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

ballooba

Bertie has had ample opportunity to explain himself. No point in waiting to hear the evidence if he is not going to offer it.

oscarBravo

Thread closed for the moment.

Everyone seems to be more interested in scoring points off each other than actually discussing anything of value, and it's going around in circles.

Until such time as we see fit to re-open it, I suggest that all the participants re-read the forum charter, and this thread's first page, several times.

DancesWithChimp

Bertie Ahern went on the offensive today and criticized the Tribunal claiming that they harangued Graine Carruth and that they had treated her in an "appalling" way.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0403/breaking52.htm

I don't think that is in any way a fair criticism, or assesment, of how the Tribunal handled her.

I don't know if Ahern has read the Transcripts or if he is following the line of other cabinet members who criticised the Tribunal for same...because any read of the transcript shows how sensitive, compassionate, and ultimately helpful the Tribunal council and Judges were in regard to her appearance.

This is essentially what went down:
(everyone is free to read the Trascripts at: http://www.planningtribunal.ie/asp/Reports.asp?ObjectID=310&Mode=0&RecordID=468 and make up their own mind)

The Tribunal produced documentary evidence which showed that Graine Carruth lodged sterling to Ahern's accounts.
When questioned about this she initially, and categorically, answers that she did not lodge sterling to Ahern's accounts.

The Tribunal members at this stage intervened and explained to her the seriousness of saying she didn't do this when they have proof that she did.

They also pointed out that there is a big difference between saying you didn't do something and saying you may have done something but don't remember.
Option 1: can lead to perjury if it can be shown that you did indeed do the thing in question
Option 2: means you cannot perjur yourself because you are not stating an untruth...you simply don't recall

The Tribunal members also asked her if her solicitors had explained to her the seriousness of perjury. She claims they hadn't.

So at this point the Tribunal is helping her BIGTIME.

They essentially tell her to note the difference between saying you didn't do something and saying you don't remember doing something...and told her to reflect on it overnight with her solicitor and come back the next day.

The next day she came back and, taking the subtle advice of the Tribunal, claimed that she may have lodged sterling (in fact she accepted that she did lodge sterling) but that she doesn't remember doing it.

While the Judges still noted that position as being hard to believe...that line of evidence was not at risk of being perjury.

Whatever Ahern may like to say of the Tribunal...they did Ms Carruth a huge favour by basically telling her how to avoid maintaining her refusal to acknowlege her deliberate lodgments of sterling while avoiding risk of perjury.

Perhaps they were legally oblidged to advise her so, in the absence of her solicitor doing so, but either way...it was an act of compassion that spared her potentially serious consequences.

Had she only appeared on that first day and maintained her line that she categorically did not lodge sterling...she may have ended up in big trouble.

I'd imagine the Tribunal wouldn't want to see the poor woman get fined and locked up any more than the rest of us would.
They saved her from that potential outcome. There's no question.

So for Ahern to criticise the fact that she was brought in on a Holy Thursday, and claim her treatment was appalling etc etc...shows a lack of understanding of the events as the proceeded that day, and is in my opinion unfair criticism.

Discuss??

oscarBravo

Re-opened - any more handbaggery will result in bans. Also, think very, very carefully before posting here.

Mr.Micro

I think the whole way that Mr. Ahern handled the Tribunal was wrong. His whole vague and vacuous replies would insult the intelligence of any SC and certainly any intelligent Judge in this case Alan Mahon. Was his approach arrogance or naivety? Mr.Ahern seemed to forget that these people are used to searching for hard facts and knowing BS when they smell it. In the case of Miss Carruth I firmly believe that Mr.Ahern should not have claimed that the Tribunal was low as it was his responsibility to see that this woman was up to date with the facts and not leave her to be questioned by hard nosed professionals, trying in her loyalty to defend him IMO. Shame on him, leaving her to try and defend him out of loyalty, now that was very low. It does him no service to snipe at the Tribunal now it just shows he feels hard done by, and I am sure that he will be given every opportunity at the Tribunal to put the record straight and demonstrate that all his personal finances were in order.

Akrasia

[mod edit: I've snipped this post because it consists of speculation as to what may be coming up in the Tribunal proceedings. Let's keep the thread to observation of what we've already witnessed.]

Seth Brundle

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I think the whole way that Mr. Ahern handled the Tribunal was wrong. His whole vague and vacuous replies would insult the intelligence of any SC and certainly any intelligent Judge in this case Alan Mahon. Was his approach arrogance or naivety? Mr.Ahern seemed to forget that these people are used to searching for hard facts and knowing BS when they smell it.

Im of the belief that his replies and actions were all deliberate with the intention of either frustrating the tribunal or distracting them from something. But sure what would I know!

