Omagh Bombing Case Collapses

[agchristie]

Is this no great surprise?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35680970

[Ken4155]

No, ag, no great surprise. And whilst it was the biggest single atrocity committed in Northern Ireland, there were countless others for which the perpetrators have never been held to account. I feel for the relatives of the victims.

[agchristie]

Ken - absolutely. The Omagh investigation has been highly controversial as to what was known in advance by the Intelligence services. It also goes to show the difference between the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt.

[Ken4155]

In th mid to late '70s, I did 3 tours over there, ag, 2 in uniform and the 3rd in 'civvies' (long hair, shoulder holster, et al) on the Regimental Int Section. As such i was privy to some 'sensitive' files and i was amazed to discover that the British Army were 'almost certain' they knew the identities of the bomb-makers who were terrorising the shoppers of Belfast City Centre. Proving it, of course, was a different matter altogether, and most got away with it.

[agchristie]

Fascinating Ken. Another controversial conviction occurred from the Hyde Park bombing which was later ruled unsafe.

[mushroom25]

I have no information in this case, but I don't doubt that if some atrocities had been pursued to court stage, the resultant evidence exposed in open court would have been very embarrassing to the security services, and the government.

[agchristie]

Mushroom, I followed the trial of Colm Murphy and separately, Sean Hoey closely and I can tell you that the Prosecution were slated in both cases and came nowhere near the required threshold.

Evidence was falsified, changed and the collection, bagging,tagging and storage of evidence was, in part, abominable.

[andy-hughes]

It appears that a catalogue of missed opportunitis has conspired to stop the progress of this case.

It does prove the age-old adage - knowing something is one thing, proving it in a court of law is another.

It's the downside of a legal system that does protect more than it fails, but that is no consolation to the poor bereaved families here.

[agchristie]

Andy - no disagreement from me there.

[Peter Pedant]

60% of jury cases end in acquittal
o god was this a diplock court or have they gone ?

and in this thread there is a flavour that if someone is indicted then they must be guilty... oh no no no no no.

Ken you must be aware that after you time in the armed forced around 90% of those found guilty of bombing were found to have been framed by er crown employees ( lawyers police etc )

in fact I read that the only people who were behind bars having done it were the balcombe street gang ( let out after Good Friday )

a depressing statistic

but it could be worse - war crimes unit - £35m down the can and no convictions ....

[Peter Pedant]

// It does prove the age-old adage - knowing something is one thing, proving it in a court of law is another. //

no or yes there is another age old adage - when someone says they know something they may in fact know the opposite but dont wanna say

andie I have clearly seen people perjuring themselves more often than you have.

[agchristie]

PP - I think they were both Diplock Trials, the last one was Massereene Barracks 2009 where one of the two Defendants was aquitted on appeal!