10 April 1997 Edition
Loughgall trial finds SAS guilty
A MOCK TRIAL HELD IN Pace University in White Plains New York during March found, ``the Prime Minister of Britain guilty of ordering the murder of nine people in Loughgall on 8 May 1987''. Eight IRA Volunteers and civilian Anthony Hughes were shot dead by the SAS.
Described as a trial by audience, over 60 people were randomly selected as jurors from an attendance of 200 and found by a 98% vote that Britain was also guilty of ``violating international law''.
As reported in AP/RN on 27 February US attorney and member of the Gaelic Law Society Denis Lynch organised the trial in the University Law School and using official inquest evidence cross-examined `witnesses' (law students at the University) in front of a US judge and would be conducted like any other US trial''.
Judge John DiBlasi who serves as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York presided over the case.
As well as using the official inquest evidence, including the witness statements of the SAS soldiers who carried out the nine killings, independent experts in pathology and police tactics testified that actions of SAS soldiers were calculated to kill.
The trial refused to accept the British defence that minimum force was used as, ``trial testimony proved'', according to a statement from Lynch, ``that the British government knew in advance of the planned attack on [Loughgall] RUC barracks ... and security forces (sic) did nothing to prevent the attack or arrest those involved. The independent pathologist, Hiroshi Nakazawa, at the trial established that excessive force was used by SAS forces and evidence of gunfire employed confirmed a shoot-to-kill policy by the SAS''.
Added to this the independent police tactics expert John Madigan stated, ``murder was on their minds that day in Loughgall''.
Speaking to AP/RN Roisin Kelly, whose brother Patrick was killed at Loughgall, said ``the jury found the British guilty on the strength of the evidence presented. This evidence was the official evidence presented at the inquest and as this is the first time the evidence has been seriously contested we feel vindicated that the British were so convincingly found guilty''.
Although the British government was invited to make an opening statement to the trial they refused saying an independent investigation had already been conducted into the killings.
Described as a trial by audience, over 60 people were randomly selected as jurors from an attendance of 200 and found by a 98% vote that Britain was also guilty of ``violating international law''.
As reported in AP/RN on 27 February US attorney and member of the Gaelic Law Society Denis Lynch organised the trial in the University Law School and using official inquest evidence cross-examined `witnesses' (law students at the University) in front of a US judge and would be conducted like any other US trial''.
Judge John DiBlasi who serves as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York presided over the case.
As well as using the official inquest evidence, including the witness statements of the SAS soldiers who carried out the nine killings, independent experts in pathology and police tactics testified that actions of SAS soldiers were calculated to kill.
The trial refused to accept the British defence that minimum force was used as, ``trial testimony proved'', according to a statement from Lynch, ``that the British government knew in advance of the planned attack on [Loughgall] RUC barracks ... and security forces (sic) did nothing to prevent the attack or arrest those involved. The independent pathologist, Hiroshi Nakazawa, at the trial established that excessive force was used by SAS forces and evidence of gunfire employed confirmed a shoot-to-kill policy by the SAS''.
Added to this the independent police tactics expert John Madigan stated, ``murder was on their minds that day in Loughgall''.
Speaking to AP/RN Roisin Kelly, whose brother Patrick was killed at Loughgall, said ``the jury found the British guilty on the strength of the evidence presented. This evidence was the official evidence presented at the inquest and as this is the first time the evidence has been seriously contested we feel vindicated that the British were so convincingly found guilty''.
Although the British government was invited to make an opening statement to the trial they refused saying an independent investigation had already been conducted into the killings.