The following reference to Capt Kelly's pending resignation is found in Mr Gibbons' statement in the Book of Evidence: "Captain Kelly and I spoke on these occasions about his proposed resignation from the Army. He raised the question of his resignation and I was keen to facilitate him but I didn't want to leave him with a grievance." But, perhaps, just as importantly Mr Gibbons in his statement of May 22, 1970 said the following: "When did you first become aware that the Army authorities were dis-satisfied with Captain Kelly". "The first intimation I got of this was when Col Delaney and Col Hefferon called to my office on the occasion of Col Delaney taking up (office) as Director of Intelligence. Col Delaney stated quite flatly that he would select his own staff. This implied the displacement of Capt Kelly." The underlined words are not included in the Book of Evidence.
Looking next at Col Delaney's original statement of May 26, 1970, we find he referred to this meeting and he gave four reasons as to why he did not want Captain Kelly to continue as an Intelligence Officer. His original statement then continued: "Colonel Hefferon who was present at this interview made no comment on what I said to the Minister, to the best of my knowledge. The four reasons as stated above were gleaned by me in consultation with members of the security sub-section." The underlined words were not included in the Book of Evidence.
Looking at all three originals statements so far as they deal with the Gibbons/Hefferon/Delaney meeting, it seems clear that the persons compiling the Book of Evidence decided that, so far as possible, the statements should be edited to ensure that each witness confined his evidence to what he himself thought or said. References to what other people thought or said ("Colonel Delaney . . . left no doubt that he didn't want Captain Kelly to continue on his staff") or what one witness thought about the comments of another witness ("This implied the displacement of Captain Kelly") or hearsay ("The four reasons . . . were gleaned by me in consultation with members of the security sub-section") were therefore excluded.
It thus seems clear that there was a perfectly legitimate reason for these changes. In any event, none of these changes (Changes 3, 4 and 9 in the Hefferon statement) could have assisted the prosecution and, if anything, the inclusion of this deleted material would have been of assistance to the prosecution.
Changes 6 and 7 can be taken together: "About this time I saw Mr Gibbons again in his office and I told him that Captain Kelly intended travelling to the continent again in connection with this arms deal. This would be in the end of March or early April. Captain Kelly thought he would be required as Duty Officer at GHQ on the weekend he was going to the Continent. I told Mr Gibbons that in the event of he not performing this duty I would have difficulty in explaining his absence and if he was not relieved of this duty he would be subject to the normal Army Disciplinary Action, unless some authority was given to relieve him of his duty. Mr Gibbons was prepared to have the necessary steps to have him relieved off duty in order that he could travel to the Continent." (Underlined words not included in the Book of Evidence) The references to Captain Kelly travelling to the continent and the consequential necessity for an excuse therefore are hearsay. Again, this, presumably, is the reason for the changes.
Change 15 (page 8): "Mr Gibbons rang me at my home on the date of his speech in Leinster House and asked me if it was true that Captain Kelly had been reporting with decreasing frequency recently. I said No, that I got reports from him any time I wanted them." It is not clear why this statement was omitted: it may, perhaps, have been on grounds of relevancy. In any event, compare the following extract at the very end of Mr Gibbons statement of May 18th which was also not included in the Book of Evidence: "Army Intelligence were very dissatisfied with Captain Kelly's performance and failure to report over long period." The comments by Mr Gibbons regarding what Army Intelligence thought about Captain Kelly's performance are hearsay and, presumably, this is the reason for the exclusion of these comments from the Book of Evidence.
These two statements - both of which were not included in the Book of Evidence - effectively cancel each other out. However, if there was a sinister motive behind Change 15 in Col Hefferon's statement (ie, to hamper the defence and to assist the prosecution), then one would have expected that the persons compiling the Book of Evidence would have included those damaging remarks about Captain Kelly in Mr. Gibbons' own statement in the Book of Evidence.
Conclusion:
In the light of this analysis - which, with respect, is far more thorough than anything contained in the Prime Time programme or in subsequent media comments - the following conclusions may be drawn: First, there is no close correspondence between the alleged Berry markings and underlinings and the subsequent changes to Col Hefferon's statement.
Secondly, the vast majority of the changes made to all the statements (including Col Hefferon's) are readily explicable by reference to a perceived necessity to comply with the rules of evidence.
Thirdly, the changes must have been made by persons compiling the Book of Evidence and were not made within the Department of Justice.
Fourthly, not all of the changes favour the prosecution - there are many which favour the defence.
Finally, had the persons making the changes wished to "doctor" the evidence against the accused, one would also have expected that additional damaging evidence against the accused contained in the originals of, e.g. Mr Gibbons' statements, would also have been included in the Book of Evidence.
There is only one other matter I wish to add at this point and I feel I have to do so because of the cowardly, anonymous allegations made in the second Prime Time programme last Tuesday against Jim Gibbons. I cannot imagine anyone less likely to commit perjury than the late Jim Gibbons. He was a man of considerable religious scruples, obsessed with the truth, and possessed of a deep and genuine private morality, often expressed to me and indeed expressed publicly and visibly from his voting record in Dail Eireann on other matters.
Just as the allegations of "doctoring" against Peter Berry and myself are clearly untrue so too I believe are the allegations of perjury against Jim Gibbons. If I happened to be dead it would have been very difficult for anyone else to deal with the allegations against me.
The facts of the Arms Crisis of 1969 and 1970 speak for themselves and history will get it right when we are all dead and gone.