Return to the list of transcripts

Full Hearings

Hearing: 22nd May 2008, day 25

Click here to download the LiveNote version
















held at:
The Interpoint Centre
20-24 York Street
Belfast BT15 1AQ

on Thursday, 22nd May 2008
commencing at 10.15 am

Day 25









1 Thursday, 22nd May 2008

2 (10.15 am)

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Phillips.

4 MR PHILLIPS: Sir, before Mr Reilly begins his evidence, can

5 I mention that we have now handed out this document with

6 the list of the LAJI witnesses in the usual way, setting

7 out those who will be called to give evidence and those

8 whose statements will be taken into account.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: I hope it is a very helpful document for

10 everybody, thank you.

11 MR PHILLIPS: Thank you.


13 Questions by MR PHILLIPS

14 MR PHILLIPS: Mr Reilly, would you give us your full names,

15 please.

16 A. Thomas Patrick Reilly.

17 Q. Do you have a copy of the statement you made to the

18 Inquiry in front of you?

19 A. I do, sir.

20 Q. Can we have it on the screen, please, as well? It is at

21 RNI-819-009 (displayed). If you turn over to

22 RNI-819-018 (displayed), do we see your signature there

23 and the date of 19th April 2006?

24 A. Yes, sir.

25 Q. Thank you. Now, going back to the start of the





1 statement and the first page, you tell us that you

2 became involved in the Lawyers Alliance for Justice in

3 Ireland in 1999?

4 A. No, sir, it would have been earlier than that. I don't

5 think my intent to the gentleman taking the statement

6 was that I joined in 1999. I just said that I had

7 become involved, but I didn't mean in 1999. It was the

8 first trip I took with him was in 1999, but I did belong

9 before that.

10 Q. I understand. Can you remember when you first joined

11 the organisation?

12 A. It would have had to have been probably -- a good

13 guess -- ten years before that.

14 Q. Ten years before. If you have a look on the screen at

15 RNI-114-057 (displayed), do you see on the left-hand

16 side there is a list of the names of members?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. Under the various states, and we your name there under

19 New Jersey, don't we, the last name?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. Certainly at the time of this document -- if we could go

22 back to the screen, please -- in March 1997, you were

23 already on the paper?

24 A. Yes, sir.

25 Q. And by the sounds of it, you had been a member of the





1 organisation for a number of years even before that?

2 A. At least a few years before that, sir.

3 Q. What were the aims of the organisation?

4 A. Justice in Ireland. Human rights violations for the

5 most part.

6 Q. How did the organisation go about achieving its aims?

7 A. I would have to say it was a loosely knit organisation.

8 There were no formal monthly meetings or no elections or

9 anything of those sorts. It was simply -- I would

10 express it as a conglomerate of attorneys and law

11 enforcement professionals who were seeking justice

12 mainly, as I say, in the human rights field.

13 Q. You, as you describe, were yourself a retired chief of

14 police from New Jersey?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. Were there any other serving or retired police officers

17 in the organisation?

18 A. Yes, sir. There was a police officer from the Kansas

19 area whom I met once. I don't even recall his name. I

20 don't know if he was a former member but I know he was

21 involved with our group.

22 Q. Is it fair to say that most of the members were lawyers?

23 A. That's correct, sir.

24 Q. As the title of the organisation suggests?

25 A. Correct.





1 Q. Thank you. Can I just ask you about your own police

2 work? In the force that you headed in New Jersey -- you

3 mention it in the first paragraph of your statement?

4 A. Yes, sir.

5 Q. Just so that we can get a feel for that, was that

6 a force based in a city or in the country or --

7 A. In a borough, a city, if you will, a small city.

8 Q. A small city in New Jersey?

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. How many officers did you have under your command?

11 A. About a dozen.

12 Q. A dozen?

13 A. Yes, sir.

14 Q. You held that position, as I understand it, for

15 12 years?

16 A. Correct, slightly over.

17 Q. Before you became chief were you an officer in that

18 borough?

19 A. Yes, sir, I worked my way up through the ranks.

20 Q. Did all of your policing career take place there?

21 A. No, sir, I was with the Pitman Police Department prior

22 to that, which is another town not far removed from --

23 Q. Also in New Jersey?

24 A. Yes, sir.

25 Q. Was that another force of about the same size?





1 A. It was slightly larger, about 25/30 men.

2 Q. Thank you. Now, in paragraph 3 you say in the last

3 sentence of the paragraph:

4 "The LAJIs had some success in ensuring that

5 appropriate action is taken to redress these

6 injustices."

7 What I wanted to ask you about is can you tell us

8 about examples of success of that kind?

9 A. Yes, I know they were involved with a group called

10 Mothers of the Innocents, where some young lads had been

11 arrested over here. And I know a number of attorneys

12 came over, gave some advice, sat in on some of the

13 hearings and I know the long run was the boys were

14 released. So that would be at least one case.

15 I think that is probably one of the first ones that

16 I was aware of.

17 Q. You told us a little earlier that you were a member of

18 the organisation for about ten years before you paid

19 your visit in 1999?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Can I ask you, what prompted you first to join the

22 organisation?

23 A. I just -- Edmund Lynch and I were both were from

24 New Jersey. I knew Edmund from various different

25 organisations and we chatted on occasion, and I thought





1 their goals and ideals were certainly worthwhile.

2 Q. Now, you say in paragraph 5 that you were told by

3 Mr Lynch of the planned trip to Northern Ireland?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. As far as you were aware, what was the purpose of the

6 visit?

7 A. The purpose of the visit was to hold hearings throughout

8 the north of Ireland. We were almost a year upon the

9 Good Friday Agreement, the idea being to come here, talk

10 to people and find out if the Good Friday Agreement was

11 working, how they felt about it, were we well on the

12 road to peace, what was going on, how did the people on

13 the street feel about it. That was the purpose of the

14 trip.

15 Q. As I understand it, the way you were going to achieve

16 that purpose was to hold a series of public meetings.

17 Is that right?

18 A. That's correct, sir.

19 Q. Presumably to hear from those who attended the meetings

20 what their view of those matters was?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. So can I get an idea then of your own agenda? You were

23 interested in seeing how matters had developed in that

24 year since the Good Friday Agreement?

25 A. Yes, sir.





1 Q. Across the board?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. Thank you. Now, you tell us in your statement that

4 Mr Lynch was particularly keen for you to be part of the

5 delegation because of your own experience in law

6 enforcement?

7 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.

8 Q. And did you get the impression then from him that you

9 would be adding something to the party?

10 A. Yes, sir, definitely.

11 Q. Presumably --

12 A. Perhaps a different perspective.

13 Q. A different perspective from the other members of the

14 delegation who presumably had all been lawyers?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. Before you headed out to Northern Ireland in 1999, what

17 did you know of the issues about policing which were

18 then current in Northern Ireland?

19 A. I knew they were lacking in many ways. I was well aware

20 of many allegations, et cetera, of human rights abuses

21 by the RUC. I was well aware of that at the time.

22 Q. How did you become aware of them?

23 A. Through the International Association of Chiefs of

24 Police some time prior to that.

25 Q. So this was information passed to you through





1 organisations of the kind --

2 A. Yes, throughout the area, yes, sir.

3 Q. Was it also based on what you had read in the media?

4 A. Yes, sir.

5 Q. And presumably on what Mr Lynch and other members of the

6 organisation had told you?

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. It wasn't based on any previous direct experience of

9 your own?

10 A. No, sir.

11 Q. So this was your first chance, was it, to see things on

12 the ground for yourself?

13 A. Yes, sir, it was my first trip to Northern Ireland.

14 Q. Now, beyond what you already knew and what Mr Lynch had

15 explained to you about the purpose of the visit, were

16 you given any briefing or further information before you

17 set out on those issues?

18 A. No.

19 Q. And so the views that you formed in relation to policing

20 on the ground were views that you formed presumably in

21 the few days of your visit in 1999?

22 A. That would probably be a correct statement, yes, sir,

23 I heard a lot.

24 Q. Presumably what you knew of the policing situation in

25 Northern Ireland suggested to you that there were





1 substantial differences between policing in your borough

2 in New Jersey and policing in Northern Ireland?

3 A. That's a correct statement, sir.

4 Q. So when you met the Chief Constable, for example,

5 presumably you knew that he had thousands, many

6 thousands, of officers under his command?

7 A. Absolutely.

8 Q. That they were dealing with the product of decades of

9 sectarian violence?

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. And presumably not something you had dealt with in

12 New Jersey?

13 A. True.

14 Q. And also with a substantial and continuing problem of

15 terrorism?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And again, that is something you have presumably never

18 experienced or had to deal with in your own career?

19 A. Again, you are correct.

20 Q. Now, so far as the trip itself was concerned, how were

21 the meetings you have mentioned, the public meetings,

22 set up?

23 A. Usually at a -- in fact, I think every one was at

24 different hotels in different locations throughout

25 Northern Ireland, and I believe -- I can't be certain





1 but I believe, if my memory serves me correct, I think

2 that we had put an advertisement in each local newspaper

3 that we would be at a certain hotel on a certain evening

4 and the times.

5 Q. Do you know who made the arrangements on the ground, as

6 it were, in Northern Ireland?

7 A. Probably Edmund Lynch.

8 Q. Ed Lynch?

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. And you say in your statement -- and this is paragraph 9

11 at page RNI-819-011 (displayed) -- that all of the

12 meetings were exceptionally well attended?

13 A. Yes, sir.

14 Q. And that obviously took you by surprise?

15 A. It did, sir.

16 Q. What conclusion did you draw from that?

17 A. That people were interested, people were interested in

18 talking to us. People were interested in telling us how

19 they felt, what was going on.

20 Q. And so the meetings had obviously been well publicised

21 and had attracted a lot interest?

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. Now, Mr Lynch was in New Jersey. Do you know who on the

24 ground was publicising these meetings?

25 A. No, sir, I do not.





1 Q. You also tell us on the same page in paragraph 11, the

2 first sentence, that:

3 "The attendees were predominantly, if not entirely,

4 members of the Catholic community."

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. So in Northern Ireland terms, one side rather than the

7 other?

8 A. It appeared to be that that is who attended the

9 meetings.

10 Q. Are you aware of whether any efforts were made by

11 Mr Lynch to set up meetings with the other side of the

12 community?

13 A. No, sir, I am not aware either way.

14 Q. No. Were you aware as to whether LAJI itself had

15 contacts with the other side?

16 A. No, sir.

17 Q. No. Now, as I understand it, you were present at each

18 one of these meetings. Is that right?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. So the delegation would move from place to place?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. And open itself to a public attendance?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. Which in each case was very high?

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. Thank you. How were they run? What form did the

2 meetings take?

3 A. It was rather informal. We would sit at a table, people

4 would come and come forward at any point. We would

5 call -- you know, "Who would like to speak?" and someone

6 would raise their hand and come forward and speak their

7 mind, as it were.

8 Q. Was there an agenda?

9 A. No, sir.

10 Q. Were minutes taken?

11 A. There were no formal minutes taken, no, sir. A number

12 of our members did -- I know I personally did, and most

13 of the members did, take notes.

14 Q. You mention in your statement that your own notes sadly

15 disappeared?

16 A. Yes, sir. I never expected to be here nine years later.

17 I've moved twice in the meantime and I searched all over

18 for them and just cannot find them.

19 Q. Indeed. You have explained why it was that you were

20 asked to be on the delegation by Mr Lynch.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. As things turned out in the meetings, was policing a big

23 issue --

24 A. It was.

25 Q. -- that came up?





1 A. It was indeed, sir.

2 Q. It came up in every meeting?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. Did people express their views about it?

5 A. Yes, they did.

6 Q. What were they?

7 A. Not favourable towards the RUC, very unfavourable. They

8 gave specific cases. Some of the cases were recent,

9 some older, but I would say that the vast majority of

10 the people who came forward spoke about policing and

11 spoke about it in a negative way.

12 Q. Well, you say in your statement that 90 to 95 per cent

13 of the complaints that people were making were about

14 policing practices?

15 A. That's correct. The overwhelming majority, yes, sir.

16 Q. And are you able to give us any examples of that?

17 A. I think I used one in my statement here -- was one that

18 I could remember. It was a lady who claimed that her

19 son had been arrested. She and her daughter, who was

20 pregnant at the time, went to the local police station

21 enquiring after the youngster. Apparently they were

22 persisting it trying to find out where he was, what was

23 happening to him. The long and short of it was they

24 wound up both being thrown down a flight of stairs by

25 a police officer.





1 They went on to say that they had sued, civil

2 litigation, and won several hundred thousands pounds out

3 of it, because the daughter apparently lost the baby as

4 a result of the fall down the stairs. And one of the

5 questions I asked -- and I asked most of these people,

6 in fact, any of them that had a police complaint: was

7 the officer later disciplined? And they all said no,

8 which to me was either it didn't happen or they weren't

9 made aware if it did happen.

10 Q. How much did you know at the time of your visit of the

11 police complaints system in Northern Ireland?

12 A. Not much.

13 Q. Were you aware, for example, of the standard of proof

14 required in disciplinary matters in Northern Ireland?

15 A. No, sir.

16 Q. In relation to this particular example -- and you deal

17 with it, I think, at paragraph 12 at RNI-819-012

18 (displayed) -- do you see that there? That is the

19 example you have just mentioned to us?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. In relation to this case, did you take any steps to

22 further investigate --

23 A. No.

24 Q. -- the complaint?

25 A. No, I thought this was a matter -- I knew that we were





1 going to meet with the Chief Constable later in the week

2 and it was something I wanted to discuss with him.

3 Q. Did you in fact raise it with him in the meeting?

4 A. Not this particular case. We never got that far.

5 Q. So beyond what was said to you in the meetings by the

6 attendees who chose to come and speak to you, you

7 didn't, as it were, delve into the matters that they

8 were raising with you?

9 A. No, sir.

10 Q. And other than mentioning it in your subsequent meeting

11 with the Chief Constable, did you or any other member of

12 the delegation take any of these particular complaints

13 any further?

14 A. No, sir.

15 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you whether in the course of the

16 public meetings you ever had any attendees who were

17 lawyers in practice in Northern Ireland at the time?

18 A. Excuse me, sir? Any lawyers that were in practice at

19 the time?

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. I don't recall any. I don't recall any.

22 Q. Was the question of harassment of lawyers ever raised in

23 any of the public meetings?

24 A. No, sir, not that I recall.

25 Q. Now, in paragraph 21 of your statement, you tell us that





1 you were aware of Rosemary Nelson and her situation.

2 This is at the top of RNI-819-015 (displayed) of your

3 statement. You say that what you knew about her came

4 from reading the Irish American newspapers. Is that

5 right?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. She didn't come up in conversation before your visit

8 with Mr Lynch?

9 A. No.

10 Q. And she wasn't, as it were, a specific item on the

11 delegation's agenda for the public meetings?

12 A. No, definitely not.

13 Q. And her case was not mentioned, was it, in any of the

14 public meetings?

15 A. Not in any of the public meetings, no, sir.

16 Q. Were you aware, when you paid your visit

17 in February 1999, of her appearance at the congressional

18 subcommittee?

19 A. I was.

20 Q. Had you read her statement or read coverage of it?

21 A. I read coverage of it, yes, sir.

22 Q. Thank you. Were you aware from what you read of the

23 sort of work she did?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And what details were you aware of?





1 A. I was aware that -- of the fact that she was a defence

2 attorney, that she had received threats through her

3 clients, through telephone calls, certainly not as much

4 as you have uncovered here but I was aware of the

5 threats that were being made.

6 Q. You didn't meet Mrs Nelson during your visit, did you?

7 A. No, sir.

8 Q. Were you aware at the time of your visit of Mr Lynch's

9 involvement in making complaints on her behalf?

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. So that was a matter he discussed with you?

12 A. In conversation.

13 Q. Did those conversations take place before the meeting

14 with the Chief Constable?

15 A. I would say before, yes, sir.

16 Q. How much did he tell you about those complaints?

17 A. Just -- as memory serves me, just in general

18 conversation mentioned some of the things that he was

19 doing and that was one of them, trying to follow up

20 a complaint process -- initiate a complaint process or

21 have something done about the threats to Rosemary.

22 Q. But no more detail than that?

23 A. No, sir.

24 Q. No. Just turning to the meeting you had with the

25 Chief Constable -- and this is paragraph 16 of your





1 statement at RNI-819-013 (displayed) -- you say it took

2 place on 27th February that year. Can I ask you first:

3 from the delegation, who was present?

4 A. I gave a couple of names but I don't want to say

5 positively without my notes. It has been a long time

6 and it was not something I pressed into memory.

7 Q. Indeed. Are you prepared to venture the couple of

8 names?

9 A. Yes, sir, I am. I think I mentioned a few in here.

10 Q. Mr Lynch --

11 A. Mr Lynch was definitely there, yes, sir. I am even

12 trying to refresh my own memory from my notes here, from

13 my statement. (Pause)

14 Q. You say there were about six of you in the room with the

15 Chief Constable?

16 A. I would say six to eight of us in the room, probably.

17 Q. In general, now we are in 2008, can I ask you: other

18 than what you can see in this statement, is it fair to

19 suggest that your recollection is pretty limited?

20 A. Yes, sir, my recollection of who was there and some of

21 the things that took place is limited, yes, sir.

22 Q. Now, you mentioned earlier that you took notes during

23 your visit and presumably they included notes of this

24 meeting?

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. But we know they have disappeared?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. Were other members of the delegation taking notes?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Again, can you assist with any names?

6 A. No, I'm not certain. I wouldn't say everyone was taking

7 notes but I know some of us were.

8 Q. What about, as it were, the other side of the meeting?

9 Did he take notes?

10 A. The Chief Constable had an officer with him whom

11 I referred to as his aide, I don't know who it was but,

12 yes, he took notes through the meeting.

13 Q. But didn't speak?

14 A. No, sir, that's correct.

15 Q. As I understand it from your statement, the purpose of

16 this meeting with the Chief Constable was to transmit to

17 him the comments, the themes which had emerged in the

18 course of your public meetings?

19 A. Particularly since most of them had involved his police

20 force.

21 Q. Yes. You also told us a little earlier that the subject

22 of Rosemary Nelson did not come up in any of the public

23 meetings?

24 A. They did not.

25 Q. So in terms of the principal agenda for the meeting with





1 the Chief Constable, she did not form part of that?

2 A. No.

3 Q. As I understand it, you didn't receive a specific

4 briefing from Mr Lynch before the meeting?

5 A. No.

6 Q. And he was, as I understand it, in the lead for the

7 delegation?

8 A. I would say that's correct.

9 Q. You were in a supporting role?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. But you had, of course, the particular point that you

12 had a policing background, whereas the others did not?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. As I understand it, Mr Lynch led off by reporting to the

15 Chief Constable the issues that people had raised about

16 policing in the course of your public meetings?

17 A. That sounds correct.

18 Q. Can you remember the sort of topics that he, Mr Lynch,

19 covered?

20 A. I think he was pretty well relating some of the things

21 that we had been told and was pressing on the need for

22 change within the police force. So in general that was

23 his theme. That was pretty much what he was talking

24 about.

25 Q. Are you able to help with any specific topic that he





1 raised at this stage?

2 A. No, sir, not without my notes.

3 Q. You say at the very bottom of page RNI-819-013

4 (displayed) and over to RNI-819-014 (displayed) that the

5 Chief Constable was keen to know who you had been

6 speaking with and when you -- and I assume that must be

7 Mr Lynch -- told him about the meetings and that the

8 vast majority of the attendees were from the Catholic

9 community, his response was along the lines of, "Well,

10 they would say that, wouldn't they?"

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Do you remember that comment sitting here now?

13 A. I generally remember it, yes, sir, I do.

14 Q. Was the point that he was making that you had only heard

15 one side of the story?

16 A. That would probably be the point he was making to us.

17 Q. In a sense that's a fair point, isn't it?

18 A. I would say it is.

19 Q. In a divided society you had had exclusively Nationalist

20 meetings. You had only heard one side.

21 A. Again, we publicised it in newspapers. I understand it

22 was publicised in a newspaper and the meetings were open

23 to all.

24 Q. But in fact --

25 A. In fact one side overwhelmingly showed up.





1 Q. Yes. Now, you tell us in paragraph 19 that you

2 intervened in the meeting to raise your particular

3 concern, which was about police discipline, and you give

4 us some details of that. Can you remember what

5 Mr Flanagan's reaction to your intervention was?

6 A. We were having a conversation regarding police

7 discipline. I asked the Chief were officers disciplined

8 in cases like the one we just discussed. He assured me

9 that many of them were. He said that he would get me

10 statistics to show me where officers had been

11 disciplined, but he didn't want to get into anything

12 specific. And it was at that point that I wanted to

13 delve into it some more with him, because I didn't know,

14 to be very honest with you, in listening to what we had

15 heard all week from people, I wasn't sure if the

16 officers involved were being disciplined or if the

17 problem was that they were being disciplined and then

18 the aggrieved party was never told that, and so as far

19 as the aggrieved party was concerned, nothing ever

20 happened. And that was the point I was trying to get to

21 with the chief.

22 Q. Sorry --

23 A. And I just happened to bring up -- it was not on the

24 agenda, it just came to the top of my head, it was

25 probably the only one that I could think of current --





1 and I said to him, for instance, "What is going on with

2 the officers involved with Rosemary Nelson's case, the

3 threats to Rosemary Nelson?"

4 Q. So as I understand it, in your statement you say that it

5 was you who put forward the Rosemary Nelson case as an

6 illustration --

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. -- of the problem?

9 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.

