Surprised there hasn't been some reaction to the "fudge" report of the 6 Cos /NI *Police Ombudsman to the murders of the 6 people in Loughanisland in 1994.
Seems the then RUC decided that there was a hierarchy of murder victims and only some were worth seriously investigating.
Meanwhile there was "no evidence of collusion between Security forces and (the obviously Loyalist/Unionist) murderers ".
Did he expect to find a file marked "collusion" in the RUC archives?
Result of this fudge will be more distress to relatives , an ongoing campaign for a proper enquiry which will be held eventually at 5 times the cost of a proper investigation now.
* delete as approp
Just do a wee search on Robin Jackson on the internet and you will see the tip of the ice berg to state collusion with loyalist paramilitaries.
http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2005/04/25/bleary-darts-club-massacre-1975/.
Another example of disgusting sectarian murder carried out by thugs and facilitated by individuals in british officialdom at the time.
Quote from: ross matt on June 24, 2011, 03:22:20 PM
Another example of disgusting sectarian murder carried out by thugs and facilitated by individuals in british officialdom at the time.
The word in bold should be replaced with operational protocol!
The only reason Robin Jackson has never been charged with any of the 50 to 100+ murders he has been linked with is because of the evidence he had against the state which funded and trained him to do so.
Quote from: HiMucker on June 24, 2011, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: ross matt on June 24, 2011, 03:22:20 PM
Another example of disgusting sectarian murder carried out by thugs and facilitated by individuals in british officialdom at the time.
The word in bold should be replaced with operational protocol!
The only reason Robin Jackson has never been charged with any of the 50 to 100+ murders he has been linked with is because of the evidence he had against the state which funded and trained him to do so.
Right. I see. He lived to die of natural causes too I notice.
Pretty damning quote in the BBC's report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-13902997) about this:
Patrick McCreanor, a nephew of Dan McCreanor said: "How long will we keep on hearing the same old story. How many times can evidence go missing from police custody?
Anybody who expected any different result must be living in cloud cuckoo land. >:(
Quote from: ross matt on June 24, 2011, 03:34:31 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on June 24, 2011, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: ross matt on June 24, 2011, 03:22:20 PM
Another example of disgusting sectarian murder carried out by thugs and facilitated by individuals in british officialdom at the time.
The word in bold should be replaced with operational protocol!
The only reason Robin Jackson has never been charged with any of the 50 to 100+ murders he has been linked with is because of the evidence he had against the state which funded and trained him to do so.
Right. I see. He lived to die of natural causes too I notice.
Lung cancer in 98 i think. The same fate that fell upon his colleague Billy McCaughey.
Anyone who needs an example into how seriously the British Government takes its responsibilities into coming clean on collusion need only remember that when the final Stevens Report was completed, it ran to 3,000 pages. The British Government released 22 of those pages (heavily censored pages at that).
Also noteworthy is that a day or two after the visit of her majesty (that visit where we were told that the relationship with britain would be all lovley and rosey after), the British Government announced that it would not be releasing any files related to the Dublin/Monaghan bombings.
EG and Tonto must have missed this thread ??? ???
Quote from: Rossfan on June 24, 2011, 05:22:03 PM
EG and Tonto must have missed this thread ??? ???
If the Short Strand thread is anything to go by:
EG should notice the thread when it reaches page 7.
Tonto will notice it when it reaches page 4.
Myles na G will appear when it reaches page 2 (in order to call anyone who expresses a view on the subject in question "bigoted and blinkered")
Quote from: Rossfan on June 24, 2011, 05:22:03 PM
EG and Tonto must have missed this thread ??? ???
What age are you? I cant imagine either of those posters approving of the Loughinisland massacre. You can be a Protestant and unioinist and not approve of that type of mayhem, the same way that you can be a catholic and nationalist and not approve of the IRA campaign. Sure all you have to do is say "the Loughinisland massacre was wrong, and should not have happened" and everything is fine and dandy.
Quote from: Rossfan on June 24, 2011, 05:22:03 PM
EG and Tonto must have missed this thread ??? ???
I've only seen a few brief summaries of the Report (like virtually everyone else on here, I suspect).
But from what I've seen, the original Police investigation was hideously incompetent and inadequate etc. Therefore if any of the officers involved are still in the PSNI, they should be disciplined, with Court proceedings, if necessary etc.
