Gilmartin V Bertie whos lying?

Villain

Tom Gilmartin has said he met Bertie Ahern in October of 1987, this contradicts the evidence that Bertie gave to the tribunal!

So whos telling the truth?

Gilmartin told the tribunal yesterday that on February 1, 1989, he was brought to the Dail by Liam Lawlor, then a Fianna Fail TD, because "the boss wants to see you". He met Gerry Collins, Seamus Brennan, Brian Lenihan, Albert Reynolds, Padraig Flynn, Ray Burke - and Mr Ahern.


Yesterdays evidence from Irish Independent Todays evidence from RTE

Very interesting reading, I just thought I'd post a thread to see what people think, FF isn't comming out of this looking good!

Interested to hear Cork's opinion. Bertie was able to make comments about Gerry Adams which couldn't be proven but most people here believed him, do they believe that he didn't meet Tom Gilmartin??

LFCFan

you should change the thread name. It asks who is telling the truth but the poll asks who is lying. I voted for Gilmartin because I wanted to say he was telling the truth but now it looks like I voted in favour of Bertie and I'm sick.

Bertie will be exposed for the corrupt, lying, cheating gob****e that he is long after he is leader in yet another pointless Tribunal in 20 years time. How he is still leader is beyond me.

Villain

Originally posted by LFCFan
you should change the thread name. It asks who is telling the truth but the poll asks who is lying. I voted for Gilmartin because I wanted to say he was telling the truth but now it looks like I voted in favour of Bertie and I'm sick.

Bertie will be exposed for the corrupt, lying, cheating gob****e that he is long after he is leader in yet another pointless Tribunal in 20 years time. How he is still leader is beyond me.

Sorry I've chnaged the thread title, was in the middle of writing and got dragged away, maybe a mod can adjust the poll for your vote and change my spelling, I really need to get a dictionary.

bonkey

I've amended your vote...trusting that you're telling the truth about it.

I would like to say this though...it is entirely possible for two people to believe contradictory things without either of them having to be a liar. One, or both, could simply be mistaken.

jc

Villain

Originally posted by bonkey
I would like to say this though...it is entirely possible for two people to believe contradictory things without either of them having to be a liar. One, or both, could simply be mistaken.

jc

Mistaken twice?? I think thats a little unlikely!

dahamsta

Originally posted by bonkey
I've amended your vote...trusting that you're telling the truth about it.

Bonkey For eVoting Attendant!

Sparks

Hmmm. So do we believe a proven liar or a proven briber?

Villain

From RTE:
John Gallagher SC said Mr Ahern claims to have met Mr Gilmartin first in October 1988, first in his constituency office and then in his department office. Mr Gilmartin replied 'I can't account for Bertie Ahern's memory or lack of it.'

mike65

I'm inclined to belive neither is being entirely honest.

Mike.

Sparks

Seems it's not just Bertie who's going to be saying "I have no clear memory of that..."

From RTE:

The property developer, Tom Gilmartin, has told the Mahon Tribinal that the former TD Liam Lawlor attempted to blackmail an English investment company who were trying to develop a shopping centre at Bachelors Walk in Dublin.

Mr Gilmartin said Mr Lawlor told Arlington executives he had been appointed by the Irish Government to take care of the project and that having him on board was the difference between it succeeding or not.

The developer claims Mr Lawlor asked for £100,000 and a 20% stake in the project on the Government's behalf.

LFCFan

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Bertie minister for finance back when Haughy was fleecing the country? Surely there has to be some investigation in Bertie's dealings back then?

Sparks

Originally posted by LFCFan
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Bertie minister for finance back when Haughy was fleecing the country? Surely there has to be some investigation in Bertie's dealings back then?

Welcome to Ireland
But then, I suppose he could defend himself from more serious charges by saying he had lied on his resume and was unqualified for the job....

Cork

It must be great to view everything from the moral high ground.

I have spruced my work experience at interview. So what??


