Trust us, we're the BBC. Shurely Shome Mishtake

By no means is this intended to be a political piece. That it features Ronnie Flanagan, Jim Gamble's old boss, adds a bit of interest it must be said. If you are unfamiliar with Flanagan you can read a little about his exploits in this post, and a few new CEOP teeshirts I might add, where he features both in the article and in the footnotes, as does the the Irish Mail front page seen here.

Although the articles in question are centred on Flanagan's collusion with the Loyalist death squads, collusion being a polite word for conspiracy to murder it must be said, it is not that involvement that is crux of this particular article. The essential part of this post is the BBC, or more precisely, it's manner of reporting, and it is that manner of reporting that interests us.

That the once mighty broadcasting corporation, renowned as the beacon of truth for its unbiased and honest reporting, (forgive me) that the BBC is ethically bankrupt, it's worth now equal to that of the rest of the main stream media, is epitomised in this shameful example below.

Little wonder then that this reporter for IndyMedia* is pissed, mightily so in fact. So firstly let us read what Shane O'Curry has to say, and then move on to the article that causes him so much offence.

BBC off to a flying start on Flanagan's evidence to Rosemary Nelson Inquiry
by Shane O'Curry

The information branch of the British State does an excellent job

It reads more like the adoring parish gazette piece about the bell ringer retiring after 30 years of good Christian service, than objective reporting about the significant, and highly unusual development of a Chief Constable being called to give evidence before an Inquiry into the murder of a solicitor in circumstances that are suggestive of a security force cover-up, if not actual collusion in the murder. It is hard to imagine how anyone could have heaped more praise onto the north of Ireland's former security top-dog.

This was the second murder of a high profile solicitor while Sir Ronnie was a senior officer in the paramilitary Royal Ulster Constabulary. The first, that of Pat Finucane, was when he was in charge of Special Branch, whose finger prints are all over the latter's murder. It is also umpteenth case where there are allegations of outright RUC collusion, criminal neglect of duty and cover-up involving some of Northern Ireland's most heinous terrorist crimes.



Yet the piece only makes the most oblique of references to one these other cases, that of Omagh, and buries these references in one of the most highly-polished and sycophantic hagiographies seen in modern western journalism. Here, journalist Mark Simpson's blind assertion that "He did not even know that Special Branch had a file on [Rosemary Nelson]" makes one wonder whether he did his journalistic training in Albania, pre-1989. As for the rest of the piece, Sir Ronnie's PR team couldn't have written a better piece about him.















If.Sir.Ronnie.deserves.an.Oscar.for.his.performance at the Rosemary Nelson Inquiry, Mark Simpson deserves a Pulitzer prize for fiction for his coverage of it. Sir Ronnie is moving-on to greener fields as security adviser to the Interior Minister at the United Arab Emirates. Meanwhile, things are really progressing in the north of Ireland. indymedia.ie/article/90716

And the offending piece who's style we are so becoming accustomed to in other matters.

Sir Ronnie Flanagan faces inquiry

By Mark Simpson
BBC Ireland correspondent

As Sir Ronnie Flanagan gives evidence at the public inquiry into the controversial killing of solicitor Rosemary Nelson, what is the background of the former Northern Ireland Chief Constable?

Like all experienced police officers, Sir Ronnie Flanagan is more used to asking the questions than answering them.

He spent more than 30 years at the sharp end of policing in Northern Ireland, before moving to England to the prestigious job as head of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.

He went back to Belfast to answer a series of questions about the death of solicitor Rosemary Nelson.

His evidence was summed up in one sentence from his detailed statement: "My impressions at the time were that Rosemary Nelson was a lawyer doing her job."

He insisted he did not regard her as a terrorist sympathiser, and rejected claims that the police deliberately failed to protect her from attack.

In charge

Rosemary Nelson was killed just before St Patrick's Day in 1999, when an under-car booby-trap bomb exploded as she was driving her car. The loyalist terror group, the Red Hand Defenders, later said they were behind the attack.

Ms Nelson's legal clients included a number of republicans, and her friends and family suspect that elements of the security forces colluded with loyalist paramilitaries in her death.

They also believe that police could have done more to ensure her personal security in the months before she was murdered.

At the time, Sir Ronnie was the man in charge of policing in Northern Ireland.

Although he was seen by some as a "hands on" chief constable, he told the inquiry he was not involved in day-to-day matters surrounding Ms Nelson.

He did not even know that Special Branch had a file on her.




He has already faced four hours of questioning about exactly what he knew - and what he didn't know. Two more days have been set aside for his evidence.

Although he is being asked to remember events from 10 years ago in precise detail, and his every word is being scrutinised, Sir Ronnie has appeared calm and measured throughout.

It is all part of the legacy of the Troubles for the former chief constable, even though he has moved on to other duties outside the UK.




Communication skills

He recently landed a major policing post in the Middle East, as strategic adviser to the Minister of Interior of the United Arab Emirates.

His name was initially mentioned as a possible candidate for the top job at the Metropolitan Police after Sir Ian Blair announced his intention to step down, but it all came too late for Sir Ronnie, 59.

Although he is held in the highest esteem in Downing Street and beyond, his time in Northern Ireland was not without controversy, most notably over his handling of the Omagh bomb investigation.

He was severely criticised in an independent report into the matter.

He rejected the criticism by saying that if he believed it was true: "I would not only resign - I would go and publicly commit suicide."

It was an uncharacteristically extreme outburst by a man whose communication skills are usually second to none.

Having spent so much time in the media spotlight, his appearance at the Rosemary Nelson inquiry has attracted a large amount of interest.

The police have always denied any wrongdoing in the Nelson case, and this has been repeated in person by Sir Ronnie.

Nonetheless, exactly what he says is significant, especially as it is all being said in public.

Numerous allegations and accusations have been made against the police about what they did before and after the murder in 1999.

Now the man who was in charge of the force is having his say.

Seems like a nice man, don't you think?

From, to borrow a phrase, The information branch of the British State

Mind you it ain't just the BBC is it? in the immortal words of George Orwell, Once a Journo, always a whore. Shurely shome mishtake? (bottom of the page)




*IndyMedia From around the world in many languages, and always a good alternative to the main stream press.

And while I'm recommending resources, when I used to blog on US/global matters, I found this an excellent source for both news and articles. Information Clearing House
Apart from the big names there, Chomsky, Pilger etc, I took a shine to Paul Graig Roberts for US domestic affairs, a sample here, and for South America/global, Pepe Escobar scratched a decent article. A little about the man and a few links.

Jim Gamble: Judgement or Agenda?

Update: Madeleine McCann Was Not Abducted

Update: I suppose in a way it was fortuitous that I burnt the midnight oil in getting this article posted, particularly in light of this latest example, highlighting Jim Gamble's misuse of office, must have been rolling of the presses at a similar time.

Now I have already had a little rant elsewhere today, so rather than indulge in another tirade, I am reposting it here, thus freeing up the time to enable me to look at another fine example of Gamble's judgement.

Pardon me, that should read, Gamble's agenda driven judgement.

My rant for today.

Jeebus! what a thing to wake up to.

Do you know what runs through the core of all this?

Arrogance, pure unadulterated fucking arrogance.

From the minute this country foisted itself on, or better that read undermined, the Portuguese investigation, it bristled with arrogance.

As your comments point out, no medical records, no bank statements, and to endorse my use of the word arrogance, no fucking credit cards!

After twelve years of NuLabour the standards of this country are such that anybody who is in a government seat of any description, just drives right on, no matter how bent the issue, no matter how transparent they may look over that issue, it's drive on!

We don't give a fuck because there ain't a goddamn thing you can do about it, we're in the driving seat and this is the road we're going down.

We're untouchable, and you can go and fuck yourselves; that's the message from the establishment today.

Go and fuck yourselves.

I think I can safely say that my previous article established the fact that Jim Gamble is a competent policeman of some twenty five years experience, well versed in the ways of the world.

