Comments on: The Frank Connolly Controversy

By: Shimano Fishing

Shimano Fishing — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:37:19 +0000

Come on DG Colombia, Columbia. Have a heart the point wasn’t in the spelling after all :-)

By: DG

DG — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:27:32 +0000

‘Colombia’ Gavin not ‘Columbia’

By: bobby o' malley

bobby o' malley — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:24:08 +0000

i think Frank Connolly has a lot of explaining to do after yesterday’s Sunday Independent(6/1/08) article by Eoghan Harris.I don’t think it’s fitting that a ‘journalist’ of such controversy should be trusted and hailed as a hack.

By: Omerta

Omerta — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:22:50 +0000

Frank Connolly ducked questions on RTE by saying that he was not going to be interrogated as if he were in a Garda station. Sorry, Frankie, that just won’t do: haven’t you yourself made a living out of interrogating people as if they were in a Garda station – and if they declined to answer your questions, didn’t you make great play on this, as if they were hiding someting? See, Frank, you really cannot swing both ways!

By: K.G.

K.G. — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:38:34 +0000

“He could deal a hammer blow to McDowellâ€™s political and quite possibly legal career if he were to demonstrate that he was not in Columbia at the time in question.” said John M.

I believe that Connolly’s silence is telling, and I also reckon that he has the proof he was nowhere near South America. Think about it… what’s the point in doing that now. All he has to do is wait until the elections and then, once and for all, expose McDowell for what he is, get the PDs out of power and end this McCarthyism once and for all.

As for the Sunday “Provos Ate My Hamster” Independent, as long as the middle-classes keep buying it, there is nothing that can be done except ignore it for the disgusting, Volkischer Beobachter-like rag it is.

By: Grainne Wail

Grainne Wail — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:45:32 +0000

Perhaps Justice Flood has not developed amnesia yet. He still remembers the fundamentals of our justice system that – a man is innocent until proven guilty… very easy to see why he would back an innocent man.

By: enda johnson

enda johnson — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:23:17 +0000

of course maybe o’reilly’s rag has its sights on flood also – they must be pretty sore about the whole rennicks-filtzwilton lark. hopefully the mahon tribunal will finish the job.

By: enda johnson

enda johnson — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:18:13 +0000

john m.,

you got all that from the sindo? first i’ve heard of any mention of Paris or CCTV footage from BogotÃ¡, but if it’s in the sindo it must be true, eh?

the obvious conclusion is that he cannot offer such proof another conclusion is that frank connolly is taking his time to establish conclusively where he was in april 2001. i don’t know where i was in april 2001 and if i was frank connolly i’d take my time before responding. i find it curious also that justice flood is backing connolly to the hilt – i wonder why? or is he in the ‘RA too?

By: john m.

john m. — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:26:12 +0000

Actually, some of the key evidence seems to have come from the use of the forged passports in Paris so Enda you’ll also have to cast aspersions on Air France and the French authorities. And the CCTV footage from Bogota. Oh, and the fact that (according to the Sunday Independent) Frank Connolly’s own passport was used to travel to and from Paris on the dates in question (my personal favourite factoid that one). Connolly has set himself up as an arbiter of public probity. He could deal a hammer blow to McDowell’s political and quite possibly legal career if he were to demonstrate that he was not in Columbia at the time in question. To choose not to do so, citing higher moral ground, is a particularly weak response from a man dedicated to rooting out all that is wrong in public life. Of course, the obvious conclusion is that he cannot offer such proof – does anyone seriously believe he would hesitate otherwise?. Given our stringent libel laws (all of this was published long before McDowell raised it in the Dail)it is also peculiar that COnnolly did not seek redress for what would be a vicious libel if untrue. This also highlights the point that despite all the righteous indignation flying around about McDowells actions, the story was in the public domain since 2002 – in other words it was not introduced under Dail privilege.

By: enda johnson

enda johnson — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:42:59 +0000

the Colombian authorities had established that on April 10th, 2001, three people in possession of false Irish passports had earlier entered the Farc-controlled region in Colombia.

did the colombia 3 trial not demonstrate conclusively that the columbian authorities were a pack of liars? specifically, did the defendants not demostrate that they could not possibly have been in columbia (videos from dublin & belfast) at the time the authorites claimed? if that is the case, how the fuck can the gardaÃ or mcdowell cite ‘columbian authorities’ as sources for their belief that connolly travelled to columbia and thus represented a threat to the state, justifying the suspension of his constitutional right to due process? FFS!

By: Riana

Riana — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:06:12 +0000

i think this article is described well.