Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Jobstown Defendants Not Guilty - The Role of the Gardai and the Judicial Process
Comments
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,657 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 37454
Back on topic and no more backseat modding please!The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »Here is your problem - Gardai claimed they were assaulted - but guess what - video evidence proved it didn't happen.
No it didn't. There seems to be a weird, probably deliberate, misunderstanding about how video evidence works. Video evidence did not show every incident at every location at every moment. There wasn't video of every interaction between every protestor and every garda. There was some video of of the overall "protest" and some video of specific incidents but that's it. You cannot say something didn't happen simply because it wasn't captured on video, especially when video was withheld by the protestors as you claimed.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »No it didn't. There seems to be a weird, probably deliberate, misunderstanding about how video evidence works. Video evidence did not show every incident at every location at every moment. There wasn't video of every interaction between every protestor and every garda. There was some video of of the overall "protest" and some video of specific incidents but that's it. You cannot say something didn't happen simply because it wasn't captured on video, especially when video was withheld by the protestors as you claimed.
Equally, you cannot claim it did.
Especially if you're basing your claims on what the gardai said by way of evidence.0 -
Equally, you cannot claim it did.
Especially if you're basing your claims on what the gardai said by way of evidence.
Utterly wrong. I imagine you understand this very well but just in case. If I see something happening I can claim the thing happened without it being on video.
For reference regarding your suggestion that evidence from the guards can't be believed, while I may not implicitly trust everything a guard may say I trust Paul Murphy and his merry band of thuggish protesters even less.0 -
HivemindXX wrote: »Utterly wrong. I imagine you understand this very well but just in case. If I see something happening I can claim the thing happened without it being on video.
For reference regarding your suggestion that evidence from the guards can't be believed, while I may not implicitly trust everything a guard may say I trust Paul Murphy and his merry band of thuggish protesters even less.
How about where the video evidence directly contradicts the evidence of several Gardai. The Guards claim Paul murphy said "x" the video shows "x" was never said by Paul Murphy.
At what stage should the authorities initiate a perjury investigation into the evidence given in a trial where it can be proven that the state gave false evidence against citizens?
I wonder how often the same thing happens, ie Guards giving false evidence, in the district court where it is often the word of a Guard against the word of a citizen?0 -
Advertisement
-
Equally, you cannot claim it did.
Especially if you're basing your claims on what the gardai said by way of evidence.
I can claim it. Jolly Green Giant produced evidence of it in the form of sworn testimony from many witnesses. And in the absence of anything to disprove that I don't see why I cannot take it as fact.0 -
How about where the video evidence directly contradicts the evidence of several Gardai. The Guards claim Paul murphy said "x" the video shows "x" was never said by Paul Murphy.
At what stage should the authorities initiate a perjury investigation into the evidence given in a trial where it can be proven that the state gave false evidence against citizens?
I wonder how often the same thing happens, ie Guards giving false evidence, in the district court where it is often the word of a Guard against the word of a citizen?
Can you give an example of what you are referring to with reference to the actual transcript?
EDIT: As you expect all Garda testimony to be dismissed as lies I presume you have a great many actual examples but if you could limit it to two or three.0 -
How about starting with the Gardai who gave sworn evidence that they heard Paul williams say,Captain Obvious wrote: »Can you give an example of what you are referring to with reference to the actual transcript?
EDIT: As you expect all Garda testimony to be dismissed as lies I presume you have a great many actual examples but if you could limit it to two or three.
Will we let her go, or keep her here all night?
When the video evidence shows he didn't say this?0 -
-
How about starting with the Gardai who gave sworn evidence that they heard Paul williams say,
Will we let her go, or keep her here all night?
When the video evidence shows he didn't say this?
Like I said, the actual transcript. I already produced the transcript of one of the Gardaí in question and it didn't seem to be the way Murphy and others have presented it. Jolly Green Giant said I didn't have a clue what I was talking about but he refused to elaborate. So until someone actual produces a transcript of someone lying I don't see why I should dismiss all Garda testimony.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Is it disputed that someone said to keep her all night, just not Paul Murphy?
The Gardai gave evidence that Paul Murphy did say this, the video evidence proves he did not. One Guard making a mistake would be understandable but several Gardai making the exact same mistake stinks of conspiracy to commit perjury.
An independent inquiry would be the least i would expect, a full criminal investigation would be the proper follow up.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »Like I said, the actual transcript. I already produced the transcript of one of the Gardan question and it didn't seem to be the way Murphy and others have presented it. Jolly Green Giant said I didn't have a clue what I was talking about but he refused to elaborate. So until someone actual produces a transcript of someone lying I don't see why I should dismiss all Garda testimony.
Garda Cooke.
3. Garda seeing defendant 'Directing protesters where to stand' when couldn't have seen it
Garda Cooke fabricated his statement when he said that Paul Murphy was on a megaphone in the ground of St Thomas’ Church, Jobstown directing people where to stand implying that he was instructing them to surround an Avensis car, the first Garda car into which the Garda put Joan Burton.
He said in his written statement and in the District Court case that in the church grounds, Paul Murphy was on the megaphone and ‘directing protesters where to stand.’
This never happened. The import of this is that Paul Murphy was getting people to stand where they could see the Avensis and have people ready to surround the car when Joan Burton was brought out from St Thomas’ Church and put into it. This would strengthen the alleged false imprisonment case.
The video evidence shown in court proved this to be fabricated. It was obviously designed for the purpose of framing Paul Murphy with responsibility for orchestrating and organising the protest at which Joan Burton was supposedly falsely imprisoned when it is blatantly obvious that the protest was unorganised and somewhat chaotic as a result. For the full time that this Garda and Paul Murphy were in the church grounds, Paul Murphy never used a megaphone nor directed anybody to do anything.
In court Garda Cooke changed his version of events to say that Paul Murphy by gestures and body language – rather than verbally – was directing people where to stand. This was also contradicted by the video evidence, to which Garda Cooke responded that he stood over his statement.
Sean Guerin SC challenged him: ‘The reason you made your false statement was because you wanted to establish that Mr Murphy was guilty of an offence . . . and you wanted him responsible for the behaviour of other people . . . . . .because you wanted to fix him with responsibility in law for their behaviour.’0 -
For those of us who wish to be pedantic, I should probably have finished that sentence as "you cannot claim it did as a fact"HivemindXX wrote: »Utterly wrong. I imagine you understand this very well but just in case. If I see something happening I can claim the thing happened without it being on video.For reference regarding your suggestion that evidence from the guards can't be believed, while I may not implicitly trust everything a guard may say I trust Paul Murphy and his merry band of thuggish protesters even less.
That's fair enough, but I don't expect that I'll ever face a scenario in my life where I could potentially face Paul Murphy or his merry band in a court of law, with my liberty hanging on their testimonies.
This is a lot bigger than trust. This is about the Gardai attempting to frame citizens of the state by way of lies, deception and false statements. (not news to Maurice McCabe I suspect)
You may not like Paul Murphy or his politics, and you're entitled to. However we all depend on our police force to be trustworthy, and impartial.
With each passing month that widely held expectation is falling asunder.0 -
Garda Cooke.
3. Garda seeing defendant 'Directing protesters where to stand' when couldn't have seen it
Garda Cooke fabricated his statement when he said that Paul Murphy was on a megaphone in the ground of St Thomas’ Church, Jobstown directing people where to stand implying that he was instructing them to surround an Avensis car, the first Garda car into which the Garda put Joan Burton.
He said in his written statement and in the District Court case that in the church grounds, Paul Murphy was on the megaphone and ‘directing protesters where to stand.’
This never happened. The import of this is that Paul Murphy was getting people to stand where they could see the Avensis and have people ready to surround the car when Joan Burton was brought out from St Thomas’ Church and put into it. This would strengthen the alleged false imprisonment case.
The video evidence shown in court proved this to be fabricated. It was obviously designed for the purpose of framing Paul Murphy with responsibility for orchestrating and organising the protest at which Joan Burton was supposedly falsely imprisoned when it is blatantly obvious that the protest was unorganised and somewhat chaotic as a result. For the full time that this Garda and Paul Murphy were in the church grounds, Paul Murphy never used a megaphone nor directed anybody to do anything.
In court Garda Cooke changed his version of events to say that Paul Murphy by gestures and body language – rather than verbally – was directing people where to stand. This was also contradicted by the video evidence, to which Garda Cooke responded that he stood over his statement.
Sean Guerin SC challenged him: ‘The reason you made your false statement was because you wanted to establish that Mr Murphy was guilty of an offence . . . and you wanted him responsible for the behaviour of other people . . . . . .because you wanted to fix him with responsibility in law for their behaviour.’
