Utmost Bias - Any History of the IRA that Excludes Gerry Adams

By AM Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Share Tweet Share Share Email

John McDonagh (JM) and Sandy Boyer (SB) interview author, journalist and former director of The Belfast Project Ed Moloney (EM) about the Boston College tapes on Radio Free Éireann

WBAI 99.5FM Pacifica Radio

New York City

29 March 2014

(begins time stamp 31:58)


SB: We're talking to Ed Moloney, the author of Voices From the Grave (and) A Secret History of the IRA. And Ed was the director of what was called The Belfast Project. It was a unique oral history of The Troubles speaking to people from the Provisional IRA and the Ulster Volunteer Force who actually did the fighting.

And now, if you are a regular listener to the show you know, those tapes were handed over the the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and now they've been used to charge Ivor Bell, former Chief-of-Staff of the Irish Republican Army, with aiding and abetting the murder of Jean McConville. Ed, thanks for being with us and what can you tell us about that?

EM: Which bit, Sandy? There's a lot there.

SB: About the use of the tapes for the project you directed to charge Ivor Bell.

EM: First of all there is no evidence that this is Ivor Bell that was interviewed. As I understand it one of the reasons why the police have let it be known that they want to question Anthony McIntyre, the interviewer, is to provide evidence about the identity of someone who's only known in court as “Z”, “Interviewee Z”.

And they've also let it be known that if they do proceed to trial on this they will identify the person “Z” by what they call “the jigsaw method”. I'm not exactly sure what that means.

But there is no confirmation, believe it or not, despite all the media reports that this is actually Ivor Bell that is featured in this interview at the center of this court case. So, you know, that's point number one. And that should be borne in mind.

There's a great deal of sloppy journalism and reporting about this case and that has to be up there at the top of the list I think.

SB: Ed what tapes were actually handed over to the Police Service of Northern Ireland? Was it all the tapes from The Belfast Project?

EM: No, no, no, no indeed. And you said in your introduction that the Boston College tapes were handed over - as if all them were handed over. My estimate is that maybe two to three percent of the archive has actually been handed over to the PSNI. A very small fraction - much, much less than the PSNI were actually seeking in the first place and a very, very small number of interviews. I mean, if the police had been trying to get, say, all of a person's interviews that they gave to the Boston College they were refused that.

They were only allowed interviews which actually made mention of the Jean McConville case or associated elements of it and that dramatically reduced the number of interviews that were actually handed over.

So again, I was watching news reports in Belfast during the week which were saying that the PSNI now have full access to Boston College archives. Nothing could be further from the truth. They've got - as I said my estimate is about two to three percent - very small number - eleven in total - and that is very small.

JM: Ed, you were speaking about how it was covered over in Ireland. We're going to go to two clips now: 0ne from Ulster Television and the other from RTÉ and this is how they covered it. (ED Correction: both reporters are from UTV Northern Ireland).

Audio clip of two news broadcasts by UTV Reporter Sharon O'Neill and UTV Northern Editor Tommie Gorman

JM: And that was two news clips about how it's being reported over there.

Also Ed, what's coming out now is how Sinn Féin is going on the attack, particularly of you and Anthony McIntyre, calling the Boston tapes a “touting programme” on one hand and then Gerry Adams issuing statements that if anyone has any information on the killing of Jean McConville to please come forward to the PSNI. So, they want it both ways.

EM: So what's your question, John? I don't quite follow you.

JM: How did you perceive the two clips there? Were they accurate? And Gerry Adams' hypocrisy on telling people to come forward and then criticising the tapes themselves.

EM: well, I mean both of those reports were just so full of inaccuracies that it highlights exactly what I'm talking about here, that in Belfast at the moment we do not have a fully functioning media. First of all, Paul Bew's involvement in this project, which is now being highlighted by Gerry Adams, was marginal. He was a message boy from Boston College to a number of people in Belfast back in 2000-2001. If anyone had any ideas for projects or things that Boston College could do to commemorate the peace process – to record The Troubles - Paul Bew would pass on their ideas to Boston College and we were one of the ideas that was put forth. So his role is marginal but is being played up by Gerry Adams because he was also at one stage advisor to David Trimble so he's trying to make this appear to be a Unionist plot of some sort which it is absolutely not.