Mr.Micro wrote: »

In the case of Miss Carruth I firmly believe that Mr.Ahern should not have claimed that the Tribunal was low

I agree!
Its not his responsibility to look after Ms. Carruth but given that these lodgements still haven't been explained and with the suspicion of these being somewhat dodgy, he shouldn't have gotten her to lodge them in his and his daughters bank accounts. Where was the concern then? Still there is probably a plausible explanation for these lodgements - I await it with eager anticipation!

Mr.Micro wrote: »

it was his responsibility to see that this woman was up to date with the facts and not leave her to be questioned by hard nosed professionals, trying in her loyalty to defend him IMO.

Isn't that part of her legal teams role? IIRC she has moved from the same legal team as Bertie to a different company.
However, with regard to the questioning, what was wrong about it? From what I can see it was simply a barrister doing what they are paid to do. If she wasn't thoroughly questioned then the barrister would be at fault.
As for her starting to cry? FFS! Is she an adult or not?

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Shame on him, leaving her to try and defend him out of loyalty, now that was very low. It does him no service to snipe at the Tribunal now it just shows he feels hard done by, and I am sure that he will be given every opportunity at the Tribunal to put the record straight and demonstrate that all his personal finances were in order.

I wonder what view the incoming Taoiseach (Biffo?) will make of it all and will they let it continue?

edanto

Akrasia, I must say that the same throught crossed my mind re the timing of the announcement/him obtaining the 150 pages, but in fairness there were no other options open other than resignation.

What's the next date that Mahon is due to report?

Akrasia

edanto wrote: »

Akrasia, I must say that the same throught crossed my mind re the timing of the announcement/him obtaining the 150 pages, but in fairness there were no other options open other than resignation.

What's the next date that Mahon is due to report?

I don't know if there are specific dates? I thought he had to finish each module and then report what he finds. From some media accounts, It could be another year before the quarryvale module is completed.

DancesWithChimp

kbannon, I wouldn't be so quick to fault Carruth for crying on the stand.

It is clear she was left with very little support from the people who should have been helping and supporting her.

Had it not been for the kindness of the Tribunal members she may have faced very serious consequences.
It's very sad and worrying that her solicitors, according to her testimony, had not warned her of the seriousness of her evidence that day...and that the Judges then felt compelled to advise her on how to avoid getting into serious trouble, by rephrasing her testimony.

The tone of her answers when she got emotional was very much that she did not want to be involved in this at all and that she was very hurt by the whole thing.
This was in response to whether or not she had been in contact with Ahern's people since the sterling revelations were made available to her some weeks earlier.
She said that she hadn't been in contact with them, even though the new evidence of sterling lodgements was so serious and glaring, and that it would have been immensly important and helpful to her.

So both Ahern's team and Carruth's team were circulated with evidence of the sterling lodgements, according to the transcripts, a few weeks before she testified, and according to her there was no communication with them as to clarify her previous evidence.
Even though she said when she saw the evidence she "shook for two hours"...at no point was she given a clarification of the sterling lodgements by Ahern or his people, according to her.

Given that Ahern claims to have perfectly good answers to these lodgements it would seem extra cruel that she was left to continue to deny their existence and only under warning of the seriousness of perjury did she accept her involvment.

To me the whole thing is very unsavoury...and by her own words she felt very much hurt by the whole thing and just wanted to go home.

I don't blame her.
She should have been supplied with whatever reasoning that Bertie is going to give in response to these transactions when he next appears...instead of being left to say "I didn't do it", then changing that to "I don't remember doing it".
Unless of course... if he doesn't have any acceptable reasoning himself.
We'll have to wait and see.

Rock Climber

DancesWithChimp wrote: »

kbannon, I wouldn't be so quick to fault Carruth for crying on the stand.

It is clear she was left with very little support from the people who should have been helping and supporting her.

That pre supposes that Bertie won't eventually be able to give a satisfactory explanation to the tribunal for it's current questions and ergo is more evidence of bias.

Had it not been for the kindness of the Tribunal members she may have faced very serious consequences.

Lol,thats more nonsense,the tribunal are kind to witness's now are they? They are not and they shouldn't be,they are clearly adversarial.If they were being kind they need not have called her back but put the sterling queries and conflict to Bertie directly.
They chose instead to unnecessarally make a woman cry.
Brave men they are indeed.

It's very sad and worrying that her solicitors, according to her testimony, had not warned her of the seriousness of her evidence that day...and that the Judges then felt compelled to advise her on how to avoid getting into serious trouble, by rephrasing her testimony.

Might I remind you that she did not withdraw the fact that she could not remember the event.
She just accepted that the sterling lodgements must have happened based on the documents with her signiture from 14 years ago.

The tone of her answers when she got emotional was very much that she did not want to be involved in this at all and that she was very hurt by the whole thing.
This was in response to whether or not she had been in contact with Ahern's people since the sterling revelations were made available to her some weeks earlier.
She said that she hadn't been in contact with them, even though the new evidence of sterling lodgements was so serious and glaring, and that it would have been immensly important and helpful to her.

