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

meglome

meglome wrote:

Tristrame I'm trying to see what your real point is here. I understand you saying that certain things are not known as fact. So to take them as fact is making assumptions and it could be concluded that people are against Bertie personally.

No I am saying you can have an opinion as to why the facts you see are the way they are but your opinion cannot be a fact unless proven to be the case.
For example you may totally disbelieve Ahern and think that it appears from his evidence that he is talking balderdash and that you think the reason for this is X,Y or Z.
X Y or Z is not fact though.

I have no problem with Bertie personally but his whole story about this money is patently ridiculous. I'd laugh if he wasn't the leader of the country who (you would think) should be setting an example. I appreciate that given the passing of time he might not remember exactly what happened. But the idea that a man who was supposedly strapped for cash wouldn't remember the details of getting such large sums of money... I really don't know what to say.

See there you've done what I said,you've given an X,Y or Z opinion as to what you think on what you have seen so far,It's not a fact though as it is plausable that (whilst wrong or at the very least it looks embarrassing) that Ahern simply is carrying on this way because he has some personal reason for confusing all of this eg his own belief in privacy.

I've read the details of criminal trials in which the defendants looked less guilty and were still convicted. What do you think would happen if you were in court and each time they presented you with a set of facts you changed your story?

Theres one simple problem with that though,he's being investigated because it's within the remit of the tribunal to do so-yet theres absolutely no evidence to date that he has done anything illegal.
Theres nothing illegal in putting foward what you think to be the position only to be corrected.
It does tend to make you look like a buffoon in my opinion though.

People say a lot of things about Bertie but I don't recall stupid being one of them. But now even though he's an accountant?? and former minister of finance we are to take it he hasn't a clue about money. And even though we are expected to believe he hasn't a clue about money he's has the most convoluted manner possible set up to deal with this money. A manner which would only make sense if you're trying to hide money.

I wouldnt say he hasn't a clue about money,I'd say from what I've seen so far that he paid no heed to keeping his personal financial affairs tidy.
At the time he probably (stupidly) thought there was no need to even though I'd have though as a public representative that would have occurred to him.
There could be a myriad of personal reasons behind that,none of which might be illegal.
The cleverest of people aren't immune from doing stupid things at times.

CptSternn

In America they have a legal term called 'the appearance of impropriety'. If your a solicitor (lawyer), you can be barred from practicing law if your have have done something to give 'the appearance of impropriety'.

That means if your involved in something that appears to be dodgy to the public eye, you are no longer allowed to practice law, ever.

I think that standard should apply to politicians, worldwide as well. If you take large sums of money from businessmen for whatever reason, it gives the impression those businessmen are buying political influence.

When you selectively 'forget' details about large sums of cash you accepted from said businessmen, that also makes you look like you not only have done something wrong, but now appear to be hiding the truth.

Whether this is the case or not, this whole situation carries a very strong feeling of mistrust from a large swatch of the Irish people. At this point, it's safe to say bertie's actions give a very, very clear appearance of impropriety, and if for no other reason such behaviour should not be rewarded.

He should be penalised on principle alone. If the largest politician in the nation is allowed to act in such a manner, it encourages everyone in the nation to behave as such. It demeans the office, and the stature of our great nation.

Bertie is doing to Ireland what bush did to his country - using his position to fulfill personal endevours. Just because berties actions didn't cause the deaths of anyone, yet, it doesn't mean his actions, or perceived actions, have sullied the office he holds or the nation he represents any less.

A real man, and true patriot of this nation, would step down with respect, not pull a 'Larry Craig'.

DancesWithChimp

Tristrame wrote:

I don't think he claimed he never drove her to the bank,I think he claimed not to remember that he drove her there and that he could have in that he was driving for a time but simply didn't remember.

What happened was; Larkin originally claimed to the Tribunal that she had no recollection of withdrawing 50 grand from the Bank at all, and that said she would have to rely on Bertie's recollection that it had happened.

Then months later Larkin claims to the Tribunal that she now recalls fully that Bertie drove her to the bank, where she took out the 50g, and then gave it to him.
But now Bertie has no recollection of the incident.

Rather odd.

CptSternn

CptSternn wrote:

In America they have a legal term called 'the appearance of impropriety'. If your a solicitor (lawyer), you can be barred from practicing law if your have have done something to give 'the appearance of impropriety'.

