McDowell Controversy

A Dub in Glasgo

Why has Frank Connolly not being charged with any offence?

Can everyone here let us know what they were doing on the 7th May 2001 and provide evidence to prove it?

Hobart

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Why has Frank Connolly not being charged with any offence?

Because there is no evidence that he was doing anything more than you or me.

Can everyone here let us know what they were doing on the 7th May 2001 and provide evidence to prove it?

I could. But I live in a society that does not require me too.

the1andonly1

If you have a look at the Atlantic Philanthropies website http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.or...statistics.asp,
a huge amount of public organisations are funded by Chuck Feeney, alot of them civil,charitable etc

Did anyone else see that Chuck Feeney also gave €3,000,00 to the Irisch Council For Civil Liberties, who have released a statement condeming Mr.Mcdowell http://www.iccl.ie/criminalj/05_cpi.html. Oh the irony!:)

A Dub in Glasgo

Hobart wrote:

Because there is no evidence that he was doing anything more than you or me.

Apparantly that should not matter :eek:

I could. But I live in a society that does not require me too.

You must be guilty of something then :eek:

mike65

I heard earlier that The Village (Vincent Brownes mag) will carry material which
shows that the Sunday Business Post wanted Connolly to explain his absence during the period in question, but he could'nt/would'nt.

Mike.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Can everyone here let us know what they were doing on the 7th May 2001 and provide evidence to prove it?

I wasn't in Colombia training terrorists. If anyone accuses me of being there and doing that, I'll certainly produce evidence to prove where I was.

I'd have to be crazy not to.

Cork

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I musted have been off sick the day there was a tribunal into the CPI or FC. Please, let me know when this happened.

The tribunerals are NOT courts of law and and enquiring into peoples personal lives.

The media trawl into peoples lives everyday.

The Minister was not the first to provide information to a newspaper.

Connolly is not exempt from public comment.

Michael McDowell was right to raise it. SF have yet to tell us, what the Columbia 3 were actually up to?

Fair play to Michael McDowell. Bertie is right to back him up.

Leaving the opposition and the Shinners to attack McDowell.

Hobart

Hobart wrote:

I don't accept that (I'm also sorry if this has been linked too elsewhere on this thread). But I have not seen any sources which claim that this passport was applied for in the name of Frank Connolly. I would have thought that there would have been no issue about it, if this was the case. Could you link to the relevant report which states this?

If it is the case that this passport was in the name of Frank Connolly and was acompanied by photo's of him, what exactly is the issue?

Why would he apply for a "false" pasport in his own name and with his picture attached? It simply does not make sense.

Again, if I am missing something here I apologise.

That was asked earlier but I lost it in the thrust of replies.
It's my bad and easily said in the trust of replies.
I dont actually know the name of the applicant or the nature of the falsehood on the application apart from obviously if it was in his own name there wouldnt be an issue.
Imust read the article,I wonder is it available on line.
I can tell you that a Belfast priests signature was forged on the form, that was in the above radio link.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Can everyone here let us know what they were doing on the 7th May 2001 and provide evidence to prove it?

My bank and credit card statements are readily available for the whole month of April and may and July 2001 amongst many other things from that period and let there be no question about it,I'd show my whereabouts from them.
It's hard to be anywhere without a record of your activities these days.

the1andonly1 wrote:

But it is on this argument that McDowells case either stands or falls. Either the CPI is a republican front or not. If it can be shown to be, then maybe, maybe, Mcdowell has a case.

Reading between the lines and applying a bit of spidey sense, I think the way McDowell seems to be thinking is this: Of course the CPI has a good reputation so far, it's only there since february.
Of course, if it were to be usurped for less than genuine purposes, it must have a good track record first-Then you usurp it, once you're well bedded down as its director and you can slip in a report or two on whatever takes your political fancy.
Thats conjecture of course and it might never happen.
It might never have been Connolly's intention.
But he simply must in my view come up with the goods and nail the accusation against him as failure to do so is well frankly fishy.

A Dub in Glasgo

So the answer is no... there has been no public investigation, no tribunal and no charge into the affairs of the CPI and FC. Seems very clear cut to me regarding McDowell.

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

I wasn't in Colombia training terrorists. If anyone accuses me of being there and doing that, I'll certainly produce evidence to prove where I was.

I'd have to be crazy not to.

How do we know you were not training terrorists?

