CONTRACTOR ACCUSED OF LENDING HIS AID TO THE BOMBING OF OMAGH
Contractor accused of lending his aid to the bombing of Omagh
THE Special Criminal Court in Dublin, where a building contractor has gone on trial for allegedly assisting in the Omagh bombing, has heard how his telephone records can be linked to communications made from the town on August 15, 1998.
Colm Murphy (49), a father of four, and a native of Co. Armagh who also has an address at Jordan's Corner, Ravensdale, Co. Louth, is accused of lending his aid to those who planted the 3001b car bomb at Market Street just over three years ago.
He denies charges of conspiring in Dundalk with another person not before the court to cause an explosion in the State or elsewhere between August 13 and 16, 1998.
However, on day two of his trial, a Garda Superintendent told how he had information that a mobile telephone belonging to the building contractor was in Omagh the day of the bombing.
Meanwhile, in opening remarks to the court on Friday, prosecuting counsel, Mr. Peter Charleton, said that Murphy "aided in terms of setting the bomb without necessarily knowing where it was going to be set off.
He said Murphy had "supplied something useful" for an earlier bomb in Banbridge on August 1, 1998, and that he "knowingly lent his aid to persons whom he knew were doing a bombing run".
"As it happened the run was to Omagh," Mr. Charleton said.
During the first day of the trial, Murphy's counsel, Mr. Michael O'Higgins, SC, objected to evidence relating to the Omagh bombing before the prosecution had established the nature of the alleged conspiracy to which his client belonged.
"It is our case that Omagh has no place in this case at all," he said.
However, Mr. Charleton countered O'Higgins' remarks by claiming the offence of conspiracy was complete when agreement was reached between the conspirators. He said that explosions in Banbridge on August 1, and in Omagh on August 15, 1998, showed the groundwork upon which the conspiracy was laid.
'Criminal wrong'
He went on to say that conspiracy was "a criminal wrong" and did not require a proximate act.
"The prosecution here allege that Mr. Murphy entered into a common goal with other persons not before the court to further a certain aim which was the perpetration of an explosion similar to that in Banbridge which was likely to cause injury to property or endanger life," he said.
Counsel went on to say that Murphy "knowingly lent his aid to persons whom he knew were doing a bombing run. As it happened the run was to Omagh," he said.
He said that the accused, having lent his aid, became complicit in the agreement and responsible and amenable in law to the charge laid against him.
Continuing he said that on August 1, 1998, at 4.11pm, at RUC inspector received a warning that there was going to be a car bomb in Banbridge, contained in a red Vauxhall Cavalier car.
At 4.31pm a 501b bomb detonated, injuring 35 civilians and three police officers.
Mr. Charleton said the prosecution case was that the accused not only knew about this bombing, but had aided in it. He said the accused's aid was called upon again in relation to another bomb and he willingly lent his aid.
He said the accused was not present in Omagh and did not carry the bomb there, but the inference was that he aided in terms of setting the bomb without necessarily knowing where it was going to be set off.
Counsel said evidence recovered from Omagh indicated a Vauxhall Cavalier car was used, and a damaged time and power unit, toggle switch, three batteries and lengths of wire were recovered and there was at least one booster charge.
Warning
On the day of the bomb in Omagh, he said, Sergeant Martin Miller was told a warning had been received in Belfast that a bomb was to go off in 30 minutes near the courthouse in Omagh and the caller had used the code word 'Martha Pope' - the same used in the Banbridge bombing.
A short time later the sergeant received another telephone warning that the bomb was located 200 yards from the courthouse. Both warnings were relayed to police, but the bomb detonated at 3.09pm at Market Street.
On Monday, Garda Superintendent, Mr. Thomas Flannery, said he had information that a mobile phone belonging to Murphy was in Omagh on the day the town was bombed.
He told how he issued a search warrant relating to Murphy's house on February 20, 1999, and how an investigation had been based in Carrickmacross since the Omagh bombing and into the stealing of a car used in the bombing.
He said that based on information gathered by the investigation team, he had reasonable grounds for believing that evidence relating to the offence would be found at Murphy's house.
