By Barry O'Kelly


It's a bit of a coincidence,"defence lawyer Hugh Hartnett suggested to David Rupert. 

Just when the witness was broke and under police investigation for fraud, he decided to become a police `snitch'. Not once, but twice, claimed Hartnett. 

Rupert,testifying against alleged Real IRA leader Michael McKevitt, rejected the suggestion in the Special Criminal Court last week. 

The American repeated an earlier assertion that he was inspired by his "moral teachings" to become an informant. 

Last week was his first full week in cross-examination and it an exhausting one for the chief witness. 

His credibility,which is central to the case, was the focus of the probing by the defence lawyer. 

Hartnett put it to Rupert that he had his own ulterior motives,which could best be explained by examining the timing of his career as a police tout. 

Counsel said that when Rupert embarked on his role as a police spy against dissident republicans in 1993, he was desperate for cash, his business had collapsed,the Internal Revenue Service was chasing him for $750,000, and police were investigating him for mail fraud. These events were not unrelated, said Hartnett. 

He claimed this was a familiar theme. In 1974, Rupert became a police informant in New York at a time when his business had collapsed and detectives were investigating him in two counties for cheque fraud. The fraud charges were later dismissed. 

"Did you turn up in court [on the fraud charges] and did anybody give evidence against you?" asked Hartnett. 

"I don't recall . . . I was just told the charges were dismissed." 

Did the New York detectives know about the charges hanging over him? 

"I don't know what the police knew," he said.They had not talked about the charges, he insisted. 

Rupert claimed that his next team of agent handlers, from the FBI, expressed no interest in his financial woes or his criminal background when they recruited him 11 years later. 

McKevitt, 53, who is charged with directing terrorism, took notes throughout the testimony. 

The defence produced a statement last Thursday by a New York state trooper, alleging that Rupert was a "lifelong criminal" who had smuggled drugs, explosives and illegal aliens across the American border with Canada. 

Rupert, 51, dismissed the statement by trooper Eddie Hamill as "pure fantasy". 

The report, read out by Hartnett, alleged that Rupert used bonded trucks, registered in other people's names, to smuggle drugs through an Indian reservation around the border. The report claimed that Rupert was a street-smart criminal who "will do anything if he sees a profit". 

Hartnett put it to Rupert that the allegations were at odds with the picture Rupert had given the court about being an upstanding citizen. The witness said the claims by trooper Hamill had no foundation. He noted that he was never arrested in connection with the allegations. 

The defence lawyer put to him that he was a surprising choice for an informant. 

Standing 6 feet 7 inches, he was an unlikely candidate for an undercover operative, he said. 

"You kind of stick out as a gumshoe," said Hartnett. 

Rupert agreed. He claimed that his `snitch work' on the streets of New York back in the 1970s was just something to do. "It got me out of the house and I had a reason for it." 

Rupert gave evidence in the 1970s before a grand jury about drug deals he set up with detectives in New York. 

Asked by Hartnett whether the jury was aware of the fraud charges he was facing then, Rupert said he didn't recall. 

Hartnett put it to Rupert that, in his later role as a republican spy, he made a statement to the British security services claiming he had never been involved in intelligence gathering. Rupert did not recall that statement. 

Nor did he recall an interview in 1984 with a local newspaper, the Messina Observer, about how his companies were put into receivership, with many of his creditors not getting paid. 

In the interview, read out in court, Rupert was quoted as saying: "If they take away everything I have got, I have still got a substantial income . . . we will still be in business." 

Asked about the reported comments, Rupert said: "I do not recall giving the interview." 

It was pointed out that he had confirmed in court only a day earlier that he had given an interview to the Messina Observer. 

Rupert responded: "I do not recall what I said yesterday. . .You've done your job this morning, you have me thoroughly confused." 

When the FBI approached him in 1993, Rupert insisted that the revenue official investigating him had advised him of one option, which was to lie low for ten years, by which time the statute of limitations would protect him. 

Hartnett then demanded: "I want names and dates." 

Rupert could not recall the names of the officials or the dates of the meetings. 

The lawyer later repeatedly questioned him about his tax affairs for the past ten years, when he was spying on the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA. 

Rupert refused to sign a form for Hartnett which would allow the defence to see details about his dealings with the US Internal Revenue Service. 

He insisted that he had filed tax returns for every year bar one since 1993. Asked for details, he claimed that he could not recall if he had actually paid any tax over the past ten years. 

Rupert insisted that he was unaware that the FBI was investigating him for mail fraud until two years ago. He did not recall the FBI agent handlers ever mentioning the fraud investigation being conducted by their colleagues, he said 

The case continues.