WHOEVER wrote the "Moscow letter" was an "incredibly stupid person , Mr De Rossa told the High Court yesterday.

The size of the request for £1 million was "ludicrous" and could not have been taken seriously by anybody.

Earlier Mr MacEntee asked Mr ,De Rossa about an interview he gave to The Irish Times which was published on December 7th, 1992. Asked if the interview was mainly concerned with the "Moscow letter and its origins", Mr De Rossa said: "By and large."

He agreed the interview was given six weeks after the letter had been published in the newspaper.

Mr MacEntee asked Mr Dec ,Rossa about his statement in the interview that the letter might well have originated from somebody within the Workers' Party.

That was an option he would have considered at the time, given that it appeared to be on WP note- paper, Mr De Rossa said. It was ,not necessarily a view he held. It !appeared to be on a photocopy of WP notepaper.

He was not aware it was necessarily Mr Garland's signature on it. His (Mr De Rossa's) signature ,had been forged and Mr Garland's might well have been forged also. It was very indistinct. His exclusive concern was that he (Mr De Rossa) had nothing to do with it. He paid no attention whatsoever to what purported to be Mr Garland's signature.

Asked by Mr MacEntee if he knew then that the Garland signature had been examined by a handwriting expert, Mr De Rossa said he had not.

Mr MacEntee put it that, assuming the letter was despatched in or about a date in 1986, that but for radical change in the USSR the letter would never have seen the light of day. Mr De Rossa said he had no way of knowing.

Questioned further about The Irish Times interview, Mr De Rossa said that to his knowledge the letter did not come from the WR His primary concern was that he had nothing to do with it.

Asked by Mr MacEntee if he could not have phoned Mr Garland, Mr De Rossa said he did not wish to have anything to do with anybody linked to the WP. Leaving the WP had been a period of huge turmoil for him personally and politically.

It was unlikety that Mr Garland would have been willing to help him following his (Mr De Rossa's) departure with 80 per cent of the membership.

Asked by Mr MacEntee if he was content that The Irish Times report was a fair representation of the interview, Mr De Rossa said it was. He had no reason to complain about the article.

The letter did not come from the WP. It might have come from a person in it. Its contents had never been discussed by any committee of which he was a member and he believed that was well established.

Mr MacEntee asked about a reference in the interview to "people in the WP who were engaged in undemocratic activity". Mr De Rossa said he had been referring to the internal politicking in the party to prevent the changes he was seeking.

Meetings were held by peopre secretly seeking to recruit members into a faction within the part,y to oppose decisions made by- ,the ardchomhairle. People gave incorrect information at branch level about changes pursued at national level.

Those opposed to his reconstruction proposals included Mr Sean Garland and Mr John Lowry. Mr De Rossa said part of his proposals was that the WP should end contact with Eastern European parties and there was opposition to that.

Mr MacEntee asked about a reference in The Irish Times article to Mr De Rossa being aggrieved that it seemed he had been made to "carry the can for other pe9ples stupidity". Mr De Rossa said he would imagine that whoever was the author of the 1986 letter seemed to be an incredibly stupid person and he was having to answer for it and had nothing to do with it.

Mr MacEntee asked what was stupid about a letter asking for £1 million. Mr De Rossa said that was stupid for a start. The author or authors were presenting themselves as WP members. It was a small party and the letter was written to the CPSU looking for £1 million. It seemed stupid to him that such a request could be taken seriously.

Asked by Mr MacEntee whom he had told about Mr Garland's admission to soliciting funds with9ut authority, Mr De Rossa said it was not necessary to tell anyone because everybody who needed to know knew. When Mr MacEntee put it to Mr De Rossa that he described this as a misdemeanour, going behind the back of the ardchomhairle, Mr De Rossa replied that it was "not exactly a hanging offence". It was something that should not have been done. It was a request for funds which was not in any way illegal but it was improper and outside the proper procedures of the party.

Mr MacEntee asked whether, if the soliciting of funds had taken place by means of a letter such as the Moscow Letter, would he still describe it as a misdemeanour. Mr De Rossa said not at all. He would regard it was a "very serious" matter and one which would probably have given rise to his expulsion.

Asked by Mr MacEntee who- apart from the WP stood to gain ,from the letter, Mr De Rossa replied that he had no reason to believe that the WP stood to gain from it. There was no evidence that it came from the WP.

Counsel asked Mr De Rossa who would have received a reply from the CPSU. Mr De Rossa said he had no idea and was not prepared to speculate. He wanted, to offer the hypothesis that the letter could have been conveyed by soWe person to the central committee and the reply could have been conveyed to that person. He said the reply did not have to be conveyed directly to the names on the letter.

Mr MacEntee: "Someone in Moscow?"

Mr De Rossa: "Perhaps. I do not know but it is a possibility."

Mr MacEntee: "So you are hypotnesising that there is someone in Moscow party to a conspiracy?"

Mr De Rossa: "It's possible. I don't know."

Mr MacEntee suggested that it was "very probable" that the letter came from someone in the WP. Mr De Rossa replied that he; was entitled to offer that but it was not proven and there was no! evidence.

Asked if there was ever a plan toe establish a party school, Mr Dec Rossa replied there was not. Counsel asked what the WP site in Mornington had been bought for. Mr De Rossa replied that he had no recollection of when it was bought. When he came onto the ardchomhairle in 1982-83 it was already owned by the party. It had, been used in the l970s for week-a end seminars. Cottages on the sited were "fairly basic" without running water or indoor toilets.

Mr MacEntee suggested that it was acquired in the hope that some day the party would have enough money to establish a school and an educational centre, exactly as in the letter.

Mr De Rossa replied that he had no idea if this was on someone's mind but certainly it was not discussed at the ardchomhairle.