TRIBUTE TO THE FALLEN MEMBERS OF THE I.P.L.O

Forums

Post Reply
Forum Home > General Discussion > Magil Magazine Articles Re: Supergrass Trial & Kirkpatrick

iplofallen
Site Owner
Posts: 110

I just came across this on the net. The Magil magazine in the 80's was always a good read. This is a bit disjointed as the site I got it from posted that way. Still intresting archive material



THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY.......

Twenty-six men wereconvicted on the word of Harry Kirkpatrick. On their appeal againstthose convictions could well rest the future of the 'Anglo-IrishAgreement'

('The Hillsborough Treaty') . Based on a full transcript of the Kirkpatrick trials , the story of how these convictions were obtained shows why the 'Supergrass System' is a pale shadow of justice.

By Derek Dunne. From 'MAGILL' magazine, February 1986.

 

Harry Kirkpatrick had been arrested and taken to Castlereagh on numerous occasions . He was picked up and taken there on 4thFebruary 1982 but he had a method of dealing with the questions - saynothing and stare at the wall . The RUC were talking to him about the killing of RUC man Lindsay McDougall but Kirkpatrick said nothing . Then the RUC brought in Seanie McConkey who accused Harry Kirkpatrick of being involved in the McDougall killing . Kirkpatrick professed to remember none of this at his 'trial' .

 

Afterseven days , he was charged with the killing on the word of SeanMcConkey , but then McConkey retracted his statement and Harry was outagain . Then John Grimley started to talk and implicated Kirkpatrick , who was once again liftedand found himself back in Castlereagh . He was kept there for threedays . " Look , what's the score here ?" , Harry asked his RUC captors , and was told that he would probably do time on the word of John Grimley . Jackie Goodman had also turned informer and Kirkpatrick was worried . He started to talk.

 

He said that Jackie Goodman was "...a nobody in the organisation . I'm Brigade Operations Officer for the North but I am saying nothing more." He asked to speak to someone higher-up in authority and wanted "...an assurance."He was told that nothing could be promised ; Kirkpatrick then said thatnot alone was he Brigade Operations Officer for the North , but that hewas also Brigade Quartermaster and Brigade Adjutant . An RUC detectiveasked him what operations he was involved in and he replied "Murders and a lot of conspiracies." However , he could remember none of the above at his 'trial'.......

(MORE LATER).

Harry Kirkpatrick tells how he used his father's driving licenceto hire cars for military operations , and names his sister as beinginvolved . And also names his brother-in-law and his best friend Gerard Barkley. For more than twenty days the namings go on , followed by courtexaminations and cross-examinations , during which Kirkpatrick refusesto turn around to look at his questioners . But occasionally he smirks.

 

Hedescribes the most appalling killings with a casualness that is unrealbut , again and again he is caught out for telling lies . He again andagain refuses to accept that he said certain things to the RUC but ,when documents are produced to prove otherwise he accepts the contentsof those documents and claims that he remembers very little about theinterviews he had with the RUC but states that the only thing he isreally clear about are the events themselves .

 

But , again and again, he is wrong about crucial details - for example , when he names Henry McNamee as being involved in a 'job' , McNamee was actually in jail when it wassupposed to have taken place . Overall , his 'evidence' is far fromsatisfactory . The nervous twitch he has in his right eye gets worse asthe 'trial' wears on , and it is noticable that he claims to remembervery little from the time of his arrest to now.......

(MORE LATER).

At 11.40am on the first day of proceedings , Harry Kirkpatrick turns around and identifies Seán Tumelty: (and here) he claims that Tumelty was involved in criminal acts and , pointing at him , declares - " He is sitting facing me , third row , and second from my left hand side beside the prison officer." Kirkpatrick does the same for the other twenty-six men.

 

Seán Tumelty has a steel plate in his head and , several times during the hearing,he lets out a scream and collapses from the pain , at which point thecourt adjourns and resumes again when Tumelty has recovered. He was hit by a plastic bullet at point blank range in 1981and was in a coma and on a life support machine . He takes a lot ofsedatives nowadays , but refuses assistance when dressing etc ,preferring to do it himself . Kirkpatrick is saying that Tumelty wasinvolved in making up a bomb .

 

Barbara (nee-Tumelty ?) , wife of one of the accused, Hugh Torney, is sitting in the public gallery . Harry Kirkpatrick calmly explains that she was a courier for the INLA. It's the first time her name has been mentioned by Kirkpatrick and sheis visibly shocked - she may now be arrested on his 'word' . Day afterday , the 'evidence' goes on like this . Harry Kirkpatrick's fathercries in the public gallery , sitting alone.......

(MORE LATER).

