|
Previous:
Stakeknife – Questions Asked |
As said in list of contents: “8) Document of three
pages entitled ‘Smithwick Tribunal Witness – Martin Ingram/Ian Hurst.’ This
item was distributed to media and others attending the Smithwick Tribunal at
outset of public hearings.”
Emphasis, where used, is mine.
Note: In more recent time an Operation Kenova addendum
has been instated.
*
(www.stakeknife.eu)
Twitter: @seankellyis
(13)
*
Operation Kenova
and Smithwick Tribunal Witness – Martin Ingram/Ian Hurst
Stakeknife –
“Senior 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: ‘XXXXXX [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.”
Note:
A) A
letter to the Saville Inquiry, dated
B) Ingram’s
statement to the Saville Inquiry, Page 12.6: “I stayed in
*
A and B inclusions above give cause not only
to question the veracity of the Stakeknife book but the whole Stakeknife
industry. When Francisco Notorantonio was murdered on
He was posted to FRU West in
The Remembrance Day bombing was on Sunday 08.11.87 –
a full month after the slaying of Francisco Notorantonio.
For the quoted Stakeknife
book representation by Martin Ingram to have taken place, he would have needed
months of sustained bi-location from wherever to Northern Ireland in the second
half of 1987, prior to his return there.
Simply put, it is a physical
and intellectual impossibility for a belief in “agent Stakeknife” to be
sustained without a corresponding belief in bi-location.
If MI5/MoD deem it within
their remit to indulge in acts of public deception, miracles are not their
forte.
Yet this lie, unambiguous by
any evidential critique, remains unchallenged by Jon Boutcher, Chief Constable
of Bedfordshire, who is tasked through the Operation Kenova construct with
finding the truth on “Stakeknife” – an agent who never existed.
Are the implications of the
lie too great to make admission? Let justice be done though the Heavens fall, they
say. Bah humbug to all that responds the MI5/MoD alliance.
Will Chief Constable
Boutcher rise above the needs of national security interests and let truth
prevail? Apart from forfeiting a possible knighthood, in the eyes of the duped
masses he’ll be a hero.
The making of a John Stalker
mark two? Do I believe that? No.
Jon Boutcher will more likely succeed where John
Stalker didn’t, and get a knighthood. Stalker lost out by being brought down by
the malign power of hidden authority, all because he doggedly pursued an
inconvenient truth.
A good cop.
*
If imputing in the above
that the Ministry of Defence was complicit in the lies of Martin Ingram, we
must ask why.
As his former employer and
keeper of his service records MoD was party to and aware of Ingram’s intended
evidence to the Saville Tribunal, much of which was contained in statements to
the Tribunal and (that and more) widely broadcast by the media over years.
MoD lending false currency
to this dissembling by the imposition of gagging
orders. Ipso facto, they were at one with Ingram’s whistleblower portrayal on behalf of national security interests,
if acting otherwise.
Returning to the 8 May 2003
letter to the Saville Tribunal by Mr. W. G. Byatt, Head of the Bloody Sunday
Inquiry Unit, Ministry of Defence, (Page K12.43): “Against this background I
thought that it would be helpful to disclose a little more factual detail about
Mr. Ingram’s service in the Army. Obviously
I can disclose nothing to the parties that would make it possible to identify
Mr. Ingram; neither can I divulge sensitive material which is included
in the confidential annex to the Secretary of State for Defence’s PII
certificate dated 5 March. However, subject to these limitations I hope the
following information is helpful…”
MoD and Martin Ingram were
at one in wishing his true identity be protected for safety and security
reasons in 2003. However things have changed in recent months. Why is it that
the Martin Ingram of March 2003 and the Martin Ingram of March 2011 hold to
different priorities?
Was the Public Interest
Immunity certificate, a gagging order, served on the Saville Tribunal by the
Secretary of State for Defence for the benefit of national security and the
protection of Martin Ingram or to preclude the possibility of his covert status
being publicly disclosed?
