British Apologise For Murder of 12 Year Old Girl

OhNoYouDidn't

The British Defence Secretary has apologised and corrected the record on the infamous shooting in the back of a 12 year old girl.

"The letter, signed by the defence secretary, Liam Fox, belatedly corrects the army's account of the incident and acknowledges that the soldier's subsequent courtroom explanation was "unlikely"."

Good to see, and only the second apology after Bloody Sunday. Ironically, its the tories who are actually dealing with the murky past of the British Army in the 6 counties, and hopefully its the beginning of a process od trying to right some historical wongs.

Links etc


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/28/ministry-defence-apology-majella-ohare

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12877797

R P McMurphy

Michael Williams should face a retrial

OhNoYouDidn't

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Michael Williams should face a retrial

Be interesting to see if he does. He was acquitted of manslaughter, so I assume he can be tried for murder.

A Dub in Glasgo

Well done to the Tories for this. Justice should now prevail and that soldier should be charged with murder.

Wolfe Tone

Well done, and hopefully we will see a retrial.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think they're scared there might be a retrial and are hoping a strong apology will take the momentum out of it.

That's why Cameron gave such a strong apology over Bloody Sunday. It's good the family are glad of the acknowledgement but something altogether not right about this cherrypicking of civillian slaughter worthy of apology

Liam Byrne

Hmmmm.....

Interesting how the word "unlikely" triggers calls for a trial in certain circumstances but not in others.

Just saying.

As a neutral, hope justice is done.

Fratton Fred

That's good. A very unreservedly apology there.

I think it should be up to the family if they want a retrial, it would be interesting to see how it unfolds.

Wolfe Tone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's good. A very unreservedly apology there.

I think it should be up to the family if they want a retrial, it would be interesting to see how it unfolds.

Why should it be up to the family?

Lapin

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Good to see, and only the second apology after Bloody Sunday. [/url]

I agree, it is good to see.

Now how about an apology from those responsible for planting that bomb in Derry today.


Or are the scumbags just sorry it didn't go off ?

Fratton Fred

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Why should it be up to the family?

A trial could possibly become a circus. They might not want to go through that.

Wolfe Tone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A trial could possibly become a circus. They might not want to go through that.

Surely you dont want a situation where the DPP only prosecutes when a murder victims family agree?

OhNoYouDidn't

Lapin wrote: »

I agree, it is good to see.

Now how about an apology from those responsible for planting that bomb in Derry today.


Or are the scumbags just sorry it didn't go off ?

Can we save the whataboutery and moral equivalence for another thread?

This is about a Para shooting a 12 year old kid in the back, twice, with one of these:



and the consequent cover up, which thankfully, the British government have refused to stand over.

Fratton Fred

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Surely you dont want a situation where the DPP only prosecutes when a murder victims family agree?

Generally speaking no, of course not. The troubles were not a normal situation though, I think everyone acknowledges that.

I would say the same if it were a PIRA member standing accused as well.

OhNoYouDidn't

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A trial could possibly become a circus. They might not want to go through that.

Hmmmm. Should that be a criteria for whether someone gets tried for murdering a child?

Latchy

Apparently it's only the second time in the history of the troubles that the British Army has apologized and said sorry to the family of somebody killed by one of their soldiers .

R P McMurphy

Anyone know what sort of career Michael Williams had?

Fratton Fred

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Hmmmm. Should that be a criteria for whether someone gets tried for murdering a child?

It should certainly be taken into consideration.

Wolfe Tone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It should certainly be taken into consideration.

Why? Thats no way to have justice, for one it can put the family under pressure, or in danger.

Criminal proceedings should be out of the families hands, although they can of course refuse to provide evidence if called on.

Fratton Fred

I

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Why? Thats no way to have justice, for one it can put the family under pressure, or in danger.

Criminal proceedings should be out of the families hands, although they can of course refuse to provide evidence if called on.

Normally I would agree with you, but a 35 year old murder during the troubles is not a normal situation.

The family apparently don't want one and who else does it directly affect. Unfortunately a lot of murders will go unpunished, it is a price to be paid for moving on.

Wolfe Tone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I

Normally I would agree with you, but a 35 year old murder during the troubles is not a normal situation.

The family apparently don't want one and who else does it directly affect. Unfortunately a lot of murders will go unpunished, it is a price to be paid for moving on.

Then its one rule for one and another for someone else,no consistency, look at Gerry McGeough for instance.

Fratton Fred

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Then its one rule for one and another for someone else,no consistency, look at Gerry McGeough for instance.

