Should another Garda Commissioner resign?

blanch152

Muahahaha wrote: »

Nope thats not my claim at all. The evidence here is that three mobile phones went missing. Is your claim that there is nothing to see here?



Not for the first time on this thread that one of your assertations shows me that you have not being following this tribunal but yet are still posting on here taking wild stabs in the dark. I have lost count of the number of journalists who have claimed privilege and refused to answer- not to all the questions asked of them but of all the crucial questions asked of them. Judge Charleton went on a rant on this very matter only last week. He also said that witnesses are not telling him the truth. You need to go back and read the transcripts before taking these wild stabs in the dark because the reality is quite different from what you are claiming.

So you believe Judge Charleton?

Muahahaha wrote: »

Pretty obvious the journos are closing ranks and hiding behind privledge I would have said. Nor is it that surprising- if they came out and said Taylor was indeed sending them texts about McCabe then their career as a crime and security corresspondent is over- without Garda sources they would have nothing to write about.

Futhermore IMO it is beyond doubt that Callinan was going around calling McCabe a kiddie fiddler. His smear campaign was known around Leinster House so it is pretty remarkable to hear now that journalists who specialise in reporting on crime and the Gardai did not know about it. If they truly didnt know about the smear campaign then they are incompetent journailsts. Paul Williams in particular comes off as a disgrace, it was him leading the charge on behalf of Noirin.

And lets not forget it was Noirin OSullivans husband who made Dave Taylors three mobile phones disappear. These were central to proving Taylors allegation that he sent hundreds of text messages to journailsts. Why would that have happened if there was nothing to hide or cover up? Without those phones you absolutely cannot say there was no smear campaign, all you can say is that OSullivans husband made the most vital piece of evidence in this entire matter vanish off the face of the earth. No smoke without fire as they say.

Here is Judge Charleton on Noirin O'Sullivan and Taylor

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/charleton-tribunal-chairman-criticises-supt-dave-taylor-1.3512651

It looks to date from the evidence that Taylor has withdrawn his allegations about O'Sullivan, that the Judge has sympathy for the way she was forced to quit her job, yet there are still malicious posts on the internet claiming there is no smoke without fire.

Another low from you.

Muahahaha

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Not at all. There was obviously a lot of dodgy **** going on in the press office.

So you admit it was dodgy. But what is your actual conclusion to the 3 phones going missing- do you think there is nothing to see here or has the evidence going missing been part of a cover up ?

A number of the journalists have given evidence that Taylors claims are not true. You appear to be saying that evidence is not correct. Or more accurately, you are ignoring the people who give evidence contradicting Taylor and in cases where people remain silent you assume their evidence would have supported him.

No, what youre trying to do is put words in my mouth. What I am saying is that when journalists refuse to answer crucial questions then we do not have the complete picture. The question Im asking here is why are they refusing to answer questions? Just as in criminal law inferences can be drawn by a suspects refusal to answer questions. Judge Charleton said he is not being told the truth right in the middle of hearing sworn testimony from journalists Why do you think it is he said that?

Muahahaha

blanch152 wrote: »

So you believe Judge Charleton?



Here is Judge Charleton on Noirin O'Sullivan and Taylor

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/charleton-tribunal-chairman-criticises-supt-dave-taylor-1.3512651

It looks to date from the evidence that Taylor has withdrawn his allegations about O'Sullivan, that the Judge has sympathy for the way she was forced to quit her job, yet there are still malicious posts on the internet claiming there is no smoke without fire.

Another low from you.

ah nice to have you back blanch152, I had though you had gone off in a huff there

And there is nothing malicious about the truth- the three phones went missing and the last person in possession of them was Noirin OSullivans husband. Are you another one claiming that there is nothing to see here?

Captain Obvious

Muahahaha wrote: »

So you admit it was dodgy. But what is your actual conclusion to the 3 phones going missing- do you think there is nothing to see here or has the evidence going missing been part of a cover up ?

Not possible to say for certain.

Muahahaha wrote: »

No, what youre trying to do is put words in my mouth. What I am saying is that when journalists refuse to answer crucial questions then we do not have the complete picture. The question Im asking here is why are they refusing to answer questions? Just as in criminal law inferences can be drawn by a suspects refusal to answer questions. Judge Charleton said he is not being told the truth right in the middle of hearing sworn testimony from journalists Why do you think it is he said that?

First of all, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to decipher what you are saying. Second, that's not how criminal law inferences work. While some journalists are refusing to answer, others have answered and refuted Taylors claims. So why are you dismissing that actual evidence in favour of what others may have said?

Muahahaha

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Not possible to say for certain.

Nobody here can say anything for certain here but this is a discussion forum so you can give your opinion on which explanation you think is most likely. I mean there is a further 9 phones missing here and laptops, iPads too. Did all these crucial pieces of evidence that Judge Charleton called upon to be preserved all just grow legs and walk out of Garda HQ in the Phoenix Park? Or is there something more sinister at play?

First of all, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to decipher what you are saying. Second, that's not how criminal law inferences work. While some journalists are refusing to answer, others have answered and refuted Taylors claims. So why are you dismissing that actual evidence in favour of what others may have said?

