|
Previous: Andersonstown
News – Martin Ingram |
Next: Mr.
Metcalfe, M’lud |
As said in the list of contents: “4) Document
entitled ‘Smithwick Tribunal Statement by Ian Hurst’. A critique of a 20 page
submission to the Smithwick Tribunal, dated June 2011, which I have selectively
borrowed from and juxtaposed against previously published claims by Martin
Ingram,
My ‘reply’ was composed on 22 September 2011, soon
after the statement was put aloft on the Internet.”
Emphasis, where used, is mine.
*
(www.stakeknife.eu)
Twitter: @seankellyis
(9)
*
IAN HURST SMITHWICK
TRIBUNAL STATEMENT
(Contrasted With Previous
Claims)
1) The Sunday Times, 08.08.99 – By Liam Clarke (P6): “Martin Ingram was on night shift at the British
military intelligence headquarter in Northern Ireland when one of the phones
rang. It was the hotline – a number
known only to and reserved for Britain’s most cherished agent, a man
known by the codename Steak Knife. Steak Knife was and is
the crown jewel of British intelligence in Ulster, a man at the heart of
the IRA’s war effort who had to be kept happy at all costs. His source reports were read by ministers. His
output was and remains so prolific that two handlers and four collators work full time on
them.
“His identity is a matter of
national security but the RUC sergeant on the other end of the line just blurted
it out. ‘We have just arrested a Mr. Padraic Pearse [not his real name] and he
gave us this number to contact. He says he works for a man called Paddy.’
Giving the cover name of a military intelligence handler. Steak Knife had just
played his ‘get out of jail free’ card…
“Ingram was appalled that the RUC had forced Steak Knife into this position.
‘I will never reveal the identity of any agent but that is how easily it can
come out,’ he said. It was not the first or last time the RUC, whose special branch
is well aware of the IRA man’s double role, had approached a key agent it was
desperate to poach from the army. ‘They told him they would expose him unless
he worked for them, they put out arrest-on-sight warrants, they accused him of
holding information back. They even sweet-talked him but they couldn’t match
the money we were giving him and couldn’t make him trust them…’”
2) Stakeknife –
“Whilst Sam telephoned those
responsible for the running of Stakeknife, seeking instructions, I
kept the desk sergeant occupied on the phone. Throughout that evening I
helped out in the office, running errands for the posse of FRU officers and
handlers who had returned to their offices to deal with the developing
situation. The RUC desk sergeant confirmed the identity of the arrested man
as Frederick or Freddie Scappaticci; he
was requested to avoid doing anything which would highlight the identity of the
individual he had in [P63] custody. The name Scappaticci was not known
to me in the context of the Troubles at that time. In truth, both Sam and I
were curious – it was in our natures. We were trained to be nosy, to find
things out we weren’t supposed to, and
we were both delighted that we were allowed and trusted to remain in the
background whilst a crisis was managed.
“Once Scappaticci had been
safely released from RUC custody without charge and the handlers had left the
offices, we ran his name through the intelligence computer system 3702. His
name and his activities were clearly recorded. He was identified as being
closely involved in the running of the IRA’s feared internal security unit and
being linked to the IRA’s Northern Command. It was clear to Sam and me that
this was a heavy-duty source at the highest echelons of the Provisional IRA. We
knew even then that to have a mole inside the Provos’ own security unit was a
massive coup. Sam and I were summoned the following day to a meeting with the
operation [sic] officer FRU and told to keep the secret of Stakeknife’s
identity. At the time, both of us were frankly out of our depth, unaware why
the operation [sic] officer was anxious over and above normal concerns for the
source’s welfare. This was, however, to change.
“Over the next few years I became friendly with one of Stakeknife’s
primary handlers, a man that I will call ‘Andy’ [‘Handy Andy’?]. Andy
and myself were keen footballers, playing
for both the local unit and in many five-a-side competitions held on Thiepval
barracks. Andy was aware that I knew the identity of his agent and was
open with me concerning Stakeknife and his activities, although careful to paint Stakeknife in a positive light.
“I believe Andy knew even as
early as the mid-1980s that this case would come back to haunt not only him
[P64] but the FRU as a unit. On occasions when I suggested he be careful, he
intimated that the paperwork generated would not accurately reflect much of the
agent’s activities, certainly not the aspects that were clearly illegal.”
[Thiepval barracks, HQ
British Army Northern Ireland, and HQ FRU, is in Lisburn, Co. Antrim.]
3) Ian Hurst Statement to Smithwick Tribunal of Inquiry (June 2011) – PP 15-17 “I first became aware of
Mr. Scappaticci by accident. 121 Int Cell provided out-of-hours telephone cover
for HQ FRU (ie FRU based in Thiepval as opposed to the regions). One early evening I was on duty
completing a project for my desk officer, the other person present was Sam Southam who was on 121 silent
hour’s duty operator, when a call came in from Donegal [sic] Pass RUC station.
Sam answered the [P16] phone. The RUC officer said that Alfredo Scappaticci had been arrested for drunk-driving and
had requested a call to this number. He
asked who we were. Sam explained that this was the military in
Thiepval. Sam was aware that this was a major problem and passed the phone to
me so that he could contact the [sic] Mr
Colin Parr Commanding Officer FRU CO [sic]. I spoke to the RUC officer
and asked him not to do anything for the moment. The (CO) [sic] asked us to tell the RUC that he would be with them
as soon as possible. He collected the Ops Officer and went to Donegal [sic]
Pass. We were told that we should forget what had happened and make no
record of it. The next day we were called before the FRU Operations Officer
(Ops Officer) Mr Anthony J Greenfield
and it was very nicely made clear that this incident should not be referred to,
even between ourselves.
“Freddie Scappaticci was Mr
Owen Corrigan’s handler. I started to make a connection between Scappaticci and
Corrigan when I saw several reports, my friend and colleague, David Moyles put bones on the flesh
[sic] of the reports. Moyles was Scappaticci’s long-term handler and he
confirmed my suspicions. This was sometime after 1987 when I returned to FRU
(W) as a handler and Dave Moyle’s [sic] had also returned to HQNI FRU rat
hole. Moyle’s [sic] knew that I was one of the few people outside HQNI
FRU who knew the identity of Stakeknife and was comfortable discussing most
aspects of his Agent. This practice of discussing other Handlers and offices agents was not encouraged but in the real world that happened all
the time and it was recognised the Intelligence Corps needed a social club bar
with membership/access restricted to Intelligence Corps/FRU and police – the
bar was called the Green Fly. I had known Mr Moyle’s [sic] since 1980 and
considered him a friend professionally and socially and a person I would play
football with on at least weekly basis whilst in Northern Ireland. In 2000
I met the Stevens team on three occasions. On the first occasion I met Vince McFadden, Ken Woodward and other [P17] senior
police officers at Heathrow police station. I was cautioned and had a taped
interview regarding Brian Nelson and the FRU in general including a classified
document handling protocol etc at the end of meetings which I signed a
statement. I was not allowed a copy of the statement by the police. This
interview was to discuss [Brian] Nelson. During a break in the interview, Vince
McFadden and I went for a walk around the car park to get some fresh air.
He then engaged me on a number of subjects relating to Scappaticci, one of
which related to rogue Gardaí. Another related to Tom Oliver and Mr.
Notarantonio [sic].
“I told him that I knew that
he had meetings with rogue Gardaí. I
told him that I knew this from David Moyles. I can say with absolute clarity that Mr.