The officer said he also had information that a telephone which was the property of Murphy, could be put in Omagh on August 15 three years ago, and there was also the possibility that documents relating to the phone would be found on his property.
Superintendent Flannery's comments were given in a 'trial within a trial' scenario at the Dublin Special Criminal Court, after the defence challenged the issuing of warrants, the arrest and detention of Murphy and interviews carried out while he was in Garda custody.
Cross-examined by Mr. O'Higgins, the Superintendent said that Murphy was arrested for possession of explosives in Dundalk between August 13 and 15, but said he had not been in the town on the day of the bombing. He said Murphy had given names to the gardai to back up his story and also initially denied giving his phone to anybody.
"I was aware there was information about Mr. Murphy's phone and that it could be placed in Omagh on the day of the explosion," he said.
The Superintendent said that Gardai information was the bomb had been assembled in the Carrickmacross, Dundalk-South Armagh area.
"We were aware that certain people in that area had been involved in bomb-making prior to that. Our information was that the same people had been involved in the Omagh bomb," he said.
Incidents
Superintendent Flannery referred to incidents which happened in Dundalk involving Murphy's associates, and said that "quite a number of circumstances" pointed in the direction that Murphy and others were involved in certain incidents.
Sergeant Martin Miller. meanwhile, said he was working as a communications officer at the RUC Station in Omagh when he received a message on his computer at 2.34pm to the effect that there was a car bomb in the town due to go off in 30 minutes at the courthouse.
A code word was given and he said that when he informed the duty sergeant the information was relayed to police on the ground in Omagh that day and they were told to start clearing the town.
On the third day of the trial, journalists were banned from reporting the contents of the "trial within the trial'.
Presiding judge, Mr. Justice Robert Barr, ordered that certain proceedings should not be reported "in the interests of justice".
"This court is a two-part court, which is in part a jury and in part a judicial court. It is currently exercising its function as a judicial court in determining the validity of evidence.
"It would be patently unjust for information to be furnished to the public at large which ultimately might transpire to be inadmissible or quite wrong," he said.
At hearing.
THE Special Criminal Court in Dublin, where a building contractor has gone on trial for allegedly assisting in the Omagh bombing, has heard how his telephone records can be linked to communications made from the town on August 15, 1998.
Colm Murphy (49), a father of four, and a native of Co. Armagh who also has an address at Jordan's Corner, Ravensdale, Co. Louth, is accused of lending his aid to those who planted the 3001b car bomb at Market Street just over three years ago.
He denies charges of conspiring in Dundalk with another person not before the court to cause an explosion in the State or elsewhere between August 13 and 16, 1998.
However, on day two of his trial, a Garda Superintendent told how he had information that a mobile telephone belonging to the building contractor was in Omagh the day of the bombing.
Meanwhile, in opening remarks to the court on Friday, prosecuting counsel, Mr. Peter Charleton, said that Murphy "aided in terms of setting the bomb without necessarily knowing where it was going to be set off.
He said Murphy had "supplied something useful" for an earlier bomb in Banbridge on August 1, 1998, and that he "knowingly lent his aid to persons whom he knew were doing a bombing run".
"As it happened the run was to Omagh," Mr. Charleton said.
During the first day of the trial, Murphy's counsel, Mr. Michael O'Higgins, SC, objected to evidence relating to the Omagh bombing before the prosecution had established the nature of the alleged conspiracy to which his client belonged.
"It is our case that Omagh has no place in this case at all," he said.
However, Mr. Charleton countered O'Higgins' remarks by claiming the offence of conspiracy was complete when agreement was reached between the conspirators. He said that explosions in Banbridge on August 1, and in Omagh on August 15, 1998, showed the groundwork upon which the conspiracy was laid.
'Criminal wrong'
He went on to say that conspiracy was "a criminal wrong" and did not require a proximate act.
"The prosecution here allege that Mr. Murphy entered into a common goal with other persons not before the court to further a certain aim which was the perpetration of an explosion similar to that in Banbridge which was likely to cause injury to property or endanger life," he said.
Counsel went on to say that Murphy "knowingly lent his aid to persons whom he knew were doing a bombing run. As it happened the run was to Omagh," he said.
