The Mahon Tribunal-discussion (please read this threads first post before replying)

oscarBravo

As all the most interesting main players to the current module of this tribunal are due to start giving evidence in the coming weeks, (early september 07 onwards),Please keep all discussion pertaining to the tribunal in this sticky thread.
All threads started on the subject outside of this thread will be deleted.

Please post sensibly.
By that I mean strictly keep your own comments to being your own opinion and reason out your posts.
Do not attack other posters.
The moderators of this board if they see something posted that they think does not conform to the above instruction may edit or delete posts in this thread if they see fit.

#Thread now open#
Please also be mindfull of the discussion on pages 8 and 9 of the discussion on the rules thread as a more indepth guideline as to what we will allow or disallow in this thread.

[EDITED for clarity as people dont seem to be able to follow a simple instruction to read pages 8 and 9 of the rules thread]

That thread makes things very clear on those pages:
Specifically

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm really not sure how to make myself any clearer without typing more slowly: accusations of lying are a special case on this forum and will not be tolerated without proof. Accusations of all sorts of other things can be argued about on their merits, but I'm talking about accusing people of lying.

Once again: clear? I don't give a goddamn rat's ass. I'm talking specifically about accusations of lying. It doesn't matter whether anything else is better, worse or indifferent - we'll deal with them on their merits. I'm talking about accusing people of lying.

Now: is any of this unclear in any way?

and this

I'd have thought it obvious that unproven crimes cannot be thrown around as accusations here either-but I'll repeat that too for clarity.Accusing someone of a crime without proof of what you may even think might be a crime (as crimes are the subject of a legal process) are most definitely not allowed here.
Thank you.

Mr.Nice Guy

Whoops didn't see this sticky which I guess is why my post got deleted. Apologies. Anyone I found this very interesting:

Ahern’s former partner tells tribunal of 'bundles of cash'

The former partner of Taoiseach Bertie Ahern told the Mahon Tribunal today that she saw bundles of sterling cash on a desk in his constituency office while he was finance minister in 1994.

Mr Ahern took some of the notes in his arms and went to a safe in a back office, the tribunal heard.

Ms Larkin has already admitted lodging in a bank account almost £30,000 given to Mr Ahern by the future owner of the Dublin home he was about to rent. The money was due to be spent on refurbishment work on the property.

In a packed tribunal courtroom at Dublin Castle, Ms Larkin today recalled how Manchester businessman Michael Wall gave Mr Ahern the cash in his Drumcondra constituency office.

“Part of the money was on the table. Bertie was bringing some into the back office. I presume into the safe,” she said.

“I didn’t take note of the denominations. I saw notes and they were sterling notes. There were a few bundles, one or two on top of each other.

She added: “I was surprised to see cash on the table. It wasn’t something that I would see every day.”

Mr Ahern’s personal finances dominated his the General Election campaign in May and he was forced to issue a statement with supporting documents relating to his home.

The Taoiseach is due to give evidence tomorrow and Friday in a politically-charged week at the tribunal.

Tribunal counsel Henry Murphy SC claimed that Ms Larkin had given three different versions of how Mr Wall’s money was lodged in an Allied Irish Banks account through interviews and statements given to the inquiry.

But the witness insisted that her first account was later clarified by her as she pieced together the events in her head.

“They’re nonsense, aren’t they,” said Mr Murphy of some recollections.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhcwqleysney/

Any thoughts on this latest development? I reckon our 'Teflon Taoiseach' is looking in a very fragile position. He's a chancer.

Well nice to see the thread hit the off!

Thats a much better put post than the one that was deleted.Please everyone do not directly accuse anyone being discussed in this thread of anything that has not been proven.
I'm fine with saying things like-it doesn't look good based on X's testimony or that of y etc.

It is possible to get your opinion across in that way.
But please be mindfull that if you were reporting on something thats on going,you'd have to hear what the other sides says aswell.

The tribunal will be doing that before reaching a conclusion.

You Suck!

Please everyone do not directly accuse anyone being discussed in this thread of anything that has not been proven.

Thats unfortunate, however if its an attempt to prevent trolling and maintain civil discussion, then I grudgingly accept. I sincerely hope its not for the sake of liability or fear of political repercussion, because regardless we are the public and are not as such bound by journalistic concerns and should be free to express what are opinions and not statement of fact.