McFadden raised Mr. Scappaticci with me in the context of him being an agent. I believe that he was trying
to ascertain the extent of any damage and it
was my firm belief that he
knew that Scappaticci was the agent
known as Steak Knife. After we went
back in the taped interview began
again and dealt with other topics concerning loyalism. Sir Hugh
Order [sic] was present at the second meeting held at the Heathrow police
station along with Mr McFadden, Mr Woodward and a couple of others. There was a
pep talk chat given by Sir Hugh Orde and he assured me that Lord [sic] Stevens
was intending to deal with the Scappaticci issue and Sir Hugh Orde wanted me
to give his team of detectives every assistance and assured me he was serious
in wanting to investigate the Scappaticci case. He made it crystal clear that he knew
all about Steak Knife and Scappaticci but he needed handlers details
in case paperwork went missing in a similar way Steven [sic] 1 and Stevens 2
investigations was frustrated due to delayed disclosure. Sir Hugh mentioned
the question of rogue Gardai and I brought up Corrigan’s name. Sir Hugh was
present at the Heathrow meeting for about 45 minutes.”
*****
Note:
1) The Sunday Times, 08.08.99 - (P6) “Martin Ingram was on night shift at the British military intelligence
headquarters in
2) Stakeknife – Britain’s Secret Agents in Ireland
(2004) - (P62) “I first became
aware of [Stakeknife’s] activities in the early 1980’s. One evening during 1982
whilst visiting the office at
Headquarters Northern Ireland, a
telephone call on a source telephone, a
dedicated line for agents.”
3) Ian Hurst Statement to Smithwick Tribunal of
Inquiry (June 2011) – (P15) “I
first became aware of Mr Scappaticci by accident. 121 Int Cell provided
out-of-hours telephone cover for HQ FRU (ie FRU based in Thiepval as opposed to
the regions). One early evening I was on duty completing a project for my desk officer.”
*
Number one above: “Ingram was on night shift
at the British military intelligence headquarters in Northern Ireland.” He was
on “night shift”.
Number two above: “One evening during 1982 whilst visiting
the office at Headquarters Northern…” He was “visiting” the office.
Number three above: “I first became aware of Mr. Scappaticci by accident. 121 Int Cell
provided out-of-hours telephone cover for HQ FRU... One early evening I was on
duty completing a project for my
desk officer.” He was doing a “project”.
*
I have a feeling that this
project has a lot in common with his claimed Bloody Sunday project which he
supposedly embarked on shortly after taking up a position with 121 Int Cell,
that would become an essential of his evidence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry.
The trouble is, nobody else appeared to know about it.
*
In 1999, Mr Ingram is on night shift; in 2003-4 he is paying a visit; in 2011 he is doing a project. The shifting sands of
story telling.
*
1) The Sunday Times, 08.08.1999 - By Liam Clarke (P6) “…when one of the phones rang.
It was the hotline – a number known only to and reserved for Britain’s most
cherished agent, a man known only by the codename Steak Knife. Steak Knife was
and is the crown jewel of British intelligence in Ulster, a man at the heart of
the IRA’s war effort who had to be kept happy at all costs. His source
reports were read by ministers. His
output was, and remains, so prolific that two handlers and four collators work
full-time on them.”
2) The Sunday Times, 10.09.2000 - By Liam Clarke (P8) “As the [Stevens] inquiry
progresses it comes ever closer to the most sensitive of all secrets of the
Troubles – the long term moles placed by British military intelligence in the
IRA. The key figure is a man known to his handlers as Steak Knife, an agent since
the early 1970’s who is so highly
placed that an entire office and a fleet of vehicles is devoted to handling
him.”
*
Item 1 is dated 8 August
1999, sixteen months after the Good Friday agreement, so much for he who was
“at the heart of the IRA’s war effort… [whose] output was, and remains,
so prolific that two handlers and four collators work full time on them.” Item
2, 10 September 2000, extends this sham with the claim of Steak Knife being “so
highly placed that an entire office and a fleet of vehicles is devoted to
handling him.”
Some reports read by me said
Scappaticci was largely defunct as an IRA operative for years prior to the 1998
Good Friday agreement. Claims by The Sunday
Times apart, one sees no evidence “that an entire office and a fleet of
vehicles”, “two handlers and four collators” were devoted to handling the
alleged “crown jewel of British intelligence in Ulster.”
A more prosaic view is that
they did not exist.
The same September 2000
report, while saying an “entire office…[is] devoted to handling [Steak Knife]”,
failed to call it the “rat hole”. In light of what is in the “19 September 2013
insertion” below, perhaps an enlightening omission?
Also, the further along the
trail Ingram goes the more fragile his Stakeknife tale becomes. In efforts to
make up for past inconsistencies, the telling becomes increasingly implausible.
Being from
They are well versed in how
to spin.
With history as a guide, MI5
had every reason to believe the media would comfort them with a minimum of embarrassing
questions. Was that expectation in part due to the realisation that fearless
investigative journalism is a near dead science in newspapers – too expensive
and too much like a dirty word?
And unlikely to non-existent
in matters to do with secret state.
So instead editor’s accept
leaks which they call “scoops” that allow sensational headlines and creative
writing on behalf of perverse national security agendas. Forgetting to whom
their first duty is due: truth and the people who buy their newspapers.
Don’t our servant-masters
know well their friends?
Close your eyes and
visualise one of FRUs fleet of vehicles, tyres screeching as it races out of
Thiepval barracks, a side van logo of a knife slicing through a raw cut of sirloin,
blood oozing onto the plate, as it pursues a rendezvous with agent Stakeknife.
Tongue-in-cheek, yes. But
what else was the Stakeknife story?
Pulp fiction carrying an MI5
imprimatur passed on at a classic remove to a media quick to suspend critical
judgement for a handout with an “exclusive” label to it. An enigmatic design
with implications favourable and otherwise for those touched by its many
tentacles.
Poisoned meat that found
many a welcoming taker.
*
The Sunday Times, 08.08.99 – “[Stakeknife’s] identity is a matter of national
security but the RUC sergeant on the other end of the phone just blurted it
out. ‘We have just arrested a Mr. Padraic Pearse [not his real name] and he
gave us this number to contact. He says he works for a man called
Paddy…’ giving the cover name of a military intelligence handler. Steak Knife
had just played his ‘get out of jail free’ card and was released a few hours
later. Ingram was appalled that the
RUC had forced Steak Knife into this position…”
Taking the story at face
value, my reading of it is that Scappaticci, long before being falsely branded
agent Stakeknife, was arrested and brought in for questioning because he was
caught driving while over the drink limit, and having no “Steak Knife” label
around his neck he was just another name to the RUC sergeant who had no cause
to “just blurt” anything out. The police officer put no one at risk and Ingram
had no reason to be “appalled” for anything other than hopeless story telling.
His 2004 Stakeknife book claims Scappaticci was arrested for “drink driving”. Seven years
later, in his statement to the Smithwick Tribunal, it is called “drunk driving”.
A real agent would stay mum
and not risk drawing attention to himself. Even if an agent Stakeknife existed
and was arrested for drink driving, what price a fine to a man earning a
“tax-free £50,000-£60,000 a year with lavish bonuses”?
Extending this principle,
why should a man who is chasing 70, if guilty as accused of being a British intelligence
agent, be relentlessly pursuing the cause of clearing his name, including
within a corrupt British court system, and not enjoying his supposed fortune of
over £3million in silent and comfortable seclusion somewhere?
The power of secret state to
abuse knows no end and obliged to the lie must live it out in tribunals and
elsewhere. By proxy, the shadow state perjures itself before the “sovereign”
people whom they hold in contempt.
“[Stakeknife’s] identity is a matter of national
security.” So much so, no one it seems was sure how to spell his codename, knew
his agent number, knew his real forename; and MI5 using surrogates couldn’t
wait to expose their £3million
investment to the glare of public scrutiny.
To quote a once well known comic-cut character:
“Daft I call it!”
*
Thursday 19 September
2013 insertion:
Face one.
Going further on the point of “[Stakeknife’s]
identity is a matter of national security”, I borrow from the transcript of the
Smithwick Tribunal hearing relating to the evidence of Witness 82, a former
Force Research Unit agent handler. Justin Dillon SC questioning for the
tribunal.
805 Q. “And I think you know what the ‘rat hole’
refers to?
A. “Yes.”
806 Q. “It is the unit that dealt with an agent called
‘Stakeknife’, isn’t that correct?
