CHAPTER FOUR

--------------
A LIKELY STORY
--------------


    All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the
    press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to
    bribe, buy and fake 'public opinion "for the benefit of the
    bourgeoisie.'

                                                    VI Lenin

From the moment the Gibraltar Three were butchered on Sunday 6
March the British media, with a handful of exceptions, followed in the
government's footsteps as it moved to cover up its criminal deed.

The first stage consisted of gung-ho bragging about how the 'heroes of
the SAS' (Sun) had foiled an IRA bombing and killed the three in a
shoot-out. The style was strictly 'Gunfight at the OK Corral'. 'A
fierce gun battle broke out' (ITN). The BBC and The Independent also
referred to a 'shoot-out'. Today wrote of 'shooting' breaking out. The
Scottish Daily Record spoke of 'a gun battle'.

The Sun even uncovered an anonymous eyewitness who reported that
the three were armed. Today also found the same witness.

All the media, printed and broadcast, were agreed that there was a
500lb bomb. It was defused by a robot (ITN 12.30pm 7 March - just
three hours before Howe told Parliament that there was no bomb). It
was defused by the RAF (Daily Mail). 'A controlled explosion failed to
set off the bomb' (Daily Mirror). It was 'remote control' (Today and
The Independent).

It was on a 'video timing device' (Daily Mirror). The type of
explosive used indicated ETA involvement (BBC).

The only drawback to all these stories, of course, was that there was no
bomb and the three were unarmed. By 10pm on Sunday night the MOD
was officially refusing to confirm the bomb stories. The MOD had also
confirmed that there were no reports of guns being found on the bodies.
Only Irish newspapers carried this fact.

Unwilling to allow the facts to get in the way of a good story, the
BBC was still referring to a car bomb half an hour after Howe's
statement. The initial stories fed to the media from official sources
had been so grossly untrue that The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph
were moved to complain. After all, how can they be expected to
bamboozle the public effectively if they are shown to be printing such
nonsense?

Many of the newspapers were less fussy and, despite their own role in
printing completely false accounts of the killings, they did not
hesitate later to accuse the Thames Television programme Death on the
Rock of distortion.

One interesting feature of the early coverage, however, is that some
reports stated that the SAS had shot the three without warning.
'Policemen jumped out of a car and shot to kill without warning at the
head and chests of the suspected terrorists' (Daily Mirror). The
independent also reported witnesses who could not remember any
challenge.

Others were more conscious of the needs of their masters. The Sun
quoted the same witness as the Daily Mirror but left out the words 'without
warning'. The BBC repeatedly asserted that the three had been challenged.

Immediately after Howe's statement most of the media switched their
attention to their favourite sport - hunting the mystery bomber.
Evelyn Glenholmes was, as always, the first choice. 'Sister of Blood'
said the Daily Record. An Irish journalist has revealed that he was
told that Glenholmes was first chosen because 'We have a nice picture
of her and she won't sue". Other contenders followed: Mary Parkin,
Owen Coogan, Patrick Ryan and Peter Rooney.

The Guardian, The independent and the Daily Telegraph did run
questioning reports and leaders in the weeks after the killings but it
was not until Death on the Rock was screened that a really incisive,
closely-argued thoroughly-researched investigation appeared.

This programme, made to the highest standards of investigative
reporting, showed that the three were tracked all the way to the
Gibraltar/Spain border and handed over to British intelligence; that
they were shot without warning; that they were finished off on the
ground; that two at least appeared to be surrendering; that it was
highly unlikely that they could have detonated a bomb by remote
control even if there had been a bomb in the car; that the car could
not reasonably have been thought to contain a bomb. It was a
devastating critique of the government case and pointed clearly to the
verdict 'shoot-to-kill' although the programme did not draw this
conclusion, merely arguing for a public inquiry.

The press, again with a handful of exceptions, responded to this
message by trying to shoot the messenger. First they went for a key
witness: Carmen Proetta. Significantly, at this stage, there was no
questioning of Kenneth Asquez's anonymous evidence. 'Shame of the SAS
smear girl' (Star); 'Trial by TV Carmen is Escort Girl boss' (Daily
Express); 'The Tart of Gib' (Sun). Carmen Proetta was now a lying
ex-prostitute who had voted against remaining British in a referendum
and was married to a criminal. Proetta has already been awarded
substantial damages against the Sun and is also sueing the Daily Star,
Daily Express, Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Daily Mirror.

