A former detective garda in the Sophie Toscan du Plantier murder investigation has told the High Court he does not believe the reason a superior officer wanted a Garda statement "chopped up" was because it might be seen as favourable to Ian Bailey.
The statement was made by Det Garda Liam Leahy after he interviewed Jules Thomas, Mr Bailey’s partner.
Det Leahy said in his statement he believed Ms Thomas was doing her best to recall the events of the weekend prior to the discovery of Ms Toscan du Plantier’s body on the morning of Monday, December 23rd, 1996.
During a recorded phone call of June 23rd, 1997, Sgt Liam Hogan - then preparing the Garda file on the murder investigation for the DPP - told Det Garda Jim Fitzgerald he believed Det Leahy's statement was "very damaging to have in there..it doesn't do himself any good".
Sgt Hogan (now deceased) added: “it’s a scheming bitch outside.. and he’s being f**ked and made look gullible like completely”.
Tom Creed SC, for Mr Bailey, put it to Mr Fitzgerald that a belief Ms Thomas was telling the truth “wouldn’t look good, would it?”
Mr Fitzgerald said he believed Sgt Hogan’s reference to “chopped up” was because the statement included opinion and hearsay evidence and Sgt Hogan, who had a lot of experience of murder investigations, did not want to be getting letters from the DPP about that.
A reference by Sgt Hogan to getting “chopped on it in the box” meant the sergeant would “get chopped where I am now”, he believed. Mr Fitzgerald said he did not believe he himself had seen an edited Garda statement.
Mr Creed said changing a Garda statement would be improper and said Garda Leahy “stuck to his guns” and did not change his statement.
The court heard Mr Fitzgerald also told Sgt Hogan during that call the evidence was “flimsy” and Sgt Hogan said he had “threads” and was “trying to make a f***ing jumper”.
Asked about a remark by Mr Fitzgerald it was “a good job” Garda Leahy was “gullible and naive in a couple of f***ing ways”, the witness said he did regard Det Leahy as gullible and naive.
A reference to using Marie and Chris Farrell “for our own ends” meant nothing more or less than the Farrells were witnesses and whatever statements they made may be used as evidence, he said.
The cross-examination of Mr Fitzgerald continues on Tuesday in the action by Mr Bailey against the Garda Commissioner and State over the investigation into the murder of Ms Toscan du Plantier, whose body was found near Toormore, Schull, on the morning of December 23rd 1996. The defendants deny all his claims, including wrongful arrest and conspiracy.
Mr Fitzgerald denied remarks made by him during another recorded phone conversation with Garda Billy Byrne of Ballydehob Garda station showed that he, Mr Fitzgerald, was “quite happy” to predate statements. He agreed predating statements is “a corrupt practice”, said he would not do it and was not suggesting it during that phone call.
He was being asked about his replying: “Exactly” when Garda Byrne said ”..can always predate it” while both gardaí were discussing in April 1997 the possibility of a complaint of assault against Marie Farrell’s husband by an alleged prowler at their home.
When Mr Creed suggested Mr Fitzgerald was quite happy to predate statements because Ms Farrell had been “good” to the gardaí, Mr Fitzgerald said there was a murder investigation and “you always have to look at the bigger picture”.
When counsel suggested the alleged prowler was discouraged by gardaí not to make a complaint, Mr Fitzgerald said the alleged prowler was “briefed and informed of the full facts” and both parties knew they were wrong.
Asked about his referring to the alleged prowler as an “auld bollocks”, he said that was “a figure of speech in a phone call that was illegally taped”. The language was “inappropriate” but he did not know calls were being taped and believed he could speak more freely.
Asked did he not have a very personal relationship with Ms Farrell given he criticised her husband during a phone call with her in April 1997, he said he had a lot of contact with her then. He agreed one would have to be quite familiar with someone before one would criticise their spouse.
She was having difficulties with her husband and had just been diagnosed with cancer on top on other problems she was experiencing, he said.
He said he incorrectly told another garda twice during a recorded phone conversation Ms Farrell had seen Mr Bailey “washing himself in the water”.
That was “a figure of speech” and Ms Farrell had in a statement said she saw Mr Bailey at Kealfada Bridge on the road near Schull in the early hours of December 23rd 1996, he said.
Mr Fitzgerald said a local man had told gardaí Mr Bailey suggested to that man and his wife they should contact the gardaí to make a statement to see would they get some money. This was another effort to discredit gardaí and there had been similar efforts by another witness, Martin Graham, he said.
Earlier, he said the only stipulation Ms Farrell made when she made a statement in Ballydehob Garda station on February 14th, 1997 was she would not name her companion on the night of December 22/23rd 1996 in the statement. When counsel he told another Garda in a recorded phone call she made a statement on condition her companion would not be “interviewed”, he said that was “just words on a phone”.
He did everything in his power to identify the companion and track him down and it was never suggested by gardaí Ms Farrell could give a false name for the companion, he said.
He also denied dealings by gardaí with a local man, who was for a time a suspect, indicated the Garda attitude from December 27th, 1996 was they regarded Mr Bailey as the only suspect.
Mr Fitzgerald agreed they could not account for the man’s movements after 4.30am on December 23rd. Gardaí could not be expected to account for the movements of every person in every townland, he said.
