If the information given in the Coroners Court is correct, MOD has had this film since 2004, so that's a pretty convincing reason to be taking incoming, in my view. I'm sure we're all quite aware of the abysmal record of the US forces when it comes to blue on blue mistakes, although I've no doubt that UK plc has its own blunders to cope with, but somebody has to help this family come to terms with its grief.TattooDog said:To be fair to the MOD, authorisation is required from the US to show the tape since it is classified material, and they haven't given permission yet.
Don't know why the MOD are getting the flak.
Might be worth caveating that with as reported in the media.come_the_day said:If the information given in the Coroners Court is correct, MOD has had this film since 2004
No but hearing an American voice saying "Someone's going to jail over this one" might. The Americans have been quick to release declassified HUD video and audio in the past, why can;t they apply the same censoring in this case removing the operationally sensitive information from the HUD?Not_a_boffin said:Is the sight of this lads warrior in the HUD disintegrating under 30mm fire really going to help them?
Karma is correct. I'd also suggest that although this isn't a trial of a serving serviceman/woman the same rules apply. The deceased's family may be looking in. Keep it respectful and appropriate.Might be worth caveating that with as reported in the media.
You have your opinion and I have mine. The Coroner's record is good, so far, acting as he is bound to do in the interests of the truth. I don't see how adjourning the inquest in any way detracts from the situation. As to whether or not the footage will assist in the family's grieving, I agree it is probably in question, but listen to what they have to say. Grieving is a complex process, but this kind of confusion can only add to the hurt. Maybe you've been there, but if so you show precious little sign of it.Not_a_boffin said:......this civvy coroner is grandstanding in the media four years later. It has bog all to do with anyone "coming to terms with their grief" and everything to do with the coroner trying to make precedent for his "right" to pontificate on all matters military.
The "civvy coroner" is simply doing what MOD should have done in 2003, and doing a pretty good job of it from what I can see. Don't forget that the US and MOD have been denying the existence of this video evidence for the past 4 years. It also seems like Matty Hull's family is behind the Coroner on this.Not_a_boffin said:I'm with PoL on this. The poor bloke died in 2003, it's agreed it was a blue on blue and yet this civvy coroner is grandstanding in the media four years later. It has bog all to do with anyone "coming to terms with their grief" and everything to do with the coroner trying to make precedent for his "right" to pontificate on all matters military. Is the sight of this lads warrior in the HUD disintegrating under 30mm fire really going to help them?
The coroner has todetermine for example was the death accidental or was it culpable homicide. Yes the MOD is right to with hold the tape due to the classification from public display but just as classified elements of a trila can be held in secret there should be a mechanism for the coroner to see the tape.Passed-over_Loggie said:At the risk of not being popular again, I really do think that civvy Coroners should confine themselves to identifying the cause of death. If that is to include the circumstances, it should be broadly factual but brief. I really do not think it's their place to comment and pontificate on military operations and their conduct. That's what Boards of Inquiry are for. I also get the impression that the Coroners as a body have little liking and even less understanding of the Military. What they may consider their duty to say may be somebody else's loss of morale.
It seems totally reasonable for operational recordings to be withheld if the consent of the owning Nation has not been given.
Hence my earlier point about grandstanding. If he's seen it, and if it contains evidence along the lines of the "someone's going to jail for this" quote referred to earlier then all he has to do is say so, say what the evidence is and give MoD a bucketful in public. Presumably, he knows its a foreign military tape and is therefore subject to restrictions on distribution, so again, why is he demanding release of the tape?Karma said:
He's probably SC, given the number of military cases he's having to deal with then that's almost certain, but he probably doesn't understand the classification system in the US and how material is handed off between them and us. I'm not going to condemn him for that, I think there are few people who really appreciate the difficulties.Not_a_boffin said:...........Presumably, he knows its a foreign military tape and is therefore subject to restrictions on distribution, so again, why is he demanding release of the tape?