Not really. All I am saying is that the wishes of the family should be respected.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not really. All I am saying is that the wishes of the family should be respected.

Its too risky to play it that way. I understand your point but say this wasn't BA who killed her but a paramilitary.

If said paramilitary knew the family had a choice he could probably have the family intimidated quite easily

Fratton Fred

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Its too risky to play it that way. I understand your point but say this wasn't BA who killed her but a paramilitary.

If said paramilitary knew the family had a choice he could probably have the family intimidated quite easily

That's a good point.

Dozen Wicked Words

Morally, Mr Williams definitely should face trial for murder, or retrial for Manslaughter.

Legally though, the PPS would need to be given enough evidence for them to believe they had a strong enough case to convict this time, where they failed last time. I am not sure, that after 35 years, this evidence is there. Witness testimony would, I presume, be looked on less favourably after 35 years than it was for the original case.

OhNoYouDidn't

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's a good point.

I see where you are coming from and pragmatically and in terms of real politick you are probably right. Its just not a good idea to have a hard and fast rule on these things.

Manic Moran

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Be interesting to see if he does. He was acquitted of manslaughter, so I assume he can be tried for murder.

Double Jeopardy has been partially rescinded in the UK, subject to 'new and compelling evidence being released.'

An apology does not count as 'new and compelling evidence', however, the recent investigation simply supports the original RUC investigation. I don't think a re-trial for the same incident would be legal unless there is information not mentioned in the BBC or Guardian articles.

NTM

OhNoYouDidn't

Manic Moran wrote: »

Double Jeopardy has been partially rescinded in the UK, subject to 'new and compelling evidence being released.'

An apology does not count as 'new and compelling evidence', however, the recent investigation simply supports the original RUC investigation. I don't think a re-trial for the same incident would be legal unless there is information not mentioned in the BBC or Guardian articles.

NTM

Depends how you define 'new and compelling'. Does the fact that the cops and political leaders state the guy lied through his teeth count as evidence or just that he got away with it? I suspect the latter.

But regardless, its progress that the British are joining the Republicans and Loyalists in apologising for their past misdeeds. But at this point, surely a blanket apology for all innocents killed would close it off?

Liam Byrne

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Depends how you define 'new and compelling'. Does the fact that the cops and political leaders state the guy lied through his teeth count as evidence or just that he got away with it? I suspect the latter.

Where did they say that ? They said it was "unlikely" that he told the truth, which is not the same thing.

Hundreds of "explanations" on both "sides" were "unlikely".

KeithAFC

If this guy goes to jail, so should ALL PIRA ex members who killed innocent people. Perhaps its time we release all people who were involved in the Troubles. Even that guy who got jailed a few weeks ago.

Although i think it was justice. If this is the route we are going down, then we need to do it right. Do it for all or don't do it at all.

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

If this guy goes to jail, so should ALL PIRA ex members who killed innocent people. Perhaps its time we release all people who were involved in the Troubles. Even that guy who got jailed a few weeks ago.

Although i think it was justice. If this is the route we are going down, then we need to do it right. Do it for all or don't do it at all.

All PIRA volunteers who did anything were pursued with the full might of the law and often a great deal more besides. No judges did them favours or civil servants manipulate the law for them.

The issue here is that members of the British Army clearly committed what is now called war crimes, and the British State is slowly coming to terms with the concept of the word 'sorry'.

You are right about the scattergun approach. There should have been a truth and reconciliation commisson with an amnesty. But the Brits refused to acknowledge that they did wrong back in the 1990's, and now we have this in dribs and drabs.

lugha

KeithAFC wrote: »

If this guy goes to jail, so should ALL PIRA ex members who killed innocent people. Perhaps its time we release all people who were involved in the Troubles. Even that guy who got jailed a few weeks ago.

Although i think it was justice. If this is the route we are going down, then we need to do it right. Do it for all or don't do it at all.

I'd agree with that. Once the principle that wrong doers would not be required to pay their full debt to society was set aside it is only sensible, if morally unpalatable, that it should apply across the boards.

I doubt if any further action would be taken in this case anyway. The CPS is, presumably, independent and would probably be reluctant to appear to be acting on politicians utterrings (that our most likely connected to the impending visit of you know who) rather than on the emergence of new evidence.

Utrinque Paratus

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The British Defence Secretary has apologised and corrected the record on the infamous shooting in the back of a 12 year old girl.

"The letter, signed by the defence secretary, Liam Fox, belatedly corrects the army's account of the incident and acknowledges that the soldier's subsequent courtroom explanation was "unlikely"."