Beyond that, I understand that the Ombudsman found little or no evidence of Collusion.
Unlike virtually everyone else on here, it seems, I am prepared to accept that.
For coincidentally, the conclusion of the the Millie Dowler Court case against Levi Bellfield yesterday has now revealed that the original investigation by Surrey Police was at least as incompetent and inadequate as that of the RUC over Loughinisland. Yet no-one could claim that the Dowler police were in any way unconcerned to find the perpetrator.
Therefore in the absence of hard, compelling evidence, I will leave the Conspiracy Theorising on Loughinisland to the keyboard experts.
The guns used in Loughinisland and most other Loyalist murders during the latter years of the state-directed terror campaign were brought in from South Africa by British agent Brian Nelson who had authorisation from Whitehall, given by Geoffrey Howe, to arm Britain's proxy killers. Any investigation into Loyalist atrocities by the British will be a whitewash because they will never admit to the truth and even if they did the intelligence agents and RUC men who directed the murder gangs have immunity from prosecution, just like the Bloody Sunday paras. Meanwhile Republicans are still being pursued and gaoled over pre-GFA charges but former Republicans get royal pardons and nice paychecks.
Quote from: Minder on June 24, 2011, 05:56:20 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 24, 2011, 05:22:03 PM
EG and Tonto must have missed this thread ??? ???
What age are you? I cant imagine either of those posters approving of the Loughinisland massacre. You can be a Protestant and unioinist and not approve of that type of mayhem, the same way that you can be a catholic and nationalist and not approve of the IRA campaign. Sure all you have to do is say "the Loughinisland massacre was wrong, and should not have happened" and everything is fine and dandy.
Thank you, Minder (I'd missed your post whilst typing my own, above).
Anyhow, whilst it should go without saying, I feel somehow obliged to add that what happened at Loughinisland was totally wrong in every respect and even at this late stage, if the vermin who did it could be brought to trial and convicted, then they should. Moreover, Good Friday Agreement or no, they should never be released.
And that goes for
everyone who may have been involved, no matter how peripherally.
Utterly, utterly shameful.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 24, 2011, 06:06:54 PM
Quote from: Minder on June 24, 2011, 05:56:20 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 24, 2011, 05:22:03 PM
EG and Tonto must have missed this thread ??? ???
What age are you? I cant imagine either of those posters approving of the Loughinisland massacre. You can be a Protestant and unioinist and not approve of that type of mayhem, the same way that you can be a catholic and nationalist and not approve of the IRA campaign. Sure all you have to do is say "the Loughinisland massacre was wrong, and should not have happened" and everything is fine and dandy.
Thank you, Minder (I'd missed your post whilst typing my own, above).
Anyhow, whilst it should go without saying, I feel somehow obliged to add that what happened at Loughinisland was totally wrong in every respect and even at this late stage, if the vermin who did it could be brought to trial and convicted, then they should. Moreover, Good Friday Agreement or no, they should never be released.And that goes for everyone who may have been involved, no matter how peripherally.
Utterly, utterly shameful.
I think this is one of the aspects were the GFA falls down. It is my personal opinion that the people involved in orchestrating some of the worst crimes during the troubles should still be prosecuted under international law for crimes against humanity. Whether that be bloody sunday, Darkly, Kingsmills, Loughanisland or the Greysteel shooting. Some of the people that have been prosecuted in the balkans had peace agreements made but they were still able to be prosecuted
Quote from: HiMucker on June 24, 2011, 06:58:34 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 24, 2011, 06:06:54 PM
Quote from: Minder on June 24, 2011, 05:56:20 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 24, 2011, 05:22:03 PM
EG and Tonto must have missed this thread ??? ???
What age are you? I cant imagine either of those posters approving of the Loughinisland massacre. You can be a Protestant and unioinist and not approve of that type of mayhem, the same way that you can be a catholic and nationalist and not approve of the IRA campaign. Sure all you have to do is say "the Loughinisland massacre was wrong, and should not have happened" and everything is fine and dandy.
Thank you, Minder (I'd missed your post whilst typing my own, above).
Anyhow, whilst it should go without saying, I feel somehow obliged to add that what happened at Loughinisland was totally wrong in every respect and even at this late stage, if the vermin who did it could be brought to trial and convicted, then they should. Moreover, Good Friday Agreement or no, they should never be released.And that goes for everyone who may have been involved, no matter how peripherally.
Utterly, utterly shameful.
I think this is one of the aspects were the GFA falls down. It is my personal opinion that the people involved in orchestrating some of the worst crimes during the troubles should still be prosecuted under international law for crimes against humanity. Whether that be bloody sunday, Darkly, Kingsmills, Loughanisland or the Greysteel shooting. Some of the people that have been prosecuted in the balkans had peace agreements made but they were still able to be prosecuted
+ 1000 (and especially those who "directed" the terrorism on both side plus within the british administration).
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 24, 2011, 06:06:54 PM
Quote from: Minder on June 24, 2011, 05:56:20 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 24, 2011, 05:22:03 PM
EG and Tonto must have missed this thread ??? ???
What age are you? I cant imagine either of those posters approving of the Loughinisland massacre.
Anyhow, whilst it should go without saying, I feel somehow obliged to add that what happened at Loughinisland was totally wrong in every respect Utterly, utterly shameful.
I never expected EG to condone the Loughinisland murders .He is consistent in condemning all killings by paramilitaries and other non government bodies.( except those in Derry on bloody Sunday)
. I was noting he at that time hadnt commented about the criticism of the former Police force contained in the report.
He has now and accepts that it was a "keystone cops" investigation. I believe it was a case of " what's the fuss ,they were only Fenians" and strongly suspect there was some collusion or looking the other way by elements of the former ( sectarian/unionist) police force.
As for Tonto .. seems its "Prod/Unionist/British/RUC = good while Catholic/Nationalist/Republican/Irish = bad. :-\
Quote from: Rossfan on June 25, 2011, 03:24:08 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 24, 2011, 06:06:54 PM
Quote from: Minder on June 24, 2011, 05:56:20 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 24, 2011, 05:22:03 PM
EG and Tonto must have missed this thread ??? ???
What age are you? I cant imagine either of those posters approving of the Loughinisland massacre.
Anyhow, whilst it should go without saying, I feel somehow obliged to add that what happened at Loughinisland was totally wrong in every respect Utterly, utterly shameful.
I never expected EG to condone the Loughinisland murders .He is consistent in condemning all killings by paramilitaries and other non government bodies.( except those in Derry on bloody Sunday)
Actually, to be precise, I have consistently condemned all
unlawful killings, by any group within NI.
Obviously every killing by every paramilitary group falls within that category, but I accept that on occasion, members of the Security Forces committed unlawful killing, manslaughter or murder, whether in the heat of the moment (eg Bloody Sunday) or pre-meditated and pre-planned (eg Collusion and Infiltration).
In fact, in some ways I would condemn unlawful killings by Security Forces as worst of all, both because we give them power and authority, so can expect the very highest standards of behaviour; but also because the vile actions of a few unfairly and grievously detracted from the (often heroic) efforts of the many.
Quote from: Rossfan on June 25, 2011, 03:24:08 PMI was noting he at that time hadnt commented about the criticism of the former Police force contained in the report.
He has now and accepts that it was a "keystone cops" investigation. I believe it was a case of " what's the fuss ,they were only Fenians"...
That is a possibility which I can't discount (though not a conclusion to which I automatically jump, like some others on here).
I say this not because I seek to defend the police come-what-may, but I don't think people appreciate or acknowledge just how much pressure they were under in those times, with literally thousands of their colleagues slaughtered or maimed down the years, and horrendous new cases needing to be dealt with on a daily, if not hourly basis.
Consequently, there are many relatives of
Protestant victims who believe their cases were not adequately investigated - as the "clear-up" rates testify.
Quote from: Rossfan on June 25, 2011, 03:24:08 PM... and strongly suspect there was some collusion or looking the other way by elements of the former ( sectarian/unionist) police force.
Hutchinson found evidence of gross incompetence, but no evidence of collusion.
If we accept one of his findings, I think we all have to accept both of them.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 26, 2011, 02:35:57 PMThat is a possibility which I can't discount (though not a conclusion to which I automatically jump, like some others on here).