With that in mind, I have to ask the question, does this statement by Gamble reflect that experience, or is it in fact, given Gamble's career accomplishments, totally anomalous?

Though it defies all logic, Gamble's unequivocal support of the McCann's is not unique, he has previously been vocal in support of another, the extremely suspect, if not indeed outright corrupt, Colin Port, Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset.

But that little nest of vipers I will address later in this article if not in a separate post altogether, because truth be told it makes my head spin. Everybody that is anybody is seemingly connected, from the disgraced Ronnie Flanagan, later to become Sir Ronnie, to Gamble, to Port, to murders and cover-ups, to you name it, everybody seems to coloured by the same brush. The hard part in all this, is trying to find the glue, if not to stick this shabby bunch together, then at least find enough cohesion to at least make an article out of it all. As I say, of this later, but don't be holding your breath.

The CEOP were active in this case from the very beginning, but before scrutinising that involvement, let me post a few relevant words, the rest of it being puff, from a Mirror article dated October 2007.

Cop hunts down net pervs
By Ros Wynne-Jones
EXCLUSIVE COP WHO HUNTS DOWN THE INTERNET PERVERTS PREYING ON KIDS

......And as head of the CEOP, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre, missing Madeleine McCann is inevitably never far from his mind.

"We absolutely support the McCann family," he says, sitting in his glass-walled office in Pimlico, Central London.

"They are to be applauded for their tireless work to keep the campaign to find their daughter in the public consciousness. It is a case for every parent of 'There but by the grace of God, go I'." Mirror 7th October 2007

"We absolutely support the McCann family, they are to be applauded for their tireless work to keep the campaign to find their daughter in the public consciousness."

Well, there's no ambiguity in that statement, crystal clear, unequivocal support from, and I shall not use the CEOP acronym here, lets call it as it is, because to do otherwise would be somewhat diversionary; unequivocal support from Jim Gamble.

Now that is quite a statement coming from an officer of the law, I assume that's what he still is, that he holds a rank of some description. It becomes even more of a statement, considerably more, when we consider to whom it pertains. And to whom it pertains is the parents, and the last two people to have seen to have seen Madeleine McCann alive before allegedly being abducted.

I have little inclination to quote chapter and verse as to what evidence there was at the time in support of this allegation by the parents, quite simply, it is the same amount today as it was then, nothing, zero, zilch. Likewise I have no inclination to spend a week making a list of factors that point to to the contrary. What I am inclined to however, is to state quite categorically that this statement of support by Gamble should have had alarm bells ringing from one end of this country to the other.

But if we add to the equation that which I have so far left out, then what I previously described as quite a statement becomes something else entirely. It becomes astonishing, and given that it is issued by a man supposedly charged with protecting children it becomes more than astonishing, it becomes sinister, and more than sinister it becomes criminal, both morally and legally.

So what is the missing expression in our fore-mentioned equation, it is the date?
The date of publication which quoted Jim Gamble's "absolute support the McCann family" was the Seventh of October 2007, a month to the day after the McCanns, quite understandably, had been declared Arguidos, persons of interest, suspects in all but name in the case of their disappeared Daughter.

Now you can call me old fashioned, you can call me whatever you wish, but I have a problem with this statement of support from Jim Gamble issued under the guise of the CEOP.
As much as he may like to think it is, the CEOP is not Jim Gamble's personal fiefdom, it is a Government organisation funded from the public purse. It's purpose, so we are told, is to combat child abuse via the internet. It is not platform for Jim Gamble to utter statements of support to suspects, period, no matter who they may be.

The CEOP was not conceived and brought into being in order that Jim Gamble may pursue his own agenda. The CEOP is not be vehicle from which to launch "Minute for Madeleine" video clips in an effort to legitimise the McCann's claim of abduction, when there is not one scrap of evidence to support this claim and there being much to indicate the impossibility of such an occurrence taking place.

Let us move on.

We know that the CEOP were on the ground in Portugal, "helping with the investigation" within two days, and what do we know of their activities there.

We know that they Profiled Robert Murat, this from Goncalo Amaral's book A Verdade Da Mentira. I include the rest of the passage for context and interest.

Members of the British agency CEOP (Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre), take a close interest in Murat and work to develop his psychological profile. GA

With amazement the police officers discover a series of books and manuals exclusively intended for police services and government agencies.

Missing and Abducted Children: A Law-Enforcement Guide to Case Investigation and Program Management, National Centre for Missing & Exploited Children;

Training Courses, CEOP (Serious Organised Crime Agency - Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre);

Making Every Child Matter...Everywhere, CEOP (Serious Organised Crime Agency - Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre).

Mark Harrison himself wonders how Gerald McCann could have obtained these books.

Which led to, again from Goncalo Amaral.

FOR THE PROFILERS, MURAT IS THE GUILTY PARTY

Since Murat's first interview, which they attended, the specialists have continued to refine the profile of the suspect. They have heard about the statement from one of his so-called childhood friends, put on file by the police department: according to him, Murat had an affirmed penchant for bestiality.

He recounted his attempts at sexual relations with a cat and a dog, subsequently killed, he states, with cruelty. Moreover, he allegedly attempted to rape his 16 year-old cousin. This individual describes Murat as someone violent with behavioural problems, a sexual pervert, sadist, and misanthropist. We are somewhat sceptical.

All the same, according to the English profilers, there is a 90% chance that he is the guilty party. That seems to us to be a bit too easy. We think that drawing conclusions based essentially on the statement of an ex-convict is rather dangerous.

Yes it does seem a bit easy doesn't it, perhaps they had other reasons for reaching the conclusion they did.
Nevertheless Murat ended up as Arguido, but not before a little help from Jane Tanner, Lori Campbell and no doubt the odious one helping things along from under some nearby rock.

But I would be remiss if I didn't mention the expediency of Leicester Constabulary in forwarding to the PJ Campbell's suspicions of Murat. Pity they couldn't manage quite the same urgency when it came to forwarding the statements of possible paedophillic behaviour by Gerry McCann and David Payne. But never mind, they did manage to find the energy to fly out to Portugal to try and suppress the release of the documents when it be became apparent that the statements were to be made public.

It does make me beggar the question, I wonder how much time the CEOP spent profiling the statistically most likely persons to know her fate and the last persons to see her alive?*

The photo appeal; I don't want to dwell on too much, but suffice to say much was made of it by all concerned. Let me paste this from the Times, it being the shortest report I have but still includes all the players, Gerry McCann apart that is, for he was pleased as well. And you might want to remember herself from the NPIA, there being a chance she might pop up in the future.

May 21, 2007
Madeleine police appeal for holiday pictures

“We will then assess those pictures – at a rate of 1,000 pictures per hour – so that over a quick period of time we will pass meaningful information to the Portuguese authorities.”

The appeal was launched today by the UK law enforcement agencies assisting the Portuguese authorities – Leicestershire Constabulary, Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), CEOP and the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA).

Anne Harrison, Detective Chief Superintendent from the NPIA said that it was possible Madeleine was still in Praia da Luz but was being hidden and appealed for anyone that knew where she was to come forward.

“We do not know the reason why she was taken but the Portuguese authorities have searched extensively around Praia da Luz and she has not been found. It is possible she is being hidden or concealed in some way and if you know where then by now you may have realised it is in everybody’s interest that she is returned to her family”.

She also wanted anyone who took part in the initial search for Madeleine before the Portuguese police arrived to contact them on 0800 096 1233. Times

Now I might not be so cynical as to the reason for this appeal if the CEOP had actually sent a pic or two to the PJ. But they didn't and I remain just as cynical as ever I was.

And lastly, the blatant attempt by Gamble to whitewash the McCanns, legitimise the abduction theory, and as far as I am concerned, pervert the course of justice.
An attempt I might add, as crass as it is obvious, and as distasteful as it is illegal.

These screen shots taken from, and with a personal voice over from, hardened crime fighter of twenty five years experience, Jim Gamble, CEO of the CEOP.










She will now be six years old. It says it all.

Judgement or Agenda?

