Sir, – Paul Cullen’s article “Tribunal’s opinion worthy of respect – but it is not infallible” (Analysis, March 31st) involves a list of apparent inconsistencies given by my father, Tom Gilmartin, in his evidence to the planning tribunal. In the interests of fairness, several points should be made in reply.
At a time when virtually no one was co-operating with the tribunal and they had few leads to follow, my father made known to them a number of things that he had heard in his time doing business in Dublin and thereafter, and made clear that he was merely passing them on without endorsing them.
The tribunal itself made clear in the hearings and in the report that the prior statements involved three categories of evidence – direct knowledge, second-hand knowledge, and hearsay/gossip. It was never the intention of my father that these be aired in public evidence, let alone that they be attributed to him as his own allegation.
Should my father have told them none of what he had heard, despite them asking for any pointers he had that might help them in the context of complete stonewalling from nearly everybody else? The implication in Paul Cullen’s article (and elsewhere) that my father’s credibility is damaged by having done as he was asked is thus utterly unfair to my father.
There is a conflict between the evidence of Seamus Maguire and my father as to whether Mr Maguire told him that Ray Burke had been paid. Why that is perceived by Mr Cullen to reflect badly on my father’s credibility is a mystery to me. The use of the word “demise” in relation to Mr Coveney clearly refers to the political demise of Mr Coveney, though Mr Cullen’s article doesn’t allude to that possibility, rather leaving it open to a more literal interpretation.
In relation to the Lee Tunnel allegation, my father always alleged that it was Mr O’Callaghan who told him so, and acknowledged in evidence that what he was told might not have been true, but always maintained that it was said even so. There are indeed places where my father made mistakes, got dates wrong, or where his memory was bad. Whenever he did realise he had made a mistake, as for example in relation to one matter among many he related to Mary Harney, he was decent enough to admit it quickly (and where he otherwise would not have been found mistaken), in the full knowledge it would be used against him.
My father absolutely rejects that he ever placed Mr O’Callaghan at the scene of the demand made in the Dáil. Counsel for the tribunal themselves conflated two different occasions – perhaps understandably given the complexity of the events being described to them. My father’s account of this has been consistent since 1989, and he made this point forcefully in evidence. Mr Cullen holds him responsible for note-taking errors by others, not mentioning my father’s evidence with regard to this either. In relation to documents destroyed in a fireworks night bonfire, I was there when it happened – long before the tribunal and at a time when my father never expected to see Dublin again.
Mr Cullen makes no mention of all the episodes where my father has been proved to be correct even where there are apparent inconsistencies between the various accounts he has given over the years.
Why is my father not given credit for the sheer amount he exposed beyond doubt? And why is it that conflicts of evidence between my father and others, or allegations that could not be proved, are taken somehow as a mark against his credibility. How much has to be proven to be true before my father is given the benefit of the doubt?
Mr Cullen’s article took no account of either my father’s accounts for these matters given in evidence (on which he was questioned closely by the tribunal). Nor were those points put to my father for his own comment. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In the latest hue and cry I’m reminded of the old adage “we get the politicians and government we deserve”.
To quote Stephen Collins “It should not be forgotten that most of the leading figures exposed by the various tribunals had no difficulty in getting elected, usually at the top of the poll, even after information about their activities was put into the public domain. That should give every citizen pause for thought” (Opinion, March 23rd).
This criticism is particularly apt for those of us who are rank and file members of a political party.
I intend putting the following to the Enniscorthy branch of the Labour Party: It shall be a criminal offence for any political party, holder of or candidate for public office to accept a donation of any kind. It shall also be a criminal offence for the donor. The only exception shall be party members and strictly confined to the party membership fee. The taxpayers shall bear all electoral costs, with a strict limit on spending. A total ban on media advertising and postering in public places. – Yours, etc,