I say this not because I seek to defend the police come-what-may, but I don't think people appreciate or acknowledge just how much pressure they were under in those times, with literally thousands of their colleagues slaughtered or maimed down the years, and horrendous new cases needing to be dealt with on a daily, if not hourly basis.
Consequently, there are many relatives of Protestant victims who believe their cases were not adequately investigated - as the "clear-up" rates testify.
Whatever about the findings in this particular case, it requires an extraordinary degree of mental gymnastics to believe that the RUC were just as likely to be 'incompetent' in their investigation of Provo murders as they were in those committed by Loyalists. Or members of the security forces, for that matter
Quote from: deiseach on June 26, 2011, 03:10:35 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 26, 2011, 02:35:57 PMThat is a possibility which I can't discount (though not a conclusion to which I automatically jump, like some others on here).
I say this not because I seek to defend the police come-what-may, but I don't think people appreciate or acknowledge just how much pressure they were under in those times, with literally thousands of their colleagues slaughtered or maimed down the years, and horrendous new cases needing to be dealt with on a daily, if not hourly basis.
Consequently, there are many relatives of Protestant victims who believe their cases were not adequately investigated - as the "clear-up" rates testify.
Whatever about the findings in this particular case, it requires an extraordinary degree of mental gymnastics to believe that the RUC were just as likely to be 'incompetent' in their investigation of Provo murders as they were in those committed by Loyalists. Or members of the security forces, for that matter
Can you rephrase? (It's probably me, but I'm not sure I understand what point it is you are making)
Loughinisland was carried out with weapons provided by the British government which were used by people who were paid by the British government. Everyone involved, from the shooters to the men giving the orders and those who covered it all up for them despite the eyewitness statements and the possibility of getting DNA from a getaway car which was kept for years then destroyed (they're trying to gaol Republicans over 30 y/old cigarette butts) has been granted immunity from prosecution.
Loughinisland was the result of deliberate, planned and well-resourced British policy.
There's more than the Ombudsman involved in the conspiracy. Paid-off politicians are conspicuously silent.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 26, 2011, 07:14:17 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 26, 2011, 03:10:35 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 26, 2011, 02:35:57 PMThat is a possibility which I can't discount (though not a conclusion to which I automatically jump, like some others on here).
I say this not because I seek to defend the police come-what-may, but I don't think people appreciate or acknowledge just how much pressure they were under in those times, with literally thousands of their colleagues slaughtered or maimed down the years, and horrendous new cases needing to be dealt with on a daily, if not hourly basis.
Consequently, there are many relatives of Protestant victims who believe their cases were not adequately investigated - as the "clear-up" rates testify.
Whatever about the findings in this particular case, it requires an extraordinary degree of mental gymnastics to believe that the RUC were just as likely to be 'incompetent' in their investigation of Provo murders as they were in those committed by Loyalists. Or members of the security forces, for that matter
Can you rephrase? (It's probably me, but I'm not sure I understand what point it is you are making)
You believe that the RUC were just as likely to fail to adequately investigate crimes against Protestants as against Catholics. This is self-evidently preposterous
Quote from: deiseach on June 26, 2011, 09:55:27 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 26, 2011, 07:14:17 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 26, 2011, 03:10:35 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 26, 2011, 02:35:57 PMThat is a possibility which I can't discount (though not a conclusion to which I automatically jump, like some others on here).
I say this not because I seek to defend the police come-what-may, but I don't think people appreciate or acknowledge just how much pressure they were under in those times, with literally thousands of their colleagues slaughtered or maimed down the years, and horrendous new cases needing to be dealt with on a daily, if not hourly basis.
Consequently, there are many relatives of Protestant victims who believe their cases were not adequately investigated - as the "clear-up" rates testify.
Whatever about the findings in this particular case, it requires an extraordinary degree of mental gymnastics to believe that the RUC were just as likely to be 'incompetent' in their investigation of Provo murders as they were in those committed by Loyalists. Or members of the security forces, for that matter
Can you rephrase? (It's probably me, but I'm not sure I understand what point it is you are making)
You believe that the RUC were just as likely to fail to adequately investigate crimes against Protestants as against Catholics. This is self-evidently preposterous
That is not what I believe (or posted).
Rather I was making the point that as well as atrocities involving Catholic victims, there have also been atrocities involving Protestant victims which have not been adequately investigated, leaving their grieving relatives highly dissatisfied.
