Garda denies role in 'framing' fellow officer
A garda superintendent drafted in to investigate false expenses claims in the Donegal division today insisted he played no part in a conspiracy to frame a junior officer.
Superintendent John McKeon denied feeding a witness information and coaching him through statements in order to set up suspended Detective Sergeant John White.
But Supt McKeon admitted at the Morris Tribunal that chunks of statements from Sligo man Bernard Conlon where riddled with garda speak.
In Letterkenny Circuit Court last January Det Sgt White was cleared of perverting the course of justice and making false statements.
During the trial Mr Conlon revealed he had been fed information by gardaí including details of 33 court hearings when he acted as state witness in liquor licensing prosecutions against the McBrearty family.
Supt McKeon denied coaxing Mr Conlon to help him recall court hearings or details of expenses claims as part of a wider conspiracy: “It wasn’t in my case, chairman.”
But under tough cross examination the Supt admitted sections of the statements had more than just Mr Conlon’s own words.
“When you are taking the statement a lot of garda speak does come into it,” the Supt told the inquiry.
Mr Conlon’s lawyer, John Whelan SC, challenged the Supt: “Supplying the details Superintendent.”
But Supt McKeon hit back insisting: “There was no conspiracy here on my behalf.”
The Supt had been seconded from a neighbouring district to probe false expenses claims amounting to €2,113 filed by Det Sgt White on behalf of Mr Conlon.
He told the inquiry he knew Mr Conlon had a criminal past but said that did not sway his opinion of him.
“I took him at face value. I didn’t go in with any preconceived ideas to interview Bernard Conlon,” the Supt said.
The officer said Mr Conlon was forthcoming with details on court appearances and related expenses claims.
“He was somewhat sceptical when I met him at first and he referred me to his solicitor and I spoke with his solicitor and then he made the statement to me,” he said.
“He was very free flowing, he had an intimate knowledge of what he was talking about.”
But Conlon’s lawyer, John Whelan SC, challenged the Supt. He claimed the description of Bernard Conlon as a lucid, capable witness was at odds with the man who had taken the stand at the tribunal.
“He could not remember a single date, or month, or even a year and you say he gave you all these dates,” Mr Whelan said.
An assured Supt McKeon responded : “Yes, he had an extraordinary memory I thought at the time.
“He had a quite lucid recall of it at the time.”
Mr Whelan SC claimed his client had been fed the information.
“He quite clearly remembered the dates and appearing in court everyday. These were quite extraordinary for Bernard Conlon he was not appearing in court everyday,” the Supt said.
“He had an intimate knowledge of the whole chronology of matters and I just let him go on. That’s the way it came out.”
