The former JMSE director, Mr James Gogarty, consistently refused to make a formal statement to gardai in the absence of a plainclothes garda in the vicinity of his home, the Flood tribunal heard yesterday.
In fact Mr Gogarty had never given such a statement, Det Supt John McElligott said because the Gardai had decided that such security measures were not warranted to protect Mr Gogarty and his family. The Gardai had repeatedly attempted to obtain from Mr Gogarty - both in person and through his solicitors, the Newry based firm of Donnelly, Neary and Donnelly - a formal statement of his allegations, but to no avail.
In reply to Mr John Gallagher, SC, counsel for the tribunal, Det Supt McElligott said he had received a letter from Donnelly, Neary & Donnelly, dated September 3rd, 1997, confirming that Mr Gogarty would be happy to make a statement, and affirming that he would be willing to attend a tribunal of inquiry. Mr Gogarty had told him that three phone calls had been made to his ex-directory home number early on September 20th, 1997. His wife had answered and each time the caller had "refused to reveal himself".
Det Supt McElligott said he and Det Chief Supt John McGroarty, who advised on security matters, had visited the former JMSE director at his home to discuss his security needs: "We met Mr Gogarty. He was quite angry and referred to his concerns about media publicity."
"Newspaper reports had been quoting the Garda Siochana," said Mr Gallagher. "Did he want you to go public to say that the gardai were not the source of these stories?"
"We don't take that line," Det Supt McElligott replied. "The Garda Press Office acts as our official spokesperson. `Garda sources', as quoted in newspapers could mean anything."
At any rate he had given no information to the media, Det Supt McElligott insisted. In the course of conversation Mr Gogarty brought up the anonymous phone calls, and referred to damage to windows, allegedly caused by gunshots, and a burglary at his home in the past. "These incidents he attributed to the Murphy Group. He said he felt at risk in relation to the Murphy Group."
Chief Supt McGroarty had informed him that he could either have the phone number changed or the line monitored to identify the caller. "He turned down the offer and said he wanted a plainclothes garda siochana in the vicinity of his house." The chief superintendent had responded that the situation did not warrant a plainclothes police presence, but promised to keep the situation under review.
The date, September 30th, was agreed as the day that a formal statement of his allegations would be made in writing to the Garda by Mr Gogarty. But he continued to reiterate that he would only make such a statement when he had "static protection" outside his home, Det Supt McElligott told the tribunal.
"He was building up fear and illusions in himself that caused him concern" and referred to journalists calling to his home. "Down the road he said he was afraid to leave his home even to go to church." Eventually, said Det Supt McElligott, Mr Gogarty felt compelled to change his address because of "perceived threats over a long period". But even at the new address there was still a problem with journalists calling to the house.
"Did you find any objective evidence of the threats?" asked Mr Gallagher.
"No," said Det Supt McElligott. "He was going back and forth over events. But from September 30th onwards I felt that the issue of media publicity was giving him more concern than anything else."
Asked about Mr Gogarty's demeanour at their various meetings, Det Supt McElligott said: "At our first meeting he was a very angry man. Over the first three meetings he just emptied himself of that and settled down. By the fourth and fifth meetings he was quite calm still. But he would storm up again when certain names were mentioned."
He had felt a great sense of loyalty, said Det Supt McElligott, for Mr Joseph Murphy snr. "Then there had been a change of management, followed by stormy waters and relations deteriorated."
Mr Garrett Cooney, SC, counsel for the Murphy Group, cross-examining Det Supt McElligott, said that there had been no evidence of shots being fired through Mr Gogarty's window, as he had insisted, and no complaint had been made by him "then or any time" to the Garda. It was a full 16 hours before Mrs Gogarty had phoned the Garda, at 11.10 a.m. the following morning: "He made no complaint but left it to his wife. Twenty minutes later a `scene of crime' expert had arrived at his house and found no evidence."
Mr Gogarty had also said that £2,000 worth of damage had been caused because of damage to the furniture and carpets as well as the windows, Mr Cooney recalled. "Do you know if the gardai found any evidence of that?"
Det Supt McElligott replied that he would only be relying on second-hand evidence and suggested that the garda concerned would probably be called by the tribunal to report, first hand.
Mr Cooney said that a loss adjuster from the insurance company AMEV had visited the Gogarty home in the latter part of 1991, and had been met by an elderly gentleman who advised him that the glass had failed to withstand storm force winds and had smashed as a result. The loss adjuster had established the bona fides of the claim. In Mr Gogarty's account of the window being shattered, should he also not have told this man of the alleged shooting?
Mr Gallagher objected, on grounds of "speculation" on Mr Cooney's part.
"All right, but we would have expected Mr Gogarty to tell the gardai at some time," said Mr Cooney. "In the course of this evidence, Mr Gogarty said he would not rule my client in or out of this evidence. Isn't it as clear as daylight that this incident never occurred and that the assumption that my client had anything to do with it is completely false and wrong? There was minimal damage and nothing to suggest who did it."