The Gibraltar Killings pathology Report

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Mad_Moriarty, Nov 6, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. A distant event but I was reading the Pathologists evidence in the European Commission of Human Rights report.

    107. Evidence was given by Professor Watson, the pathologist who
    had conducted the post-mortem on the deceased on 7 March 1988 and
    also by Professor Pounder called on behalf of the applicants (see
    paragraph 102 above).

    108. Concerning Farrell, it was found that she had been shot
    three times in the back, from a distance of some three feet
    according to Professor Pounder. She had five wounds to the head
    and neck. The facial injuries suggested that either the entire
    body or at least the upper part of the body was turned towards
    the shooter. A reasonable scenario consistent with the wounds
    was that she received the shots to the face while facing the
    shooter, then fell away and received the shots to the back.
    Professor Watson agreed that the upward trajectory of the bullets
    that hit Farrell indicated that she was going down or was down
    when she received them. Altogether she had been shot eight

    109. Concerning McCann, he had been shot in the back twice and
    had three wounds in the head. The wound on the top of the head
    suggested that the chest wounds came before the head wound and
    that he was down or very far down when it was inflicted. The
    shots to the body were at about a 45-degree angle. He had been
    hit by five bullets.

    110. Concerning Savage, he had been hit by sixteen bullets. He
    had seven wounds to the head and neck, five on the front of the
    chest, five on the back of the chest, one on the top of each
    shoulder, three in the abdomen, two in the left leg, two in the
    right arm and two on the left hand. The position of the entry
    wounds suggested that some of the wounds were received facing the
    shooter. But the wounds in the chest had entered at the back of
    the chest. Professor Watson agreed that Savage was "riddled with
    bullets" and that "it was like a frenzied attack". He agreed
    that it would be reasonable to suppose from the strike marks on
    the pavement that bullets were fired into Savage's head as he lay
    on the ground. Professor Pounder also agreed that the evidence
    from strike marks on the ground and the angle and state of wounds
    indicated that Savage was struck by bullets when lying on his
    back on the ground by a person shooting standing towards his
    feet. He insisted under examination by counsel for the soldiers
    that the three strike marks on the ground within the chalk
    outline corresponded with wounds to the head. In his view "those
    wounds must have been inflicted when either the head was on the
    ground or very close to the ground indeed" and when pressed
    "within inches of the ground".

    2. Forensic evidence at the inquest

    111. A forensic scientist specialising in firearms had examined
    the clothing of the three deceased for, inter alia, powder
    deposits which would indicate that shots had been fired at close
    range. He found signs of partly burnt propellant powder on the
    upper-right back of Farrell's jacket and upper-left front of
    Savage's shirt which suggested close-range firing. He conducted
    tests which indicated that such a result was only obtained with
    a Browning pistol at a range of up to six feet. The density on
    Farrell's jacket indicated a muzzle-to-target range of three feet
    and on Savage's shirt of four to six feet.
  2. 'Why did you shoot him 16 times?'

    'I ran out of bullets M'lud...'
  3. Out of curiousity where did this exactly happen in Gib? Was it the Petrol Station on the left or the right after you cross the runway?
  4. Well done to the alphabet soldiers (soldier A, soldier B etc etc - freaky names, eh?).

    Terrorism doesn't pay, kids!

    To be honest, Farrell is a bit of a Jonah isn't she? Her lawyer weasel boyfriend also got done in (by loyalists), although when one considers the murderers he got off it's a reasonable substitiute for justice.
  5. It's the one on the left just before you get to the town centre. The scars are still on the wall at the back next to the car wash. Got some photo's of it when I did Marble Tor.
  6. sounds like reasonable force was used.
  7. The Shell one then??
  8. You may know where this garage is...

    Attached Files:

  9. The complete judgement can be read

  10. Did anyone see Panorame the other week, where they were looking at forensic evidence in relation to Police shootings? Basically, new research would appear to vindicate the cops even where bullets did strike from behind. In essence it was a combination of the fraction of a seconds delay between aiming, deciding to fire, actually firing and the bullet hitting, during which the target could move significantly from threat to fleeing. Another example was where one round from one firer struck the target, which caused the target to move when struck, resulting in the next round from the second firer to hit from behind - the target had spun enough.

    Might be interesting to re-examine the evidence from Gib in light of it? Imagine how much a target might move if you shoot it 16 times?
  11. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    What's it going to prove? It is certainly not going to change anything. Alphabet soup was in the right, bad guys in the wrong and they died for it. Finito.
  12. think their was some conspricy theory that the intel guys told the sas porkies over the remote detonators as they wanted the terrs dead,but, who really cares . at the end of the day at least they were guilty .
  13. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    According to one of the 'Black Maskers over the Eyes' autobiographies, she was also getting nobbed by an SAS blerk at some stage. Can't remember which one it was.
  14. The Bonny & Clyde film ending in Gib was a big thing at the time. It would be less of a surprise were it to ocur now following the Brazilian shooting. (This is not a attempt to re-open that, flamers please note). As the old CIA had it, termination was with extreme prejudice. The chances that just one double tap would not be used by 'them' were signalled at the Iranian Embassy. All intruders except one died at the scene. It was freely bandied about that the lone survivor would have been with the rest had he not been surrounded and smuggled out by some female hostages in what may have been some degree of Stockholm Syndrome. Once a situation is handed over to the military, it has to be dealt with according to military procedures. It may be that civpol used to shoot with a view to arrest. Military attitude was - as the training manual said - Shoot to Kill.
    Gib had to be treated very seriously being that it was an attempt by IRA to spread their terrorism outside NI and mainland UK.
    As an aside, I wonder what brought this old news up now?
  15. Don't misunderstand my last post - I've no complaints about what happened, or why. I was just curious if the new evidence would make it appear less completely cold blooded. On the other hand - it would be raking over something best left alone now.