A LOG of visitors to Leinster House shows no record of the disputed ministerial meeting attended by a builder who claims he was pursued for bribes.
The logbook, obtained by the planning corruption tribunal, shows no record of Tom Gilmartin visiting Leinster House in February 1989, when he says he attended a meeting with Bertie Ahern, the taoiseach, and other ministers.

How can anybody sit in judgemant on Gilmartin or Bertie? Gilmartin has not even completed his evidence.

Avoid the tabloid hysteria and contrieved moral outrage.

I wonder who was the mystery man?

Sparks

Originally posted by Cork
It must be great to view everything from the moral high ground.

Face it, having higher moral ground than Fianna Fail is sortof like having a better diet than Idi Amin.
It's not that difficult.

I have spruced my work experience at interview. So what??

Well, apart from the minor technicality that it's fraud, there's the scale - you put your work experience in the best possible light, whereas bertie lied about getting his primary degree and about getting a postgraduate degree from one of the most prestigious institutions in the field. That's not "padding" or "putting the best spin on" something, that's just straight out-and-out lying.

A LOG of visitors to Leinster House shows no record of the disputed ministerial meeting attended by a builder who claims he was pursued for bribes.

Odd, that politicians aiming to extort money from businesses illegally wouldn't keep a careful paper record of their movements and accounts, isn't it?

Cork

Originally posted by Sparks



Odd, that politicians aiming to extort money from businesses illegally wouldn't keep a careful paper record of their movements and accounts, isn't it?

But the log book was kept & it showed no record of Tom Gilmartin visiting Leinster House in February 1989.

Wait untill, the full evidence is heard before rushing to judgement.

Tribunerals are better than "star chambers" or cheap fodder for the tabloid red tops.

Sparks

Originally posted by Cork
But the log book was kept & it showed no record of Tom Gilmartin visiting Leinster House in February 1989.

You're not seriously going to say that his not signing a book is proof he wasn't there, are you?

Cork

Originally posted by Sparks
You're not seriously going to say that his not signing a book is proof he wasn't there, are you?

Well - If he did sign it - it would proove that he was.

I really don't know - if the guy was there or not.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
It must be great to view everything from the moral high ground.

Yes, its the same as what we do when we try to create and enforce just laws....or do you think that our legal system should be more firmly based in an "arra sure, what does it matter if he's lying, because don't we all do that once in a while" basis???

I have spruced my work experience at interview. So what??

So...as your employer, I would be entitled to fire you for having obtained employment under false pretences. Thats what.

Avoid the tabloid hysteria and contrieved moral outrage.

Let me go back and re-read that first line of your post again....

It must be great to view everything from the moral high ground.

...hmmmm.....not quite sure I'm getting this....one more time.......

It must be great to view everything from the moral high ground.

Nope...I'm lost. I can't figure it out.
Whats that you were saying about avoiding "contrived moral outrage" ???????

jc

Villain

Originally posted by Cork
It must be great to view everything from the moral high ground.

LOL,

Cork man if you haven't got anything senisble to say your better off saying nothing.

Bertie is no saint, FF are no saints I can accept that, why can't you?

RainyDay

Mary O'Rourke (FF Leader in the Senate) remembers the meeting quite clearly, funnily enough.

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
I wonder who was the mystery man?

I can reveal it was

Dustin the Turkey

, he needed the money for his presidential campaign.

Villain

FF councillor demanded £100,000!!FF councillor demanded £100,000!!

FF the good old corrupt party ha!

sceptre

Mr Gilmartin said Mr Hanrahan said he needed the money because the development was going to harm the 'little people' in Lucan who had taken care of him over the years.

He was taking bribes from leprechauns as well? Short property developers? Running a white-collar protection racket?

Originally posted by Cork
It must be great to view everything from the moral high ground.

Actually it's anything but great when I consider all the honest people who voted for these thieves who were prepared to ignore the needs of their electorate as long as they got their own tainted cup of potage.