Even though she said when she saw the evidence she "shook for two hours"...at no point was she given a clarification of the sterling lodgements by Ahern or his people, according to her.

Well Now two things there,she is clearly displaying her reaction to something that she doesn't remember and secondly,you'd hardly expect her to explain these things as a mere " Go For".
Such explanations are and always have been in Berties ambit.
The big brave men at the tribunal of course know this...

Given that Ahern claims to have perfectly good answers to these lodgements it would seem extra cruel that she was left to continue to deny their existence and only under warning of the seriousness of perjury did she accept her involvment.

So he should coach his 1990's "GO For" secretary as to something he wouldn't have explained to her back then.
That would be asking her to present hearsay evidence , never mind the fact that the tribunal lawyers are clever enough to know that it's Bertie they should have been tackling on that matter.

To me the whole thing is very unsavoury...and by her own words she felt very much hurt by the whole thing and just wanted to go home.

Crocodile tears much,given the obvious mind made up approach you are constantly displaying with respect to a tribunal thats quite a bit away from having heard all the evidence yet.

We'll have to wait and see.

Indeed..

Akrasia

Rock Climber wrote: »

That pre supposes that Bertie won't eventually be able to give a satisfactory explanation to the tribunal for it's current questions and ergo is more evidence of bias.

Its not evidence of bias. As we currently stand, we have a specific categorical statement on oath by Ahern that particular lodgements in this account were from cashing his own wages. We have concrete financial records that prove that there were sterling lodgements into that account. Ahern was not paid in sterling. It is not an indication of Bias to not believe Ahern when his story flatly contradicts the financial records and testimony of an independent bank manager. Can you think of a single plausible explaination why Ahern could have been telling the truth in his original statement, and still tally with the financial records? Is he going to change his story again?

Lol,thats more nonsense,the tribunal are kind to witness's now are they? They are not and they shouldn't be,they are clearly adversarial.If they were being kind they need not have called her back but put the sterling queries and conflict to Bertie directly.
They chose instead to unnecessarally make a woman cry.

So they should have gone easy on her because she's a she? Maybe they should have made her a cup of tea and chatted about Coronation Street for a bit at the start, to make her feel more at home?

Might I remind you that she did not withdraw the fact that she could not remember the event.
She just accepted that the sterling lodgements must have happened based on the documents with her signiture from 14 years ago.
Well Now two things there,she is clearly displaying her reaction to something that she doesn't remember and secondly,you'd hardly expect her to explain these thins as a mere " Go For".

Originally she claimed categorically that she never handled sterling. She didn't just say 'I don't remember ever handling sterling', She made a definite statement that she categorically didn't deal in sterling. Not just once, but several times, even when confronted with the amounts and dates of the transactions.
Look at the transcript yourself
http://www.planningtribunal.ie/images/SITECONTENT_827.pdf (around 15:09)

If she didn't remember the transactions, she should have said so instead of trying to corroborate Aherns story. She was responsible for her own treatment at the tribunal.

Such explanations are and always have been in Berties ambit.
The big brave men at the tribunal of course know this...
So he should coach his 1990's "GO For" secretary as to something he wouldn't have explained to her back then.
That would be asking her to present hearsay evidence , never mind the fact that the tribunal lawyers are clever enough to know that it's Bertie they should have been tackling on that matter.

They interviewed bank clerks, the bank manager and the person who made the lodgements. They are being meticulous, you can not blame them for that. Only one person had any trouble from the lawyers, and by coincidence, it was the person who was making false statements. They're going to question Ahern on this matter when he's back in Dublin castle.

Crocodile tears much,given the obvious mind made up approach you are constantly displaying with respect to a tribunal thats quite a bit away from having heard all the evidence yet.

You really should stop accusing people of personal bias all the time. Its against the charter, and it's getting tiresome. There aren't as many people in the world with a personal bias against Ahern as you think there are.

DancesWithChimp

RockClimber, we are getting back into the kind of territory here which caused OscarBravo to lock the thread (accusations of bias, personal inferences, etc.), so I will only be responding to items where you suggset I have my information wrong...because I assure you my information is correct as it is based off transcripts, and therefore my opinions based on that are as valid as yours.

Now on to discussing the actual matters at hand:
>>Lol,thats more nonsense,the tribunal are kind to witness's now are they?

If the Tribunal had not warned Ms Carruth about the seriousness of her evidence (her categorical denial), since her own legal representatives had not saw fit to do so, then she would possibly be facing serious perjury charges.

The Tribunal helped her to reach a position of admitting the lodgements happened and were done by her (as it is irrefutable by the documentary evidence), but that she could not remember. This is an entirely acceptable position for her to take. The previous position of categorical denial...was unnacceptable as it contradicted documentary evidence.
That should have been her position going in that day given that her legal team had said documentary evidence in their possession.
She was ill-prepared in my opinion...and the Mahon team were aware of that and gave her the advice that she should have gotten from her own people.

