Why was Diarmuid O'Neill killed?
BY FERN LANE
The surveillance tape transcript reveals a straight-forward shoot-to-kill
operation, but because of the British refusal to acknowledge the war, the
Metropolitan Police have been obliged to continue to claim that `Kilo' -
the officer who fired the fatal shots - believed his life to be in danger
when he killed Diarmuid. However, the tape manifestly contradicts this
claim.
| |
Why was Diarmuid O'Neill killed? Because, so the argument goes, he was an
IRA volunteer, this was war and he made himself a legitimate target. This
argument, however, is fatally undermined by the British government's
perverse insistence that the conflict in Ireland was not war, merely crime.
As a consequence, the Metropolitan Police have had to resort to
manipulating the law, lying, and covering their tracks.
The surveillance tape transcript reveals a straight-forward shoot-to-kill
operation, but because of the British refusal to acknowledge the war, the
Metropolitan Police have been obliged to continue to claim that `Kilo' -
the officer who fired the fatal shots - believed his life to be in danger
when he killed Diarmuid. However, the tape manifestly contradicts this
claim. The men had clearly surrendered, and Diarmuid was struggling to open
a door which had been damaged by the police attempting to batter it down.
As can be seen from the transcript, at no time was either his demeanour or
his language threatening in any way. It also does not explain why, after
Diarmuid had been hit by the initial burst of gunfire, Officer `Kilo' was
ordered by another officer to ``shoot the fuckers'', an order which he duly
obeyed, hitting Diarmuid a total of six times.
But even if we were to accept, for argument's sake, the implausible excuse
that `Kilo' feared for his life, there are other serious discrepancies for
which no explanation at all has been offered. During the trial of Pat Kelly
and Brian McHugh, who were with Diarmuid, the court heard that hundreds of
MI5 operatives where involved in a six-week surveillance operation of the
men but no attempt had been made to detain them. The intensity of the
surveillance leaves little question that if there was enough evidence
against them to go in with CS gas and automatic weapons in the early hours
of 23 September 1996, there was also sufficient evidence to arrest them for
some time prior to that.
Added to this is the fact that Diarmuid was an active member of his local
community in Hammersmith, London, a member of the Trades Unions Council and
other community groups. He was visible. He could very easily have been
arrested for questioning at any time over a period of several weeks. He
wasn't. The decision was made to use force instead.
Officer Kilo's excuse does not explain why, to the anger and dismay of the
medical staff who attempted to treat him when he finally arrived at
hospital, there was the imprint of a boot on Diarmuid's face. As he lay
dying on the floor, a police officer had seen fit to stand on his face.
Why? Did Kilo still believe his life was in danger? And why was no
ambulance called? Indeed the police prevented members of the public woken
by the noise from calling one for some 30 minutes.
| |
To the anger and dismay of the medical staff who attempted to treat him
when he finally arrived at hospital, there was the imprint of a boot on
Diarmuid's face. As he lay dying on the floor, a police officer had seen
fit to stand on his face.
|
After the shooting and as can be heard on the tape, Diarmuid was dragged
out of the building and the image of his blood smeared down the front steps
of his home is eloquent testimony to the way in which he was treated in
being taken out onto the street. Again, no explanation has been offered by
the police as to why they felt it was necessary to take him out of the
room. Certainly, the CS gas - which was used in such unprecedented
quantities that four days later forensics teams entering the building still
had to wear masks - would have made it difficult to treat him where he lay,
but these difficulties are insignificant in comparison to the danger of
dragging such a seriously injured man down two flights of stairs. Neither,
incidentally, did he receive any first aid.
Finally, and even more damning of the police in the light of the tape, was
their conduct in regard to the press. Bogus `witnesses' were dredged up for
the benefit of the press to promulgate the outrageous lie that there had
been a shoot-out and that the house was some kind of ammunition dump. For
example, several papers carried the claim from one that ``There were police
everywhere. They were shouting `Throw down your weapon' and `Throw down
your gun'.'' Another claimed that ``there was an exchange of fire.
``There were about eight shots and I heard a policeman saying `I have got
the gun, I have the gun, the son of a bitch'.'' The Guardian had someone
saying ``We heard them shouting from the ground; `Drop your gun, you've got
no chance'.'' The headline in the Daily Mirror which accompanied the picture
of the bloody steps was ``Don't cry for him. He was going to blow up the
Channel Tunnel tomorrow''. The Metropolitan Police enthusiastically
supported these claims for some three days before they were forced to
admit, via a one-paragraph report buried in the inside pages of The Times
that there were no guns, no explosives in the house and ``no evidence of any
intended target''.
The Metropolitan Police and the Britidh government may assume that the
great get-out clause so useful to policemen who indulge in shoot-to-kill or
the murder of civilians - ``I thought my life was in danger'' -
comprehensively answers their accusers, but they are wrong. Too many other
issues have been raised by the tape and the prior and subsequent conduct of
the police.
Neither campaigners for Diarmuid nor his family accept the paucity of the
explanation provided by Officer `Kilo' and will continue to insist, for as
long as it takes, that an independent inquiry is the only way obtain
answers to these questions.
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)