10 Q. There was, as I understand it, no prior discussion

11 within the delegation of the need to raise her case?

12 A. No.

13 Q. It came out because you wanted to raise a specific

14 example and find out what his answer was. Is that

15 right?

16 A. Correct, but that does not mean that it would not have

17 been discussed at some point. I don't know that for

18 a fact. One of the other members may have raised it at

19 a later point in the meeting. I just don't know that

20 that would or would not have happened.

21 Q. And so far as Rosemary Nelson was concerned, you

22 presumably knew no more about her at the point you

23 raised her question, the question of her case in the

24 meeting, than you have explained to us already?

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. You hadn't gleaned anything more during the course of

2 your visit, for example?

3 A. No, sir.

4 Q. Nothing had led you to think that there had been any

5 recent developments in her case?

6 A. No, sir, I just felt that it was a case where the

7 threats to her were -- at that point, from the media

8 perspective, the public perspective that it was common

9 knowledge and that is one of the reasons that I brought

10 it up.

11 Q. So as I understand it, the example that you raised was

12 in your mind an example of, as you put it, police

13 officers being accused of threatening the life of

14 a defence lawyer?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And as I understand it, what you were saying to him was

17 what have you done, what has happened in this particular

18 case?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. And what response did you receive?

21 A. The chief said that threats to Rosemary Nelson -- I

22 don't know anything about it. In fact, I clearly

23 remember him saying, "This is the first time I have

24 heard of this."

25 Q. Can I just ask you: are you sure that his reaction was





1 to say, "I don't know anything about this case"?

2 A. Yes, sir. His words were, "I am hearing about this for

3 the first time."

4 Q. Did he indicate, for example, that he knew that the

5 allegations were under investigation?

6 A. No, sir.

7 Q. Did he say that these matters had not been proved and

8 that the disciplinary process had not come to an end at

9 that point?

10 A. No, he did not.

11 Q. Did he ask you to provide him with any further details

12 of the cases that you had?

13 A. What happened is when he said to me he was hearing this

14 for the first time, as I said in my statement, I was

15 absolutely dumbfounded. I didn't know what to say.

16 Before I could say anything else, the conversation was

17 picked up by Mr Lynch who sat up in his chair and looked

18 at the chief and said, "Chief, you have to be kidding

19 us." Those parts of that meeting I recall very vividly,

20 because, as I say, I just couldn't believe where this

21 was coming from.

22 Q. This is paragraph 22 of your statement, where you

23 explain how Mr Lynch, as you put it, stepped in?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And the point he was making, as I understand it, is,





1 "Look, all these things have happened and you know about

2 that"?

3 A. In fact, he went to -- Mr Lynch, as I recall, went to

4 the ends of saying, "Okay, we will assume for a moment

5 that you don't know anything about it," and proceeded to

6 tell him about Rosemary Nelson as if the chief had never

7 heard anything about it and talked about the threats,

8 et cetera.

9 Q. So he, as it were, took the thing from the beginning and

10 summarised the position?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. Did he give specific details in the meeting about the

13 related complaints, that you can remember?

14 A. I don't think he went into the detail that you have here

15 with dates and that type of thing, but I know he

16 discussed the threats coming from her clients, telephone

17 calls, that type of thing.

18 Q. Did Mr Lynch refer to the investigation being conducted

19 by another police officer, Commander Mulvihill?

20 A. No, sir.

21 Q. And what was the Chief Constable's response to this?

22 A. He said that he would look into it.

23 Q. You say in relation to that, in paragraph 24 of your

24 statement at RNI-819-016 (displayed), that you:

25 "... didn't think we could expect him to say any





1 more than that in fairness, if indeed he wasn't aware of

2 the situation."

3 A. If indeed he was not aware of the situation, we could

4 not expect more than that. However, I think, as we all

5 know, what you have elicited from testimony here, the

6 chief was well aware of what was going on. I think it

7 is pretty obvious.

8 Q. When the meeting concluded, what were you expecting him

9 to do?

10 A. In the realm as a police chief, I can only tell you what

11 I would have done, and that would have been to begin an

12 internal investigation inside the police department.

13 I think at that point or at any point -- probably at

14 any point where this became, as I mentioned, common

15 knowledge, if you will, being printed in the newspapers,

16 I think that the Chief Constable had a responsibility

17 and a duty to the people of Northern Ireland and the

18 government that he works for to investigate the matter

19 and find out if in fact there was truth to it. If there

20 was, to discipline the officers involved; number 1, to

21 protect Rosemary Nelson's life, to discipline the

22 officers, to set forth the message to the rest of the

23 force that this won't be tolerated.

24 On the other hand, if it turned out to be nothing

25 but unsubstantiated rumour, again, he would need to let





1 the people know that through the media, through

2 whatever, rather than take a shot at the reputation of

3 his police department.

4 I think it was in his best interests and everyone's

5 best interests at some point to initiate an

6 investigation, whether Mrs Nelson asked for it or not.

7 Q. So presumably you would accept that if the investigation

8 was already in progress, then the key thing was for it

9 to be thoroughly investigated?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. And to come to whatever conclusion was appropriate on

12 the evidence?

13 A. That would be correct, yes, sir.

14 Q. Leading to whatever disciplinary or other action was

15 appropriate in the light of the findings?

16 A. That would be the way in police work it would be done,

17 yes, sir.

18 Q. And that would be presumably the case in any policing

19 situation whether in New Jersey or Northern Ireland?

20 A. It would make no difference.

21 Q. In the course of the answer you have just given, you

22 refer to taking steps to protect Rosemary Nelson, to

23 address the question of protection. Now, was that

24 a specific issue or request that came up in the meeting?

25 A. No.





1 Q. No. It is certainly not referred to in your statement?

2 A. No.

3 Q. As I understand it, the discussion that you describe in

4 your statement, initiated by you, focussed on the

5 disciplinary investigation of the complaints that had

6 been made?

7 A. That would be correct.

8 Q. Going back to the original intervention you made in the

9 meeting, which was in relation to disciplinary matters

10 more generally, what did you know before the meeting

11 about, for example, the statistics?

12 A. Nothing.

13 Q. No. You knew nothing about the level of findings of

14 misconduct or other matters in the force?

15 A. That was the conversation that the Chief Constable and I

16 were having when I brought up what I thought was an

17 instant case to his attention, just to see what was

18 happening as an example.

19 Q. I think you raised, or you suggest you may have raised,

20 the disparity or apparent disparity between the outcome

21 of civil proceeding and the outcome of disciplinary

22 proceedings?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. What was his response?

25 A. I'm trying to remember. I seem to recall he -- I seem





1 to recall he told me there were some legal parameters

2 that he had to stay within in order to follow through on

3 disciplinary, and they were unusual, they were not the

4 same procedures that I would use in the United States.

5 Q. Did he point out to you that the standard of proof in

6 the two types of proceedings was different?

7 A. We didn't get into it that deeply, no, sir.

8 Q. That is the impression one gets from your statement,

9 that in the course of your conversation with him, you

10 didn't get into the details --

11 A. That is --

12 Q. -- very much at all?

13 A. We were starting that when the Rosemary Nelson thing

14 came up and, as I say, Ed stepped in and we kind of lost

15 the disciplinary conversation.

16 Q. He did tell you, I think, that police officers were

17 regularly disciplined. This is the first line of

18 paragraph 20 at RNI-819-014 (displayed).

19 Again, can I just ask you -- it may be that the

20 answer is the same: did he go into any details of cases

21 where officers were disciplined?

22 A. No, he did not.

23 Q. You say in relation to the follow-up to this point that

24 at some point he said he would give you some statistics

25 or send them to you after the meeting and that you





1 didn't receive them?

2 A. No, sir, I never received them.

3 Q. Did you chase up?

4 A. No, I did not.

5 Q. And can I take it, therefore, that in relation to the

6 complaints system itself, there was no detailed

7 discussion between the two of you?

8 A. No.

9 Q. No.

10 A. Only the fact that it would be a different set of

11 circumstances, a different set of proofs here than it

12 would be in America.

13 Q. Other than the particular example of Rosemary Nelson,

14 which you put forward at this stage, were any other

15 specific examples discussed with him during the meeting?

16 A. No.

17 Q. So far as Rosemary Nelson's own complaints or cases were

18 concerned, you say in paragraph 21 that the matters had

19 been going on for several months. This is the third

20 line from the end of paragraph 21 on page RNI-819-015

21 (displayed).

22 What detail were you aware of of these complaints at

23 the time of the meeting?

24 A. I think that when I said months, I believe it was

25 a matter of months prior to our meeting in February that





1 Rosemary had talked to the congressional subcommittee,

2 and I think that is probably what I was referring to in

3 the months that had -- it had really become, at least in

4 America, the reports, you know, of her being here and

5 reporting to the subcommittee, and so forth. Those are

6 the months that I am talking about.

7 Q. But you have explained how Mr Lynch gave an account of

8 the case, if I can put it that way?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. You didn't yourself offer any further details about

11 those matters?

12 A. No, I did not. He was far better versed on it than I

13 was.

14 Q. I was going to say he had much greater knowledge than

15 you?

16 A. Absolutely.

17 Q. Now, in paragraph 28 of your statement you say that the

18 meeting ended on friendly terms and you talked to the

19 Chief Constable about your shared experience of the FBI

20 Academy?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. And you say this:

23 "I didn't think that too many changes were likely to

24 take place in the future whilst he was in charge."

25 That is a pretty sweeping statement, if I may say





1 so?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. What was the basis for that?

4 A. I just thought that his attitude throughout the meeting

5 towards us -- that was the impression that I got from

6 it, that any changes that were going to be made would

7 come hard. They wouldn't -- they wouldn't be changed

8 easily, if I am putting this the right way. While we

9 were having a friendly discussion with him, it was

10 pretty obvious to me that things were not going to

11 change from some of the answers that we got from him, in

12 general.

13 Q. How long did the meeting last?

14 A. An hour and a half, two hours.

15 Q. Did it remain friendly throughout?

16 A. For most of it, yes.

17 Q. Which were the unfriendly parts?

18 A. Probably the part about Rosemary was one, when Edmund

19 said, "Chief, you got to be kidding me," and those type

20 of things.

21 Q. That became a little more tense?

22 A. It became a little more tense at that point. But the

23 rest of it was just conversation back and forth between

24 the Chief Constable and our members.

25 Q. But the view you express in paragraph 28, it was based





1 on that meeting and that meeting alone?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. And on the limited knowledge that you have explained --

4 A. It was just the impression that formed that opinion for

5 me after the meeting.

6 Q. In the course of the meeting did the delegation offer

7 suggestions as to how things might be improved?

8 A. Yes. And again, without my notes I couldn't go into

9 detail. I know that Ed was -- back to the

10 Rosemary Nelson thing, I know Ed was very, very keen on

11 the chief's responsibility to make sure his officers

12 understood the difference between an attorney and

13 a defendant, that they were not one and the same, that

14 one was simply doing their job, while the other, if you

15 consider him a criminal that's fine, but that doesn't

16 apply to the attorney who is defending him.

17 And that has to be -- I know he was very keen on

18 that and very heavy on that, that that would be

19 something that he felt the chief should impart to his

20 police force, you know, as very important.

21 Q. That was a point that he specifically emphasised,

22 was it?

23 A. Yes, he did, he emphasised that.

24 Q. And in relation to policing questions more generally?

25 Any constructive suggestions put forward?





1 A. I am sure there were, but again --

2 Q. You can't remember?

3 A. -- it has been nine years and ...

4 Q. Mr Reilly, that is all I wanted to ask you unless there

5 is any other matter you would like to raise, which we

6 haven't discussed to day?

7 A. No, sir, I think that covers it.


9 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Mr Reilly, can I just raise a couple of

10 points with you, if I may.

11 A. Certainly.

12 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: You are a FBI graduate?

13 A. Yes, sir.

14 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Have you, since graduating, had

15 a chance to go to any of the FBI retraining sessions?

16 A. Yes, I have.

17 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: And you met RUC officers there,

18 I guess?

19 A. Yes.

20 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Were you able to gain an impression

21 about those officers and their attitudes to the issues

22 that you found when you came to Northern Ireland?

23 A. Most of them were down to earth fellows. In fact, there

24 was an RUC officer in my class at the FBI Academy. I

25 didn't know get to know him well, but I did know him and





1 he was a fine gentleman.

2 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: And balanced in their views?

3 A. Difficult to say. I never really had deep conversation.

4 I am just talking about we knew one another to say

5 hello, that type of thing.

6 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Sure. Just a second issue, if I may:

7 whilst you were here on your organised LAJI trip, you

8 were obviously very busy?

9 A. Yes, sir, it seemed like we never stopped moving.

10 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: A very heavy schedule. But can I just

11 ask: did you have an opportunity to meet what I would

12 call the average RUC officer, a guy just doing his or

13 her job?

14 A. No, I did not.

15 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: You didn't get a chance to speak to

16 with them, to see whether they were -- police officer

17 to police officer -- there with the community?

18 A. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity. As I

19 say, it was a whirlwind trip, as you put it, and we were

20 constantly on the move.

21 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Thank you very much.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Reilly, thank you very much for coming

23 over the Atlantic to give evidence to us.

24 A. You are quite welcome, sir.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: We will adjourn now until quarter past 11.





1 (11.00 am)

2 (Short break)

3 (11.15 am)


5 Questions by MR PHILLIPS

6 MR PHILLIPS: Mr Burke, can you give us your full names,

7 please.

8 A. Thomas Joseph Burke Junior.

9 Q. Thank you. Do you have in front of you a copy of the

10 statement you made to the Inquiry?

11 A. I do.

12 Q. Can we have it up on the screen, please, at RNI-802-025

13 (displayed). If we turn over, please, to RNI-802-037

14 (displayed), do we see your signature there?

15 A. You do.

16 Q. And the date of 31st May 2006?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Turning back to the start of the statement, you are by

19 training a lawyer?

20 A. I am.

21 Q. Are you still in practice?

22 A. I am.

23 Q. In Denver?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. What is your practice area?





1 A. I think probably the most complete description would be

2 that I engage in civil litigation. There are side trips

3 from that appellation, but I think to stay on the civil

4 litigation nomenclature would be accurate.

5 Q. Do you appear as an advocate in civil litigation?

6 A. I do.

7 Q. Can I ask you, how did you first come to hear of the

8 Lawyers Alliance for Justice in Northern Ireland?

9 A. I pondered that that question may be asked and I have to

10 tell you that in compact terms I don't know. I had been

11 following the situation of the Troubles in

12 Northern Ireland and attempts at resolution on a couple

13 of Internet news groups. I suspect I learned of the

14 Lawyers Alliance from one or both of those sources and

15 simply sought Mr Lynch out. And apart from that, I

16 can't give you any further detail.

17 Q. Can you remember when you first made contact with

18 Mr Lynch?

19 A. It would have been in approximately mid-year of 1997.

20 Q. And did you at that stage become a member?

21 A. Yes, membership was a very informal affair. There was

22 nothing like the oath I just took here.

23 Q. Did your name, for example, appear upon the paper?

24 A. At one point it did. I think the stationery changed as

25 time went by, but I recollect seeing my name on as a





1 Rocky Mountain coordinator at one point.

2 Q. As far as your interest in affairs in Ireland and indeed

3 Northern Ireland is concerned, you set out first for us

4 in paragraph 1 your own family background and history?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. As I understand it, interests in Ireland and later

7 Northern Ireland was something that were a feature of

8 your life, not just from 1997?

9 A. Certainly of my family life.

10 Q. Yes. And you spent a lot of, presumably, your spare

11 time outside work pursuing those interests?

12 A. It was one of several things I did. I would not want to

13 suggest it was dominant in my life.

14 Q. Now, you explain to us in paragraph 2 of your statement

15 that LAJI would shadow and monitor key cases in

16 Northern Ireland?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Were you yourself involved in that sort of work for

19 LAJI?

20 A. Only secondarily. I would receive various

21 communications, both in the mail and over the Internet,

22 primarily from Mr Lynch, relating to various

23 circumstances, one of which jogged my memory with the

24 mention of Inspector Mulvihill today. And I do not have

25 any firm memory of what was involved in that particular





1 matter, but I did, rather than participate actively in

2 those matters, monitor and learn of the various

3 developments as time went by from those sources.

4 Q. So it sounds -- is this right? -- you joined in 1997 and

5 your role within the organisation was not, as it were,

6 to lead the projects of monitoring and shadowing cases,

7 but rather to be one of a number of people more in the

8 background, receiving information from people like

9 Mr Lynch, for example?

10 A. At that time, that would be accurate.

11 Q. Yes. You also tell us in the same paragraph,

12 paragraph 2 of your statement, that one of the

13 objectives of the organisation was to make the

14 acquaintance of policing and legal-related professions,

15 members of those professions, presumably in

16 Northern Ireland?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. And over the years of your involvement with the

19 organisation, did you come to know first of all people

20 in Northern Ireland involved in policing?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And is the same true of the legal community in

23 Northern Ireland?

24 A. Yes, somewhat, although in the total probably less so.

25 I attended meetings, for example, at the Law Society





1 here in Belfast and socialised with one of the counsel

2 who is normally here. I saw him yesterday.

3 Q. So far as Rosemary Nelson is concerned, what did you

4 know about her work as a lawyer in Northern Ireland

5 before your visit in 1998?

6 A. I had a very general knowledge that she was engaged in

7 representing various defendants who were either accused

8 of being an IRA member or who had been charged with an

9 IRA-related offence involving violence of some kind.

10 Q. Where did that knowledge come from?

11 A. General background knowledge and from -- received from

12 the communications I mentioned, as well as the media in

13 the United States.

14 Q. Yes. Was her case something that you discussed with

15 other members of LAJI before your visit

16 in February 1998?

17 A. Only on the day that we were to meet with her.

18 Q. So you describe that day for us, I think it was

19 17th February, when you met her at the hotel in Lurgan?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. So is this right, therefore: that there was a discussion

22 within the delegation about her case before that

23 meeting?

24 A. I am not sure I understand your question. Would you

25 repeat it, please?





1 Q. Was there a discussion about Rosemary Nelson on the day

2 of the meeting with her at the hotel?

3 A. Yes, there was.

4 Q. Who led the discussion? Was it Mr Lynch?

5 A. It was really more of a round robin discussion having to

6 do with what we were going to do that evening and who we

7 would meet with. I am sure Mr Lynch spoke at that time

8 but I don't think he was dominant at all.

9 Q. No. Can we look, please, at a document in our bundle.

10 If we get it up on the screen, it is at RNI-103-009.504

11 (displayed).

12 Now, this is -- with, I'm afraid, quite a lot of

13 redaction -- the itinerary of the trip and it shows,

14 apart from anything else, that you were kept very busy.

15 Can you look, please, at Tuesday, 17th February. And at

16 7.30 we see:

17 "Dinner Beresford Arms Hotel, Main Street, Lurgan."

18 And in this case the contact number is given, and it

19 is Rosemary Nelson's own telephone number, and lists the

20 invited guests.

21 There are various names there. Some have been

22 blacked out but one is the Garvaghy Road Committee and

23 then Colin Duffy. So the discussion you had on the day

24 with your colleagues, was that a discussion about the

25 guests who were to attend the dinner?





1 A. I have no recollection of that.

2 Q. You haven't? But you do recall that there was

3 a discussion about her?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And she seems to have been the principal organiser of

6 the dinner. Is that right?

7 A. That may have been true, but we didn't discuss the

8 subject of who took the lead in the organisation.

9 Q. Sure. And what did you understand, before the dinner

10 took place, of the purpose of the other attendees coming

11 along to the dinner?

12 A. The general purpose was simply to get acquainted with

13 a fellow legal professional who we know had taken a role

14 in representing unpopular defendants, and we would hear

15 about the challenges that she faced in her law practice

16 that we may or may not have in our own.

17 Q. Indeed. Did you know before the dinner took place of

18 Mr Lynch's own involvement in making complaints on

19 Rosemary Nelson's behalf?

20 A. Only in a very general way.

21 Q. We can see from this itinerary that there were a range

22 of visits, events and meetings that took place during

23 the few days you were present. So far as the dinner is

24 concerned, I think it is right, isn't it, that

25 Colin Duffy, whose name appears there, did not attend?





1 A. He did not. I have never met the man.

2 Q. No. Is it right that Mr Mac Cionnaith from the

3 Garvaghy Road Residents Committee did attend the dinner?

4 A. He was present.

5 Q. Did he speak at the dinner?

6 A. Yes, he did. But not long, I would say no more than

7 five minutes.

8 Q. Was the main speaker, if I can put it that way,

9 Rosemary Nelson?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. In the course of the evening, did you understand that

12 amongst her clients was the Garvaghy Road Residents

13 Committee?

14 A. I think that was implicit without having said so

15 explicitly. My inference was that that was true.

16 Q. But is it your recollection then that there was no

17 explicit discussion of the work that she did for the

18 residents committee?

19 A. That's true.

20 Q. Thank you. Now, so far as what Rosemary Nelson herself

21 said to you, so that we can get a feel for it, are you

22 able to tell us how long she spoke to you?

23 A. Do you mean to the group, sir, or to me individually?

24 Q. To the group.

25 A. I would say no more than 15 minutes.





1 Q. As you set it out in your statement, this was, as it

2 were, a presentation or a speech delivered at the end of

3 the meal. Is that right?

4 A. I think that's right. If we were -- I might quibble

5 with the use of the word "speech", because it seemed so

6 extemporaneous. It did not appear to involve a great

7 deal of prior preparation on her part.