They didn't have to do this...they could have been "advesarial" as you say and could have let her initial evidence stand, and then nailed her on it.

But they are not after her.
They are after the truth.
In order to progress the evidence and allow her to continue to be helpful to the Tribunal they told her to consider their advice, consult her solicitor, and come back.

It appears to me that they were much more concerned for her wellbeing than her own representatives...who appeared to be fine with her initial line of evidence...even though, according to the witness...they had in their hands the documentary evidence that was contradicting her categorical denial.

You are free to see that whichever way you want.
I see it as the Tribunal being very kind and helpful to her. They could have just as easily thrown her in the nick.

>>They chose instead to unnecessarally make a woman cry.
>>Brave men they are indeed.

They chose to inform her of the consequences of her evidence, something her solicitors didn't do.
Had the Judges not, she might well be crying in a jail cell today.

>> Might I remind you that she did not withdraw the fact that she could not remember the event.

I never said she didn't. You should read other's posts more carefully.
She withdrew from her previous position of stating categorically that she did not lodge sterling, and changed to a position where she merely could not recall lodging sterling.
By doing so she avoided potential perjury.
She should be thanking the Judges for giving her the chance, not to mention the helpful direction, to do so.

>>So he should coach his 1990's "GO For" secretary as to something he wouldn't have explained to her back then.

Both Ahern's team and Carruth's team were circulated with evidence that the sterling lodgements occurred and that they were lodged by Ms. Carruth.
Everyone knew she was to be called to answer on this...and no-one gave her any information about said lodgements to help her clarify the matter.
Instead was left to go in and make a categorical statement contradictory to the documentary evidence in the possession of her own, and Ahern's, legal people.

In my opinion, that was bad form.
You're free to feel otherwise.

Mr.Micro

Ms Carruth was hung out to dry IMO. Mr. Ahern's legal team did not it appears, at least give her counsel or the information that she may have required to deal with the questioning. Mr. Ahern is wrong and out of order then to suggest that the Tribunal was low as he clearly knew what the Tribunal was after, and its not a picnic, and he would be aware of the tough questioning that would ensue with regards to Ms.Carruth, and subsequently transpired.

tech77

DancesWithChimp wrote: »

Bertie Ahern went on the offensive today and criticized the Tribunal claiming that they harangued Graine Carruth and that they had treated her in an "appalling" way.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0403/breaking52.htm

I don't think that is in any way a fair criticism, or assesment, of how the Tribunal handled her.

I don't know if Ahern has read the Transcripts or if he is following the line of other cabinet members who criticised the Tribunal for same...because any read of the transcript shows how sensitive, compassionate, and ultimately helpful the Tribunal council and Judges were in regard to her appearance.

This is essentially what went down:
(everyone is free to read the Trascripts at: http://www.planningtribunal.ie/asp/Reports.asp?ObjectID=310&Mode=0&RecordID=468 and make up their own mind)

The Tribunal produced documentary evidence which showed that Graine Carruth lodged sterling to Ahern's accounts.
When questioned about this she initially, and categorically, answers that she did not lodge sterling to Ahern's accounts.

The Tribunal members at this stage intervened and explained to her the seriousness of saying she didn't do this when they have proof that she did.

They also pointed out that there is a big difference between saying you didn't do something and saying you may have done something but don't remember.
Option 1: can lead to perjury if it can be shown that you did indeed do the thing in question
Option 2: means you cannot perjur yourself because you are not stating an untruth...you simply don't recall

The Tribunal members also asked her if her solicitors had explained to her the seriousness of perjury. She claims they hadn't.

So at this point the Tribunal is helping her BIGTIME.

They essentially tell her to note the difference between saying you didn't do something and saying you don't remember doing something...and told her to reflect on it overnight with her solicitor and come back the next day.

The next day she came back and, taking the subtle advice of the Tribunal, claimed that she may have lodged sterling (in fact she accepted that she did lodge sterling) but that she doesn't remember doing it.

While the Judges still noted that position as being hard to believe...that line of evidence was not at risk of being perjury.

Whatever Ahern may like to say of the Tribunal...they did Ms Carruth a huge favour by basically telling her how to avoid maintaining her refusal to acknowlege her deliberate lodgments of sterling while avoiding risk of perjury.

Perhaps they were legally oblidged to advise her so, in the absence of her solicitor doing so, but either way...it was an act of compassion that spared her potentially serious consequences.

Had she only appeared on that first day and maintained her line that she categorically did not lodge sterling...she may have ended up in big trouble.

I'd imagine the Tribunal wouldn't want to see the poor woman get fined and locked up any more than the rest of us would.
They saved her from that potential outcome. There's no question.

So for Ahern to criticise the fact that she was brought in on a Holy Thursday, and claim her treatment was appalling etc etc...shows a lack of understanding of the events as the proceeded that day, and is in my opinion unfair criticism.

Discuss??

