The US Attorney, Carmen Ortiz has just filed her reply to the briefs presented by our lawyers, Eamonn Dornan and Jim Cotter as well as the brief prepared by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and on first reading one thing jumped out at me: the US government is finally admitting that one crucial justification for the original subpoenas against Boston College back in May, 2011 was false.
This was the claim that way back in February 2010, Sunday Life reporter Ciaran Barnes had been able to listen to Dolours Price’s interview with Boston College researcher, Anthony McIntyre in which she allegedly admitted her role in the disappearance of Jean McConville and three other people killed by the IRA in 1972.
This was a crucial claim because if true it meant that someone at Boston College, either myself or Anthony McIntyre or Bob O’Neill, the librarian on the BC campus, must have breached the confidentiality pledge given to Dolours Price and therefore we could no longer claim that pledge as protection against the subpoena.
This is what the affidavit prepared by Ortiz’s office back in July 2011 had to say about this:
“Ms. Price’s interviews by Boston College were the subject of news reports published in Northern Ireland in 2010, in which Ms. Price admitted her involvement in the murder and“disappearances” of at least four persons whom the IRA targeted: Jean McConville, Joe Lynskey, Seamus Wright, and Kevin McKee……..Moreover, according to one news report, the reporter was permitted to listen to portions of Ms. Price’s Boston College interviews.” (page 4)
So, according to US Attorney, Dolours Price had admitted all this in her interviews with Boston College and these tapes were then made available to Ciaran Barnes who wrote his report based on them.
As regular readers of this blog will know, we have strenuously denied all of this from the outset and in a series of articles, here, here and here, have attempted to demonstrate that the information in Barnes’ article actually came from a taped interview with Dolours Price made by Allison Morris of the Irish News.
In a deal with the Price family, the Irish News tempered its subsequent report but then Morris passed the tape onto Barnes who exercised no such restraint and compounded all this by dishonestly suggesting that the tape he had listened to came from Boston College. It was, of course, a device to protect Allison Morris and to hide the fact that the deal her editor had cut with the Price family had been betrayed.
We now know, thanks to a piece Morris penned in the Irish News, that the PSNI made no attempt to investigate this matter until June 2011, a month after our exposure of the Morris-Barnes deception. By that time, of course, Morris was able to tell the PSNI that she no longer had the tape in her possession. Quelle surprise!
Nonetheless, the tardy PSNI action was an admission that the basis for the first subpoenas served on Boston College was a lie. What has yet to be explained is why the PSNI did not approach either the Irish News or the Sunday Life back in February 2010 when their articles on Dolours Price were published. Was that just a one-off blunder by the PSNI or part of a pattern of preferential treatment to local newspapers whose political support is vital to the PSNI?
This is what Ms Ortiz has to say about the PSNI’s Keystone Cops act in her recently filed brief:
“……nowhere in the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty….does it authorize the court to assess whether the authorities in the U.K. sought interviews of Ms. Price from news reporting sources in that country. Moreover, even if U.K. authorities had made such an inquiry, it is clear from appellants’ own affidavits that the Belfast Project interviews were singular, were possessed only by Boston College, and could not have been obtained from news reporting sources in the U.K.”
The first part of that statement amounts to an implicit admission that the PSNI had fallen down on its job by ignoring the Irish News and Sunday Life reports in February 2010. The second part would have more validity had the PSNI tried way back in February 2010 to obtain Allison Morris’ tape but failed. The truth is that news reporting sources were available to the PSNI but they chose to ignore them.
The US Attorney’s office in Massachusetts has now revised the original account of this episode but, tellingly, failed to explain the major differences between the original claims and what Ms Ortiz’ office now says happened.
Here is the revised version of that episode:
“Price’s interviews with Boston College were revealed in news reports published in Northern Ireland in 2010, in which Price admitted her involvement in the murder and “disappearances” of at least four persons whom the IRA targeted, including Jean McConville. Price also told at least one reporter that she had been interviewed by ‘academics at Boston University.'” (pages 6-7)
Notice the differences: no mention of anyone listening to Boston College’s tapes, merely an acknowledgement, and nothing more than that, that Dolours Price had told the Irish News that she had been interviewed by Boston College and, on one reading, a subtle suggestion that the alleged admissions of involvement in these disappearances were really made in the Irish News and Sunday Life reports. More, much more on this to come and if I was Allison Morris or Ciaran Barnes I would pay especial attention to this.
The Broken Elbow 
Ed
If I recall correctly, the UK-US Treaty can only burden an American Court to help secure evidence on behalf of the UK where the UK had no other avenue open to it. The Barnes/Morris debacle gave rise to the action but no attempt was made to collect evidence from the two journalists or their newspapers. Whatever the source or accuracy of Barnes/Morris articles the should have fallen at the first hurdle –shame on Boston College for that not happening.
The paragraph you quote above I think is written more cunningly than you give it credit. The first sentence of the paragraph strongly suggests that Price made specific admissions to BC and that was what was “revealed” to Barnes/Morris.
“Price’s interviews with Boston College were revealed in news reports published in Northern Ireland in 2010, in which Price admitted her involvement in the murder and “disappearances” of at least four persons whom the IRA targeted, including Jean McConville.”
The second sentence subtly slips in that Price seems only to have disclosed that she had contributed to the archives,
“Price also told at least one reporter that she had been interviewed by ‘academics at Boston University.’”
If Price had made the admissions of guilt to Barnes/Morris then it stands to reason the PSNI would have been all over them. While the first sentence is unfounded the second sentence is written in attempt to affirm it to be true, ie, “Price also told at least one reporter.
Tiarna
Thanks Tiarna for an interesting response. At this stage I am limited in how I can reply to your point but the US Attorney knows full well what the real meaning of the relevant sentence is. Let’s just say for now that the sentence you refer to is deliberately ambiguous and is so in the interests of CYA. Sorry to leave it hanging there but as a hint re-read my last paragraph.
Tiarna great analysis. I just wanted to comment that I specifically recall the Treaty was to be implemented ONLY AFTER ALL avenues to investigate to obtain relevant material were exhausted and there were no other means by which to obtain pertinant evidence. This is where I recall that Britian supplied nothing in its briefs. It is close to 40 years and NOTHING was done until the past few years. They did not even attempt to investigate after Ed published his book. I thought that knocked it right out. But like I often tell clients friends etc I wouldn’t want my fate in the hands of a jury or judge.
Correction the sentence in first paragraph should have read
Whatever the source or accuracy of Barnes/Morris articles the subeopna should have fallen at the first hurdle –shame on Boston College for that not happening.
Ed,
Yes, I can see what I wrote is probably a repeat of what you hit at and to follow through with repeating then I would repeat your cautionary advice “if I was Allison Morris or Ciaran Barnes I would pay especial attention to this.” Neither seem to have considered not firing the arrow that could come back at them!!
good post Ed. Raises issues that need addressed
Ciaran Barnes writing under the name Maradona called for the tapes to be handed over to the British police
http://heartsofoakandsteel.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/ciaran-barnes-journalistic-ethics-on-a-par/
Ciaran Barnes writing under the name Maradona called for the tapes to be handed over to the British police
Chris Bray writing under his own name calls for them to be given back again. Bray seems more trustworthy and above board.
Pingback: BC subpoenas are legally dumb and dumber « seachranaidhe1