8 Q. We are not talking about question and answer; we are

9 talking about Rosemary Nelson speaking to you for

10 a period of about 15 minutes?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. Thank you. Were there then questions and answers from

13 the delegation?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And is it right that after that -- and you describe this

16 in your statement -- you yourself had an one-to-one

17 conversation with her?

18 A. There was a person in between me and Rosemary Nelson, so

19 if it was -- I would say it was perhaps one-to-two,

20 rather than one-to-one.

21 Q. Thank you. When, in your statement, you describe what

22 she told you, you say in paragraph 11 at the bottom of

23 page RNI-802-028 (displayed), that having set out for

24 you the nature of her practice, the work that she did,

25 she went on to say that she had been receiving death





1 threats?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Was that the first time that you were aware that she had

4 been receiving death threats?

5 A. Bearing in mind that this was 11 years ago, I believe

6 that in a very general way Mrs Nelson had mentioned

7 that -- the difficulties included threats of various

8 kinds, but their explicit nature was not something she

9 described at that time, but rather to me as we were

10 having this one-to-two conversation that I mentioned.

11 Q. So, so I am clear about this, in the course of her own

12 presentation to the group, she mentioned that there had

13 been threats?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. But she didn't go into detail at that stage?

16 A. That is a fair statement.

17 Q. Now, when in paragraph 12 you say that she mentioned

18 first of all Mr Duffy and then four or five clients in

19 total, was that in the course of her initial speech or

20 presentation or later?

21 A. Later.

22 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you about that conversation then

23 later with you and her and the person in between?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. At that stage, did she give you any more detail about





1 either Mr Duffy or the four or five clients?

2 A. My recollection of Mr Duffy and his role in her practice

3 were rather dim at the time, particularly because

4 Mr Duffy, although invited, did not come to the dinner

5 and I had not met him or really heard much about him

6 beforehand.

7 So what she talked about were really these other

8 clients of hers who she said were -- whose names she

9 didn't share with me at the time, because they all fell

10 into a category, in that they had been at the

11 Gough Barracks, they could held for some period of time.

12 The majority, if not the entirety of them, had been

13 battered around for a while by people there and then

14 simply turned loose on the grounds that there was no

15 sufficient evidence to proceed further. They would come

16 to her, and with great reluctance and without being able

17 to meet her eye-to-eye until she almost demanded it,

18 told her that the men at Gough Barracks had sent them

19 back with a message and that was that essentially she

20 was going to be dead.

21 Q. And it is obviously very difficult now so long after the

22 event, over ten years, but are you confident at least

23 that that level of detail was given to you by her in the

24 course of this exchange?

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. It is not something that you may have overlaid with what

2 you learnt subsequently?

3 A. No.

4 Q. No. Did you ask any questions about the cases that she

5 mentioned?

6 A. The cases -- I made enquiry as to whether these were

7 matters involving in broad terms the sectarian divide

8 and whether these people were accused of membership in

9 the IRA or having committed an IRA offence. My

10 inference from what she said was the answer was yes.

11 Q. Was there any further attempt by you to get more detail,

12 to be able to form an impression for yourself, for

13 example, as to the likely validity of the complaints

14 that were being made?

15 A. Sadly, no.

16 Q. No. Is that because it wasn't the appropriate occasion?

17 A. It was an uncomfortable occasion over cheesecake, for

18 example, to have the discussion at all and really under

19 the circumstances about all that could reasonably have

20 been expected.

21 Q. Were you shocked by what she told you?

22 A. Of course.

23 Q. These were incidents the like of which you had not heard

24 of in your reading about Northern Ireland. Is that

25 right?





1 A. Not with that specificity, no.

2 Q. No. And you say that she seemed genuinely concerned

3 about her safety and that of her family?

4 A. She did.

5 Q. Is that an impression that you formed based on what she

6 said to you about her concerns?

7 A. Well, it became obvious that she conducted an active law

8 practice and grew up in Lurgan and knew about its

9 residents and the various severe divisions between the

10 two factions, but that she went about her business

11 without any means of protection and, on reflection,

12 understood that that was perhaps dangerous in an

13 objective sense.

14 Q. So you did discuss this in the course of your

15 conversation?

16 A. In a very general way.

17 Q. Yes. So did you get any hint from her at that point

18 that she had taken any steps to protect herself?

19 A. No.

20 Q. No. But it sounds from what you have just said to me as

21 though you learnt something from her in this

22 conversation as to the nature of the area in which she

23 lived and worked, namely that it was divided?

24 A. Yes, and I learned that in conjunction with her

25 statements that, with respect to the work she did, such





1 as the notions shop perhaps changing hands or wills to

2 be drawn, her activity stretched across the community

3 and its divides.

4 Q. Did you know anything of Lurgan before your visit?

5 A. I knew it was a town in which there seemed to be more

6 than average contention, and beyond that general

7 statement, I knew nothing in the particular.

8 Q. So that much at least of what she mentioned to you

9 wasn't entirely new to you?

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. Now, at this stage at the dinner on 17th February, as we

12 have seen from the schedule, you already had arranged, I

13 think, for the 19th a meeting with the Chief Constable?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. Was, as far as you recall, Rosemary Nelson aware of

16 that?

17 A. She seemed not to be and was interested to learn that we

18 had an appointment -- our delegation had an appointment

19 with him two days hence and was interested in that fact.

20 Q. You say in paragraph 13, in the first line of that

21 paragraph -- this is at RNI-802-029 (displayed):

22 "Whilst she was on her feet, she also mentioned that

23 she wished we could engage with

24 Chief Constable Flanagan. I don't think she knew at

25 this point that we had an official meeting scheduled





1 with him or when this was due to be."

2 She learnt that, did she, in the course of this

3 dinner?

4 A. I thought so.

5 Q. And what was her reaction to being told that there was

6 a meeting to take place with the Chief Constable?

7 A. She was interested that we raise with

8 Chief Constable Flanagan the fact that she no longer

9 felt safe and that she had received numerous death

10 threats.

11 Q. So your understanding was this, was it, that she wanted

12 you to convey a message, that message, to the

13 Chief Constable?

14 A. Exactly.

15 Q. And was that the end of the message she wished you to

16 convey?

17 A. There began a dialogue with a number of the people at

18 the table and there was no particular leadership among

19 those who spoke; there was simply spontaneous questions

20 about whether or not she felt she was in need of police

21 protection, because virtually everybody who spoke on the

22 subject thought that she was.

23 Q. And what was her reaction to those interventions?

24 A. She was interested in not being under fear of death at

25 any time and was not opposed to our discussion with





1 Chief Constable Flanagan of a means of personal

2 protection for herself. The words that were used were

3 "personal protection programme" and I don't know whether

4 that is the same notion as we heard yesterday, and as

5 I have heard since then, the Key Persons Protection

6 Scheme. Those were not the precise words that were used

7 in the course of the discussion.

8 Q. Was that a scheme, the Key Persons Protection Scheme, of

9 which you were aware at this point?

10 A. I was not aware of the scheme at that point.

11 Q. But you think she specifically mentioned, using whatever

12 name, a protection programme?

13 A. Yes, she was very frightened.

14 Q. And was it your understanding, therefore, that she

15 wished you to raise with the Chief Constable the

16 possibility of her being protected under that programme?

17 A. I think that is a fair statement, yes.

18 Q. Yes. And was it agreed in the course of this discussion

19 that the delegation should do as she had asked?

20 A. We certainly received no direction from her. I think

21 she would have thought that was presumptuous, but I

22 think we adjourned that evening with her foreknowledge

23 that we would most likely raise the subject.

24 Q. You say at the end of this page, RNI-802-029

25 (displayed):





1 "I know that I certainly responded that we would do

2 so."

3 I.e. mention it to Mr Flanagan?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Is that your recollection of your position, at any rate?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Of what you set down?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Okay. You were obviously, on the basis of this

10 sentence, not alone and that other members gave the same

11 assurance?

12 A. No, I think one of the other phrases in my statement is

13 that there was a chorus.

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. I think that is a fair expression.

16 Q. I would like you to look, please, at a paragraph from

17 another statement of a member of the delegation,

18 Jean Forest, and this is at RNI-806-020 (displayed), in

19 paragraph 22.

20 Now, in her statement -- actually, can we go back to

21 the page, please, RNI-806-020 (displayed). Do you see?

22 I want to show you the last line of paragraph 21, where

23 Jean Forest says unfortunately she can't recall any

24 specific details of the evening. That is an important

25 thing for you to be aware of. But if we look at





1 paragraph 22, do you see she sets out what she can

2 remember about this evening?

3 A. I have not seen this statement before, so I am reading

4 it for the first time. I would appreciate it if you

5 bear with me.

6 Q. Absolutely. (Pause)

7 A. Yes, I have read it now.

8 Q. The only point I wanted to raise with is this: the

9 suggestion you see there in the second sentence is that

10 she would have spoken about the threats in a very casual

11 manner as if they were an aside to the work she was

12 doing. Do you see that?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Is that consistent with your own recollection of how she

15 spoke about them?

16 A. Because I inevitably put together the more general

17 comments she made as she was speaking with the more

18 personal comments that were made while I was seated with

19 one person between us, I think I ascribed more -- a more

20 serious meaning to her words as she was standing in

21 light of what he heard thereafter. So I would, to that

22 limited extent, disagree with Ms Forest.

23 Q. Thank you very much.

24 Now, you say that in the same conversation -- and

25 this is paragraph 14 of your statement at RNI-802-030





1 (displayed) -- she gave you a specific example of an

2 incident in a grocery market stall, is the phrase you

3 use. This, as I understand it, is something that she

4 set out for you in the course of your conversation with

5 you and the person between and her?

6 A. That's accurate.

7 Q. Yes, but did she give you an idea of when this had taken

8 place?

9 A. My notion was that it had been fairly recently.

10 Q. Fairly recently before the dinner?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Yes. And also can I ask you: did she tell you what she

13 had done after the incident by way, for example, of

14 reporting it to anyone?

15 A. No, she didn't.

16 Q. Did you ask her?

17 A. No.

18 Q. In the next paragraph of your statement, you say that

19 she told you she was very frightened by it and, as I

20 understand it, one of the things that troubled her was

21 that she didn't recognise the man. Is that right?

22 A. He was mystery man to her, yes.

23 Q. Yes. She told you that she knew by sight many Loyalists

24 in the area but this man was unknown to her?

25 A. That's correct.





1 Q. You then say in the next sentence:

2 "I got the impression he was around 40 years old."

3 Can I ask you to explain how you got that

4 impression?

5 A. I believe she mentioned he was a fellow with a paunch

6 and who was wearing a large black coat and was not

7 a young person but not an old person as well. I drew

8 that inference of 40 just for my own purposes.

9 Q. She said that she had been very frightened by this

10 experience?

11 A. Indeed.

12 Q. But as you told us, you didn't discover from her whether

13 she had reported it to anyone?

14 A. I did not.

15 Q. Did she tell you whether she had even discussed it with

16 anyone at the time?

17 A. She did not.

18 Q. Did it make you concerned for her safety?

19 A. Very much so.

20 Q. And was that, do you think, one of the things that made

21 you keen to assure her that you would indeed raise the

22 question of protection with the Chief Constable?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Now, in the aftermath of the dinner, once it was over,

25 did the delegation discuss what had been said?





1 A. We travelled to Lurgan from Belfast, where we were

2 staying, by car and there were enough people so that we

3 all needed to be -- many of us needed to be in separate

4 cars, and I couldn't tell you, of course, what was said

5 in other cars, but I think we discussed in a general way

6 that we had heard some things that were quite shocking.

7 Q. Did you share what had been passed on to you in this

8 particular conversation, you with the other person in

9 the middle and Rosemary Nelson?

10 A. I don't think so.

11 Q. No. Two days later, as you tell us in paragraph 19, you

12 were part of the group that met the Chief Constable?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. The delegation as a whole, as I understand it, split

15 into two, with -- and you say this in paragraph 18 --

16 Mr Lynch and others meeting the Lord Chief Justice and

17 you and other colleagues going to the Chief Constable?

18 A. To my memory, Mr Lynch and Mr Peter Connell were the

19 only two who met with the Lord Chief Justice. The

20 remainder of the delegation was at the meeting with the

21 Chief Constable with the caveat that quite a number of

22 the other people chose to sleep in and weren't at

23 anything.

24 Q. Indeed. You say that actually Judge Patrick Henry went

25 off with Mr Lynch as well. Is that right?





1 A. You are quite right, I apologise.

2 Q. No. Now, before the rest of you went to see the

3 Chief Constable, did you have any discussion as

4 a delegation or with Mr Lynch about what should be on

5 the agenda during the meeting?

6 A. Not with Mr Lynch, no.

7 Q. Did you as a group, the group that were going to the

8 meeting, have a discussion as to what matters should be

9 raised with the Chief Constable?

10 A. We were at breakfast together, where most of us were

11 staying at Marine House near Queen's University and

12 three people, including me, John Farrell and

13 Walter Pollard, did discuss that subject. I did not

14 discuss it with anyone else.

15 Q. What was agreed between the three of you as to the

16 points to be covered with the Chief Constable?

17 A. Mr Farrell had stayed up that night and taken notes of

18 what he had learned the two days prior and at the

19 dinner, and said he had a number of questions laid out

20 that, if we didn't mind, he would like to take the lead

21 on. And everybody -- the three of us, I should say, or

22 the other two of us, were agreeable with that.

23 Q. You say in paragraph 20 of your statement that you think

24 someone was present from the RUC taking notes in the

25 meeting and there were other people coming and going





1 through the room?

2 A. Yes, that's my recollection.

3 Q. Was anybody on your side, if I can put it that way,

4 taking notes?

5 A. I didn't keep my eye on anybody really in the delegation

6 but it was certainly possible. I did not make

7 a specific notation of that.

8 Q. No. Thank you.

9 Now, in paragraph 19 you begin to set out your

10 account of what happened in the meeting. Can I ask you

11 first: how long did the meeting take?

12 A. I would say it was a couple of hours long.

13 Q. Thank you. And it looks as though, in your recollection

14 at any rate, you began with a discussion, as I

15 understand it, initiated by the Chief Constable?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Of the challenges which he and the force as a whole

18 faced?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Can you remember any of the topics or matters that he

21 raised at that stage?

22 A. There were two that I recall. The first was that the

23 force was a sizeable one and it was always a challenge

24 to get his arms around it at any time, and the second

25 one was the existence of a burden of proof for showing





1 that officers were in need of discipline, and that

2 burden of proof, as he -- I remember his words. He said

3 "beyond any reasonable doubt", which I equated with the

4 American legal standard for criminal convictions.

5 Q. Indeed. Was that something you were aware of before the

6 meeting?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Did the conversation include a discussion of the fact

9 that the standard in civil cases in Northern Ireland was

10 a lower standard than that standard, the criminal

11 standard, in disciplinary matters?

12 A. I analogised it to the American standard of proof by

13 a preponderance of the evidence.

14 Q. But that, you think, was one of the matters which he

15 covered at the beginning of the meeting?

16 A. He did.

17 Q. Yes. And was it in that context that discussion went on

18 to the particular case which you mention in the fourth

19 line of paragraph 19?

20 A. I don't think it was related to that topic. It was

21 simply that we had moved on, and I would surmise that

22 Mr -- either Mr Pollard or Mr Farrell, but probably

23 Mr Farrell, had raised the issue of the damages award

24 having been made very recently and asked the Constable

25 to comment on it.





1 Q. This was a recent case of which Mr Farrell, at least,

2 was aware and you think he raised it with the constable?

3 A. Yes, it had been in the press that week.

4 Q. Yes. And there was then a discussion. Was it

5 a discussion between Mr Farrell and the Chief Constable,

6 or did others participate?

7 A. Primarily Mr Farrell, but others chimed in, as I recall

8 it, very few people.

9 Q. And you describe Mr Farrell's interventions or his

10 leadership on this as being spirited, and he asked

11 a number of probing questions?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. So presumably employing some forensic or advocacy

14 techniques in the meetings?

15 A. Forensic techniques?

16 Q. Yes.

17 A. One might suggest that.

18 Q. Am I right in thinking that the atmosphere in the

19 meeting changed as a result much that?

20 A. There is something I recall in my own mind that supports

21 that view. The Chief Constable had brought a large

22 platter of biscuits are what Americans would call them,

23 butter cookies, and placed them under some plastic wrap

24 along with a very large pot of tea in the expectation

25 that we would partake. They stayed exactly there





1 throughout the entire meeting; they were never offered

2 and I don't think the Chief Constable ever thought that

3 he should offer them.

4 Q. So the plastic was not removed?

5 A. It was not.

6 Q. Is that what you mean in the last line of this paragraph

7 by saying that "the veneer of hospitality cracked"?

8 A. Not just the biscuits. It was the atmosphere in the

9 room exemplified --

10 Q. By the biscuits.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Yes. Now, you say in paragraph 21 that the discussion

13 then moved on to the question of Rosemary Nelson. Can

14 I take it that this was something you had discussed at

15 breakfast, the three of you?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. As an issue to be raised in the meeting?

18 A. Indeed.

19 Q. In accordance with the assurances you'd given her?

20 A. I am not sure what assurances I had given.

21 Q. Do you remember you told us earlier that at the dinner,

22 when she had raised this point with you, you had told

23 her that you would do so, i.e. raise --

24 A. That was an assurance given to Mrs Nelson.

25 Q. Yes, indeed.





1 A. I thought you said "them".

2 Q. No.

3 A. I got confused.

4 Q. Thank you. Now, who led that discussion?

5 A. That was Walter Pollard.

6 Q. Right. What can you remember of how he raised the

7 matter with the Chief Constable?

8 A. Mr Pollard began with an operating premise that it was

9 the duty of any police force to protect its citizens,

10 particularly those whom it had learned or had reason to

11 know were the subject of death threats. And he asked

12 Mr Flanagan whether he had been aware of these and what,

13 if anything, he had done, had he heard of them, to

14 protect her. That was the general theme of this

15 question.

16 Q. Were the specific examples that had been mentioned to

17 you raised in the course of this discussion?

18 A. I don't think Mr Pollard at that point -- because I had

19 not told him -- knew of the issue or of the incident in

20 the food market, but he certainly did raise the issue of

21 the men coming back, the defendants recently freed

22 coming back with messages from members of the RUC at

23 Gough Barracks.

24 Q. And what request, if any, was made by Mr Pollard of the

25 Chief Constable?





1 A. That he institute whatever actions that would be

2 consistent with his obligations and with his duties to

3 protect her from harm, from physical harm.

4 Q. That is obviously a reasonably general way of putting

5 it. Can I ask you specifically: was any reference made

6 in the meeting, either by Mr Pollard or anybody else, to

7 the programme that you discussed at dinner?

8 A. I think we simply referred to it as police protection

9 and not any particular nomenclature. I think you need

10 to understand that the delegation we were with was

11 composed entirely of Americans, who were unfamiliar with

12 the particulars of the Key Persons Protection Scheme and

13 probably had never heard that phrase before.

14 But certainly the practice exists in American police

15 work of providing protection under circumstances that

16 seem to be less formal than what we had been hearing

17 about at the dinner and, again, in that meeting with

18 Constable Flanagan.

19 Q. Beyond raising it in that way, was there any discussion

20 with the Chief Constable as to specific types or methods

21 of protection?

22 A. I do not have a firm memory on that subject. That is an

23 accurate statement. I can't recollect.

24 Q. Now, in your statement at paragraph 21 what isn't at

25 least obviously apparent is what the Chief Constable's





1 response to this specific point was. Can you help us?

2 A. The Chief Constable said something that I thought was

3 surprising and perhaps excessively flattering. He

4 mentioned that he was happy to have us visit him and

5 that he and the force depended on human rights groups

6 such as ours to keep him and the force informed of

7 things that they might not otherwise discover, and that

8 we could be assured he would look into the matters we

9 had raised promptly.

10 Q. So in relation to this specific question of protection

11 for Rosemary Nelson, he made it clear, did he, that he

12 welcomed the information that you were providing?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And that his intention was to enquire into it?

15 A. That's my recollection.

16 Q. Just moving forward to the end of the meeting, in

17 relation to this particular topic, did you leave the

18 meeting with the impression that he would enquire into

19 the matters that you had raised with him in relation to

20 Rosemary Nelson's safety?

21 A. We were encouraged.

22 Q. Thank you. Now, it looks as though at that point you

23 then moved to another topic, namely the disciplinary

24 structure for RUC officers. As I understand it, that

25 arose out of the discussion prompted by Mr Pollard about





1 the particular cases. Is that right?

2 A. Yes, I think the Chief Constable understood that the

3 overwhelming majority of the people in the delegation

4 were people with legal training, and so his discussion

5 about the burden of proof and the challenges that that

6 presented to him was something that he wanted to impart

7 to lawyers.

8 Q. That is what I want to ask you about specifically. When

9 you first explained to us what the Chief Constable said

10 at the start of the meeting, you included this point

11 about the standard of proof.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Can I suggest it is more likely that it came up at this

14 point in the discussion?

15 A. It came up twice: right at the outset in not great

16 detail, and then later again toward the end of the

17 meeting when a more thorough discussion ensued in which

18 there were questions from members of the delegation

19 about the burden and what it involved.

20 Q. So I am clear about this, the conversation initiated by

21 Mr Pollard about protection and safety led to the issue

22 of what the disciplinary position was with the officers

23 concerned, as you put it in your statement?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. And that led to a more general discussion about the





1 differences between the standard of proof in

2 disciplinary matters and in civil cases?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. Thank you. And again, it looks as though in relation to

5 this matter also, the Chief Constable said to you that

6 he would look into matters?