Which journalists are you talking about? The ones with the most to lose like all their Garda sources and hence their careers? What Im asking here is why is Judge Charleton is coming out and saying he is not being told the truth. I mean do you seriously believe that journalists stating that they were not aware of rumours surrounding McCabe are telling the truth here? Because if you accept that what you are also accepting is that they are pretty incompetent journalists. Do you not find it remarkable that politicians from all parties have said they heard the McCabe rumours yet we have journalists saying that they did not? Its not very plausible now is it. I mean if they didnt hear the wild rumours about McCabe perhaps its time they considered a new career.

Captain Obvious

Muahahaha wrote: »

Nobody here can say anything for certain here but this is a discussion forum so you can give your opinion on which explanation you think is most likely. I mean there is a further 9 phones missing here and laptops, iPads too. Did all these crucial pieces of evidence that Judge Charleton called upon to be preserved all just grow legs and walk out of Garda HQ in the Phoenix Park? Or is there something more sinister at play?

While it's perfectly reasonable to say there is something wrong with it, there are no grounds to draw the conclusions you have, that it proves the claims of Taylor, as there is no evidence to support it and ample evidence to counter it. "The evidence is missing therefore you must be guilty" is a ludicrous standard of proof.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Which journalists are you talking about? The ones with the most to lose like all their Garda sources and hence their careers? What Im asking here is why is Judge Charleton is coming out and saying he is not being told the truth.

It sounds very much like you are saying they are lying to protect their careers.

Muahahaha wrote: »

I mean do you seriously believe that journalists stating that they were not aware of rumours surrounding McCabe are telling the truth here? Because if you accept that what you are also accepting is that they are pretty incompetent journalists. Do you not find it remarkable that politicians from all parties have said they heard the McCabe rumours yet we have journalists saying that they did not? Its not very plausible now is it. I mean if they didnt hear the wild rumours about McCabe perhaps its time they considered a new career.

Now you are shifting the goalposts. The question isn't about whether there were rumours, the question is whether Taylor and others spread the rumours at the direction of management.

James Brown

We have statements from numerous political sources claiming Callinan was telling them about an allegation against McCabe and it has been broadly accepted that there was a general discussion in political circles at Leinster House about an allegation against McCabe.
IMO, we're at the point of finding out more information on a smear campaign and who besides Callinan, (unwittingly or not) was involved.
If Taylor is not to be believed he either never spread any rumours at all or did so on his own. I find that unlikely going by Callinan's dislike for whistle blowing and him allegedly personally having spread the allegation about McCabe.

Muahahaha

Captain Obvious wrote: »

While it's perfectly reasonable to say there is something wrong with it, there are no grounds to draw the conclusions you have, that it proves the claims of Taylor, as there is no evidence to support it and ample evidence to counter it. "The evidence is missing therefore you must be guilty" is a ludicrous standard of proof.

As I said in the last post nobody here can say anything for certain. But this is a discussion forum and we can give our opinions. You are admitting that Taylors missing three phones is both wrong and dodgy. But thats where you seem to think it ends, your position is that the phones going missing is wrong and dodgy but after that there is nothing to see here. I think that is a remarkably naive position to hold when crucial evidence goes missing and the people with the most who gain from that are those who are already directly under suspicion. After all this is the mgmt level of AGS we are talking about it, it is not as if they dont have previous form of making evidence go missing when it is them who are in the firing line. In fact sometimes they have even created evidence out of nothing such as in Donegal where they got caught planting bombs and guns. It is an organisation that Judge Morris said values loyalty over honesty. Noirin OSullivans husband is clearly loyal to her so the phones vanished into thin air. If you think there are zero conculsions to be drawn from such events then so be it, I think your head is stuck in the sand.

It sounds very much like you are saying they are lying to protect their careers.

Judge Charleton is already on record as saying he isnt being told the truth. He is the one in there listening to testimony every day. He is also an expert on the subject of people lying under oath, I mean he has written a book on the topic entitled Lies in a Mirror. Again you would want to be pretty naive to not even consider the possibility that some journalists are not telling the full story and using privilege to hide behind the truth. Only the other day we had an editor tell the Tribunal he knew next to nothing about Maurice McCabe which is pretty remarkable given his name has been front page news for nigh on five years now.

Now you are shifting the goalposts. The question isn't about whether there were rumours, the question is whether Taylor and others spread the rumours at the direction of management.

This is strike three for you on taking wild stabs in the dark and coming up wrong again Captain. Again, read the transcripts, it isnt my job to hold your hand through the evidence at the Tribunal. Journalists have told the Tribunal that they were both unaware of the kiddie fiddling rumours AND that they were not briefed by Taylor. Now if they are entirely innocent in the entire debacle then why are they even journalists in the first place? The very essence of their job is to have the inside track yet some are claiming they were completely clueless. Are we seriously to believe that politicians from all parties knew about the rumours, the Comptroller General knew about them, the Road Safety Authority knew about them but that journalists who specialise in Garda affairs did not :rolleyes:

Captain Obvious

Muahahaha wrote: »

As I said in the last post nobody here can say anything for certain. But this is a discussion forum and we can give our opinions. You are admitting that Taylors missing three phones is both wrong and dodgy. But thats where you seem to think it ends, your position is that the phones going missing is wrong and dodgy but after that there is nothing to see here. I think that is a remarkably naive position to hold when crucial evidence goes missing and the people with the most who gain from that are those who are already directly under suspicion. After all this is the mgmt level of AGS we are talking about it, it is not as if they dont have previous form of making evidence go missing when it is them who are in the firing line. In fact sometimes they have even created evidence out of nothing such as in Donegal where they got caught planting bombs and guns. It is an organisation that Judge Morris said values loyalty over honesty. Noirin OSullivans husband is clearly loyal to her so the phones vanished into thin air. If you think there are zero conculsions to be drawn from such events then so be it, I think your head is stuck in the sand.

