most of her witnesses, or to ask any questions regarding Iraq to those, whom he did allow to be called.

Others will no doubt circulate more detailed accounts of the trial and I am sure that Mary`s final speech will also be circulated. She was amazingly brave and effective in conducting her own defence, with the help of Owen Rice, and others.

As I left before the jury had given their verdict, I received the bad news on my way back to Dublin. But the outcome did not surprise me, although I felt very grieved by it. I had stayed in a tourist hostel in the town. With only one exception, all the people of the town, to whom I mentioned my reason for being there, showed that they were disapproving of the action that she had taken.

Why? I wondered.

'People should mind their own business', one shopkeeper had said. While he did not approve of what Bush had done, he considered it essential that Ireland would not discommode the Americans.

Perhaps it is easy for me with my income not directly depending on US trade and investment in Ireland, to scoff at the blinkered vision of many people not just in the west of Ireland, but elsewhere too in Ireland.

But the Germans` excuse regarding the Holocaust echoed in my ears: “Wir haben nicht gewusst” – “We did not know!”.

And so the judge and the State and the Government conspire together to keep the thin veneer of blindfold in place.

“One must only consider whether or not Mary Kelly is guilty of damaging a plane”, was the ruling of the judge in Ennis.

And so the guilt goes on – not of Mary Kelly, mind you, but of those of us who choose to ignore the plight of our less fortunate fellow human beings in the many different ways in which we can do so.

Máire Mhic Fhearghusa, 29.10.04