451 / 494
450
served for 38 years as a police officer. In his witness statement of 18 November
2015, he states at para.28 and 29:
“28. A central aspect of the investigative strategy (of
INDECOM) was to establish a link, if any, between the
deceased, the location at which they were recovered, the
recovery of any ballistic material, (e.g. spent casings or
bullets/bullet fragments), and the
locus
of members of the
security forces who may have fired their weapons, and
members of the public (witnessed).
29. This approach required an examination of records
relating to the bodies, the ballistics and the witnesses –
whether security forces or civilians.”
14.54.
Mr. Campbell said that INDECOM faced three challenges when the
investigation was handed over by BSI, i.e.
(i)
body recoveries;
(ii)
ballistic
material; and
(iii)
witness statements.
14.55.
As to recovery of bodies
, Mr. Campbell said that the materials
supplied to INDECOM –
“did not include any written or photographic documentation
which showed the locations from which any bodies were
recovered.”
In Mr. Campbell’s opinion –
“the absence of a deceased’s location can make it extremely
difficult to determine any person’s responsibility for a death
when seeking to make inquiry of the person firing.”
14.56.
With respect to ballistics material
, Mr. Campbell stated at paras.32
and 33 of his witness statement –
“32. The documentation supplied by BSI in June 2012, did
not include any evidential material regarding the recovery of
spent casings. Some bullet fragment recovery evidence was
available from the post mortem examination statements that
were provided.
33. Recovered spent casings may enable a match to be
made between the casing and a fired weapon and may