------------------------------------------
CHAPTER THREE - DEALING WITH THE WITNESSES
------------------------------------------

Although many members of the public had witnessed the shootings the
Gibraltar police made very little effort to find these witnesses.
Detective Chief Inspector Correa, in charge of the police inquiry,
claimed that despite making an appeal 'witnesses were not coming
forward at all'. He claimed that the police had tried persistently to
find witnesses. This does not tie in with the experience of Stephen
Bullock who having gone to the police voluntarily to give his
statement then pestered them for two months to take a statement from
his wife who had also been present. For police suffering a dearth of
witnesses this seems strange. Even stranger is the fact that whereas
the police, for all their resources, could not find witnesses, the
press could. Indeed they found some of the key witnesses to appear at
the inquest. Carmen Proetta, for instance, was not approached by the
Gibraltar police. It was left to the Death on the Rock team to do what
should have been done by the Gibraltar police, to actively seek
witnesses by going from door to door in the areas surrounding the
scene of the shootings. Gibraltar is a very small place and people
know each other there. It is unbelievable that outsiders from the
British press should have found civilian witnesses when the police
could not. The truth is that the police did not try. They did not want
witnesses. They managed instead to produce an extraordinary succession
of off-duty police witnesses who gave safe and predictable evidence.


CARMEN PROETTA - THE PENALTY FOR TELLING THE TRUTH

Of all the civilian eyewitnesses to the Gibraltar murders, Carmen
Proetta's evidence was potentially some of the most damning for the
British government.

Carmen Proetta told Death on the Rock that she had seen McCann and
Farrell shot without warning with their hands in the air. As soon as
her evidence became publicly known she was subjected to a campaign of
threats and a barrage of press lies. The pressure on her was so
enormous, that despite being one of the most strongly determined of
the witnesses to speak out, she told the inquest:

    'Let me tell you one thing, sir, If this had happened again I
    would not be here to give evidence.'

The day after Death on the Rock was broadcast, her husband received a
phone call from a man claiming to be a policeman. He told him that the
family's lives would be 'made a misery'. The Proetta children also
received threats.

But it was left to the British press to apply the real pressure. For
no other reason than that she had inconvenient testimony, the press,
particularly the Murdoch-owned press, viciously attacked her. The
Sunday Times launched a series of articles purporting to show that her
story was untrue and saying that other witnesses had called her
testimony ridiculous. This, like virtually every word published by the
Sunday Times about Gibraltar, was a pack of lies.

The Sun, however, went even further. Two days after Death on the Rock
was broadcast they printed a front page with a photograph of Carmen
Proetta headlined 'Tart of Gib'. It said in bold letters: 'The Sun
discovers shock truth about IRA witness Carmen. . she's an
ex-prostitute, runs an escort agency, and is married to a sleazy drug
peddler'. As well as suddenly making Carmen an 'IRA witness' they also
said that both she and her husband were anti-British.

As is normal the Sun had concocted a story based on distortions and
outright lies. For example, the escort agency was a tourist agency and
Proetta's only connection was that she lent her name as a director in
order that the company could comply with Spanish law. In fact she
ceased even this distant connection with the company in 1985. Carmen
Proetta was reported to be taking legal action against these
newspapers.

In December 1988 Mrs Proetta was awarded 50,000 pounds damages against
the Sun and more will follow from other papers. However this came too
late to undo the damage done to her evidence at the inquest. Not only
was she put under enormous pressure but her testimony, when it finally
came at the inquest, must have been devalued in the eyes of the jury.
The British press, remembering the 'Tart of Gib' headline, was more
interested in her split skirt than her evidence.

Whilst the government did not actively involve itself with the
campaign against Proetta neither did they distance themselves from it.
Mrs Thatcher and Co. raged about the Death on the Rock programme,
calling it trial by television', but (and it should not be forgotten
that Mrs Thatcher is in regular personal contact with Murdoch) ignored
the trial by newspapers which Mrs Proetta endured.

Other witnesses and potential witnesses must have watched Carmen
Proetta's ordeal with apprehension. Was the same thing likely to
happen to them if they spoke out? Whilst she got the worst of the
press treatment, other witnesses were subjected to direct threats.