That means if your involved in something that appears to be dodgy to the public eye, you are no longer allowed to practice law, ever.

I think that standard should apply to politicians, worldwide as well.

Agreed

If you take large sums of money from businessmen for whatever reason, it gives the impression those businessmen are buying political influence.

May-you forgot the word may.

When you selectively 'forget' details about large sums of cash you accepted from said businessmen, that also makes you look like you not only have done something wrong, but now appear to be hiding the truth.

"If" not "when" in referral to this case.

Whether this is the case or not, this whole situation carries a very strong feeling of mistrust from a large swatch of the Irish people. At this point, it's safe to say bertie's actions give a very, very clear appearance of impropriety, and if for no other reason such behaviour should not be rewarded.

By the electorate?

He should be penalised on principle alone. If the largest politician in the nation is allowed to act in such a manner, it encourages everyone in the nation to behave as such. It demeans the office, and the stature of our great nation.

Again I presume you mean by the electorate? He'd have to have broken the law to be penalised by the court system.

Bertie is doing to Ireland what bush did to his country - using his position to fulfill personal endevours. Just because berties actions didn't cause the deaths of anyone, yet, it doesn't mean his actions, or perceived actions, have sullied the office he holds or the nation he represents any less.

A real man, and true patriot of this nation, would step down with respect, not pull a 'Larry Craig'.

LoL
What are you on about now? Aherns mish mash in his personal finances is a treasonable thing? That sound byte looks like it comes straight from the end of a speakers piece at the L&H to be honest.

meglome

Tristrame wrote:

No I am saying you can have an opinion as to why the facts you see are the way they are but your opinion cannot be a fact unless proven to be the case.
For example you may totally disbelieve Ahern and think that it appears from his evidence that he is talking balderdash and that you think the reason for this is X,Y or Z.
X Y or Z is not fact though.
See there you've done what I said,you've given an X,Y or Z opinion as to what you think on what you have seen so far,It's not a fact though as it is plausable that (whilst wrong or at the very least it looks embarrassing) that Ahern simply is carrying on this way because he has some personal reason for confusing all of this eg his own belief in privacy. Theres one simple problem with that though,he's being investigated because it's within the remit of the tribunal to do so-yet theres absolutely no evidence to date that he has done anything illegal.
Theres nothing illegal in putting foward what you think to be the position only to be corrected.
It does tend to make you look like a buffoon in my opinion though.
I wouldnt say he hasn't a clue about money,I'd say from what I've seen so far that he paid no heed to keeping his personal financial affairs tidy.
At the time he probably (stupidly) thought there was no need to even though I'd have though as a public representative that would have occurred to him.
There could be a myriad of personal reasons behind that,none of which might be illegal.
The cleverest of people aren't immune from doing stupid things at times.

Tristrame I'm not sure if you're playing devils advocate here or you really mean what you're saying. I appreciate that none of us were actually there at the time so we can't know for a fact what happened. But in all seriousness he cannot give any believable explanation as to where he got a lot of this money. Nearly all of this testimony either doesn't make sense or has been proved to be incorrect/untrue. I agree it hasn't been proven where he got the money from but to say there is 'the appearance of impropriety' is an understatement.

Tristrame wrote:

I wouldnt say he hasn't a clue about money,I'd say from what I've seen so far that he paid no heed to keeping his personal financial affairs tidy.
At the time he probably (stupidly) thought there was no need to even though I'd have though as a public representative that would have occurred to him.

I'm not great with money myself, never have been and have no desire to be. But the point I'm making has little to be with Bertie keeping his financial affairs tidy. He has made his financial extra convoluted, it took serious effort to hide this money which is the opposite to not making enough of an effort. He had money put in accounts all over the place, he had large sums of cash in a safe. Any reason he's come up with for having all this cash lying around has been shown not to make sense.

I would love to believe we have ethics in politics in this country but we don't. We have ethics legislation but it's generally the last possible thing a politician will do is to resign, no matter now guilty he/she looks. Not only that when evidence of said politicians misdeeds starts to appear all his colleagues fully support him/her. We get the government we deserve. If we're not willing to demand high standards from those at the top we needn't expect high standards anywhere.

meglome

Tristrame wrote:

What are you on about now? Aherns mish mash in his personal finances is a treasonable thing? That sound byte looks like it comes straight from the end of a speakers piece at the L&H to be honest.

