Claudy bombings report released

mike65 · 24-08-2010 12:00pm #1

From Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2010/aug/24/claudy-bombing-report-priest-northern-ireland

Here are some of the key findings of Al Hutchison's report.

• Detectives believed Father Chesney was the IRA's director of operations in south Derry. He was a prime suspect in the Claudy attack and other terrorist incidents.

• A detective's request to arrest the cleric was refused by an assistant chief constable of RUC Special Branch. The assistant chief constable instead said "matters are in hand".

• The same senior officer wrote to the government about what action could be taken to "render harmless a dangerous priest". The assistant chief constable asked if the matter could be raised with the Church's hierarchy.

• In December 1972 then Northern Ireland secretary Willie Whitelaw met Cardinal Conway to discuss the issue. According to a Northern Ireland Office official, "the cardinal said he knew the priest was a very bad man and would see what could be done". The church leader mentioned "the possibility of transferring him to Donegal..."

• In response to this memo, RUC chief constable Sir Graham said a transfer to further across the border would be preferable. "I would prefer a transfer to Tipperary," he said.

• An entry in Cardinal Conway's diary on December 5 1972 confirmed a meeting with Mr Whitelaw took place. The entry stated there had been "a rather disturbing tete-a-tete at the end about C".

• In another diary entry two months later, the cardinal noted that he had discussed the issue with Father Chesney's superior. The report found that "the superior however had given him orders to stay where he was on sick leave until further notice".

The Catholic church has issued a response to the report in the form of a joint statement by Cardinal Seán Brady, Archbishop of Armagh, and Bishop Séamus Hegarty, Bishop of Derry. They say the church did not "engage in a cover-up of this matter", and say they accept the police ombudsman's findings.

The Claudy bombings which killed 9 civilians (5 Catholics and 4 Protestants for those who like to keep a head count) have been hugely contentious due to the suspicion of the involvement of and protection of Father Chesney. It'll interesting to see the angles the Catholic Church, SF and the UK government take on this report. Father Chesney died in 1980.

silverharp · 24-08-2010 12:16pm

why would the RUC not have wanted to go after the alleged scumbag?

OhNoYouDidn't · 24-08-2010 12:23pm

silverharp wrote: »

why would the RUC not have wanted to go after the alleged scumbag?

They did. The British government stopped them.

I understand why the CC would want this hushed up. I cannot for the life of me figure out how it was in the British gvts interest to assist them to do so.

Fratton Fred · 24-08-2010 12:26pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

They did. The British government stopped them.

I understand why the CC would want this hushed up. I cannot for the life of me figure out how it was in the British gvts interest to assist them to do so.

I would guess it was two fold.

Arresting a Catholic Priest would have hightened sectarian tension furhter and given the Loyalists another excuse to go after Catholics, they may also have been quite keen on the Irish Catholic church owing them a favour?

OhNoYouDidn't · 24-08-2010 12:32pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would guess it was two fold.

Arresting a Catholic Priest would have hightened sectarian tension furhter and given the Loyalists another excuse to go after Catholics, they may also have been quite keen on the Irish Catholic church owing them a favour?

Makes sense, especially the latter.

Do you think it was the right move considering the times?

BlaasForRafa · 24-08-2010 12:37pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Makes sense, especially the latter.

Do you think it was the right move considering the times?

In the light of what we know now about the Catholic Church in the last 40 years then it wasn't the right thing to do.

But was it the right thing to do at that particular time, probably. It would only have stoked the sectarian tensions higher and its quite likely the nationalist/catholic side wouldn't have believed the RUC evidence if it had gone to court in any case.

Wolfe Tone · 24-08-2010 12:40pm

The RCC did the right thing here actually. No benefit would have come from his arrest. Only sectarian violence.

Bit strange though.

Fratton Fred · 24-08-2010 12:47pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Makes sense, especially the latter.

Do you think it was the right move considering the times?