That's not the transcript of what a Garda said. Once again that's just a claim made by Murphy's people with a quote form his lawyer. Why is it so hard for you lot to simply quote some testimony that has been proven a lie. Ye have been claiming Gardaí cannot be trusted and have been lying yet seem unable to find an actual example despite the full transcripts being posted.0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »You really shouldn't talk about yourself like that - your comments are just as valuable as everyone elses.
Fascinating insult. Considering I was defending jobstown from being called yobs Town. Do you call jobstown, yobs Town?
Do you hate the people of jobstown?
They really need someone else to sell your solidarity on here. You as usual haven't made a lick of sense.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »That's not the transcript of what a Garda said. Once again that's just a claim made by Murphy's people with a quote form his lawyer. Why is it so hard for you lot to simply quote some testimony that has been proven a lie. Ye have been claiming Gardaannot be trusted and have been lying yet seem unable to find an actual example despite the full transcripts being posted.
All of the courts transcripts are available for anyone to read here, if you're wanting me to manually wade through them all, and copy and paste transcripts directly related to Cooke to satisfy your pedantry, all i can say is good luck with that.
Garda Cooke's hazy memory/vivid imagination has been well covered across many media outlets, if you're doubting the authenticity of the coverage, take it up with the relative media outlets in question.
Start with RTE. https://www.google.ie/amp/www.rte.ie/amp/875688/0 -
All of the courts transcripts are available for anyone to read here, if you're wanting me to manually wade through them all, and copy and paste transcripts directly related to Cooke to satisfy your pedantry, all i can say is good luck with that.
Garda Cooke's hazy memory/vivid imagination has been well covered across many media outlets, if you're doubting the authenticity of the coverage, take it up with the relative media outlets in question.
Start with RTE. https://www.google.ie/amp/www.rte.ie/amp/875688/
All you are doing is linking to claims made by Murphy, his solicitor or his party. You are refusing, as they are, to actually reference real testimony.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »All you are doing is linking to claims made by Murphy, his solicitor or his party. You are refusing, as they are, to actually reference real testimony.
I linked you to an RTE news article, and if they are now speaking on behalf of Paul Murphy, Paul Murphys solicitor, or Paul Murphys party, it's certainly news to me.
I must say though, this is a rather bizarre method of debate. Perhaps you might be just better off admitting that in this case, the state/prosecution got it wrong, and tried their hand at frying the bigger fish, rather than those that were actually acting the maggot.
Am I refusing to copy and paste through walls of text, just to soothe your pedantry? Yes. Yes I am.
Knock your self out though.
It's all here.0 -
Yes there was - multiple CCTV footage from multiple angles that covered the entire period of the protest.Captain Obvious wrote: »No it didn't. There seems to be a weird, probably deliberate, misunderstanding about how video evidence works. Video evidence did not show every incident at every location at every moment.
Every interaction - probably not - but every interaction of significance that was raised in testimony - yes there was video evidence.Captain Obvious wrote: »There wasn't video of every interaction between every protestor and every garda.
There is literally hundreds of hours of video footage that was available to the jury - and several days when the jury did pretty much nothing else except watch the video evidence.Captain Obvious wrote: »There was some video of of the overall "protest" and some video of specific incidents but that's it.
Yes you can - every single issue of contention raised during the trial was caught on videoCaptain Obvious wrote: »You cannot say something didn't happen simply because it wasn't captured on video,
No video was 'withheld' - the DPP decided to prosecute the defendants on indictment - as a result the DPP was obliged to provide the defence with a book of evidence that contained all the statements, video, and any other evidence that the prosecution intended to produce in court. This is the law.Captain Obvious wrote: »especially when video was withheld by the protestors as you claimed.
The defence has absolutely no legal obligation to provide any evidence it intends to use to the prosecution. That is not how the legal system works0 -
I linked you to an RTE news article, and if they are now speaking on behalf of Paul Murphy, Paul Murphys solicitor, or Paul Murphys party, it's certainly news to me.
I must say though, this is a rather bizarre method of debate. Perhaps you might be just better off admitting that in this case, the state/prosecution got it wrong, and tried their hand at frying the bigger fish, rather than those that were actually acting the maggot.
Am I refusing to copy and paste through walls of text, just to soothe your pedantry? Yes. Yes I am.
Knock your self out though.
It's all here.
Again, all you are linking to is accusations made by the defendants. RTE just repeated the accusations that were made. You're just taking what the defence said as fact. I'm sure there's some people that would accept the sky was green if Murphy told them the government had made it so.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »Yes there was - multiple CCTV footage from multiple angles that covered the entire period of the protest.
Every interaction - probably not - but every interaction of significance that was raised in testimony - yes there was video evidence.
There is literally hundreds of hours of video footage that was available to the jury - and several days when the jury did pretty much nothing else except watch the video evidence.
Yes you can - every single issue of contention raised during the trial was caught on video
No video was 'withheld' - the DPP decided to prosecute the defendants on indictment - as a result the DPP was obliged to provide the defence with a book of evidence that contained all the statements, video, and any other evidence that the prosecution intended to produce in court. This is the law.
The defence has absolutely no legal obligation to provide any evidence it intends to use to the prosecution. That is not how the legal system works
Nobody suggested it was. That's just another one of your strawman arguments. And no, the video footage did not fully cover every incident or even all the incidents of note.0 -
Advertisement
-
Captain Obvious wrote: »That's not the transcript of what a Garda said. Once again that's just a claim made by Murphy's people with a quote form his lawyer. Why is it so hard for you lot to simply quote some testimony that has been proven a lie. Ye have been claiming Gardaí cannot be trusted and have been lying yet seem unable to find an actual example despite the full transcripts being posted.
Knock yourself out - the entire transcript of the trial is here
https://sites.google.com/view/jobstownnotguilty//trial
And Cooke's testimony starts with the transcript for 16 and then the 17 May.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »Nobody suggested it was. That's just another one of your strawman arguments. And no, the video footage did not fully cover every incident or even all the incidents of note.
Yes they did - and if you read the transcript instead of running a search through a document trying to find stuff out of context then you would find that the video evidence existed and, to quote the judge, was the 'primary and most reliable evidence'.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »That's not the transcript of what a Garda said. Once again that's just a claim made by Murphy's people with a quote form his lawyer. Why is it so hard for you lot to simply quote some testimony that has been proven a lie. Ye have been claiming Gardaí cannot be trusted and have been lying yet seem unable to find an actual example despite the full transcripts being posted.
The quote that counts is the one the jury came out with, NOT GUILTY. They obviously didn't believe the Garda evidence and they got to assess all the evidence not just the sensationalist stuff the media published.0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »Knock yourself out - the entire transcript of the trial is here
https://sites.google.com/view/jobstownnotguilty//trial
And Cooke's testimony starts with the transcript for 16 and then the 17 May.
Again, you are making the claim, you present the evidence.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »Yes they did - and if you read the transcript instead of running a search through a document trying to find stuff out of context then you would find that the video evidence existed and, to quote the judge, was the 'primary and most reliable evidence'.
That does not mean there was video evidence to cover everything that happened. You're very fond of adding a little bit of made up stuff onto facts.The quote that counts is the one the jury came out with, NOT GUILTY. They obviously didn't believe the Garda evidence and they got to assess all the evidence not just the sensationalist stuff the media published.
Like has been explained already, you have no idea what reason the jury found not guilty.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »
Like has been explained already, you have no idea what reason the jury found not guilty.
Because the evidence didn't support the charges. What other reason could there be?0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »Like has been explained already, you have no idea what reason the jury found not guilty.
We know exactly why the returned a not guilty verdict. It's because they found them innocent of the charges.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »Again, all you are linking to is accusations made by the defendants. RTE just repeated the accusations that were made. You're just taking what the defence said as fact. I'm sure there's some people that would accept the sky was green if Murphy told them the government had made it so.
Sigh.....Sorry, just before we play this clip actually, can I just put one other matter to you that might assist. Your evidence is that although you saw you saw him on the megaphone you don't know what he was saying, isn't that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. And it's not that you've forgotten it, it's because you were concentrating on your conversation with Inspector Maguire and therefore you just didn't hear what he was saying. Isn't that correct?
A. There was a number of garda was speaking to, yes.
Q. Sorry, I don't mean to tie you to Inspector Maguire in particular. You were speaking to your colleagues and concentrating on those conversations and therefore you didn't hear what Mr Murphy said on the megaphone, isn't that correct?
A. Correct. I don't recall what he said.
Q. No, no, no, it's not that you don't recall what he said?
A. I didn't hear.
Q. That's precisely what I'm asking you to clarify. It's that you didn't hear what he said and therefore you could never have recalled it, isn't that correct?
A. I didn't hear Mr Murphy say anything, yes.
Q. Yes, okay. And therefore you could never have recalled what he said, isn't that correct?
A. I wasn't concentrating, like I said.
Q. All right. You made a statement in which you said: "I observed Paul Murphy TD here ..." meaning in the church grounds as I understand it "... with a megaphone in his hand and he was directing protestors where to stand". Did you make that statement, a written statement to that effect?
A. That's correct.
Q. It's correct that you made that statement but it can't be correct what you said because you didn't hear what he was saying, isn't that correct?
A. I was a short distance away, yes.
Q. It doesn't matter whether you were standing beside him or viewing him from the far side of the road, you didn't hear what he said. Isn't that correct?
A. If you could explain the the first question again to me, please, as in when he was directing people where to stand.
Q. You made a statement in which you said ?
A. Yes.
Q. "He had a megaphone in his hand and he was directing protestors where to stand." And I'm suggesting to you that you couldn't have heard him directing people where to stand because you didn't hear what he was saying?
A. It was also gestures and body language.
Q. Okay. So you're telling the jury that you saw him by gesture and body language directing people in the church grounds where to stand, is that correct?
A. I was a short distance away. I couldn't I couldn't hear what he was saying but I could see by his body language and the megaphone that he was directing people where to stand, yes.
MR GUERIN: Well we might start the video clip there so this is if we could have it at I'll tell you the time now, at 13:20, please, Garda
JUDGE: How much footage are you proposing to show, Mr Guerin?
MR GUERIN: Well I'm going to have to show all of it because I'm contesting the account that the witness is giving and
JUDGE: Yes. All right. Well maybe we'll just leave that over then until 2 o'clock.
MR GUERIN: Sorry, of course.
JUDGE: It's coming up to 1 o'clock and we'll watch it in one uninterrupted session. So I'll send you for your lunch now, members of the jury. We'll resume again at 2 pm.
And finally.MR GUERIN: Thank you, Judge. Garda Gilgun if we could have that 202, I think it was. And if you could advance it that's fine 13:19 is fine. And in fact if you want, I think you can speed this up by going to, you see the little fast forward arrow, even up to twice or four times the speed because I don't want to delay everyone for too long. Okay. Just pause it there.
Q. That's the car arriving at about 13:20, isn't that correct?
A. Correct.
MR GUERIN: And could you just slow it down just for the next few seconds while we I don't because I've suggested that the witness was walking in a particular way and I think it's important the jury should see the clip at natural speed. All right. You can pause it there please, Garda Gilgun.
Q. Would you accept the characterisation that I suggested to you earlier, Garda Cooke, that yourself and Garda McGuinness were strolling in?
A. That's the way I walk the whole time.
Q. Even when you're in a hurry?
A. Yes, I've I've been with the
Q. That's how you walk when you're in a hurry, are you serious?
A. Well, I I break into a run rather than a a fast
Q. You would indeed. Indeed, you would. I certainly hope you would?
MR GUERIN: Can we switch then, please, to camera 1704 please. Sorry, that's clip 17 of camera 4, clip 1704 from the same folder, please, Garda Gilgun.
Q. This is the view around the front of the church, isn't that correct, Garda Cooke?
A. Yes, Kiltalown Way there, yes.
Q. Yes. So exactly. And Kiltalown Way is out to the left and the front door of the church is on the right-hand side of the image, around were that person in white is standing at the moment. Isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
MR GUERIN: And if you could just advance that, please, Garda Gilgun, to 13:20 then as well. Sorry, I think we might need to go back just a few seconds. Yes, there we go.
Q. And that's Garda McGuinness coming into the image there, isn't that correct?
A. That's correct. That's me.
Q. Followed by yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And I think you go over then and join your colleagues?
MR GUERIN: Now, again, I don't mind if it's sped up at this stage for the next four minutes or so. Just slow it down to the regular speed there at this speed, Garda Gilgun, if you wouldn't mind.
Q. At this point, about four minutes after you have arrived at that location, you can be seen walking out the gate towards Kiltalown Way, isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.
MR GUERIN: You might just speed it up there again for a moment if you don't mind please, Garda Gilgun, and just slow it down again at 13:25.
Q. And that's you coming back in the gate and going over to join your colleagues again, Garda Cooke, isn't that correct?
A. Yes, looks to be.
MR GUERIN: All right. We might just pause that there for a moment. And you might just keep it open, if you don't mind, because we'll come back to that point and resume in a minute. Could I ask you though, Garda Gilgun, if you wouldn't mind opening, again from the same JT6 folder clip 4608. Now this is a view, if you like, the opposite side of the church complex from where you parked your car. Do you understand?
A. Where we came in?
Q. Well, looking at this footage you actually came into the church towards the end of the screen on the right, on the top right corner?
A. It's the far side of the church, yes.
Q. Well the far side from where you parked the car, do you understand?
A. Okay.
Q. So this is looking in the direction of Fortunestown Way, and in fact just about see a car moving there from time to time. Okay. And again, Garda Gilgun, if you wouldn't mind advancing that please to 13:26. Bearing in mind, of course, all of these times are about an hour and two minutes fast. And just pause it there, if you wouldn't mind.
Q. The person on the right at the closest to the camera there is Mr Paul Murphy, isn't that correct?
A. Yes, it looks to be. Yes.
Q. All right. And the jury have already heard and seen footage from the garda CCTV camera of him arriving at 12:14 on that system which would be about 13:16 on this camera system. So this is about 10 minutes after his arrival in Fortunestown Way and he's not walking around the side of the church there. I don't know whether you can see it, but I'm going to suggest to you that the megaphone is over his right shoulder there with sort of a strap?
A. I can't see it, yes.
Q. All right. Well, we'll just let it run on there?
A. Yes.
MR GUERIN: Thank you very much. Could we go back then to camera 17 or the clip 1704. Okay. You were on 13:25, I think. That's fine, from there. And again if you want to do double speed maybe just at this point.
Q. That's you coming back in the gate there. Again, we saw that a moment ago, isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's Mr Murphy there, I think, just passing passing you on the way out the gate, isn't that correct?
A. I can't see honestly.
MR GUERIN: Sorry. We could just go back there a little bit because the witness wasn't able to see that.
Q. Bear in mind that this is, if you like, following on from the clip you just looked at from the other camera?
A. Okay. I take it that's him then.
Q. Well I think it might be important just to go back a little bit because I had suggested to you that one could that he had a megaphone over his right shoulder?
MR GUERIN: Maybe just a tiny little bit more there.
Q. Do you see the man beside him with the placard and the red sleeved jacket that you'd seen in the earlier clip?
A. Just coming up to the blue van now, is it?
Q. Yes. He's the person closest to the camera with the papers in his left hand. And you see just there ?
MR GUERIN: Stop, please.
A. Yes, there looks to be something there. Yes.
Q. And you can see the white thing, conical shape, over his right shoulder there. That's the megaphone that you're referring to, I take it?
A. Yes.
MR GUERIN: All right. If we could just advance it there a little bit again please Garda Gilgun.
Q. That's 13:26 on that camera which again is about 24 minutes past 12 in real time?
MR GUERIN: Now, just pause there for a moment, Garda Gilgun, please.
Q. What I'm going to ask you to do now, Garda Cooke, is to look at the footage for about the next next 10 minutes or so, nine minutes, because I'm going to suggest to you that you can be seen on this clip at about 13:36 with Garda McGuinness walking into the church. Do you understand?
A. Yes.
Q. And I'm suggesting to you that at no time during the next nine minutes will you see Paul Murphy in the yard. Do you understand? So you're in charge at this point in terms of the playing of the tape. If you like we can play it at regular speed. We can slow it down or if you want to just move the thing along we can speed it up. But the purpose is no, it's whatever you require now because the purpose is to enable you to see whether you can see Mr Murphy coming back into the yard. Do you understand?
A. Okay.
Q. So, well, Garda Gilgun will play it. Would you be comfortable if I asked him to speed it up a little bit? Just to no, you wouldn't. No, take your time. Take your time? And just for the record as you're watching this, Garda Cooke, it appears that you're standing there by the corner of the lawn area with your colleagues with your back to Kiltalown Way, isn't that correct?
A. At the present time, yes.
Q. Was that you strolling around the group and speaking to Garda McGuinness there?
A. That's me on the right-hand side, yes.
Q. And you're now walking a little bit closer to the church door and to the group of your colleagues who are standing there, is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You're still in conversation there more or less with your back to Kiltalown Way, isn't that correct?
A. At that point.
Q. Well not just at that point. I mean you haven't really moved since you walked over there, have you?
A. Not since I went over there but it's kind of hard to see. But --
Q. Now at that point there, 13:36, that's yourself and Garda McGuinness and one or two other colleagues walking into the church, isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
MR GUERIN: And just pause there for a moment, Garda Gilgun.
Q. You obviously haven't seen Mr Murphy coming back in from Kiltalown Way into the church grounds at any point during that nine minute period, isn't that correct?
