X was really suffering. She lived in constant terror. To understand her fear you must look at was happening in 2000. There had been a number of high profile disappearances of young women in the mid and late 1990's. All had disappeared without a trace. In 2000 questions were being asked in the media, on TV and in the papers constantly. X's fears were not groundless. She had been stalked by a man who had access to her very personal and revealing SW files. He had arrived at her home unannounced, demanded entry because of his position as Manager of the Joint Investigations Unit and, she alleges, assaulted her. She had managed, through quick thinking, to get him outside of her front door. He continued to stalk her, added false and forged documents to her SW files and instigated any number of groundless investigations against her. Had X disappeared on the 7th of March 2000 there would have been no records anywhere that Sean Kelly had ever been in her home.
Although she had made a complaint, a statement and handed his business card to An Garda Siochana, no investigation of any kind took place. Indeed, all records of X's interactions with An Garda Siochana disappeared without trace. There were no official records that X had ever contacted An Garda Siochana.
As for the SW 'investigation' - Following his second official meeting with Kelly (Dec. 2000), John Glennon sat on his hands again. I rang numerous people numerous time looking for the 'Report' he had promised at the beginning of his 'investigation'. Never once did I get through to him nor could I get a straight answer. I wanted the report so that I could give it to the Gardai and compel an investigation. Glennon wasn't going to give a report, Kelly had said things in his second interview which couldn't easily be excused away, things that weren't recorded in his first interview five months earlier. Here is an example-
In his written statement of 12th July 2000 Sean Kelly states:
'I recall the complainant being annoyed and vexed but not tearful or upset'
In the report of his interview dated 21st July 2000 it states:
'He stated that while she initially appeared surprised at the visit she settled down and was friendly and cooperative until the issue of GSW was raised. She then became angry'.
In the report of his interview dated 15th January 2001 it states:
'Everything was progressing in a cordial manner until he (Sean Kelly) came to questions relating to her efforts to find work and her availability in this regard'
'In relation to the GSW availability aspect of the interview she stated that she got nothing but hassle from those bitches in the office on this subject. Her child (name) had become upset at this time and he suggested that she attend to her. This outburst took place as he was about half way through the interview'.
The big problem for Glennon here is that Kelly's and the Department's official cover up position is that Kelly was there to do a Genuinely Seeking Work review (GSW) and nothing more. If, as Kelly alleged, X become angry when the issue of GSW was raised, then according to his previous accounts, she would have become angry at her front door before Kelly entered her home and before he asked any questions. As we've seen in earlier Blogs, Kelly didn't conduct or mention a GSW review at all.
One of the most obvious and unanswered question was alluded to by John Glennon in his interview with Sean Kelly. The report (Jan 2001) states:
'The Regional Manager asked if she queried any details on the card - for example, that he was a member of the Joint Investigations Unit. He (Sean Kelly) said that he did not think so but that he had explained the purpose of his visit earlier and she would therefore been aware why he called to her'.
There is no reasonable explanation why a member of the Joint Investigation Unit would call unannounced, uninstructed and unreported to the home of a young woman who was not under any type of investigation and Glennon knew well that Kelly's excuses were beyond absurd.
With nothing forthcoming from Glennon X attempted to obtain her data from the Department. She had made a previous request on the 8th March 2000 which had been complied with within a month. Some of the documents she obtained were later sent for Forensic examination (Part 4).
On 18th January 2001 X wrote to the Department and requested under FOI "All documents pertaining to an investigation which came about after I complained about Sean Kelly". At the same time X wrote to the Office of the Ombudsman and made an official complaint about how her complaint was being covered up by the department.
On the 9th of Feb she received an acknowledgement from the Ombudsman's Office.
On the 13th of February she received a reply from Pauline Conlon, FOI officer, which stated:
'I have considered the public interest test in Section 21(2) and have decided that the public interest would, on balance, not be better served by granting this request'.
It would take another four years and two months of constant battle with and through the Office of the Information before X was eventually allowed to obtain heavily redacted copies of the information she requested.
On the 20th of February 2001 X wrote to the Department and requested an internal review of the FOI decision of 13th Feb.
The office of the Ombudsman contacted the Department and again asked why there was a delay in concluding their investigation.
On the 27th of February 2001, Glennon wrote to X. He stated:
'Again I wish to express my regret for the delay which has occurred in concluding this investigation. In the nature of things the investigation has had to be very thorough, painstaking and discreet. In the interests of all parties Dave Redmond and myself have spared no effort in seeking to examine all aspects of the case. We are now it the process of bringing the investigation to a conclusion and as part of this we wish to interview you one more time. This interview is by way of conclusion and clarification so it should not take very long. I hope you can accommodate us with this request'.
On the 5th March 2001 the Office of the Ombudsman wrote to X and stated:
'I am given to understand that the Department have contacted you recently with an offer of a series of dates on which to meet with you with a view to appraising you of the extent of it's enquiries and a resolution to the matter'.