(And all the lies that go
with it.)
Has the safety interest now taken on new clothes and subordinated itself to
the national interest?
END
Addenda:
1) “The former soldier [Martin
Ingram]…has asked for his identity to be witheld to prevent the IRA from
tracking him down and pressuring him to reveal the identity of agents who are
still active.” – The Sunday Times, 08.08.99. Page 7.
2) Apart from being out of
Northern Ireland for years before and for about six weeks after the death of
Francisco Notorantonio, Ingram was never as a qualified FRU handler based at
Thiepval barracks, the handling location for Brian Nelson and other Belfast
agents.
*****
Operation Kenova
On Wednesday 2 November
2016 I forwarded a five part submission to the Operation Kenova “investigation
into the alleged activities of the person known as Stakeknife.”
Note the subtle
distinction of not investigating an agent codenamed Stakeknife, who
doesn’t exist, but “the person known
as Stakeknife” who British intelligence would have us accept through media
misinformation is Mr Scappaticci, who does exist, and was once an alleged
senior officer in the IRA’s internal security unit.
Is there a protective
misdirection, a deception, in the quoted Operation Kenova wording? A false
trail it wants to take us along?
The remit is person specific, not agent specific.
Do we have in this a
veritable admission that there is no agent Stakeknife? If there was, surely
the Operation Kenova remit would have said so in clear language?
Maybe it didn’t, or
daren’t, because the story to back it up is an implausible catalogue of lies
that would fall flat on its face after a jig-time investigation by a
conscientious police team free of corrupt national security influences.
I relate to in-house and
off-record manipulations and other activities by an involved party,
independently and in fraternal concert, without the cognizance of the
investigating detectives.
A parallel process in
which an arm of secret state insidiously seeks to bend the rule of law and
influence public perception to effect an outcome as accommodating as possible
to its ends; doing so through its writer friends in the media and by book
publishing.
If need arises, up pops a
new insight and new names to prop it up. History is never so malleable as when
derived from the pen of national security story tellers; and never so safe as
when retold by “security correspondents”.
And, too, the great army
of the suborned.
An ineluctable consequence
to putting a microscope on an MI5 product - the lie of Stakeknife. Now doesn’t
the implications of that make for “chilling” reading?
When the on-the-ground
police pursuit of evidence concludes and the results are passed to higher
authority for deliberation, will the politics of vested interest sit idly by
and let the law take its course?
Not on your Nellie Kelly.
Besides, as I said at the
outset, in directing to one name the Operation Kenova remit blanks out other names in the IRA’s internal security
unit and the line of command to which the internal security unit was
subordinate.
Names just
as familiar to agencies of state but for operational reasons not publicised by
them.
I allude to the names who sat in judgement and passed
sentence, those names who handed down
sentence, and the names who carried
out sentence.
All of whom are as
blameworthy for murder as the interrogators and the back-up and head-up names in the internal security unit.
So too state agencies who
had a vested interest at all stages of that process as handlers of agents and
assets, who are also culpable, and when aware through their investments of an
intention to execute, for operational intelligence reasons did nothing to
prevent it. In this I think of a dichotomy entailing the possible sacrifice of
a minor in protection of a major.
In effect accepting at
times a selective culling of their own.
Judgement on agencies of state and servants of state should be no less than
that which the law would impose on most of the rest of us.
Carrying a government
imprimatur is not a gift of exculpation, directly or indirectly. In respect of
the latter, I am mindful of an especially egregious brand of wrongdoing that
blossoms under the aegis of intelligence agencies and their systems of informer
management.
A vicarious freedom to
take part in terrorist and criminal operations in acceptance of the potential
consequences, like murder, maiming and property destruction.
That, in another context,
would rightly be deemed a war crime – why the exemption and protective cover-up
for state intelligence agencies?
The overarching agency
involved in the Stakeknife lie – MI5 – an inordinately privileged entity (for how
else does it get away with murder?) was, I am confident, able to influence the
structuring and, at least to some extent, the direction of Operation Kenova in
the protection of agents warranting a higher order of care.
Questioning the oblique
wording of the Operation Kenova remit above may be worth noting in that regard.
It would be inconceivable
for MI5 not to have pursued an at-a-remove intrusion into the setting up of
Operation Kenova for their own benefit and that of senior republican sources
party to their interest – dead as well as alive.
Uniquely they are able to
reconfigure story and evidence and put it into the public arena through sleight
of hand in written form or in documentary reconstruction by their friends in
the media.
By such power they deceive
and exclude.
I believe that general
direction was mirrored within one of my submissions to the Operation Kenova
investigation. It went:
“I write to you yet again
because in recent time in Northern Ireland there is once more an institutional pursuit
of a fictional agent named Stakeknife, which, as previously said, is in the
protection of and for the benefit of parties historically devoted to the
interests of national intelligence agencies.
“It has no connection to
the search for truth or justice but is there, at least in part, to preclude
that direction.
“The pursuit of
‘Stakeknife’ is dressed up as a serious component into legacy investigations to
do with the Troubles in Northern
Ireland.
“The persona behind
Stakeknife is said to be Freddie Scappaticci, a believed former senior officer
in the IRA’s internal security unit.
“It is appropriate that
the actions and membership of the internal security unit should form an
essential part in a global view of legacy investigations.
“I suggest scrutiny should
begin from the inception of the ISU and include the arm chair generals who
promoted and created it and who determined its staffing.
“It should embrace those
who sanctioned execution following dubious procedural interrogations by the security unit; and include those who passed
down their findings, court martial or
other; and at the end of the line those who were tasked with the dirty work of
carrying them out.
“If hierarchical, this
formula creates a level playing field by excluding no player; it reflects a
shared culpability. It further avoids entanglement in the spider’s web of the
Stakeknife deception.”
*
My Operation Kenova
submission was dispatched by registered post to Jon Boutcher, Chief Constable of
Bedfordshire, who heads the investigation.
In initial inquiries as to
whom and what address to direct the submission, I was asked by the voice on the
dedicated Operation Kenova telephone line if the documents were “sensitive”.
On saying yes I was instructed
to send them to Chief Constable Boutcher at his official address, which was
given.
This Stakeknife Internet
compilation comprised one part of the submission.
Another part dwelt on an
analysis of a transcript of a telephone “interview” by Ian Hurst of an alleged
Sir John Wilsey, a former General Officer Commanding Land Forces in Northern
Ireland.
(General Wilsey was GOC
from 1990-1993.)
In the interview, Ian
Hurst (aka Martin Ingram) posed as a Channel 4 journalist named Jeremy Giles.
An analysis of the
transcript suggests the responder in the interview was not Sir John Wilsey but
an impersonator.
In the contrived exchange
the impersonator would say that Freddie Scappaticci was the “golden egg” of
British army spies in the IRA.
A transcript of this media
friendly claim and its dubious attribution was speedily placed online and given
currency by being widely quoted in the press, over the airwaves and elsewhere
on the Internet.
A skewing of history to
back up the Stakeknife story at a moment of need?
Despite several requests,
my Op Kenova submission of 2 November 2016 has not been acknowledged. It is now
April 2017.
The covering letter and
documents making up the Operation Kenova submission are available for reading by
arrangement at my address: Sean Kelly, 474 Galtymore Road, Drimnagh, Dublin 12
Y224, Ireland.
If you have an objective
and genuine interest in a search for truth into the Stakeknife story, this
invitation is open to you.
After a reading you too
might pose the question: could Chief Constable Jon Boutcher possibly believe in
bi-location?
The Security Service does.
So too many journalists. But then if the former does, so will the latter.
Maybe a million trees were
felled to fuel the agent Stakeknife story, now it seems not even Operation
Kenova believes it.