A. I can't tell you what I seen there because I'm not sure, but I would've been looking out that way towards at the see Kiltalown Way and where the crowd were standing was right at the gates of the grounds as well. That's why you can't really that that video doesn't really
Q. No, it doesn't, unfortunately. But, to be fair, the clips show very clearly that in fact for almost all of the time you're you're facing the other direction, you've got your back to Kiltalown Way. Isn't that correct?
A. Only need two seconds to see him.
Q. Did you hear the question, Garda Cooke. You were standing with your back to Kiltalown Way for almost the entire of that period, isn't that correct?
A. For a lot of it, yes.
Q. Yes, all right. And you didn't see Mr Murphy come into the church grounds at all during that clip, isn't that correct?
A. No, I wouldn't agree with that.
Q. But, well, sorry, well ?
A. He could've been on the periphery that he could've been on the periphery of the church grounds there between Kiltalown Way and the gates there. There's a laneway.
Q. He he could've been which would mean the answer to the question: "You didn't see him come into the church grounds?" is: "Correct, I did not see him come into the church grounds"?
A. I can't make out on the left-hand side. I didn't see him come right in but he could've been right there just where the gate is, just behind the blue van.
Q. He could've been behind the gate?
A. He could've been in the hidden part.
Q. He could have been but that's not what you were telling the jury about this morning in any event. You told the jury he was telling people where to stand, directing them where to stand in a U-shape around the corner of the building. Isn't that correct?
A. It was a U-shape with different people around of the whole building
Q. Around the corner of the building, isn't that correct?
A. and then Kiltalown Way.
Q. Are you now suggesting that what you were telling the jury about this morning happened in a different place to where you told them it happened this morning because you think that's a point that won't be shown on the camera, is that it?
A. No, I'm not saying that at all.
Q. All right. I'm asking you now, having viewed the footage in court over the last 10 minutes, to confirm that on the footage you did not see Mr Murphy re-entering the church grounds?
A. I can't say I didn't see him.
Q. Well you can?
A. I'm not 100% sure.
Q. It's it's very simple because if you did see him just tell us where it is you saw him and we'll go back and we'll all have a look at it?
A. This camera doesn't cover exactly doesn't cover good enough in my opinion.
Q. It's a very simple question, Garda Cooke. Did you see Mr Murphy on the clip you've just watched over the last 10 minutes come back into the church ground?
A. Not on the footage I can see.
Q. You didn't see it. Okay. All right?
MR GUERIN: Now, if we roll it on and in fact you might even when we get to 13:37, Garda Gilgun, if you don't mind just slow it down to half speed at that point, if you wouldn't mind. You might just pause when we get to 11 seconds when we get to 11 seconds. All right.
Q. That's Mr Murphy who you've just seen there, I suggest to you, coming to the gate, looking in, turning around, with the megaphone again still visible over his right shoulder and walking back out. Isn't that correct?
A. I can't see that, sorry. Where's that?
Q. All right. Sorry, the gate?
MR GUERIN: Could we go back a few seconds there if you wouldn't mind, Garda Gilgun. In fact that's it, you can go back by frame by frame, perfect.
Q. Do you see the person at the gate there?
A. I can make out a figure, yes.
Q. Yes. With the the object shaped like the megaphone over the right shoulder there again, isn't that correct?
A. I couldn't be I I just see a figure there.
Q. In fairness maybe you can't be sure. I don't want to but certainly you can see that person coming towards the gate, you can see him coming through the gate, you can see him turning around, and you can see him going back out the gate, can't you?
A. I can see a figure at the gate, right at the yes.
MR GUERIN: Well could we just go back a little bit because Garda Cooke doesn't seem to have seen it. Now yes, if we play it from there.
Q. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Papers under the right arm in this case and the megaphone draped over the shoulder and hanging down the back. Isn't that right?
A. Looks to be, yes.
Q. Yes, all right?
MR GUERIN: And if you just advance it at normal speed then until 13:37:25.
Q. I'm suggesting you see Mr Murphy coming in there again, do you see that?
A. Yes, I see that person. Yes.
Q. And and walking over onto the lawn?
A. Yes.
MR GUERIN: Just pause there for a moment please, Garda Gilgun. That's 13:37.
Q. And again you're in charge from this point. Garda Cooke, I'm going to ask Garda Gilgun in a moment just to roll the clip on to 13:43:57 when Mr Murphy can be seen near the blue moving closer to the blue van and then he'll be seen walking out the gate again. So you know where he is there and you know where he's going to go. So I just ask you to watch watch him and if you have any observations on what you see, in particular if you see him using the the megaphone to direct anyone would you please point that out to the jury?
MR GUERIN: Thanks, Garda Gilgun.
A. Is that him with something under his arm on the left?
Q. Sorry, do you want to pause there for a moment? Do you see can you use the cursor there? Does that is that a mouse, can that allow you to move the cursor on the screen?
A. No.
MR GUERIN: Is it not. How was Inspector Maguire able to do that, does anyone know? Is that the black.
MALE SPEAKER: It's right click.
Q. Right click?
A. Okay.
MR GUERIN: Thank you.
Q. All right?
A. He's he's behind there, is he, just
Q. He's behind there, exactly?
A. Okay.
Q. He appears to have something under his arm and his hands in his pockets, I think?
MR GUERIN: Play on please, Garda Gilgun.
Q. He turns there to his right to speak to someone who's just approached the group, isn't that right?
A. It's bit of a blur. I can't really I can see figures all right.
Q. And you can just see him turn there with the megaphone again over the shoulder, isn't that correct?
A. I seen someone move back, all right. I presume that was him.
Q. Another person comes over to speak to him there and obscures him somewhat from the camera, isn't that correct?
A. Yes, looks to be. Yes. That's him with his arm in the air I think, is it?
Q. Yes. Pointing outside the church grounds, isn't that correct?
A. Okay.
Q. Isn't that correct?
A. That's him there, yes.
Q. Isn't that correct, Garda Cooke?
A. What correct?
MR GUERIN: Pause there for a moment please, Garda Gilgun.
Q. You said: "That's him there with his arm raised ..." ?
A. That was him, yes
Q. "... pointing" outside the church grounds just after the person ?
A. No, I didn't say. I said: "That's him with his arm raised".
Q. Just a minute. Just just a just I know you didn't say it. I put to you a question which you're avoiding answering. When he raised his arms it was after a person had come over to him and pointed in the other direction, towards the sides of the church which and the route that leads around to Fortunestown Way, and Mr Murphy then pointed in the general direction of the Kiltalown Way. Isn't that correct?
A. I'm not avoiding the questions, No. 1. And, secondly, I could see him putting his hand up that time.
Q. In what direction?
A. I don't know. If we look back and look, I can't really see.
Q. You don't know. Where which hand did he put up, his right hand or his left hand?
A. It looked to be his left, from what I could see.
Q. All right. And where was what direction was he facing?
A. Looks to be facing the front of the church, as
Q. The front of the church and a little bit ?
A. I don't if you go back and look we can see exactly.
Q. We'll go back and look?
A. Yes. It's only two seconds.
Q. All right. So maybe at that point do you see the person who has approached him now with his right arm raised, pointing in the general direction of the side of the church from which you saw Mr Murphy come earlier and other people follow, and indeed precede him? Do you see see that?
A. Yes, I see a man out there with his right kind of hand up. It's a bit blurry but
Q. Yes, it is a bit blurry, to be fair to you?
MR GUERIN: Will you slow that down then maybe please, Garda Gilgun, to half or even quarter speed, and just we'll see what happens then next.
Q. So that hand comes down and you see Mr Murphy turn behind him, or to the side, and point out in the direction of the gate and Kiltalown Way. Isn't that correct?
A. He looks to be pointing that way, yes.
Q. All right. You're in charge again, Garda Cooke. We'll let it play on at whatever speed you like?
MR GUERIN: Maybe normal speed, Garda Gilgun, unless Garda Cooke requires anything else.
Q. That person who had been speaking to him just walks away there, isn't that correct?
A. He looks to walk away to the right, yes.
Q. Now I suggest at this point you can just see Mr Murphy walking towards the blue van, do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. The paper under his arm. And then towards the gate and walk out the gate. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
MR GUERIN: Just pause there for a moment. So that's 13:34. Now I wonder if I could ask, Garda Gilgun, to open camera 52 from the station footage, the garda station footage.
Q. Now this is the garda station well, it's not in the station obviously but it's an official garda CCTV camera. It's pointing in another direction and it is going to turn towards Kiltalown Way and zoom in on the area outside the pedestrian gate. Do you understand?
A. Yes.
Q. Unfortunately it doesn't do so until 12:39 which means that the earlier occasion on which Mr Murphy walked out onto the Kiltalown Way and remained outside before he came back in, as you saw on that footage at about 12:37, that is not captured. Do you understand?
A. I understand.
Q. All right. But what is captured is the period when he came out the second time that you've just seen. Do you understand?