I'm a pretty honest bloke by regular standards. I've been in positions of trust, some elected (college things, nothing too exciting) and I've never taken a bribe or driven roughshod or otherwise over the people I was representing just because I could make a few quid for myself on the side. Here we're looking at elected politicians who not only took money, breaching the trust placed in them by their electorate, but took money from property developers so they could probably ignore the needs of their electorate again by letting developers get their own way. They're twice culpable. Plus they've put us in a situation where we have to spend our tax money again in finding out who these crooks are and what they've done so that every politician and property developer isn't automatically assumed to be the kind of person who takes bribes of gives bribes. Three times culpable. Honest people who pay their taxes in return for a vote every few years as well as shoddy services as a result of our money being stolen resent that. Why wouldn't they?

dictatorcat

it's hard to believe Gilmartin (don't worry i voted that bertie was lieing) when he comes out and claims death threats against him, but then we all know how corrupt FF are, and lets not forget that they have the same origins as the shinners! Can someone explain how a man with no quilifications can lead one of the best educated societies in Europe? Maybe it's easier for interested parties to keep a corrupt ignorant man in power than a moral intelligent one?

www.rte.ie/news/2004/0310/mahon.html

Villain

Did anyone else hear the reconstruction of Fridays tribunal on radio 1 last night??

Mr McMahon council for the Taoiseach (as well as others) kept harping on about Bertie not being at the said meeting on 1st or 2nd of Febuary 1989.

Mary O'Rourke says otherwise!, I was interested in what Gilmartin was saying about why Bertie is so adament that he wasn't there, as he said "it was a nothing meeting, nothing really happened, it was just a chit chat"

In other words why is Bertie bothering to lie??

They also spoke on the program about the fact that Gilmartin told Bertie about the £50,000 given to P Flynn, Bertie said as he was treasurer at the time he wouldn't have thought it to unusual!!! (in an interview on the same program in 2002)

The party treasurer didn't normally collect money do! and £50,000 15 years ago was a hell of a lot of money.

Bertie is lieing and badly at that, and that fecker is Leader of this country, he's lying to the tribunal he claims to have set-up!!!

A disgrace a bloody disgrace!

Villain

Listened to more of this last night on the way home, Gilmartin reckons he could have brought 1 billion investment into this country if it wasn't for the government of the day.

His evidence is excellent, which is not quite what I would call Berties council's cross examination, he tied to bring up a case from the 70's in Cavan which Gilamrtin was involved in beacuse the Judge of the day (Mr Sheedy no less) called him shifty!.

The tribunal rules him out of order and said such statement was inproper and not allowed by the Tribunal.

Gilmartin insisted on replying however, and gave a very good account of himself that left the gallery in applause and Berties council looking a little stupid!!

Cork

Just to say "Happy St. Patricks Day" to all.

Tom Gilmartin. I really have not made up my mind of Tom yet. So I'll keep this one short. I'd be a lot happier if he had kept the Isle of Man bank account number & if he could identify the mystery man.

Three men claiming to be members of the IRA also visited him at his home in Luton; they demanded money but he refused to co-operate

link

Did people think the man was made of money?

Villain

He also claims "Bertie asked me would I consider making a donation to the Party(FF)"

He went on to say that there was a alot more evidence to come and that it would get interesting for the current Taoiseach and other ministers.

He pointed out that they were many many good men among those Politicans who were corrupt, he spoke specially about Mary O'Rourkes brother and nephews say he held them in teh highest regard. He also said there was many councillors who were honest decent people who had no involvement in the corruption.

Xterminator

It seems now that Bertie has an alibi, Gilmartin says he might have been mistake about what day the meeting took place.
(Source last nights herad (17th march)).

Never does your credibility good to have to change your story midstream ..eh?

X

Villain

Originally posted by Xterminator
It seems now that Bertie has an alibi, Gilmartin says he might have been mistake about what day the meeting took place.
(Source last nights herad (17th march)).

Never does your credibility good to have to change your story midstream ..eh?