The courtroom is changed to suit the Kirkpatrick case : there's aperspex screen between the public gallery and the main body of thecourt . The Preliminary Enquiry had ended in May 1984 in a bloodybattle with dozens injured . Harry Kirkpatrick is about to go into the witness box . Defence counsel has made an application that the accused be allowed to move , but British Judge Carswell rules that each accused can move one space only and adjourns thesitting to allow that to take place . But none of the accused moves.

 

An observer in the courtroom was heard to whisper - " Do not pass go . Do not collect £200..." , and his friend whispers back - " Go directly to jail..." . But still no-one changes places . Harry Kirkpatrick then takes the oath and , whilst on the stand doing so , never actually looksat the person asking him the questions . He's dressed in a suit , withhis collar open and the tie loose . His voice is clear and he's cleanshaven , but he ever only used to shave rarely , and always used towear jeans and combat jackets and soft bright shoes. But not now.

 

Upin the public gallery , there are about sixty relatives ; dozens ofblue prison officer uniforms ring around the twenty-seven defendants ,and green uniformed RUC men guard the judge and the court buildingitself . Some of these are armed . Dozens of legal people , including Desmond Boal and Paddy MacEntee, throng in front of Judge Carswell . Kirkpatrick was ready to give his direct 'evidence'.......

(MORE LATER).

By the time Harry Kirkpatrick was released in October 1980 , seven men had gone on hunger strike, two IRSP activists , Ronnie Bunting and Noel Little, had just been assassinated and ten men would die on hunger strike the following year.

 

Kirkpatrickgot out and went to live with his sister Michelle in Twinbrook ,Belfast , and went to see the Brigade Quartermaster of the INLA for Belfast , Jackie Goodman. He wanted to become involved in active service - but nothing came from that meeting . Kirkpatrick then went to see Gerard Steenson, INLA Brigade Operations Officer .

 

Kirkpatrickbecame Steenson's assistant ; according to Harry , apart from his'promotion' , that particular meeting discussed an operation - thefirst he would take part in . Kirkpatrick was now back on the streets ,people called him 'Harry O' , and he was to remain at liberty for thenext sixteen months . According to himself , he would be involved inmultiple 'murders' , conspiracies to 'murder' , robberies , explosions, hijackings , intimidation , scouting and intelligence gathering . Atthe end of those sixteen months , he would name everyone allegedly involved with him.......

(MORE LATER).

 

Henry 'Harry' Kirkpatrick was a bit of a tearaway . He had beenup for joy-riding , and often took off to Dundalk , Dublin and Corkwithout telling his father . The feud between the Officials and the PLA resulted in young Henry being fired at a couple of times and then theRUC found a sawn-off shotgun , which belonged to the PLA , hidden uphis father's chimney . Henry lied through his teeth when he made astatement about the shotgun , ending his account with the words - " I am as white as the driven snow" !

 

He got bail , robbed a bank with his friend Gerard Barkley, got caught , made another statement , told more lies . He produced hisfather and two alibi 'witnesses' in court , said the statement he gavewas induced and that he had been slapped around the place by the RUC .He claimed that the only part of the statement that was true was hisname ; but the court was not convinced of his innocence and he wasconvicted of possession and robbery and got nine years for the robberycharge . It was 1975 that this happened , when he was only eighteenyears old . He would spend five years in what he would later call " a paramilitary cess pit."

 

That "cess pit" was Long Kesh. Kirkpatrick was a keep fit fanatic , doing training and weight liftingetc five or six hours a week , every week . He was sworn into therevamped PLA - the INLA, which ran its prison compound in a highly structured manner , alongarmy lines , and Kirkpatrick was quick in picking-up tips on guerrillawarfare . He read Trotsky , Stalin , Marx , Lenin and an assortment of communist literature , and went to prison meetingsand lectures on politics and military violence . He rose to the rank ofCompound Quartermaster.......

(MORE LATER).

Henry 'Harry' Kirkpatrick was the eldest in his family : hehad three younger sisters and the family lived in the Lower Falls areaof Belfast , then in Ardoyne . In 1969 , when he was twelve , violenceovertook the Kirkpatrick family and they were burned out of their houseby loyalists . They moved from one address to the next , finally endingup in Springhill . By this time , his sister and grandmother had diedin a car crash , and his mother and father had separated .

 

Henrywent to primary and secondary school and in 1970 he ended up in St.Thomas's school in Whiterock . However , he was moved out and sent todo social work with nuns . He joined Na Fianna Eireann, as did his friend Gerard Barkley and , over the next few years , they attended classes on explosives and weapons , sold Republican newspapers, collected money for Republican POW's and acted as lookouts for operations being carried out .