To round off, a few opinions of others that I have saved along the way, I concur with the writer's opinions, and the talking points the make do save me writing more at this ungodly hour.
No names no pack drill, but thank you all for your contributions and pray forgive me taking liberties with your words.

What evidence do the CEOP have that the mysteriously disappeared child has been abducted? What evidence do the CEOP have to support she has been abducted by paedophiles? If the CEOP have evidence to support that the mysteriously disappeared child was abducted and was abducted by paedophiles then why has this new evidence not been presented to the Portuguese authorities who have primacy in this investigation? If the CEOP have evidence to support abduction an abduction by paedophiles then this I believe is new evidence. New evidence that could re-open the archived case!

~ ~ ~

And CEOPS merrily go along with age-progressed pictures of a child whose dead body has been scented by two recovery dogs? Purrrrrlease!

~ ~ ~

Jim Gamble is being used to threaten any would be dissenters, letting everyone know that Gerry is still in total control of the UK police and all their investigations. How bizarre that given that Madeleine’s fate is still unknown senior policemen are sharing a platform with the statistically most likely person to know her fate and the last person to see her alive.* Even if one is convinced of the parent’s innocence it is an inexplicable way for a police officer to behave

~ ~ ~

What is it about Gamble that instinctively seems to concern so many of us? I cannot put my finger on it and I cannot even fully justify the feeling I have. I just know that it does not sit easily in my mind at all that he is seemingly ignoring the findings of the dogs and statements of Martin Grimes , the Gaspars etc., etc., etc., and that there is an inordinate amount of information to be ruled out before he can sit at conferences with these people as if he is their friend and victim support aid.

I would feel much happier about Gamble if he took a more objective role in this case. Or at least come out publicly and told us why these currently ex-arguidos are totally innocent in the eyes of CEOPS.

If, like Kate McCann, he knows something that nobody else knows, wouldn't it be better for him to come out and tell the public and put us all out of our misery? Because, after goodness knows how long, Kate McCann is sure as Hell never going to tell us how she 'knew' Madeleine was abducted. Her just 'knowing' is absolutely no compensation for the millions of pounds and hundreds of thousands of hours spent.

Where is Gamble's shred of evidence of abduction? Just one will do!

~ ~ ~

I have posted some additional reading below, because human nature being what it is, I have no doubt there will be visitors here from the CEOP, so in a way I could say this is for you.

Perhaps after reading these four articles, assuming you can be arsed, you might want to ask yourselves why the CEOP is involved in this case at all, but more particularly you might ask yourself a further question, why has the CEOP given, and continues give, it's categorical support to the McCanns and their abduction theory. A theory I might add that is so implausible that it becomes contemptible to any thinking person.

Please feel free to make use of the comments facility, particularly if you can argue the case as well as is done below.

Madeleine McCann Was Not Abducted: The Shutters Revisited

How did the alleged abductor snatch Madeleine in a time slot of no more than 3-4 minutes?

by Barbara Nottage

One of the curious aspects of the alleged abduction of Madeleine McCann is the extraordinarily tight timetable in which the abduction is supposed to have taken place. Dr Gerald McCann says he went to check on the children at about 9.05pm on 3 May 2007. He also said elsewhere that he had been an unusually long time in the apartment toilet, and that he had been inside all four rooms of the apartment. In addition, he told the world that he had had time during his visit to gaze down on Madeleine, whom he was to describe as ‘lying in the recovery position’, and think how lucky he was to have such a beautiful daughter. By this reckoning, He could not have left the apartment until around 9.10pm or several minutes later.............

.........The abduction scenario

So let’s examine this situation more closely.

The scenario put forward by the McCanns and their friends runs as follows:

· The abductor must have been watching the apartment for several days before snatching Madeleine on 3 May.

· The McCanns went down to the ‘Tapas bar’ at the Ocean Club at around 8.30pm that evening, with other members of the group arriving during the next half-an-hour or so.

· Dr Matthew Oldfield ‘checked the apartment from the outside’ at around 9.00pm to 9.03pm.

· Dr Gerry McCann returned to his apartment (5A) from the Tapas bar to check on his children at around 9.05pm. The walk to the apartment would have taken one to two minutes. So on his own timing, he would have arrived there around 9.07pm.

· Dr Gerry McCann was briefly in all four rooms of their holiday apartment, during which time he checked his children. He also says he spent an unusually long time in the toilet - maybe up to 5 minutes, though we have never been told why. He tells us that he paused briefly over Madeleine’s bed and thought to himself how very lucky he was to have such a beautiful child.

· Dr Gerry McCann says he noticed that the door to the children’s room was ‘wider open than before’. He says that at 8.30pm it had been open at an angle of about 45 degrees (half open). He remembers (he says) that when he went to check the children at 9.05pm, the door was now open at an angle of 60 degrees (two thirds open).

· The fact that the door - according to Dr Gerald McCann - was now (at 9.05pm) more open more than it was before (at 8.30pm), has been used by him to suggest the possibility that the abductor may have been already in the apartment when he checked on the children, although he says he only realised this possibility some months after the events of the day. Dr Gerry McCann has said that the abductor might have been hiding behind a door or in a wardrobe while he spent several minutes doing his ‘check’ on the children. more

.

Let's Not Concern Ourselves, They're Only Details
by Himself

Just what does it take to get arrested by the Leicester police?

The corner stone of this nonsensical abduction story offered by the McCanns has always centred around the window and the "jemmied shutters."

I have written about the shear impossibility of such a scenario here, and Dr Martin Roberts addresses the same likelihood and can be found at this link.

Below in black and white and on video tape are the accounts of McCann family members and friends, etched in stone as it were, and there is only one indisputable source for these accounts, Kate and Gerry McCann.

But firstly, prior to reading these accounts, we have to take a good look at the latest incredible words of Kate McCann.

This single paragraph is but one of many taken from the McCanns feeble effort to limit the fallout from what came to light in Lisbon. This latest blog entry written by Kate McCann? after their failed and misguided attempt to silence Goncalo Amaral and as such silence the truth.

The window: I described to the police officers exactly what I found that night, as it was and is highly relevant and I knew that every little detail could be helpful in finding my daughter which is our only aim. The window which is a ground floor window was completely open and is large enough for a person to easily climb through it. Whether it had been opened for this purpose remains unknown. It could of course have been opened by the perpetrator when inside the apartment as a potential escape route or left open as a 'red herring'

In the immortal words of John McEnroe, you cannot be serious, you really really cannot be serious.

Apart from a few lines by way of introduction, I have just posted the relevant parts of various articles.*

~ ~ ~

Agony as 3-yr-old vanishes from holiday flat

A HUGE hunt was going on last night for three-year-old Maddy McCann, feared snatched from her holiday flat.

Maddy is believed to have been taken as she slept in the complex on Portugal's Algarve as her doctor parents ate at a bar 120ft away. Her scent was picked up by a police sniffer dog. But it petered out after 400 yards.

Yesterday, 24 hours after the young child vanished in quiet Praia da Luz, anguished parents Gerry and Kate, both 38, of Rothley, Leics, begged for her return.

A friend said: "Kate rang us totally hysterical, saying Maddy was abducted. They're devastated."

The appalling news that three-year-old Maddy McCann was feared kidnapped from her holiday flat came in a distraught phone call early yesterday from her dad.

Heart specialist Gerry McCann rang his sister Trish in Scotland after Maddy vanished from her cot placed between two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie.

Trish revealed yesterday: "He was breaking his heart, saying 'Madeleine's been abducted, she's been abducted'."

Trish said: "When Kate checked, she came out screaming. Maddy had gone. The door was open and the window in the bedroom and shutters were jemmied open. Nothing had been touched and no valuables taken. more

The Rapidly Revolving Door
by John Blacksmith
Gerry McCann went back to the third version of his checking visit, the dodgy printed timeline which matched what he had told the police in his first witness statement, where he also mentioned the lavatory visit, timing his trip at 9.05. That document was never going to be accepted by either a judge or jury, not just because of these very changes but because the group had effectively colluding in preparing it after their first witness statements, so it was both worthless and suspicious, as the McCanns’ lawyers knew.