I agree with this....

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

In the light of what we know now about the Catholic Church in the last 40 years then it wasn't the right thing to do.

But was it the right thing to do at that particular time, probably. It would only have stoked the sectarian tensions higher and its quite likely the nationalist/catholic side wouldn't have believed the RUC evidence if it had gone to court in any case.

It does make you wonder just how far the RCC were prepared to go to protect their name.

from a British perspective though, I would imagine that if it became common knowkledge that the priest was involved, it would have effectively neutralised any threat that he would have posed as he would have become a security threat to the IRA.

Neutralising the threat as opposed to a possible conviction and then the innevitable martyrdom was probably a much better option.

Wolfe Tone · 24-08-2010 12:48pm

I believe that once any senior officers were arrested at all they were deemed compromised and had to step down.

FlutterinBantam · 24-08-2010 1:09pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The RCC did the right thing here actually. No benefit would have come from his arrest. Only sectarian violence.

Bit strange though.

No they didn't.

They should have removed him from his ministry until the matter was investigated.

PeterIanStaker · 24-08-2010 1:18pm

This shows how far the RCC will go to protect its own interests.

I think the RCC's idea of "doing the right thing" and the ordinary persons' concept of the same notion, are very different.

Normally when we hear the word "collusion" we think of collaboration between NI security forces and the British State, yet this shows that the Catholic church's cover-ups do not solely cover child abuse, but also murder.

Meeja Ireland · 24-08-2010 1:26pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The RCC did the right thing here actually. No benefit would have come from his arrest. Only sectarian violence.

No benefit? What about justice for the victims? The prevention of further crimes by him and those he worked with? I'm not saying his arrest would have been trouble-free, but you have to make a very strong case before you decide not to pursue a suspected mass-murderer, and I don't see a strong case here.

What I find strangest about this is that they transferred him to Donegal. He had ready access to the border, and would presumably have found it very easy to hook up with an active local unit of the IRA.

OhNoYouDidn't · 24-08-2010 1:30pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

No they didn't.

They should have removed him from his ministry until the matter was investigated.

Wasn't the fear though that the loyalists would be shooting up RC churches on Sunday because that would be the 'proof' they needed that the RCC was part of the 'pan nationalist conspiracy' like they targetted GAA clubs.

And besides, there is no actual evidence he was involved, only that the cops wanted a word and were ordered to back off.

KeithAFC · 24-08-2010 1:31pm

Can't say it surprises me at all. If the British government were interested at the time of trying to lower tensions, they would of done much more than they did. Its just another sign of the RCCs power to hide things up and basically the state will always go along with them.

Wolfe Tone · 24-08-2010 1:32pm

Meeja Ireland wrote: »

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The RCC did the right thing here actually. No benefit would have come from his arrest. Only sectarian violence./QUOTE]

No benefit? What about justice for the victims? The prevention of further crimes by him and those he worked with? I'm not saying his arrest would have been trouble-free, but you have to make a very strong case before you decide not to pursue a suspected mass-murderer, and I don't see a strong case here.

What I find strangest about this is that they transferred him to Donegal. He had ready access to the border, and would presumably have found it very easy to hook up with an active local unit of the IRA.

No, he was compromised. Once a senior member of the IRA was lifted or the powers that be knew about him, he was compromised and had to step down. The IRA were very security conscious.

Wolfe Tone · 24-08-2010 1:33pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

No they didn't.

They should have removed him from his ministry until the matter was investigated.

There was no proof. If he was arrested there would have been

"OMG state harassment of innocent catholic priests, accusing him of bombing!! Payback!"

and

"we knew all along, lets go shoot some priests"

OhNoYouDidn't · 24-08-2010 1:34pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

Can't say it surprises me at all. If the British government were interested at the time of trying to lower tensions, they would of done much more than they did. Its just another sign of the RCCs power to hide things up and basically the state will always go along with them.

