What does it take for HET to cry collusion?
Sam Marshall was murdered under the watchful eye of undercover British soldiers who failed to prevent the murder or apprehend the killers (News, March 5).
Mr Marshall, a former republican prisoner, was threatened by the RUC. It was while leaving Lurgan RUC station that he was murdered. Yet the PSNI's Historic Enquiries Team (HET) refuses to say there was collusion.
This is reminiscent of the murder of Tyrone pensioner Roseanne Mallon, in which covert British soldiers observed the murder-gang, reported the attack and were told not to intervene.
In exactly how many killings were the covert intelligence agencies of RUC Special Branch and the British military present, witnessed and failed to act? Many observers would see this as overseeing collusive acts.
So the question is: exactly what does it take for the HET to state there was collusion in a killing?
Even in one of the most notorious cases in which collusion has been evidenced - the Miami Showband massacre - the HET refused to say there was collusion. Obviously, the HET is not using the definition set out by both Sir John Stevens and Judge Peter Cory.
To email your letter to the Editor click here