Should another Garda Commissioner resign?

Captain Obvious

Dave Taylor seems to have a lot of contradictions in his evidence.

blanch152

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Dave Taylor seems to have a lot of contradictions in his evidence.

Nobody seems to be able to corroborate a single thing he claims.

Captain Obvious

But Taylor is the main source of the allegation. His credibility is a big thing.

James Brown

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But Taylor is the main source of the allegation. His credibility is a big thing.

Sorry, I'd deleted my post.
My point is criticism seems to be one sided. Some Garda are beyond reproach because they are Garda. Some Garda are dodgy, depending on your, (the royal 'your') 'side'.

tayto lover

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But Taylor is the main source of the allegation. His credibility is a big thing.

Just read today's account. He seems to be in trouble with both sides. Nobody backing up his accounts at all.

Water John

Its back to believing those, he also spoke to. One is being asked to believe that, John McGuinness has told two lies, for example. What Callinan told him and what Taylor told him.
One is also being asked to believe, Mick Clifford is incorrect. Mick wrote the book, if it contains untruths, why was its publication not challenged?

tayto lover

Water John wrote: »

Its back to believing those, he also spoke to. One is being asked to believe that, John McGuinness has told two lies, for example. What Callinan told him and what Taylor told him.

McCabe disagrees with Taylor's account too. Nor was anything found on records to back up his account.
I wonder if his was a personal grievience and he just tried to piggy back on Maurice to strengthen his case?

Muahahaha

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Dave Taylor seems to have a lot of contradictions in his evidence.

Seems Dave Taylor had a Damascene conversion with his protected disclosure - at the time he spoke of having a spiritual moment and having a need to confess everything to McCabe. He broke down in front of McCabe as he told him "I set out to bury you". He even proof read the chapter of Mick Cliffords book relating to him and the smear campaign he ran. He gave Mick Clifford the big thumbs up.

Now just months later at the Tribunal he has turned a full 180 again.

Remarkable stuff, at least Judge Charleton has already stated (regarding the operation of the Tribunal) "The rules of evidence do not apply. The rules of logic and good sense do. Documentary evidence is to be considered for what it is worth, even though it may be hearsay. Where someone relays what another individual said, that is admissible".

So this will really come down to who does he believe. Callinan himself has yet to even take the stand but thus far there are seven different people on record contradicting his positions. I would imagine Taylor will have a similar amount of people contradicting him. It all adds up into "logic and good sense" as to where the truth actually lies.

Nettle Soup

Muahahaha wrote: »

Should be a fun day at the Tribunal on Thursday, both Shatter and Callinan are due to appear. Shatter is under questioning in the morning and then Callinan in the afternoon. After that Callinan faces another four full days in the dock and then Noirin herself is being recalled to see if her memory has improved since the last outing.

Remarkably Thursday at the Tribunal will see one former justice minister directly question another former justice minister under the direction of a judge(a first I believe). Hopefully McDowell will tear Shatter a new one, there is certainly no love lost between the two of them. Nor with Shatter and Maurice McCabe, in the words of the confidential recipient Oliver Connolly to McCabe in 2014 "I’ll tell you something Maurice and this is just personal advice to you. If Shatter thinks your screwing him, you’re finished.... If Shatter thinks it’s you, if he thinks or is told by the Commissioner or the Gardaí here’s this guy again trying another route trying to put pressure on, he’ll go after you”

It will be also interesting to find out to what extent did Callinan screw over Shatter. We already have an admission from the alleged hot shot lawyer Gerald Kean that he was completely tricked by Callinan into smearing the name of Maurice McCabe on the Marian Finucane radio show, a defamation that resulted in a 180k payout to McCabe and John Wilson from RTE.

Will it be the case that Shatter (another lawyer) was also completely tricked by Callinan into believing the tall tales designed to smear McCabe? Because if it does turn out to be the case then that means Callinan played Shatter like a fiddle and he fell for the trick hook line and sinker. Shatter ultimately paid for it with his job as Minister for Justice, a role he coveted since the start of his political life in 1981. Yet when he finally got there some 30 years later he lasted only two years in the job before Enda Kenny plunged a knife in his back and fired him. And all of this happened while Mick Wallace and Clare Daly were shouting across the Dail chamber telling Shatter that McCabe was an honest man and he needed to take a closer look at what Garda Commissioner Callinan was up to. Shatter was warned time and time again by Wallace and Daly but his arrogance would not allow him to listen. If only he did, he might still be Minister for Justice rather than being roundly humiliated. I wonder how he feels about his buddy Callinan now in the cold light of day?

