THE Sunday Independent believed the signature purporting to be Sean Garland's on the "Moscow letter" was genuine, the High Court was told yesterday.
Mr De Rossa said he had no way of knowing if it was or was not Mr Garland's signature.
Yesterday was the sixth day of the hearing of the libel action by Mr De Rossa against Independent Newspapers following an article in the Sunday Independent by Eamon Dunphy on December 13th, 1992.
The article referred to a letter, dated September 15th, 1986, seeking funds, allegedly sent by the Workers' Party to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in Moscow.
Mr MacEntee asked Mr De Rossa if he trusted Mr Garland, the general secretary of the WP in 1986. He replied he had no reason not to trust him. Mr Garland was a person the party looked up to. In the early 1960s, he was one of the people who had sought to move the republican movement from militarism so he was highly respected.
Mr De Rossa said if he was asking if they were personal friends, then the answer was no. They had both been members of the ardcomhairle and political committee and had common associates.
Mr MacEntee said: "It is our case that the signature on the Moscow letter, purporting to be the signature of Sean Garland, is in fact his signature." Mr De Rossa said: "I haven't said that."
Mr MacEntee asked: "What are you saying'?"
Mr De Rossa said: "I said I have no way of knowing if it is or, if it isn't. I am saying I do not know and I am not prepared to point a finger without evidence. The Sunday Independent may have evidence ... I'm saying I do not know."
Counsel asked that if Mr Garland had written the letter, would it not follow that he had written a most disgraceful letter.
Mr De Rossa said he was not, getting into speculation. Counsel asked that, for the purpose of argument, if they assumed the signature was that of Mr Garland, what would Mr De Rossa's view be.
Mr De Rossa said: "I am not prepared to assume that it is the signature of Sean Garland until it is proven to me categorically that it is or is not."
Mr Justice Moriarty said on the basis of hypothesis, if a senior official had written the letter, what would be his response.
Mr De Rossa said he would have taken a very serious view of it. If such a letter was written by a member of the WP, it would have been done without any reference to the ardcomhairle or political committee. The contents of the letter referred to the party seeking support and no such decision had been made by the WP.
There were references in the letter to special activities which, in the context of the letter, were, assumed to refer to illegal activities which would have been a grave cause of concern to him and the ardcomhairle and would have given rise to a major inquiry.
Mr MacEntee asked in the order of seriousness what would have been the most offensive elements.
Mr De Rossa said the reference to special activities was clearly the most offending or offensive part.
Counsel asked why special activities.
Mr De Rossa said because it implied the WP had been involved in illegal activities.
Mr MacEntee said there had been assertions that the WP had been engaged in illegal activities, there had been rumours, media reports, and denials by the party over the years. Those claims and counter-claims had been going on or years and years.
Mr De Rossa said not for years and years, they arose from time to time.
Counsel said the reason it was damaging and offensive would have been because it would have, been an admission from within the dispute as to whether the had been engaged in illegal activities was now resolved because somebody from within was now saying yes.
Mr De Rossa said they were working on a hypothesis for the sake of Mr MacEntee's argument. This letter's existence was not known to anyone in the WP as far as he was aware and certainly not known to him until it was published in The Irish Times in 1992, six years after the date on the letter. So it was not a cause for concern because there was nob g of its existence.
Mr De Rossa said Mr MacEntee, was saying this was an admission from within the party, but he had not presented anything to establish the letter had come from the WP.
Mr MacEntee asked if the central committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had acceded to the request for money, who would have benefited. He was suggesting that what the writer of the letter had in mind was that the CPSU central committee should become the major financial benefactor of the WP.
Mr De Rossa said that was what the letter appeared to be about but it was a false letter. He did not sign the letter and it was not issued on behalf of the WP.