The Killings at Coolacrease

Aedh Baclamh

Did anyone catch this last night as part of the Hidden History series? Anyone get pissed off listening to that Paddy Heaney guy who claimed to be an historian? Absolutely no basis for the majority of the stuff he was spouting.

Jackie laughlin

You should complain initially to RTE and if you are not satisfied with their response, take it further with the BCC. I feel that it is important that the structures be used.

TerrorFirmer

didn't see it; what was he saying?

Erin Go Brath

Yeah seen it, was more pissed off with that gobs***e Eoghan Harris tbh. He always has an agenda. His agenda this time was that there was an ethnic cleansing of Protestants happening in Ireland at the time :rolleyes:


The Protestant lads were portrayed as handome intelligent lads, whiter that white, while the local Offaly IRA lads were portrayed as incompetent, uncouth boggers (although that part could be accurate ). We were clearly meant to believe that the Pearson boys were not collaborating with Crown forces, and all our sympathies were supposed to lie with them. (It's not clear from whats known whether or not the boys were spies) It was a pretty one sided where we were fed emotional stories about the lads, and being shot in front of their sisters. Sure, I'm not hearless I did feel huge sympathy for the boys, but thats what we were meant to feel. Not a very balanced programme overall. The IRA historians which were supposed to give the other side didn't come across great either. Probably just sticking up for their Grandads etc.

Shutuplaura

Just finished watching it. A shockingly unbalanced programme completely riven with contradictions. The local pro-republican historians were complete planks. As for Harris, god i dislike that fool.

I found the below link which seems to be more balanced although I'm sure somepeople will see Indymedia and go no further:

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84547

also an interesting discussion on it below.

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=27736&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

donaghs

Rather than people immediatley getting into their ideological bunkers, I think this story is good reminder of how history isn't always black and white.

Particularly, in a local story like this, you have to bear in mind local issues, like the grudges and personality clashes that might have nothing to do with the wider struggle that was happening in Ireland. Its a shame that people have pre-empt any debate with a fixed unchanging set of views.

Jackie laughlin

I meant to watch this prog. but was called away and missed it. However, it is essential that if people feel there was lack of balance, they should complain - initially to RTE and, if not satisfied, to the BCC. BCC findings along with the rival submissions are published. Like talking on Boards, such complaints are about participation in public controversy.

delta_bravo

I thought Eoghan Harris was ok in it. He slated the IRA for their disgraceful method of execution which was right. The two men were lined up against a wall with their mother and sisters looking on. They were shot in the testicles and then the ass as they turned in pain and allowed to basically bleed out. It took 15 hours for one of them to die. I thought that local "historian" chap was an idiot, giving out saying that the family were staunch unionists and didnt like the ira and that is why they had to be killed. Thats no way to die

Snickers Man

I think it's vitally important that programs like this get made so that we get to see a fuller narrative of history than the edited and biased highlights we are presented with while growing up wherever we do.

No matter how you look at this story, it was an atrocity. Two young unarmed lads put up against a wall and shot in front of their sisters, in a deliberate way to prolong their agony for as long as possible. And for what crimes? Ones that were untested, untried and probably unprovable, but so long as those great arbiters of justice, the "dogs in the street", were happy, some people seem to think they were justifiable.

If this story gets people to think about the place of atrocities in a wider conflict it will have performed a valuable service. There is no conflict that is devoid of such actions. There is no such thing as a clean war. And in a civil or guerilla war such as we endured, such actions are even more likely. Local rivalries and hostilities can be elevated to the point where people will seek justification for their petty bitterness in a broader context.

I applaud the makers of this programme and RTE for putting it out. But they could have kept that arch hypocrite Eoghan Harris off it. It would have been a better programme for his absence. He had no interest in it other than his own agenda. The relatives of the victims, mostly Australian, were very moving and convincing when talking about their families.

Erin Go Brath

I agree stories like this should be told. If it gets us to question the people we had admiration for, and exposes that they weren't all sweetness and light, and yes some disgraceful atrocities happened that we weren't aware of. Thats a good thing. The botched execution job with the dumdum bullets was an absolute disgrace, I think we can all agree with that one.