Good to see, and only the second apology after Bloody Sunday. Ironically, its the tories who are actually dealing with the murky past of the British Army in the 6 counties, and hopefully its the beginning of a process od trying to right some historical wongs.

Links etc


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/28/ministry-defence-apology-majella-ohare

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12877797

Stop telling lies, they apologised for the girls death not "murder" (look the definition up).

At worst it was a negligent discharge. Why would a soldier shoot a 12 yr old girl in the back on purpose ?



There is no way he would have shotr a 12 yr old girl in the back on purpose.


"Williams, of the 3rd Battalion Parachute Regiment, claimed he had fired in response to an IRA sniper attack. The RUC investigated and the paratrooper was charged with murder.

By the time of the trial, the charge had been reduced to manslaughter. Lord Justice Maurice Gibson, sitting alone without a jury, accepted there probably had been a gunman who fired simultaneously."


"The hearing was told that two bullets fired from an army machine gun hit Majella. Williams was identified as the soldier who fired the machine gun. In his statement Williams again claimed he fired at a man in a hedge. An open verdict was returned. "

Wolfe Tone

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

Stop telling lies, they apologised for the girls death.

At worst it was a neglegent discharge. Why would a soldier shoot a 12 yr old girl in the back on purpose ?



There is no way he would have shotr a 12 yr old girl in the back on purpose.


"Williams, of the 3rd Battalion Parachute Regiment, claimed he had fired in response to an IRA sniper attack. The RUC investigated and the paratrooper was charged with murder.

By the time of the trial, the charge had been reduced to manslaughter. Lord Justice Maurice Gibson, sitting alone without a jury, accepted there probably had been a gunman who fired simultaneously."


"The hearing was told that two bullets fired from an army machine gun hit Majella. Williams was identified as the soldier who fired the machine gun. In his statement Williams again claimed he fired at a man in a hedge. An open verdict was returned. "

The HET said it was murder. The RUC said it was murder. The British have said that the soldier lied.

R P McMurphy

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

Stop telling lies, they apologised for the girls death.

At worst it was a negligent discharge. Why would a soldier shoot a 12 yr old girl in the back on purpose ?



There is no way he would have shotr a 12 yr old girl in the back on purpose.


"Williams, of the 3rd Battalion Parachute Regiment, claimed he had fired in response to an IRA sniper attack. The RUC investigated and the paratrooper was charged with murder.

By the time of the trial, the charge had been reduced to manslaughter. Lord Justice Maurice Gibson, sitting alone without a jury, accepted there probably had been a gunman who fired simultaneously."


"The hearing was told that two bullets fired from an army machine gun hit Majella. Williams was identified as the soldier who fired the machine gun. In his statement Williams again claimed he fired at a man in a hedge. An open verdict was returned. "

Judging by your user name you would be a little biased in favour of the paras. This was not an isolated incident involving the paras and shooting of civilians at checkpoints

Utrinque Paratus

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The HET said it was murder. The RUC said it was murder. The British have said that the soldier lied.

He was charged with murder. Thje charge was dropped to manslaughter.

And found not guilty.

Why would a soldier want to shoot a 12 yr old girl in the back on purpose ?

It was most likely a negligent discharge.

karma_

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

Stop telling lies, they apologised for the girls death.




There is no way he would have shotr a 12 yr old girl in the back on purpose.


"Williams, of the 3rd Battalion Parachute Regiment, claimed he had fired in response to an IRA sniper attack. The RUC investigated and the paratrooper was charged with murder.

By the time of the trial, the charge had been reduced to manslaughter. Lord Justice Maurice Gibson, sitting alone without a jury, accepted there probably had been a gunman who fired simultaneously."


"The hearing was told that two bullets fired from an army machine gun hit Majella. Williams was identified as the soldier who fired the machine gun. In his statement Williams again claimed he fired at a man in a hedge. An open verdict was returned. "

So he fired 3 shots at a man in a hedge and 2 of those 3 shots hit a child?

There is no way this was accidental.

The trial was a farce also, no jury so it was the Judge alone who made saw fit to acquit the man.

Utrinque Paratus

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Judging by your user name you would be a little biased in favour of the paras. This was not an isolated incident involving the paras and shooting of civilians at checkpoints

Im not the one trying to use a 12 yr olds death to score a cheap point.

Once again, why would a soldier want to shoot a 12 yr old girl in the back on purpose ?

Utrinque Paratus

karma_ wrote: »

So he fired 3 shots at a man in a hedge and 2 of those 3 shots hit a child?

There is no way this was accidental.

The trial was a farce also, no jury so it was the Judge alone who made saw fit to acquit the man.

