Should another Garda Commissioner resign?

Water John

If anybody has broken any law, esp police, then a conviction would be the ultimate indignity for them.
This however, is a Tribunal which should work on the balance of probability.

Captain Obvious

Water John wrote: »

Are you suggesting, it's possible that Taylor was off on a solo run?

Of course it's possible. I think it's unlikely. But that doesn't mean that orders to destroy McCabe came directly from the top.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Taylor (his claim of course)was acting on orders and has dropped both former Commissioners in the frame. Hopefully they will experience some sanction. Loss of pension would be nice.

I think it's unlikely there would be evidence to support that kind of sanction. I doubt it would be legal either.

Hitman3000

Captain Obvious wrote:

I think it's unlikely there would be evidence to support that kind of sanction. I doubt it would be legal either.

I said it would be nice, not naive enough to think it will happen. However if they are complicate in the treatment of McCabe and the damage done to him and his family they should pay a price what that would be I don't know but they cannot be allowed walk....

Hitman3000

Captain Obvious wrote:

Of course it's possible. I think it's unlikely. But that doesn't mean that orders to destroy McCabe came directly from the top.

Taylor claims Callinan directed him, Callinan denies it. So one of those two is a liar, on the balance of probabilities I know who my money is on for the liar label.

Water John

Well, if Callinan and O'Sullivan end up claiming a whole number of people are lying!!!

Odhinn

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Of course it's possible. I think it's unlikely. But that doesn't mean that orders to destroy McCabe came directly from the top.

.

They couldn't have come from anywhere else.

Odhinn

Water John wrote: »

If anybody has broken any law, esp police, then a conviction would be the ultimate indignity for them.
This however, is a Tribunal which should work on the balance of probability.

Callinan opened files on his "enemies" throughout his career. The tribunal has to show that his word is questionable in order for them to move on with their lives.

Seth Brundle

Being devil's advocate:

Odhinn wrote: »

They couldn't have come from anywhere else.

You're assuming that there were actually orders!
Currently you've no evidence to show that there were any orders to destroy McCabe!

Odhinn wrote: »

Callinan opened files on his "enemies" throughout his career. The tribunal has to show that his word is questionable in order for them to move on with their lives.

Where are these files and what is in them?
You quote the word "enemies" - who are you quoting?

Captain Obvious

Odhinn wrote: »

They couldn't have come from anywhere else.

There's a lot of rungs in the ladder between a Supt and Commissioner so yes they could have come from somewhere else. And that's assuming there were orders from within the organisation.

Muahahaha

Water John wrote: »

If anybody has broken any law, esp police, then a conviction would be the ultimate indignity for them.
This however, is a Tribunal which should work on the balance of probability.

Isnt that always the way. When Official Ireland are caught in illegality we have a Tribunal and pensions are paid, when it is anyone else we have a criminal trial.

Odhinn

kbannon wrote: »

..............

Where are these files and what is in them?

I've no idea where they are. They are/were usually written in order to throw muck at the character of the individual. Taylor had one opened on himself for failing to toe the "party" line.

captain obvious wrote:

There's a lot of rungs in the ladder between a Supt and Commissioner so yes they could have come from somewhere else

Unlikely in the extreme given Callinans character. McCabe is not the only one with false allegations made against him over the years, and this fits the pre-existing pattern.

Nettle Soup

Muahahaha wrote: »

Isnt that always the way. When Official Ireland are caught in illegality we have a Tribunal and pensions are paid, when it is anyone else we have a criminal trial.

100% correct.

People must be very naive if they don't believe McCabe at this stage.

McMurphy

mattser wrote: »

A lot of jumping the gun alright. I'd also prefer to hear allthe evidence, before making my mind up.

Weren't you trying to compare corruption within the gardai with corruption within banking sector (who exist with the sole intention of profit maximumisation) a while back?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105877822&postcount=592


Something tells me you have your mind already made up, no matter what evidence is produced.

hatrickpatrick

Odhinn wrote: »

They couldn't have come from anywhere else.

Well, they could have come from a general pressure from all of the surrounding people to take McCabe down, fused with his own resentment against McCabe for "attacking" the force. A sort of peer pressure, if you will. "Everyone was baying for blood so I acted" kind of thing.

In other words, he may not have been ordered to do this, he may have done it on his own initiative but an initiative sort of "inspired" by the anti-McCabe sentiment which pervaded his closest circle of colleagues, possibly with direct pressure on him to do *something* to smear McCabe.

James Brown

Nobody is going to draw up and sign requests to smear McCabe.

There are only two possibilities:

Direction was given from the top down to smear McCabe.

Or

Individuals within the Garda, at all levels, decided to take it upon themselves to smear McCabe.

Either way, it seems we've got an institution rife with corruption and crony protectionism.
Full confidence from the unwitting MoJ of the day mind.

Sierra Oscar

This is a fairly significant ruling by Charleton.

Claims that former Garda Commissioner spread rumours about Sgt Maurice McCabe dismissed as hearsay

The Disclosures Tribunal has dismissed claims former Garda commissioner Martin Callinan spread false rumours about whistleblower Sergeant Maurice McCabe.

Sergeant McCabe said the ex-Garda commissioner composed text messages circulating to other officers, journalists and politicians an unfounded sex abuse allegation.

That was described as hearsay by the Disclosures Tribunal chairman because it came from a disputed conversation between Sgt McCabe and the former chief of the Garda press office.

Judge Peter Charleton said: "I could not possibly rely on it at the present time, I appreciate that could change."

Does this mean that the meeting between McGuinness and Callinan is also just 'hearsay'?