Now who is putting words in peoples mouths? I never said there was nothing to see. pretty sure I've been clear on that. What I said was you are using the absence of a particular piece of evidence as proof of your claim and ignoring all the other evidence which refutes it.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Judge Charleton is already on record as saying he isnt being told the truth. He is the one in there listening to testimony every day. He is also an expert on the subject of people lying under oath, I mean he has written a book on the topic entitled Lies in a Mirror. Again you would want to be pretty naive to not even consider the possibility that some journalists are not telling the full story and using privilege to hide behind the truth. Only the other day we had an editor tell the Tribunal he knew next to nothing about Maurice McCabe which is pretty remarkable given his name has been front page news for nigh on five years now.

You're just flip flopping. Do you think the journalists lied under oath?

Muahahaha wrote: »

This is strike three for you on taking wild stabs in the dark and coming up wrong again Captain. Again, read the transcripts, it isnt my job to hold your hand through the evidence at the Tribunal. Journalists have told the Tribunal that they were both unaware of the kiddie fiddling rumours AND that they were not briefed by Taylor. Now if they are entirely innocent in the entire debacle then why are they even journalists in the first place? The very essence of their job is to have the inside track yet some are claiming they were completely clueless. Are we seriously to believe that politicians from all parties knew about the rumours, the Comptroller General knew about them, the Road Safety Authority knew about them but that journalists who specialise in Garda affairs did not :rolleyes:

No it isn't your job to hold my hand but if you are going to refer to the transcripts so much then is it so much to ask you give some kind of link? You are trying to treat all journalists as one and referring to them as such. It's just disingenuous to use the actions of individuals as if all of them gave the same evidence.

Muahahaha

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Now who is putting words in peoples mouths? I never said there was nothing to see. pretty sure I've been clear on that. What I said was you are using the absence of a particular piece of evidence as proof of your claim and ignoring all the other evidence which refutes it.

So if your not claiming there is nothing to see then what is there to see? Because what I see is a ruse to destroy crucial evidence that implicated everyone from that Commissioner to journalists. A lot of people had a vested interested in those phones vanishing, why do you think that is? Taylor claims it is because the phones corroborate that he did brief journalists to smear McCabe and that OSullivan was aware of it.

You're just flip flopping. Do you think the journalists lied under oath?

Not just me. Judge Charleton believes it too. Here is just a sample

There's been some back and forth betwwen the judge and Juno McEnroe (Irish Examiner) Judge put to McEnroe that he's been playing games and reminds him that he's sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth. McEnroe rejects the claim about 'playing games'
McEnroe says he's trying to help the tribunal, Judge: "Don't tell me you're being helpful, you're not". After back and forth beteew judge and McEnroes counsel...Leader moves on

Now does the above sound to you like McEnroe is being truthful or helpful? Not only that he also hides behind privilege and refuses to answer any questions on what Taylor briefed him about McCabe. He refuses to even answer a simple Yes or No as to whether or not Dave Taylor is telling the truth about being his source. This is despite the judge telling him that Taylor has already disclosed that he was McEnroes source of info in the Gardai. McEnroe acknowledges this but continues to refuse to answer questions.

No it isn't your job to hold my hand but if you are going to refer to the transcripts so much then is it so much to ask you give some kind of link? You are trying to treat all journalists as one and referring to them as such. It's just disingenuous to use the actions of individuals as if all of them gave the same evidence.

This definitely is not about all journalists, again if you had even read the evidence given by Clifford, Mooney, McCarthy, OReilly, etc you would know this. It has been widely reported after all. Before you engage on a topic you need to read up on it rather than constantly having wild stabs in the dark. Its not my job to educate you on the minutae of what has been going on down there.

Captain Obvious

Muahahaha wrote: »

So if your not claiming there is nothing to see then what is there to see? Because what I see is a ruse to destroy crucial evidence that implicated everyone from that Commissioner to journalists. A lot of people had a vested interested in those phones vanishing, why do you think that is? Taylor claims it is because the phones corroborate that he did brief journalists to smear McCabe and that OSullivan was aware of it.