A. Yes.
MR GUERIN: So if I could ask, maybe just for clarity, if Garda Gilgun would advance the footage to 12:39 first of all just to see just go back to 12:39:00 even. Yes.
Q. So effectively this is what happens. The camera is turned around across the backs of the houses in the Kiltalown area and that's the back of the church there, isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you can even see the blue van here in the corner of the footage, isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.
MR GUERIN: And if we could just advance that now to 12:42, please. Just pause there for a moment.
Q. Now, the as I understand it the exact time difference between this camera system and the church camera system is one hour one minute and 47 seconds. Do you understand?
A. Yes.
Q. So this is 12:42:02, which would be 13:43:49, do you understand, on the church camera system. So if you were to match them up?
A. Okay.
Q. So you were just shown a clip a few moments ago. At 13:44 you could see Mr Murphy exiting the gate on the church camera system. Okay?
A. Okay.
Q. So what we're doing is we're going back in time on the system an hour one minute and 47 seconds but we're going to see the same thing effectively. We're going to see him coming out the gate?
MR GUERIN: Okay, 12:42 12:42:14 obviously, we'll just play it from there.
Q. And you can see Mr Murphy coming out there with the megaphone over his shoulder, isn't that correct?
A. Looks to be him, yes.
Q. And there's a half or dozen, or less than 10 in any event, adults and a couple of children standing outside the pedestrian gate at this stage. Isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And he goes back in the gate then about 12:44, isn't that correct?
MR GUERIN: Just pause there for a moment please.
A. Yes.
MR GUERIN: So if you can go back then to the other camera system, 13 well, just run it on from there I suppose.
Q. But at 13:45:47 I'm going to suggest you see Mr Murphy coming back in the gate?
MR GUERIN: Yes. Just play it on at whatever speed is appropriate.
Q. And a substantial number of people are gathering at this stage in the grounds of the church, in the area that you mentioned to the jury. Isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. See Mr Murphy come in there but I'm not sure that did we see that ?
MR GUERIN: Do you want to go back just 10 seconds or so there, 13:45:47. And even another 10. Just before 13:45 13 go back to the one just a step ahead of that, if you yes. Okay, perfect. Maybe stop it at 13:45:40, if you don't mind. All right. You don't need to but maybe you could just when we get to 42 just slow it down if you wouldn't mind please, Garda Gilgun.
Q. And that appears to be Mr Murphy coming in there now again with something under his arm, or with the person to the right of that person sorry to the left of that person at the right on the screen? Do you see the head at the back of the van there?
A. I can see figures.
Q. All right. Well, you can confirm that those figures remain in the vicinity of the van there. Isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
MR GUERIN: Maybe half speed, if you don't mind Garda Gilgun, just to move it along at a reasonable --
Q. Getting very close to the point, now, where you're coming out of the side door. Now, just pause it there. The crowd has started to move because you've come out of the side door. Do you understand?
A. I understand, yes.
Q. All right. And you can see Mr Murphy there, just in the corner of the lawn. Do you see that, almost directly in line with the driver's side mirror, if you like, of the van, and on the white line that runs along the edge of the lawn? Do you see that? Move it on at half speed. It will become obvious to you. Do you see where at the area I'm talking about?
A. The white line, yes, where the grass is. That's Murphy.
Q. Yes. Where the grass is. And you'll see a person there whose head -- in fact, his head would be almost in line with the front driver's-side wheel of the van?
A. Okay, yes.
Q. Just play it on slowly. And he starts going with the crowd in that direction and then he stops and turns and walks backwards -- well, not walks backwards but walks back in the direction of the entrance of the church. And I think we can pause it there because you're in the car, or getting close to the car, at the side of the church at this stage. Isn't that right?
A. I presume so, yes.
Q. All right. Now, can you confirm that having looked at the footage it's perfectly clear that Mr Murphy during the time in which he is in the grounds of the church is not seen on the megaphone at any stage?
A. I'm clear what I saw on the day. I wrote the statement the following day.
Q. We know all of that, but you've now had an opportunity to see an objective, independent record, a visual record, of what actually happened, and can you confirm that you did not see, on that footage, Mr Murphy on the megaphone in the church grounds at any stage?
A. On that footage I didn't, I couldn't see on that footage, but there's parts of it I couldn't see, so it's not conclusive in my opinion.
Q. Sorry, just to be clear: you pointed to Mr Murphy's location at all times and I suggest to you that he was seen at all times in conversation with one or a small group of people. Did you see that?
A. At the back of the van there, just at the entrance of the laneway.
Q. Yes?
A. There was a blind spot there.
Q. There was, but he wasn't in the blind spot for much of the time?
A. Well, I couldn't see it.
Q. I'm talking about the time he was in the church grounds, all right, because you told the jury you saw him in the church grounds, on the megaphone, directing people where to stand. Now, can you confirm, it's a matter for yourself because we've all just watched that footage, can you confirm, on your oath, that you could see Mr Murphy, more or less where he was, and that at all times he was on the lawn, close to the exit, in conversation with one person or a small group of people, between when he came back into the church grounds and when he left?
A. I'm clear on what I saw.
Q. Answer the question, please?
A. I'm clear on what I saw and the evidence I gave.
Q. Answer the question, please?
A. I'm clear I saw Mr Murphy.
Q. Do I have to ask the judge to direct you, as an officer of An Garda Sh, to answer the question, Garda Cooke, or can you do it yourself?
A. I can do it myself.
Q. All right. Well, answer the question, please?
A. I'm clear on the evidence I saw; I did not see it in the footage there, but I'm clear on the day of what I saw.
Q. Are you saying you saw something that was not captured by the camera?
A. The camera is blurry there. I'm not sure, so -- I'm clear on what I saw on the day and I filled out my statement the very next day, while it was fresh in my mind exactly.
Q. The footage, which the jury have seen, Garda Cooke, I suggest to you, gives the lie to your evidence?
A. Well, I'm clear I've seen Mr Murphy that day, I couldn't see it on the footage, but I'm clear I've seen him on the day, directing people
Q. And your evidence that he was directing people, given that you can't accept what everyone in the room has seen, must indicate that your evidence this morning, and your statement, constituted a deliberate attempt to fix Mr Paul Murphy with responsibility for the behaviour of other people by suggesting they were acting under his direction. Isn't that so?
A. No.
Q. What explanation is there for it, given that you stand by your evidence in face of the contradiction of the CCTV footage?
A. I was there on the day. I filled out my statement, what happened. I've no hidden agenda, and I witnessed that instance.
Q. You weren't even in the church grounds for most of the time that Mr Murphy was there because you had gone into the church and you never came back out. Isn't that correct?
A. I was in the foyer of the church and then I went into the church, but I was constantly keeping an eye on the crowd for -- to see how many protesters and stuff like we had.
Q. I take it you'd agree, Garda Cooke, that if you were keeping an eye on the crowd, you couldn't have seen anything happen there that wasn't recorded on the camera?
A. I think you see a lot more when you're there.
Q. Do you? You must have very good eyesight, Garda Cooke. I suggest to you that what you're telling the jury is that you saw something that simply couldn't have happened?
A. It did happen.
Q. Did you speak to anyone before you made your statement about what you had seen?
A. No.
Q. Did you review your statement before you gave evidence in court today?
A. I had a quick look at it outside. It was the first time I'd seen it in a long time.
Q. Were you happy that your statement was accurate when you reviewed it today?
A. Well, I would have looked over it when I did my statement, at the time, and I was happy then, yes.
Q. But did you look over it again before coming to court to give evidence?
A. No, I looked over it just outside, I'd say 10 minutes, a few minutes, before I came in.
Q. Were you happy that it was the truth at that stage?
A. It's the truth at all stages.
Q. If the truth is that you saw Mr Murphy on the megaphone directing people where to stand, why did you not just say that to the jury when you were giving your evidence in chief this morning?
A. I gave my evidence this morning as I saw it.
Q. Yes, that's the point. What you said this morning to the jury was: "I saw Mr Murphy on the megaphone doing different things." I described it as a cryptic remark and I had to ask you to clarify what those things were and it was in fact only in cross examination that you said he was directing people where to stand. Why was it, when you were giving your evidence in chief to Mr Gillane this morning, you used this cryptic, and essentially meaningless, phrase, "doing different things"? Why did you use that phrase, if it is true that you saw him directing people where to stand?
A. I gave my evidence as I saw it.
Q. Do you recall giving evidence in the District Court in relation to this matter?
A. Yes.
Q. You were asked then, and my friend will find this, 21st of September, page 82, you observed Paul Murphy TD there. You were asked: "What was he doing?" And you said: "He seemed to be directing the protesters where to stand." That's the answer you gave in the District Court when Mr Murphy was not on trial. Isn't that correct?
