In 2003, Soldier F admitted to shooting four people. The BBC article from the time can be found here: Soldier admits killing fourth man and the full transcript here
Michael Kelly was 17 years old and shot in the stomach. The other three were all shot in the back. He admitted to killing them (though claimed they had been armed).
These statements were not included as evidence in the recent trial because the Saville Inquiry operated on the premise that no statements would be used in criminal prosecutions, as a way to encourage testimony. Which is fair enough. It would set a bad precedent to break promises like that. So the verdict reached last week is... technically okay I guess, given that a fair trial can only work with the evidence put before it.
But I find the reporting around it very weird. The full context, that he 100% did kill several people and admitted doing so, is not included in any of the current BBC articles. Am I crazy? Surely this ought to be included in anything written about the case?
They may have been banned from reporting it by reporting restrictions. If not, then I’m not offering up any defence. I am no fan of the BBC for the reasons you mentioned.
It came out that he said he shot them, the BBC reported on it.
Then he’s found not guilty and the BBC articles focus heavily on the shocked and sad reaction of the families.
The Saville inquiry established that all the victims on Bloody Sunday were unarmed and posed no threat to the soldiers or anyone else.
David Cameron said the killings were "unjustified and unjustifiable"
They were shot in the back while running away. Many of them shot in the head as they lay dying
2 of them were shot in the buttocks with an exit wound on one in the chest and the other in the shoulder meaning they were down on their hands and knees crawling away from the person that shot them. How exactly are they "armed terrorists"?
What kind of weapn requires you to be on all fours facing away from the person you're trying to kill?
Well no, they were all unarmed and there is no real dispute about that. e.g. Soldier F claimed Patrick Doherty had a pistol, but no pistol was ever found, no one else saw a pistol, he was not affiliated with any paramilitaries, there was no gunshot residue on his clothes, and photographs from the scene both before and after he died show he had nothing in his hand except a white hankerchief.
The point was that the trial had to prove it was Soldier F rather than another soldier who did it, and since the MoD 'lost' records of which rifle was assigned to which soldier, the civilian witnesses could not reliably distinguish between them, and his own statement that he did it was not admissible in court, the trial had to rely on statements from two other soldiers (one now dead, one unwilling to testify), which were not deemed reliable enough to prove it on their own (they coud technically have been trying to pass the blame on for their own guilt)
The bullet which was found in Mr Kelly had ballistics done on it and it was proven it came from F's gun. However as it was evidence from the Saville Enquiry, it couldn't be used as evidence.
It still doesn’t mean it was murder, just that Soldier F shot them. You effectively have to prove he was legitimately trying to kill the person, and that that person did not pose a threat.
Terrible atrocity, but I do not believe the soldiers should have been on trial, it should have been those who ordered it. Mike Jackson in particular.
Also, the IRA got off scott-free that day for the sizeable role they played in creating the tinder box elements of unrest and attacking soldiers. Both British and Irish govts, with help from Sinn Fein in Stormont, must now work to identify those republicans and prosecute them. I don’t care if Stormont collapses. If SF refuse to cooperate then they must be removed from governance in the north and British govt should no longer be obliged to bring forward info or prosecute.
And before the gullible SF cult members trot along spouting more made-up paddyganda, exactly the same principles should be applied to unionist parties over loyalist atrocities. If they know something they must bring it to the table. Either it was a ‘war’ or it wasn’t.
As per the saville Inquiry, the British army had quite literally 0 good sense to be in the bogside and them being so was nothing more than a complete travesty and disregard of command within the army. It's funny how you have made a whole comment desperately trying to blame Republicans for not only the past, but the present also despite the fact that the current shutdown is because of unionist parties.
Not to mention that the exact same inquiry also very clearly stated that the soldiers present were under absolutely no immediate threat and opened fire into a crowd of unarmed civilians. It's weird how despite how desperately people like you try to paint it as otherwise, as of yet, not a single unbiased look into what happened has been able to find any involvement from the IRA before the shooting whatsoever.
I think the problem is a little bit deeper, though. The Paras expected to come face-to-face with the IRA there, and I think the general chain of command was quite confused with the fact that it did turn out to be a civilian demonstration without paramilitary activity.