A. “Correct.”
844 Q. “…Now, I think it is the case that, as one of
your functions in the army, you handled an agent called ‘Stakeknife’?
A. “Correct.”
848 Q. “And just to put an end to this issue, you
may not and cannot and will not identify ‘Stakeknife’, isn’t that right?’
A. “That’s correct. I am forbidden by law.”
Smithwick Tribunal Day 93 (transcript from Friday 20
April 2012 closed session read into the record Wednesday 25 April 2012) – Doyle
Court Reporters.
Note: “Forbidden by law”. Yet not forbidden to
allege he was the handler of alleged agent “Stakeknife” whose identity was
widely reported and alleged by his former FRU colleague and previous Smithwick
Tribunal witness Ian Hurst to be Freddie Scappaticci.
A classic tails I win, heads everybody else loses
formula of words.
A typical British abuse of language which was
allowed to fly at an Irish tribunal. The “rat hole” was, if at all functionally
used, no more than a colloquial term for a nerve centre given to the management
of intelligence – including the running of agents – and not a dedicated unit
for a mythical informer as MI5-FRU dissemblers would have us believe.
I add a qualification. I do not know when the “rat
hole” designation first came into play. I have no memory of its use in the
initial years of “Steak Knife” newspaper reporting.
A consideration that may give cause to question its
veracity.
Face two
The Stakeknife story didn’t jump out of the bag in
one great leap. It was trailed in newspaper reports from August 1999 with leaks
and turns added over the years to when we arrive at the day the world learned
who the face behind the mask was – Sunday 11 May 2003.
It was to be sure a big surprise for the republican
movement to be told it was Freddie Scappaticci, a man of high standing in their
ranks.
The person most surprised was, I suspect, Mr.
Scappaticci himself when on that fateful Sunday morning he went for his
newspaper to find he was infamous and didn’t know it, notwithstanding a visit
to his house by a journalist from The People newspaper the night before.
A timed disclosure, primarily presaged by combined
reporting in the Sunday Herald (Glasgow) and The Sunday Tribune (Dublin) on
dates 4th and 11th May 2003 – with an 18th May
follow-up. An in-concert two-pronged pan Irish Sea tactical assault.
The Sunday Herald 4 May
2003 – By Neil Mackay. “Agent to hit out by
naming top IRA mole – Former soldier [‘Kevin Fulton’] makes threat after MoD
backtracks on pay-off deal…”
The Sunday Tribune 4
May 2003 – “Top British IRA spy may be named this
week – Former IRA informer ‘Kevin Fulton’ threatens to name the British Army’s
agent ‘Stakeknife’…”
The Sunday Herald 11
May 2003 – By
Neil Mackay. “Named: British double agent who murdered for the IRA – Top Provo
executioner was paid £80,000 [a year] by British government…”
The Sunday Tribune 11
May 2003 – “Named: the British double agent who
murdered for the IRA…”
Wasn’t the “big bang bullshit” form of disclosure a
resounding success? Almost all media outlets ran with the state story.
However, almost
wasn’t good enough for some. Not everything went according to plan. A few,
very few, sceptical journalists posed inconvenient questions. But there was no
follow-up
(Were they spoken to?)
And Scappaticci didn’t play ball, he rejected the
state-media allegations and refused to take flight. More turns of the screw
were needed.
The Sunday Herald 18
May 2003 – By Neil Mackay. (Online) “LAST weekend,
the Sunday Herald exclusively broke the story that Freddie Scappaticci was ‘Stakeknife’
– the double-agent inside the IRA. Stakeknife took part in murders to keep his
cover, and in the execution of IRA informers as a member of the Provos’
Internal Security Unit. Innocent people died and the whole Stakeknife operation
may have cost up to 40 lives.
“Since we broke the story, there has been a
worldwide media feeding frenzy. There has been claim and counter claim, lies,
spin and black propaganda. Security sources for a wide variety of UK media
outlets, from BBC to The Guardian, have confirmed that Scappaticci was indeed
Stakeknife, but Scappaticci has denied everything.
“It is certainly true that lies are being told about
this story. The government and the republican movement do not want this
information revealed. There are hidden agendas at play, which no journalist can
fully uncover.
“There is a real risk that many claims are being
spun or twisted in order to further a British or republican agenda.
“This week we can lay at least some of those lies to
rest. Here an intelligence officer from the Force Research Unit, the shadowy
wing of the British army which runs agents, admits he was Stakeknife’s handler.
He also categorically says Scappaticci was Stakeknife. The FRU officer also
justifies using agents like Stakeknife in the ‘dirty war’ claiming more lives
were saved than lost. Many will disagree with these views, but it is important
that they are brought into the public domain and discussed as they explain the
motivation of British intelligence.
“The Handler: So Freddie Scappaticci says he’s not
Stakeknife, the British Amy’s most prized double agent at the very heart of the
IRA. He says the Sunday Herald, which broke the story, and The Sunday Tribune,
the Sunday People and the Sunday World, which published similar revelations in
Ireland, are all lying.
“What’s odd – baffling even – about his claim is
that on Thursday, the Sunday Herald sat down for a 10-hour interview with a member of the
Force Research Unit, the ultra-secret wing of the British army’s Intelligence
Corp[s] which runs agents in Ireland, and spoke to an intelligence officer who
regularly met, debriefed and ran Stakeknife as a British agent. This handler –
military parlance for an Army officer who controls agents – is 100% categoric
that the man codenamed Stakeknife was and is Freddie Scappaticci. ‘Scap is
Stakeknife and Stakeknife is Scap,’ he said. ‘It’s as simple as that.’”
(Etcetera.)
“The government and the republican movement do not
want this information revealed.” The writer then proceeds to offload on his
readers a plethora of claims through the good offices of a FRU handler – a
state agent. Ah, the “government” did want the information revealed.
Why?
The Sunday Tribune 18
May 2003 – “’Scap is Stakeknife…Stakeknife is Scap’ Stakeknife’s handler in British intelligence is adamant that the double
agent and Freddie Scappaticci are the same man. What’s more, the officer says,
Sinn Fein is backing Scappaticci’s claims because he has enough on some
prominent people to ruin them.
“SO Freddy [sic] Scappaticci says he is not
Stakeknife, the British army’s most prized double agent at the very heart of
the IRA. He says The Sunday Tribune in Ireland and The Sunday Herald in
Scotland which broke this story along with the Sunday People and the Sunday World,
which published similar revelations, are all lying.
“What’s odd – baffling even – about his claim is
that on Thursday, a senior member of the Force Research Unit, the ultra-secret
wing of the British army’s Intelligence Corp[s] which runs agents in Ireland,
an officer who regularly met, debriefed and ran Stakeknife as a British agent
sat down for a 10-hour interview which completely contradicted the assertions
of Freddie Scappaticci.
”This handler – military parlance for an army
officer who controls agents – is 100% categoric that the man codenamed
Stakeknife was and is Freddy [sic] Scappaticci. ‘Scap is Stakeknife and
Stakeknife is Scap,’ he said.”
“The British army’s most prized double agent.” Do
you believe that?
He was so esteemed that MI5-MoD sanctioned a
“10-hour interview” by a stated FRU handler with the Sunday Herald to throw him
to the wolves, this in breach of every protocol governing agent management
throughout the intelligence world, east and west. The handler could only have
executed this duty with the connivance or explicit authority of those national
security interests he served, principally the Security Service and the Ministry
of Defence.
Not content with putting the boot in on its news
pages, The Sunday Tribune ran an editorial, which I will introduce: “’Scap is Stakeknife no matter how
much the IRA and British deny it - SCAP is
Stakeknife and Stakeknife is Scap.’ So says the secret agent who handled the
former IRA enforcer…”
Every time I read that editorial, I metaphorically
blink. As some legal eagles would put it, “It’s outrageous!” So it is.
How did it come about for the newspaper to give
itself so lustily to the lie and do so without fear of consequence?