A. I gave evidence in the District Court, yes.
Q. And that's the answer you gave, when Mr Murphy was not on trial, in the District Court. Isn't that correct?
A. I'm not sure of the exact wording.
Q. Well, if I have it wrong, I'll be corrected. Isn't that the thrust of the answer you gave in the District Court?
A. Yes. I gave evidence that I observed Mr Murphy there.
Q. No, no. Sorry --?
A. And that he was directing.
Q. And that he seemed to be directing the protesters where to stand?
A. Yes.
Q. And because Mr Murphy wasn't on trial in the District Court, he wasn't represented, and therefore there was no one there to protect his interests and to challenge that answer. Isn't that correct?
A. That's what I saw and who I saw.
Q. There was no one present in the District Court representing Mr Murphy and protecting his interests because he wasn't on trial in the District Court. Isn't that correct?
MR McGILLICUDDY: That's not a fair thing for this witness to have to deal with. That's a matter of fact, there was a separate defendant. It can't be a matter that can be put to this witness.
JUDGE: There's no necessity for someone to be there, Mr Guerin.
MR GUERIN: There's no criticism of the absence of anyone, but it's a matter --
MR McGILLICUDDY: It shouldn't be put that way, then, to the witness.
MR GUERIN: I didn't put it that way. I put a simple matter of fact to the witness, that there was no one present to protect Mr Murphy's interests. I'm going to follow up on this, Judge. I can't see that there's any disagreement about it. I mean, if the prosecution thinks there was someone present in the District Court, protecting Mr Murphy's interests, then I've been very unfair to the witness, but I think we can all agree that there wasn't and Mr McGillicuddy was there.
Q. MR GUERIN: Now, Garda Cooke, you know that when you gave that evidence in the District Court, there was no one representing Mr Paul Murphy. Isn't that correct?
A. I'm not sure. I presume not.
Q. Really? You're an experienced garda officer. How long have you been a guard?
A. Seventeen years.
Q. All right. And in a case in which another person, not Mr Murphy, is facing trial in the District Court, do you think there could be anyone present who could represent Mr Murphy's interests in that trial?
A. Not that I am aware of.
Q. Sorry. It doesn't matter whether you were aware of it or not. When have you been in a case in the District Court where a person not on trial is entitled to appear with their lawyer to protect their interests in a trial? It doesn't happen. It shouldn't happen and it doesn't happen. So, you know that when you gave evidence on oath in the District Court, that there was no one there to protect Mr Murphy's interests. Isn't that correct?
A. I was asked who I saw and I answered the question, because I was --
Q. The question I'm asking you now, Garda Cooke, is a very straightforward one. You knew, giving evidence in the District Court, that there was no one there protecting Mr Paul Murphy's interests. Isn't that correct?
A. Yes. I didn't think about it at the time, but yes, I would have known.
Q. You would have known, if you thought about it. So when you made your statement you said: "Paul Murphy was directing protesters where to stand." Isn't that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. When you gave evidence in the District Court, when there was no one there to defend Mr Murphy's interests, you said: "He seemed to be directing the protesters where to stand." Isn't that correct?
A. I'm not on the exact wording, what I said.
Q. In substance, isn't that correct?
A. In substance, yes.
Q. And today when you came to court, knowing that Mr Murphy was represented and any evidence you had to give in relation to him could be challenged by his representative, you toned down your evidence when the prosecution asked you a question this morning, didn't you?
A. No.
Q. Instead of saying he was directing the protesters where to stand, you said: "He was doing different things." Isn't that right?
A. That's what I said this morning.
Q. Because you knew that Mr Murphy would be represented and the falsehood of your evidence would be challenged. You knew that, Garda Cooke, didn't you?
A. The evidence isn't false.
Q. No, you toned it down because you knew your statement was false. Isn't that right, Garda Cooke?
A. No.
Q. You tried not to give false evidence today by saying only, in an anodyne way: "He was doing different things." Isn't that right, Garda Cooke?
A. No, I didn't tone it down.
Q. You knew your statement was false, you knew your sworn testimony in the District Court was false, and when the prosecution asked you what Mr Murphy was doing, you didn't tell them what you had sworn to in the District Court because you knew it was wrong, Garda Cooke, isn't that right?
A. No, it's not false. I gave a truthful statement and I've always been truthful in court.
Q. And you hoped that by saying something as meaningless as "doing different things" Mr Murphy's counsel wouldn't have any reason the cross examine you about that. Isn't that correct?
A. That's false.
Q. I suggest to you, Garda Cooke, that not only did you deliberately falsify your account of what happened, in Tallaght, but you gave false evidence in the District Court and you've come here today and slid away from your falsehood in the most disreputable and dishonourable fashion because you know your statement is false and you know your evidence in the District Court was false?
A. Couldn't be further from the truth.
Q. And in the most cowardly way, you hoped that by toning down your evidence against Mr Murphy, you wouldn't be challenged on your falsehood. Isn't that correct?
A. It's false.
Q. And the reason you made your false statement was because you wanted to establish that Mr Murphy was guilty of an offence and to do that you knew that his peaceful actions on the day would not be sufficient and you wanted to make him responsible for the behaviour of other people. Isn't that correct, Garda Cooke?
A. That's false, my Lord.
Q. You wanted to make him responsible for the behaviour of everyone who was in Tallaght that day, in Jobstown that day, and protesting, or present at the protest, because you wanted to fix him with responsibility in law for their behaviour. Isn't that right?
A. That's false.
Q. You wanted whoever in the DPP's office read this file to understand and believe that Mr Murphy was controlling and directing the crowd that day. Isn't that right?
A. That's not right, no.
Q. Is there any other explanation for your having made a statement, and given evidence in the District Court, which is so obviously contradicted by the video footage?
A. I gave a truthful statement. I have no hidden agenda.
Q. Moving on, Garda Cooke, you say that you told Inspector McGuire that you had a vehicle at the side of the building. Isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you tell him that you didn't notice any protesters there when you went into the building?
A. No, I had a quick look out at different times and I told him it seemed to be clear. At the side when I went in, it seemed to be clear and then a few different occasions, when I was out, it might have been a logical way to try and get Ms Burton out.
Q. Even though it was perfectly clear from the footage that anyone who was there could have seen that there were protesters who could see anything that was happening at the side of the building. Is that correct?
A. There was that many protesters at that stage, I think anybody coming out of the building would have been seen.
Q. In your statement you said that you informed Inspector Maguire that you looked at the side of the building and there were no protesters present. Is that correct?
A. Correct, yes.
Q. I got the impression that what you told the jury in your evidence today was that you told Inspector Maguire that you'd parked a vehicle at the side of the building and that you hadn't noticed any protesters there when you went into the building. Is that correct?
A. At different times I didn't notice anybody that was standing there so I just --
Q. What I'm asking you about now is what you actually said to Inspector Maguire. Do you understand, Garda Cooke?
A. Okay.
Q. And I'm suggesting, and I might be wrong, I understood your evidence to be this morning that you had told him that you had not noticed any protesters when you went into the building, at the side of the building. Am I right or wrong about that?
A. I would have said that to him; yes.
Q. Yes. That's a little bit different from telling him that you had looked out and there were no protesters there at the time you told him about your car. Do you understand?
A. When I was in the foyer I was looking out to the side as well and I didn't notice there was many there so I just thought it would have been a good -- because the building seemed to be surrounded, so I don't think there was any good way out.
Q. There was no good way out?
A. There certainly wasn't.
Q. Well, was that view discussed with Inspector Maguire?
A. We looked to do it as safely as possible. We didn't realise what was going to happen, obviously.
Q. Well, if you'd formed a view that there was no good way out, then you had a pretty clear understanding of what might happen. Isn't that right?
A. Well, hindsight is a great thing. I only relayed small information to Inspector Maguire, he's obviously higher rank; he makes the decisions, but I just gave him small information that I had.
Q. Yes, but I was trying to establish with you what it is you actually said to him and the impression I had from what you said this morning was that you told him that there were no protesters at the side of the building when you went into the building and the impression I have now is that you're saying that you said to him that you had looked out the side of the building and there was no one there at that point in time, which is later than when you went into the building. Do you understand?
A. I remembered the exact words I said to him.
Q. All right. Well, the view that there was no good way out, is that only hindsight or is that in reality something that you understood at the time?
A. It's probably hindsight. If he'd known what was going to happen, he wouldn't have moved her.
Q. Had you received any direction or guidance or advice as to what to do if the protesters approached the car when Ms Burton came out?
A. Not that I recall. We just decided let's try and do it as smoothly as possible.
Q. Had anyone told you to try and reverse the car even if there were people standing right at the back of it?
A. If people -- say that again to me.
Q. Had anyone told you to try and reverse the car even if there people standing at the back of it?
A. Inspector Maguire came to my window and he said to try and go back as slowly as possible, he was my eyes, so he said: "Go back inch by inch." which I did, which I tried to do. I didn't move very far at all.