Regardless, let me get the ball rolling. Will we by any chance be lucky enough to get a statistical probability on what the chances of a bundle of random cash being the equivalent to $45'000 to the penny for that particular days exchange rate. Bah to this legal bull! To me, the mathematical logic is as good an indictment as is needed that something is not forthcoming.

cast_iron

You Suck! wrote:

I sincerely hope its not for the sake of liability or fear of political repercussion, because regardless we are the public and are not as such bound by journalistic concerns and should be free to express what are opinions and not statement of fact.

Indeed we are the public, and you can make any outlandish statements you wish - in public. But this is a privately owned website, and (from a legal point of view), the owners are liable for anything you may publish - on this site. Sad, but true (as a current legal action by a certain company against boards.ie proves), which is why boards.ie is very careful on these matters.

You Suck! wrote:

Regardless, let me get the ball rolling. Will we by any chance be lucky enough to get a statistical probability on what the chances of a bundle of random cash being the equivalent to $45'000 to the penny for that particular days exchange rate. Bah to this legal bull! To me, the mathematical logic is as good an indictment as is needed that something is not forthcoming.

Until we see the formulae used by Ahern's legal team, it's hard to judge what went on.

You Suck!

Indeed we are the public, and you can make any outlandish statements you wish - in public. But this is a privately owned website, and (from a legal point of view), the owners are liable for anything you may publish - on this site.

As yet to be tested, especially given the international nature of the wed. I do agree that as boards is a privately owned website it has a right to dictate it's own terms of usage, However private ownership also emparts a desire not to have to endure external censorship and I suspect that some of the mod's and maybe even admin dislike external interferance.

Sad, but true (as a current legal action by a certain company against boards.ie proves), which is why boards.ie is very careful on these matters.

My best wishs to boards on this one, for all our sakes.

Until we see the formulae used by Ahern's legal team, it's hard to judge what went on.

I thought the implication was that there is no formula..........somehow randomly celia ahern deposited IR£28,772.90 which just somehow coincidently amounts to the exchange of $45'000 on that particular day. The formulae we should be concerned with here are those of probability. And I somehow suspect that Ms.Ahern was not couting out tens, pounds and coins on that particular day just to score what can only be called an extraordinary coincidence.

Or so the high counsel would put it......

meglome

I haven't had a chance to follow this fully but it's ****ing ridiculous. I realise we can't at this point be positive how the money was broken down but on the basis of probability I’d go along with the Tribunals numbers. Of course we haven't had the rest of the misdirection from the very forgetful people in the spotlight.

We should have a poll to see if anyone believes the tripe that Ahern and Co are dishing out. I don't want to be cynical but how many times can you change a story based on the facts placed in front of you. I'm not party political whatsoever but it really bothers me that the leader of the country can appear so blatantly dishonest.

El Stuntman

one thing that has struck me on this is the position of AIB. Their officials are pretty much sticking to their guns that the story that Bertie and his legal team are spinning does not tie in with the facts as they know them.
Well done AIB. (for once)

Fair play to them on this - especially when you have Bertie's legal team contacting them privately in order to 'clarify' matters. That must be a huge amount of implied pressure on these poor guys who are just trying to do their jobs. Not to mention the pressure on the AIB bigwigs when you are effectively spearing the incumbent Taoiseach's tall tales.

I just wonder that if these hearings had taken place 20 years ago and you replace BA with CJH, would records have been conveniently misplaced and bank officials memories become clouded under questioning?

changed times and all for the good imo...

Lennoxschips

Regardless, let me get the ball rolling. Will we by any chance be lucky enough to get a statistical probability on what the chances of a bundle of random cash being the equivalent to $45'000 to the penny for that particular days exchange rate.

The $45,000 thing is a moot point (for now). Ahern said at the tribunal it was Sterling that was deposited. But the AIB records show that that much Sterling wasn't bought that day (what was it again, only 2,000 or so worth handled by the branch?).

So either AIB's records are incorrect or Ahern is not telling the truth. That's basically what it boils down to, it would seem. So first we need to figure out which of those two it is. After that, the $45,000 thing becomes interesting.

In any other country he'd be a gonner already, but this is Ireland we're talking about.

mike65

The tribunal has demanded a third day of Ahern and he's looking like chap who might needs some 'rope time' as he gathers himself for the next round.

from ireland.com

In relation to the sterling, he said he may not have lodged all the money he was given in Manchester, or may have added more sterling, including small sterling notes, before adding the sterling to the money lodged.

When Mr O'Neill said he was "somewhat baffled" as to why Mr Ahern's account varied considerably since his interview in April, Mr Ahern said: "I think there is very little difference." However, he agreed that the effect of the changes was to render "meaningless" an analysis by the tribunal of his earlier account of the lodgement.

Perfect example of Berties tactics, juts keep the truth a fast moving target and hope it won't be hit. The result being that when it is, he looks like an a shifty idiot.

This sums up Ahern for me.

An Taoisach moaning about cradle to grave trawling is laughable. Apart from being a typical "poor me" exaggeration when you start to follow a money trial but can't stop at a point thats handy for the target. The image of Bertie with wads of filfthy lucre spilling out of sock drawers and Duffle coat pockets gets ever stronger for me.

Mike.

mike65

Does the concept of perjury exist in a tribunal? Is an oath taken?

Mike.

Rock Climber

mike65 wrote:

Does the concept of perjury exist in a tribunal? Is an oath taken?

Mike.

I'm not sure that it does.
I do know that it's the tribunals job to determine things like that.

1 post deleted by the way as per the instructions on how this thread is to be conducted.

mike65

To answer my own 'question' the answer appears to be yes. An oath of truth and potential for perjury is mentioned in cross examination between the lawyers for the Tribunal and Tom Gilmartin in a pdf transcript.

Mike.

Akrasia

Today Bertie Ahern said it was more likely that he gave the money to someone to change in small instalments on his behalf, which would make the transaction almost untraceable.

The Taoiseach agreed that there were not many people to whom he would entrust this large transaction, but he said none of the people to whom he could have given it had been able to confirm what happened.

Is this the biggest change of story yet from Mr Ahern?

He has done a complete U-Turn on the purchase of STG £30,000 from the AIB O Connell street which he had claimed was to be used to pay back Mr Wall his own money in relation to the purchase of a house that he may or may not have decided not to buy.

When no back records exist to back up his story, he changes his story to something that is untracable and uses an aliby of some un named individual who he admits would not be able to back him up if asked.

It makes absolutely no sense for Ahern to exchange small amounts of cash when there is a discount the more money is exchanged. It makes absolutely no sense that he would trust someone to make multiple small withdrawals but not trust them to make one withdrawal, and it makes even less sense that someone would not remember being asked to conduct a series of transactions rather than a single one.


Ahern still hasn't produced the 'Magic formula' that he mentioned before the election that would clear up the issue once and for all. It makes one believe that this magic formula never existed at all.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

Ahern still hasn't produced the 'Magic formula' that he mentioned before the election that would clear up the issue once and for all. It makes one believe that this magic formula never existed at all.

RTÉ was reporting at 5pm that BA has admitted that his magic formula was incorrect, and something about 67 different possibilities all of which have been proven to be incorrect? Was cooking at the time so didn't hear all of it.

Dirk Gently

out of interest, what (if any) would be the consequence if no conclusion can be reached on Ahern purely because of his moving of the goal posts each time. Does he just have to continue this tactic or is there some kind of cut off where they can force him to explain?

JerkyBoy

clown bag wrote:

out of interest, what (if any) would be the consequence if no conclusion can be reached on Ahern purely because of his moving of the goal posts each time. Does he just have to continue this tactic or is there some kind of cut off where they can force him to explain?

This is clearly what his team are aiming for...just keep changing the story enough so that he always has an out for each of the transactions.
"It could have been this or it could have been this...I don't remember".

By not committing to a story he then cannot be comprehensively contradicted.

Similar to the Joe O Reilly murder trial.
The guards have said that had O' Reilly simply changed his story and said, "yes I went home for a few minutes at one point that morning", or "no, I didn't have my mobile with me all day", then they would not have been able to convict because they wouldn't have been able to catch him in a lie.
A simple fudging of the facts and he would have gotten away with murder...but it wouldn't have meant he wasn't guilty.

Bertie on the other hand is dishing out the fudge like Willy Wonky...hence...he'll get away with it.

However, even though they may not be able to nail him on the payments, the Tribunal may criticize him in a way that is very politically damaging.

Who knows...he's some chancer!

mike65

The only thing one can say with some confidence is that someone is not telling the truth. Beyond that, its gets harder. Ahern is certainly laying down enough smoke.

