SUMMARY REPORT INTO THE MURDER OF JOHN BINGHAM The Case for Collusion ULET Legacy Unit © Copyright of Ulidia Legacy and Educational Trust Legacy Unit Preface: Statement on release of the report into John Bingham Murder. The right to life is undoubtedly the most precious and fundamental Human Right we are entitled to. It should surpass all other Human Rights regardless of their status. In the early hours of 14th September 1986, John Bingham had this fundamental Human Right taken from him when a PIRA murder gang invaded the sanctity of his home and riddled him with bullets. There are a number of factors surrounding the murder of John Bingham that need investigation, factors that suggest serious failings in the police investigation at best and a full-blown cover-up at worst. Ulidia Legacy and Educational Trust are determined to bring all of the aspects of John Bingham’s murder to light. We are also determined to pursue the hidden truths that have been concealed from the public – and in particular the loved ones of victims – for years, thus adding to their suffering. We are often reminded that we are living in a post-conflict era. It has been 23 years since the CLMC ceasefire and 20 years since the PIRA ceasefire. We feel the truth has been hidden for long enough and that a vacuum has been created that has been filled with rumour, speculation and outright lies. The exposure of the Agent known as Stakeknife has raised the issue of collusion again only this time it is the level of collusion between the security forces and Republicans. ULET has prepared a comprehensive report into the murder of John Bingham and we have been in contact with other families who share our opinion that there is much to uncover and the truth cannot be suppressed any longer. We would invite you to examine our work and we can assure everyone that will not be distracted in our quest for the truth. There are legacy issues that need to be fully investigated and the Unionist community cannot be excluded from this process. ULET has been formed to give a voice to those from the Unionist community whose fears and struggle for justice has been ignored. We now present a summary of our finding in the John Bingham murder and hope it will encourage others in their search for truth in legacy matters. Gary Blair. BSc (Hons) Head of Legacy Research (ULET) . Map of points of interest. Forward Every crime investigator knows the importance of speed and every prosecutor values probative exhibits. When the four men came to murder John Bingham, they drove a Renault car. The VRM of this vehicle was in possession of the police within minutes of the shooting. It is likely that the name and address of the registered keeper was known before 2 am. Usually, getaway cars are burned but this one was not. It would have provided a treasure trove of evidence, even if the four men had been forensically aware and especially if they originally planned to burn it. Fibres, hair, a careless half palm print, a footprint, a cigarette butt; all would have been possible items for examination. In the car was found a stolen radio/receiver. It too could have yielded information. The car belonged to Suspect Two, who lived in Ardoyne. Police did not search for the car for about three hours nor did they visit the registered keeper until after uniform, CID and Special Branch met at Tennent Street police station. Police went to the home of the registered keeper of the car at He told them that his car must have been stolen but he was unable to produce the keys. He was arrested. It is clear that at this point police had a reasonable suspicion that he had given over the car to PIRA, complete with keys and that he was assisting offenders. When the ATO and the police examined the car, at about 5.14 am, they found that the keys were in the ignition. This supports the suspicion of assistance given by Suspect Two. Later, as is detailed below, the Renault was photographed by SOCO with no keys and with a damaged ignition block. It is not known what evidence, if any was obtained from the car or the radio. All that is known is that no one was ever prosecuted for the murder and that Suspect Two was not prosecuted. Only two explanations are available for these actions. The police were incompetent on the night or that Suspect Two was an important State asset who had to be handled only with the agreement of the Branch and via a ‘performance’ which would protect his cover. As for the radio, the axe, the mask and the bullets and casings, all these items too have been the stuff of many successful prosecutions. But, alas, not in this case. Peter Sefton LLB B.L. Director of V&A Consultancy. Contents: Introduction 1 Tabloid Media Involvement 3 The Official Narrative 5 Problems With The Official Chronology 6 The Physical Evidence 8 The Murder Weapons 13 The Re-writing of History 16 The Steak Knife Connection 18 Conclusion 21 Endnotes 23 Introduction: The official narrative of the murder of John Bingham sets the murder in a matter of fact way but whether this is the case will be scrutinised in this report. It will set in place the political undertones that resulted in the murder and the tabloid press’ involvement of charter assassination that facilitated the literal assassination of John Bingham. The report will show serious flaws in the RUC investigation, inconsistencies in the evidence, and tampering with evidence to cover-up the involvement of state agents. It will also consider allegations of collusion and the allegation that Mr. Bingham was denied vital medical treatment, this resulted in his death, which was caused by bleeding from an injury to his right knee, a total survivable wound. It will also look at the withholding of inquest evidence, which might be viewed as an attempt by the state to re-write history. The murder of John Bingham was a direct result of unionist’s refusal to accept the Anglo- Irish Agreement. As early as 1984, Ian Paisley was setting out that there might be underhanded dealings taking place when in repose to changes being discussed in the Assembly he had stated: There is more to this than meets the eye…it is the beginning of what I believe to be the final confrontation… we have to take a stand. The matter is kindling a fire which is going to set this whole Province ablaze1. For many unionists, this final confrontation would arrive with the Hillsborough Accord of November 1985. Unionist leaders had briefed their followers that they should dismiss “disinformation” about the Tory Government plans for Northern Ireland2. The utter sense of betrayal felt by was summed up by A.T.Q Stewart when he wrote “all has changed utterly on the 15th November 1985. A terrible, unwished-for duty was born.3” This feeling of a changed world would first shock then anger Unionist. Enoch Powell would express the common belief that the Tory government had been “bombed into submission.4” The government response to Unionist opposition was “With the agreement signed, the logic was then to confront any unionist resistance and exploit to the full the hesitations and contradictions” that it contained. This, would have had a dramatic effect on the continued but decreasing loyalist paramilitary activity. Professor Arthur Aughey would observe that loyalists had only been “engaged intermittently in offensive military action5”. The focus being a doomsday situation. The preservation for such became “an alternative to political violence”. This is borne out in the figures. While republicans murdered 47 people in 1985, the loyalist figure was 56. In 1986 this would increase to 177 and to 20 in 1987, by which time republican figures had jumped to 748. By March of 1986, unionists and loyalists had recovered from their initial shock at the implantation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. They would now coalesce in opposition and strategy. This hounding of NIO officials and heightening of street protest were beginning to worry government agencies. This also included the Security Services who began to target the opposition. Concerns were raised by the Northern Ireland Assembly Member for South 1 | P a g e . Antrim, Frazer Agnew. Mr. Agnew, not known for sensationalism or extreme views would relate to a journalist, Joe Oliver, “What’s been happening stinks.”9 The Assembly Member would claim “We know our phones are tapped and our movements monitored in an attempt to silence any opposition to the deal.10” He also expected to be arrested along with others who were opposed to the Thatcher government’s policy. He would state that a secret Whitehall dossier was in existence and those being targeted – him included – were so, because “opposition to the Agreement has proved highly effective.11” The most sinister and perturbing aspect of the allegations was that he had been targeted by the Secret Intelligence Service. Mr. Oliver states: Recently an MI6 agent visited Mr Agnew at his East Antrim business headquarters. Shortly after that he received a threatening phone call warning him if he did not stop leaking information he could ‘face the same fate as Robert Bradford.12’ Here we have an elected representative being targeted by elements of the intelligence community because of his opposition to policies favoured by the government. The reference to an MP murdered by the Provisional IRA and that Mr.