Mick Hartley

Photographer Richard Mills in The Times lists the problems with the photographs published in the Mirror supposedly showing British troops brutalising Iraqi prisoners:

There are a significant number of inconsistencies with these pictures that leave me convinced that they have been staged.

The subjects in each image are remarkably still; it is hard to accept that the “victim” would not be moving at all.

There is no explanation why the pictures are in black and white. If they were taken with a digital camera, as has been suggested, the photographer would have to switch deliberately into “mono” mode rather than the default colour.

Most striking is the lack of any form of identification on the soldier in each picture shown “abusing” the Iraqi. There are no badges on his uniform, no markings on the rifle and neither does he have any rings, tattoos or identifying marks on his skin.

Rifle to head. The rifle is said by some observers to be the Mark 1 model of the SA80, which was not issued to troops in Iraq. More suspiciously, there are no markings whatsoever on the weapon and it looks too clean. It also lacks a new method of strapping around the muzzle that I saw troops using.

Urinating. The soldier shown urinating on the prisoner is wearing the wrong webbing belt, which is used to carry ammunition, water and other essentials. Troops in Iraq were issued “Soldier 95” webbing.

The picture has been taken at night, as there is black in the gap between the truck canopy and tailgate on the right-hand side of the image.

If the truck was actually in Iraq, it would be filled with sand and dirt, but its floor is almost spotless. This suggests that they could have been taken either at Catterick Garrison, North Yorkshire, the Army’s largest base, or in Cyprus, where The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment is stationed.

The “victim” does not have the physique of many Iraqi youths from the impoverished south of the country: rather, he has the muscle tone typical of a British soldier.

Stamping on neck. The shirt being worn by the victim is part of the Iraqi national football team kit and could not be that clean and unstained if he had been subjected to several hours’ beating. It depicts the flag of Baathist Iraq, and it is unlikely that anyone would wear this in public in the Shia south of the country.

His thighs are very broad and muscular and again uncharacteristic of an Iraqi. There are no visible injuries to back the Mirror’s claims that the victim was tortured and beaten.

The soldier’s boots are laced in an unusual way and appear to be brand new; they are certainly far too clean to have been worn in Iraq. He also lacks a bungy cord around his trousers that soldiers often wear to keep sand out of their boots.

Rifle in groin. Anyone having a rifle thrust into their groin would be curled up in a foetal position and not have their legs open. It is also quite likely he would have lost control of his bladder.

Kick in face. The so-called victim in this picture is not tensed, as he would be if he was really being kicked in the face. Again, there are no injuries, which would be visible had the victim been subjected to an eight-hour ordeal.

The four-tonne truck in which the pictures have been taken is another cause for concern. They are not used in Iraq, as they are considered to be sitting ducks for insurgents. Armoured vans that had been used in Northern Ireland were shipped there for that reason.