Omagh first responders recall scenes which ‘should only be seen in a movie'
Twenty-nine people, including a woman pregnant with twins, were killed when the Real IRA bombed the Co Tyrone town in August 1998.
A public inquiry, being held at the Strule Arts Centre, has been hearing personal statements from those affected by the massacre.
Richard Quiqley told the inquiry that he was a young paramedic and Omagh was the first explosion he had ever attended.
He gave evidence that he had helped to transfer dead victims in body bags from the scene to a temporary morgue.
He said: 'I recall seeing the number of body bags laid out and each had its own area. All in rows.
'The size of the gym and the number of the body bags on the floor was something that should only have been seen in a movie.'
People had died there, people were injured there. I couldn't walk over it, I couldn't drive over it
Firefighter Paddy Quinn
The inquiry also heard from firefighter Paddy Quinn, who said he has never forgotten his experiences from attending the bomb scene.
Recalling for years how he had struggled to return to the site, he said: 'I couldn't drive it, I couldn't walk it.
'I would go right round the town, no matter where I was, and enter through George's Street and down past the courthouse to avoid it.
' People had died there, people were injured there. I couldn't walk over it, I couldn't drive over it.'
Later, counsel to the inquiry Paul Greaney KC read statements from three survivors of the attack – Maeve O'Brien, her sister Dervlagh, and Damian Murphy.
Maeve O'Brien was 13 and had been shopping in Omagh on the day of the attack.
She said people were moved to Market Street, where the bomb exploded, but her grandmother said they should move to another location.
She said this was the reason she and her family were not physically harmed.
Even now, in 2024, I can viscerally remember the sound of the bomb - the strange electrical smell and the haze coming from Market Street
Omagh bombing survivor Maeve O'Brien
Her statement said: 'My life has been divided into a time of living before and after the Omagh bomb.
'It was the end of childhood and the final loss of innocence for me.
'Even now, in 2024, I can viscerally remember the sound of the bomb – the strange electrical smell and the haze coming from Market Street.'
She added: 'I remember the panic and fear in everyone's movements after the initial blast.
'I have a true understanding of the saying your blood running cold.'
Her sister, Dervlagh, was eight years old on the day the bomb exploded.
She recalled the power of the blast causing her to fall to the ground and crawling underneath a car for safety.
She said the subsequent scenes of devastation in the town have had a lifelong impact on her.
She said: 'In my 20s I developed panic attacks.
'I took myself to Omagh minor injuries unit, as I believed I was having a heart attack.'
She added: 'I feel my experience will have a lifelong negative impact on the quality of my life.'
The screams and smells were overwhelming. I first saw people come past me with loads of bleeding
Omagh bombing survivor Damian Murphy
Mr Murphy was training to be a teacher in 1998 and had gone into Omagh to send some emails.
He said the bomb exploded as he reached the town's library.
'I came back through the smoke and dust to Lower Market Street,' he said.
'The screams and smells were overwhelming.
'I first saw people come past me with loads of bleeding.'
He said he met three Spanish girls who were bleeding and he gave them paper towels.
'I was somewhat dazed as I entered what looked like Market Street. My immediate thought was to get people out of here.
'I jumped in a window and grabbed a chair. I saw a policeman. I shouted at him and said 'Come on, let's get people out of here.
'We put people on the chair and lifted them down for easier access to cars and ambulances.