Nothing to discuss really.
I think your description is fairly accurate.
The tribunal did their job.
They didn't treat her unfairly.
On the contrary they advised her prudently of the consequences of perjury.
This was done, i understand, because her own lawyers didn't do so.

So Bertie's "Haranguing" statement is just more of his typical emotive guff distorting the facts.
The usual obtuse obfuscation/Bertie-speak to suit himself, no more, no less.
A bit like the separation-excuse stuff before only a lot worse.

Rock Climber

DancesWithChimp wrote: »

RockClimber, we are getting back into the kind of territory here which caused OscarBravo to lock the thread (accusations of bias, personal inferences, etc.), so I will only be responding to items where you suggset I have my information wrong...because I assure you my information is correct as it is based off transcripts, and therefore my opinions based on that are as valid as yours.

Of course though,inferences drawn towards guiltyness of something or other prior to a process finishing are a bias in favour of guilt which is what I have been accusing you of.
Contrast that with Neutrality and me picking up on this bias every time

Now on to discussing the actual matters at hand:
>>Lol,thats more nonsense,the tribunal are kind to witness's now are they?

If the Tribunal had not warned Ms Carruth about the seriousness of her evidence (her categorical denial), since her own legal representatives had not saw fit to do so, then she would possibly be facing serious perjury charges.

I doubt they'd stand as she can claim to be a "Go For" as I said and clearly her lack of memory alludes to that being her status in the main.

The Tribunal helped her to reach a position of admitting the lodgements happened and were done by her (as it is irrefutable by the documentary evidence), but that she could not remember. This is an entirely acceptable position for her to take. The previous position of categorical denial...was unnacceptable as it contradicted documentary evidence.
That should have been her position going in that day given that her legal team had said documentary evidence in their possession.
She was ill-prepared in my opinion...and the Mahon team were aware of that and gave her the advice that she should have gotten from her own people.

Ah but it would be equally fair for her to maintain that she couldn't have lodged sterling because well her boss of the time was maintaining that it wasn't sterling.It's equally valid to say that her distress mounted when un be knownst to her,it has become clear that it was sterling she lodged.

They didn't have to do this...they could have been "advesarial" as you say and could have let her initial evidence stand, and then nailed her on it.

Actually those big brave lads didn't need to call her in at all other than to confirm her signiture was that on the dockets.
I don't know why they went further with her than they had to,other than they were being nasty.

But they are not after her.
They are after the truth.
In order to progress the evidence and allow her to continue to be helpful to the Tribunal they told her to consider their advice, consult her solicitor, and come back.

All of which was an unnecessary brow beating to a woman who wasn't able for that type of thing and completely unnecessary.
As I said earlier..What brave men they are..

It appears to me that they were much more concerned for her wellbeing than her own representatives...who appeared to be fine with her initial line of evidence...even though, according to the witness...they had in their hands the documentary evidence that was contradicting her categorical denial.

She was perfectly within her rights to deny any knowledge of sterling in the midst of many many lodgements or cash movements or cheque cashings she may have done as she wouldn't have remembered them.
As I said,the whole "grandstand" of this giving her advice to consider her evidence looks like them being bully boys out to sauce up theirattack on the veracity of Aherns evidence.
They made Carruth an unnecessary fall girl in my opinion in the process,the big brave boys that they are.

You are free to see that whichever way you want.
I see it as the Tribunal being very kind and helpful to her. They could have just as easily thrown her in the nick.

Lol,she's not a withness for the MDC,they wouldn't have done that,there would have been a lawyer call for a recess and the necessary unnecessary rephrase would have been proffered.

>>They chose instead to unnecessarally make a woman cry.
>>Brave men they are indeed.

They chose to inform her of the consequences of her evidence, something her solicitors didn't do.
Had the Judges not, she might well be crying in a jail cell today.

Nope,her lawyers would have called time if that was the first shout from the tribunal.
As it happened,there was what looked to me like a whole lot of unnecessary grandstanding.
You've got to admit , that evidence could have been soley put to Ahern.

>> Might I remind you that she did not withdraw the fact that she could not remember the event.

I never said she didn't. You should read other's posts more carefully.
She withdrew from her previous position of stating categorically that she did not lodge sterling, and changed to a position where she merely could not recall lodging sterling.
By doing so she avoided potential perjury.
She should be thanking the Judges for giving her the chance, not to mention the helpful direction, to do so.

Lol,she's supposed to thank the tribunal for putting her through something that they didn't need to put her through?
You are joking?

>>So he should coach his 1990's "GO For" secretary as to something he wouldn't have explained to her back then.

Both Ahern's team and Carruth's team were circulated with evidence that the sterling lodgements occurred and that they were lodged by Ms. Carruth.
Everyone knew she was to be called to answer on this...and no-one gave her any information about said lodgements to help her clarify the matter.
Instead was left to go in and make a categorical statement contradictory to the documentary evidence in the possession of her own, and Ahern's, legal people.