7 A. He did say that.

8 Q. And again, what did you understand about that, please?

9 A. I thought that he would begin at the very least an

10 informal investigation by checking around within the

11 force to see what was really going on in Lurgan

12 vis-a-vis Mrs Nelson and her safety.

13 Q. So is this a fair summary: that essentially you were

14 presenting him with these allegations, serious

15 allegations, and the question was how could they

16 properly, and should they properly be investigated?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And you left the meeting expecting him to take that

19 forward?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Thank you. As you say, and you have just mentioned, you

22 were not dissatisfied with that reaction; indeed, you

23 were even, as you put it, mildly encouraged?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Thank you. Moving on through this same paragraph, 22,





1 as I understand it, your recollection is that at this

2 stage, so after the discussion about standard of proof,

3 you passed on the particular incident which Mrs Nelson

4 had told you about at the dinner involving the man in

5 the supermarket?

6 A. I did.

7 Q. Thank you. And again, can I ask you what is the

8 reaction that he gave, as far as you can recall it?

9 A. The Chief Constable seemed to be very tense after what

10 we had described to him, and this was one new allegation

11 that he had obviously not come across before. But he

12 kept his steely grip as we mentioned it, and he had no

13 comment afterward.

14 Q. No. So in relation to this matter, he did not tell you

15 that he would follow it up? Is that right?

16 A. When we left, my impression was -- from a vantage point

17 of 11 years, you understand -- that he was going to look

18 into everything we mentioned.

19 Q. Now, I would like to ask you a question, please, about

20 your itinerary. Can we look at RNI-103-009.504

21 (displayed). We looked at this document a little

22 earlier. Can I ask you to look, please, at

23 Wednesday, February 18th, and at 1 pm, because there it

24 says:

25 "Meeting with Northern Ireland government





1 representatives."

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Can I ask you: do you remember attending such a meeting?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Do you think that it took place on that date, Wednesday,

6 18th February?

7 A. It is possible, but I would like to emphasise that many

8 items on this itinerary were re-arranged at the last

9 moment and some were even just dropped.

10 My recollection is that we saw the people at the

11 Northern Ireland Office on our first day after having

12 arrived in Northern Ireland, but I don't trust my memory

13 sufficiently to say that it is impossible that it took

14 place on this Wednesday.

15 Q. Well, in your statement at paragraph 5 you mention

16 meeting people from the Northern Ireland Office on the

17 next morning; in other words, the next morning after

18 your first appointment in Belfast?

19 A. That's my general recollection.

20 Q. So it may be that there were changes to the itinerary in

21 practice?

22 A. In practice I know there were.

23 Q. Yes. I would like to show you a letter, please. It is

24 at RNI-114-122 (displayed). Have you seen this letter

25 before?





1 A. Only this morning.

2 Q. Thank you. Now, this is a Northern Ireland Office

3 letter and the reason I ask you about it is simply in

4 relation to the date. You see, it is dated

5 23rd February and it says that two individuals, one with

6 a cipher, and the author, who has also been ciphered in

7 this copy, met the US Lawyers Alliance "yesterday". And

8 we have taken that, understandably, to be 22nd February.

9 Can you help us with whether it is possible that the

10 meeting you had with the NIO officials took place on

11 22nd February?

12 A. As I mentioned, it is possible that my memory of

13 11 years ago is not perfect.

14 Q. That would be three days after your meeting with the

15 Chief Constable. Is that possible?

16 A. The lasting impression I have is that we met with the

17 NIO people at Stormont the next morning after we

18 arrived, but I could be convinced otherwise.

19 Q. Can I ask you this question. Can you remember who

20 within the LAJI delegation took part in that meeting?

21 A. Edmund Lynch led and the late Peter Connell also took

22 a strong voice in the discussions. I myself did not

23 speak.

24 Q. You don't give any detail in relation to the meeting in

25 your statement.





1 A. No.

2 Q. Can you remember what matters were covered in the

3 meeting?

4 A. It was a general discussion about the Troubles in

5 Northern Ireland, how they were being addressed,

6 problems in general with how the Royal Ulster

7 Constabulary went about doing its work, or not, as the

8 case may be. And as I recollect, the discussions got

9 spirited. One woman with the Northern Ireland Office

10 became, I presume, so angry that she burst into tears

11 and fled the scene.

12 Q. Can you remember why that was?

13 A. I think because the discussions became spirited and she

14 took exception.

15 Q. You have told us you didn't take part in the

16 discussions?

17 A. I did not.

18 Q. Was Mr Lynch in the lead throughout?

19 A. Mr Lynch and Mr Connell.

20 Q. Connell?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Can you help us as to whether this meeting took place

23 before the dinner with Rosemary Nelson?

24 A. My memory tells me yes, but obviously I can't trust it

25 completely after 11 years. But my present recollection





1 is that it happened before we met with Mrs Nelson.

2 Q. Do you remember her case or the topic of Rosemary Nelson

3 coming up at the meeting?

4 A. I believe her name was mentioned, but at that time I had

5 been generally unacquainted with any of the details of

6 Rosemary Nelson's situation or in fact with her

7 personally.

8 Q. Can you assist as to any further detail of that part of

9 the conversation which concerned her?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Thank you. Now, you returned to Northern Ireland, as I

12 understand it, in 1999?

13 A. I did.

14 Q. And you say in paragraph 25 of your statement that you

15 discussed with Mr Lynch the possibility of putting

16 together a smaller group for that visit?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Why was that?

19 A. The initial group that had come with us in 1998 was

20 a large group. As I think I mentioned, we needed to

21 break into several cars in order to travel anywhere.

22 And concomitantly, the trip, I know, got very expensive

23 and Mr Lynch wound up personally absorbing a lot of the

24 expenses, which he was not terribly interested in doing

25 again. So the idea of a more agile and less expensive





1 group was talked about for the next visit in 1999.

2 Q. Can I ask you: between your leaving Northern Ireland in

3 1998, in February, and your visit in 1999, did you

4 maintain contact with Rosemary Nelson?

5 A. Not personally, no.

6 Q. No. Did you hear anything more about her?

7 A. In general terms that her life continued to be in

8 danger.

9 Q. And what was the source of that information?

10 A. I think it would be back to communications from

11 Mr Lynch, from the Internet discussion groups

12 I mentioned and also the American media had periodic

13 updates on this, not front page material, of course, but

14 there were things that caught my eye, because I had met

15 Mrs Nelson.

16 Q. Were you aware of her evidence, for instance, before the

17 congressional subcommittee?

18 A. Only later.

19 Q. After her murder?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. So far as the visit in 1999 of this smaller group, what

22 was its purpose?

23 A. It was expressly to follow up with the Chief Constable

24 what he either had done or intended to do with respect

25 to the same problems that had been raised with him





1 a year earlier, in 1998. I will suggest that the

2 questions that were asked this time were less those

3 designed to elicit information than that they were

4 rhetorical in nature.

5 Q. So, as far as you were aware then, the purpose of the

6 trip was very much focused on a follow-up meeting with

7 the Chief Constable?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. What of the suggestion that the purpose of the trip was

10 to see how the Good Friday Agreement of the previous

11 year was working out in practice?

12 A. Certainly that's a backdrop for the entire visit.

13 Q. Because it has been suggested to us, certainly by

14 Mr Reilly, that the trip and the public meetings which

15 were arranged as part of it were designed to elicit

16 information for the delegation as to what was happening

17 in practice nearly a year after the Agreement had been

18 made?

19 A. Yes. I did not attend all of those meetings. I think

20 I may have mentioned in my statement that the nature of

21 the trip and its short duration were hard on me

22 physically, because I live in the western part of the

23 United States and fully a third of the journey to

24 Northern Ireland for me is comprised by travelling over

25 American states, and so I did not attend all of those.





1 I recollect attending one in the Short Strand area and

2 another in the neighbourhood of Lower Ormeau, and the

3 subject of how it was working were discussed and --

4 well, that is what I can say about that.

5 Q. That is as much as you can recall?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. You say in your statement at paragraph 27 -- this is at

8 RNI-802-034 (displayed) -- that this trip was more

9 hurried and tiring, particularly for you, and you do

10 indeed mention the additional travel burden. And that

11 as a result -- or possibly, you say, because of this

12 your recollection is not as detailed?

13 A. I think that's fair.

14 Q. So far as the meeting with the Chief Constable was

15 concerned, and your awareness of this, did he receive

16 from the delegation an indication of the points you

17 wished to discuss with him?

18 A. We certainly were there with the lead item on the

19 agenda, and I don't recollect that it was in writing at

20 all but the principal item was the issue of

21 Rosemary Nelson and her safety.

22 Q. As far as you were concerned then, that was something at

23 the head of your agenda. Were you aware of whether any

24 steps had been taken to make sure that it was at the

25 head of his agenda for the meeting?





1 A. Not personally, no.

2 Q. No. Can I ask you about the meeting. Who was present

3 from the LAJI side?

4 A. Myself, Mr Reilly, Mr Lynch, Norman Higgins, Ned Devine

5 and possibly somebody else who I list in my statement

6 but I can't right now recite from memory.

7 Q. Do have a look, please. It is at paragraph 28 that you

8 begin to discuss it. (Pause)

9 I am not sure that, apart from Mr Lynch, you deal

10 with the specific attendees for this meeting, do you?

11 A. I think I did somewhere in that statement.

12 Q. You deal with the delegation itself at 25. Does that

13 help? It is on the previous page, RNI-802-033

14 (displayed). 25. Do you see the last sentence?

15 A. Yes. Judge Henry was along, yes, and Patrick Whalen --

16 Q. Do I understand this correctly then, that the delegation

17 as a whole went to the meeting?

18 A. Yes, that was the entire group.

19 Q. Indeed. Not least, presumably, because on your

20 understanding this meeting was the principal focus of

21 the visit?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Sir, we have been just over an hour. Is this

24 a convenient moment?

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Would it be a good idea to meet again





1 at 25 to two rather than breaking off for a quarter of

2 an hour? Would that be all right for you? We will say

3 25 to two.

4 (12.21 pm)

5 (The short adjournment)

6 (1.35 pm)

7 MR PHILLIPS: Mr Burke, we were discussing the meeting with

8 the Chief Constable in February 1999. Can I just go

9 back to remind you of the context.

10 You said, I think, that as far as you were

11 concerned, this meeting was the focus of the 1999 visit.

12 A. Well, it was certainly an important part. I don't think

13 that focus would be the word I would use, but it was

14 certainly one of important parts of the entire visit.

15 Q. And you saw it as an opportunity, didn't you, to follow

16 up on the discussion you had had in the previous year?

17 A. That was the purpose for the meeting.

18 Q. Thank you. So far as the meeting itself is concerned,

19 you say first of all in paragraph 28 that your

20 recollection is that it was a rather shorter meeting

21 than the previous year?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Is that right? About an hour I think you said?

24 A. That was my recollection. I heard Mr Reilly say it was

25 about two. I am not going to excoriate him for that,





1 but it was a long time ago. I recollect it being

2 a shorter meeting.

3 Q. So I am, again, clear about that, so far as you were

4 concerned, one of the main points on your agenda for the

5 meeting was the case of Rosemary Nelson?

6 A. Exactly.

7 Q. And as I understand your account of the meeting in your

8 statement, so it turned out because Rosemary Nelson's

9 case came up at the start of the meeting?

10 A. Very nearly the start, yes.

11 Q. Very nearly the start. Now, you remember -- you may

12 even have heard -- Mr Reilly's account is rather

13 different, that there was other discussion and then he,

14 Mr Reilly, later in the meeting, raised Rosemary Nelson

15 as an illustration in fact in the context of

16 disciplinary questions.

17 Can you assist with whether you think that there may

18 be something in that recollection of the course of the

19 meeting?

20 A. My recollection is that a number of people were speaking

21 in proximity to one another, and my personal

22 recollection is that I believe Edmund Lynch raised the

23 issue, but it may have been Mr Reilly. It is a long

24 enough time ago so that I could have a faulty memory in

25 that respect.





1 Q. But you are sure in your own mind, are you, that

2 Rosemary Nelson's case, as I have said, was high on the

3 agenda of the delegation?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. So far as the discussion that you remember in relation

6 to that topic is concerned, in paragraph 28 of your

7 statement -- and this is at RNI-802-034. Perhaps we

8 could have it on the screen, RNI-802-034, please

9 (displayed). You say you can't recall all of the

10 discussions:

11 "... we had with Mr Flanagan."

12 Do you see that in the fourth line?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. "But I distinctly recall that we raised the issue of

15 Rosemary Nelson."

16 And you think that Ed Lynch led the discussion?

17 A. That is my personal recollection.

18 Q. As I understand it, you remember Mr Lynch asking the

19 Chief Constable what had been done about

20 Rosemary Nelson's protection following on from the

21 previous year's meeting?

22 A. Yes, and I think I have described my view of the

23 question as having been a rhetorical one, because

24 Mr Lynch was aware that nothing had been done.

25 Q. That is the next question I wanted to ask you: when you





1 used the expression "rhetorical question", is that

2 because you believed that Mr Lynch already knew the

3 answer?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. So he wasn't in fact expecting any further information?

6 A. I don't think so.

7 Q. He knew, like a good advocate perhaps, what answer he

8 was likely to get?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did he get that answer?

11 A. That was the response, yes, that -- and in fact one of

12 the things that surprised me was that the

13 Chief Constable seemed to be unfamiliar with the subject

14 matter, which I found difficult to believe.

15 Q. That is certainly what Mr Reilly has told us, that the

16 Chief Constable's answer was, "This is not something

17 I know about."

18 Now, that is not quite the way you put it in your

19 statement, is it?

20 A. Yes. After the Chief Constable was reminded by

21 Mr Lynch's questioning and probably that of Mr Reilly, I

22 think he certainly owned up a bit to some knowledge of

23 the subject matter, and dismissively said that in his

24 view she was not entitled to protection under the law.

25 Q. Can I just take that sequence in order and ask you some





1 questions about it. So you think that his initial

2 reaction may have been to say that he wasn't aware of

3 the matter?

4 A. I think so.

5 Q. And what was the delegation's response?

6 A. I think we -- I think all of our jaws nearly hit the

7 table when we heard that.

8 Q. Did anybody speak after that?

9 A. Mr Lynch spoke up immediately and expressed doubt,

10 "You're trying to kid us," or something like that, about

11 what Mr Flanagan had just said.

12 Q. Now, if you look at paragraph 28 of your statement and

13 the end of the paragraph, there you say in the last two

14 sentences:

15 "I think Mr Flanagan's response was in essence that

16 Mrs Nelson was not entitled to any protection under the

17 law. In any event, it seemed evident that Mr Flanagan's

18 decision had been made and that the matter was closed."

19 In that passage of your statement you don't tell us

20 about what you are now describing as the initial

21 reaction, namely that he wasn't aware of the case?

22 A. No, I did not go into that much detail in my statement.

23 Q. No, but are you firm in your recollection now that there

24 was this two-stage process, if I can put it that way?

25 A. I look at it as one continuum, but certainly the events





1 that have emerged with respect to

2 Chief Constable Flanagan's disclaiming of any knowledge

3 or detailed knowledge of what we were talking about was

4 one aspect of the conversation, and the conclusion that

5 nothing was going to happen was the other.

6 Q. So it is your account, is it, that once he had been

7 reminded by, you think, Mr Lynch, it was at that stage

8 in the conversation that he made the comment that

9 Mrs Nelson was not entitled to any protection under the

10 law?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, that is a rather fearsome phrase, if I can put it

13 that way. Did you ask him what he meant by that?

14 A. I did not.

15 Q. Did anybody?

16 A. If I could characterise the delegation's feeling as

17 a whole at the time, it was that they were

18 thunderstruck, both because they knew that

19 Constable Flanagan could not have forgotten in the space

20 of one year what our delegation discussed with him at

21 length in February of 1998, and it was my personal

22 feeling that any further discussions with him would be

23 pointless.

24 Q. So as far as you were concerned then, there was no point

25 in getting into any further detail or conversation with





1 him because he seemed to have cut the conversation off

2 with this rather final remark?

3 A. Yes, particularly in light of his earlier statement that

4 he had no recollection of what we were talking about.

5 At that point, personally, I did not believe anything

6 that he had to say and I didn't see any point in

7 continuing with the conversation.

8 Q. So in your recollection, the matter wasn't left then

9 that the Chief Constable would look into it and

10 investigate the matters you were telling him?

11 A. No.

12 Q. So you left the meeting believing that that topic,

13 whether rightly or wrongly, had been brought to an end

14 and that there was nothing further for him to do?

15 A. That was my inference, yes.

16 DAME VALERIE STRACHAN: I am sorry to interrupt, but could

17 we just look at paragraph 29 and just sort of go through

18 that again?

19 MR PHILLIPS: Do you see in paragraph 29 you recite being

20 asked by the interviewers whether the Chief Constable

21 made any reference to not knowing of any specific

22 threats or expressed surprise at the issue being raised,

23 and you say you can't remember what he said in dealing

24 with that?

25 A. I recall being surprised at what I had heard and I tuned





1 out of the conversation at that point, because I wanted

2 to concentrate on what I had heard. And I may,

3 therefore, have not being paying full attention to what

4 was going on after I heard that statement.

5 Q. But does it follow that at some point you tuned back in

6 in order to hear him say that Mrs Nelson was not

7 entitled to any protection under the law?

8 A. That was right at the end of the meeting and I didn't

9 understand that.

10 Q. Now, you concede the possibility in this same paragraph

11 that he, the Chief Constable, may have made reference to

12 having knowledge of no specific threat, but you don't

13 recall that?

14 A. No, I do not.

15 Q. And equally, you say you don't remember putting forward

16 to him any additional detail or evidence about the

17 incidents at this meeting?

18 A. I did not.

19 Q. Do you recall anybody else giving him further detail

20 about the incidents during the meeting?

21 A. There was an extended conversation on the subject of

22 Rosemary's posture vis-a-vis threats to her, but at this

23 point, I am sorry, I do not have any details that I can

24 bring forth.

25 Q. Can I infer from that that in your recollection there





1 was no reference during the meeting to the protection

2 programme that you mentioned earlier?

3 A. Not to my recollection.

4 Q. Can I ask you this: did you at any stage, after it had

5 been mentioned, as you put it, in the previous year's

6 meeting, February 1998, seek to find out any more about

7 the protection scheme?

8 A. I did not.

9 Q. No.


11 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Sorry, can I just -- Mr Burke, I am

12 sorry to labour this point but it is an important point

13 on what was actually said by Mr Flanagan at the meeting,

14 Sir Ronnie Flanagan.

15 I do appreciate after this length of time the actual

16 words used -- it is almost impossible to recall, but

17 there is quite a distinction, I think, between no

18 knowledge of threats and no knowledge of specific

19 threats.

20 A. Yes.


22 A. The solicitor who took my statement belaboured that

23 point as well and I believe my answer to him, which

24 appears in my statements, is he may have, but the tenor

25 of what I wanted to communicate was I wasn't listening





1 too much at that point because of my surprise and

2 disappointment at Constable Flanagan's statement that he

3 knew very little about what we were talking about.

4 Maybe I wasn't tuning out so much as I was tuning him

5 out at that point.

6 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Thank you very much.

7 Questions by MR PHILLIPS (continued)

8 MR PHILLIPS: Do you think it is possible that the comment

9 you remember about Mrs Nelson not being entitled to any

10 protection under the law was made at the very end of the

11 meeting?

12 A. Yes, that is my recollection.

13 Q. So, as it were, the sign-off line?

14 A. Indeed.

15 Q. At which point he ushered you into the care of the

16 Deputy Chief Constable and told you you would be taking

17 a tour of the museum?

18 A. Yes, Mr McCausland took us across the hall to a very

19 small RUC museum area and we looked at that and chatted

20 a while with a Canadian policeman who was there visiting

21 as well, after which we said goodbye and left.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: You specifically remember, do you, it was the

23 Deputy Chief Constable, described as Mr McCausland. Is

24 that right?

25 A. Duncan McCausland. A tall, red-headed gentleman wearing





1 a uniform.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: That wouldn't have been at the earlier

3 meeting, would it?

4 A. No, it was the 1999 meeting.


6 MR PHILLIPS: Can I ask you, Mr Burke, was this individual

7 present at the meeting or did he just appear for the

8 tour?

9 A. He was present taking notes throughout the meeting.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 Now, I would like to ask you, please, about

12 a further meeting you describe in your statement, which

13 took place in July after the murder of Rosemary Nelson,

14 when you and I think Mr Pollard came to Northern Ireland

15 with your wives and you went to the Orange Order parade

16 in Portadown in July to act as observers?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. You later, as I understand it, met, at Mr Lynch's

19 suggestion, Mr Donnelly and Geralyn McNally of the ICPC?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. And you set out in paragraph 34 of your statement at

22 RNI-802-036 (displayed) what was discussed between you,

23 and there is a particular aspect of that I would like to

24 ask you about.

25 You suggest, about four lines from the end, that in





1 Mr Donnelly's description of the investigation around

2 40 to 50 per cent of the police officers had turned up

3 drunk and the majority were certainly uncooperative?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Did you make any notes of this meeting?

6 A. No. It was not that sort of meeting. It was intended

7 at the outset to be primarily social, and to that end we

8 didn't do any transcription or note-taking of any kind.

9 Q. It must have been that percentage figure then, as I

10 understand it, mentioned by Mr Donnelly. Is that right?

