6th. April 2015
Dear Commissioner O’Sullivan,
I have read and re read your statement last week following the release of the McGinn Report. I am at a total loss to try and understand it or get any real sense from it.
Can you explain how you think the McGinn report would bring “some comfort to Fr. Molloy’s family” as has been widely reported. ?
Can you explain why at the final briefing with the SCRT we were assured that they were recommending a Commission of Investigation in their report as the only way to establish the facts. Yet there was no reference to that in the McGinn report. Was it airbrushed out ?
I do know for a fact that Christy Mangan’s Secretary was seen typing up on the Molloy file again some months after the final report had been submitted to Mr. Callinan.
Was it returned to Mr Mangan’s office for alterations as has been suggested to me.
My family would also be very anxious to hear your observations on a section of the report titled “ Shortcomings in the 1985 Investigation”. People not questioned, Forensic evidence not properly examined, etc
As for vindicating the work of the review team I am glad you had the foresight to add “Some of the work “. I first made contact with a Detective from the team in Jan 2009 I approached the team with concerns regarding two murders. My Uncle Fr Niall Molloy in 1982 and a close friend Charles Self in 1972.
my family was unimpressed by their work right from the start. In my Uncle’s case they tried to fob me off quite early on by laying the blame solely on Judge Roe.
No mention at any stage of an incompetent Garda Investigation in 1985 which seems to be the conclusion in McGinn report. In fact their whole approach was casual, not very professional and it was it was pressure from that Dail made them go back and interview people for a second time and take statements on their second visit. A waste of time and resources..I am sure you will agree.
Regarding the Charles Self case they told me they could not discuss it with without having a gay Liaison Officer present. Please……… I am 64 years of age and I am well beyond the need of counselling on gay matters.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Brenda Power wrote
“Molloy affair has also been a victory of sorts since the latest review has not found any reason to criticise the force for the role it played in the investigation “
On 8 April 2015 at 17:55, William Maher <email@example.com> wrote:
I have just read over your article on the McGinn report into the death of my late Uncle Fr Niall Molloy. It is obvious from reading the article that you did not read the report.
You wrote “The Molloy affair has also been a victory of sorts since the latest review has not found any reason to criticise the force for the role it played in the investigation “
You are the only person to have reached that conclusion from the report
I suggest you read Pages 100, 101, and 102 of the McGinn Report Under the title “Shortcomings in the 1985 investigation”
Fr Niall did attend the wedding reception in Kilcoursey House as well as the lunch the following day
Please print a correction and do kindly read reports carefully before you publish opinions on them.
Nephew of Fr Niall MolloyOn 8 Apr 2015, at 18:16, SM – Sunday Times, Irish News <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Dear William,I have forwarded your letter to Brenda Power’s personal email account.I’m wondering if we may also publish your letter in the Sunday Times this weekend?SincerelyJohn BurnsAssociate Editor
On 8 April 2015 at 23:31, William Maher <email@example.com> wrote:
John,We seem to keep meeting like this. I would prefer a proper correction and an apology. However if you see it an an easier way out you can publish my letter unedited. Last time you did this in the way of an apology you edited my letter. I am not prepared to accept that this time.Regards,Bill MaherOn 9 Apr 2015, at 09:10, SM – Sunday Times, Irish News <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:hi BillI see no reason to edit it. We will publish it exactly as you have written.RegardsJohn BurnsOn 9 April 2015Dear Bill,
Thanks for your email, and I can assure you there was definitely no
intention to cause your family further distress. I know this sounds
like a lame excuse, but I really did not write the line you complain
of – it was inserted in the editing process, and almost certainly by a
lawyer, as I had written a line to the effect that the Gardai hadn’t
covered themselves in glory in this case. I know you are insisting on
having your letter printed exactly as written, and I guess that is a
hit on me and on my professional reputation I will just have to take.
Brenda Power10th April 2015
Thank you so much for your reply.
You article did cause a lot of distress to my family.
The whole tone of your article was very upsetting.
We are talking here about a real life . A Murder, Not a novel or a board game. We are talking about a man , a priest, who was beaten to death in a friend’s house and left to die for a number of hours without medical help. He was alone and dying and did not even have the comfort of one of his family to hold his hand in his final hours.
Not Agatha Christie, not Cluedo…….I hope it never happens someone you are close to. I do not know your marital status but try, for one moment, to imagine it happening to one of your children, or a sibling or simply someone you are close to.
You feel free to comment in such an uniformed and trivial way on a life taken prematurely. Niall had a right to life and it was taken from him.
As for my background I worked in publishing. I am very aware of the process where Lawyers have to “Legal “ articles before they are published and they make suggestions or demand alterations. I have never experienced a situation where they totally overwrote a sentence and had it published without the author’s knowledge. I think you should take it up with them . After all if The Sunday Times have printed an article,under your name and printed views which you did not write, you need to take it up with them.
However that is between you and them. The fact remains an article which carried name was extremely offensive and insensitive and not worthy of a national newspaper
My letter was edited despite being assured that it would not be.
13th April 2015
Pages 100, 101, & 102 list a series of shortcomings in the 1985 Investigation. In fact “Shortcomings” is a very tame word for what he then goes on to highlight.
There are many more suitable words I could think of to describe the Investigation.
He finishes this section by saying “There is a complete absence of any record of any scientific testing of samples taken during the examination of the scene”
In simple tems the forensic team DID NOTHING