TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 17 °C Wednesday 19 June, 2013

Gardaí claim Corrib protesters discussed rape prior to taped remarks

A report by the Garda Ombudsman Commission into the incident has been published this evening. It also claims that files were deleted from the recording device.

Jerrie Ann Sullivan (centre) is one of the women arrested. Also pictured are Shell to Sea spokesperson Caoimhe Kerins and Socialist TD Joe Higgins on 7 April
Jerrie Ann Sullivan (centre) is one of the women arrested. Also pictured are Shell to Sea spokesperson Caoimhe Kerins and Socialist TD Joe Higgins on 7 April
Image: Photocall Ireland

Updated 8.20 pm

A REPORT INTO the Corrib ‘rape tape’ controversy has revealed that a garda who was present at the time heard one of the protesters refer to rape as two women were being arrested.

The controversy surrounds an alleged recording of several gardaí who joked about raping and deporting two women following their arrest during protests against the Corrib gas project on 31 March 2011.

The report, which is based on an interim progress report by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) and was published by the Justice Minister Alan Shatter today, details that:

During the course of the investigation with Garda members, it was suggested that another Garda member may have overheard one of the females using the word ‘rape’ during the course of their arrest, and prior to the word bring used by any Garda member.

The report also details that this line of inquiry was pursued and a garda who was present when the women were arrested gave the following statement:

As the prisoners were being brought to the cars to transport them to the station, one of them kept shouting something like ‘she is not safe on her own with ye’ or ‘she is not safe with ye’ and I also heard her shout ‘she could be raped by ye’. I am not sure which protester said this. Both of them were shouting. I did mention this to some of my colleagues after the controversial tapes were released to the media.

According to the report it has not been possible to verify this statement from video recordings made at the time of the arrests.

The garda remarks at the centre of the controversy were recorded on a camcorder seized from one of the women. It had been placed in the pocket of one of the gardaí while it was still recording.

The reports states that although the quality of the recording is poor, a transcript of the comments by the gardaí has been made and appears to support the allegations of comments made about rape and deportation.

The camcorder was not handed over to the GSOC until 14 April, and it was then handed over to the Forensic Science Service of Northern Ireland, which was unable to retrieve a number of files which has been deleted or overwritten.

The report details that files were deleted immediately prior to the GSOC taking possession of the camcorder. It also says that the significance of the deleted files to the investigation is not known.

Shell to Sea spokesperson Caoimhe Kerins has told RTÉ that the recording of the gardaí was not tampered with, and that the entire file for that day was made available. She said that the files that had been removed were ‘academic’.

According to the Irish Times, files containing research material which did not relate to the Corrib incident were removed before the camcorder was given to the GSOC. This has been confirmed by NUI Maynooth.

As reported earlier, no criminal charges will be placed against any of the Gardaí involved. The investigation is ongoing, and disciplinary action may be taken against two of those involved, while the other three have been vindicated.

The report details how all of the gardaí, and one of the women involved, were interviewed.  The second woman failed to cooperate. She made no complaint and is now working overseas.

The report details how neither of the women was threatened personally with rape or with being deported, and how  they only became aware of the alleged conversation after the event and following their release.

The Shell to Sea group has said that some form of disciplinary action must arise out of the incident, and that a ‘slap on the wrist’ will not be enough.

Read more: Corrib ‘rape tape’ gardaí will not face criminal charges>

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

Read next:

Comments (85 Comments)

  • If the findings condemned the Corrib Cops & they mounted a protest, how long would it be before they were told that due process was followed and a fair conclusion was reached? Why did one of the witnesses refuse to co-operate with the Guards? If the rest of the recording was damning to nobody, why was it deleted. Considering the sensitivity of the information and the strict regulations around chain of evidence, why was this recording altered in any way regardless of relevance of content?

    Reply
    • Hi, the file deleted where deleted in the presense of acedemic staff and lawyers. They were seperate files not one recordings. If your doing academic research then there are ethical concerns about just hadning out research without considering the implications for your work. Pretty simple.

      If it was all fine and dandy,people seem to be foregetting that 2 cops are still under investigation and have not been exonerated in any way

      Reply
    • Did the owner of the deleted file think GSOC might steal their research? @Mark, what exactly would the implications of handing it over intact be?

      Reply
    • Im not sure exactly Geroid. Though i would imagine the viscerally low (and should say mutual) levels of trust between campaigners and the police, as well as little faith in GSOC (as they have an understanding of the limited powers and role of GSOC in Ireland) means that id say the owner could have decided that they would rather their research was not in the possession of the police.

      This is in the context where several journalist called us independently of each other to let us know that police had been leaking information to other (named) journalists so that a smear peice could be written in a sunday tabloid. Thats why one of the women felt forced to “go public” in the first place and publically call for the other woman to be left alone. Thats pretty admirable really in my book, though i dont expect everyone to agree

      Reply
    • “limited powers and role of GSOC in Ireland” I wouldn’t say that…. http://www.gardaombudsman.ie/gsoc-garda-ombudsman-about-us.htm

      Reply
    • Why do NUI maynooth own the tape? Why wasn’t it deleted in front of the gsoc, fairly confident they would use any of the research material as they have bigger problems :) please answer my questions mark, I miss you :(

      Reply
    • That should say “wouldn’t use”

      Reply
    • GSOC was invited by NUIM academics and ethics committee to oversee and witness the deletion process. This was a conscious effort by both the researcher and ethic committee to dispell exactly the scenario that has played out over the past 24 hours, since it was entirely predictable.

      However at the time GSOC refused to enage with NUIM acedemics over the removal of certain research files, instead seems played political football and power games. They wereclearly pissed off and under pressure from high levels of An Garda Siochana but refused entirely to engage with the invitation by NUIM to be part of the process so that they could have full confidence that the seperate files deleted had no bearing on other seperate audio recordings on the hard drive, but that as a matter of ethical concern that these files where not meant to be shared with anyone other than the researcher.

      Thats has been made clear by head of departments in Maynooth and is not refuted or even challenged by GSOC. Feel free to call the press office of GSOC and see what they say themselves. But its a matter of record – which im sure can and will be made public in due course – that this invitation to participate was rejected.

      The recording device was the property of NUIM.

      Reply
  • As somebody who was supporting them.. If you feel so strongly why didnt you support them into actually co operating???? Now wasting garda time charges come into mind

    Reply
  • Spot on Oswald lol @ mark “as someone involved in supporting some of the women involved in this” you make it sound like some horrific event that these women where put through. They were stupid COMMENTS nothing more, they should be disciplined to expect them to be sacked or prosecuted is crazy talk.

    Reply
    • As far as i can see no one has made any recommendations about what should happen to the cops. Ive never called for them to be sacked or even prosecuted. However a Sunday Independant poll at the time found that 70% + of people did.

      However i am surprised by the amount of people, almost exclusively men though, seem to havbe little to no understanding of rape, women and sexual violence. Its not my place to define how a woman should feel when she is phyiscally restrained by men, forced into a car against her will and then later on hears then laughing about raping them. We can all have opinions but best to justify them

      Reply
    • forced in a car against their will are you for real?? they were being arrested Mark its kinda the point that you dont have a say in the matter. The next time the cops arrest a crook they should run it by them first so gotcha. Mark seriously your fighting a losing battle here. Nobody is supporting your hippy waffle. You folk never had any credibility and you do not represent the people of this Island yet you hold us to ransom and we still have to hand over welfare checks while you people camp up in Mayo assaulting cops and annoying locals. My GF is from Mayo and she said people are so fed up with your sort many of whom arent even Irish. Rent a hippy :)

      Reply
    • Two of the gardai are still being investigated. I find it strange that a report was released without the investigation being complete, could make sh#te of any case brought against them.

      Reply
    • Oswald
      “I find it strange that a report was released without the investigation being complete, could make sh#te of any case brought against them.”

      I find it strange to that the report was released before all investigations where complete too Oswald. But still thats is the case. I find it odd that a government minister would speak about some contents of a report, before it was finished whilst also saying he was looking forward to reading it when it was eventually finished.
      You can read his quotes verbatim in today Irish Times.

      Reply
  • At least the investigation was followed through.

    Reply
  • I think that if all the files had been handed over then there would be less hassle. I would like to know what sort of research was on them. Why did one woman refuse to cooperate. I know that if the law came banging on my door and asked for my laptop and I said “Hang on there a sec lads I just need to delete some “research”" you can be damn well sure they would be asking for the whole laptop there and then. Sounds a bit dodgy on the STS side.

    Reply
    • See my comment above Brian

      “GSOC was invited by NUIM academics and ethics committee to oversee and witness the deletion process. This was a conscious effort by both the researcher and ethic committee to dispell exactly the scenario that has played out over the past 24 hours, since it was entirely predictable.”

      However at the time GSOC refused to enage with NUIM acedemics over the removal of certain research files, instead seems played political football and power games. They wereclearly pissed off and under pressure from high levels of An Garda Siochana but refused entirely to engage with the invitation by NUIM to be part of the process so that they could have full confidence that the seperate files deleted had no bearing on other seperate audio recordings on the hard drive.”