He said that the accused, having lent his aid, became complicit in the agreement and responsible and amenable in law to the charge laid against him.
Continuing he said that on August 1, 1998, at 4.11pm, at RUC inspector received a warning that there was going to be a car bomb in Banbridge, contained in a red Vauxhall Cavalier car.
At 4.31pm a 501b bomb detonated, injuring 35 civilians and three police officers.
Mr. Charleton said the prosecution case was that the accused not only knew about this bombing, but had aided in it. He said the accused's aid was called upon again in relation to another bomb and he willingly lent his aid.
He said the accused was not present in Omagh and did not carry the bomb there, but the inference was that he aided in terms of setting the bomb without necessarily knowing where it was going to be set off.
Counsel said evidence recovered from Omagh indicated a Vauxhall Cavalier car was used, and a damaged time and power unit, toggle switch, three batteries and lengths of wire were recovered and there was at least one booster charge.
Warning
On the day of the bomb in Omagh, he said, Sergeant Martin Miller was told a warning had been received in Belfast that a bomb was to go off in 30 minutes near the courthouse in Omagh and the caller had used the code word 'Martha Pope' - the same used in the Banbridge bombing.
A short time later the sergeant received another telephone warning that the bomb was located 200 yards from the courthouse. Both warnings were relayed to police, but the bomb detonated at 3.09pm at Market Street.
On Monday, Garda Superintendent, Mr. Thomas Flannery, said he had information that a mobile phone belonging to Murphy was in Omagh on the day the town was bombed.
He told how he issued a search warrant relating to Murphy's house on February 20, 1999, and how an investigation had been based in Carrickmacross since the Omagh bombing and into the stealing of a car used in the bombing.
He said that based on information gathered by the investigation team, he had reasonable grounds for believing that evidence relating to the offence would be found at Murphy's house.
The officer said he also had information that a telephone which was the property of Murphy, could be put in Omagh on August 15 three years ago, and there was also the possibility that documents relating to the phone would be found on his property.
Superintendent Flannery's comments were given in a 'trial within a trial' scenario at the Dublin Special Criminal Court, after the defence challenged the issuing of warrants, the arrest and detention of Murphy and interviews carried out while he was in Garda custody.
Cross-examined by Mr. O'Higgins, the Superintendent said that Murphy was arrested for possession of explosives in Dundalk between August 13 and 15, but said he had not been in the town on the day of the bombing. He said Murphy had given names to the gardai to back up his story and also initially denied giving his phone to anybody.
"I was aware there was information about Mr. Murphy's phone and that it could be placed in Omagh on the day of the explosion," he said.
The Superintendent said that Gardai information was the bomb had been assembled in the Carrickmacross, Dundalk-South Armagh area.
"We were aware that certain people in that area had been involved in bomb-making prior to that. Our information was that the same people had been involved in the Omagh bomb," he said.
Incidents
Superintendent Flannery referred to incidents which happened in Dundalk involving Murphy's associates, and said that "quite a number of circumstances" pointed in the direction that Murphy and others were involved in certain incidents.
Sergeant Martin Miller. meanwhile, said he was working as a communications officer at the RUC Station in Omagh when he received a message on his computer at 2.34pm to the effect that there was a car bomb in the town due to go off in 30 minutes at the courthouse.
A code word was given and he said that when he informed the duty sergeant the information was relayed to police on the ground in Omagh that day and they were told to start clearing the town.
On the third day of the trial, journalists were banned from reporting the contents of the "trial within the trial'.
Presiding judge, Mr. Justice Robert Barr, ordered that certain proceedings should not be reported "in the interests of justice".
"This court is a two-part court, which is in part a jury and in part a judicial court. It is currently exercising its function as a judicial court in determining the validity of evidence.
"It would be patently unjust for information to be furnished to the public at large which ultimately might transpire to be inadmissible or quite wrong," he said.
At hearing.
Further Information
Publisher: TYRONE CONSTITUTION
Ref: TC/0939
Published Date: 18-Oct-01
Related Images
There have been no images archived for this article.