het

Drew Harris – liar or incompetent?

On 6th June 1990 the Provisional IRA placed a bomb under the car of James Sefton, a RUC officer, retired three years. The subsequent explosion killed him and his wife Ellen. My parents.

I began investigating the circumstances in 2002. I started with the PSNI.  I was bounced around between senior officers , including the “salad dodger’ , before finally meeting Chief Inspector Blair, who had evidently drawn the short straw.

He told me that the papers had been stored away. He did not know who had made that decision. Nor when the papers had been stored.  He was unable to give me any details about the investigation, if that is the correct word.

In March 2004 ACC Sam Kincaid informed me that the case was being examined  by the Serious Crime Review Team. You would be unsurprised, Dear Reader to learn that I never heard a word from this ‘team’ .

I asked the Historical Enquiries Team [lots of sporting analogies] to investigate. 

I also made a complaint to the Police Ombudsman.

Each of these organisations told me that they had had access to all intelligence and there was nothing to report.

I had correspondence with Drew Harris, then ACC Crime Operations [was this not a ‘team’?] .

He wrote : “ I can assure you that both the SCRT and the HET had full access to all available information and intelligence material during the course of their respective Reviews … Regrettably, the reviews conducted …did not uncover any new investigative opportunities.”

I sent a detailed reply:

1st September 2014

Dear Mr Harris,

                                      James and Ellen Sefton

Further to your letter of 11th August and my initial reply by email on 20th August, you state in your letter :

“I can assure you that both the SCRT and the HET had full access to all available information and intelligence information during the course of their respective enquiries.”

I would be glad if you would answer the following.

  1. On what do you base this assertion. Is it personal knowledge or are you relying on assurances given by others?
  2. If  the latter, who gave you these assurances?
  3. When you use the word “available”, what do you mean? Is it meant to qualify “intelligence”.
  4. Does the use of this word “available” indicate that someone decides to make information available to the investigators and if so,  who?
  5. Does the use of the word imply that there is other relevant information which has been withheld?

Dr Laura Lundy, in her paper, Can the past be policed? Lessons from the Historical Enquiries Team Northern Ireland, conducts a critique of , inter alia, the access to intelligence. What can be distilled from her report is the following:

  • Intelligence was still being found and collated while she was conducting her research. [I note Roy McComb’s late presentation of intelligence to the Smithwick Tribunal ]
  • “All aspects of intelligence are managed by former RUC and Special Branch (sic) officers”
  • “It appears that the ‘old guard’ play a key role in the management and access to intelligence and perform a censoring role in respect of disclosure.”
  • HET relies on the goodwill of partner agencies to cooperate. This would include the security services and Special Branch, now C3.

It appears to me that there could be three types of intelligence that may have been withheld in my parents’ case.

  1. Information held by a partner  agency or by the police which points to the person who planted the device or more importantly to those persons who directed and approved the operation.
  2. Information obtained by an informant , either participating or not, pointing to those responsible for directing planning approving or carrying the attack upon my parents.
  3. Similar information acquired by electronic or other means , not involving a CHIS.

 For example if  Special Branch had decided to withhold information at the time of the murders, it is possible that the same personnel could make the same decision, many years on. Certainly Sir John Hermon had his worries about “the Branch”.

I should be glad;

[a]  if you would assure me that no information has come to light since investigations were completed ;and

[b]  that no such information as set out above has been withheld from investigators by either the PSNI or any partner agency.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Sefton

Harris did not reply to this but delegated it to Detective Chief Superintendent Hanna, who wrote: “ACC Harris has management responsibility for Serious Crime Review Team and the Historical Enquiries Team, and so his response is based on his personal knowledge that both teams had full access to all available information during the course of their reviews.”

Hanna replied to further correspondence , on 29th October 2014:

“As previously pointed out PSNI have investigated the death of your parents and reviewed the investigation twice since the original investigation, there have been no new evidential opportunities identified”

The case papers were put in a box, again, and that was the last I heard from the PSNI. 

