Supt Cunningham And The Chief State Solicitor’s Letter

at | 21 Replies

Superintendent Noel Cunningham

Further to a post this morning.

In relation to the Disclosures Tribunal.

About the Chief State Solicitor’s letter which was presented to the O’Higgins Commission of Investigation in 2015.

And about questions surrounding how claims about a meeting in Mullingar in August 2008 – attributed to Supt Noel Cunningham who was present at the meeting – ended up in a document sent to the commission from the then Chief State Solicitor Eileen Creedon’s office, only to be proven false by a taped recording of that meeting produced by Sgt Maurice McCabe and, later, Supt Cunningham’s own notes and report on that same meeting…

And how, during the commission, when asked if he had seen the Chief State Solicitor’s letter before it was sent to the commission on the morning of Monday, May 18, 2015, Mr Cunningham said “no”; then “I don’t remember seeing it, possibly”; and then “I don’t want to catch anybody short by saying something that I — I have so many documents given to me, Judge, with respect, so many documents in a short period of time.”

This afternoon.

Michael McDowell SC, for Sgt McCabe, has just told the tribunal that Supt Cunningham WAS shown the five-page 20-point letter and signed a copy of it prior to it being given to the commission.

Secondly…

Mr McDowell told the tribunal Mr Cunningham was shown it again by Annemarie Ryan, solicitor with the Chief Solicitor’s Office and asked him for his agreement to it – which he gave – when submissions, repeating the contents of the letter, were made to the commission in June 2015.

Earlier: Maurice McCabe And The Chief State Solicitor’s Letter

21 thoughts on “Supt Cunningham And The Chief State Solicitor’s Letter

  1. LeftyMcLeft

    I’m sure there is a perfect explanation for all of this. After all everyone involved except Maurice McCabe are honourable people. Good people. People you can trust & who uphold the law!

    Reply
  2. Catherine costelloe

    Wish I had a chemist near the tribunal stocking scutter pills for these shysters.
    Fanny Fitz for President? Lol.

    Reply
  3. anne

    It sorta all went to poo poo for them when McCabe could produce the recording.

    This has to be criminal. How can you trust these liars?

    Reply
    1. Lilly

      Scary to think what the outcome might have been if he hadn’t had the foresight to record that meeting. He must be beyond disillusioned with the organisation he gave his working life to, and the scum at the helm of it.

      Reply
    1. Walter Ego

      I’d say anne is spot on in her observation, do you think what she said was wrong or are you just attacking her for the sake of it?

      Reply
      1. Killian G

        I am not attacking anything or anyone. I am merely pointing out that Annes observation is a blindingly obvious one. She sees herself as some sort of astute observer. She is not. She is an aggressive bully. The irony is that she herself is quite mundane of mind.

        Reply
        1. Walter Ego

          ” I am merely pointing out that Annes observation is a blindingly obvious one”
          That sort of “Duh, No poo Sherlock” comment belongs back in the playground. Anne an aggressive bully? I seriously doubt that.

          Reply
    2. GiggidyGoo

      “This has to be criminal. How can you trust these liars?”
      Notably you omitted a comment on that. You’re some boyo alright.

      Reply
  4. Topsy

    What’s seems to go unchallenged is:
    Why did O’Higgins not mention in his report the fact that two Senior Gardai had lied under oath about the pub meeting/interview with McCabe and that McCabe had proven this by recording the meeting.
    So where does O’Higgins stand in all of this? Mesmerising stuff.

    Reply
    1. anne

      Didn’t the transcripts for that particular cluster fupp go missing too? We might have another tribunal to investigate that..

      Reply
      1. Topsy

        Yes & no. The transcripts went missing after O’ Higgins had reported, when GSOC requested them?
        Again I ask – why did O’ Higgins not think it necessary to mention or refer to this blindingly significant part of ‘his’ commission investigation in the final report.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *