Honesty is such an outmoded concept these days:So, the guy goes around firing upon people, then comes back and tells a cock and bull story, about when, where, at whom, and why.
And then he gets the good news about the forensics showing that his story so far is indeed cock and bull.
And he subsequently rewrites this story multiple times.
Here's a thing: If he'd no malice aforethought . . . why couldn't he speak the plain unvarnished truth on the very first occasion he was asked to explain how he had assiduously discharged his professional duties under Crown law on that day?
I assume that is under the murder charge.... manslaughter would be there was no intentAssuming the gist of the concrete ricochet background, the charge would fail the 'mens rae' criterion of 'intent' or 'knowledge' that the outcome would occur - unless of course it could be shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that the shooter was a supreme olympic standard shot with bullet bendy skills.
Even if the 'actus reus' element was proven (the guilty act) to have been carried out by the soldier in question, he cannot be convicted unless the 'mens rae' element is also proven. The legal principle is "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" - 'an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty'.
But as previously pointed out, 027 got over £60k to give evidence against the others, he was the ‘star’ witness:Part of Soldier Fs evidence, the inquiry solicitor is putting a fellow paras evidence to him.
This is a portion of 027's evidence that he has given to this Tribunal. In paragraph 58 he has told the Tribunal, this:
"I cannot remember precisely all that was said at that briefing, but I do remember the remarks revolving around the possibility of getting kills the following day. I cannot now remember whether these events were first voiced by the lieutenant, but I do remember the comment being repeated by the soldier sitting next to me to my left. I have a clear memory of him nodding his head in acknowledgment and repeating what was said, as if he had made his mind up. Because he was the first individual I noticed from our platoon who fired a shot on the day, the memory of his reaction during the discussion the previous evening stayed in my memory. That individual, from my personal point of view, was more than any other individual responsible for instigating and perpetrating what occurred on Bloody Sunday."
027 told this Tribunal that that individual was you.
If you wanted to make an example of someone...
Lee Clegg shot someone driving away.... he wasn’t trying to defend/protect etcCease fire
Up to a point, the evidence exists, it’s yet to
I would disagree on that point. I was on NI at the time and it was absolutely clear that failure to stop at a VCP including crashing through was not grounds for opening fire.
From the NIREPS at the tome it was clear that in Belfast the RUC were opening fire in a few occasions, further ISTR the RM had Marine shot by his patrol when they shot at a car. More relevant and often not mentioned is that 1 PARA had a soldier run over by a joy rider shortly before the Lee Clegg incident, which may have influenced the patrol’s reaction. Some will recall a TV documentary which showed the cook house decorated for Christmas and a cardboard car with a caption along the lines of ‘built by robots, driven by joyriders, stopped by C (?) Company’
Yes, I buggered up the quote function and the first half of that post isn’t mine. My point about the soldier from Clegg’s Bn being run over by a joyrider is that was a few days (weeks) before the Clegg shooting. There was certainly an assumption at the time in other units that this shooting was settling a score or the sending of a message to joyriders.Lee Clegg shot someone driving away.... he wasn’t trying to defend/protect etc
Yes and no.I assume that is under the murder charge.... manslaughter would be there was no intent
He was initially convicted because as well as the rounds he fired into the side of the car (protecting the soldiers behind him) the judge believed he also fired into the back of the car (after it had passed the last soldier). The appeal judge didn't believe the evidence that it was Clegg's round that went through the back of the car and not someone else's was strong enough, so the conviction was over turned.Lee Clegg shot someone driving away.... he wasn’t trying to defend/protect etc
IIRC, not long before the Clegg incident a joyrider had driven through an RM VCP seriously injuring one of them. The NITAT Yellow Card debates at the time were whether the Marines should have shot. Consensus was that it would have been justifiable under the guidelines of the Yellow CardYes, I buggered up the quote function and the first half of that post isn’t mine. My point about the soldier from Clegg’s Bn being run over by a joyrider is that was a few days (weeks) before the Clegg shooting. There was certainly an assumption at the time in other units that this shooting was settling a score or the sending of a message to joyriders.
One could suggest, that is revisionist crap... Their was a reason the soldiers were on the streets and that is because of 3 years of serious civil disorder across the counties and the police had lost complete control. Barricades were up and things were spiralling, nobody who saw that place in full flow can have any concept of how much hatred existed, long before bloody sunday.The single biggest recruiting tools for the PIRA and what extended the troubles were internment and Bloody Sunday.
If a proper investigation and possible resultant prosecution(s) had been done in 1972..... a lot of people could have been alive today (civilians and soldiers).... and there would have been a lot less terrorists.
If the IRA get a conviction on this one it won't stop there. They will come after everyone who was present. At the time Soldier F probably didn't realise it was every man for himself. He may have thought he was part of the Army and that it was one for all, and all for one. Well he knows differently now.Jailing Marine A for shooting dead the wounded Terry Taliban chap didn't seem to affect recruitment so why should something that happened in 1972?
You seem to be suggesting that people joining the armed forces today do so in the belief that they can do and get away with anything, legal or not, which is quite a slur IMHO.
It might put off someone who thinks they might just be able to shoot people for kicks though, perhaps, I understand that a lad who gives his reason for wanting to join the army as 'cos I wanna kill people' probably won't get very far in the application process.
The % of soldiers who have been accused of or tried for murder/manslaughter is miniscule, so that would suggest the vast majority can abide by the rules of engagement.
It certainly is an 'interesting turn of phrase'. I searched for that bit of footage last night and had trouble finding it. Previously, it was always easy to locate and I confess I thought it was removed because it contradicts decades of anti-British propaganda. It confirms that the Paras were under fire and suggests very strongly that, were practicable, fire orders were issued and supervised responsibly by an officer at the scene. Cleansing the Internet of such inconvenient truths is not something easily accomplished at the push of a button. The preferred method (if it be a method at all) is to submerge the offending truth under other much-preferred and much-repeated narratives. And then God help you if you dare dispute them!That can be heard at about 5 minutes in, here:
“Do not fire back for the moment, unless you identify a positive target”
‘Do not fire back’ is a interesting turn of phrase, isn’t it?
Deserves an informative as well.The drill for "Shoot the man in the red T-Shirt (n.b. because he's a ringleader, stirring up the crowd)" was still being taught, at RMAS anyway, as late as 1974, and was probably in the IS handbook for years after that. But it relied on an officer clearly identifying and indicating a target. It was never appropriate in NI.
One could suggest, that is revisionist crap... Their was a reason the soldiers were on the streets and that is because of 3 years of serious civil disorder across the counties and the police had lost complete control. Barricades were up and things were spiralling, nobody who saw that place in full flow can have any concept of how much hatred existed, long before bloody sunday.
You and your kind are appeasers to believe the idea that the civil rights marches were in isolation peaceful, whilst everything around it was out of control. To ignore the mood music of the time is a disservice to justice.. What came after was only an escalation in violence towards terrorism, of which you saw a dose in new Zealand, to understand how disgusting the nationalists really are.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|H||Be Part Of My Documentary! *Army Veterans & Military Personnel Only*||Transition & Veterans Research||49|
|Prince Harry to join Army veterans in North Pole trek||Current Affairs, News and Analysis||3|
|J||Army Veterans Wanted for TV Interview||Classified Ads||11|