      Reply
    • Come to think of it the GSOC were slow to investigate this from the start. If that’s the case mark, the GSOC have some serious explaining to do, as a matter of interest does anyone know who supervises/investigates the GSOC.

      Jesus mark, have we agreed to two points now?

      On a serious note, what’s the problem with me using false details? Another person raised the point with me last night. I don’t understand the big deal!!

      Reply
  • So the use of the word “rape” was referencing the girls comments before they got in the car. Makes perfect sense if true.

    I hope the Gardai in question can go back to their jobs and not have to worry about these Shell to Sea thugs again.

    I’m watching the news right now and the story about energy price hikes. If we had the Corrib Pipe flowing we’d have much cheaper prices. Yet these Socialist weirdos won’t stop with their hippy camps.

    Reply
    • Wrong on both counts David

      If the pipe was flowing with gas it would below to Shell who have no obligation to sell it to us, never mind sell it to us cheaper than market rates. Legally we dont own the gas , thats wnat people are resisting

      BTW did you see Shell profits announcement today fo the LAST QUARTER
      http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0728/shell-business.html

      Their profit – of other people resource DOUBLED to £8 Billion . The people not up in arms, and the clearly ignorant ones tyo the fact of the deal Shell has – are the idiots

      The cops have no proof that sopmeone mentioned rape before, and what if they did. What has that got to do with on duty police officers talkingb about raping prisoners?? IDIOT

      Reply
    • Well said David, totally agree. These whack job lefties have no support amongst normal, working people

      Reply
  • It’s amazing what comes out when the moral outrage brigade shuts up for five minutes and we get a little bit of context.

    Hopefully a 5 tweets a second #WeWereHastySoSorryCorribCops hashtag breaks out on Twitter over the next few days.

    Reply
  • Thankfully the truth has finally come out, a forensic analyst states that part of the recording was tampered with yet the shell to see group denies this, amazing. Time to apologise ladies and gents. Best of luck to the gardai who were treated like shite during this investigation and in a rural area where they were stationed they will always be known as the rape guards just because of a few people looking for publicity.

    Reply
    • Mr Cobblepot, would you care to explain how does this change the nature and quality of the jokes? And how does this *justify* rape jokes and rape culture?

      Reply
    • The joke was in the context of what the two arrested women said to the gardai and how outrageous their comments were and not about rape.

      Reply
    • To give an example if the two women arrested said something like “if you take us back to the station ye will murder us”

      fast forward to a highly intelligent conversation with 5 gardai that is being recorded unknown to then all. Some guard cracks a joke mocking the arrested woman’s murder out of her ear shot I’m fairly confident there wouldn’t have been an investigation and a report today.

      To clarify I do not agree with what the guard said nor do I find rape jokes funny.

      Reply
    • Aswald use your real name please. Journal I don’t think it’s fair for people to make comments on the site without a name. I’ve been at the wrong end of Garda Batons in the line of my work as a press photographer. They human like anyone else. If they abuse their position of trust and power they should be punished.

      Reply
    • Niall I agree 100% with your stance that if someone does wrong they are dealt with fairly and correctly, don’t see what’s that got up do with any of my comments.

      On a side note what do my real details have anything got to do with my observations and opinions? I’m not being rude or smart in this question just want to know why my real name is required?

      Reply
    • There is nothing in the report that confirms at all that the women spoke about rape. Both deny that they did,and one detective say he ‘might’ have heard but coulnd in nay way be sure at all. There is a full recording of the tape, and it certainly couldnt be corroborated with the tape on it, which covers the whole peroid

      Reply
    • Hi mark, has the report been released? Also from what iv seen on the news, media in general iv seen that at any protest it’s recorded from the start. I saw the video that was up for a few hours when it happenned and that only starts from the arrest of the two ladies. And with the allegations that some of the files were deleted it puts a different outlook on it. You have to admit that if in a Garda
      investigation they produced edited CCTV there would be uproar and rightly so.

      Reply
    • Has it been released for public viewing?

      Reply
  • Well said Osmond. There was always another agenda at work.

    Reply
  • @ Mark is this the Sunday Independent poll you are referring to:

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/just-18-per-cent-of-public-want-gardai-at-centre-of-storm-fired-2615065.html

    I feel you have misquoted the findings slightly.

    Reply
    • It seems like i have Brian. I was working of memory and more than a little pissed off yesterday. Write in haste repent in leisure etc -thanks for flagging that.
      Just from the poll

      “In all, 18 per cent thought they should be sacked, six per cent thought they should be prosecuted and 18 per cent thought they should be sacked and prosecuted.”