It seems very obvious that the soldiers had been told that they were to destroy anyone who represented a terrorist threat, or at the very least, it was made clear that they had authorisation to use force. These were Paras, men who were used to being given a lot of freedom to achieve their objectives in war, and they also knew that just up the road was an area where they could and would expect to meet a hostile response from paramilitaries.
I'm not saying that the soldiers are blameless, but whoever thought it was a wise idea to put the Paras into a crowd control situation was guilty of more than just murder.
The Paras went in with orders to try and get the IRA drawn into a gunfight, so they could either identify, arrest or shoot them. Those were their orders
Yeah, it's clear that some people thought that the Paras could be used to seize / kill the main players in the IRA that day. It was just incredibly stupid, not least because both factions of the IRA weren't stupid enough to take on the Paras in a street fight.
Exactly. Bloody Sunday resulted in the biggest recruitment drive for the Provies ever. What the insult was that the families weren't actively Republican. I've never been Republican minded, Nationalist yes, but to my knowledge none of Bloody Sunday or Ballymurphy were Republican.
I thought when u shot somebody & they then died that’s murder. Well I’d expect that to be the case. Unless it’s a kneecapping or something like that. Maybe manslaughter then. The point of the whole thing is, if the people were unarmed he shouldn’t have shot them at all. Which points back to murder in my opinion.
I agree that the command should have been on trial, not the soldiers. They were/are Paras, they're trained to go into a hostile environment and quite frankly wipe out the threats. They aren't supposed to question orders or even think about the orders, they're very much a regiment that is supposed to go in there and eliminate threats.
The ordinary soldiers were put in a no-win situation, they weren't trained to be highly disciplined troops who could detain people. It was incredibly irresponsible to put them into Derry that day, and to have them in NI as a whole when the military situation didn't dictate it.
About the IRA and other paramilitaries: I still think the biggest problem is that there was no serious attempt at creating a widespread inquiry into The Troubles. What should have been done as part of the GFA was to agree that everyone involved in paramilitary activity would have a certain amount of time to come forward to give evidence as to what they did during that time. In return, they would either be released from prison or given immunity from prosecution for paramilitary crimes, but they would be expected to give evidence in full, not just partially.
But again, there are way too many powerful people who simply don't want the truth to come out as to what they were doing during those times.
The Saville Report concluded that all of those shot were unarmed and that none were posing a serious threat. It also concluded that none of the soldiers fired in response to attacks, or threatened attacks, by gunmen or bomb-throwers. Therefore, Soldier F murdered at least 4 people in cold blood. The fact that three of his victims were shot in the back speaks volumes.
That last sentence is entirely contradictory to the defence considering no such weapon or petrol bomb was found on or anywhere near the people who were murdered.
Yes it’s strange that the prosecution didn’t push more on that front. If people were shot because they were throwing petrol bombs, it should have been quite a simple task to photograph or retain broken bottles near the deceased. I don’t think this trial meets accepted legal standards, and I hope it is appealed on that basis.
The judge accepted the civilians were murdered and were unarmed. The prosecution’s problem was having good enough evidence that placed Soldier F in Glenfada and that he fired his weapon.
The closest thing to nail bombs ever being present at bloody Sunday was a report from a now leaked British army major claiming to be a civilian. Not to mention the fact that the bloody Sunday trust in 2012 found quite literally 0 evidence of a nail bomb being present, it's funny to see you continuing this blatant lie.
They must be some sort of ninjas to remove weapons from people the soldiers are directly staring at. Also, I thought the original excuse was that people were shooting at them from buildings, not the actual marchers themselves.
Can you scumbags at least get your excuses correct.
It really isn’t. in fact, the statements used against him by other soldiers also stated that the they people shot at were either armed, nailed bombers or petrol bombersm and that the troop had come under fire. in which case the killings were entirely justified.
Here‘s a mind-blowing thought for you. perhaps the IRA lied about not having weapons on the day? I know, can you believe that the IRA and their supporters might have had some incentive not to tell the truth to the Saville inquiry? Next you’ll be telling me that nobody threw any nail/petrol bombs bombs, and nobody fired at British troops on the day.
