Daily Mirror editor's job on line over abuse photos

By KIM SENGUPTA

LONDON - Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan is likely to acknowledge that, if he has got it wrong this time, he may lose his job. Downing St is salivating at the prospect of the anti-war lobby scoring a spectacular own goal. Within Britain's armed forces there is anger, but also not a little trepidation, of the fall-out.

The photographs, of British soldiers apparently beating and urinating on a young Iraqi civilian, have been beamed around the world, leading to widespread condemnation, the most vociferously, unsurprisingly, in Muslim countries. With Iraq still in turmoil, and Britain about to send 4000 more troops into the cauldron, the stakes are high.

There have been persistent rumours, fuelled by rival publications, that the Daily Mirror has been the subject of a sting, and will be embarrassingly exposed. The two soldiers who supplied the photographs are said to have received a four-figure sum, although the company refuses to discuss the matter.

For Morgan, it may provide the toughest test yet of his durability as Mirror editor. He certainly has no shortage of experience of scrapes.

In the early days of his editorship his newspaper was widely criticised for a notorious "Achtung! Surrender" front page during the Euro 96 international football tournament. Other misjudgments have been even less subtle. Last October the Mirror ran a front-page exclusive revealing that Heather Mills McCartney had given birth to a boy. The next day, the McCartneys confirmed she had given birth to a girl.

While some believe this week's furore over the Iraqi pictures could lead to his unseating, Morgan's supporters will point to headline-grabbing successes which have ensured he has remained at the helm, despite falling circulation.

Most notably, his decision to place the reporter Ryan Parry as a footman in Buckingham Palace, revealing intimate details of the life of the Royal Family, won him plaudits from his Fleet St rivals.

Such accolades greeted last weekend's publication of the pictures from Iraq. Initially, at least, it looked like a triumphant piece of journalism. The timing of the publication could not have been more apposite. It came a day after shocking images of American forces torturing prisoners at Saddam's old jail, Abu Ghraib.

The impact was instant, with the pictures flashing around the world, earning the newspaper about £120,000 ($340,000) in syndication fees. But within 12 hours some in the military and a variety of armchair experts were attacking their veracity.

As the Royal Military Police began its investigations, the Government started its offensive, declaring that the Mirror had a "duty" to reveal the identities of the two soldiers. Opposition parties were not exactly supportive of the newspaper. The Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy, prophesied that their publication would lead to suicide bombings against Britain even if they proved to be fake, and Nicholas Soames, the Conservative defence spokesman, accused Morgan of irresponsibility.

The Mirror has agreed to hand over all photographs to the inquiry. Members of the military police's special investigations branch believe that analysing the backgrounds of the pixelated photographs of Soldiers A and B, both taken in southern Iraq, would lead to them being tracked down.

The Mirror continues to say it has full faith in the two "whistleblowers", and that their claims have been backed up by independent investigations in southern Iraq.

There have been several claims of malpractice against British troops in Iraq. The Royal Military Police and the RAF Police are investigating 10 other cases, involving seven Iraqi deaths. No one has yet been charged.

It was against this background that one of the soldiers approached the northern office of the newspaper. He was interviewed, and produced the second soldier, as well as the photographs.

The Mirror is said to have made extensive checks into the background of the two soldiers, and also inquiries in the Basra region. Executives say no doubts remained afterwards about their veracity.

What is not clear, however, is whether the photographs themselves were analysed by outside experts. Some in the paper say this was not the case. A spokeswoman for the newspaper said: "This is not something which we want to talk about. We are satisfied they are authentic."

Nor is it clear how long the newspaper had the photographs before they were published. Initially, the company said it was several weeks. Now it seems it may have been a much shorter period.

Just after 4.10pm last Friday local time, the Mirror contacted the Ministry of Defence with the allegations. Attempts were made to send the photographs over electronically. This proved problematic, and there was a long delay before they got through. By then the ministry machine had swung into gear. No less a figure than General Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of General Staff, condemned the alleged abuse. An investigation was announced within the hour.

A senior officer said: "To be honest, none of us were sitting around looking at the photographs to see whether they were genuine. General Jackson spoke because it was the right thing to do."

Points of difference

Elements of the photographs have been called into question by military experts and soldiers.

THE RIFLE

The rifle appears to be an SA80 Mark One, known as an A1. All British soldiers currently serving in Iraq were issued with a Mark Two, or A2, version. In any case, it is usual practice for a rifle to have a carrying sling attached. The rifle is also missing a "press to talk" switch on the butt which, connected to a headset, allows soldiers to use their radio while holding the weapon.

THE BOOT

It is traditional for soldiers to tie their laces in a parallel fashion rather than the criss-cross pattern shown in the pictures. One end is laced diagonally from top to bottom and the other threaded horizontally between each pair of eyelets. "The rationale was that if you got an injury to your foot one slice of your jackknife gets the boot off," a soldier said.

THE HAT

In one of the photographs, the soldier is wearing a camouflage floppy hat. Queen's Lancashire Regiment sources said soldiers in the regiment had to wear berets or helmets only while on duty. But a Ministry of Defence spokesman said all soldiers in Iraq were issued with the hats; whether soldiers were allowed to wear them was up to the commanding officer.

THE TRUCK

The vehicle in which the photographs were taken is thought to be a Bedford truck of a type not deployed in combat zones "for years", a regiment source said. Another source close to the regiment said the truck looked "too clean" to be in service and did not resemble any vehicles used in Iraq. The British Army uses a four-tonne Leyland Daf vehicle.

THE VICTIM

The Mirror reported that the alleged victim had endured an eight-hour beating and broken jaw. Yet there were few marks on his body or his clothing. Colonel Bob Stewart, who commanded British forces in the Balkans, told the BBC: "The shirt looks like a football shirt. Is that the sort of shirt that a captive might be wearing, slightly silky with an Iraq flag [on it]? Why is it not dirty and dishevelled, why is the man not showing some signs of damage after eight hours of beatings?"

THE UNIFORM

It is "very unusual" to see a soldier on active duty with pockets unbuttoned or webbing undone, said a retired soldier. "Infantrymen especially are meant to be mobile, ready to move fast and they need to be well set up," he said. Unfastened webbing means magazines of ammunition or rations can easily be lost.

- INDEPENDENT

Herald Feature: Iraq