      Though thats 44% think they should either be sacked or reprimanded and 36% who think they should be sacked, yet the paper that comissioned the poll actually runs with a had line that clearly contradicts the what the then go on to print

      That said , its a poll used to sell papers, im not sure what its worth is other that saying that its the only real stats on this case when people start talking about “what people really think” – and that also includes me too

      Reply
  • Did I see the word “Integrity” used in relation to the Times ….. My god how things can change in a week ….. Thanks for pointing that out Rupert …… sorry I mean Mark

    Reply
  • Obviously they sent the recording device to the North to have it examined by an independent police body. GSOC do not have such technology, understandably. I have no doubt Mr Malone would have another valued opinion if it were actually examined by Garda affiliated experts.

    Reply
    • Marco Say
      “Obviously they sent the recording device to the North to have it examined by an independent police body. GSOC do not have such technology, understandably.”

      Why is it understandable that in 2011 GSOC do not have digital verification equipment or personel?

      And whats obvious about it?. Are you stating that its obvious people rightly feel that GSOC is not an independent body suitable for investigation An Garda Siochana. I kinda of agree with you there. Unfortunately however it was set up with all the fireworks and gloss of precisedly that. Thats what government tell us that it is.

      On the specifics of digital forensics, I have no idea why you think it ‘understandable’ that GSOC do not have the technology. Perhaps given your knowledge you could enlighten us a little about that. Most 15 year computer literate kids could tell you can go about reading a file directory. Heres a little help http://tinyurl.com/3pcq8wr

      Surely the whole point of GSOC is that it is able to hold police abuses and corruption to account. If GSOC has to send a €60 video hard drive into an other country/police jurisdiction because we cant trust then 9and they dont even have the skills in the first place) to be independent why the hell have they been carrying out much more serious investigation into the deaths of people in police custody, or corruption from bent coppers.

      Reply
  • How stupid & not surprising. So they think they can remove content of the tape and we should all believe that the removed content is not relevant?
    Really, by tampering with what is basically evidence they had made the tape (which is at the core of this) inadmissable and thereby have no case to make.
    Let alone whether or not I think the case was justified in the first place…

    Reply
    • “How stupid & not surprising”

      Agree absolutely Evert. Im not sure what dealing you have had with GSOC but this was entirely predictable

      There is clear and incontroveratble evidence that GSOC refused to engage in the process where material that have no bearing on cops laughing about raping or deporting women they had just arrested was to be deleted by NUIM acedemics and ethic committee. They where invited to make themselves completey happy that the nothing relevant to there public interest investigation. They refused, maybe folks should ask them why. Its not like this was entirely unforseeable either.

      The fact that the cops had to send it to the north to be forensically examined tell you a lot about the level of tech.

      BTW no one asked GSOC to bring a case or start an investigation. One would have thought if they felt so strongly they would have availed of all opportunites to assuage their own concerned.

      However they preferred to play power politics on this one, did a spin job yesterday but that all looking a bit eggy today

      Reply
  • @emer
    hi emer, just wondering why was my first post deleted? Not angry about it or anything just don’t think I said anything in it insulting or abusive. If I did I apologise. From memory i think it was just opinion.

    Also is there any policy on people using fake names adding comments to journal.ie pages? If there is I can change it back and be me again,

    Thanks in advance
    John F. Kennedy
    X X X

    Reply
    • Hi Oswald,

      I apologise, but I’m not sure which post you’re referring to. You were the first person to leave a comment and it is still visible at the top of the comments section.

      With regard to the use of names, TheJournal.ie requires users to log in using either a Facebook or Twitter account. There is no onus on a user to use their own names.

      Thanks for reading,
      Emer

      Reply
    • Hi emer, I’m using a smart phone app and it only shows approx the last 40 comments, just on the website and can see it now, sorry, I’m a tool, thanks for clarifying that other major issue :)

      Reply
  • Does anyone have concerns about the minister for justice publishing an Interim Progress Report on a live investigation into Gardaí?