My problem is when stories like this gets hijacked for political propoganda purposes which appears to be the case here. Harris' credibility has been shot to bits for ages. Giving this polemicist any airtime on such immotive stories can only be a bad thing. I have some sympathy for the Pearsons, but I'd have even more sympathy for them if that gobs***e wasn't standing in their corner, and using it as a tool for his unfounded Protestant ethnic cleansing theories.

Shutuplaura

delta_bravo wrote: »

I thought Eoghan Harris was ok in it. He slated the IRA for their disgraceful method of execution which was right. The two men were lined up against a wall with their mother and sisters looking on. They were shot in the testicles and then the ass as they turned in pain and allowed to basically bleed out. It took 15 hours for one of them to die. I thought that local "historian" chap was an idiot, giving out saying that the family were staunch unionists and didnt like the ira and that is why they had to be killed. Thats no way to die

There was a fair amount of truth streaching and downright lying - on Harris's part anyway. I don't want defend the killing of two brothers in such a fashion - there is not too ways about it, its pretty ****ed up but according to the links posted earlier, the execution simply didn't happen the way Harris described. The wounds were to the groin, not the testicles according to a coraners report and were the result of a botched execution rather that some form of torture. Also, aparently the sisters were not made watch. Harris also tried to deny that the shooting incident at the roadblock caused anyone any harm when what it actually resulted in was someone being shot in the stomach with a shotgun - and this is mentioned in an RIC report in the incident, not solely the allegations of some halfwit local IRA apologist. Finally, he mentions Cooneyites are like the amish, when they really don't appear to be at all from what I can see. There is also contradictory resons for their killing - a landgrab - but it was organised by the IRA organiser form Dublin who wouldn't have cared about local land politics. I'm not going to make excuses for the IRA killing anyone but the balance on the programme was way off. I mean they had two local historians who came across as relics of the 1920's versus two college lecturers, a senator with years of media experience and the family of the victims. Thats not balance.

Jackie laughlin

Laura,
This country has a mechanism (Introduced by the Cruiser!) for questioning the competence of a TV programme. I hope you use it.

McArmalite

Shutuplaura wrote: »

There was a fair amount of truth streaching and downright lying - on Harris's part anyway. I don't want defend the killing of two brothers in such a fashion - there is not too ways about it, its pretty ****ed up but according to the links posted earlier, the execution simply didn't happen the way Harris described. The wounds were to the groin, not the testicles according to a coraners report and were the result of a botched execution rather that some form of torture. Also, aparently the sisters were not made watch. Harris also tried to deny that the shooting incident at the roadblock caused anyone any harm when what it actually resulted in was someone being shot in the stomach with a shotgun - and this is mentioned in an RIC report in the incident, not solely the allegations of some halfwit local IRA apologist. Finally, he mentions Cooneyites are like the amish, when they really don't appear to be at all from what I can see. There is also contradictory resons for their killing - a landgrab - but it was organised by the IRA organiser form Dublin who wouldn't have cared about local land politics. I'm not going to make excuses for the IRA killing anyone but the balance on the programme was way off. I mean they had two local historians who came across as relics of the 1920's versus two college lecturers, a senator with years of media experience and the family of the victims. Thats not balance.

Yeah, it was a botched execution. As for shooting them in the groin and then when they turned around in the behind - practically IMPOSSIBLE. I have been in the FCA and fired the old Lee Enfeild 303 among other weapons. I'm not claiming to be a ballistics expert, and I don't know what rifles they had, but an old bolt action rifle had tremendous fire power, and from such a short range, if a person was hit in the groin you'd be lifted off your feet and believe me, no kick in the groin would be a 100th of the power. To say you'd be rolling on the floor in agony and shock is an understatement. But it was terrible the way they died, I feel very sorry for the surviving relatives.

Unfortunately, as someone has stated, their is no such thing as the clean war/conflict, but their is a level where an organization/army are accountable. In this case it was due to more to incompetence than deliberate sectarianism.

McArmalite

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Laura,
This country has a mechanism (Introduced by the Cruiser!) for questioning the competence of a TV programme. I hope you use it.

Yeah, but not for questioning the competence of Conor 'Booze' O'Brien , the fella who opposed setting up RTE2 and wanted BBC instead as he said it would give people in the 26 counties a more "balanced view of the North". When asked why Section 31 was not applied to the newspapers he said " a better class of people read the newspapers". What a fu*king pr*ck. He's a colleague of yours in the Labour Party. Jaysus, and the Labour party is supposed to be a socialist party, for f*ck's sake.