Incredible to think a man with such a dodgy memory was in charge of the nations finances.

Mike.

oscarBravo

One thing shocked me. Over the weekend I saw the results of a poll that said something like 59% of people thought that Bertie should resign if he was found to have lied to the Tribunal.

That means two in five people think that he shouldn't resign if he's found to have lied.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

JerkyBoy

oscarBravo wrote:

One thing shocked me. Over the weekend I saw the results of a poll that said something like 59% of people thought that Bertie should resign if he was found to have lied to the Tribunal.

That means two in five people think that he shouldn't resign if he's found to have lied.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

2 in 5 is 40%
Look at the election results...not a coincidence.

mike65

Well thats no surprise, its the same 40% who were Charlie Men. FF is FF until the ends of the earth and thier family is loyal like mafia clan.

Am I right in saying that Bertie did'nt have a driving licence since the 80s?

Mike.

Dave!

The Dail is starting back shortly aint it? And the opposition parties have been alot more critical of the Taoiseach in the past couple of weeks than they were throughout the election campaign (obviously). It's been suggested that they'll start a vote of no confidence, what do ye think?

Can't forsee that or anybody calling for his resignation just yet, but I really wish they would tear him apart over this. Even if he didn't lie, all of this cash floating about is just ridiculous and highly inappropriate for a public representative in such a high position. Then you consider poor Ivor Callely...

They should be ripping him apart! We're not in the midst of an election, they can really stop being so bloody cautious now.

mike65

mike65 wrote:

Well thats no surprise, its the same 40% who were Charlie Men. FF is FF until the ends of the earth and thier family is loyal like mafia clan.

Am I right in saying that Bertie did'nt have a driving licence since the 80s?

Mike.

When he was on the opposition benches his Ministerial Charioteer was given to someone else, and he was apparently driving himself around.

cast_iron

oscarBravo wrote:

That means two in five people think that he shouldn't resign if he's found to have lied.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

I think they may have misunderstood the question. Perhaps some of them were thinking it meant "if he gave incorrect information to the Tribunal".
The fact that the possible lies have nothing to do with the Tribunal investigations may also be in Bertie's favour.

An irrelevant question really, as it will be almost impossible to prove just who (if anyone) is lying.

The whole situation is all the more strange, as now Tom Gilmartin claims these are not his allegations - he is just relaying what Eoin O'Callaghan told him.

So his evidence amounts to hearsay?

Dave!

ooooohhhhhhhh......... Eamon Gilmore has just been on Newstalk calling for the Taoiseach to resign! Fine Gael should now echo those sentiments, and then the Greens will have to put pressure on FF to get rid of Bertie. If they don't then they'll lose any credibility they have (already).

Surely Bertie won't try to weather this... He's been a huge asset to the party, but I can't imagine FF would be too eager too hang onto him any longer.

Paddy Power are giving 5/4 for him to be the next leader to resign... No odds on the timeframe though

Akrasia

cast_iron wrote:

I think they may have misunderstood the question. Perhaps some of them were thinking it meant "if he gave incorrect information to the Tribunal".
The fact that the possible lies have nothing to do with the Tribunal investigations may also be in Bertie's favour.

An irrelevant question really, as it will be almost impossible to prove just who (if anyone) is lying.

The whole situation is all the more strange, as now Tom Gilmartin claims these are not his allegations - he is just relaying what Eoin O'Callaghan told him.

So his evidence amounts to hearsay?

Gilmartin has always made that position clear that he is only reporting elements of conversations he has had down through the years.

Hearsay is a complicated legal concept. There are exemptions in terms of Police informers as well as for Whistleblowers who are reporting acts of illegality carried out by others.

Gilmartin already has a track record of honesty through the flood tribunal which has already exposed a lot of corruption in public life, and this gives him more legitimacy than other third parties who might make similar accusations.

JerkyBoy

One thing I don't get is how he is not called out on each of his stories as none of them add up.

Especially the "dig-out"\"whip-around"\"loan" stories.
Just take that example for now...

This is all fact: (all verifiable in Tribunal transcripts)
Bertie took out a loan from AIB in Dec 93 for around 19,000 to pay his legal bills, which were around 19,000. So his legal bills were at this point paid.
At this time he had also accumulated 50,000 in cash savings which could have more than paid off his AIB loan, not to mention the lack of need for a loan in the first place as he could have met his legal bills with this 50,000 in cash.

