Bloody Sunday Killings ''UNLAWFUL''

Mickeymac

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
42,217
Yes, one of criminal negligence, but not murder or manslaughter. Williams obviously had an ND, a Negligent Discharge, (and his GPMG should never have been cocked in the first place of course). He should have had the decency and integrity to own up and admit his appalling mistake and to take what punishment was coming to him, which I doubt would have been too onerous, a suspended sentence probably. Instead, he and his mates lied about what had happened and the Judge in turn gave him the benefit of considerable doubt, which he didn't deserve.

Your attempt at whitewashing a brutal murder of an innocent child by an occupying foreign army sarge is appalling to say the very least.
 


davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,878
You really do need to read some history.

This is just one example.
Judges sided with the security forces when it was obvious that there was a case to answer.
There's no reason to believe that the killing of Majella was deliberate. The soldier was negligent in his handling of his gun. It's not the judge's fault that he and his comrades lied. Sure, what motive would he have had to kill a little girl?
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,878
Your attempt at whitewashing a brutal murder of an innocent child by an occupying foreign army sarge is appalling to say the very least.
Whatever about the deliberate killing of men, it's unlikely that a Para would have a motive to deliberately kill a little girl.
 

Mickeymac

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
42,217
There's no reason to believe that the killing of Majella was deliberate. The soldier was negligent in his handling of his gun. It's not the judge's fault that he and his comrades lied. Sure, what motive would he have had to kill a little girl?

Same motivation they had against peaceful protesters on Bloody Sunday....the filthy low lifes.
 

sgtharper

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
10,770
There's no reason to believe that the killing of Majella was deliberate.
No reason whatsoever, and not a shred of evidence to support such a theory.
The soldier was negligent in his handling of his gun. It's not the judge's fault that he and his comrades lied. Sure, what motive would he have had to kill a little girl?
Correct, only a fool would think otherwise
 

Mickeymac

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
42,217
No reason whatsoever, and not a shred of evidence to support such a theory.
Correct, only a fool would think otherwise

Totally disgusted at two people defending state murder on a public forum, hang your heads in shame.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
10,683
There's no reason to believe that the killing of Majella was deliberate. The soldier was negligent in his handling of his gun. It's not the judge's fault that he and his comrades lied. Sure, what motive would he have had to kill a little girl?
It was the judge's job to
There's no reason to believe that the killing of Majella was deliberate. The soldier was negligent in his handling of his gun. It's not the judge's fault that he and his comrades lied. Sure, what motive would he have had to kill a little girl?
10 to 12 lbs of pressure to pull the trigger?
It is clear that the judge gave the soldier the benefit of some substantial doubt there. That is the sort of bias which Gibson was actually notorious for.
The O'Hare family didn't get the justice in the courts, and the blame for that rests with him.
Anyway it is naive to assume that judges were paragons of virtue in an otherwise ****ed up, deeply sectarian state where bias and discrimination was widespread in other state apparatus, when they largely belonged to the unionist establishment themselves.
But this is a side issue, and nothing to do with the forthcoming trial.
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,878
A judge was supposed to decide yesterday when the committal hearing for Soldier F would take place but I haven't heard of a decision being made. The coronavirus crisis might make the issue of prosecuting veterans accused of unlawful killings during the Troubles academic.

There was supposed to be a hearing in the Dennis Hutchings case this week but I haven't heard of it taking place either.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
58,998
Whatever about the deliberate killing of men, it's unlikely that a Para would have a motive to deliberately kill a little girl.
The same could be said about the motives of the IDF for killing countless Palestinian civilians, or of US soldiers who perpetrated the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. Attrocities happen in war, and "motive" often only comes into it in terms of animus (often of a colonial or sectarian or racist variety). Democracies however should be holding themselves to higher standards than the IRA or UDA.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
10,683
There's no reason to believe that the killing of Majella was deliberate. The soldier was negligent in his handling of his gun. It's not the judge's fault that he and his comrades lied. Sure, what motive would he have had to kill a little girl?
From the article I quoted earlier.

