40 years of GUBU

Caquas

Forty years ago, Conor Cruise O'Brien coined a term that has entered the Irish political lexicon - GUBU (Grotesque, Unbeliveable, Bizarre, Unprecedented). He took these words from the mouth of the Taoiseach, Charlie Haughey, who had used them to describe extraordinary events in which a serial killer was arrested at the home of the Attorney General.

RTE has now produced a podcast about the origin of GUBU. There have been many bizarre and grotesque events in Irish politics over the past 40 years but I doubt if any exceeded this incredible and horrifying case.

https://shows.acast.com/gubu

cml387

I remember it well.

Ironically, for all the shady happenings in that disastrous Haughey government (phone tapping, the Dowra affair, calls to the Aras), this genuinely seems to have been pure bad luck that the AG was vaguely acquainted with Mc Arthur.

Sam Russell

McArthur was never charged with the murder of the farmer Donal Dunne who was shot in cold blood so that McArthur could steal his shotgun. Why he was not charged with Donal Dunne's murder, and why there was no inquiry into why there was no charge of murder is just as GUBU as the rest of this scandal.

All about the FF corruption of the time.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179834#Comment_119179834

The failure to convict Macarthur for the murder of Donal Dunne added to the sense that there was a coverup.

The IT explains it as part of a deal where Macarthur pleaded guilty to the murder of Birdie Gargan. It is almost unprecedented (that word again!) for anyone to plead guilty to murder because there is a mandatory life sentence I.e. the normal reduction in sentencing for a guilty plea does not apply. The evidence against Macarthur was overwhelming but there is always a risk that a prosecution might fail due to a technicality. The DPP intended to present a statement in court about the Dunne murder but the Judge ruled it out so the Dunne family never had their “day in court” and naturally felt aggrieved.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/the-murderer-the-attorney-general-the-taoiseach-and-the-birth-of-gubu-1.4878877

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119178608#Comment_119178608

It was an ill-fated government and partly responsible for the economic calamity that Ireland suffered in the 1980s but the GUBU scandals that emanated from Haughey had not really begun so you’re right that this was a case of bad luck for Haughey - he had no connection with Macarthur and his appointment of Paddy Connolly as AG seemed entirely reasonable.

Haughey is criticised for allowing the AG to go to New York but it seems the AG gave Haughey the impression that Macarthur was merely arrested in his apartment block - once Haughey understood that Macarthur had been a house guest of the AG, he called the AG back from NY and fired him forthwith.

Cruise O’Brien coined a word that haunted Haughey for the next decade and beyond. Somehow Haughey lived up to the GUBU label. The Cruiser had tremendous literary gifts. I can’t think of any Irish politician today who might compare.

Caquas

I just listened to episode 3, the Haughey episode. What a disappointment! I assumed they had some dirt on Haughey, some link to these terrible murders. Maybe via Paddy Connolly, the AG, or some other nefarious Haughey contact. But this episode has nothing, just nothing!

https://shows.acast.com/gubu/episodes/episode-3-background

The introduction begins "Though they never met in their lifetimes, the narratives of Charles Haughey and Malcolm Macarthur would become inextricably linked".

In the lifetimes! Hilarious. So now we know Macarthur will join Haughey and other monsters in the afterlife.

The podcast starts with Haughey opening an account at the Dame St. branch of the Munster and Leinster Bank in June 1973. What's the link with Macarthur? Was Macarthur also a customer at that branch? Did he plan to rob that branch? No, there is no link but it is there to remind us that Haughey borrowed a lot of money which the bank ultimately had to write off. (Bonus points - there was no Munster and Leinster Bank of Dame St. or anywhere else in 1973 - it merged with the Provincial Bank and the Royal Bank of Ireland to form AIB in 1966)

The episode makes desparate efforts to find "commonalities" between Haughey and Macarthur. We are told they both had "wretched childhoods". In fact, their childhoods were as different as any two Irish boys in that era could be - Haughey's family was poor, living on a miserable pension in a Council House where his mother gave devoted care to Haughey's disabled father and all her children. Macarthur was an only child whose family was very well-off and lived in a large house with servants but his parents' marriage was a disaster.

Oh, but here's what Haughey and Macarthur really had in common - "a fear of poverty". Amazing! Imagine anyone growing up in this land of milk and honey having a fear of poverty. No wonder Haughey and Macarthur were kindred spirits even if they never met. Are we quite sure that Haughey wasn't a serial killer in his spare time?

In contrast, Paddy Connolly - the only real link between Haughey and Macarthur - is handled with kid gloves. This epidsode doesn't even mention that he left generous bequest to Macarthur's son. The gay scene in Dublin at the time is mentioned but oh so discretely.

There is a generation of IT staff who are tragically obsessed with Haughey. They need therapy, or an exorcism. Anything that might help free them from their terrible fixation which colours their view of everything that happened in Ireland for almost 30 years.

Caquas

The Guardian recounts the MacArthur story today, probably because some people suggest that GUBU would be a useful acronym to describe politics in the UK now.

Nothing really new but at least Harry McGee sets the record straight on Haughey, making up for the nonsense in Episode 3 of the Irish Times podcast.

Haughey’s reputation for intrigue fuelled conspiracy theories that destabilised his government, even though, in this instance, the taoiseach was blameless, said McGee.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/07/gubu-irish-double-murder-case-40-years-on-podcasts-malcolm-macarthur-charles-haughey

It says the story lives on because MacArthur is at liberty in Dublin now but it does not mention the extraordinary twist in the tale - Paddy Connolly’s bequest to MacArthur’s son. It says MacArthur’s motive remains an enigma. I think his motive is plain- money, lots of it.

I hadn’t heard of the BBC podcast until now.

https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2022/adrian-dunbar-narrates-new-podcast-documenting-bizarre-and-shocking-moment-in-irish-history

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119178608#Comment_119178608

"Vaguely acquainted" GUBU.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119844146#Comment_119844146

That's what we were told at the time.

But would you leave an apartment in Sandymount to the son of a "vague acquaintance"? 30 years after the "vague acquaintance" had gone on a murder spree and put you at the centre of an enormous scandal.

Esel

Also gubu was the next fundraising plan in MacArthur's notebook, which involved electrocuting an elderly relative (by wiring an internal brass doorknob to the mains) so that he would benefit from her estate.

kirk.

Not exactly a criminal mastermind McArthur

Had the appearance of to the manor born about him

Esel

Yeah, he seems to have been just a low-functioning psychopathic murderer.

Problem: Need Car. Solution: Kill owner with hammer.

Problem: Need shotgun. Solution: Shoot owner.

Problem: Funds low. Solution: Wire doorknob to mains and wait for inheritance.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119847170#Comment_119847170

Not low-functioning, just incompetent and arrogant enough to believe he was exceptionally intelligent and could out-smart the cops. I think great credit is due to the Gardai who connected the dots in this case, especially because MacArthur was bound to kill again.

The murders of Bridie Gargan and Donal Dunne appeared to be unconnected but the Gardai matched fingerprints off a newspaper found near Donal Dunne and the shovel found near Bridie Gargan. MacArthur had no criminal record so no fingerprint records but the big break in the case was when MacArthur attempted a robbery which was almost comically inept. MacArthur phoned the Gardai in Dalkey the next day to say the whole thing was just a prank - and he gave the Gardai his real name! Still, there was nothing to link this episode with the two murders but the Gardai realised MacArthur fitted the description of the murderer and tracked him down quickly to the AG's home.

Unfortunately, there are still many unanswered questions about MacArthur because his trial was shut-down without evidence being heard. MacArthur thought he had a deal which would get him out in a few years but there was such a backlash, he had to sit in jail for 30 years.

Will he ever tell the whole story? Apparently, he cannot discuss the case under his parole conditions.

Sam Russell

Why was MacArthur not charged with the murder of Donal Dunne?

It wuld have been an open and shut case.

cml387

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119850197#Comment_119850197

Wasn't it the case that he was charged, but that he pleaded guilty to the murder of Bridie Gargan so the Dunne charge was left "on file".

Theories were that it was wrapped up in seven minutes by the judiciary to save Connolly, "one of their own" as it were.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119853567#Comment_119853567

Surely not. They would never do that, would they?

That would be corrupt.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119850197#Comment_119850197

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/state-s-first-dpp-strongly-defended-his-independence-1.3294956?fbclid=IwAR2nxRRuz7uABSJBr4WFR9fbxVrzBnLNBOjaMWKiLsILGuIatBR0dQsre0U

The decision not to prosecute MacArthur for the Dunne murder added to the controversy and the sense that there was a coverup.

The DPP, who used to work for the AG, decided to accept a guilty plea on one count (the murder of Bridie Garage) rather than run a full trial on both murders. It is a rare case where an accused pleads guilty to murder and there seems to have been a deal done in MacArthur's case. Magill has an interesting account of this process and how it backfired for MacArthur - far from being a "forgotten man" who would be released in six or seven years, the controversy was such that no Minister for Justice dared release him for 30 years.

https://magill.ie/archive/justice-behind-closed-doors-malcom-macarthur-case

kirk.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119853665#Comment_119853665

That's another can of worms

Political control over prisoner release , it's mostly optics

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179834#Comment_119179834

The FF corruption of the time all started with the Haughey refusal to explain how he could afford his home.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119860742#Comment_119860742

I think you could go back further.

How did De Valera get to own the Irish Press group? Many Irish Americans subscribed their one dollar to help establish the Irish Press as a voice for FF and got shares, but suddenly they group was owned by Dev's family.

There was some scandal involving Lynch and Tacca (or some such name) that allowed access to ministers (for a contribution).

The relationship between Dev and John Charles McQuade needs some deep delving, particularly in the Archbishops involvement in the drafting of the Irish constitution, and in Irish politics under Dev.

Corruption goes very deep in Irish politics.

cml387

There's always been a rumour that Haughey's start came from sterling devaluation in 1967.

As we were in the sterling area Haughey probably would have been informed (he was minister for finance then), the opportunities for a killing if you had advanced knowledge would be immense.

kirk.

Haughey and McArthur probably had a bit in common

They both had aristocratic notions

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119861352#Comment_119861352

In Haughey's case it was not an aristocratic notion, it was the real thing.

kirk.

Ya I didn't know was just guessing

John_Rambo

Hi, has anyone come across McArthur recently in Dublin City? I saw him briefly on Wicklow st.

I'd recommend this podcast by the BBC on the same subject.

Absolutely fascinating that he's precluded from talking to the press as part of his release. Straight back to gaol if he talks. Something big being hidden.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/p0d042x8

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119862231#Comment_119862231

Or maybe they don't want him profiting from his notoriety

TipsyMcStagge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119862231#Comment_119862231

I'd say he knows a few dark secrets alright the AG wouldn't have been the only big time closet McArthur came out of I'd say.

