Owen O'Callaghan kicked Tom Gilmartin?

freedomlover

Active member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
198
Today's RTE web site:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0226/mahon.html

Witness claims O'Callaghan kicked Gilmartin.

Tuesday, 26 February 2008 16:15.

Two community activists have told the Mahon Tribunal that developer Owen O'Callaghan kicked his then business partner Tom Gilmartin when he mentioned a £50,000 payment to a senior politician.

One of the men, Pat Jennings, said Mr Gilmartin cried out after being kicked and it stopped him mentioning the name of the politician.

Mr Jennings said Tom Gilmartin had been complaining that politicians in Ireland were worse than the mafia and that they had been putting roadblocks in his way of his Quarryvale development.

He said during the meeting, also attended by Mr O'Callaghan and lobbyist Frank Dunlop in the Jensen Hotel early in 1991, Mr Gilmartin went on to say he had to pay a senior politician £50,000.

Mr Jennings said at this point Mr O'Callaghan kicked him in the shin and Mr Gilmartin cried out: 'Jesus Owen. Why are you kicking me?' He said there was an embarrassed silence afterwards.

John McCann, a member of Sinn Féin, also described the incident. He said Mr Gilmartin was loudly effing and blinding about Irish politicians being a bunch of corrupt bastards.

He said after Mr O'Callaghan kicked him they had a good laugh.

The tribunal heard that Mr Gilmartin denies the meeting ever took place.

SF Cllr insists he did not threaten Gilmartin.

Earlier Sinn Féin Councillor Christy Burke offered to take a lie-detector test to prove he did not threaten Mr Gilmartin on behalf of a rival developer.

Mr Gilmartin told the Mahon Tribunal that Mr Burke was one of three men who said they were from the IRA and warned him to stay away from Clondalkin.

Mr Burke said he never met Tom Gilmartin in his life and would like to sue him.

He also said he never met Mr O'Callaghan, who Mr Gilmartin claims orchestrated the threatening meeting in the late 1980s or 1990s.

Mr Burke was asked by tribunal counsel why he was so angry when the inquiry simply asked him by letter if he had met Mr Gilmartin during a resident's meeting in a Clondalkin pub.

Mr Burke replied that he was annoyed because Quarryvale was outside his constituency and because he had only been in a pub two or three times in the past 30 years.

Mr Burke admitted he had met Mr Dunlop, who acted as Mr O'Callaghan's lobbyist for Quarryvale, on a number of occasions in the 1990s about other issues.

He said he was trying to secure job creation for the inner city.

Mr Burke said a reference by Mr Dunlop in his records to leaving an envelope for him in city hall in 1992 could have referred to development plans such as the Parnell St project.

He said he had never received a political donation from Mr Dunlop.

==========================================
==========================================

This is all horribly confusing to those of us who haven't been paying full attention to or missed a few episodes of this long-running soap. I wish someone like Tonys would come on and explain it all, as I'm totally lost. From the RTE report, it seems the following occurred.

(1) Two community activists are claiming to have been at a meeting at which Gilmartin confessed to bribing a senior politician to the tune of £50,000, but Gilmartin is denying the meeting ever took place. Why? Its usually Gilmartin who is claiming to have been at meetings at which bribes were discussed, with other people denying the meeting ever took place. Now, suddenly the roles are reversed. Confused? There would appear to be three possible explanations: (1) the two community activists are lying OR (2) Gilmartin is lying OR (3) the kick that Gilmartin received on the shins sent shock waves to his brain cells and in the process erased his memory of the meeting.

(2) Gilmartin is making very serious accusations against a Sinn Fein Councillor. The Councillor is denying it and offering to take a lie detector test to prove his innocence. So, what is Sinn Fein's official policy regarding Tom Gilmartin? It would seem to be as follows: (a) when Gilmartin is making accusations against Bertie Ahern, he is obviously a fine upstanding man who has a perfect memory and would never dream of making anything up, and the bounder Ahern should resign at once (b) when Gilmartin is making accusations against a Sinn Fein Councillor, he is obviously a liar and a fantasist and the Councillor is completely innocent.

You couldn't make it up.
 