11 A. I believe that percentage figure came really from

12 Miss McNally.

13 Q. But to you, that must have been an astonishing figure?

14 A. Yes, and I thought perhaps it would involve some

15 exaggeration.

16 Q. Indeed.

17 A. But Miss McNally at that point was quite animated in

18 describing, along with Mr Donnelly, the difficulties

19 they had in interviewing individual policemen and

20 getting any cooperation from them.

21 Certainly, in my own mind I thought they must be

22 talking about people who at the very least had strong

23 drink on their breaths, and whether they were drunk or

24 not is something that we couldn't and they couldn't

25 necessarily establish scientifically. But it was





1 disturbing even to the extent that people would show up

2 having -- for something that important having had

3 something to drink beforehand.

4 Q. If it was disturbing in that way, what did you do to

5 take that point up? Did you, for example, report it

6 back to Mr Lynch?

7 A. I am all but certain that in the course of conversations

8 with Mr Lynch over, I would say, the next month or two,

9 that I mentioned that fact.

10 Q. So I am clear about this, Mr Pollard was also present at

11 this meeting, was he?

12 A. And Mr Pollard's wife as well.

13 Q. Thank you. And you recite expressions of concern by

14 Geralyn McNally saying that she thought she had been

15 followed home on several occasions?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And then you said "presumably by RUC officers"?

18 A. That was not my presumption, it was her presumption.

19 Q. Did she explain to you what that was based on?

20 A. Simply that the fact of her being followed home seemed

21 to fit a pattern of practice that the RUC used in

22 following people. She had some knowledge of that, it

23 seemed. I did not pursue the matter with her.

24 Q. That, as far as you understood it, was the basis on

25 which she made that connection?





1 A. Yes. Miss McNally had bought an old house which she was

2 in the process of restoring and doing some of the labour

3 herself, and she said that it involved periodically her

4 being there late at night, and she found the fact that

5 late at night she was being followed around to be

6 disturbing.

7 Q. Now, as I understand it, there was a meeting the next

8 day with the Chief Constable but you did not attend it?

9 A. No, my wife and I had reservations to fly out from

10 Belfast International the next morning and we could not

11 attend the meeting.

12 Q. But you tell us that Mr Pollard, who did attend that

13 meeting, also spoke to a journalist?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. About the discussion you had had. Is that right?

16 A. Yes. That was after he met once again with

17 Chief Constable Flanagan.

18 Q. So you weren't present, but your understanding is this,

19 is it: that he passed on these points to the

20 Chief Constable at the meeting?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And after that, talked to Mr McCaffery?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Can you look, please, at RNI-401-502 (displayed). Now,

25 I think you have been shown this article today for the





1 first time. Is that right?

2 A. Yes. I have had some difficulty reading the subsequent

3 page.

4 Q. Yes. Can we see if we can enlarge the first column,

5 please. You see the subject matter is established in

6 the first paragraph?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And at the bottom of this column, there are a series of

9 bullet points said to be in this document; a private

10 document written by Paul Donnelly, it says in the second

11 paragraph. And if you look at the bullet points

12 beginning at the bottom of the column, and then if we go

13 over to the next column, please, and enlarge that, you

14 see in the second bullet down it refers to:

15 "Criticism of the behaviour of RUC officers being

16 interviewed on serious charges."

17 Do you see that?

18 A. I do.

19 Q. Do you think that this is the article that you referred

20 to in paragraph 35 of your statement?

21 A. No, what I saw was more of a feature article and this

22 looks to be fairly contemporaneous with the meeting that

23 Mr Pollard and his wife and I had. What I recollect was

24 something Mr McCaffery wrote some period of time later.

25 Q. I understand.





1 A. And I don't think this, nor the others that I was shown

2 this morning, is that article.

3 Q. Thank you. Can we agree at least on this: in this

4 article, where there is reference to criticism of the

5 behaviour of RUC officers, there is no mention, either

6 here or at any other part of the article which you have

7 read, to 50 per cent of the officers being drunk?

8 A. Obviously not.

9 Q. No. Those are the only questions I have for you. If

10 there is any matter, however, you wish to raise with the

11 Inquiry panel, Mr Burke, this is your chance to do so.

12 A. I have no desire to do so.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Burke, thank you for coming over from the

15 United States to give evidence.

16 A. You are very welcome.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: We will adjourn for ten minutes.

18 (2.00 pm)

19 (Short break)

20 (2.10 pm)

21 MR JOHN FOLEY (affirmed)

22 Questions by MR PHILLIPS

23 MR PHILLIPS: Can you give us your full name, please.

24 A. John Philip Foley.

25 Q. Do you have a copy of your statement there in front of





1 you?

2 A. I do.

3 Q. Can we have it up on the screen, please, at RNI-806-408

4 (displayed). You are in practice at the moment as

5 a lawyer. Is that right?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. But at an earlier stage in your life you were based in

8 London and you worked as the news editor of The Lawyer

9 magazine?

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. How long did you work in London?

12 A. Four years.

13 Q. And what was your role within the publication?

14 A. My role was to manage a staff of news reporters and to

15 handle anything that went on the news pages on a weekly

16 basis.

17 Q. At the end of that period in London, as I understand it,

18 you went back to Boston?

19 A. I did.

20 Q. And commenced your practice as an attorney. Is that

21 right?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. Was it at that point, on your return to the

24 United States of America, that you became involved with

25 the Lawyers Alliance?





1 A. It would have been upon my return, yes.

2 Q. Yes. How did you come to hear of the organisation?

3 A. I'd read articles about it in the press and made a phone

4 call, I believe, to Mr Lynch to introduce myself.

5 Q. Can you help us with when, roughly, that would be?

6 A. I don't know an exact date but I would say it would have

7 been 1995, probably, the latter part of 1995.

8 Q. Now, you say in paragraph 2 that you became involved in

9 Ireland and Northern Irish affairs in the early 1990s.

10 What form did your involvement take?

11 A. Well, I am an Irish citizen. I have made regular trips

12 over to visit family and certainly have followed issues

13 in the North pretty much my entire life. Once I was

14 with The Lawyer, it's a UK publication, it's distributed

15 in Northern Ireland, so I came over on a number of trips

16 which I turned into family trips as well and, you know,

17 followed issues in the North, visited courts in the

18 North.

19 Q. Just so I am clear on this, that was something you did,

20 was it, while you were working in London as

21 a journalist?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And you continued, at least your interest, on your

24 return to the United States of America?

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. So far as the detail in your witness statement is

2 concerned, what I am going to do this afternoon is to

3 focus on the areas of particular interest to the

4 Inquiry, and I would like to it start, please, by asking

5 you about your first meeting with Rosemary Nelson.

6 Can you help us with when you first met her?

7 A. Yes, there were a couple of errors in my statement which

8 I have spoken to the Inquiry about and would like to

9 correct.

10 Q. Please do.

11 A. The first meeting with Rosemary would have been in March

12 of 1996. Prior to that, I had several telephone calls

13 with her. It was all initiated, actually, when

14 I received a letter while I was at The Lawyer from

15 [name redacted], Colin Duffy's wife, asking for help with

16 her husband's case.

17 Q. That is what you describe in paragraph 6 of your

18 statement?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. Do you think that the letter may have come to you in

21 about 1996?

22 A. I believe it did. I know that -- it wasn't unusual for

23 me to receive letters related to stories that appeared

24 in the paper, and I received several letters from people

25 concerning issues in the north of Ireland.





1 I know that I had [name redacted]'s letter with me for

2 several weeks before I actually did anything, I am

3 embarrassed to admit. But she put her phone number in

4 there, I called her up, spoke to her on the phone and it

5 kind of started from there.

6 Q. And at this stage you were working for The Lawyer?

7 A. I was.

8 Q. So she wrote to you, as a journalist?

9 A. She did.

10 Q. Thank you. As I understand it, you then went back to

11 the United States of America. If you look at

12 paragraphs 8 and 9 of your statement, did your return

13 happen before you first actually met Rosemary Nelson?

14 A. I believe I was in transition. Unlike American firms,

15 UK firms give you significant vacation time. So there

16 was a long transitional period. I had six weeks of

17 vacation time at The Lawyer, which I was allowed to use

18 in different ways. So I made several trips back and

19 forth. I had an ill parent in the States, which was the

20 reason I ultimately decided to make the return. So I

21 had gone back and forth, and it was a transitional

22 period.

23 Q. But in paragraph 12, you tell us that having spoken to

24 Rosemary Nelson first of all, you made arrangements to

25 travel to Lurgan to meet her?





1 A. Correct.

2 Q. And would this then, given what you have just said to

3 us, be in 1996 in fact, not 1994?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. Thank you. It looks from your statement as though in

6 the conversation you had had with Rosemary Nelson, you

7 had agreed to come over and look at the files on this

8 particular case. Is that right?

9 A. Yes, prior to my making that decision, she had faxed

10 a number of things to me. So I had had a number of

11 phone conversations with her and I had a number of phone

12 conversations with [name redacted] as well.

13 Q. Did Mrs Nelson ask you to come and visit her?

14 A. Not in so many words. [Name redacted] asked me if I would

15 remain involved and continue to play, you know, a role

16 of some capacity.

17 Q. And was the idea that you would remain involved as

18 a journalist or as a lawyer?

19 A. As a concerned individual who has a foot in both camps,

20 basically.

21 Q. So the answer is both?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. This began a period which you describe in some detail in

24 your statement, of your personal involvement in aspects

25 of the Duffy case?





1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. Can I ask you: at that stage and in doing this work,

3 were you doing so as part of your association with LAJI?

4 A. Yes. At the same time -- I have never quite heard it

5 referred to as "LAJI" before.

6 Q. Sorry.

7 A. But, yes, I was involved in Lawyers Alliance at the same

8 time.

9 Q. Were you encouraged to get involved in the case by

10 Lawyers Alliance?

11 A. I wasn't discouraged and I kept Lawyers Alliance

12 informed as to what I was doing. And Lawyers Alliance

13 is Ed Lynch. You know, he would circulate -- I would

14 communicate with him and then he would dispense, when he

15 got the time to do it, to the wider group.

16 Q. He is the head of the organisation but in effect he is

17 the organisation. Is that fair?

18 A. As far as administrative things at those times, yes.

19 I would have been involved in this case with or

20 without Lawyers Alliance. I found the case to be

21 interesting. The further I dug into it, it became more

22 interesting.

23 [Name redacted] wrote a very compelling personal letter.

24 It was well thought out, it was well organised. When

25 I picked up the phone, my interest was piqued that much





1 more. She was articulate, she was adamant. She put me

2 in touch with her lawyer. The lawyer was adamant, had

3 an open door policy. And I told them both from the

4 beginning, if I found that they were not correct and

5 that Mr Duffy had in fact been responsible for

6 Mr Lyness' death, I would have written about that and

7 certainly spoken about that, and they were welcome to

8 that.

9 Q. Now, can I just ask you: did you write articles about

10 the case?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. In the United States of America or in the

13 United Kingdom?

14 A. If I didn't write articles in the United Kingdom,

15 I edited them and I inserted different things. That was

16 basically my job as news editor.

17 Q. At The Lawyer?

18 A. At The Lawyer. And I certainly wrote articles that had

19 my by-line in the US in papers in Boston. The Boston

20 Herald would probably be the biggest.

21 Q. Given the nature of your involvement which you describe

22 in your statement, in a sense then you were writing

23 articles about a case with which you were intimately

24 involved?

25 A. That's correct.





1 Q. So those pieces that you wrote or edited, you weren't

2 writing them as an outsider to the case, you were

3 writing them, as it were, from within?

4 A. Well, they aren't news articles, they were more opinion

5 pieces and objectivity pieces.

6 Q. Do you think it was difficult for you to maintain your

7 objectivity in that way?

8 A. Not really. The facts are the facts.

9 Q. And you formed a view about them?

10 A. Over time, certainly, yes. As I have formed a view

11 about people involved as well.

12 Q. So far as Rosemary Nelson's attitude to this was

13 concerned, the impression I get, certainly from your

14 statement, is that she welcomed your involvement and

15 indeed encouraged it. Is that fair?

16 A. That is fair.

17 Q. And you were conscious, as you point out in your

18 statement, that she was getting whatever she could out

19 of you and the work that you were doing?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. And when there came a moment, there wasn't any further

22 requirement for your help, assistance, services, then

23 she no longer had anything more for you to do. Is that

24 right?

25 A. We had an ongoing relationship until her death, but





1 there were times when she needed my assistance more than

2 others and I realised that I was, I think -- I wouldn't

3 say being used, but there was a reason that she was

4 involved with me and why she wanted me to do certain

5 things.

6 Q. And she was concerned in particular, wasn't she, because

7 she wanted to use foreign journalists and lawyers, as

8 you put it, for the purposes of generating publicity?

9 A. Absolutely.

10 Q. That is paragraph 91 of your statement?

11 A. And I would have encouraged her to do that, by the way.

12 Q. That wasn't something that you in any way objected to?

13 A. No, I believe that the press has a role in the

14 administration of justice, and when there is a situation

15 where justice has been cheated, that the media has

16 a role in shining a light on it basically, and

17 I encouraged her to do that.

18 Q. Can we just have a look at paragraph 91 at RNI-806-068

19 (displayed). This is a paragraph where you are talking

20 about what happened after the case was over. You say:

21 "The additional reason I had less contact with

22 Rosemary after the Duffy case was that she had less need

23 of me. I was never under any misapprehension that I was

24 the fiddle and she was playing me to her tune."

25 That is what you say to the Tribunal today, is it?





1 A. Correct.

2 Q. And then in the second sentence:

3 "She was very conscious of the need for her to use

4 foreign journalists and lawyers for the purpose of

5 generating publicity."

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. Now, can I just come on to that period after the Duffy

8 appeal had ended. In the period from then, which is the

9 autumn of 1996, up to the time of her murder, how often

10 would you speak to her?

11 A. Infrequently, but we both knew how to use a telephone

12 and I would probably speak to her every other month.

13 And I developed a friendship with her husband Paul, and

14 would call him, and so -- it would be by phone and not

15 all that frequently, but if there was a need for

16 something, she was not shy about making a request.

17 Q. And in terms of meetings and visits to Northern Ireland,

18 how often did you come in the period between late 1996

19 and March 1999?

20 A. I would have come over to -- I am just looking for my --

21 in 1996 I know I was -- I travelled on both passports.

22 In a review of my US passports, I came in at least three

23 times in 1996, at least twice in 1998 and at least

24 three, but probably more times in 1999.

25 Q. Thank you. And you think you would have seen her on





1 each such occasion?

2 A. Oh, no, I probably would have been in touch by

3 telephone. There were times when I came over for

4 marching season when I was in Portadown and I didn't see

5 her, but I picked up the phone and said I am here and

6 just more of a FYI kind of thing.

7 Q. While you were doing your work on the Duffy case, you,

8 as I understand it, stayed with her?

9 A. I did.

10 Q. And in that period, you describe for us -- this is

11 paragraph 15 on page RNI-806-050 (displayed) -- what you

12 then learned about her practice?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And as I understand it, at that stage you were told and

15 learned from her that it was a general practice that

16 serviced both Catholics and Protestants without regard

17 for religion. It is paragraph 27 on RNI-806-053

18 (displayed).

19 A. That is correct.

20 Q. Now, we are talking here, therefore, are we, about an

21 impression you formed in about 1996?

22 A. Yes, I was in her office in September -- excuse me,

23 in March of 1996 and then I was back again, I believe,

24 in August of that same year prior to the actual appeal

25 hearing.





1 Q. In this same paragraph you describe her as:

2 "... providing necessary services in a very

3 professional manner to people who needed zealous legal

4 advocacy."

5 And that was the way she went about her work, was

6 it, as far as you could see?

7 A. That is my opinion, yes.

8 Q. And you describe her in the next sentence as being, in

9 a sense, the last legal resort for some individuals.

10 Did you have a particular case or cases in mind when you

11 made that comment?

12 A. It was certainly my thinking at that time about

13 Mr Duffy, and I did meet with several -- her office

14 was -- it was not that big and it was not that formal.

15 When I was reviewing the files on the Duffy case, she

16 would just plop me down, give me a desk, here is the

17 box, go to it, Yank.

18 So I did meet several of her clients and, you know,

19 over the time there, people said, "I don't know where I

20 would be without Rosie". So I had a strong feeling that

21 she was the stop of last resort for people who had legal

22 issues, as I am sure all of us are as far as being

23 lawyers.

24 Q. Now, so far as what drove her, what motivated was

25 concerned, you make various comments about that. But





1 the first thing you say -- and this is in

2 paragraph 28 -- is that one thing that did not motivate

3 her was money. Is that fair?

4 A. Yes, that is fair.

5 Q. And it looks as though she wasn't particularly motivated

6 by filing either?

7 A. No, I had a conversations with her about that which are

8 the reason for that paragraph. No, I didn't think money

9 was her number one concern.

10 Q. So during the course of your visits and the time you

11 spent with her, it looks as though you came to learn

12 more about the circumstances in which she carried on her

13 work?

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. And in particular in paragraph 26 on RNI-806-053

16 (displayed), you refer to the difficulties she faced

17 because of the atmosphere in the province where she

18 practised. Now, what particular difficulties do you

19 mean?

20 A. Simply the problems that were experienced by the

21 community in general. This is a woman who, when I first

22 arrived, she gave me the lay of the land, and when she

23 did that she was on the back seat of a car, and when we

24 were on certain streets she had a coat over her head.

25 So the way she ran her business in Lurgan is





1 different from how I ran my business in Boston, and

2 things that happened to her in Lurgan never happen to me

3 in Boston. And it was a different atmosphere, and that

4 is what I meant by that statement.

5 Q. And it was one that you personally had never encountered

6 before?

7 A. I had been over before as a journalist for The Lawyer

8 and I knew it existed, but as far as my personal

9 involvement, I had never faced any of the things that

10 she told me about in my practice as a lawyer.

11 Q. What were those things?

12 A. Getting messages from clients from the police, going to

13 a police station and being treated personally in an

14 insulting manner, basically being threatened by the

15 people who work in the legal system.

16 Q. And these were examples that she gave to you, did she,

17 during your discussions with her?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. You set out various details of those in your statement,

20 and can I ask you this general question first: can

21 I take it that of the examples that you either

22 experienced or were told about by Rosemary Nelson during

23 this period, you have given us details in your

24 statement?

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. So that in terms of your recollection, this is, as it

2 were, the full list?

3 A. Yes, but, as you know from our discussion earlier, it

4 happened a long time ago. And as I have reviewed for

5 this, I have come across, you know, new things and there

6 are facts in here that are not correct that I have

7 changed. There are more, many of them minor in nature,

8 but in going through my file in the last couple of days,

9 for example, I found a personal letter from Colin Duffy

10 which I had totally forgotten about, where he makes

11 reference to Rosemary, and I have given it you.

12 So this is as accurate a statement as I could put

13 together when I put it together, and I stand by it

14 today.

15 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you first about an incident which

16 you describe in paragraph 47 of your statement. And you

17 say -- this starts at RNI-806-057 and goes over to

18 RNI-806-058 (displayed) -- that first of all she was

19 used to parking her car in the same place close to the

20 office. Was that in a car park on Lake Street?

21 A. I don't believe it was a car park, I believe it was on

22 the street.

23 Q. But it was in the same place, wherever it was?

24 A. In the same vicinity, yes. There wasn't a spot that was

25 for her specifically. She just parked in the same





1 general area.

2 Q. Yes. Now, she told you, you say there, that on one

3 occasion she had returned to her car to find an envelope

4 on the windscreen?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. Now, can you help us first of all with a rough idea of

7 when this conversation between you and her took place?

8 A. Yes, we were actually walking towards the car and

9 I believe it was in August 1996.

10 Q. Thank you. And what did she tell you she found on the

11 windscreen?

12 A. As we were walking towards the car, she said something

13 like "nothing today" or a line like that, and I said,

14 "What does that mean?" And she just said, "One time

15 I came out and there was an envelope under the

16 windscreen". And I actually didn't know what -- when

17 she said "windscreen" -- we say "windshield". So we had

18 a talk about that. She said, "It was an envelope, it

19 was manila, and inside there was a picture and it had

20 a picture of me and it had a target drawn on it."

21 I said, "You are kidding me", and she said, "It's just

22 standard BS". She had a very salty tongue, so I won't

23 quote it directly, but she said it was the kind of BS

24 that happened. And I remember asking her, you know, if

25 it was a threat, did you call the police and that kind





1 of thing, and at that point I think I had drawn my

2 conclusion then that that door, that option, the RUC

3 option, was closed.

4 Q. Just trying to pick up the various things you have said

5 there, can I ask you first of all: was it clear to you

6 when this incident had happened?

7 A. No.

8 Q. You say she told you in August. Was she talking about

9 something that had happened recently, for example?

10 A. I didn't get a sense as to when it happened.

11 Q. No. Now, secondly, her reaction to it sounds as though

12 it was reasonably calm and perhaps even offhand as she

13 was describing it to you. Is that fair?

14 A. It is fair.

15 Q. But your own reaction, according to your statement, was

16 that you found the episode very frightening?

17 A. Very much so.

18 Q. And you told her that yourself?

19 A. Absolutely.

20 Q. Now, she did not change her own mood; you say she,

21 however, made light of it. But you have just said in

22 the course of an earlier answer that you raised with her

23 the question of reporting the matter to the police, and

24 that is something you said to her at the time, is it?

25 A. I believe it would have been something I would have





1 commonsensically have said to her, whether it was right

2 then and there or in the days that followed. I know we

3 had a conversation about forensics. I know we had

4 a conversation about how the envelope was sealed,

5 because I was driving at saliva that might be traceable,

6 and she was serious about it but at the end of the

7 discussion it ended up in a joke. I think her way of

8 dealing with it was to minimise the threat.

9 She repeatedly expressed concern for Paul, her

10 children and her staff ... (Pause)

11 Q. Would you like a short break?

12 A. No, I'm fine. Sorry.

13 Q. That's all right. Can I just go back to the envelope

14 itself. Did you actually ever see it?

15 A. I did not.

16 Q. Did she tell you what had become of it?

17 A. She did not. I certainly told her that any and all of

18 that of stuff that she got should be maintained. At

19 some point there was a discussion about who to bring it

20 to. I mean, the door to the RUC was closed. So we had

21 a discussion at some point -- I know we talked about

22 international stuff, somebody from the US, that kind of

23 thing, but it never went anywhere. It was

24 a conversation that disappeared.

25 Q. Can I just ask you: you have said now, I think, twice





1 that the door to the RUC was closed. Was that based on

2 a conversation that you had with her or an impression

3 that you formed? How did you reach that conclusion?

4 A. It would have been a conclusion that was met or reached

5 over time as I continued to go through the Duffy case

6 and learned of the different things. And it wasn't like

7 a one-time decision and it is really my expression, not

8 Rosemary's, that, you know -- I talked to her about

9 options, you know. We are lawyers and we give our

10 options, so let us review the options. And I look at it

11 as doors, and for me the RUC option, that door, was

12 closed. So we looked in other areas.

13 Q. When you say for you the RUC door was closed, do you

14 mean that, as far as she was concerned, the RUC door was

15 closed?

16 A. Both.

17 Q. No, but just dealing with her --

18 A. I believe she thought the RUC door was closed.

19 Q. Did she explain why?

20 A. I don't think she ever really explained why but I think

21 she explained to me the threats through clients. So I

22 think I put one and one together -- but I don't recall

23 that she ever said that door is closed because of A, B

24 and C.

25 Q. This case that you told her about in August 1996, the





1 case of the envelope and the target, that was a very

2 different type of incident, wasn't it, to the messages

3 passed back from the clients?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you yourself, as a lawyer, were concerned, as you

6 have just explained, about forensics, about analysis, in

7 other words about investigating who might have been

8 responsible for this threat?

9 A. That is correct.

10 Q. Now, in relation to that sort of issue, surely the

11 obvious place to report and the obvious place to get

12 such analysis done was the police?

13 A. That would be the first place you would normally go.

14 Q. Was there a discussion between you as to why it wasn't

15 appropriate in this particular case?

16 A. Because they were the same people that were making the

17 threats through her clients to her.

18 Q. But there was no reason to think, for example, was

19 there, that they had been responsible for putting the

20 envelope on her windscreen?

21 A. No, I don't believe there was.

22 Q. No. Now, in relation to the comments you think you

23 made, if not on this occasion then perhaps shortly

24 afterwards, about keeping documents or, in this case, an

25 envelope, was that general advice you gave her; in other





1 words, if this sort of thing happens again, keep the

2 documents?

3 A. Absolutely.

4 Q. Preserve it, keep it in a file?

5 A. More than that: Preserve it as it is evidence. Put it

6 in an evidence folder, plastic, sealed.

7 Q. Now, what was her reaction to that advice?

8 A. I don't really recall. We just -- we were in the car at

9 this point, we were moving. I believe she said yes, you

10 know, and then we went on to another topic.

11 Q. Were you ever able to tell subsequently whether she

12 followed that advice?

13 A. No, I don't know if she followed that advice. I do know

14 that things were later sent to the office or, I believe,

15 later sent to the office that she did preserve. Whether

16 or not she preserved them in the manner in which

17 I suggested, I don't know.

18 Q. Just coming back, please, to this question of what could

19 be done about it. You have explained to us what was

20 discussed between you about the RUC and the door being

21 closed. Are you aware in relation to this incident of

22 her raising the point or informing any other body about

23 this particular threat?

24 A. No, I am not.

25 Q. Did you encourage her to do so?





1 A. I encouraged her to document everything; the phone

2 calls, the incidents with clients and certainly anything

3 that arrived -- anything physical.

4 Q. Did you report this or the other matters you refer to in

5 your statement back to Mr Lynch?

6 A. I believe -- I can't give you a specific date or

7 anything in writing, but I am sure I would have informed

8 him of this and other incidents.

9 Q. So you would have done that orally, would you, on the

10 telephone --

11 A. Most likely, yes.

12 Q. Finally on this, in relation to her attitude and the

13 comment you report from her at the very end of

14 paragraph 47, the making light of it, do you think that

15 was her actual feeling or was it just bravado?

16 A. I think it was bravado. However -- and I think there

17 were real concerns that were masked by humour and

18 bravado at the end. However, having said that, you

19 know, I stayed in her house and I didn't think she was

20 overly concerned about security.

21 Q. You do say that in your statement, that the impression

22 you had is that the door was open, people could more or

23 less come and go as they pleased?

24 A. Well, you know, they had three kids. So the door was

25 always open, the kids were popular kids, it was a busy





1 place. In the evening, there was almost always a knock

2 at the door and she would have invited people over, and

3 I don't recall there being any issue with the door being

4 opened.

5 Q. You also say in this same paragraph that she followed

6 a standard routine, presumably including parking her car

7 in the same place?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Did you discuss that with her?

10 A. I don't know that I did, and I don't want to overplay my

11 knowledge of her personal routines. I stayed with her

12 on a number of occasions, but they were for brief,

13 three-, four-, five-day periods. She seemed to follow

14 the same routine.

15 Q. That you observed, at any rate?

16 A. Yes. When I would go to the office with her, most of

17 the times we would drive together and we seemed to go --

18 I know we went the same way, because without her I would

19 often get lost. But once I got on her route -- there

20 was no GPS in those days, at least I did not have one.

21 So I was often lost, but I thought that she followed the

22 same avenue to and from work on a daily basis and

23 roughly the same time.

24 Q. Thank you. The next thing you touch on in your

25 statement is this tape. You say in paragraph 48 that





1 Mr Nelson and she had made a tape of some of the

2 threatening messages which had been left on their

3 answering machine. Now, again, so I am clear about

4 this, this would be something you found out about, would

5 it, in 1996?

6 A. Yes. Can I expand on this?

7 Q. Please do.

8 A. This, I think, is a combination of a couple of different

9 conversations both with Paul and with Rosemary. And

10 there was real concern about calls being made to the

11 home. I believe [name redacted] or one of the kids

12 actually answered one of the phone calls and they asked

13 for his mother.

14 So they were very -- she was very concerned

15 obviously about her home and her children. And at the

16 end of most days, Paul would basically say, 9.30/9.45,

17 okay, I am taking the Yank for a pint, which was great

18 for me because he was educating me about who the

19 different people were who had come to the door to talk

20 to the Yank who was also a lawyer and a journalist.

21 I certainly raised issues about Rosemary's safety

22 and I know that we talked about the telephone calls.

23 And again, I said, "You should keep a tape". So I am

24 not sure if there was a tape or if I told them they

25 should keep a tape. And we talked about making sure --





1 they are dirty messages. So there was a discussion

2 about "dirty tape" and we made a joke about the porn --

3 the kids finding it and may be thinking it was porn.

4 Q. The position may in fact be that you discussed the

5 matter with Mr Nelson who suggested that the calls

6 should be preserved on a tape, but that in fact you may

7 not have heard the messages on the tape?

8 A. I never did hear a message on a tape, and -- I never did

9 hear a message on the tape.

10 Q. But there was obviously, in the discussion which you

11 have mentioned between you and Mr Nelson, the subject of

12 his concern shared by you, as I understand it, for her

13 safety did indeed come up?

14 A. Yes, it did.

15 Q. But as I understand it, his answer in the conversation

16 to you was that there was really nothing he could do

17 about it; this was her work and she would continue with

18 it regardless?

19 A. That is an abbreviated answer. He was very concerned.

20 He knew that she was taking cases that were

21 controversial. He knew she was effective. He knew that

22 there were threats. He was concerned as well. But at

23 the same time, he recognised her work was very important

24 and that she was very good at it, had an ego, and that

25 last line is kind of the end of the conversation: It's





1 is Rosie. She has got to do what she has got to do.

2 There is not much one could do to stop somebody who is

3 motivated and dedicated.

4 Q. In relation to the question of the advice you gave about

5 the tape, you have told us already in connection with

6 the envelope that you were alert to possible forensic

7 investigation. Did you in relation to the tape, for

8 example, discuss the possibility of trying to trace the

9 numbers of callers?

10 A. Ironically, I don't recall ever giving them that advice

11 or saying that. But clearly, as you know from later on

12 in my testimony, I am a believer that a phone call is

13 always traceable. There is always a print, you know.

14 It never goes away. So I don't recall actually ever

15 saying that to either of them, but ...

16 Q. As far as you are aware, were these calls to the house,

17 including the one picked up by one of the children that

18 you have mentioned, were they ever reported to the

19 authorities?

20 A. I do not know.

21 Q. Were they things you reported back to Mr Lynch, for

22 example?

23 A. As part of the general overview of what was happening in

24 Rosemary's life, yes -- at some point.

25 Q. Did you ever suggest to Mr or Mrs Nelson that you might





1 raise these concerns and the incidents that had happened

2 either with the police or with other organisations?

3 A. I am sorry, could you repeat that?

4 Q. Did you ever offer yourself to raise these concerns, the

5 threats, the incidents you have described to us, with

6 either the police or with other organisations?

7 A. Yes, I did at different occasions.

8 Q. Can you remember when those occasions were?

9 A. I certainly was involved with the Lawyers Alliance

10 meeting with the -- with Mr Flanagan.

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. I know that I had a conversation with Rosemary prior to

13 the 1998 Lawyers Alliance trip. I had been involved in

14 creating part of the agenda for that meeting and

15 specifically her talk to the group, and I told her that

16 the meeting with Mr Flanagan was going to take place and

17 I believe I encouraged her to give us the green light to

18 raise the issue, because I truly believed that one of

19 the things that would guarantee her safety was knowledge

20 of the situation.

21 Q. So it was your view, was it, that wider understanding,

22 wider knowledge of these difficulties would afford her

23 some measure of protection?

24 A. That was my thinking at the time.

25 Q. And that, in that sense, publicity and the more people





1 knew about it, the better?

2 A. My advice was document and publicise.

3 Q. Thank you. Now, in relation to telephone calls, you

4 describe in paragraph 50 that you knew that as well as

5 calls coming to the house, there were calls coming to

6 the office, and you describe hearing from the

7 receptionist that such calls were regularly made to the

8 office.

9 Can you help us: who was the employee you think you

10 spoke to at the office?

11 A. As I told your staff, my memory of the employees are

12 kind of merged into one person. I remember Aine

13 extremely well, and Bernie. I think her name was

14 Bernadette, but I think she went by Bernie.

15 The person I am pretty confident I had the

16 discussion with concerning the telephone calls was Aine.

17 Q. And how did this topic come up in your discussion with

18 her?

19 A. It may have been the day after Rosemary and I had the

20 conversation about the windscreen, incidentally. I am

21 really not sure, but I know that we talked about -- you

22 know, the nature of the case. I was somewhat shocked by

23 the fact that in the Duffy case you have these witness

24 statements where people are putting their name on the

25 line and they are testifying, and then you have these





1 contrary statements from anonymous witnesses, and yet

2 the court went the way that it did.

3 So I was incredulous about that and there was

4 a general discussion going on, and she chimed in about

5 what it meant to the local community. And so the

6 conversation kind of evolved from there.

7 Q. Can I just ask you: what do you mean "what it meant to

8 the local community"? You mean the case?

9 A. Yes, it was a very controversial issue.

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. In a very small community.

12 One of the things that I was struck by when I came

13 over to look at it was how small the community was. One

14 of the things I asked Rosemary to do in the car ride

15 around with her brother was, okay, show me where

16 Mr Lyness lived, where was he murdered. And I kind of

17 thought that it was going to be a bit of a trek, but it

18 was, like, here's where he lived, here's where he was

19 murdered. It was a very small area to investigate.

20 The Kilwilke Estates, which is where Mr Duffy lived

21 at the time, was very close as well. So I was surprised

22 at how small a community we were talking about. So the

23 secretary said it is a controversial issue in this town.

24 Q. And it was in that context, was it, that she talked to

25 you about the calls to the office?





1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And you suggest in the last sentence of paragraph 50

3 that:

4 "The calls were made because of the controversial

5 cases"?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Was that based on the content of the threats as

8 described to you by the secretary or the receptionist?

9 A. No, I think that is based on my interpretation of, you

10 know, the calls and common sense.

11 Q. Did she give you any detail as to what had been said in

12 the call?

13 A. She did say that it was a man's voice and it wasn't in

14 a joking way, you know, "We are going to kill you" and

15 hang up, that kind of thing. It was somebody who had

16 asked for Rosemary specifically, and I believe that the

17 call was put through.

18 I think they had a couple of different telephone

19 systems, but I believe the call that I am referring to

20 here was something that was -- that had to be put

21 through to Rosemary and she had to take it on

22 a different phone or something, and that she, in

23 retrospect, thought it was a mature man.

24 Q. And how many such calls were there, can you remember?

25 A. She talked specifically about that one but I got the





1 impression that there were more than one.

2 Q. Yes. And you said earlier you think this conversation

3 may have been about the time of the windscreen incident;

4 in other words, August 1996?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. You then give some more specific examples of your own

7 experience, and the first relates to a visit to a police

8 station, as you put it in paragraph 52, the second line,

9 in the middle of the night. Which police station

10 was it?

11 A. At the time, I didn't know. I believe it was the --

12 I now believe it was Lurgan.

13 Q. The local police station?

14 A. Yes. I believe that, because after the fact there was

15 a conversation about, you know, it was the location

16 where Mr Duffy had been shot years earlier and I believe

17 that was at Lurgan, so ...

18 What I recall was that I was staying at that time at

19 Rosemary's house and she knocked on the door in

20 the middle of the night and said, "I have to go to a

21 police station for a client, do you want to come?" So I

22 jumped up.

23 On the way, all he was concerned about was getting

24 the window open, and Rosemary was smoking -- and

25 Rosemary smoked a lot -- and so I wasn't really paying





1 attention to where we were going, just getting the

2 window down. And the next thing you knew we were there.

3 Q. Is this something you did on other occasions; in other

4 words, go to the police station in the middle of the

5 night?

6 A. With Rosemary or my own practice?

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. With Rosemary?

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. No, I believe this was the only incident.

11 Q. Did she explain why she wanted you to go with her?

12 A. Just that she was going to see a client and if I wanted

13 to come with her, I could tag along. I think it was her

14 ongoing education of me as to life as a solicitor in

15 Lurgan.

16 Q. Can you tell us in your own words what transpired when

17 you arrived at the police station?

18 A. Absolutely. When we were pulling in, there was kind of

19 an area to park out front but there was a little place

20 where you could move in and there was a small car park

21 and it was well lit. And just as we were about to take

22 a left, I think it was, to turn in, the lights went off

23 and it made it very dark, and I said, "Just keep

24 driving". And frankly, I was agitated, I was nervous,

25 so I said, "Just keep driving", and she went forward and





1 I raised my voice to her and said, "Let's just drive,

2 why get out of the car?" And she basically said, "Fuck

3 them". And I said, "Rosemary, let's just drive out of

4 here", and she said, "You can stay here if you want".

5 There was no more discussion. She got out of the

6 car, I got out of the car. She made her way -- and it

7 was much darker -- it wasn't completely dark because

8 there were other businesses across the street, but it

9 was much darker.

10 I walked behind her expecting that we were going to

11 get jumped. So I walked with my hands over my head like

12 this (indicates) and kind of followed the sound of her

13 feet as I had my head down thinking that we were going

14 to get jumped, and I just followed her into the police

15 station.

16 Q. I should have asked you at the outset, can you put

17 a rough date on this incident?

18 A. This would have been in the August of 1996 stay.

19 Q. Now, you made your way in the way that you have

20 described --

21 A. Hunched over --

22 Q. Hunched over, indeed -- to the police station. What

23 transpired when you entered the police station?

24 A. She was a number of paces ahead of me and as we were

25 entering, the police officer there leaned back in his





1 chair and he yelled to somebody, and he simply said --

2 you know, he said a title, whether it was sergeant or

3 lieutenant, whatever it was, he said something and the

4 line after that was, "Scar face is here".

5 Q. That was something you heard as you were walking in

6 behind her?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. And you tell us later in your statement that you didn't

9 get the badge number of the police officer?

10 A. I did not.

11 Q. Was he in uniform?

12 A. He was in uniform.

13 Q. Can you describe him?

14 A. Not really. I just remember he was there -- I remember

15 his face when he saw me, because at first he didn't see

16 me, at least that was my impression when he saw me and

17 then he realised we were together. And then there was

18 a higher ranking officer who came to talk to Rosemary

19 and she introduced me as an American lawyer there to

20 observe, and he didn't say much -- I don't recall him

21 saying anything about me being there or anything about

22 the remark.

23 Q. How did Rosemary Nelson react?

24 A. She simply wanted to see her client. She didn't make

25 any -- there was no reaction to the slur.





1 Q. Were you certain that she had heard the comment?

2 A. Well, she was in front of me and I heard the comment, so

3 it would be impossible for her not to have heard the

4 comment.

5 Q. Now, you say in your statement that you were in a sense

6 too embarrassed to raise this matter with her?

7 A. I was embarrassed on two fronts. I was embarrassed by

8 my fear in the car and I was embarrassed simply by the

9 remark. I just couldn't believe it was said and never

10 said a thing to her about it.

11 Q. You had no discussion with her about it?

12 A. Never.

13 Q. In your statement, you give suggestions for why she

14 didn't react, but clearly I am assuming, I hope

15 correctly, that that is not based on anything she said

16 to you about it?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. And as far as you were aware, did she at any point make

19 a complaint or take the matter any further?

20 A. For that particular incident, not that I am aware.

21 Q. No. Now, the next incident that you describe involving

22 your own experience begins at paragraph 58 of your

23 statement at RNI-806-061 (displayed), and as I

24 understand it, this is an incident which involved you

25 and not Rosemary Nelson?





1 A. Correct.

2 Q. And it took place, as I understand it, when Mr Duffy was

3 on remand -- or in fact he was awaiting an appeal and

4 serving a sentence in prison?

5 A. That is correct. This was the first incident that

6 happened to me personally.

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. It would have been in March of 1996 and I don't know the

9 exact date, but when I got -- when I arrived at the

10 prison, I had to complete an unbelievably long

11 questionnaire. They took my photograph. So the exact

12 date would be on a public record somewhere.

13 Q. Can you put a rough date on it for us?

14 A. Certainly, it was March of 1996 and on that trip --

15 I actually don't know what the date was in March that I

16 was with Rosemary, but it would have been like the third

17 or fourth day after I arrived.

18 Q. I want to ask you about a comment you make about this

19 visit in paragraph 62 at the top of the next page,

20 RNI-806-062 (displayed).

21 You say it was the strangest attorney/client meeting

22 you had ever experienced. So had you presented yourself

23 at the prison then as Mr Duffy's lawyer?

24 A. I was present as a lawyer. I was American counsel.

25 They knew I was there as a lawyer. I understood it to





1 be that there were only so many visits allowed and that

2 Rosemary had given up one of those visits so that I

3 could meet this man whose -- I had been working on his

4 behalf for quite some time. And there are a couple of

5 minor factual things about that incident that I have

6 corrected, as far as the number of chairs in the room.

7 I looked at notes that I scribbled to myself in the car

8 afterwards and there were four chairs, not two and two

9 windows, not four.

10 Q. Just to be clear then, in the second line of

11 paragraph 62, you are telling us there were four chairs.

12 Is that right?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. This is at RNI-806-061 (displayed). Sorry, you made

15 a comment about the number of windows. Is that right?

16 A. In my statement in New York, I described it as a room

17 that was all glass, on all four sides. I looked at my

18 notes after I gave that statement and the glass was on

19 just two sides.

20 Q. Thank you. Now, you describe a comment made to you in

21 a whisper by Mr Duffy during the course of this meeting,

22 namely that he told you:

23 "I was now involved in something that was bigger

24 than both of us and that lots of people were in danger."

25 And he welcomed you to the club. What did you think





1 he meant by those comments?

2 A. His very first comment was, "Everything we say is being

3 listened to". What I thought he welcomed me to was the

4 struggle going on in this community, between the two

5 sides of the Troubles.

6 Q. So the club to which you are being welcomed was the club

7 on one side. Is that right?

8 A. I believe so, yes.

9 Q. And you were being welcomed to it?

10 A. In his opinion, yes.

11 Q. In yours?

12 A. I wasn't on either side.

13 Q. No. You then tell us about a further experience of your

14 own, and this took place at the end of the appeal

15 hearing. And you say in paragraph 65 that you wanted to

16 get away after the celebration was going on -- this is

17 at RNI-806-062 (displayed) -- and you wanted to head

18 down to Dublin. You were given a couple of presents by

19 Rosemary Nelson and then describe how you were stopped

20 near the border. This is paragraph 67. And you set out

21 the events that then followed.

22 Can I take it in terms of timing that this would

23 have been in about September 1996?

24 A. It would have been the very last day of the appeal

25 hearing. I think the appeal went on for three days and





1 I think this would have been 19th September 1996. It

2 was definitely the last day of the appeal hearing, which

3 I believe ended early that day. They expected it to go

4 to 4.45 or something like that and it ended earlier; I

5 think 11.30-ish.