'I can't remember how many times we did this.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
29-07-2025
- BreakingNews.ie
State will oppose applications to bring cases over failure to hold Omagh Bombing inquiry
The State will oppose applications by two Omagh bombing survivors seeking to bring lawsuits aimed at compelling the Irish government to establish a public inquiry into the atrocity, the High Court has heard. Emmet Tunney and Shawneen Conway, both survivors of the 1998 dissident republican bombing, say the Government is obliged to establish a public inquiry in circumstances where state authorities allegedly held 'actionable intelligence' relating to the attack. Advertisement A total of 29 people, including Ms Conway's 18-year-old brother Gareth and a mother pregnant with twins, died when a car bomb planted by the Real IRA exploded in the centre of the Co Tyrone town on August 15th, 1998. The survivors, who are seeking to bring separate but similar cases, both point to a judgment of Northern Ireland's High Court, which found that the British and Irish government bore responsibilities 'arising from the cross-Border nature of the attack and the intelligence failings that preceded it'. 'The High Court in Northern Ireland found that there was a real prospect that fresh investigative measures could yield new and significant information regarding the atrocity, including the possibility of preventing it had certain intelligence been acted upon,' the survivors' court papers state. Their cases state that a public inquiry is required to ensure an effective investigation of the atrocity. Advertisement They allege the State's failure to hold such an inquiry is a breach of their rights under the Constitution and under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). According to their court documents, article two of the ECHR requires an 'effective, independent, prompt, and public' investigation in circumstances where state agents knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to life. Articles 40 and 41 of the Constitution require effective investigations of deaths involving potential state failures, their papers say. An independent inquiry into the bombing established by the UK government opened in Omagh in January and is continuing. That inquiry is examining whether the atrocity could have been prevented by UK authorities. Advertisement Ms Conway and Mr Tunney say the Irish government should hold a parallel inquiry. In the High Court this week, Stephen Toal KC, for the survivors with Ruaidhrí Giblin BL and Karl McGuckin BL, moved an application seeking permission to bring the proceedings against the Government, Ireland and the Attorney General. Mr Toal said the State had indicated it would be opposing their application seeking permission to bring the proceedings. Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said she would hear Mr Toal's applications for permission to bring the proceedings in early November. The judge said the State should be put on notice of the applications. Both survivors are seeking various orders, including one compelling the Government to establish a public inquiry into the bombing, and a court declaration that the Government's failure to establish such an inquiry to date is in breach of their rights. Mr Tunney, of Omagh, Co Tyrone, is represented in the action by Strabane-based firm Roche McBride Solicitors. Ms Conway, from Dungannon, Co Tyrone, is represented by Pa Duffy Solicitors in Dungannon.
Western Telegraph
22-07-2025
- Western Telegraph
‘No justification' for special advocates for families in Omagh closed hearings
It is expected that some hearings during the inquiry, which is probing whether the 1998 dissident republican atrocity could have been prevented, will be closed due to sensitive evidence and national security. Twenty nine people, including a woman pregnant with twins, were killed when the Real IRA exploded a car bomb in the Co Tyrone town. The aftermath of the Omagh bomb in 1998. (PA Archive) Inquiry chairman Lord Turnbull heard arguments over the last two days around applications from some of the family groups for special advocates. They said their interests should be represented in closed hearings, and raised a risk of damage to confidence in the inquiry if they are not. However a lawyer for the Government said no statutory public inquiry has had special advocates to date, and there was no justification to have them in this case. Katherine Grange KC also contended no provision was made for such appointments in the 2005 Inquiries Act, and cautioned around avoiding unnecessary costs. She described the Saville Inquiry into the Bloody Sunday atrocity, which lasted for 12 years and cost £195 million, as the background of that Act. 'The language of the statutory scheme, the purpose and the context of the legislation and Parliament's intention, as demonstrated in subsequent legislations all strongly suggest that no such power exists (to appoint a special advocate),' she said. 'Alternatively, we submit that even if such a power existed, it would not be necessary or appropriate for the chair to make any such appointment in this inquiry. 'No inquiry has taken that step to date, even inquiries with a very substantial closed national security element to them, and there is no justification from departing from that approach.' The hearing room at the Silverbirch Hotel in Omagh (PA) She added: 'Words that come to mind in the last two days are, it's about reassurance, confidence, robustness. 'One can understand, on a human level, why those points are being made but ultimately, you have to have faith in your own appointment, your independence and the skill of your counsel to your inquiry.' Earlier, Hugh Southey KC, representing a group of survivors and bereaved families, said the state parties would be felt to have an advantage. 'Everybody thinks that the inquiry is capable of doing a good job. Everybody thinks the counsel to the inquiry are experienced in this field. Everybody thinks they're very well qualified. Everybody thinks they're very diligent, but we need the second tier of representation,' he added. 'Everyone recognises that large key parts of this process are likely to be closed …. it's frustrating for the individuals, because they want to know the truth. They want to know that whatever findings may be made are reliable. 'If they have someone who they have confidence in, who is present, who is, effectively, saying there is no problem here, that adds to confidence in the process, particularly in circumstances where, as I say, the state parties are present, the state parties will have that advantage.' Alan Kane KC, representing another group of survivors and bereaved families, said they would like their own special advocate for closed hearings. 'Their wish would be to see all the relevant evidence after 26 years, however if there must be closed material, then we say that it should, where possible, be kept to a minimum, and if judgments are to be made then close calls must fall on the side of disclosure rather than being hidden from our families' view,' he said. 'They view a special advocate not as some special bonus or as a challenge to the inquiry legal team but as something that should be granted as they see it, as an additional assistance to them in shining light on any material which is withheld as closed by the state authorities. 'They have that legitimate interest we say, and that certainly is a matter of not only public confidence but in particular the confidence of the families.' Fintan McAleer, who represents another group of survivors and bereaved families, said they endorsed the submissions made so far. Lord Turnbull asked Mr McAleer about a point made in written submissions that the 'deep mistrust and suspicion of the state that exists in this country will never be fully allayed unless it's confirmed that every single document and piece of information is placed into the open'. Mr McAleer responded saying they respect the powers and the processes of the inquiry, but they wanted to reflect the effect of scepticism based on experience. 'The series of revelations over the years since the bomb have served to undermine their trust in the state,' he added. 'We're simply trying to convey the aspiration of the core participants we represent is that this inquiry should be in public in everything that it does, we accept there is a limitation on that, and that paragraph is an attempt to address that.' Meanwhile, Michael Mansfield KC, who represents the family of the late campaigner Laurence Rush – whose wife Elizabeth was killed in the bomb, said they are not asking for a special advocate to be appointed for them. They voiced concern about the possibility of delay to proceedings. Ian Skelt KC, acting for former chief constable Sir Ronnie Flanagan, said his client is 'entirely sympathetic' to the requests of the families and acknowledges why they seek the appointment of special advocates. He said Sir Ronnie does not seek a special advocate for himself, but acknowledged that having been chief constable at the time of the bombing, he had the authority at that time to view much of the closed material. However, Mr Skelt said if Sir Ronnie is excluded from the closed processes, he 'may have to ask for some person to represent his interest in closed process beyond the assistance that would be given by the inquiry legal team'. At the conclusion of the hearings around special advocates on Tuesday afternoon, Lord Turnbull said the issue raised is 'both important and interesting'. 'It's necessary that I take care to reflect on all of those submissions, and I will produce a written decision in due course,' he said.