But they can’t say so.
Operation Kenova – a
construct to arrive at a designed conclusion without letting in too much truth
to spoil matters? Along the way a feeding trough for the professionals in the
legal and “rights” industries.
Using the nine out of ten
template, there to go nowhere on behalf of national security interests – at a
price, of course.
END
Postscript:
Since writing the above the Operation Kenova team contacted me, resulting from
which, and events thereafter, additional material has been made available to
them.
The invitation to read
these documents, per above, still stands.
*
A Saturday 05.01.19 Insert
Over to another, if brief,
purview of MI5/MoD-FRU script writing – lies by another name, details of which
are more fully developed in my submissions to the Operation Kenova
“investigation into the alleged activities of the person known as Stakeknife.”
Examples:
*) 1033 was the claimed source
number of Brian Nelson, a military intelligence agent in the UDA. It wasn’t.
Nelson’s agent number is otherwise. With intelligence agencies nothing is
sacrosanct: names, code names... If there is a need, history is made up or
rewritten.
The basis for the
existence of intelligence agencies is the lie – deception. Forgery is an
instrument in that deception. Manipulation can include courts of law and the
records of government agencies.
The conquest of Mt Everest
without oxygen and in swim-wear is more achievable than the pursuit of truth in
national security matters. It is so because a system made possible by public
subscription corruptly makes it so.
*) The Saturday 14.04.12
claimed telephonic “interview” of Sir John Wilsey, a former General Officer
Commanding Land Forces in Northern Ireland (1990-1993), by a supposed Channel 4
journalist named Jeremy Giles.
Jeremy Giles is better
known by the pseudonym Martin Ingram. Real name Ian Hurst. The part of Sir John
Wilsey was played by an impersonator.
General Wilsey as GOC Land
Forces was a Lt General, a three star rank. In the “interview” Jeremy Giles
endowed him with “five star” status. The “General” did not demur at this
gratuitous promotion.
Further, the “General”
seemingly didn’t know the difference between a George Cross and a George Medal,
two seriously high awards for bravery, notwithstanding that a soldier in
General Wilsey’s own Devon and Dorset regiment was a recipient of the latter.
In the telephonic exchange
the “General” would allege that “Fred” Scappaticci (as agent Stakeknife) was
the “golden egg” of British army spies in the PIRA.
Given its freedom, this
claim shot to the top of the media charts and continues to be quoted by many of
the same journalists who believed in FRU’s theory of bi-location.
Mock their lies with
evidence and they will, in time, come up with another lie, one that will be
transmitted into the public arena by a fresh media source comprised of a slick
piece of “investigative” dissimulation. New names and new story lines to get
MI5 over the hump they created through the delegation of story telling to
incompetents.
The voice of authority says, the herd repeats, that’s
how fake news carries.
*) The story which most
tickled my fancy is the claim that in 1986 Margaret Thatcher hosted Freddie
Scappaticci for a long weekend at Chequers, the country retreat of British
prime ministers’.
Elsewhere I asked if
Scappaticci had a shave and wore a tie for the occasion.
After their “private
fireside chat” do we now ask if Margaret and Freddie went on to view a movie
and toast his £75,000 annual tax-free award, courtesy of Mrs Thatcher and the
British government?
An account that “was
opened by MI5 in a British bank based in Gibraltar.”
For your own delectation,
read pages 86-88 of Dead Men Talking (2004) by Nicholas Davies, an award wining
“investigative” journalist.
Davies’ pursuit of
security disclosure wasn’t confined to the myth of Stakeknife. Thanks to his
contacts in the intelligence community he would be the recipient of other
“exclusive” mickey takes and misdirection.
*
Re. the above alleged
interview of General Sir John Wilsey by former British intelligence SNCO Ian
Hurst, posing as a Channel 4 journalist named Jeremy Giles. Using my Twitter
account, @seankellyis, in the summer of 2019, I asked Chief Constable Boutcher
the result of an interview of General
Wilsey carried out by the Operation Kenova team about two and a half years
earlier. Did the alleged exchange between General Wilsey and Ian Hurst/Jeremy
Giles really take place? Though the issue was pushed, there was no return.