6 So what I said to her was rather than hang around

7 for another day, I am just going to hit the road and go

8 to Dublin. And she said, "No, stay around, there is

9 going to be a little group of us getting together

10 afterwards and they want to say thanks", that kind of

11 stuff. I said, "You know what, I would just as soon hit

12 the road" and she said, "I've got something for you".

13 She disappeared. There was somebody from her staff

14 there; whether it was Bernie or Aine, I don't really

15 recall. And she came back and -- my statement says two

16 but my notes say three wrapped books, and I said thanks

17 very much and I hit the road.

18 One of the things I should point out that I did not

19 point out here: I did not have much of a role at the

20 appeal other than being there, and they really wanted to

21 make sure that I was there but, frankly, other than

22 following along the transcript, I didn't really have

23 much to do.

24 One of the things Rosemary did ask me to do was to

25 take care of one of the other observers and that was





1 Albert Reynolds, the former Taioseach. And basically

2 what she said was at the end of the day, make sure he

3 gets out in front of the cameras and says something. So

4 I did just that. I sat next to him during the entire

5 appeal and I ushered him to the front of the building

6 where he met with the media. And in fact, over the

7 course of the days, I had several conversations with

8 journalists about getting a side comment from

9 Mr Reynolds.

10 So while I wasn't on the news with Mr Reynolds, I

11 was certainly there, and the journalists knew it and

12 I believe any observer would have known it, which is why

13 I believe I was stopped.

14 Q. You think there is a connection, do you, between that

15 and the fact that you were stopped on the subsequent

16 occasion?

17 A. Absolutely. It was a matter of hours later. If I would

18 have guessed the time, I would say it was 1.15 in the

19 afternoon, less than two hours after I left the court.

20 Q. As I understand it, in paragraph 68 you describe being

21 addressed by your surname --

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. -- by a police officer you had never met before?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. Sir, that would be a convenient moment?





1 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. Ten minutes. That will be

2 20 past.

3 MR PHILLIPS: Thank you.

4 (3.10 pm)

5 (Short break)

6 (3.20 pm)

7 MR PHILLIPS: We were talking about the incident in the area

8 of Newry.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Before we continue with that, I would like to ask you

11 just one or two questions about the earlier incident you

12 talked about involving Colin Duffy. Paragraph 59; can

13 you look at that, please, at RNI-806-061 (displayed).

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. You use these words, don't you:

16 "I was not allowed to take a pad of paper or a pen

17 or pencil into the meeting with Duffy"?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. Does it follow then that you were not able to take notes

20 during the course of your meeting?

21 A. That is correct.

22 Q. So when you referred earlier to notes, they were not,

23 were they, notes of the meeting with Colin Duffy?

24 A. They were not taken at the meeting. I, after the

25 meeting, went to my car, drove about a couple of minutes





1 away, pulled over and then scribbled notes.

2 Q. Were those notes taken in the context of an

3 attorney/client meeting at the prison?

4 A. I did it in the same way I would do it if I were the

5 lead counsel. But clearly, I have no rights of

6 admission in the north of Ireland, so I was not, and

7 never let on to be, counsel of record. He had

8 a solicitor who had things under control and he had an

9 excellent barrister. I did it in the same manner,

10 because I only know how to do it one way, but I was

11 never officially his counsel.

12 Q. Did you provide those notes to the lawyers who were

13 instructed in the appeal?

14 A. No, I don't believe I was ever asked for them.

15 I certainly conveyed to them what had happened -- when

16 you say the lawyers for the appeal, you are talking

17 about Rosemary and [name redacted]?

18 Q. Yes.

19 A. I don't know -- the notes are not very significant as

20 far as the amount. It is two or three pages of

21 scribbled notes. But other than the way I was treated,

22 I don't think I came out of there with anything that

23 they didn't already know. It was more of an opportunity

24 for me to meet the man on whose behalf I was working.

25 Q. Do you still have the notes?





1 A. I believe I do.

2 Q. Do you have them with you today?

3 A. I believe I do.

4 Q. Thank you very much. Returning to the incident in or

5 around Newry, you explain that the police officers

6 disappeared having told you, "We are watching you"?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. You then telephoned Rosemary Nelson's office?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. And very shortly thereafter, I mean about 20 to

11 30 minutes, you say two cars pulled up?

12 A. Yes, when I say that, I know that is what I said to the

13 investigators. It seemed like an eternity; 20 to

14 30 minutes doesn't seem to be enough time, but yes,

15 I made a call to Rosemary's office, told them where I

16 was and she said, "Wait there, we will send somebody".

17 Q. Did you know who they were?

18 A. I did not.

19 Q. Had you ever met them before?

20 A. I had -- no, I had not. I have since come to the

21 thinking that they were at the appeal. There was

22 a large crowd at the appeal, obviously a lot of family,

23 friends and supporters. So while I say in my statement

24 I had no idea who they were, I believe they were

25 probably from the appeal.





1 Q. You say that you did subsequently discuss this

2 particular incident, the men turning up to, in effect,

3 rescue you, and you deal with that in paragraph 75.

4 Can I ask you this general question: were you

5 surprised that Rosemary Nelson was apparently able to

6 summon up such a group at short notice?

7 A. Was I surprised? No, not necessarily. If somebody --

8 if a visitor to Boston had an issue, I would summon up

9 somebody to be there in a short amount of time. So I

10 wasn't really surprised.

11 Q. You say in this context that you did discuss with her on

12 one occasion whether she was in the movement, by which

13 you meant the IRA?

14 A. Yes. Just for context, that would have happened much

15 earlier in 1996, probably in the first meetings

16 in March.

17 Q. So that wasn't a matter that arose in the context of

18 this incident, this rescue near the border?

19 A. That is correct.

20 Q. And she told you that she was not?

21 A. Absolutely.

22 Q. So this would be, what, March 1996, you think?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And it looks as though you also effectively questioned

25 or asked her about her motivation?





1 A. Absolutely.

2 Q. In taking on high profile cases such as the Duffy case?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. What was her answer?

5 A. Her answer was that he was not guilty and the evidence

6 supports a not guilty finding, but that he was in prison

7 for life because the judicial system at the time was

8 flawed. And frankly, before I got too far into it --

9 I mean, I gave up my vacation time, I travelled at my

10 own expense, I certainly didn't want to be involved in

11 something that was just a show. So I questioned her

12 about her money, where she was getting paid,

13 I questioned her about why she was involved. I had very

14 blunt questions for her. I didn't simply accept

15 everything she said from day one as gospel truth.

16 I built up an opinion of her over a substantial amount

17 of time and over a number of questions and sessions.

18 Q. But was it your opinion that the judicial system was

19 flawed?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Why?

22 A. I saw witnesses testify behind screens. I saw just an

23 entire section of the community that didn't participate

24 in the process.

25 Q. But did you take the fact that witnesses gave evidence





1 behind screens as being an indication of a flawed

2 system?

3 A. I did.

4 Q. Did it occur to you that they might have been screened

5 in order to protect their own identities?

6 A. Absolutely.

7 Q. When they were at risk?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. But that seemed to you to be an indication of a flawed

10 system, did it?

11 A. Well, it was the system in general that I thought was

12 flawed. There are certain circumstances when I think

13 that is required, but it was standard operating

14 procedure, at least that was the way I understood it to

15 be, that witnesses' identities were often not known or

16 protected.

17 Q. And that was a contrast, was it, to the system you were

18 used to in Massachusetts?

19 A. I can't think of a single time in my experience in

20 Massachusetts, whether I be the practising attorney, a

21 journalist or merely an observer, where -- with the one

22 exception of crimes involving children, that a witness's

23 identity has ever been kept from a public court in

24 Massachusetts.

25 Q. And was that view of the system in Northern Ireland one





1 that you maintained throughout your dealing with

2 Rosemary Nelson up to the time of her murder?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. So far as the incident at the border is concerned, the

5 one you have described vividly in your statement, did

6 you, other than discussing it with Rosemary Nelson

7 herself, report it or raise it with any other body?

8 A. I certainly told Lawyers Alliance about it. I believe

9 I told my congressman about it, Mr Kennedy at the time,

10 I believe I told -- I told a lot of people about it.

11 I talked about it on the radio in the States.

12 Q. Did you register a formal complaint?

13 A. I did not.

14 Q. Why was that?

15 A. Laziness, ignorance, no particular reason.

16 Q. Did it occur to you that it was an option you could

17 follow?

18 A. No, I didn't -- I didn't think of it, quite frankly.

19 Q. Thank you. Returning in your statement to the question

20 of threats, you pick up the matter again in paragraph 77

21 and you describe threats and derogatory comments made to

22 the clients, including Mr Duffy, as an RUC tactic. What

23 is the basis for that suggestion?

24 A. Mr Duffy told me about that.

25 Q. He said to you, did he, that it was an RUC tactic?





1 A. Well, he told me about them saying things to him about

2 Rosemary and Rosemary told me about it as well.

3 Q. But did either of them tell you it was an RUC tactic?

4 A. I believe without using the word "tactic", I believe

5 Rosemary told me it was standard operating procedure --

6 I shouldn't say standard operating procedure. It was

7 done and it was specifically done to her clients.

8 Q. And again, can you help us with a date for this

9 conversation?

10 A. The dates on Duffy would have been after his release.

11 There were a number of times when I was on the phone

12 with Rosemary -- I shouldn't say a number of times, I

13 think maybe two -- when she put him on the phone. He

14 was in the office for different things. And he also

15 called me once or twice on his own. So I had probably

16 four or five different telephone conversations with

17 Mr Duffy after his release, which would have been -- the

18 hearing was September of ...

19 Q. 1996.

20 A. 1996. I don't know when he was released off the top of

21 my head, but there were a number of phone conversations

22 and he told me about his treatment while he was -- you

23 know, after his release.

24 Q. So you spoke to him direct?

25 A. I did.





1 Q. Now, other than the client you mention in the next

2 paragraph, 78, did you learn about the experiences of

3 other clients direct from them?

4 A. No, most of my information would have come from

5 Rosemary.

6 Q. Yes. Why do you think she gave you this information

7 about the threats being passed to her via the clients?

8 A. More educating of, you know, the international observer,

9 just to let me know that it was going on, and she also

10 asked me if it ever happened to me in my practice.

11 Q. And what was your reply?

12 A. Absolutely never.

13 Q. No. Did she want you to do something with the

14 information, perhaps to put it out to a wider audience,

15 do you think?

16 A. I think her view as to what to do with it changed over

17 time. Towards the latter part -- later on in time,

18 I believe she did want us to put it out and to let it

19 become common knowledge.

20 Q. At this stage -- I think we are still talking, are we,

21 late 1996 -- was that what she wanted?

22 A. I can't really precisely say when her reasoning changed,

23 but I would think probably not. She wanted me to know

24 about it, but I don't believe anything said that was

25 a green light for me to share it with a wider audience.





1 Q. Now, the client you describe in paragraph 78 -- can you

2 remember when you met that client?

3 A. August of 1996.

4 Q. And did you become aware of whether that client made

5 a complaint in relation to those allegations?

6 A. I think he did but I don't know that for certain at this

7 point. But I believe he did.

8 Q. But she told you, as you say in paragraph 79, as I

9 understand it, that this example was one of a number of

10 examples and of reports that came back to her regularly

11 after her clients had been detained. Is that right?

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. Now, you say in paragraph 80 that she explained, as you

14 put it, that there was no video or audio recording at

15 police stations and holding centres. How did this

16 particular topic come up in your conversation?

17 A. I actually don't know. I think it was just part of the

18 overall education. I think I asked if there were any

19 confessions, that kind of thing, and I also know that it

20 was an area that she really thought should change. And

21 I believe we had discussions about it being a subject

22 that I should write about.

23 Q. Did she tell you that she was involved in trying to

24 press for changes in the system?

25 A. I don't know if she told me that, but I certainly got





1 that impression.

2 Q. Was she seeking your assistance in trying to bring those

3 changes about, do you think?

4 A. I believe she was.

5 Q. And did you write about or further publicise this issue?

6 A. I don't recall writing specifically about it but I know

7 I mentioned it in different radio appearances.

8 Q. So far as these types of message or threat are

9 concerned, the ones being passed back via the clients,

10 you don't give a description, unlike the case, for

11 example, of the envelope on the windscreen, of her own

12 reaction to this. Do you think these messages, these

13 threats, conveyed indirectly, concerned her?

14 A. I think they did. Actually, I think that she looked

15 upon the threats that came through clients more

16 seriously, and I think it was because the threats were

17 being made by the police. And I think -- again, I am

18 speculating, but I think she recognised that it polluted

19 the entire water, if you will, by having a police force

20 that was behaving in that manner.

21 Q. Now, there are two other examples you give in

22 paragraphs 82 and 83, and the first relates to Mr Duffy

23 and the second, another client she mentioned to you.

24 I just want to ask you this. Can you help us with

25 a date for these incidents?





1 A. The Mr Duffy incidents would have been after his release

2 and then prior to his arrest in June of 1997 for the

3 Constable Johnston and Graham murders, and those would

4 have been conveyed over the phone.

5 Q. We know that that arrest was in June 1997?

6 A. Correct, and you see in paragraph 84 I have an incorrect

7 date; I have 1996. It should be 1997.

8 Q. Thank you. So, forgive me, do you think that this

9 report in relation to Mr Duffy came to you in about

10 1997, is that what you are saying, or before then?

11 A. I think it was before he was arrested. I think it was

12 following his release and his arrest.

13 Q. But before his arrest --

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. The other case in 83, are you able to help with a rough

16 date for that?

17 A. Not really. I am going to say August of 1996 is when

18 I believe that would have taken place, but at this

19 juncture I am not completely sure about that.

20 Q. Again, can I ask you: do you know whether that matter

21 was taken forward as a complaint?

22 A. I believe that was.

23 Q. Do you know anything more about it?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Thank you. Now, we talked earlier about the question of





1 Rosemary Nelson's security and her routines and whether

2 or not she was security conscious. You say in

3 paragraph 44 of your statement that she talked to you

4 about this question of being watched?

5 A. Right.

6 Q. How did that come up?

7 A. Well, as shocking as it may currently appear, I used to

8 be an avid jogger and I would leave her house early in

9 the morning and jog about her neighbourhood. And we

10 were having breakfast after I had returned from a jog

11 and we just started talking about people noticing that I

12 was staying with her.

13 Q. And she seems also to have said to you that she was

14 concerned about her phones being tapped? That's the

15 next paragraph.

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. And in this case, you were the one making the jokes and

18 she, I think, did not respond to that. And I infer from

19 this -- is this right? -- that she was serious about

20 this?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Did she explain to you why it was she thought that her

23 phone was tapped?

24 A. I don't know if she ever explained why she thought it,

25 but I know it was a belief that she had. And as I say





1 in my statement, I heard things on the phone that were

2 unusual, and I often said things down the line in

3 a joking manner which she did think were funny, but in

4 this particular incident she didn't think it was funny.

5 I would make the odd comment about who might be

6 listening, but the bottom line is that I think she was

7 of the thinking that she was being monitored.

8 Q. And was that, do you think, why, as you put it in this

9 same paragraph, 46, she was afraid?

10 A. I think that was part of the reason she was afraid. I

11 think there were a number of factors that led her to be

12 afraid and I think the fact that she believed she was

13 being monitored by somebody was one of those factors.

14 Q. What were the others?

15 A. Comments coming from clients, things coming in the mail,

16 phone calls.

17 Q. And did those concerns increase, do you think, during

18 the period that you knew her?

19 A. Yes, definitely.

20 Q. And are you able to tell us when you think they became

21 more serious in her mind?

22 A. Well, when she shared them with people who were

23 outsiders like myself and our reaction wasn't that, you

24 know, "the fags will get you first", that we took it as

25 serious and that it was extremely usual. I think that





1 led her to it and I just think maybe the attitude of

2 them changed and the serious nature of them intensified.

3 Q. It is in this context that you talk about the drive you

4 took with her brother -- and you mentioned it earlier --

5 where she would put, as you say, a coat over her head.

6 When did this happen? Was this just after you had

7 first arrived in March 1996?

8 A. Yes, it would have been the first couple of days

9 in March of 1996, and there were two or three different

10 drives. Two of them would have been with her brother;

11 one was just she and I.

12 Q. So this wasn't a joke, she was being serious about it?

13 A. Yes, and I didn't quite realise how serious until I -- I

14 was in the front seat, the brother was driving. I was

15 in the front seat and she was directly behind me, and it

16 wasn't until I really turned around and took a good look

17 at her that I realised that at one point the coat was

18 over her head.

19 Q. And you say in paragraph 39 that she explained that she

20 believed that in some of these areas if the car had been

21 stopped, she would be killed and you would too?

22 A. Yes, that is what she said. And that would be her salty

23 language.

24 Q. And this was part of your education, as it were?

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. Presumably it was a lesson that stuck in your memory?

2 A. Very much so. I didn't quite realise that -- I had

3 asked for a tour, but I had specifically started off

4 with the Duffy case: Show me where Mr Lyness lived,

5 show me where the killing took place and from there.

6 And the drive was brief at first, because it covered all

7 the areas I had on my agenda. But she just sustained it

8 and told the brother to, you know, go to here and show

9 him here. They showed me tourist spots as well.

10 Q. So it was a mixed tour?

11 A. It was all-encompassing.

12 Q. Hm-mm. And it must have raised a full gamut of

13 emotions?

14 A. It did. I realised the serious nature of it. I mean,

15 the words are somewhat funny, but I took them seriously.

16 I do believe that if we were stopped and they realised

17 it was her, I do have serious concerns for her safety.

18 Q. Presumably it brought home to you very, very clearly the

19 divided nature of the society in which she lived?

20 A. Absolutely. In fact, I don't believe I jogged the next

21 day.

22 Q. Can we move on to the question of the Garvaghy Road.

23 You tell us that you came to the Garvaghy Road in 1998

24 as an observer, and this is paragraph 88 of your

25 statement, 87 and 88. I think you tell us that you met





1 members of the Orange Order on that occasion?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And you didn't meet Rosemary Nelson but you saw her from

4 a distance?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. You had earlier met the leaders of the residents

7 association -- this is paragraph 86 -- and offered

8 a suggestion for a costumed version of the parade which

9 did not meet with their favour?

10 A. No, they were not impressed with my suggestion.

11 Q. Did you know at that stage Rosemary Nelson acted for the

12 Residents Coalition?

13 A. I don't believe she did act for them at that point. If

14 she did, I didn't know it.

15 Q. Thank you. Now, you say later on this same page at

16 paragraph 88 that in 1998, at any rate, there were

17 discussions. I assume that is discussions between you

18 and Rosemary Nelson. Is that right?

19 A. I am not sure where you are --

20 Q. If you look at paragraph 88.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And you say in the second line:

23 "I had far less contact with Rosemary when I was

24 over on the Garvaghy Road incidents, but I think that

25 I did know that in 1998 that there were discussions."





1 Are the discussions with the two of you or with

2 other people?

3 A. No, with other people. I believe that there were

4 discussions and I would have received this from

5 Mr Mac Cionnaith and Mr Duffy, as well as

6 Walter Pollard, the attorney from Boston.

7 Q. So far as Rosemary Nelson is concerned, paragraph 89 on

8 the next page, RNI-806-068 (displayed), you are not

9 aware of her asking for, getting or indeed discussing

10 security arrangements for herself?

11 A. That is correct.

12 Q. So it wasn't a matter you ever discussed with her?

13 A. I don't believe I ever did.

14 Q. And you didn't learn of it from other people?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 A. I have subsequently learned things but at that point in

18 time I did not know.

19 Q. Thank you. Now, the final question I wanted to ask you

20 before we get on to the 1998 LAJI visit relates to the

21 media plan of attack, which you describe in

22 paragraph 95. That is on page RNI-802-069 (displayed).

23 As I understand it, this is a reference to a plan of

24 attack in relation to the Duffy case. Is that right?

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. So it is back to the point about the foreign journalist

2 that we discussed earlier?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And did your role in the plan encompass, for example,

5 what you have told us earlier about the appearance of

6 Mr Reynolds?

7 A. It did, and it also involved contacting a number of

8 media outlets in the US, both print and broadcast.

9 Q. So you were involved essentially in generating media

10 coverage in relation to the appeal in the United States

11 of America?

12 A. Yes. And I also participated in radio talk shows and I

13 would -- I believe I had Rosemary with me and I know I

14 had Mrs Duffy with me on a number of occasions.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 A. On the phone, not in person.

17 Q. So far as the 1998 LAJI delegation is concerned, you

18 deal with the dinner meeting in February in

19 paragraph 100 of your statement at RNI-806-070

20 (displayed).

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. I am assuming that you were present as part of the

23 delegation throughout their visit to Northern Ireland

24 in February?

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. Thank you. And you make the point in this paragraph

2 that one of the people you were expecting to see at the

3 dinner in the hotel in Lurgan was Mr Duffy?

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. But he did not turn up?

6 A. That is also correct.

7 Q. So in terms of the people who were there to meet the

8 delegation, Rosemary Nelson was one. Can you remember

9 who the others were?

10 A. Not really. I think I have heard from conversation

11 today that Mr Mac Cionnaith was also there.

12 Q. But that is not something you remember?

13 A. No, I don't.

14 Q. Now, it looks as though from your recollection -- this

15 is paragraph 102 -- Mr Lynch was the compere, and after

16 an introduction which I think you regarded as somewhat

17 unfortunate -- is that fair?

