Originally Posted by
SteH
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