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

My bank and credit card statements are readily available for the whole month of April and may and July 2001 amongst many other things from that period and let there be no question about it,I'd show my whereabouts from them.

What will it show? A couple of Direct Debits and Standing Orders were taken out of your bank account. Maybe a couple of withdrawals from a cash machine with your card. How will that prove your whereabouts?

It's hard to be anywhere without a record of your activities these days.

How come Frank Connolly has not been charged with any offence if that is the case?

Hobart

Earthman wrote:

That was asked earlier but I lost it in the thrust of replies.
It's my bad and easily said in the trust of replies.
I dont actually know the name of the applicant or the nature of the falsehood on the application apart from obviously if it was in his own name there wouldnt be an issue.

So do you also accept that, if his name was not on the application, that there should be no hoo haw here at all? Or are you prepared to accept that a minister can say that such and such applied for a passport falsely, while providing absoloutley no evidence for this?

Imust read the article,I wonder is it available on line.
I can tell you that a Belfast priests signature was forged on the form, that was in the above radio link.

I think that we all accept this as a fact.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

How do we know you were not training terrorists?

You could ask me. I would answer: I wasn't training terrorists. I could go further and offer evidence that I was too busy training the replacement IT manager in the company where I had given notice. If you really wanted to make an issue out of it, I could dig out documentary evidence from that company that I was at work on that day.

Of course, if you were to accuse me of training terrorists in the first place, I'd also have the option of suing you for defamation.

LordSutch

Listening to several 'so called' experts & ministers on the radio over the last 48 hours it has become obvious to me that if Mr Connolly proves where he was on those dates in question (and proves by receipt that he was Not in Columbia) then our Justice Minister Michael Mc Dowell would have no alternative but to resign in disgrace at once! and seeing as this is what all the Shinners and Shinner sympathisers want surely Mr Connolly will come up trumps shortly and provide a receipt from his local Spar or Texaco filling Station or from anywhere outside Columbia to prove his whereabouts?

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

You could ask me. I would answer: I wasn't training terrorists. I could go further and offer evidence that I was too busy training the replacement IT manager in the company where I had given notice. If you really wanted to make an issue out of it, I could dig out documentary evidence from that company that I was at work on that day.

What about another day?

Of course, if you were to accuse me of training terrorists in the first place, I'd also have the option of suing you for defamation.

You would not be able to if it was done under Dail privilege.

gurramok

the1andonly1 wrote:

Did anyone else see that Chuck Feeney also gave €3,000,00 to the Irish Council For Civil Liberties, who have released a statement condeming Mr.Mcdowell http://www.iccl.ie/criminalj/05_cpi.html. Oh the irony!:)

Then you agree that the list of organisations that has benefited from Chuck Feeneys generous funding have no neutral stance on affairs in this country
should all be investigated for subversive links?

gurramok

gurramok wrote:

If they did find somenthing, it will take a while now as they need to get new jobs in the right organistaions to expose what they found.
McD has just delayed any scandal until after the next election by his actions imho

Thats doubtfull.Any journalist worth his or her salt if they have a scoop wont wait two years to use it.

From http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/6956025?view=Eircomnet
McD informed Feeney way back in august with his 'evidence' from the garda.
I quote :
"In the Dáil the Minister said he had cleared his decision with Cabinet colleagues before he briefed Mr Feeney about Mr Connolly's background last August, and said he had been briefed by senior gardaí beforehand."

I see that.I'd like more though as that could be read that he cleared it with cabinet last August but not that he contacted Feeney last August.

Feeney has taken McD word as well, he's been conned by McD to drop the funding with malicious allegations.

Well you're quite clearly taking Connolly's denials at face value without any evidence which could be easily obtained and is being mystically denied despite the hordes of advantages to bringing it to light should there be no doubt as to Connolly not being in Columbia.
I would suggest that Feeney had to act in the face of serious allegations coming from such a reputable source.
To the open minded, theres nothing being proffered from the other side of this to clear this

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What will it show? A couple of Direct Debits and Standing Orders were taken out of your bank account. Maybe a couple of withdrawals from a cash machine with your card. How will that prove your whereabouts?

