As
in previous super-grass trials in the North of Ireland
the defence case hinged heavily on the prosecution
witness’s credibility. Mr Rupert made no secret
of being a serial bankrupt; these started in the
early 70’s and continued through the 90’s he was
also a tax cheat. Rupert acknowledged to his home-town
newspaper that he had a reputation as a crook, thief
and fraudster. It was also revealed that he became
a police informant in New York in 1974, when he
was investigated for cheque fraud. He gave evidence
before a grand jury there about drug deals he had
set up with detectives. Subsequently the cheque
fraud charges were dismissed as a result of his
actions as an informant at that time.
In MI5 documents disclosed to the defence a Garda
report said the only information/intelligence he
gave them came from newspapers and that his information
was low-level and unreliable. By 1993, the Garda
Crime and Security Branch tipped off the FBI on
Rupert and reported that he had connections with
Irish Republicans in the Bundoran area. However,
although the FBI said that they only recruited him
in 1994; it was established during the trial that
Rupert had been working as an informant since 1974.
This would suggest that the FBI had already been
working Rupert in Ireland from earlier than they
admitted to the Irish authorities. This meant that
he was operating within the territory without the
authority of the Irish.
The FBI agent-in-charge of the Irish terrorism section
in Chicago in the early 90’s, Pat “Ed” Buckley,
claimed that he recruited Rupert as an informer
in 1994 a claim which was questionable and unconvincing
due to the fact that Rupert admitted that he had
been an informant in the 70’s. Agent Buckley is
well known amongst the Irish Republican community
in the Chicago area. He is described by many of
those who know him as a corrupt agent.
In another case Buckley attempted to stitch up a
family named Fogarty
in Chicago however the case subsequently collapsed
as a result of fraudulently obtained evidence.
In the early 90’s Rupert was under Federal investigation
for wire fraud but no charges were brought. Around
that time many of his employees were questioned
by the FBI about the fraud allegations, however,
Rupert claimed in his evidence that he knew nothing
about the FBI investigation and had only heard about
it in the late 90’s. Not surprisingly the Special
non jury court accepted this claim from Rupert as
being truthful.
FBI documents disclosed to the defence revealed
that in the mid 90’s, his handler agent Buckley
arranged for Rupert to fly to London to meet with
MI5 agents. According to Rupert he was trained by
MI5 in 1997 and begun working for them as an informant
in the North of Ireland. He was also coached in
court etiquette by a consultancy firm hired by MI5.
Other documents provided to the defence team show
that, even at that early stage of his involvement
with MI5, they were preparing him for an eventual
appearance as a court witness. Initially MI5 paid
Rupert £10,000, but said this was “compensation
and reimbursement” – an important legal phrase.
Subsequently, Rupert got an agreement for pro rata
payments and bonuses etc; from MI5, which doubled
his take from the FBI.
Throughout the short period of his involvement with
the Irish authorities Rupert’s Garda Special Branch
handler Dermot Jennings had an extremely poor opinion
of him, until he emerged as the secret weapon which
might secure the conviction of an Irish Republican.
The Garda documents disclosed to the defence didn’t
reveal anything of meetings between Rupert and his
handler Jennings; however, MI5 documents obtained
by the defence team as a result of discovery orders
uncovered these Garda opinions of Rupert. One MI5
document in particular reported “The Garda view
was summed up by Det Chief Superintendent Dermot
Jennings of the Garda Crime and Security Branch
(CSB) who described Rupert to MI5 officers as a
“bullshitter” and “a liar”.
As chief of the CSB (formerly C3) at Garda HQ, Dermot
Jennings was the working head of the Irish State
Security apparatus throughout the 90’s. His opinion,
therefore, expressed at a formal meeting (which
it was never expected would be made public) with
senior MI5 officers in London, at which he was accompanied
by Det Supt Peter Kirwan, might reasonably be regarded
as convincing by any Irish court. It was not, since
Jennings, in statements made to the prosecution
denied all such assertions revealed in the MI5 documents
and described them as being misquotes etc; this
was how Jennings explained away these comments and
said that they were taken out of context or that
they were never said in the first place. Another
MI5 document revealed where Jennings prompted the
MI5 agent to “remove” sections from the reports
to avoid Rupert being exposed to the Irish courts
as an unreliable witness. These documents were brought
to the attention of the Special non jury Court in
October 2002.
One MI5 briefing note states “In June 1999,
DCS Dermot Jennings of An Garda Siochána, who had
not met Rupert since 1996, expressed his personal
opinions about Rupert, which were not favourable.
He expressed doubts about Rupert’s judgement, and
Jennings stated that Rupert had falsely suggested
that Jennings had not paid him all the money he
was entitled to”. (The rest of the document
was obliterated.)
Another MI5 document marked “Secret” and labelled
“Telegram to Washington 14 June 1999” states: “I
spoke to Dermot Jennings privately on 11 June about
Rupert … (the rest of the long paragraph is edited).
Paragraph 2 reads: “Jennings seemed embarrassed
at the mention of Rupert’s name and took a little
time to gather his thoughts, but at no time was
he cross or disappointed … but was evidently surprised
… (When) he had composed himself he made a number
of disobliging comments about Rupert rehearsing
some of what is already on file and Rupert’s threat
to expose his agent role through his lawyer if he
did not receive certain payments; the fact that
his wife was conscious and that he told her everything;
Rupert’s overblown sense of his own importance and
the value of his information; and the fuss – Jennings
used the word “lies” – over payments made or not
made by Jennings.”
An MI5 file note dated September 15 2000, records
a conversation between the MI5 section head in London
and Rupert’s agent handler. The report, giving an
account of the handler’s meetings with Rupert in
Chicago, is largely edited. However, one key section
reads: “The subsequent meeting between (handler)
and Rupert went very well. Rupert was confident,
sensible and related much about his earlier criminal
and smuggling background.” These allegations
were put to Rupert during cross-examination; he
denied the allegations and said that the handler
must have made errors during his reporting.
The court judgement summarised Rupert’s business
experience in the following words: “He clearly
had a very chequered business career and operated
close to the edge in many matters.”
There
is no such thing as a dirty word. Nor is there a word
so powerful, that it's going to send the listener to
the lake of fire upon hearing it. - Frank Zappa