She had severed her purely formal connection with the escort agency
Eve International three years previously. She had never been a
prostitute. She had not voted at all in the referendum. Her husband
was facing charges but this is hardly evidence of her lack of
credibility. Indeed she works as a legal translator in the courts on
the Costa del Sol.

The Death on the Rock team had checked Proetta's background and that
of the other witnesses. They found nothing to question her
credibility. They had also checked that it was possible for her to
have seen what she said she had seen. They also asked Lt Col George
Styles to sit in on the interview with Proetta and give his own
judgement on her evidence. Styles was asked if he thought her evidence
was accurate and credible. In an untransmitted section of transcript
he replied: 'Oh, I think so, yes. Exactly. And she was very coherent
about it all too, and shocked.' Styles was then asked why he was sure:

    'Well, we had walked the course before, hadn't we? We'd seen the
    marks on the petrol pumps, we'd heard the descriptions of other
    people, about people jumping over railings, and it all fits into
    the general impression that we formed at the time, you know. And
    her evidence was just corroboration really.'

Not only was Proetta's account credible but also it fitted other
accounts and physical evidence such as the bullet marks on the petrol
pumps.

The Sunday Times, heavily briefed by the MOD, devoted two successive
issues, 1 and 8 May, to rubbishing the programme and Proetta's
evidence (but not Asquez's). They claimed that other witnesses
rejected Proetta's evidence. All the other witnesses have since denied
this and witness Stephen Bullock has said that the Sunday Times
misrepresented him and that the newspaper's story was 'a complete load
of nonsense'.

The Sunday Times claimed that George Styles was angry with Thames
Television and that his evidence had been distorted. Styles has since
written to Thames denying this. His criticisms all concerned minor
points of detail. In so far as Styles' account was edited by Thames it
was to remove Styles' detailed speculation that the killings were a
deliberate ambush set in train by the signal of a police siren.

So intent was the Sunday Times on bolstering the government case that
one of its key journalists on the story, who has since resigned, made
public her unhappiness over the way in which the Sunday Times used her
reports. She has said that accounts of her interviews with witnesses
were 'inaccurate' in the Sunday Times and 'had the effect of
discrediting parts of the documentary (Death on the Rock) and the
evidence of another witness, Carmen Proetta'. Although she complained
to her editor 'some of the mistakes appeared again the following
week'.

A crucial part of Styles' evidence was that it was unlikely that the
three could have detonated a bomb from the Shell garage. The Death on
the Rock team checked this point directly and indirectly with a number
of other experts including Lt Col Hugh Heap, British Army
Headquarters, Lisburn.

All the experts were agreed that the IRA had never attempted to
detonate a remote controlled bomb out of line of sight or at such a
distance. Some thought that such a detonation was technically
impossible. Others thought it was technically possible but would
require a substantial aerial mounted on the car. There was no such
aerial on the car. Styles' evidence was beyond reasonable dispute.

Before the inquest there was no press attack on the evidence of
Kenneth Asquez nor on the detailed evidence regarding Spanish
surveillance. But when Asquez 'retracted' his evidence and official
witnesses perjured themselves by claiming that Spanish surveillance
had broken down, the press had a field day.

The detailed evidence of Spanish surveillance up to the border used in
Death on the Rock came from Sr Manuel Jimenez Cuevas (Spanish police
spokesperson) and Sr Augustin Valladolid (Ministry of Interior
spokesperson). The Spanish police provided cars and drivers, a
helicopter and pilot for the reconstruction of the surveillance. Harry
Debelius, a highly- respected correspondent who works for, among
others, the Times, was present at the briefings and produced a sworn
affidavit confirming the evidence in the programme.

Up until the inquest all reports referred to the success of the
Spanish surveillance. Howe thanked the Spanish authorities in his
Commons statement. The Times, 8 March, reported the surveillance 'the
SAS team watched...as a terrorist went across the border...'. The
Times repeated this on 4 July - after Death on the Rock. The Daily
Telegraph, The independent and The Guardian all carried similar
accounts at various times. As late as 4 September the Sunday Times was
still reporting on the effectiveness of the Spanish surveillance.