Caquas

The BBC podcast series is very well made and captures the paranoid atmosphere of that time very well. More importantly, and to my surprise, it adds a very interesting new dimension to the case: a possible link to the Charles Self murder.

I had heard vague suggestions that MacArthur might be involved in that brutal murder, just six months before the Bridie Gargan and Donal Dunne murders, but there seemed to be no evidential basis for this speculation. Episode 6 of this podcast throws a dramatically different light on the Charles Self murder and the ensuing heavy-handed police investigation into the gay scene in Dublin.

Charles Self was murdered in the house he shared with Vincent Hanley, the RTE DJ. Hanley was in London that night and his room was occupied by a visitor, Bertie Tyrer, who was woken up in the middle of the night by a stranger who came to his bedroom door. Tyrer (like Self a stage designer) drew a sketch of this stranger for the Gardai and told them the stranger spoke with a "West Brit" accent.

For whatever reason, this sketch was never made public by the Gardai but a friend of Charles Self, Bill Maher, was shown the drawing by investigating Gardai. He didn't recognise the man at that time but, months later, when MacArthur's photo was on every newspaper, Maher immediately said - "****, that's the person in the drawing". When a colleague from RTE asked one of the detectives investigating MacArthur if he could have been involved in the Charles Self murder, the Garda dismissed it ("not a runner").

This sketch is not conclusive, of course. Colm Tobín says it is unlikely unless MacArthur frequented gay pickup areas like Burgh Quay (where Charles Self met a man he brought home on the night of his murder). But is is not just the drawing - there is the West Brit accent. At the very least, MacArthur should have been asked about this murder. He was in Tenerife in early 1982 - when did he actually leave Dublin? He may have a perfect alibi or maybe he went to Tenerife to make himself scare during the Garda investigation of the Self murder. The Garda response to the BBC enquiries for this podcast is a classic stonewall. Oddly, the podcast doesn't mention that there was a full-scale Garda cold case investigation of the Charles Self murder about 10 years ago which, it seems, never considered Malcolm MacArthur as a suspect.

There is another extraordinary possibility mentioned in this podcast, and for the first time as far as I know. There was very bad blood between MacArthur and his father. They had a terrible fight and MacArthur went to live with an uncle in California. On one of his very rare visits home in 1971, his father died suddenly overnight. Was there an inquest? What cause of death was certified? The podcast doesn't pursue these questions.

I have a feeling that there was a major coverup in this case but the media was so obsessed with Charlie Haughey that they missed the real manipulators of this case. The DPP did a deal with MacArthur in which he pleaded guilty to murdering Bridie Gargan but was not tried for the murder of Donal Dunne. Was there more to this deal? Did the Gardai agree not to investigate MacArthur for any other crime or did they believe a law-abiding citizen had suddenly become a brutal serial killer at the age of 36?

h t t p s : / / p o d c a s t s . a p p l e . c o m / i e / p o d c a s t / e p i s o d e - 6 - a - f o r g o t t e n - m u r d e r / i d 1 6 4 6 0 2 2 9 0 6 ? i = 1 0 0 0 5 8 0 3 0 6 8 6 7

kirk.

Lots of stuff is connected and not in the public domain

I know events that are linked because I'm personally involved .It's through people that have met but it's not reported on.

John_Rambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119862336#Comment_119862336

Spoiler alert!!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119862483#Comment_119862483

Sure tell us! A quick synopsis won't hurt anyone.

Caquas

The Spectator review praises the production quality of the BBC podcast but wonders "where's the beef?"

There are only so many people you can get to contextualise the context-defying fact that Ireland’s most wanted criminal was found in the home of Ireland’s most senior lawyer...

And so… and so what? We don’t really know....

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-extraordinary-case-of-malcolm-macarthur/

The BBC series tries to link these murders to a wider sense of corruption in Ireland at that time but it offers no proof of anything. The IT podcast was worse - it tried to smear Haughey with these murders but it is clear from the BBC series that Haughey had nothing to do with the case until MacArthur was arrested and then Haughey handled a bizarre situation much as any Taoiseach would. His slip of the tongue (congratulating Gardai for "getting the right man") was ultimately a harmless gaffe. On the other hand, the AG made matters much worse by flying to New York on his holliers.

I think there are two ways of viewing this case. Either the murders were nothing more or less than evil doing of a lone psychopath who has paid for his crimes with one of the longest jail terms in the history of the Irish State. Or... MacArthur had protection in high places but even that couldn't protect him from the public outrage at his appalling crimes. The latter view is only credible if MacArthur's relationship with the AG was much more than we were led to believe. I would have been sceptical until the AG's will left substantial bequest to MacArthur's son. At the very least, there is much that we don't know.

One thing is clear - although both RTE and the BBC might give a different impression - this scandal had nothing to do with either Haughey or the Catholic Church. Maybe that is part of its GUBU-ness 😜

Caquas

Harry McGee has turned the IT podcast into a book. McGee spent a lot of time speaking to MacArthur but, judging by this report, he learned nothing.

And his book’s title - “Murder and the Taoiseach” - is absurd. Haughey had no connection with MacArthur although the Cruiser skewered Haughey with GUBU after his press conference. The title is either a backhanded compliment to Haughey (he sells books) or just another expression of the IT’s obsession.

The book doesn’t seem to address the two most interesting questions at this stage:

• What was MacArthur’s relationship with the Attorney-General?
• Did MacArthur have anything to do with the murder of Charles Self?