ROBYN MORDUE - 'YOU'VE GOT TO STAY AWAY'

Robyn Mordue was on holiday in Gibraltar on 6 March. He witnessed the
shooting of Sean Savage. Most crucially he saw Savage fall to the
ground following a burst of shots, then he heard a second burst of
shots and when he looked up saw an SAS man standing over Savage with
his hands pointing downwards. Whilst not conclusive evidence that
Savage had been shot on the ground it was very suggestive.

Mordue, having witnessed the killing on 6 March, did not report to the
police and returned to Britain. Later two Special Branch officers came
to see him and asked him to make a statement. He did so.

After this he began receiving threatening phone calls both to his
ex-directory number at home and to his workplace. The callers, with
English accents, called him a 'bastard' and told him 'You've got to
stay away'. Mordue was clearly frightened and has said: 'People seem
to know more about me than anything I have said' and that 'a lot of
people' were checking up on him.

There is no way of knowing what effect this had on Mordue's testimony.
What is known is that he was very nervous and confused in the witness
box. So much so that he had to be recalled to give his evidence from
the beginning again. He had to be cross-examined several times in
order to clarify his evidence. In the end it was clear that he had
heard a second burst of shots fired after Savage hit the ground. But
so confused and nervous had he been as a witness that the Coroner
crucially misre ported his evidence. In his summing up the Coroner
told the jury that Mordue had said that no shots were fired whilst
Savage was on the ground. This was quite wrong and entirely destroyed
the value of Mordue's testimony.

It is hard to believe that Proetta and Mordue alone were singled-out
for special treatment. It can be assumed that other witnesses were
threatened. It just happens, in the cases of Proetta and Mordue, that
they spoke out about the threats they had received. Moreover pressure
can take many forms.


VICTOR ADAMS - THE WITNESS WITH NOTHING TO SAY

Victor Adams was the only civilian injured during the events on 6
March, receiving a slight wound from a ricochet. At the inquest his
evidence consisted of saying that he had seen nothing. However, before
the inquest he was publicised by the Times as an important 'new
witness'. He was questioned first by British police after which two
Gibraltar police flew over to take another statement. This seems a lot
of effort for a witness who saw nothing. Another newspaper, the
Sheffield Star, reported in May that Adams had witnessed the shootings
and been questioned at length by representatives from 'various
government departments' and 'others'. According to Private Eye, Adams
has consistently refused to name these 'departments' or the 'others'.
It is reported that he has been paid a sum of 10,000 pounds
compensation by the Ministry of Defence for the minor wound he
received.


KENNETH ASQUEZ - THE WITNESS WHO BECAME 'CONFUSED'

Finally we have the strange case of bank clerk Kenneth Asquez. His
original evidence (given in the form of an unsigned statement in his
own handwriting to a Major Bob Randall and subsequently verbally
confirmed to a solicitor representing the Death on the Rock programme)
was that he had seen an SAS soldier shoot Savage in the head whilst
standing over him with a foot on his chest. Had he stuck to this, it
would have been shattering for the British government. The Coroner
made clear that unlawftil killing verdicts would have to follow if it
could be shown that the three were flnished off whilst on the ground.
Asquez's original story represented a grave threat to the British
government.

However, Asquez did not stick to his story. On the same day that
Carmen Proetta appeared in the witness box, so did Asquez. It was his
evidence that was to capture the headlines and give comfort to the
British government. For he claimed that although he had been driving
past the area of the shooting with friends he had invented the details
of what happened. He said that when he made the original statement he
had been confused, ill and under pressure from Major Bob Randall.
After the inquest he publicly retracted this allegation against
Randall.

Although the British government and press seized on his evidence and
described it as a retraction, this is not true. Asquez did not retract
his original story in a clear-cut way. Indeed, he was incoherent to
the point of incomprehension in the witness box. These bizarre
exchanges were typical:

 Coroner:	Was this statement true, or parts of it correct and parts
            of it not true?

 Asquez:	At the moment I'm a bit confused, because my mind is not
            so clear.

Later:

 Coroner:	Did you see a man bleeding on the ground?

 Asquez:	I can't remember very clearly.

 Coroner:	You can't remember very clearly?

 Asquez:	He was on the side of the road. At the time I was
            suffering from an illness and am not very clear about it.
            I'm a bit confused.

 Coroner:	All right, but you don't see a body lying every day.

 Asquez:	I suppose not, but, as I said, at the time of this
            statement I was under pressure a lot from Bob Randall.

 Coroner:	Yes, I understand that. At the time you made.

 Asquez:	I was heavily relying on the newspapers and the press.

 Coroner:	Did you say you relied on the newspapers?

 Asquez:	No.

 Coroner:	Who did?

 Asquez:	Whoever made this up.

 Coroner:	You made this up? Who relied heavily on the press?

 Asquez:	On making some parts of it.

 Coroner:	You relied on the press reports to make this story up?

 Asquez:	Part of it, yes.

 Coroner:	Where did you get the bit about someone standing over the
            dying man's throat?

 Asquez:	I guess I must have heard it.

 Coroner:	And you've no recollection where else you might have got
            it from?

 Asquez:	No. The media I guess.

 Shorthand 
 Writer:    Pardon?

 Asquez:	The media I guess.

 Coroner:	Can you not remember which particular newspapers?

 Asquez:	No.

 Coroner:	And where did you get this bit about 'Stop, it's OK, it's
            the police'?

 Asquez:	I guess I must have read or heard it.

 McGrory:	I can't hear a word.

 Barrister 
 Hucker:    Could he speak into the microphone, might that
            help?

Later:

 McGrory:	Is the vital part of that statement that the man with the
            black beret had his foot on the dying man's throat: he
            shouted stop and they then fired a further three or four
            shots... Did you make thay up?

 Asquez:	Probably.

 McGrory:	Of all the people present in this room, only you know if
            you made it up or not, and what you are saying. There are
            eleven of your fellow citizens of Gibraltar, tell them
            whether it's true or not.

 Asquez:	I can't say 'yes' or 'no'. I was probably still confused.


Asquez gave every impression not of a man confused but terrified out of
his wits. There are several points about Asquez's original statement and
his 'retraction' of it that do not add up.

Firstly, in his original statement Asquez had mentioned certain
details which did not become known until the inquest itself. These
were that the SAS men, after shooting Savage, put on black berets and
shouted 'Stop, it's OK, it's the police'. When pressed by the Coroner
about how he knew this Asquez merely said he had got it from the media
or heard it. But these details were not publicised at the time Asquez
made his statement. A search of newspapers failed to produce any such
details.

Secondly, after Asquez gave his statement to Randall, a solicitor
acting for Death on the Rock took an affidavit from him. Asquez made
clear to this solicitor that he did not want to be involved with the
press or to give evidence. Nevertheless on the basis of his
conversation with Asquez, the solicitor drew up an affidavit which is
in all essentials the same as Asquez's original handwritten statement.
The solicitor was clear that Asquez had told him about the man
standing with his foot on Savage's chest. The solicitor could only
have heard this from Asquez during this interview because he had not
even seen Asquez's original handwritten statement containing these
points.

Asquez told the solicitor that he was 'extremely frightened' and
wished he had never made his original statement. The solicitor
undertook to try and get his handwritten statement back as it was
'dangerous' to have it floating around Gibraltar. The solicitor told
the inquest: '...at no time did he tell me he had been pressurised
into making the witness statement. At no time was he under any
pressure or inducement from me. So if he had wanted an opportunity to
tell me that what he had said before was not true, I can't think ofa
better one. In fact the solicitor told the inquest that he had
believed Asquez's evidence and had found him 'a sincere young man'.

Thirdly, Asquez, like all the other witnesses, must have come under
serious pressure to retract his statement. He claimed to have lied in
order to get rid of the pressure of a few phone calls from Randall.
How much greater must have been the pressure to retract? He had seen
what had happened to other controversial witnesses. This would be
enough to frighten most people off. Perhaps he was subjected to other,
more direct threats. Whatever the reason, after he made his first
statement he became a very frightened young man. After the inquest he
admitted that Randall had not put pressure on him. Thus he withdrew
the only reason he ever gave for making that original statement.We are
left with no other reason for his original statement than this: it was
true.

Fourthly, Asquez admitted that he was in a car with other people in
the area of Savage's killing. The people were: Terence PoIson,
Polson's wife and Asquez's girlfriend. Only PoIson was seen by the
police. Why were the other people in the car not approached for
evidence? Why were they not called to give evidence at the inquest?
Why were Asquez's workmates at the bank, who had been discussing the
events with Asquez on the day after the shootings, not called to give
evidence about what Asquez had said?