Who was the supposed
General Wilsey in the Saturday 14.04.12 telephone call with Ian Hurst?
Why the reluctance of
Operation Kenova to be forthcoming? Why has no journalist pursued the Operation
Kenova team for an answer?
On Tuesday 1 October 2019
an episode in the BBC documentary series, Spotlight
On The Troubles: A Secret History,
was broadcast.
In its reporting of it the
following day, The Irish News said: “The IRA sent its most senior British agent
to investigate if there was an informer in its organisation after the deadly
SAS ambush at Loughgall, according to a BBC documentary. * “Freddie Scappaticci
- who has been named as the agent Stakeknife - is alleged to have been tasked
with investigating suspected informers who gave information that led to the
IRA’s biggest loss of life in a single incident during the Troubles.”
(8 May 1987, eight IRA men
and one passing civilian were killed by the SAS at Loughgall.)
While Mr Scappaticci may
have carried out an investigation of the Loughgall killings on behalf of the
IRA, and whatever his position, or otherwise, with regard to state security
agencies, he most certainly was not “[The] most senior British agent [in the
IRA].”
[That Scappaticci was
picked to be sacrificed by state in the Stakeknife canard, perhaps best
indicates he was vulnerable and expendable. The Security Service does not have a
history of throwing top agents under a bus. Very bad for business.
To the contrary, they will
protect them at great cost and, where required, through disinformation and
propaganda via the home media and (through the good offices of fraternal
counterparts) overseas.
They who can change black
into white, and vice versa.
Whereas the Stakeknife
label is fiction, those of Kerbstone and Infliction do have real names to them.
I suspect the latter has many more deaths to his credit, if vicariously
ascribed, than the whole internal security unit put together from inception to
stand down. Yet there is no hidden hand leaking his identity through the
“whistleblower” medium, or “investigative” documentaries to unfold on him. No,
because state security is the arbiter in these matters. Through this ownership
the state can subtly disinform by use of third party disclosure - the sidebar
approach, an old trick of the intelligence trade. One analogous to a cut-up
Halloween fruit cake with a gold ring in only one slice, or two?]
The Irish News further
stated: “In the BBC documentary it is alleged the IRA dispatched an internal
security unit to ‘flush out spies’, but the ‘man they sent to find out who
betrayed their secrets was also working for their enemy’ with the organisation
unaware Scappaticci was a long-running spy for British intelligence. [!]
“Lord Ramsbotham, army
brigadier in Belfast 1978 to 1980, told the programme: ‘The famous Stakeknife
was handed onto me in 1978 as being an important person.
“He was obviously someone
who had access to the higher levels of the IRA.’” That’s all Folks! Out goes
General Wilsey of the “golden egg”. In comes Brigadier Ramsbotham of the empty
rhetoric.
Proof of life after
death?.
As for “The famous Stakeknife”, that myth only took hold
in 1999. And nobody seemed to know how to spell the codename at the time.
Readers’, to yourself
direct the following questions because there is no one else to ask, and no
media outlet or other body to go to on behalf of those who cry out for truth
and justice, not if matters pertain to alleged issues of “national security”.
Who murdered Heidi Hazell,
the German wife of a British army sergeant, shot dead by the IRA near Dortmund,
Germany on 7 September 1989?
Who was agent Infliction?
(I’m confident he is known to most of
the Troubles cognoscenti.)
Who was agent Kerbstone?
(I’m confident he is known to most of
the Troubles cognoscenti.)
Who allowed the loyalist
arms importations?
Who allowed the United States
and Libyan IRA arms importations?
Answers:
The same people who
oversaw the shooting dead of three IRA members in Gibraltar on Sunday 6 March
1988.
