Army Veterans Facing murder charges over Bloody Sunday within two weeks

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?
Honesty is such an outmoded concept these days:

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/t...ged-with-perverting-course-of-justice.284693/
 
Assuming 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'.
I assume that is under the murder charge.... manslaughter would be there was no intent
 
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...
But as previously pointed out, 027 got over £60k to give evidence against the others, he was the ‘star’ witness:
0E48D3CB-2D0A-4B1A-AB51-760F20DB5DD3.jpeg
 
Cease 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’
Lee Clegg shot someone driving away.... he wasn’t trying to defend/protect etc
 
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.
 
Lee Clegg shot someone driving away.... he wasn’t trying to defend/protect etc
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.
 
I assume that is under the murder charge.... manslaughter would be there was no intent
Yes and no.

I know that is a shìt answer. A person will be found guilty of manslaughter where they are able to provide a partial defence to murder, these are:

Voluntary manslaughter - intent to kill, but there is a loss of control or an abnormality of mental function.

Involuntary manslaughter - no intent to kill, but death is as a result of: Gross negligence, criminal act, corporate manslaughter or subjective recklessness.
 
Lee Clegg shot someone driving away.... he wasn’t trying to defend/protect etc
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.
 
That's God punishing you for being on Facebook, quite right too.
All the popular, witty handsome people with hundreds of friends are on Facebook.
 
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.
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 Card
 
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.
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.
 
We need to move on. It's [fairly] ancient history.
BOTH SIDES need to move on, otherwise "The Troubles" will be with us forever.

Unfortunately as someone who is 1/4 Irish, I'm well aware that forgiving and forgetting is not in the Irish psyche.

After all, the Protestant half are still blethering on about something that happened in the 17th Century in order to stir up trouble and the Catholics are daft enough to want to continue the fight instead of ignoring them.

As an English Catholic, I despair.
 
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.
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.
 
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?
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!

But, even so, I was wrong to think some evil conspiracy had hidden this 'interesting' piece of footage away from public consciousness. My common sense should have told me so, but common sense is not something frequently observed with regard to Bloody Sunday. With that in mind, what does this footage tell us about what happened on that day and how to judge it? For me, it suggests the men of 1 Para were more disciplined and their leadership more professional and honourable than their detractors would prefer us to assume. Had they truly been what they've been misrepresented as, I believe there would have been a lot more than 13 non-combatants illegally shot dead in Derry. I have no doubt the Paras were under fire and engaging gunmen of the IRA. I have equally no doubt their officers, including Colonel Wilford, did not enter the Bogside with the intention of authorising their soldiers to fire upon and murder innocent civilians.

Nothing I've heard since has persuaded me to change my view on the above. Unfortunately, and this is the hell of it, none of this excuses in the slightest the actions of individual soldiers responsible for the deaths painstakingly investigated by Lord Saville over a period of twelve years and at the cost of 195 million pounds. Justice must and should be done and it is repugnant to impose any limitations whatsoever of time and price and investigative terms of reference upon its necessary course. The unfinished business arising from the pain and grief of those for whom justice has been so long denied demands that this is so! Unfortunately, with regard to the Troubles, we do not live in an ideal world where the demands of justice and closure absolute and comprehensively applied can possibly be met. If there were such a world, there would hardly be a need for justice of any kind at all, however blind and limited and selectively imperfect it might be.

It has been said, and it will no doubt be forcefully repeated over the course and aftermath of this trail if it proceeds, that the families of victims are, nevertheless, entitled to their day in court. Of course they are. Their pain and grief is real and their outrage entirely understandable and valid, But in pursuing this ideal, we are confronted by its immediate and ominous constraints and limitations. This current rendering of justice will be perceived quite rightly as being applied exclusively to the victims of Bloody Sunday while the sufferings of others have been and will continue to be contemptuously and pragmatically ignored.

One may cite at length the niceties of law and the legal possibility that justice may yet be brought to bear upon members of the IRA and other paramilitary groups who have committed heinous crimes--should, that is, sufficient evidence be brought to light. It may be contended, therefore, that there are no grounds for complaint against the zealous prosecution of an alleged perpetrator of the Bloody Sunday massacre. This argument, however, is fatuous in the extreme. Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, convicted murderers were released and their commanders rewarded by positions in the very institutions that they sought to overthrow by a sadistic and prolonged campaign of terror. As for those terrorists who yet may face the just distress of being charged for their misdeeds, some have already received letters of reassurance that their suspected villainy shall never be officially exposed nor shall they suffer the indignity of standing in the dock to defend themselves against the indefensible.

As for any remaining terrorists and thugs who may be liable, potentially, to prosecution, the possibility is so remote as to be almost negligible. There is, after all, the delicate matter of gathering sufficient evidence to ensure the charges stick. With regard to that, I return to the proposition that this is not an ideal world and justice is limited accordingly. We may rest assured, if 'assured' is the appropriate term, that twelve years of painstaking inquiry and another 195 million pounds of taxpayers' money will not be spent to bring or, in some cases, return these killers to the dock and let the families of their victims have their day in court once and for all.

The surrealism of it all is breathtaking: near four-decades-long of orchestrated bombings, shootings, arson; sadistic backstreet thuggery and gruesome slaughters sanctioned at the highest level by the terrorist command. And, after 47 years, who shall we see standing bleak and solitary in the dock to make amends? Soldier 'F'! This trial, if it proceeds, will speedily convert a British court of law into a global theatre of the absurd, witnessed by the unbelieving world and worthy of a satirising novel by the likes of Charles Dickens. And yet my sense of justice tells me that, all absurdity and show aside, the families of those victims are entitled to their day in court and someone should be standing in the dock to face them. But if a principle of justice is at stake here, and it very clearly is, then the British Government must straightway set in train a process to ensure that justice shall be sought for all the other families and extended families who've lost loved ones due to politically motivated violence in Ulster. And for that comprehensive brand of justice to be done and seen to be done, the government is going to need a bigger court and, by God, a bigger dock than the one they have so tidily reserved with all expenses paid for Soldier 'F'!

The crimes of Bloody Sunday are no longer a matter of dispute and the families' collective call for justice is as emotive as it is compelling. But so too is the plight of all the other families and victims not just of Bloody Sunday but throughout all of Northern Ireland's murderous and bloodied days of terror. They too are crying out within their hearts for justice, they too would like their day in court to witness the accused arraigned and standing in the dock! And if they are denied it, they will perceive this trial of Soldier 'F' as an unfair abrogation of their right to justice and, in the case of murdered members of the security forces, a cynical devaluation and betrayal of their service, sacrifice and trust.

We should not put a price on justice. But there are times in this ugly, stinking world of ours, when we must compromise because we have no other choice. There comes a time, perhaps, when we are forced by harsh societal realities to recognise that the cost of Justice is too high for us to bear because the price that we must pay for it is Peace. With the arrival of the Good Friday Agreement, I thought that time had come. Apparently I was wrong about that too.
 
Last edited:
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.
Deserves an informative as well.
Personally I thought the paras were never appropriate for a peace keeping job. And that is not a criticism of the paras but who deployed them.
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
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.

Not so much revisionist. Ira recruitment in Derry went through the roof after Bloody Sunday. Families with little or no prior involvement had the teenagers and older signing up. Which was a rare thing in such a close knit place like Derry.

As for the civil rights it was part of a worldwide phenomenon, and not an IRA front. Quite recently one prominent still breathing alleged PIRA leader was laughed at in public when he claimed to have been involved in the setting up and organisation of NI CRA.

I’m not saying there weren’t people who subsequently members of PIRA on the marches, but they weren’t on the steering committee. And had nothing to do with the birth of the organisation.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top