Where they under sniper fire ? Dont know, but the check point had been in the past.

It was a negligent discharge from a GPMG which is a machine gun, such things happen, numerous soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan from negligent discharges.


"A British soldier may have been shot dead accidentally as he and a colleague cleaned their rifles, it is understood.

Ranger David Dalzell, 20, of 1st Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment, died on Friday in an "operational accident" in the Nad-e Ali district of Helmand."

R P McMurphy

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

Im not the one trying to use a 12 yr olds death to score a cheap point.

Once again, why would a soldier want to shoot a 12 yr old girl in the back on purpose ?

What cheap point am I trying to score you muppet

karma_

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

Im not the one trying to use a 12 yr olds death to score a cheap point.

Once again, why would a soldier want to shoot a 12 yr old girl in the back on purpose ?

Why does any murderer kill?

karma_

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

It was a negligent discharge from a GPMG which is a machine gun, such things happen, numerous soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan from negligent discharges.

Where they under sniper fire ? Dont know, but the check point had been in the past.

You are completely contradicting yourself in your rush to absolve a soldier of his responsibility in the death of this girl. Your original post said the man had been quoted as saying he was firing at a man in a hedge, now it's a matter of accidental discharge, make up your mind.

By the way, doesn't it take something like 12lbs of pressure to fire one of those things, that's some accident.

Black Swan

REMINDER...
Please be advised that a few of the posts on this thread have been getting a bit too personal. Please focus on the content of the OP and related posts, and not each other. Thanks, Black Swan.

Utrinque Paratus

karma_ wrote: »

You are completely contradicting yourself in your rush to absolve a soldier of his responsibility in the death of this girl. Your original post said the man had been quoted as saying he was firing at a man in a hedge, now it's a matter of accidental discharge, make up your mind.

By the way, doesn't it take something like 12lbs of pressure to fire one of those things, that's some accident.

The soldier claimed he had fired at a gun man in a hedge.

Is this true ? I dont know.

At worst it was a negligent discharge.

Predator_

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The British Defence Secretary has apologised and corrected the record on the infamous shooting in the back of a 12 year old girl.

"The letter, signed by the defence secretary, Liam Fox, belatedly corrects the army's account of the incident and acknowledges that the soldier's subsequent courtroom explanation was "unlikely"."

Good to see, and only the second apology after Bloody Sunday. Ironically, its the tories who are actually dealing with the murky past of the British Army in the 6 counties, and hopefully its the beginning of a process od trying to right some historical wongs.

Links etc


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/28/ministry-defence-apology-majella-ohare

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12877797

Give back the North and give an apology for 800 years of countless crimes and we will be getting somewhere.

Utrinque Paratus

karma_ wrote: »

You are completely contradicting yourself in your rush to absolve a soldier of his responsibility in the death of this girl. Your original post said the man had been quoted as saying he was firing at a man in a hedge, now it's a matter of accidental discharge, make up your mind.

By the way, doesn't it take something like 12lbs of pressure to fire one of those things, that's some accident.

You have obviously never fired one.

Negligent discharges are a fact of life, I posted how a soldier was killed by one in Afghanistan.

OhNoYouDidn't

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

Im not the one trying to use a 12 yr olds death to score a cheap point.

Once again, why would a soldier want to shoot a 12 yr old girl in the back on purpose ?

Because he could.

Because the Para's are animals who were unsuitable for the role.

There were more than 50 children killed by the British occupying army during the war in the 6 counties. This one was just so brutal they couldn't bury it forever.

karma_

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

The soldier claimed he had fired at a gun man in a hedge.

Is this true ? I dont know.

At worst it was a negligent discharge.

At worst, it was murder.

Utrinque Paratus

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Because he could.

Because the Para's are animals who were unsuitable for the role.

There were more than 50 children killed by the British occupying army during the war in the 6 counties. This one was just so brutal they couldn't bury it forever.

Youre using completely irrational language, to go along with the accusations.

Why dont you drop the hysterisa and deal with the facts ?

OhNoYouDidn't

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

You have obviously never fired one.

Negligent discharges are a fact of life, I posted how a soldier was killed by one in Afghanistan.

Which is it? A negligent discharge or him engaging a phantom sniper in a hedge?

It it was a negligent discharge, the implication is that the gun was trained on the little girls back. If he was engaging a sniper, 3 rounds two of which hit the kid in front of him and no more engagement?

Pull the other one.

Wolfe Tone

Ah sure they where being shot at by snipers just like bloody sunday... oh wait.


Sure it was an accident when the Brits shot Aidan McAnespie too.