The same people who value knowing above lives.
The same people who ran
agent Infliction.
The same people who ran
agent Kerbstone (even if at a remove).
The same people who ran
the agent who murdered Heidi Hazell.
The BBC will not
investigate and speak out on these egregious wrongdoings, and more. When you
know why, you’ll be wiser as to the reality and worth of their so-called
investigative journalism.
And, maybe too, the reason
why.
Built into some high
profile “investigative” disclosure, in particular that subject to pre-release
fanfare, is misdirection. Hidden within the teasers and ephemera, one will
sometimes find in the sidebar insertions the real purpose of the exercise.
That which is often
inverse to presented.
Another “old trick of the
intelligence trade”.
*****
In February 2019 Chief Constable
Jon Boutcher, head of Operation Kenova, said he found no evidence to support
the theory of bi-location.
I allude to a British army
intelligence claim that Francisco Notorantonio was set-up to be murdered in
lieu of Mr Scappaticci, alleged agent Stakeknife. An event that was, short of
bi-location, a physical impossibility. Belatedly, and reluctantly, Operation
Kenova accorded with my findings, if not publicly acknowledging them.
I first brought this lie
to official attention about eleven years
before the Operation Kenova
admission. It formed the basis of one of my submissions to the Operation Kenova
investigation and was long banked by them before their February 2019 public
announcement.
Supported by
incontrovertible research, it was made known to journalists, lawyers, “rights”
groups and the media over the intervening eleven or so years, but elicited not
one return.
That’s because it sported
a national security label in that I was challenging the lies of an intelligence
agency. A backstop (whatever that means), it seems, for almost everybody but
me.
In secret state matters
truth can be anathema - especially when it exposes wrongdoing.
Also, the suppression of
truth and the propagation of fake news in pursuance of national security goals
is made possible, in particular, through leaks (aka handouts) to the media, and
by “whistleblowers” (nine-bob-notes in colloquial usage). How could it be so
otherwise?
Stakeknife is just one
take on that.
Indeed the magic
roundabout was ongoing with feeding the “bi-location” and other agent
Stakeknife stories to a duped public and would still be doing so on the
bi-location theme had the Kenova investigation not been set up consequent of
the many overblown claims it generated.
Operation Kenova could
have used my material to debunk the “bi-location” specific at any time over a
two year period before they did.
Inviting a question: was
my submission given the “deep-six” treatment for national security reasons?
Or was Operation Kenova
simply remiss in not making the contents publicly known in the name of a
transparency?
Then there is a less
generous viewpoint.
It could be the documents
were witheld because an airing of them would expose the sham of the Operation
Kenova investigation.
A line part in the “national
security” argument?
Exposing the spurious
origins of the Stakeknife story would fatally flaw the Operation Kenova remit.
Pull out one fundamental
in the balanced deck of cards and the rest will come crashing down. They call
it the domino effect. Well, so much for theory.
One lie down – more to go!
Language and presentation
play an important role in the projection of these things. One side has a
powerful performer commanding the public stage and a large backing orchestra in
support. Another side – along with a lot else outside the swamp – is unheard
and unseen.
A process of accommodation
and denial shaped to comfort national security sensitivities. Recognised
by the media, “rights” groups, lawyers
and politicians to the detriment of justice and, at times, the public
wellbeing.
The selective Operation
Kenova gesture to openness in
February 2019 was precipitated by an approach from a solicitor representing the
interests of the Notorantonio family. I too was moved to action by this
initiative.
It would seem I brought
the Notorantonio-Stakeknife falsehood to the solicitor’s attention one month
ahead of Chief Constable Boutcher.
While there was a
variation in the use of language, or script, in our respective presentations,
the point made was the same.
The irrefutable
corroboration I provided in this and other regards to the Operation Kenova team
awaits recognition.
It is not for vanity I
seek credits but as a means to unfold on the world the potential consequences
of an unaccountable secret-state.
