Claudy Opinion Piece

This piece is taken from a blog called "big mouth bear" the week after the Claudy report.
It is an opinion piece.
Where I publish opinion pieces I will make it absolutely clear

DJM

As the report on the Claudy bombing was released last week by the NI Police Ombudsman, it became clear that some collusion had taken place between the UK Government and the Roman Catholic church to cover for the alleged perpetrator of the bombing, a Father James Chesney, by colluding in moving him to Donegal in the Republic.


Everything about the report, and its release is symptomatic of the apathetic approach to justice for victims of the IRA, and other Republican terror groups.


The report itself, while clearly implicating the blame for the bombing on Father Chesney, focused most of it’s ire at the RUC, the UK Government, and Willie Whitelaw in particular.

Unlike other reports by the authorities, this was primarily set up as an investigation in to the failure of the RUC to bring the bomber to justice, so that’s the slant underpinning the whole investigation.


It should be noted, that the report, in total, amounts to 28 pages.


To put that in perspective, the Saville Enquiry document to Bloody Sunday is 5,000 pages.


This report does not have the same gravitas, political will or intent as the Bloody Sunday Enquiry, as the killer of innocent citizens did so in the name of the IRA.


“In correspondence with those personally affected by the Claudy bombings, the Police Ombudsman’s Office explained that the Office’s statutory powers were limited to the investigation of alleged criminality or misconduct by police officers and not by the Government, Security Agencies or the Catholic Church.”


The report gets off to a shocking start


“The investigation of the Claudy bombings was based at Victoria RUC Station,


Derry/Londonderry. The original papers from that investigation cannot be


located.”


It does then, however, state


"However, the original Inquest file, compiled from the police investigation, was


recovered and found to contain the following documents:


• A covering report written by the police officer leading the original


investigation;


• Typed witness statements in deposition form;


• Crime scene maps.


In addition, the following material was also recovered:


• Crime scene photographs;


• Original RUC Occurrence Books from Claudy and Dungiven Police


Stations recording daily incidents affecting policing for the relevant period.”






What this report DOES have in common with the Saville Report, is a clear picture of diabolical policing


“In 1972 the style and colour of the vehicle described were not common in


Northern Ireland. A person, referred to as Man A, who owned a similar car,


was arrested by police during the first week of August 1972 on suspicion of


involvement in the Claudy bombings. At interview he denied being involved,


stating that on the morning of the bombs he had been at the Bellaghy


Parochial House with a close relative and Father Chesney. Police records


indicate that both Father Chesney and a third party corroborated his alibi and


that Man A was released following interview. According to the documentation


he later left the country and was never re-arrested or charged.”






“The Police Ombudsman has established, from a document dated August


1972, that police assessed that Man A’s alibi had been prepared in advance


and that Father Chesney was involved in the bombing of Claudy. No


documented reason or rationale was found, which might have explained


and/or supported this assessment. The author of this document is deceased.”






“Police Officer 1, a Detective Sergeant, Special Branch, who had participated


in interviews of Man A during the 1972 police enquiry, told the Police


Ombudsman’s investigation that at the time of Man A’s interview his team


suspected Father Chesney of involvement in the Claudy bombings.”


The report then details some of the RUC intelligence used in the original investigation:






“The Police Ombudsman’s investigation has examined all the RUC


Intelligence gathered in respect of Father Chesney, which is now held by the


PSNI. The material originated from a variety of sources including witnesses,


police officers, terrorist suspects and informants.”


“Intelligence from August 1972 identified Father Chesney as the Quarter


Master and Director of Operations of the South Derry Provisional Irish


Republican Army (IRA). During the same month other police reports alleged


that Father Chesney had directed the Claudy bombings and that both he and


Man A were involved in other terrorist incidents.”






“In September 1972 a police Intelligence report stated that Man A was a


member of the IRA and referred to Intelligence of his direct participation in


acts of terrorism, including the bombing of Claudy, adding that his car had


been used by those responsible to leave the scene of the crime.”






“Intelligence in October 1972 alleged that Father Chesney had formed an


‘independent’ group of the IRA and that, in another operation by the security


forces, he had assisted Man A to evade arrest in September 1972. The report


made no reference to any intention to arrest Father Chesney”






“In the months following the bombing of Claudy, Police Officer 1 submitted


Intelligence reports. The officer told the Police Ombudsman’s investigation


that in these reports he had connected Father Chesney with the atrocity. The


officer said that the reports had alleged that the priest was a leading member


of an active IRA Unit, responsible for bombings in South Londonderry/Derry.


He confirmed that the reports had included related Intelligence. The Detective


recalled that he had wanted to have Father Chesney arrested and the


Parochial House searched but that his request had been refused by Police


Officer 3, ACC Special Branch , who had advised that ‘matters are in hand’.”






Additional items of Intelligence originating from 1972 and 1973 were also


found to be consistent with the assessment that the RUC had Intelligence,


which both directly and indirectly linked Father Chesney with the Claudy


bombings.


There are further references to suspicions and intelligence with regards to Chesney, but the report is now getting to the inferences of tip toeing around Chesney, presumably because he was a Priest., and where the words “cover up” spring to mind.






