Magennis witness changed her story?

Angelique Christafis has been taking stock of how the climate in Belfast has changed since the sisters went to Washington to take their case to a wider audience. There is some anger from others who have lost loved ones that they should be getting such attention. But she also talks to a taxi driver who picked up one of the Sinn Fein candidates who’d previously claimed she saw nothing in Magennis’s Bar that night who claims: “She told me Magennis’s had erupted and there were glasses and bottles flying everywhere.”

Even so, Sinn Fein continues to prosecute its own campaign against police methodology:

Sinn Féin has now turned the spotlight on the police, saying they are deliberately holding up the investigation in order to damage the party. It said a key suspect made himself available to police for interview this week but was turned away. One witness had named the person who hit him with a steel bar outside Magennis’s.

A second witness had named people involved in the bar brawl, and a third said he could pick out McCartney’s attackers in an identity parade, it said. Mr Adams questioned why charges had not been brought against those named, and why an identity parade had not been arranged.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    One wonders why there is a reluctance to identify the taxi driver as Catherine Mc Cartneys partner and as such a family member? It could all be pretty innocent stuff, maybe Ed Cooley has a reason to kepp his identity secret.
    Or is it that to quote an anonymous ‘third party’ somehow addds credence to the allegation that some in the bar who stated that they saw nothing are in fact covering up.
    Can the Mc Cartneys and their media supporters not see that by covering up details themselves they risk being called hypocrites.

  • Roger W. Christ XVII

    Pat could you be posting – deep breath – unsubstantiated allegations ?

  • Jimmy Sands

    I can think of any number of reasons. Some people take the view that saying anything unhelpful to the movement may be unwise. It could simply be that he does not regard his sleeping arrangements as a matter of public concern. Once again, are you suggesting he is lying? If not of what conceivable relevance could your point be?

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    The conceivable relevance, if you approach the thing objectively is the fact that the Mc Cartney family are now alleging that although SF are giving public guarantees (re disclosure) to the family in reality they are advising party members to say nothing.
    It is impossible for the family to prove that allegation one way or the other, or for SF to convince that this is not the case. The introduction of third party ‘evidence’ tends to support the family case.
    The revealation that the third party is not inbiased or independent weakens the case. Quite simple really and very relevant.

    I don’t know why Cooley is a liar or not.

  • Jimmy Sands

    I’m not aware that Ms. Coogan has disputed his account.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    ‘I’m not aware that Ms. Coogan has disputed his account.’

    She has given her account and it is at variance with the account given by ‘the taxi driver’. Quite obviously there is a dispute.

  • Jimmy Sands

    I’ve not seen any account by her of the conversation, or even whether she accepts it took place. I’m not convinced this is quite the smoling gun you seem to think it is.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    No one is claiming it to be a smoking gun. The thread is straight forward enough.

  • Jimmy Sands

    My apologies. Given the number of times you had mentioned the man’s bedroom arrangements, I had assumed you attached some significance to them.

    I think you’re going to need to come up with something a little better.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Best to read my 4.04pm post again, which from my point of view is the core of the thread for some strange reason you are obsessed with their sleeping arrangements and guns.

  • Belfast Gonzo

    “She has given her account and it is at variance with the account given by ‘the taxi driver’. Quite obviously there is a dispute.”

    The Sinn Fein candidate’s recollection is also at odds with the Sinn Fein account of her movements. You’d think they’d get the story straight beforehand.

  • vespasian


    It has been in the public domain for a long time so where is the ‘cover up’?

    You information isn’t new news it is old news rehashed and reheated.

  • Jimmy Sands

    Oh Dear Pat why so coy? You’re clearly trying to suggest, in you’ll forgive me a somewhat mealy mouthed fashion, that the fact that the witness happens to be the gentleman friend of one of the sisters is a motive for his bearing false witness about an SF rep and therefore casting suspicion on his truthfulness. As for the obsession you appear to be projecting, as not even your allies here appear to regard it as worthy of comment. Even once.

    As for the suggestion that SF can’t prove they’re co-operating, this is utter nonsense. They can prove it by doing so. As they have not, it seems reasonable to conclude they do not wish to.

  • Henry94

    Jimmy Sands

    If the political relationship of the passenger are relevent then so is the personal relationship of the driver.

    The simple test is this. If it came to court and the driver was in the witness box would he be asked the question? Of course he would. Because it is relevent.

  • Jimmy Sands

    Whether he was asked the question would depend on what the advocate sought to establish. I’ve taken a guess as to what Pat seeks to establish as he seems reluctant to do so himself. Am I getting warm?

  • Pat Mc Larnon


    ‘You’d think they’d get the story straight beforehand.’

    But surely that smacks of cover up.

    You information isn’t new news it is old news rehashed and reheated.


    ‘You information isn’t new news it is old news rehashed and reheated.’

    It’s not my information at all. The story in the Guarduian was aimed at a primarily English audience who are traditionally ignorant of the facts on the ground. The reporter and the family (for reasons best known to themselves) are trying to hide information that weakens their case of a cover up. Best take it up with them.


    I am not being coy at all it is the family and a sympathetic reporter being so. My 4.04pm post of 20 Mar stands, you can dance around it all you like by throwing up smoking guns and bedroom secrets, now that is mealy mouthed and disingenuous. I’ll stick to the core issue of credibility.

  • Jimmy Sands

    You’ve yet to state what that issue is. No-one else has suggested he’s lying.

  • levitas

    I cant seem to get an answer to this question, has Mr. Brendan Devine come forward with his statement of what occurred? This is a genuine query since I would have thought that the McCartneys would expect him to be able to shed the most light on the events. If he has’nt can anyone explain why? I have never seen any references to him making a statement, but perhaps I’m not very well informed. I was however intrigued by the fact that the sisters referred to Brendan Devine as “irrelevant” on their second appearance on Marion Finucane’s RTE1 show on Monday morning, what did they mean by that comment? Any answers out there?

  • Jimmy Sands

    No idea. I’ve seen one report in which he vowed to testify and anotther in which he had developed amnesia. Given his record and his active participation I suspect that he would not be regarded as the ideal witness.