Eh? The Brits killed two priests over the course of the troubles. The Church had a ferocious hostility to Republicans, excommunications and refusal to marry/bury IRA men was common. The Church moved a raft or Republican priests in the 50's and 60's overseas.

Which is why this story doesn't quite sit right. Why did they suddenly decide to protect this guy at this time for actions that they publically opposed? Why did the Brits encourage it?

Wolfe Tone · 24-08-2010 1:37pm

Why did the Brits encourage it?

Maybe they turned him? Or thought they could?

OhNoYouDidn't · 24-08-2010 1:38pm

Meeja Ireland wrote: »

No benefit? What about justice for the victims? The prevention of further crimes by him and those he worked with? I'm not saying his arrest would have been trouble-free, but you have to make a very strong case before you decide not to pursue a suspected mass-murderer, and I don't see a strong case here.

What I find strangest about this is that they transferred him to Donegal. He had ready access to the border, and would presumably have found it very easy to hook up with an active local unit of the IRA.

There is a lot wrong with this story.

The Church never defended Republicans, never mind tolerated them in the church folsd.

The Brits killed 2 priests, stoking sectarian tension was never a problem before or since.

Yet suddenly we have a 'senior IRA man' in the church that no-one knew about and neither side wanted to touch him, despite both being ferocious in touching them up to that point?

I'm not buying this version of events.

Although I will accept that the cops were ordered off him, but why?

OhNoYouDidn't · 24-08-2010 1:40pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Maybe they turned him? Or thought they could?

B-I-N-G-O.

Only logical explaination for this series of events. Why else did London ever tell the RUC Special Branch to back off....?

KeithAFC · 24-08-2010 1:40pm

You know why. The UVF would of taken him out and more religious organisations (halls, churches etc) would of been involved in the troubles.

OhNoYouDidn't · 24-08-2010 1:42pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

You know why. The UVF would of taken him out and more religious organisations (halls, churches etc) would of been involved in the troubles.

When did they ever care about that?

Assuming they did, why didn't they just shoot him like the two other priests? The RCC didn't kick up a fuss over those two. Jobs done, no reprisals.

Wolfe Tone · 24-08-2010 1:43pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

B-I-N-G-O.

Only logical explaination for this series of events. Why else did London ever tell the RUC Special Branch to back off....?

How did the priest die in the end?

Typical Brit tactics though. If there was even a chance of turning a supposed commander they would jump at the chance.

KeithAFC · 24-08-2010 1:46pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

When did they ever care about that?

Assuming they did, why didn't they just shoot him like the two other priests? The RCC didn't kick up a fuss over those two. Jobs done, no reprisals.

The RCC and government hid it up. The UVF would not of had a clue. As far as im aware, no one was convicted for this.

There is no doubt he was in the IRA.

BlaasForRafa · 24-08-2010 1:57pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Wasn't the fear though that the loyalists would be shooting up RC churches on Sunday because that would be the 'proof' they needed that the RCC was part of the 'pan nationalist conspiracy' like they targetted GAA clubs.

And besides, there is no actual evidence he was involved, only that the cops wanted a word and were ordered to back off.

For the safety of the public they did the right thing but they morally it was a grey area. Of course the RCC was up to its neck in moving paedophile priests and brothers from place to place so they had a lot of practice in hiding the unpalatable.

Whether he himself was guilty or innocent, its difficult to say without a trial but it does definitely look like one of those "no smoke without fire" things.

OhNoYouDidn't · 24-08-2010 1:58pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

The RCC and government hid it up. The UVF would not of had a clue. As far as im aware, no one was convicted for this.

Correct on all counts

KeithAFC wrote: »

There is no doubt he was in the IRA.

Not so sure about that. Is there any evidence beyond the peelers wanting a chat with him?