 

Around 1973 , Henry Kirkpatrick worked at Belfast Laundry and met his future wife there . He wouldmarry her eight years later . He also worked as a barman for a whilebut the hours didn't suit and he quit the job . In 1974 , he left the Official IRA following the split: Seamus Costello left and took many members with him.......

(MORE LATER).

There had been a lot of 'visitors' calling to Harry Kirkpatrick during his two years in safe-keeping in Crumlin Road Prison . William 'Budgie' Allen's (aka William Reeves) wife had called to see him , and his best friend Gerard Barkley had also called , as had his own wife , sisters and mother . The RUC had been in with him 117 times in eighteen months , although most of those had been social visits - two RUC men , Meeke and Mitchell , had built up a relationship with him , despite the fact thatKirkpatrick claimed he had spent sixteen months trying to blow away asmany of them as possible ! Kirkpatrick called the two RUC men by theirfirst names , Kenny and Tommy , and they called him Harry.

 

Harryhad made statements about dozens of people , said how they had beeninvolved in scores of 'crimes' . Twenty-seven of them were now inprison and , for almost two months , they had trouped through a tunnelacross Crumlin Road to the Courthouse . The 'evidence' against themconsisted of the word of Harry Kirkpatrick , who was then resting inthe special annex of the same prison. The court time was taken up withproving that incidents happened as the 'Supergrass' claimed they had.

 

Kirkpatrick had passed a note to his wife on one of the last occasions that she came to visit him - " Things are going my way now , " he wrote . That was on Sunday 21st April 1985 ; on the Monday ,27-year-old Harry Kirkpatrick would troupe through the tunnel and takethe witness stand . On his word he would send twenty-six men to prisonfor a couple of thousand years between them.......

(MORE LATER).

Life in the annex of Crumlin Road Prison wasn't too bad for Henry 'Harry' Kirkpatrick . It was here that he was serving five life sentences for murder and over seventy other offences. There was a black and whitetelevision and a record player in the room and , just down the hallwayfrom his room , there was a colour television set which he could availof . And he had a guitar , which he played when he sang a song he hadcomposed about 'Supergrasses' . He had company in that high security annex - on and off nine or ten 'grasses' had spent time there .

 

Just now , William 'Budgie' Allen and James Crockard (see piece dated 'Thu 21st Feb 1985')were there , two loyalist 'supergrasses' . The food wasn't too badeither , as the annex had it's own kitchen , separate from the mainjail , as the inmates were afraid that they would be poisonedotherwise.

 

For almost two years , Henry 'Harry' Kirkpatrick had 'lived' there . The only times he had been out was when he had gone to Castlereagh Interrogation Centre to make statements , or to court . Between the time the 'trial' of thetwenty-seven men he named had started and Kirkpatrick took the'witness' stand , British Crown counsel had spent over forty hours withhim in Castlereagh over a perion of seven days . An adjournment wassought and granted to him on the basis of 'ill health' . When he got onthe stand , it was the first time the defence knew that he had allthose 'visits'.......

(MORE LATER).


http://voidstar.com/ukpoliblog/index.php/fid/602


August 20, 2009 at 1:51 PM Flag Quote & Reply

irish32
Member
Posts: 67

Very interesting!  Thanks for posting this up.  Harry Kirkpatrick doesn't really seems to be a reliable witness especially when naming a guy to be involved in an operation when the guy was actually in prison.  Twenty-seven men going to jail on his word only....he could have named anybody he disliked at that time.  Surely the police should have looked for evidence than just rely on someone's word.

August 21, 2009 at 8:25 AM Flag Quote & Reply

TOEB
Member
Posts: 16

SO AT THE START AN INFORMER TOUTED ON KIRK PATRICK.NO WANDER HE WAS WEIRD THEN . GOOD POST

August 21, 2009 at 4:55 PM Flag Quote & Reply

iplofallen
Site Owner
Posts: 110

It makes intresting reading. Hopefully they will post more soon. If so I will paste it here

August 25, 2009 at 4:35 PM Flag Quote & Reply

irish32
Member
Posts: 67

Yes, very interesting reading.  There is always two-sides to a coin and there is always a reason why people do the things they do even if it was wrong of them at the time.  One thing leads to another and can change history along the way.  Irish people are the perfect example of this because of what has happened to them over the years..it changed the course of history.  If things were different maybe their lives would have been different.

August 26, 2009 at 11:47 AM Flag Quote & Reply

iplofallen
Site Owner
Posts: 110

Some more from this story. Its amazing when you see the doubt placed on Kirkpatricks evidence by the trial judge Carswell that he actually convicted anyone on his word........mind you, thinking about it now Carswell was renound for his blinkered vision of justice when it came to convicting Republicans in his non jury farce of a court. The same courts that will shortly sit in judgement of more Republicans accused of fighting the British latley.....