The letter, signed by the defence secretary, Liam Fox, belatedly corrects the army's account of the incident and acknowledges that the soldier's subsequent courtroom explanation was "unlikely".
British Irish Rights Watch, a civil liberties group that has campaigned for decades for a formal apology, welcomed the statement and hoped that it would open the way for a more conciliatory approach by military officials.
It was blindingly obvious that the soldiers were lying from the outset. An honest judge would have reached that conclusion, as the MoD finally did 35 years later. Maurice Gibson was anything but. He was a notoriously biased judge, and he eventually paid for it with his life. The IRA targeted him and succeeded in murdering him, alongside his wife on the south Armagh border. I don't condone that, nor do I condone any murder, but he was utterly bent, and incapable of being fair to a bereaved innocent nationalist family. Bigots like him existed in NI and on both sides. But unfortunately in those days some of the unionist ones had positions of high authority.
Open your eyes, and try to overcome your own appalling bias, ffs.

.
 
Last edited:

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,878
It was the judge's job to

10 to 12 lbs of pressure to pull the trigger?
It is clear that the judge gave the soldier the benefit of some substantial doubt there. That is the sort of bias which Gibson was actually notorious for.
The O'Hare family didn't get the justice in the courts, and the blame for that rests with him.
Anyway it is naive to assume that judges were paragons of virtue in an otherwise ****ed up, deeply sectarian state where bias and discrimination was widespread in other state apparatus, when they largely belonged to the unionist establishment themselves.
But this is a side issue, and nothing to do with the forthcoming trial.
That refers to the killing of Aidan McAnespie.
 

NMunsterman

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,532
From the article I quoted earlier.


It was blindingly obvious that the soldiers were lying from the outset. An honest judge would have reached that conclusion, as the MoD finally did 35 years later. Maurice Gibson was anything but. He was a notoriously biased judge, and he eventually paid for it with his life. The IRA targeted him and succeeded in murdering him, alongside his wife on the south Armagh border. I don't condone that, nor do I condone any murder, but he was utterly bent, and incapable of being fair to a bereaved innocent nationalist family. Bigots like him existed in NI and on both sides. But unfortunately in those days some of the unionist ones had positions of high authority.
Open your eyes, and try to overcome your own appalling bias, ffs.

.
Was the Gibson lad the same lad who decreed that the RUC shoot- to -murder campaign was simply quote " despatching people to the final Count of Justice" ? And he then congratulated the RUC on this shoot to murder campaign - is that the same lad ?
 
Last edited:

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,878
Do you think the guns that killed children might have been very different? ? All hair trigger ones maybe? How unfortunate. FFS
The point is that you wrongly attributed the issue of pressure on a machine-gun trigger to the killing of Majella O'Hare. Private Michael Williams shot Majella by mistake.
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,878
Was the Gibson lad the same lad who decreed that the RUC shoot- to -murder campaign was simply quote " despatching people to the final Count of Justice" ? And he then congratulated the RUC on this shoot to murder campaign - is that the same lad ?
Yes - and rightly so.
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,878
The same could be said about the motives of the IDF for killing countless Palestinian civilians, or of US soldiers who perpetrated the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. Attrocities happen in war, and "motive" often only comes into it in terms of animus (often of a colonial or sectarian or racist variety). Democracies however should be holding themselves to higher standards than the IRA or UDA.
Israeli soldiers aimed at terrorists and killed civilians by mistake in some cases.
 

Barroso

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
5,773
The point is that you wrongly attributed the issue of pressure on a machine-gun trigger to the killing of Majella O'Hare. Private Michael Williams shot Majella by mistake.
A normal person doesn't play games with a loaded gun.
That means you're saying he targeted her and pulled the trigger because he thought she was someone else?
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
10,683
Was the Gibson lad the same lad who decreed that the RUC shoot- to -murder campaign was simply quote " despatching people to the final Count of Justice" ? And he then congratulated the RUC on this shoot to murder campaign - is that the same lad ?
Yes. And that was the joint worst display of bias in trials which I have followed. The other was Denning's notorious "appalling vista" logic. It was one thing to acquit the policemen. I'm not sure about who was present when he said that but it is quite likely that family members of the dead men were present. It was really gratuitous, and it twisted the knife into them. It was obviously very deliberate and a shameful exhibition of unrelenting contempt for them, as if they were insects. It was also utterly stupid. He unwittingly signed his own death warrant with it.

As a side note I heard the bomb that killed him go off. I was miles away up the Carlingford coast working in my garden. But one of the things I learned during the troubles was how far sound travels over water. But it must have been a big bomb anyway.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom