Soldier F’s own sworn testimony to the Saville Inquiry. Am I crazy, or has this been ignored in reporting on the trial?

by ParliamentOfRookies

15 comments

  1. I don’t think the question is did Soldier F shoot those people, the question was it murder, and that was not proven.

  2. Could be mistaken as I didn’t follow the trial as close as some. But, i am fairly sure statements and testimonials from the inquiry weren’t allowed to be used in court due to basically every witness perjuring and lying themselves in to knots across different interviews.

  3. In 2003, Soldier F admitted to shooting four people. The BBC article from the time can be found here: [Soldier admits killing fourth man](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/3158156.stm) and the full transcript [here](https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20101017063004/http://report.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/transcripts/Archive/Ts376.htm)

    Michael Kelly was 17 years old and shot in the stomach. The other three were all shot in the back. He admitted to killing them (though claimed they had been armed).

    These statements were not included as evidence in the recent trial because the Saville Inquiry operated on the premise that no statements would be used in criminal prosecutions, as a way to encourage testimony. Which is fair enough. It would set a bad precedent to break promises like that. So the verdict reached last week is… technically okay I guess, given that a fair trial can only work with the evidence put before it.

    But I find the reporting around it very weird. The full context, that he 100% did kill several people and admitted doing so, is not included in any of the current BBC articles. Am I crazy? Surely this ought to be included in anything written about the case?

  4. That last sentence is entirely contradictory to the defence considering no such weapon or petrol bomb was found on or anywhere near the people who were murdered.

  5. This is just life for the people of Derry for the last 55 years.

    For those that are not clued up I will provide a short TLDR.

    Soldier F openly admitted that he shot and killed 4 people on Bloody Sunday, 3 of which were shot in the back.

    Saville Report stated that British paratroopers “lost control” fatally shooting fleeing civilians.

    Soldier F recently found not guilty of Murder due evidence falling short of what is required for convictions.

    Basically the military / government still stand by that the people murdered were violent gunmen. If he was to be convicted it would open up the path for his superiors to investigated.

  6. i think a deal was reached where his previous statements could not be used in evidence as they were made without access to a lawyer

  7. Lance corporal David Cleary was and is solider F.

    Just a reminder that we can call him by his real name.

  8. You’re not crazy at all. Most likely, the jury were told to ignore the above.

  9. What people should consider is why the forensic evidence of the explosives tests undertaken on the murder victims remains, but any forensic evidence or paperwork linking Cleary to the rifle which fired the fatal shots doesn’t seem to exist.

  13. For me the most insane part of this is the MOD being able to keep evidence, the rifles, loose evidence, destroy evidence, sell evidence and that whole process in itself not be a criminally liable activity.

    Oops sorry we destroyed key evidence.

    The British state claims legitimacy to arrest and imprison you, put you on trial. That same state claiming everybody born in NI is a British citizen.

    The justice you can expect is… ? Trial and imprisonment for some, willful destruction of evidence for others, protection from imprisonment depending on your politics.

    And the people who talk about IRA people not being put on trial are basically saying that the IRA guys have the same legitimacy as British state officials… Defecto accepting the premise of the IRAs cause as of equivalent legitimacy.

    I mean argue for a troubles amnesty since that’s basically what we have but stop dressing up soldier F as anything other than a partisan actor in a civil war afforded immunity on that basis.

Comments are closed.