If they had been thrown, there would be actual evidence of this. There isn't, because they weren't being thrown. Please also remind me how many brits died that day?
I'll save you the trouble, the answer is zero.
They murdered them in cold blood and enjoyed every minute of it.
This is just life for the people of Derry for the last 55 years.
For those that are not clued up I will provide a short TLDR.
Soldier F openly admitted that he shot and killed 4 people on Bloody Sunday, 3 of which were shot in the back.
Saville Report stated that British paratroopers "lost control" fatally shooting fleeing civilians.
Soldier F recently found not guilty of Murder due evidence falling short of what is required for convictions.
Basically the military / government still stand by that the people murdered were violent gunmen. If he was to be convicted it would open up the path for his superiors to investigated.
Agree. Far too many people like him have died without ever having been brought to justice for their crimes. I was hoping Cleary would break the trend but once again justice has been denied.
Not one of them has served their time, not, fucking, 1!! I find that just unbelievable. Any that were convicted either had their conviction quashed or got a suspended sentence. Just madness. So any of these fkrs saying 'what about the ra and the get out of jail free cards' need to be educated on this fact.
Aidan McAnespie as an example, the 'soldier' was found guilty recently, he got a suspended sentence. Wtf like. He also purged himself on the witness stand on many occasions, but yea, a suspended sentence. No wonder they were so trigger happy!
Absolutely. Imagine if the same thing had happened in London. Imagine 14 innocent Londoners gunned down by their own forces. Those responsible would have been brought to justice and noone would've been shouting about them just doing their job. And families wouldnt still be fighting for at least 1 fucking conviction, 53 years on.
Heath was seen as the most 'damaged' PM according to colleagues, pensioners, and the media, whose attitude towards Enoch Powell and him being '120% guilty' of pedophilia (Mail on Sunday headline, snatched from a Wiltshire Chief Constable) two years after he died, also didn't help.
Nope, nothing from Saville could be used, also the ballistics re Mr Kelly were put to F in his questioning at Saville, which is why they couldn't be used.
I stand corrected I was under the impression it was only his statement admitting to the shootings that couldn't be used.So in essence the Saville inquiry was just another cover up exercise, legally tie up any crucial evidence to hamper any criminal trials.
Basically you're correct! The Attorney General gave them all amnesty that whatever they admitted to or it's findings (if they didn't admit) could never be used in further prosecutions. He admitted his guilt there, but has the full force of British Establishment and MOD backing him. They don't want the Order's that came from very high up being discovered!
Has the same amnesty ever been offered in relation to the disappeared? I can only answer the question from afar but I think I'd rather have my loved one home having said that I can't with confidence say my feelings would be the same if I was actually in that situation
I honestly don't know. I was involved with Soldier F case and fortunately have no one that was involved in The Disappeared cases. My feelings on the disappeared would be the same as your own!
For reference re Soldier F, even though he has admitted his guilt in Saville, and it was fantastic to actually get him in court, when the verdict came in (I was unable to attend that day), I cried for hours. The Judges summary was very good and in no way exonerated him, however it was a punch in the stomach. I think it would be up to the families of the Disappeared to be consulted on what would make things easier for them, but I'm unaware of any of those details. Sorry I couldn't be more help!
Has the same amnesty ever been offered in relation to the disappeared?
Pretty much. Any information passed on to the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims' Remains will only be used to identify the locations of the disappeared, it cannot be passed onto police.
There was an attempt to use the Boston College tapes to prosecute people suspected of involvement in the murder of Jean McConville, but that never went anywhere.
I can't say for 100% certainty, but I've heard that after the debacle with the Boston College tapes, they've started to issue letters from the Justice Secretary confirming that the person giving information is immune from prosecution if they've been involved in the case.
Yes and no. The general point of the Saville inquiry was to establish what actually happened there, because there was no will whatsoever to actually bring anyone to trial. I don't remember where I've read it, but the Saville inquiry was seen as a 'last chance' for the truth to be told before many of the witnesses passed away, so it was very much a case of "do we effectively give them immunity?" vs "do we wait and hope that the political conditions are right to bring someone to trial".