Further the British didn’t deny it, au contraire,
they through agents and agencies of state poured petrol on the fire.
This to impel Scappaticci in the protection of life
to do a runner, which in time they managed. With him out of the way and under
wraps they could more plausibly control and dissemble to all and sundry.
What fate befell “Stakey’s” FRU handler after his
10-hours Sunday Herald interview, in which he disclosed that Scappaticci was
Stakeknife, which is “forbidden by law”? Ten years in the “glass house”
(military prison), or worse?
No. He was more likely mentioned in dispatches for helping out the gaffer (MI5) at a
difficult time.
Contrast the newspaper interview of “Stakeknife’s
handler” with the evidence given at the Smithwick Tribunal by “Stakeknife’s
handler”. They represent polar opposites.
To refresh. When asked by Justin Dillon SC for the
Tribunal: “And just to put an end to this issue, you may not and cannot and
will not identify ‘Stakeknife’, isn’t that right?”
Answer: “That’s correct. I am forbidden by law.”
On first reading of those sentences, I gave a spontaneous
burst of laughter. Subsequent readings caused me to smile. Then anger crept in.
Invite a liar to lie and he will oblige.
Also, why apply a positive to a negative situation
when it is amenable through reason and evidence to be easily defined and challenged?
Is the dictum, “Let justice be done though the
heavens fall” now without force or value? Made meaningless by higher national
interests?
Is there a statute that says intelligence agencies
are not accountable - in law - or otherwise?
One final question. Could the two alleged “handlers
of ‘Stakeknife’” – Mr. Chalk and Mr. Cheese – be the same person?
ADDENDUM:
In re-reading initial (1999-2000) reports on “Steak
Knife” I found no mention of the “rat hole”. If there be truth in its
existence, and by corollary, the agent, surely such an eye-catching literary
phrase would have jumped out and been used by Liam Clarke of The Sunday Times,
and made much of by story teller Martin Ingram?
While I cannot be sure when the rat hole term first
came into play, it was in the vocabulary from May 2003. The failure to employ
it at the outset, and in the interim, as earlier said, may give cause to
question its veracity.
An omission of use that was applicable to other top
name security writers and media outlets apart from Liam Clarke and The Sunday
Times.
Was its introduction a belated counter to a
perceived deficiency in the Stakeknife lie and/or a design to add more colour
to the tale?
It merited inclusion in the Sunday Herald-Sunday
Tribune reports of 18 May 2003 , as touched on above, and
further mentioned in two books which coincidentally received pre-publication
newspaper serialisation in the month of February 2004.
The books are the already much cited Stakeknife - Britain’s Secret Agents
in Ireland, by Martin Ingram & Greg Harkin; the
other title, Dead Men
Talking, by Nicholas Davies.
From the former book, P141: “At about the same time, Freddie
Scappaticci called one of his handlers, who we will call ’David’, working in the
special unit set up solely to handle their best agent. The
‘Rat Hole’, a self-contained building dedicated to Stakeknife, was located away
from prying eyes in Thiepval Barracks, the British Army’s headquarters in
Northern Ireland.”
From the latter book, P81: “To maintain the secrecy
surrounding their top agent’s identity, a set of rooms was built
below ground in one of the headquarter buildings which housed the Force
Research Unit, that part of Military Intelligence who ‘ran’ Steak Knife. Only a
restricted number of senior NCOs, warrant officers and senior officers were
ever permitted entry, and the room was not only guarded on a
permanent 24-hour basis but also continually manned. The air-conditioned subterranean
room was nicknamed the ‘Rat
Hole.’”
But Martin Ingram and “Sam”, 121 Intelligence unit sprogs, neither of whom were senior
NCOs, agent handlers or members of FRU at the time (August 1999 recounting) had
sole control of the bunker when - fortuitously - a telephone call from a RUC
sergeant at Donegall Pass barracks came through about a man arrested for drink
driving.
And so it came to be, the Stakeknife myth flapped
its wings and rose into the night sky.
Note on page 141, four paragraphs above, the time
was about 7pm, and no “Martins”, “Sams” or other 121 Intelligence Section
minnows could have been on unsupervised night shift in the “Rat Hole”, for
according to Dead Men Talking the place was too hush-hush and out of bounds to
their lowly rank and status, matters dispensed with if you had need to spin a
yarn. Yet, on another day when another angle was needed, enter the ubiquitous
“David” alleged handler of alleged agent “Steak Knife”, he who was agreeably
dismissive of “need to know” protocols over a pint in the Green Fly bar and
obligingly “put bones on the flesh [sic]” of the Stakeknife reports for
colleague Martin Ingram.
From the confused and convoluted in story telling we
move to the spiritual – I allude to bi-location.
Back again to the Stakeknife book (pp 222-223):
“Ingram saw the files on the Notorantonio killing when working for the FRU.
They were in the Stakeknife files. Ingram says: ‘I read the files which showed
the loyalists were targeting Stakeknife and I discussed it with Stakeknife’s
handler. He confirmed loyalists had picked Scappaticci, among others. I also discussed
it with Nelson’s handler, who said basically that it had been taken care of.
[Nelson’s handler] had told me: ‘A substitute has been put in place. It caused
an almighty flap, but everything is back on track’. This conversation was
before the Notorantonio murder.”
Apart from reading the alleged files of an alleged
agent in a supposed out of bounds “rat hole” on a camp he was never based as a
FRU handler, at a time when he was not yet a qualified junior handler, one
needs reminding that when the events of the Stakeknife book quote took place,
in the months and the years before the 9 October 1987 murder of Francisco
Notorantonio, Martin Ingram was not stationed in Northern Ireland but abroad -
in England or Belize. Short of bi-location the matters he claims an involvement
in could not have taken place.
Both of the above books came about through the
facilitation of FRU sources, this despite it being “forbidden by law”. Each
book would tax the gullibility of its readers, but not it appears the authors.
This group writing by numbers, made possible through
leaks, interviews and press releases to an accomodating media by security
sources, has many historic examples, though maybe not to the equal of the
Stakeknife explosion. A near comparison would be the Brussels Belgium
It was at about the time of the serialisation of the
aforementioned books, February 2004, that Freddie Scappaticci came to accept it
was prudent to leave Northern Ireland
MI5 had won the opening battle. But not yet the
“war”.
*
Ian Hurst Statement to Smithwick Tribunal of Inquiry
(June 2011) – “…One early
evening I was on duty completing a project for my desk officer, the other
person present was Sam Southam who was on 121 silent hour’s duty
operator, when a call came in from Donegal [sic] Pass RUC Station. Sam answered
the phone. The RUC officer said that Alfredo Scappaticci had been
arrested for drunk driving and requested a call to this number. He asked who
we were. Sam explained that this was the military in Thiepval. Sam
was aware that this was a major problem and passed the phone to me so that he
could contact the [sic] Mr Colin Parr, Commanding Officer FRU CO [sic].
I spoke to the RUC officer and asked him not to do anything for the moment. The
(CO) [sic] asked us to tell the RUC that he would be with them as soon as
possible. He collected the Ops Officer and went to Donegal [sic] Pass. We were
told that we should forget what had happened and make no record of it. The next
day we were called before the FRU Operations Officer (Ops Officer) Mr
Anthony J Greenfield and it was nicely made clear that this incident should
not be referred to, even between ourselves.”
*
When giving evidence to the
Bloody Sunday Inquiry Ingram was cautioned not to mention names and where names
were given these were deleted from texts in the claimed interest of national
security and in the protection of the parties involved. Yet, in the above, and
further into the same page where the alleged name of Scappaticci’s “long term
handler” is given, there is a change of emphasis.
As posed in a prior
document: “Was the Public Interest Immunity certificate, a gagging order,
served on the Saville Tribunal by the Secretary of State for Defence in 2003
for the benefit of national security and for the protection of Martin Ingram or
to preclude the possibility of his and other related covert security roles
being disclosed?
“Has the safety interest
subordinated itself to the national interest [in 2011]?”