The only thing that needed to be done was to ask her to confirm that it was her signiture on the dockets.Her " Go for " status hasn't or wouldn't have made her guilty of perjury.She was just the "girl" signing many many dockets,doing what she was told to do.She may not have seen the bundles (there were so many of them ).

In my opinion, that was bad form.
You're free to feel otherwise.

In my opinion,shocking as it is,I Find it reprehensible to have a mind made up before a process is finished and such a long time before it is finished too.
But then we parted company on that score a good while ago it seems.

murphaph

DancesWithChimp wrote: »

But they are not after her.
They are after the truth.
In order to progress the evidence and allow her to continue to be helpful to the Tribunal they told her to consider their advice, consult her solicitor, and come back.

Exactly. The tribunal knows its remit....to investigate alleged corrupt payments to polticians (including Mr. Ahern) with respect to planning decisions. They needed Mrs. Caruth's evidence to help get to the truth (seeing as Mr. Ahern can't or won't give straight answers) and the only one to blame for her even being in the witness box is Ahern himself.

edanto

Rock Climber wrote: »

Of course though,inferences drawn towards guiltyness of something or other prior to a process finishing are a bias in favour of guilt which is what I have been accusing you of.
Contrast that with Neutrality and me picking up on this bias every time

You're neutral!? right....

Your logic is faulty. You're saying that forming an opinion in advance of the conclusion of the process is biased - which implies that we should accept the conclusions as the only truth. The 'process' as you describe it is not one which can conclude a verdict of 'innocent' or 'guilty' anyways, and in any case, there is nothing biased about any member of the public using the evidence presented at the tribunal to form an opinion as to the appropriateness of those actions by officials.

A bias would be refusing to acknowledge unethical and improper behaviour as such, or making accusations without reference to specific elements of testimony or evidence. Danceswithchimps has been meticulous in referencing the transcripts when judging actions, even within the confines of the thread rules.

Rock Climber

edanto wrote: »

You're neutral!? right....

I am indeed.Congratulations on the 1000th post by the way
I'll make no apologies for waiting untill all opportunities afforded by the process to clear this up are exhausted before I get on high horses regarding what might have been behind all this.
I'd expect that of any legal investigation.
I've no problem going up on a high horse though and proclaiming that the tribunal had no need to harass Ms Caruth to get to the bottom of things for the reasons already stated.

Your logic is faulty. You're saying that forming an opinion in advance of the conclusion of the process is biased - which implies that we should accept the conclusions as the only truth.

I have to say (though I admit I may have missed it) but thats the first indication that someone has made in this thread that they may form an opinion other than that of the tribunals report when it comes.If you are going to do that if the tribunal findings aren't good enough for you then thats an inherent bias and with no basis other than opinion.

The 'process' as you describe it is not one which can conclude a verdict of 'innocent' or 'guilty' anyways, and in any case, there is nothing biased about any member of the public using the evidence presented at the tribunal to form an opinion as to the appropriateness of those actions by officials.

There would be everything biased about anyone towing a different line to the conclusions of a legal inquiry.
Frankly it's laughable with respect to try to suggest otherwise.

A bias would be refusing to acknowledge unethical and improper behaviour as such, or making accusations without reference to specific elements of testimony or evidence. Danceswithchimps has been meticulous in referencing the transcripts when judging actions, even within the confines of the thread rules.

Transcripts are all very fine but they are only a portion of what may eventually be put in front of the tribunal.
As has often been said by moderators and others on this forum,you have to prove deliberateness in proving a lie.
Pre supposing a lie when someone may have just given a best description of what they thought may be the case(in the face of not remembering too well) is just not good enough.
It's just got the value of one more opinion in a sea of opinions and only that.

tech77

edanto wrote: »

You're neutral!? right....

Your logic is faulty. You're saying that forming an opinion in advance of the conclusion of the process is biased - which implies that we should accept the conclusions as the only truth. The 'process' as you describe it is not one which can conclude a verdict of 'innocent' or 'guilty' anyways, and in any case, there is nothing biased about any member of the public using the evidence presented at the tribunal to form an opinion as to the appropriateness of those actions by officials.

What's the point of this whole thread then if Rockclimber insists that opinions should only be formed AFTER the tribunal gives it's judgement.

Perfectly valid and reasonable opinions are being given on the unsustainability of Bertie's evidence in this thread- Rockclimber is deliberately confounding these reasonable deductions with "bias"-
in an obfuscating way that Mr. Ahern himself would be proud of.

A Dub in Glasgo

What is the point of a discussion board if people cannot discuss their opinions anyway? Should a tribunal (or similar body) look into all aspects of life before people give an opinion. I seem to remember that quite a few people here gave their opinion on loads of topics and subjects without waiting for a tribunal and/or court case. This includes RC where s/he seemed happy to give opinions without a judgement on other topics.