18 A. That is fair. I distinctly recall wincing. I was

19 sitting in the back of room and he basically introduced

20 her as somebody who had filled the shoes of

21 Pat Finucane. And it just struck me -- it put a chill

22 down my spine.

23 Q. But after that introduction, you describe

24 Rosemary Nelson speaking to the delegation and telling

25 stories of, as you put it in RNI-806-104 (displayed),





1 the experience of the Catholic community in dealing with

2 the police.

3 A. Yes, I see where it says "Catholic community" there, and

4 I wrote it but she had clients on -- from different

5 religions. I don't think she was exclusively a Catholic

6 solicitor, but I wrote that.

7 Q. But did she, as you recall, put the comments about her

8 own cases, her own clients in this broader context of

9 relations between the police and the Catholic or

10 Nationalist community?

11 A. I think her comments were about her clients; I don't

12 think she identified them by religion, but she certainly

13 talked about the incidents that happened to her clients

14 when they were in RUC custody.

15 Q. Did she, as you suggest at the top of page RNI-806-071

16 (displayed), give her view of the RUC as a whole, namely

17 that they were part of the problem?

18 A. I believe she did.

19 Q. Was that a view that you had heard her express before?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And can I take it that that was the view she held, as

22 far as you were aware, throughout the time that you knew

23 her?

24 A. Yes, I think it was expressed to me more as I got to

25 know her better and we spent more and more time





1 together.

2 Q. Is it fair to describe her relationship with the RUC in

3 general as mutually distrustful?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Mutually hostile?

6 A. I know it was from her perspective. I actually don't

7 know from the RUC perspective.

8 Q. No. But from her perspective, distrustful?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. More than that? Hostile?

11 A. Hostile, confrontational. It was climbing the ladder.

12 Q. Do you think those feelings, those views, became

13 stronger as the years went on, the years that you knew

14 her?

15 A. I believe they did, yes.

16 Q. Is that based on anything she said to you?

17 A. I specifically don't come -- nothing comes to mind about

18 a specific incident, but I do think that when they

19 started communicating to her through her clients, at

20 least in my mind that crossed a line in her mind, if

21 that makes sense.

22 Q. Now, you describe the other comments that she made in

23 this talk that she gave to the delegation. First of

24 all, can I ask you: in relation to threats, how did she

25 express her view? Did she deal with it in the offhand





1 manner that you have described to us before or in

2 a serious manner? How did she put it?

3 A. I think she asked the group questions. How many of you

4 have had death threats delivered to your practice? How

5 many of you have had phone calls made to your home?

6 That kind of thing. But she was very serious. It was

7 not a joking manner at that occasion. And I also think

8 that she recognised who her audience was and that not

9 all of the members of Lawyers Alliance were as familiar

10 as some were about the issues in the North and

11 specifically the issues in Rosemary's practice in her

12 life.

13 Q. Is that why you describe the meeting as an "educational

14 session" in RNI-806-107 (displayed)?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. For some of them?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Who knew a lot less about her work than you did, for

19 example?

20 A. Yes, and I specifically asked a couple of questions

21 which I knew the answers to to get her to expand on them

22 and educate them: my softball.

23 Q. Was there any reference to the question of her security

24 that you can recall?

25 A. There was. I don't specifically remember much of the





1 specifics, but I know that -- whether it was in the

2 question and answer session afterwards or in the

3 discussions that came up in the smaller groups when the

4 evening was coming to a close, but there was

5 a discussion about her safety.

6 Q. Are you confident in that recollection?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Is it something that you mentioned in your witness

9 statement to the Inquiry?

10 A. I don't believe it is in there.

11 Q. Is it something that has occurred to you to remember

12 today?

13 A. The questioning has kind of gone that way, so, yes.

14 I recalled it when I met with your staff in New York,

15 but I am not quite sure if I mentioned it. But it was

16 certainly something that happened on that evening.

17 Q. Your recollection of that is clear?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And what was said about it?

20 A. Well, what was said was that we were going to be meeting

21 with Mr Flanagan -- my memory was that it was the

22 following day, but I am not quite sure if that is

23 correct -- and that we were definitely going to convey

24 to him the issues that we had been made aware of and see

25 what steps he or those that might be above him in the





1 political realm might be able to put forth to make sure

2 that she was as safe as possible, and that lawyers in

3 general were not faced with that kind of treatment.

4 Q. And do you remember what her part in any such

5 conversation was?

6 A. Relaying specific incidents that happened to her and

7 I believe she made some recommendations: What could be

8 done inside the police service that would make incidents

9 like that less likely.

10 Q. What were they?

11 A. Video tape, audio tape, allow lawyers in at an earlier

12 stage, that kind of thing.

13 Q. Do you remember her asking the delegation to raise

14 concerns about her safety with the Chief Constable?

15 A. I specifically don't remember it. However, I know that

16 she -- I know that other members of the delegation

17 expressed it to me in the break-up session and in the

18 ride back to Belfast.

19 Q. So as far as you were concerned then, an issue at the

20 subsequent meeting with Mr Flanagan was this question of

21 her own security. Is that right?

22 A. Absolutely.

23 Q. What was the main purpose of the meeting with the

24 Chief Constable?

25 A. I think the main purpose of it was to determine what





1 role American lawyers could play to help bring about

2 a judicial system in the north of Ireland that worked

3 better for all segments of the community.

4 Q. Did you have a discussion as a delegation before the

5 meeting as to your agenda for the meeting and the

6 strategy you were going to pursue at the meeting?

7 A. As you know, each different session was kind of chaired

8 by -- or had leaders, if you will, from Lawyers

9 Alliance. So the people who led that discussion would

10 have had a brief chat about what the goal was and how it

11 would proceed, and so I do know that the leaders of that

12 session did have a discussion.

13 Q. Now, we know that the group split at this point.

14 Mr Lynch, for example, went to another meeting?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And you tell us that you were identified by him as

17 somebody who ought to go to the meeting with the

18 Chief Constable?

19 A. Yes. He asked me. He said just make sure you are at

20 the meeting with Mr Flanagan.

21 Q. So far as the delegation was concerned, the chair for

22 this meeting was Mr Pollard. Is that right?

23 A. Walter Pollard, correct.

24 Q. What can you remember at this stage of how the meeting

25 went and what was discussed?





1 A. We had a circle. Mr Flanagan was very friendly at the

2 beginning, very gracious, came in with a chest full of

3 medals, I believe. As Mr Burke told you, he came in

4 with a tray of biscuits, which were pretty much

5 untouched, unfortunately.

6 Mr Flanagan also had a gentleman with him -- who was

7 identified to us at the time, but I don't recall his

8 name -- who was taking notes. And he said, you know,

9 Mr -- and I identified him -- and he was a rather senior

10 staff member. He was not a young man. I don't recall

11 his rank, but he had a uniform on and he took notes.

12 And it started off as an informal discussion that,

13 Walt Pollard kind of spearheaded.

14 Q. And what you tell us is that Mr Pollard passed on what

15 you had heard in the various meetings you had had

16 earlier in your visit and the discussion flowed from

17 there.

18 Now, you then say in paragraph 110 that it was

19 Mr Pollard who raised the question of Rosemary Nelson,

20 and that is your recollection, is it?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And can you remember what he said about her to the

23 Chief Constable?

24 A. He had said that we had met with her and that several of

25 us had worked with her in the past, and he specifically,





1 you know, kind of nodded at me and the Chief Constable

2 kind of nodded in my direction, and he kind of went

3 through a list of our concerns and the allegations that

4 had been made. And I know that he was specifically

5 interested in the allegations that had to do with the

6 RUC officers, more so than the anonymous threat.

7 Q. When you say he was specifically interested, do you mean

8 the Chief Constable or Mr Pollard?

9 A. Mr Pollard.

10 Q. How did the discussion continue from there once that

11 opening had been delivered?

12 A. Well, it was not an enjoyable conversation. Mr Flanagan

13 acted as if he was not familiar with the allegations

14 that had been made, and Mr -- I am drawing a blank on

15 the -- John Farrell from California took offence to it

16 and he proceeded to list a number of issues and

17 accusations, and they had a bit of a verbal spar.

18 Q. So the mood in the meeting changed, did it?

19 A. It certainly did.

20 Q. Yes. And when you say Mr Flanagan was asked what had

21 happened to the officers -- this is paragraph 111 -- was

22 he asked that question by Mr Farrell? Is that what you

23 are saying?

24 A. I believe he was asked initially by Mr Pollard, but

25 I believe Mr Farrell picked up the questioning.





1 Q. That is at paragraph 113, you say that. Is that right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. As I understand it, Mr Flanagan's response was to say

4 that he had looked at the issue and would continue to

5 do so?

6 A. With one caveat. I think he also said in there that,

7 you know, he found no basis upon which to take any form

8 of action. And then Mr Farrell started asking if those

9 same officers were on duty, did they have somebody with

10 them who was a supervisor, did they receive any form of

11 special training as far as sensitivity, special

12 instructions, that kind of thing. And the

13 Chief Constable basically said no, and he and

14 Mr Flanagan then got into a rather heated discussion.

15 Q. Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, you

16 remember the Chief Constable saying that these matters

17 had not been established, i.e. that there was no evidence

18 that the threats had been made and no foundation in the

19 suggestion that threats had been made. That is your

20 paragraph 112. Is that right?

21 A. That is correct.

22 Q. So did you get the impression from that that the

23 investigation was continuing or that it had come to an

24 end?

25 A. I believe the specific incidents that he was referring





1 to at that point had come to an end, that he or somebody

2 on his staff had looked into them and that there was not

3 enough evidence to pursue any further. That was my

4 understanding.

5 Q. Did he provide any further details of such

6 investigations?

7 A. He did not.

8 Q. Was he asked for any?

9 A. I believe he was.

10 Q. By?

11 A. Mr Pollard. I think Mr Pollard asked him specifically

12 who conducted the review.

13 Q. Now, as I understand it, your recollection is that the

14 discussion, having got very heated, was brought to an

15 end by your chairman, if I can put it that way,

16 Mr Pollard?

17 A. Mr Pollard.

18 Q. And at that point, you say that a more informal

19 discussion took place?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. You describe that discussion between Mr Pollard and

22 Mr Flanagan in paragraph 115.

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. And put it as having occurred during tea and biscuits?

25 A. Correct.





1 Q. So does that suggest that there was a substantial

2 thawing of the atmosphere at this point and the

3 polythene was removed?

4 A. Sorry, the what was removed?

5 Q. The plastic cover on the biscuits?

6 A. Yes, we were finally into the biscuits. The mood hadn't

7 improved significantly, but it had moved on. I actually

8 think some of the members had moved on to other areas,

9 but there was a small tea and biscuits gathering and it

10 kind of broke into different circles.

11 Q. Do you think that the biscuits helped to break the ice?

12 A. I think they always do.

13 Q. Now, at that stage, as you recall it, Mr Pollard asked

14 the Chief Constable whether he had looked further into

15 the complaints, and at that point -- correct me if I am

16 wrong, but as I understand it, your recollection is it

17 was at that point but not before that the question of

18 security for Rosemary Nelson was raised?

19 A. I think it was raised before but maybe not as bluntly as

20 Mr Pollard did in the small tete-a-tete when there were

21 only the three or four of us in a circle.

22 Q. So over the tea and biscuits you had moved away from the

23 circle of chairs, had you?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. And who was present in that discussion?





1 A. It was a kind of moving situation, but for this

2 particular conversation, the Chief Constable was there

3 and Mr Pollard was there. I think there was a fourth

4 person but I actually don't recall who it was, but that

5 is when this specific comment was made.

6 Questions were asked to Mr Flanagan by Mr Pollard,

7 and that is when Mr Flanagan said she wouldn't take

8 anything like that if we offered it. He kind of said

9 "Would she?" to me.

10 Q. Mr Flanagan did?

11 A. Yes, "If we offered it to her, she wouldn't take if from

12 us anyway, would she?" He kind of dropped his head to

13 me as if I was to concur.

14 Q. Did you?

15 A. No, I did not have a chance to. Mr Pollard interrupted

16 and he said, how would she -- you don't know that until

17 you ask her and you haven't asked her.

18 Q. Just trying to piece this together, you think, do you,

19 that there was a reference in the conversation to

20 a scheme but you are not sure whether the term used was

21 Key Persons Protection Scheme?

22 A. I know there was reference to the scheme, but I don't

23 know the specific name of it.

24 Q. Had you heard about the scheme before this meeting?

25 A. I had.





1 Q. In what context?

2 A. In -- I mean, I -- through different publications and

3 articles I know about bit about it especially through my

4 work at The Lawyer.

5 Q. Had you heard about it with reference to and in the

6 context of Rosemary Nelson?

7 A. No.

8 Q. It is not something you discussed with her?

9 A. No.

10 Q. But you think a title or a phrase like that, at any

11 rate, was used in this smaller conversation and there

12 was specific reference, was there, to particular types

13 of security measure?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And again, were those types of security measures things

16 that you had earlier discussed with Rosemary Nelson?

17 A. No, I think they were beyond what I had discussed. I

18 think, you know, Mr Pollard talked about special

19 windows, shatterproof glass, motion detectors. I think

20 it went far and beyond what I had suggested to Rosemary.

21 Q. In answer to a question I put to you earlier, you said

22 that you, I think, weren't aware of any of the dealings

23 between Mr Mac Cionnaith, Mr Duffy and the protection

24 question. Do you remember that?

25 A. Correct.





1 Q. Can I take it that you equally had no knowledge at the

2 time of this meeting of any offers, requests for,

3 protection under that scheme involving Rosemary Nelson?

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. Now, had the chairman, Mr Pollard, not intervened, what

6 would have been your answer to the Chief Constable's

7 question?

8 A. Well, I certainly -- my answer then and my answer today

9 might be different things, unfortunately. I certainly

10 got his point that Rosemary certainly didn't trust the

11 RUC and would have a hard time with them coming into her

12 home to measure her windows and do anything. So

13 I certainly take his point.

14 Q. Can I just stop you there. On the basis of what you

15 told us about her views and your own experience, surely

16 it is more likely than not, isn't it, that if you had

17 given an answer to that question, it would have been,

18 "No, you are right"?

19 A. It would have been "yes, but ..." and the "but" would

20 have been: clearly there must be other alternatives than

21 the local RUC who you know she is in confrontation with.

22 There are other avenues, there are other sources with

23 which she could be made to feel more safe.

24 Q. But did you have any knowledge of specific alternatives,

25 other avenues at that stage?





1 A. Commonsensically, I could have come up with some.

2 I lived in London for four years and I know some of the

3 security measures that were taken there. I don't

4 believe the local RUC are the only ones that could have

5 provided services that would have made her home, her

6 office and her life safer.

7 Q. But those were not suggestions you had raised yourself

8 with her?

9 A. I don't believe I did, no.

10 Q. Now, after the chairman did intervene with the comment,

11 "You haven't offered anything", was there a further

12 response from the Chief Constable?

13 A. None that I recall.

14 Q. So looking to end of the meeting and how things were

15 left, did you leave the meeting believing that the

16 Chief Constable would be undertaking further

17 investigations or consideration of the matters that you

18 had reported to him?

19 A. I believe that was what he had told us, but I wasn't

20 optimistic that we would see that end result.

21 Q. But you are confident, are you, that as a result of the

22 conversations you had with him, you had registered the

23 group's concerns about Rosemary Nelson's safety?

24 A. Positively.

25 Q. Now, in the intervening period of just over a year, you





1 say that your contact with her was intermittent?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Did you at any point follow up or seek further

4 information from Mr Lynch, or from anybody else in

5 relation to this question, of her security?

6 A. We had discussions. I don't know -- in fact at one

7 point I believe Mr Lynch and I had a discussion about

8 the possibility of Lawyers Alliance or US people

9 assisting her with her safety.

10 Q. Do you know what happened to that idea?

11 A. It was a mere discussion, actually. We took no steps to

12 make that happen, regrettably.

13 Q. Can you help us with a date for that?

14 A. Well, it would have been the weeks and months following

15 the meeting with Mr Flanagan. So I think we are looking

16 at, you know, middle of 1996.

17 Q. You have told us earlier that the meeting with

18 Mr Flanagan was February 1998?

19 A. Sorry, 1998, yes.

20 Q. So you think the middle of 1998. Is that right?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. But as far as you are aware, nothing came of those

23 ideas?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. Those are the only questions I had for you, Mr Foley.





1 A. Thank you.

2 Q. But if there is any other matter you would like to raise

3 with the Inquiry panel, this is your chance to do so.

4 A. Well, there are a number of minor -- I shouldn't say

5 minor, but there are a number of factual errors in my

6 statement which I have spoken to the Inquiry about. So

7 I would like to have those corrected.

8 I have also provided a couple of different pieces of

9 written material which I believe is going to be made

10 available to the full Inquiry. Other than that, I would

11 just like to thank you for your time.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr Foley, for bringing

13 those matters to our attention and for your evidence,

14 and we wish you a good trip back to the United States.


16 THE CHAIRMAN: You have some matters you wish to raise.

17 MR DONALDSON: I have, sir, yes. In fact, I have spoken to

18 Mr Phillips about some questions we have asked. I would

19 like to make, firstly, a few general points, sir.

20 The first one is this. That in relation to the

21 provision of questions, it is not always easy, as you

22 will appreciate, in order to provide a detailed list of

23 appropriate questions, but we do our best. And during

24 the course of the hearing of the evidence from the

25 witness, we have electronically furnished some further





1 questions.

2 Now, at the last break I did have an opportunity of

3 speaking to Mr Phillips about some questions we had

4 asked -- we had sent in a typed list of questions -- and

5 I regret to say we haven't been able to reach agreement

6 about those and I would like to make some submissions on

7 those.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you like to hand up to us the list of

9 the typed questions which you have discussed with

10 Mr Phillips, which he has declined to ask?

11 MR DONALDSON: I haven't completed the list, sir. I have

12 dealt with a number of questions which he feels he

13 doesn't wish to ask. I have some further questions I

14 should probably raise with him first, and there is --

15 THE CHAIRMAN: While you are raising those matters with

16 Mr Phillips, would you like to hand up the questions

17 that are typed?

18 MR DONALDSON: Of course. I didn't anticipate this. I have

19 one set of questions. I hope you will forgive me if

20 I just hand up the one set at the moment. At least they

21 are not marked. If I might do that.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you. (Handed)

23 Mr Foley, would you remain here until we have

24 considered this matter? We will break off for ten

25 minutes.





1 MR DONALDSON: Forgive me, there's just another matter I

2 would like to raise.

3 I notice that the witness at the end indicated very

4 helpfully that he was handing in some further material.


6 MR DONALDSON: I think perhaps the Inquiry might wish to

7 look at that and, if the Inquiry feels it appropriate,

8 we would like to see it too.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: I am sure any matter that is handed in by

10 Mr Foley will be disclosed to you, Mr Donaldson, and to

11 us in time.

12 MR DONALDSON: Just so that I can complete the points that

13 I wish to make, initially there was a mention of

14 a letter written by Mr Duffy to Mr Foley, the witness.

15 I did mention that to Mr Phillips and he said that he

16 had to look at it first. And secondly, there was

17 a question asked about notes made concerning the meeting

18 with the witness with Mr Duffy at the prison, and the

19 witness indicated that he made notes afterwards.

20 Now, I don't think the Inquiry will have seen those

21 either.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: We have not seen them. Certainly, the Panel

23 has not seen them.

24 MR DONALDSON: So I think, sir, we would like that that

25 matter could be dealt with as well.





1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. You can raise that with

2 Mr Phillips and we will look at these questions now and

3 break off for 10 minutes.

4 MR DONALDSON: Thank you.

5 (4.16 pm)

6 (Short break)

7 (4.49 pm)

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Foley, I was somewhat premature in wishing

9 you a good journey back to the United States. I am very

10 grateful that you are willing to spend another night

11 here and I would like you to be here tomorrow morning at

12 9.45, because Mr Phillips may be asking you one or two

13 more questions, and the Panel will give its decision

14 with regard to any other questions, that have been

15 submitted to us by you, Mr Donaldson, when we have

16 considered them overnight.

17 MR DONALDSON: Thank you, sir.

18 THE CHAIRMAN: We will adjourn now until 9.45. It is hoped

19 that the documents that Mr Foley has produced can be

20 considered by counsel for the Inquiry, and if any

21 redactions are necessary, they will be done and then

22 copies will be handed out to the Full Participants. Is

23 there anything else you wish to say?

24 MR PHILLIPS: No, sir.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Sir Anthony has said this to me, that if





1 there are any relevant questions to be asked arising

2 from the additional documents, those must be put in

3 writing and handed to Mr Phillips tomorrow morning,

4 after, of course, you have had time to consider those

5 additional documents.

6 MR DONALDSON: Yes, I was just going to enquire about that,

7 sir. We certainly will do that, although we have

8 a problem about the timing of the questions, so we may

9 have to submit them in long hand, if you do not mind, if

10 they are readable. Thank you, if we might be allowed to

11 do that.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 9.45 tomorrow morning.

13 A. Thank you, sir.

14 (4.51 pm)

15 (The Inquiry adjourned until 9.45 am the following day)














1 I N D E X

MR THOMAS REILLY (sworn) ......................... 1
Questions by MR PHILLIPS ..................... 1
Questions by SIR ANTHONY BURDEN .............. 35
MR THOMAS BURKE (sworn) .......................... 37
Questions by MR PHILLIPS ..................... 37
Question by SIR ANTHONY BURDEN ............... 85
Questions by MR PHILLIPS (continued) ......... 86
MR JOHN FOLEY (affirmed) ......................... 92
Questions by MR PHILLIPS ..................... 92