For context, Harris was the main man re intelligence and the point of contact for the Security Service until his appointment as Commissioner of AGS.

 However on 14th  June 1990 a communication was received by the RUC from An Garda Siochana  [“AGS”] , by letter [possibly faxed] 

The content was that the AGS had received intelligence from a ‘previously reliable source’ that there were threats to three RUC officers.

Namely:

James Stepton [sic]

A N Other

A N Other -serving in Tennent Street station

The source is recorded as stating that he overheard a conversation. He also provided a sketch map, hand drawn, which was communicated AGS-RUC.

I have seen that map , on a laptop computer screen.

  • An overheard conversation is often a euphemism for being present during the conversation. A handy way for a participating informant to distance himself from the operation.
  • The informant is likely to be a participating informant.
  •  There was no  ‘James Stepton’ on the force and a cursory investigation would have led the investigator to conclude to whom the report was referring.
  • The hand drawn map is , in many respects, accurate. It is undoubtedly of the Ballygomartin area. It shows  the turn of the road from the Woodvale Road to the Ballygomartin Road, Woodvale Park, Woodvale cricket ground, Glencairn park and a number of streets and roads. Although the writing is indistinct on the screen , I am satisfied that it also depicts Lyndhurst Gardens [my family home]and Westway Drive, the street immediately to the east of Lyndhurst Gardens.
  • The proportions are incorrect but the general ‘get up’ of the map shows a degree of local knowledge , which would not have been gleaned in an overheard conversation.
  • Most strikingly, there is an ‘X’ , or asterisk , which appears to be in Glencairn park an open area, not a street, which is east of Westway Drive and a line which appears to terminate at the top of Westway Drive.
  • If the significance of this is the location and then transport of a device, it would involve the navigation of a deep gully , a small stream and a similar climb on the other side, possibly to avoid patrols and Viper. 
  • It seems to me to be a planning document, showing how a bomb could be delivered to my parents’ house, avoiding the main roads. 

The information from the AGS was disseminated to the Regional Heads of Special Branch. 

One of the other officers who was mentioned in the message served at Tennent Street station and was warned about the threat. So we know that the message was acted upon by SB. 

Why did it not form part of an investigation into my parents’  murders?

Why has Harris insisted that there was no intelligence?

I am told by the Operation Kenova team, who turned up this intelligence, that they found it , stored within the RUC/PSNI intelligence systems.

A competent investigation team would have used the intel as a starting point. The reliable informant was telling AGS that he was present  [though he distances himself by stating that he overheard it] when an PIRA ASU planned the murders of three police officers. One was actually killed. The planning obviously took place before 6th June 1990, and likely took place in the Republic, possibly in Dundalk. His evidence would support a charge of conspiracy to murder.

The Army/Security Service had a number of  informants, including Scapaticci , in place in Dundalk and other places. Was the planning meeting bugged? Who were the planners? Was the AGS informant withholding their identities? Or were their identities known to AGS and withheld from the RUC?

If nobody in the RUC SB, on receipt of the intel said, do we have a James Stepton?- no but we have a James Sefton and he’s dead then they are truly incompetent. 

What happened in respect of the third person named I know not.

Harris gave evidence about his role to the Smithwick Tribunal in 2011. He said the following:

“I am responsible for all matters of intelligence, all matters in respect of homicide investigation. At the moment, I am also—have major responsibilities in respect of what’s known as legacy matters., and I would work closely with the historical inquiry team, who are investigating Troubles -related deaths, and they have some 3,260 deaths to investigate.”

Harris was given every opportunity to come clean on what he and others knew. When I said in my letter of 1st September 2014:

“It appears to me that there could be three types of intelligence that may have been withheld in my parents’ case.

  1. Information held by a partner  agency or by the police which points to the person who planted the device or more importantly to those persons who directed and approved the operation.
  2. Information obtained by an informant , either participating or not, pointing to those responsible for directing planning approving or carrying the attack upon my parents.
  3. Similar information acquired by electronic or other means , not involving a CHIS.“

Harris was being given a clear opportunity to disclose that information existed. 