OhNoYouDidn't · 24-08-2010 2:01pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

For the safety of the public they did the right thing but they morally it was a grey area. Of course the RCC was up to its neck in moving paedophile priests and brothers from place to place so they had a lot of practice in hiding the unpalatable. .

100% agree, but the RCC had always rooted out anyone in the church they suspected of being a Republican. Seems strage they would defend this guy if he was involved at the level alledged. First and only one they defended.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Whether he himself was guilty or innocent, its difficult to say without a trial but it does definitely look like one of those "no smoke without fire" things.

Hmmm. A dangerous road to go down and false whispers got a lot of innocent people killed in the north.

BlaasForRafa · 24-08-2010 2:12pm

100% agree, but the RCC had always rooted out anyone in the church they suspected of being a Republican. Seems strage they would defend this guy if he was involved at the level alledged. First and only one they defended.

Theres a couple of reasons I could think of off the top of my head. 1. An element of protecting "the good name of the church" 2. Some kind of back room dealing, perhaps "You leave him in place and we'll look more favourably on giving grants to Catholic schools" or something of the sort. I'm sure the RCC was more than capable of twisting the british governments arm if Whitelaw tried to pressure them.

Hmmm. A dangerous road to go down and false whispers got a lot of innocent people killed in the north.

Again, protecting a valuable property. The British/NI authorities of the time would have no problems discarding him and feeding him to the wolves if he wasn't of some use.

Wolfe Tone · 24-08-2010 2:17pm

If they wanted him dead all they would have needed to do was to let it "slip" to the loyalists.

OhNoYouDidn't · 24-08-2010 2:25pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Theres a couple of reasons I could think of off the top of my head. 1. An element of protecting "the good name of the church" 2. Some kind of back room dealing, perhaps "You leave him in place and we'll look more favourably on giving grants to Catholic schools" or something of the sort. I'm sure the RCC was more than capable of twisting the british governments arm if Whitelaw tried to pressure them.

But again, the church had always previously disowned republican priests, and very publically. The good name wasn't a factor then Why go to the barracades here?

karma_ · 24-08-2010 2:26pm

It's all well and good saying that this was likely the correct action in order to decrease tension and possible retaliatory attacks, however who then speaks for the victims? They don't appear to have received an awful lot of justice.

Mr.Micro · 24-08-2010 3:25pm

It just goes to show all the disgusting machinations that go own behind the public s back where justice is denied. Yet. Politicians frequently extol the virtues of law and order and justice but in reality its all BS when a cover up is better.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 24-08-2010 4:17pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But again, the church had always previously disowned republican priests, and very publically. The good name wasn't a factor then Why go to the barracades here?

We'll never know exactly but there's possible scenarios. Maybe there was evidence someone higher up knew he was IRA but let him continue being a priest.

Jaap · 24-08-2010 4:36pm

So what these findings say is the leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland at that time Cardinal Conway knew that one of his priests was an IRA leader...the same priest was a key suspect in the murder of 9 innocent people at Claudy....and the Cardinal agreed to move him to Donegal!!!
I think the people of Claudy deserve a full public enquiry similar to that of Bloody Sunday...9 people died...high ranking officials in the RUC, British Government and Roman Catholic Church have seriously failed the people of Claudy and Northern Ireland.
With Father Chesney in Donegal and still so close to the border...how many other murders may he possibly have been involved with in the remaining 8 years of his life!!!

Wolfe Tone · 24-08-2010 4:42pm

There is no proof he was in the IRA.

FlutterinBantam · 24-08-2010 4:42pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Wasn't the fear though that the loyalists would be shooting up RC churches on Sunday because that would be the 'proof' they needed that the RCC was part of the 'pan nationalist conspiracy' like they targetted GAA clubs.

And besides, there is no actual evidence he was involved, only that the cops wanted a word and were ordered to back off.

That's why I said he should be removed until the matter was investigated.

I accept your very valid points but he should have been stood down in my opinion.