Is the new found willingness
to throw out names a policy change in the national interest? Skewing away from
a closer look at past positions and attempting to lend substance to the
present?
In 2003, no names was the
order of the day. In 2011, the giving of names is the order of the day.
Why the change?
While on names. In the
Smithwick Inquiry statement is the name “Alfredo” (Scappaticci). Scappaticci’s
forename is Freddie, the name he uses and is known by, according to the man
himself – and he should know. It would seem that Mr Ingram used another handle
simply because he did not know otherwise in May 2003 when Scappaticci’s name
was conjoined to the “Steak Knife” codename and made available to the world in
an explosion of manipulated publicity. If the Stakeknife files existed and were
seen by Ingram, the agent code number would have been lodged within. It seems
Martin Ingram neither knew of Freddie Scappaticci’s forename (from a claimed
reading of the 3702 computer) or the Stakeknife code number (from a claimed
reading of the agent’s files).
The shifting sands of story
telling.
*
Ian Hurst Statement to Smithwick Tribunal of Inquiry
(June 2011) - “One early evening
I was on duty [at Thiepval barracks] completing a project for my desk officer,
the only other person present was Sam Southam who was on 121 silent hours duty
operator when a call came in from Donegal [sic] Pass RUC station. Sam answered
the phone. The RUC officer said that Alfredo Scappaticci had been arrested for
drunk-driving and requested a call to this number. He asked who we were. Sam
explained that this was the military in Thiepval. Sam was aware that this was a
major problem.” Good old Sam went on to round up his commanding officer and the
operations officer, and we are given the names of the two men in question as
proof, damn the security risk. Sam thought big because “this was a major
problem”. How did he know? The supposed RUC officer simply said a man had been
arrested for “drunk driving and requested a call to this number.” There was
nothing in that to alert Sam to the alleged importance of the arrested man. The
police officer didn’t know who he was contacting: he had to ask. Sam had to
tell. Anyrowth, the big chiefs themselves went to Donegall Pass RUC station and
sorted out the problem. So we are told.
All’s well…
*
The Sunday Times, 8 August 1999 – The RUC telephone call was to “a number known only to and reserved for
Britain’s most cherished agent.” The officer says: “‘[H]e works for a
man called Paddy’ – giving the cover name of a military intelligence handler.”
By inference, Paddy did a rescue job and “Steak Knife [was] released a few
hours later.”
We’re not told how Paddy
waved his magic wand.
*
Stakeknife – Britain’s Secret Agents in Ireland
(2004): “One evening during 1982
whilst visiting the office at Headquarters Northern Ireland, a telephone
call on a source telephone, a dedicated
line for agents, was taken by a colleague who was 121 Intelligence
Section duty operator. This operative, whom we shall call ‘Sam’, was, like
myself, inexperienced as an intelligence operative. Sam took the call from an
RUC officer based at Donegall Pass RUC station. The gist of the conversation
was that an individual had been arrested for drink driving and he asked the RUC
desk sergeant to telephone his handlers and alert them to his predicament…”
This time a “posse of FRU
officers and handlers returned to their offices to deal with the developing
situation…Once Scappaticci had been safely released from RUC custody without
charge [and] the handlers left the offices....” That says all was sorted out by
the green slime boys at Thiepval
barracks. No need for the CO and the Ops Officer to go to Belfast, and all
that, as was said in the Smithwick Tribunal statement.
And too the out of bounds to
junior ranks air-conditioned subterranean building, the fleet of vehicles, two
handlers, four collators and the “hotline, a number known only to and reserved
for Britain’s most cherished agent [and housed] in the special unit set up solely
to handle their best agent. The ‘Rat Hole’, a self contained building dedicated
to Stakeknife was located away from prying eyes in Thiepval Barracks.”
A building isolated from
other FRU offices, all because Stakeknife’s creatively constructed super-man
status made him an agent apart.
By holding to that line we
can say that when the telephone call came from Donegall Pass RUC station to the
FRU office and “Sam” and “Martin” were present, it could not have been to the
“Rat Hole”, as “Only a restricted number of senior NCOs, warrant officers and
senior officers were ever permitted entry and the room was not only
guarded on a permanent 24-hour basis but also continually manned.”
So by virtue of rank,
qualification and other protective security considerations the presence of Sam
and Martin was precluded.
Machiavelli alone could
unwind such a Byzantine array of stories with bewildering contradictions. The
dog’s nose came out of its mouth!
*
Ian Hurst Statement to Smithwick Tribunal of Inquiry
(June 2011) – “In 2000 I
met the Stevens [Inquiry] team on three occasions. On the first occasion
I met Vince McFadden, Ken Woodward and other senior [P17] police officers at
Heathrow police station. I was cautioned and had a taped interview regarding Brian Nelson and the FRU in general including classified
document handling protocol etc at the end of meetings which I signed a
statement. I was not allowed a copy of the statement by the police. This
interview was to discuss Nelson. During a break in the interview, Vince
McFadden and I went for a walk round the car park to get some fresh air. He
then engaged me on a number of subjects relating to Scappaticci, one of which
related to rogue Gardaí. Another related to Tom Oliver and Mr. Notarantonio
[sic].
“I told him that I knew that
[Scappaticci] had meetings with rogue Gardaí. I told that I knew this from
David Moyle’s [Scappaticci’s alleged ‘long term’ handler]. I can say with absolute
clarity that Mr
McFadden raised Mr Scappaticci with me in the context of him being an agent.
I believe that he was trying to ascertain the extent of any damage and it
was my firm belief that he knew that Scappaticci was the agent known
as Stake Knife. After we went
back in the taped interview began again and dealt with other topics concerning loyalism. Sir Hugh Order
[sic] was present at the second meeting held at Heathrow police station with Mr
McFadden, Mr Woodward and a couple of others. There was a pep talk chat
given by Sir Hugh Orde and he assured me that Lord [sic] Stevens was intending
to deal with the Scappaticci issue and Sir Hugh Orde wanted me to give
his team of detectives every assistance and assured me he was serious in
wanting to investigate the Scappaticci case. He made it crystal
clear that he knew all about Stakeknife and Scappaticci but he
needed handlers details in case paperwork went missing
in a similar way to Steven [sic] 1 and Stevens 2 investigations was frustrated
due to delayed disclosure. Sir Hugh mentioned the question of rogue Gardaí
and I brought up Corrigan’s name. Sir Hugh was present at the Heathrow meeting
for about 45 minutes.”
Three main issues touched on
in above: 1) Brian Nelson and loyalism (on
tape); 2) Stakeknife/Scappaticci/Notorantonio/Tom Oliver (off tape); 3) Rogue gardai (off tape).
*
Stakeknife – Britain’s Secret Agents in Ireland
(2004) – “Senior [army] officers
would routinely write end-of-year reports for each FRU handler. At the end of
1990, Ingram’s superior wrote in his confidential report: ‘XXXXX [Martin
Ingram] must temper his comments when briefing senior Army officers.’ The
report was a recommendation for promotion, but the comment was clearly a
reference to Ingram’s numerous conversations with senior officers when he had
questioned the FRU’s role in a number of incidents. Ingram later recounted
these heated exchanges to a senior investigating officer with the Stevens
Inquiry, recalling in particular the murder of Notorantonio. That conversation was taped.”
1) This contradicts the June
2011 Ingram/Hurst statement to the Smithwick Tribunal. Ingram entwined the
Stakeknife/Scappaticci lie into the murder of Francisco Notorantonio. In the
2004 book he claimed the Stevens team taped the conversation. His 2011 Smithwick
Tribunal statement says this was more a bar stool type exchange with one person
in a car park and of course not taped.
2) “The former Military
Intelligence officer known as Martin Ingram has told the Andersonstown News
he has just given the Stevens Inquiry a seven-hour
interview on the ‘unlawful’ activities of the secret Force Research Unit…now
the former soldier who served two terms in the North says his taped interview and accompanying 26 page statement [to the
Stevens Inquiry]…” – The Andersonstown News, 01.03.2001.
