Originally Posted by
ChrisGeorge
Hi Steve
No I have not read the Shortall book. Connolly and Kelly of course contended they did not even know each other. If Shortall is right that Connolly was involved in the Cameo murders, why didn't he turn in the gunman instead of contending, as I believe his counsel argued at his second trial, that Kelly did the murders -- a story that he later recanted?
div>
Chris
Shortall states that if the testimonies of the witnesses were true then Connolly could have planned the robbery. He also has letters from an MP who was trying to get the case re-opened on behalf of the Kelly family in his appendices. The letters say that as Connolly wont make a statement on what he knows, there'd be no chance of getting things re-opened.
There's no real explanation in the book as to why, given that Connolly changed his plea to guilty, he didnt go on to name the gunman.
I'm fully with Skelly on this one anyway, I cant see why Connolly would maintain his innocence till his death 45 years after the event if he was guilty -surely at some point he would have confessed all to put the Kelly family's minds at rest.
Bookmarks