Mish mash?? are you for real? If he could actually explain where he got the money it would be one thing, but he can't. If at any stage he looked like he was telling the truth, that would be something. Are you in the Fianna Fail party?

Lol

So the stock response to someone presenting one of many different available views if it doesnt conform to the "he must be a crook" approach ...yeah the standard reply to that is "Are you in the feeeeena Fallll loike??"

In other news and as per my earlier several warnings...

Posts containing the lie word have been deleted and the posters(s) concerned have been banned for one month

Captsternn

There will be absolutely no accusing people of crimes in this thread or any thread for that matter.
Your post has been deleted.

For the avoidance of all doubt I am going to copy a post of OscarBravo's from the discussion on the rules thread into post one of this thread as despite being told to read that thread people don't seem to be bothering their barney.

CptSternn

First, I did not accuse anyone of anything? What - you delete my post because you couldn't think of a good rebuttle?

CptSternn

CptSternn wrote:

First, I did not accuse anyone of anything? What - you delete my post because you couldn't think of a good rebuttle?

You did accuse someone of a crime and if you do it again-not only will your post be deleted,you will get a one month ban.

If you want me to deal with the general topics outside of the accusation of a crime that was in your post (that I've had to delete for a 2nd time)then repost it without alluding to a crime that hasnt been proven.

CptSternn

I have my post right here - I have reviewed it, twice now, and find no criminal accusations in it - so why exactly are you deleting it?

The fact you remove it and refuse to have it here to comment appears at first glance to be censorship.

If you feel that it is an accusation, even though I disagree, I will respect your wishes and not post it here.



I have moved my responses off of this site to another forum as to not violate the rules. I am curious as to why you feel my comments were accusatory, so feel free to review them off site and let me know. That goes for anyone who is interested as to why my comments were removed.

You won't be linking to them here in this thread either.

CptSternn -Yes I do view part of what you posted to be a direct accusation of criminality,I don't care what way you phrase it,it's not allowed here-period.
If I see anything similar it will be deleted.

I've edited your post to remove the specefic link to the Sinn Féin forum,you can continue to post what you like over there of course subject to their rules.


Now I'd like this thread to go back on topic.The next question on moderation seen in this thread or obvious attempt to get around the instructions on what is and is not to be posted here will get the poster a ban.

edanto

A question for those that have taken the time to review the transcripts of the tribunal to date. Is there any investigation into pro-developer legislation or tax arrangments? This seems to be the most common (amongst my friends) allegation, that the payments may have been part of a quid pro quo. Is the tribunal investigating this?

CptSternn banned for one month for multiple attempts at sidestepping the rules of this thread.
Post deleted as it discussed moderation,side stepped rules,got personal etc etc.

edanto

Stern if what you posted was an answer of sorts to my query, would you mind PMing it to me or checking with a mod to see if you can add it to your blog. If it is libelous, I doubt you'll be able to, but perhaps it was just breaking the rules of this thread.

It wasn't an answer to you edanto.

DancesWithChimp

edanto wrote:

A question for those that have taken the time to review the transcripts of the tribunal to date. Is there any investigation into pro-developer legislation or tax arrangments? This seems to be the most common (amongst my friends) allegation, that the payments may have been part of a quid pro quo. Is the tribunal investigating this?

I have read over the transcripts in relation to Ahern's evidence and the answer, AFAIK, is no; they have not yet investigated any pro-developer legislation\tax arrangements in relation to him.

As far as I know, Ahern will be brought back to give answers as to his role in giving certain tax designations and denying certain tax designations in the future.

It is a matter of record and public knowledge that Bertie went into Government buildings on the final day Government and provided tax designation for the Golden Island green-field site in Athlone which saved Owen O'Callaghan millions of pounds as a result.

This along with the denial of tax designation for Blanchardstown, another action which benefited O'Callaghan to the tune of millions, are at the centre of the allegation from Tom Gilmartin that Bertie was paid up to 80,000 for his role in said designations.

So far they have just been looking at Bertie's money trail which they found suspicious, and I imagine even more so now, given his often contradictory evidence and his delays in providing full infromation on the most suspicious lodgements within the money trail.

Perhaps if they find that the money trail is entirely innocent they won't bother looking into the tax designations.

DancesWithChimp

DancesWithChimp wrote:

So far they have just been looking at Bertie's money trail which they found suspicious,

Really?
Regardless of what you or I might think about Aherns Finances,Could you point me to a tribunal finding as to Aherns finances being suspicious?

If you can only point to adverserial questioning in that regard - well then you are posting opinion as fact.
That is against forum rules and I would ask you to desist.

edanto

Thanks for doing the hard grind reading through all those!! I don't know that much about this whole affair and cheers for the leads.

I hadn't even heard of the Golden Island story, but just started looking into it. Seems like Mahon will be looking in that direction in November
http://www.westmeathindependent.ie/story.asp?stID=867&cid=56&cid2=60

DancesWithChimp

Tristrame wrote:

Really?
Regardless of what you or I might think about Aherns Finances,Could you point me to a tribunal finding as to Aherns finances being suspicious?

The Tribunal suspects that Ahern lodged $45,000 and not £28,000 sterling. This has the biggest news item of the Tribunal. How can you not know this? This is a suspicion of theirs (among many others). They've been very clear about their suppositions in this regard. When the Tribunal "finds" something...then it is no longer a suspicion...they make a finding on it one way or the other...but until then, and as it remains, the Tribunal is still putting forward their suspicion, or their opinion, or their assumption, which has still not been dis-proven, that Ahern lodged 45,000 dollars. How is this difficult for you? How is suspicion suddenly a negative word here? It's the essence of all investigations until a finding is found.

Tristrame wrote:

If you can only point to adverserial questioning in that regard - well then you are posting opinion as fact.
That is against forum rules and I would ask you to desist.

Jesus!
I'm not making accusations here. I simply used the term "suspicious", meaning "out of the ordinary", or "warranting investigation". How is that controversial?
The Mahon tribunal has selected certain lodgements in Ahern's accounts which equate to the amounts alleged to have been given to him by O'Callaghan, and other amounts and transactions that they found to be out of the ordinary, and they think these transactions warrant explanation.

It is public record that the Tribunal has found Ahern's lodgements to be out of the ordinary and that they warrant investigation...if you want to substitute those 9 words for suspicious then that's fine...I don't mind the typing...it all means the same thing.

But I suggest to you that this thread is quickly going to become unworkable if semantics are to be dictated to such a degree by moderators.

DancesWithChimp

edanto wrote:

Thanks for doing the hard grind reading through all those!! I don't know that much about this whole affair and cheers for the leads.

I hadn't even heard of the Golden Island story, but just started looking into it. Seems like Mahon will be looking in that direction in November
http://www.westmeathindependent.ie/story.asp?stID=867&cid=56&cid2=60

No problem.

You should have a look through some of those Transcripts...especially the Ahern ones from the 4 days he was there...very enlightening. Most of it is not reported at all.

Did you know that Ahern agreed with the Tribunal that all of his expert's calculations which were meant to prove that he lodged sterling and not dollars are actually invalid. And that he also agreed that the only way that the lodgement could haven been sterling is if the bank records are incorrect.
Amazing.
I predict that the Tribunal will determine in their report that the most likely and probable explanation for the lodgement is that it was dollars, based on the the way in which Des O'Neil has deconstructed the evidence. But I don't think they'll definitively say it was dollars, as it may not be provable. But it seems that they've totally blown out of the water the argument that it was mostly sterling. (again...unless the bank records are wrong, which also seems to be unprovable at this point). So it comes down to: will they believe the bank records...or believe Ahern's story of Celia lodging a bucket full of cash that she claims she didn't look closely at or count, or retain a receipt for. Nothing is conclusive but it's obvious which way they're leaning from the Transcripts.

Also intresting: remeber all the times that Bertie has alluded in public that the Tribunal is being unfair to him in looking into his personal accounts and details?
But when you read the transcripts and see it put to him by the Tribunal that their questoning is in fact fair, justified, reasoned, and to be expected...he agrees with them.

Like I said, they're well worth the read:
http://www.planningtribunal.ie/asp/Reports.asp?ObjectID=310&Mode=0&RecordID=468

DancesWithChimp

DancesWithChimp wrote:

The Tribunal suspects that Ahern lodged $45,000 and not £28,000 sterling. This has the biggest news item of the Tribunal. How can you not know this? This is a suspicion of theirs (among many others). They've been very clear about their suppositions in this regard. When the Tribunal "finds" something...then it is no longer a suspicion...they make a finding on it one way or the other...but until then, and as it remains, the Tribunal is still putting forward their suspicion, or their opinion, or their assumption, which has still not been dis-proven, that Ahern lodged 45,000 dollars. How is this difficult for you? How is suspicion suddenly a negative word here? It's the essence of all investigations until a finding is found.

The tribunal has a statutory duty to investigate Ahern given the allegations.
You are apparently declaring its innermost thoughts-how are you privy to this?
You aren't you are giving an opinion,your own based on the adversarial too-ing and fro-ing to date.
You haven't got that declaration by the tribunal I asked for have you? Because it doesn't exist.
Therefore I asked you not to post your own opinion as fact.
Thats a no on this thread.

Jesus!
I'm not making accusations here. I simply used the term "suspicious", meaning "out of the ordinary", or "warranting investigation". How is that controversial?
The Mahon tribunal has selected certain lodgements in Ahern's accounts which equate to the amounts alleged to have been given to him by O'Callaghan, and other amounts and transactions that they found to be out of the ordinary, and they think these transactions warrant explanation.

It is public record that the Tribunal has found Ahern's lodgements to be out of the ordinary and that they warrant investigation...if you want to substitute those 9 words for suspicious then that's fine...I don't mind the typing...it all means the same thing.

Ive no problem with your interpretation of events there but I'd rather you didn't say the tribunal is suspicious of anything at all.
Reason? Because they are there to inquire and ascertain what is actually the case.They may have any number of views when finished regardless of what we think.

But I suggest to you that this thread is quickly going to become unworkable if semantics are to be dictated to such a degree by moderators.

I would suggest to you that if you would be clearer in what you were saying in the first place,ie that it's your opinion that the tribunal is "suspicious"(though you have no idea whether they are or not other than the adversarial nature of the tribunal so far),I wouldn't have called you up on it
I'd remind you also that it's an on-going legal process and we should have respect for that.

Akrasia

Frank Connolly is now reporting in the Irish Daily Mail, that Eamon Dunphy is claiming that he was told by Eoin O Callaghan that he paid Ahern a significant amount of cash for a tax designation for a shopping center in Athlone.

The testimony by Dunphy appears to fully consistent with what Gilmartin has already told the tribunal.

cast_iron

Akrasia wrote: »

The testimony by Dunphy appears to fully consistent with what Gilmartin has already told the tribunal.

Of course it would.

Option 1: Dunphy is correct. His story would be the same as it's true.
Option 2: Dunphy is incorrect. His story can be consistent as he has made up the details from those which are in the public domain already.

More hearsay, if you ask me. Next we'll have Eddie Hobbs saying O'Callaghan told him the same thing.

DancesWithChimp

Akrasia wrote: »

Frank Connolly is now reporting in the Irish Daily Mail, that Eamon Dunphy is claiming that he was told by Eoin O Callaghan that he paid Ahern a significant amount of cash for a tax designation for a shopping center in Athlone.

The testimony by Dunphy appears to fully consistent with what Gilmartin has already told the tribunal.

When does Dunphy allege that O Callaghan told him this?
If it was recently then O Callaghan must be an idiot (for admitting this).
If it was years ago, like with Gilmartin, then Dunphy is an idiot (for holding his tongue until now).

Is the story online somewhere?
Sounds like a crock, to me.

Rock Climber

DancesWithChimp wrote: »

When does Dunphy allege that O Callaghan told him this?
If it was recently then O Callaghan must be an idiot (for admitting this).
If it was years ago, like with Gilmartin, then Dunphy is an idiot (for holding his tongue until now).

Is the story online somewhere?
Sounds like a crock, to me.

It would appear according to the Sunday independent that Frank Connolly (eager to get his revenge for the close down of his CPI) is taking a fair bit of poetic licence with the value (if any) of what is effectively hearsay from Dunphy.
It appears when you look into the nitty gritty of what Dunphy is supposed to have heard,then Connolly and the Daily mail are taking the michael with this one.
Furthermore and I didn't know this,but it was Connolly who propegated the False story 6 years ago of Aherns bribe taking, for which Ahern sucessfully sued and got an apology.

BROADCASTER Eamon Dunphy went to the Mahon Tribunal to try to lend credibility to corruption allegations against the Taoiseach because of his close association with the journalist Frank Connolly, the Sunday Independent can reveal.

Mr Dunphy told the tribunal's lawyers of his upset at the Government's intervention which led to the closure of his friend, Mr Connolly's Centre for Public Inquiry (CPI).

Last week, it emerged Mr Connolly had attempted to use the property developer Tom Gilmartin to repeat to the tribunal his subsequently disproved allegation that Mr Ahern received £50,000 from the property developer, Owen O'Callaghan.

Seven years ago, Mr Connolly claimed Mr Ahern had received £50,000 from Mr O'Callaghan.

The allegation was fully discredited in the Circuit Court when Mr Ahern took libel proceedings in 2001.

During the trial it emerged that the source of Mr Connolly's information, a curious and unreliable character known as Denis 'Starry' O'Brien, was a liar and a forgerer.

The journalist is known to have been deeply upset that his professional reputation was damaged in the debacle, and not that of Mr Ahern.

Associates of the reporter also say that he is "obsessively" trying to prove his allegations against the Taoiseach, and is using the Irish Daily Mail and, now, his friendship with its former columnist, Mr Dunphy, to do so.

Mr Connolly was also deeply upset at (and is perhaps motivated by) the intervention of Mr Ahern and former Justice Minister Michael McDowell, which led to a decision by a US philanthropic organisation to remove financial support from the CPI.

Mr Dunphy and Mr Connolly have established an unlikely friendship; the journalist has appeared on the broadcaster's radio shows venting various conspiracies, claims and allegations.

Mr Dunphy has a track record of involving himself as a 'player' in the controversies of the day and it seems, initially at least, he may have relished the prospect of emerging, however unwittingly, as a figure in the Bertiegate saga.

Mr Dunphy's claims to the tribunal are based on his version of comments he alleges were made to him by Mr O'Callaghan over a boozy dinner in Dublin more than 10 years ago.

An analysis of Mr Dunphy's version of events, as reported by Mr Connolly, effectively leads to a conclusion that Mr O'Callaghan had allegedly said that Mr Ahern had received donations but had refused to do favours in return for the money.

Furthermore, it could be concluded that the only time Mr Ahern had allegedly made a decision favourable to Mr O'Callaghan (on a commercial project in Athlone) was on the alleged explicit instruction of the then Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds, something which Mr Reynolds will almost certainly reject.

Legal observers are anticipating that Mr Dunphy can now expect a rigorous cross-examination in relation to his second-hand and apparently contradictory allegations of corruption against Mr Ahern.

The Taoiseach has staked his political reputation on vehement denials that he ever received money, directly or indirectly, from Mr O'Callaghan. Mr O'Callaghan has also robustly denied the claims.

Mr Connolly left the Sunday Business Post after it published a front page apology when the 'Starry' O'Brien sourced claims were proved false. He subsequently established the now defunct Centre for Public Inquiry (CPI), an outfit financed by a philanthropic organisation bankrolled by the US billionaire, Chuck Feeney.

The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, and Mr McDowell had discussions with Mr Feeney before support for the CPI was withdrawn.

Last week, Mr Connolly, through the Irish Daily Mail, reported at length on allegations Mr Dunphy is said to have made to the tribunal. Mr Dunphy was refusing to comment yesterday.

Interestingly, Mr Dunphy's motivation for going to the tribunal -- his belief that Mr Connolly was treated unfairly in relation to the CPI -- was not reported by the Irish Daily Mail last week when it recounted details of Mr Dunphy's claims.

Mr Dunphy's allegations concerning the Taoiseach are contained in a note of a conversation he had some time ago with tribunal lawyers.

But those allegations appear to be contradicted by a puzzling passage in Mr Dunphy's written statement to the tribunal, the preparation of which he undertook with legal advice.

In that statement, Mr Dunphy was at pains to point out that Mr O'Callaghan had never suggested that he [Dunphy] or his football associates would have to be involved in bribery to get their plans for a football stadium off the ground.