Rhyl Journal
22-07-2025
- Rhyl Journal
‘No justification' for special advocates for families in Omagh closed hearings
It is expected that some hearings during the inquiry, which is probing whether the 1998 dissident republican atrocity could have been prevented, will be closed due to sensitive evidence and national security. Twenty nine people, including a woman pregnant with twins, were killed when the Real IRA exploded a car bomb in the Co Tyrone town. Inquiry chairman Lord Turnbull heard arguments over the last two days around applications from some of the family groups for special advocates. They said their interests should be represented in closed hearings, and raised a risk of damage to confidence in the inquiry if they are not. However a lawyer for the Government said no statutory public inquiry has had special advocates to date, and there was no justification to have them in this case. Katherine Grange KC also contended no provision was made for such appointments in the 2005 Inquiries Act, and cautioned around avoiding unnecessary costs. She described the Saville Inquiry into the Bloody Sunday atrocity, which lasted for 12 years and cost £195 million, as the background of that Act. 'The language of the statutory scheme, the purpose and the context of the legislation and Parliament's intention, as demonstrated in subsequent legislations all strongly suggest that no such power exists (to appoint a special advocate),' she said. 'Alternatively, we submit that even if such a power existed, it would not be necessary or appropriate for the chair to make any such appointment in this inquiry. 'No inquiry has taken that step to date, even inquiries with a very substantial closed national security element to them, and there is no justification from departing from that approach.' She added: 'Words that come to mind in the last two days are, it's about reassurance, confidence, robustness. 'One can understand, on a human level, why those points are being made but ultimately, you have to have faith in your own appointment, your independence and the skill of your counsel to your inquiry.' Earlier, Hugh Southey KC, representing a group of survivors and bereaved families, said the state parties would be felt to have an advantage. 'Everybody thinks that the inquiry is capable of doing a good job. Everybody thinks the counsel to the inquiry are experienced in this field. Everybody thinks they're very well qualified. Everybody thinks they're very diligent, but we need the second tier of representation,' he added. 'Everyone recognises that large key parts of this process are likely to be closed …. it's frustrating for the individuals, because they want to know the truth. They want to know that whatever findings may be made are reliable. 'If they have someone who they have confidence in, who is present, who is, effectively, saying there is no problem here, that adds to confidence in the process, particularly in circumstances where, as I say, the state parties are present, the state parties will have that advantage.' Alan Kane KC, representing another group of survivors and bereaved families, said they would like their own special advocate for closed hearings. 'Their wish would be to see all the relevant evidence after 26 years, however if there must be closed material, then we say that it should, where possible, be kept to a minimum, and if judgments are to be made then close calls must fall on the side of disclosure rather than being hidden from our families' view,' he said. 'They view a special advocate not as some special bonus or as a challenge to the inquiry legal team but as something that should be granted as they see it, as an additional assistance to them in shining light on any material which is withheld as closed by the state authorities. 'They have that legitimate interest we say, and that certainly is a matter of not only public confidence but in particular the confidence of the families.' Fintan McAleer, who represents another group of survivors and bereaved families, said they endorsed the submissions made so far. Lord Turnbull asked Mr McAleer about a point made in written submissions that the 'deep mistrust and suspicion of the state that exists in this country will never be fully allayed unless it's confirmed that every single document and piece of information is placed into the open'. Mr McAleer responded saying they respect the powers and the processes of the inquiry, but they wanted to reflect the effect of scepticism based on experience. 'The series of revelations over the years since the bomb have served to undermine their trust in the state,' he added. 'We're simply trying to convey the aspiration of the core participants we represent is that this inquiry should be in public in everything that it does, we accept there is a limitation on that, and that paragraph is an attempt to address that.' Meanwhile, Michael Mansfield KC, who represents the family of the late campaigner Laurence Rush – whose wife Elizabeth was killed in the bomb, said they are not asking for a special advocate to be appointed for them. They voiced concern about the possibility of delay to proceedings. Ian Skelt KC, acting for former chief constable Sir Ronnie Flanagan, said his client is 'entirely sympathetic' to the requests of the families and acknowledges why they seek the appointment of special advocates. He said Sir Ronnie does not seek a special advocate for himself, but acknowledged that having been chief constable at the time of the bombing, he had the authority at that time to view much of the closed material. However, Mr Skelt said if Sir Ronnie is excluded from the closed processes, he 'may have to ask for some person to represent his interest in closed process beyond the assistance that would be given by the inquiry legal team'. At the conclusion of the hearings around special advocates on Tuesday afternoon, Lord Turnbull said the issue raised is 'both important and interesting'. 'It's necessary that I take care to reflect on all of those submissions, and I will produce a written decision in due course,' he said.