Therefore when Catholics are the victims, we should not automatically assume that the police were not bothered for sectarian reasons, or were colluding with the killers, unless there is evidence for same.
And with Loughinisland, the Ombudsman said there was no such evidence.
That's the only point I was trying to make.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 27, 2011, 12:35:29 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 26, 2011, 09:55:27 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 26, 2011, 07:14:17 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 26, 2011, 03:10:35 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 26, 2011, 02:35:57 PMThat is a possibility which I can't discount (though not a conclusion to which I automatically jump, like some others on here).
I say this not because I seek to defend the police come-what-may, but I don't think people appreciate or acknowledge just how much pressure they were under in those times, with literally thousands of their colleagues slaughtered or maimed down the years, and horrendous new cases needing to be dealt with on a daily, if not hourly basis.
Consequently, there are many relatives of Protestant victims who believe their cases were not adequately investigated - as the "clear-up" rates testify.
Whatever about the findings in this particular case, it requires an extraordinary degree of mental gymnastics to believe that the RUC were just as likely to be 'incompetent' in their investigation of Provo murders as they were in those committed by Loyalists. Or members of the security forces, for that matter
Can you rephrase? (It's probably me, but I'm not sure I understand what point it is you are making)
You believe that the RUC were just as likely to fail to adequately investigate crimes against Protestants as against Catholics. This is self-evidently preposterous
That is not what I believe (or posted).
Rather I was making the point that as well as atrocities involving Catholic victims, there have also been atrocities involving Protestant victims which have not been adequately investigated, leaving their grieving relatives highly dissatisfied.
Therefore when Catholics are the victims, we should not automatically assume that the police were not bothered for sectarian reasons, or were colluding with the killers, unless there is evidence for same.
And with Loughinisland, the Ombudsman said there was no such evidence.
That's the only point I was trying to make.
Al Hutchinsons parameters for collusion have been called into question.
Therefore his conclusions can certainly be drawn into question.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 27, 2011, 12:35:29 PM
That is not what I believe (or posted).
Rather I was making the point that as well as atrocities involving Catholic victims, there have also been atrocities involving Protestant victims which have not been adequately investigated, leaving their grieving relatives highly dissatisfied.
Therefore when Catholics are the victims, we should not automatically assume that the police were not bothered for sectarian reasons, or were colluding with the killers, unless there is evidence for same.
And with Loughinisland, the Ombudsman said there was no such evidence.
That's the only point I was trying to make.
So because there are Protestants who have grievances with the RUC and there are Catholics who have grievances with the RUC, Protestants and Catholics are equally entitled (or not, as the case may be) to have grievances with the RUC. As I said, self-evidently preposterous
Edit: I'm going to expand on what I am saying here. There are many cases where there is a prima facie reason to believe the RUC were motivated by sectarian impulses in their investigation of crimes against Catholics. There won't be a single case - not one - where the same could be said in their dealing with Protestants
Quote from: deiseach on June 27, 2011, 01:01:08 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 27, 2011, 12:35:29 PM
That is not what I believe (or posted).
Rather I was making the point that as well as atrocities involving Catholic victims, there have also been atrocities involving Protestant victims which have not been adequately investigated, leaving their grieving relatives highly dissatisfied.
Therefore when Catholics are the victims, we should not automatically assume that the police were not bothered for sectarian reasons, or were colluding with the killers, unless there is evidence for same.
And with Loughinisland, the Ombudsman said there was no such evidence.
That's the only point I was trying to make.
So because there are Protestants who have grievances with the RUC and there are Catholics who have grievances with the RUC, Protestants and Catholics are equally entitled (or not, as the case may be) to have grievances with the RUC. As I said, self-evidently preposterous
Where did I say, or even imply, "equally"?
I have elsewhere freely accepted and acknowledged that the RUC fell down seriously on a number of cases during the Troubles, for incompetence generally; for a lack of concern for victims (usually when/because they were Catholic); or even on some occasions when individual officers colluded in murders and/or covered up evidence etc.
But sticking rigourously to the Loughinisland case, if we accept it when the Ombudsman found evidence of gross incompetence, then imo we should also accept that he found no evidence of bias to explain that incompetence, much less collusion in the commission of the murders.