Thursday will tell all and ought to be interesting

Yes I am looking forward to those 2 appearing. Callinan will obviously deny everything and try and deflect but Shatter is an honourable man and keen to save his reputation - I imagine Shatter might even be the only one on the Gardaí/DoJ side to tell the whole truth.

Captain Obvious

Another poor day for Taylor. If he doesn't get a journalist to back him up his credibility could be shot. Also, maybe someone could shed light on this apparent contradiction.

Taylor said that he had very little contact with Nóirín O’Sullivan – who would have been acting commissioner at the time – until his removal from the press office.

Taylor has consistently maintained that Nóirín O’Sullivan was aware of the smear campaign against McCabe and given regular updates on it.

Is he claiming to be the one that was giving updates to her.

tayto lover

No reports on the RTE website today at all ?? Was it on?

blanch152

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Another poor day for Taylor. If he doesn't get a journalist to back him up his credibility could be shot. Also, maybe someone could shed light on this apparent contradiction.





Is he claiming to be the one that was giving updates to her.

It is looking more and more like Taylor was out for revenge against O'Sullivan and there has been very little substantiated evidence against her. There is more evidence against Callinan and it carries more weight but is still full of contradictions.

O'Sullivan may yet get a big payout for being unfairly maligned.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

It is looking more and more like Taylor was out for revenge against O'Sullivan and there has been very little substantiated evidence against her. There is more evidence against Callinan and it carries more weight but is still full of contradictions.

O'Sullivan may yet get a big payout for being unfairly maligned.

I hope not, I believe she at least knew of the campaign against McCabe, even if not complicit in it she didn't try to stop it.
When you look at the situation as a whole from the start up to and including Fitzgerald's ministry, the garda strategy wasn't just to defend their own honour and integrity, it was mainly to discredit by falsehood McCabe. If they had tried to present evidence of his lying or being mischievous on its own merits without bringing in the sexual smears it might have looked better.
Of course the recent figures for breath tests and other things have shown that the gardai are capable falsifying things to look favourably on themselves, it looks like McCabe could be another victim of this institutional holier than thou attitude garda management try to project above all else..

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Another poor day for Taylor. If he doesn't get a journalist to back him up his credibility could be shot. Also, maybe someone could shed light on this apparent contradiction.





Is he claiming to be the one that was giving updates to her.

As we seen in the emails that were published.

Taylor only would have needed to tell Noirin about the campaign (or vise versa) one time, (or not at all) for her to know about it, and without the need for either party to be constantly in touch with the other.

blanch152 wrote: »

It is looking more and more like Taylor was out for revenge against O'Sullivan and there has been very little substantiated evidence against her. There is more evidence against Callinan and it carries more weight but is still full of contradictions.

O'Sullivan may yet get a big payout for being unfairly maligned.

Is it in doubt that O'Sullivan was fully aware of McCabes plight?

I didn't think it was.



Whatever about how involved she was, she was fully aware of a campaign (legal) to discredit McCabe.

While publicly supporting him.

McMurphy

Also, just on the journalists not backing anyone up, I heard (didn't get the name) something on Newstalk the other afternoon ref one of the journalists who would neither confirm or deny what information was given to them by whom, they said this was to protect their sources.

Fairly standard protocol in the journalists world, and integral to our freedom of press.

While it doesn't really do Taylor any favours, it's doing him not too much harm either.

People can read between the lines.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Also, just on the journalists not backing anyone up, I heard (didn't get the name) something on Newstalk the other afternoon ref one of the journalists who would neither confirm or deny what information was given to them by whom, they said this was to protect their sources.

Fairly standard protocol in the journalists world, and integral to our freedom of press.

While it doesn't really do Taylor any favours, it's doing him not too much harm either.

People can read between the lines.

None of the journalists have supported Taylor.

Some have contradicted him, some have refused to say.

Zero corroboration for anything he has said about a media campaign.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

None of the journalists have supported Taylor.

Some have contradicted him, some have refused to say.

Zero corroboration for anything he has said about a media campaign.