Does Ingram’s on tape/off
tape recounting tell us something? Whatever, once more the shifting sands of
story telling.
A snapshot of conflict directed to the Notorantonio
aspect:
The Sunday People 20.08.00 – (P6) Exclusive By Greg Harkin. “ROGUE Army spies
ordered and set up the murder of a 66-year-old pensioner, we can reveal today…
[The] Stevens Inquiry have re-opened the probe into the death of Francisco
Notorantonio.”
(I believe this report was
the first allusion to the murder of Francisco Notorantonio having a Scappaticci
connection, but without using his name. In time the nexus would harden and
enter the public arena as fact. A story widely accepted with very few
exceptions in the media.)
The Sunday Times 11.05.03 – (P2) By Liam Clarke. “Another murder which is
being investigated [by the Stevens team] is that of Francisco Notarantonio
[sic], a Belfast pensioner and IRA veteran, who was killed by the UDA in 1987.
Here the suspicion is that Notarantonio’s [sic] name was given to the UDA by an
army informant and his FRU handlers as a substitute for Stakeknife.”
After a falling out with
Martin Ingram, on 5th June 2006 Liam Clarke communicated the
following to Cryptome: “He [Martin Ingram] accuses me of sitting on the story
that Francisco Notarantonio [sic] was allegedly killed to protect Stakeknife. I
did not publish this because I did not believe it to be true, and – contrary to
what he says, nothing has ever emerged to substantiate it. The Stevens inquiry
never stood it up and the UDA, who carried out the murder, denied that they had
been targeting Scappaticci as was claimed. Repeated repetition does not make
something true.”
The Guardian, Monday 12.05.03 – (P18) By John Ware. “Some reports suggest that Stakeknife
was once targeted by loyalist death squads, and that FRU used Nelson to steer
them away from Stakeknife by picking another target - an elderly ex-IRA man
Francis [sic] Notorantonio, who was shot dead [on 9] October 1987.
“Again, no evidence has
been discovered by Stevens to support this. Nelson’s private diaries, in which
he sometimes wrote candidly about his own involvement and that of FRU in
assassinations, do not support the theory either.”
Sunday Life, 25.05.03 – (P9) By Alan Murray. “The UDA has dismissed claims
that it ever planned to kill Freddie Scappaticci…a senior UDA man has
categorically denied repeated reports that Army agent Brian Nelson steered the
terror group away from killing Scappaticci
in 1987 by directing them to murder west Belfast pensioner, Francisco
Notorantonio…Stevens Inquiry detectives have found no evidence to support
this, during their probe into security force collusion with
paramilitaries.”
*
And:
The Sunday People, 15.06.03 – (P33) By Greg Harkin. “British Army officers have
enraged collusion probe chief Sir John Stevens by DESTROYING thousands of
documents relating to Stakeknife Freddie Scappaticci, we can reveal. And the
move is intended to kill off the Stevens Inquiry probe into Britain’s role into
murders carried out by their top agent inside the IRA’s so-called Nutting
Squad…
“[A source in the Stevens
team said]: ‘...In essence the smoking gun has gone. The only thing left is the
testimony of whistleblowers like Martin Ingram…’”
Note: Notwithstanding the loss
of the “smoking gun” – the lying machine still left behind a viable record.
Read on.
*
Sir John Stevens/Hugh Orde –
Stakeknife/Scappaticci
The Sunday Tribune, 11.05.03 – By Tribune Reporters [Likely Neil Mackay of The
Sunday Herald, Glasgow] (P10): “Questions are now being asked about why the top
British policeman Sir John Stevens – who had been conducting a long-running
investigation into collusion between the British state and terrorists in
Ireland, has not hauled Scappaticci in for interrogation. The Stevens Inquiry
has been aware that Scappaticci was Stakeknife for some time. However, sources
say the Stevens team will now ask the UK Ministry of Defence to hand over
Scappaticci for questioning regardless of whether he is in hiding or not.”
*
If you think that paragraph
perfectly encapsulates guilt by inversion, read the page 14 editorial for
lashings of righteous indignation.
The newspaper implies: 1)
Scappaticci is an army agent. 2) He is agent Stakeknife. 3) He is subject to
the direction of the MoD, to whom the Stevens team has only to apply to gain
access. 4) Look at the date of the report. What is today’s date? What was done
in the interim?
Nowt you have it!
*
The Irish People, Sunday 11.05.03 – By Greg Harkin (P5) “…’We are aware of
Stakeknife’s whereabouts and identity and I am satisfied that the IRA does not
know who he is,’ Met Commissioner Sir John Stevens said earlier this year.”
The Sunday Times, 11.05.03 – By Liam Clarke (P1) “…Stakeknife’s card has been
marked since Sir John Stevens, the commissioner of the metropolitan police,
revealed last month that he intended to question him as part of the
long-running inquiry into alleged collusion by the security forces in
paramilitary killings. ‘We will be
questioning Stakeknife soon. We fear other informants have been
sacrificed to save him and we will be asking him about that,’ Stevens said
[….] If [Stakeknife] now talks, his story would be political dynamite. Stevens,
who has already forwarded files on dozens of FRU soldiers to
“Stakeknife’s handling
was one of the British Army’s most sensitive secrets, [a] FRU unit, with
its own fleet of vehicles, was maintained at the army’s Northern Ireland
headquarters [P2] in Lisburn to handle him.
“The
plot to name Stakeknife is being
linked to a man known by the pseudonym Kevin Fulton. He is a former
British soldier from the IRA country of south Armagh who infiltrated the
republican terror group for the intelligence agencies. These include the army,
the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Special Branch and Customs [.…] He maintains
that he has named Stakeknife only in sealed affidavits. These would be revealed
by a lawyer in the event of Fulton dying or being injured. However, senior
security sources believe that he has now made good his threat.”
The Irish Times, Monday 12.05.03 – By Dan Keenan and Suzanne Breen (P1) “Sir John
Stevens has confirmed that he wants to interview Stakeknife urgently about
allegations that many paramilitary operations and murders were ‘allowed’ to
proceed to protect his identity and the information he provided. Sir John said:
‘We fear other informants have been sacrificed to save him and we will be
asking him about that’. [Per The Sunday Times report three paragraphs
above.]”
The Guardian, Monday 12.05.03 – By Rosie Cowan and Nick Hopkins (P1) “Although
Scotland Yard refused to comment on the weekend disclosures, a source close to the Stevens investigation
said Sir John had been examining the extent of Stakeknife’s activity since he
discovered hundreds of army documents, including notes from the spy’s handlers,
a few months ago. He will be irritated that his careful approach has been
pre-empted by publicity.”
The Guardian, Monday 12.05.03 – By Nick Hopkins (P2) “The exposure of the army’s
top agent within the IRA will intensify pressure for a full inquiry into his
activities by Sir John Stevens, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Sir
John, the UK’s top policeman, has been investigating collusion between the
security forces in Northern Ireland and paramilitary groups for the last 14
years, focusing to begin with on the links between loyalists, the army and the
police in the death of Belfast solicitor, Patrick Finucane. However, when Sir
John published his interim report in mid-April, he confirmed that he was
concentrating much of his effort into unraveling the ‘legend of Stakeknife’,
the army’s top spy within the Provisional IRA.
“He thinks that Stakeknife,
named as Alfredo Scappaticci, would be questioned about his role within the
IRA, the information he provided to his army handlers, and the activities he
was sanctioned to do by them to ensure that he was not suspected of being an
agent. The weekend’s revelations have pre-empted Sir John’s move, but may
make his job easier in the long run, by allowing him to gain access to
Scappaticci.”
The Guardian, Monday 12.05.03 – Rosie Cowan (P3) “Things started to get hot for
Scappaticci when Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan police commissioner, who
had been probing security force collusion with terrorists for more than 14
years, revealed he knew of his existence, and
just a few weeks ago, confirmed for the first time that he intended to
question him. Sir John’s inquiry could prove devastating not only for
Scappaticci but for his army handlers.”