In his initial conversation with the tribunal, Mr Dunphy said he had met with Mr O'Callaghan after he had been approached by Sam Hammam, the owner of then English Premiership club, Wimbledon FC, who had wanted to establish if Irish investors would be interested in assisting the re-location of his football club to Dublin.

Mr Dunphy reportedly said he knew Mr O'Callaghan had a suitable site with planning in Neilstown, West Dublin.

The broadcaster told the tribunal lawyers: "I approached him with the idea of involving him in our project." Mr Dunphy subsequently had a number of meetings with Mr O'Callaghan.

Mr Dunphy allegedly said the exact words used by Owen O'Callaghan in relation to Bertie Ahern were that he had been "taken care of" and that "he doesn't do the deal".

Mr Dunphy went on: "I asked him what did he mean and he said: 'It was Albert who delivered' by putting pressure on Bertie and that's the way it was explained to me. 'He'd [Bertie] been taken care of' I think is the expression he used."

Mr Dunphy also allegedly said: "[The word] money wasn't used but the clear inference was that he [Bertie Ahern] had reneged on a deal that wasn't just a commitment."

"This thing about Bertie recurred a number of times over a couple of years -- and his unreliability -- but he made no bones about saying to me 'you can't rely on Bertie'.

"And on that one occasion he specifically said that he [Bertie] would take money alright, but he won't deliver."

Mr Dunphy claimed Owen O'Callaghan said to him: "I wanted to do my business. I wanted to develop projects. There was no other way."

He further told tribunal lawyers that "He [O'Callaghan] had a wry smile when Bertie was mentioned; Albert was reliable, Bertie wasn't."

A formal written statement from Mr Dunphy was described last week by Mr Connolly as "markedly less detailed" and "more circumspect" in relation to what the broadcaster had initially alleged had been said to him by Mr O'Callaghan.

"Throughout my dealings with him, I found Owen O'Callaghan to be patient, businesslike and honest.

"At no stage during our project did he suggest anything untoward, or in any way intimate that we might use inducements to achieve our objectives."

However, he also stated: "Other than generalisations about planning being 'tricky', Owen O'Callaghan made no overt references to payments to anybody."

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/how-a-boozy-dinner-led-dunphy-to-finger-bertie-1166604.html

I find two other things fascinating here:
(1)That the tribunal is still leaking like a sive and (2) That Connolly/the daily mail could attempt to suggest anything like what they did out Dunphys statement especially when it contains the line "Other than generalisations about planning being 'tricky', Owen O'Callaghan made no overt references to payments to anybody."

Akrasia

Rock Climber wrote: »

It would appear according to the Sunday independent that Frank Connolly (eager to get his revenge for the close down of his CPI) is taking a fair bit of poetic licence with the value (if any) of what is effectively hearsay from Dunphy.
It appears when you look into the nitty gritty of what Dunphy is supposed to have heard,then Connolly and the Daily mail are taking the michael with this one.
Furthermore and I didn't know this,but it was Connolly who propegated the False story 6 years ago of Aherns bribe taking, for which Ahern sucessfully sued and got an apology.


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/how-a-boozy-dinner-led-dunphy-to-finger-bertie-1166604.html

I find two other things fascinating here:
(1)That the tribunal is still leaking like a sive and (2) That Connolly/the daily mail could attempt to suggest anything like what they did out Dunphys statement especially when it contains the line "Other than generalisations about planning being 'tricky', Owen O'Callaghan made no overt references to payments to anybody."

I can't believe that someone published that appalling diatribe in any newspaper, let alone on the front page of a 'broadsheet'.
It was the worst example of political propaganda that I have ever seen.

Nothing but a smear campaign full of innuendo and character assassinations

Lol.
Did it make you spit out your tea?

It looks like valid comment.

A Dub in Glasgo

Rock Climber wrote: »

(eager to get his revenge for the close down of his CPI)

Can you show any evidence for this statement?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Can you show any evidence for this statement?

I don't think RC has to as it was the supposition of the Sindo that RC was referring to.
Regardless,Connollys history as pointed out by that article seems rather fishy enough for the thrust of their article to be fair comment from a news paper...just as it's fair comment for Connolly to be the one journalist thats the most horny pointing out that the inconsistencies in Aherns evidence may mean something dodgy.

Neither of course may be true as you know