I hope that explains my view, since I cannot make myself any clearer.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 27, 2011, 01:12:19 PM
Where did I say, or even imply, "equally"?
I have elsewhere freely accepted and acknowledged that the RUC fell down seriously on a number of cases during the Troubles, for incompetence generally; for a lack of concern for victims (usually when/because they were Catholic); or even on some occasions when individual officers colluded in murders and/or covered up evidence etc.
But sticking rigourously to the Loughinisland case, if we accept it when the Ombudsman found evidence of gross incompetence, then imo we should also accept that he found no evidence of bias to explain that incompetence, much less collusion in the commission of the murders.
I hope that explains my view, since I cannot make myself any clearer.
I specifically excluded the specifics of Loughinisland from what I was saying. But the bit I've highlighted does clear things up for me. Thanks
The point has already been made EG by GDA that the parameters for collusion in this investigation are not the parameters used be his predecessor Nuala O'Loan. There's a fair chance that Nuala O'loans office would have came to the opposite conclusion as a result of this difference in interpretation. I personally would prefer Nuala O'Loans general definition of collusion.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 26, 2011, 02:35:57 PM
If we accept one of his findings, I think we all have to accept both of them.
Not strictly true. Of his findings the following were in the public domain (and to be honest couldn't but be found by the inquiry):
* Records were missing.
* The car used by the UVF was improperly destroyed 10 months after the attack after lying outside a police station exposed to the elements.
* Police failed to investigate properly the link between the Loughinisland shootings and other terrorist attacks.
* Failures in the management of the murder incident room in the early stages and in the management of the computer system used by the investigation may also have resulted in the loss of evidential opportunities.
* Failure to analyse guns, clothes etc found after the crime.
* Also it was reported at the time that weapons used were of a type used by security forces.
One could take him at face value that some of these were issues of neglect but items being destroyed (such as a small thing like a car) point to something more deliberate. The report itself seems negligent no to offer an explanation as to how these things happened, or at least document the efforts made to understand these.
In fact the only new aspect the report could have brought to the party seems to have been ignored.
/Jim.
(http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/259959_180743411983922_100001447927151_475563_2576088_n.jpg)
Surely it's time this Hutchinson p***k stood down.
http://www.thedetail.tv/issues/22/cji-report-into-ombudsman/ombudsman-loses-staff-trust-over-withheld-intelligence (http://www.thedetail.tv/issues/22/cji-report-into-ombudsman/ombudsman-loses-staff-trust-over-withheld-intelligence)
HUTCHINSON FACES RENEWED CALLS TO QUIT OVER DAMNING REPORT
In April two separate investigations were launched into the Office of Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (OPONI) after its chief executive Sam Pollock resigned claiming the Northern Ireland Office had interfered in the office and that there had been a "significant lowering of the professional independence" between OPONI and the PSNI.
Mr Hutchinson insisted his office had "real and practical independence from the PSNI".
However The Detail can now reveal that an investigation, carried out by Criminal Justice Inspector (CJI) Dr Michael Maguire, has concluded that:
• A "lowering of independence" in the ombudsman's office means it should now be suspended from investigating historic murders
• Ombudsman reports were altered or rewritten to exclude criticism of police with no explanation
• Senior ombudsman officials demanded to be disassociated from investigation reports after their original findings were dramatically altered without reason
• Ombudsman staff investigating some of the worst atrocities of the Troubles believe key intelligence has been deliberately withheld from them
• CJI inspectors uncovered major "inconsistencies" in ombudsman investigations of the Loughinisland, McGurks and Claudy atrocities
In June Police Ombudsman Al Hutchinson rejected nationalist demands to resign after his investigation into the Loughinisland massacre was branded a `whitewash' by the families of six men shot dead by the UVF in the June 1994 atrocity.
Less than a week later Community Relations Council (CRC) chairman Tony McCusker published the first of the two investigations into OPONI.
While Mr McCusker cleared the NIO of interfering in OPONI he concluded that Mr Hutchinson's lack of leadership had undermined the effectiveness of the office.
Mr Hutchinson subsequently rejected calls for him to resign.
However, The Detail has now obtained a confidential draft copy of CJI inspector Michael Maguire's report into allegations that OPONI had lost its operational independence from the PSNI.