How murderer Malcolm Macarthur spends his days: library visits, bookshop browsing, living a quiet lifehttps://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/2023/05/20/how-the-fates-of-malcolm-macarthur-and-charles-haughey-became-inextricably-linked/

pjcb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119846507#Comment_119846507

never heard that before

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/the-killer-the-will-and-the-500k-gubu-legacy/35522619.html

never heard this before either

they [MacArthur and Brenda little] were "caretakers" of a flat in Donnybrook which was once occupied by then Attorney General Patrick Connolly.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/KILLER%27S+JAIL+LOVE+DATES%3B+EXCLUSIVE+MacArthur%27s+secret+visits+from...-a090945977

Caquas

Harry Magee got his book out ahead of Mark O’Connell who had much more extensive conversations with MacArthur.

It is extraordinary that MacArthur is not allowed to speak about his crimes as a condition of his probation. I have never heard any such condition applied in any other case.

Surely he, like all criminals, should be encouraged in every way to confess their crimes even after their release from prison. More than any other Irish prisoner I can think of, MacArthur should tell the truth about these events which transfixed the nation and which never emerged in open court. Of course, he should not be allowed to profit in any way from his crimes but that is a very different issue. It seems the Department of Justice simply do not want us to know the truth but O’Connell’s book might enlighten us.

The book previews in the coming weeks might reveal something new about the case. It hope it is not just another re-hash with a bogus Haughey smear. The Indo still can’t resist the hoary old “pint or transfer” BS about Haughey (which is really a smear on the Gardai i.e they didn’t enforce the law in order to protect their careers.)

https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/books/book-reviews/the-murderer-and-the-taoiseach-by-harry-mcgee-why-the-malcolm-macarthur-case-remains-as-grotesque-and-bizarre-as-ever/a1797415653.html

https://www.amazon.com/Thread-Violence-Story-Invention-Murder/dp/B0BMWCWPGF/ref=tmm_aud_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Peregrinus

Couple of points:

Not talking to the media is a standard condition of release on licence. In general the view is that it's not a good idea for prisoners to trade on their notoriety. (Also it seems likely that, while Macarthur points to the formal restriction as a reason for not talking, it's probably also true that he doesn't want to talk. Which is entirely understandable without any need for a conspiracy theory to explain it.)

There's been a couple of mentions in this thread of the fact that Paddy Connolly left money to Macarthur's son, implying that this may suggest a deeper relationship than we have been told about between Connolly and Macarthur. This thinking overlooks the fact that Paddy Connolly's son is also Brenda Little's son, and we have always known that Connolly and Little had a long-standing friendship, dating from before she met Macarthur. Connolly also left a bequest to Brenda Little. Connolly appears to have known Macarthur only as Brenda Little's partner.

I remember at the time there was much rumour and speculation about a homosexual dimension to the murders that was supposedly covered up. But much of this was based on homophobic stereotyping; Macarthur was thought to be gay because he wore a bow tie and drank in Bartley Dunnes; Connolly was assumed to be gay because he was sociable but unmarried. In fact there's no evidence that either man was gay, and all those who knew them say they were not. No same-sex partners of either man have ever emerged, and I don't recall any of my friends who were on the gay scene, or connected with it, in the early 1980s identifying either Connolly or Macarthur as known to be gay. It's possible, of course, that one or both of them was deeply closeted, but there really is no reason to think so.

Did Malcolm Macarthur murder Charles Self? The guards did look into this at the time, but this seems to have been based on little more than the fact that both men drank in Bartley Dunne's and Macarthur (they thought) might be gay. We do know that Macarthur murdered Bridie Gargan and Donal Dunne as part of a wildly unrealistic scheme to get money; the Self murder, if it did it, would require some other explanation because it wasn't linked to any opportunity to get money and, anyway, at the time Macarthur's inheritance from his father had not run out.

As for the Macarthur/Haughey link — in one sense there is none. Neither Macarthur nor his crimes had any connection to Charlie Haughey. But in another sense, there is — Macarthur's crimes had a significant influence on Haughey's fortunes. Most of the conspiracy theories and rumours that circulated about the murders at the time may have been baseless, but they were enormously damaging. And the fact that they circulated so readily and secured so much traction is a telling comment on Irish society and politics at the time. Haughey was widely believed to be corrupt, because of his unexplained wealth; he was widely believed to be hypocritical, because of his public social conservatism and private but well-known libertinism; and he was widely believed to be dishonest or worse, because of the evidence he gave at the arms trial and his reluctance thereafter to discuss the matter. All of this helped to create a fevered climate in which rumour, innuendo and conspiracy theories, true or not, would flourish and work their corrosive effect.

Everybody who was around at the time remembers the term "GUBU" - an acronym for Haughey's characterisation of the arrest of Macarthur in Connelly's flat, coined and then immediately repurposed by Conor Cruise O'Brien to characterise Haughey's own administration. So, although Haughey had little direct involvement in the Macarthur affair and even less responsibility for it, the whole affair becomes a useful and powerful metaphor for Charlie Haughey's government.

cml387

Those too young to remember should find a copy of "the Boss" by Joe Joyce and Peter Murtagh, which describes that era as mentioned above.

Hotblack Desiato

This thinking overlooks the fact that Paddy Connolly's son is also Brenda Little's son

Eh?? Did you mean that MacArthur's son is Little's son?