The reality is, truth in
these matters saves lives, lies kill.
MI5 & Co. will
begrudge any dilution of their powers and will do all they can to prevent it.
Not only are they diminished by the exposure of lies, so too their messengers
and agents who are elevated and protected above lives lost.
More water has yet to flow
under the bridge before the Stakeknife myth is exposed for what it is.
So far only one prop has
buckled. An intended direction to law helped flush out the truth on that, even if
only in circumspect admission.
The remaining lies in the
“agent Stakeknife” story mark time awaiting pronouncements from Chief Constable
Boutcher – but first political events to precipitate the misdirection?
It’s long past bedtime,
Jon.
*
(Note that Operation
Kenova is an in-house investigation and not an open inquiry. Have you guessed
why? Further be wary of the “window dressing” lodged alongside it; that’s a
public relations job to sell on a dead dog at the end of the day, if they can
get away with it. If left to an accommodating media, they who write novels on
“whistleblowers”, they will.)
The birth of Stakeknife
took place in August 1999, with the late Liam Clarke of The Sunday Times and an
ex-Force Research Unit “whistleblower” using the pseudonym Martin Ingram
combining to act as midwife.
Though in receipt of only
a part UK age pension (no benefits from Ireland), I made an offer on Twitter to
donate €250 to charity if the editor of The Sunday Times provided proof of the
existence of “agent Stakeknife”.
My tweet went up on 17
December 2018.
PS. Scroll down Twitter
account @seankellyis for more recent “offers”.
The latest tweet went up
on Friday 06 December 2019. I include it here.
“’[Former chief constable
Jon Boutcher] is also in charge of Operation Kenova, which is looking into the
[…] history of the British agent known as Stakeknife.’ – The Irish News,
editorial, Monday 02.12.19.
“There is no ‘agent
Stakeknife’. It is a canard – fake news!
“I will donate €250 to
charity if Jon Boutcher or the editor of The Irish News can prove the existence
of ‘agent Stakeknife’. Over to you, gentlemen.
“For more read
stakeknife.eu section 13 and sections 15 to 17. And then the full website,
please.”
As to Operation Kenova taking
up my wager – no chance. Jon Boutcher wants his knighthood. I want truth. The
two are incompatible.
Readers, thank you for
having gone thus far on a long journey.
*
The Irish Times, Thursday 29 October 2020 – [Stephen Herron, Director of Public Prosecutions
for Northern Ireland, said that four people will not face charges] “in
connection with an investigation into the agent codenamed Stakeknife…
“One individual,
understood to be agent Stakeknife, was considered by the Public Prosecution
Service for the offence of perjury.
“This related to making
affidavits sworn between 2003 and 2006, and the circumstances in which a
decision was subsequently taken not to prosecute, the PPS said…
“Mr Herron [concluded] in
all four cases, there was ‘insufficient evidence to provide a reasonable
prospect of conviction for any offence.’”
*
The above is a précis of
The Irish Times report. Last line, “…there was ‘insufficient evidence to
provide a reasonable prospect of conviction for any offence.’” In respect of
the perjury charge, is this a legal euphemism for saying there is no agent
named Stakeknife?
You would be hard pushed
to believe that on parsing many press reports over the years.
In those years, when
accusations of perjury were originally raised against Mr. Scappaticci for his
on oath denial of being the alleged agent Stakeknife, I was bemused enough to
ask how anybody could legitimately pursue a legal course of action against what
I saw as a non-existent entity – “agent Stakeknife”.
A very experienced
Specifics for reaching
this conclusion have not been disclosed. It would be interesting to know what
they are – especially those left publicly unsaid.
If the conclusion was
based on findings that there existed no evidence of an “agent Stakeknife”,
Scappaticci’s swearing on oath that he is not the alleged agent, could only be
true.
Go back to square one and
ask who originated the Stakeknife lie – and why.
*
|
Previous:
Stakeknife – Questions Asked |