    Reply
  • Public confidence in GSOC will inevitably become a hot issue in the near future. How it has not yet is simply beyond me. Anyone who could be bothered in looking at the mechanics of how their whole system operates, their staff credentials and their generous budget will agree. The cherry picking of high profile investigations into Gardai at the expense of lesser cases will not compensate to instill a lack of public confidence. This must start from the root and not the stem. This is an aside. You stated: ‘the fact that the cops had to send it to the north to be forensically examined tell you a lot about the level of tech’. If you held back on these flippant hasty remarks more people might take you seriously, though I doubt it. It might surprise you but I doubt the ‘cops’ would not have lacked this required technology to interrogate such a storage device. They have their own computer crime investigation unit. Obviously an independent body to the Gardai would have had to examine it. Now I wouldn’t dream of defending GSOC but this was an investigation that could have, potentially (though unlikely) have resulted in a criminal court case. Now I suspect that you are familiar enough with the court system yourself to understand a little about technical evidence. I’m sorry I couldn’t be bothered putting as clever little link like you have to same; I just don’t have as much spare time obviously. In any case for the contents of this device to have been made admissible in court the device would have to have been examined by a digital expert. The same goes for a myriad of criminal investigations where experienced experts are required to give evidence, despite the apparent simplicity of devices. I find it totally laughable, though totally unsurprising, that you seem to think that it would be enough for a potential technical witness to say that that they learned how to do so by googling it. GSOC will never have sufficient technical experts to cover all potential angles of criminal investigations, be they forensic or technical. Maybe you should do a feature on it in ‘Soundmigration’ as part of your own rambling ‘social media strategy’ (LOL).

    Reply
  • Can we stick to the facts and the issue here? The issue has nothing to do with delivery of natural gas to Irish shores, bogger cops, socialist weirdos, hippies or any other irrelevant generalisations strewn about in the posts above. The issue for me is conduct unbecoming by members of the Garda Síochána and delivering appropriate sanction to the members involved.

    At this stage it appears the “integrity of the tape section under investigation is not in question”
    That means the Gardaí did say “Well, whoever, we’ll get immigration f**king on her.” and then joked about threatening to deport and rape the woman if she did not give her name and address to them.

    I await the full report, to understand the context in which the Gardaí involved received no reprimand. I agree with Joyce Davenport. I think the interim report should not have been published. Bad PR for the Gardaí because it looks like nobody got punished and that may not be the case. The investigation is ongoing.

    Reply
  • Some of the “links” there are laughable, putting up a few slanted websites isn’t going to convince anyone.

    These girls have been found out, they should investigate them now and see the last time they actually did some real work, as well as paying the Garda overtime we are also paying for these serial protesters are we not?

    It just drags on and on yet the majority of people down the general Belmullet/Ballinaboy areas aren’t too concerned as Shell have pumped plenty into the area, roads, new GAA facilities etc etc etc.

    Its laughable.

    As for Oswald, grow a set and come on here with your real name instead of harassing peoples opinions. Even though I am sure it wouldn’t take to long to figure out who you really are.
    Though your last post and its sign off shows the sick mind you have. Time you were booted off this site.

    Reply
    • Harassing? Sick mind? My first post has gone missing and i think its due to the amount of posts or the size of them. I was not harassing anyone’s opinions?? Maybe u got up a bit early, if so back to bed pet u seem a bit grumpy.

      How do I have a sick mind?

      Reply
    • LOL pet…. “Up early”…… let me explain to you, since I suspect you maybe one who doesn’t understand the logic.

      I was “up early” to woooooooooooorrrrrrrrkkkkkkkkkkkk….. you know…. its where you do a task which benefits the company you work for or society or both….. it doesn’t involve tying myself to gates or machines down in Ballinaboy…… if you think been up at 8.40am is early…… what time do you start your protests at? After you collect the dole etc etc?

      And of course your posts have gone missing, paranoid any?

      If I have to explain to you how you are sick minded then it is as suspected, that you probably don’t have the brain power to understand.

      Tell us who you really are, none of us are hiding, be a pet and tell us who you are.

      Reply
    • Sorry had to go back to bed, all this “tying myself to gates” really takes it out of me.

      I thinks we have a few crossed wires. I work too but I have the brain power to say it using one syllable and 4 letters.

      In no way shape or form do I support shell to sea, in fact from my earlier comments, which I can no longer find, also can’t find approx 6/7 others people’s ones from when this news piece was first put up, you would see that I believe that the video was edited so that the complete story wasn’t told and that it was just publicity for shell to see.

      Again I will ask, how have u come to the conclusion that am I sick minded from reading a few posts that I put up?

      Also why do u want to know my real name?

      Jesus i tired might get another kip…..

      Reply
  • Welcome to Republic of Shell , let’s see how long this stays up ….

    Reply
  • @Mark @Oswald

    Just to let you know I’ve had to delete a couple of your comments as they referred to an ongoing court case. We usually turn off the comments when we cover these stories ourselves.

    Emer

    Reply
  • Coola Boola

    Reply
  • OMG, how funny someone quoting the sunday independent written by muppets like brendan o’connor and eoghan harris. That is credible findings and tell me my child, matthew, does a survey give facts or figures or just what sir tony o’ reilly tells you to do, who has shares in providence oil and who will soon exploit our natural resources off the coast of dalkey. Oops thats right if you’re rich you have power if you’re matthew you just have an opinion. ta ra love!