Well they could be someone else,I suppose unless they are lazer transactions.Most people have a credit card these days,I'd be surprised if a journalist didnt have one. A lack of activity on the bank account would be circumspect in the period under question compared to all other times.A Latté at gino's in downtown Bogata would not help.
People usually have a job and well, they'd have to take a fair bitof time off if they were in Columbia.
Even off hand, now that I am being asked to think of it,I know with fair certainty what I was doing or could have been doing in April may and June of 2001.
If I was being accused of something,I'd make more of an effort-especially if it was someone who hadnt been saying nice things about my brother who was doing the accusing.

How come Frank Connolly has not been charged with any offence if that is the case?

What law has he broken in Ireland if he went to Columbia ? None.
Thats not the issue here.
He's being accused of a cosy up with Farc and he's making no effort to show that he couldnt have been there.

Hobart wrote:

So do you also accept that, if his name was not on the application, that there should be no hoo haw here at all? Or are you prepared to accept that a minister can say that such and such applied for a passport falsely, while providing absoloutley no evidence for this?

Hard to answer without reading the article that SS wrote(I must get it) but there is more due tomorrow isnt there.
That said,I'd run with what Aurthur F said and consider that McDowell is taking a big risk by doing this and there seems to be no effort as yet by Connolly to show his whereabouts.

gurramok

Cork wrote:

The IRA are surposed to have stopped such activity.

Its qute odd that not a single drug lord or any of its associates has been charged by the garda with ira membership in the 30 odd years the drugs problem has been prevalent in Dublin.
Its either the Garda are severely incompetent or your view on the matter is wrong.

Besides, i do wish McD would name and shame the drug lords who are the primary threat to this state.

gurramok

gurramok wrote:

Then you agree that the list of organisations that has benefited from Chuck Feeneys generous funding have no neutral stance on affairs in this country
should all be investigated for subversive links?

Or you could say that it is evidence that McDowell doesnt use McDowell bashing as criteria to lable individuals or organisations with subversion every other day...
He'd have to lock up a lot of people and throw away the key other wise

gurramok

Earthman wrote:

Or you could say that it is evidence that McDowell doesnt use McDowell bashing as criteria to lable individuals or organisations with subversion every other day...
He'd have to lock up a lot of people and throw away the key other wise

Yeh, you'd need a super-prison to lock 'em all up.
Sorry couldn't help the pun

Sponge Bob

BrianD wrote:

Why are we diverting from the real issue by asking for Frank Connolly to prove his innocence??

It was in a separate thread for discussion on its own merits until the mods ****ed it in here with the McDowell bashing, can ye take it back out FFS .

He is not really being asked to prove his innocence BrianD but to answer some questions arising from April 2001 . I merely invited Frank , Mr Public Inquiry himself , to help a Sponge with specific enquiries of particular interest to that Sponge

A Dub in Glasgo

It is very relevant in the other thread as that (this) thread was discussing the whole issue including any witchunt against Frank Connolly.

Dyr

Wasnt it MacDowell's political daddy, minister O'Malley himself who pulled the "security-of-the-state-wink-wink-nod-nod-trust-me-on-this" stunt to get special powers through the Dail in the 70's? Same old, Same old



:v: < Mickey Dee didnt lick it off a stone ye know

Hobart

Earthman wrote:

Hard to answer without reading the article that SS wrote(I must get it) but there is more due tomorrow isnt there.
That said,I'd run with what Aurthur F said and consider that McDowell is taking a big risk by doing this and there seems to be no effort as yet by Connolly to show his whereabouts.

Hang on. You were willing to come to an opinon earlier, without reading the article in question. Namely that his name being on the passport was a given and that there would be no fuss if that were not the case. Why would you not form an opinion, in light of the fact that it may appear that his name was not on the application form?

Sponge Bob

Sponge Centre of Public Enquiry has questions for Frank and only for Frank.

I don't want Frank to get a headache reading some ghetto boy justifications of why McDowell is bad (I called him a Boorish Blueshirt elsewhere and do not wish to withdraw that comment ) .

So leave him the dignity of answering the Sponge in that thread which is for him only not for Ghetto Boys or nanolawyers. In THIS thread I posited some views on what McDowell has done for the state ...not all good I fear.

Hobart

Hobart wrote:

Hang on. You were willing to come to an opinon earlier,without reading the article in question.

Nope I was willing to ask for clarification rather than form a definitive opinion.

Namely that his name being on the passport was a given and that there would be no fuss if that were not the case. Why would you not form an opinion, in light of the fact that it may appear that his name was not on the application form?

