Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] 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 [email protected]

Disclosures tribunal: Martin Callinan *did* say Maurice McCabe was sex abuser

  • 11-10-2018 12:09pm
    #1
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 37,976 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    (figured I'd start a new thread rather then resurrect the old one)

    Just out this afternoon
    The Charleton Tribunal has found that the then Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan told a Dáil deputy in early 2014 that whistleblower Sgt Maurice McCabe had sexually abused his own family.

    In a report published on Thursday, Mr Justice Peter Charleton said he accepted what the former head of the Public Accounts Committee, John McGuinness, said in evidence of a meeting in a car park in West Dublin.

    The finding is devastating for a former head of the police force. The abuse claim against Mr McCabe was completely without foundation.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/disclosures-tribunal-martin-callinan-told-td-that-maurice-mccabe-was-sex-abuser-tribunal-finds-1.3660053

    My own view is that the man should be personally liable to a claim by the state and McCabe for this. Disgusting!


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 35,984 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Took far too long to get to this point. It will probably take far too long for him to see justice.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Report also found the campaign was between Callinan and Taylor. No evidence O'Sullivan had any involvement.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Has the report made mention of Noirin's missing phones/ SIM cards?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    This kind of thing should warrant criminal charges IMO, not merely on the basis of false accusations but also the fact that they were made in the interests of covering up a scandal. It should be a criminal offence to intentionally engage in a cover-up of any kind in the interests of deflecting legitimate allegations of wrongdoing.

    Of course it'll never happen given that the people most likely to engage in such cover ups would have to vote for laws against it :D It'd be nice if it did, though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    they absolutely had to get an outsider in to run the show, upper echelons seem to have been rotten


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Report also found the campaign was between Callinan and Taylor. No evidence O'Sullivan had any involvement.

    Good job them phones were made non retrievable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Good job them phones were made non retrievable.


    I wasn't really expecting certain posters to accept the findings unless they agreed with their pre-existing conclusions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    I wasn't really expecting certain posters to accept the findings unless they agreed with their pre-existing conclusions.


    So the missing phones and sim cards cause you zero concern?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,138 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    The phones are mentioned in the report.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    I wasn't really expecting certain posters to accept the findings unless they agreed with their pre-existing conclusions.

    Can McCabe expect a 'thank you' card from yourself in the coming days?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,246 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Charleton's conclusions on the phones issue:
    There is a plain reality to this. Superintendent David Taylor spun a deceit that his boss, Commissioner Martin Callinan, with whom he was on the best of terms for all his time in the press office of Garda Headquarters, and Nn O’Sullivan, who he decided for his own bitter reasons he didn’t like and was not up to the job, were on the one hand composing, and on the other approving, derogatory messages about Maurice McCabe. Hence, in his false reasoning, phones were important. Hence, in his false reasoning phones went missing, Hence, in his false reasoning, phones behaved mysteriously. Why? Because these phones had evidence implicating the highest levels of the national police force in a vicious campaign against a defenceless sergeant who wanted to see no more than an improvement in police standards.

    And the reality? This tale was spun about missing phones, telecommunications interference by Garda Headquarters, texts to politicians and journalists and a trail of evidence that never existed in order, specifically and deliberately, to destroy the investigation by Chief Superintendent Clerkin into the behaviour of Superintendent David Taylor. At risk through a perfectly legitimate and honest investigation by a police officer of high intelligence and of truly distinguished record, Superintendent Taylor chose to present a public lie to the people of Ireland. It was enthusiastically taken up. Furthermore, it cast a pall of pretended deceit over the entire police force.

    Then no one knew better. Now, they do.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    So the missing phones and sim cards cause you zero concern?


    Pretty much. Their location should be known but I put that down to incompetence.


    Can McCabe expect a 'thank you' card from yourself in the coming days?


    I'll sign yours if you want.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    I wasn't really expecting certain posters to accept the findings unless they agreed with their pre-existing conclusions.

    Indeed.

    Its quite reminiscent of the Paul Murphy false imprisonment case.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Charleton's conclusions on the phones issue:

    It says that the idea the phones contained incriminating evidence was put about by Taylor and his creation. It doesn't settle it in regard to the phones going missing at all. We'll never know what was on all those phones either way.

    Is there more detail on the Tulsa err?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Pretty much. Their location should be known but I put that down to incompetence.

    This is a basic reform I'd like to see, which would go some way towards avoiding a situation like this down the road - when evidence is collected, be it for a criminal prosecution, a tribunal, an Oireachtas committee, etc, a named officer should be regarded as responsible for looking after it. If the evidence goes missing or is tampered with, that named officer is responsible and has to provide an explanation as to how this happened under his or her watch, and suffer professional consequences in the event of being unable to provide a satisfactory explanation.

    You could pretty much guarantee that no more evidence would go missing and that the protocols for collecting, storing and monitoring evidence in cases like these would improve exponentially if a specific individual knew their career was on the line should the evidence not be preserved and available to whatever investigation it formed part of.

    Remember that case GSOC referred to a couple of months ago, in which the directly relevant pages of the log book in relation to how Ian Bailey became suspect #1 in the Du Plantier case were deliberately torn out of the log book? Everyone said "oh, well it's impossible to figure out specifically who did it, so nothing can be done". That isn't the only way we could go about this, though - if the law stated that I, Superintendent Hatrickpatrick of the Boards division (hehe), as the named officer responsible for this stuff, would have to appear before an Oireachtas committee and face the prospect of demotion, suspension, or expulsion from my position in the force should the log book be tampered with, disappear, or otherwise not be preserved, I'm pretty sure that (a) stuff like this would happen far less frequently, and (b) the named officer would be fairly ruthless in trying to find out who did it if anything did mysteriously happen to evidence held under his or her watch.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    This is a basic reform I'd like to see, which would go some way towards avoiding a situation like this down the road - when evidence is collected, be it for a criminal prosecution, a tribunal, an Oireachtas committee, etc, a named officer should be regarded as responsible for looking after it. If the evidence goes missing or is tampered with, that named officer is responsible and has to provide an explanation as to how this happened under his or her watch, and suffer professional consequences in the event of being unable to provide a satisfactory explanation.