Aside from his mendaciousness, the new information demonstrates what I have always alleged- that Special Branch cared not, even for their own and that this information, in existence for thirty four years , was known to a number of James’ colleagues, not one of whom disclosed it to me.

I am considering my next steps.

Would you buy a used car from Jeffrey Donaldson?

In the sixties , cars were pretty basic. The standard model had no radio, no heater and no carpets. For those you had to buy the “de luxe” model.

Neither were there many improvements or innovations.

So, in order to sell more models , the company would advertise the “new 1967 model” , which would just be like the 1966 model , except that it would have a different paint job, a new grille and go-faster stripes.

The Historical Enquiries Team was dreamt up by the Brits to make the citizen think that the State was somehow interested in solving the murders of their loved ones. It was a sop, which Sinn Fein IRA were happy  to go along with because they had been assured that it would also be a flop. Its modus operandi was to obtain the box containing the investigation file and associated items, dump them onto a desk, read them and put them back in the box. They then used a boiler plate template to produce a “report”. Those of us who objected to this charade were given the privilege of a “focussed report” where the team got off its ass and interviewed a few superannuated RUC men , who could remember nothing.

It was the basic model of investigation.

But now, a new model is in the showroom. The “de Luxe HIU”.

It has those go faster stripes, paint job and grille. But no heater or radio.

And its being sold by this man, your friendly knight of the showroom, Jeffrey Donaldson.

Jeffrey Donaldson

Here’s what he had to say about the HIU and all its works at a Westminster hall debate on 10 January 2017.

 

“Two years ago, we reached an agreement in Stormont about the legacy issues and several new institutions were proposed, including an historical investigations unit that would have full police powers to revisit the unsolved murders. The main impact of the establishment of that unit would be that the murders committed by the terrorists would finally be subjected to proper scrutiny and reinvestigation, and the innocent victims that the hon. Member for South Down referred to would have the opportunity to have their cases re-examined to see whether there was the prospect of prosecution and people being brought to justice. I accept the point that the hon. Member for South Antrim made about getting evidence for cases from so long ago.

The Stormont House agreement is there. There is currently an impasse between Sinn Féin and the Government on national security. Sinn Féin are demanding that this Government fully disclose in the public domain everything that happened, which would mean that if the Special Air Service had carried out an operation in Loughgall and shot members of the Provisional IRA who were exploding a bomb outside a police station, all that the SAS did—all the rationale, all its modus operandi and all the military planning that went into that operation—would be out in the public domain. How could we ever counter terrorism again if we put in the public domain the very methods that we use to detect what is happening and safeguard life? It is a nonsense that a former terrorist organisation should have the right to demand that a lawful Government put that information in the public domain.

The Government must hold the line on national security; further, they should act now. They need to proceed with the Stormont House agreement.”

Like most car salesmen, Dear Reader , this one is prone to exaggeration and not to be trusted.

His sales patter is a farrago of lies.

What are they?

In the next episode I will kick the tyres, open the bonnet and take Jeffrey’s de luxe model for a spin. Let’s see how it handles, compared to the old model, shall we?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone knows: an appeal

Harvey Weinstein’s behaviour and reputation were clearly common knowledge among the Hollywood set.

It took one woman to speak out. Then many others spoke out and then the ‘set’ admitted that they knew.

So too in Northern Ireland. Everyone knows that the IRA army council runs Sinn Fein. Everyone knows who is on the army council. They can be seen at Stormont any day of the week.

Everyone knows that many of them are MI5 agents, paid for by you and me.

Everyone knows that they were  sometimes allowed, by their British masters, to kill. Police officers , soldiers, civilians and children were their victims. Everyone knows.

But nobody will tell.

Every informer had a state team around him. Several handlers. Minders. Back up. Senior detectives who approved recruitment and payment. MI5 operatives who de-briefed them.

Lots of people who now live comfortably on a pension could unwrap hundreds of cases. The relief to the ageing families would be immense.