*
Note:
1) The above reports were
added in September 2011, eight years after original dating, and still there’s
no questioning of Scappaticci or “devastating” disclosure. Should the position
on disclosure alter let it be concerned with the ramifications of the lie
rather than on the lie itself. On the why of the lie; on how it got up and
running; on a system that lent a restrained provenance to a one sided unfolding
in which natural justice plays no part. An attendant conclusion is that the
system and those within are duty bound to become conspirators to the lie.
Unspoken, the serpentine
ways of state intelligence are inviolable and all-embracing. Non contractually,
there’s only the opting-in clause.
Am I foolish to hold that
the system shouldn’t be a one way street to advance sotto voce national security aims? More a two-way highway for
people to catch the ear of authority - a channel to correct injustice and
facilitate redress, for representatives to represent, and not a bolt hole for
state to hide behind unyielding protocols. Government and constitution are
there for the people and not to disenfranchise them for hidden ends.
Veritably it has come to
pass that the “sovereign” people are mere pawns on another player’s chess
board: subjects of a faceless cohort with unqualified immunity.
Back to the media. Am I
naïve to think that some in the fourth estate should have been less timid and
chased their instincts by holding out against an avalanche of contrary opinion?
If they believed truth was
different to that widely carried, they should have boldly said so.
People buy newspapers to be
informed and not be duped by an uncritical acceptance or pro-active allegiance
on behalf of a national security interest.
I do not know if any
newspaper stood against the tide or used investigative journalism to debunk the
lies on Stakeknife. If there was such an ongoing exposition, it passed me by.
We who pay are abused by
those who we pay.
2) The Guardian, Monday 12.05.03 - Page 18 has a profound
treatise by John Ware from the BBC’s TV Panorama programme. Mostly well written fluff on Sir John Stevens and
Hugh Orde, the new PSNI chief constable, with direct quote comment from a
“source close to [the Stevens] inquiry”. Within it all, “Alfredo ‘Freddy’
Scappaticci” is bounced along a generally rocky road. I’m surprised that Ware
hasn’t got a knighthood. The military counterpart of a gong like that is the
long service and good conduct medal – sometimes humorously known as the long
distance and never got caught award.
My dilemma is to whether I
should be envious of his scholarly talent and ease of propagation or be content
with my less evident blessings and anonymity.
Mr. Ware has a touching grá
(love) for fables, in particular the one on the “golden egg”. Ask him about it.
Should he read and be
sufficiently enlivened by the content of this work he may feel professionally
disposed to undertake an exposition on behalf of those less fortunate than myself,
the living and dead without voice. A nucleus of that forgotten cohort are named
in Section 17 of this presentation. Mr. Ware’s employer has the wherewithal to
go where it has never gone before in respect of those arbitrarily forsaken by
the Security Service during the Troubles. If they are free agents in these
matters, as they would have the world believe, let us see evidence of it.
My belief is that the BBC is
closer to secret state than its licence payers and like RTE a safe pair of
hands where and when it counts.
Expert at doing jobs that
give an illusion of investigative journalism but end up as one-day wonders: the
three card trick in celluloid.
3) Not only did some in the
media help launch Ingram and his lies, so too the Stevens Inquiry. Given its
tradecraft and research into secret state wrongdoing, the latter could not but
have known he was acting on behalf of those interests they were investigating.
The Stevens team - up to
To that end a common feature
is a collective rowing together. Another common feature is that those pulling
on the oars do not ask where they are going.
Pushing on, see the above
Guardian snippet of 12.05.03 by Rosie Cowan (P3): “Things started to get hot
for Scappaticci when Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan police commissioner,
who had been probing security force collusion with terrorists for more than 14
years, revealed he knew of [Stakeknife’s] existence and just a few weeks ago
confirmed for the first time that he intended to question him. Sir John’s
inquiry could prove devastating not only for Scappaticci but for his army
handlers.”
Well, we know Sir John’s
team did not question Scappaticci. What about the “army handlers” of reputed
agent Stakeknife-Scappaticci – were they arrested and questioned as has been
variously ventured over the years?
Smithwick Tribunal Day 93
(transcript from a closed session read into the record on
(
Quite. A non existent agent
is incapable of being questioned; likewise, the alleged handler of a non
existent agent.
Which, by corollary, says
Witness 82 was somewhat economical with the actualité when giving his
Stakeknife evidence to the Smithwick Tribunal.
Claims buttressed by an at a
remove dissembling by MI5-MoD at the time and supported by a fraternal
solicitude thereon.
4) See twenty five
paragraphs above: “[Sir John Stevens] confirmed that he was concentrating much
of his effort into unraveling the ‘legend of Stakeknife.’”
As he could only have been
speaking tongue in cheek, the suspicion is that he was not totally able to
suppress the mirth felt within.
A careful man in his choice
of words, is Sir John’s use of the “legend
of Stakeknife” telling?
The Oxford English
Dictionary: “Legend – traditional story, myth…” “Myth – traditional story
usually involving supernatural or imaginary people and embodying popular ideas
on natural or social phenomena; widely held but false idea; fictitious person,
thing or idea.”
Do you remember the wall
daubed slogan, “Mouths wide open – brains closed down”?
*****
Stakeknife - Britain’s Secret Agents in Ireland
(2004) – Martin Ingram &
Greg Harkin (pp224-225): “Meanwhile, in early December 2000 Commander Hugh Orde, the
police officer in charge of the day-to-day running of the Stevens Inquiry, now
Chief Constable of the PSNI, agreed to meet with representatives of the
Notorantonio family and their solicitor, Barra McGrory. Orde, known for his
frankness, confirmed the existence of an
agent called Stakeknife, but not his identity, although his identity would have
been known to Orde at that stage. Notorantonio’s daughter Charlotte said
afterwards: ‘We were asking the Stevens team to investigate my father’s murder.
I asked if Stakeknife existed and they confirmed that he does exist. My father
took a bullet for him so I told them it was vital they asked the army for
Stakeknife’s files…’”
Note: Charlotte, you and
your family, abused by the murder of your father have been doubly abused by the
lie on the murder of your father.
No files exist on Stakeknife
because there is no agent Stakeknife. For that and other reasons there is no
truth to the story of your father being murdered in place of Scappaticci.
Eleven years on and there is
still no exposition on this lie. That is because intelligence agencies are
above the law. Their modus operandi of operating at a remove is shaped by rock
rigid formulae to ensure plausible denial.
A non-accountability made
possible by the support of an inclusive framework to make it unassailable. Part
of what we are hidden from the people and most of the rest of the world.
Ingram and Orde lied to the
Notorantonio family; as did the media who propagated the lies of shadow state.
Catch them out on one lie and they will creatively resort to another.
In that event, the system
will helpfully endorse and promote. However, granting a false provenance to a
second lie may be more problematic, given the undoubted cynicism that will
follow when the people realise how credulous they were going along with the
first Stakeknife-Scappaticci agenda. Knowing that many big names and
reputations helped shore up this whopper of a pork pie, will there be a
protective retreat to ambiguity or a transfer to a Stakeknife Mark 2?
As an open admission to the
dissemination of lies by our servant-masters is unlikely, will they resort to
the thimble rigger’s drawer of escape clauses like as postulated above, the use
of Stakeknife Mark 2?
If so, suffer the legend to
be shielded this time by the “we do not comment one way or another” or the “we
are forbidden by law” scripts. Or they may just tone down some of the more
implausible lies through asides in published works by their writer friends.
They may even attempt to
underpin the lie with a parallel construct based on another compatible agent –
a deceased counterpart, for example?.
Or shelter behind a PII
certificate, proclaiming “national security” interests for non disclosure. Some
of the protective protocols alluded to.
In short, more lies to
safeguard those who lied. An attempt at saying we got it half right when it was
known from the outset it was all wrong.