    Reply
  • Hi Emer

    I know the journal kinda do a quick summary but some info here might help re the file deleted
    From the Irish Times
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0728/breaking63.html
    “However, it is understood that the integrity of the tape section under investigation is not in question. NUI Maynooth has confirmed to The Irish Times that research material which did not relate to the pertinent piece of recording was removed before the video camera was handed over to the commission. This was in line with the NUI policy on research ethics and the Sociological Society of Ireland guidelines on research.”

    Reply
    • love the way the cops fans online here are voting down a comment that actually sheds some factual light.

      The garda press office really need to work on a social media strategy. LOL

      Reply
    • Thanks for the link to the additional information Mark.

      Reply
    • Mark it is never for one side to decide what is relevant or not relevant, that is highly unethical. What a prosecution deem irrelevant a defence may deem highly relevant. One can’t pick and choose what to leave in and what to take out prior to disclosure to the other party. Judgements such as Zambra place the responsibility on the investigator to make every reasonable effort to secure ALL evidence including recordings, not on a selective basis. The issue is nobody knows what was deleted so nobody can say it wasn’t relevant and it’s open to the defence, in this case the gardai, to say what was deleted was not only relevant but it supported the defence. The other point is, if one of the women shouted about being raped, and theres witness evidence that she did, then it is hugely significant to the context of the private conversation between the cops which followed. In fact it explains a great deal of what they were saying etc. Please try and take a more open minded approach when judging this case and you may see the wood for the trees instead of passing personal attacks on commentators here. It doesn’t become you

      Reply
    • Just because its on the Internet or in a news paper does not make it factual pet, think it’s time to relax a small bit before you destroy your jocks

      Reply
    • Maybe the Gardai could take a lesson from your own ‘social media strategy’. Your suggestion would be even more laughable if you weren’t actually serious. I’m sure the Garda Press Office have more things to be doing that employing moles just to give you the thumbs down on this forum in fairness. Do you really think that your twisted opinions are that important or are you even more delusional than we are giving you credit for being? Anybody who could be bothered to look at your dinky little website ‘Soundmigration’, and I doubt if many do as it is a rambling opinionated mess, can see what you are really all about. Nevertheless, keep plugging it and someone might eventually bother with it. You are only vocal here when it comes to Garda controversy, rarely on any other issues it seems. That storage media should never have been edited, regardless of why. Even any prospective trial judge would have ruled any evidence on it inadmissible because of this – period. It should have been delivered in tact; end of story. There was too important an issue at stake here for everybody to compromise it like that and this should not have been done. I’m sorry but I can’t buy this nonsense. Realistically speaking what danger was there to any academic work provided it had already been backed up? Was it groundbreaking or was there a fear that somebody may plagiarise it? Either way there were obvious safeguards to this.

      Reply
    • “If that’s the case mark, the GSOC have some serious explaining to do, as a matter of interest does anyone know who supervises/investigates the GSOC. ”

      Erm usually thats An Garda Siochana really. The GSOC can only make “recommendations” to Garda Commisioner re descipinary actions. The only tiime that GSOC in reference to policing of Corrib was to make recommend disiplinary action where against a senior Inspector Gannon. The Garda Commissioner refused to follow such recommendation and instead moved the cop out of the area and into the new diocese, sorry police station, at Pearce St Dublin.

      In essence we have a rather timid Ombubsman, that in now way can be seen to have similar powers of investigation as the Ombudsman up north does.

      Re details. Its a common enough for folks to use hidden identity making political points. Its not unknown for those posting online being supportive of certain sectors to actually be from those sectors, yet simulataneously deniying it. Personally i favour being open and honest in political discussion. And whilst i was really pissed off and annoyed yesterday – clear to read above for sure – i dont think that labels such as objective mean anything. Theres no objective on a moving train as someone smarter than me once said. Ive no way of noing who it is im chatting/debating/disagreeing with. But I have much respect for people being upfront about that reagrdless of their positions.

      That said lots of folks use false funny names etc too, ive no issue with that per se. Just your first post was laden with so many incorrect ssumptions and so clearly gleeful about a picture that i have a very different and close up perspective off.

      My agenda is not anti cop. Its is about highlighting some of the experiences that political and social justice activists, and lots of others actually are subjected too in Ireland. And sure many can say that part of the rub, and it is.

      Reply
  • I hope you guys will set the record start, the Garda press office are spinning.