Never mind. Something had to be done, and so Gerry became the first ever victim of MMR syndrome – McCann Memory Recovery - when, four and a half months after the event, he suddenly recalled “sensing” an intruder’s presence in the apartment. To strengthen the story there was that wide-open bedroom door that Mathew Oldfield had seen. Gerry and Kate only ever left it ajar, never wide open or closed. That, surely, was clear evidence that someone was already there, in hiding, ready to leap into action as soon as the patio doors clicked shut. Now, with the actual approach and entry all having taken place before his arrival, the only time required as he walked down the back staircase to encounter Jeremy Wilkins, was fugitive exit time.
But this was like playing with a Rubik Cube because of what the Tapas 7 had already put in their witness statements: move one, you may have to move them all. If he’d done his check at 9.05 what had he been doing between 9.07, say, and when Jane Tanner saw him by the back gate about 9.20 at the earliest? A trip to the loo, a gaze down at his daughter – and then what? He must have been talking to Jeremy Wilkins, that’s where the unaccounted 10 -15 minutes had gone. But argh! Jane Tanner had said in her statement that, whatever time they had both gone, she had followed him only five minutes afterwards.
Shrug. That was another bridge that would have to be crossed if they ever went back to Portugal. For now it would be good enough: out went Clarence with the story that so enraged the Portuguese cop. more

Decisions, decisions
by John Blacksmith

The background to Mitchell's untruthful statement to the press lay in the problems that the defence team were uncovering in the abduction claim, problems that they patiently outlined at their offices to Gerry McCann one afternoon in September.

Mathew Oldfield confirmed that at just after 9.30, when he supposedly checked the apartment, while missing Madeleine herself, the children' bedroom door was open wider than Gerry McCann left it. So the abductor supposedly seen by Jane Tanner must have moved it, committed the crime and departed before Oldfield's arrival but after Gerry's departure, which was itself fixed in time by another witness, Jeremy Wilkins. Was there enough time for the abduction to occur within these limits?

In the famous “Let’s Dismember Noddy” timelines, the ones that the Tapas group insisted were truthful, there are two times given for Gerry’s visit. The first version says he checked at 9.10 – 9.15 PM.


On the second, the one with “Gerald” on it, Gerry, who was wearing a watch during his check, has corrected it to 9.15 exactly.


The same document, as can be seen, says that Jane, who was not present during the Noddy massacre, went for her check at 9.20, something she confirms in her witness statement, “five minutes after Gerry”.

So in that five minutes everything has happened. Gerry has made the two minute walk to his apartment, more

.

~ ~ ~

NI police colluded with killers

Police colluded with loyalists behind over a dozen murders in north Belfast, a report by the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland has confirmed.

Nuala O'Loan's report said UVF members in the area committed murders and other serious crimes while working as informers for Special Branch.

It said two retired assistant chief constables refused to cooperate with the investigation.

Special Branch officers gave the killers immunity, it said.

The officers ensured the murderers were not caught and even "baby-sat" them during police interviews to help them avoid incriminating themselves.

The Special Branch officers "created false notes" and blocked searches for UVF weapons.

They also paid almost £80,000 to leading loyalist Mark Haddock, jailed for 10 years last November for an attack on a nightclub doorman.

Responding to the report, Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde offered an apology to the victims' families.

He said the report made "shocking, disturbing and uncomfortable reading".

NI Secretary Peter Hain said: "I am convinced that at least one prosecution will arise out of today's report."

Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams said republicans would "not be surprised or shocked by the revelations".

"We think that it's an incentive that the mechanisms which were put in place for accountability, which we put in place and which we have argued for, now need to be deployed, not only to make sure that this does not happen (again), but if it does, that those guilty will be dealt with properly," he said.

The report, published on Monday, called for a number of murder investigations to be re-opened.

But it is unlikely that any of the police officers involved will be prosecuted - the ombudsman said that evidence was deliberately destroyed to ensure there could not be prosecutions.

Nuala O'Loan said investigation was a lengthy task.

"What emerged during our inquiries was that all of the informants at the centre of this investigation were members of the UVF," she said.

"There was no effective strategic management of these informants. As a consequence of the practices of Special Branch, the position of the UVF, particularly in north Belfast and Newtownabbey was consolidated and strengthened over the years. How could this happen?"

Mrs O'Loan said former Chief Constable Sir Ronnie Flanagan was interviewed by her office, but was unable to assist the investigation.

The report said: "Others, including some serving officers, gave evasive, contradictory, and on occasion farcical answers to questions.

"On occasion those answers indicated either a significant failure to understand the law, or contempt for the law."

The ombudsman's investigation began more than three years ago when Belfast welder Raymond McCord claimed that his son, also called Raymond, had been killed by a police informer.

The former RAF man, 22, was a member of the UVF who had some involvement in drugs.

In 1997, he was beaten to death and his body dumped in a quarry.

Mr McCord has said he wants those who murdered his son to be put in prison.

He said he had received a death threat at the weekend from the UVF.

Among the investigations which could be re-opened are the murder in north Belfast in 1992 of 27-year-old taxi driver Sharon McKenna, who was shot at the home of an elderly friend.

The names of the police officers and the informers have not been made public.

However, it is known that the main informer at the centre of the investigation is Mark Haddock, who was named in the Irish parliament 15 months ago as a UVF killer.

Some of the Special Branch officers criticised in the report have rejected the ombudsman's allegations as "unfounded and incapable of substantiation".

In a statement, the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers' Association said they had always acted in the best interests of the pursuit of justice and had nothing to be ashamed of.

The officers also challenged the ombudsman to disclose the details of any evidence of their criminal behaviour discovered during her investigation. BBC NI

Jim Gamble: Looking Back

In this article it is not my intention to sit in judgement or moralise as to what Jim Gamble may or may not have been involved in during his tenure in the North of Ireland. You may, after reading this article, draw your own conclusions as you see fit.

My purpose here is to provide a brief background as to the type of environment in which Gamble plied his trade as a senior officer in the security services. My objective in doing this, is that you will recognize that to achieve what he has, and to have held the positions he has, the man knows the way of the world and is neither naive nor a fool.

How unfortunate then that he does not afford us the same respect in his transparent efforts to sell us the McCanns as victims in this grotesque farce. But his machinations surrounding all this are for another day, today our primary purpose is to establish his bona fides, and should you find the skulduggery of interest as we do this, look upon it as a bonus.

So first a couple of bio's taken from the main stream press.

~

Jim Gamble is Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre and brings with him over 25 years in UK policing - from leading the fight against terrorism as the head of the Northern Ireland anti-terrorist intelligence unit in Belfast to most recently tackling organised crime as the Deputy Director of the National Crime Squad.

During his time in Northern Ireland he covered both uniform and detective roles in a rapidly changing and often volatile environment before leading anti-terrorist responses in both the UK and abroad. With the National Crime Squad he oversaw a complex and highly intricate portfolio ranging from firearm deployment to hi-tech crime and overall intelligence, professional standards and security as a central figure in the UK's fight against organised crime.

Gamble was previously a superintendent in the Police Service of Northern Ireland and most recently acting chief constable and head of the National Crime Squad, which deals with serious and organised crime

~

With more than 25 years experience working in law enforcement, Jim Gamble, 48, is a true career policeman.

Before taking up his current job as the head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (Ceop) Centre in 2006, he worked as a superintendent in the Police Service of Northern Ireland and, most recently, as acting chief constable and head of the National Crime Squad.

During his time in Northern Ireland he covered both uniform and detective roles before leading anti-terrorist responses in Britain and abroad.

At the National Crime Squad - which deals with serious and organised crime - he oversaw a complex portfolio ranging from firearm deployment to hi-tech crime and intelligence to professional standards and security.