    You could pretty much guarantee that no more evidence would go missing and that the protocols for collecting, storing and monitoring evidence in cases like these would improve exponentially if a specific individual knew their career was on the line should the evidence not be preserved and available to whatever investigation it formed part of.

    Remember that case GSOC referred to a couple of months ago, in which the directly relevant pages of the log book in relation to how Ian Bailey became suspect #1 in the Du Plantier case were deliberately torn out of the log book? Everyone said "oh, well it's impossible to figure out specifically who did it, so nothing can be done". That isn't the only way we could go about this, though - if the law stated that I, Superintendent Hatrickpatrick of the Boards division (hehe), as the named officer responsible for this stuff, would have to appear before an Oireachtas committee and face the prospect of demotion, suspension, or expulsion from my position in the force should the log book be tampered with, disappear, or otherwise not be preserved, I'm pretty sure that (a) stuff like this would happen far less frequently, and (b) the named officer would be fairly ruthless in trying to find out who did it if anything did mysteriously happen to evidence held under his or her watch.


    It's called an exhibits officer and it is the procedure in most cases already. It's not a requirement but most investigators will assign one. There has been reform in the handling of exhibits with secure property stores and digital tracking of exhibits having been introduced.0


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    It's called an exhibits officer and it is the procedure in most cases already. It's not a requirement but most investigators will assign one. There has been reform in the handling of exhibits with secure property stores and digital tracking of exhibits having been introduced.0

    Fantastic. If that was enacted in legislation as well as the mere internal guidelines, you could make it relatively iron clad, that even an order from the commissioner wouldn't be enough to "justify" someone disposing of evidence if it meant that GSOC or the Justice Committee could get involved.

    Unfortunately, the culture needs to be changed by force (heh) in this manner, legislatively. Ask them to reform themselves and they'll come up with a thousand reasons not to do it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Fantastic. If that was enacted in legislation as well as the mere internal guidelines, you could make it relatively iron clad, that even an order from the commissioner wouldn't be enough to "justify" someone disposing of evidence if it meant that GSOC or the Justice Committee could get involved.

    Unfortunately, the culture needs to be changed by force (heh) in this manner, legislatively. Ask them to reform themselves and they'll come up with a thousand reasons not to do it.


    Except they did do it. I think putting the procedure it in legislation would prevent it being improved or upgraded regularly but there is already legislation that allows for people to be disciplined for not following procedure.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,618 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Callaghnan a real piece of work and hasn't bothered to comment on the report yet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Callaghnan a real piece of work and hasn't bothered to comment on the report yet.

    Callinan is retired, he will not say anything if he has any sense.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,618 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Callinan is retired, he will not say anything if he has any sense.


    A public apology would be welcomed I'd say.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    A public apology would be welcomed I'd say.


    That would be an admission of wrong doing, not going to happy especially if legal action is being considered by any affected party.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭holyhead


    Callinan is a bastard. To falsely accuse someone of sexual abuse to blacken their name is the lowest of the low. It is scandalous if he is getting his state pension.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    https://www.thejournal.ie/keith-harrison-challenge-4335643-Nov2018/
    GARDA KEITH HARRISON has launched a High Court challenge seeking to quash findings made against him in reports from the disclosures Tribunal.

    Seems it's not over yet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭Rhineshark


    This all started before I was paying much attention to it and I'm a bit flummoxed by the bits and pieces across years that I've picked up. Anyone know somewhere I could read a reasonably neutral primer? I could start with the report but not sure if that's going to send me on the wrong track as it seems to have had many twists and turns.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭theguzman


    It is really only the tip of the Iceberg in terms of Garda corruption, Ireland is essentially the Mexico of Europe in the illegal Narcotics trade and there is serious Garda collusion between Drug Traffickers and the Police here. Yacht's sail up from Colombia and Mexico laden with drugs and they are brought ashore here. Gardai are paid off to ensure this keeps happening, every so often a shipment is sent for them to discover and some patsy or rival gang is busted to appear like they are doing a great job.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    theguzman wrote: »
    It is really only the tip of the Iceberg in terms of Garda corruption, Ireland is essentially the Mexico of Europe in the illegal Narcotics trade and there is serious Garda collusion between Drug Traffickers and the Police here. Yacht's sail up from Colombia and Mexico laden with drugs and they are brought ashore here. Gardai are paid off to ensure this keeps happening, every so often a shipment is sent for them to discover and some patsy or rival gang is busted to appear like they are doing a great job.


    Is there any proof of this or have you just been watching the new Narcos?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭theguzman


    Is there any proof of this or have you just been watching the new Narcos?


    It would be very foolish to just think we are immune from such Garda corruption.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,579 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Surely you'd need collusion between the Gardai, the navy, Customs and whatever else state authorities have an interest in patrolling our waters and coast.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 50,887 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    theguzman wrote: »
    It would be very foolish to just think we are immune from such Garda corruption.

    You would need evidence to prove that before I'd believe anything like that.
    It's a bit like Callinan saying things about Mc Cabe that weren't true.


Advertisement