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120684793#Comment_120684793

I was not aware that it is standard practice here to ban ex-prisoners talking to the media. Ex-prisoners generally don't talk to the media simply because they don't want the public to be reminded of their crimes. And the media would, of course, be very wary of an ex-con spinning their exculpatory lies but MacArthur is exceptional because he never denied his guilt and there are no mitigating circumstances worth talking about. Of course, as I said, MacArthur should not be allowed to profit in any way from his crimes but many jurisdictions have laws to prevent that. A general, life-long ban would surely fall foul of our constitutional guarantee of free speech (which is subject only to specific exceptions - sedition, indecency etc.). In any case, Mark O'Connell seems to have got MacArthur talking. His book is out in two weeks

https://www.foyles.co.uk/book/a-thread-of-violence/mark-oconnell/9781783787708

Was Paddy Connolly the father of Brenda Little's son? I've heard that before but I don't think it was ever acknowledged publicly by any of them, even in the will making the bequest (and long after the taboo on unmarried mothers). The relationship between Connolly and MacArthur is central to this scandal. If it was nothing more than a casual acquaintance, as claimed at the time, then there was no scandal - there were two horrible, senseless murders by an sociopath with no public standing who was caught by excellent detective work in which Connolly was extremely unlucky to be caught up.

In reality, however, Connolly had a substantial relationship with MacArthur and he was at pains to minimise the extent of that relationship. He did not come clean about the extent of that relationship at the time or subsequently so the rumour machine was cranked up to maximum. You say "there was no evidence" that either man was gay but, at that time, such evidence would have given grounds for prosecution of a crime which was almost unmentionable. It was simply unthinkable that such evidence could be produced against the Government's legal advisor, in whose name such crimes were prosecuted until the establishment of the DPP a few years earlier. I don't say Connolly was gay - I think we don't know and he didn't want us to know.

The Charles Self investigation was a dreadful mess and a low-point in relations between the Gardai and the gay community (Declan Flynn's murder in Fairview was also shocking, especially the suspended sentences, but the Gardai did a competent investigation). The initial investigation was such a failure that, like the Sophie Toscan du Plantier case, the cold-case reviews yielded nothing. It is terrible to think that, in both these cases, brutal murderers can sleep soundly knowing that the miraculous advances in forensic science are no threat to them. Conversely, it is hard to rule out any suspect and MacArthur now feels aggrieved that suspicion also hangs over him. Well, yeah. Suck it up, Malcolm!

Unlike his AG, we know that Haughey had no connection whatever to MacArthur and I think any Taoiseach, including Garret Fitzgerald, would have behaved much the same in the bizarre and unprecedented circumstances. Haughey was unfortunate to have this scandal explode on his watch or, to say the same thing, this scandal was manna from heaven for the Opposition and for his opponents in his own party. Conor Cruise was a gifted writer and "GUBU" was a brilliant distillation of Haughey's press conference but, if the truth was known at that time (i.e. that there was no Government conspiracy behind MacArthur), there was in reality no "GUBU" here. Or, more pertinently, the 1980s was a GUBU decade with record unemployment, a return to mass emigration, underfunding/underdelivery in almost every area and no solution in sight for NI.

Peregrinus

I didn't mean to suggest that Connolly was the father of Brenda Little's son — that was a typo on my part. Sorry. I'm just saying that Connolly's bequest to Colin Little is explained by the fact that he is Brenda Little's son, and Connolly was close to Brenda Little. (By "close" I do not mean that they were ever romantic or conjugal partners; just that they had a long-standing friendship.) SFAIK Connolly's only connection with Macarthur is that Macarthur was the partner of Connolly's good friend Brenda Little.

(There's no doubt that Macarthur's crimes blighted the lives of both Brenda and Colin Little, and Connolly may have felt considerable empathy here, partly because he too was affected by the crimes, though less seriously, and partly because he may have thought that his connection with the case, because of his public office, made the whole thing more sensational and increased its adverse impact for the Littles. He was a wealthy man and they were not; he was also a generous man and loyal to his friends. All this seems to me fully to explain the bequests to the Littles.)

Completely agree with you about the Charles Self murder and its investigation. I just feel that the attempt to link it to Macarthur rests mainly on a salacious desire to link two grotesque scandals. There isn't much in the way of evidence behind it.

As for Haughey — yes, he was very unfortunate to become embroiled in this story. It did shake his government and, while he was not responsible for the events, he was responsible for creating the climate in which they would shake his government so badly. (Plus, he did make a couple of misjudgments along the way that fed the problem, like his "At least they got the right man" comment.) But his government survived, at least until the next scandal, and Haughey's own career survived and he went on to return to office and serve his third and most successful term as Taoiseach.

On the don't-speak-to-the-media thing, it's not generally for life; just while a prisoner is out on licence, which is only until his sentence expires. But of course for lifers like Macarthur, the sentence never expires.

Most countries do have laws for seizing any earnings a convict makes arising out of their crimes. In this context those laws would kick in after the licence restriction has expired. But they are generally very hard to enforce, not least because payments can be concealed or can be made indirectly. And the issue with some prisoners is that the kick they get from publicity is not money but attention, notoriety. (This is especially true for narcissists like Macarthur.) Them speaking to the press may gratify our appetite for sensation, but it's also them exploiting their notoriety for kicks, which is Not A Good Thing — not in the interests of victims and their families, not conducive to rehabilitation, etc. We might agree with this policy or disagree with it, but it's not one that was thought up specially for the Macarthur case.

Hotblack Desiato

Yet Macarthur (or is it MacArthur?) did speak with the media - as referenced by Caquas above:

Harry McGee has turned the IT podcast into a book. McGee spent a lot of time speaking to MacArthur but, judging by this report, he learned nothing.