As soon as the official story changed, however, they all fell into
line and criticised Death on the Rock for carrying the same story as
they had. They did not, of course, criticise themselves.

A similar sequence took place with Asquez. Asquez's retraction was so
confused, contradictory and implausible that it would not, in any
other context, have been believed. But it was good enough for the
British press.

Asquez's original statements, however, had been coherent and credible.
They contained details which were not otherwise reported until the
inquest itself - details which he could not have made up. They were
also consistent with the pathologist's evidence and the strike marks
found near Savage's body. Asquez's account had also been used by some
of the very papers who were now attacking Thames for using it.

The Independent, following Asquez's appearance at the inquest, loftily
denounced Thames for using such unreliable evidence as Asquez's
original unsigned statement. Yet The independent, on 13 and 14 May,
had used, in a garbled form, the very same unsigned statement except
that, unlike Thames, they had never seen the statement, sworn or
unsworn, signed or unsigned. When The Independent was challenged on
this rather inconsistent approach, they initially denied ever having
used Asquez's original evidence.

Ignoring their own appalling journalism the press joined the
government outcry against the only decent journalistic investigation
into the Gibraltar murders. Suddenly Death on the Rock was a pack of
lies. So successful was the outcry that an inquiry under Lord
Windlesham was set up to investigate the making of the programme. Lord
Windlesham is an interesting choice to head an investigation into a
programme about the SAS killing IRA volunteers. Windlesham is an
ex-Chair of the Tory Bow Group, ex-Home Office Minister and
ex-Northern Ireland Office Minister.

After a four-month intensive inquiry Windlesham's Report, to the
dismay of the government and its allies, vindicated Death on the Rock.
'The programme makers were experienced, painstaking and persistent.
They did not bribe, bully or misrepresent those who took part'. The
government responded with a sweeping rejection of Windlesham's
conclusion.

Further proof of the high quality of Death on the Rock is that it won
the BAFTA documentary award and an award from the Broadcasting Press
Guild.

There will of course be no inquiry into the newspapers which, whilst
attacking Death on the Rock, were themselves guilty of lying,
sensationalism and toeing the government line. In general the British
media's response to the Gibraltar killings has been an object lesson
in the correctness of Lenin's definition of freedom of the press in
capitalist society.

The Sun, Today, the Times and the Sunday Times all played a prominent
part in the attack on Death on the Rock and in defending the killings.
All are owned by Rupert Murdoch. The Daily Record, Daily Mirror and
Sunday Mirror did their bit. They are all owned by Robert Maxwell.
Both Maxwell and Murdoch are investing heavily in satellite
television. Their future profitability is crucially dependent on
deregulation of television. Not surprisingly their attack on Death on
the Rock was also part of their propaganda against the existence of
the IBA. Thus they could serve the government and their own pockets at
the same time.

The attack on Death on the Rock served to distract attention from the
real question of government-directed murder in Gibraltar and soften up
'public opinion' for the ban on broadcasting interviews with Sinn
Fein. It is part of both a specific campaign to cover up another SAS
killing and a general campaign to eliminate all serious questioning or
critical reporting of what the British government is up to in Ireland.

Throughout the British media, with few exceptions, have indeed
fabricated 'public opinion' 'for the benefit of the bourgeoisie'.

Perhaps the last word can be left to a right-wing commentator, Auberon
Waugh, writing in a right-wing magazine, The Spectator:

    'This is part of a general resentment against the idea that public
    actions should be open to any scrutiny beyond the ministry
    hand-out and the unattributable briefing, slavishly and
    uncritically reported - sometimes even presented as an "exclusive"
    insight.

    '[Asquez] claimed that the lie was told in response to pressure
    from Thames Television. It is normal practice when a witness
    admits to having lied, to ask what reason there is to believe his
    revised version - whether he might not now be giving false
    evidence in response to pressure from another source. At the very
    least, his evidence tends to be taken with a pinch of salt. But
    not, it would appear, by the poodles...

    'So now we come to "the heart of the standards and ethics of
    broadcasting journalism", advertised by The Sunday Times as being
    the main question raised by the Gibraltar inquest. Personally I
    should have thought that main issue is whether or not we have a
    Prime Minister who, like Henry II, reckons she can send murder
    gangs galloping across Europe.'
                                                    (1 October 1988)