By Derek Dunne. From 'MAGILL' magazine, February 1986.

 

Oneweek after turning 'Supergrass' , Harry Kirkpatrick found out that hewasn't getting immunity . He changed solicitors and prepared tochallenge the statements he made and was examined by a psychiatrist. Hesaid that the statements had been extracted by threats and abuse , thathe had been offered bribes and immunity , that statements of informershad been put in front of him.

 

He also said that he hadn't got valium at Castlereagh Interrogation Centre, as he usually did, and that he cried . Then Harry changed his mindand , also once again , changed his solicitor . He decided to pleadguilty and give evidence against his friends . This happened on 19thJanuary 1983 ; between 2.30pm and 3pm that day , Gerard Barkley came to see him . As Barkley left , his RUC friends arrived and he toldthem of his change of mind and denied that he told Barkley that he wasgoing to turn and to get off side . He also denied passing a note tohis wife which read - "things are going my way now."

 

In thefollowing months , his wife was kidnapped by the INLA to try and gethim to retract , and his step-father and sister were also held by theINLA . In June , he pleaded guilty to seventy-seven counts , includingfive killings . He received five life sentences , with no recommendedminimum . Twelve days later he was again back in court , apparently athis own request , to clear one outstanding matter - the killing of UDA member William 'Bucky' McCullough. British Crown counsel got up and said that since Kirkpatrick was inprison at the time of the killing of William McCullough , all chargeswere being dropped against him . Kirkpatrick now had a clean slateregarding that issue but the strange thing about that is thatKirkpatrick was not in prison at the time . Nonetheless, the British decided not to proceed with charges in that case ,meaning that there were now no outstanding charges against Kirkpatrick.......

(MORE LATER).


Harry Kirkpatrick could remember none of the details regarding the UDA member William 'Bucky' McCullough incident during his court 'trial' of the 27 colleagues that he hadnamed to the RUC ; in fact , Kirkpatrick said he could remember nothingof what happened to himself between March 1982 and January 1983 !

 

British Judge Carswell stated- "This lack of recall is in striking contrast with the precision ofKirkpatrick's recollection , as retailed in his evidence , of theevents in which the various defendants have been implicated by him. Itleads one to the conclusion , as defence counsel argued, that eitherhis memory for those events cannot be as good as he professes or hisevidence about his lack of recollection of 1982-1983 is untrue."

 

Carswell went on to say that Kirkpatrick was "...giving deliberately false evidence.." and that in not admitting he had asked for immunity , he may have thought or was advised that to admit it "...would discredit him in the eyes of the court.." . Carswell considered that Kirkpatrick's decision to give 'evidence' contained ('perhaps') "...a substantial element.."of self-interest , in the hope of early release , and that this stillconstituted a significant part of his motivation. He concluded thatKirkpatrick had tried to conceal his motivation from the court and had "...been prepared to lie to do so.." and stated that Kirkpatrick had been "...extremely wary and defensive.." in cross examination , that he had had "...a great reluctance to admit anything.." , that he had tried to "...avoid being tripped up.." and that he had avoided "...admissions which he thought would

be damaging.." . And finally , Carswell stated - " I could not accept that he is now motivated by an overwhelming desire for the trurth."

(MORE LATER).



September 11, 2009 at 2:29 PM Flag Quote & Reply

irish32
Member
Posts: 67

Yeah that was interesting....just as I thought.  He seems to have got himself into a mess.  If he did have some RUC friends as stated above then they might be telling him what to say and what to deny to implicate others.  It just seems that the trial was getting out of hand of what is true and what isn't true.  He can't really name people if he wasn't there himself...as it seems he knows nothing about the RUC man that had been killed that is mentioned above or withholding information about it or what he is saying is not true or he is mixed up with something else.  So at the time he was in prison...then he was not!  Why would the British say he was in prison if he wasn't?  Maybe to get the charges against him dropped so they can get more information out of him.....was this arranged?  Interesting post above, thanks.

September 13, 2009 at 11:54 AM Flag Quote & Reply

jb
Member
Posts: 3

hi boys i was on the trial it was wild,the day the riot in the court room rook knocked out two screws,also bobby t,sang to harryo well meet again,,next day harryo was wearing a false face.it got to the stage that the trial was adjourned ,alsothat day big paul d,nearly got out the door in all the confusion

September 13, 2009 at 5:45 PM Flag Quote & Reply

iplofallen
Site Owner
Posts: 110

Some more installments....


By Derek Dunne. From 'MAGILL' magazine, February 1986.