The PSNI won’t do it. The HET didn’t do it, [described by an army council member as a sop to the loyalists]. PONI doesn’t deliver and the HIU is a distant and flawed dream.

So I’m appealing to all those retired RUC men and women. All those soldiers who served here, many of whom are outraged at their treatment, compared to informers and on the runs.

As with Harvey, it just needs one to speak out. To tell us of the crimes of Donaldson, Scappaticci, Sean Maguire and Brian Gillen, all paid killers of the state.

Then the rest will open up.

Isn’t it time you salved you conscience?

“A clear conscience is the sure sign of a bad memory” Mark Twain.

Why Drew Harris is not to be trusted

Readers of this blog will have read my previous articles about the murders of my parents and my attempt to obtain justice for them.

During this campaign I have engaged, inter alia , the RUC, the PSNI, the HET , the Police Ombudsman and others.

A recurring theme, like “Blackpool” through a stick of rock , has been that there is no intelligence as to the killers. Every organisation has said the same thing.

Consider this. The two most deadly areas of conflict in the Troubles were South Armagh and North Belfast. It is likely that these two areas received the most attention from the security forces.

The “supremo” re intelligence in the PSNI is Drew Harris. He is presently Deputy Chief Constable.

In 2014 , when he was an ACC , I raised with him , again, the issue of intelligence, either before , during or after the murders. I had pointed out the persons whom  I alleged were informers to the PSNI, MI5 or the Army. [See previous blogs]. All agencies had told me that no such intelligence existed.

He said in a letter to me dated 11th August 2014, “Whilst is [sic] not appropriate to comment upon the governance arrangements that exist in relation to the exchange of intelligence between agencies, I can assure you that both the SCRT and the HET had full access to all available information and intelligence during the course of their respective Reviews.”

I recommend to you that you read Ed Moloney’s blog entitled “The Tom Oliver Killing-Transcript of Drew Harris’ Testimony to the Smithwick Tribunal”

Aside from the specific references to the killing, Mr Harris is plainly uncomfortable about the twenty pieces of intelligence [not silver] which had lately been laid before the tribunal at his hand.

Where have they been all these years, was one question.

Mr Harris placed these items of intelligence before the tribunal in October 2012. When his testimony  was read into the record, the tribunal had been hearing evidence for 124 days.

More importantly, North Belfast was riddled with PIRA informers. Sean Maguire, now SF/IRA publicity director , operated there. The  command structure encompassed Gillen, Spike Murray, Scap and McGuinness. All likely informers.

To suggest that no intelligence exists for 1990 in North Belfast ,  comparable to that in 1989   in South Armagh, is a lie and a desecration of the memory  of a man who served the RUC and of a woman who was an “innocent victim”

It’s time ‘men’ like Harris and others who populated Special Branch stood up and admitted what they did and the level of collusion between the State and PIRA.

Or are they just happy to spend their pension in Marks and Spencer ?

Does National Police Memorial Day prick any conscience?

 

Deputy First Minister/Murderer

Two interesting points emerged from last night’s Spotlight on BBC NI.

First , that Sinn Fein/PIRA’s command structure requires that murders must be approved by the man at the top, Gerry Adams.

This would of course be known to the State and anyone who has the least knowledge of SF/PIRA operations.

I made a similar allegation in June 2015 and stated that Martin McGuinness as head of Northern Command would have been aware of the plan to kill my father. He approved it. This was not a new allegation. Ed Moloney first made it in 2002 , in his book, “A Secret History of the IRA”.

McGuinness is guilty of murder , as an accessory.

The PSNI have refused to pursue McGuinness or any of the other persons whom I named. See my blog “The murderers of my parents”.

Several of the people named are also State agents.

Secondly, the allegation that there might have been 800 to 1,000 State agents within PIRA will equally come as no surprise to many people. Except that the PSNI, the HET and the Police Ombudsman cannot find one agent who has information on the murderers of my parents. This is what I have been consistently told by these organs of the state, since 1990.

They are simply telling me lies.