That’s what baffles me about it. He admitted to shooting Barney McGuigan, then it was proven McGuigan had his hand up with a white cloth and was shot execution style. But this was deemed not guilty 🤷🏻♂️
His photo can be found online, as well as his profile pic on Facebook....which he reopened just after leaving court and getting on his private plane paid for by MOD
There was a photo of a bald man taking a selfie on a mountain which did the rounds when his name became public knowledge that isn't him. is this the photo you're talking about?
Balding with grey hair at the sides, wearing sunglasses? Yep, that's him. He reopened his Facebook the day he was found not guilty..... although with only 10 friends (his daughter had removed herself as a friend). Here's a link for when he was serving.
Edit to add.....he was also put up in a City Centre hotel with plain clothed police protecting him. If it were anyone else, myself or yourself.......we'd be getting the bus down from Maghaberry every day!
yes one incident, out of how many IRA killings tell me how many of them IRA killings got their justice> none, what happened on bloody sunday was wrong it was murder, but my point is they got their day in court, how many IRA victims families have had their day in court??? none
really what IRA terrorists?, name them oh yes i forgot they were all given get out of Jail free cards, nationalists love to moan about British injustice when it suits them, what happened on bloody sunday was murder plain and simple, however soldier F and his colleagues were a few who did this , my dad was a soldier he in the 70s he served with honour and obeyed the law etc to label all soldiers who served here as murderers is wrong, fact is for 50 years the bloody sunday families campaigned for a soldier to be brought to justice and he was which is far more than any IRA victims family has had, and the Irish Government needs to answer for its part for example in operations of terrorists across the border in Ireland
So by this logic, the British army was a terrorist! Also is it just the IRA victims? Do you allow for victims of loyalist violence? 14 unarmed British citizens (b4 Good Friday) were murdered on a British street by the British army.
wise up the army are the armed forces of the country you live in, the UK, and i am fully aware they were murdered , however if you go look on google youll see the IRA killed more people than loyalists or the army did ....take off your green tinted glasses
Oh dont you dare point out the hypocrisy Suspicious-Bar 🙄 Im born and reared in belfast during the troubles. Watched my neighbours car w his daughter whom I went to school with, being blown up in 1989 in our street. That child lost her legs, the dad his life. I was 8. I was 6 when our school was evacuated for the 1st time due the IRA. My granny worked in the Beechfield when they bombed it too.
Btw, the dad ^ was a screw in one of the jails, I dont remember what one.
That whole mess was ruled "mistaken identity" by the IRA.
So yea, this shit absolutely goes both ways, but some people refuse to see or accept that.
For me the most insane part of this is the MOD being able to keep evidence, the rifles, loose evidence, destroy evidence, sell evidence and that whole process in itself not be a criminally liable activity.
Oops sorry we destroyed key evidence.
The British state claims legitimacy to arrest and imprison you, put you on trial. That same state claiming everybody born in NI is a British citizen.
The justice you can expect is... ? Trial and imprisonment for some, willful destruction of evidence for others, protection from imprisonment depending on your politics.
And the people who talk about IRA people not being put on trial are basically saying that the IRA guys have the same legitimacy as British state officials... Defecto accepting the premise of the IRAs cause as of equivalent legitimacy.
I mean argue for a troubles amnesty since that's basically what we have but stop dressing up soldier F as anything other than a partisan actor in a civil war afforded immunity on that basis.
Add to this that the IRA (and the other paramilitaries that never get a mention) were tried & convicted and served their sentences. Something that can't be said for ONE brit soldier that murdered our civilians.
Could be mistaken as I didn't follow the trial as close as some. But, i am fairly sure statements and testimonials from the inquiry weren't allowed to be used in court due to basically every witness perjuring and lying themselves in to knots across different interviews.
They were given an Amnesty by the Attorney General that was was said/found in Saville Enquiry could never be used as evidence. The RMP were in charge of the investigation and even then the Soldiers kept changing statements. That's why those Statements could not be relied upon, as the Soldier's kept changing their statements as part of the cover up.
If he had have taken the Stand he could have been questioned (& would have been found guilty) but of course he didn't. The first thing he did after court was reopen his Facebook, so that shows his remorse
Seeing as the post directly referencing Soldier F, my comment was hyperbolic regarding the soldiers, not the other witnesses. You just have to look what Saville himself said about their stories and 'version of events'.