X

Actually he says it is his belief that it took place on the 1st of febuary, but it could have been the 2nd or 3rd.

Berties council questioned Gilmartin about why the meeting was recorded in his note book on the 1st, Gilmartin replied by saying that it was only a note book not a diary he didn't always write entrys in on the right date.

I think the Hearld simplified the evidence too much if you heard the cross examination who would understand that he never said for definite that it took place on the 1st.

It was a long time ago so it would be easy to be a day or 2 out, I mean most of the ministers that are involved always say "I have no recolection", it will be interetsing to see what date Mary O' Rourke says it took place.

Villain

Well Mary O'Rourke gave her evidence yesterday and well aprt from the date, she agrees with almost everything Gilmartin said.

She is very sure the meeting took place and that Bertie and others were there.

Our Toiseach is lying????

Fuc king disgrace, fair play to Mary O'Rourke, shows there is some decent politicians out there.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1158917&issue_id=10686

LFCFan

Originally posted by irish1
Our Toiseach is lying????

Does that really surprise you? He's probably just as corrupt as Charlie was. It also gives some indication of the lack of backbone in the FF party that they have never even had a vote of confidence in his leadership, considering all the fcukups and mismanagement he's been involved in. It makes the blood boil.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by irish1
fair play to Mary O'Rourke, shows there is some decent politicians out there.

"Mary O'Rourke" and "decent politician" in the same sentence? Dear God.

Villain

Originally posted by oscarBravo
"Mary O'Rourke" and "decent politician" in the same sentence? Dear God.

In this instance yes!

star gazer

I'd have sympathy for Bertie in being forced to wait to appear at the tribunal, if his lawyer hadn't been so aggressive in cross-examining Gilmartin. After all bertie is not being accused of anything bad at the meeting in question. Still it looks like liam lawlor will give way and bertie will get to testify tomorrow.

Villain

Originally posted by star gazer
I'd have sympathy for Bertie in being forced to wait to appear at the tribunal, if his lawyer hadn't been so aggressive in cross-examining Gilmartin. After all bertie is not being accused of anything bad at the meeting in question. Still it looks like liam lawlor will give way and bertie will get to testify tomorrow.

His lawyer went to great measures to try and say he couldn't have been there.

Now Mary says he was, will he continue to say h couldn't have been there, or will his memory go blank all of a sudden.

star gazer

originally posted by irish1
His lawyer went to great measures to try and say he couldn't have been there.

yeah it's strange, he tries to prove that on certain days he could not have been there, why doesn't he look for the days he might have met with him, given the clearcut evidence of his opposite number in the Senate. It would appear that he would prefer to go a destructive rather than a constructive route.

Villain

Originally posted by star gazer
yeah it's strange, he tries to prove that on certain days he could not have been there, why doesn't he look for the days he might have met with him, given the clearcut evidence of his opposite number in the Senate. It would appear that he would prefer to go a destructive rather than a constructive route.

He's a Muppet that might explain why, interesting to see what evidence he gives.

bonkey

Originally posted by star gazer
It would appear that he would prefer to go a destructive rather than a constructive route.

Well...once you show yourself capable and willing of using rational thought processes to corroborate your story with the available facts, then you're in a real bind if and when you ever don't want to do that.

On the other hand, if you start off looking stupid and uncertain, and continue that way.....

jc

mike65

Me looking foward to tomorrow afternoon!

Mike.

sceptre

Originally posted by bonkey
On the other hand, if you start off looking stupid and uncertain, and continue that way.....

... twenty years later you get made Taoiseach?


(sorry, they'll take away my Amateur Comedy card, grade C, if I don't take opportunities like that)

star gazer

originally posted by mike65
Me looking foward to tomorrow afternoon!

me too but will it be an anti-climax or has gilmartin got something up his sleeve...

The only thing that will be fun though will be that Bertie will actually have to answer questions, something he doesn't have to do in his daily life. Fudge and lawyers don't alsways work well together.