    Oswald my friend you are full of **it! As someone involved with supporting women at the center of this i can tell you that there was no “tape” in the first place but a digital drive. I
    read up on how the gardas press office and their main stream journalist mouth pieces tried this line already

    http://www.indymedia.ie/article/100089

    and how the cops at the center of this are less than clean already
    http://soundmigration.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/sgt-james-gill-suckin-diesel-or-taking-the-piss/

    Reply
    • H

      Reply
    • Hello mark, apologies if my nickname offends you, I ain’t hiding anything, just it caught on as a child. Now I couldn’t care less what some clown with too much time on his hands puts on any website about any person, the majority is horse sh#t.

      No one said there was a tape!!!

      I saw the video of the arrest while it was on the Internet for that short period of time and found it very strange that it started in the middle of the arrest of the two ladies!!! I smelt a fish straight away.

      In my humble opinion from what I seen and heard from the video the two women were treated very fairly and respectfully by the gardai. What the gardai said was stupid and I’m not condoning anyone to make light of rape but if I understand now why the guard started joking about rape and immigration as one of the women stated that she could be raped and deported before the video starts, amazing that.

      Also in her press conference she spoke about the comments the gardai made for approx 120 seconds and then went off on a rant about shell to see.

      The above are facts, the links u put up are a massive pile of donkey dick, get a life mark, get off line and talk with real people,

      Peace and love,
      Oswald Copplepot

      Reply
    • Mark, your point is driven not by any real analysis of the situation – in fact, you’ve made it clear from the outset you’re far from an objective voices. You’ve given two easily discredited links. Well done. Worse still, I made the mistake of reading them – I advise others to save their time.

      In any case, I’ve said my piece on this already (Irish times letter page, http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2011/0408/1224294219429.html ) but trying to spin the Gardai, who have a hard enough bloody job, as Orwellian chauvinists is insulting to the collective intelligence of the Irish people.

      Let’s ALSO not forget these people not only resisted arrest, but refused to give details of their names after breaking state law. If you want to get bent out of shape about gallow’s humour, I only hope you never work in a hospital!

      Reply
    • David says

      “Let’s ALSO not forget these people not only resisted arrest, but refused to give details of their names after breaking state law. If you want to get bent out of shape about gallow’s humour, I only hope you never work in a hospital!”

      They didnt break any laws at all? Have any charges been brought? Whats state laws did they break.

      Ive never pretended to be objective, as im not sure what that means. But at least i make that clear without pretense. Im not stating any facts that cant be backed up. Perhaps you could back up yours too

      Reply
  • Oswald, if you happy to come out behind the persona, i’ll happily discuss it more

    Reply
  • The cops work for the gov who is paid by shell didnt hear the FG/LABR co dispute this,looks like cops can now say to us the people whatever they like.

    Reply
  • Matthew, toilet paper is for your arse not for reading, har di har. Go on mark malone!

    Reply
  • More bent cops protected by the commission at least they are constant
    Protect the rapist of Irish resources at Amy cost globalisation protectionism at any cost

    Reply
  • Emer Lysaght needs to get her facts straight!Gardai DID NOT claim protesters discussed rape prior! One garda claimed that he MIGHT have heard the word rape prior! But in actual fact, GSOC found NO EVIDENCE of this!

    Secondly, do you people not know how digital recordings work??? Or are you choosing to play stupid? Files on digital cameras are recorded SEPERATELY! Research files unrelated to the investigation, recorded earlier in the month were deleted in accordance with the principles of ethical academic research. GSOC acknowledges as much! Go read the IT article instead of this lazy excuse for journalism.

    Reply
    • @Siouxsie

      The report published by Minister for Justice Alan Shatter yesterday contains a statement from a Garda who does claim to have heard protesters discuss rape.

      There are also repeated references to ‘files’ in the above article, along with a link to the Irish Times article should people wish to read more from the paper.

      As per TheJournal.ie’s comments policy, please refrain from making personal comments about the author or their work. There is a ‘send a correction’ option at the bottom of the article, which you are welcome to use if you feel there is incorrect information contained within. Constructive criticism is welcome. Offensive, insulting and personal remarks are not.

      Also, the comments policy advises that the use of caps lock is to be avoided.

      Thanks for reading,
      Emer

      Reply
    • Hi Emer
      “The report published by Minister for Justice Alan Shatter yesterday contains a statement from a Garda who does claim to have heard protesters discuss rape.”

      Some constructive criticism

      1)There was no report published by Minister Alan Shatter. There was an interim report presented to him by GSOC. The interim report has not been made public or published. I wish it was, as it might clear up some factual errors,and accompanying comments all around

      2) Whilst the report has not been published, statements about what one detective heard have been made. None of these assert “a Garda who does claim to have heard protesters discuss rape.” Right now the best that can be gathered by what has been made public, is that one detective told GSOC that he ‘may’ have heard one protestor say the word rape but it was very windy and he couldnt be sure at all. He did not make any reference to a mulitple persons or a discussion. Considering the only civilians present where the two women arrested, by five male officers and two female officers the cop is saying he might have heard one woman say the word rape, but hes not sure at all and cant confirmit he definitely heard a woman present mention the word rape.

      3) As it goes, Shatter made it clear as he made his comments that he hadnt even read the interim report itself

      4) The interim report, as is being reported by other journalists such as Lorna Siggins and Pat Kenny, confirms that the audio file recording is completely intact, and also that the files deleted where recorded days before this incident even took place

      All of this information is available should the Journal.ie wish to put it in the heading article. Given its matter of obvious public concern and strong opinions,its best that the uncontested facts as they are known to be play a significant part of reportage.

      Reply
    • @Emer – Thank you for your reply. If you look at the report you will see that your headline is completely misconstrues the facts. That’s not a personal attack – that’s a criticism of the article. A personal attack is an attack on the person – apologies if you felt I was personally attacking you though.

      Now, if you look at the GSOC report it states: “During the course of the investigation with Garda members, it was suggested that another Garda member may have overheard one of the females using the word “rape” during the course of their arrest and prior to the word being used by any Garda member.” Note the use of the word “may.” In addition, if you read the quote from his statement it says: “I am not sure of the exact words used.” The GSOC clearly states, subsequent to this “ it has not been possible to corroborate this statement from the recording.” If you listen to the recording itself you will hear the exact conversation he is referring to and there is no mention of rape as the GSOC report confirms.

      Reply
    • Hi Mark,

      thanks for you comments,

      Regarding the ‘publication’ of the report, I’m using language given to TheJournal.ie by the press spokesperson for the GSOC who said ‘the onus is on the Minister for Justice to publish this report’. The spokesperson was referring to the interim report.

      The Garda statement clearly shows that one member of the force is claiming to have heard the protesters speaking about rape.

      At no stage does TheJournal.ie article mention the word ‘tamper’, which may be what you’re referring to in point 3? The article merely details what is contained in the interim report.

      The interim report received by TheJournal.ie states:

      “GSOC officers were unable to take possession of this recording device until the 14th of April at 14.40 hours”

      The report then details how the device was handed over to the FSNI. It then states:

      “The FSNI has reported that 6 files were deleted from the device between 21.06hrs on the 13th of April and 08.02hrs on the 14th of April. It would appear from the FSNI report that the deletion of files from the device took place throughout the night of the 13th-14th April 2011 with other files being created and overwritten at 02.45 hrs, 05.03hrs, 06.41hrs and 07.14hrs. While the FSNI has noted that the clock on the device was 2hrs 34 mins slow, it can nonetheless be seen that a sequence of deletions from the device had taken place shortly prior to GSOC taking possession of the device”.

      Nowhere in the interim report received by TheJournal.ie does it say that the audio file recording is completely intact. Perhaps the journalists you refer to were privy to different information.

      The above article was written immediately after the interim report was received from GSOC, and is merely a report on that report, if that makes sense. Please be assured that no bias is intended, nor is there an agenda being pushed.

      Thanks again,
      Emer

      Reply
    • Thanks for the response Emer

      Yeah it seems the Gardai are making claims about the report that are not actually in it then.

      One detective claims he may have heard something but cant be sure, the force as a whole are saying he unequivically heard.

      With regards the files being intact, its pretty clear the Gardai are being a little less that totally honest. The FSNI where able to confirm that the files deleted where created days before the significant file concerned, and that that file itself was a whole and complete file that has not been tampered with. This corrobarate entirely what the woman concerned has said that the files deleted, under the supervision of academic and ethic committes (but not GSOC who refused to take up the offer to be present) where of no relation to recording of the police officers. The recording doesnt corrobarate the police officers claim to have heard a woman talk about rape, something both GSOC and the police know well. Hence the important ‘maybe’ in official version and it absence in the spin version.

      Its must be hard job cutting through all this! Thks

      Reply
  • Where are all the people in gov on our island who call themselves republican,where is your voice in saving our comrade Brendan Lillis who has a few days/week to live.see indymedia and fb.Why do the brits not let him home.

    Reply
  • @ matthew – Mark malone is a long time community activist who has written extensively about corrupt policing in ireland, not a column troll who only has one article to defend his viewpoint.

    Reply

Add New Comment