On the 14th March 2001 X was sent a reply to her internal FOI review request. It stated:
'I have decided that access to the records should be refused, in full, on the following grounds - Investigations pertaining to (Your FOI request) have not yet been finalised in the Department and release of the records at this time would prejudice the effectiveness of these investigations - I have considered the public interest test in Section 21 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 and have decided that the public interest would, on balance not be better served by granting this request.- Patrica Tobin, FOI Reviewing Officer, Mellowes Rd. Finglas.'
X arranged to meet with Glennon and Dave Redmond on the understanding that Glennon would provide a written report of his investigation and conclusions. It was made abundantly clear to Glennon that without a Report there would be no meeting. The date was set for the 27th March 2001 in the Finglas SW Local Office.
This was walking into the lions den. The last time we'd been there Cathy Nugent had first mocked us and had then thrown us out. I'd asked my father to accompany us, another set of ears was necessary as I planned to ask questions. If Glennon thought he was going to conduct another pointless interview, he was wrong. This time he was the one facing inquisition. The porter who isn't really a porter, he's security, led us up stairs to an open office area where different people were sitting at desks. Hushed whispers ran around the room as we were led into a meeting room attached to the main office. Glennon and Redmond were waiting for us.
Glennon started by telling us that Kelly did have an appointment. When I pressed him to prove it, he produced a copy of his ID which he called a 'Certificate of Appointment'. Glennon tried to maintain that this ID was in fact an appointment to call to X's home. I was past being civil about such an idiotic notion. I very forcefully told him that we were not stupid and that Kelly's ID was not a specific appointment to call to X's home. Glennon stood there red faced. He was caught out on a deliberate lie. I then fired questions at Glennon, did Ann Kelly send Sean Kelly? The answer was no. Did Glennon himself send Kelly? Again the answer was no.
Dave Redmond sat quietly and took notes.
'Was it part of Kelly's normal duties?' I demanded of Glennon repeatedly. He refused to answer the question.
'You' I pointed at Redmond 'Will you answer the question, was it part of Sean Kelly's normal duties?'
Redmond was surprised at the question asked directly of him. He looked at the red faced Glennon who looked down at the table.
'Answer the question' I insisted of Redmond.
'No' he finally answered.
'No what?' I demanded.
'No it was not part of his normal duties' Redmond replied.
Glennon burst out with 'It was a routine random call, it's your word against Sean Kelly and he is now free to take a civil action against you (X)'.
I was apoplectic. Glennon refused to answer any more questions. Over a year since X had first complained about Kelly and that was the best he could do. I asked him for his report. He said that he had given his verbal report to us and that was it. I directly accused him of covering up the actions of a predator in his department. Glennon said the meeting was over and that he wasn't there to be questioned.
My father, who had been silent throughout then spoke to Glennon. He told him that it was abundantly clear that the only person investigated was X and that Glennon was a disgrace. We were all then escorted from the building.
Glennon statement that Kelly could sue X was a declaration of war. From this point on it was open warfare. Social Warfare.
Part 12 coming soon.
Although she had made a complaint, a statement and handed his business card to An Garda Siochana, no investigation of any kind took place. Indeed, all records of X's interactions with An Garda Siochana disappeared without trace. There were no official records that X had ever contacted An Garda Siochana.
As for the SW 'investigation' - Following his second official meeting with Kelly (Dec. 2000), John Glennon sat on his hands again. I rang numerous people numerous time looking for the 'Report' he had promised at the beginning of his 'investigation'. Never once did I get through to him nor could I get a straight answer. I wanted the report so that I could give it to the Gardai and compel an investigation. Glennon wasn't going to give a report, Kelly had said things in his second interview which couldn't easily be excused away, things that weren't recorded in his first interview five months earlier. Here is an example-
In his written statement of 12th July 2000 Sean Kelly states:
'I recall the complainant being annoyed and vexed but not tearful or upset'
In the report of his interview dated 21st July 2000 it states:
'He stated that while she initially appeared surprised at the visit she settled down and was friendly and cooperative until the issue of GSW was raised. She then became angry'.
In the report of his interview dated 15th January 2001 it states:
'Everything was progressing in a cordial manner until he (Sean Kelly) came to questions relating to her efforts to find work and her availability in this regard'
'In relation to the GSW availability aspect of the interview she stated that she got nothing but hassle from those bitches in the office on this subject. Her child (name) had become upset at this time and he suggested that she attend to her. This outburst took place as he was about half way through the interview'.
The big problem for Glennon here is that Kelly's and the Department's official cover up position is that Kelly was there to do a Genuinely Seeking Work review (GSW) and nothing more. If, as Kelly alleged, X become angry when the issue of GSW was raised, then according to his previous accounts, she would have become angry at her front door before Kelly entered her home and before he asked any questions. As we've seen in earlier Blogs, Kelly didn't conduct or mention a GSW review at all.
One of the most obvious and unanswered question was alluded to by John Glennon in his interview with Sean Kelly. The report (Jan 2001) states:
'The Regional Manager asked if she queried any details on the card - for example, that he was a member of the Joint Investigations Unit. He (Sean Kelly) said that he did not think so but that he had explained the purpose of his visit earlier and she would therefore been aware why he called to her'.
There is no reasonable explanation why a member of the Joint Investigation Unit would call unannounced, uninstructed and unreported to the home of a young woman who was not under any type of investigation and Glennon knew well that Kelly's excuses were beyond absurd.
With nothing forthcoming from Glennon X attempted to obtain her data from the Department. She had made a previous request on the 8th March 2000 which had been complied with within a month. Some of the documents she obtained were later sent for Forensic examination (Part 4).
On 18th January 2001 X wrote to the Department and requested under FOI "All documents pertaining to an investigation which came about after I complained about Sean Kelly". At the same time X wrote to the Office of the Ombudsman and made an official complaint about how her complaint was being covered up by the department.
On the 9th of Feb she received an acknowledgement from the Ombudsman's Office.
On the 13th of February she received a reply from Pauline Conlon, FOI officer, which stated:
'I have considered the public interest test in Section 21(2) and have decided that the public interest would, on balance, not be better served by granting this request'.
It would take another four years and two months of constant battle with and through the Office of the Information before X was eventually allowed to obtain heavily redacted copies of the information she requested.
On the 20th of February 2001 X wrote to the Department and requested an internal review of the FOI decision of 13th Feb.
The office of the Ombudsman contacted the Department and again asked why there was a delay in concluding their investigation.
On the 27th of February 2001, Glennon wrote to X. He stated:
'Again I wish to express my regret for the delay which has occurred in concluding this investigation. In the nature of things the investigation has had to be very thorough, painstaking and discreet. In the interests of all parties Dave Redmond and myself have spared no effort in seeking to examine all aspects of the case. We are now it the process of bringing the investigation to a conclusion and as part of this we wish to interview you one more time. This interview is by way of conclusion and clarification so it should not take very long. I hope you can accommodate us with this request'.
On the 5th March 2001 the Office of the Ombudsman wrote to X and stated:
'I am given to understand that the Department have contacted you recently with an offer of a series of dates on which to meet with you with a view to appraising you of the extent of it's enquiries and a resolution to the matter'.
On the 14th March 2001 X was sent a reply to her internal FOI review request. It stated:
'I have decided that access to the records should be refused, in full, on the following grounds - Investigations pertaining to (Your FOI request) have not yet been finalised in the Department and release of the records at this time would prejudice the effectiveness of these investigations - I have considered the public interest test in Section 21 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 and have decided that the public interest would, on balance not be better served by granting this request.- Patrica Tobin, FOI Reviewing Officer, Mellowes Rd. Finglas.'
X arranged to meet with Glennon and Dave Redmond on the understanding that Glennon would provide a written report of his investigation and conclusions. It was made abundantly clear to Glennon that without a Report there would be no meeting. The date was set for the 27th March 2001 in the Finglas SW Local Office.
This was walking into the lions den. The last time we'd been there Cathy Nugent had first mocked us and had then thrown us out. I'd asked my father to accompany us, another set of ears was necessary as I planned to ask questions. If Glennon thought he was going to conduct another pointless interview, he was wrong. This time he was the one facing inquisition. The porter who isn't really a porter, he's security, led us up stairs to an open office area where different people were sitting at desks. Hushed whispers ran around the room as we were led into a meeting room attached to the main office. Glennon and Redmond were waiting for us.
Glennon started by telling us that Kelly did have an appointment. When I pressed him to prove it, he produced a copy of his ID which he called a 'Certificate of Appointment'. Glennon tried to maintain that this ID was in fact an appointment to call to X's home. I was past being civil about such an idiotic notion. I very forcefully told him that we were not stupid and that Kelly's ID was not a specific appointment to call to X's home. Glennon stood there red faced. He was caught out on a deliberate lie. I then fired questions at Glennon, did Ann Kelly send Sean Kelly? The answer was no. Did Glennon himself send Kelly? Again the answer was no.
Dave Redmond sat quietly and took notes.
'Was it part of Kelly's normal duties?' I demanded of Glennon repeatedly. He refused to answer the question.
'You' I pointed at Redmond 'Will you answer the question, was it part of Sean Kelly's normal duties?'
Redmond was surprised at the question asked directly of him. He looked at the red faced Glennon who looked down at the table.
'Answer the question' I insisted of Redmond.
'No' he finally answered.
'No what?' I demanded.
'No it was not part of his normal duties' Redmond replied.
Glennon burst out with 'It was a routine random call, it's your word against Sean Kelly and he is now free to take a civil action against you (X)'.
I was apoplectic. Glennon refused to answer any more questions. Over a year since X had first complained about Kelly and that was the best he could do. I asked him for his report. He said that he had given his verbal report to us and that was it. I directly accused him of covering up the actions of a predator in his department. Glennon said the meeting was over and that he wasn't there to be questioned.
My father, who had been silent throughout then spoke to Glennon. He told him that it was abundantly clear that the only person investigated was X and that Glennon was a disgrace. We were all then escorted from the building.
Glennon statement that Kelly could sue X was a declaration of war. From this point on it was open warfare. Social Warfare.
Part 12 coming soon.