Fifthly, why was Major Randall, to whom Asquez gave his statement, not
called to the inquest? Major Randall denies that he pressurised or
offered money to Asquez. His evidence of what Asquez said so soon
after the shootings would have cast some light on Asquez's subsequent
'confusion'. Randall was willing to appear at the inquest but was told
he would not be needed.

The Asquez mystery will probably never be solved. However, given the
known threats and pressures on other witnesses, it is more than likely
that he was terrified or pressurised in some other way into casting
doubt on his original statement. This was an enormous boost for the
British government. As an added bonus, the case was used to launch an
'inquiry' into the Death on the Rock programme, the only serious
journalistic challenge about the killings which the government had
faced.

There was one further general problem facing several of the civilian
witnesses. lt was the problem of witnesses who try to tell the truth
when put up against well-drilled and disciplined liars. As they had
nothing to gain and much to lose by continuing to give 'inconvenient'
testimony, it can be assumed that the civilian witnesses with evidence
contradicting the SAS tried to be as truthful as possible at the
inquest. A truthful witness, particularly a civilian untrained in
observation and recollection, will often admit uncertainty about what
they saw. Several witnesses with powerful testimony were thus forced
to admit uncertainties about some aspects of their evidence.

As the government lawyers were well aware, such uncertainty inevitably
devalues their testimony in a court. But the SAS faced no such
problems. Because they lied consistently all the way through they were
never uncertain. It is worth recording some of Soldier A's evidence.
He was grilled by both Paddy McGrory and the jury foreman about the
aggressive movement he claimed to have seen Farrell make just before
he shot her.

 Paddy 
 McGrory:	If she heard it (the first shot at McCann) it's possible
            it would be very startling?

 Soldier A: It's a possibility.

 McGrory:	And people who are startled can jump?

 Soldier A:	I would presume so, sir, yes. But it was not a jump; it
            was a movement of the bag across the body.

 Jury 
 Foreman:	When you say that Farrell made an aggressive movement,
            could you describe that movement as a sudden movement?

 Soldier A:	A sudden move?

 Foreman:	I just want a straight yes or no: when you say that
            Farrell made an aggressive movement, could you describe
            the movement as sudden instead of aggressive?

 Soldier A	To me, at that time, it looked an aggressive move.

 Foreman:	Could you also describe it as a sudden movement?

 Soldier A:	It was very sharp.

 Foreman:	Would you agree that such a movement could also be
            described as a startled movement?

 Soldier A:	The movement I saw, I believe, was a sudden, quick
            movement, like a violent move. That is the best I can
            explain it.

 Foreman:	Would you agree that sudden movement could also be
            described as a startled movement?

 Soldier A:	It didn't strike me as startled. I would describe startled
            as jumping, as if with shock. This was not.

It is hard to believe that Soldier A is talking about a small movement
of Mairead Farrell's arm. From what he claims was several metres'
distance he could distinguish between an aggressive and a startled
movement. This is the certainty of a well-drilled liar.

It contrasts with the way in which civilian witnesses did their best
to give truthful evidence. Thus, for example, Mrs Celecia gave
evidence that she heard gunshots and saw McCann and Farrell on the
ground. Then she heard further shots and saw a man by the bodies with
his hands extended down. The government's lawyers wanted to o'iscredit
this evidence that the two were shot on the ground by suggesting that
what she had heard was not a second burst of shots fired into the two,
but the sound of Sean Savage being shot further down the road.

 Lawyer:	Could they have come from further down Smith Dorrien
            Avenue, the shots you heard?

 Celecia:	No.

 Lawyer:	I must formally put it to you that you never saw anybody
            being fired upon while they were lying on the ground; you
            never saw anybody being shot while they were on the
            ground.

 Celecia:	These people were lying on the ground, and I could hear
            the sounds coming from that direction.

 Lawyer:	Is it not possible that these bangs were coming from
            further up the road?

 Celecia:	I can't tell that.

 Lawyer:	You cannot say?

 Celecia:	No.

 Lawyer:	In reality they could be, couldn't they?

 Celecia:	Of course they could.

Mrs Celecia admitted that they could have come from further up the
road but still maintained that they had come from where the two were
lying. But, as Soldier A knew very well, to admit to 'could be's' in a
courtroom is disaster. These 'uncertainties' were exploited to the
full by the government lawyers.