Around this time he gets 22,500 from friends, which he now claims was a loan to help pay his legal bills (or pay off his AIB loan which covered his legal bills), but in reality he lodged it to his account, and did not proceed to pay back his AIB loan until 18 months later. That's another matter.

But look at what he's claiming here:
He took out a single loan from, from a single source, AIB, to cover his legal fees.
Then he takes several different loans, from several different sources ("friends"), to pay off his single loan to AIB.
Remember this is all while he has 50,000 in cash savings (even though Bertie pretended on RTE that he got money while he was in financial trouble.)

So while normal people who have multiple loans tend to take out a single loan, called consolidation, to reduce their multiple loans into one loan...here we have Bertie with enough money to meet his bills in cash, decides to take a single loan to pay the bills, then claims to have taken multiple loans to pay off the single loan (but doesn't do so in the end).

This, for someone who is meant to be an accountant and Minister for Finance, just does not make any logical, rational, or practical sense whatsoever.

He goes against all good financing practice here by doing this.
Most people consolidate loans...here Bertie, an accountant, was spreading his single loan out among mutliple lenders.

And also these multiple "loans", from "friends", were never paid back until he was caught out for taking the money 13 years later, another matter.

So it really stretches credulity that this 22,500 was an amalgamation of loans taken to pay off his AIB loan.

This is also another case where Bertie changed his story.
Bertie initially claimed the money was given by his friends to help him buy a house.
Des Peelo's report said it was given to help pay Bertie's legal fees.
Bertie again said that it was for his house.
Then Bertie changes his mind and claims the Peelo version is the actual version of events.

Funny, coz that version is actually the least credible of the two.

In my opinion, he either had an insanely poor grasp of finances (for a Finance Minister) or he's being deceitful about where the 22,500 came from and what is was for.

mike65

A government spokesman declined to comment on whether Mr Ahern had a driving licence at the time.

However, Mr Ahern has previously confirmed that he does not hold a driving licence due to his almost continuous use of a State car and driver for the last 20 years.

The reason I wondered about his licence was cos if he drove Larkin to the bank while not licenced then he was also not insured I think.

Mike.

cast_iron

Akrasia wrote:

Hearsay is a complicated legal concept. There are exemptions in terms of Police informers as well as for Whistleblowers who are reporting acts of illegality carried out by others.

I'm not sure of the legal defn of the term, but whistleblowers usually have phtsically seen (or been closely involved in) something - not just "he told me...."
To me, it sounds like nothing but hearsay.

Akrasia wrote:

Gilmartin already has a track record of honesty through the flood tribunal which has already exposed a lot of corruption in public life, and this gives him more legitimacy than other third parties who might make similar accusations.

I never claimed he wasn't honest, if someone tells me a lie, and I relay it to someone else, that doesn't make me dishonest.
But he has changed and withdrawn a few of the "allegations" or whatever they were.


@JerkyBoy:
All god and well, but what does it prove? That his finances were a shambles and it's all highly dubious? Yes. That he took bribes or did anything else illegal? Apparently not.

cast_iron

mike65 wrote:

The reason I wondered about his licence was cos if he drove Larkin to the bank while not licenced then he was also not insured I think.

About as relevant today as whether Brian Cowen took a spliff in the '70s.

JerkyBoy

cast_iron wrote:

@JerkyBoy:
All god and well, but what does it prove? That his finances were a shambles and it's all highly dubious? Yes. That he took bribes or did anything else illegal? Apparently not.

What does it prove?...nothing. Proving corruption is exceptionally difficult.
There are rarely receipts and IOUs crossing palms when bribes are given...so we rarely have hard evidence or proof.

But what it suggests is that, if Bertie ahern was not a completely inept individual where finance is concerned (being the Minister of Finance and an accountant would seem to support that), then he is being deceitful about where that money came from and what it was given for.

If the explanation was entirely innocent, and credible, it would have been given.
This suggests, to me, that it is concealing a truth that is less than innocent.

I don't think we will see proof that Ahern took corrupt payments...that's pretty clear from the evidence we've seen...but it does indicate that Ahern's large lodgements did not originate from where\whom he claims...and this lends credence to the corruption allegations.

Let's not forget also that Bertie Ahern took actions, very specific and oddly timed actions, as Finance Minister, that directly benefitted Owen O'Callahan to the tune of millions of pounds.

There's a lot of smoke.