Mrs. MacGyver

After discussing this at length at work - my question is why didn't snyone endeavour to save them, they died a slow, painful death?

Mick86

Mrs. MacGyver wrote: »

After discussing this at length at work - my question is why didn't snyone endeavour to save them, they died a slow, painful death?

Save them how? In 1921 there were no anti-biotics. They didn't have electricity and the fastest means of travel was probably the horse. Blood transfusion was in it's infancy. Getting shot in the stomach meant a slow death from shock, blood loss or peritonitis. The executioners could have finished them off with head shots but chose to let them linger. Nice.

DublinDes

Mick86 wrote: »

Save them how? In 1921 there were no anti-biotics. They didn't have electricity and the fastest means of travel was probably the horse. Blood transfusion was in it's infancy. Getting shot in the stomach meant a slow death from shock, blood loss or peritonitis. The executioners could have finished them off with head shots but chose to let them linger. Nice.

Did'nt see the documentary, but as you say - "The executioners could have finished them off with head shots but chose to let them linger." They seemed to be a right bunch of stupid bogmen, they probably ran from the scene leaving the poor fellows to bleed to death.

silverharp

the picture painted at the start was that the family got on with the locals and that they helped on each others farms, the boys played gaa and went to the local school etc. I found that part interesting however it seems the family misjudged how to deal with the locals after the war started and paid dearly.

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Laura,
This country has a mechanism (Introduced by the Cruiser!) for questioning the competence of a TV programme. I hope you use it.

Meh! To much hassle thank you very much. Do you disagree that it was unbalanced though?

Jackie laughlin

Laura,
I didn't see it. It is because I think that every institution of democracy should be used that I always advise anyone with a problem about a broadcast prog. to use the BCC.

McA,
You took the bait, hook, line and sinker. The ref. to Cruiser was just for you. Let's erect a statue of the Cruiser, the bete noir of Irish nationalism. How could he be that important? He's a thinking person who worked for a living, was never a terrorist, didn't take bribes, didn't get rich and -true to his liberal instincts - REDUCED the power of section 31. Hey, I may have answered my own question!

McArmalite

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Laura,
I didn't see it. It is because I think that every institution of democracy should be used that I always advise anyone with a problem about a broadcast prog. to use the BCC.

McA,
You took the bait, hook, line and sinker. The ref. to Cruiser was just for you. Let's erect a statue of the Cruiser, the bete noir of Irish nationalism. How could he be that important? He's a thinking person who worked for a living, was never a terrorist, didn't take bribes, didn't get rich and -true to his liberal instincts - REDUCED the power of section 31. Hey, I may have answered my own question!

I'll take my own advice here - " Never argue with a ........., they'll only drag you down to their level". ZZZZZZZZZZZ

Gobán Saor

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

.....the Cruiser -true to his liberal instincts - REDUCED the power of section 31.

OK, I'll bite:rolleyes: HOW exactly did the Cruiser reduce the power of Section 31? I would have thought he was the champion of this particular piece of repression.....

BTW, saw the program. Thought it was the most biased, distorted and one-sided piece of propaganda this side of North Korea (then again that was a popular haunt for the Workers party cabal that dominated RTE's political output in the 70's and 80's. They haven't gone away, you know.)

Interesting that advance publicity material for the Hidden History series had the program titled "Ethnic cleansing in the midlands." Seems like they started from the conclusion they wanted and worked backwards to the "evidence" while ignoring evidence that didn't support their position - like the inquest finding and the RIC report of the Pearson's shooting and wounding of local IRA men.

McArmalite

Gobán Saor wrote: »

OK, I'll bite:rolleyes: HOW exactly did the Cruiser reduce the power of Section 31? I would have thought he was the champion of this particular piece of repression.....

BTW, saw the program. Thought it was the most biased, distorted and one-sided piece of propaganda this side of North Korea (then again that was a popular haunt for the Workers party cabal that dominated RTE's political output in the 70's and 80's. They haven't gone away, you know.)

Interesting that advance publicity material for the Hidden History series had the program titled "Ethnic cleansing in the midlands." Seems like they started from the conclusion they wanted and worked backwards to the "evidence" while ignoring evidence that didn't support their position - like the inquest finding and the RIC report of the Pearson's shooting and wounding of local IRA men.

" North Korea (then again that was a popular haunt for the Workers party cabal that dominated RTE's political output in the 70's and 80's. They haven't gone away, you know. " They haven't gone away - too true, nowadays they lurk around masquerading as a lifelong Labour Party members. "Ethnic cleansing in the midlands." - that's the stickies surely.

Jackie laughlin

Goban,
I'm way off topic here but ... Section 31 appears in the Act of 1960. In that Act it gives the minister power to ban anything and to hire and fire the RTE Authority. The Cruiser's amendment in 1976 limited the scope of 31 to banning material that might incite to crime, violence or undermine the state. It also made the orders subject to the approval of the Oireachtas and gave each order a lifespan of 12 months before having to return to the Oireachtas. The amendment addressed the problem created by a FF minister (Collins, I think.) who fired the entire RTE Authority in the aftermath to the Kevin O'Kelly interview with the C. of S. of the IRA, by again making dismissal from the Authority subject to a decision of the Oireachtas. The idea was that Sec. 31 directives would have to be reviewed and debated annually. The problem for this approach was that no member of the Oireachtas wanted to oppose a directive.

The media can make discussion difficult by undermining the meaning of terms. "Ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" and "crimes against humanity" have meanings but they are regularly misused, indeed they are interchanged.

Gobán Saor

Hi Jackie, Thanks for that, very interesting indeed. I'd never have thought of the Cruiser as a liberaliser where Section 31 was concerned.;) I guess he "liberalised" it in such as way as to ensure his ultra anti-nationalistic policy remained intact. That's Irish liberals for you.:rolleyes:

Jackie laughlin

Goban,
Yes, the thrust of the section remained intact to prevent members of named organisations being interviewed. However, two things are usually forgotten about Section 31. Firstly, as amended in the 76 Act it was very democratic; the problem was that there was no one in the Oireachtas who wanted to speak against the annual renewal of the directive - the problem with a consensus anywhere. Secondly, it is often described as onerous censorship, when it was nothing of the sort. The only thing banned was interviews with members of terrorist organisation. Their every word could have been reported.

McArmalite

Gobán Saor wrote: »

BTW, saw the program. Thought it was the most biased, distorted and one-sided piece of propaganda this side of North Korea (then again that was a popular haunt for the Workers party cabal that dominated RTE's political output in the 70's and 80's. They haven't gone away, you know.)

Interesting that advance publicity material for the Hidden History series had the program titled "Ethnic cleansing in the midlands." Seems like they started from the conclusion they wanted and worked backwards to the "evidence" while ignoring evidence that didn't support their position - like the inquest finding and the RIC report of the Pearson's shooting and wounding of local IRA men.

Here is a good article in the Sunday Business Post by Tom McGuirk on the shootings at Coolacrease. Yeah Gobán Saor, "But, from the outset, the programme-makers took a different view and, at an earlier stage, their film was entitled ‘Atonement: Ethnic Cleansing in the Midlands in 1922’." 2 men shot and it's called 'Ethnic Cleansing', Jayus, typically melodramtic black propaganda sh1te from the stickies. As Goban says - They haven't gone away, you know. Sadly not.

Apparently a film is been made about the shootings by british film-maker Philip Ogden, receiving financail support from the Irish film board. Ogden has already used the ethnic cleansing version of the Pearsons’ killing to attack Ken Loach’s film, The Wind that Shakes the Barley, so we know what's ahead of us. :rolleyes:

Hidden history ignored the only surviving documentary evidence of the incident - the officially recorded inquest into the killings. Two local IRA men cutting down trees to prepare an ambush. The Pearsons confronted the 2 men, fetched 2 guns and shot and wounded Michael Heaney, who survived. " "At the British Military Court of Inquiry (in lieu of inquests) into the deaths of Richard and Abraham Pearson, held at Crinkle Barracks, Birr, on July 2,1921, the ‘‘CI [Chief Inspector, Royal Irish Constabulary] Queens County [reported] that the two Pearson boys, a few days previously, had seen two men felling a tree on their land adjoining the road. [They] Had told the men concerned to go away, and when they refused, had fetched two guns and fired and wounded two Sinn Feiners, one of whom it is believed died.”