Nettle Soup

Is it possible for the Tribunal to search phone records for the 2 commissioners?

James Brown

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

This is a fairly significant ruling by Charleton.

Claims that former Garda Commissioner spread rumours about Sgt Maurice McCabe dismissed as hearsay

Really dropped the ball there.

Water John

That is simply from the difference in testimony between McCabe and Taylor. Taylor says the smearing was done, by word of mouth. McCabe says Taylor told him Callinan wrote the texts.
This does not say smearing wasn't done. It's a conflict of evidence on how. The method is disputed. But sure if Taylors phone turns up, that will help the Inquiry.

Sierra Oscar

Water John wrote: »

That is simply from the difference in testimony between McCabe and Taylor. Taylor says the smearing was done, by word of mouth. McCabe says Taylor told him Callinan wrote the texts.
This does not say smearing wasn't done. It's a conflict of evidence on how. The method is disputed. But sure if Taylors phone turns up, that will help the Inquiry.

It's hugely significant as that evidence now cannot be considered by the Tribunal in the context of its final report. It also sets a precedent that the differing accounts of the meeting between McGuinness and Callinan may also be dismissed as hearsay.

These are fairly central components of McCabe's legal strategy.

The documentary evidence has already been provided to the Tribunal, I wouldn't be so sure that any additional mobile phones are going to show up.

All attention will now turn to Dave Taylor's evidence whenever he makes his appearance before the Tribunal.

Water John

Can't remember if McGuinness has given evidence, at this stage, If not, he surely will. That isn't heresay. Neither will Taylor's evidence be heresay.
McCabe retelling accounts of what they supposedly told him, is heresay.

Nothing untowards in all of that.

RustyNut

kbannon wrote: »

Where are these files and what is in them?
You quote the word "enemies" - who are you quoting?

Gone with god knows what else in the multiple bin bags of documents that were shredded and disposed of before they could be used to clear up the issues. Just like the mobile phones.

Sierra Oscar

Water John wrote: »

Can't remember if McGuinness has given evidence, at this stage, If not, he surely will. That isn't heresay. Neither will Taylor's evidence be heresay.
McCabe retelling accounts of what they supposedly told him, is heresay.

Nothing untowards in all of that.

McGuinness is yet to give his evidence, there doesn't seem to be a date yet.

We already know that Taylor is going to dispute McCabe's account of the meeting - that was made clear by his legal team today. Accordingly McCabe's account will remain hearsay as there is no supporting evidence, this was fought over a fair bit at the Tribunal today. McCabe took a short one page note of the meeting, but he only started to do so an hour into it and Charleton indicated that this note wasn't a reliable piece of evidence to support his claim of what was discussed. I'd imagine the same will go for Taylor's account as it disputes McCabe's version of events but he doesn't have any supporting evidence relating to the meeting either.

Ditto for McGuinness and Callinan. Journalists seem to believe that McGuinness had a recording of the meeting which would mean it would not be hearsay. However it's now clear that there is no recording so it's a disputed account and therefore hearsay.

That's my understanding of it anyway. Guess we will have to wait for the final report by Charleton.

Captain Obvious

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Nobody is going to draw up and sign requests to smear McCabe.

There are only two possibilities:

Direction was given from the top down to smear McCabe.

Or

Individuals within the Garda, at all levels, decided to take it upon themselves to smear McCabe.

Either way, it seems we've got an institution rife with corruption and crony protectionism.
Full confidence from the unwitting MoJ of the day mind.

Has the commission already decided there was smear campaign? I thought that was what was being decided in this module.

tayto lover

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Nobody is going to draw up and sign requests to smear McCabe.

There are only two possibilities:

Direction was given from the top down to smear McCabe.

Or

Individuals within the Garda, at all levels, decided to take it upon themselves to smear McCabe.

Either way, it seems we've got an institution rife with corruption and crony protectionism.
Full confidence from the unwitting MoJ of the day mind.

Where did you see that please?
Mc Cabe said yesterday that he got great support from the garda in Cavan of all levels.

Water John

Oscar, I would think it's heresay because it's Macabe (A) giving account of what another person (B) said about another meeting with (C), hence, heresay.
If Taylor says he was instructed to do something by Callinan, that is not heresay, it's his direct testimony. Similarily with McGuinness, he will testify as to what Callinan said to him, not heresay.

Hitman3000

Nettle Soup wrote:

Is it possible for the Tribunal to search phone records for the 2 commissioners?

What's the odds they been convienently lost?

tayto lover

Water John wrote: »

Oscar, I would think it's heresay because it's Macabe (A) giving account of what another person (B) said about another meeting with (C), hence, heresay.
If Taylor says he was instructed to do something by Callinan, that is not heresay, it's his direct testimony. Similarily with McGuinness, he will testify as to what Callinan said to him, not heresay.

But Taylor is saying that McCabe's version of their conversation is wrong. He's denying what Mc Cabe is saying.

Water John

Yes, he disagrees on the methodology of the actions. Whether it was done verbal or via texts. McCabe was decribing what Taylor told him of his interaction with Callinan, thus third party heresay.
Duirt bean loim, go duairt bean le.

Taylor and McGuinness will be giving first hand testimony. 'This is what happened to me'. The Tribunal and you can then decide if they are telling the truth or lying, but it cannot be dismissed as heresay.

McMurphy

tayto lover wrote: »

Where did you see that please?
Mc Cabe said yesterday that he got great support from the garda in Cavan of all levels.

The poster said it was an either or scenario.

Direction was given from the top down to smear McCabe.

Or

Individuals within the Garda, at all levels, decided to take it upon themselves to smear McCabe.

My bets are on the former of the two.