Yet you've completely discounted the possibility that Taylor is responsible for them being missing because he knew there would be nothing on them that validate his claims. Or someone else could have taken them as there was incriminating stuff on them in relation to something else. I'm not saying that is what happened but it's ridiculous to make such an assumptive leap as you did simply because it suits your position. The fact is we have no idea who is responsible for the phones going missing and we have no idea what their motive was and we have no idea what was on them

Muahahaha wrote: »

Not just me. Judge Charleton believes it too. Here is just a sample




Now does the above sound to you like McEnroe is being truthful or helpful? Not only that he also hides behind privilege and refuses to answer any questions on what Taylor briefed him about McCabe. He refuses to even answer a simple Yes or No as to whether or not Dave Taylor is telling the truth about being his source. This is despite the judge telling him that Taylor has already disclosed that he was McEnroes source of info in the Gardai. McEnroe acknowledges this but continues to refuse to answer questions.

You are trying to conflate two things. Not saying anything is not the same as lying. And trying to infer Charleton said so is, again, disingenuous.

Muahahaha wrote: »

This definitely is not about all journalists, again if you had even read the evidence given by Clifford, Mooney, McCarthy, OReilly, etc you would know this. It has been widely reported after all. Before you engage on a topic you need to read up on it rather than constantly having wild stabs in the dark. Its not my job to educate you on the minutae of what has been going on down there.

It's not your job to educate anyone but it's the forums rules that you back up your references with links and that's all I'm asking. In fact, I don't even need links. Just a few quotes like you did above so I know what you are referring to. I'll ask you this, has any journalist backed up what Taylor has said? Is there a single shred of evidence to back up what he claimed he was told to do?

Muahahaha

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Yet you've completely discounted the possibility that Taylor is responsible for them being missing because he knew there would be nothing on them that validate his claims...... The fact is we have no idea who is responsible for the phones going missing and we have no idea what their motive was and we have no idea what was on them

Sorry to tell you Captain but the above is now strike four. Again if you knew chain of evidence you would know that there is no way Taylor could have made the phones disappear, to summarise-

- Noirin OSullivan orders an investigation into Superintendent Dave Taylor. She appoints her husband Jim McGowan (who she also promoted) as the investigator.
- Superintendent and Garda Press Officer Dave Taylor is arrested, then transported in handcuffs to Balbriggan Garda Station. Here he is questioned for a total of 18 hours.
- Jim McGowan seizes Taylors three phones while he is in Garda custody. Garda procedure dictates they are put in evidence bags, signed in and then put in secure storage. If anyone takes them in or out then they must complete the log
- Despite this the phones vanish into thin air. No disciplinary proceeding are ever brought against any member of AGS for making crucial evidence dissappear. To this day no accountability is forthcoming.


So unless you are claiming that Dave Taylor did some sort of commando mission and stole the phones back from secure storage in Garda HQ without anyone ever seeing him and while he was suspended from his job then you are wrong. Again you would know of all of this if you had read the coverage of the Tribunal.

You are trying to conflate two things. Not saying anything is not the same as lying. And trying to infer Charleton said so is, again, disingenuous.

For the umpteenth time Charleton has said not everyone is telling the truth. Most of the recent witnesses are withholding the truth deliberately to a Tribunal that was set up in the public interest and that we as taxpayers are paying for. Debbie McCann of the Irish Daily Mail was asked to give evidence to the Tribunal investigators over 9 months ago. Despite the terms of reference McCann first ignored a Tribunal letter and eventually responded to it after a reminder. In the response McCann never told the Tribunal that she called to the house of Ms D which is a pretty astonishing given what the terms of reference state, ie all citizens with interactions with MsD need to tell the Tribunal about it. Then Brendan Howlin TD told the Tribunal that McCann had told him that she did indeed visit the house of MsD despite previously trying to cover it up. Judge Charleton said

“The fact that someone goes and knocks at somebody’s door, is a fact; the fact that they speak to somebody’s mother, is a fact; the fact that you know that, your newspaper knows that, is a fact; the fact that that is nothing to do with journalistic privilege, the fact of being at the door, but nonetheless you choose not to tell us and it takes you five months to get to the point, when we already know the information, I have to put it to you. So, I mean, it’s all very well to say journalistic privilege to journalistic privilege any number of times you wish, but at the moment that doesn’t look very impressive to me.”

It goes on-

Ms McCann repeatedly refused to tell the tribunal any detail of any off-the-record conversation she had with Supt Taylor – despite Supt Taylor signing a waiver to this privilege.

Supt Taylor has told the tribunal he did negatively brief about Sgt McCabe to Ms McCann and that she phoned him before travelling to Ms D’s home.

Ms McCann refused to confirm whether she told Supt Taylor that she was going to call to the D house, ahead of her visit.

Following on from this, Patrick Marrinan SC, for the tribunal, put it to Ms McCann that she had no problem telling the tribunal of her communications with her father and Ms O’Sullivan in relation to Sgt McCabe.

They had this exchange:

Marrinan:” Well, I mean, you had no difficulty telling us about your father and your conversation with your father?”

McCann: “He is my father.”

Marrinan: “I know. But there’s no difficulty telling us about that. And you had no difficulty telling us about your conversations with Nóirín O’Sullivan and the content of them and the fact that Sergeant McCabe wasn’t mentioned, isn’t that right?”

McCann: “That was a very specific allegation –”

Marrinan: “Yes.”