“On 30 November 1972 Police Officer 3 wrote to the NIO stating;


‘For some time I have been considering what action, if any, could be taken to


render harmless a dangerous priest, Father Chesney, who is leading an


I.R.A. Unit in South Derry………I attach a précis of the intelligence on Father


Chesney and suggest that our masters may find it possible to bring the


subject into any conversations they may be having with the Cardinal or


Bishops at some future date..…..’






At this point you think this is not going to be normal police investigation. So far, they have intelligence specific enough to not only arrest Chesney, but charge him, but are all escalating through channels of power



“The letter appears to have been designed to prompt the NIO to raise with the


Cardinal or Bishops of the Catholic Church the issue of Father Chesney’s


alleged involvement in terrorism. The Police Ombudsman has viewed a


précis of Intelligence which was forwarded to the NIO. This information is


believed to have been shared with Cardinal William Conway by the then


Secretary of State, Rt. Hon. William Whitelaw. The document referred to


Father Chesney’s alleged involvement in specific acts of terrorism, including


the Claudy bombings, and to a positive sniffer (dog) check for traces of


explosives in his car when he was stopped at a RUC Checkpoint in


September 1972.”


NIO is the Northern Ireland Office. This is not a copper asking a Sergeant for advice, this is the RUC asking the politicians what to do



This is where it really does get disgusting. This is the reply to the letter

“In response to this correspondence the NIO wrote to Police Officer 3 on 6


December 1972;


‘Many thanks for your note on Father Chesney. You will be relieved to hear


that Secretary of State(William Whitelaw) saw the Cardinal privately on 5 December and gave


him a full account of his disgust at Chesney’s behaviour. The Cardinal said


that he knew that the priest was a very bad man and would see what could


be done. The Cardinal mentioned the possibility of transferring him to


Donegal.’”






It doesn’t get any better. The Chief of the RUC agrees:


“The letter of 6 December was then circulated to a number of senior police


officers, including the then Chief Constable of the RUC, Sir Graham


Shillington. Next to his initials dated 11 December 1972, on a note attached


to the document, was written; ‘Seen. I would prefer a transfer to Tipperary’.


The correspondence was further endorsed ‘file off’.”


The report goes on


"The Police Ombudsman’s investigation has confirmed from records made


available by the Catholic Church, including the diaries of Cardinal William


Conway, that the Secretary of State, Rt. Hon. William Whitelaw, met with the


Cardinal on 5 December 1972.






The records indicate that Cardinal Conway maintained a working relationship


with the Secretary of State, with whom he and other church leaders


periodically had meetings. On 5 December 1972 there was a pre-arranged


meeting to discuss a government paper on the future of Northern Ireland.


The detail contained within the diaries of the Cardinal confirms that the


Secretary of State shared sensitive information with him in a private


discussion outside the formal meeting, about which he recorded;


‘……rather disturbing tete-a-tete at the end about C’.






Now, this is hardly the most detailed piece of evidence in a mass murder enquiry, but it goes on…


In an almost text book cover up, apparently sanctioned by the UK Government Chesney distanced himself from the atrocity

An entry dated Sunday 4 February 1973 in Cardinal Conway’s diary referred


to another meeting with the Secretary of State;


‘I began by referring to a certain person about whom he had spoken to me. I


said I had spoken to his Superior who had challenged him and he


strenuously denied the charge. The Superior had also got a colleague to


speak to him alone in the hope that he might confide in him, but here also he


had strenuously denied. The most he was prepared to admit was that he had


transported some people and this might explain the traces in the boot of the


car. I told him how I had come to know of this before he spoke to me. The


Superior however had given him orders to stay where he was on sick leave


until further notice. He seemed pleased with this’.






The Police Ombudsman has been unable to determine to whom Cardinal


Conway was referring as Father Chesney’s ‘Superior’. As a priest of the


Diocese of Derry, Father Chesney could only be removed or transferred from


his post at Bellaghy by the Bishop of Derry. The Catholic Church has


explained that Cardinal Conway had no direct ecclesiastical jurisdiction over


Father Chesney."


Why was the Ombudsman unable to determine this fact? The Bishop of Derry at the time of the meeting was Neil Farren, who resigned 2 months after the meeting, to be replaced by Edward Daly.


This is even reported in the BBC’s report of the publication of the investigation.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11058002


The Ombudsman found no further written evidence of the discussion between Whitelaw and Conway.


What follows is a number of references to letters and communication from Police Officers 3 and 4 to and from RUC HQ and Special Branch implicating Chesney, and requesting further action be taken.


Oddly, the communications appear to be between the two sections of the Police force both wishing Chesney arrested, but still no action is taken?


You get the overriding feeling that something in this investigation has been removed, or edited, or that there was just a lack of any genuine will or intent to uncover a situation where an alleged IRA man was allowed to cross the border away from justice, with the apparent full support of the RC Church and NOI and UK Government.


Why?


Were the Government sold a puppy that the “war” in 1972 would escalate, or threatened by the church in some way?


The whole document appears to be a superficial nod to an event without so much as a few simple questions asked and followed up.


How was so much vital evidence “lost”?

Why is Claudy worth 28 pages and Bloody Sunday 5,000?


The full report, is not very easily accessible, but can be found on the Belfast Telegraph website.


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00336/Claudy_336403a.pdf