He chose to say little or nothing but nonetheless he did speak with a journalist, so is this forbidden or not?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120692871#Comment_120692871

McGee says he spoke to Macarthur but learnt nothing. Doesn't that raise the question of whether Macarthur spoke to McGee? 😉

There is no general rule that Macarthur must never, ever say anything on any subject to anyone who is connected in any way with the media. You'd need to look at the terms of the licence to know exactly what restriction is placed on Macarthur, but it's likely to be that something along the lines of not discussing his crimes or the victims of those crimes for publication. Enforcing this can be difficult; someone could, e.g., give information on background which is not attributed to them in the published report, and how then can you prove that they give the information?

But as I've said before, I don't think Macarthur wants to discuss his crimes. The licence restriction is a convenient rationalisation he can use to deter journalists and the like. I don't think he's saying to himself "how far can I go without breaching the terms of my licence?", but rather "I wish these guys would leave me alone".

Caquas

Brendan O’Connor’s interview with Mark O’Connell about “Thread of Violence” is trending on the RTÉ website. O’Connell spent many hours with MacArthur who eventually began to speak about his crimes.

Personally, I have no interest in MacArthur, a nobody and a leech whose only “claims to fame” are two horrible murders which were committed for the lowest motive. This interview must be painful for the families of Bridie Gargan and Dónal Dunne, two hardworking young people whose brutal murders devastated their families. MacArthur is no better than that killer in Nottingham who murdered the two students and a caretaker this week.

My interest in his case is its political reverberations. O’Connor glides past MacArthur’s relationship with the AG (“friend of a friend” 🤫) but dwells on the GUBU aspect of MacArthur going to Croke Park with the AG who sits next to the Garda Commissioner and discusses the murders.

I didn’t know MacArthur wrote to the Taoiseach, apparently in an effort to exonerate the AG. I bet that went down like a lead balloon with Haughey. Was that before or after he sued Haughey for his “got their man” comment? 😫

https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/clips/22264750/

Peregrinus

I'm open to correction, but I don't recall that Macarthur sued Haughey over that comment.

Rather, as soon as the comment was made, people realised that it could be raised by Macarthur's defence team when he came to trial, to suggest that with the leader of the country publicly confirming his guilt it would be difficult to find an unbiassed jury to try the case, and so he could not receive a fair trial and would have to be discharged. In the febrile atmosphere of the time this then gave rise to rumours that Haughey had deliberately made the comment to try to derail any trial and so as to try and get Macarthur off.

In the event, of course, Macarthur pleaded guilty so there was no objection based on the comment. It was never raised by him or his lawyers.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120732613#Comment_120732613

MacArthur did indeed. To be exact he made:

AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT FORCONTEMPT OF COURT AGAINST AN TAOISEACH, CHARLES J. HAUGHEY,ESQ., T.D.:

but the case was thrown out at the preliminary stage by Declan Costello because Haughey’s remark was “inadvertent” and the GIS had immediately asked journalists not to report it.

Haughey was a qualified barrister who understood immediately that this was a gaffe but I think it was the only aspect of the MacArthur affair for which he could be justly criticised and it was no more than a slip of the tongue which anyone could have made in the circumstances. There is so much scope for valid criticism of Haughey that it is weird how often the MacArthur case is highlighted on his list of failures.

MacArthur also complained of the publication of “the contents of his letter” to the Haughey (I.e. the bit exonerating the AG) but that argument was also dismissed by Declan Costello. I don’t think the letter itself, or any other documents on this case, were ever released despite an FOI request.

The trial was a fiasco - MacArthur was only charged with the murder of Bridie Gargan and there was no evidence presented. Everything was done to minimise publicity. Why?

https://www.thejournal.ie/no-mention-of-patrick-connolly-gubu-in-1982-state-papers-721266-Dec2012/

https://ie.vlex.com/vid/malcolm-macarthur-793468333

Peregrinus

I stand corrected. Thank you.

As to why the trial was so brief — on Macarthur's side the focus was on how to minimise his sentence. Conviction was very probable and, if convicted, a life sentence was mandatory. But we know time actually served by lifers can vary considerably, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. The thinking may have been that, with only one conviction instead of two, and with no long-drawn-out examination of the sordid details of the case in court, the public sensation surrounding the case would fade more quickly and his chances of earlier, rather than later release would be maximised.

Of course, if that was the strategy, it backfired disastrously; Macarthur ended up serving 30 years. But it's not implausible that that was Macarthur's defence team's strategy at the time. It might have been an, um, aggressively optimistic strategy but, really, when you think about it, was there a better one open to them?

Why, though, did the State agree to this course? One factor is that the case against Macarthur for Dunne's murder was quite weak. There were several eye-witnesses to various aspects of the Gargan murder, or who could place Macarthur in the vicinity at the time; there were none at all for the Dunne murder. Accepting a guilty plea for the Gargan murder in return for dropping the weaker Dunne charge meant a certain conviction and a certain life sentence. The main downside was unsatisfied public curiosity. At the time, among the legal profession, there was a culture of annoyance with the media and a feeling that the public's right to know was at best a secondary consideration in prosecuting crimes. The thinking was that this right would be adequately satisfied by the prosecution reading out a statement of the evidence against Macarthur, and calling a Garda witness to give background on the case.

In the event that plan didn't work. The trial judge rejected it on the grounds that, with a mandatory life sentence, the evidence couldn't affect the sentencing decision and so was unnecessary. Neither the prosecution nor the defence had foreseen that; for both, it was unwelcome, since it fuelled the rumours of a cover-up and, therefore, of there being something that needed to be covered up. So it exacerbated and prolonged the sensation surrounding the case, to the disadvantage both of Macarthur and of the Government.

ohnonotgmail

An extract from O'Connells book was published in the guardian. It mentions licence condition around discussing his crimes with the press.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/20/ireland-most-notorious-murderer-malcolm-macarthur-why-i-might-have-done-what-i-did

rock22

Interestingly , the article also appears to offer a justification for the killings. That, finding himself in a financial crisis taking employment would be a 'blemish' on the aesthetic of his life narrative and therefore he turned to crime.

It seems a strange frame of mind that would see employment as a blemish but not criminal activity. And that is giving him the benefit of his statement that he did not intend to kill Bridie Gargan. Is there any reason to doubt his guilt for the second killing?

His explanation for talking to O'Connell seems to be , a), that O'Connell was not working for any newspaper and b) that O'Connell approached him and not the other way around.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120737656#Comment_120737656

I see no good reason why the State did not prosecute Macarthur for the murder of Donal Dunne. The arguments you put forward here were raised in the media at the time and they simply don't wash.

Macarthur had confessed freely and openly to killing both Bridie Gargan and Donal Dunne. There was compelling circumstantial evidence against him in the Dunne case, including eye-witnesses who had seen him in the vicinity. The Dunne family were not consulted about the decision not to prosecute and were, rightly, aggrieved.The DPP did a deal which was extremely generous to the defence and which pre-empted a proper trial in a case which had aroused intense and entirely justifiable public interest.

I am disappointed by the extract from Mark O'Connell's book. O'Connell is interested in drawing a psychological portrait of Macarthur but all that matters in that regard is well-known: Macarthur was running out of funds for his life of pampered leisure and his hare-brained preparations for a bank robbery resulted in the brutal murder of two young people, a nurse and a farmer.

The Gardai did a top-class job in catching this oddball killer who should have spent his days contemplating his base crimes in a cold, dank cell. Instead, he resents the length of time he spent in jail and he is not remorseful, just very sorry for himself. He is the object of continuing morbid curiosity among Irish intellectuals. John Banville cast him as an Irish Raskolnikov and I think Macarthur liked that sort of intellectual relativising which appeals to the phoney academic image he projects. I'm not surprised the Macarthur engaged extensively with O'Connell, a post-doctoral fellow in Trinity, while shunning journalists like Harry McGee. (Incidentally, O'Connell notes a curious instance of truth in fiction - in The Book of Evidence, the murderer drinks Apollinaire mineral water which was the brand of bottled water that Macarthur ordered when staying with the AG but the Gardai and the media all consistently mis-reported this item as Perrier water. I wonder if this is a fortuitous coincidence or did Banville have a special source? No pun intended!).

The only thing that interests me is whether or not Macarthur had high-level protection, as many believed at the time. If not, it is Macarthur's victims who deserve to be remembered not their killer, a bumbling egotist who preferred to kill rather than work for a living. It was widely believed that Haughey was somehow behind a conspiracy to protect Macarthur but it seems clear now, despite the best efforts of Harry McGee, that Haughey simply had the misfortune to try to explain to the Irish people how the most wanted criminal was arrested in his Attorney General's apartment. Haughey's explanation was, in a nutshell, GUBU. But the AG's involvement may have been something more than bizarre happenstance and "unbelievable mischance". The AG told Haughey that Macarthur was merely a casual acquaintance who was just passing through when he was arrested. That was also the story the media gave us. But then he left a substantial bequest to the boy for whom Macarthur was a father figure. Does Mark O'Connell explain this?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/the-killer-the-will-and-the-500k-gubu-legacy/35522619.html

It seems Connolly was a friend of the boy's mother but I have never heard of such a generous bequest on such tenuous grounds. And it turns out that Macarthur had spent at least three weeks with the AG in Dalkey. And he resided for a year or more in the AG's other apartment in Ranelagh (I think the one bequeathed to the boy). The AG's standards of hospitality, like his bequests, may have been more generous than anyone I've ever met but I doubt he would have a "casual acquaintance" take up residence in his apartment.

Mark O'Connell says his interest in the case was first aroused because his grandparents lived in the same apartment complex in Dalkey and knew the AG as a neighbour but, as far as I can tell at this stage, O'Connell is not much interested in the AG's relationship with Macarthur. If that relationship was as tenuous as we are led to believe, then I doubt if Macarthur had high-level protection and his deal with the DPP was just a very poor judgement call. His was also a remarkably speedy and economical trial, even by the standards of the day. He was convicted and sentenced for the murder of Bridie Gargan less than six months after the crime and less than five months after his arrest. Total legal fees were £5,000!

But what if his defence, especially the redoubtable Paddy McEntee, had cards to play with the DPP which we have never been allowed to see? Remember, the DPP had been an official of the AG's Office until a few years earlier and his Office works in tandem with the AG on many cases. The refusal to release documents on this case 40 years later adds to a sense of cover-up.

But I don't see Haughey's fingerprints on this coverup, perhaps uniquely among all the scandals that surround him. On the contrary, it was in the interests of his government to quell rampant public speculation by putting everything into the open. And Haughey lost the election in November1982 so he was out of power when Macarthur went to trial in January 1983. The fiasco of a that trial re-kindled public suspicions of a coverup but without a clear target because Haughey could hardly have been pulling the strings. Of course, it was in the interests of the Irish Times and the newly-installed coalition Government to keep the focus on Haughey (and even now, 40 years later).

I don't think Mark O'Connell will enlighten us about the issue which matters to the Irish people i.e. was Macarthur protected by powerful interests or did Irish people fall for a fake conspiracy in the febrile atmosphere of the early 1980s? No one, then or now, imagines for a moment that the AG had the slightest involvement in Macarthur's crimes but that is not the issue. Ultimately, Macarthur did not benefit from any special protection (i.e. he spent 30 years in jail) but does his sense of grievance spring from a belief that he did have a special deal in 1983 and it was reneged on?

Peregrinus

Oh, I agree that the decision not to try Macarthur for the Dunne murder was a bad one. I think the reasons for the decision were as I have stated, but I don't they they adequately justify the decision.

I don't think Macarthur had high-level protection. At the very least, we can say with certainty that, if he did have high-level protection, it was singularly useless. He ended up serving far, far longer than most convicted murderers serve.

As for the bequest to Macarthur's son, I struggle to see why you think a connection with the boy's father would explain the bequest while simultaneously dismissing the possibility that a connection with the boy's mother would explain the bequest. Connolly knew Brenda Little for much longer than he knew Malcolm Macarthur. The Donnybrook apartment that Connolly provided for a year was provided to both Little and Macarthur; why do you assume that this indicates a close connection to Macarthur but not to Little? The truth is that Macarthur never got anything from Connolly except during the period when he was Little's partner. Little and Connolly were close before Macarthur appeared on the scene and they remained close after he left it. Most tellingly at all, you attach enormous significance to bequest that Connolly left to Colin Little, but seemingly no significance at all to the much larger bequest that he left to Brenda Little. Brenda Little was left €100,000 and an apartment in Ranelagh, which at the time would have been worth about €300,000; Colin Little was left €75,000 and a collection of cigarette cards. Malcolm Macarthur was left nothing.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120739103#Comment_120739103

I suspect that, in Macarthur's mind, the blemish was not so much taking employment as being seen to take employment (and, certainly, any employment of a kind for which he was qualified). Crime was not a blemish because he expected to get away with it; nobody would know that he was a criminal.

As for his intention to kill, before he attacked Bridie Gargan he bought a shovel, and his confession stated that he did this because he recognised that, um, people might die in the course of or in consequence of his crimes, and if they did he intended to conceal their bodies by burying them. So, whether or not he intended to kill Bridie Gargan, he certainly contemplated it as something that might happen.

The same is probably true of Donal Dunne. Perhaps he told himself that he would be quite happy to take the gun and Dunne's car, leaving Dunne unhurt or, at any rate, alive. That, of course, is not how things played out, or how they were ever likely to play out, but part of Macarthur's psychological defence mechanism against guilt or remorse for this crimes may have been him telling himself that he never meant to kill anyone; it was only his victims' panic or stupidity or other external factors that derailed the plan and resulted in the deaths.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120742609#Comment_120742609

As for the bequest to Macarthur's son, I struggle to see why you think a connection with the boy's father would explain the bequest while simultaneously dismissing the possibility that a connection with the boy's mother would explain the bequest.

That's neither what I think nor what I said.

I am saying that the bequest to the boy shows the Irish people were lied to when they were told that Macarthur was merely a "casual acquaintance" of the AG. It was not "GUBU" that Macarthur was in the AG's apartment. We now see that it was perfectly natural that Macarthur was staying for weeks on end with his friend the AG.

And that is true even if Connolly was closer to the boy's mother. You say she knew Connolly for years before Macarthur but that's not what the media say:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/macarthur-outsider-who-never-did-a-days-work/26039566.html

As I said, Macarthur did not actually benefit from the deal with the DPP over his trial. Public outrage at the 5 minute trial was profound, after which no Minister for Justice was going to release Macarthur early i.e. as if he had "only" committed one murder to which he had pleaded guilty. As I also said, the deal would explain Macarthur's sense of grievance at his 30 year incarceration which, in the absence of any deal, would be a normal term for the worst murderers.

Incidentally, Macarthur should also have been charged with the attempted armed robbery of Harry Beiling in Killiney. That incident was truly GUBU ("Sorry I've no cash, will you take a cheque? ... Just wait here while I escape out my bedroom window") but it should have been included in the indictment because it shows Macarthur was still on his crime spree and, in all likelihood, would have killed again but for the excellent work of the Gardai.

My question remains - why was there such an unprecedented deal to shut down this trial? The Bridie Gargan case was a slam dunk, "guilty but insane" was a non-runner after the psychological reports, and even if there was a remote risk of acquittal on the Dunne case, it was dereliction of the DPP's duty not to put that case to a jury. Issues of complexity, delay and legal costs are simply not relevant to a trial of this magnitude. No, there is no good explanation for this deal which was the fruit of complex negotiations with Paddy McEntee. I see some lawyers saying the only problem was the deal didn't satisfy public curiosity. Try telling that to the Dunne family! Shows how criminal lawyers can lose their moral compass.

Incidentally, the one person at the trial who was not privy to the deal was the judge. His refusal to hear prosecution evidence was absolutely correct procedurally but it frustrated the media and unleashed the storm of public protest.

So, after all the media coverage, the podcasts and now two new books, the darkest suspicions of 40 years ago have not been dispelled, which is a grave injustice to families of the bereaved and to the Gardai involved.