McCann: -“.. in relation to Nóirín O’Sullivan. And we assisted the Tribunal in pointing out that the allegation had been that I was in contact with her over the phone, and we pointed out that if you were to go back over her telephone records, that it would back up my assertion that there was no communication between us. I was trying to help the Tribunal in the best way that I could.”

When Michael McDowell SC, for Sgt Maurice McCabe, questioned Ms McCann, she agreed that it would be “absurd” to claim privilege in relation to on-the-record conversations with Supt Taylor.

But she still refused to confirm whether Supt Taylor gave her any factual details pertaining to Sgt McCabe and Ms D – i.e. that there was a complaint, that there was an investigation, that the DPP categorically ruled that there be no prosecution.

Ms McCann repeated she needs to consider her future career as a journalist and used the expression “going forward” six times – three times in less than a minute.

Ms McCann also repeatedly told the tribunal she has “no evidence of any orchestrated campaign” against Sgt McCabe.

At one point Judge Charleton suggested to Ms McCann she was giving him “pre-prepared” answers.

Journalist Debbie McCann has clearly tried to cover up her involvement in the McCabe affair. Until Brendan Howlin TD droped her in the soup. Her father is a retired Garda and both she and him have close relations with Noirin OSullivan who clearly was one of her sources from the phone records. In theu questioning she even says "she needs to consider her future career as a journalist". Under a barrage of questions from McDowell she admits that her answers are tainted by her need to close ranks and protect her career as a crime corresspondent.

It goes on further-

Mr McDowell then had the following exchange with Ms McCann:

McDowell: “So when you tell this Tribunal, on your oath, that you were never aware of any Garda smear campaign…”

McCann: “Mm-hmm.”

McDowell: “…you aren’t saying that the telling of a truthful answer to a question about Sergeant McCabe could be part of a smear campaign?”

McCann: “I am not saying that David Taylor was a source on this or not.” (Taylor has already admitted he was the source)

McDowell: “No, I am not asking you that. I am just asking you to face up to what your evidence actually means, because words have meaning on occasion. And I am putting it to you that you are very carefully distinguishing between factual statements about Sergeant McCabe made by any Garda source and a smear, on the basis that they are true or untrue or whether they were asked for by a journalist or volunteered, is that your frame of mind?”

McCann: “Yes. Well, that would suggest that I — if I were to go out and ask questions of any individual in the course of my work, that I would be maligning the person who is responding to me as maligning and smearing people across the board. That is not how it works.”

McDowell: “So that if any member of An Garda Síochána said to you Ms. D has made an allegation many years ago against Sergeant McCabe and a file was sent to the DPP after an investigation and it was — the DPP directed no prosecution, that is not a smear?”

McCann: “I had — no, I had a variety of sources on this matter, some were Gardaí and some were not.”

McDowell: “Yes.”

McCann: “And by me asking them that question and getting back a factual answer, I don’t believe that they were smearing him.

McDowell: “You see, that is the whole point… But I want to put it to you that you have come here, using formulaic evidence, to effectively mislead this Tribunal as to the source of your information?”

McCann: “I absolutely have not. I have been answering the questions to the best of my ability in this matter.” (says the journalist who has already been caught out not disclosing the truth to the Tribunals Terms of Reference)

Previously, the tribunal heard of a series of text messages which were sent between Ms McCann and Ms O’Reilly in May 2014.

When Ms O’Reilly gave evidence, the tribunal heard the following sequence:

O’Reilly to McCann:

“A highly respected officer held in ‘high regard’ is how judge Guerin describes McCabe.”

McCann to O’Reilly:

“I am fully aware and, to be honest, I think it’s gross. There is a very messed up girl at the heart of it and no one gives a ****.”

McCann to O’Reilly:

“It’s a farce. Everyone knows, from politicians to cops to journos. It’s a ****ing pantomime.”

McCann to O’Reilly:

“Sorry for Shatter? It’s just like a house of cards. Self-preservation is the name of the game. It’s one big sordid game. Nóirín should get the job, she’d be fab, and it’ll be the ultimate knee-jerk reaction if they go down the civilian route. I also feel for Callinan. What a way for his career to end. The tape thing is one big f-ing smokescreen designed to save political face, and at what cost? Justice will be the biggest loser if the government continues the way it’s going. It’s disgusting.”

So who is not telling the truth here? Is it Alisson oReilly, Brendan Howlin TD or Debbie McCann? If you had to make a call it is pretty obvious IMO. That is the task of Judge Charleton to decipher who is lying and who is not. The transcripts show clearly who he thinks is being untruthful. If you wish to continuing on disputing what has happened down at Dublin Castle go ahead. But before you do read the transcripts of all 10 of the hacks who Dave Taylor named. Time and time again they refuse to answer questions like the above McCann. Their wriggling to avoid the truth is quite ironic given that their very job involves finding the truth.

Captain Obvious

Muahahaha wrote: »

Sorry to tell you Captain but the above is now strike four. Again if you knew chain of evidence you would know that there is no way Taylor could have made the phones disappear, to summarise-

So unless you are claiming that Dave Taylor did some sort of commando mission and stole the phones back from secure storage in Garda HQ without anyone ever seeing him and while he was suspended from his job then you are wrong. Again you would know of all of this if you had read the coverage of the Tribunal.

