A man who is pleading not guilty to making false claims that a priest sexually assaulted him has alleged again that gardaí ordered him to make a "confession", which was recorded on videotape and shown to the jury earlier in his trial.The accused man also denied saying to gardaí: "I thought of the story first and then the priest's name." He also denied that he replied: "Yes, he didn't rape me but he was a cruel man and I just said it", when asked by gardaí about the priest.
He further denied he told them that the priest "used to frown down on us because he thought everyone who lived in the flats were scum", even though he agreed the priest worked with the local community.
The 34-year-old accused, who can not be named for legal reasons, denies making a false statement to Det Garda Brian Kavanagh at Kevin Street Garda station on June 18th, 2003, that acts of indecent assault and buggery had been committed on him by the priest in the period February to May 1981.
It was day 13 of the trial at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.
The accused rejected the suggestion by prosecuting counsel, Mr Dominic McGinn, that he was "a liar" who told "one blatant lie after another" in the witness box.
He insisted that practically everything in the videoed statement was "constructed" and dictated to him.
He said he only signed the statement so that he could get out of the Garda station.
The accused agreed he was €9,000 in debt and his car had been repossessed when he made the allegations.
The defendant denied to Mr McGinn that he had told gardaí he was sorry for hurting the priest and felt ashamed or that he did not think the matter "would go this far".
He said he only answered two of the questions in the statement.
The trial continues before Judge Patricia Ryan and a jury of eight men and four women.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce