PSNI rejects British Army version of 1988 shooting

dlofnep

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

The shot richoched off the ground and shot him, at worst manslaughter at best a tragic accident, provos dont actually really give a s***, such incidents are simply useful political propaganda, thats the reality.

lol...


Sure... didn't all the Olympic sharp-shooters win via ricochets. Quack, get out of town.

Liam Byrne

TOMASJ wrote: »

That must add up to seven or eight hundred tragic accident, carried out by the British in the North.

Question for you, TOMASJ:

Was the murder of Jerry McCabe
(a) a "tragic accident" that happened during an "attempted robbery"
(b) an unauthorised operation and therefore not in breach of the ceasefire
(c) an authorised operation and therefore in breach of the ceasefire

Because depending on when you listened, Gerry Adams' accounts of this are about as varied as Bertie Ahern's accounts of his, well, accounts.

In an ideal world, no-one would be two-faced or demand justice while not offering it themselves, but like I've said before, you can't justify doubting someone else when you give people plenty of reason to doubt you.

Did the British Army disclose all the facts of this shooting, and demand justice from within their ranks ? Probably not. So you're entitled to look for justice and closure.

Did someone in authority take some half-assed story at face value, and change the story as suited ? Probably. So again, you're entitled to look for justice and closure.

But....did Gerry Adams disclose all the facts of this shooting and demand justice ? No.

Did he take some half-assed story at face value, and change the story as suited ? Yes.

Sand

Ah Liam, we have to move on into a bright new future. No point raking over past misdeeds by the Provos.

Where would we find the time, with us being busy raking over the past misdeeds of everyone else?

gurramok

Funny that. some posters are trying to equate paramiltaries with 'legitimate' forces regarding killings carried out.

If it was a terrorist campaign by the provos, you'd rightly expect justice dished out by the law as they are outside the law.
If the British army who are supposed to uphold the law and step outside the law by killing kids, they should be apprehended by the law otherwise the law is an ass and it makes them equal to terrorist actions. So, which is it?

In a lawful democratic society, you'd expect no justice or morals from 'outlaws' but you expect justice and morals from those that are supposed to uphold the law. *hint*

Sand

Oh the Provos are scum, and I dont expect much from scum. However, just because theyre scum doesnt mean they get a "Get out of jail free" card. Well, actually it does under the GFA. But apart from that, scum and all as they are they are elected to the British Parliament and Stormont.

They are members of the state. They participate in the running of the state.

Martin McGuinness is a major participant in the running of the Northern Ireland administration. He is the government. He is the legitimately elected member of the states administration.

His crimes are just as horrific in that light, as say a British soldiers shooting of a British civillian. Theyre both servants of the state, guilty....wait no....heavily suspected.... of murdering the citizens of the state they serve.

TOMASJ

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Question for you, TOMASJ:

Was the murder of Jerry McCabe
(a) a "tragic accident" that happened during an "attempted robbery"
(b) an unauthorised operation and therefore not in breach of the ceasefire
(c) an authorised operation and therefore in breach of the ceasefire

I would call the killing of Garda McCabe- manslaughter,
Im sure you are aware four people went to court and were jailed for killing Garda Mc Cabe, and were not included in the GFA releases,

as for breaches of ceasefire you would have to direct that to the IRA.

Because depending on when you listened, Gerry Adams' accounts of this are about as varied as Bertie Ahern's accounts of his, well, accounts.

as are the accounts of the brits on the killing of Dermot O'Neill -brushed under the carpet- and lately Brazilian man Jean Charles de Menezes.

In an ideal world, no-one would be two-faced or demand justice while not offering it themselves, but like I've said before, you can't justify doubting someone else when you give people plenty of reason to doubt you.

We dont live in utopia as I said before you see it your way I see it mine,

Did the British Army disclose all the facts of this shooting, and demand justice from within their ranks ? Probably not.

nor did they in the cases of dozens of of other killings of nationalists. in fact in some cases they got promotion (Lee Clegg) for instance (no call for early release via the GFA for the brit soldiers)

Did someone in authority take some half-assed story at face value, and change the story as suited ? Probably. So again, you're entitled to look for justice and closure.

No they covered this murder up as they did countless others (Pat Finucane') for instance.

But....did Gerry Adams disclose all the facts of this shooting and demand justice ? No.

Did any british leader distance themselves form the murder by there servents of -John Boyle for instance

Did he take some half-assed story at face value, and change the story as suited ? Yes.

A lot of presumptions about half assed storeys when it concerns british terrorist

cherrypicker555

dlofnep wrote: »

lol...


Sure... didn't all the Olympic sharp-shooters win via ricochets. Quack, get out of town.

Your denying it was a richochet :rolleyes:

The soldier fired his GPMG, either deliberately or not, a richochet hit the ground and killed the victim...thats a fact, check the details, they can tell by the round.

TOMASJ

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

Your denying it was a richochet :rolleyes:

The soldier fired his GPMG, either deliberately or not, a richochet hit the ground and killed the victim...thats a fact, check the details, they can tell by the round.

the "dogs in the streets" know it was a deliberate act of murder,
only now 20 years later are the cops getting around to stating - but so far doing nothing about - what the population of Aughnacloy an the surrounding area knows and knew,
that Aidan McAnespie was set up for murder by the brits.

cherrypicker555

TOMASJ wrote: »

the "dogs in the streets" know it was a deliberate act of murder,
only now 20 years later are the cops getting around to stating - but so far doing nothing about - what the population of Aughnacloy an the surrounding area knows and knew,
that Aidan McAnespie was set up for murder by the brits.

How can a richochet off the road fired from 400 yards away be an act of murder, why are republicans such irrational hysterical morons and liars ?

Historical Enquiries Team Investigation
In June 2008, the Police Service of Northern Ireland Historical Enquiries Team published its findings on the case in a report. In the fatal shooting the soldier claimed that his hands were wet, causing him to accidentally fire the machine-gun when he was moving inside a sanger. The report called this the "least likely version" of what happened. Forensic evidence suggested the fatal shot ricocheted off the road. The soldier was charged with manslaughter, but this was later withdrawn. The Ministry of Defence said it had co-operated with the inquiry and understood that this did not uncover any new evidence that would warrant further investigation.[16]

It wasn't me!

I haven't spent any time reading up on the circumstances of the case, but from reading the thread, I was siding with the republicans, the likelihood being that it was deliberate. However, if the round contacted the road before hitting the guy, there's basically no way it could be deliberate, it being just about impossible to predict how a bullet will ricochet and fragment in those circumstances. So, do the republicans dispute that it did hit the road? Are there photographs of the recovered bullet or fragments thereof from the autopsy? Without those answers, any further conclusions become rather unlikely.

A Dub in Glasgo

Republicans are definitely disputing that the bullet that killed Aiden McAnespie ricocheted off the ground after an accidental discharge.

The HET report

GUARDSMAN Holden claimed that he moved the weapon by holding the pistol grip with a “loose grip”. As he did so, his finger slipped and he inadvertently pulled the trigger. The HET test fired a GPMG and found that:
“Activating the trigger required having a firm grip on the pistol grip and squeezing the trigger until it activated. It was found to be difficult and required considerable force to activate the trigger without having the hand firmly gripped around the pistol grip.” Holden’s loose grip explanation therefore contradicted the results of the practical test on the weapon.
Furthermore, the HET discovered that the gun was mounted on a pivot that allowed the weapon to be swivelled. Consequently, there was no need for Holden to have his hand on the pistol grip and finger on the trigger-guard since he only had to swivel the butt of the weapon on the pivot in order to reposition the weapon. In addition, another soldier confirmed that he had already repositioned the weapon.
Holden claimed that his hands were still wet from cleaning the sangar 10 minutes earlier. HET investigators have analysed the activities in the sangar that day which showed that the cleaning was conducted by a cleaning party and that Holden had resumed look-out duty half an hour before the shooting. The ‘wet hands’ scenario is difficult to reconcile with the timing of the cleaning duties.
Lance Sergeant Peters gave evidence that, on entering the sangar after the shooting and asking Holden what had happened, the reply was that he had squeezed the trigger.
Holden was not interviewed until more than 24 hours after the incident. In the intervening period he remained in military custody. There was a further 24-hour delay before the second interview took place.
The crime scene was not examined by the Forensic Service until the next day and there is no record of any crime scene protection in the interim. This would result in “crime scene evidence recovered being questionable”, according to the HET report.

FORENSICS & BALLISTICS
The gun had been dismantled and cleaned earlier that day. It has not been established why or by whom the gun was left cocked and with the safety catch off. This was totally in contravention of standing orders.
The forensic evidence concluded that a ricochet bullet which struck the ground just directly behind Aidan before it entered his body inflicted the fatal injury.
The weapon discharged three rounds and the fatal bullet was a tracer round. There is now no way of knowing whether the fatal bullet was the first or the last of three shots fired. Swab tests taken from the roadway no longer exist.
IF the first shot fired resulted in the ricochet from the fatal strike mark, then this could support the assertion that the gun was aimed at the victim or in his vicinity. The HET has since discovered that the forensic report gave no consideration to the possibility that the fatal ricochet was a result of the FIRST shot discharged from the weapon.
It should be noted that there is clear evidence that the guardsman had Aidan (whom he considered to be a suspect) under close observation as he passed through the checkpoint. However, at the moment of discharge, Holden claimed to have been physically repositioning the weapon. In other words, he claims not to have been aiming at or tracking Aidan when the shots were fired.
The HET questions “the likelihood of an accidental random discharge striking the roadway only a few feet behind what would be from the vantage point of the machine gun post a minuscule figure at a distance of 283.4 metres”.
Having weighed up all the propositions and taken all the circumstances and available evidence into account, the Historical Enquiries Team decided that Guardsman Holden’s version of events “could be considered to be the least likely”.

TOMASJ

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

How can a richochet off the road fired from 400 yards away be an act of murder, why are republicans such irrational hysterical morons and liars ?

Not a very christan attitude to take towards people trying to have some justice for the murder of their son, by the brits.

oscarBravo

TOMASJ wrote: »

I would call the killing of Garda McCabe- manslaughter,

TOMASJ wrote: »

the "dogs in the streets" know it was a deliberate act of murder,

No double standards here. No siree bob.

TOMASJ

oscarBravo wrote: »

No double standards here. No siree bob.

No no double standards,
we are talking about two completely different killings "both tragic" the Aidan McAnespie murder was covered up by the brits, the killers of Garda McCabe were charged and found guilty of manslaughter, cant argue with facts.

oscarBravo

TOMASJ wrote: »

No no double standards,
we are talking about two completely different killings "both tragic"...

Yes, we are. In one case: men with an automatic weapon rammed a police car from behind, then jumped out and riddled the occupants with bullets at point-blank range. In the other case: a soldier discharges his weapon - whether deliberately, accidentally or negligently is open for discussion - and a round kills a young man after ricocheting off the ground.

You describe the first as manslaughter, and the second as murder.

Nope, no double standards whatsoever.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

In the other case: a soldier discharges his weapon - whether deliberately, accidentally or negligently is open for discussion - and a round kills a young man after ricocheting off the ground.

It didn't ricochet off the ground. They stated that it did, but the chances of that are virtually impossible.

PSNI wrote:

It says the chances of the shot being un-aimed or random are so remote as to be virtually disregarded.

It was, like many other murders of civilians by members of the British forces, covered up - without a smidgen of responsibility accepted.

Murder is murder. If it's a unionist, or a nationalist or a status quo. It doesn't matter. If a civilian was shot by the IRA, then it is murder. If a civilian was shot by the British army, then it is murder. If a civilian is shot by a loyalist force, then it is murder.

In this case - it was a civilian shot by a British soldier, resulting in his death. And going by the original accusations, and now by a new PSNI report - it is fair to say, that it is highly probable that this poor lad was murdered by a member of the British military. A mandated army, in a civilized country. And for what reason? Who knows what side of the bed this soldier got out of on the morning on the death - But he's one of many, who have been quick to use the trigger on civilians - furthering British oppression against the nationalist community. Cover your eyes and pretend it didn't happen all you want, but the story remains the same.

TOMASJ

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, we are. In one case: men with an automatic weapon rammed a police car from behind, then jumped out and riddled the occupants with bullets at point-blank range.

Well as I said the courts found manslaughter, I can not change that fact.

In the other case: a soldier discharges his weapon - whether deliberately, accidentally or negligently is open for discussion - and a round kills a young man after ricocheting off the ground.

And as yet we have not had a court case, so your scenarios on the McAnespie killing have not been explored in any court,
along with dozens of others I might add.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

It didn't ricochet off the ground. They stated that it did, but the chances of that are virtually impossible.

Nope. Nobody seems to be arguing with the forensic evidence that says the bullet hit the ground first. The argument is with the soldier's claim that his hand slipped, which isn't credible.

If a civilian was shot by the IRA, then it is murder.

Does that include gardaí?

TOMASJ wrote: »

Well as I said the courts found manslaughter, I can not change that fact.

Play a game with me. Let's swap a few of the characters around between the stories, and see if our feelings change at all.

Imagine, if you will, that a young Catholic man is sitting in his car, when he's rammed from behind by a jeep. Out of the jeep jumps a British soldier, who runs up to the stunned young man, points an automatic weapon at him and fires several rounds at point-blank range.

Would that have been murder?

And as yet we have not had a court case, so your scenarios on the McAnespie killing have not been explored in any court,
along with dozens of others I might add.

If we had a court case, and the court acquitted the soldier, would you be as blithely accepting of the verdict as you are of the McCabe manslaughter charge?

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope. Nobody seems to be arguing with the forensic evidence that says the bullet hit the ground first. The argument is with the soldier's claim that his hand slipped, which isn't credible.

Actually, the argument is that the chances of it being random or un-aimed are virtually impossible. Therefore, it could not have hit the ground as it neither coincides with it being non-random and aimed.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Does that include gardaí?

Yes.

Allah Hu Akbar

But McCabe wasn't a civilian he was a member of the gardaí. I'm not saying I agree with what happened but he tried to stop them what did you really think was gonna happen? Oh yes I will drop the gun and put my hands in the air.

If he wasn't a member of the gardaí they would've been out ages ago. I know a guy who battered his father to death, he got four years which death is worse?

dlofnep

I would like to add - That I think it's perfectly fair to say that on numerous occasions over the duration of the troubles - British armed forces have, used unnecessary force against civilians, and have not answered or taken responsibility for the blatant murder of civilians over the years. They have not apologised. The British government did not at any stage proceed with a fair inquiry into the murder of civilians. This is perfectly evident not only in this death, but in the inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday. These same civilians that are supposed to be subjects of that very Government, did not receive fair and equal treatment.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

Actually, the argument is that the chances of it being random or un-aimed are virtually impossible. Therefore, it could not have hit the ground as it neither coincides with it being non-random and aimed.

From what I've heard, forensic evidence (from the bullet) points to it being a ricochet. I'd need to hear specific forensic evidence to counter that, rather than relying on what is essentially an argument from a conclusion.

Yes.

On that we are agreed. Unfortunately, there are others who will go to any lengths to defend the IRA's actions:

Allah Hu Akbar wrote: »

But McCabe wasn't a civilian he was a member of the gardaí.

Technically, that makes him a civilian (not a soldier).

I'm not saying I agree with what happened but he tried to stop them what did you really think was gonna happen? Oh yes I will drop the gun and put my hands in the air.

Tried to stop them? By parking in their way?!

He never reached for his gun. He never saw them coming. He was gunned down in cold blood at point-blank range with an automatic weapon.

But you seem to know all about it, so tell me this: how much money did they get away with?

Allah Hu Akbar

Well in fairness if you robbed a place and you seen a Gardai car what would you do?

Like you said he had a gun so what would've happened if he took it out? I thought it was a cold blooded murder but now it appears that wasn't the case.

IRA men get killed in car, they had gun but never pulled it out, that would be ok for them to get killed wouldn't it.

It's funny we all go back to McCabe case it's a pity the other 11 members of the gardai who were murdered by people aren't remembered..

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

On that we are agreed. Unfortunately, there are others who will go to any lengths to defend the IRA's actions:

Just a brief comment on the Jerry McCabe incident..

Firstly, if the lads involved didn't rob the bank in the first place, then it would never have happened. My understanding is that they were rogue members of the IRA, and not under order from the IRA. Was it wrong for them to kill Jerry McCabe? Absolutely. A son was left without a father. A wife, without a husband. I guess, I only know as much as you in regards to the incident. I have a friend who's joining An Gardaí, and I wouldn't be very happy if his life was ended due to a botched robbery attempt, and I certainly wouldn't try to justify it.

I can't say with my hand across my heart that everything Republicans have done, have been morally acceptable. I think mistakes have been made. I'm more than happy to accept it.

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

By contrast, I just got back from Grenada, which was such a basket case in 1983, complete with violence and assassinations, that the US invaded it to restore some semblance of government to the place. Twenty-five short years later, all the internecine strife has been completely put behind them. There are no recriminations, no provocations, no refusal to accept the legitimacy of the police - nothing. Grenadians are mature enough to accept that what's past is past, and there's nothing to be gained from nursing hatred.

It's a lesson some of us would do well to study.

Grenada ain't ethnically nor religously divided to the extent of it's populace having allegiance to 2 countries, big difference.

On your other posts, why do you continually try to bring in Garda McCabe's murder/manslaughter whatever one calls it into the argument?

One does not have to be a Republican to highlight the wrongs of the Army during the conflict, ask any SDLP rep. or victims group about that.

A fact(yes a fact) remains that innocent men, women and children who were not Republican were shot dead by the Army in the 70's/80's including Mr McAnespie.
Their deaths have not been acknowledged as been wrong in law by the perpetrators who are supposed to abide by the law.
(look up any book about victims of the troubles to get the list and circumstances of these killings)

Hopefully this new Truth commission that is being proposed along with HET will bring some justice to the families and Mr McAnespie's killing is just the start of hundreds of victims buried under the radar by the 'law upholders' to be investigated.

And yes, they will and are investigating Republican/Loyalist/UDR/RUC killings as well so you cannot say its one-sided

oscarBravo

Allah Hu Akbar wrote: »

Well in fairness if you robbed a place and you seen a Gardai car what would you do?

I wouldn't "rob a place", so it's a moot point.

Like you said he had a gun so what would've happened if he took it out? I thought it was a cold blooded murder but now it appears that wasn't the case.

Wow, that's some serious revisionism you've got going on there. Keep going - it won't be long before the evil cop has the brave volunteer pinned in a corner, and he's forced to reluctantly draw his weapon in order to escape.

It's funny we all go back to McCabe case it's a pity the other 11 members of the gardai who were murdered by people aren't remembered..

Oh, don't worry - they're all remembered. Jerry McCabe is simply the most recent victim. He's also the one who has allowed Sinn Féin to show their true colours.

gurramok wrote: »

Grenada ain't ethnically nor religously divided to the extent of it's populace having allegiance to 2 countries, big difference.

That's pretty much my point. Grenada could have ended up as deeply divided over ideological and political differences as other parts of the world, but they decided not to.

It's a pity that rather than deciding to learn from their experience, you scramble to justify refusing to do so.

On your other posts, why do you continually try to bring in Garda McCabe's murder/manslaughter whatever one calls it into the argument?

I'm sorry if it's inconvenient, but it rather neatly highlights the double standards of republican apologists. So far, dlofnep is the only republican poster to unequivocally describe it as murder, and to refuse to attempt to justify it, for which I salute him.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

Firstly, if the lads involved didn't rob the bank in the first place, then it would never have happened.

How much did they get away with, again?

My understanding is that they were rogue members of the IRA, and not under order from the IRA.

It's OK, Sinn Féin still love them.

RSF Cill Dara

Daithi McGee wrote: »

Any luck finding that on the web buddy?[/B].

no, as he made it up

TOMASJ

Play a game with me. Let's swap a few of the characters around between the stories, and see if our feelings change at all.

Imagine, if you will, that a young Catholic man is sitting in his car, when he's rammed from behind by a jeep. Out of the jeep jumps a British soldier, who runs up to the stunned young man, points an automatic weapon at him and fires several rounds at point-blank range.

Lets not play a game let me point out an occasion where exactly what your game describes happened to a young Catholic man is sitting in his car-I dont presume some are aware or care as he was a republican-his name was Pearse Jordan- killed by the brits "and guess what" -yes one more time- no crime was committed by the brits "not even manslaughter"

McCabe manslaughter charge?

"Conviction"

oscarBravo

TOMASJ wrote: »

Lets not play a game let me point out an occasion where exactly what your game describes happened to a young Catholic man is sitting in his car-I dont presume some are aware or care as he was a republican-his name was Pearse Jordan- killed by the brits "and guess what" -yes one more time- no crime was committed by the brits "not even manslaughter"

Do you consider it murder?

"Conviction"

Yes, they were convicted of manslaughter after the IRA (who we're told didn't sanction the actions of these rogue members) intimidated witnesses and undermined the state's case for a murder charge.

Any danger of you answering the question?