Wow, you literally removed the part of my quote that said specifically " I'm not saying that is what happened". That's just dishonest and disingenuous. My point was you are excluding all possibilities but the one that suits you.

Muahahaha wrote: »

For the umpteenth time Charleton has said not everyone is telling the truth. Most of the recent witnesses are withholding the truth deliberately to a Tribunal that was set up in the public interest and that we as taxpayers are paying for. Debbie McCann of the Irish Daily Mail was asked to give evidence to the Tribunal investigators over 9 months ago. Despite the terms of reference McCann first ignored a Tribunal letter and eventually responded to it after a reminder. In the response McCann never told the Tribunal that she called to the house of Ms D which is a pretty astonishing given what the terms of reference state, ie all citizens with interactions with MsD need to tell the Tribunal about it. Then Brendan Howlin TD told the Tribunal that McCann had told him that she did indeed visit the house of MsD despite previously trying to cover it up. Judge Charleton said



It goes on-



Journalist Debbie McCann has clearly tried to cover up her involvement in the McCabe affair. Until Brendan Howlin TD droped her in the soup. Her father is a retired Garda and both she and him have close relations with Noirin OSullivan who clearly was one of her sources from the phone records. In theu questioning she even says "she needs to consider her future career as a journalist". Under a barrage of questions from McDowell she admits that her answers are tainted by her need to close ranks and protect her career as a crime corresspondent.

It goes on further-




So who is not telling the truth here? Is it Alisson oReilly, Brendan Howlin TD or Debbie McCann? If you had to make a call it is pretty obvious IMO. That is the task of Judge Charleton to decipher who is lying and who is not. The transcripts show clearly who he thinks is being untruthful. If you wish to continuing on disputing what has happened down at Dublin Castle go ahead. But before you do read the transcripts of all 10 of the hacks who Dave Taylor named. Time and time again they refuse to answer questions like the above McCann. Their wriggling to avoid the truth is quite ironic given that their very job involves finding the truth.

So you don't think anyone has lied or you do? You keep wiggling around that question. Ironic.

Muahahaha

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Wow, you literally removed the part of my quote that said specifically " I'm not saying that is what happened". That's just dishonest and disingenuous. My point was you are excluding all possibilities but the one that suits you.

You are failing to deal with the substantive point- you claimed that Dave Taylor could have stolen the three phones- I have demonstrated clearly that he could not have because he was in Garda custody and under questioning at the time they were seized. You came up with some kind of Walter Mitty scenario but in doing so you didnt even know the timeline of his arrest and when the phones were seized. If you had of then there was no need for your commando theories above. Like I said Captain that is strike four, you are consistently wrong on this thread.

Your lack of knowledge on this topic is remarkable and you keep trying to patch it up with these wild stabs in the dark. And each and every time I call you out as being clearly wrong. If this keeps up I think you will need a new username because things dont seem very obvious to Captain Obvious

So you don't think anyone has lied or you do? You keep wiggling around that question. Ironic.

100% that some people have told lies to this Tribunal. I mean when the judge himself is throwing his hands up in the air stating that people are not telling him the truth I would have thought that is pretty obvious Captain. Again Im not sure why you are struggling with that. Perhaps you might answer the question you ignored So who is not telling the truth in the above exchanges? Is it Alisson oReilly, Brendan Howlin TD or Debbie McCann? And do you think that Debbie McCann has told the truth 100% of the time at the Tribunal A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

Captain Obvious

Muahahaha wrote: »

You are failing to deal with the substantive point- you claimed that Dave Taylor could have stolen the three phones- I have demonstrated clearly that he could not have because he was in Garda custody and under questioning at the time they were seized. You came up with some kind of Walter Mitty scenario but in doing so you didnt even know the timeline of his arrest and when the phones were seized. If you had of then there was no need for your commando theories above. Like I said Captain that is strike four, you are consistently wrong on this thread.

Your lack of knowledge on this topic is remarkable and you keep trying to patch it up with these wild stabs in the dark. And each and every time I call you out as being clearly wrong. If this keeps up I think you will need a new username because things dont seem very obvious to Captain Obvious

The substantive point is that you choose to fill in evidence gaps with conclusions that suit your existing opinion. That was my point. I should know, I'm the one that made it. I picked two random scenarios as an example and specifically said I didn't think they happened. You excluded both the disclaimer and the second scenario to misrepresent what my point was and argue against an irrelevant point. And you even did that incorrectly because I never mentioned it being before they were seized when he was arrested.

Muahahaha wrote: »

100% that some people have told lies to this Tribunal. I mean when the judge himself is throwing his hands up in the air stating that people are not telling him the truth I would have thought that is pretty obvious Captain. Again Im not sure why you are struggling with that. Perhaps you might answer the question you ignored So who is not telling the truth in the above exchanges? Is it Alisson oReilly, Brendan Howlin TD or Debbie McCann? And do you think that Debbie McCann has told the truth 100% of the time at the Tribunal A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

I've no doubt people told lies but I am specifically asking you about the journalists who were contradicting Taylor. As far as I can see the judge is angry at people not telling the truth by omission, not that they are giving false statements. You are continuously trying to conflate lying with not revealing something.