In what world would you think a journalist would come out and say that info had been passed on to them by a former Garda press officer, who was doing so on an anonymous basis, and what do you think the ramifications would be for all other journalists, and any chance that whistleblowers may come forward to them in the future if they might be named, publicly, in tribunals?

Meanwhile, we have multiple public representatives (and a lawyer), including from rival political party's, who are all signing off the same hymn sheet as regards what Callinan was telling them.

tayto lover

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

In what world would you think a journalist would come out and say that info had been passed on to them by a former Garda press officer, who was doing so on an anonymous basis, and what do you think the ramifications would be for all other journalists, and any chance that whistleblowers may come forward to them in the future if they might be named, publicly, in tribunals?

Meanwhile, we have multiple public representatives (and a lawyer), including from rival political party's, who are all signing off the same hymn sheet as regards what Callinan was telling them.

True. But Mc Cabe doesn't even back him up.

blanch152

tayto lover wrote: »

True. But Mc Cabe doesn't even back him up.

Taylor originally alleged that the campaign was conducted by text message, he later changed his story that it was by word of mouth.

I don't know why he changed his story but it could be because of a lack of actual hard evidence. That creates a credibility gap which is compounded by the failure of anyone to back up his word of mouth approach.

McMurphy

tayto lover wrote: »

True. But Mc Cabe doesn't even back him up.

I thought it was the other way around tbh.

tayto lover

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I thought it was the other way around tbh.

I read that Mc Cabe disagreed with the account of their meeting. and what was said. Taylor said he destroyed McCabe with text messages but Taylor denied that.

As I said in a previous post - Taylor is not helping McCabe. He seems to me to be just piggy-backing and used the whole McCabe affair to get back at Fitzgerald.
I could be wrong.

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Also, just on the journalists not backing anyone up, I heard (didn't get the name) something on Newstalk the other afternoon ref one of the journalists who would neither confirm or deny what information was given to them by whom, they said this was to protect their sources.

Fairly standard protocol in the journalists world, and integral to our freedom of press.

While it doesn't really do Taylor any favours, it's doing him not too much harm either.

People can read between the lines.

What reading between the lines is there? Are you just going to accept every allegation against members of AGS regardless of evidence?

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What reading between the lines is there? Are you just going to accept every allegation against members of AGS regardless of evidence?

I never said anything about believing or not believing Taylor, I said it was standard protocol for journalists to protect their sources.

Refusing to confirm or deny what information was given to them by someone who gave it under the assumption that their identity would not be disclosed, is an approrpiate response to give at a tribunal.

Especially if the world of journalists ever expect sources to come forward in the future, and be given the assurances that they would remain anonymous if they so wish.

McMurphy

tayto lover wrote: »

I read that Mc Cabe disagreed with the account of their meeting. and what was said. Taylor said he destroyed McCabe with text messages but Taylor denied that.

As I said in a previous post - Taylor is not helping McCabe. He seems to me to be just piggy-backing and used the whole McCabe affair to get back at Fitzgerald.
I could be wrong.

Isn't that what I said?

I thought it was the other way around tbh

.

And not only McCabe, Taylor seems to have disputed telling anyone that the smear campaign was done via text messages.

Considering the phones he used during his time as press officer have vanished (apparently), yet the ones he used after that time were surrendered possibly might have influenced his change of tact?

I believe he should stick with the one story.

Changing it midway might prove to be unhelpful in the long run, unless of course the couple of phones that became unretrievable suddenly reappear.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Isn't that what I said?

.

And not only McCabe, Taylor seems to have disputed telling anyone that the smear campaign was done via text messages.

Considering the phones he used during his time as press officer have vanished (apparently), yet the ones he used after that time were surrendered possibly might have influenced his change of tact?

I believe he should stick with the one story.

Changing it midway might prove to be unhelpful in the long run, unless of course the couple of phones that became unretrievable suddenly reappear.

He seems to be changing his story to fit the evidence (or lack thereof).

First it was by text message, no evidence so it was word of mouth, no evidence, then it was journalists protecting their sources.

On O'Sullivan, first she ordered it, then she was deeply involved, then she was briefed, finally she just knew about it.

His story is one continuous retreat from the evidence.

It will be interesting to see what the judge says about him.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

He seems to be changing his story to fit the evidence (or lack thereof).

First it was by text message, no evidence so it was word of mouth, no evidence, then it was journalists protecting their sources.