A lie on Stakeknife in the
future will be as egregious as the lie on “Steak Knife” in 1999. The real
difference may be in emphasis and choice of spelling.
Whatever, Martin Ingram well
knows the score on plausible denial. If the Stakeknife-Scappaticci story ends
up going down the plug hole, Marty the messenger will be the patsy.
You are only in trouble if
you get caught, I think is the phraseology.
Unseen our blood is sucked
by spiders in the web. Mocked by false freedoms and the reputed superiority of
our political philosophy, the democratic process, and the lie that we in the
West enjoy a free and independent media, we are aces in only one department,
hypocrisy.
*
A road to Damascus conversion for Martin Ingram/Ian
Hurst?
“Bloody Sunday Inquiry,
Monday 12 May 2003, MR MARTIN INGRAM (affirmed).”
“Smithwick Tribunal
[transcript from a closed session read into the record Day 92, Tuesday] 24
April 2012, Ian Hurst, having been sworn.”
Marty “affirmed” in 2003.
Ian was “sworn” in 2012. A road to Damascus conversion or trying to take the
mickey out of Paddy?
*
Smithwick Tribunal Statement of Ian
Hurst/Martin Ingram (June 2006)
PP 17-19 (Kevin Fulton)
“I first met Kevin Fulton in
Dublin [in] 1999 at the request of Mr Liam Clarke [the Sunday Times
journalist]. I knew who Fulton was from his PIRA activities and from source
reports and I knew that he had worked for Scappaticci and John Joe Magee in
the Newry/Dundalk areas.
“I arranged for him to be
interviewed by the Stevens Inquiry [officers in] approx mid 2000,
telling them that he had worked as [a] PIRA security team driver. I told him
(Fulton) that they (Stevens) would be interested in talking to him about [the]
internal security unit.
“It must be stressed that at this juncture in time
Fulton did not know anything about Scappaticci[‘s] [Stakeknife] role until
the day Scappaticci was exposed in the Sunday Tribune/Sunday Herald
[on 11.05.03. That is Fulton first knew about ‘Stakeknife-Scappaticci’ on 11
May 2003.]
“The Stevens team was
excited… at this development, DI Rick Turner told me they were pleased to
access somebody who had worked on an occasional basis with Scappaticci.
“Fulton had one on-tape
interview under caution and one on-tape interview without caution with [the]
Stevens team in London. Obviously Scappaticci and Fulton were not wandering the
Louth/Down countryside selling Avon cosmetics - not surprisingly Fulton
declined to answer any formal questions upon caution but did provide background
to the PIRA security units [sic] activities during the second not under caution
interview.
“
“I subsequently made
‘firm’ inquiries with Stevens after leaks by well placed journalists had
suggested Stevens was avoiding the Scappaticci issue and to my disappointment
was told by DCI Rick Turner that the ‘Boss doesn’t want to go down that route.’
At this point I recognised to be careful with Stevens and that belief was
reinforced when my personal details were sold to Newspapers by a former FRU
officer in Nov 2000 and although he was arrested and charged with intimidating
a witness – he was subsequently not charged – The reason given to me by DCI
Rick Turner was! – ‘It was not in the public interest.’ That decision
obviously made me and my family reflect upon my co-operation with the Stevens
investigations. Within the same telephone call I politely requested DCI
Rick Turner to stuff it up his arse – I had no further formal contact with
Stevens from that day.”
If no FRU agent Scappaticci
existed, there was no agent Stakeknife for the Stevens team to investigate. As
that part of the story has already been dealt with, I again relate to the above
Hurst statement quote (contradicting that of three paragraphs before): “Fulton had no idea what Scappaticci’s role
was. He only discovered that he was a British agent about 24
hours before the Stake knife [sic] story broke in the Sunday Tribune [on
11 May 2003, that is Fulton first knew about ‘Stakeknife-Scappaticci’ on 10 May
2003].”
*
The Sunday Tribune 04.05.03 - By Neil Mackay [Glasgow Sunday Herald journalist
who wrote the Sunday Tribune reports on pages 2 and 13] (P13): “Fulton who is not speaking to the press,
is said to have named his plan to out Stakeknife ‘Operation Dinner Out’. Fulton
has written affidavits which he has given to his lawyer outlining the life and
crimes of Stakeknife. He has also given a sealed letter giving the name of
Stakeknife to his lawyer, who has been ordered to open it and make the name
public in the event of Fulton’s death.” (That is Fulton first knew about
“Stakeknife-Scappaticci” from at least 3 May 2003.)
*
What a load of nutty
nonsense that on “Operation Dinner Out” and giving a sealed letter to his
lawyer.
In December 2011, when giving
evidence to the Smithwick Tribunal in Dublin, Fulton admitted receiving
adequate remuneration for his living needs from MI5.
In short, he is on the
payroll.
Yet in the preceding
paragraph the man is portrayed as inimical to the interests of MI5 because of
his whistleblower espousal of truth.
In this he mirror images the
Ingram position and promotes the consequential fear of suffering the wrath of
the agency for doing so, implying they would kill him.
Stoned by
pieces of silver?
Over the years the same man
was only short of having bouquets thrown at him by some in the legal profession
tasked to promote the search for truth.
What a perverse world we
live in.
The Sunday Tribune 04.05.03: “Fulton is
known to have rang senior intelligence officials last week and
told them Stakeknife’s real name to prove he was serious about his threats.”
(That
is, Fulton first knew about “Stakeknife-Scappaticci” before 3 May 2003…)
[Mr Fulton has implied, as
he did in his 2006 book Unsung Hero, and made outright accusation, as he did at
a mid-December 2011 Smithwick tribunal hearing, that Mr. Scappaticci is the
supposed agent Stakeknife.]
A breaking of wind by Fulton
or Ingram is worthy of a bevy of media microphones and note pads from the
faithful. Mr Fulton, it seems, not only knew the telephone numbers of “senior
intelligence officials”, he also knew the identity and activities of Stakeknife
– the “jewel in the crown of British intelligence agents in Northern Ireland”,
before knowing who the alleged agent was, according to Ingram.
Telepathy or bi-location?
The 4 May Tribune report was
a prelude to the 11 May allegation that Freddie Scappaticci was Stakeknife. A
coordinated event with The Sunday Tribune and The Sunday Herald heading the
charge. Each newspaper carried near identical reports by Neil Mackay, even if
the
It was sensational tabloid
journalism by broadsheet.
One day on from this deluge
of dissembling,
It was not a coincidence.
(For fuller understanding on
this point, return to Section 6 of this compilation.)
The 4 May Sunday Tribune
excerpts highlighted in the above paragraphs, call into question Ian Hurst’s
Smithwick Tribunal statement on Kevin Fulton, highlighted further above.
For the convenience of
readers, photocopies of pages 2 and 13 of the newspaper dated 4 May 2003 will
be scanned into this presentation.
Reports of police raids on
Mr. Fulton’s London home also received publicity within the Stakeknife
articles. The dodgy duo of Peter Keeley (aka Kevin Fulton) and Ian Hurst (aka
Martin Ingram) were photographed together, possibly to do with an EYE SPY
magazine interview in 2005-6?
If so this item is not
available to me other than the misht
blanked face photos as displayed on the web. Reasonably well known is that the
foreword in Kevin Fulton’s book, Unsung Hero, is credited to Martin Ingram.
Possibly less known is that
Fulton took part in a documentary depiction of the Roermond, Holland murder of
two Australian solicitors, Nick Spanos and Stephan Melrose by the IRA on 27 May
1990.
Filming by Australian TV
Channel 7 took place over two months in summer 2010.
Note: The deaths of Nick Spanos and Stephan Melrose
are dealt with in Sections 15-17 of this compilation.
END
|
|
|
The Sunday Tribune, 4 May
2003. Page 2. |
|
|
|
The Sunday Tribune, 4 May
2003. Page 13. |
(Seán Kelly, 22 September 2011)
|
Previous:
Andersonstown News – Martin Ingram |
Next: Mr.
Metcalfe, M’lud |