OMAGH BOMB TRIAL LEARNS OF 'COCK-UPS' AT CRIME SCENE
Omagh bomb trial learns of 'cock-ups' at crime scene
A TOP cop in the Omagh bomb trial has admitted that people who had "no legitimate business" being in a preserved crime scene had been given access to it.
Under cross-examination for the second day at Belfast Crown Court yesterday (Wednesday) in the trial of alleged bomber Sean Gerard Hoey, Det. Chief Insp. Philip Greer Marshall revealed that the army's General Officer Commanding, two colonels, military intelligence officers, other squaddies and RUC officers had all been allowed into the scene of a mortar bomb find in April 2001.
DCI Marshall also agreed with defence QC Orlando Pownall that "on every occasion your testimony is tested against in-dependant evidence it is found wanting in respect of Altmore," replying simply, "Yes I do."
At the end of yesterday's evidence, Mr Justice Weir ordered transcripts of the evidence of both DCI Marshall and top Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO) Fiona Cooper to allow the Crown to study it. By the start of next week, the prosecution have to tell the judge, having studied the evidence, whether they still wish the court to rely on that evidence.
The judge lifted reporting restrictions on the case after three days of revelations at the Diplock (non-jury) trial.
On Tuesday, DCI Marshall admitted he had been "found out" in asking Mrs Cooper to amend her statement concerning evidence about the mortar bomb find in Altmore Forest, close to Dungannon.
Hoey, 37, an electrician from Holly Road, Jonesborough in South Armagh, denies a total of 58 charges, including the worst terrorist atrocity to be committed in Northern Ireland - the Omagh bombing in which 29 people, as well as unborn twins, lost their lives.
Under cross-examination from leading London QC Orlando Pownall, DCI Marshall was asked if he had not made a note "of improper things because you hoped to get away with it, but you were found out". "Yes, my lord," he replied.
It was also revealed that two statements by Mrs Cooper dated October 22, 2002, could not have been made or signed by her on that date as she was in Zambia.
Earlier on Tuesday, Mrs Cooper admitted that DCI Marshall - then a sergeant -had asked her to alter her original statement to include further details concerning what she did and what she was wearing forensically. However Mrs Cooper denied her evidence concerning three bomb plots was "wholly unsatisfactory".
At one point, the trial judge interjected that such comments were a matter for the court to decide. It was not the first time that Mr Justice Weir had interjected. He advised Mrs Cooper that professionals like her had only one reputation to loose and, once lost, it "cannot be easily or satisfactorily regained". He also told the chief Inspector to be careful what he said in the witness box, telling him he did not like him using the phrases "I would have" or "should have".
At one point when Chief Insp. Marshall said he had not a "100% memory" of phoning Mrs Cooper about her statement, the judge asked would Mr Marshall give the court "whatever percentage" he did remember. "I don't recall at all," said DCI Marshall.
On Wednesday, DCI Marshall denied making up the statements for Mrs Cooper, telling the court he would not do that as it would be "acting improperly". He did accept that a member of the Omagh investigation team "must have" approached him to speak to Mrs Cooper but told the court that he had "no note" of who did.
Mr Pownall suggested to him the scenario regarding Mrs Cooper's statement was that "we need to beef up the evidence that there could not have been contamination" and, although he disagreed with the term "beefing up," he did concede that he had been asked to "clarify the forensic position".
In relation to his presence at the scene itself, DCI Marshall had said he believed he had been wearing a forensic suit but yesterday, when Mr Pownall put to him photographs proved otherwise, he admitted he had not been. He agreed that it would be "crazy" to have put the exhibits back into the van where the mortar was found before it was taken back to Dungannon police station but he thought that is what happened in this case. He added that if that had happened, he would have expected the SOCO to go with the van and potential exhibits back to the station but Mr Pownall then revealed that, according to the incident log book, the van left at 16.30 while both DCI Marshall and Mrs Cooper left an hour later.
The lawyer put to DCI Marshall directly that given the circumstances of Mrs Cooper being in Zambia, did he "take it upon yourself in her absence to prepare a statement which was sent to Omagh unsigned because she wasn't there and then you get instruction this isn't good enough so you prepared another statement". The witness denied that, telling the court, "I do not believe it would have."
The officer said that in relation to the Omagh investigation team, he had "dealings" with Supt Baxter, Sergeants Montief and Lenonard and Constable Farley and admitted that "it must have been" one of the four who asked him to amend Mrs Cooper's statement.
He did agree to Mr Pownall's suggestion that in relation to the van, police had received intelligence telling them it had been bought in Monaghan 12 hours before it was uncovered in the forest. However, DCI Marshall further agreed that of the names allegedly associated with leaving the van at the scene - but not the manufacture of the device - Sean Hoey wasn't among them.
Later on Wednesday, it transpired that a pair of gloves uncovered 100 metres from the van had been listed as being found at the back of the vehicle, with the officer conceding that it was "grossly misleading". Mr Pownall put to DCI Marshall that this was another example which "betrayed your lack of concern for detail" and he had a "slap dash approach" to exhibits. DCI Marshall simply replied, "Yes".
It was while being questioned by Mr Justice Weir that the officer agreed there had been a "whole procession" of people through the scene, including various Army top brass, before it had been decided to preserve it for the ultra-sensitive low copy number DNA examination. He also admitted army officers "would not be wearing forensic protection" suits. The case continues at hearing.