Secondly, I was never an interviewer. I coordinated the project. The interviews were conducted on the Republican side by Anthony McIntyre and on the Loyalist side by Wilson, Wilson MacArthur. So again, another, another inaccuracy.

And Sharon O' Neill, the UTV person, who is the one I was referring to who said that The Belfast Project, the archives at Boston College, that the PSNI now have full access to them.

I rang her up and I said: ‘Sharon, that is not true’ and I repeated to her what I just repeated to you, that they got a very tiny percentage of the reports.

And she said: ‘Oh, terribly sorry, Ed, it was because it was a live report.’ In other words when you go on live reports in UTV and you're the Justice Correspondent you're apparently allowed to say the first thing that comes into your mind and accuracy is a second option as far as people like that are concerned.

This is part of the problem. You're getting just absolute rubbish journalism covering this story.

If this was the United States of America and it was happening by this stage, for example, The New York Times and The Washington Post - I would certainly hope and I think they probably would - would have had a team working on the story:

Is it possible to get a conviction?

Would a case like this even go trial on the basis of the evidence that we have?

And the evidence? Let me just go through it:

We have this interview or portion of an interview, small portion of an interview from someone called “Z” who the police are claiming is Ivor Bell.

That was an interview that was not taken under caution such as most police statements have to be in order to be presented into court.

It was not a sworn statement. It was conducted by someone who was an academic researcher and not someone who was a forensic interrogator from the RUC or PSNI. Excuse the Freudian slip.

There's no supporting evidence. There's no forensics evidence. There's no ballistic evidence.

And most crucially of all: there is no admission by anyone, least of all “Z”, least of all whoever “Z” is, if it's Ivor Bell or not, I don't know.

There's not a lawyer that I have talked to in the week or so since Ivor Bell was arraigned on these charges who believes: a) that this could secure a conviction and many of them believe it won't even go to trial.

Yet none of this is reflected in the media coverage. Not one journalist as far as I can make out has made an issue out of trying to examine what are the real legal possibilities of even going to trial on something like this never mind securing a conviction.

And on the basis of that the PSNI have been allowed to present a fantastic triumph - breaking, cracking the case of Jean McConville's disappearance – when in fact as I think events will ultimately prove – you couldn't be further from the truth.

Now in relation to what Gerry Adams is calling for well, you know, we've gone through this before. And we've gone through all the attacks that he has launched against Boston College and against this particular project.

I'm asking, or I'm saying this very simply:

That if anyone was to conduct a serious history of the Provisional IRA during The Troubles and decided to leave out, because they have fallen out of favor, people like Brendan Hughes and Dolours Price - incidentally, you know, it would help if Tommie Gorman could actually pronounce her name - it's not Dolers or Dolores – it's Dolours. It means sadness. He couldn't even get that basic fact right.

But if we were to try to conduct or try to construct a history of the Provisional IRA during The Troubles and you left those people out - Dolours Price was in charge of the first bombing team that attacked London back in 1973.

Brendan Hughes was at the side of all the Belfast Commanders from the early 70's onward including Gerry Adams. He was the closest friend of Gerry Adams. He shared a cubicle with Gerry Adams in a hut in Long Kesh during internment. He led the 1981 hunger strikes. He led the debate inside Long Kesh which led to the reorganisation of the IRA in the mid and late 1970's. He was involved in all the major phases of the republican struggle. And one's supposed to leave someone like that out because Gerry Adams doesn't like or didn't like Brendan Hughes' attitude towards him and towards the peace process?

I don't think so.

I think if you were an historian and you left those sort of people out of any attempt to chronicle the real story of the IRA you would be accused by historians of utmost bias.

And we went and we sought people like Brendan Hughes because of their value and the totality of what they could contribute in terms of their knowledge of the IRA and their knowledge of the Provisionals and their history.

And the sections in which he criticises Gerry Adams is actually, when you look at the totality of these interviews, were very small indeed. The rest of it, in relation to the Gerry Adams issue was either neutral or in fact very pro, because he was very close to Gerry Adams and very fond of him and said many, many nice things about him as well as being critical of him.

SB: Ed, getting back to Gerry Adams: I find it very interesting that Ivor Bell is charged with aiding and abetting the murder of Jean McConville.

As far as we know Gerry Adams has not even been questioned about that. But both Brendan Hughes and Dolours Price said he gave the orders for that.

Why is it do you think he doesn't even get questioned?