Villain

Bertie has said no formal meeting took place but a "general chit chat" could have taken place.

LOL, what a way to back down lol

Bertie is a bigger fool than even I gave him credit for!!!!

star gazer

<OUCH>
Bertie got a grilling from Hugh O'Neill, tom Gilmartin's lawyer, bertie is still in the witness box, he has had to cancel his evening appointment and there isn't an end in sight yet. He'll hardly go for another day.

I think he might regret, now, his lawyer going so hard after Gilmartin, benefit of hindsight.

Bertie now accepts the meeting could have happened.

Mighty_Mouse

Berti lied !!! Shock horror!

Victor

Originally posted by oscarBravo
"Mary O'Rourke" and "decent politician" in the same sentence? Dear God.

How about "Mary O'Rourke, decent, politician"?

Villain

Listened to the transcipts being re-inacted on Radio1 last night, my oh my didn't Bertie get a little hot under the collar.

He was also tripping himself up a lot!!

He said he didn't call Gilmartin Shifty or Dishonest but wouldn't disassoicate himself from these comments that were made by his council.

Oh how i wish Cork was here to try and defend this idiot of a man we have to call Taoiseach.

After hearing the evidence I have no doubt what so ever that Bertie lied.:mad:

ActingThe Magot

For those who may be interested the link to the transcript of Berties visit to the tribunal is below
http://www.planningtribunal.ie/images/SITECONTENT_267.pdf

Bertie starts his evidence from Page 64
O'Neill (Tom Gilmartins barrister) Cross examination starts on page 120

The General Website link is http://www.planningtribunal.ie

Cork

Originally posted by irish1


Oh how i wish Cork was here to try and defend this idiot of a man we have to call Taoiseach.

I am up to my neck with study & exams at the moment but irish1 - I have not made up my mind on this one yet.

Nothing happened at this meeting.This meeting was inconsequential.

Mary O' Rourke is not in agreement on either the meetings date or location.

He said he didn't call Gilmartin Shifty or Dishonest but wouldn't disassoicate himself from these comments that were made by his council.

People giving evidence don't. I have never seen anybody ever disassoicate himself from these comments that were made by his council. Bertie was 100% correct on this one.

It is a pity Gilmarttin does not have the Isle of Man bank account number - this would be actual evidence.

I won't be able to debate further with you on this one for a while. (3 exams next week).

RainyDay

Originally posted by Cork
People giving evidence don't. I have never seen anybody ever disassoicate himself from these comments that were made by his council. Bertie was 100% correct on this one.

No - he wasn't. Bertie tried to wiggle his way out of it by saying that his counsel didn't use those words, until the other barrister pulled out the exact paragraph from the transcript showing that his counsel had in fact, used those exact words!

Villain

Originally posted by Cork
I am up to my neck with study & exams at the moment but irish1 - I have not made up my mind on this one yet.

Nothing happened at this meeting.This meeting was inconsequential.

That is exactly what Gilmartin said, but yet every other Minister except Mary O'Rourke says it didn't happen or they can't remember.

Maybe because Gilmartin claims he was approached for 5 million after the meeting;)

Originally posted by Cork

Mary O' Rourke is not in agreement on either the meetings date or location.

Location wise she says describes it differently, agreed. But she says it could have taken place from early Febuary to end of march which includes the dates Gilmartin says it happened, so to say she disagrees is not correct

Originally posted by Cork

People giving evidence don't. I have never seen anybody ever disassoicate himself from these comments that were made by his council. Bertie was 100% correct on this one.

Yes but as Hugh O'Neill (council for Gilmartin) pointed out surely Bertie and his council had discussed the line of questioning that was going to used, and Bertie said yes he did discuss.

The taoiseach tried to discredit the man over a land deal in the 70's and it back fired big time on him. He should have disassoicated himself from the comments for his own sake.

But quite cleary the man is a fool, who is trying to cover his tracks, but doing a bad job of it.