Wolfe Tone · 24-08-2010 4:43pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

That's why I said he should be removed until the matter was investigated.

I accept your very valid points but he should have been stood down in my opinion.

He was removed from his position and exiled to Donegal(god help him!

)

Jaap · 24-08-2010 4:45pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The RCC did the right thing here actually. No benefit would have come from his arrest. Only sectarian violence.

Bit strange though.

"The RCC did the right thing here"...what protect the main suspect of the murder of 9 people...protect the IRA leader in south Derry???

Other thing strange...or should I say sad is your comments!!!

FlutterinBantam · 24-08-2010 4:46pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

He was removed from his position and exiled to Donegal(god help him! )

From where, I'm reliably informed he continued his terrorist campaign.

Wolfe Tone · 24-08-2010 4:48pm

Jaap wrote: »

"The RCC did the right thing here"...what protect the main suspect of the murder of 9 people...protect the IRA leader in south Derry???

Other thing strange...or should I say sad is your comments!!!

No, as has been outlined earlier the RCC regularily decried republicans. The point is that had the priest been arrested it would have been viewed as state oppresion by catholics and an excuse for loyalists to attack churches.
Although I reckon the brits let him be because they wanted to turn him.

Wolfe Tone · 24-08-2010 4:48pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

From where, I'm reliably informed he continued his terrorist campaign.

Source?

karma_ · 24-08-2010 4:55pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

From where, I'm reliably informed he continued his terrorist campaign.

He didn't but that's not really relevant. I probably should also point out that this has been known about for some time in and around the south Derry area, not as fact but as a reasonable suspicion he was involved in some fashion. It comes not really as a surprising announcement.

KeithAFC · 24-08-2010 5:26pm

I think the sum of it is a priest acted like a coward. Hope he rots in hell, if it exists..

Mr.Micro · 24-08-2010 6:04pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think the sum of it is a priest acted like a coward. Hope he rots in hell, if it exists..

I wonder how such a so called man of the church could marry up his actions with what his church and bible teach? What a conundrum....yet he carried on in his role as a priest despite the complete contradiction his actions were against all that is right. What a total hypocrite and then hid behind the church to do his evil deeds....and the church just as evil in allowing him to continue in his role and his alleged nefarious activities. Most decisions that affect society are often made by a few people who think they know best.

OS119 · 24-08-2010 7:38pm

karma_ wrote: »

It's all well and good saying that this was likely the correct action in order to decrease tension and possible retaliatory attacks, however who then speaks for the victims? They don't appear to have received an awful lot of justice.

one could argue that the lives all those who would certainly have been killed in the full-on sectarian civil war that would have followed the arrest of an RC priest in late 1972 Northern Ireland outweighed the need for justice for 9 innocents.

not an attractive judgement to make, but then i'd not be the one looking at spending eternity knowing that a principled decision i'd made had caused a civil war.

without decisons that stick in the craw most of the 'peace processes' in the world wouldn't exist - had the ANC not given assurances about Apartheid-era crimes the SA government would have fought to the death, or had the BG not accepted the idea of early release for PIRA prisoners SF could not have negociated the GFA and sold it to armed Republicanism.

issues in war are often a disgusting choice between 'bad' and 'worse' - stopping a murder/directing terrorism inquiry and getting this bloke shoved out to pasture is a bad thing, having a Balkan-style civil war in NI (doubtless with the RoI being dragged into it as well) would have been worse.

philstar · 24-08-2010 8:55pm

Jaap wrote: »

With Father Chesney in Donegal and still so close to the border...how many other murders may he possibly have been involved with in the remaining 8 years of his life!!!

yes why Donegal?? he should have been sent overseas

junder · 24-08-2010 8:59pm

These are the names of the people who will not get the justice. These ar the names that most of you on this thread have shown not a shred of compassion for. Blown up going their daily buiness by a so called man if god