 

When February 1985 came around and the 'trial' began , the twenty-seven accused had served an aggregate of thirty-five yearsbetween them - the equivalent of seventy years in sentencing terms. There had been thirty-three in the dock , of whom three had jumped bail ; one of those , John O' Reilly, is currently in Portlaoise Jail fighting an extradition order whilst the other two are facing separate 'trials' .

 

Harry Kirkpatrick's sister , Michelle , and his brother-in-law were also granted separate 'trials' . One of the defendants , Thomas Molloy, made statements to the RUC which were challenged - most of thosestatements related to incidents that had occurred since Kirkpatrick hadbeen arrested and they were not used in any way to corroborateKirkpatrick's account of what he claimed happened and , in manyinstances, they contradicted directly what Kirkpatrick had claimed !

 

Someof the British Crown witnesses changed their evidence between the timeof the 'incident' itself and the 'trial' of the twenty-seven accused : 'Incident Number 20' was indicative of this.......

(MORE LATER).

'Incident Number 20' : A British Army patrol was fired on and one British soldier was hit on 14 July 1981 when walking down the Falls Road in Belfast.

 

RUC Constable Allen gave evidence as to maps of the area , then RUC Constable Holmes gave evidence about cartridges being found at the scene. Six British Army Marines were also called to give 'evidence' . Harry Kirkpatrick had said in his deposition that Gerard Steenson and Paddy McAreevey had fired at that British Army patrol , even though Kirkpatrick had not taken the stand in court at that stage.

 

It then emerged that the forensic scientist had not made up his mind as to what type of gun had fired the shots until afterKirkpatrick had related the incident to the RUC. The British ArmyMarines had made statements saying that high velocity shots had beenfired at them , that they had intensive training in this area and knewwhat they were talking about. But now at the 'trial' they weren't sosure.......

(MORE LATER).


September 28, 2009 at 6:08 AM Flag Quote & Reply

iplofallen
Site Owner
Posts: 110

Some of a book on the Kirkpatrick-v-Steenson and others case..


http://books.google.ie/books?id=6tpC-7A7y-cC&lpg=PP1&dq=related%3AISBN019825766X&pg=PA170#v=onepage&q=&f=false


September 28, 2009 at 6:23 AM Flag Quote & Reply

iplofallen
Site Owner
Posts: 110

More excerts...


y Derek Dunne. From 'MAGILL' magazine, February 1986.

 

Atthe 'trial' , the British Army Marines were not really sure what weaponwas fired at them : it could have been a high , or low, velocity weapon. One of them , who had given a description of the alleged gunman whichwas quite clear , could not remember what that mans face looked like incourt . In fact , he claimed that smoke from the gun obscured his view!But there was no such 'obscurity' when he made his original statement.

 

But the description he gave in no way resembles either Gerard Steenson or Paddy McAreevey who were charged with the shooting , but it did resemble Kirkpatrick's friend Gerard Barkley. Kirkpatrick consistently denied putting other people in incidents inorder to protect his friend , and showed no remorse for this or foranything he had done , despite admitting in court that he was a drugtaker , a drunkard , liar , perjurer and a murderer !

 

He mademany serious mistakes in giving 'evidence' and changed his account fromtime to time between March 1982 and the 'trial' . We have compiled alist of those 'mistakes' , starting from when Harry Kirkpatrick signeda statement for the RUC in which he claimed to have told them abouteverything he had been involved in . But that's not true.......

(MORE LATER).

In March 1982 , Harry Kirkpatrick signed a statement sayingthat he had told the RUC everything he had been involved in . But thatwas not the case. He made more statements in the following yearsimplicating more people , and one of those 'new statements' related toa 'conspiracy to kill an RUC member' at the Royal Victoria Hospital -the three men he accused of being involved in that 'conspiracy' wereall convicted and imprisoned as a result.

 

During a robbery ,Kirkpatrick denied that a struggle took place at the Royal VictoriaHospital , but that version was contradicted by witnesses at the scene. He described the shooting of a UDR man by Gerard Steenson and Gerard Barkley in December 1980 ; according to Kirkpatrick , both men ran back towards the car , but independent witnesses say that only one man was involved in the shooting and that there were two men in the waiting car . So Kirkpatrick changed his 'evidence' on this in 1984 , realising that he must be wrong. Gerard Steenson was convicted anyway.

 

Kirkpatricksaid that there was an attempted robbery at the Royal Victoria Hospitalon a certain date , even though there was no evidence to suggest thatthis event had ever taken place . Gerard Steenson wasconvicted of this , too. Then Kirkpatrick gave 'evidence' about a postoffice robbery in late 1980 in which he claimed to be involved.......

(MORE LATER).

Harry Kirkpatrick gave 'evidence' about a post office robbery in1980 in which he claimed to be involved ; he said he wore a scarf andhis companion wore a mask , but witnesses contested this. SoKirkpatrick changed his 'evidence' saying that he was wearing nothingon his face and that the second man was wearing the scarf !

 

Onewoman claimed that one of the robbers had put his arm around her neckand that the burglar alarm had gone off , yet Kirkpatrick nevermentioned these incidents - so British Judge Carswell ruled that the woman was mistaken. Gerard Steenson and two other men , Conway and McGrann , were nevertheless convicted.

 

Kirkpatrick said that the Carroll brothers and Oliver Grew were involved in the killing of a British Army 'Territorial' soldier inArmagh in 1980 , but then Kirkpatrick forgot all about the involvementin this incident of Oliver Grew in subsequent statements he gave to theRUC and, when this was brought to his attention, he simply said that heforgot about his involvement! The forensic evidence did not tally withthe account given by Kirkpatrick of that incident , but Gerard Steenson was still convicted , while Oliver Grew was acquitted.......

(MORE LATER).

arry Kirkpatrick claimed that a two-door car had been hijackedfor a killing in 1981 and that it had been dumped in the Markets areaof Belfast afterwards. It was a two-door car , but had beenleft back to its owner after the operation, and a witness descriptionof the gunman involved corresponded more to Gerard Barkley , a friend of Kirkpatricks and his brother-in-law, than it did to the man named by Kirkpatrick, and Seanie McConkey , another RUC informer, claimed that different people altogether had taken part in that job. However , Gerard Steenson and two other men, Fitzpatrick and Power, were convicted of 'murder' .

 

Kirkpatrickhad claimed that himself , Carroll , Grew and Steenson planned to killa man in Armagh in 1981 ; he said they waited for twenty-five minutesbefore calling the operation off even though he had previously statedthat they had allowed for a four hour wait. Kirkpatrick claimed that Grew had held a full household of people hostage as part of that operation ,even though he admitted that Grew was not armed. Grew and Steenson werereluctantly acquitted.

 

Kirkpatrick claimed that Henry McNamee was involved in an attempted killing of a UDR soldierin 1981, but McNamee was in jail at the time and couldn't have beeninvolved - but Kirkpatrick was dogmatic about McNamee , to the extentthat British Judge Carswell stepped-in to declare that Kirkpatrick was obviously "mistaken" ratherthan it being a case of him "deliberately falsifying" his 'evidence' .A man named Molloy was supposed to have given an account of theoperation to Kirkpatrick , but that account was inaccurate . British Judge Carswell couldn't resolve whether that was the fault of Kirkpatrick , Molloy oranother man , named Fox - but nonetheless he convicted Steenson and aman named Power of 'attempted murder' on the 'strength' of that'evidence' !

(MORE LATER).

Two men, Fitzpatrick and Power , were convicted of the 'murder' of anRUC man , based on an alleged conversation that one of those men hadwith Harry Kirkpatrick. Gerard Steenson was convicted ofconspiracy to cause an explosion along the route of a British 'Royal'wedding in 1981 ; Kirkpatrick recounted meetings with an American andan Englishmen about that operation, but he couldn't remember theirnames. Also , Kirkpatrick was a year in custody before he mentioned theincident. But Steenson was still convicted.

 

Kirkpatrick claimedthere was a plan to blow up a civil servants car and six people werethus convicted of conspiracy to cause an explosion. However , in hisfirst statements to the RUC re that operation , Kirkpatrick neverimplicated a man named Jimmy Brown , who was one of the six . AndKirkpatrick got the make of the watch used in the device wrong and didnot know exactly where the alleged target lived.

 

Kirkpatrick claimed that six .303 rifles were brought to Belfast from Dublin whereas another RUC informer , Rabbie McAllister, said they had come from Dundalk. Kirkpatrick then claimed that the sixrifles had come from somewhere in the State - on the basis of that'evidence' , three men were convicted of possession.......

(MORE LATER).

Harry Kirkpatrick named four men who he claimed were involvedin "conspiracy to murder" in 1981 : however , in his earlier statementto the RUC in relation to this 'incident' , Kirkpatrick never oncereferred to Henry McNamee,a republican , whom he now named as being involved. A 'Mr Molloy' madea statement about the incident in which he said that the workers of thefactory where the "murder" bid was to take place were lined up againsta wall and that there was a British Army helicopter and a British Army Saracenoutside the factory ; some of those workers were in the court and theylaughed loudly at this point , as it was a complete pack of lies.Nobody was "lined up against a wall" , there was no helicopter , therewas no saracen . But still four men were convicted of "conspiracy tomurder" .

 

Kirkpatrick claimed that shots were fired at an RUCbarracks on May 21st , 1981 . There was no evidence of shots beingfired , or of the barracks being hit by gunfire , or even a report fromthe RUC themselves of coming under attack or even hearing shots. Butagain - on the 'evidence' of Kirkpatrick - two men were convicted of"conspiracy to murder".

 

Kirkpatrick then 'gave evidence' of how himself and three others took over a house to ambush the RUC.......

(MORE LATER).


November 8, 2009 at 6:41 AM Flag Quote & Reply

irish32
Member
Posts: 67

Very good interesting post above iplofallen.  It seems like the RUC and this judge were relying on everything Harry Kirkpatrick says as evidence!  It sounds like the RUC were using Harry Kirkpatrick to frame up the other's that he is saying were involved in those activities.  Yes, the RUC policeman and the UDR soldier were most probably killed, but they don't know who did it so they are framing up other republicans probably thinking that some of them did do it.  Anyway, they were determind to get Gerard Steenson off the streets and behind bars.  All this does sound like Gerard Steenson was framed up so he can be convicted.

November 8, 2009 at 11:08 AM Flag Quote & Reply

TOEB
Member
Posts: 16

YES VERY GOOD ANND INTERESTING READING ABOVE , IT LOOKS LIKE THEY TRIED TO PIN EVERYTHING ON  STEENSON TO PUT HIM AWAY  BUT ALSO  SAY IT WAS BARKLEYSLOOKALIKE BUT THEY COULD NOT CONVICT SOMEONE WHO HAD ALLREADY DIED

November 8, 2009 at 1:43 PM Flag Quote & Reply

iplofallen
Site Owner
Posts: 110

By Derek Dunne. From 'MAGILL' magazine, February 1986.

 

Harry Kirkpatrickdescribed how he himself had taken over a house to ambush the RUC - buthis description was wrong . He said that his companion on that jobclimbed into the back yard of the house and opened the door , but thatcouldn't have happened : there was a wire mesh covering the back yard ,and a youth who was repairing a pushbike in that small yard at thattime would have seen him or heard some noise , but he didn't.

 

Kirkpatrickclaimed that the alleyway behind the house was blocked off , but thatwas wrong . The defence team claimed that Kirkpatrick was recountingincidents , of which this operation was one, that he had overheardsecondhand. But three men were still convicted of conspiracy on the'strength' of Kirkpatricks claims.

 

Three other men wereconvicted of conspiracy to cause an explosion : Kirkpatrick claimedthat he had driven past where a bomb had gone off , that he had seenthe damage it caused. But no bomb had been detonated or found in thatvicinity , and even the RUC admitted that they had no knowledge ofanything like that. Kirkpatrick later changed his story , but thosethree men still done time.

 

Five other men were then to be stitched-up by Kirkpatrick over an incident in which a member of the British forces died.......

(MORE LATER).


November 18, 2009 at 5:24 AM Flag Quote & Reply

irish32
Member
Posts: 67

Harry Kirkpatrick is mixed-up over past events and should never had been used to give his accounts into what happened as he keeps changing his story from one thing to another.  How can anyone take his words for truth...and jail others on his word only.  It seems during that time, he could have jailed anybody for something whether they did it or not.  Interesting post.

November 18, 2009 at 1:55 PM Flag Quote & Reply

iplofallen
Site Owner
Posts: 110

By Derek Dunne. From 'MAGILL' magazine, February 1986.

 

Five other men were found guilty of 'murder' on the word of Harry Kirkpatrick : at the time of the killing , the area was swarming with plain-clothesRUC men , who would have had information about the killing .Kirkpatrick described the alleged parts played by each of the five men, but his description of the hijacking of a car was wrong and heneglected to mention the taking-over of a house by the 'suspects' .

 

Kirkpatrick said that Henry McNamee was involved in a robbery , then changed his mind and said he was notinvolved in that operation. Three men , including a man named McKnight, were convicted of 'attempted murder' , yet McKnight was actually incourt on the day of the robbery but British Judge Carswell found that he still could have had time to be involved !

 

Kirkpatrickclaimed that the preparations for another robbery job , this one inTwinbrook , included following a worker home for two weeks , but he waswrong . The woman who was followed and held , and alleged byKirkpatrick to be opening the Post Office every morning , had onlyopened the post office for the first time the day prior to the robbery. Kirkpatrick did not name two people 'involved' in that robbery in hisearlier statements - he said later that he had "forgot" about them. Hedenied that the RUC had supplied him with the necessary details duringany one of the 117 'visits' they made to him . However , his statementswere allowed in 'evidence' even though some of the details he offeredwere glaringly wrong , and were contradicted by witnesses.......

(MORE LATER).