Q. You revved the engine as well, didn't you?
A. It got, I did definitely rev the engine, I remember, yes. It was more just to let the people know that the car was on, more so than anything else, but --
Q. You don't need to rev an engine to tell people that a car is on. You could beep the horn and they'd know the car was on. Wouldn't it have given them the general impression that they were in danger of being run over?
A. Of revving the vehicle?
Q. Revving the vehicle and inching it back?
A. I was just trying to inch it back. I wasn't trying to do anything else.
Q. Well, you were trying to convey a determination to move the vehicle, weren't you?
A. I was trying -- yes, I was trying to move the vehicle, yes, and I was --
Q. Yes, but just trying to move the vehicle; you don't need to rev the engine to move the vehicle, in the exaggerated way in which it was done, and which everyone has heard on the footage. The purpose of revving the engine in that way is not only to try and move the vehicle but try to convey to the people who were there that you were determined to move the vehicle and that they had better get out of the way. Isn't that right?
A. It's not correct. The noise that was going on at that moment was unbelievable; it's hard to hear yourself at all, even speak, because there was that many people slapping the car, banging windows and doing different things, so it was actually very hard to hear anything.
Q. So are you saying that the reason why the car was revved as much as it was, was because you may not have appreciated how much you were revving it; because of the noise around you couldn't hear the engine clearly? Is that the position?
A. I was trying to just have it on high enough rev but going back as slowly as possible; safety was number one.
Q. Well again, the footage has been available to everyone. I suggest to you that there was a bit more than that, Garda Cooke, that there was an effort to rev the vehicle aggressively for the purpose of conveying to people your determination to move it and that they should get out of the way if they cared for their safety. Would you agree or disagree with that?
A. I was far from being aggressive. I had three ladies in the car with me --
MR McGILLICUDDY: Let him finish.
MR GUERIN: No, I won't let him finish. I'm making it clear --
MR McGILLICUDDY: Let him finish the answer.
MR GUERIN: No, Mr McGillicuddy doesn't appreciate the rules in this respect. The witness has misunderstood the question. I'm not suggesting that Garda Cooke was aggressive. I'm simply suggesting, and I want to make it very clear to him, lest he be under any impression, that the vehicle was revved aggressively. That's all. That's all; I'm not suggesting you were aggressive.
MR McGILLICUDDY: If the witness misunderstands, if he gives his answer and it's misunderstood, he's misunderstood the question, then a follow-on question can be asked and it can be rephrased. Let him give the answer and then Mr Guerin can come back and if he says it's misunderstood, he has plenty of opportunity to try and clarify it.
JUDGE: It wasn't apparent from the answer, Mr Guerin, that he had misunderstood.
MR GUERIN: He started explaining how he was not behaving aggressively --
WITNESS: I didn't misunderstand the answer.
MR GUERIN: -- and I want to make it very clear --
JUDGE: You said to him that he had revved the car aggressively and he had denied that --
WITNESS: I had three ladies in the car with me, Judge.
JUDGE: -- and he had gone on to elaborate that he had three women in the car.
WITNESS: I had three ladies; one of them's crying uncontrollably, which obviously added more to the noise, and the last thing I wanted to do was upset this baying crowd that was outside the car; the last thing I wanted to do.
Q. MR GUERIN: Well, why were you driving the car at them, then?
A. I certainly wasn't driving the car -- as I said, the last thing I wanted to do was be aggressive with this crowd because I was aware, I had a firearm on me as well, and so did, as far as I am aware, so did my passenger. The last thing I wanted to do was have a crowd get into this car at all, or make them anymore aggressive. I certainly did not want to upset the crowd that was outside that car. It was the last thing I wanted to do.
Q. Were you just trying to move the car because Inspector Maguire was directing you to do that?
A. He was directing me and we thought we might be able to, if he put guards at the back and I moved very slowly, we might be able to get out. But --
Q. There were no guards at the back at this point. Isn't that correct?
A. No, but --
Q. No, there were not guards at the back. So it's not: "If there were guards at the back." There were no guards at the back and you did try to reverse the car and the question is did you do that only because Inspector Maguire directed you to do it?
A. I did it because we had discussed that we needed to try and move back very slowly; yes, I discussed it at the window with him. He said: "Move back --"
Q. And he told you to do it?
A. And I thought it was safe to do so. I wouldn't have done it if I didn't think it was -- we were going inch by inch; there was never any issue of anybody getting run over, and I certainly wasn't aggressive. I understand, I take your point, that the engine could have been revved loudly, but you must appreciate there was a lady behind me crying uncontrollably and the banging on the car, the noise was unbelievable, and on the bonnet there was people trying to break the windows, in my opinion. So --
Q. Would it be fair to say at this stage that you would accept that whatever your intentions were, the way in which the car was being reversed at people without a garda cordon around it and with the revs going up, was something that was likely to inflame a volatile situation, whether it was your intention or not?
A. I went inch by inch so I don't think it was going to -- I didn't think, if I thought for one second, that it was going inflame a situation. As I said, it was the last thing I wanted to do. I went back; I thought it was a safe manner. I went back inch by inch and Inspector Maguire was literally in my ear at the passenger window and we did it for literally -- I don't know how long an actual exact --
Q. It was a short enough period, in fairness to you, and again the jury have seen the footage?
A. And then we just realised fairly quick, we weren't going anywhere.
Q. And there was no plan at all as to what was to happen in that situation. Isn't that correct?
A. I wasn't aware -- I was just speaking to Inspector Maguire. He was conveying anything he wanted me to do or --
Q. Well, I think you can confirm it wasn't something that was discussed before you went out?
A. It wasn't the plan, no.
Q. It wasn't something that was even discussed before you left the church, was it?
A. I don't recall, no.
Q. No. All right. Thank you, Garda Cooke.
And we have this from the judge.Judge Greally wrote:The jury must also consider aspects of the garda evidence where there were misstatements or inconsistencies with what gardaaid in their statements and their evidence.
"Were they calculated to cast aspersions on Paul Murphy? Is this the establishment coming down on Paul Murphy or others for orchestrating a successful campaign against water charges? Do you agree this is what this is all about?"
She said if the jury was inclined to agree with this, that he was being prosecuted not for what he did but for who he is then does that extend to the others on trial. While two of the others were county councillors who would be known locally but were without a national profile, the remaining three were ordinary citizens.
"So how far does that argument actually go?" the judge asked.
The judge said the video footage is a "significant component" but they should not disregard witness testimony.
Some of the garda testimony was "not borne out by the footage and contradicted what was said".
She said that type of discrepancy may affect their view and was a matter for them to assess inaccuracies in witness testimony and its effect on the issues to be decided.0 -
It seems clear to me that the Gardai are corrupt.
186 of them lying on the stand, or providing unreliable evidence, is a disgrace.
I wouldn't report any crimes to them and instead I suppose I'd be forced to settle my own problems. I suppose you could consider it a form of charity to do the police's job for them.
That Garda Cook seems perfectly willing to lie under oath but he's destroyed his own reputation here.
How can anyone have any confidence in the Guards now?0 -
Because the evidence didn't support the charges.
Which is not the same as not believing the evidence as you just claimed.Sigh.....
And finally.
And we have this from the judge.
All you've shown there is exactly what I said to JGG. The cameras didn't cover all points at all times. It was even in the testimony you quoted.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 22734
Hi everyone,
Can i remind anyone who isn't familiar with the charter to have a read of it. In particular:We do not expect posters to be experts in all areas, however, the onus is on all posters to fact check their information. If a poster is corrected, or information corrected in a thread, any poster who continues to relate misinformation as fact will be sanctioned.
Also please refrain from alleging identifiable people have committed a crime they have not been convicted of.
Any more messing and we'll start issuing cards.
Thank you0 -
I said that the entire protest was recorded on CCTV from multiple angles - and I said that all relevant incidents during the protest were recorded.Captain Obvious wrote: »All you've shown there is exactly what I said to JGG. The cameras didn't cover all points at all times. It was even in the testimony you quoted.
This testimony demonstrates that the necessary video evidence was available to prove conclusively that Paul Murphy did not do what Cooke claimed he did in his sworn witness statement and repeated in his testimony to the court.
If you are going to accuse someone of something then get your ducks in order - don't act like the cops did during the trial.0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »I said that the entire protest was recorded on CCTV from multiple angles - and I said that all relevant incidents during the protest were recorded.
This testimony demonstrates that the necessary video evidence was available to prove conclusively that Paul Murphy did not do what Cooke claimed he did in his sworn witness statement and repeated in his testimony to the court.
If you are going to accuse someone of something then get your ducks in order - don't act like the cops did during the trial.
You said every interaction of significance yet in the transcript of Garda Cookes cross examination there is mention of both blindspots and obscured vision.0 -
A few policemen have done serious damage to the reputation of the whole force unfortunately. While people have always moaned about the Gards, I think your regular Joe in Ireland was more or less trusting of the people that are supposed to protect them.