He also set up the National Crime Squad's specialist response cell - the Paedophile Online Investigation Team - and was involved in the creation of the first international law enforcement partnership to combat child abuse online - the Virtual Global Taskforce.
Mr Gamble is married with three children and lives in London.

Nobody's fool , I'm sure you must agree.

But what went on during his tenure, serving primarily under Chief Constable Sir Ronnie Flanagan? (scroll down) Quite a lot evidently, and none of it good.

Enough to bring about Operation Ballast, a three-and-a-half-year investigation by Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Nuala O'Loan.

Ballast, initially motivated to look into the murder of Raymond McCord Junior in November 1997, soon expanded to investigate further allegations of collusion between the Security Services and the RUC and the UVF and the Loyalist death squads who were murdering with impunity, if not actively encouraged and aided by the Security Services and the RUC. A fact not unknown to the British Government.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. In May 2002 Mr Raymond McCord Senior made a complaint to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland about police conduct in relation to the murder of his son, Mr Raymond McCord Junior. His complaint alleged that police over a number of years, acted in such a way as to protect informants from being fully accountable to the law.

2. Preliminary enquiries following receipt of Mr McCord’s complaint showed that there were sufficient issues of concern to warrant a wide-ranging investigation not only into matters relating to the investigation of Mr McCord’s son’s murder, but also into the police handling and management of identified informants from the early 1990s onwards.

3. In the course of the investigation the Police Ombudsman sought the cooperation of a number of retired RUC/PSNI senior officers. Officers who were being treated as witnesses were asked to provide an explanation of Special Branch and CID internal practices during this period. Investigators offered to meet retired officers at venues with which they would be comfortable and at times which would suit them. They were advised of the areas of questioning and provided with significant disclosure of information, at their request. The majority of them failed even to reply. This was despite the fact that witness details would be anonomised in any public statement. Amongst those who refused were two retired Assistant Chief Constable’s, seven Detective Chief Superintendent’s and two Detective Superintendent’s.

4. Some retired officers did assist the investigation, and were helpful. Officers varied a great deal in the manner in which they responded to questions. Some, including some retired officers dealt with challenging questions in a professional manner.

5. Others, including some serving officers, gave evasive, contradictory, and on occasion farcical answers to questions. On occasion those answers indicated either a significant failure to understand the law, or contempt for the law. On other occasions the investigation demonstrated conclusively that what an officer had told the Police Ombudsman’s investigators was completely untrue.

6. The Police Ombudsman’s initial concerns about PSNI informant management processes caused her to alert the Chief Constable to those concerns in March 2003. She subsequently made him aware on 8 September 2003 of her very detailed concerns about these matters. She also alerted the Surveillance Commissioner on 15 September 2003. He carried out an inspection of the Special Branch handling of Informant 1. That inspection found serious failings by Special Branch to comply with the requirements of the law in relation to the handling of informants.

7. The wider investigation was focused on seven main lines of enquiry, which had emerged during preliminary enquiries and in respect of which serious concerns had arisen. They were, in chronological order of event:

• two attempted murders in 1991.

• the murder of Sharon McKenna on 17 January 1993.

• the attempted bombing of the Sinn Fein office in Monaghan on 3 March 1997.

• the blocking by Special Branch of searches during a pre-planned CID operation intended to disrupt the activities of the UVF.

• the murder of John Harbinson on 18 May 1997.

• the murder of Raymond McCord Junior on 9 November 1997.

OTHER CONCLUSIONS OF THE POLICE OMBUDSMAN IN THIS INVESTIGATION

33.2 Operation Ballast analysed a small part of the informant handling of Special Branch RUC/PSNI. The investigation examined the activities of a number of Special Branch officers of all ranks in relation to Informant 1, and also the other informants who were associated with him. There is no reason to believe that the findings of this investigation are isolated. Indeed given that many of the failings identified in the course of the investigation were systemic, this is highly likely and the implications of this are very serious.

33.3 Cut for editing.

33.9 It would be easy, and indeed tempting, to examine and severely criticise the junior officers’ conduct in dealing with the various informants. These officers are not blameless. However they could not have operated as they did without knowledge and support at the highest levels of the RUC/PSNI. Chief Officers should have been aware of the processes used. The most serious failings are at Chief Officer level, particularly those Chief Officers who were responsible for Special Branch, since they are responsible for ensuring that training and systems are put in place to meet legal and policy requirements.

33.10 A culture of subservience to Special Branch developed within the RUC. Officers in the rest of the RUC have articulated quite clearly that Special Branch maintained control over those normal ethical policing activities which might affect either Special Branch informants or Special Branch operations. The consequence of this was that, in the absence of effective Chief Officer Management of Special Branch, it acquired domination over the rest of the organization which inhibited some normal policing activities.

33.11 The effect of that dysfunction was that, whilst undoubtedly Special Branch officers were effective in preventing bombings and shootings and other attacks, some informants were able to continue to engage in terrorist activities including murders without the Criminal Investigation Department having the ability to deal with them for some of those offences.

33.12 On occasions this also resulted in crimes being committed by informants with the prior knowledge of Special Branch officers. Informants engaged in such crimes were not subject to any of the controls inherent in the system for the use of Participating Informants devised by the Home Office for use by all police forces. On occasion, despite the fact that they had not given informants Participating Informant status, police nevertheless watched as serious terrorist crimes were committed by their informants.

33.13 The Police Ombudsman was concerned also at the attitude of some Special Branch and CID officers to their obligations as police officers. Some officers have articulated the belief that they had no function beyond intelligence gathering. Successive Police Acts have provided that the primary duties of a police officer are to protect life and property, and to prevent and detect crime.

33.14 Whilst acting as an informant, and with the knowledge of some Special Branch and some CID officers, informants moved through the ranks of the UVF to senior positions. The evidence clearly shows that Informant 1’s behaviour, including alleged murder, was not challenged by Special Branch, and the activities of those who sought to bring him to justice were blocked repeatedly. Records were minimized, exaggerated, fabricated and must also have been destroyed. Informant 1 would have been well aware of the level of protection which he was afforded.

33.15 It is also the case that whilst he was engaged in drug dealing and other money making activities, Informant 1 was not only protected by Special Branch but he was also given large sums of public money in return for such services as he provided. Indeed on one occasion he is recorded as having provided information which led police to stop a car containing him and two other leading UVF men, all of whom were police informants. No arrests followed and Informant 1 was paid £3,000. The total amount estimated to have been paid to Informant 1 over 12 years is in excess of £79,000.

33.16 This investigation demonstrates graphically the dangers of a separated and effectively unaccountable specialist intelligence department with extensive and largely uncontrolled powers. No effective analysis could have been made by the RUC/PSNI over the years of the implications of the totality of the information about, and activities of, the informants who have been identified during this investigation.

33.17 In many other crimes described in this report there were witnesses, who either drew police attention to a crime or volunteered to give evidence, some of it quite specific. There was also one occasion on which the victim of a punishment shooting gave extensive information to the police about what had happened to him. In all these situations the individuals involved were either seeking to assist the police or to be protected by the police. The Police Ombudsman has found that on a number of occasions the police did not use these opportunities to further their investigations. This had two consequences: firstly the investigation did not proceed, and secondly failure by police to use evidence tendered by witnesses to paramilitary shootings and other activity, must have given rise to a lack of confidence among the people that there was any point in assisting the police when such crimes were committed. The consequence of this would inevitably have been that the police became less effective and the community confidence in policing was reduced.

33.18 This investigation demonstrates that one of the greatest dangers to any anti-terrorist work is that, if those charged with intelligence gathering and investigation do not abide by the rules, and if those who manage them do not operate effectively to ensure compliance with both law and policy, the risk of terrorist attacks is enhanced, not reduced.

33.19 It remains the case that there are many officers within the RUC/PSNI who served bravely and honourably, some even making the ultimate sacrifice.On many occasions in the course of the work of the office, the Police Ombudsman has identified examples of excellent policing. This is in stark contrast to the activities and systemic failures identified in this report.

33.20 Since 2003 the PSNI has made significant changes and introduced new policies and working practices in relation to its strategic management of Crime Operations Department, which now incorporates Special Branch (now Intelligence Branch) under a single Assistant Chief Constable. A description of those changes is contained in Appendix A of this Report. It is hoped that the further necessary changes consequential upon this Report will combine with the change already made, to ensure that never again, within the PSNI, will there be the circumstances which prevailed for so long in relation to informant handling and intelligence management and which are articulated in this Report.

33.21 It is evident that the arrangements for ensuring compliance by the PSNI with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act were ineffective between 2000 and 2003. Before the Police Ombudsman drew these matters to his attention, the Surveillance Commissioner had not been able to identify the misleading documentation which was created by some Special Branch officers. Recent Surveillance Commissioner reports have identified very significant improvements but the most recent report still identifies areas for development. It is essential that in the arrangements for the future strategic management of National Security issues in Northern Ireland, there will be accountability mechanisms which are effective and which are capable of ensuring that what has happened here does not recur.

BALLAST PUBLIC STATEMENT. Worth reading.

This then was the environment and the organisation in which Jim Gamble served in the North of Ireland, an environment you might agree that would tend to nurture the hard nosed realism of the shrewd and the adroit before that of the naive and the foolish.




Further reading.

NI police colluded with killers. BBC

Ronnie Flanagan Wapedia.

Cops knew truth seven years ago. Saoirse32

NI police colluded with killers BBC

Flanagan 'no collusion knowledge' BBC

Pat Finucane Troops Out Movement.

Irish History Links

Belfast Murals

Republican Murals

UVF Murals.

And lastly, I couldn't resist this from the RUC's own website.

The Royal Ulster Constabulary served all the people of Northern Ireland with valour and gallantry from 1922 up until 2001

Background

An Phoblacht
January 1999
'We are Special Branch'

A republican ex-prisoner is in fear of his life after four men dressed in civilian clothing, claiming to be RUC officers, tried to abduct him.

The incident happened on Monday evening at about 5.15pm as the man, a first year student at Queen's Univerity, was leaving an exam centre in the univerity's leisure complex. He told An Phoblacht that he noticed two men acting suspiciously, and apparently watching him, at the front of the building.

``One was talking on a mobile phone, the other was standing near the door. I went back and made a phone call then left by a side door, but I had to go past the front entrance and the pair spotted me and came after me. At the end of the street, at the Stranmillis Road junction, another two were standing about. I went to a bus stop but they came toward me and I moved away. Further up the street I made my way to a public phone box and two of the men approached me, one got in front of me and the other grabbed me''.

It was then that one of the men addressed the man by name and said, `come with us, we are Special Branch, and we want to talk to you for ten minutes'.

The man broke away and ran into a nearby bakery.

``At this point I was really freaking out, I didn't know who these guys were and thought I was going to be abducted and shot. I kept telling a bakery assistant that I thought I was going to be shot but she didn't take me seriously. Eventually I got her to ask the men for ID, which they produced''.

The ex-POW then left the shop and pushed his way through the second pair of men who were at the door and went to the phone box and called his family to arrange a lift home.

``As I was making the call the four tried to pull me out of the box and when I asked them if they were going to arrest me they threatened to `kick the fuck out of me'. They warned me that they would `be on my back any time I was out of West Belfast'''.

The man said that because of the row he had in the shop, which made their approach so public, the men left him alone to wait for his family to pick him up.

``I am fearful of my life,'' said the man, ``this incident was very frightening and then to be threatened in the way I was makes me believe these men were up to something sinister''.

Phoblacht phoned the bakery into which the man fled and a manager confirmed that the incidnet had occurred. He also confirmed that he phoned the RUC about a second incident which occurred later that night and they admitted that it was RUC members who followed the West Belfastman.

------------------------------------------------------


An Phoblacht
November 1999
Families seek truth after 25 years

RUC implicated in double killing

by Laura Friel

WHY DID RUC officers who recognised the UDR checkpoint as a ``fake'' when they were illegally stopped by loyalists 45 minutes before a double sectarian murder do nothing to challenge the masquerading gang?

That's the question which Sean McCartney, the brother of one of two GAA fans who were killed at a bogus UDR roadblock almost 25 years ago, wants answering now.

Colm McCartney and Sean Farmer were travelling from Dublin back to Derry after attending a GAA football semi final in August 1975. Their bodies were found, riddled with bullets, just before midnight, a few hundred yards north of the border in Tullyvallen, near Newtownhamilton.

``We always suspected collusion by the RUC or UDR,'' says Sean. The family's suspicions were raised after the bodies of the two men were found outside their car. They were later told by the RUC that there had been a ``fake'' UDR patrol in the vicinity just prior to the killings.

``Over the years, a number of people who also drove through that bogus checkpoint have spoken to us,'' says Sean. Why Sean and Colm were specifically selected for murder might never be known. ``Obviously they were easily identified as Catholics,'' says Sean. ``Perhaps they also drove into the checkpoint alone.''

Confirmation of an RUC patrol also being stopped at the bogus checkpoint recently came to light via a copy of inquest affadavits in which three RUC officers - Sergeant F. Bartholomew and Constables Robert Harvey Gibson and Mervyn Coleman - described the incident.

According to the documents, an armed RUC patrol ``in uniform, with a civilian jacket over tunics'' and travelling in a ``hired'' car, was heading towards the border on the main Newtownhamilton to Castleblayney Road when they were stopped by a man dressed in ``full military combat uniform'' and waving a red torch. The RUC patrol also saw a second man, dressed in a similar uniform and carrying an SLR rifle, lying in a ditch.

The RUC officers describe how one of the uniformed men approached their vehicle and asked for the driver's licence before realising that the three men in the car were members of the RUC. ``Realising something was wrong,'' says RUC Sergeant Bartholomew, ``I told Constable Gibson to drive on.''

After the incident, the RUC patrol drove back to their barracks. On the way, they radioed ahead to check that there were no authorised UDR patrols in the area. It was confirmed. The RUC patrol was stopped at 10.45pm. The inquest puts the time of the two deaths at 11.30pm. ``The RUC had 45 minutes to do something and they did nothing,'' says Sean.

But the questions don't stop there.

Presumably, after the killings, the RUC patrol would have been able to provide vital identification evidence for the ongoing murder investigation. Yet, to date, no one has been questioned about the killings by the RUC.

In a recent affidavit by former RUC Sergeant John Weir, Weir names those involved in the Farmer/McCartney murders. He names UDR Sergeant Robert McConnell, Portadown UVF killer Robin Jackson, and an RUC Reservist. ``The RUC Reservist named by Weir is still alive,'' says Sean, ``but as far as we know, he has never been questioned about the killings. For all we know he may still be a serving member of the RUC.''

---------------------------------------------------------

An Phoblacht
February 2001
RUC handlers face prosecution

by Laura Friel

Two RUC Special Branch officers may face prosecution for their role in the killing of Belfast defence lawyer Pat Finucane. Papers have been sent by the Stevens team to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who will decide whether the RUC handlers of William Stobie will be prosecuted.

As an agent working for the RUC, William Stobie is currently awaiting trial for his role in the Finucane killing. As a UDA quartermaster, Stobie has already admitted supplying and disposing of the weapons used in the shooting. Crucially, Stobie has said that he warned his handlers on at least two occasions ``that a murder was about to be committed''.

At first, the RUC claimed that they could not act on the information they received because they did not know who was the intended target. Stobie has claimed that he too was unaware of the intended target but according to another witness, the former journalist Neil Mulholland, Stobie did know the target was Finucane and may have told his handlers.

other British agent, Brian Nelson, in his role within the UDA, supplied a photograph of Pat Finucane and his personal details to the loyalist gang that carried out the killing. Nelson says he alerted his British Army handlers that Finucane was being targeted.

Now, according to a senior source within the Stevens team, the two RUC handlers are claiming that no such conversation with Stobie took place. The handlers, known only as `Ian' and `Raymond', have been questioned by detectives working within the Stevens investigation.