Like Hillsborough, the truth cannot remain hidden for ever. Adams has been in the firing line for several months now, because he is no longer of value to either the British or Irish States. McGuinness’s day will also come.

Sinn Fein IRA , in their press releases and statements in the last twenty four hours blame the Brits for a further propaganda campaign.

The awful truth is that the British State is protecting men and women who were involved in the murder of my parents and , so far , are protecting McGuinness.

As for Denis Donaldson and his murder, remember Dear Reader, nothing is ever as it seems in Northern Ireland.

Police and the bomb makers

During the course of the “troubles”, between 150 and 200 people were killed by under car booby trap bombs. In the period 1987-1992, thirty two attacks took place in the Belfast area. These devices, used almost exclusively by PIRA , reflected their cowardice and the morals of one of their leaders, Old Grandpa McGuinness, that folksy murderer who is now the Deputy First Minister.

What will  shock readers is the attitude of the RUC and PSNI to these devices. Here is what police told me:

“The intelligence picture showed there was a high degree of expertise within the Provisional IRA vested in an extremely small number of people. When the police identified these individuals they were subject of  [sic] intensive operations to target and disrupt their activities”

Imagine that instead of murder, rape was the crime. Contemplate the outcry if police said; “intelligence shows us that there are several serial rapists in the Belfast area. These people are known to us and they are the subject of intensive operations to target and disrupt their activity.”

To my knowledge, no UCBT bomb maker was ever convicted . My view is that the RUC high command did not try too hard, on orders from above.

Why do we accept this as normal?

UCBTs, another PSNI shambles

The Historical Enquiries Team told me in 2008 that “whenever a device failed to detonate it would be examined by Army Technical Officer’s [sic] and by this means ‘technically’ linked to other devices…There is no specific reference in the available case papers detailing any linkage between the UCBT used in the murder of your parents and other devices recovered during this period.”

Note there is no mention of forensic scientists.

In May 2014, I asked the Chief Constable  [among other things] :

1. What did the examination of the surviving bombs reveal?

2. Are the component parts of these bombs still available for evidential purposes?

3. What DNA has or could be extracted from these items?

ACC Harris [as he then was] replied in August 2014 as follows:

“The HET report made reference to fifteen UCBT type devices being defused. Although the SCRT review has led to the identification of potential forensic opportunities in respect of these devices, a senior scientist has concluded that although the bombs were similar in their makeup, they had subtle differences and could not be attributed to a single bomb maker.”

I asked Forensic Science NI for a copy of the report. Their reply was that :

“FSNI examined a number of devices during the period 1990 to 1992 however these were not correlated into any single report that we hold or have access to in our files.”

I served a freedom of information request on the PSNI on 13th November 2014. After much delay, it turns out that there is no report. Police now say that there was a verbal discussion with the HET during July 2014. They then go on , later in their reply to me to say this :

“there is no written report from the senior scientist in the case papers or the material created or gathered by the HET. The senior scientist verbally briefed the SIO and did not produce a written report or record notes of the verbal comments.”

So, dear reader, there you have it. Fourteen years after the murders , a senior police officer has a “verbal discussion” with a “senior scientist”. The latter has no written report and the former, disgracefully in respect of such an important matter, makes no notes whatsoever.

It’s hard not to come to the conclusion that police operations are populated with clowns and that senior officers would tell you anything.

Of course the alternative explanation is that they have been told not to try too hard.

Whichever way it is , the pain and grief that this  disgraceful behaviour causes victims is beyond words.

Under car booby trap bombs

Anyone who has been affected by one of these might be interested in this “nugget” from the Historical Enquiries Team.

“The intelligence picture showed there was a high degree of expertise within the Provisional IRA vested in an extremely small number of people. When the police identified those individuals they were subject of [sic] intensive operations to target and disrupt their activities.”

You might think, dear reader, that having been “identified” they might have been brought to court for their activities.

Not so. Why? Well perhaps they were informants. I have not yet been shown the “intelligence picture” but I’m working on it.