By Derek Dunne. From 'MAGILL' magazine, February 1986.

 

When Kirkpatrick pleaded guilty to five killings , he got five life sentences. However , there was no minimum sentence imposed. Gerard Steenson got a minimum of twenty-five years for exactly the same 'crimes' !

 

Incases in the Occupied Six Counties where there is just one indictmentfor 'murder' , a minimum sentence is usually given ; Kirkpatrick got'life' , which means that without any shortening of his sentence , hecould be out within six years. Lawyers believe that Kirkpatrick will bemoved to England , as he has requested, and from there to an openprison.

 

They believe he will be released long before his timeand be given money and a start in a new life somewhere. There is aprecedent in relation to the sentence being shortened - the 'Thomas McCormick' case.......

(MORE LATER).


By Derek Dunne. From 'MAGILL' magazine, February 1986.

 

In January 1984 , former RUC detective sergeant Thomas McCormick had his conviction quashed : he had served twenty-one months of a twenty-year sentence for hi-jacking and armed robbery , and had been convicted on the word of Anthony O' Doherty, an RUC informer inside the (P)IRA .

 

O'Doherty himself was sentenced to eighteen years , and was held in the same part of Crumlin Road Prison -in the annex - at the same time as Harry Kirkpatrick ; O' Doherty hadasked for an eight-year remission on an eighteen year sentence.

 

One of James Prior's last political acts in the North of Ireland was to order the release of Anthony O' Doherty , which occurred after he had given evidence against former RUC detective sergeant Thomas McCormick.......

(MORE LATER).



December 9, 2009 at 2:25 PM Flag Quote & Reply

irish32
Member
Posts: 67

It seems to have got into a mess on who did what even if they weren't there in the first place.  I wondered if the RUC during that time wanted certain Republicans off the streets...it definitely sounds like they wanted Gerard Steenson off the streets from previous reading.  It is hard to believe that anyone could really take Harry Kirkpatrick's word on anything to be true.  The Court and RUC must have been desperate to nail those Republican's and put them into prison...off the streets on evidence that is so mixed-up in the first place. :dry:

December 9, 2009 at 6:45 PM Flag Quote & Reply

iplofallen
Site Owner
Posts: 110

Hi Ali,

Yes it is true that "Justice" (contrdaiction in terms) Carswell was always going to convict, regardless of the evidence presented, that is why he was chosen. I know if you were unfortunate enough to get Carswell for your trial during the conflict, the omens were not good.. a disgrace to the charade of justice that was served up in the courts in the North of Ireland


P.S. I was over the moon when I didnt get him..lol

December 12, 2009 at 1:40 PM Flag Quote & Reply

irish32
Member
Posts: 67

iplofallen, you were lucky not to get him (this Carswell guy).  I bet the republicans that did get him felt for sure that they will do jail time either way.  People like that are injustice...simple as that.  The Police in the North of Ireland are always saying that they are trying to up hold the law and order, but they fail to mention the injustice they cause.  It is a bit like when prisoner's say "you have the prison officers and you have the screws".  This is very true as prison officers just do there jobs and the screws do a lot more like beatings and inflict cruelty.  That is a big difference.

December 12, 2009 at 4:21 PM Flag Quote & Reply

irish32
Member
Posts: 67

Also, there was a policeman (PSNI) on TV the other night in a program called Street Wars; he was in Derry acting to an incident in an Irish pub, which was in a Nationalist area. Young Nationalist boys had notice the police presence at this pub and started to throw stones and bottles which soon led to petrol bombs being thrown. The Police just sat in their landrovers talking to the media and saying there was no need for these young boys to be throwing anything at them as they were just doing their job upholding the law. I bet things would have been different if the TV crew were not there. I have seen footage on YouTube in Derry of a policeman beating a young boy because he kicked a tire on the police landrover. OK, this young boy might have been wrong, but he didn't deserve to be beaten over it. When others came to this boy's aid, the police sprayed them with CS gas. The point that I am making is that the police in the North of Ireland are getting away with it....so how can any republican, nationalist, and Catholics ever going to trust the police to do their job without these sort of attacks. So much for upholding law and order. They need to sort themselves out first. Sorry for ranting on, but the police only give one side of the story so it looks like they are all innocent and just trying to do their jobs. Anywhere else, the police would have been charged for assault especially on a minor. They go on about riots, but they never look at what is causing it in the first place. Take the Orange Order parade...the police appear the riot breaks out the Orange Order passes by, but instead of the police continuing on the parade or following behind it, they choose to stay put, which makes the riot ten times worse. Like Bernadette Devlin says why the police don’t just back off because the riot will not end until they do.

December 12, 2009 at 4:46 PM Flag Quote & Reply

You must login to post.