When
Rupert was approached by MI5 and the FBI to give
evidence against Michael McKevitt his response was
.” tell me what to do, make it worth my while
and as long as the benefit overrides risk in my
view it will be done to the best of my ability."
In
November 2000, Rupert was told by the FBI/MI5 what
the charges against McKevitt would be – directing
of an illegal organisation and membership. This
was two months before Rupert came to Ireland
to make his statement to the Gardai against McKevitt
and four months before McKevitt was arrested.
On
9th January 2001 David Rupert made a statement to
the Gardai (Irish police) in Dublin. He said many
things in his statement carefully using the correct
language that would strengthen the inevitable charges
of Directing and Membership. He told the Gardai
that Michael McKevitt had attended several IRA meetings
in his company. One meeting in particular on 17th
February 2000, which he identified as a meeting
of the IRA army council Rupert stated that McKevitt
attended it and ‘directed’ Rupert to carry
out certain tasks. This date would prove to be significant
during the trial.
Early
in the morning of 29th March 2001 upwards of 40
members of the ERU and the National Security Branch
of the Gardai arrived at the McKevitt home in Blackrock
Co Louth. Some members of the team were dressed
in combat gear brandishing guns. As soon as the
door of the house was opened they burst in passed
Michael and ran upstairs to the bedrooms where the
children who now awake and frightened were ordered
by them to get up. Michael was arrested and kept
in the family front sitting room. Bernadette who
was not arrested at that point insisted that she
was allowed to telephone a family friend to come
and collect the children who were shaken and crying.
The house was thoroughly searched; furniture, bedding
and clothing were strewn throughout each room. A
number of items were removed from the house. Bernadette
requested the Gardai not to disturb personal items
and letters that she had belonging to her late brother
Bobby Sands. However they ignored her and read each
letter tossing them to one side when they had finished
with them.
Bernadette
was arrested shortly after the children were collected
from the house. She was confined to the kitchen
area of the house, a member of the Gardai who was
conducting a search of the kitchen held up a small
brown container in his hand and enquired “what
is this”. He offered the container to Bernadette
to hold. She immediately became suspicious by his
manner and refused to handle the container. She
called out a warning to her husband who had been
brought into the kitchen by the Gardai just as he
was offered the container to hold as well. It later
transpired that it contained a quantity of mercury.
The Gardai claimed it was found on the kitchen shelf!
Michael and Bernadette refute this and claim that
it had been planted by the Gardai. Interestingly,
no charges were pressed against Michael or Bernadette
regarding the substance. However, had the Gardai
succeeded in getting Michael and Bernadette’s
fingerprints onto the container this may have been
a different scenario. One could pose the question
that if Michael and Bernadette’s fingerprints
were found on the container would Rupert’s
evidence with its inherent flaws be required? If
so, it almost certainly would have prevented the
exposure and embarrassment of the MI5/FBI stitch-up.
The answer perhaps lies in a MI5 disclosed document
detailing a conversation in February 2001,
(one month before the arrest of Michael), between
Garda Assistant Commissioner Dermot Jennings (Rupert’s
former Garda handler) and a MI5 agent. The agent
points out to Jennings where it is alleged in an
e-mail by Rupert to his MI5 handler that he (Jennings)
expressed indifference to terrorism in NI and was
only interested in illegal activity in ROI. Jennings
stated that this was untrue. Agent states that if
the defence got hold of this e-mail and Jennings
denied the report that would make Rupert an untrustworthy
source. The agent then states that Jennings “urged
that the report be removed”. The agent
also states that there was a few more such “trickinesses”
in the paperwork that were being addressed. The
MI5 document further states that Jennings was worried
about the mistakes in Rupert’s statement
and that he proposed to send the MI5 agent a copy
of the statement but the agent said not to send
it. Between Jennings and the agent they agreed that
it might be possible for the FBI to sort matters
out before the AGS arrive in the U.S to take a further
statement from Rupert. This report would suggest
that Asst. Commissioner Jennings was working covertly
with MI5 to frame Michael McKevitt.
Michael
and Bernadette were taken to Balbriggan Garda station
outside Dublin. A blaze of publicity appeared in
the media; both Michael and Bernadette’s names
and photographs were printed. While in custody,
Michael was told that his arrest was a political
decision. When Bernadette was told that her husband
was charged, the Garda officers mocked her telling
her she would no longer be able to continue with
her political work now. (This was indeed proven
true sometime afterward. As a result of the framing
of her husband, Bernadette’s energies were
diverted to campaigning on behalf of Michael. That
combined with the rearing of their children single-handedly
left her unable to continue with her role in the
32 County Sovereignty Movement.)
On
the 30th March 2001 Bernadette was released without
charge. Michael was taken before the non jury Special
Criminal Court (SCC) in Dublin and charged with
directing the activities of an illegal organisation
and membership of the same organisation namely the
IRA. Three days later Michael received a document
via his solicitor from the Director of Public Prosecutions
(DPP), outlining the charges against him. This document
pointed out that bail would be denied for a number
of reasons, principally because they claimed he
hadn’t rebutted the allegations made against
him in the newspapers. This was inaccurate as Michael
and Bernadette had rebutted the allegations through
their solicitor however the vast majority of the
news media did not report the denials. In addition
to this the BIRW compiled a
report refuting these allegations on Michael
and Bernadette’s behalf. The DPP document also
stated that “an MI5 and FBI informant David
Rupert would give evidence against him in any future
trial”.
From
the outset there was an ongoing steady stream of
leaks through the media about Michael’s case.
Most were complete fabrications without foundation
and had been designed to promote an image of guilt
to the public prior to Michael’s trial. Some
reports claimed that emails had been sent between
Michael and Rupert and that these would be used
as evidence. Other reports claimed that there was
surveillance video evidence of Michael meeting Rupert.
These reports were completely false.
Prior
to the original trial date Michael was contacted
by his legal representatives who conveyed an offer
of a deal on behalf the DPP. The offer was as follows,
if Michael pleaded guilty to the membership charge,
then the charge of directing terrorism would be
dropped. Despite the fact that this offer would
have resulted in a lesser sentence - the charge
of directing terrorism carried a maximum sentence
of life imprisonment, Michael refused the offer
on the basis that this was an attempt by the prosecution
to conceal the stitch-up and also bolster the civil
case.