When I look at what happened in Jobstown all I can say is thank god no one is allowed to carry firearms.0 -
A few policemen have done serious damage to the reputation of the whole force unfortunately. While people have always moaned about the Gards, I think your regular Joe in Ireland was more or less trusting of the people that are supposed to protect them.
When I look at what happened in Jobstown all I can say is thank god no one is allowed to carry firearms.
The problem in Jobstown was caused by the Gardaí not using force when they should have.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »The problem in Jobstown was caused by the Gardaí not using force when they should have.
The problem with Jobstown happened after Jobstown and cracking a few heads would not have prevented that. They wanted the leaders of an opposing political party ( a party winning a damaging campaign against them) in the dock.0 -
Advertisement
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »The problem with Jobstown happened after Jobstown
I suppose that depends on your perspective. I doubt the victims of the mob, the people trying to celebrate their graduation, the Gardaí who were assaulted, the women trapped in a car and pelted with objects, thought the problems only arose afterwards. But I guess they don't matter to some people because they aren't on the correct side. Standard hypocritical stance from PBP supporters.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »Which is not the same as not believing the evidence as you just claimed.
All you've shown there is exactly what I said to JGG. The cameras didn't cover all points at all times. It was even in the testimony you quoted.
I'll go with the judges opinion on things if it's all the same with you.Judge Greally wrote:The jury must also consider aspects of the garda evidence where there were misstatements or inconsistencies with what gardaaid in their statements and their evidence.
"Were they calculated to cast aspersions on Paul Murphy? Is this the establishment coming down on Paul Murphy or others for orchestrating a successful campaign against water charges? Do you agree this is what this is all about?"
She said if the jury was inclined to agree with this, that he was being prosecuted not for what he did but for who he is then does that extend to the others on trial. While two of the others were county councillors who would be known locally but were without a national profile, the remaining three were ordinary citizens.
"So how far does that argument actually go?" the judge asked.
The judge said the video footage is a "significant component" but they should not disregard witness testimony.
Some of the garda testimony was "not borne out by the footage and contradicted what was said".
She said that type of discrepancy may affect their view and was a matter for them to assess inaccuracies in witness testimony and its effect on the issues to be decided.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »I suppose that depends on your perspective. I doubt the victims of the mob, the people trying to celebrate their graduation, the Gardaí who were assaulted, the women trapped in a car and pelted with objects, thought the problems only arose afterwards. But I guess they don't matter to some people because they aren't on the correct side. Standard hypocritical stance from PBP supporters.
I don't support PBP or any political party.
I support the separation of powers and transparent government.
And the transparency we have had so far, the court transcripts convinces me that there is a case of political meddling to be answered here.
Political meddling which was never going to deliver justice to those who felt they were 'victims' that day.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »I suppose that depends on your perspective. I doubt the victims of the mob, the people trying to celebrate their graduation, the Gardaho were assaulted, the women trapped in a car and pelted with objects, thought the problems only arose afterwards. But I guess they don't matter to some people because they aren't on the correct side. Standard hypocritical stance from PBP supporters.
If the prosecution's weren't politically motivated in order to damage the water protest movement then why were people not charged with assault, throwing objects at people etc? Instead of charging some of the political leaders of the movement with offences that they couldn't stand up?0 -
If the prosecution's weren't politically motivated in order to damage the water protest movement then why were people not charged with assault, throwing objects at people etc? Instead of charging some of the political leaders of the movement with offences that they couldn't stand up?
If the DPP wanted to simply damage to water movement then they could have brought public order charges in addition to false imprisonment charges. Only the DPP can really answer your questions but if you want an educated guess I'd say the public order charges weren't brought because of the prejudicial nature of the cctv footage and the likelihood of a jury convicting on the lesser charges when there may not be sufficient evidence.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 13694
If the prosecution's weren't politically motivated in order to damage the water protest movement then why were people not charged with assault, throwing objects at people etc? Instead of charging some of the political leaders of the movement with offences that they couldn't stand up?
They were. 9 people have been charged with violent disorder and are awaiting trial:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/jobstown-protests-trial-date-yet-to-be-set-for-td-paul-murphys-charges-of-false-imprisonment-of-tnaiste-34597258.html0 -
If the prosecution's weren't politically motivated in order to damage the water protest movement then why were people not charged with assault, throwing objects at people etc? Instead of charging some of the political leaders of the movement with offences that they couldn't stand up?
Many decent people stopped protesting against IW after Jobstown.
They did not want to be associated with yobs causing trouble.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »If the DPP wanted to simply damage to water movement then they could have brought public order charges in addition to false imprisonment charges. Only the DPP can really answer your questions but if you want an educated guess I'd say the public order charges weren't brought because of the prejudicial nature of the cctv footage and the likelihood of a jury convicting on the lesser charges when there may not be sufficient evidence.
Yeah, it obviously made more sense to go with the much more serious charges of false imprisonment, that never had a snowballs chance in hell of sticking.
End result, Judge warning the jury to take heed over some of the guards evidence, as they're misstatements, and contradicted by video.The jury must also consider aspects of the garda evidence where there were misstatements or inconsistencies with what gardaaid in their statements and their evidence.Some of the garda testimony was "not borne out by the footage and contradicted what was said".
Taoiseach of the country having to comment on the evidence provided by the gards.The Fine Gael leader has heaped pressure on Nn O'Sullivan, saying that garda testimony should not differ from the video evidence presented in cases.
In an interview on RT'Primetime', Mr Varadkar said: "People need to trust what gardaay on the stand and I can understand that perhaps in a scenario whereby lots of things are happening quickly and people are caught up in the heat of the moment, they may have a recollection that isn't exactly as things happened.
"There is something there that needs to be looked at, both by the Garda Commissioner and senior Garda management because we need to be able to trust that when gardatand up in court and they say something happened that that did happen."
I think its more worrying than a few thugs at a protest.
Perspective.0 -
tayto lover wrote: »Many decent people stopped protesting against IW after Jobstown.
They did not want to be associated with yobs causing trouble.
You'd have to wonder how many decent people will now be questioning the guards and if their word can be trusted in court.
That is a much more worrying concern of mine than who may or may not continue their protesting.0 -
tayto lover wrote: »Many decent people stopped protesting against IW after Jobstown.
They did not want to be associated with yobs causing trouble.
If you buy into this idea, then you would probably have bought the idea that these men were such heinous thugs that they were guilty of false imprisonment.
It is possible that somebody manipulated events just so this would be the outcome in many people's minds.
That needs to be thoroughly looked into.0 -
tayto lover wrote: »Many decent people stopped protesting against IW after Jobstown.
They did not want to be associated with yobs causing trouble.
Actually - the numbers protesting INCREASED after the Jobstown protest0 -
It should be noted that Burton's 'sources' engaged in an utterly disgraceful attack on Solidarity and the #JobstownNotGuilty campaign in the SIndo today. And not alone that she engaged in a disgraceful smear against the integrity of the members of the jury. The woman's bile knows no bounds.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/burtons-fears-over-social-media-35910128.html0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »It should be noted that Burton's 'sources' engaged in an utterly disgraceful attack on Solidarity and the #JobstownNotGuilty campaign in the SIndo today. And not alone that she engaged in a disgraceful smear against the integrity of the members of the jury. The woman's bile knows no bounds.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/burtons-fears-over-social-media-35910128.html
Very Ironic that Joan has fears over social media.
.http://www.broadsheet.ie/tag/garda-helicopter/Joan Burton’s being questioned again about an instruction given to her assistant Karen O’Connell while they were allegedly trapped in a Garda car at a water charges protest.
In an audio recording, Ms Burton can be heard telling her assistant she should go on social media and say it was shameful that children in the area were roaming free adn unsupervised.
Defence counsel Michael O’Higgins suggested it was a direction to an employee to use social media to smear the demonstrators, painting them as uncaring and it was a strategic move.
Ms Burton denied it was an instruction and said it was just conversation. She said her assistant was more familiar with social media than she was. She accepted that she was angry with the protesters but said she was not at her most thoughtful or strategic best0 -
That's making a mountain out of a molehill.0 -
WinnyThePoo wrote: »You do realise someone can have a problem with the guards and the protesters at the same time?.
I missed your posts regarding any issues you have with the Garda involved. I've only seen your responses to the criticism by others were you go on to talk about the protesters and not even those charged.Captain Obvious wrote: »Weren't they busy protecting two women from a mob?
So why did they not charge the lady threatening to keep Joan all night or the chap who allegedly threatened petrol bombs instead of the ones sitting? They were too busy? Good one. They arrested possibly the most peaceful people there, some of whom argued against keeping them all night and also against any violence, in dawn raids, days later, because they were too busy?
0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement