PDA

View Full Version : Legal history made by Omagh action


quirk
04-07-2008, 05:04 PM
Families of some of the 29 people killed in the Omagh bombing are beginning a civil action, seeking damages from five men they claim were responsible.

It's believed to be the first time anywhere in the world that alleged members of a terrorist organisation have been sued.

No-one can be jailed as a result of the action, but the families hope it will help uncover the truth about what happened.

It was the worst single atrocity in the history of the Troubles.

Twenty-nine people died - men, women and children, Catholics and Protestants, visitors and natives - and hundreds of others were injured when a bomb ripped through Omagh shortly after 3pm on 15 August 1998.

'Butchery'

The reaction was one of outrage. Tony Blair called it "an appalling act of savagery" and Bill Clinton, then the US President, described it as "butchery".

The British and Irish governments, and the RUC and Gardaí, all pledged that no stone would be left unturned in the search for the killers.

But almost 10 years later, no-one has been convicted of the murders.

Speaking after south Armagh man Sean Hoey was acquitted of 58 charges, including the Omagh bombing in December, Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde said it was now unlikely that anyone would ever be convicted, unless one of those involved makes a confession.

The families of the victims believe no-one will ever go to jail for the murders.

So some of them are taking a civil action, claiming compensation from five men they claim were responsible for the attack.

To secure a criminal conviction, it is necessary to prove a person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

A civil action, such as a claim for damages, is instead decided on the balance of probabilities, which requires a much lower standard of proof.

A civil court is also less stringent in terms of what can be entered as evidence, and the families hope their legal team will be able to use that extra latitude to put as much information as possible about the attack into the public domain.

The five men who are being sued deny any involvement in the attack. They are:

* Michael McKevitt, the alleged founder of the Real IRA who is serving a 20-year sentence in the Republic of Ireland for directing terrorism;

* Colm Murphy, who in January 2002 was sentenced to 14 years in jail for conspiracy to cause the Omagh bombing - the conviction was overturned on appeal and he is awaiting a retrial;

* Seamus Daly, from Castleblayney in County Monaghan, who was sentenced to three years after being found guilty of membership of an illegal organisation;

* Liam Campbell from Dundalk, who has also served a prison sentence for being a member of an illegal organisation;

* Armagh man Seamus McKenna, who served six years for possession of explosives.

"We see this as our last chance for justice in the courts," says Michael Gallagher, whose 21-year-old son Aidan was one of those killed on that sunny August afternoon.

"The criminal justice system has failed the families.

"After the bombing there were lots of fantastic promises of help and we were assured that everything possible would be done to catch those responsible, but the people who made those promises haven't lived up to them."

The civil action is expected to last eight weeks.

Legal history will be made when the judge, Mr Justice Morgan, travels to Dublin for two weeks to hear evidence from 24 garda officers whom the families believe have valuable information about what happened.

Special commission

It will be the first time a judge from Northern Ireland has travelled to the Republic on judicial business. He will head up a special commission, assisted by an Irish judge.

The families want the gardaí to give evidence on the Real IRA and its leadership, and to corroborate the evidence of David Rupert, an American trucker who infiltrated the Real IRA for the FBI.

His evidence helped to convict McKevitt of directing terrorism, but he is refusing to appear as a witness in the civil action.

The families believe some of the garda officers also have relevant intelligence information about those being sued.

But it's unclear just how much co-operation the garda officers will be prepared to give.

Police in the Republic say they have not ruled out bringing charges against those who bombed Omagh, and it's understood they have received legal advice warning that evidence given during the civil action could jeopardise future criminal proceedings.

Warnings claim

One of those who has said he would be prepared to give evidence is the former British army agent known as Kevin Fulton, who infiltrated both the Provisional and later the Real IRA.

He claims to have delivered warnings to the RUC that an attack was about to take place at Omagh, but says the warning was ignored.

The legal action has cost about £2m.

More than £1m was raised in a public fundraising campaign supported by celebrities like Bob Geldof and former boxing world champion Barry McGuigan, former US president Bill Clinton, and former Northern Ireland secretaries of state Peter Mandelson and Sir Patrick Mayhew.

If successful, the families could be awarded damages of more than £10m, but they're keen to stress that money isn't the motivating factor.

"This has never been about the money," says Godfrey Wilson, whose 15-year-old daughter Lorraine was one of those killed in the bombing.

"This is about trying to finally uncover the truth about what happened. We need our day in court."

None of the five men being sued will attend Belfast High Court to give evidence or face cross-examination.

But Michael McKevitt has applied for a video link to be installed in his cell in Portlaoise jail, raising the possibility that the man alleged to be the leader of the Real IRA could find himself facing questions from lawyers acting for those who blame him for what happened in Omagh almost 10 years ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7333273.stm

Enver
04-07-2008, 05:11 PM
The reaction was one of outrage. Tony Blair called it "an appalling act of savagery" and Bill Clinton, then the US President, described it as "butchery".

Of course at that time Tony Blair and the British government were financing genocide in East Timor and Bill Clinton and the US government were helping the Turks slaughter tens of thousands of innocent Kurds in south eastern Turkey. The following year the two of them launched an onslaught on Yugoslavia. But the Omagh bombing, not their crimes, was "savagery" and "butchery".

quirk
04-07-2008, 05:15 PM
Also this was during a period that 500,000 Iraqis died as a result of sanctions pushed by the USA and Britain.

bay
04-07-2008, 05:37 PM
why are they not allowed to go to court to defend themselves??? Sounds just like the Leonard Peltier case here.

Geezus there's even shell casings that prove the FBI agents at Wounded Knee were struck down by other FBI agents not AIM guns, and still he sits in prison.

Dreadfulfaery
04-07-2008, 05:54 PM
Of course at that time Tony Blair and the British government were financing genocide in East Timor and Bill Clinton and the US government were helping the Turks slaughter tens of thousands of innocent Kurds in south eastern Turkey. The following year the two of them launched an onslaught on Yugoslavia. But the Omagh bombing, not their crimes, was "savagery" and "butchery".

And this affects the Omagh case because..........?

should the judge stand up and say "sorry folks, at the time your daughter/son was being blown to itsy witsy bits, our Government was doing bad things somewhere else, so no - you cant seek justice for them"

quirk
04-07-2008, 06:00 PM
And this affects the Omagh case because..........?

should the judge stand up and say "sorry folks, at the time your daughter/son was being blown to itsy witsy bits, our Government was doing bad things somewhere else, so no - you cant seek justice for them"

If they are seeking justice then they are looking in the wrong place.

Dreadfulfaery
04-07-2008, 08:13 PM
If they are seeking justice then they are looking in the wrong place.

The criminal courts cant give it to them - anyway that doesnt really answer my question

quirk
04-07-2008, 08:22 PM
In answer to your question no one said that it should be the case that they dont get justice because of the crimes of US/UK imperialism. Enver replied to a part of the original post which he is entitled to do.

Enver
04-08-2008, 09:59 AM
The US, UK and Dublin governments would be good places to start looking for justice for the Omagh bombing. The Omagh victims group said they were 'disappointed' when Sean Hoey was proven to be not guilty of the charges against him. Despite the best efforts of certain RUC/PSNI officers to tamper with evidence in order to secure a conviction Hoey was still found not guilty. This civil action seems like an act of desperation to make someone pay for that terrible tragedy.

And just one more point; how does Hugh Orde know that it will be highly unlikely that someone will be charged and convicted for the bombing now that Hoey has been acquitted?

Dreadfulfaery
04-08-2008, 06:10 PM
Despite the best efforts of certain RUC/PSNI officers to tamper with evidence in order to secure a conviction Hoey was still found not guilty.

As a forensic science student this has popped up in lectures - the evidence wasnt deliberated tampered with, it was just handled in the worst way possible. Honestly, a 1st year student wouldnt have handled evidence in this way. Wrongly packaged, wrongly labelled, chain of custody non-existent. It now means that low-copy number DNA evidence has to be re-evaluated.
Bleugh in other words

quirk
04-08-2008, 06:41 PM
As a forensic science student this has popped up in lectures - the evidence wasnt deliberated tampered with, it was just handled in the worst way possible. Honestly, a 1st year student wouldnt have handled evidence in this way. Wrongly packaged, wrongly labelled, chain of custody non-existent. It now means that low-copy number DNA evidence has to be re-evaluated.
Bleugh in other words

Rather it was tampered with and then when discovered this was their excuse. It has happened many times and will happen again. As you said even a first year student wouldnt make the same mistakes. Does that not tell you something?

Enver
04-08-2008, 08:51 PM
Rather it was tampered with and then when discovered this was their excuse. It has happened many times and will happen again. As you said even a first year student wouldnt make the same mistakes. Does that not tell you something?

Indeed, we're talking about quite a professional and sophisticated police force here.

Dreadfulfaery
04-09-2008, 12:16 PM
Well if they do it so often, you'd think they'd be good at it by now. ...wouldnt you??
The point of tampering with the evidence, according to you, would be to make sure that someone was "framed" for it - but it was so shoddily done that it was spotted very easily. Bit of a wasted effort there methinks.

Have you ever tried to anaylse a bomb scene?? The level of destruction and confusion is huge. Ordinary SOCOS would not have had the neccessary training, its a specialist area really.

quirk
04-09-2008, 12:22 PM
Do you really doubt that they tried to frame Sean. Indeed on the second last instance they lifted him (and seized stuff from his house - DNA) they promised him that the next time they would make sure he was charged. Indeed he was arrested many times since Omagh and DNA samples taken yet there was no match then suddenly they discovered some. Look at other cases in recent years such as the case of Martin Brogan and Mark Carroll who where arrested outside Newry and it turned out the British Army rubbed semtex on their clothing after it was seized. These people all spend years before appearing for trial. It is internment by remand.

Dreadfulfaery
04-09-2008, 12:36 PM
Are you refering to the Birmingham bombers? If so then again you've got your facts wrong. The explosive traces werent rubbed on by the Army - they were transfered from playing cards. PLaying cards contain traces of nitrocellulose and it was this that was detected. Besides which, it was only a presumptive test that was carried out, a confirmatory test should also have been carried out. What the police then choose to with with the evidence is up to them. Technically explosive traces were found on thier hands, but it was up to the police to discover the origin of those traces.

quirk
04-09-2008, 12:40 PM
No I am refering to a case about 3 years ago in Newry.

Dreadfulfaery
04-09-2008, 06:17 PM
No I am refering to a case about 3 years ago in Newry.

Ah well then by all means conspiracy-theorise away lol - although rubbing Semtex agaisnt clothng isnt really the smartest thing in the world to do *rub rub boom!!*

Indeed he was arrested many times since Omagh and DNA samples taken yet there was no match then suddenly they discovered some

I think i was more that the sample had perviously been too tiny to analyse but once low copy number DNA was improved then they could analyse it - only problem was is that low copy DNA is a bit of an iffy techinque. The analyst is looking at very small sections of DNA which in theory many people could have, therefore it would look like a match to x until you looked further down the chain and found out that there was a sequence there that wasnt in x's sample

quirk
04-09-2008, 06:32 PM
Ah well then by all means conspiracy-theorise away lol - although rubbing Semtex agaisnt clothng isnt really the smartest thing in the world to do *rub rub boom!!*

You by your own admission dont know the case I am talking about yet you say it is a conspiracy. This was brought out in open court. There was a documentary made about it also.

As for the semtex comment well that's just silly. Semtex requires a detonator to explode it. You can put it on fire and it wont explode as the flame is not even hot enough.

Dreadfulfaery
04-09-2008, 06:57 PM
As for the semtex comment well that's just silly. Semtex requires a detonator to explode it. You can put it on fire and it wont explode as the flame is not even hot enough.

Ok remind me to use a smiley next time i attempt at humour.

You by your own admission dont know the case I am talking about yet you say it is a conspiracy.

I never said that i didnt know the case, i was just getting it mixed up with the other one since it was the most recent one that ive looked at.
Im not saying it was a conspiracy, im saying that YOU can keep on with the conspiracy theories.