What happens if people disagree with the recommendations or outcomes of a tribunal/court case? Are they to be accused of bias and close mindedness? I am sure Widgery loves those who do accuse people of that.

murphaph

Rock Climber wrote: »

I have to say (though I admit I may have missed it) but thats the first indication that someone has made in this thread that they may form an opinion other than that of the tribunals report when it comes.If you are going to do that if the tribunal findings aren't good enough for you then thats an inherent bias and with no basis other than opinion. There would be everything biased about anyone towing a different line to the conclusions of a legal inquiry.

...so you believe OJ Simpson DID NOT kill his wife and Ron Goldman? Lots of tribunals and trials reach the wrong conclusion-hence the courts of appeal! We can all look at the evidence and the manner in which it was presented and come to our own independent conclusions about the individuals concerned.

Akrasia

murphaph wrote: »

...so you believe OJ Simpson DID NOT kill his wife and Ron Goldman? Lots of tribunals and trials reach the wrong conclusion-hence the courts of appeal! We can all look at the evidence and the manner in which it was presented and come to our own independent conclusions about the individuals concerned.

RC has already admitted that he believes Lawlor and Haughey were corrupt despite never having any tribunal findings of corruption made against them.. but they're different because they were 'obviously corrupt' while anyone who thinks the same about ahern is clearly biased

Rock Climber

Akrasia wrote: »

RC has already admitted that he believes Lawlor and Haughey were corrupt despite never having any tribunal findings of corruption made against them.. but they're different because they were 'obviously corrupt' while anyone who thinks the same about ahern is clearly biased

Akrasia.
There is an important point to make there.
Both those people are dead.
You cannot libel a dead person.
Bertie is very much alive and still in the process and capable of actually explaining himself.
Ergo you are taking a rather skewed liberty with what I may or may not accept.

As regards the rest of ye,It's ridiculous to suggest that a discussion cannot be had here.I'm at all times taking issue with opinions traded as fact.Opinions on bits of the evidence of a long from finished process are not fact.Have ye ever heard of an alternative point of view anyway or a reasonable expectation that the end of the tribunal is the place to review all the facts then and at that point a more informed view is possible ?
The most informed view of all will come from the tribunal itself when all recourse to answering it's questions is ended.
Of course throughout I also require a satisfactory explanation for Berties finances now that they have been brought to light.
I wouldn't have known about them other than via this tribunal.He will have to explain where the money has came from in order to counter the suspicion of some that it may have been corruption related.
There has been no evidence of the latter however much it seems to me the posts here are often wishing with glee that there is.
As said though,I give no apologies for see'ing a witch hunt before there are any witches found.

Seth Brundle

Rock Climber wrote: »

Bertie is very much alive and still in the process and capable of actually explaining himself.

In all fairness, he isn't trying very hard to explain himself. e.g. what was his explanation for the sterling lodged by Ms. Carruth?
Why has the tribunal pulled a few rabbits out of the hat on him if he had provided them with everything?

Rock Climber

kbannon wrote: »

In all fairness, he isn't trying very hard to explain himself. e.g. what was his explanation for the sterling lodged by Ms. Carruth?

Eh?? Have his trips to the evidence box ended or something?

Why has the tribunal pulled a few rabbits out of the hat on him if he had provided them with everything?

Critical clarification there..because he maintains that he thought he had supplied them with everything.
In a way I can understand his approach[*] in that he will see all the conclusions and how those conclusions are reached and ergo,he's not going to bother wasting his time doing counter exercises untill he see's what the tribunal comes up with.

[*] He should be hiring people to thrawl through his mess himself at this stage but I'm sure he'll maintain that he thought there was no point initially as he' expected the tribnunal lawyers to do what they are paid to do.
If (and it's obvious that he is,if he believes he has done nothing wrong) he is starting out that all this is an innocent mess and definitely not corruption related,then theres an understandable argument as to why he wanted to get on with other things and let the tribunal do it's own thing, ie what it's paid for.
Hindsight being 20:20 though,that has turned out to have been not the best approach in the world to have taken.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

Rock Climber wrote: »

Akrasia.
There is an important point to make there.
Both those people are dead.
You cannot libel a dead person.
Bertie is very much alive and still in the process and capable of actually explaining himself.
Ergo you are taking a rather skewed liberty with what I may or may not accept.

So if liam lawlor was still alive you would not believe he is corrupt?

I am talking about the reasoning you are using throughout this thread, that we are not allowed to make up our minds until the tribunal reports. The fact that these men are dead does not change the fact that there were no tribunal findings of corruption made against them, but you still believe they were corrupt and are justified in doing so.

I don't believe Ahern's explanations for his 'personal finances' and justify my position with reference to a great deal of evidence and testimony given by ahern himself and others. What is the difference between my belief about Ahern, and your belief about Lawlor?