Muahahaha

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I've no doubt people told lies but I am specifically asking you about the journalists who were contradicting Taylor. As far as I can see the judge is angry at people not telling the truth by omission, not that they are giving false statements. You are continuously trying to conflate lying with not revealing something.

Nope, just yet another lame stab in the dark from you. Only yesterday Judge Charleton said he has eight different journalists in direct conflict with each other. They cannot all be telling the truth. Anne Harris has already testified that Fionann Sheehan in the Indo warned her off doing stories on Maurice McCabe because "he is a paedophile". Then in yesterdays testimony by Fionnan Sheehan he denied calling McCabe that at all. So one of them is lying here, either Harris or Sheehan. Charleton said he has another six of journalists where three of them are under suspicion of lying. As I keep saying you need to read the transcripts, if you had of you would known all this.

Captain Obvious

Muahahaha wrote: »

Nope, just yet another lame stab in the dark from you. Only yesterday Judge Charleton said he has eight different journalists in direct conflict with each other. They cannot all be telling the truth. Anne Harris has already testified that Fionann Sheehan in the Indo warned her off doing stories on Maurice McCabe because "he is a paedophile". Then in yesterdays testimony by Fionnan Sheehan he denied calling McCabe that at all. So one of them is lying here, either Harris or Sheehan. Charleton said he has another six of journalists where three of them are under suspicion of lying. As I keep saying you need to read the transcripts, if you had of you would known all this.

Ah would you stop. You're using something said yesterday to support something you claimed days ago. You just lucked out on that one.

Muahahaha

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Ah would you stop. You're using something said yesterday to support something you claimed days ago. You just lucked out on that one.

Ah jaysis, Im just shaking my head here because every time you open your mouth you make yourself look even more clueless on the subject matter. Again if you had done your research you would have known that Anne Harris gave evidence three weeks ago and that Sheehans barrister questioned her and stated that Sheehan completely denies calling Maurice McCabe a paedophile. Sheehans testimony Friday was merely confirming his position as outlined by his barrister weeks ago and as confirming his written statement to the Tribunal which was delivered months ago. Aside from that all the other journalists have made written submissions months ago so their positions have been known for quite a while now.

So I didnt "luck out" as you have claimed, instead you are just plain wrong for the sixth time on this thread. I dont have a need to "luck out" because Im not the one here who is taking wild stabs in the dark on what has been happening down at the Tribunal. Your credibility as a poster here is shot when you are wrong so often and cannot back up any of your claims. A debate with you is like engaging with a junior cert student who hasnt done their homework, research or backed up any of their claims. Your standard of posting has been far below what is expected of this forum. That is your problem, not mine.

Captain Obvious

Muahahaha wrote: »

Ah jaysis, Im just shaking my head here because every time you open your mouth you make yourself look even more clueless on the subject matter. Again if you had done your research you would have known that Anne Harris gave evidence three weeks ago and that Sheehans barrister questioned her and stated that Sheehan completely denies calling Maurice McCabe a paedophile. Sheehans testimony Friday was merely confirming his position as outlined by his barrister weeks ago and as confirming his written statement to the Tribunal which was delivered months ago. Aside from that all the other journalists have made written submissions months ago so their positions have been known for quite a while now.

So I didnt "luck out" as you have claimed, instead you are just plain wrong for the sixth time on this thread. I dont have a need to "luck out" because Im not the one here who is taking wild stabs in the dark on what has been happening down at the Tribunal. Your credibility as a poster here is shot when you are wrong so often and cannot back up any of your claims. A debate with you is like engaging with a junior cert student who hasnt done their homework, research or backed up any of their claims. Your standard of posting has been far below what is expected of this forum. That is your problem, not mine.

You made claims a few days ago and backed it up with something said today. That is indeed getting lucky because if you'd been asked to back them up when you made them, particularly the judges view, you would not have been able to.


And while you keep going on about the transcripts, you consistently fail to link them. On Saturday you referred to "yesterdays" proceedings but there is no transcript available for Friday.


http://www.disclosuretribunal.ie/en/dis/pages/transcripts


So in all fairness, before you start insulting me about my lack of knowledge and forum decorum, maybe you could link your source because it appears it's more recent than the official source for transcripts.

blanch152

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So you don't think anyone has lied or you do? You keep wiggling around that question. Ironic.

Well, we know Taylor has been lying. He has had to drop nearly all of his accusations against O'Sullivan because he has had to admit they are untrue. Makes it very difficult to believe any of his other accusations.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Noirin OSullivans husband is clearly loyal to her so the phones vanished into thin air. If you think there are zero conculsions to be drawn from such events then so be it, I think your head is stuck in the sand.

You clearly have some kind of agenda against O'Sullivan. Accusations are withdrawn by Taylor, zero evidence against her is presented yet some posters are keeping up the accusations. Strange.

Muahahaha

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You made claims a few days ago and backed it up with something said today. That is indeed getting lucky because if you'd been asked to back them up when you made them, particularly the judges view, you would not have been able to.