Pauli

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
1,181
You're right there. You couldn't.
 

freedomlover

Active member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
198
Pauli said:
You're right there. You couldn't.
No, I was wrong, someone is making it up. But, which of the long list of characters involved is making it up, I have no idea. Is it Bertie? Is it Gilmartin? Is it Christy Burke? Is it Pat Jennings (didn't he used to play in goals for Spurs?). The list is endless.

Although I wouldn't normally have much time for a SF Councillor, Christy Burke does seem to be along the right lines in offering to take a lie detector test. Let all the characters involved take a lie detector test, Bertie, Gilmartin, the lot, thereby bringing the entire proceedings to a definite conclusion within a week and saving the taxpayers zillions of euros.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
18,709
Also, the Tribunal were bemused by Burke. Initially they only asked him did he ever meet Gilmartin at a pub in Clondalkin, no more. Burke rang them and went off the deep end about this allegation. What allegation, they asked? Burke backtracked, said the allegation that he'd been in a pub, he'd only been in three pubs in thirty years...

Couldn't be that Burke knew what it was about already, could it?...
 

freedomlover

Active member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
198
toxic avenger said:
Quite simple in this case. Frank Dunlop has backed up Tom Gilmartin, there was no such meeting, they (Jennings and McCann) invented a lie. Now, why did they do that?
I have no idea. Was that a rhetorical question or have you a theory? Let's hear it.

Is Burke also lying? Why would he offer to take a lie detector test if he was?
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
18,709
freedomlover said:
toxic avenger said:
Quite simple in this case. Frank Dunlop has backed up Tom Gilmartin, there was no such meeting, they (Jennings and McCann) invented a lie. Now, why did they do that?
I have no idea. Was that a rhetorical question or have you a theory? Let's hear it.

Is Burke also lying? Why would he offer to take a lie detector test if he was?
You'd have to ask them, it was rhetorical. But interesting that Burke points to McCann as being a possiblility, and McCann is on hand with a story that didn't happen, Gilmartin and Dunlop both state that clearly. The Shinners seemed to have their story all off to a tee, all very pat.
 
G

Guest

Who is supposed to have got £50K. It is hard to keep track but I am fairly sure it wasn't Bertie?
 

freedomlover

Active member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
198
toxic avenger said:
freedomlover said:
[quote="toxic avenger":xoczqgv6]Quite simple in this case. Frank Dunlop has backed up Tom Gilmartin, there was no such meeting, they (Jennings and McCann) invented a lie. Now, why did they do that?
I have no idea. Was that a rhetorical question or have you a theory? Let's hear it.

Is Burke also lying? Why would he offer to take a lie detector test if he was?
You'd have to ask them, it was rhetorical. But interesting that Burke points to McCann as being a possiblility, and McCann is on hand with a story that didn't happen, Gilmartin and Dunlop both state that clearly. The Shinners seemed to have their story all off to a tee, all very pat.[/quote:xoczqgv6]

So, two say the meeting took place and two say it didn't. Fair enough. I'm fairly anti-SF, so it wouldn't totally shock me if they were being a bit economical with the truth, as they say. But, the fifth person at the alleged meeting was O'Callaghan himself. Does he say the meeting took place or didn't take place?

I can see that you may be quite consistent in believing Gilmartin is telling the truth at all times and that Bertie, O'Callaghan and the various SF people are lying. But, I don't understand how SF can say that Gilmartin is telling the truth when he makes accusations against Bertie, but then turn round and say Glimartin is lying when he makes allegations against prominent SF people. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
18,709
freedomlover said:
toxic avenger said:
freedomlover said:
[quote="toxic avenger":zx6023so]Quite simple in this case. Frank Dunlop has backed up Tom Gilmartin, there was no such meeting, they (Jennings and McCann) invented a lie. Now, why did they do that?
I have no idea. Was that a rhetorical question or have you a theory? Let's hear it.

Is Burke also lying? Why would he offer to take a lie detector test if he was?
You'd have to ask them, it was rhetorical. But interesting that Burke points to McCann as being a possiblility, and McCann is on hand with a story that didn't happen, Gilmartin and Dunlop both state that clearly. The Shinners seemed to have their story all off to a tee, all very pat.
So, two say the meeting took place and two say it didn't. Fair enough. I'm fairly anti-SF, so it wouldn't totally shock me if they were being a bit economical with the truth, as they say. But, the fifth person at the alleged meeting was O'Callaghan himself. Does he say the meeting took place or didn't take place?

I can see that you may be quite consistent in believing Gilmartin is telling the truth at all times and that Bertie, O'Callaghan and the various SF people are lying. But, I don't understand how SF can say that Gilmartin is telling the truth when he makes accusations against Bertie, but then turn round and say Glimartin is lying when he makes allegations against prominent SF people. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.[/quote:zx6023so]

I agree, SF are being hypocrites on this if these are members of their party and they tolerate this.
 
G

Guest

toxic avenger said:
Also, the Tribunal were bemused by Burke. Initially they only asked him did he ever meet Gilmartin at a pub in Clondalkin, no more. Burke rang them and went off the deep end about this allegation. What allegation, they asked? Burke backtracked, said the allegation that he'd been in a pub, he'd only been in three pubs in thirty years...

Couldn't be that Burke knew what it was about already, could it?...
It's hard to know. Do any SF people have good connections down at Dublin Castle??
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
18,709
ZhouEnlai said:
toxic avenger said:
Also, the Tribunal were bemused by Burke. Initially they only asked him did he ever meet Gilmartin at a pub in Clondalkin, no more. Burke rang them and went off the deep end about this allegation. What allegation, they asked? Burke backtracked, said the allegation that he'd been in a pub, he'd only been in three pubs in thirty years...

Couldn't be that Burke knew what it was about already, could it?...
It's hard to know. Do any SF people have good connections down at Dublin Castle??
Or alternatively, he was there, and it did happen.
 
G

Guest

toxic avenger said:
ZhouEnlai said:
[quote="toxic avenger":1lz2jb4z]
Couldn't be that Burke knew what it was about already, could it?...
It's hard to know. Do any SF people have good connections down at Dublin Castle??
Or alternatively, he was there, and it did happen.[/quote:1lz2jb4z]
Certainly a possible explanation.
Another possibility is Burke knew Gilmartin was making allegations against nuerous people at the Tribunal and assumed there was an allegation against him when it was suggested he was present at a meeting he wasn't at.
Do you notice that the transcripts are pretty slow when Bertie isn't in the box?
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
ZhouEnlai said:
toxic avenger said:
Also, the Tribunal were bemused by Burke. Initially they only asked him did he ever meet Gilmartin at a pub in Clondalkin, no more. Burke rang them and went off the deep end about this allegation. What allegation, they asked? Burke backtracked, said the allegation that he'd been in a pub, he'd only been in three pubs in thirty years...

Couldn't be that Burke knew what it was about already, could it?...
It's hard to know. Do any SF people have good connections down at Dublin Castle??
Not since the days of Michael Collins :D
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
18,709
ZhouEnlai said:
toxic avenger said:
ZhouEnlai said:
[quote="toxic avenger":3pqvnum2]
Couldn't be that Burke knew what it was about already, could it?...
It's hard to know. Do any SF people have good connections down at Dublin Castle??
Or alternatively, he was there, and it did happen.
Certainly a possible explanation.
Another possibility is Burke knew Gilmartin was making allegations against nuerous people at the Tribunal and assumed there was an allegation against him when it was suggested he was present at a meeting he wasn't at.
Do you notice that the transcripts are pretty slow when Bertie isn't in the box?[/quote:3pqvnum2]

How would he assume an allegation when all was asked about was a meeting? And that's not how Burke explained his reaction..

The transcripts are normally out at five-ish, on rare occasions they don't appear till a day later, for some reason.
 

towny

Member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
26
Still no sign of the transcript of yesterday's hearings. Why is there a delay?. Legal reasons?
 

meriwether

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
12,539
Is this yet another 'Gilmartin is mental' from an FF drone?

He struck me as being a little less mental, and a little more clued in than a lot of his detractors when his 'Albert and the Bahamas' story turned out to be true.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top