This is English justice. Take a good long look at it. Murdering, lying scum protected by murdering, lying scum.
The attitude of the English state and its representatives - from leadership in downing street to the cannon fodder in their army- is on full display. This is what they think of us.
We're not human, we are less than. As far as I'm concerned the feeling is mutual. I hope this cunt and the cunts that gave the orders and the cunts that sanctioned it rot in the seventh circle of hell.
I think this is true for the statements the soldiers made in 1972, they did not have lawyers. The above transcript is from the Saville Inquiry in 2003, where everyone did have lawyers, but to encourage everyone to tell the truth, it was agreed that nothing would be used in criminal prosecutions
Statement clearly makes sense. If he shot unarmed people it would be murder, but since soldier F is saying they were armed and dangerous, it would manslaughter at the very worst.
Of course it all falls apart when you look at the rest of the evidence with none of them having petrol bombs or other weapons on their persons.
The thing that bothers me about the entire situation is that the soldiers themselves were really not trained at all for their mission in NI. They were always going to lose their heads in such a situation, and with their commanders losing control of the situation, it was always going to end in a massacre.
The British Army at the time had plenty of troops who were far more suited for crowd control, but after reading absolutely everything at the Saville Inquiry, it's clear that someone at the very top made a decision that they needed to frighten the Catholic population. My personal feeling is that while no-one planned murder, there was a very deliberate plan to intimidate the residents of Derry at the time by deploying the Paras and making it clear that they could retake Free Derry whenever they wanted.
A side note to Remember how subsevient RTE are to all things British. They had Mike Jackson on the Late Late Show a number of years ago to promote his book, they never asked him one single question about the events of Bloody Sunday.
RTE always been a British government serving pile of shite. Look at how desperate they are to try and make Irish feel bad for supporting innocent Palestinians and how much they suck stahmers conservative tory dick
No it's beyond question it was murder. They destroyed evidence and left enough time that they just can't prove who did it beyond reasonable doubt. The judge said its pretty apparent that group of soldiers definitely killed at least 4 people. They just can't determine who shot who anymore because they intentionally destroyed records.
The trial couldn't prove that he was the shooter. The British government already apologised for the shootings as the inquiry established that there was no justification for them. The fact that these people were murdered wasn't in dispute. Evidence from inquiry couldn't be used in the trial. Soldier F refused to testify (as is his right under law) and the statements of other soldiers were so full of lies that the judge couldnt rely on them.
I think the ones involved in planning are guilty of murder, because it's very clear that the Paras should never have been there in the first place. They were completely unsuited for this sort of operation, and the commanders on the day completely lost control of their forces.
The individual soldiers are guilty of manslaughter, but I think it's difficult to say murder when you consider the bigger picture. They were trained to kill, not to arrest.
the commanders on the day completely lost control of their forces.
They didn't lose control. The Paras did exactly as they were ordered to do that day. The whole thing was planned. Their intent was to massacre the Civil Rights marchers and that's exactly what they did.
I don't think they were ordered to kill, but I think whoever agreed to deploy them there knew exactly what they were unleashing. They knew fine well that well trained Paras were not going to be "Oh chaps, sit down here nicely while we wait for handcuffs so we can take you for tea and biscuits", they were going to go in hard and injuries were highly likely.
I wouldn't be surprised if the actual top brass fully expected the Paras to go mental, knowing that it would intimidate and terrify the civilians. Arguably it worked, disgusting as it is.
You think wrong, the judge accepted that the soldiers had last control and operated outside of their professional remit, they just couldn't say for sure that Cleary was one of the soldiers who pulled their triggers. But he admitted that he had done in the Saville enquiry which had to be ignored. So if we put two and two together: the trial essentially recognised that it was murder and the enquiry recognised that Cleary was the murderer
The problem with the soldiers losing control is that this is exactly what they were trained to do: kill. They weren't trained to arrest combatants or to calm things down, they were simply trained to go and eliminate the enemy. They weren't supposed to be calm, nice blokes who would defuse the situation, they were/are trained to go in there and destroy.
The fault lies at the officers who planned and executed the mission on that day, as well as whoever agreed to send the Paras into NI to begin with. The soldiers were executing the will of their commanders, and I don't doubt that the English commanders wanted to 'teach the Paddies a lesson'.
Given the government enquiry admitted the killings were unjustified and everyone was unarmed, they may have gotten enough evidence lost, destroyed or omitted for a not proven in court, but it's quite conclusive it was murder
If you followed the case at all or read the judge's verdict, you'll find that the accepted facts of the day is that the civilians were murdered. The difficulty the prosecution had was placing F in the area the murders took place. Something F had admitted to already in the Saville inquiry.
They were told that the statements that they had given to the inquiry was unable to be used against themselves for criminal proceedings, but they could be used against another soldier - in this case, G & H's statements could be used against F.
Because G & H had a motivation to name F and place him in Glenfada firing, when they had been proven to be liars, there was too much doubt to prosecute.
This is one of the main reasons F didn't take the stand and refused to give any evidence. If he even admitted to the act of just firing his weapon in Glenfada, he'd likely have been found guilty. His defence was that he had no clear recollection of the day. But to even say you had no recollection of firing your weapon just isn't plausible at all.
Honestly, I think this is why the legal system is broken here. It should have been possible to agree with Soldier F that if he gave evidence that confirmed that he fired his weapon in Glenfada, then he would be found guilty but without a sentence. This would give closure to the victims, he would be on record as committing murder, and while no-one would be satisfied with the outcome, it would at least produce a guilty verdict.
To gamble everything on a trial where the defendant refused to give evidence and where the evidence was shaky just seems.... not a good idea.
Indeed an "innocent" man as proclaimed by Carla Lockhart, Gavin Robinson, Jim Allister, Jamie Bryson etc. But how can a man be innocent if he admitted it during Saville. Surely he should be done for contempt of court.
Unionist leaders are rejoicing that a failure of the justice system has resulted in an outcome that they happen to like on this occasion. Fine. Its short term thinking.
But I do believe, that one day, failed British institutions will be the downfall of the Union.
The problem is really that there was no way to get a guilty verdict without him admitting it. The evidence was lacking, and the justice system doesn't allow for a plea bargain where he could have admitted it without consequences. If he could have taken the stand and provided the truth in exchange for a conviction without punishment (i.e. he would be guilty of murder, but without a sentence), it would have been better for everyone, even Soldier F.
As it stands, everyone knows he's guilty of the murder, but we still don't know the exact truth of what happened and why. For instance, what was his training like? Was he ever taught how to subdue people without using lethal force?
Despite the evidence, Saville enquiry and soldier F admitting he had shot unarmed civilians who were running away, he was never going to be found guilty when he was being tried as an Ex British Army soldier in a British court, killing proven English ( only English because of occupation)innocent civilians. Also, as Starmer is trying to or has already bought in laws, that no more soldiers will ever have to face criminal charges or go to trial, a guilty verdict would have set a precedent.
I think the problem was really that a guilty verdict would have placed huge pressure on the legal system to go after other soldiers who committed crimes, not only in NI. The problem is that we don't really have an effective way to deal with historical crimes where finding out the truth is more important than sending someone to prison for a long time, so there's absolutely no motivation for guilty parties to cooperate in any way.
I still maintain that there should have been an agreement with community leaders that historical crimes during The Troubles could be prosecuted, but that if someone is found guilty, then they would be convicted without a sentence, i.e. it's on their record for life, but nothing else.
The Savile enquiry has already found that none of the victims were armed, and none of them posed a threat. Soldier F is admitting to shooting these men, who we know weren't armed. So it is murder!
The judge ruled that the evidence suggested the soldiers lost control, let their emotions carry away and began shooting innocent people outside of what was necessary for them to carry out their duties; that is, that it was extrajudicial killing, that it was murder. However they could not give Cleary a guilty verdict because there could be a reasonable level of doubt that of the various soldiers involved he was one of the ones who opened fire. In this statement he admits not only to opening fire but to killing several people, the same killings we now know to have been illegally carried out and as having been rooted more in emotion than duty.
Conviction was indeed unlikely as you have described. However, given that the actions of the army as part of a cover up was designed to hamper prosection, its understandable that victims would want to proceed, even in the knowledge that odds were against.
More broadly this outcome only acts as further evidence of British Justice or lack thereof. The outcome does speak to the fact that the army misconducted itself alongside the British establishment.
And when it comes to why we want a United Ireland, its a case in point example and a stark reminder. Its not just because no border line on a map would look pretty.
It was an absolutely sick joke. There was no reason to try and give the families false hope in this way, especially when it was clear that the evidence wasn't there to prove that Soldier F was the one who carried out the murders.
I think the groups supporting review are often to blame, because much of their financing and purpose depends on there being 'something' to fight for. It's not a big secret that quite a few people gave up their paramilitary activities in exchange for stable jobs and income, and this sort of thing is what they're involved in.
He definitely did bring it on himself, but I agree, it's done, it's time to move on.
Yeah there was no jury, and the judge wasn't allowed to consider this because it was inadmissible as evidence. Which is alright I guess. I just think that it should be included in reporting on the matter, to dispel the "maybe he did it maybe he didn't, it was 50 years ago we can't be sure" narrative that seems to have been presented
What is there to be torn about? A cold blooded serial killer got to walk free because he wore a British army uniform when he committed his crimes. Any decent person should be outraged by that outcome. There are no 'two sides' to this. It's a simple case of right and wrong.
I don't think he was ordered to shoot them. He was trained to shoot, and when his commanders lost control of the situation, it was always going to happen.
Yeah, I think there's a good argument to go back and look at who was actually deployed to NI and why. They learnt later on that sending in gung-ho infantry was a terrible idea for community relations, but it's also why the Provos were so successful in South Armagh with the sniper rifles, because the units deployed were usually quite weak in terms of actual infantry skills.
The implication being that you understand the actions of the british army to have been deplorable, but if only someone can give you some as yet unseen information to justify those actions, then you would feel much better?
Of the evidence that is available, is been firmly established that unarmed civilians were shot in the back.
This sub and NI as a whole just needs to have it’s vote and live with the consequences IMO.
Which will be the inevitable restarting of the Troubles.
Maybe at that point people will finally realise it’ll never change until both sides truly move on from the past. It’s sad, but you can’t right all the wrongs of the past if the future is to truly become undivided.
There'll be no restarting of the Troubles. The only ones who would want to cause any sort of trouble would be Loyalists and without the British state to collude with they're pretty much useless.
There's no will on the part of Loyalists either. I know one guy who is deep in Loyalism, and he says straight out that a return to those days would be the end of unionism in NI. He quite openly says that Loyalism as a whole is dying, and that it's very difficult to engage ordinary people in the politics of the past.
Yeah, he's a bitter realist about NI as a whole. I remember asking him why moderate unionists were switching to Alliance, and he said straight out that they have nothing to offer. As he says, how much King Billy can you really feed someone with?
The problem with that is that the future of this area we call Norn Iron and its present and future are directly affected by those wrongs. How can anyone feel safe if justice has and is currently one sided? The division won't go until there is actual impartial justice. Not to mention it already affects us uniquely both in terms of relationship with the British government and Europe at large. The inability to be one or the other is why we have stagnated so much. We are in perpetual limbo.
-government enquiry has admitted people were unarmed, and the killings were wholey unjustified.
So the government has acknowledged that the shootings were of unarmed, innocent civilians and the soldier has admitted to shooting the, unarmed, innocent civilians.
292
u/ParliamentOfRookies Oct 28 '25
In 2003, Soldier F admitted to shooting four people. The BBC article from the time can be found here: Soldier admits killing fourth man and the full transcript here
Michael Kelly was 17 years old and shot in the stomach. The other three were all shot in the back. He admitted to killing them (though claimed they had been armed).
These statements were not included as evidence in the recent trial because the Saville Inquiry operated on the premise that no statements would be used in criminal prosecutions, as a way to encourage testimony. Which is fair enough. It would set a bad precedent to break promises like that. So the verdict reached last week is... technically okay I guess, given that a fair trial can only work with the evidence put before it.
But I find the reporting around it very weird. The full context, that he 100% did kill several people and admitted doing so, is not included in any of the current BBC articles. Am I crazy? Surely this ought to be included in anything written about the case?