And the Pearsons were not shot in the genitials while their family were forced to watch. " At the inquest, Ethel Pearson said that she and her sisters, mother, cousins and 14year-old brother David were moved into a grove of trees at the back of the house before it was set on fire, while her brothers Richard and Abraham Pearson were taken to an enclosed yard among the farm buildings where they were shot.Nor does the medical evidence suggest a deliberate genital attack. The official medical report of the 1921 British Military Inquiry said: ‘‘Richard Pearson received wounds in the left shoulder, right groin, right buttock, the back, and left lower leg - all of them superficial.”

http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=TOM+MCGURK-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqid=28123-qqqx=1.asp

wayne0308

After I watched this programme, I was convinced that half of what was said could not be true.

When I heard claims that the two men were only shot in groin area, and then they turned around and we're shot in the buttocks. I knew for sure that this was fabrication.

A previous member stated his belief that this could not happen based on his experiences with rifles of the time.

I agree completely. The firing squad was supposedly made up of 10 men. If you've ever seen an execution, (I've studied war crimes and have seen my fair share) you will know that the trauma caused by 5 bullets from modern or old rifles would cause you to collapse immediately. You would not as was stated in the programme and elsewhere turn around to protect yourself after being hit. Especially the long rifles you had then, they would have certainly damaged or severed the main blood vessels that are present in that area and death would have been quick.

I noticed a few articles about the medical report after the killings stating that one of the men had wounds in the groin and buttocks and had multiple other wounds, abdomen, shoulder etc. the other man had multiple wounds also, but none in the groin area.

I've been unable to source the medical report myself, but I believe these articles. As much as the hatred of these men would be, no officer would give an order to aim for the groin (it's unlikely that a firing squad picked randomly, or by volunteers would have prearranged to aim for the groin) as you would imagine if the order was given you would turn away. The man who gave the order was well respected in GHQ of the IRA.

On the other side, I definitely don't believe that the family antagonised the locals as much as is claimed in the documentary. Would you move up into the ditch if they were walking down the road with hands linked?

Also, I do believe the lads protected they're lands. The had a right to do so, and any farmer with no sympathy for the rebels would have as it would bring retribution from the authorities.

I believe the truth of this story will never truly be known as too much time has past, and very little documentary evidence remains from that time sadly. I look forward to reading the upcoming book on the subject, which claims to be the truth, which hopefully will have reliable sources if they still exist today. But I doubt it.

walrusgumble

Mrs. MacGyver wrote: »

After discussing this at length at work - my question is why didn't snyone endeavour to save them, they died a slow, painful death?

out of sheer fear of been seen to helping the "enemy" i guess? i would imagine in those days, years later, many locals who sympathised and questioned whether or not the pearsons were "spies" etc would have kept their opinion to themselves

walrusgumble

DublinDes wrote: »

Did'nt see the documentary, but as you say - "The executioners could have finished them off with head shots but chose to let them linger." They seemed to be a right bunch of stupid bogmen, they probably ran from the scene leaving the poor fellows to bleed to death.

the reality is, the only true and effective flying column in the midlands was sean maceion's longford brigade. dont be under any illusion that i sympatise or make any excuses for those responsible (all quick witted people will see that sentence as being daft) but the offaly brigade were often completely untrained and incompetent. maybe it was possible that they did not intend to shoot them where they did? then again how could one miss the head? the fellas who performed the execution probably never held a gun or at least in that manner before. but ye you are right not exactly brave, clever or dignified (should they ever be words for carrying out executions)

Co Kildare abu

I just saw the RTE documentary on Coolacrease, one year later. I thought that it was not a documentary but rather a drama. It can be dangerous when there is a cross over and fact becomes fiction. Fiction is fine but call it that and not a documentary as know it. I thought the recreation of the shooting of the men more akin to soap opera really than a true recount of the events. I have just read Coolacrease The True Story. The whole incident as documented in the book when the local historians attempt to address the events as portrayed on the TV documentary with RTE was interesting. After viewing the documentray I read the book Coolacrease The True Story and it raised questions about both the incident itself and history revisionism on the TV.