News that the two RUC handlers may face prosecution came as legal insiders are predicting that the case against their agent is about to collapse. Judge Liam McCollum is expected to rule within days on whether Stobie's defence team is entitled to medical reports on the chief prosecution witness.

Last year, former journalist and present NIO press officer Neil Mulholland, at the centre of the case against Stobie, dramatically signed himself into a psychiatric unit. At the time, An Phoblacht warned that the case might collapse.

-------------------------------------------------------


An Phoblacht
April 2001
RUC to face charges over Finucane killing

BY LAURA FRIEL

Two RUC officers who knew a loyalist gang was about to kill but did nothing to thwart the death squad who shot dead Belfast defence lawyer Pat Finucane in 1989 are to be charged with withholding information. The two facing charges are believed to be the Special Branch handlers of William Stobie, the UDA quartermaster who supplied and disposed of the weapons used in the assassination.

The RUC were alerted to a pending loyalist attack by Stobie 1 hour and 40 minutes before the killing, but failed to intervene to prevent the fatal attack. It is understood that the Stevens team will recommend charges be brought against the RUC officers in a report prepared for RUC Chief Ronnie Flanagan.

News of the pending charges were leaked to the press as the case against the only other person charged in connection with the Finucane killing appeared about to collapse. William Stobie, a UDA quartermaster attached to a notorious loyalist gang based in North Belfast, was an agent working for RUC Special Branch at the time of the killing.

Stobie alerted his handlers when he was asked to supply weapons for a pending loyalist plot to target ``a top Provo''. A few days later, on Sunday 9 February, the day of the killing, Stobie made two calls to the RUC. The second call was made at 5.30pm. Stobie told his handler ``the team is out''.

The RUC knew the loyalist gang involved, they knew the area in which they operated and in the words of one commentator, ``as little as four vehicle check points could have thwarted this attack''. The RUC did nothing.

After the killing, Stobie alerted his RUC handlers when the principle weapon used in the shooting, a Browning automatic, was being moved. The RUC were given an opportunity to arrest the leading UDA gunman involved in the killing in possession of the murder weapon. The RUC did nothing.

Stobie claims that after the killing he was targeted for harassment by RUC Special Branch who planted weapons in his home. Stobie was arrested and charged with possession but the case against him was dropped after he threatened to reveal all he knew about the RUC Special Branch's culpability in the Finucane killing.

Stobie has also claimed that the RUC Special Branch were behind a plot to kill him in 1994 because they feared he would reveal their role. He claims that the UDA took him to a house and shot him six times. ``I was set up by RUC Special Branch because I was the only person who knew that they had done nothing to stop the murder,'' said Stobie.

The case against Stobie is on the verge of collapse after the chief prosecution witness withdrew his evidence. Former journalist Neil Mulholland, who is now employed as a NIO press officer, contacted the Director of Public Prosecutions last week to formally withdraw three statements implicating Stobie. Earlier in the year Mulholland had signed himself into a psychiatric hospital, effectively undermining his credibility as a witness.

During a court hearing last week, an attempt by Stobie's legal team to force disclosure of Mulholland's medical records was stalled when the proceedings were adjourned for another month at the request of the prosecution.

The news that two RUC officers are now facing charges does nothing to undermine the Finucane family's demand for an international independent public inquiry. As predicted, the Stevens inquiry has collapsed into what republicans and nationalists always suspected it was, a mechanism of damage limitation.

A campaign of vilification against Pat Finucane prior to his death began with RUC Special Branch. During an interrogation of a loyalist, RUC Special Branch officers suggested Finucane should be targeted. It was they who issued death threats against the solicitor through his clients. It was they who compiled a dossier and briefed British Minister Douglas Hogg, which promoted his House of Commons outburst about certain lawyers being too sympathetic to the IRA.

One of their agents, William Stobie, played a key role in the actual plot, a plot which the RUC Special Branch refused to thwart. In the aftermath, the RUC Special Branch ignored information which could have resulted in the arrest and prosecution of the gunmen.

They intervened to suppress evidence when a loyalist confessed his role in the killing to an RUC detective. And if Stobie can be believed, they tried to stitch up a loyalist who knew too much. Withholding information? Conspiracy to murder would be nearer the mark.

----------------------------------------------


An Phoblacht
September 2003
RUC questioned over Rosemary Nelson killing

Two former RUC police members have been questioned over allegations that they threatened the life of the Lurgan defence lawyer Rosemary Nelson and may have colluded in her death.

Nelson died in a loyalist car bombing in March 1999. The circumstances of her death mirrored those accompanying that of Belfast solicitor Patrick Finucane ten years earlier. In both cases, death threats by members of the RUC Special Branch preceded the killings.

Information that two former RUC members had been questioned in connection with the killing surfaced as relatives of Rosemary Nelson were told that the inquiry was finished, despite the failure to secure any convictions.

It is understood that the two RUC suspects were questioned following claims by a convicted loyalist killer that two named RUC officers had asked him to have Rosemary Nelson shot dead.

Loyalist Trevor McKeown first made the claim to a newspaper earlier this year. McKeown said that, in 1997, during an interrogation regarding an unrelated sectarian killing, the RUC members questioning him offered to pass on the Lurgan solicitor's personal details to have her killed.

McKeown's allegations were initially believed to have been linked to a bid to overturn his current conviction, but Rosemary Nelson's family have recently discovered that the officers named by McKeown were two of a number of RUC personnel questioned six years ago, after the solicitor filed a complaint against RUC threats to her life.

An internal RUC investigation followed the complaint but was subsequently discredited. Later a team headed by London Metropolitan Commander Niall Mulvihill was sent to investigate the complaint.

Mulvihill's team questioned a number of RUC members, but his report was never made public. No action was taken, on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

Following McKeown's allegations, the two former RUC members agreed to be interviewed by the Port team, but denied the loyalist's claims.

Rosemary's sister Bernie said the family had first wondered if McKeown was "trying to tell a story for his own ends", but later, "when we heard that he named names which were in the Mulvihill report, we were concerned".

The family was recently informed that the Port investigation had ended. Commenting, a spokesperson for the family said that they were disappointed, but not surprised that it appeared that no one would be prosecuted for Nelson's murder.

"It had been the family's view for some time that the Port investigation was not going to expose collusion in the case, nor was it going to bring people to justice."

The family went on to say that, in their opinion, there is extensive evidence suggesting collusion in the murder and that they are placing their trust in the inquiry being undertaken by Judge Cory. The retired Canadian Supreme Court Judge is currently examining six controversial cases, to determine if there is evidence of collusion sufficient enough to lead a public inquiry.




----------------------------------------------


An Phoblacht
September 2003
Court hears how PSNI interferes with forensic evidence

Sinn Féin's Pat Doherty MP said it is ``remarkable'' that the British Secretary of State Paul Murphy has not made any comment following revelations made last week in a Belfast Court the senior members of the PSNI police have attempted to interfere with the work of the Forensic Science Agency in order to wrongly convict people.

The claims came from one of the North's most senior forensic scientists, Ann Irwin, during a court case in Belfast last week.

On Tyesday, the case in which the revelations were originally made was dismissed because there was no evidence linking the man charged to the action. Despite this senior PSNI members attempted to secure his conviction based on false and flawed forensic evidence.

No statement has been made on the issue by PSNI chief Hugh Orde, his boss Paul Murphy or any member of the Policing Board.

Mr. Doherty said:

``In any other judicial system a revelation that senior members of the police force have over a period of years interfered in the work of a Forensic Science Agency in order to wrongfully convict people would spark outrage.

``It says much about public confidence in the system of justice in the six counties that most people are not surprised by the revelation.''

He demanded to know the identity of the senior officers involved.

``We can only assume they are Special Branch members and because of their seniority, close colleagues of the Chief Constable Hugh Orde.,,. From this silence are we to assume that the above individuals condone this practice or do not feel it important?''