A TOP cop in the Omagh bomb trial has admitted that people who had "no legitimate business" being in a preserved crime scene had been given access to it.
Under cross-examination for the second day at Belfast Crown Court yesterday (Wednesday) in the trial of alleged bomber Sean Gerard Hoey, Det. Chief Insp. Philip Greer Marshall revealed that the army's General Officer Commanding, two colonels, military intelligence officers, other squaddies and RUC officers had all been allowed into the scene of a mortar bomb find in April 2001.
DCI Marshall also agreed with defence QC Orlando Pownall that "on every occasion your testimony is tested against in-dependant evidence it is found wanting in respect of Altmore," replying simply, "Yes I do."
At the end of yesterday's evidence, Mr Justice Weir ordered transcripts of the evidence of both DCI Marshall and top Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO) Fiona Cooper to allow the Crown to study it. By the start of next week, the prosecution have to tell the judge, having studied the evidence, whether they still wish the court to rely on that evidence.
The judge lifted reporting restrictions on the case after three days of revelations at the Diplock (non-jury) trial.
On Tuesday, DCI Marshall admitted he had been "found out" in asking Mrs Cooper to amend her statement concerning evidence about the mortar bomb find in Altmore Forest, close to Dungannon.
Hoey, 37, an electrician from Holly Road, Jonesborough in South Armagh, denies a total of 58 charges, including the worst terrorist atrocity to be committed in Northern Ireland - the Omagh bombing in which 29 people, as well as unborn twins, lost their lives.
Under cross-examination from leading London QC Orlando Pownall, DCI Marshall was asked if he had not made a note "of improper things because you hoped to get away with it, but you were found out". "Yes, my lord," he replied.
It was also revealed that two statements by Mrs Cooper dated October 22, 2002, could not have been made or signed by her on that date as she was in Zambia.
Earlier on Tuesday, Mrs Cooper admitted that DCI Marshall - then a sergeant -had asked her to alter her original statement to include further details concerning what she did and what she was wearing forensically. However Mrs Cooper denied her evidence concerning three bomb plots was "wholly unsatisfactory".
At one point, the trial judge interjected that such comments were a matter for the court to decide. It was not the first time that Mr Justice Weir had interjected. He advised Mrs Cooper that professionals like her had only one reputation to loose and, once lost, it "cannot be easily or satisfactorily regained". He also told the chief Inspector to be careful what he said in the witness box, telling him he did not like him using the phrases "I would have" or "should have".
At one point when Chief Insp. Marshall said he had not a "100% memory" of phoning Mrs Cooper about her statement, the judge asked would Mr Marshall give the court "whatever percentage" he did remember. "I don't recall at all," said DCI Marshall.
On Wednesday, DCI Marshall denied making up the statements for Mrs Cooper, telling the court he would not do that as it would be "acting improperly". He did accept that a member of the Omagh investigation team "must have" approached him to speak to Mrs Cooper but told the court that he had "no note" of who did.
Mr Pownall suggested to him the scenario regarding Mrs Cooper's statement was that "we need to beef up the evidence that there could not have been contamination" and, although he disagreed with the term "beefing up," he did concede that he had been asked to "clarify the forensic position".
In relation to his presence at the scene itself, DCI Marshall had said he believed he had been wearing a forensic suit but yesterday, when Mr Pownall put to him photographs proved otherwise, he admitted he had not been. He agreed that it would be "crazy" to have put the exhibits back into the van where the mortar was found before it was taken back to Dungannon police station but he thought that is what happened in this case. He added that if that had happened, he would have expected the SOCO to go with the van and potential exhibits back to the station but Mr Pownall then revealed that, according to the incident log book, the van left at 16.30 while both DCI Marshall and Mrs Cooper left an hour later.
The lawyer put to DCI Marshall directly that given the circumstances of Mrs Cooper being in Zambia, did he "take it upon yourself in her absence to prepare a statement which was sent to Omagh unsigned because she wasn't there and then you get instruction this isn't good enough so you prepared another statement". The witness denied that, telling the court, "I do not believe it would have."
The officer said that in relation to the Omagh investigation team, he had "dealings" with Supt Baxter, Sergeants Montief and Lenonard and Constable Farley and admitted that "it must have been" one of the four who asked him to amend Mrs Cooper's statement.
He did agree to Mr Pownall's suggestion that in relation to the van, police had received intelligence telling them it had been bought in Monaghan 12 hours before it was uncovered in the forest. However, DCI Marshall further agreed that of the names allegedly associated with leaving the van at the scene - but not the manufacture of the device - Sean Hoey wasn't among them.
Later on Wednesday, it transpired that a pair of gloves uncovered 100 metres from the van had been listed as being found at the back of the vehicle, with the officer conceding that it was "grossly misleading". Mr Pownall put to DCI Marshall that this was another example which "betrayed your lack of concern for detail" and he had a "slap dash approach" to exhibits. DCI Marshall simply replied, "Yes".
It was while being questioned by Mr Justice Weir that the officer agreed there had been a "whole procession" of people through the scene, including various Army top brass, before it had been decided to preserve it for the ultra-sensitive low copy number DNA examination. He also admitted army officers "would not be wearing forensic protection" suits. The case continues at hearing.
Further Information
Publisher: ULSTER HERALD
Ref: UH/1871
Published Date: 12-Oct-06
Related Images