As regards the rest of ye,It's ridiculous to suggest that a discussion cannot be had here.I'm at all times taking issue with opinions traded as fact.Opinions on bits of the evidence of a long from finished process are not fact.Have ye ever heard of an alternative point of view anyway or a reasonable expectation that the end of the tribunal is the place to review all the facts then and at that point a more informed view is possible ?

Yes, a more informed discussion will be possible when the tribunal is finished. Anything that brings new information to any debate will lead to a more informed discussion, but we don't have to have every single piece of evidence about something before we make up our minds. We don't have every single piece of evidence about the Holocaust, but we can still hold an opinion about Hitler's character based on the evidence that we have seen. I'm not comparing Ahern with hitler, I'm just saying that we don't need to have 100% of the information to come to an informed belief about something. Ahern has had many chances to defend himself, it's not like we've just heard one side of the story. Its not like I've made up my mind after hearing a prosecuters opening statement and assumed that there was no defence. I have come to my beliefs following on from Aherns own evidence and the fact that it doesn't tally with the records and is highly suspicious in of itself. I have come to the belief that it is too improbable to be an acceptable to me, it requires too many leaps of faith and to accept too many coincidences and convoluted transactions.
I have not come to any conclusions about where that money might have originated from, but I strongly believe that Ahern is hiding something.

The most informed view of all will come from the tribunal itself when all recourse to answering it's questions is ended.
Of course throughout I also require a satisfactory explanation for Berties finances now that they have been brought to light.
I wouldn't have known about them other than via this tribunal.He will have to explain where the money has came from in order to counter the suspicion of some that it may have been corruption related.
There has been no evidence of the latter however much it seems to me the posts here are often wishing with glee that there is.
As said though,I give no apologies for see'ing a witch hunt before there are any witches found.

He has given explanations for where that money came from, and those explanations have been challenged by the tribunal. There is nobody on this thread speculating where that money did come from, but if his explanations are untrue, then it leads to the automatic conclusion that they came from somewhere they shouldn't have, and he is hiding something.

Mr.Micro

The thing about Tribunals is that they go on and on, and politicians can carry on regardless, without hindrance to their careers. WAIT UNTIL THE TRIBUNAL REPORTS, blah blah, used as a crutch and a stick according to a politicians stance. Thats the problem, and then nothing happens. What sort of standards are in place now to detect dirty politicians or councillors? We are looking at 1993-1994 at the Mahon tribunal at the minute, what about 1994 to 2008? Do people really think all this alleged planning corruption, cash payments stopped in 1994 and is limited to Dublin?

Rock Climber

Akrasia wrote: »

So if liam lawlor was still alive you would not believe he is corrupt?

I am talking about the reasoning you are using throughout this thread, that we are not allowed to make up our minds until the tribunal reports. The fact that these men are dead does not change the fact that there were no tribunal findings of corruption made against them, but you still believe they were corrupt and are justified in doing so.

Actually I never said so.I merely pointed out that they are at present chalk and cheese and that I thought FF/Bertie did have some dirt on Lawlor.He certainly wasn't happy with him at the FF party inquiry.
Thats not enough to be corrupt but my view on Lawlor isn't a very good one , lets put it that way.I'm reluctant to talk about the dead in any other way tbh.

I don't believe Ahern's explanations for his 'personal finances' and justify my position with reference to a great deal of evidence and testimony given by ahern himself and others. What is the difference between my belief about Ahern, and your belief about Lawlor?

Again,I never described Lawlor as corrupt.I pointed out the lack of comparability.

Yes, a more informed discussion will be possible when the tribunal is finished. Anything that brings new information to any debate will lead to a more informed discussion, but we don't have to have every single piece of evidence about something before we make up our minds. We don't have every single piece of evidence about the Holocaust, but we can still hold an opinion about Hitler's character based on the evidence that we have seen. I'm not comparing Ahern with hitler, I'm just saying that we don't need to have 100% of the information to come to an informed belief about something. Ahern has had many chances to defend himself, it's not like we've just heard one side of the story. Its not like I've made up my mind after hearing a prosecuters opening statement and assumed that there was no defence. I have come to my beliefs following on from Aherns own evidence and the fact that it doesn't tally with the records and is highly suspicious in of itself. I have come to the belief that it is too improbable to be an acceptable to me, it requires too many leaps of faith and to accept too many coincidences and convoluted transactions.

Godwin anyone?

I have not come to any conclusions about where that money might have originated from, but I strongly believe that Ahern is hiding something.

Thats bias though when you are not prepared to believe that he is just mistaken or at least reserve judgement that he must be deliberately hiding something.That implies he is lying which is very judgemental tbh..I've given a view in post 387 thats equally valid but waaaaaaaaaay less judgemental.

He has given explanations for where that money came from, and those explanations have been challenged by the tribunal. There is nobody on this thread speculating where that money did come from, but if his explanations are untrue, then it leads to the automatic conclusion that they came from somewhere they shouldn't have, and he is hiding something.

No it doesn't.
As I said,thats way too judgemental ie a bias.