``It is time for those who defend this force to tell us straight what they think of this scandal. It is time for the Secretary of State to speak on this matter and it is time for the many hundreds if not thousands of people convicted in the Diplock Courts on the basis of Forensic Evidence to seek a review of their convictions.''

---------------------------------------------


An Phoblacht
November 2003
Stevens seeks prosecutions

London police chief John Stevens, who is heading an investigation into British Crown force collusion with loyalist killers, revealed today his inquiries have led to new breakthroughs.

He has already established ``shocking'' levels of colluson in the murders of Belfast defence lawyer Pat Finucane and another loyalist victim, Adam Lambert.

But in Belfast today he confirmed he has sent files on another eight to ten murders to the Director of Public Prosecutions in the North of Ireland, and more were on the way.

Brian Nelson, a British military agent who acted as the intelligence officer for a UDA death-squad, is at the centre of the allegations.

Nelson, operating for the British Army's murderous `Force Research Unit', directed the UDA to kill Mr Finucane in front of his family at their North Belfast home in February 1989.

Stevens also confirmed his 12-year-long investigation into claims that the RUC police Special Branch and British army units were involved in assassination plots is now centred on an alleged top informer inside the IRA, referred to as `Stakeknife'.

Stakeknife himself carried out killings on behalf of the British Army, it has been claimed.

It is also alleged that loyalist gunmen who planned to murder Stakeknife were re-directed by Nelson to kill a West Belfast pensioner, Francisco Notorantonio, in order to save the life of the British Army agent.

Mr Nelson died earlier this year in mysterious circumstances, but Stevens claimed his investigation ``know exactly what happened and why it happened.''

He said he intends to continue his investigations for another six months.

Meanwhile, the British Secretary of State, Paul Murphy, said yesterday that he hoped a decision on Canadian judge Peter Cory's report into alleged collusion would be made by the end of the year.

The Cory investigation, which was set up to recommend whether public inquiries are necessary into certain collusion cases, has been criticised as a delaying tactic by the families of Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson and Robert Hamill, who all died in controversial circumstances.

In an interview in New York, Mr Murphy said that Judge Cory would come to London and Dublin next week to discuss his reports with the governments, and ``as soon as possible after that we'd want to make them public.''

-----------------------------------------------

An Phoblacht
December 2003
FORMER RUC MAN BACKS COLLUSION CLAIM

A former RUC detective has claimed that police informers who carried out murders were later shielded from prosecution.

Speaking on a UTV documentary, Johnston Brown offers his support to Raymond McCord, who believes two men involved in the killing of his son worked for the RUC Special Branch.

Raymond Junior, a 22-year-old former RAF man, was battered to death in Newtownabbey six years ago.

His father believes he was killed by the unionist paramilitary UVF to cover up a drug deal.

``I know exactly what happened to him. he went to visit a friend in jail and after the jail visit he came home and was lured to his death by so-called friends,'' said the victim's father.

But Mr McCord's most serious allegation is that two men involved in the killing were working for the RUC Special Branch.

The allegation is now being investigated by the Police Ombudsman Nuala O`Loan.

``As a protestant from a unionist background, I always thought when I heard about this collusion it was republican propaganda. It`s not republican propaganda, its the truth.''

On tonights Insight show, he is backed by former detective Johnston Brown, who says members of the UVF in Mount Vernon appeared to be `above the law'.

Brown said: ``Could we have put the majority of them in jail in 1997, 1998, 1999? Absolutely. Lives would have been saved time and time again. There appeared to be no will to prosecute certain individuals.''

Meanwhile, Mr McCord is facing a campaign of intimidation by the paramilitaries.

`SPY' CIRCUS FOR HIGH COURT

Meanwhile, Freddie Scappaticci, who denies being the British Army agent and IRA informer `Stakeknife', has been summonsed by a senior British intelligence operative.

Sam Rosenfeld, who once worked undercover gathering intelligence on the IRA in both the Six and 26 Counties, has also summonsed London police chief John Stevens to appear at the High Court in London.

Outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Rosenfeld said: ``I want the truth. It's time the truth about all this collusion was known.''

The `Stakeknife' figure is accused of carrying out a series of killings of Republicans while working undercover in the IRA on behalf of the British Army's terrorist unit, the Force Research Unit (FRU).

Sinn Féin has backed Scappaticci in regard to the allegations made against him. Mr Scappaticci's Belfast lawyer said his client did not know Mr Rosenfeld.

The case is due to be heard on December 17.

Stevens, who is continuing his inquiry into allegations of collusion between the British forces and paramilitary asssasins, has confirmed he is to question an agent known as Stakeknife. They have yet to meet.

Rosenfeld, a building contractor, worked for the FRU between 1990 and 1993. British Defence chiefs are attempting to gag him to prevent damaging details being revealed about its `dirty war' in Ireland.

A former intelligence agent known as Kevin Fulton and Martin Ingram, once a FRU handler turned whistle-blower have been summonsed as well. Fulton has confirmed he will be attending.

Mr Rosenfeld claimed his partner lost their baby daughter a month before she was due to be born after a police raid on their home in Irvinestown, County Fermanagh in June 1992. He was not there at the time and is understood to blame bungling by the security forces for the loss of his unborn child.

He and Mr Fulton have also claimed their military bosses reneged on an agreement to re-settle them with a pension after their links with the intelligence agencies ended.

The the 1989 murder of Belfast lawyer Pat Finucane is one of a number of killings involving alleged collusion which is under investigation by Sir John`s team.

Mr Rosenfeld claimed this week that the British Ministry of Defence would attempt a cover up of details of their operations in Northern Ireland in the years before the IRA`s first ceasefire in August 1994.

He also said he had suffered British harassment for a decade.

He added: ``Everyone has suffered, particularly families who have had relatives murdered in disputed circumstances. They need closure in the same way I do.

``Sir John Stevens who has been investigating collusion for the last 14 years is in a position to answer important questions.''

----------------------------------------------------------

Daily Ireland
May 24 2006

PAID FOR SILENCE - Finucane killer serves three years of 22-year term

Barrett’s generous relocation package for silence on state collusion

The killer of Belfast lawyer Pat Finucane has been given a generous relocation package by the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) in return for his silence on the extent of state collusion, one of his would-be victims claimed last night.

UDA gunman and British agent Ken Barrett was freed by the Sentence Review Commission yesterday after applying for early release under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

It is understood he has been relocated to begin a new life in Britain.

Barrett had served nearly three years in Maghaberry prison after pleading guilty to murdering Mr Finucane, who was shot 14 times in his family home in north Belfast by a gang of UDA gunmen.

An investigation by metropolitan police commissioner, John Stevens, confirmed that several gang members were paid agents of British intelligence agencies, including the notorious Force Research Unit.

Barrett dramatically changed his plea to guilty during the last week of his trial at Belfast Crown Court in September 2004. He was jailed for a minimum of 22 years for a series of offences, including murder and attempted murder.
Belfast Sinn Féin councillor Alex Maskey was targeted by the UDA triggerman in June 1988 while he was having a meal at an Antrim Road hotel – one year before Mr Finucane’s murder.

Another British agent – Shankill Road intelligence officer Brian Nelson – contacted Barrett and told him of the Sinn Féin man’s location. By the time Barrett arrived at the hotel, Mr Maskey had already left.

In 1992 Nelson pleaded guilty to five counts of conspiracy to murder and was sentenced to ten years, after being exposed as a British agent by the Steven’s inquiry team in 1990.

Mr Maskey said Nelson – who was also involved in Mr Finucane’s murder – had been released under similar circumstances to Barrett. He told Daily Ireland that Barrett’s release had been a “further act of collusion” and that the British agent had been given a generous relocation package in exchange for his silence on the extent of the state’s nefarious activities.

Mr Maskey said: “Nelson had also changed his plea to guilty in the last stages of his trial and was released during the late 1990s. He was relocated and was given a substantial financial package.

“There is no reason to believe that Barrett hasn’t been given the same treatment.”

----------------------------------------------------