No solid details as yet but I've heard that
the Shinners have started another scam like the previous one, in which cases
were taken in regards to forced confessions made under RUC interrogation in the
1970s.
This time it's the brutal and inhumane treatment
which had been meted out during the Blanket Protests. Apparently Ex-Blanket Men
and Women, stupid enough to be sucked in, are being told that test cases
against the British Government will be compiled with the intention of taking
legal action.
Without doubt this is an attempt to draw
Ex-Blanket Men and Women back into the 'fold'.
I was
among other Republicans who were drawn into the Confessions Cases quite a few
years back. In 1977 my own case of
brutality in Strand Road RUC Barracks was chosen - even before I was sentenced
- to go to the European Court of Human Rights. However after I had been
sentenced, having not recognised the court, I went on the Blanket and heard no
more of my European case. The reason being, as I believed at the time, was
because I had refused all visits for over a year.
Therefore when the Shinners announced the
brutality cases I felt I had a very strong case and went along with it. We all
posed for photos in the Gasyard Centre and were told that our cases would be
assigned to different solicitors.
Two years passed and I had practically
forgotten about it until Raymond McCartney's case and that of others, including
Charlie McMenamin popped up in the courts.
I contacted my assigned solicitor who told
me he had heard nothing more since the initial contacts. I told him to continue
with mine independent of the others.
We all know the outcome of McCartney's case
and that of McMenamin et al. Mine however was knocked back twice to date, (for
legal reasons I can't go into it much.) Let’s just say My Barrister told me
that my case was more solid than that of McCartney and others and that from
reading my depositions alone it’s clear that I was brutalised into signing a
statement.
Quite a few others have been knocked back as
well, as I found out when I received a letter from my solicitor informing me of
the latest failure on my part. Our cases had been rejected en bloc, in fact I
wasn't even aware that my case had been heard until after my solicitor had been
informed.
In the back of my mind I was also aware that
I had seen something similar which concerned former Internees from Derry which
had been spearheaded by Sinn Fein's Gerry McCartney and I dug around until I
found a Derry Journal article on it.
Usually when you have to dig things up
you'll find that they've been buried and it certainly looks like it with the
Ex-internee cases. I asked about, and one former Internee, Michael Donnelly, who
was asked to partake and refused, told me he heard nothing more about it. He
also said, that he believes; as I do, that this 'latest escapade' is about
luring ex-prisoners back in.
Those men and women who were approached to
compile the Blanket Protest cases should read the article, 'Ex-internees to launch legal action' from the Derry Journal dated September 2010. I'm certain
they'll find striking similarities to what they've been told.
Good piece Dixie - if people don't see through it by now ...
ReplyDeleteDixie, if it helps, certain people didnt prove that they were brutalised into making incriminating statements. What was proven was that those police who had interviewed them had been found guilty of assaulting another prisoner in police custody. Now the shocking thing about this is, if the names of the peelers convicted of the police custody prisoner had been made widely known then other prisoners who claimed to have been forced into making statements could also have very easily appealed their where those convicted peelers were involved in their particular case. You have ask yourself why is these police identities not made known to ex prisoners?
ReplyDeleteDixie
ReplyDeleteEddie has a point. Flash McVeigh is/was some sort of 'special advocate' for coiste I gave him solid evidence on a crown prosecutor and suggested that he should find out how many other questionable cases there might be involving the same prosecutor, and then make one solid case against that prosecutor --McVeigh's response was to blow me off and tell me that coiste does not recognize me or anything about my case because I must formally travel back to the 6 counties and register in one of their offices to validate myself. Ex-prisoners living in Munster are not recognized by Coiste unless they present themselves at a 6 county (partitioned) office (I was not given the option to use the Sligo or Co. Louth office).
You are right in that whatever is behind these schemes they are not meant to achieve anything. Maybe coiste is just a sponge for money from Europe? Coiste creates the impression of being concerned about human rights abuses but its real function is to control cases and make sure they do not succeed.
Eddie,
ReplyDeletewe need a reference showing the conviction for assault you refer to. Without it and if the assailant is still alive, he may well take us to court. There are citations of a prima facie case but not that we can find up to now of a conviction
AM,
ReplyDeleteI will check that out, now that you prick my memory, it might be the assaulted prisoner won a court case that he was assaulted and was awarded damages (as opposed to somebody being awarded damages without liabilty being admitted)and maybe the detective wasnt actually convicted. Whether he was convicted or not the import, thrust and principal of the point I was making is still nonetheless valid and valid by virtue of the fact that the court of appeal allowed McCartney & McDermotts appeal because of the detectives previous involvement in assaulting a prisoner. The appeal court named the detectives - would that still debar you from mentioning his name?
I did not mean to mislead and would not wittingly put PQ on a bum steer never mind an exprisoner who is trying to right a wrong.
Eddie,
ReplyDeletehis name can be mentioned. The problem would only lie in stating he had a conviction for it if he hadn't (and was actually found not guilty). That I fear would give him a leverage (if he is still alive). The wider point you are making is valid and needs to be made as it complements Diplock Court's point. Let's face it we are not talking about a guy that respected the rights of people in custody.
AM
ReplyDeleteThe name of both detectives were mentioned throughout the mccartney/mcdermott appeal judgement and the reason for the appeal being allowed.
Similarly in the UK many convictions have been overturned because of the activities of the infamous West midlands police detectives. Thoses detectives went on a crusade after being given blance carte in respect of the Birmingham 6 case. Were people were convicted solely on the basis of statements taken by these police the convictions have been overturned on application
Eddie,
ReplyDeletewhat you are really saying is that where people like Detective French were involved in interrogations their word about the outcome is not worth a hill of beans and this has been demonstrated in other court cases, the knowledge of which should be shared widely.
People interested in the period should read Cruel Britannia by Ian Cobain. He claims that MI5 bugged the interrogations. When the RUC interrogators found out, they went on strike until they received assurances that the bugging would be stopped. So, MI5 is sitting in possession of crucial evidence that men and women were tortured into making confessions. We would imagine that Coisde and company would be making that information more widely available as well but seemingly not.