My position hasnt changed.What I actually meant there was the accusations are a given.
Wrongly worded and hopelessly presented in that particular post yes but always the same position.

Spongebob the threads were attracting the exact same discussion, thats why I merged them albeit with slightly more McDowell bashing in one than the other.

KeithMur

There are so many things that bother me about this story.

Firstly if this information has been in the public domain since May 2002 why now has it become a "state security" issue? Why now has Chuck Feeney pulled the plug on the funds? What has changed????

Sam Smyth on Eamon Dunphy's show this morning said that we would have to wait till tomorrow's Indo to find out whether he, the minister, an taoiseach and Chuck Feeney knows more about this case than what is in the public domain at the minute. So much for a "free press." Its all to convienent that Sam asked the right question at the right time to the right person. Everything happens for a reason. Where McDowell may claim that giving out a forged document doesn't constitute leaking by himself, but it is the construed guilt of a man who, for all we know, has not or did not even know about the said document.

Also on Eamon's show this morning after reading out the headline to the then breaking story i.e. this is the forged documentation that the head of the CPI Frank Connelly used to travel to Columbia. Sam said that after seeing the photograph he could not stand up in a court and say that the picture was Frank Connelly. He claims he couldn't use the photograph because it have been enlarged to an A4 size picture and it was too bad of quality for the Indo. I mean come on!!!!! All they have is a forged document signed by "someone" and the Minister with his media pals has been judge, jury and executioner with just adding a name to it.

"Trust me" is what is usually heard coming out of McDowells mouth, the IRA committed the northern bank robbery, Adams/McGuinness members of the army council etc.. Trust you. Prove it to us. In this state you must prove someone is guilty not citizens proving they are innocent.

(On these last few points I would like to point out I have no idea if the IRA committed the robbery or Adams/McGuinness are indeed part of the army council, nor do I care) The point I am making is surely if enough evidence is out there to suggest all the above as McDowell would have us believe then surely it is up the DPP to put cases against these crimes and secure convictions. It is not up to us to believe the PD's finest but to believe what has gone through the courts giving everyone involved due process.

Whether or not Frank Connelly travelled to Columbia and trained FARC's to make explosives, I think is irrelevant to this issue. McDowell, in my opinion should the opportunity arise, would become a "great" dictator.

Set you own agenda's and try to persicute the one's who treaten you most. Keep up the good work Minister, hopefully that is a title we will not be calling you for much longer.

BuffyBot

If you have a look at the Atlantic Philanthropies website http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.or...statistics.asp,
a huge amount of public organisations are funded by Chuck Feeney, alot of them civil,charitable etc

That may be the case, and how fantastic for them. However, I find it a bit rich that people are implying a that the so called Centre for Public Inquiry is a "private" institution and shouldn't be scrutinised in the way it wishes to inquire into other matters...

Nuttzz

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1526175&issue_id=13409

CHUCK Feeney withdrew funding from the Centre for Public Inquiry (CPI) after studying an investigation company's report on its executive director Frank Connolly.

The Irish Independent has learned that investigators in a number of countries were hired by Atlantic Philanthropies, the charity run by Mr Feeney, after he was briefed by Justice Minister Michael McDowell.

The Irish-American billionaire met the minister in Dublin in September and his charity subsequently hired the services of Kroll Associates, leading US private investigators.

It is understood that reports from private investigators in Dublin, Colombia and the US corroborated the details about Mr Connolly and the CPI in Mr McDowell's briefing.

A local agency was retained in Dublin. They reported to Krolls in the US where all the information was collated and then presented to Mr Feeney.

The Centre for Public Inquiry yesterday denied claims that Michael McDowell's purchase of a site for a new prison was the subject of its next report. The Justice Minister's controversial purchase of Thornton Hall is being looked into by the CPI but not, it said, for its next report.

There is a question mark over the cente's future if Mr Feeny's funding is not restored.

Dear oh dear, so that's why Chuck pulled his funding, what McDowell told him was verified by an independent investigation

Sponge Bob

Nuttzz wrote:

Dear oh dear, so that's why Chuck pulled his funding, what McDowell told him was verified by an independent investigation

Kroll are quite capable international investigators but Kroll do not come cheap .

Who paid for that public inquiry . Was it :

1. Herr Flick (aka the Irish State aka the Taxpayer)
2. Chuck or Chucks foundation
3. Atari jaguar
4. The Columbian Government
5. Securocrats of some sort