And while you keep going on about the transcripts, you consistently fail to link them. On Saturday you referred to "yesterdays" proceedings but there is no transcript available for Friday.


http://www.disclosuretribunal.ie/en/dis/pages/transcripts


So in all fairness, before you start insulting me about my lack of knowledge and forum decorum, maybe you could link your source because it appears it's more recent than the official source for transcripts.

Captain sorry to hear you are insulted and butt hurt. But it isnt my fault that you simply dont know your subject matter. All of what I have spoken about has been in the public domain alot longer than a few days- Tribunal witnesses have made written submissions months ago. For the umpteenth time you would know this if you had of done your research before making wild stabs in the dark. Your ignorance of the subject you are trying to debate on is not something I can help you with, you need to do the work for yourself.

Muahahaha

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, we know Taylor has been lying. He has had to drop nearly all of his accusations against O'Sullivan because he has had to admit they are untrue. Makes it very difficult to believe any of his other accusations.

Id agree with you there.

That aside how are you going to demostrate your claim that "most of McCabes allegations are unfounded". Its another remarkable claim from you who has consistently tried to slur the name of McCabe on this thread. Now Im asking you to back your claim up.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, we know Taylor has been lying. He has had to drop nearly all of his accusations against O'Sullivan because he has had to admit they are untrue. Makes it very difficult to believe any of his other accusations.



You clearly have some kind of agenda against O'Sullivan. Accusations are withdrawn by Taylor, zero evidence against her is presented yet some posters are keeping up the accusations. Strange.

The issue is ongoing and potentially key evidence missing. I don't think anyone is completely untarnished by this, but as much as 'some posters' are keeping up allegations, it works from both sides, for example it 'seems' like Taylor has been lying and 'it seems' like O'Sullivan is in the clear. As for general accusations, they still stand until the case is closed. What's strange is writing off witnesses and constantly pushing the narrative like it's them on trial.

Seth Brundle

Looks like the Dept of Justice are testing the water for another in-house choice.

Top garda in Dublin tipped to take over as Commissioner

Assistant Garda Commissioner Pat Leahy is being tipped to take over at the helm of the force, nine months after the sudden departure of Nóirín O'Sullivan.

Mr Leahy, who is among two internal candidates in the mix, is being widely talked about in political circles as the favourite for the top job.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/top-garda-in-dublin-tipped-to-take-over-as-commissioner-37025721.html


Hopefully he proves me wrong (if he gets it) but currently I think it would be completely the wrong choice!

mattser

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Looks like the Dept of Justice are testing the water for another in-house choice.

Top garda in Dublin tipped to take over as Commissioner

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/top-garda-in-dublin-tipped-to-take-over-as-commissioner-37025721.html


Hopefully he proves me wrong (if he gets it) but currently I think it would be completely the wrong choice!

I suppose the thread title will remain in place, before he even kicks the ball.

blanch152

mattser wrote: »

I suppose the thread title will remain in place, before he even kicks the ball.

There are some who see targetting the latest Garda Commissioner as a game.

What do we do if the current Tribunal makes no findings against Noirin O'Sullivan, an increasingly possible outcome?

givyjoe

blanch152 wrote: »

There are some who see targetting the latest Garda Commissioner as a game.

What do we do if the current Tribunal makes no findings against Noirin O'Sullivan, an increasingly possible outcome?

Put her performance down to sheer incompetence rather than incompetence AND corruption.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

There are some who see targetting the latest Garda Commissioner as a game.

What do we do if the current Tribunal makes no findings against Noirin O'Sullivan, an increasingly possible outcome?

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

Are you forgetting the e-mails that were made public that outlined the legal strategy being discussed between the then commisoner and justice minister?

Both were publicly supporting him at the time.

There is no getting away from that (from either of them) regardless of missing phones,.laptops and paperwork.

Sierra Oscar

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Looks like the Dept of Justice are testing the water for another in-house choice.

Top garda in Dublin tipped to take over as Commissioner

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/top-garda-in-dublin-tipped-to-take-over-as-commissioner-37025721.html


Hopefully he proves me wrong (if he gets it) but currently I think it would be completely the wrong choice!

The Policing Authority are overseeing the recruitment process in conjunction with the Public Appointments Service. The Department of Justice has no involvement in the process other than working with the Policing Authority and Public Appointments Service to set the scope of requirements prior to the process beginning.

Let the Policing Authority and PAS do it's job and nominate the person they feel is best suited to the role, irrespective of where they are from.

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

Are you forgetting the e-mails that were made public that outlined the legal strategy being discussed between the then commisoner and justice minister?

Both were publicly supporting him at the time.

There is no getting away from that (from either of them) regardless of missing phones,.laptops and paperwork.

Is that the strategy to discredit McCabe? Isn't discrediting witnesses against you one of the most basic legal strategies?

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The Policing Authority are overseeing the recruitment process in conjunction with the Public Appointments Service. The Department of Justice has no involvement in the process other than working with the Policing Authority and Public Appointments Service to set the scope of requirements prior to the process beginning.

Let the Policing Authority and PAS do it's job and nominate the person they feel is best suited to the role, irrespective of where they are from.

Wasn't Leahy the first officer to have been appointed by the PA?