On O'Sullivan, first she ordered it, then she was deeply involved, then she was briefed, finally she just knew about it.

His story is one continuous retreat from the evidence.

It will be interesting to see what the judge says about him.

Yeah, I believe he'd certainly come across better, and with more integrity if he stuck to one story.

In saying that, is their any direct evidence, ie coming from the horses mouth that Taylor himself mentioned texts?

It appears from what I have reas that Taylor is contradicting what people are saying he told them.

That's different to him directly contradicting himself.

However like the number of witnesses that are making claims about Callinan, it will be interesting to see what the judge makes of it.

Here we have a case of two different senior Garda denying claims people are making.

Who is lying, who is telling the truth?

McMurphy

So Alan Shatter has now been added to the list of high profile public figures who are claiming Callinan told them about McCabe.

Shatter said that, despite taking action on the penalty points scandal, he was “publicly pilloried” over the issue, while then-commissioner Callinan was “demonised” for it.

He also said that Callinan told him in 2013 about the 2006 Ms D allegation of sexual abuse against Maurice McCabe.

Shatter said that Callinan told him “it had been fully investigated and the DPP directed there be no prosecution”.

He also said this.

Shatter added: “He then speculated that Sergeant McCabe was upset at the manner in which it was dealt with.”

Which would tally with this.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

So Alan Shatter has now been added to the list of high profile public figures who are claiming Callinan told them about McCabe.



He also said this.


Which would tally with this.

A very edited picture of Shatter's evidence.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0517/964221-disclosures-tribunal-alan-shatter/

"Mr Shatter said Mr Callinan had put the information in a manner that was sympathetically disposed towards Sgt McCabe."

Hardly a campaign to discredit him?

Shatter also echoed the previous Tribunal which found that McCabe was prone to exaggeration:

"He said that in the course of making valid claims, Sgt McCabe made a number of serious allegations on garda corruption and deleting of material on the garda Pulse system, which were not sustained."

"He said some of the whistleblower's claims were right, some were exaggerated and there was no evidence for others.

Mr Shatter said the sergeant had made allegations that nine individuals had died in accidents due to non-enforcement of fines for non-payment of fixed charge penalty notices.

He said that was incorrect and had been dealt with in an internal garda inquiry, but kept resurfacing."


Shatter is about the only one who appears to have been telling the truth the whole time. The rest of them, from Callinan to McCabe to Taylor have serious question marks over their evidence.

Annd9

Whatever about the others , How on earth can you question Mc Cabe at this point ?

What evidence has he failed to produce ?
Whose life has been totally destroyed ?
He has been vindicated in everything that has come to the publics attention.
Do you honestly blame him for thinking there was a campaign going on behind the scenes?

How that man did not take his own life I will never know .
I only wish I could be as strong a character because I for one could not have held out like he has .

McMurphy

Day 1 of Callinans input, and as expected, it's just deny deny deny.

Mr Callinan denied telling several individuals that Sgt McCabe could not be trusted and was a child abuser.

Two TDs - John McGuinness and John Deasy, the Comptroller and Auditor General, Seamus McCarthy and RTbroadcaster Philip Boucher-Hayes have told the inquiry that Mr Callinan warned them off the whistleblower.

Mr Callinan said he had a clear recollection of the conversations. "I can only give you my version, but I'm telling the truth and I intend to tell the truth," he said.

Mr Boucher-Hayes has told the tribunal that Mr Callinan said to him that Sgt McCabe had psychological and psychiatric issues and was motivated by a set of grievances with garda management.

Mr Callinan denied saying that and he said he had a clear recollection of the conversation in the corridor of RT

He was also questioned by counsel for the tribunal, Patrick Marrinan, about his conversations with solicitor Gerard Kean on 26 January , 2014 in advance of Mr Kean's appearance on RTs Marian Finucane show.

Mr Kean's comments on the programme about Sgt McCabe gave rise to a legal action by the sergeant taken against RTand Mr Kean.

Mr Callinan denied telling Mr Kean that Sgt McCabe was troublesome, obstructive and difficult".

He also denied saying that two Garda whistleblowers had not engaged with the internal Garda inquiry on penalty points.

He said that if Mr Kean had stuck to the replies he gave him, that the solicitor might be in a different position.


Mr Callinan said the interaction was not his finest hour and he said it was not appropriate but he said he did not talk about Sgt McCabe in a personalised manner.