* Patrick Connolly, 15, Catholic. The teenager died in hospital over a week after being caught up in the first blast outside McElhinney's pub and shop.
* Kathryn Eakin, 9, Protestant. The young girl was cleaning the windows of the family's grocery shop on Main Street when the first bomb exploded.
* Arthur Hone, 38, Catholic. The married father of two died a fortnight after the bombing. Two of his uncles - both priests - conducted a requiem mass at the insurance salesman's funeral.
* Joseph McCloskey, 39, Catholic. The factory worker died instantly when the first bomb detonated.
* Elizabeth McElhinney, 59, Catholic. The owner of the pub and shop where the first car bomb went off was serving petrol from the shop's pump when she was killed.
* James McClelland, 65, Protestant. The street cleaner was killed by the third and final bomb contained in a mini van.
* Rose McLaughlin, 52, Catholic. The mother of eight and cafe owner died in hospital four days after the outrage.
* David Miller, 60, Protestant. The street cleaner was killed by the third blast.
* William Temple, 16, Protestant. The milkman's helper from nearby Donemana in Co Tyrone was on his round in the village when the bombs went off.

Wolfe Tone · 24-08-2010 9:10pm

TBH I think it goes without saying that we all feel compassion for the victims.

OS119 · 24-08-2010 9:11pm

junder wrote: »

These are the names of the people who will not get the justice. These ar the names that most of you on this thread have shown not a shred of compassion for. Blown up going their daily buiness by a so called man if god

* Patrick Connolly, 15, Catholic. The teenager died in hospital over a week after being caught up in the first blast outside McElhinney's pub and shop.
* Kathryn Eakin, 9, Protestant. The young girl was cleaning the windows of the family's grocery shop on Main Street when the first bomb exploded.
* Arthur Hone, 38, Catholic. The married father of two died a fortnight after the bombing. Two of his uncles - both priests - conducted a requiem mass at the insurance salesman's funeral.
* Joseph McCloskey, 39, Catholic. The factory worker died instantly when the first bomb detonated.
* Elizabeth McElhinney, 59, Catholic. The owner of the pub and shop where the first car bomb went off was serving petrol from the shop's pump when she was killed.
* James McClelland, 65, Protestant. The street cleaner was killed by the third and final bomb contained in a mini van.
* Rose McLaughlin, 52, Catholic. The mother of eight and cafe owner died in hospital four days after the outrage.
* David Miller, 60, Protestant. The street cleaner was killed by the third blast.
* William Temple, 16, Protestant. The milkman's helper from nearby Donemana in Co Tyrone was on his round in the village when the bombs went off.

without wishing to be overly callous, the living outweigh the dead.

i am fully aware that 9 entirely innocent people were butchered, and that a chance of prosecuting one of those believed by many serious observors to be involved - to a greater or lesser extent - was put aside in the name of expediency.

you however fail to notice that this was not a 'zero-sum' issue - if the decision to prosecute this preist has resulted in a Balkan-style civil war with 5,000 other innocents dead within 6 months then those deaths and the injustice that would have come with them would have wieghed heavily on the scales of justice - 9 deaths and no justice on one hand, 9 deaths, probably no justice, and outright civil war and 5,000 further deaths on the other.

i know which i hope i'd have the courage to go for, and i'm bloody glad i wasn't the one asked to make that decision.

KeithAFC · 24-08-2010 10:17pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

TBH I think it goes without saying that we all feel compassion for the victims.

Yeah well you should show it.

Instead of going on about 'typical brits'..

Wolfe Tone · 24-08-2010 10:23pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yeah well you should show it.

Instead of going on about 'typical brits'..

Bit rich considering what you posted in the Bloody Sunday thread.
Ah get over it. Typical Brit actions were to try to turn people, the events point to that being a good possibility. If this thread was specifically about the bombing, then ok, but it isn't it is about the cover-up.
If it makes you feel better I think that it was a travesty.

Claudy bombings report released

Comments