EM: Well, actually, I don't know what's happening on, on that particular issue, Sandy, because Gerry Adams issued that offer, if you want to call it that, to the PSNI several days ago and the PSNI have been conspicuous in their silence since.

Some people have said this is a very clever move by Gerry Adams because it will force the PSNI to say “no” we don't want to interrogate or question Gerry Adams.

But on the other hand the PSNI might consider it wiser to leave the option open and not to give him an answer at this stage. So, you know, what all that is about I am not entirely sure.

But from what we know - and incidentally – the only person who has actually linked Gerry Adams to the Jean McConville disappearance in our interviews that I know of is Brendan Hughes. Dolours Price - Everyone seems to forget this.

Dolours Price did not mention the Jean McConville business in her interview with Anthony McIntyre.

Not once did the words “Jean” and “McConville” leave her lips!

She did not talk about her disappearance. She did not talk about the woman. She did not talk about how she was killed or anything like that.

That's forgotten. It's just assumed – as was assumed in those reports – none of which are based upon any research. None of those journalists bothered to ring me up, the director of this project, to ask basic, factual questions before they went on air.

I mean it's astounding! The abysmal standard of journalism that we have in Northern Ireland these days. And that's a perfect example.

There is only one person who has actually linked Gerry Adams to Jean McConville and that is Brendan Hughes.

Yet, Gerry Adams is coming on and painting with this hugely broad brush about what was said about him and Jean McConville in the Boston archive. in fact it comes down to one person out of all of the ones that have been talked about.

JM: Ed …

EM: Where do you hear that mentioned in the media reports? Not at all. It's disgraceful!

JM: Ed, you're talking about the small percentage of the tapes that were handed over. And it seems to be there might be six other people involved.

Do you know what the process that Boston College went through of the editing of these tapes? And who sat down and picked out which parts were going to be handed over?

EM: Well, this is, this is, this is the interesting story, isn't it?

As you know myself and Anthony McIntyre tried to get included in the case and we were consistently rebuffed. First of all at the district court level, then at the First Circuit level and then we tried to get into the Supreme Court and apparently we quite narrowly failed on that as well.

And we were trying to argue that we had certain rights and what have you – those were not recognised by the courts. So the entire case in relation to dealing with the tapes was left to Boston College.

They claimed at district court level that the librarian at Boston College when asked by the judge to go through the interviews and to hand over to him those interviews which were respondent to the subpoena he claims, can you believe, that he had not read one of them and didn't know what was in them.

Now you can take that with as large a pinch of salt as you can possibly manage to get between your forefinger and your thumb.

But anyway that's what he said. So the judge said well in that case I'll go through them all. Hand over the entire archive to me. So he hand, Boston College handed over the entire archive to the judge, Judge Young, in the district court.

When the case was then lost and Boston College announced that it was not going to appeal and that, the process of resisting the subpoena as far as they were concerned was over there was an outraged reaction from all sorts of people, not least ourselves, leading the criticism of Boston College for abject cowardice.

That forced them into a re-think.

And the re-think was that they then appealed to the First Circuit that only those interviews which actually dealt with and were respondent to the subpoena - i.e. dealt with the Jean McConville case - should be handed over.

So originally something like forty-six or forty-seven interviews were to be handed over (if not more) but as a result of that action, and the judgment of the First Circuit, that was reduced down to eleven out of forty-six.

So as result of that a very, very much smaller number of interviews were put at risk as a result.

But no thanks to Boston College. None of this need have happened. If they had been honest at the outset and told the judge: Yeah - we'll go away and look at them and we'll give you over - they could have, they could have handed over even less if they really wanted to.

I know, for example, that one of these interviews – it was handed over on the basis of a question and answer which amounted to: did you know anything about the “unknown cells”. This was the unknown cell that “disappeared” people. Answer: I heard of them but didn't know anything about them.

And on the basis of that or a question very similar to that an interview was handed over and therefore, in the words of Tommie Gorman and Sharon O'Neill, that is then translated into really crucial, exciting evidence about Jean McConville's disappearance.

A lot of nonsense being is talked. Very little research, very few questions being asked by the media and the result is what we have.

SB: Ed, thank you very much for setting the record straight. This is an incredibly important case and we're going to continue to keep on top of it. I think we'll be back next week with more on this subject. So thank you very much, Ed.

EM: No problem. (ends time stamp 53:20)